Supporting tools

Insurance Risk Financing

nst — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:12:14 +0000

Insurance Risk Financing nst Mon, 02/20/2017 - 10:12

Based on: Jha, Abhas K., Robin Bloch, and Jessica Lamond. Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. World Bank Publications, 2012.

Insurance, risk financing, compensation and tax relief have two main purposes in the management of flood risk. Firstly, and most obviously, the provision of these financial mechanisms can be used by those at risk to offset their financial risk from flooding. Although these financial tools obviously do not prevent flooding, they allow recovery without placing undue financial burdens on those impacted by flood disasters.

Advantages

The advantages of flood insurance are clear. For low frequency but high impact events, the provision of insurance spreads the risk of financial loss, centralizes the holding of disaster reserves, and should therefore be a more efficient method of financing disaster recovery. Because of this, governments are increasingly beginning to examine insurance as a risk management option.

The second major function of disaster insurance, compensation and tax relief schemes is to reduce risk and damage, via the need for risk assessment and encouragement of risk mitigation (Cummins and Mahul 2009; Kunreuther 2002). If risk is correctly priced then the incentive to mitigate risks exists via premium pricing; many insurance contracts also implicitly require the policyholder to undertake reasonable risk reduction and mitigation activities and this obligation can be made more explicit, or mandatory, for coverage to apply. Similarly, compensation can be targeted to resilient reconstruction, whilst tax schemes have the potential to influence many aspects of reconstruction, including the use or set aside of flood-prone land. As disaster relief funds are increasingly overstretched, and tend to divert finance from other important development programs, the main focus of this section is the potential to move towards insurance.

Disadvantages

Highly relevant in the context of flood insurance, adverse selection and moral hazard are two behavioral phenomena which undermine the efficient operation of insurance markets where there may be information asymmetry (i.e., policy holders know more about the risk they face than the insurer does). This leads to the potential for adverse selection. Those people who are poorer risks than the average will tend to insure; the informational problems imply that the risk will not be priced correctly. As an example, flood risk is often assessed on an area basis, such as the average damage per property in a postal or zip code. But within a particular code some properties may be on raised ground whilst others are not. If insurance is not mandatory, then it is the residents on low ground who will buy insurance and their average claim will be higher than the code average. This results in an under pricing of risk and, potentially, claims which cannot be met from reserved premiums. The adverse selection problem is minimized where insurance coverage is high, or where cover is mandatory. Moral hazard exists if there is no reward for risk mitigation behavior built into insurance products. Policy holders will therefore rely on insurance to offset their risk and undertake no self-protection. Policy holders will therefore rely on insurance to offset their risk and undertake no self-protection. This has been observed to be the case in the UK, where there is no effective mechanism for premium adjustment in the domestic market in consequence of self-protection, partly due to competition but also to transaction costs. The action of moral hazard results in increased damage costs and higher premiums for all. The use of excess charges, regulation and policy exclusions could potentially encourage self-protection (Kunreuther 2002) but may be difficult to enforce in a market-based system. Alternatively, awareness raising and education regarding the intangible

Financial Requirements and Cost

The coverage of natural disasters in general, and flooding in particular, varies a great deal across nations. For buildings, there is an estimated coverage of 40 percent of high income country losses, falling to 10 percent in middle income countries and less than five percent in low income countries. The UK is one of the best covered countries with 95 percent coverage; by contrast, Taiwan’s coverage is below one percent. Although, following this, there is a perception that, flood insurance coverage is universally high in developed countries and the converse in developing countries, this is in fact not the case. Swiss Re has estimated, for example, that in the Netherlands flood insurance coverage is typically very low, whereas in Indonesia it may be as high as 20 percent (Gaschen et al. 1998). Purchase of insurance is highly dependent on a number of factors, including its availability and cost, the level of the provision of disaster relief, general risk awareness, and attitudes to collective and individual risk (Lamond and Proverbs 2009).

Barriers to implementation

To qualify for insurance, risks have to be insurable. From an insurance provider’s perspective insurability equates to:

Risk that is quantifiable
Risk that is randomly distributed
A high enough number of policy holders to diversify risk
Sufficient chargeable premium to cover the expected claims, and transaction costs, whilst remaining affordable to policy holders.

For market-derived insurance, a profit margin is also necessary. In the context of flood risk, particularly in developing countries, the quantifiable aspect of insurability is problematic. Flooding is less predictable in its onset and outcomes than for other natural hazards; the availability and reliability of historic data in developing countries is low. The cost of insurance may also pose a problem for prospective policy holders in lower income countries. Many households already exist below economic subsistence level and have no money to spare for the purpose.

In a mature market with good information and well-priced risk, the spread of risk should be appropriate. Even in the developed world, however, the steps in development of a mature market may involve insurers accepting patterns of risk which are less diverse and therefore have unaffordable premiums.

Literature sources

Cummins, J. D. & Mahul, O. 2009. Catastrophe Risk Financing in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Gaschen, S., Hausmann, P., Menzinger, I. & Schaad, W. 1998. Floods – an insurable risk? A market survey. Zurich: Swiss Re.

Kunreuther, H. 2002. “The role of insurance in managing extreme events: implications for terrorism coverage.” Risk Analysis 22 (3): 427–37.

Lamond, J. & Proverbs, D. 2009. “Resilience to flooding: learning the lessons from an international comparison of the barriers to implementation.” Urban Design and Planning 162: 63-70.

Measure category

Preparedness

Information Platforms

nst — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:31:51 +0000

Information Platforms nst Wed, 01/25/2017 - 15:31

Coastal floods or storm surges

Before implementing DRR measures, coastal stakeholder should be informed about the different possible measures and their characteristics. There are several of existing website that provides such information. For the RISC-KIT Costal Management Guide expertise was drawn from such platforms. A selection of these will be presented below.

General description

RISC-KIT Costal Management Guide expertise was drawn from different information platforms. Information came from website, brochures, or handbooks. All of them provide valuable insights when dealing with DRR measures.

Scottish Natural Heritage: A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) developed a website in already in 2000 to manage coastal erosion on Scottish coasts. With this website, the SNH “seeks to encourage coastal authorities and managers to implement approaches to erosion management which maintain the important and varied conservation interests of Scotland’s unique beach and dune systems.”

The website reviews the options available for managing erosion, from non-intervention through to construction of revetments and seawalls, and offers guidance on how to select or design the most appropriate response to a particular situation. Critically, it describes and illustrates how each technique might best be designed so as to minimise damage to the natural heritage and reduce the prospects of altering shoreline evolution elsewhere.

The website can be found here.

Flanders Marine Institute: Coastal Wiki

The Coastal Wiki was developed by the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) and is based on the Wikipedia concept. It is an information tool combined with a search function. Articles about different coastal topics are typically 2-3 pages long and are structured according to different layers of specialization. Authors focus in their articles on a single topic at a certain level of detail, but are capable to provide a wider context and to provide more detailed information by introducing links to related articles. An important difference to the traditional Wikipedia concept is that it is not possible to edit anonymous at the Coastal Wiki.

The primary users of the Coastal and Marine Wikipedia are coastal professionals, who are either generalists who need to update their knowledge about a broad range of subjects or specialists who need to gain an understanding of other sectors or disciplines in order to work in an integrated manner. Target user groups are for example policy makers, practitioners, scientists, or the wider public.

The website can be found here

The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM): Tools for Integrated Flood Management

The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) is a joint initiative of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP). It promotes the concept of Integrated Flood Management (IFM) as a new approach to flood management. Within the IFM, the APFM published a series of tools for integrated flood management. These tools provide guidance for flood managers and various other specialists working in flood management.

These tools address aspects like management of flash floods, conservation and restoration of rivers and floodplains, flood emergency planning, or flood proofing.

The list of tools can be found here.

World Bank: Cities and Flooding - A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century.

A guidebook about Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management was written in 2012 by Jha, Bloch, and Lamond. The guide, published by the World Bank, serves as a primer for decision and policy makers, technical specialists, central, regional and local government officials, and concerned stakeholders in the community sector, civil society and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

The Guide embodies the state-of-the art on integrated urban flood risk management. The Guide starts with a summary for policy makers which outlines and describes the key areas which policy makers need to be knowledgeable about to create policy directions and an integrated strategic approach for urban flood risk management. The core of the Guide consists of seven chapters, organized as: understanding flood hazard; understanding flood impacts; integrated flood risk management (structural measures and non-structural measures); evaluating alternative flood risk management options: tools for decision makers; implementing integrated flood risk management; and conclusion.

The pdf version of the guide can be viewed here.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Natural Flood Management Handbook’

In 2015 the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) published a handbook to provide practical guidance to the delivery of natural flood management. It is informed by a number of demonstration projects and studies commissioned by SEPA and partners in recent years that have highlighted some of the requirements for the effective delivery of natural flood management. It is primarily aimed at local authorities tasked with delivery of actions set out in the Flood Risk Management Strategies, but it is also intended to be of use to all those seeking to deliver natural flood management.

The ‘Natural Flood Management Handbook’ can be downloaded here.

United Nations Environment Programme: Green Infrastructure Guide for Water Management. Ecosystem-based management approaches for water-related infrastructure projects

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), together with UNEP-DHI, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) published a guide in 2014 to raise awareness of the benefits of Green Infrastructure (GI) solutions for water resources management.

The guide takes a pragmatic approach to water management, and shows that GI can provide significant water management benefits and co-benefits, and also can support benefits from existing grey water infrastructure through a mutually complimentary mix of green and grey solutions. In addition to providing an overview of GI solutions for water management, this guide includes an outline methodology for water management options assessment, as well as a risk and uncertainty analysis. The guide concludes with a brief overview of practical tools to support the evaluation of appropriate solutions.

The pdf version of the book can be seen here.

The European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT)

The European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) is a partnership between the European Commission (DG CLIMA, DG Joint Research Centre and other DGs) and the European Environment Agency.

CLIMATE-ADAPT aims to support Europe in adapting to climate change and helps users to access and share data and information on:

Expected climate change in Europe
Current and future vulnerability of regions and sectors
EU, national and transnational adaptation strategies and actions
Adaptation case studies and potential adaptation options
Tools that support adaptation planning

CLIMATE-ADAPT provides a database where information addressing coastal DRR measures can be found. These include description of DRR measures as well as information about case studies.

The platform can be found here.

UK Environment Agency: Fluvial Design Guide

The Fluvial Design Guide is aimed at professional staff engaged in the design process from the early stages of looking at alternative solutions through to the delivery of the outputs of design for the construction, maintenance, refurbishment or alteration of flood defence or land drainage assets. The guide is thus intended to be used by both designers and asset managers.

The Fluvial Design Guide comprises eleven chapters, which are accessed via the table of contents. In addition, individual chapters are available as pdf downloads.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Apart from the sources used for this web-guide, there are also other information sources available. A few of them are listed below:

OURCOAST - the European portal for ICZM: OURCOAST is an exhaustive European web-portal about Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). It shares detailed information on Best Practices on ICZM in a Context of Adaptation to Climate Change in Coastal Areas. The web-portal can be found here.

EUROSION: The EU project EUROSION (2002-2004) emphasized on pilot projects which focused on erosion management. The project website offers a GIS database and a Shoreline Management Guide that is based in pilot projects across Europe. The project can be found here:

CONSCIENCE: The EU project CONSCIENCE was launched in 2007 with the aim of enhancing the implementation of a scientifically based sustainable coastal erosion management in Europe. It has been testing scientific concepts and tools in six pilot sites around Europe, building on the recommendations on coastal erosion management as issued by the EUROSION project.

FLOODsite: The EU project covers the physical, environmental, ecological and socio-economic aspects of floods from rivers, estuaries and the sea. It provides decision support technologies, uncertainty estimation and pilot applications for river, estuary and coastal sites. The website can be found here.

RISES-AM: The core of EU project RISES-AM (2013-2016) was assessing the cross-sectoral and economy-wide impacts and vulnerability of coastal systems at local, regional and global scales. The project made use of the concepts of representative concentration pathways (RCPs) and shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs). The website can be found here.

Measure category

Preparedness

EXAMPLE: Vulnerability Assessment for Marin's Ocean Coast, California (USA)

nst — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:06:12 +0000

EXAMPLE: Vulnerability Assessment for Marin's Ocean Coast, California (USA) nst Tue, 01/24/2017 - 14:06

Erosion

In 2015, the Marin County Community Development Agency (CDA) published a Vulnerability Assessment based on information from technical advisors, utility managers, and West Marin residents. The Assessment summarizes the expected timing and extent of impacts, laying a foundation of knowledge to guide adaptation planning.

Based on information from Marin County Community Development Agency (CDA).

General description

Marin County is located in the San Francisco Bay Area of the U.S. state of California. Marin’s coastline is stated to be vulnerable to sea level rise and changing storm patterns that accompany climate change. Over one-quarter of Marin County properties and natural and community assets are threatened by sea level rise along the coast.

The Marin County Community Development Agency together with different partners began in 2014 to develop a Vulnerability Assessment. The assessment presents asset profiles describing the vulnerability of parcels and buildings, transportation networks, utilities, working lands, natural resources, recreational activities, emergency services, and historic and archaeological resources; and community profiles highlighting vulnerable assets in different parts of the county. The findings are based on a combination of different sea level and storm scenarios representing near-term, medium-term, and long-term futures.

The Vulnerability Assessment is “advisory and not a regulatory or legal standard of review for actions that the Marin County government or CA Coastal Commission may take under the Coastal Act.” (CDA 2015: 4)

The Assessment is broken down in five different sections:

Executive Summary and Introduction
Asset Profiles
Community Profiles
Conclusion and Appendices
Vulnerability Assessment Maps

Methodology

The Assessment methodology is based on the California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide (CA Emergency Management Agency, 2012). Based on this planning guide, five phases were undertaken (CDA 2015: 17):

Phase 1| Exposure: Assess potential changes in water level from sea level rise, storm events, and geomorphic change, and the built and natural assets that could be impacted
Phase 2| Sensitivity: Assess the degree of damage or disruption sea level rise and storms could cause on the exposed assets.
Phase 3| Adaptive Capacity: Assess each asset’s adaptive capacity, or ability to respond successfully, to sea level rise and storms.
Phase 4| Potential Impacts: Evaluate the potential consequences to the assets and larger context, assuming no intervention actions.
Phase 5| Risk & Onset: Describe the certainty and timing of impacts.

Key Findings

In the coastal zone of Marin County, over 10 percent of buildings are vulnerable to a scenario with 40 inches of sea level rise and a 100-year storm. In a scenario of 80 inches of sea level rise combined with a 100-year-storm event, even 20 percent of buildings at the coast would be vulnerable. Depending on the scenario between 2.5 and 20 miles of road may be exposed to sea level rise and storm flooding.

Other vulnerable assets of coastal Marin are:

Beaches,
underground on-site wastewater treatment systems
Water distribution pipe
Fire service facilities and tsunami routes
Recreational facilities

More information and the pdf version of the Vulnerability Assessment can be found here: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/sea-level-rise/draft-vulnerability-assessment

Key lessons learnt

As stated in the document, the assessment is not a regulatory or legal framework but an advisory report. Based on the assessment, adaptation measures can be undertaken. Implementing these measures, new institutional, legal, and financing arrangements might be required. The assessment lays the informational foundation for adaptation planning and implementing the necessary measures.

Relevant case studies and examples

Vulnerability Assessment

Literature sources

CA Emergency Management Agency (2012): California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide, 60 pages.

Marin County Community Development Agency (CDA) (2015): Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Draft Executive Summary and Introduction. 35 pages.

Measure category

Preparedness

Vulnerability Assessment

nst — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:12:49 +0000

Vulnerability Assessment nst Wed, 12/14/2016 - 10:12

EXAMPLE: Vulnerability Assessment for Marin's Ocean Coast, California (USA)

A vulnerability assessment can be used as an informal spatial planning instrument to identify, quantify, and prioritize vulnerabilities in a system. In coastal areas effects of climate change can add additional pressure on these systems. A vulnerability assessment addresses these pressures and analyzes the risks and adaptation capacities to cope with these risks. Results are an important tool in regional and local spatial planning.

The term vulnerability is often used in the context of climate change. The IPCC (2007: 883) defines vulnerability as the “degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.” Human pressures (for example due to urbanization, shipping, or tourism activities) but also effects of climate change (sea level rise, storm events) will increase the vulnerability of coastal systems. In the following description focus lies on the coastal vulnerability due to climate change. As mentioned in the definition of the IPCC, a vulnerability assessment consist of three integral parts: the assessment of the exposition (how a coastal region is exposed to certain climate factors like sea level rise or storm floods), the sensitivity (how sensitive the specific coastal system is), and the adaptive capacity (how the coastal system can cope with the changes).

The results of such an assessment can be used in spatial planning processes to find best solution how to cope with the effects of climate change.

