scholarly journals Insurance engagement in flood risk reduction – examples from household and business insurance in developed countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 2409-2429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Seifert-Dähnn

Abstract. Insurance can be an important mechanism to stimulate flood risk reduction and thus decrease losses. However, there is a gap between the theoretical potential described by academic scholars and the actual engagement of insurers. In the analysis, I have collected examples of insurers' engagement in flood risk reduction, focusing on household and business insurance in developed countries. Insurers engaged either directly, e.g., through co-financing risk reduction, or more indirectly by giving incentives to policyholders or governmental actors to adopt risk reduction measures. I analyzed their engagement with the framing conditions of the market they were acting in, such as market penetration or private or public insurance schemes. I found risk reduction measures like awareness-raising campaigns targeting citizens to be quite common across several countries. There was less insurance engagement in risk reduction measures such as warning or land-use planning, which are perceived to be mainly governmental tasks. The use of risk-based pricing as an incentive for the adoption of risk reduction measures as suggested by academia is difficult in practice, due to barriers such as information gaps on the effectiveness of property-level protection measures and requirements concerning the affordability of insurance. New approaches to overcome these shortfalls include organized data collection on property-level protection measures or the insurance of high-risks for affordable premiums in public–private partnership constellations with the government.

2021 ◽  
pp. 283-316
Author(s):  
Karim I. Abdrabo ◽  
Sameh A. Kantosh ◽  
Mohamed Saber ◽  
Tetsuya Sumi ◽  
Dina Elleithy ◽  
...  

AbstractThis chapter highlights some substantial questions inquired by researchers to comprehend the flood risks (FRs) that occur in their cities as follows: (1) What is the impact of flooding on urban areas? (2) what effect does urbanization have on FR? (3) What are the existing nonstructural and structural mitigation measures for urban flooding? and (4) What is the role of urban planning and landscape tools in flood risk reduction (FRR) for cities as well as their inhabitants? The main messages in this chapter could be summarized as follows: (1) Comprehension of both the sources and types of flooding is vital if proper FRR measures are to be determined, (2) Unplanned urban growth could seriously put lives and properties at high risk (3) Land use planning and regulation, and Sustainable infrastructure for stormwater management through landscape architecture are fundamental measures for future FRR (4) The application of the urban planning approach for FRR in arid and semiarid regions has not yet received adequate attention and facing many challenges for its implementation, and finally (5) the combination of structural and nonstructural mitigation measures in spatial planning could be much more effective than using one type of measure alone.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-134
Author(s):  
Jarl Kind ◽  
W. J. Wouter Botzen ◽  
Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts

AbstractTraditional cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) of flood risk reduction measures usually ignore distributions of damages over populations, which disadvantages the poor. Instead, a CBA based on social welfare includes individual social vulnerability through relative impacts on consumption. If vulnerabilities are high, floods are catastrophic and cause poverty, migration or indirect deaths, and risk reductions have high social welfare values. For non-catastrophic risks, social welfare values of risks are relatively higher for vulnerable low-income households. We present a framework to integrate social vulnerability into CBAs, and show how financial protection reduces social flood vulnerability and provides welfare benefits. A case study illustrates that traditional CBAs underestimate the social welfare value of flood risk reduction measures, up to a factor of 30. Data on financial protection is however scarce, which hampers estimation of the social welfare value in practice. A solution is to increase financial protection of individuals, in addition to offering physical flood protection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document