Abstract
In most countries, the private sector owns the vast majority of the buildings and infrastructure at risk. However, most investment in disaster risk management (DRM) is made by the public sector, while the private sector lags far behind. This situation represents missed opportunities for businesses to capture not only higher levels of direct benefits of DRM but also a broader set of co-benefits for themselves and for society as a whole. These co-benefits include ways of lowering production costs, improving the health of workers and contributing to general economic stability . Ironically, many of them are more tangible and immediate than ordinary DRM benefits, which may not appear until a disaster has struck many years after the investment has been made. This chapter analyses several important facets of private sector investment in DRM, primarily from an economic perspective. It is intended as a first step towards promoting greater investment in DRM by identifying potential co-benefits, explaining why they are not always pursued and suggesting ways to integrate them into private sector decision-making. The latter include government incentives, justified on the grounds that many private sector investments have extensive co-benefits, many of which pay dividends to society as a whole.
The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Swenja Surminski, Philip Schneider, Adrien Vogt-Schilb and Marianne Fay during earlier drafts of this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The reader will recall from pervious chapters that the three dividends of DRM are avoided disaster losses, unlocking economic potential through reduced risk and generating co-benefits (often characterised as “joint products”).
- 2.
These might be considered part of the second dividend, or as extended private benefits, rather than as spillover effects, which characterise both the second and the third dividends.
- 3.
Recall that the first dividend relates to the direct effects of DRM in reducing disaster risk to the business itself, so is not a co-benefit.
- 4.
“FORTIFIED Program”, accessed 2 February 2016, http://www.smarthomeamerica.org/fortified.php.
References
Alberto AJ, Sharma S (2003) A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad Manage Rev 28(3):71–88
Brugmann J (2011) Financing the resilient city: a demand-driven approach to development, disaster reduction and climate adaptation. White paper, ICLEI, Bonn
Brugmann J (2012) Financing the resilient city. Environ Urbanization 24(1):215–232
Callahan RF, Pisano M (2014) Aligning fiscal and environmental sustainability. In: Mazmanian DA, Blanco H (eds) Elgar companion to sustainable cities: strategies, methods and outlook. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Carrera A, Mesquita L, Perkins G, Vassolo R (2003) Business groups and their corporate strategies on the argentine roller coaster competitive and anti-competitive shocks. Acad Manage Executive 17(3):32–44
Doh JP, Pearce JA (2004) Corporate entrepreneurship and real options in transitional policy environments: theory development. J Manage Stud 41(4):645–664
EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) (2007) Best practice in risk management: a function comes of age. The Economist, London
Field C, Barros V, Stocker T, Dahe Q, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) (2012) Summary for policy makers. In: Special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: summary for policymakers. Report of working groups I and II of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York
Flores AQ, Smith A (2010) Surviving disasters. Wilf Family Department of Politics, New York University, New York
Girgerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2002) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hallegatte S, Przyluski V (2010) The economics of natural disasters: concepts and methods. Policy research working paper 5507, World Bank, Washington, DC
Hoffmann VH, Trautmann T, Hamprecht J (2009) Regulatory uncertainty: a reason to postpone investments? not necessarily. J Manage Stud 46(7):645–664
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) Fifth assessment report (AR5). IPCC, Geneva
Kull D, Mechler R, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2013) Probabilistic cost-benefit analysis of disaster risk management in a development context. Disasters 37(3):374–400
Kunreuther H (2006) Disaster mitigation and insurance: learning from Katrina. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:208–227
Kunreuther H, Ginsberg R, Miller L, Sagi P, Slovic P, Borkan B, Katz N (1978) Disaster insurance protection: public policy lessons. Wiley, New York
Kunreuther H, Michel-Kerjan E (2010) From market to government failure in insuring U.S. natural catastrophes: how can long-term contracts help. In: Brown JR (ed) Private markets and public insurance programs, American Enterprise Institute Press, Washington, DC
Kunreuther H, Michel-Kerjan E (2011) Redesigning flood insurance. Science 333(6041):408–409
Kunreuther H, Michel-Kerjan E, Pauly M (2013) Making America more resilient toward natural disasters: a call for action. Environment 55(4):15–23
Linnerooth-Bayer J, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2015) Financial instruments for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Clim Change 133:85–100
Michel-Kerjan E, Zelenko I, Cardenas V, Turgel D (2011) Catastrophe financing for governments: learning from the 2009–2012 multicat program in Mexico. Working paper on finance, insurance and private pensions 9, OECD, Paris
Mitchell T, Van Aalst M, Villanueva PS (2010) Assessing progress on integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development processes. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) (2005) Natural hazard mitigation saves: an independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities. Report to U.S. Congress on behalf of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC
Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) (2015) Developing pre-disaster resilience based on public and private incentivization. Washington, DC
(ODI) Overseas Development Institute (2014) Case studies to support realising the resilience dividend, climate and environment Programme. ODI, London, UK.
Perera A, de Pino SP, Oliveira B (2013) Aligning profit and environmental sustainability: stories from industry. Working paper, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Pisano M, Callahan RF (2012) Case study I: fiscal sustainability in Los Angeles County. Nat Civic Rev 101(1):11–17
Rose A (2009a) Economic resilience to disasters. Community and Regional Resilience Institute Research Report 8. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Rose A (2009b) The economics of climate change mitigation policy: international, national and regional perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Rose A (2014) Economic resilience and the sustainability of cities in the face of climate change: an ecological economics framework. In: Mazmanian Daniel A, Blanco Hilda (eds) Handbook of sustainable cities. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 336–353
Rose A, Huyck CK (2016) Improving catastrophe modeling for business interruption insurance needs. Risk Anal, forthcoming
Rose A, Stevens B, Davis G (1989) Who gains and who loses from natural resource policy: distributional information and the public participation process. Resour Policy 15(4):282–291
Rose A, Oladosu G, Lee B, Asay GB (2009) The economic impacts of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the world trade center: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Peace Econom Peace Sci Public Policy 15(2) (Article 4)
Rose A, Porter K, Tierney K (2007) Benefit-cost analysis of FEMA hazard mitigation grant. Nat Hazards Rev 8(4):97–111
Sheffi Y (2005) The resilient enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Surminski S (2010) Adapting to the extreme weather impacts of climate change—how can the insurance industry help? Climate Wise
Swiss Re (2011) Closing the financial gap: new partnerships between the public and private sectors to finance disaster risks. Swiss Re, Zürich
Tanner T, Surminski S, Wilkinson E, Reid R, Rentschler J, Rajput S (2015) The triple dividend of resilience: realising development goals through the multiple benefits of disaster risk management. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) at the World Bank and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London
Vorhies F (2012) The economics of investing in disaster risk reduction. Working paper, UNISDR, Geneva
Weimer DL, Vining A (2005) Policy analysis: concepts and practice, 4th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Yang B, Robert N, Backhouse R (2004) Management of uncertainty through postponements. Int J Prod Res 42:1049–1064
Yoshida K, Deyle R (2005) Determinants of small business hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards Rev 6(1):1–12
Zolli A, Healy AM (2012) Resilience: why things bounce back. Free Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rose, A. (2016). Capturing the Co-benefits of Disaster Risk Management in the Private Sector. In: Surminski, S., Tanner, T. (eds) Realising the 'Triple Dividend of Resilience' . Climate Risk Management, Policy and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40694-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40694-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40693-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40694-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)