Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-06T06:29:37.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to Cover Coastal Erosion Damage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Andrew Keeler ,
Warren Kriesel  and
Craig Landry
Andrew Keeler
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Warren Kriesel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Craig Landry
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses the results of a nationwide survey of coastal property owners to estimate the demand for insurance against erosion damage. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does not technically cover such damage, although in practice there is considerable uncertainty about this point. The ability to insure against such losses has implications for the choice of beach management strategies and for NFIP management. We find significant demand for insurance at prices in the range of current flood insurance premiums, although median willingness to pay appears to be less than the cost of providing such insurance.

Keywords

coastal erosioninsuranceriskQ24G22H41

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , December 2003 , pp. 639 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Browne, M.J., and Hoyt, R.E.. “The Demand for Flood Insurance: Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20(2000):291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T.A., and James, M.. “Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed-ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics 69(1987):269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, C.Against the Tide: The Battle for America's Beaches. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). “Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines.” Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M.The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993.Google Scholar
Greene, William H.Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Kriesel, W., Randall, A., and Lichtkoppler, F.. “Estimating the Benefits of Shore Erosion Protection in Ohio's Lake Erie Housing Market.” Water Resources Research 29(1993):795–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leatherman, S.P. “Modes of Shoreline Behavior: Erosion Rate Analysis Using Geomorphic Principles.” Proceedings of International Coastal Symposium, 1993, pp. 218–223.Google Scholar
Milon, J.W., Gressel, J., and Mulkey, D.. “Hedonic Amenity Specification and Functional Form Specification.” Land Economics 60(1984):378–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, W.Intermediate Microeconomics, 2nd ed., Dreydon Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Pilkey, O.H., and Dixon, K.L.. The Corps and the Shore. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Roth, R.J. Sr., and Roth, R.J. Jr.. “Erosion Rate-making Procedures and Tables.” Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. (Washington, DC: Heinz Center for Policy Studies, 1999, working paper).Google Scholar
SAS Institute. SAS/STAT Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1997.Google Scholar