Suchergebnisse

Cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly applied as a tool for deciding on risk protection. With CBA, one can identify risk mitigation strategies that lead to an optimal tradeoff between the costs of the mitigation measures and the achieved risk reduction. In practical applications of CBA, the strategies are typically evaluated through efficiency indicators such as the benefit‐cost ratio (BCR) and the marginal cost (MC) criterion. In many of these applications, the BCR is not consistently defined, which, as we demonstrate in this article, can lead to the identification of suboptimal solutions. This is of particular relevance when the overall budget for risk reduction measures is limited and an optimal allocation of resources among different subsystems is necessary. We show that this problem can be formulated as a hierarchical decision problem, where the general rules and decisions on the available budget are made at a central level (e.g., central government agency, top management), whereas the decisions on the specific measures are made at the subsystem level (e.g., local communities, company division). It is shown that the MC criterion provides optimal solutions in such hierarchical optimization. Since most practical applications only include a discrete set of possible risk protection measures, the MC criterion is extended to this situation. The findings are illustrated through a hypothetical numerical example. This study was prepared as part of our work on the optimal management of natural hazard risks, but its conclusions also apply to other fields of risk management.

Abstract. Planning authorities are faced with a range of questions when planning flood protection measures: is the existing protection adequate for current and future demands or should it be extended? How will flood patterns change in the future? How should the uncertainty pertaining to this influence the planning decision, e.g., for delaying planning or including a safety margin? Is it sufficient to follow a protection criterion (e.g., to protect from the 100-year flood) or should the planning be conducted in a risk-based way? How important is it for flood protection planning to accurately estimate flood frequency (changes), costs and damage? These are questions that we address for a medium-sized pre-alpine catchment in southern Germany, using a sequential Bayesian decision making framework that quantitatively addresses the full spectrum of uncertainty. We evaluate different flood protection systems considered by local agencies in a test study catchment. Despite large uncertainties in damage, cost and climate, the recommendation is robust for the most conservative approach. This demonstrates the feasibility of making robust decisions under large uncertainty. Furthermore, by comparison to a previous study, it highlights the benefits of risk-based planning over the planning of flood protection to a prescribed return period.