There is no formal procedure of how to conduct a vulnerability assessment, but there are reoccurring elements that form a general basis. It necessary to formulate and define the problem and scope of the assessment, define the spatio-temporal aspects, the relevant climate impacts and the potentially impacted sectors, environmental assets and land use patterns. But the assessment should be understood as a process, not as a sole scientific exercise. The German ministry responsibly for spatial planning (BMVBS 2011) has published twelve recommendations for an effective implementation of regional vulnerability analyzes

Success-factors for a regional vulnerability assessment

Understand vulnerability analysis as a process
Involve stakeholder from the beginning
Limit the scope of the assessment early in the process
Organize the data properly
Acknowledge (regional) climate models and projections
Determine the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity
Conceive comprehensive rules of connectivity
Keep analyzes only as complex as absolutely necessary
Visualize results
Understand results as a basis for discussion
Inform relevant stakeholder and media
Develop strategic planning goals

For coastal areas, there are a wide variety of methods that could be integrated into a vulnerability assessment. The objective and the problem to be evaluated are key factors in choosing the most appropriate assessment method. The European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation has published a technical paper on Methods for assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change (Ramieri 2011). The authors analyzed different methods and distinguished:

indicators and index-based methods,
GIS-based Decision Support Systems,
and methods based on dynamic computer models.

Further information on how to apply these different methos (for example what kind of models can be used) can be found here.

Based on the mentioned success criteria, the BMBVS (2011) has published a possible process of a regional vulnerability assessment. These are based on the active involvement of regional experts from sectoral planning, municipalities and other institutions. They should be asked to bring their experience and knowledge and actively contribute in the implementation of vulnerability evaluation. Moreover, they should be integrated in the formulation of goals and plans how to implement appropriate measures. A schematic sketch of how this procedure could look like, can be seen in the picture gallery.

Key lessons learnt

A vulnerability assessment is a profound supporting tool for dealing with climate change issues in spatial planning processes. They can be an important basis for a cross-sectoral approach to develop adaptation measures.

Relevant case studies and examples

BMVBS (Hrsg.): Vulnerabilitätsanalyse in der Praxis. Inhaltliche und methodische Ansatzpunkte für die Ermittlung regionaler Betroffenheiten. BMVBS-Online-Publikation 21/2011. http://www.bbsr.bund.de/nn_98890/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BMVBS/Online/2011/ON212011.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Fourth Assessment Report (AR4); Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.

Ramieri, E., Hartley, A., Barbanti, A., Duarte Santos, F., Gomes, A.,Hilden, M., Laihonen, P., Marinova, N., and Santini, M.: Methods for assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change, European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC CCA) Technical Paper, Bologna (IT) 93, October 2011 (http://cca.eionet.europa.eu/docs/TP_1-2011)

Measure category

Public Participation Approaches in Implementing DRR Measures

nst — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:51:58 +0000

Public Participation Approaches in Implementing DRR Measures nst Mon, 09/12/2016 - 11:51

EXAMPLE: Public participation in dyke construction, Timmendorfer Strand (GER)

Communication to and participation of the public is an important aspect of many planning processes, this also includes the development of DRR plans and strategic alternatives. This description is based on a project handbook that has been especially designed to support regional and local administrations in the planning and implementation of communication and public participation processes in flood prone areas. The findings of this report can also be applied to coastal areas.

Based on: Firus et al (2011): Planning and implementing communication and public participation processes in flood risk management.

These findings are based on a handbook that was published as a result of the project ‘Integrative flood risk governance approach for improvement of risk awareness and increased public participation`(IMRA). The overarching goal of the IMRA project was to influence and change risk perception and real decision-making by actively involving stakeholders and the public in three case study areas of three different river basin districts in Europe. This handbook aims to provide an innovative tool to support in planning, implementing and evaluating a communication and public participation process as part of Flood Risk Management. The active involvement of all interested parties is also stated in the EU Floods Directive (2007).

12 Steps

The described concept is composed of 12 Steps, following a logical and chronological order (see Firus et al. 2011: 8).

Identify your own position

Step 1: Carry out initial self assessment of risk governance performance
Step 2: Define goals and scope of process
Step 3: Identify resources (money, time, personnel)

Identify your strategic partners

Step 4: Identify relevant stakeholders
Step 5: Design and define scope of participation process
Step 6: Create a network of stakeholders
Step 7: Identify the public’s view

Decide on measures

Step 8: Agree on objectives
Step 9: Agree on targeted communication and participation measures
Step 10: Design an implementation plan for communication and participation measures

Implementation

Step 11: Implement communication and participation measures

Evaluation

Step 12: Evaluate the process

The handbook fleshes out the different steps, for example how to select proper stakeholder for participatory processes (in Step 4), describing in more detail what kind of roles stakeholder can take (in Step 5), or how to deal with different social milieus (Step 9).

Methods

In the second part of the handbook, innovative and well-proven communication and participation methods are presented. Within the project, these have been highly suitable for a communication and participation process in flood risk management. The authors describe 16 different methods with respect to their purpose, area of application, aim of the method and context, target group, scale of application, costs, necessary skills, expected results, assessment of results, or key references.

As one example of methods, the world café is described here in more detail. The World Café method is quite well established and its main aim is that people get in contact with each other, discuss and develop new ideas by the power of networking with a multitude of people. It can be used for strategic dialogue, multi-stakeholder engagement, multi-generational collaboration and cooperative action. Participants are seated on Café-style tables and are encouraged by the table host to write, doodle and draw key ideas on their tablecloths. Several rounds of the tables can be undertaken. Finally a period of sharing discoveries and insights in a whole group sums up the initiative.

Key lessons learnt

Practical recommendations when planning and implementing a communication and participation process:

Make a priority list and tackle the most important issues first.
Make people feel concerned: they must understand that DRR is something that really is relevant for them and not just an administrative exercise.
Involve people emotionally (positively!), e.g. by involving witnesses. But: do not make people afraid but raise awareness.
Choose the right method for the respective target group as people have different social backgrounds and act in different social networks.
Provide some striking/prominent examples/people.
Be aware that your manpower and money are limited resources; the effectiveness of measures is important.
Evaluate your communication material and public participation methods.

Relevant case studies and examples

Katja Firus, Mark Fleischhauer, Stefan Greiving, Patrizia Grifoni, Therese Stickler (2011): Planning and implementing communication and public participation processes in flood risk management. Published in the joint project IMRA - Integrative flood risk governance approach for improvement of risk awareness and increased public participation. (http://www.partizipation.at/fileadmin/media_data/Downloads/Zukunftsdiskurse-Studien/imra_handbook.pdf)

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2007): Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks, published in the Official Journal (OJ L 288) on 6 November 2007.

The World Café (2015): Quick Reference Guide for Hosting World Café. Online: http://www.theworldcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Cafe-To-Go-Revised.pdf

Scale

Individual - private

Local

Measure category

Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)

nst — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:45:39 +0000

Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) nst Mon, 09/12/2016 - 11:45

The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is one of the five tools used to assess the proposed measures in each of the RISC-KIT case studies with respect to criteria that capture the key dimensions of the decision-making process. The purpose of the MCA is to bridge the disciplinary divide between engineering sciences and social sciences, facilitate the communication and dissemination of project results to a broad audience, and to integrate scientific knowledge with local knowledge with the purpose of improving the assessment of coastal risks.

Based on the RISC-KIT Results on MCA and RISC KIT Deliverable 4.2 – Evaluation of DRR plans.

General description

MCA methodologies have been widely applied in environmental studies as they have proven useful tools when assessing performance of options against criteria that are difficult to quantify and involve qualitative aspects. In RISC-KIT, MCA is used in three ways: 1) as a way facilitate the communication and presentation of project results in a coherent and contextualized manner to relevant local stakeholders and decision-makers; 2) as a way to capture other types of knowledge, such as local every-day experiences, socio-economic and political factors that might affect how the proposed measures are perceived; and 3) as a way of facilitating interaction between local stakeholders and raising awareness of risks and potential measures.

Results from the implementation of the MCA in RISC-KIT cases highlights several key lessons for future DRR projects with regards to a) the importance of sufficient preparation for participatory sessions; b) stakeholder interaction and inclusion in the DRR projects; c) the way research results are presented to non-research communities; d) and the challenges of implementing single-approaches to diverse contexts.

In RISC-KIT MCAs are used to decide, among many options, which is the most convenient for most stakeholders in terms of a set of criteria (i.e. in flood and coastal risk management decisions can involve the construction of a flood alleviation channel or dredging a river, or harder engineering solution like the construction of barriers or dams). For RISC-KIT, an own MCA methodology is used to evaluate DRR strategies with respect to criteria that capture the key dimensions of the decision-making problem, involving human judgment and preferences (Saarikoski et al. 2015). MCA is about determining the extent to which options create value by achieving objectives, identify the areas of greater and lesser opportunity, prioritize the options, clarify the differences between the options, and help the key players to understand the situation better. Ultimately the use of the MCA in the project would allow each case study to test assumptions on the dynamics between DRR measures, between these measures and the specific social contexts, as reaction and responses from local actors to these measures. Outweighing different DRR measures in different contexts implies that different criteria need to be considered in order to assess which option is the best, for whom, for what, and when.

Selection of criteria

Criteria have been selected based on a literature review of the most important factors when contemplating, planning, financing, and implementing DRR measures. Studies identify factors such as social acceptance, political will, availability of financial resources and technological know-how, as crucial for increased investments in DRR measures (Davis et al. 2015). For the MCAs in RISC-KIT, three main categories of criteria were selected: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Sustainability. Feasibility refers to that (human, technical, time, and financial) resources required to implement the measure are available or can be acquired, whether the proposed measures address underlying concerns in society, whether the proposed location for implementing the measures is suitable for local needs and plans, and whether the proposed measure could have positive or negative impacts (e.g economic) to society at large. Acceptability refers to the expectations of stakeholders and recipients in the case studies sites. These actors may include civil society, interest groups, and influential individuals in society. Sustainability addresses the relevance of the measures in the present and future, its impact upon human activity and ecosystems, and the resilience of the measures to future changes.

MCA Steps in RISC-KIT

The MCA was carried in a workshop format and consisted of five steps:

Interactively present preliminary DRR measures from model results and agree on Strategic Alternatives: The MCA carried out in RISC-KIT was informed by the results produced through the Bayesian Network regarding the effectiveness of DRR measures to coastal risks. Through the use of the interactive materials, stakeholders were able to learn how the different measures behaved in light of different risk scenarios and their effectiveness in preventing coastal hazards like floods and erosion. Hereon, stakeholders had the possibility to collectively agree on the Strategic Alternatives (i.e., combinations of measures) that would be scored in the MCA
Score measures against criteria: Stakeholders assessed the performance of each Strategic Alternatives (SA) against criteria (e.g. how feasible/sustainable/acceptable/suitable are sand dunes as a measure to prevent coastal erosion in your area?) by first assigning a value ranging between -2 and +2, to each criterion per SA, on an individual basis. Once stakeholders had assigned all scores, they used colored post-it’s with pre-assigned values (-2 to +2) to write their individual scores once again, but this time make them public to the other stakeholders by pasting in a MCA flip chart. Once all scores were visible, stakeholders could engage in a facilitated discussion and agree on one score per criteria. In those cases where consensus could not be reached, individual scores were instead averaged.
Weigh criteria: to indicate criteria’s importance relative to the objective of the process (e.g., what criterion is most important to consider if sand dunes were to be implemented to reduce coastal erosion?). This was done through 2 main steps: first, stakeholders were handed out 8 stickers each which needed to be distributed on an individual basis in between the three criteria to indicate their importance. The more stickers a criterion received the heavier its weights. The second step took place once stakeholders had assigned individual weights. Each participant indicated the individual weights on the MCA flip chart so that they would be visible to the group. Thereafter the group engaged in a facilitate discussion to agree on a weight per criteria. Equal weights could be given to more than one criterion; however, it is common in MCA to give different weightings to different options, reflecting their importance in the overall objectives. In those cases were consensus was not reached, weights were averaged. Criteria were only weighted once, as it is assumed that their importance is constant across all SAs.
Calculate weighted scores of criteria: for each measure by multiplying scores times the weight for each criterion for all measures.
Generate sums per measure by adding the weighted scores for all criteria per SA and entering the total value in the row titled “SUMS” at the end of the MCA Matrix. The SA will the highest weighted scores was stakeholders’ preferred alternative. Picture 1 shows an example of a complete MCA.

Scale

Measure category

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

nst — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:59:53 +0000

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis nst Fri, 08/12/2016 - 11:59

Based on kindly provided information by the FP7 research project ECONADAPT

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) is a methodology used to compare different approaches to achieve pre-defined adaptation targets. CEA can be used to analyse both technical or project oriented work and policy or programme approaches, providing comparisons and rankings of options with the same adaptation objective, or identifying the least cost combination of options.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a methodology used to compare different options aiming to achieve similar outcomes. It is particularly attractive in the adaptation context because it allows for benefits to be valued in non-monetary terms, opting for quantification in physical terms instead.

When should Cost-Effectiveness Analysis be used?

Cost-effectiveness analysis is generally most useful for short-term adaptation assessment, for example when ranking low and no regret options. This is because CEA does not explicitly deal with uncertainty and aims to optimise the selection of adaptation interventions against a single objective usually under one climate scenario. This can be addressed by testing across multiple scenarios/model outputs, or using more complex stochastic approaches, but this has resource implications. Because effectiveness does not need to be quantified in monetary terms, CEA is also a helpful tool when dealing with sectors which include significant non-market dimensions such as biodiversity protection.

CEA is less useful when considering non-technical or “soft” options, as their effectiveness is more difficult to evaluate. This can present some issues in the adaptation field, where a large combination of diverse options may be needed to best deal with future conditions and where soft options are important (e.g. in combination with technical adaptation options).

What does it involve?

The methodology for CEA aims to provide a comparison and ranking of the relative cost-effectiveness of various options to achieve pre-determined targets. It involves a series of common methodological steps:

Establish the effectiveness criteria, such as the reduction in the number of people at risk of affect by floods
Collate a list of options
Collect cost data for each option - noting this involves the full costs over the lifetime of the option, including capital and operating costs – and thus requires all values to be expressed on a common economic basis (in equivalent terms using discount rates and either an equivalent annualised cost or a total present value)
Assess the potential benefits (effectiveness) of each option in non-monetary metric. Generally, these are expressed as an annual benefit, relative to a baseline or reference case
Combine these to estimate the cost-effectiveness, by dividing the lifetime cost by the lifetime benefit (or annualised costs by annualised benefit)

Following these steps, all the options can be expressed in equivalent terms, as a cost per unit of effectiveness. This allows the ranking or prioritising of measures, identifying the most cost-effective options, i.e. those that deliver highest benefits at lowest cost.

This information can then be used as an input to form a marginal abatement cost curve. In graphical terms, they are often presented as cumulative bar charts. At a basic level, cost curves present all options in order of unit cost-effectiveness analysis, beginning with the most cost-effective. Cost curves also assess the total cumulative effectiveness of each option, as it is added. When considered together, this allows the estimation of the least-cost path to achieve a plan, programme or policy target.

Key lessons learnt

Key strengths

Does not require monetary valuation of benefits. Increases applicability to non-market sectors.
Provides easily understandable rankings of measures.
Frequently used for mitigation, and thus approach known by policy makers.
Can look at the cost implications of progressively more ambitious policies.

Potential weaknesses

Optimises to a single metric, which can be difficult to choose. Focus on a single metric may omit important risks, and may not capture all costs and benefits for option appraisal.
Less applicable for cross-sectoral or complex risks.
May give lower priority to non-technical measures such as capacity building and soft.
Does not lend itself to the consideration of uncertainty and adaptive management.

Relevant case studies and examples

EXAMPLE: Cost-Effectiveness analysis of a wooden path over the dune (Praia de Faro, PT)

nst — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:46:58 +0000

EXAMPLE: Cost-Effectiveness analysis of a wooden path over the dune (Praia de Faro, PT) nst Mon, 07/18/2016 - 11:46

Erosion

Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works

Combined approach (grey + green)

Hold the line

For the rehabilitation of a dune system, an elevated wooden pathway over the shore and the dunes and a dune fence were created. They were created to restore the physical and ecologic characteristics of the dunes at a natural Park at Praia de Faro (Portugal). The cost effectiveness is analyzed in this description and compared to beach nourishment.

Based on the RISC-KIT Case Study Ria Formosa, Portugal

Impacts/Problem

Praia de Faro is a coastal area in the South of Portugal which is close to the city of Faro which is home to a small community of fishermen and used as a recreational area for tourists and locals. The area is a narrow dune strip between the Atlantic and Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, situated between the oceanic shore and the back barrier beach. Praia de Faro is affected by coastal erosion from storms as well as by human interventions that alter the natural behaviour of the area, e.g. the use of (summer) houses and trampling paths, crossing the dune. The houses have direct access to the oceanic shore, by crossing the dune. Consequently, human interventions had reduced vegetative cover increasing the sand loss with notable dune destruction due to trampling.

Measure description

The analysed measure was implemented from 2000 to 2001 and included two different main actions: a) construction of an elevated wooden pathway along the shore and across the beach area over a length of approximately 1500 m; b) creation of dune fences (1 km in one row and ~500 m of reticulated fences).

The elevated pathway was built facing away from the shoreline, and was therefore close to the back barrier beach. It has two accesses to the shore, one at the beginning of the pathway (to the west) and another almost at the end (to the east). This allows people to access the beach without stepping over the dune. Access to the ocean shore from the individual houses and the old trampling pathway were removed and closed. Here, it is also notable that the summer houses lying on the dune front were also removed from the dune section (on separate interventions). The house removal is not analysed as part of the measure since it was undertaken independently from the construction of the pathway and much more recently.

