The role of insurers in driving post-hurricane risk reduction investments

Introduction

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that between 1980 and 2023, hurricanes caused the most damage of all natural disasters in the U.S., at over $1.3 trillion, and had the highest average costs per event. These storms can be extreme negative financial shocks for households1. Insurance can provide financial protection, yet the growing risk of these storms is stressing insurance markets, with prices rising and availability declining in high-risk areas.

Studies suggest that climate change will intensify hurricanes2,3, increase the frequency of “stalling” the forward movement of storms4, and slow down their dispersion after landfall5. Recent research also indicates that the likelihood of two storms occurring in quick succession has increased and is projected to rise further as warming continues6. All of these trends will lead to greater levels of damage if no action is taken to reduce exposure.

Bending down the loss curve from these disasters—to stabilize insurance markets and protect households financially—can be achieved in many ways, including but not limited to changing the way we build and the locations where we cite development. Research has found that many mitigation measures are cost-effective and can save money by reducing disaster damages over the life of a structure7,8,9. Incorporating such changes at the time of rebuilding is an important opportunity. Once capital is destroyed, the additional costs of building to safer standards are typically smaller than retrofitting existing structures. Existing literature on the determinants of mitigation investments has primarily examined the role of individual risk perceptions10, behavioral factors11,12, and neighborhood spillovers13. Some studies focus on the relationship between individual insurance purchase decisions and risk reduction activities, providing mixed evidence on whether they act as substitutes or complements14. Using data from a survey of hurricane survivors, our paper identifies the unique role of insurers in driving greater investments in risk reduction post-hurricane, more deeply examining the link between insurance and mitigation15.

To examine the factors that influence household decisions to adopt mitigation measures during rebuilding, we draw on a unique survey of households that experienced damage from one of four U.S. landfalling hurricanes between 2017 and 2021. The survey was designed to elicit information on households’ financial recovery, identifying the damages they sustained, the sources of economic support they used for recovery, and any remaining unmet needs. The survey also asked questions about post-storm investments in risk reduction. Households were sampled using an online survey tool, Qualtrics, with samples designed to match the socio-economic characteristics of the community impacted by the storm. Compared to other convenience sampling via Facebook or MTurk, Qualtrics has been found to generate more representative samples16. Still, one may be concerned that households without easy access to internet or that were more severely impacted by the disaster long-term could be under-represented in online surveys. These biases, however, would tend to attenuate our results. The survey was peer-reviewed and contained accuracy screeners and attention checks. More details on the methods of this survey can be found in You and Kousky1. For this analysis, we limit our sample to 325 homeowners who experienced either damage to their home or contents from the hurricane. These households were roughly equally spread across the four hurricanes in the sample: Hurricane Harvey in 2017, Hurricanes Florence and Michael in 2018, and Hurricane Ida in 2021.

The survey asked households, when repairing their property, if they undertook any specific mitigation actions. We find that 31% (100 out of 325) did not adopt any such measures. Among those that did invest in mitigation upgrades, the most common activities were upgrading the roof (69%) or upgrading or replacing windows and doors (44%). A smaller percentage of respondents elevated their HVAC (26%), elevated their home (25%), installed flood vents (24%), or used flood-resistant materials in rebuilding (23%). Overall, more than 63% undertook more than one action, with the median households investing in two activities. Notably, of those who retrofitted, the majority were insured at the time of disaster: 88% reported having either homeowners or flood insurance. This motivates further exploration into the role that insurers play in incentivizing mitigation decisions.

Hurricanes cause both wind and water damage and the above-mentioned mitigation actions can help reduce both types of damage. Home elevation and using flood-resistant materials reduce the likelihood of floodwaters entering a home, while raising HVAC and installing flood vents lowers the severity of flood damages after floodwaters have already entered the home. Upgrading the roof or doors and windows, on the other hand, helps prevent damage to the building from high winds. The specific payback period for any mitigation will depend on the type of measure, the specific risk, property details, as well as any discounts provided by the insurer. Nonetheless, in general, these measures have been found to create savings from mandated building codes8,17, particularly in high-risk areas18. Despite these savings, research has identified that underinvestment occurs due to misunderstandings or lack of awareness of risk, behavioral biases, or financing constraints19,20.

When the 100 respondents who did not invest in mitigation post-storm were asked why not, as seen in Fig. 1, 40% responded that it was “too expensive” and 24% thought they were “not at risk of flooding.” Another 13% responded that they did not know what to do. This suggests that the availability of funding and information are two key determinants of making mitigation upgrades post-disaster.

Fig. 1: Reasons for not investing in mitigation during rebuilding.
figure 1

In the survey, we asked the 100 respondents who did not invest in mitigation about the reasons why they did not do so. The figure presents summary statistics for their responses.

Full size image

We explore this further in a regression framework to control for other possible factors with a focus on understanding the influence of funding and information. We run the following specification:

$$begin{array}{l}{{rm{Y}}}_{{rm{i}}}={{rm{beta }}}_{0}+{{rm{beta }}}_{1}* {{rm{Cost}}}_{{rm{i}}}+{{rm{beta }}}_{2}* {rm{Household}}_{rm{i}}+{{rm{beta }}}_{3}* {rm{Home}}_{rm{i}}\qquad,+,{{rm{beta }}}_{4}* {rm{Information}}_{rm{i}}+{{rm{beta }}}_{5}* {rm{Event}}_{rm{i}}+{{{varepsilon}}}_{{mathrm{i}}},end{array}$$
(1)

where Yi represents risk mitigation decisions made by individual i during rebuilding. Our outcomes of interest include whether or not a household invested in any form of mitigation, and, if so, the specific types of actions. Costi represents disaster-related financial costs, Householdi represents a vector of household characteristics (including having property/flood insurance, having savings, income, race, employment status, number of residents, and whether there are family members in need of care), and Homei represents a vector of home characteristics (including home tenure, home mortgage status, and home type). To identify the role of information, we include a binary variable, Informationi, which captures the respondent’s answer to a survey question asking if at any point in the recovery process they received information on actions that could be taken to lower the risk of future damage. Eventi are fixed effects for each hurricane. Standard errors are clustered by hurricane and estimated with bias-reduced linearization adjustment to account for a small number of clusters.

Results are shown in Table 1. We find that property owners who were informed about mitigation actions are roughly 2.9 times (e1.357-1) more likely to engage in risk reduction actions (Column 1). This includes installing flood vents (Column 2), elevating HVAC systems (Column 3), and upgrading the roof (Column 4). We also find that if a household was insured at the time of the storm, indicating a greater likelihood of dollars available for repairs and rebuilding, they are 124% (e0.808 – 1) more likely to invest in risk reduction. Compared to the uninsured, they are more likely to upgrade their HVAC system (Column 3), improve their roof (Column 4), and use flood-resistant materials for home repair (Column 8). We find that those with savings are more likely to upgrade their door or use flood resistant materials but not to invest in more expensive measures. This could be because the majority of Americans have only very small levels of savings. According to the Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED) conducted by the Federal Reserve Board (2022), approximately half of the U.S. households could only cover an expense up to $2,000 using their current savings.

Table 1 Risk mitigation actions taken during rebuilding
Full size table

Another survey question asked where respondents received information about risk reduction activities. Figure 2 shows that the majority of households reported receiving information from their insurance companies, followed by the government and then their social network.

Fig. 2: Sources of information about risk reduction actions.
figure 2

In the survey, we asked the 131 respondents who reported receiving information about risk reduction activities where they received such information. The figure presents summary statistics for their responses.

Full size image

Finally, the survey asked about the role of financial incentives. Respondents were asked to what extent receiving a discount on insurance would motivate them to undertake risk reduction actions. Responses, unsurprisingly, varied among those insured or not at the time of the storm. In both groups, roughly a third of respondents indicated that it would motivate them “very much,” but among the uninsured, 30% said it would not motivate them at all, while only 6% said “not at all” among the insured. This is unsurprising since premium discounts only provided benefits to those with a policy.

We conduct two robustness tests to validate our findings. First, we split the sample into the three pre-COVID hurricanes and the one post-COVID hurricane. Our results remain quantitatively similar. In addition, another survey question asked if households lost income from the storm. Our results are again similar across the 43% of respondents who do report a loss of income and the 57% who do not.

Our survey findings highlight the important roles of both information and available funding to drive mitigation investments and shed new light on the critical role that insurance companies play in this process. Insurers are both a provider of information about risk reduction to their clients and also provide financial incentives or direct funding to support such investments. These findings echo insights from Mulder and Kousky (2023)21 and Boomhower et al. (2023)22 that insurers have this dual role. These results may also partially explain prior research findings that those that are insured are more likely to have invested in mitigation14,23. While extreme risk aversion has been invoked to explain such findings, the role of the insurer could be another mechanism, particularly in the rebuilding process when mitigation efforts can be more easily integrated.

As escalating losses continue to stress insurance markets and impose financial hardship, expanding investments in hazard mitigation has become a key objective for governments and communities. Our findings indicate insurers have a role to play in achieving this objective. Insurance regulators have long mandated insurer involvement, such as through required discounts on hurricane-safe building in Gulf Coast states. The state of California has recently adopted similar mandates on premium reductions for safer building exposed to wildfires.

Insurers, though, could go further and also provide funding for these investments through endorsements, which are additions to standard property policies that would provide households extra funds during rebuilding to invest in mitigation. For example, in some places along the Gulf Coast, insurers have offered “Fortified endorsements” to cover the costs of rebuilding to Fortified standards. Developed by the Institute for Building and Home Safety, the Fortified building standard can improve a home’s capability of withstanding severe winds and significantly lower damage caused by hurricanes24. Our survey results suggest such endorsements, tied to information and outreach to education households about the investments, could drive resiliency upgrades during rebuilding, thus lowering the costs of future storms. The National Flood Insurance Program, the primary provider of flood insurance, has a small program to do this currently, but it could be expanded to cover more expensive upgrades, such as elevation25.

Related Articles

Energy metabolism in health and diseases

Energy metabolism is indispensable for sustaining physiological functions in living organisms and assumes a pivotal role across physiological and pathological conditions. This review provides an extensive overview of advancements in energy metabolism research, elucidating critical pathways such as glycolysis, oxidative phosphorylation, fatty acid metabolism, and amino acid metabolism, along with their intricate regulatory mechanisms. The homeostatic balance of these processes is crucial; however, in pathological states such as neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, and cancer, extensive metabolic reprogramming occurs, resulting in impaired glucose metabolism and mitochondrial dysfunction, which accelerate disease progression. Recent investigations into key regulatory pathways, including mechanistic target of rapamycin, sirtuins, and adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, have considerably deepened our understanding of metabolic dysregulation and opened new avenues for therapeutic innovation. Emerging technologies, such as fluorescent probes, nano-biomaterials, and metabolomic analyses, promise substantial improvements in diagnostic precision. This review critically examines recent advancements and ongoing challenges in metabolism research, emphasizing its potential for precision diagnostics and personalized therapeutic interventions. Future studies should prioritize unraveling the regulatory mechanisms of energy metabolism and the dynamics of intercellular energy interactions. Integrating cutting-edge gene-editing technologies and multi-omics approaches, the development of multi-target pharmaceuticals in synergy with existing therapies such as immunotherapy and dietary interventions could enhance therapeutic efficacy. Personalized metabolic analysis is indispensable for crafting tailored treatment protocols, ultimately providing more accurate medical solutions for patients. This review aims to deepen the understanding and improve the application of energy metabolism to drive innovative diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Power price stability and the insurance value of renewable technologies

To understand if renewables stabilize or destabilize electricity prices, we simulate European power markets as projected by the National Energy and Climate Plans for 2030 but replicating the historical variability in electricity demand, the prices of fossil fuels and weather. We propose a β-sensitivity metric, defined as the projected increase in the average annual price of electricity when the price of natural gas increases by 1 euro. We show that annual power prices spikes would be more moderate because the β-sensitivity would fall from 1.4 euros to 1 euro. Deployment of solar photovoltaic and wind technologies exceeding 30% of the 2030 target would lower it further, below 0.5 euros. Our framework shows that this stabilization of prices would produce social welfare gains, that is, we find an insurance value of renewables. Because market mechanisms do not internalize this value, we argue that it should be explicitly considered in energy policy decisions.

Unveiling sectoral coupling for resilient electrification of the transportation sector

Electrifying the transportation sector is crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and offers numerous benefits including increased energy efficiency, lower total ownership costs, enhanced national energy security, and improved air quality. Despite the availability of necessary technologies, fully integrating the transportation and electricity sectors presents challenges in understanding all benefits and risks. Previous studies have not highlighted the role of coupling between these sectors. To better understand this coupling, this work reviews the structure of the current fossil-fuel-based transportation sector (including its dependence on the electricity sector) and case studies of its vulnerabilities to key risks. By adopting a systemic perspective, we uncover the indispensable interplay between the transportation and electricity sectors, shedding light on previously neglected dynamics. Leveraging the principles of grid architecture (GA), we introduce a hierarchical approach to assess vulnerabilities within the prevailing fuel-based transportation system and elucidate pathways for enhancement through electrification.

Tissue macrophages: origin, heterogenity, biological functions, diseases and therapeutic targets

Macrophages are immune cells belonging to the mononuclear phagocyte system. They play crucial roles in immune defense, surveillance, and homeostasis. This review systematically discusses the types of hematopoietic progenitors that give rise to macrophages, including primitive hematopoietic progenitors, erythro-myeloid progenitors, and hematopoietic stem cells. These progenitors have distinct genetic backgrounds and developmental processes. Accordingly, macrophages exhibit complex and diverse functions in the body, including phagocytosis and clearance of cellular debris, antigen presentation, and immune response, regulation of inflammation and cytokine production, tissue remodeling and repair, and multi-level regulatory signaling pathways/crosstalk involved in homeostasis and physiology. Besides, tumor-associated macrophages are a key component of the TME, exhibiting both anti-tumor and pro-tumor properties. Furthermore, the functional status of macrophages is closely linked to the development of various diseases, including cancer, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, metabolic conditions, and trauma. Targeting macrophages has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy in these contexts. Clinical trials of macrophage-based targeted drugs, macrophage-based immunotherapies, and nanoparticle-based therapy were comprehensively summarized. Potential challenges and future directions in targeting macrophages have also been discussed. Overall, our review highlights the significance of this versatile immune cell in human health and disease, which is expected to inform future research and clinical practice.

Cascading socio-economic and financial impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war differ across sectors and regions

Disruptions in global food and energy trade can trigger cascading socio-economic losses. Financial markets can amplify such losses and generate systemic cross-sectoral effects, e.g. food insecurity. Our methodology links the real economy and financial markets to quantify cascading impacts across sectors and regions and to capture amplification effects by financial markets. Although applicable to any shock on global key commodity trade, we test its effectiveness with the Russia-Ukraine war, which reveals pronounced, regionally and sectorally diverse impacts. Comparing with real data confirms that our approach captures several key impacts of the crisis: the energy price increase in Europe, the strong reaction of European commodity future markets with large benefits for fossil companies (equity values up to +54%) and losses for companies most exposed to the belligerents (up to−6%), and the worsening of food affordability especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America (additionally 10 million people at risk of hunger). Our analysis shows the importance of accounting for cascading risks and amplification effects to strengthen economic, financial, and food system resilience.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *