Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Urban Crisis Management System for Critical Infrastructures: Participation Possibilities for Insurance Companies

  • Published:
The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 07 January 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper discusses participation possibilities for German insurance companies in an urban crisis management system (UCMS) for critical infrastructures (CIs), which helps better monitor and manage CIs. We examine if and how insurance companies from Germany can contribute as actors in such innovative systems to holistically protect CIs. We meet this objective by conducting an expert survey in the German insurance industry and find that it lacks the willingness or ability to participate in a UCMS. While we discover occasional interest regarding the insurer’s predefined roles as a data/knowledge provider, investor or data user, each participation possibility poses challenges for insurance companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 07 January 2019

    The authors wish to correct the numbering and formatting of the following passages in the printed article.

Notes

  1. Federal Ministry of the Interior (2009).

  2. See Federal Ministry of the Interior (2009); Eismann (2014).

  3. See Kröger (2006, 2008).

  4. See Gheorghe et al. (2007).

  5. See Bouwmans et al. (2006).

  6. For a more detailed example that considers blackouts and brownouts, see Srinivasan et al. (2000).

  7. For an overview of the consequences of the most severe blackouts in the U.S., see Mills and Jones (2016). Regarding the impacts of the 2003 U.S. and Canadian blackouts, see U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (2004); for the 2003 Italian blackout, see Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) (2004); for the European Blackout in 2006, see Van der Vleuten and Lagendijk (2010); for major blackouts from 2003 to 2015, see Veloza and Santamaria (2016).

  8. Since the 1990s, the United States have experience in the protection of critical infrastructure. However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are a turning point in the process of protecting critical infrastructure in the U.S.. As a result, an extensive process of reorganising homeland security functions and expanding security measures for critical infrastructure protection was initiated by the federal government. In the U.S., the critical infrastructure protection, as an element of the nationwide homeland security strategy, plays an important role in the overall security strategy (see Abele-Wigert and Dunn 2006). Particularly, the increasing dependence of private businesses, government and the national security apparatus on an interdependent network of critical physical and information infrastructures is highlighted in the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001. Hence, there are many similar approaches to better coordinating and protecting critical infrastructures in the U.S., for example the establishment of sector-based Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) (see Dunn-Cavelty and Suter 2009; Relyea 2004), as well as the establishment of the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) (see Stamber et al. 2013). In the U.S., the system of critical infrastructure protection is substantially characterised by a high degree of transparency and working public–private partnerships (see Federal Office for Information Security 2004). For the system of critical infrastructure protection and the various parties involved in critical infrastructure protection in the U.S., see Abele-Wigert and Dunn (2006); Michel-Kerjan (2003); Brömmelhörster et al. (2003).

  9. See Gheorghe and Schläpfer (2006); Masera et al. (2006).

  10. For a more detailed consideration of the four different critical infrastructure interdependencies (physical, cyber, geographic and logical), see Rinaldi et al. (2001).

  11. We use the term “traditional actors” to refer to the public sector, private industry and volunteer agencies involved in crisis and disaster management.

  12. The authors were part of a three-year project sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research named “Innovative Geschäftsmodelle für Sicherheit von Netzversorgungsinfrastrukturen – InnoGeSi.net”. The project started in October 2012 and ended in September 2015. The aim of the interdisciplinary research project was the development of a business model to increase the security of critical infrastructures. The result is a theoretical concept for a UCMS, as it is presented in this paper.

  13. See footnote 12.

  14. See Federal Office for Information Security (2004). The German approach to critical infrastructure protection differs significantly from the U.S., see also footnote 8.

  15. The crisis and disaster management sector includes the following actors: public sector, private industry (including all economic sectors) and volunteer agencies (e.g. nongovernmental organisations (NGOs)), see Lettieri et al. (2009). For a sectoral classification defining the various sectors involved in crisis and disaster management, see Kreps (1983); Perry (1991). For the various sectors involved in crisis and disaster management in Germany, see Domres et al. (2000).

