Four essays of environmental risk-mitigation

Expected damages of environmental risks depend both on their intensities and probabilities. There is very little control over probabilities of climate related disasters such as hurricanes. Therefore, researchers of social science are interested identifying preparation and mitigation measures that build human resilience to disasters and avoid serious loss. Conversely, environmental degradation, which is a process through which the natural environment is compromised in some way, has been accelerated by human activities. As scientists are finding effective ways on how to prevent and reduce pollution, the society often fails to adopt these effective preventive methods. Researchers of psychological and contextual characterization offer specific lessons for policy interventions that encourage human efforts to reduce pollution. This dissertation addresses four discussions of effective policy regimes encouraging pro-environmental preference in consumption and production, and promoting risk mitigation behavior in the face of natural hazards. The first essay describes how the speed of adoption of environment friendly technologies is driven largely by consumers' preferences and their learning dynamics rather than producers' choice. The second essay is an empirical analysis of a choice experiment to understand preferences for energy efficient investments. The empirical analysis suggests that subjects tend to increase energy efficient investment when they pay a pollution tax proportional to the total expenditure on energy consumption. However, investments in energy efficiency seem to be crowded out when subjects have the option to buy health insurance to cover pollution related health risks. In context of hurricane risk mitigation and in evidence of recently adopted My Safe Florida Home (MSFH) program by the State of Florida, the third essay shows that households with home insurance, prior experience with damages, and with a higher sense of vulnerability to be affected by hurricanes are more likely to allow home inspection to seek mitigation information. The fourth essay evaluates the impact of utility disruption on household well being based on the responses of a household-level phone survey in the wake of hurricane Wilma. Findings highlight the need for significant investment to enhance the capacity of rapid utility restoration after a hurricane event in the context of South Florida.

Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Decision Making in South Florida

The Greater Everglades system imparts vital ecosystem services (ES) to South Florida residents including high quality drinking water supplies and a habitat for threatened and endangered species. As a result of the altered Everglades system and regional dynamics, restoration may either improve the provision of these services or impose a tradeoff between enhanced environmental goods and services and competing societal demands. The current study aims at understanding public preferences for restoration and generating willingness to pay (WTP) values for restored ES through the implementation of a discrete choice experiment. A previous study (Milon et al., 1999) generated WTP values amongst Floridians of up to $3.42 -$4.07 billion for full restoration over a 10-year period. We have collected data from 2,905 respondents taken from two samples who participated in an online survey designed to elicit the WTP values for selected ecological and social attributes included in the earlier study (Milon et al. 1999). We estimate that the Florida general public is willing to pay up to $854.1- $954.1 million over 10 years to avoid restrictions on their water usage and up to $90.8- $183.7 million over 10 years to restore the hydrological flow within the Water Conservation Area.

Four Essays of Environmental Risk-Mitigation

Expected damages of environmental risks depend both on their intensities and probabilities. There is very little control over probabilities of climate related disasters such as hurricanes. Therefore, researchers of social science are interested identifying preparation and mitigation measures that build human resilience to disasters and avoid serious loss. Conversely, environmental degradation, which is a process through which the natural environment is compromised in some way, has been accelerated by human activities. As scientists are finding effective ways on how to prevent and reduce pollution, the society often fails to adopt these effective preventive methods. Researchers of psychological and contextual characterization offer specific lessons for policy interventions that encourage human efforts to reduce pollution. This dissertation addresses four discussions of effective policy regimes encouraging pro-environmental preference in consumption and production, and promoting risk mitigation behavior in the face of natural hazards. The first essay describes how the speed of adoption of environment friendly technologies is driven largely by consumers’ preferences and their learning dynamics rather than producers’ choice. The second essay is an empirical analysis of a choice experiment to understand preferences for energy efficient investments. The empirical analysis suggests that subjects tend to increase energy efficient investment when they pay a pollution tax proportional to the total expenditure on energy consumption. However, investments in energy efficiency seem to be crowded out when subjects have the option to buy health insurance to cover pollution related health risks. In context of hurricane risk mitigation and in evidence of recently adopted My Safe Florida Home (MSFH) program by the State of Florida, the third essay shows that households with home insurance, prior experience with damages, and with a higher sense of vulnerability to be affected by hurricanes are more likely to allow home inspection to seek mitigation information. The fourth essay evaluates the impact of utility disruption on household well being based on the responses of a household-level phone survey in the wake of hurricane Wilma. Findings highlight the need for significant investment to enhance the capacity of rapid utility restoration after a hurricane event in the context of South Florida.

Think before you eat: Calories and exercise equivalents presented on menus at point-of-choice

Although calorie information at the point-of-purchase at fast food restaurants is proposed as a method to decrease calorie choices and combat obesity, research results have been mixed. Much of the supportive research has weak methodology, and is limited. There is a demonstrated need to develop better techniques to assist consumers to make lower calorie food choices. Eating at fast food restaurants has been positively associated with weight gain. The current study explored the possibility of adding exercise equivalents (EE) (physical activity required to burn off the calories in the food), along with calorie information as a possible way to facilitate lower calorie choice at the point-of-choice in fast food restaurants. This three-group experimental study, in 18-34 year old, overweight and obese women, examines whether presenting caloric information in the form of EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants, will lead to lower calorie food choices compared to presenting simple caloric information or no information at all. Methods. A randomized repeated measures experiment was conducted. Participants ordered a fast food meal from Burger King with menus that contained only the names of the food choices (Lunch 1). One week later (Lunch 2), study participants were given one of three menus that varied: no information, calorie information, or calorie information and EE. Study participants included 62 college aged students. Additionally, the study controlled for dietary restraint by blocking participants, before randomization, to the three groups. Results. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. The study was not sufficiently powered, and while the study was designed to determine large effect sizes, a small effect size of .026, was determined. No significant differences were found in the foods ordered among the various menu conditions. Conclusion. Menu labeling alone might not be enough to reduce calories at the point-of-choice at restaurants. Additional research is necessary to determine if calorie information and EE at the point-of-choice would lead to fewer calories chosen at a meal. Studies should also look at long-term, repeated exposure to determine the effectiveness of calories and or EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants.

Think Before You Eat: Calories and Exercise Equivalents Presented on Menus at Point-of-Choice

Although calorie information at the point-of-purchase at fast food restaurants is proposed as a method to decrease calorie choices and combat obesity, research results have been mixed. Much of the supportive research has weak methodology, and is limited. There is a demonstrated need to develop better techniques to assist consumers to make lower calorie food choices. Eating at fast food restaurants has been positively associated with weight gain. The current study explored the possibility of adding exercise equivalents (EE) (physical activity required to burn off the calories in the food), along with calorie information as a possible way to facilitate lower calorie choice at the point-of-choice in fast food restaurants. This three-group experimental study, in 18-34 year old, overweight and obese women, examines whether presenting caloric information in the form of EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants, will lead to lower calorie food choices compared to presenting simple caloric information or no information at all. Methods: A randomized repeated measures experiment was conducted. Participants ordered a fast food meal from Burger King with menus that contained only the names of the food choices (Lunch 1). One week later (Lunch 2), study participants were given one of three menus that varied: no information, calorie information, or calorie information and EE. Study participants included 62 college aged students. Additionally, the study controlled for dietary restraint by blocking participants, before randomization, to the three groups. Results: A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. The study was not sufficiently powered, and while the study was designed to determine large effect sizes, a small effect size of .026, was determined. No significant differences were found in the foods ordered among the various menu conditions. Conclusion: Menu labeling alone might not be enough to reduce calories at the point-of-choice at restaurants. Additional research is necessary to determine if calorie information and EE at the point-of-choice would lead to fewer calories chosen at a meal. Studies should also look at long-term, repeated exposure to determine the effectiveness of calories and or EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants.