Defining the resilience dividend: accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning

Abstract

This report presents the concept of the resilience dividend as a useful metric for community resilience planning. The report suggests defining the resilience dividend as the net co-benefit (or co-cost) of investing in enhanced resilience, in the absence of a disruptive incident. In order for this definition to be useful, the report reviews literature on co-benefits. The main lessons from this review are that: (1) there is no consensus on the use of the meaning of cobenefit; (2) much of the literature on co-benefits is focused on climate change; and (3) there exist opportunities for the development of co-benefit measurement and assessment methodologies in the context of resilience planning. This report provides guidance and direction on the study and use of the resilience dividend by categorizing the various definitions of co-benefits to provide a frame of reference, reviewing measurement and assessment efforts, and summarizing the review in an annotated bibliography that can serve as a "quick guide" for researchers and practitioners looking for existing work on co-benefits. The report also highlights potential directions for future research.

Economics of interoperability in the context of smart grid architectures

“…57 The degree to which such strategies are possible hinges on the extent and nature of interoperability. 55 For further discussion and a summary of recent research on the resilience dividend concept, please see [61]. 56 For instance, the installation of DER at an emergency response facility could provide backup power when the larger grid is compromised and reduce the operating energy costs of the facility under normal conditions.…”

“…The core tradeoff here is that volatility in the quantity and quality of transportation services demanded (a factor contributing to congestion patterns) is mitigated in exchange for volatility in the price of service. 61 Household budgets thus work as shock absorbers when the physical constraints of the transportation grid bind. Of course, household budgets are themselves constrained, and the distributional impacts of investments in parallel infrastructures are worthy of discussion.…”

“…Those unable to avail themselves of the HOV lanes directly may still benefit from the implementation of HOV lanes if the total number of vehicle miles traveled and thus congestion severity can be reduced through increased carpooling. 61 A main selling point for Express Lanes operating in Northern Virginia is that they "use dynamic pricing to keep traffic free flowing and provide you with a predictable trip" [66]. The promotional material from Express Lanes touts the, "option to pay for a reliable trip" as among the benefits from implementing the HOT lanes.…”

Implementation of the NIST community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems

“…This can be particularly tricky when a community is faced by short-term timelines in government; when officials are changing office frequently, longer-term resilience planning and the required support can be challenging. There is recognition that communities have competing priorities and though a number of shocks and stressors may either: 1) relate to resilience planning or 2) be alleviated at least partially as a co-benefit of resilience planning (e.g., 43), but not all do. Furthermore, there is an expressed desire to understand the implications of how resilience is first planned and strategically managed, and then measured and assessed over time.…”

If Mitigation Saves $6 Per Every $1 Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue

“…FEMA's latest strategic plan indicates a move toward measures of accountability and performance metrics but as mentioned previously, methods beyond project-level benefit-cost analysis are lacking. Given the economic scale of disaster losses and in light of increasing trends and projections of hazard frequency and intensity (Emanuel 2005;Webster et al 2006), more work is needed to quantify and assess the benefits of hazard mitigation, consider location and hazard governance, identify the most effective suite of mitigation actions and their cumulative effects, the best timing for their implementation, postmitigated levels of risk, and more to devise truly effective hazard mitigation strategies and maximize mitigation investments (Fung and Helgeson 2017).…”