Making Communities More Flood Resilient: The Role of Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Decision-support Tools in Disaster Risk Reduction

Given the series of large-scale flood disasters that have occurred in recent years, there is a growing recognition among community leaders, businesses, insurers, governments and international donors of the need to invest in risk reduction measures before such events happen. Due to the costs of risk reduction measures, these actions need to be justified and as a result there is an increasing need to utilize decision-support tools, which can help to make the case for action to reduce disaster risks and build flood resilience when faced with limited resources. Across stakeholders, the specific objectives from the use of decision-support tools include (i) demonstrating the efficiency of the action ex-ante (before the flood); (ii) aiding in the selection of a particular intervention in enhancing community flood resilience from a suite of possible options; (iii) helping communities make the right choice when faced with limited investments; (iv) demonstrating the benefits of donor funding of community flood resilience projects; and (v) monitoring the successes and weaknesses of past interventions to generate lessons learned for future work. Typically, discussion on decision-support for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in floods (as well as for other hazards) has focused on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), however there are a number of other tools available to support decision-making. These include cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and robust-decision-making approaches (RDMA), which have been applied to similar problems, and can also be used to aid decision-making regarding flooding. This white paper provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges of applying these different tools, and guides the reader to select among them. Selection depends on the desired objective, circumstances, data available, timeframe to perform analyses, level of detail, and other considerations. We first focus on the CBA decision-tool, as this has been the mainstay of research and implementation. We then go beyond CBA to consider the other techniques for prioritising DRR investments. While our analysis is specific to flood DRR actions, the conclusion are also applicable to other hazards. The key findings arising from this white paper with relevance to research, policy and implementation of flood DRR decision-support tools, are: (1) Following a comprehensive review of the quantitative CBA flood DRR evidence, we find that flood DRR investments largely pay off, with an average of five dollars saved for every dollar spent through avoided and reduced losses; (2) Using CBA for flood risk reduction assessment should properly account for low-frequency, high-impact flood events, and also tackle key challenges such as intangible impacts; (3) Decision-making can be improved by using various decision support tools tailored to the desired outcomes and contexts. This white paper is the foundation upon which the Zurich flood resilience alliance work on integration of a decision toolbox will proceed "on the ground," with established community-based risk assessment tools, in particular Vulnerability Capacity Assessments (VCA) or Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVA). Based on these findings we propose a way forward over the next several years on informing risk-based decision making as part of the alliance program

Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment

The behaviour of individuals, businesses, and government entities before, during, and immediately after a disaster can dramatically affect the impact and recovery time. However, existing risk-assessment methods rarely include this critical factor. In this Perspective, we show why this is a concern, and demonstrate that although initial efforts have inevitably represented human behaviour in limited terms, innovations in flood-risk assessment that integrate societal behaviour and behavioural adaptation dynamics into such quantifications may lead to more accurate characterization of risks and improved assessment of the effectiveness of risk-management strategies and investments. Such multidisciplinary approaches can inform flood-risk management policy development

Continuity Culture: A Key Factor for Building Resilience and Sound Recovery Capabilities

This article investigates the extent to which Jordanian service organizations seek to establish continuity culture through testing, training, and updating of their business continuity plans. A survey strategy was adopted in this research. Primary and secondary data were used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with five senior managers from five large Jordanian service organizations registered with the Amman Stock Exchange. The selection of organizations was made on the basis of simple random sampling. Interviews targeted the headquarters only in order to obtain a homogenous sample. Three out of five organizations could be regarded as crisis prepared and have better chances for recovery. The other two organizations exhibited characteristics of standard practice that only emphasizes the recovery aspect of business continuity management (BCM), while paying less attention to establishing resilient cultures and embedding BCM. The findings reveal that the ability to recover following major incidents can be improved by embedding BCM in the culture of the organization and by making BCM an enterprise-wide process. This is one of few meticulous studies that have been undertaken in the Middle East and the first in Jordan to investigate the extent to which service organizations focus on embedding BCM in the organizational culture

Flood Proofing Low-Income Houses in India: an Application of Climate-Sensitive Probabilistic Benefit-Cost Analysis

Poor communities in high risk areas are disproportionately affected by disasters compared to their wealthy counterparts; yet, there are few analyses to guide public decisions on pro-poor investments in disaster risk reduction. This paper illustrates an application of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for assessing investments in structural flood proofing of low-income, high-risk houses. The analysis takes account of climate change, which is increasingly viewed as an important consideration for assessing long-term investments. Specifically, the study focuses on the Rohini river basin of India and evaluates options for constructing non-permanent and permanent residential structures on a raised plinth to protect them against flooding. The estimates show a positive benefit-cost ratio for building new houses on a raised plinth, while the ratio is less than one for demolishing existing houses to rebuild on a raised plinth. Climate change is found to significantly affect the BCA results. From a policy perspective, the analysis demonstrates the potential economic returns of raised plinths for ‘building back better’ after disasters, or as a part of good housing design practice

Mental accounting, access motives, and overinsurance

People exercising mental accounting have an additional motive for buying insurance. They perceive a risk of having insufficient funds available to self-insure. In this way insurance protects the consumption value of the insured asset beyond the expenditure to acquire/replace it. This complements previous approaches based on probability weighting and loss aversion to explain the high profitability of warranties and an aversion toward deductibles. It helps to account for why the value of a warranty is found to be positively related to the value of the product and why there is seemingly contradictory empirical evidence on how household income affects demand for warranties. The adapted model rationalizes a strong aversion to deductibles, and explains the observed sensitivity of this aversion to the insurance context. Finally, it predicts a strong impact of how an insurer pays out benefits on the value and cost of insurance. This can explain both the evidence on strong deductible aversion for flood insurance and the lack of such evidence for long-term care insurance

Climate change and increased risk for the insurance sector: A global perspective and an assessment for the Netherlands.

Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. As a consequence, economic losses caused by natural catastrophes could increase significantly. This will have considerable consequences for the insurance sector. On the one hand, increased risk from weather extremes requires assessing expected changes in damage and including adequate climate change projections in risk management. On the other hand, climate change can also bring new business opportunities for insurers. This paper gives an overview of the consequences of climate change for the insurance sector and discusses several strategies to cope with and adapt to increased risks. The particular focus is on the Dutch insurance sector, as the Netherlands is extremely vulnerable to climate change, especially with regard to extreme precipitation and flooding. Current risk sharing arrangements for weather risks are examined while potential new business opportunities, adaptation strategies, and public-private partnerships are identified. © The Author(s) 2009