Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

Quantifying changes in risk perception through house price differentials following the catastrophic Canterbury earthquake event

Author/s: Callum Logan

Date Published: 2/01/2017

Published in: Volume 23 - 2017 Issue 1 (pages 51 - 74)

Abstract

Studies of risk perception across multiple disciplines conclude similar findings, one of which is that the perceived risk of extreme and rare events, such as earthquakes, is underestimated before the event and overestimated after the event occurs. This paper examines whether this change in risk perception is detected in price differentials for housing. A Difference-in-Difference (DID) model is used to model the events utilizing control and treatment variables to estimate price determinants. The findings indicate that after the 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquake consumers’ are paying premiums of 15.1, 18.8 and 16.1% to live on no risk, low risk and medium risk land, respectively, compared to high risk zoned land. This supports the hypothesis that consumers’ perception of risk became more acute after experiencing an extreme event. Risk premiums associated with safer land zones are not evident in the coefficients for control variables implying there was no accounting for land risk before the earthquakes.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2017.1303262.pdf 14445921.2017.1303262.pdf (2MB)

Keywords

Earthquake - Hedonic Pricing Model - Liquefaction - Risk Perception

References

  • Anderson, D.Weinrobe, M. (1986) Mortgage default risks and the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, Real Estate Economics. 14, p:110-135. Real Estate Economics.
  • Brookshire, D.Thayer, M.Tschirhart, J.Schulze, W. (1985) A test of the expected utility model: Evidence from earthquake risks, Journal of Political Economy. 93, p:369-389. Journal of Political Economy.
  • Cekic, T.Yazici, E. (2011) Spatial and distribution of housing investment and perception of earthquake risk in Instanbul metropolitan area Conference paper presented at 51st Congress of the European Regional Science Association International, 30 August–4 September, Barcelona, Spain
  • Fischoff, B.Slovic, P.Lichtenstein, S.Read, S.Combs, B. (1978) How safe is safe enough?, A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences. 9, p:127-152. A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences.
  • Gaillard, J.Dibben, C. (2008) Volcanic risk and beyond, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 172, p:163-169. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research.
  • Kleinhesselink, R.Rosa, E. (1991) Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States, Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology. 22, p:11-28. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology.
  • Murdoch, J.Singh, H.Thayer, M. (1993) The impact of natural hazards on housing values: The Loma Pieta earthquake, Real Estate Economics. 21, p:167-184. Real Estate Economics.
  • Nakagawa, M.Saito, M.Yamaga, H. (2007) Earthquake risk and housing rents: Evidence from the Tokyo metropolitan area, Regional Science and Urban Economics. 37, p:87-99. Regional Science and Urban Economics.
  • Naoi, M.Seko, M.Sumita, K. (2009) Earthquake risk and housing prices in Japan: Evidence before and after massive earthquakes, Regional Science and Urban Economics. 39, p:658-669. Regional Science and Urban Economics.
  • Newey, W.West, K. (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix, Econometrica. 55(3), p:703-708. Econometrica.
  • Rosen, S. (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure, Journal of Political Economy. 82, –.p:132-157. Journal of Political Economy.
  • Slovic, P.Fischhoff, B.Lichtenstein, S. (1981) Facts and fears: Societal perception of risk, NA – Advances in consumer research. Ann Abor, MI: 08, p:497-502. Association for Consumer Research. NA – Advances in consumer research.