The Triple Dividendof Resilience

Realising development goals through the multiple
benefits of disaster risk management

Thomas Tanner, Swenja Surminski, Emily Wilkinson, Robert Reid,
Jun Rentschler, Sumati Rajput

© 2015 Overseas Development Institute (ODI), International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International
Development Association or The World Bank.
Overseas Development Institute203 Blackfriars road
London SE1 8NJ
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
www.odi.org
The World Bank
1818 H Street NW
Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000
www.worldbank.org

This work is a product of the staff of ODI and The WorldBank with external contributions. The views present in thisreport are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent the view of ODI or The World Bank, its Board of
Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
ODI and The World Bank do not guarantee the accuracyof the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,
denominations, and other information shown on any
map in this work do not imply any judgment on the partof ODI and The World Bank concerning the legal statusof any territory or the endorsement or acceptance ofsuch boundaries.

Rights and Permissions
Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from thisreport for their own publications, as long as they are notbeing sold commercially. As copyright holder ODI and The
World Bank requests due acknowledgement. For online use
we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI
and World Bank websites.
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiaryrights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher,
The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433,
USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.

contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

Executive summary 9
Rising disaster losses 9
Underestimated benefits of DRM investments 9
The Triple Dividend of investing in resilience 9
Improving the business case for DRM 10

2.
2.1
2.2

The case for investing in resilience 12
Disasters, poverty and development 12
Incentivising ex-ante DRM 13

3.

The Triple Dividend: a comprehensive business case for resilience

14

4.
4.1
4.2

The First Dividend of Resilience: saving lives and avoiding losses
Saving lives and reducing people affected 17
Reducing damages and losses 18

17

5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

The Second Dividend of Resilience: unlocking economic potential
Increased business and capital investment 21
Household and agricultural productivity dividends 22
Land value dividends from protective infrastructure 24
Fiscal stability and future credit risks 24

21

6.
6.1
6.2
6.3

The Third Dividend of Resilience: Co-benefits of DRM investments
Ecosystem-based co-benefits 27
Transport co-benefits 29
Agricultural co-benefits 30

26

7.
		
7.1
7.2
7.3

Recommendations for decision-makers:
Integrating the Triple Dividend of Resilience in DRM appraisals 32
Define the problem and its context 32
Identify and apply tools and methods for empirical analysis of DRM
Communicate outcomes 33

		Further reading		

References

34

34

32

08
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is an output of an initiative fundedby the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction andRecovery (GFDRR) at the World Bank and led by
the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
The report was written by Thomas Tanner (ODI),
Swenja Surminski (London School of Economics
and Political Science), Emily Wilkinson (ODI),
Robert Reid, Jun Rentschler, and Sumati Rajput(World Bank), with inputs from Lindsey Jones,
Emma Lovell, and Catherine Simonet (ODI),
Mook Bangalore, Carter Brandon and Stephane
Hallegatte (World Bank), Stephany Griffith-Jones(Columbia University), Reinhard Mechler (IIASA),
Tom MacDermott (LSE), Adam Rose (Universityof Southern California), and Francis Vorhies(Earthmind).
We gratefully acknowledge the helpful review
comments on this and earlier drafts from Anna
Locke (ODI), Javier Baez, Juan Jose Miranda
Montero, Oscar Anil Ishizawa Escudero, Marc
S. Forni, Leonardo Garrido, Francis Ghesquiere,
Rashmin Gunasekera, and Niels Holm-Nielsen (allWorld Bank).
Design was by Mads Freund Brunse. Copy-editing
was by Holly Combe.

Suggested citation:
Tanner, T.M., Surminski, S., Wilkinson, E., Reid, R.,
Rentschler, J.E., and Rajput,S. (2015) The Triple Dividendof Resilience: Realising development goals through themultiple benefits of disaster risk management. Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) at
the World Bank and Overseas Development Institute (ODI),
London. www.odi.org/tripledividend

1. Executive summary
1.1 Rising disaster losses

makers to view DRM investments as a gamble that

The adverse impacts of climate change and extreme

there is increasing evidence that building resilience

weather events are a severe threat to livelihoods,

yields significant and tangible benefits, even if aand hold back growth and sustainable development.

disaster does not happen for many years.

only pays off in the event of a disaster. However,

The total number of disaster events and related
economic and humanitarian losses have been
increasing steadily since the 1980s. Economic losses
from extreme weather events are now in the range
of $150–$200 billion annually, with an increasing

1.3 The Triple Dividend ofinvesting in resilienceshare of damages located in rapidly growing urban

This report provides evidence for three types

areas in low and middle income countries. However,of benefits – or dividends of resilience – that

despite widespread awareness of these rising losses,

DRM investments can yield: (1) Avoiding losses

investment in ex-ante disaster risk management

when disasters strike; (2) Stimulating economic(DRM) remains relatively low.

activity thanks to reduced disaster risk; and (3)Development co-benefits, or uses, of a specific DRM
investment. While the first dividend is the most

1.2 Underestimated benefits of
DRM investments

common motivation for investing in resilience, thesecond and third dividend are typically overlooked.
More specifically:

To secure development gains and help eradicate
poverty in the long-run, it is critical to strengthen
ex-ante DRM measures that build resilience at
the household, firm and macro level. The processof disaster risk management includes (i) risk
identification, which informs the design of otherrisk management actions: (ii) reducing risk, by
avoiding the creation of new risk and reducing
existing risks; prepare for the residual risk, either(iii) physically (preparedness), or (iv) financially(financial protection); and (v) resilient recovery
and reconstruction, by building-back-better after

1. The First Dividend of Resilience – saving lives
and avoiding losses: The basic rationale andcommon motivation for DRM investments is to save
lives, reduce losses and promote effective recovery
from disasters. While it is the most obvious ofbenefits from DRM investments, it is not easy tomeasure. This is mainly because it is impossible topredict exactly when the next disaster will strike andhow intense it will be. Therefore decision makers
have to trust in statistics that tell them that there isa high likelihood that in the next 20 years, a disastera disaster.

will hit. However, with the short term perspective of

However, existing methods of appraising DRM

benefits of other investment options can appear

investments undervalue the benefits associated withmore attractive. Therefore, it is worthwhile to also

resilience. This is linked to the common perception

consider other more immediate benefits of DRM

that – similar to investing in voluntary insurance

investments in the second and third dividends.

many politicians or private investors, the immediate– investing in disaster resilience will only yield
benefits once disaster strikes. This leads decision09

10
2. The Second Dividend of Resilience – unlocking
economic potential: There is strong evidence thatthe mere possibility of a future disaster has real

1.4 Improving the business casefor DRM

impacts on present-day decisions and economic

Understanding all three dividends of resilience

growth: The risk of extreme weather events andand incorporating them in planning and decisiondisasters looms as an ever-present background risk.

making is critical for strengthening the businessAs a consequence, risk-averse households and firms

case for DRM investments. It will remain thatavoid long-term investments in productive assets,

the fundamental principle underpinning DRM

entrepreneurship is restricted and planning horizons

measures will be to save lives, reduce losses andare shortened, leading to development opportunities

promote effective recovery from disasters. However,being lost.

presenting evidence of additional dividends toThis report presents evidence that DRM measuresthat reduce this background risk can have immediateand significant economic benefits to households,
the private sector and, more broadly, at the macro-

policy-makers and investors can provide a narrative
reconciling short-term and long-term objectives,
thereby improving the acceptability and feasibility of
DRM investments.

economic level. For instance, there is evidenceThis report argues that any evaluation of thethat reduced background risk and effective risk

benefits of DRM investments is incomplete

management allow poor households to build up

without a full account of all three dividends ofsavings, invest in productive assets and improve

resilience. In practice, the analysis of this ‘triple

their livelihoods. More generally, increased

dividend’ can be integrated into a variety ofresilience enables forward-looking planning, long-

different commonly used appraisal tools. Thus,

term capital investments and entrepreneurship –this report suggests a framework for conducting

even if disasters do not occur for a long time.

more complete appraisals of DRM investments.
Overall, this will help to show that – in addition to

3. The Third Dividend of Resilience – generating
development co-benefits: Most DRM investments

serve multiple purposes, and are not solely
designed to reduce disaster impacts. Strengthened
river embankments can act as pedestrian
walkways, parks or roads; strengthened disaster
early warning systems also often strengthen
weather forecasting capacity, which can be usedby farmers to know when to plant and harvest;or disaster shelters, can be used as schools orcommunity spaces, when not being used asa shelter. Integrating multi-purpose designs
into DRM investments can save money. These
multiple uses of DRM infrastructure, as well as
the associated cost-saving, can be classified as
development co-benefits. While the nature ofthese co-benefits varies significantly, they allmaterialize even in the absence of a disaster andcan therefore strengthen the immediate businesscase for investing in DRM.

preventing human and economic losses during adisaster – DRM investments can actively contributeto wealth, wellbeing, profit, growth and sustainable
development.

Glossary of key terms
Avoided losses

The immediate and long-run damages and losses(1st Dividend of Resilience)that disaster risk reduction measures can prevent in
the event of a disaster.

Background risk

The possibility of an extreme event (e.g. a disaster)that threatens the prospects of ongoing economic
activity. The presence of background risk restricts
long-term investments and economic growth, even
before a disaster occurs.

Co-benefits

Co-benefits include development benefits or uses

(3rd Dividend of Resilience)of a DRM investment or action, in addition to theprimary DRM objective of reducing disaster losses.

Development DividendThis is the development potential that is unlocked(2nd Dividend of Resilience)

when background risk is reduced throughDRM measures. This includes innovation,
entrepreneurship, and investments, and isindependent of the occurrence of any actual disaster.

Disaster Risk Management (DRM)

Processes for designing, implementing, andevaluating strategies, policies, and measures toimprove the understanding of disaster risk, foster
disaster risk reduction and transfer, and promote
continuous improvement in disaster preparedness,
response, and recovery practices, with the explicit
purpose of increasing human security, well-being,
quality of life, and sustainable development. (IPCC,
2012)

Resilience

The ability of a system, community or society
exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate
to and recover from the effects of a hazard in atimely and efficient manner, including through thepreservation and restoration of its essential basic
structures and functions. UNISDR (2009). UNISDR
Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR:
Geneva.

Risk

The combination of the probability of an event
and its negative consequences. UNISDR (2009).
UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.
UNISDR: Geneva.

1112
2. The case for investing in resilience
2.1 Disasters, poverty anddevelopment

The increasing frequency of devastating disasters

There is growing awareness that disaster and climate

human development has been remarkable in the lastrisk threatens future growth and development.

two decades, with global levels of extreme poverty

The total number of disaster events has been

likely to fall to under 10% of the global population inincreasing since the 1980s, with this trend set to2015 (World Bank, 2015), gains have not been evenly

continue, driven by climate change, population

distributed between or within countries (World

growth, urbanisation, more people living in coastal

Bank, 2013). Without concerted action, by 2030

areas and floodplains, and the degradation or loss

there could be up to 325 million extremely poorof natural ecosystems (IPCC, 2012; United Nations

people living in the 49 countries most exposed toInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction

natural hazards and climate extremes, the majority(UNISDR, 2015a). Economic losses from ‘natural’in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Shepherd

disasters are now reaching between $150-$200

et al., 2013). Urban growth will be a particularly

billion each year, up from $50 billion in the 1980s

strong driver, with the global urban population(see Figure 1), while projected future disaster losses

increasing by 1.4 million each week, roughly thein the built environment alone are estimated at $314

size of Stockholm (Global Commission on thebillion per year (UNISDR, 2015a).

Economy and Climate, 2015). Most of this expansion

is a major obstacle to the reduction of poverty andpromotion of shared prosperity. While progress in

400(Billion US$)

Figure 1: Disaster and weather-related losses 1980–2013

300

200

100

19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
18
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13

0

Overall losses (in 2013 values)*

Source: Munich Re (2013), cited in GFDRR (2015)

Weather related losses (in 2013 values)**Losses adjusted to inflation based on countries CPI

is occurring in low- and middle-income countries,

visible and immediate, whereas their direct benefits

where the growth of informal settlements amplifies

and distribution of benefits are unclear, uncertain

disaster risk as low-income families are forced toand distant. Existing methods of appraising

occupy hazard-prone areas with low land values,

investment decisions often fail to incentivise DRM

deficient infrastructure, a lack of social protection

because they undervalue the resulting benefit

and high levels of environmental degradation

streams.

(UNISDR, 2015a).

There are also reasons why individuals choose tostay and invest in risky areas (Hallegatte et al., 2015).

2.2 Incentivising ex-ante DRM
A range of reports have emphasised the needto incentivise and enable greater ex-ante DRM(UNISDR, 2015a; World Bank, 2013; IPCC, 2012).
A range of international policy frameworks echo
this message, including the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction, the Financing
for Development Framework, the Sustainable
Development Goals, and the climate change
agreements. All of which highlight the importanceof investing in resilience. However, it still isn’t
happening at a rate needed to curb rising disasterlosses. Although some countries, cities andcommunities have made progress, funding is
still heavily biased towards ex-post measures.
Meanwhile, the importance of such ex-ante
prevention is not yet reflected in the much of thepolicy and practice in governments, aid agencies,
communities or businesses (Kellet and Caravani,2012).
There are many reasons for this underinvestment indisaster resilience. These include a lack of resourcesin poor countries, a limited understanding of risks
and impacts, greater political buy-in for more visible
post-disaster support initiatives, and the readyavailability of international post-disaster assistance(Keefer, 2009; Wilkinson, 2012; World Bank, 2013).
In particular, DRM suffers from a lack of salience
with citizens, as the benefits are hard to perceive(Wilkinson, 2012). Crucially, policy makers tend tounderinvest or not invest at all in projects to manage

Increased exposure to natural hazards may be seen
as an unavoidable side-effect from investments tocreate additional employment and growth frominternational trade in areas characterised by lowtransportation costs but exposed to flood risks(Gallup et al., 1998). In China, for instance, theTotal Factor Productivity (TFP) is 85% higher incoastal regions than inland, and TFP growth is not
significantly different despite higher investment ininland regions, suggesting that lower transport costs
offer a permanent productivity advantage in coastal
regions (Fleisher and Chen, 1997). Similarly, poor
people living in flood-prone areas in Mumbai are
well aware of the risks and make deliberate decisions
to live where they do to benefit from higher wages,
better schools and medical care (Patankar, 2015).
To counter these problems, this paper examines ashift in the narrative away from a singular focus onlosses as a driver for action, towards the recognition
and appraisal of a broader set of dividends frominvesting in DRM. We argue that DRM investment
should be considered within decision making as
something that is good for wealth, wellbeing, profit,
growth and sustainable development, in addition
to preventing human and economic losses shoulda disaster strike. Through the use of the triple
dividend concept, we examine evidence of thewider benefits of investing in resilience measureswith the intention of improving awareness andstimulating the development of appraisal tools that
can incorporate these factors and enhance future
investments in DRM.

risk because the costs of such investments are13

14
3. The Triple Dividend:
a comprehensive business case for resilience
Investing in DRM yields a wide range of benefits

1. The First Dividend (‘avoided losses’). Investing inin the short- and long-term: if a disaster does

DRM strategies takes the form of reduced losses andstrike, then prior planning and investments help

damages in the event of a disaster. These losses andreduce human and economic losses. This is thedamages can be both direct and indirect, leading tobasic rationale and common narrative for disasterboth immediate and long-term effects. Most notably,risk management, associated with saving lives,

the first dividend includes saved lives, along with

reducing losses and supporting both individuals

prevented or reduced damage to infrastructure andand communities to quickly and effectively

assets. This corresponds to the conventional ex-

bounce back from disasters. However, there arepost, loss-centric view, and is likely to underestimate

a range of resilience dividends (World Resources

the benefits of DRM measures (see section 4).

Institute (WRI), 2008; Rodin, 2014) associated with
DRM investments. The risk of disasters createsbackground risk, which constrains investment
in capital productivity and development for fearof returns being eroded by disaster events. DRM
enables forward-looking planning, long-term
capital investments and entrepreneurship. These
are all crucial elements for economic growthand shared prosperity. Investments in DRM andresilience also generate wider social, economicand environmental co-benefits irrespective ofdisasters. These could include multiplier effects on
employment or trade, or strengthening water andsewage systems. Importantly, many investments canbe specifically designed to have a dual use, such as
roads that act as embankments or tunnels that canalso serve as water retention and drainage systems.
As such, determining whether an investment is a
DRM measure with development co-benefits or adevelopment measure with DRM co-benefits is often
a matter of perspective.
This report argues that a more complete
understanding of this wide range of benefits – ordividends – of DRM investments is critical forstrengthening the business case for resilience. In
particular we propose three concrete dividends fromex-ante DRM measures:

2. The Second Dividend (‘unlocking economic
potential’). Even the mere possibility of a futuredisaster has real impacts on present-day economic
growth, particularly in regions or localities
where disaster risks are perceived to be high.
DRM measures help to manage this ever-present
background risk of potential future disasters. This
helps to unlock economic development potential byenabling forward-looking planning and investment.
Increased resilience can catalyse innovation,
entrepreneurship and investment in productive
assets – even if disasters do not occur for a long time(see section 5).
3. The Third Dividend (‘generating development
co-benefits’). DRM investments are typicallyassociated with economic, social, and environmental
uses, or ‘co-benefits’. Co-benefits can play animportant role in motivating DRM measures anddetermining their design (e.g. shelters doubling ascommunity spaces or flood protection infrastructure
doubling as roads). While the nature of co-benefits
varies significantly, they all materialise even in theabsence of a disaster (see section 6).

