{"title":"Wildfire risk and insurance: research directions for policy scientists","authors":"Matthew R. Auer","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09528-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Catastrophic wildfire is an increasingly familiar phenomenon on multiple continents. In the United States, concerns about uncontrolled, destructive wildfire have prompted some major insurance carriers to cease writing new policies or to non-renew existing policies. These trends affect not only policyholders, but also, vulnerable communities that already face multiple obstacles to securing property or renters insurance. This study reviews the social and behavioral sciences literatures on wildfire risk in the United States and insurance protection by homeowners. Three categories of research emerge from the review, namely, homeowner as rational actor, wildfire governance and risk management, and wildfire and social equity. There is abundant scholarship on determinants of homeowner decisions to manage wildfire risk by self-protecting or by purchasing insurance, but comparatively little research on the policy implications of shrinking markets for insurance. Policy research on the needs of underinsured and uninsured populations is also relatively undeveloped. Overlaying Lasswell’s social process framework on the three dominant research themes, we find not only divergent research questions, models, and methods, but also, important differences in which stakeholders and stakeholder values are considered. There are opportunities for the different literatures to learn from one another, but also, to sharpen their focus on insurance as a scarce and uncertain resource amid climate change and as property development continues to expand in wildfire-prone areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09528-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Catastrophic wildfire is an increasingly familiar phenomenon on multiple continents. In the United States, concerns about uncontrolled, destructive wildfire have prompted some major insurance carriers to cease writing new policies or to non-renew existing policies. These trends affect not only policyholders, but also, vulnerable communities that already face multiple obstacles to securing property or renters insurance. This study reviews the social and behavioral sciences literatures on wildfire risk in the United States and insurance protection by homeowners. Three categories of research emerge from the review, namely, homeowner as rational actor, wildfire governance and risk management, and wildfire and social equity. There is abundant scholarship on determinants of homeowner decisions to manage wildfire risk by self-protecting or by purchasing insurance, but comparatively little research on the policy implications of shrinking markets for insurance. Policy research on the needs of underinsured and uninsured populations is also relatively undeveloped. Overlaying Lasswell’s social process framework on the three dominant research themes, we find not only divergent research questions, models, and methods, but also, important differences in which stakeholders and stakeholder values are considered. There are opportunities for the different literatures to learn from one another, but also, to sharpen their focus on insurance as a scarce and uncertain resource amid climate change and as property development continues to expand in wildfire-prone areas.
期刊介绍:
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci