In July 2021, a series of floods hit Northern Europe, leaving behind a devastating toll both in terms of disrupted lives and material damages. As extreme weather events become more frequent, disasters of this magnitude are expected to occur more often, making it essential to understand the adaptive behavior of affected households and their limitations. A new study, published in Communications Earth & Environment by a team of researchers including Jeroen Aerts (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), analyzed the adaptation strategies adopted by homeowners impacted by the disaster.
The research involved over 700 respondents from Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands who were directly affected by the event. It allowed the researchers to analyze both the actions taken and future intentions. The measures implemented range from barriers and water pumps to structural interventions such as using water-resistant materials and relocating electrical systems to upper floors. However, it is clear that private adaptation is constrained by various barriers: financial, institutional, and psychological factors limit its diffusion and effectiveness.
The possibility of receiving insurance compensation is a key factor. Those who manage to obtain it are more likely to invest in preventive measures immediately after the flood. This challenges the idea of moral hazard: insured individuals do not feel less responsible, on the contrary they tend to proactively protect their homes. However, access to compensation varies significantly across countries, and these institutional differences highlight the need for policies that promote greater insurance coverage while ensuring payouts, including coverage for “building back better” or more resilient reconstruction.
The level of adaptation after the flood also varied significantly across the countries examined. Homeowners in Germany showed the highest percentage of post-disaster adaptive measures, differing from their Dutch neighbors in the nature of those actions. In the Netherlands, in particular, trust in public protection programs appears to reduce motivation for private action. However, there are no significant differences in adaptation intentions between the two countries, unlike what is observed when compared with Belgium.
In Belgium, risk perception was exceptionally low. The affected areas are not classified as flood risk zones, so residents did not expect such an event to happen again. This perception was reinforced by local media, which framed the flood as an accident caused by an alleged human error in dam management, downplaying the climatic component of the disaster.
Furthermore, the willingness to adopt adaptation strategies increases with the amount of flood damage suffered, but only up to a certain point. When relative damage exceeds 60% of the reconstruction value, researchers observed that many homeowners begin to view adaptation measures as pointless and consider relocating to safer areas.
Data show that 3.9% of homeowners who experienced damage beyond this threshold ended up moving, compared to only 0.9% of those with less severe damage. This suggests a psychological threshold beyond which resilience gives way to the search for more radical solutions, such as migration.
Insurance policies and public protection programs deeply influence citizens behavior. Institutional barriers are compounded by psychological ones, linked to perceptions of personal responsibility and the perceived effectiveness of adaptation measures. The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events calls for a serious reflection on adaptation strategies.
Public policies should not only encourage private adaptation but also address the economic, institutional, and psychological barriers that limit its effectiveness. Transparent information, awareness campaigns and incentives to take out insurance can make a difference. Yet, it will also be essential to assess whether certain areas should remain inhabited at all, given the growing flood risks (by Tiberio Moneta, CMCC).
