International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schlossplatz 12361 Laxenburg
Austriaiiasa.ac.atOutline
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is a non-governmental researchorganisation based in Laxenburg, Austria. Founded in 1972, IIASA is an international scientificinstitute that conducts policy-oriented research into problems that are too large or too complex tobe solved by a single country or academic discipline. Problems like climate change that have aglobal reach and can be resolved only by international cooperative action. Or problems of common
concern to many countries that need to be addressed at both the national and international level,such as energy security, population aging, and sustainable development. Funded by scientificinstitutions in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa, IIASA is independent andunconstrained by political or national self-interest. IIASA’s mission is to provide insights andguidance to policymakers worldwide by finding solutions to global and universal problems throughapplied systems analysis in order to improve human and social wellbeing and protect theenvironment. Overall, IIASA is well-known for: land-use, energy, climate change, adaptation andmitigation, air pollution, technology, risk and vulnerability, and population, modelling.
Over the last 10 years, IIASA’s program on Risk, Policy and Vulnerability (RPV) has focussed
strongly on providing scientific insight for informing the disaster risk management debate. The aimof the RPV Program is to contribute to transforming the way societies manage risks associatedwith economic, ecological and social systems from stresses imposed by global change. By
examining environmental and socio-economic risks and policy options across multiple spatial andtemporal scales, we provide the analytical foundation for the improved management andgovernance of natural disasters, climate change, and technological and ecological transitions.
RPV’s specialty is in applying advanced methods for assessing and analysing risks anduncertainties to improve policy outcomes on global change issues, such as extreme events,economic development and environmental degradation. Over the last years, IIASA has focusedstrongly on risk analysis, economics of disaster risk management and climate adaptation, and has
been involved in many international research and consultancy projects. RPV researchers haveacted as IPCC lead authors for the recent special report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Eventsand Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), IPCC’s 5th assessment report andUNISDR”s 2013 and 2015 Global Assessment Reports.

Research Achievements and Challenges
Over the past decades, the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) has engaged in providing policyrelevant analyses regarding disaster risk management in thepublic sector using Catastrophe Simulation (CATSIM model).
The use of macroeconomic and fiscal risk assessment using
CATSIM played a key role in the adoption of risk
management policies by a number of developing countries,including the establishment the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk
Insurance facility in 2006, and the first-ever governmentissued catastrophe bond against natural disasters by Mexico
Figure 1: CATSIM Interface
in 2007. IIASA has also advised DRR policies using a broad
range of economic appraisal tools such as probabilistic Cost-Benefit
Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). IIASA has
designed and implemented capacity building workshops for policymakers on a number of topics related to the economic assessment ofdisaster risk including Turkey, Colombia, India, Mexico, Philippines(2004), Madagascar (2008, 2012, 2014), Caribbean (2007), andCambodia (2014). In recent years, the use of fiscal risk assessment has
also helped to shape global discussions on disaster risk management. In
2015, IIASA in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction (UNISDR), for example, has conducted risk assessmentof 160 countries for the Global Risk Assessment (GAR 15).
Figure 2: Policy Workshop in Madagascar ‘15

Traditionally, the debates regarding public sector disaster risk management have focused primarilyon the use of economic efficiency–oriented tools such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA); however,recently the scope of the debates has broadened to include multiple objectives such as equity anddistributional issues. At the same time, the need for further integration (or mainstreaming) of DRR
into broader development agendas are also calling for a major paradigm shift in the areas ofdisaster risk assessment and policy.
One of the key challenges isincorporatingthesebroader
developmental agendas with thatof disaster risk reduction. For this,the use of single ‘efficiency’
criterion is becoming increasingly
obsolete, and more integrativedecision-making frameworks thatincorporate additional criteriasuch as ‘co-benefits’ ‘robustness’and ‘public acceptability’ isincreasingly needed.

pre1990s

Post HFA

2015
Objec ves

Disasters as actsof GodAcknowledging
fiscal risk,
tolerance andstressProtec ng thefiscal posi on
throughsovereign
insurance

Comprehensive
disaster risk
management

Loss databases,
Catastrophe risk
modelling, fiscal risk
and hedge matrix

Fiscal Gap
concept,
economic
appraisal (CBA)

Risk layering,modelling risk
dynamics andsynergies

BuildingResilience

Disaster risk
integrated withdevelopment
risk andopportunity

Full benefits of DRR
incl. co-benefits,
mul risk matrix nd
mul -metricevalua onTools

Figure 3: Evolution of DRR concepts and a way forward in Post HFA

Such broader framework may
colloquially be understood as a shift from ‘risk to resilience’ thinking: Policy-makers, practitioners
and researchers are increasingly called to look beyond ‘direct risk’ and to find critical linkages ofdevelopment-risk nexus.

Suggestions for the Disaster Research Roadmap
Promoting a broader understanding of ‘disaster resilience’
Given the importance of developmental drivers of disaster risk (such as poorly enforced land use
planning and building codes leading to risk creation) and developmental implications of disasters(such as physical destruction of disasters eroding developmental gains made by household,communities and countries), disaster risk and its links with development processes must be
understood more holistically within the post 2015 Hyogo-framework of action (HFA) agenda.
The notion of ‘disaster resilience’ has a potential to become such broad umbrella concept linking
natural disaster, development and climate change adaptation agendas; however, the current
conceptualization of disaster resilience as ‘bouncing-back’ is falling short of providing inclusive
conceptual grounds for these different-yet-interlink fields to come together. Re-conceptualization ofdisaster resilience as that of ‘bouncing-forward’ –or a key to creating virtuous cycle of risk
reduction, improved welfare and sustainability is increasingly needed. Disaster research roadmap
beyond 2015 should be built on such broader understanding and reconceptualization of ‘disaster
resilience’, which can successfully invite different disciplines to work together on common goals of
DRR and sustainable development.
Building evidence-base beyond ‘direct risk’ toward improved understanding ofdevelopment-risk interaction
Evidence-based decision making will increasingly become important in the Post HFA era. This isalready seen in the proposed HFA measurement and monitoring framework that emphasizes theneed to quantify and monitor changing risks facing member states. While the improved evidence of
direct damage is certainly desirable (especially in those countries where evidence-base is currentlylimited), further research should be devoted to collecting evidence beyond ‘direct risk or damage.’
DRR field has yet to understand fully, what drives individual or collective decision-making thatcreates risks (and what can be done to successfully avoid risk creation); and how the direct
damage of disasters (collapsing buildings, infrastructures, crops and the way we cope with suchdirect risks) ultimately define the longer-term trajectory of future risk and development.
The collection of evidence that focuses on the immediate impact of natural hazards cannot give us
answers as to how direct risk can be avoided and developmental consequences be minimized.
Further evidence base should therefore be collection on ‘what had been happening before
disasters?’ as well as ‘what has happened after disasters?’ together any evidence that links thebefore and after of disasters in a more holistic way. The use of innovative tools and frameworks
such as participatory ‘citizen science’ will be effective in engaging more probing analysis of natural
disaster causes and consequences.
Improved science-policy interface for integrated DRR policy actions
Modeling and risk assessment are only useful so far as they are being used in the real world
policy-making. ‘Risk knowledge’ is hence a process rather than a product—it is not knowing
economic estimates, hazard maps or technological options, but being able to translate them into
practical use. More participatory and engaging research is certainly needed in the Post-HFA era sothat the state-of-the art scientific knowledge of DRR be translated and implemented on the ground.
Wider stakeholder engagement of policy-makers, private sectors, community leaders andacademics are needed and this is where IIASA is taking the leadership under the ongoing projectsuch as the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. The new types of partnership, engagement anddialogues are needed to transform the traditional academic discipline to one that is ‘action’ orientedand impact-focused.