Search

Improving flood resilience of communities requires a holistic understanding of risks and resilience options as well as the preferences and priorities of different stakeholders. Innovations in risk and resilience assessment have helped communities to identify gaps in their flood risk management strategy but selecting and implementing resilience solutions remains a big challenge for many decision-makers. In addition to traditional appraisals and cost-benefit assessments this also calls for a participatory process in which various stakeholders are encouraged to adopt a system-level approach in identifying interventions that can maximise a range of benefits and co-benefits. In this study, we investigate how a combination of modelling and measurement methods can help decision-makers with their flood resilience strategies. We apply a participatory system thinking approach combining Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) with a flood resilience measurement framework called Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC). We first investigate stakeholders' biases on flood resilience interventions, and then lead them through a system thinking exercise using FCM and FRMC to elicit mental models representing important aspects of flood resilience and their interrelation. These are then aggregated, representing the collective perceptions and knowledge of stakeholders, and used to identify the most beneficial resilience actions in terms of direct and indirect impacts on flood resilience. We apply this approach to the case of Lowestoft, a coastal town in England exposed to significant flood risk. Developed in close collaboration with the local authorities, the ambition is to support decision-making on flood resilience interventions. We find that this combination of methods enables system-level thinking and inclusive decision-making about flood resilience which can ultimately encourage transformative decisions on prioritization of actions and investments., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sara Mehryar and Swenja Surminski reports financial support was provided by Z Zurich foundation., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Multisectoral partnerships are increasingly cited as a mechanism to deliver and improve disaster risk management. Yet, partnerships are not a panacea and more research is required to understand the role that they can play in disaster risk management and particularly disaster risk reduction. This paper investigates how partnerships can incentivise flood risk reduction by focusing on the UK public-private partnership on flood insurance. Developing the right flood insurance arrangements to incentivise flood risk reduction and adaptation to climate change is a key challenge. In the face of rising flood risks due to climate change and socio-economic development insurance partnerships can no longer afford to focus only on the risk transfer function. However, while expectations of the insurance industry have traditionally been high when it comes to flood risk management, the insurance industry alone will not provide the solution to the challenge of rising risks. The case of flood insurance in the UK illustrates this: even national government and industry together cannot fully address these risks and other actors need to be involved to create strong incentives for risk reduction. Using an agent-based model focused on surface water flood risk in London we analyse how other partners could strengthen the insurance partnership by reducing flood risk and thus helping to maintain affordable insurance premiums. Our findings are relevant for wider discussions on the potential of insurance schemes to incentivise flood risk management and climate adaptation in the UK and also internationally., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Climate change poses severe risks for businesses, which companies as well as governments need to understand in order to take appropriate steps to manage those. This, however, represents a significant challenge as climate change risk assessment is itself a complex, dynamic and geographically diverse process. A wide range of factors including the nature of production processes and value chains, the location of business sites as well as relationships and interdependencies with customers and suppliers play a role in determining if and how companies are impacted by climate risks. This research explores the methodological challenges for a national-scale assessment of climate risks through the lens of the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (UKCCRA) process and compares the approaches adopted in the first and second UKCCRA (2011, 2016), while also reflecting on international experiences elsewhere. A review of these issues is presented, drawing on a wide body of contemporary evidence from a range of sources including the research disciplines, grey literature and government policy. The study reveals the methodological challenges and highlights six broad themes, namely scale, evidence base, adaptation responses, scope, interdependencies and public policy. The paper concludes by identifying suitable lessons for future national climate risk assessments, which should guide the next phase of research in preparation for UKCCRA3 and those of national-level risk assessments elsewhere.This article is part of the theme issue 'Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy'., (© 2018 The Author(s).)

Climate change risk assessment involves formal analysis of the consequences, likelihoods and responses to the impacts of climate change and the options for addressing these under societal constraints. Conventional approaches to risk assessment are challenged by the significant temporal and spatial dynamics of climate change; by the amplification of risks through societal preferences and values; and through the interaction of multiple risk factors. This paper introduces the theme issue by reviewing the current practice and frontiers of climate change risk assessment, with specific emphasis on the development of adaptation policy that aims to manage those risks. These frontiers include integrated assessments, dealing with climate risks across borders and scales, addressing systemic risks, and innovative co-production methods to prioritize solutions to climate challenges with decision-makers. By reviewing recent developments in the use of large-scale risk assessment for adaptation policy-making, we suggest a forward-looking research agenda to meet ongoing strategic policy requirements in local, national and international contexts.This article is part of the theme issue 'Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy'., (© 2018 The Author(s).)

In light of increasing losses from floods, many researchers and policymakers are looking for ways to encourage flood risk reduction among communities, business, and households. In this study, we investigate risk-reduction behavior at the household level in three European Union Member States with fundamentally different insurance and compensation schemes. We try to understand if and how insurance and public assistance influence private risk-reduction behavior. Data were collected using a telephone survey (n = 1,849) of household decisionmakers in flood-prone areas. We show that insurance overall is positively associated with private risk-reduction behavior. Warranties, premium discounts, and information provision with respect to risk reduction may be an explanation for this positive relationship in the case of structural measures. Public incentives for risk-reduction measures by means of financial and in-kind support, and particularly through the provision of information, are also associated with enhancing risk reduction. In this study, public compensation is not negatively associated with private risk-reduction behavior. This does not disprove such a relationship, but the negative effect may be mitigated by factors related to respondents' capacity to implement measures or social norms that were not included in the analysis. The data suggest that large-scale flood protection infrastructure creates a sense of security that is associated with a lower level of preparedness. Across the board there is ample room to improve both public and private policies to provide effective incentives for household-level risk reduction., (© 2017 The Authors Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)