"What is the decision-making mechanism people rely upon to mitigate flood risk? Applying Bayesian Network modelling to a comprehensive survey dataset for the U.S. Gulf Coast, we find that the overall support for flood mitigation can be inferred from flood insurance purchase behavior (i.e., without insurance vs. with insurance purchased mandatorily, voluntarily, or both). Therefore, we propose a theoretical decision-making mechanism composed of two dimensions including informed flood risk and sense of insecurity. The informed flood risk is the primary determinant on one's overall support for flood mitigation. Risk mitigation decisions are largely contingent on the level of risk that is effectively conveyed to individuals. Additionally, sense of insecurity plays a moderate role in determining individuals' overall support for flood mitigation. The sense of insecurity can move people toward overall support for mitigation, but the effect is not as large as the informed risk. Results of this study have fundamental policy implications. The flood risk informed by Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps not only provides the compulsory basis for flood insurance purchase but also determines individuals' overall support for flood mitigation. Flood map inaccuracy can immensely mislead individuals' overall risk mitigation decision. Meanwhile, this flood risk mitigation decision-making mechanism inferred from a survey data in the U.S. Gulf Coast needs to be tested and validated elsewhere."
In this paper, we proposed a flood mitigation decision-making mechanism (please see below). One implication of this study is that "the importance of risk information in overall flood mitigation decisions. Although the flood premiums do not reflect real risks due to discounts, flood hazard zones have effectively conveyed the risk to homeowners. Risk signals can thus be delivered to homeowners through various means."