Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 33, Issue 1–2, pp 13–36 | Cite as

National survey evidence on disasters and relief: Risk beliefs, self-interest, and compassion

  • W. Kip ViscusiEmail author
  • Richard J. Zeckhauser
Article

Abstract

A nationally representative sample of respondents estimated their fatality risks from four types of natural disasters, and indicated whether they favored governmental disaster relief. For all hazards, including auto accident risks, most respondents assessed their risks as being below average, with one-third assessing them as average. Individuals from high-risk states, or with experience with disasters, estimate risks higher, though by less than reasonable calculations require. Four-fifths of our respondents favor government relief for disaster victims, but only one-third do for victims in high-risk areas. Individuals who perceive themselves at higher risk are more supportive of government assistance.

Keywords

Disaster Risk belief Disaster relief Compassion Efficient compassion Hurricane Flood Terrorism National Survey Lorenz Curve 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Born, Patricia and W. Kip Viscusi. (2006). “The Catastrophic Effects of Natural Disasters on Insurance Markets,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 33(1/2).Google Scholar
  2. Camerer, Colin and Howard Kunreuther. (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implications,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8(4), 565–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fischhoff, Baruch et al. (1981). Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fischhoff, Baruch et al. (2003). “Judged Terror Risk and Proximity to the World Trade Center,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kunreuther, Howard and Mark Pauly. (2004). “Why Don’t People Insure Against Large Losses?,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lichtenstein, Sara, Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Mark Layman and Barbara Combs. (1978). “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4, 551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Raiffa, Howard. (1997). Decision Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill College.Google Scholar
  8. Rethans, Arno J. (1979). An Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Product Hazards. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon-Eugene.Google Scholar
  9. Revkin, Andrew C. (2006). “Climate Experts Warn of More Coastal Building,” New York Times, 25 July. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/earth/25coast.html?_r=1\&oref=slogin.
  10. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Viscusi, W. Kip. (2002). Smoke-Filled Rooms: A Postmortem on the Tobacco Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Viscusi, W. Kip and Wesley Magat. (1987.) Learning About Risk: Consumer and Worker Responses to Hazard Information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Viscusi, W. Kip and Richard Zeckhauser. (2003). “Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Weinstein, Neil D. and William M. Klein. (1996). “Unrealistic Optimism: Present and Future,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15, 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Zeckhauser, Richard. (1996). “The Economics of Catastrophes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and ManagementVanderbilt UniversityNashville
  2. 2.Kennedy School of Govt.Harvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations