Anne-Peggy Hellequin

Second-home owners and sea-level rise: the case of the Languedoc-Roussillon region (France)

Municipalities of the Languedoc-Roussillon region (South-eastern France) are highly vulnerable to climate-change-induced sea-level rise (SLR) due to their low altitude and the great attractiveness of the region for tourism. This attractiveness has resulted in a very significant development of second homes, which represent half of the housing stock and three quarters of the total capacity for tourism hospitality. In the context of climate change adaptation measures related to SLR, it is imperative to consider the perceptions of second-home owners and their place in local governance arrangements. Scientists advocate the implementation of managed retreat policies to reduce vulnerability by reducing the exposure of buildings, but both the social acceptability and the economic feasibility of these policies are very low. We assume that second-home owners have different perceptions of the risk of inundation and are less involved in the governance mechanisms. It is very difficult to mobilise a large number of owners of small flats who are less concerned with, and less likely to contribute to, policy development, due to their less frequent presence. We studied these issues through a survey in three municipalities, based on a sample of 318 residents and 163 second-home owners faced with inundation risk. We observed a lower sensitivity to risk and a stronger attachment to homes on the part of second-home owners (compared to residents). We also discuss, in terms of equity and efficiency, the impact of their low level of engagement in governance mechanisms.

Living alongside hazardous factories: risk, choice and necessity

A questionnaire survey conducted in Mardyck, a small town in northern France, surrounded by hazardous Seveso plants provided an opportunity to test various models which explained why individuals lived in these risk areas. In this article, we examine which of three different approaches: economic pressures and inequalities, biased risk perception, and ‘good reasons’ best explained individual decisions to live in this hazardous area. We found that none of these three approaches fully accounted for past and present decisions but the ‘good reasons’ approach enabled us to explore individual reasoning most effectively. While our findings indicated that individuals who live in the Mardyck area are subject to economic and social constraints as well as cognitive and cultural biases (distorting risk perception), they had made a conscious choice to move to and stay in Mardyck. They had ‘good reasons’ to live in Mardyck; they could afford to live in attractive area with good community facilities. Thus, their decisions were rational, albeit their rationality was bounded or restricted. Having made the decision, some residents dealt with the cognitive dissonance of living in a dangerous area by disregarding or denying the dangers, others, a worried minority, dealt with this same dissonance by highlighting their ‘good reasons’, that is, the ways the benefits of living in Mardyck outweighted the possibility of a catastrophic event.