4.6 Article

The Emergence of Flood Insurance in Canada: Navigating Institutional Uncertainty

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 744-755

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12659

关键词

Flood insurance; flood risk; institutional pressure; regulatory risk; reputational risk

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flood insurance has remained unavailable in Canada based on an assessment that it lacks economic viability. In response to Canada's costliest flood event to date in 2013, the Canadian insurance industry has started to develop a framework to expand existing property insurance to cover flood damage. Research on flood insurance has overlooked why and how insurance systems transition to expand insurance coverage without evidence of economic viability. This article will address this gap through a case study on the emergence of flood insurance in Canada, and the approach to its expansion. Between 2013 and 2016, insurance industry officials representing over 60% of premiums collected in Canada were interviewed. These interviews revealed that flood insurance is being expanded in response to institutional pressure, specifically external stakeholder expectations that the insurance industry will adopt a stronger role in managing flood risk through coverage of flood damage. Further evidence of this finding is explored by assessing the emergence of a unique flood insurance model that involves a risk-adjusted and optional product along with an expansion of government policy supporting flood risk mitigation. This approach attempts to balance industry concerns about economic viability with institutional pressure to reduce flood risk through insurance. This analysis builds on existing research by providing the first scholarly analysis of flood insurance in Canada, important empirical teeth to existing conceptual analysis on the availability of flood insurance, and the influence of institutional factors on risk analysis within the insurance sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据