Fiscal resilience over time and its management in the context of multi-risks: an application to the Danube Region

Multi-hazards as well as multi-risk management are increasingly gaining importance in research, policy, and practice, but present a challenging task. Focusing on governments as key risk bearers, we assume a multi-hazard and multi-risk perspective and address the question of how different natural hazards can influence fiscal risk and how fiscal risk can change over time due to other risk realizations (e.g., pandemics). We employ a risk-layer approach to analyze the changes in fiscal risk, comparing the fiscal stress associated with different hazards during distinct time periods and scenarios. In doing so, we address the question under which circumstances risk reduction or risk financing may be needed as well as how an iterative approach can account for changing financing resource levels for different hazards under different scenarios. We apply this methodology to the Danube Region which is exposed to different natural hazards and encompasses countries with different levels of fiscal resilience. Furthermore, the countries in the Danube Region were affected by Covid-19, which acted as an additional stressor and caused large economic costs. The analysis should demonstrate the flexibility as well as the relevance of the presented methodology to address multi-risks within a coherent framework. One of the main outcomes of the study is the appreciation of different fiscal resilience levels for different countries and the different types of disasters they are exposed to, which can inform the diverse strategies needed on a case-by-case basis but within a common framework to tackle current and future risks. The analysis should be therefore not only informative for the Danube Region and respective countries but also regarding the more general question under which circumstances risk reduction or risk financing may be needed as well as how an iterative approach can account for changing financing resource levels against multiple risks

A gap approach for preventing stress in complex systems: managing natural hazard induced fiscal risks under a changing climate

Disasters associated with natural hazards as well as climate change are happening within complex socio-economic systems and desired system states, including sustainable development and resource management, are formulated on the global as well as regional and national levels. However, complex system approaches are yet only rudimentarily incorporated in related applications, and we discuss modeling as well as policy challenges focusing on fiscal risk. As an intermediate step we suggest a gap approach which we relate to fiscal stress levels a complex system may experience due to natural hazard events. We argue that in case of no gaps one can assume a no stress situation and therefore modeling of disruptions including cascading effects is less necessary. However, at the same time we also acknowledge that there is an urgent need to address corresponding challenges with complex system methods. Policy-wise our paper responds to concerns for real-world applications and can provide insights to support current discussions within the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement around both adaptation finance and the new funding arrangements for loss and damage from climate impacts established at COP27

Assessing transboundary and intersectoral spillovers of multiple natural hazards in the Danube Region using a large-scale macroeconomic agent-based model

The potential for systemic risks arising from interconnected social, technical, and economic systems is becoming increasingly evident as climate change leads to more frequent and severe natural hazards and multi-hazard events (e.g., compound and cascading hazards) that can lead to unforeseen consequences on various levels. We present a large-scale macroeconomic agent-based model (ABM) designed to trace the spread of indirect losses caused by natural hazards across different regions and sectors. Using the Danube Region as a case study, we simulate economic and social ripple effects resulting from direct physical damages (i.e., loss and damage of capital stock) caused by various hazard scenarios, such as compound flooding, consecutive floods and droughts, and compound flooding and earthquakes. Our ABM is designed to capture micro-level behaviours and agent heterogeneity in terms of adjustment in response to direct damages both on the supply and demand sides of goods and labour markets, e.g., supply chain disruptions and reduction of production capacities. The ABM is calibrated on the NUTS-2 regional scale and incorporates dozens of industries. Using macroeconomic aggregates and a risk ratio metric comparing direct and indirect exposures, we quantify industries, regions and population subgroups most severely affected by indirect impacts on a short- to medium-term based on their positions within a wider economic network. We demonstrate that ABMs can be utilized to conduct participatory investigations of cascading risks that extend beyond individual impacts and encompass risk proliferation across both sectorial and regional boundaries. Our approach reveals latent vulnerabilities within economic networks that may pose potential risks, despite not being immediately apparent

Challenges in assessing and managing multi-hazard risks: A European stakeholders perspective

The latest evidence suggests that multi-hazards and their interrelationships (e.g., triggering, compound, and consecutive hazards) are becoming more frequent across Europe, underlying a need for resilience building by moving from single-hazard-focused to multi-hazard risk assessment and management. Although significant advancements were made in our understanding of these events, mainstream practice is still focused on risks due to single hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquakes, droughts), with a limited understanding of the stakeholder needs on the ground. To overcome this limitation, this paper sets out to understand the challenges for moving towards multi-hazard risk management through the perspective of European stakeholders. Based on five workshops across different European pilots (Danube Region, Veneto Region, Scandinavia, North Sea, and Canary Islands) and an expert workshop, we identify five prime challenges: i) governance, ii) knowledge of multi-hazards and multi-risks, iii) existing approaches to disaster risk management, iv) translation of science to policy and practice, and v) lack of data. These challenges are inherently linked and cannot be tackled in isolation with path dependency posing a significant hurdle in transitioning from single- to multi-hazard risk management. Going forward, we identify promising approaches for overcoming some of the challenges, including emerging approaches for multi-hazard characterisation, a common understanding of terminology, and a comprehensive framework for guiding multi-hazard risk assessment and management. We argue for a need to think beyond natural hazards and include other threats in creating a comprehensive overview of multi-hazard risks, as well as promoting thinking of multi-hazard risk reduction in the context of larger development goals

Nurses' perceptions of aids and obstacles to the provision of optimal end of life care in ICU

Contains fulltext : 172380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

L'imagerie de la plèvre

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe