Search results

AbstractDetailed spatial representation of socioeconomic exposure and the related vulnerability to natural hazards has the potential to improve the quality and reliability of risk assessment outputs. We apply a spatially weighted dasymetric approach based on multiple ancillary data to downscale important socioeconomic variables and produce a grid data set for Italy that contains multilayered information about physical exposure, population, gross domestic product, and social vulnerability. We test the performances of our dasymetric approach compared to other spatial interpolation methods. Next, we combine the grid data set with flood hazard estimates to exemplify an application for the purpose of risk assessment.

With increasing costs inflicted by natural hazard perils, and amidst state budget cuts, concerns are mounting about the capacity of governments to design sustainable, equitable and affordable risk management schemes. The participation of the private sector along with the public one through public–private partnerships (PPPs) has gained importance as a means of providing catastrophic natural hazard insurance to address these seemingly conflicting objectives. In 2013 the European Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation about what EU action could be appropriate to improve the performance of insurance markets. Simultaneously, the EU legislator instigated major reforms in the legislation and regulations that pertain to how PPPs are designed or operate. This paper has a dual objective: first, we review and summarize the manifold legal background that influences the provision of insurance against natural catastrophes. Second, we examine how PPPs designed for sharing and transferring risk operate within the European regulatory constraints, illustrated using the example of the UK Flood Reinsurance Scheme (Flood RE) between the state and the Association of British Insurers.

Measuring adaptive capacity as a key component of vulnerability assessments has become one of the most challenging topics in the climate change adaptation context. Numerous approaches, methodologies and conceptualizations have been proposed for analyzing adaptive capacity at different scales. Indicator-based assessments are usually applied to assess and quantify the adaptive capacity for the use of policy makers. Nevertheless, they encompass various implications regarding scale specificity and the robustness issues embedded in the choice of indicators selection, normalization and aggregation methods. We describe an adaptive capacity index developed for Italy's regional and sub-regional administrative levels, as a part of the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and that is further elaborated in this article. The index is built around four dimensions and ten indicators, analysed and processed by means of a principal component analysis and fuzzy logic techniques. As an innovative feature of our analysis, the sub-regional variability of the index feeds back into the regional level assessment. The results show that composite indices estimated at higher administrative or statistical levels neglect the inherent variability of performance at lower levels which may lead to suboptimal adaptation policies. By considering the intra-regional variability, different patterns of AC can be observed at regional level as a result of the aggregation choices. Trade-offs should be made explicit for choosing aggregators that reflects the intended degree of compensation. Multiple scale assessments using a range of aggregators with different compensability are preferable. Our results show that within-region variability can be better demonstrated by bottom-up aggregation methods. ; Measuring adaptive capacity as a key component of vulnerability assessments has become one of the most challenging topics in the climate change adaptation context. Numerous approaches, methodologies and conceptualizations have been proposed for analyzing adaptive capacity at different scales. Indicator-based assessments are usually applied to assess and quantify the adaptive capacity for the use of policy makers. Nevertheless, they encompass various implications regarding scale specificity and the robustness issues embedded in the choice of indicators selection, normalization and aggregation methods. We describe an adaptive capacity index developed for Italy's regional and sub-regional administrative levels, as a part of the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and that is further elaborated in this article. The index is built around four dimensions and ten indicators, analysed and processed by means of a principal component analysis and fuzzy logic techniques. As an innovative feature of our analysis, the sub-regional variability of the index feeds back into the regional level assessment. The results show that composite indices estimated at higher administrative or statistical levels neglect the inherent variability of performance at lower levels which may lead to suboptimal adaptation policies. By considering the intra-regional variability, different patterns of adaptive capacity can be observed at regional level as a result of the aggregation choices. Trade-offs should be made explicit for choosing aggregators that reflect the intended degree of compensation. Multiple scale assessments using a range of aggregators with different compensability are preferable. Our results show that within-region variability can be better demonstrated by bottom-up aggregation methods.

Abstract. With increasing costs inflicted by natural hazard perils, and amidst state budget cuts, concerns are mounting about the capacity of governments to design sustainable, equitable and affordable risk management schemes. The participation of the private sector along with the public one through public–private partnerships (PPPs) has gained importance as a means of providing catastrophic natural hazard insurance to address these seemingly conflicting objectives. In 2013 the European Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation about what EU action could be appropriate to improve the performance of insurance markets. Simultaneously, the EU legislator instigated major reforms in the legislation and regulations that pertain to how PPPs are designed or operate. This paper has a dual objective: first, we review and summarize the manifold legal background that influences the provision of insurance against natural catastrophes. Second, we examine how PPPs designed for sharing and transferring risk operate within the European regulatory constraints, illustrated using the example of the UK Flood Reinsurance Scheme (Flood RE) between the state and the Association of British Insurers.

With increasing costs inflicted by natural hazard perils, and amidst state budget cuts, concerns are mounting about the capacity of governments to design sustainable, equitable and affordable risk management schemes. The participation of the private sector along with the public one through public–private partnerships (PPPs) has gained importance as a means of providing catastrophic natural hazard insurance to address these seemingly conflicting objectives. In 2013 the European Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation about what EU action could be appropriate to improve the performance of insurance markets. Simultaneously, the EU legislator instigated major reforms in the legislation and regulations that pertain to how PPPs are designed or operate. This paper has a dual objective: first, we review and summarize the manifold legal background that influences the provision of insurance against natural catastrophes. Second, we examine how PPPs designed for sharing and transferring risk operate within the European regulatory constraints, illustrated using the example of the UK Flood Reinsurance Scheme (Flood RE) between the state and the Association of British Insurers.

Extreme events are becoming more frequent and intense, inflating the economic damages and social hardship set-off by natural catastrophes. Amidst budgetary cuts, there is a growing concern on societies' ability to design solvent disaster recovery strategies, while addressing equity and affordability concerns. The participation of private sector along with public one through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) has gained on importance as a means to address these seemingly conflicting objectives through the provision of (catastrophic) natural hazard insurance. This is the case of many OECD countries, notably some EU Member States such as the United Kingdom and Spain. The EU legislator has adapted to this new scenario and recently produced major reforms in the legislation and regulation that govern the framework in which PPPs for (catastrophic) natural hazard insurance develop. This paper has a dual objective: 1) review the complex legal background that rules the provision of insurance against natural catastrophes in the EU after these major reforms; 2) assess the implications of the reforms and offer concise Policy Guiding Principles.

This paper discusses a framework for analyzing robust institutions for water markets drawn on the new institutional economics school of thoughts which is based on Williamson, North, Coase and Ostrom theories on transaction cost economics, property rights and collective actions. Based on these theories, we review the evolution and development of water reforms and markets in countries such as Australia, USA (California and Colorado), Chile and in Spain. Based on the lessons learned from the Spanish and international experience on water markets, a list of robust recommendations for the improvement of water markets in Spain is proposed. These include among others, not only the definition of secure water rights, through the registration of rights or recognition of environment as a legitimate user, but also the monitoring of water trading activities, including the collection of information for prices and quantities or cost-benefit analysis for quantifying benefits and externalities. Finally, based on Sharma's approach (2012) a new robust water governance model for Spain is proposed in which the highest priority is given to the role of legal and political institutions and second priority to environmental, economic and social needs. We hope that the framework presented in this paper will function as a tool for researchers and policy makers in Spain and other European countries to understand how water markets can be further developed to be economically and environmentally efficient, and socially accepted.