  16. See Marincioni (2007).

  17. See Li et al. (2014).

  18. See Wallace and DeBalogh (1985); Belardo et al. (1984); Mendonça et al. (2006).

  19. See Lu and Yang (2011).

  20. See Von Lubitz et al. (2008).

  21. See Rak (2002).

  22. See Prasanna et al. (2013).

  23. See Minciardi et al. (2007).

  24. See Belardo et al. (1984).

  25. See Peng et al. (2011); Von Lubitz et al. (2008).

  26. See Romanowski et al. (2015).

  27. See Chen et al. (2011); Manoj and Hubenko Baker (2007).

  28. See Laakso and Palomäki (2013); Comes et al. (2012); Galton and Worboys (2011).

  29. See Chatfield et al. (2013).

  30. See Chatfield and Brajawidagda (2013); Fortier and Dokas (2008); Meissen and Voisard (2008).

  31. See Chatfield and Brajawidagda (2012); Meissen and Voisard (2008); Starbird and Palen (2010).

  32. See Fortier and Dokas (2008); Meissen and Voisard (2008); Klischewski and Scholl (2008).

  33. For examples of the different crisis management process phases, see McLoughlin (1985); Pearson and Mitroff (1993); Pearson and Clair (1998).

  34. See Jennex (2004, 2007); Yang et al. (2009); Amailef and Lu (2013).

  35. See Lee et al. (2012).

  36. See Bush et al. (2005); LeClaire and O’Reilly (2005).

  37. See Peng et al. (2011).

  38. See Belardo et al. (1984); Tufekci (1995); Iakovou and Douligeris (2001); Snediker et al. (2008).

  39. For other examples of information systems approaches in crisis and disaster management, see Turoff et al. (2004); Minciardi et al. (2007); Careem et al. (2006); Currion et al. (2007).

  40. See Shan et al. (2012).

  41. See Surminski and Hudson (2017); Michel-Kerjan and Pedell (2006); Walker et al. (2010).

  42. See Surminski and Hudson (2017); Walker et al. (2010).

  43. See Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler (2007).

  44. See Paudel et al. (2012); Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan (2007).

  45. For a more detailed consideration of public–private partnerships, see, for example, Linder (1999).

  46. See Paudel et al. (2012); Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan (2007).

  47. See Johansen (2006); Urban (2008).

  48. See, for example, Carr (2016); Germano (2014); Shore et al. (2011).

  49. See, for example, Young et al. (2016); Dunn-Cavelty and Suter (2009); Givens and Busch (2012, 2013b); Michel-Kerjan (2003); Donahue and Zeckhauser (2006); Koski (2011); May and Koski (2013); Andersson and Malm (2006).

  50. See Dunn-Cavelty and Suter (2009).

  51. See, for example, Dunn-Cavelty and Suter (2009); Givens and Busch (2013a, b); Prieto (2006).

  52. See Givens and Busch (2012).

  53. See Busch and Givens (2013).

  54. See Auerswald et al. (2005, 2006a, b).

  55. See Auerswald et al. (2005); U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2013).

  56. See Michel-Kerjan and Pedell (2005, 2006).

  57. See Kunreuther (2015).

  58. See Mysiak and Pérez-Blanco (2016); Johansen (2006).

  59. See KPMG International Cooperative (2015).

  60. See Golnaraghi et al. (2016).

  61. See Johansen (2006).

  62. See Urban (2008).

  63. See U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2013).

  64. See KPMG International Cooperative (2015).

  65. See Federal Ministry of the Interior (2009).

  66. See Federal Ministry of the Interior (2009).

  67. See Federal Ministry of the Interior (2008).

  68. See Johansen (2006); Urban (2008).

  69. See KPMG International Cooperative (2015).

  70. See Linderkamp et al. (2013); Basse et al. (2014).

  71. The investments of insurance companies require solvency capital (SCR) according to the Solvency II framework. The amount of required capital depends on many factors, like duration, rating and other characteristics. Investments in infrastructure will likely have an attractive risk–return–SCR profile, especially if the investment is classified as a qualified infrastructure investment.

  72. See Comfort (2005).

  73. See Comfort (2005).

  74. See Shan et al. (2012).

  75. See Minciardi et al. (2007).

  76. See, for example, Carver and Turoff (2007).

  77. See, for example, Rummukainen et al. (2014).

  78. See Starbird and Palen (2010).

  79. See Qadir et al. (2016).

  80. See Hopf (2013).

  81. See Kaiser (2014).

  82. See Kuckartz (2016).

  83. See Mayring (2015).

  84. See Schnell et al. (2011).

  85. For a more detailed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of first-mover status, see Lieberman and Montgomery (1988); Lieberman and Montgomery (1998).

  86. For a more detailed consideration of the first-mover and follower strategies, see Lieberman and Montgomery (1991).

  87. In Germany, the KATWARN warning system automatically informs the people potentially affected by a natural hazard via short messaging, smartphone application or email.

  88. Following the assumption that the opinion about the sense of a system in general influences the assessment of its functions.

References

  • Abele-Wigert, I. and Dunn, M. (2006) International CIIP Handbook 2006 (Vol. I): An Inventory of 20 National and 6 International Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Policies, Zurich: Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amailef, K. and Lu, J. (2013) ‘Ontology-supported case-based reasoning approach for intelligent m-Government emergency response services’, Decision Support Systems 55(1): 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, J.J. and Malm, A. (2006) ‘Public–private partnerships and the challenge of critical infrastructure protection’, in M. Dunn and V. Mauer (eds) International CIIP Handbook 2006 (Vol. II): Analyzing Issues, Challenges, and Prospects, Zurich: Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH, pp 139–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P.E., Branscomb, L.M., La Porte, T.M. and Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2005) ‘The challenge of protecting critical infrastructure’, Issues in Science and Technology 22(1): 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P.E., Branscomb, L.M., La Porte, T.M. and Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2006a) ‘Leadership: Who will act? Integrating public and private interests to make a safer world’, in P.E. Auerswald, L.M. Branscomb, T.M. La Porte and E.O. Michel-Kerjan (eds) Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 483–505.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P.E., Branscomb, L.M., La Porte, T.M. and Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2006b) ‘Where private efficiency meets public vulnerability: The critical infrastructure challenge’, in P.E. Auerswald, L.M. Branscomb, T.M. La Porte and E.O. Michel-Kerjan (eds) Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 3–16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basse, T., Friedrich, M., Kleffner, A. and Graf von der Schulenburg, J.-M. (2014) ‘Are interest rates too low? Empirical evidence and implications for German life insurers’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft 103(1): 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belardo, S., Karwan, K.R. and Wallace, W.A. (1984) ‘Managing the response to disasters using microcomputers’, Interfaces 14(2): 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwmans, I., Weijnen, M.P.C. and Gheorghe, A.V. (2006) ‘Infrastructures at risk’, in A.V. Gheorghe, M. Masera, M.P.C. Weijnen and L.J. De Vries (eds) Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Securing the European Electric Power System, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 19–36.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brömmelhörster, J., Fabry, S. and Wirtz, N. (2003) Internationale Aktivitäten zum Schutz kritischer Infrastrukturen, Federal Office for Information Security (ed), Ingelheim: SecuMedia.

  • Busch, N.E. and Givens, A.D. (2013) ‘Achieving resilience in disaster management: The role of public–private partnerships’, Journal of Strategic Security 6(2): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, B.B., Dauelsberg, L.R., LeClaire, R.J., Powell, D.R., DeLand, S.M. and Samsa, M.E. (2005) ‘Critical infrastructure protection decision support system (CIP/DSS) project overview’, paper presented at the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July.

  • Careem, M., De Silva, C., De Silva, R., Raschid, L. and Weerawarana, S. (2006) ‘Sahana: Overview of a disaster management system’, paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 15–17 December.

  • Carr, M. (2016) ‘Public–private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies’, International Affairs 92(1): 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, L. and Turoff, M. (2007) ‘Human–computer interaction: The human and computer as a team in emergency management information systems’, Communications of the ACM 50(3): 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield, A.T. and Brajawidagda, U. (2012) ‘Twitter tsunami early warning network: A social network analysis of Twitter information flows’, paper presented at the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Geelong, Australia, 3–5 December.

  • Chatfield, A.T. and Brajawidagda, U. (2013) ‘Twitter early tsunami warning system: A case study of Indonesia’s disaster management agencies’, paper presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Wailea, Maui, HI, USA, 7–10 January.

  • Chatfield, A.T., Scholl, H.J. and Brajawidagda, U. (2013) ‘Tsunami early warnings via Twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services’, Government Information Quarterly 30(4): 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A.Y., Peña-Mora, F. and Ouyang, Y. (2011) ‘A collaborative GIS framework to support equipment distribution for civil engineering disaster response operations’, Automation in Construction 20(5): 637–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comes, T., Wijngaards, N. and Schultmann, F. (2012) ‘Efficient scenario updating in emergency management’, paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Management and Response (ISCRAM), Vancouver, Canada, 22–25 April.

  • Comfort, L.K. (2005) ‘Risk, security, and disaster management’, Annual Review of Political Science 8: 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currion, P., De Silva, C. and Van de Walle, B. (2007) ‘Open source software for disaster management’, Communications of the ACM 50(3): 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domres, B., Schauwecker, H.H., Rohrmann, K., Roller, G., Maier, G.W. and Manger A. (2000) ‘The German approach to emergency/disaster management’, Medical Archives 54(4): 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, J.D. and Zeckhauser, R.F. (2006) ‘Sharing the watch: Public–private collaboration in infrastructure security’, in P.E. Auerswald, L.M. Branscomb, T.M. La Porte and E.O. Michel-Kerjan (eds) Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 429–456.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn-Cavelty, M. and Suter, M. (2009) ‘Public–private partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for critical infrastructure protection’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 2(4): 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eismann, C. (2014) ‘Trends in critical infrastructure protection in Germany’, Transactions of the VŠB: Technical University of Ostrava, Safety Engineering Series 9(2): 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Ministry of the Interior (ed) (2008) Protecting Critical Infrastructures – Risk and Crisis Management: A Guide for Companies and Government Authorities, from https://www.bbk.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/BBK/DE/Publikationen/PublikationenKritis/Protecting-Critical-Infrastructures.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, accessed 16 November 2016.

  • Federal Ministry of the Interior (ed) (2009) National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP Strategy), from http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Broschueren/2009/kritis_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, accessed 16 November 2016.

  • Federal Office for Information Security (2004) ‘Critical infrastructure protection: Survey of world-wide activities’, BSI Kritis, 4/2004, from https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BSI/Kritis/paper_studie_en_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, accessed 18 August 2017.

  • Fortier, S.C. and Dokas, I.M. (2008) ‘Setting the specification framework of an early warning system using IDEF0 and information modeling’, paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Management and Response (ISCRAM), Washington, DC, USA, 4–7 May.

  • Galton, A. and Worboys, M. (2011) ‘An ontology of information for emergency management’, paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Management and Response (ISCRAM), Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11 May.

  • Germano, J.H. (2014) Cybersecurity Partnerships: A New Era of Public–Private Collaboration, Working Paper, New York: New York University School of Law.

  • Gheorghe, A.V. and Schläpfer, M. (2006) ‘Ubiquity of digitalization and risks of interdependent critical infrastructures’, paper presented at the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Taipei, Taiwan, 8–11 October.

  • Gheorghe, A.V., Masera, M., De Vries, L.J., Weijnen, M.P.C. and Kröger, W. (2007) ‘Critical infrastructures: The need for international risk governance’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 3(1–2): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givens, A.D. and Busch, N.E. (2012) ‘Public–private partnerships in homeland security: Opportunities and challenges’, Homeland Security Affairs 8(1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givens, A.D. and Busch, N.E. (2013a) ‘Information sharing and public–private partnerships: The impact on homeland security’, The Homeland Security Review 7(2): 123–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givens, A.D. and Busch, N.E. (2013b) ‘Realizing the promise of public–private partnerships in U.S. critical infrastructure protection’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 6(1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golnaraghi, M., Surminski, S. and Schanz, K.-U. (2016) An Integrated Approach to Managing Extreme Events and Climate Risks: Towards a Concerted Public–Private Approach, Geneva: The Geneva Association, from https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/952146/20160908_ecoben20_final.pdf, accessed 10 May 2017.

  • Hopf, C. (2013) ‘Qualitative Interviews – ein Überblick’, in U. Flick, E. Von Kardorff and I. Steinke (eds) Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, 10. Auflage, Reinbek: Rowohlt, pp 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iakovou, E. and Douligeris, C. (2001) ‘An information management system for the emergency management of hurricane disasters’, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 2(3–4): 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennex, M.E. (2004) ‘Emergency response systems: The utility Y2K experience’, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(3): 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennex, M.E. (2007) ‘Modeling emergency response systems’, paper presented at the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, Big Island, HI, USA, 3–6 January.

  • Johansen, E.B. (2006) ‘Between public and private – Insurance solutions for a changing society’, Nordisk Försäkringstidskrift 87(2): 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, R. (2014) Qualitative Experteninterviews: Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und praktische Durchführung, Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klischewski, R. and Scholl, H.J. (2008) ‘Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing’, Electronic Government: An International Journal 5(2): 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koski, C. (2011) ‘Committed to protection? Partnerships in critical infrastructure protection’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 8(1): 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG International Cooperative (2015) Demystifying the Public Private Partnership Paradigm: The Nexus Between Insurance, Sustainability and Growth, from https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/09/demystifying-public-private-partnership-paradigm.pdf, accessed 10 May 2017.

  • Kreps, G.A. (1983) ‘The organization of disaster response: Core concepts and processes’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1(3): 439–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kröger, W. (2006) ‘Critical infrastructures at risk: Securing electric power supply’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 2(2–3): 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kröger, W. (2008) ‘Critical infrastructures at risk: A need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93(12): 1781–1787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz, U. (2016) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung, 3. Auflage, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H.C. (2015) ‘The role of insurance in reducing losses from extreme events: The need for public–private partnerships’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 40(4): 741–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H.C. and Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2007) ‘Climate change, insurability of large-scale disasters, and the emerging liability challenge’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155(6): 1795–1842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, K. and Palomäki, J. (2013) ‘The importance of a common understanding in emergency management’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change: An International Journal 80(9): 1703–1713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeClaire, R.J. and O’Reilly, G. (2005) ‘Leveraging a high fidelity switched network model to inform system dynamics model of the telecommunications infrastructure’, paper presented at the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July.

  • Lee, W.B., Wang, Y., Wang, W.M. and Cheung, C.F. (2012) ‘An unstructured information management system (UIMS) for emergency management’, Expert Systems with Applications 39(17): 12743–12758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lettieri, E., Masella, C. and Radaelli, G. (2009) ‘Disaster management: Findings from a systematic review’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 18(2): 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Li, Q., Liu, C., Khan, S.U. and Ghani, N. (2014) ‘Community-based collaborative information system for emergency management’, Computers and Operations Research 42: 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B. (1988) ‘First-mover advantages’, Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Strategy Content Research 9(1): 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B. (1991) ‘Strategy of market entry: To pioneer or follow?’, in H.E. Glass (ed) Handbook of Business Strategy, 2nd edn, New York: Warren, Gorham and Lamont, pp 2–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B. (1998) ‘First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view’, Strategic Management Journal 19(12): 1111–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S.H. (1999) ‘Coming to terms with the public–private partnership: A grammar of multiple meanings’, American Behavioral Scientist 43(1): 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderkamp, T., Pollmer, S., Schmidt, P., Siefert, P. and Schwalba, M. (2013) ‘Neue Wege in der Kapitalanlage: Die Symbiose zwischen Banken und Versicherungen im Bereich der ‚Alternative Assets‘‘, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft 102(3): 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and Mechler, R. (2007) ‘Disaster safety nets for developing countries: Extending public–private partnerships’, Environmental Hazards 7(1): 54–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y. and Yang, D. (2011) ‘Information exchange in virtual communities under extreme disaster conditions’, Decision Support Systems 50(2): 529–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manoj, B.S. and Hubenko Baker, A. (2007) ‘Communication challenges in emergency response’, Communications of the ACM 50(3): 51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marincioni, F. (2007) ‘Information technologies and the sharing of disaster knowledge: The critical role of professional culture’, Disasters 31(4): 459–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masera, M., Stefanini, A. and Dondossola, G. (2006) ‘The security of information and communication systems and the E+I Paradigm’, in A.V. Gheorghe, M. Masera, M.P.C. Weijnen and L.J. De Vries (eds) Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Securing the European Electric Power System, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 85–116.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • May, P.J. and Koski, C. (2013) ‘Addressing public risks: Extreme events and critical infrastructures’, Review of Policy 30(2): 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 12. Auflage, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, D. (1985) ‘A framework for integrated emergency management’, Public Administration Review, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration 45: 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissen, U. and Voisard, A. (2008) ‘Increasing the effectiveness of early warning via context-aware alerting’, paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Management and Response (ISCRAM), Washington, DC, USA, 4–7 May.

  • Mendonça, D., Beroggi, G.E.G., Van Gent, D. and Wallace, W.A. (2006) ‘Designing gaming simulations for the assessment of group decision support systems in emergency response’, Safety Science 44(6): 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2003) ‘New challenges in critical infrastructures: A US perspective’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 11(3): 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel-Kerjan, E.O. and Pedell, B. (2005) ‘Terrorism risk coverage in the post-9/11 era: A comparison of new public–private partnerships in France, Germany and the U.S.’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 30(1): 144–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel-Kerjan, E.O. and Pedell, B. (2006) ‘How does the corporate world cope with mega-terrorism? Puzzling evidence from terrorism insurance markets’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 18(4): 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, E. and Jones, R.B. (2016) ‘An insurance perspective on U.S. electric grid disruption costs’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 41(4): 555–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minciardi, R., Sacile, R. and Trasforini, E. (2007) ‘A decision support system for resource intervention in real-time emergency management’, International Journal of Emergency Management 4(1): 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mysiak, J. and Pérez-Blanco, C.D. (2016) ‘Partnerships for disaster risk insurance in the EU’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16(11): 2403–2419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paudel, Y., Botzen, W.J.W. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2012) ‘A comparative study of public–private catastrophe insurance systems: Lessons from current practices’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 37(2): 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C.M. and Clair, J.A. (1998) ‘Reframing crisis management’, The Academy of Management Review 23(1): 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C.M. and Mitroff, I.I. (1993) ‘From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management’, The Academy of Management Executive 7(1): 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Tang, Y. and Li, S. (2011) ‘An incident information management framework based on data integration, data mining, and multi-criteria decision making’, Decision Support Systems 51(2): 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, R.W. (1991) ‘Managing disaster response operations’, in T.E. Drabek and G.J. Hoetmer (eds) Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, Washington, DC: International City Management Association, pp 201–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasanna, R., Yang, L. and King, M. (2013) ‘Guidance for developing human–computer interfaces for supporting fire emergency response’, Risk Management 15(3): 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, D.B. (2006) ‘Information sharing with the private sector: History, challenges, innovation, and prospects’, in P.E. Auerswald, L.M. Branscomb, T.M. La Porte and E.O. Michel-Kerjan (eds) Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 404–428.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Qadir, J., Ali, A., Rasool, R.U., Zwitter, A., Sathiaseelan, A. and Crowcroft, J. (2016) ‘Crisis analytics: Big data-driven crisis response’, Journal of International Humanitarian Action 1: 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rak, A. (2002) ‘Information sharing in the cyber age: A key to critical infrastructure protection’, Information Security Technical Report 7(2): 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relyea, H.C. (2004) ‘Homeland security and information sharing: Federal policy considerations’, Government Information Quarterly 21(4): 420–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi, S.M., Peerenboom, J.P. and Kelly, T.K. (2001) ‘Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 21(6): 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanowski, C., Raj, R., Schneider, J., Mishra, S., Shivshankar, V., Ayengar, S. and Cueva, F. (2015) ‘Regional response to large-scale emergency events: Building on historical data’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 11: 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummukainen, L., Oksama, L., Timonen, J. and Vankka, J. (2014) ‘Visualizing common operating picture of critical infrastructure’, in B.D. Broome, D.L. Hall and J. Llinas (eds) Next-Generation Analyst II—Proceedings Volume 9122, SPIE Sensing Technology + Applications Conference, 5–9 May 2014, Baltimore, MD: SPIE, pp 912208-1–912208-15.

  • Schnell, R., Hill, P.B. and Esser, E. (2011) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 9. Auflage, München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan, S., Wang, L., Li, L. and Chen, Y. (2012) ‘An emergency response decision support system framework for application in e-government’, Information Technology and Management 13(4): 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, M., Du, Y. and Zeadally, S. (2011) ‘A public–private partnership model for national cybersecurity’, Policy and Internet 3(2): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snediker, D.E., Murray, A.T. and Matisziw, T.C. (2008) ‘Decision support for network disruption mitigation’, Decision Support Systems 44(4): 954–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, D., Cheu, R.L., Poh, Y.P. and Ng, A.K.C. (2000) ‘Automated fault detection in power distribution networks using a hybrid fuzzy-genetic algorithm approach’, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 13(4): 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamber, K.L., Brown, T.J., Pless, D.J. and Berscheid, A. (2013) ‘Modeling and simulation for homeland security’, paper presented at the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM), Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December.

  • Starbird, K. and Palen, L. (2010) ‘Pass it on?: Retweeting in mass emergency’, paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Management and Response (ISCRAM), Seattle, WA, USA, 2–5 May.

  • Surminski, S. and Hudson, P. (2017) ‘Investigating the risk reduction potential of disaster insurance across Europe’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 42(2): 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufekci, S. (1995) ‘An integrated emergency management decision support system for hurricane emergencies’, Safety Science 20(1): 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B. and Yao, X. (2004) ‘The design of a dynamic emergency response management information system (DERMIS)’, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(4): 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) (2004) Final Report of the Investigation Committee on the 28 September 2003 Blackout in Italy, from https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/_library/publications/ce/otherreports/20040427_UCTE_IC_Final_report.pdf, accessed 16 November 2016.

  • Urban, R. (2008) ‘New approach on the field of the civil protection’, Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science 7(2): 295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (2004) Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf, accessed 16 November 2016.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (2013) Insurance as a Risk Management Instrument for Energy Infrastructure Security and Resilience, from https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/03/f0/03282013_Final_Insurance_EnergyInfrastructure.pdf, accessed 10 May 2017.

  • Van der Vleuten, E. and Lagendijk, V. (2010) ‘Transnational infrastructure vulnerability: The historical shaping of the 2006 European “blackout”’, Energy Policy 38(4): 2042–2052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veloza, O.P. and Santamaria, F. (2016) ‘Analysis of major blackouts from 2003 to 2015: Classification of incidents and review of main causes’, The Electricity Journal 29(7): 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Lubitz, D.K.J.E., Beakley, J.E. and Patricelli, F. (2008) ‘‘All hazards approach’ to disaster management: The role of information and knowledge management, Boyd’s OODA loop, and network-centricity’, Disasters 32(4): 561–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., Whittle, R., Medd, W. and Watson, N. (2010) Risk Governance and Natural Hazards, CapHaz-Net WP2 Report, Lancaster: Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/49475/1/WP2_final.pdf, accessed 10 May 2017.

  • Wallace, W.A. and DeBalogh, F. (1985) ‘Decision support systems for disaster management’, Public Administration Review, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration 45: 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., Prasanna, R. and King, M. (2009) ‘On-site information systems design for emergency first responders’, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 10(1): 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., Lopez Jr., J., Rice, M., Ramsey, B. and McTasney, R. (2016) ‘A framework for incorporating insurance in critical infrastructure cyber risk strategies’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 14: 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (Grant Number 13N12332).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Risk and Insurance, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover, Otto-Brenner-Straße 1, 30159, Hanover, Germany

    Dirk Wrede, Annemarie Will & Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

  2. Center for Risk and Insurance, Otto-Brenner-Straße 1, 30159, Hanover, Germany

    Tim Linderkamp

Authors
  1. Dirk Wrede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annemarie Will
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Linderkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Wrede.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wrede, D., Will, A., Linderkamp, T. et al. An Urban Crisis Management System for Critical Infrastructures: Participation Possibilities for Insurance Companies. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 42, 633–656 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-017-0069-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-017-0069-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation