Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences for earthquake insurance in rural China: factors influencing individuals’ willingness to pay

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2014, China piloted its first earthquake insurance program, and the inhabitants’ demand for earthquake insurance is significant for the implementation of this plan. This study aims to identify the willingness to insure (WTI) and willingness to pay (WTP) for earthquake insurance and their influencing factors. A field survey was carried out in 2013 in pilot area, and total of 681 people were interviewed face to face. By using the contingent valuation method, we elicited people’s WTI and WTP for insurance, and the results were 88 % and 160 Yuan. We also analyzed their influencing factors using Probit and Tobit model. Regression results showed that risk perception was the leading factor associated with insurance demand, followed by risk exposure, sociodemographic elements and personal characteristics. Only one aspect of disaster experience—escape experience—had positive effect on WTI. People living in the reinforced house showed lower WTP, which verifies the adverse selection did exist. The findings pointed that rich ones and village cadres were more willing to pay for insurance, and the government propaganda for earthquake mitigation could increase ones’ WTP. In addition, some personal characteristics could also affect the WTI and WTP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research. The core composition of Likert scale is rating scale, which is a set of categories designed to elicit information about a quantitative or a qualitative attribute.

References

  • Athavale M, Avila SM (2011) An analysis of the demand for earthquake insurance. Risk Manag Insur Rev 14(2):233–246. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6296.2011.01205.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baan PJ, Klijn F (2004) Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. Int J River Basin Manag 2(2):113–122. doi:10.1080/15715124.2004.9635226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett J, Breakwell GM (2001) Risk perception and experience: hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Anal 21(1):171–178. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.211099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benthin A, Slovic P, Severson H (1993) A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. J Adolesc 16(2):153–168. doi:10.1006/jado.1993.1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botzen W, van den Bergh J (2012) Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. J Econ Behav Organ 82(1):151–166. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.01.005

  • Browne MJ, Hoyt RE (2000) The demand for flood insurance: empirical evidence. J Risk Uncertain 20(3):291–306. doi:10.1023/A:1007823631497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzby JC, Skees JR, Ready RC (1995) Using contingent valuation to value food safety: a case study of grapefruit and pesticide residues. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition: Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon LS, Turner S, Clancy N et al (2006) The National Flood Insurance Program’s market penetration rate: estimates and policy implication. RAND, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Duker JM (1969) Expenditures for life insurance among working-wife families. J Risk and Insur 36:525–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganderton PT, Brookshire DS, Mckee M et al (2000) Buying insurance for disaster-type risks: experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 20(3):271–289. doi:10.1023/A:1007871514658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK, Haninger K (2010) Valuing fatal risks to children and adults: effects of disease, latency, and risk aversion. J Risk Uncertain 40(1):57–83. doi:10.1007/s11166-009-9086-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho M, Shaw D, Lin S et al (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Anal 28(3):635–643. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFRC (2000) World disasters report. Kumarian Press, West Hartford

  • Knocke ET, Kolivras KN (2007) Flash flood awareness in southwest Virginia. Risk Anal 27(1):155–169. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00866.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, Slater MD, Wise ME, Storey D, Woolley S (2007) Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med 33:221–235. doi:10.1007/BF02879904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2–3):171–187. doi:10.1007/BF00055792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry CE, Jahan-Parvar MR (2011) Flood insurance coverage in the coastal zone. J Risk Insur 78(2):361–388. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6975.2010.01380.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 28(2):539–556. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01032.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard a review of research. Environ Behav 32(4):461–501. doi:10.1177/00139160021972621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32(4):616–632. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1984) Willingness to pay for national freshwater quality improvements. Draft report prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future

  • Moyer-Gusé E (2008) Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Commun Theory 18:407–425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munich RE (2013) Natural catastrophe year in review. Munich Re, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Prettenthaler FE (2008) Catastrophic risk and egalitarian principles for risk transfer mechanisms. J Appl Soc Sci Stud 128(4):549–560. doi:10.1623/hysj.52.5.1016

    Google Scholar 

  • Pynn R, Ljung GM (1999) Flood insurance: a survey of grand forks, north dakota, homeowners. Appl Behav Sci Rev 7(2):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C (1974) Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. J Environ Econ Manag 1(2):132–149. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(74)90010-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1977) Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. Springer, Newyork

    Google Scholar 

  • Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H (2010) The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(8):1663–1677. doi:10.5194/nhess-10-1663-2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra T, Gutteling JM, Geldof GD, Kappe LJ (2006) The perception of flood risk and water nuisance. Water Sci Technol 54(6):431–439

  • Thieken AH, Kreibich H, Muller M et al (2007) Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002. Hydrol Sci J 52(5):1016–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez WF, Mozumder P, Hernandez-Arce J et al (2009) Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: evidence from Parral, Mexico. J Environ Manage 90(11):3391–3400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(1):89–124. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi WK, O’Connor CJ (1984) Adaptive responses to chemical labeling: Are workers Bayesian decision makers? Am Econ Rev 74:942–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Liao C, Yang S, Zhao W, Liu M, Shi P (2012) Are people willing to buy natural disaster insurance in China? Risk awareness, insurance acceptance, and willingness to pay. Risk Anal 32(10):1717–1740. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01797.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Z (2008) Earthquake insurance: international experience and China solution. Insur Stud 6:9–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this work was provided by the National Social Science Fund Project (11&ZD053).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Ling Tian & Peng Yao

Authors
  1. Ling Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peng Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peng Yao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, L., Yao, P. Preferences for earthquake insurance in rural China: factors influencing individuals’ willingness to pay. Nat Hazards 79, 93–110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1829-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1829-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation