Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks

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

Abstract

To create effective risk mitigation policies and improve risk communications, it is important to understand how individuals perceive ambiguity about certain risks. A significant number of studies have demonstrated that an individual’s behavior is sensitive to ambiguity. Therefore, this study explores how Japanese homeowners perceive ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks by focusing on two research questions: (1) To what degree do people perceive ambiguity? and (2) What are the factors that affect the degree of perceived ambiguity? We administered a survey to 1200 homeowners in Japan. Respondents were asked to state their subjective probabilities and ambiguities about earthquake and house destruction risks. Next, we examined the socioeconomic characteristics affecting their perceived ambiguities by applying a sample selection model. The findings reveal four aspects related to ambiguity. First, some homeowners perceived considerable ambiguity, while the majority observed small degrees of it. Second, on average, homeowners perceived less ambiguity about house destruction risk compared to earthquake risk. Third, socioeconomic characteristics and house attributes had an effect on the perception of ambiguity. Finally, from the perspective of creating policies that mitigate house destruction risks due to earthquakes, seismic diagnoses can help correct subjective risks and reduce the perceived ambiguity regarding them.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cameron (2005) elicited the subjective distribution of future mean global temperatures in which the 95 % confidence interval was used for the dispersion measure. A similar measure was utilized in this paper by extending it to second-order distribution.

  2. In the survey, we established three classifications of house damage: partial destruction, half destruction, and complete destruction. However, this paper focused on complete destruction in order to obtain more reliable results since it was easier for the respondents to imagine complete destruction. The classifications of partial and half destruction can be unclear for the respondents, which might create additional ambiguity in them.

References

  • Armas I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armas I (2008) Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 47:397–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsky RB, Juster FT, Kimball MS, Shapiro MD (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Q J Econ 112(2):537–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2010) White paper on disaster management, 2010. http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/hakusho/h22/index.htm. Accessed 5 Jan 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Camerer C, Weber M (1992) Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain 5:325–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA (2005) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. J Risk Uncertain 30(1):63–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer JS, Hartog J, Jonker N, Van Praag CM (2002) Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism. J Econ Behav Organ 48:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etner J, Jeleva M, Tallon JM (2012) Decision theory under ambiguity. J Econ Surv 26(2):234–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujimi T, Tatano H (2013) Promoting seismic retrofit implementation through “nudge”: using warranty as a driver. Risk Anal 33(10):1858–1883

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartog J, Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Jonker N (2002) Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. KYKLOS 55:3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (2005) National Seismic Hazard Maps for Japan, 2005. http://www.jishin.go.jp/main/index-e.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (2010) Outline of survey on earthquake. http://sparc1038.jishin.go.jp/main/seisaku/hokoku11a/sg16-4-2.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Hogarth R, Kunreuther H (1985) Ambiguity and insurance decisions. Am Econ Rev 75:386–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth R, Kunreuther H (1989) Risk, ambiguity, and insurance. J Risk Uncertain 2:5–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Japan Association for Seismic Retrofit Contractors (2012) Results of seismic diagnosis. http://www.mokutaikyo.com/data/20120420.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Japan Meteorological Agency, Fire and Disaster Management Agency (2009) Report of the investigative commission on the Japanese seismic intensity scale, 2009. http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/shindo_kentokai/kentokai_houkoku/report.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Kellens W, Terpstra T, Maeyer PD (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal 33(1):24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivi PA, Shogren JF (2010) Second-order ambiguity in very low probability risks: food safety valuation. J Agric Resour Econ 35(3):443–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein WM, Kunda Z (1994) Exaggerated self-assessments and preference for controllable risks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 59:410–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kung YW, Chen SH (2012) Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Anal 32(9):1535–1546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Hogarth R, Meszaros J (1993) Insurer ambiguity and market failure. J Risk Uncertain 7:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Meszaros J, Hogarth R, Spranca M (1995) Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. J Econ Behav Organ 26:337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2005) White paper, 2005. http://www.mlit.go.jp/hakusyo/mlit/h17/index.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2013 (in Japanese)

  • Nguyen TN, Jakus PM, Riddel M, Shaw WD (2010) An empirical model of perceived mortality risks for selected U.S. arsenic hot spots. Risk Anal 30(10):1550–1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddel M (2009) Risk perception, ambiguity, and nuclear-waste transport. South Econ J 75(3):781–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddel M (2011) Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes. J Environ Econ Manage 61:341–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddel M, Shaw WD (2006) A theoretically-consistent empirical model of nonexpected utility: an application to nuclear-waste transport. J Risk Uncertain 32:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov I, Baron J (1990) Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Making 3:263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) Perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekeli-Yesil S, Dedeoglu N, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Tanner M (2011) Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul. Nat Hazards 59(1):427–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi W, Chesson H (1999) Hopes and fears: the conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theor Decis 47:153–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi W, Magat W, Hubert H (1991) Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theor Decis 31:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi W, Magat W, Hubert H (1999) Smoking status and public responses to ambiguous scientific risk evidence. South Econ J 66(2):250–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu D, Xie X, Gan Y (2011) Information source and valence: how information credibility influences earthquake risk perception. J Environ Psychol 31:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, 2-39-1, Kurokami, Kumamoto, 860-8555, Japan

    Toshio Fujimi & Ryuji Kakimoto

  2. Department of Economics, Osaka University of Economics, 2-2-8, Osumi, Higashiyodogawa-ku, Osaka, 533-8533, Japan

    Masahide Watanabe

  3. Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan

    Hirokazu Tatano

Authors
  1. Toshio Fujimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masahide Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryuji Kakimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hirokazu Tatano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshio Fujimi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fujimi, T., Watanabe, M., Kakimoto, R. et al. Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks. Nat Hazards 80, 1243–1256 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2021-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2021-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation