Report on evaluation of quantified indicators, detailing the effects of best practices application for policy-makers and stakeholders

This report gives an overview of the quantitative assessment IIASA has conducted about the pilot project SuedLink. It includes an evaluation of the information events and the information material provided

Insurance-related instruments for disaster risk reduction (2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction)

Strategies and measures for disaster risk reduction (DRR) are not being implemented at the scale called for by the Hyogo Framework of Action. Part of the problem is that, from the perspective of decision makers with resource constraints, it is risky to invest in something that reaps benefits only in the case of a relatively unlikely event (such as a hurricane or a drought). People and institutions are understandably prone to invest in choices that yield less uncertain benefits. DRR, in itself, can be perceived as a risky endeavor - especially from the financial perspective. One way to circumvent this problem is by promoting DRR through incentives and other features embedded in market-based financial instruments, which offer financial stability or reliable access to funds to help cope with the consequences of extreme events. Since not all risks can be cost-effectively reduced, especially those that occur only very rarely, forward-thinking DRR stakeholders tend to seek options for financing the remaining or residual risks. Insurance and other disaster risk sharing approaches can serve households, national governments and humanitarian or development organizations, not only to complement ex ante DRR by ensuring or accelerating financing for post-disaster activities (like relief, recovery and reconstruction), but also as a conduit for ex ante DRR, guiding investment decisions that would result in fewer losses if a disaster materializes in the future. The objective of this paper is to assist disaster risk reduction stakeholders analyze whether - and how - insurance and other market-based risk transfer instruments can help increase resilience to disasters

Public protests against deployment of electricity transmission infrastructure in Europe: what are successful actions to deal with issues of public acceptance? Evaluation of best practices application, with revisions protocol and action plans

The goal of this work is to identify how successful actions implemented of transmission systems operators in cooperation with non-governmental organizations and academia to address public concerns about the deployment of electricity transmission infrastructure in four pilot projects. This publication includes three sets of results: 1) evaluation of stakeholder concerns according to guiding principles and the group of stakeholders, 2) evaluation of separate actions, 3) to address these concerns and evaluation of BESTGRID as an entire process to address stakeholders concerns

Deprivations and Inequalities in Multiple Dimensions: Poverty and Disaster Risk Management

This talk highlights the potential role of social and governance institutions as they operate synergistically with the human, natural and physical domains in reducing human deprivation and inequality. The value of a multiple-perspective approach is especially apparent in the context of extreme weather shocks as they contribute to “poverty traps” and increasing inequality. As an example of a social institution, we focus on the potential role of novel risk sharing and transfer arrangements, and especially index-based micro-insurance, for providing safety nets to marginal farmers facing drought risk. As promising as recent pilot projects are proving, we argue that, taken alone, they cannot provide a robust and sustainable option for reducing deprivation caused by weather variability. Their success is dependent on, among other dimensions, physical infrastructure, environmental quality, knowledge and education, and trusted and reliable social institutions. Success is also dependent on including multiple perspectives in the policy process, and we conclude with thoughts on governance arrangements that can foster an integrated and multiple-perspective approach to reducing deprivation and inequality

On Decision‐Analytical Support for Wicked Policy Issues

Lempert and Turner contribute importantly to the design of decision-analytical tools for wicked policy issues by acknowledging the centrality of socially determined and often irreconcilable worldviews. Their point of departure is application of the DMDU approach (decision making under deep uncertainty) separately for each contending worldview as postulated by cultural theory. This allows stakeholders to maintain solidarity with their social or organizational value communities, an important consideration or even prerequisite for robust policy compromises. Drawing from a codesign process in Italy, this commentary suggests that the Lempert and Turner multiworldview approach can be useful for aiding stakeholder deliberation by representing alternative problem framings or worldviews, displaying the implications of acting on one framing when viewed from the others, and identifying compromise solutions robust across the framings. The challenge is to operationalize the Lempert and Turner approach, a challenge well worth pursuing given the increasingly intractable and “wicked” nature of today's policy issues

The Danube River Basin: negotiating settlements to transboundary environmental issues

The deteriorating water quality of the Danube River and the ecological problems created by its continuing exploitation for electricity generation are major issues facing countries in the Danube River Basin. In response, representatives from the eight Danube riparian countries have recently declared their willingness to cooperate on the management of this important European river. In the absence of a comprehensive, basin-wide planning authority, this Danube Declaration is an important first step in establishing cooperative policies. Still, many hurdles remain before intentions become practice. This article describes the scientific and institutional complexities involved in negotiating agreements among the Danube riparian nations and suggests forms of cooperative action. A potential role for an independent analyst in the negotiation process is discussed

Catastrophic Risk Evaluation

A body of empirical evidence has shown that many managers would welcome new ways of highlighting catastrophic consequences, as well as means to evaluating decision situations involving high risks. When events occur frequently and their consequences are not severe, it is relatively simple to calculate the risk exposure of an organisation, as well as a reasonable premium when an insurance transaction is made. The usual methods rely on variations of the principle of maximising the expected utility (PMEU). When, on the other hand, the frequency of damages is low, the situation is considerably more difficult, especially if catastrophic events occur. When the quality of estimates is poor, e.g., when evaluating low-probability/high-consequence risks, the customary use of quantitative rules together with overprecise data could be harmful as well as misleading. This work extends the risk evaluation process by the integration of procedures for handling vague and numerically imprecise probabilities and utilities. The shortcomings of PMEU, and of utility theory in general, can in part be compensated for by the introduction of risk constraints. We point out some problematic features of the evaluations performed using utility theory. We also criticise the demand for precise data in situations where none is available. As an alternative to traditional models, we suggest a method for the evaluation of risks when the information at hand is numerically imprecise. The method includes procedures that allow for interval statements and comparisons, and thereby it does not require the use of numerically precise statements of probability, cost, or utility in a general sense. In order to attain a reasonable level of security, and because it has been shown that managers tend to focus on large negative losses, it is argued that a risk constraint should be imposed on the analysis. The strategies are evaluated relative to a set of such constraints considering how risky the strategies are