A conceptual approach to the use of Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis in natural hazard management

Abstract

Abstract. Decision-making for protection measures against natural hazards entails major complexities for final decision makers. The issue in question does not only implicate a variety of criteria that need to be considered but also scarce financial resources make the allocation decision a difficult task. Furthermore, these decisions appear to be multidisciplinary in nature. Stakeholders from experts over politicians and the public are among the affected parties in making and dealing with the consequences of such decisions. In order to capture the complexity that arises when incorporating the varieties of interests as well as impacts protection measures have on the environment, the economy and society, transparent and multidisciplinary decision support techniques are needed. This paper looks at how Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), a tool already applied to decisions concerning protective measures, and Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA), even though new to the field as such but already successfully practiced in other environmental areas, perform according to the abovementioned criteria. A conceptual overview of the methodologies will be given along with a discussion of the respective strengths and weaknesses. Looking at past applications, this overview gives an analysis about the potential of socio economics in its contribution to natural hazard research.

The risk concept and its application in natural hazard risk management in Switzerland

“…Therefore, they initialised in 2006 the development of a project assessment tool, which would allow prioritising among natural hazard mitigation projects according to their cost-effectiveness. This approach is well in line with the development in other Alpine countries, where decision support tools are developed and introduced into practice (e.g, BLFUW, 2006BLFUW, , 2009Gamper et al, 2006). This project assessment tool, named "EconoMe", will be presented in the third section of this paper.…”

“…Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis have become state-of-the-art for evaluating mitigation measures against natural hazards in many countries (see e.g., Whalen et al, 2004;Gamper et al, 2006;Pinelli et al, 2007;Holub and Fuchs, 2008;BLFUW, 2006BLFUW, , 2009. One tool similar to EconoMe is a calculation program used in Austria based on Microsoft Excel ® (BLFUW, 2006(BLFUW, , 2009.…”

Towards a Risk Governance Culture in Flood Policy—Findings from the Implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany

“…In the risk management cycle not only natural processes, but also social aspects as damage potential and vulnerability are analyzed. The wide variety of possible mitigation measures-including improved warning systems or disaster relief trainings-should be evaluated by a cost benefit or multi criteria analysis [24] leading to a higher level of protection for highly vulnerable areas such as major cities or industrial areas and a lower level of protection for sparsely-populated rural zones.…”

Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach

“…Considering the limitations of CBA (section 2.1.1) and the desire of theorists and practitioners to better combine quantitative and qualitative methods (Haezendonck 2007), it is timely to explore new methods which could be used in conjunction with CBA. Gamper et al (2006) There are situations when no satisfactory monetary values exist for appraisal elements and this is where MCA techniques have merit. MCA does not seek to monetise and therefore allows more impacts to be included in the appraisal.…”