Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Access for All
Exhibit Hall
Hotels
WiFi
Search Tips
Annual Meeting App
Onsite Guide
Natural disasters are unavoidable, but their effects can be mitigated through policies and individual actions focused on risk and preparedness. With recent catastrophic wildfires in California and flooding in North Carolina, understanding how to reduce the consequences of natural disasters is crucial. However, we know little about who is likely to support different types of mitigation proposals. Climate change and unplanned urbanization have increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, making it important to evaluate how people react to impending disasters. This information can help shape public policy and directly affect the severity of the consequences of natural disasters on human populations. With a focus on flooding in the Houston area, with this project, we have two primary research questions: What types of people support different kinds of mitigation proposals, including both regulatory policies and spending? Further, how does support vary by subjective and objective flood risk? To examine these associations, we use two data sources on the Houston area in a statistical analysis of support for several different types of proposals: individual-level survey responses on flood mitigation and Census tract-level data on objective flood risk. Despite including various measures of subjective and objective flood risk, only political affiliation consistently predicts support for flood mitigation proposals. Specifically, Republicans are less likely to support regulatory and spending policies or to be willing to pay higher taxes to reduce flood risk. These results indicate that political polarization may be driving support for mitigation policies more than any personal, demographic, or area-level factors.