Future Public Sector Flood Risk and Risk Sharing Arrangements: An Assessment for Austria

Unterberger, Christian; Hudson, Paul; Botzen, Wouter; Schroeer, Katharina; Steininger, Karl W.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.019

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also appears to be the case in models of individual adaptive behavior under various behavioral rules (Haer, Botzen, de Moel, & Aerts, 2017;Hudson, Botzen, Feyen, & Aerts, 2016). Such approaches typically do not focus on individual shares; they direct attention rather to the overall outcome (Gawel & Kuhlicke, 2017) and by doing so can find it difficult to account for social inequalities (Kind, Botzen, & Aerts, 2017) or different risk management objectives (Unterberger, Hudson, Botzen, Schroeer, & Steininger, 2019). This is a significant limitation moving forward as broader social and economic differences can lead to differences in vulnerability across society (Cutter, 2017;Kaufmann, Priest, & Leroy, 2018).…”

Section: Knowledge Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a noticeable pattern is that the presence of expected governmental compensation inhibits the development of insurance coverage. For example, the Austrian Catastrophe Fund provides (incomplete) compensation after flood events, and it can range between 20% and 50% of the damage (55,73) , contributing to the low penetration rate of (at most) 25% (73) . By contrast, in Germany, compensation is less certain (81) , which partly contributes to a higher penetration rate than Austria.…”

Section: Si812 Evaluation Criteria: Supplementary Check By Stakeholmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flood insurance arrangements in the European Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change

Hudson

Botzen

Aerts

2019

Global Environmental Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Established in 1985, the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center develops and promotes effective corporate and public policies for low-probability events with potentially catastrophic consequences through the integration of risk assessment, and risk perception with risk management strategies. Natural disasters, technological hazards, and national and international security issues (e.g., terrorism risk insurance markets, protection of critical infrastructure, global security) are among the extreme events that are the focus of the Center's research. The Risk Center's neutrality allows it to undertake large-scale projects in conjunction with other researchers and organizations in the public and private sectors. Building on the disciplines of economics, decision sciences, finance, insurance, marketing and psychology, the Center supports and undertakes field and experimental studies of risk and uncertainty to better understand how individuals and organizations make choices under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Risk Center research also investigates the effectiveness of strategies such as risk communication, information sharing, incentive systems, insurance, regulation and public-private collaborations at a national and international scale. From these findings, the Wharton Risk Center's research team-over 50 faculty, fellows and doctoral students-is able to design new approaches to enable individuals and organizations to make better decisions regarding risk under various regulatory and market conditions.

show abstract

“…There is also a preexisting literature describing the unit costs of several risk reduction measures based on engineering estimates (e.g., Aerts, 2018) which can be used if the study area is similar enough. If needed, these values can be adapted to fit local context, for example, using purchasing power parity exchange rates to translate costs to local currency and construction cost indexes to put the cost figures in the correct price year, as in Botzen, Monteiro, Estrada, Pesaro, and Menoni (2017) or Unterberger, Hudson, Botzen, Schroeer, and Steininger (2019).…”

Section: Assessing Key Benefits and Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost–benefit analysis of flood‐zoning policies: A review of current practice

Hudson

Botzen

2019

WIREs Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One commonly proposed method to limit flood risk is land‐use or zoning policies which regulates construction in high‐risk areas, in order to reduce economic exposure and its vulnerability to flood events. Although such zoning regulations can be effective in limiting trends in flood risk, they also have adverse impacts on society, for instance by limiting local development of areas near the water. In order to judge whether proposed land‐use or zoning policies are a net benefit to society, they should be accepted or rejected based on a societal cost–benefit analysis (CBA). However, conducting a CBA of zoning regulation is complex and comprehensive guidelines of how to do such an analysis are lacking. We offer guidelines for good practice. In order to assess the costs and benefits of zoning as a climate change adaption strategy, they should be assessed at a societal level in order to account for public good features of flood risk reduction strategies, and because costs in one area can be benefits in another region. We propose a multistep process: first, determine the spatial extent of the zoning policy and how interconnected the zoned area is to other locations; second, conduct a CBA using monetary costs and benefits estimated from an integrated hydro‐economic model to investigate if total benefits exceed total costs; third, conduct a sensitivity analysis regarding the main assumptions; fourth, conduct a multicriteria analysis (MCA) of the normative outcomes of a zoning policy. A desirable policy is preferred in both the CBA and MCA. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Value of Water Science of Water > Water Extremes Human Water > Methods

show abstract

Future Public Sector Flood Risk and Risk Sharing Arrangements: An Assessment for Austria

Cited by 28 publications

References 44 publications

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

Flood insurance arrangements in the European Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change

Cost–benefit analysis of flood‐zoning policies: A review of current practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About