Search

The risk of climate disasters has spurred increased interest in public policies that help expand the number of households with disaster insurance, particularly for financially vulnerable populations. In recent years, local governments, concerned with their community's resilience to climate disasters, have started to consider insurance programs as part of their adaptation strategies. However, we do not yet have a robust body of research that shows if, and how, expanded insurance take-up among households affects community-wide recovery after a climate disaster. Filling this disaster insurance research gap will better equip public sector leaders to assess if investments in insurance programs can further community resilience goals and when disaster insurance is an appropriate climate adaptation tool. In this article, we assess the state of empirical evidence through existing frameworks of community recovery and put forward an agenda for future research that is attuned to local policy needs. Key policy insights: There is increasing interest by policymakers in expanding the number of households with disaster insurance to provide financial protection in the face of increasing climate risks, but little evidence exists on how household-level insurance affects community-level resilience outcomes. Expanded research on this topic could support local decision-makers in designing effective and efficient policies to support community recovery from climate extremes. Future research should focus on testing more holistic disaster recovery measures and downscaling global and national research to the local scale. Emerging pilot insurance programs and experimental policies offer novel opportunities to study impacts at the local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disaster risk reduction is central to managing the risks of climate change at global, national, and sub-national levels. The operationalization of disaster risk reduction, however, has been met with challenges that have restricted successful policy implementation. Drawing from document analyses and Delphi studies with government practitioners, this article examines the policy context for disaster risk reduction in Canada and Australia and investigates the state of flood and drought planning and preparedness. Results are organized around two central themes: risk (ownership and sensitivity) and engagement (stakeholder involvement and capacity-building). The findings show that public policies on disaster risk reduction in Canada and Australia reflect international discourse that advocates for a whole-of-society, risk-sensitive, and risk-informed approach. However, implementing this approach in household planning and preparedness, cross-sector planning and policy integration, terminology, and socio-cultural representation, has been hampered by several factors. Government practitioners in both countries argued that while disaster risk reduction and climate risk management continue to evolve in multi-level governance, policy implementation is constrained by the legacies of past governance arrangements that have enabled disaster risk creation and accumulation. The results presented herein suggest a need for institutional reform that better reflects the holistic and systemic relationships between disaster risk, climate change, and other policy problems. We argue that disaster risk reduction and climate risk management policies require bridging governance arrangements between these and related policy domains to foster effective multi-level implementation. Key policy insights Implementing disaster risk reduction has been inconsistent, exacerbating exposure to climate change and increasing socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster impacts. Managing climate and disaster risk requires a holistic approach that targets vulnerable groups, tackles underlying drivers of risk, and builds capacities to support disaster risk reduction. Although disaster risk reduction and climate risk management policies continue to evolve, implementation is hindered by legacy governance arrangements that favour economic growth over sustainable, climate-sensitive disaster risk management. Transformation through the integration of disaster risk reduction and human development offers potential pathways to reduce vulnerabilities via a holistic disaster risk and climate policy approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many policy makers today accept that climate change poses substantial risks to human and natural systems and that effective adaptation is essential. An important element of adaptation policy making and disaster risk management is how to best combine individual with communitarian approaches to resilience building. The difficulty for effective leadership in this effort resides in comprehending various understandings of, and approaches to, resilience and their real-life consequences for affected populations to deal with disasters induced by climate change. Here, we conduct a comparative analysis of 89 influential disaster management leaders in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. We examine the extent to which their perspectives on resilience and vulnerability are framed by either communitarian or individual-focused notions. Our quantitative analysis of an initial questionnaire and subsequent content analysis of interview transcripts indicate three core findings. Firstly, a tendency towards a communitarian understanding of resilience emerging from the questionnaire was replaced by a more diverse picture during the interviews, including a stronger focus on individual resilience. Secondly, most leaders asserted it was reasonable to expect citizens to be resilient to climate change, particularly when feeling overwhelmed by their responsibility for providing protection during extreme events. Finally, world views among leaders that encourage individual responsibility occluded systemic or reflexive thinking and action to minimize loss. Our study highlights the need for a relational leadership framework underpinned by an ethic of compassion that supports leaders pursuing and implementing policies that reduce harm and suffering in the face of disasters influenced by climate change. Key policy insights Communitarian approaches to resilience and vulnerability provide opportunities for disaster management leaders to better appreciate human suffering and improve their policy advice and decision making to minimize it. Conversely, individualistic approaches drive disaster management leaders' narrow world views that downplay vulnerability whilst shifting responsibility for resilience too far towards individuals. Governments would be well advised to specifically address the root causes of socio-economic vulnerability in resilience policy frameworks. Disaster management leaders would benefit from an ethic of compassion supported by a relational leadership framework that guides their resilience policy advice and decision making to further minimize suffering from disasters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flood risk is increasing across the world due to climate change and socio-economic development, calling for a shift from traditional protection and post-event activism towards a forward-looking, risk-aware, and more holistic resilience approach. The national legal system of countries can play an important role in creating and encouraging such a shift. In this study, we explore the potentials and shortcomings of national laws in managing flood risk and increasing flood resilience in the context of climate change. We analyze 139 laws from 33 countries collected from the Climate Change Laws of the World and Disaster Law databases and underpin this with case studies to gain insights on the interplay between national laws and resilience processes. We find: (1) a shift in flood laws from focusing on flooding as a natural resource and water resource management issue towards a broader consideration of disaster risk management (DRM) and climate adaptation policy; (2) a significant lack of climate change recognition in laws regulating decisions and actions for future flood risks, especially in DRM; (3) a prevailing focus on response and recovery strategies and a lack of recognition of risk reduction strategies and proactive flood risk governance approaches; and (4) little recognition of natural capital (comparing to physical capital) and its role in increasing flood resilience. Key policy insights Flood-related laws around the world lack consideration of future risks. Disaster risk management and climate change are often considered as separate issues in national laws, which can lead to gaps in institutional ownership, responsibilities, and allocated budgets. Flood-related laws are mainly created after major events, most of which are focused on reactive strategies (i.e. response and recovery). Laws can facilitate the shift from post-event response to anticipatory actions by encouraging proactive flood risk management (FRM) activities (i.e. risk reduction). Nature-based solutions often remain unrecognized in national laws due to the dominant focus on hard engineering measures. FRM should be treated as a holistic concept in laws: ensuring all the necessary human, social, physical, natural and financial systems are in place to support it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]