Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation, and ex post compensation provide for a resilient triangle?

Effects of hydrological changes on cooperation in transnational catchments: the case of the Syr Darya

“…But market-based mechanisms and solidarity are not mutually exclusive; an insurance-based compensation scheme can be strongly based on the solidarity principle, provided that residents in low-risk areas also contribute to the scheme and that a risk differentiation exists to discourage building in high-risk areas. This is the case in Belgium (Flemish Region) (Suykens, Priest, Van Doorn-Hoekveld, Thuillier, & Van Rijswick, 2016). In the Netherlands a mixed system has developed with regard to the defence strategy, in which everyone in the 'dike ring area' is protected in the same way and up to the same level.…”

When is it beneficial for insurers to engage in climate change adaptation – a cross country comparison

“…The aim there is that affected citizens should also lobby the government to implement large-scale adaptation measures. This mechanism does not really appear to be successful (Poussin et al, 2013;Suykens et al, 2016).…”

“…In France, where flood insurance is compulsory and provided by private companies 10 backed up with a state guarantee (Porrini and Schwarze, 2014), a part of the insurance revenues from natural hazard insurance are transferred to the Major Natural Risk Prevention Fund, also known as the Barnier Fund8. This fund finances actions that decrease the exposure of insurers (Poussin et al, 2013;Suykens et al, 2016). In the context of communication, it finances the studies necessary to prepare natural disaster prevention plans, which are obligatory for all municipalities.…”

“…Flood insurance can also be quasi-compulsory, meaning that the insurance itself is voluntary, but for example, needed for taking up a property mortgage (Smolka, 2006). To explore this, several scholars have carried out 15 comparative reviews of insurance systems in different countries (Bräuninger et al, 2011;Keskitalo et al, 2014;Lamond and Penning-Rowsell, 2014;Paudel, 2012;Porrini and Schwarze, 2014;Suykens et al, 2016).…”

“…Present studies have focused on which economic instruments can be used to incentivize adaptation (Bräuninger et al, 2011;Filatova, 2014), how the insurance system should be designed to support more adaptation (Kunreuther, 1996;Lamond and Penning-Rowsell, 2014;Michel-Kerjan and Kunreuther, 2011), how adaptation is or could 25 be considered in the recovery process Suykens et al, 2016), the distribution of responsibilities between insurers and the government (Keskitalo et al, 2014), and also recently on how policy and market factors hamper or support insurers engagement in promoting adaptation (Glaas et al, 2016;, or how in certain regions or countries current insurers contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation (Johannsdottir et al, 2014;Poussin et al, 2013). This article takes a slightly different perspective by asking what the potential benefits for insurers would be to become directly 30 engaged in their policyholders or the public's adaptation activities or support adaptation activities.…”