000			02096nab a2200193 4500
003			OSt
005			20230831123318.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			230831b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aBooth, Kate _957379
245			_aUnderinsurance as adaptation: _bHousehold agency in places of marketisation and financialisation/
260			_bSage, _c2020.
300			_aVol. 52, Issue 4, 2020 ( 728–746 p.)
520			_aThe underinsurance of property is pervasively and persuasively promoted as an indicator of risk and riskiness and, in Western nations, is assumed to be aligned with socio-economic disadvantage. Yet, the solution – in its most simple form, buying more insurance – lacks critical interrogation of what the problem actually is. To understand underinsurance better, we map house and contents underinsurance across two municipalities in Australia’s island state of Tasmania, and observe that the existing delineation of disadvantage and advantage between these two places is muted in relation to insurance – underinsurance does not straightforwardly map onto disadvantage. We provide an alternative explanation: that underinsurance is not a risk for households per se and does not represent riskiness on behalf of these households. Rather, it is indicative of household agency that produces place-specified responses within the processes of financialisation and marketisation. We observe that the growth in renting, driven in part by housing financialisation, is associated with property underinsurance. The history of renting as temporary and marginal informs renter decision making not to insure, and thus current financialised changes in housing co-produce rather than ameliorate underinsurance. We also conclude that in negating or resisting insurance marketisation, households garner everyday financial and material adaptative capacity by underinsuring.
700			_aKendal, Dave _957380
773	0		_08877 _917103 _dLondon Pion Ltd. 2010 _tEnvironment and planning A _x1472-3409
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19879165
942			_2ddc _cEJR
999			_c14420 _d14420