Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2502.12116

Floods do not sink prices, historical memory does: How flood risk impacts the Italian housing market

Abstract

Do home prices incorporate flood risk in the immediate aftermath of specific flood events, or is it the repeated exposure over the years that plays a more significant role? We address this question through the first systematic study of the Italian housing market, which is an ideal case study because it is highly exposed to floods, though unevenly distributed across the national territory. Using a novel dataset containing about 550,000 mortgage-financed transactions between 2016 and 2024, as well as hedonic regressions and a difference-in-difference design, we find that: (i) specific floods do not decrease home prices in areas at risk; (ii) the repeated exposure to floods in flood-prone areas leads to a price decline, up to 4\% in the most frequently flooded regions; (iii) responses are heterogeneous by buyers' income and age. Young buyers (with limited exposure to prior floods) do not obtain any price reduction for settling in risky areas, while experienced buyers do. At the same time, buyers who settle in risky areas have lower incomes than buyers in safe areas in the most affected regions. Our results emphasize the importance of cultural and institutional factors in understanding how flood risk affects the housing market and socioeconomic outcomes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anna Bellaver, Lorenzo Costantini, Ariadna Fosch, Anna Monticelli, David Scala, Marco Pangallo. 2026-01-10. Floods do not sink prices, historical memory does: How flood risk impacts the Italian housing market. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12116

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN