Public sympathy on climate costs eroding

Attitudes towards properties in high climate-risk areas appear to be hardening, with Kiwis increasingly of the opinion homeowners should not have the right to live in unsafe areas and should foot more of the bill if they have to move.

The Government’s National Adaptation Plan, released on Wednesday, did not answer who will pay when property is lost or damaged and insurance won’t cover it, or when whole communities have to move.

A poll commissioned by insurer IAG showed the number of Kiwis who believed people should no longer have the right to live in climate-risk areas jumped from 37% last year to 53% this year.

Those who said people should have that right fell from 27% to 13%.

Victoria University professor Ilan Noy, who specialises in the economics of climate change, said the shift was unlikely to be a statistical anomaly and was likely driven by a growing awareness of the issue.

The poll also showed increasing numbers of Kiwis thought homeowners should shoulder more of the financial burden if they had to move or rebuild.

Responders were presented with a range of scenarios that homeowners could face, including having to move their home to a section that was provided to them, building a new home on a provided section, or simply buying a different home.

In all instances the number of Kiwis who thought homeowners should pay half or more of the cost had increased.

In the circumstance where homeowners should pay to move their home to a provided section, 67% thought the homeowner should pay half or more of the cost, up from 64% the year before.

Two-thirds (66%) of responders thought homeowners should pay at least half the cost when building a new home on a section provided for them, and 60% thought homeowners should pay at least half the cost to buy another home. Both results reflected a 4% rise.

The IAG-Ipsos climate change poll was released in July and surveyed 1011 homeowners and renters.

Noy believes the public would support helping to fund the relocation of communities, based on lessons from the red zone in Christchurch, where 8000 homes were moved.

He expected the public to look less generously on new developments and those who built in known risk areas, such as Westport.

‘‘Someone who purchased 25 years ago would be treated very differently in the public’s eye to someone who purchased a year ago.’’

He said there were signs respondents to IAG’s survey were not thinking clearly about the implications of their responses, with beliefs on division of costs the same regardless of whether homeowners were being given a new piece of land or having to buy it themselves.

Noy said the reason the Government did not address the question of who paid in its National Adaptation Plan was obvious – it was the hardest question to deal with and it did not want to make a decision.

He said the survey findings should be taken with a grain of salt, because it was commissioned by an insurer.

‘‘I am a bit sceptical in general about surveys done by interested parties, even if they are done by a professional organisation,’’ he said.

The survey report also said Kiwis felt that banks and insurers should raise their pricing and premiums on homes and businesses that faced more risk, with half of respondents saying they agreed with that stance, up from 45% the year before.

Increasing numbers of Kiwis thought homeowners should shoulder more of the financial burden.