The fences led to an increase in the dune’s height and width, with an increase of more than 1.3 m in elevation and an advancement of between 0 and 10 m. Due to the limited height of the fence, a further increase in the dune height is not expected and would only be possible with the use of additional, higher fences. Based on the existing situation, however, the dune will be maintained for decades if extreme storm events and major human interventions do not take place.

Another direct impact of the measure is the reduction of overwash incidents in which ocean water and sediment pour over the dune, with no water flowing back through and returning to the ocean. This is also closely interlinked with sand loss, which happened regularly at the western part of the analysed area. No episodes of overwash incidents and shoreline retreat where recorded at the area since the measure was implemented.

The measure has also reduced the number of trample paths from more than 10 before the measure was implemented, to less than five observed in 2013. Reduced foot traffic and usage has enabled a recovery of vegetation on the old trample path and paths to the ocean shore. At the frontal dune, the vegetation density is higher than 25%, which is close to natural values. Furthermore, natural (autochthone) species dominate the vegetation.

Based on the observed effects and the cost estimates relating to the increase height and width of the dune, it can be estimated that costs of the measure per additional m3 dune are about 62 to 74 Euro/m3. To compare with other measures achieving similar effects, we assume a conservative 40 year lifetime of the measure, which results in a cost effectiveness value of approximately 1.50 to 1.85 Euro/m3/year.

In the literature, several measures exist which aim to prevent or minimize coastal erosion, such as sea walls or beach nourishment. Because of its status as a natural reserve area it is not allowed to built new sea walls or groynes at that area, therefore these measures are not considered here. Beach nourishment would be a considerable measure, but it has to be mentioned that the objective of beach nourishment and building the wooden path and fences implementation are reasonably different. Beach nourishment is a measure which can cost approximately 2 and 180 Euro/m3 depending on the situation. In Praia de Faro it costs around 6 Euro/m3. An average time for further major recharges is about 5 years. To compare the different values we estimate the yearly costs as well. The measure has a general cost-effectiveness between 0.40 and 3.50 Euro/m3/year, specific for Praia de Faro 1.20 Euro/m3/year. The estimation shows that the cost-effectiveness of the wooden path and fences are in average comparable to beach nourishment. The further benefits associated to the wooden path and fences are not included in the estimation.

Further benefits

Alongside the main objective of the measure - the physical and ecological recovery of the dune - additional positive effects and ‘co-benefits’ were created as a result of the measure’s implementation. For example, locals and tourists benefit from improved and faster access to the dune, houses, and shoreline beyond the dune (often frequented by surfers) due to the elevated pathway. Motorbikes can now be used by the local residents, which reduce commuting time between locations and improve access to emergency services via use of the pathway, should they be necessary. More concretely, the time to cross the 1.5 km stretch was decreased from more than 25 minutes walking to 5 minutes by bike (keeping in mind that biking was not possible previously). Furthermore, the tourists and locals have increased their use of the area for recreational enjoyment due to this improved access, leading to a likely increase in revenue to the bars and restaurants in the direct vicinity.

Key lessons learnt

Even though the initial costs of this measure were relatively high, the measure can be considered as cost-effective because of its relatively long life duration (ca. 40 years) and low maintenance costs. Additionally this measure has co-benefits that were not calculated in the cost-effectiveness analysis (e.g. biodiversity conservation or recreational opportunities). In comparison with hard structural coastal defense measures, this approach has almost no negative side-effects.

Relevant case studies and examples

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Measure category

Coastal floods or storm surges

EXAMPLE: Public participation in dyke construction, Timmendorfer Strand (GER)

nst — Tue, 31 May 2016 08:45:50 +0000

EXAMPLE: Public participation in dyke construction, Timmendorfer Strand (GER) nst Tue, 05/31/2016 - 10:45

Erosion

Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works

Combined approach (grey + green)

Hold the line

The municipality of Timmendorfer Strand developed and implemented a coastal protection strategy using a participatory process. This process was a key element for the successful implementation of the measure. Although this measure was very expensive, a cost-benefit analysis shows that the benefits are higher than costs.

Case Study description of the BASE project

The municipality of Timmendorfer Strand is a German coastal municipality and seaside resort located in the state of Schleswig-Holstein. The community has around 9000 inhabitants with tourism as the main economic sector.

Tourists come for the sea

Around 15% of the area is situated less than 3 m above MSL and therefore flood-prone lowland with previously no flood protection measures installed. From 1998 to 2011, the municipality of Timmendorfer Strand developed and implemented a coastal protection strategy using a participatory process. The flood protection strategy was successfully developed by local stakeholders, municipalities and coastal defense authorities.The final measure was basically a dyke protecting the area. But the main outstanding aspect of the measure was the participatory approach, which consisted of three main elements: an assessment of economic values, the participatory approach itself, and an idea competition.

An analysis of various social and economic parameters was performed. With these data and scientific principles, an innovative method for active public participation (the so-called sensitivity analysis) was applied. The results of this participatory process were used as a basis for a design competition among selected consultants. These three steps (valuation, sensitivity analysis and the competition of ideas) were used for the first time in a participatory ICZM-process.

Political & social feasibility

The process was initiated by the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry responsible for coastal protection and had strong support from the Mayor of the coastal town. First attempts by state authorities to heighten defences through artificial structures (walls) were turned down by the municipalities (which are the main decision-makers in coastal defence) in fear of reduced revenues from tourism as a consequence of limited sea views and narrowed beaches (Hofstede 2004).

Engagement solves conflicting situation

To find the best solution for all involved stakeholders, a participatory approach was initiated. But firstly assessment of economic values in the community was conducted (see Reese 2003). It showed the damage potential in case of a flooding. Socio-economic parameters, like persons employed, tourist bed capacity, economic assets, or yearly gross value added were evaluated. The results highlighted the need for coastal protection and were basis for the following sensitivity analysis, the part with the actual participatory approach.

The participatory approach was based on a computer-aided model, where possible future developments under different scenarios were simulated at different sessions with stakeholers. In total nine working groups meetings and two public meetings were held. Results from these meetings are published (in German) by Kaul & Reins (2001). Focus of these meetings was the question of how different coastal protection measures would affect the community with the assumption of increasing risks of flooding due to climate change.

Common fear generates common action

As results of this approach, the participants supported the results of the sensitivity analysis and recommended a combination of coastal protection and flood defense measures. They also agreed upon further involvement in the process of the implementation of the coastal defense measure. The coastal defense administration valued this approach very positive, because the participants recognized the long-term risk for the coastal area, they accepted responsibility, and they “evolved from skeptics to advocates of an integrated coastal defense concept” (Hofstede 2001: 5).

Everyone adds one's two cents

The results of this approach were basis of a following ideas competition, where four engineering offices were asked to develop innovative ideas for the coastal defense measure. The execution on site started in 2006 and was finished in 2011.

Technical feasibility

Objectives of the measure are reducing the damages by storm surges by protection of human health and economic infrastructure. Maintaining tourism was a precondition for building the dike, because the community is economically highly relying on the tourism sector. The coastal defense measure that was built, integrated in the landscape of the town and not really visible or noticeable for visitors. Therefore the success of the measure was not only the safety issue, but also the nature of the measure (being integrated in the landscape). New techniques were tested, for example glazed retention walls were used, so a sea view could be maintained. Additionally a landscaping-project was implemented. The finishing and landscaping-project focused e.g. on the improvement of the beach promenade, two new boardwalks – established in the dunes - and recreational infrastructure, e.g. benches, playground. These are not per se a coastal protection measure, but are necessary to get the support of the local stakeholder.

Cost of implementation & maintenance

The total investment costs are estimated for the dike (coastal protection) project with 18 mio. Euro, from which 3.5 mio €. were paid by the local community. The other share was mainly financed by the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein.

In parallel to the realised coastal protection-project a finishing and landscaping-project was implemented. The finishing and landscaping-project focused e.g. on the improvement of the beach promenade, two new boardwalks – established in the dunes - and recreational infrastructure, e.g. benches, playground. The costs of this additional effort were 12 mio. Euro. 6 mio. Euro were financed by the local community, the other half was mainly paid by EU funds (Lehners 2011a). Maintenance costs will be covered by the community of Timmendofer Strand.

For the EU project BASE (see Meyer et al. 2015) costs and benefits of the implementation of coastal protection in Timmendorfer Strand were quantified. Two scenarios were used: Minimum scenario referred to a sea level rise of 0,30 m and an according increased frequency of flood events; maximum scenario shows a seal level rise of 0,50 m and the following increase in flood events.

Cost & benefits

Estimated costs include investment and maintenance costs of the coastal protection measure and cost related to the architecture finishing and landscaping project. Different benefit components were considered in the analysis: avoided flooding, change of recreational function and tourism due to finishing and landscaping project, change of number of travellers to community, change of property values and qualitative assessment of change of turnover of restaurant owners.

The implemented measure was compared to a business-as-usual-scenario – with no implementation of the coastal protection measure and the finishing and landscaping project. The two different estimated scenarios differ in the impacts of the climate change, change of property value, additional tourism and maintenance costs.

Comparison/results costs and benefits

For both scenarios, the estimated benefits exceed the costs of the measure (net present value between 92 and 220 Million Euro). The estimated benefits are between 4 and 8-times higher than the estimated costs (Benefit-Cost-Ratio). The investment-upfront costs are the major type of costs with 30 million Euro (for both scenarios) and the main type of benefits are avoided damages by storm surges (71.5 Million for minimum, 170 Million for maximum scenario). Also the additional tourism shows substantial benefits, ranging between 45 and 72 Million Euro. The undertaken sensitive analysis showed that for all scenarios and all used discount rates benefits are higher than costs.

Key lessons learnt

Through the participatory process, participants “evolved from sceptics to advocates of an integrated coastal defence concept” (Hofstede & Schernewski 2005). For example the glazed retention walls or the landscaping works would not have been realized without the participation of the citizens.

Relevant case studies and examples

Public Participation Approaches in Implementing DRR Measures

Sea Dikes

Literature sources

Hofstede, Jacobus (2001). Participatory Planning in Coastal Defence: a pilot study from the baltic Sea Coast of Germany. (http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1293)

Hofstede, Jacobus (2004). Timmendorfer Strand und Scharbeutz: zwei Ostseegemeinden schützen sich vor Klimaänderungen. proceedings. Paper presented at "Klimaänderung …, 233–242. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1292

Hofstede, Jacobus & Schernewski, Gerald (2005). Two coastal management and public participation case studies in Germany. International Conference on Coastal Conservation and Management in the Atlantic and Mediterranean (ICCCM2005), April 17 to 20, 2005, Tavira, Algarve, Portugal. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1294

Kaul & Reins GbR (2001) Abschlußbericht der Sensitivitätsanalyse zu einem integrierten Küstenschutzkonzept für die ‚Küstenniederung Timmendorfer Strand / Scharbeutz. Retrieved from: http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/UmweltLandwirtschaft/DE/WasserMeer/09_KuestenschutzHaefen/PDF/Kuestenschutz_Buergerbeteiligung__blob=publicationFile.pdf

Lehners, C. (2011a): Coastal protection in tourism communities – the case of Timmendorfer Strand. Coastal & Marine 20(3) 18-19 (http://www.eucc.net/coastalandmarine/coastalandmarine11-3.pdf)

Meyer, Volker et al. 2015: Economic evaluation of adaptation options. BASE Deliverable D5.2, FP7 research project. (http://base-adaptation.eu/sites/default/files/Deliverable_5_2_FINAL.pdf)

Reese, S (2003) Die Vulnerabilität des schleswig-holsteinischen Küstenraumes durch Sturmfluten - Fallstudien von der Nord- und Ostseeküste. Kiel, Dissertation. (http://www.sterr.geographie.uni-kiel.de/mare/Dissertation-SReese.pdf)

Measure category