Advertisement

Special Flood Hazard Effects on Coastal and Interior Home Values: One Size Does Not Fit All

  • Robert J. Johnston
  • Klaus MoeltnerEmail author
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Existing studies that estimate losses in home values due to being located in a designated flood zone, such as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in the U.S., focus exclusively on either coastal or interior regions, or include both, but do not estimate separate risk effects. Using a rich data set on home sales for five counties in Connecticut, controlling for a plethora of potentially confounding effects, and applying state-of-the art doubly-robust matching methods, we show that SFHA-related risk losses can vary dramatically by location relative to the coast line, with near-coastal losses exceeding interior effects by sevenfold. We take this as evidence that home buyers hold beliefs of elevated flood risks in coastal zones, even though the official Flood Insurance Rate Map designation for those homes is identical to that of interior counterparts. To the extent that these beliefs align with objective risks, our results provide ammunition for calls for a more spatially refined rate setting policy for federal flood insurance.

Keywords

Special Flood Hazard Areas Nearest-neighbor matching Coastal versus interior flood risk Bayesian estimation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Christine Blinn and Ben Holland for their contributions to the GIS portions of this project. This research was funded by the Northeast Sea Grant Consortium, Award No. NA14OAR4170074.

Supplementary material

10640_2018_314_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (174 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 174 KB)

References

  1. Abadie A, Imbens G (2006) Large-sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74:235–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie A, Imbens G (2011) Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat 29:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott J, Klaiber H (2013) The value of water as an urban club good: a matching approach to community-provided lakes. J Environ Econ Manag 65:208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atreya A, Ferreira S, Kriesel W (2013) Forgetting the flood? An analysis of the flood risk discount over time. Land Econ 89:577–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bin O, Polasky S (2004) Effects of flood hazards on property values: evidence before and after hurricane Floyd. Land Econ 80:490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bin O, Kruse J (2006) Real estate market response to coastal flood hazards. Nat Hazards Rev 7:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bin O, Landry C (2013) Changes in implicit flood risk premiums: empirical evidence from the housing market. J Environ Econ Manag 65:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bin O, Kruse JB, Landry C (2008a) Flood hazards, insurance rates, and amenities: evidence from the coastal housing market. J Risk Insur 75:63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bin O, Crawford T, Kruse J, Landry C (2008b) Viewscapes and flood hazards: coastal housing market response to amenities and risk. Land Econ 84:434–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black S (1999) Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Q J Econ 114:577–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown J (2016) Introduction to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Congressional Research Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiodo A, Hernandez-Murillo R, Owyang M (2001) Nonlinear effects of school quality on house prices. Fed Reserve Bank St Louis Rev 92:185–204Google Scholar
  13. Daniel V, Florax R, Rietveld P (2009) Flooding risk and housing values: an economic assessment of environmental hazard. Ecol Econ 69:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond A, Sekhon J (2013) Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Rev Econ Stat 95:932–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017a) Flood map revision process. https://www.fema.gov/flood-map-revision-processes. Last accessed 21 Nov 2017
  16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017b) National flood insurance program community rating system. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-rating-system. Last accessed 20 Nov 2017
  17. Gallagher J (2014) Learning from an infrequent event: evidence from flood insurance take-up in the United States. Am Econ J Appl Econ 6:206–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In: Bernardo J, Berger J, Dawid A, Smith A (eds) Bayesian statistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–193Google Scholar
  19. Gibson M, Mullins J, Hill A (2016) Climate change, flood risk, and property values: evidence from New York City. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Boston, MA, 31 July–2 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  20. Hartford Courant (2014) Devastating winds raked Connecticut during historic hurricanes. Article published Jan. 26, 2014. http://www.courant.com/courant-250/moments-in-history/hc-250-hurricanes-weather-story-htmlstory.html. Last accessed 30 Nov 2017
  21. Ho D, Kosuke I, King G, Stuart E (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal 15:199–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kousky C (2010) Learning from extreme events: risk perceptions after the flood. Land Econ 86:395–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kousky C (2017) Financing flood losses. Resources for the future discussion paper #17–03 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  24. Kousky C, Michel-Kerjan E (2017) Examining flood insurance claims in the United States: six key findings. J Risk Insur 84:819–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kousky C, Lingle B, Shabman L (2017) The pricing of flood insurance. J Extreme Events 4:1750001–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuminoff N, Pope J (2012) A novel approach to identifying hedonic demand parameters. Econ Lett 116:374–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuminoff N, Parmeter C, Pope J (2010) Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities? J Environ Econ Manag 60:145–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meldrum J (2016) Floodplain price impacts by property type in Boulder county, Colorado: condominiums versus standalone properties. Environ Resour Econ 64:725–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moeltner K, Blinn C, Holmes T (2017) Forest pests and home values: the importance of accuracy in damage assessment and geocoding of properties. For Econ 41:89–109Google Scholar
  30. Muehlenbachs L, Spiller E, Timmins C (2015) The housing market impacts of shale gas developments. Am Econ Rev 105:3633–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ortega F, Taspinar S (2018) Rising sea levels and sinking property values: hurricane Sandy and New York’s housing market. J Urban Econ 106:81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sekhon J (2011) Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: the matching package for R. J Stat Softw 42:1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Troy A, Romm J (2004) Assessing the price effects of flood hazard disclosure under the California natural hazard disclosure law. J Environ Plan Manag 47:137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox: implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang L (2016) Flood hazards impact on neighborhood housing prices: aspatial quantile regression analysis. Reg Sci Urbam Econ 60:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and George Perkins Marsh InstituteClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations