Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis

R. Mechler ()
Additional contact information
R. Mechler: International Institute for Applied

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2016, vol. 81, issue 3, No 34, 2147 pages

Abstract: Abstract There is a lot of rhetoric suggesting that disaster risk reduction (DRR) pays, yet surprisingly little in the way of hard facts. This review paper examines the evidence regarding the economic efficiency of DRM based on CBA. Specifically, it addresses the following questions: What can be said about current and best practice regarding CBA for DRR including limitations and alternatives? And, what, if at all, can be said in terms of quantitative insight for informing policy and practice? The review compares the documented evidence on the net benefits over a range of disaster management interventions, such as risk reduction, preparedness and risk financing. The review also critically discusses the applicability of cost–benefit analysis as well as other economic decision-supporting tools for assessing the efficiency of certain DRM interventions. Disaster risk is characterized by variability, which requires a risk-based assessment. As a key best practice criterion, and in order to avoid overestimating the benefits and returns on investment, the review focuses on studies that provide a risk-based estimate of benefits. This review shows that for the limited evidence reported the economic case for DRM across a range of hazards is strong and that the benefits of investing in DRM outweigh the costs of doing so on average, by about four times the cost in terms of avoided and reduced losses. In an age of austerity, cost–benefit analysis continues to be an important tool for prioritizing efficient DRM measures but with a shifting emphasis from infrastructure-based options (hard resilience) to preparedness and systemic interventions (soft resilience), other tools such as cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis and robust decision-making approaches deserve more attention.

Keywords: Cost–benefit analysis; Disaster risk management; Appraisal; Economic efficiency; Multi-criteria analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (26)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-016-2170-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:81:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-016-2170-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-016-2170-y

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().