The three dividends of resilience are summarised inhigh ratio supports the business case of investing

Figure 2. This report is a first step to bring together

in DRM, but it could be further strengthened if

evidence that helps to characterise the dividends

it captured the full range of dividends associatedresulting from DRM investments. These are used towith these investments, such as new flood defenses

build the case for an incentive structure for DRM

helping to maintain existing and stimulate newthat goes beyond avoided losses.

investments. For instance, continued investment
by companies in the Tabasco region that were

The following sections illustrate each of the threeotherwise leaving further strengthens the case fordividends of resilience in turn. For example, theavoided losses. Additionally, the second dividend isWorld Bank and Mexico’s Ministry of Financeevident from reduced background risk encouraging

elaborated a joint study to determine the impact ofprivate investment in housing in previously flood-investment in flood defence in terms of reducing
flood damage in the State of Tabasco between 2007
and 2010. The first dividend was revealed by theprone areas and public investment in improved
drainage and electricity networks in areas where
floods had previously deterred such investment

cost-benefit ratio of these benefits, which was 4:1,

(World Bank 2014a).

contributing to avoided damages and losses whenfloods occurred in 2010 equivalent to $3 billion, or

In addition, the capital of Tabasco, Villahermosa,

7% of the GDP of Tabasco (World Bank, 2014a). Thishas seen improvements in the urban environment as

Figure 2: The Triple Dividend of Resilience
Investing in resilience reduces losses and damages in the case of a disaster. However, it can also yield development benefits regardless of disasters.
Typically, standard disaster risk management investment appraisals fail to account for the 2nd and 3rd dividends of resilience.

Disaster risk
management(DRM)
investments

1st Dividend of Resilience: Avoided losses
Avoiding damages and losses from disasters, by:• Saving lives and reducing people affected• Reducing damages to infrastructure and other assets• Reducing losses to economic flows

Benefits whendisaster strikes

2nd Dividend of Resilience: Unlocking
Economic Potential

Stimulating economic activity due to reduced disaster risk,
by increasing:• Business and capital investment• Household and agricultural productivity• Land value from protective infrastructure• Fiscal stability and access to credit

3rd Dividend of Resilience: Generating
Development Co-Benefits
Costs andpotential
adverseeffects of
DRM measures

DRM investments can serve multiple uses which can be captured as
co-benefits such as:• Eco-system services• Transportation uses
• Agricultural productivity gains

Benefits
Regardless of
disasters15

16
a result of federal government investment in flood

externalities associated with the flood defence

defence. Major DRM investments have stimulated

project in Tabasco. Channelling water away from thelocal actors to take greater care of the environment

capital Villahermosa has led to increased flooding

while small-scale projects with environmental

elsewhere in the state, mainly in rural areas. There

benefits have been initiated, including tree planting

have also been negative environmental impacts as

on riverbanks to prevent landslides, which could

a result of these large construction projects. These

potentially reveal environmental co-benefits asnegative impacts also need to be considered whenmentioned under the third dividend. People areweighing up the full range of costs and benefits

beginning to dispose of litter more responsibly,

associated with a particular DRM investment.

throwing less on the streets or into drains, helping

The triple dividend framework presented here

avoid blockages during rainy season (Vorhies andhelps to inform more comprehensive cost-benefit

Wilkinson, forthcoming 2015).

calculations.

This example also demonstrates the need to
examine the possible negative consequences,which could be considered negative co-benefits
associated with a comprehensive assessment. For
Cyclone shelter and medical
camp, Bangladesh

example, a report by the Colegio de la Frontera Sur
suggests there are a number of unintended negative4. The First Dividend of Resilience:saving lives and avoiding losses
Saving lives and avoiding losses (First Dividend of Resilience)
DRM measures can avoid or reduce losses and damages (both immediate andlong-run) in the event of a disaster.
These include:•

saving lives and reducing numbers of people affected•

reducing direct damages to infrastructure and other assets•

reducing economic and non-monetary losses (direct and indirect).

The triple dividend of resilience approach outlined

While comparisons across countries and events are

earlier is motivated by the observation that fully

difficult due to contextual differences, it is possible

acknowledging the benefits of resilience will

to infer levels of preparedness and effectivenessstrengthen the business case for DRM investments.

of DRM measures through observing the impacts

However, while other benefits of DRM can playof similar hazards (see Figure 3). In 2010, thesubstantial roles, the primary objective of DRM

existence and enforcement of building codes helped

remains clear: to save lives, while also reducing

limit earthquake damage in Chile, with less thanloss and damage to people and their assets. In

1000 people killed, despite a magnitude 500 times

recognition of the importance of this objective, thisgreater than the Haiti quake of the same year that

section briefly highlights the evidence for effective

killed over 230,000 (Lovett, 2010). More recently,

risk management that limits human and economic

increased investment in infrastructure and disasterdisaster losses.

preparedness paid off in the latest earthquake andtsunami in September 2015 in Chile, which resulted
in relatively low casualties, despite a 8.2 magnitude

4.1 Saving lives and reducing
people affected(UNISDR, 2015b). Volcano-related mortality has

Effective disaster risk management policies andnot all volcanoes are monitored, it is estimated that

actions are often measured by their ability to savesuch measures have saved about 50,000 lives overlives and reduce the number of people affected by

the last century (Auker et al., 2013).

disasters. To this effect, progress in saving lives
has been marked. As reported in the 2015 Global
Assessment Report, ‘improvements in disastermanagement have led to dramatic reductions inmortality in some countries’ (UNISDR, 2015a). In
Bangladesh, deaths from cyclones have been reduced
considerably, due to a combination of strengthened
coastal defences, cyclone shelters and early warning
systems (EWS).

also decreased significantly as a result of volcano
monitoring, assessments and EWS; and, although

DRM interventions can also save lives throughacknowledging different people’s needs,
vulnerabilities and capacities. Integrating indigenous
knowledge into DRM initiatives has been shownto help avoid loss of life. For example, oral history
on ocean and buffalo behaviour meant that the
inhabitants of Simeulue Island in Indonesia had
early warning before the Indian Ocean tsunami in17

18
2004 and were able to retreat to the hills. As a result,

Infrastructure, early warning systems and planning

only seven out of 78,000 people died from theare three areas where DRM investments havetsunami, despite the island being located just 40 km

been critical in reducing losses from disasters.

from the epicentre of the earthquake (Lovell and le

Infrastructure losses have particularly profound

Masson, 2014).

consequences for development progress. Between
2015 and 2030, approximately $90 trillion is
expected to be invested globally in infrastructure to

4.2 Reducing damages and losses

meet the world’s urban, land use and energy needs

There is a strong body of evidence for the2014). This is particularly pertinent in Asia andeffectiveness of DRM measures gathered fromAfrica, where 90% of urban growth is expected toprojects around the world. The GAR 2015 concludes

take place between now and 2050, which will resultthat ‘annual global investment of US$6 billion inin accompanying infrastructure needs (United

appropriate disaster risk management strategies

Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

would generate total benefits in terms of risk

(UNDESA), 2014). It is crucial that these huge

reduction of US$360 billion. This is equivalent tofinancial investments are disaster-resilient, as thisan annual reduction of new and additional average

will protect lives and secure development progress.

annual loss by more than 20 percent’ (UNISDR
2015a). Mechler and Bouwer (2014) make the casethat, despite the increase in risk exposure, various
DRM strategies have decreased vulnerabilities
throughout the world.

(Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,

Infrastructure losses often go well beyond physicaldamage. Business losses can be the consequence of‘ripple effects’ as the impact of shocks propagate
both upstream (backward) from clients to suppliers

Figure 3: Reduced cyclone mortality in Bangladesh and Odisha, India
Bangladesh

State of Odisha, India
Cyclone Bhola

Cyclone 05B

Cyclone Phailin(category 4)(category 5)(category 5)(category 5)

1970

Source: Munich Re (2014), in GFDRR (2015)

2007

1999

47 people killed

4,234 people killed

138,866 people killed
1991

9,843 people killed

Cyclone Gorky(category 3)

300,000 people killed

Cyclone Bhola

2013

Table 1: Damage reduction due to early warning of different lead times

Item

Lead
time

Damagereduction(%)

Household items

24 hrs20

48 hrs80

and downstream (forward) from suppliers to clients.
The 2011 Thai floods impact on global supply
chains forced Toyota to slow down production infactories in Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan,
the Philippines, South Africa, Vietnam and North
America. Locating industrial parks in protected areas

Up to 7less prone to flooding would have improved disasterdays

resilience and reduced losses (SCOR SE, 2013).
Similarly, the Tohoku-Pacific earthquake in Japan inLivestock

March 2011 reduced domestic industrial production
and the exports of goods used as inputs in the auto

48 hours

40

Toyota’s Indian subsidiary by up to 70% between 25

days

April and 4 June (The Economic Times, 2011).

Agriculture

24 hrsitems
Removal of additional
possessions

possessions including stored
crops

10

Up to 7

Removal of some household

Removal of all possible90

24 hrsindustry, leading to a reported cut in production at

Actions taken to reduce
damages

45

10

Early warning systems are frequently cited for their

Poultry moved to safety
Poultry, farm animals moved tosafetyPoultry, farm animals, forages,
straw moved to safety
Agricultural implements andequipment removed
Nurseries, seed beds saved, 50%role in reducing economic losses of disasters by
48 hours

triggering other important prevention actions, as

30

there is more lead time to protect assets. While theof crop harvested, agricultural
implements andequipment removed

evidence base is complicated by issues of attribution

Nurseries, seed beds saved,

and lack of widespread cost benefit calculations

fruit trees harvested, 100% of

Up to 7

(Rogers and Tsirkunov, 2011), table 1 suggests

days

significant loss and damage reduction possible due to70

implements andequipment removed

an early warning of different lead times on a numberof different movable assets (Subbiah et al., 2008).

Fisheries

24 hrs30

48 hours

40

Establishing and enforcing risk-informed, locallyappropriate standards and codes for new buildings
and other infrastructure reduces the risk of damage
Up to 7to structures in the event of a disaster. Existingdays

infrastructure can also be retrofitted to adhere toOpen sea fishing

24 hrs10

15

built in compliance with the standard. These werecompletely destroyed or severely damaged (GFDRR,

School or office

24 hrs5

48 hours

102014). Similarly, homes built with typhoon-resistantfeatures as part of the Storm Resistant Housing fora Resilient Da Nang City project in Vietnam showed

Up to 7no damage when Typhoon Nari hit in October 2013

days

(Tran, 2013).

prawns harvested
Some fish, shrimps, prawns
harvested, nets erected

harvested, nets erected,
equipment removed

were significantly less impacted by Cyclone Ian
in 2014 than many newer houses that were notSome fish, shrimps,

All fish, shrimps, prawns
70

building standards. For example, houses in Tonga
constructed to cyclone standards in the early 1980s

crop harvested, agricultural

15

Fishing net,boat damage avoided
Fishing nets removed, boat
damage avoided
Money, some officeequipment saved
Money, most officeequipment saved
Money, all office equipment,
including furniture protected

Source: Subbiah et al., (2008).

19

20
A World Bank study of earthquake vulnerability in

The examples above suggest that the avoidance ofColombia (Ghesquiere et al., 2006) assessed a range

loss usually provides a critically important streamof measures that were:of benefits for DRM investments. Widening avoided
loss calculations beyond immediate asset losses• structural (retrofitting and reinforcement of

to include the impact of disasters on the wider

public buildings, such as schools, hospitals, fireeconomy and society can help strengthen the casestations and administrative buildings)

for investing in DRM. Nevertheless, the potential
incentivising role is limited by several factors. First,• non-structural (the resettlement of vulnerable

these wider benefits are hard to identify, calculate

populations in high-risk areas)

and attribute. This is because these benefits rely on• functional (protection of people and assets,counter-factual reasoning, in that a DRM investment

so that they remain functional during andwill reduce the probability of a disaster happening. It

immediately after an emergency).

is difficult to measure the impact of something nothappening. Second, the benefits may not be enjoyed

A probabilistic cost-benefit analysis helpedby the same parties facing the costs of investment,

demonstrate to decision-makers the significant

although this may not be a problem for governments

reductions in probable maximum loss (PML) of aconcerned with wider economic and social goods.

1 in 1000 year earthquake event, before and after

However, the most critical point to consider here,

structural investments were made (shown below infrom the perspective of this paper, is that using loss-

Figure 4). The average annual returns on mitigation

based approaches to justify investment is reliant

investments for schools, hospitals and fire stations

on the occurrence of a disaster event in the future,

were estimated to be as high as 19% for structuralwhich is a major flaw. By identifying the dividends ofinvestments and 32% for structural and functional

resilience that are delivered even in the absence ofinvestments. In addition to the direct costs ofdisaster events, and incorporating them in decision

structural and functional assets, there may besignificant indirect losses. One example of this would
be the way disruption to education can constrain

making, the case for investing in resilience can begreatly improved.

future career options and prosperity later in life.

3530

PML (percent)Figure 4: Probable Maximum Loss (PML) of a 1 in 1000 year earthquake event, before and after structural investments

Unretrofitted
Retrofitted

25
20
15
10
5
0
Schools
Source: Ghesquiere et al. (2006)

Fire stations

Hospitals

Other public buidings

5. The Second Dividend of Resilience: unlocking
economic potential
Unlocking economic potential (Second Dividend)
DRM measures that reduce the background risk due to potential futuredisasters can have immediate and significant development benefits. Increased
resilience enables forward-looking planning, long-term capital investments andentrepreneurship, even if disasters do not occur for a long time.
These benefits include:•

economic gains from positive risk taking (e.g. entrepreneurship and innovation)•

investments in productive assets (e.g. in small-scale agriculture)•extending planning horizons (e.g. for building up savings)•

increase in land values after DRM investment.

In disaster-prone places, risks of extreme weather
events and disasters create an ever-present
background risk. As a consequence, risk-averse

5.1 Increased business andcapital investment

households and firms avoid long-term investments

Without effective instruments for managing disasterin productive assets, entrepreneurship is restrictedrisks and the adverse consequences of disasters,

and planning horizons are shortened, meaning

investment decisions are likely to be excessively risk

development opportunities are lost. By reducing thisaverse (Elbers et al., 2007; Gollier and Pratt, 1996).

background risk, or by helping households and firms

As a result, businesses refrain from engaging into manage it effectively, DRM measures can haveentrepreneurial activities and innovation or making

immediate and significant economic benefits.

long-term investments in productive assets.

This section presents evidence that investments in

One of the most immediate benefits that investingex-ante DRM can unlock economic opportunities

in DRM has to offer the private sector relates

for households, government and the private sector

to investment risk-taking. Taking positive risks,

and, more broadly, at the macro-economic level. For

engaging in entrepreneurial activities, andexample, the evidence from poor rural households

investing in productive assets and innovation

dependent on agricultural income suggests thatare the drivers of job creation, rising incomes,

strengthening ex-ante DRM enables households

greater productivity and overall economic growth.

to increase savings and investment in productive

However, the perceived risk of future disasters

assets, thereby improving their productivity andcan lead to greater risk aversion, which dampens

livelihoods. Further examples show how DRM

entrepreneurial activity (Rose, 2015). Investingmeasures can increase land values, as well as

in DRM can help reduce this background risk andimprove credit access, fiscal management and public

provide better information on residual risk, which

sector coordination. Overall, increased resiliencein turn helps promote the entrepreneurship andcan be argued to be a catalyst for positive risk taking

investment needed for economic growth and job

such as capital investments, entrepreneurship andcreation. While risk-taking can increase welfare,innovation, along with forward-looking planning.

there may be a trade-off between exposure tonatural hazards and productivity or economic

21

22
growth in high disaster risk situations. Public andFirms may also benefit from improvements to

private investment in improved risk management

their image and credit ratings, through increased

can mitigate this trade-off, reducing the backgroundstability (Rose, 2015). There is some evidence

risk that prevents people from investing, thereforeof businesses taking this ‘good citizen’ image

improving productivity and accelerating growthseriously; for example, in a set of six case studies(Hallegatte 2014).

of companies describing their activities related toSimilarly, disaster insurance can encourage thekind of ‘positive risk taking’ that is arguably
fundamental to the development process, making
investments more secure and therefore fosteringbusiness innovation and growth (Hallegatte et al.,2015). However, disaster insurance may also lead tomoral hazards if it is not designed with the correct
control measures in place. This points to a potential
counter effect of using insurance, where it cancreate a false sense of security, increase vulnerability
to exceptional events or encourage inappropriate
development in high-risk areas (Surminski 2014).
Investing in DRM can generate benefits that extend
across sectors to the macroeconomic level. A region

managing the physical impacts of extreme weather
and climate change, most saw avoidance of disaster
impacts (both now and in the future) as only partof the logic for investing in resilience (Crawford
and Seidel, 2013). Companies such as American
Water, The Hartford, National Grid and Rio Tinto
all emphasised that fulfilling, or staying aheadof, regulatory and disclosure requirements andnew government policy are key business drivers
for investing in resilience. A survey of European
companies also revealed that investing in resiliencecan help develop market opportunities, with 43%of the companies surveyed anticipating increased
demand for existing products/services (Carbon
Disclosure Project (CDP), 2015).

or country-wide boost to productive investments
can boost the overall development of a country.
Protecting coastal regions, towns, business districts
or ports from flood can foster economic activity,

5.2 Household and agricultural
productivity dividends

long-term planning and capital investments. This is

When levels of background risk are high, evidence

because, where well designed and maintained, large

suggests that households lacking effective risk

DRM infrastructure investments (such as dikes) can

management tools will tend to spread their overall

protect not only large firms themselves, but alsorisk. Rather than specialising, households tend totheir workers and suppliers, along with their social

engage in a wider range of lower risk activities,

and logistic infrastructure. If DRM investments

thereby reducing returns to assets and investments

enable firms and their stakeholders to make(Hallegatte et al., 2015). For example, there islong-term capital investments, engage in trade andevidence that rural households avoid focusing solely

thus promote business development, the entire

on agriculture and instead diversify occupations

area benefits collectively (World Bank, 2013;

within households as a risk management measure

Hallegatte, 2014).

– with negative impacts on long-term welfare(Rentschler, 2013). While such actions reduce therisk of severe losses, they obstruct growth andincentives to invest (Dercon, 2005; Carter andBarrett, 2006).

An illustration of this effect can be provided in an

Table 2: Land-value Gains and Infrastructure Costs in Recife, Brazil

agricultural context in Zimbabwe. Here, farmers

Increase in land value($ per square meter)
by distance to centre

exposed to risk exhibit a mean capital stock thatis half as large as for farmers who are not exposed.
Of this reduction in capital, ex-ante risk accounts
for two thirds of the difference; hence, most of
the welfare impact of risk comes through reduced

Service

5–10 km

15–20 km25–30 km

Ratio of gain inland value toinvestment cost

Water supply

11.1

5.1

3.2

1.02

Road pavement

9.1

4.8

3.4

2.58

Wastewater removal

8.5

1.8

0.3

3.03

investments and risk-taking, not damage andloss when a disaster occurs (Elbers et al., 2007;
Hallegatte et al. 2015). Extending these findings into
other decision making contexts and sectors could
provide crucial evidence to enhance the incentives
for ex-ante investments in DRM.

Source: Peterson, (2009)

Household insurance and social safety net
programmes have been observed to stimulate

enabled farmers to overcome credit constraints andsavings, investment in productive assets andmitigated previously chronic underinvestment inincreases in agricultural productivity in atools and fertiliser. As a result, farmers have been

number of different countries, with subsequent

able to increase their agricultural productivity, withimprovements in income levels. In Ethiopia, thean average 6% increase in maize yields. Evidence

R4 Rural Resilience Initiative (previously HARITA)

also shows that insured farmers invest in riskier andprogramme is providing risk management support,

higher-yielding cultivation methods, with higher

including weather-indexed insurance to small-scale

overall planting-stage investments than uninsured

and subsistence farmers. Premiums are largely

peers, enabling them to reconcile entrepreneurial

paid through labour to support risk management

investment decisions with effective risk

activities. In the event that rainfall drops below amanagement (Dar et al., 2013; Emerick et al., 2015).

predetermined threshold during the growing season,
insurance payments are automatically triggered.
An evaluation of the programme has found that
insurance is enabling farmers to increase theirsavings, which can act as an important reserve in thecase of contingencies. Moreover, insured farmers
have been found to increase their investments
in productive assets, in particular oxen, but also
fertiliser, improved seeds and compost – thus
improving their overall productivity (Madajewisz etal., 2013; Greatrex et al., 2015).

Overall, these evaluations demonstrate how
effective risk management tools not only yieldsignificant benefits in the aftermath of a disaster,
but can also yield significant benefits even if
disasters do not strike for many years, such as
through increases in productivity and income
levels. By reducing background risk, DRM measures
can directly influence economic decisions andbehaviour, actively contributing to a long-termsustainable economic development process. If
implemented at sufficient scale, DRM measures

Evaluations of the Mexico government’s CADENA(such as weather indexed insurance programmes)

programme show how weather indexed insurance

can have significant economic development benefits

not only helps to compensate for drought losses,

at the macro-level, and even be cost-effective in the

but also directly increases the productivity ofabsence of disasters.

small-scale farmers. The insurance programme has

23

24
5.3 Land value dividends fromprotective infrastructure

5.4 Fiscal stability and futurecredit risks

Investment in dams, levees and other structures

There are a number of economic and other benefits

to protect assets from disaster impacts canof DRM to be recognised and realised by thoseunlock economic potential through increases inin charge of fiscal policy decisions. Approaches

productive investment and consequent increasesorganised around the protection of the balancein the value of land. To some extent, the efficiency

sheet using risk financing instruments have seenof infrastructure provision can be measured by

growing emphasis in disaster-prone countries in

the relationship between land-value capitalisation

recent years (Mechler et al., 2015). The inclusion

and infrastructure costs. When the benefitsof disaster risk in these instruments and shock-of capitalised land values exceed the costs offinancing mechanisms can have a significant impact

installing infrastructure, infrastructure is generally

on reducing uncertainty, potentially unlocking

undersupplied. This relationship can be seen inhigher private investment, employment and growth

Table 2, which demonstrates land-value gains and(Griffith-Jones and Tanner, 2015). Implementing a

infrastructure costs in Recife, Brazil. In this case,structured process for risk detection in the balance

there is clearly a need for more investment in road

sheet can potentially provide a ‘price signal’ while,

pavement and wastewater removal in order to meetin contrast, a focus on ex-post disaster management

economic demand, as the land-value gains exceed

offers little in the way of risk awareness or

the costs of infrastructure supply. This is in contrast

stimulating risk reduction (Phaup and Kirschner,

to the water supply, which has an almost equal land-2010). This is the case in Mexico, where innovativevalue capitalisation to investment cost ratio of 1:1

financing arrangements have been initiated under(Peterson, 2009).

FONDEN incentivise investment, to ‘build backIn a similar way, protective infrastructure can also
generate dividends of resilience. Hard infrastructure

better’ and relocate housing to lower-risk areas(Hoflinger et al. 2012).

for protection, along with soft DRM measures,

One example of a strategic DRM response thatsuch as monitoring and early warning, can protect

incorporates the ‘triple dividend’ concept is theassets from disaster impacts. These factors are

fiscal risk matrix. Such matrices combine thelikely to have a positive effect on land prices, whichassessment of many different contingent risks,

also shows an increased willingness for people toincluding their interaction with disaster risk, andinvest in these areas, given a reduced backgroundtheir use has grown from insights gained duringrisk. These increased land values can in turn help

recent financial and fiscal crises (Mechler et al.,to raise government revenue, helping to finance2015). Fiscal risks are ‘stress-tested’ throughthe cost of ex-ante DRM measures. It is possible

sensitivity tests on baseline macro and fiscal

to learn from building development projects,

indicators. There is also a growing understanding

where one of the most common strategies forof the need to take a systematic perspective forrecovering infrastructure costs involves the sale

understanding the potential for complex andof land with enhanced value. Here, it can be seeninterrelated shocks, leading to a multi-risk approachthat the business case for protective infrastructure(World Economic Forum (WEF), 2015). Disaster

investments can be more accurately costed in thisrisk has come to be considered a key threat; inway, particularly where the public sector owns thea recent survey regarding relevant fiscal risks inland.

OECD countries, disasters emerged as an importantconcern (Kopits, 2014).

In the future, the benefits of lower backgroundenable capital investment may therefore provide

Ram Kumari Tharu, 33, heads

risk may also be reflected in businesses anda component of the development dividend forout to a local collection center

governments’ access to affordable credit. Noting

firms, with ratings agencies now calling for greaterwith her morning cucumber

the growing influence of climate change on risks,

disclosure of firms’ exposure to extreme naturalStandard and Poor’s suggest climate change

hazards, which should encourage them to bolster

could feed through to sovereign creditworthinesstheir resilience to these events and aid transparency

through economic, fiscal and external performance(Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, 2015).

harvest.

(Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, 2014). Credit
rating agencies have also recognised that companies’
credit profiles may be determined to a larger degreein the future by climate-related disasters and theincreased exposure of companies and their global
supply chains to risk (Standard & Poor’s Rating
Services, 2015; Moody’s, 2015). In some cases,
credit rating agencies have explicitly called for
DRM strategies to both prevent disaster losses andmaintain credit ratings, illustrated in coastal cities
in south-eastern Virginia’s Hampton Roads regionof the USA (Moody’s 2015). Access to credit to25

26
6. The Third Dividend of Resilience: Co-benefits of
DRM investments
Generating development co-benefits (Third Dividendof Resilience)
DRM investments have multiple uses and can be classified as economic, social andenvironmental co-benefits. These co-benefits may either be explicitly designed into
the investment (such as dual-use infrastructure) or incidental.
While the nature of co-benefits varies significantly, they all materialise even in theabsence of a disaster. Co-benefits can play an important role in motivating DRM
measures and determining their design. Multi-purpose design that intentionallyintegrates these co-benefits can save money and significantly improve theattractiveness of investing in DRM.
These co-benefits include:•

economic co-benefits, (e.g. flood protection supporting fisheries)•

social co-benefits, (e.g. improved transparency or social cohesion)•

environmental co-benefits (e.g. watershed protection).

Table 3: The range of co-benefits associated with DRM measures
DRM activity

Possible co-benefits
Provision of irrigation or potable water andFlood protection structureshydro-electric power.
Dual-purpose road infrastructure

Strengthening DRM capacity of civil society

Eco-system based DRM approaches

Shelters

Improved governance, more organised social
structures

To gain a complete picture of the benefits of DRM
investments, their social, environmental andeconomic contexts must be taken into account.
This makes it evident that DRM measures canyield a variety of co-benefits. These can materialiseeven in the absence of a disaster, but – unlike
the second dividend of resilience – are not due
to reduced background risk. In line with growing

Environmental conservation, improved air

efforts to highlight the co-benefits of climate change

quality, climate change mitigation

mitigation, it is critical for decision makers to fullyCommunity facilities (e.g. clinics or schools) inunderstand and account for the co-benefits of DRM

non-disaster periods

and climate change adaptation measures (Vorhies

Improving water supply systems in rural

Water supply systems improved regardless ofand Wilkinson, 2015; Kok et al., 2008; Santucci, 2015;

areas

a disaster occurring

Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,

Improved irrigation practices, possibly2014). As emphasised in section 4, it is important

Construction and use of drainage pipes,

improved agricultural practices.

that the design of DRM measures must also fully

canals and water retention basins

Dual purpose road tunnel or parking lot

consider and mitigate the potential negative side-

infrastructure
Community-based disaster preparedness

Improved women’s involvement incommunity level activities

Installing more resilient wirelessEnhanced access to telephony and electronic

communications

data services

Training farmers to diversify the use of crops

Reduced vulnerability to poverty

Better monitoring of food supplies

Improvement to the food supply chain,possibly making it more cost-effective

Source: Adapted from Environmental Resources Management and Department for International
Development (ERM), 2005

effects of DRM measures (such as the costs ofrelocation of communities from risky areas).

This section presents evidence of the positive sideeffects, or co-benefits, of DRM measures. Some

6.1 Ecosystem-based co-benefitsof these might be unintentional and generated as

Ecosystem-based approaches to DRM and climate‘spill-over’ effects. However, the examples below

adaptation provide a good illustration of co-benefits

also demonstrate the diverse synergies that canfrom investing in resilience. These have gained

be created by intentionally designing measures topopularity in recent years emphasising how gooddeliver both DRM and development objectives.

stewardship of environmental systems can help

Conversely, linking with DRM goals can also help

reduce and adapt to disaster risks, in turn saving

to deliver other benefits that might otherwise belives and reducing loss and damage. At the sameundersupplied, such as public space or improved

time, ecosystem protection can generate wider

transport networks.

social and environmental co-benefits, even in theMulti-use design is becoming increasingly common
in physical DRM infrastructure, where high upfront
costs might otherwise make the investments harder
to justify. Cyclone shelters in Bangladesh have along history of multi-purpose design for use outsidestorm times (Khan, 2008). In Tinputz District,
Papua New Guinea, resilient infrastructure foreducation and health is designed both as a spacefor communal gatherings and safe shelters for thecommunity if disaster does strike (Tinputz District
Disaster Risk Management Committee, 2014).
Table 5 presents examples of the breadth of theseco-benefits, illustrating how widely they can vary inpractice. Some co-benefits can be directly observed,
measured and quantified, such as livelihood benefits
or dual purpose infrastructure, while others, suchas social cohesion, can be very hard to quantify
and integrate in economic analyses, despite being

absence of disaster events. These include:• biodiversity conservation• carbon sequestration and mitigation• land erosion and degradation prevention• habitat creation and restoration• mitigation of microclimate variability.
Social co-benefits include:• improved and secure livelihoods• social cohesion and community• new or preserved recreation areas• better quality land for agriculture/livestock• better water security.

potentially significant. Below, we outline three areas

Aside from economic damages, these approaches

where DRM activities are delivering co-benefits:

have been shown to help develop new or improved

ecosystem-based approaches, transport systems, andincome, profits or savings, when compared toagricultural projects.

alternative DRM or climate adaptation approaches(Doswald et al., 2014). The services delivered byecosystems can therefore deliver, not only disasterrisk reduction benefits such as flood regulation andprotection from storm-surge protection, but alsoenhance food security, provide sustainable watersupplies or enhance livelihoods through increasing
resource-use options or tourism (Jones et al. 2012).

27

28
A Vietnam mangrove plantation and DRM project

Such multi-purpose water management approaches

in the typhoon and flood prone coastal provinces

can therefore be designed to provide livelihood,of northern Vietnam has proven to have significant

environment, aesthetic or recreational co-benefits

environmental co-benefits (IFRC, 2012). The

alongside disaster resilience. The Netherlands

benefits of this multi-purpose DRM project include:‘Room for the river’ is being designed to manage

carbon sequestration, nutrient retention, sedimenthigher water levels, giving the country’s rivers more

retention, biodiversity habitat, flood attenuation,

space to flood safely. The measures also attempt towastewater treatment, and water supply andimprove the quality of the immediate surroundings,

recharge. The 17-year-long project cost $8.88 million

such as providing new river islands. While in someto set up and has involved the creation of 9,462hacases such co-benefits can be assumed to representof forest (8,961 ha of mangroves) in 166 communes

good project design and implementation, they are

and the ‘protection of approximately 100km of dyke

not always costed into the business cases that justify

lines’. The project aims to reach approximately

the financing decisions.

350,000 beneficiaries directly and two million

Similarly, the World Bank’s flood management

indirectly. There has been an ‘increase in per hectare

programme in Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo

yield of aqua culture products such as shells anddemonstrates the wider value of wetland protection

oyster by 209-789 per cent’. Economic benefits fromand restoration beyond just flood defence. Whilst

aqua product collection and honeybee farming are

performing a valuable role in reducing flood risks,

found to be between $344,000 and $6.7 million in

the wetlands of the Colombo basin serve a range

the selected communes. Environmental benefitsof other purposes. They provide livelihoods andinclude $218 million alone generated as an estimatedeconomic security to local residents throughminimum of CO2 emissions absorbed by the planted

fishing and rice cultivation, while also serving asman­groves (assuming a price of $20/t CO2e).

Table 4: Summary of floodgate rehabilitation activities (Source: World Bank, 2012)

Required Works

Estimated
Financial
Cost ($)

Estimated
Economic
Cost ($)

Benefit Area(Ha)estimated
Flood
Protection
Benefit ($)

estimated
Fish Benefit
($)

Total
Benefit ($)

72,00068,400120

12,3753,600

15,97552,50049,875100

10,3133,600

13,91335,00033,250100

10,3133,600

13,91331,87530,281150

15,4693,600

19,06938,25036,338170

17,531

3,600

21,131

218,144640

66,00018,00084,000Rehabilitation of the mechanical
Huay Pinworks (gates), minor structural
repairs to the headworks
Rehabilitation of the mechanical

Huay Kaeworks (gates), minor structural
repairs to the headworks
Rehabilitation of the mechanical

Huay Pa Pak

works (gates), minor structural
repairs to the headworks
Rehabilitation of the mechanical

Huay Bung Or

works (gates), resectioning of thecanal (2.5 km)
Rehabilitation of the mechanical

Huay Daengworks (gates), resectioning of thecanal (3.0 km)

Total

Source: Adapted from Environmental Resources Management and Department for International Development (ERM), 2005

Figure 5: SMART Tunnel design in Malaysia
Investing in resilience reduces losses and damages in the case of a disaster. However, it can also yield development benefits regardless of
disasters. Typically, standard disaster risk management investment appraisals fail to account for the 2nd and 3rd dividends of resilience.

1. No storm, low rainfall

Holding pond
Storage reservoir

2. Moderate storm

Holding pond
Storage reservoir

3. Major storm

Holding pond
Storage reservoir

Bypass tunnel

a park area for tourism and recreation, and thewetlands and surrounding areas are on average
10 degrees celsius cooler than non-pervious areas(such as parking zones or on the streets) at thehottest time of the day. This results in energy
savings for buildings and homes using artificial
cooling systems. Other wetland co-benefits
include waste water treatment, maintenance offreshwater supplies, carbon sequestration, climate
regulation, water regulation, soil erosion regulation,
pollination, recreation and nutrient cycling.
Economic analyses of selected wetland co-benefits,
including flood protection, carbon sequestration,
climate regulation through reduced use of air
conditioning near wetland areas and waste water
treatment, along with potential income fromrecreational activities, could be worth between $113
to $127 million annually (World Bank, 2015).

6.2 Transport co-benefits
DRM investments can also be linked with transportsystems to combine objectives and improve
efficiency. Flood embankments are often used not
only to protect the landward assets from inundation
but also to support road networks. In doing so, theroads themselves are also more resilient to flood
impacts and can permit movement after major
hazard events. These synergies can operate at avariety of scales: Levees in Bangladesh commonly
support small-scale tracks for rickshaws andmotorcycles, whilst the 11 dams that protect St
Petersburg in Russia against storm surges are built
to support 25.4 km of six-lane highway.
The Smart Tunnel scheme in Kuala Lumpur
combines storm water flood drainage with vehicle
tunnels under the city (see Figure 5). For Category 2
storms, which occur about ten times each year, partof the flood waters are diverted through the lower29

30
section of the road tunnel. For Category 3 storms,

well as less risks to boats related to storms, fisheries

which occur once or twice a year, traffic is prohibitedbusiness now have more adequate infrastructure,

and a large part of the flood flow is diverted throughelectricity, water, transportation and other logistics

the tunnel. A flood detection system provides

services for their activity (World Bank, 2014b).

adequate warning time to evacuate traffic andoperate tunnel floodgates as well as to minimize thecost of traffic disruption (Seang, 2009).

The World Bank Mekong Integrated Water
Resources Management Project has produced anumber of economic co-benefits. Estimates of theseare based on the assumption that they would be

6.3

Agricultural co-benefits

The development of safe sea port shelters as partof the Natural Disaster Risk Management Project inVietnam were planned to support the sustainable
development of the fishing industry. The facilities
are highly effective in preventing storms damages
for the fishery boats, but also provide a centre forthe development of fisheries logistic services. As
Man scattering rice grains.
Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Philippines

fully reached in three years and that the economic
life of the investment would be 15 years. The project
was designed with water resource management andflood plain management at its core and resulted in
the rehabilitation of 10 floodgates in the Xebangfai
River and about 40 village irrigation schemes being
put in place in the Xebangfai and Xebanghieng riversof Lao PDR.

Box 1: Key co-benefits of integrated DRM investments in Jamaican agriculture include:
Economic co-benefits•

DRM irrigation projects helped reduce the economic impacts of droughts, particularly in Southern Clarendon and
St.Elizabeth. These farming communities have also benefited from increased productivity and output relative to otherareas, even in the face of drought over the April-June quarter in 2014.

Social co-benefits•

Training and shared learning on drip irrigation has strengthened social capital and built comradeship within thecommunities, especially among the farmers in the field.

Environmental co-benefits•

A rainwater catchment tank and drip irrigation system in Lititz, St. Elizabeth, has improved small-scale irrigation,
resulting in higher yields, less soil erosion and deforestation, and an increase in socioeconomic status for farmers.

Sources: Interviews with Ministry of Agriculture and Development Bank of Jamaica; Planning institute of Jamaica (2007);
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Jamaica (2012)

The floodgate rehabilitation increased flood(JaREEACH), which aims to strengthen local

protection (avoiding losses associated with theand national institutional capacity to support

first dividend of resilience) for 640ha of cultivatedclimate change adaptation and DRM withinareas, and, on average, $13,200 of flood protection

agriculture. The Planning Institute of Jamaica also

benefits per gate. In addition, co-benefits (the third

committed $9.9 million to the development anddividend of resilience) included increased fish catch

implementation of adaptation measures, focussingin the floodplain, with the average annual benefit

on strengthening agricultural productivity, coastalof the increased fish catch estimated at $3,600 per

protection and building local capacity for naturalgate, not only because of reduced flooding, but also

resource management.

due to enhanced water regulation throughout theyear (see Table 4). Increases in water use efficiency
also produced co-benefits in the form of decreased
electricity costs of $2/ha (World Bank, 2012).

Of these investments, those that have focussed
on reducing drought risk in farming seem to offer
particularly high potential for co-benefits. The
installation of dedicated irrigation systems to

In Jamaica, the agricultural sector contributes

overcome the impact of drought has helped farmers

about 6% of GDP and employs 17-18% of the labour

to increase their productivity and output, as well as

force. Domestic agriculture is largely located on

reduce soil erosion and deforestation by optimisinghillside plots, with an average size of one acre withpreviously inefficient farming practices (see Box 1).

slopes above 15 degrees; meanwhile, the export
agriculture (including coffee, banana, cacao andcoconut) contributes to 22% of total exports,
raising $274 million in foreign exchange each year.
A number of DRM programmes have focussed on
this sector, including the Jamaica Rural Economy
and Ecosystems Adapted for Climate Change

31

32
7. Recommendations for decision-makers: Integrating
the Triple Dividend of Resilience in DRM appraisals
Realising the triple dividend of resilience involves

assessment. By way of a conclusion, the following

a strategic shift, offering a different perspective

steps indicate some relevant guidance for decision-

on how investments can support policies andmakers to move towards the triple dividend of

objectives beyond DRM. The approach offers an

resilience perspective (Garrido, 2015).

enhanced understanding of the broader economic,
social and environmental implications of investingin DRM activities. While loss data, risk models andappraisal tools are the key means for investment
decision making, the overarching foundation of

7.1 Define the problem andits context

the triple dividend of resilience concept is a more

A practical starting point for decision makers is aholistic strategy that links DRM, climate and othermapping exercise to understand development goals,

development policy objectives. DRM is not seen as

threats and risk drivers.

an objective in its own right – it is considered as animportant lever for strategic risk management ofoverall development progress that reduces avoided
losses and yields benefits from taking risks.
This approach starts with thinking throughdevelopment strategies and the inherent dynamics
of economic development. It then requires thestress testing of these strategies, based on a rangeof possible climate futures and the principles of
avoiding locking-in development paths that are, or
may become, unsustainable under climate change.

• What are the contextual development goals set bya certain country, city, locality or village?
• What are the threats to, and drivers of,development?
• What DRM measures are proposed and how dothey relate to these goals, threats and drivers?
• Who are main beneficiaries? To what extent are
individuals, groups, sectors or activities better
protected because of DRM?

In practical terms, when making development
and DRM plans, policy-makers should resist thetemptation (and analytical convenience) of relying
on a single set of parameters for analysing risks,
costs and benefits. The characteristics of risk are

7.2 Identify and apply tools andmethods for empirical analysis
of DRM

often context specific and the requirements for

Ideally, a DRM proponent should strive to selectassessment differ between local or national scales..

a set of approaches that can generate quantitative

Similarly, for hazards with a high probability ofmeasures or shed light on each of the three types

recurrence, the measurement of benefit and costof dividends of resilience. It is unlikely that acalculations may prove less problematic than for

single approach can yield answers to every single

hazards with low and uncertain probabilities (suchbenefit stream linked to DRM. A more complete

as earthquakes). We therefore suggest applying

evaluation requires the use of various qualitative

multiple approaches and not to rely on a single

and quantitative assessment tools. The application

of multiple approaches rather than reliance on• Appropriate strategies should focus on

one tool or method is recommended, especially

supporting development paths that are robust to

in data constrained environments, where flexible

a range of possible climate and socio-economic

approaches are needed.

futures. Recognising the need to integrate• Conducting a probabilistic assessment rather
than relying only on historic loss figures canyield clearer understanding of the first dividend(saving lives and avoiding losses).
• The biggest gap in triple dividend knowledge
is in understanding how reducing backgroundrisk can help to unlock and stimulate economic
activity. Using simple proxies to measure thesecond dividend of resilience may be necessary.
Anticipated land-value increase could be used asa good estimate of increased economic activity
in a given project area for example. Anothermore sophisticated option would be to identify
risk thresholds and acceptable levels of risks fordifferent stakeholders.
• The economic value of dual purpose
infrastructure, as well as possible cost savings,
can be used to measure the value of the third ‘cobenefits’ dividend. Assessments to monetise nonmarket values may also be required to widen thescope of assessments of social and environmental
co-benefits.

DRM into future development pathways, tocurb the rise of disaster losses, constitutes animportant step towards achieving sustainable
development objectives.
• Devise strategies for communicating the dividendconcept: This includes communicating how
DRM interventions are linked, or can be delivered
through, other development interventions; what
are the benefits from DRM under triple dividendprinciples and are they robust under different
climate and development futures?; what isthe value of DRM interventions relative to ‘donothing’ scenarios?
• Identify the implications of fear and risk-aversion.
The experience of a disaster and the ever-present
background risk of future disasters can hamper
development and cause economic paralysis. The
biggest gap in triple dividend knowledge is inunderstanding how mitigating such backgroundrisk can help to unlock and stimulate economic
activity. While quantification of these effects
is highly case-specific, one option would be toidentify risk thresholds and acceptable levels ofrisks for different stakeholders.

7.3 Communicate outcomes
Communicating the triple dividend assessments toother stakeholders such as business, tax payers andpolitical supporters is an essential requirement for
integrating the concept into development planning:• Communicate how DRM interventions arelinked to, or can be delivered through, otherdevelopment policies and interventions. Explain
the benefits of DRM actions using triple dividendprinciples and the value of DRM interventions
relative to ‘do nothing’ scenarios.

33

34
Further reading

References

A full set of project outputs can be found at www.odi.org/

Auker, M.R., Sparks, R.S.J., Siebert, L., Crosweller, H.S.

tripledividend.

and Ewert, J.A. (2013) ‘A statistical analysis of the global
historical volcanic fatalities record’, Journal of Applied

A set of background papers commissioned to inform thisreport are published as World Bank Policy Research Papers
and can be accessed at http://elibrary.worldbank.org/
page/wb-working-papers. These include:
Griffith-Jones, S. and Tanner, T. (2015) ‘Financial Crises
and Economic Resilience: Lessons for Disaster Risk
Management and Resilience Dividends’. World Bank
Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Hallegatte, S., Bangalore, M. and Jouanjean, M-A. (2015)‘Higher losses and lower development in the absenceof disaster risk management investments’. World Bank
Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
MacDermott, T.K.J. (2015) ‘Investing in Disaster Risk
Management in an Uncertain Climate’. World Bank Policy
Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Mechler, R., Mochizuki, J. and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.
(2015) ‘Disaster risk management and fiscal policy. Fromassessing fiscal risk to building resilience: narratives,
tools and evidences’. World Bank Policy Research
Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Rose, A. (2015) ‘Capturing Co-Benefits of Disaster
Risk Management on the Private Sector Side’. WorldBank Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.: The
World Bank.
Vorhies, F. and Wilkinson, E. (forthcoming, 2015) ‘CoBenefits of Disaster Risk Management’. World Bank
Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Volcanology 2:2(December 2013).
Carter, P.M.R. and Barrett, C.B. (2006) ‘The economics
of poverty traps and persistent poverty: An asset-based
approach, The Journal of Development Studies 42(2):178–199.
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (2015) Climate Change
Resilience in Europe: A Snapshot of the Private Sector.
London: CDP.
Crawford, M. and Seidel, S. (2013) Weathering the Storm:
Building Business Resilience to Climate Change. Virginia:
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (http://www.
c2es.org/publications/weathering-storm-buildingbusiness-resilience-climate-change).
Dar, M. H., de Janvry, A., Emerick, K., Raitzer, D. and
Sadoulet, E. (2013) ‘A flood of investments: Floodtolerant rice and farm investment in India’. Berkley:
University of California.
Dercon, S. (ed.) (2005) Insurance against poverty.
Oxford: Open University Press.
Doswald, N., Munroe, R., Roe, D., Giuliani, A., Castelli, I.,
Stephens, J., Moller, I., Spencer, T., Vira, B. and Reid, H.
(2014) ‘Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches
for adaptation: review of the evidence-base’, Climate
and Development 6(2): 185-201.
Elbers, C., Gunning, J.W. and Kinsey, B. (2007) ‘Growthand Risk: Methodology and Micro Evidence’, World Bank
Economic Review 21(1): 1-20.
EM-DAT. (2015) The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database. Brussels: Université Catholique de Louvain(www.emdat.be) Accessed 3 July, 2015.
Emerick, K., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. and Dar, M. H.
(2015) ‘Technological innovations, downside risk, and themodernization of agriculture’. Massachusetts: Poverty
Action Lab.
Environmental Resources Management and Department
for International Development (ERM). (2005) Natural
Disaster and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures. A Desk
Review of Costs and Benefits. London: ERM.
Fleisher, B.M. and Chen, J. (1997) ‘The Coast–Noncoast
Income Gap, Productivity, and Regional Economic Policy
in China’, Journal of Comparative Economics 25(2):220–236 (doi:10.1006/jcec.1997.1462).

Gallup, J.L., Sachs, J.D. and Mellinger, A.D. (1998)

Griffith-Jones, S. and Tanner, T. (forthcoming, 2015)‘Geography and Economic Development’ Working‘Financial Crises and Economic Resilience: Lessons forPaper No. 6849. Massachusetts: National Bureau ofDisaster Risk Management and Resilience Dividends’.

Economic Research.

World Bank Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.:
World Bank.

Garrido, L. (2015) ‘Ideas towards the building Guidelines
for Quantitative Analysis of DRMR’. UnpublishedHallegatte, S. (2014) ‘Economic Resilience: Definition anddiscussion note to GFDRR, World Bank.

Measurement.’ Policy Research Working Paper 6852.
Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery(GFDRR). (2015) Investing in Resilience. Global Facility

Hallegatte, S., Bangalore, M. and Jouanjean, M-A.

for Disaster Risk Reduction. Washington D.C.: The World(forthcoming 2015) ‘Higher losses and lower

Bank (www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/publication/

development in the absence of disaster risk

Investing-in-Resilience.pdf).

management investments’. World Bank Policy Research
Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

GFDRR (2014) ‘Building Back Better in Tonga after
Cyclone Ian. Stories of Impact briefing’. Washington

Hoflinger, R., Mahul, O., Ghesquiere, F. and Perez, S.

D.C.: GFDRR (https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/(2012) FONDEN: Mexico’s Natural Disaster Fund – A

publication/Tonga.pdf).

Review. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

GFDRR. (undated) ‘1.6 Million People Benefitting from

IPCC, 2012: Glossary of terms. In: Managing the Risks

Flood Mitigation Measures in Sri Lanka’, GFDRR Projectof Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate

Insights. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. (www.gfdrr.

Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groupsorg/sites/gfdrr/files/publication/Pillar_2_Colombo.pdf)

I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Ghesquiere, F., Mahul, O. and Jamin, L. (2006)

Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,‘Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction Program in

UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 555-564.

Colombia: A Probabilistic Cost-Benefit Analysis’. Policy
Research Working Paper. Washington D.C.: The WorldInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentBank (http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3939).

Societies (IFRC). (2012) Case Study: Mangrove plantation

Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. (2014)

Geneva: IFRC (https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/

New Climate Economy Technical Note: Infrastructure

disasters/reducing_risks/Case-study-Vietnam.pdf).

investment needs of a low-carbon scenario. Washington

in Viet Nam: measuring impact and cost benefit.

D.C.: Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

(2015) Seizing The Global Opportunity, The New Climate

A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the

Economy Report 2015. Washington D.C.: The Global

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field,

Commission on the Economy and Climate.

V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D.

(2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events andMastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.
Gollier, C. and Pratt, J. W. (1996) ‘Risk Vulnerability andTignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge and New

the Tempering Effect of Background Risk’, Econometrica

York: Cambridge University Press (582 pp).

64(5): 1109-1123.
Jones, H.P., Hole, D.G. and Zavaleta, E.S. (2012)
Gollier, C. and Schlee, E. (2006) ‘Increased Risk-‘Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate

Bearing with Background Risk’. Working Paper. Arizona:change’, Nature Climate Change 2(7): 504-509.

Department of Economics, W. P. Carey School ofBusiness, Arizona State University.

Keefer, P. (2009) ‘Disastrous consequences: the political
economy of disaster risk reduction.’ World Bank Working

Government of Nepal. (2015) Nepal Earthquake

Paper. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

2015 Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Executive
Summary. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission,

Kellett, J. and Caravani, A. (2014) Financing Disaster Risk

Government of Nepal.

Reduction: A 20 year story of international aid. London:
Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Greatrex, H., Hansen, J.W., Garvin. S., Diro, R., Blakeley,
S., Le Guen, M., Rao, K.N. and Osgood, D.E. (2015)

Khan, M.S.A. (2008) Disaster preparedness for

Scaling up index insurance for smallholder farmers:

sustainable development in Bangladesh. Disaster

Recent evidence and insights. CCAFS Report No. 14.

Prevention and Management: An International Journal,

Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate

17(5): 662-671.

Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

35

36
Kok, M., Metz, B., Verhagen, J. and Van Rooijen, S. (2008)

Peterson, G.E. (2012) ‘Unlocking Land Values to Finance‘Integrating development and climate policies: national

Urban Infrastructure’. PPIAF Trends and Policy Options

and international benefits’, Climate Policy 8(2): 103.

No. 7. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Kopits, G. (2014). ‘Coping with fiscal risk’, OECD Journal

Phaup, M. and C. Kirschner. (2010) ‘Budgeting foron Budgeting 14(1): 47-71.

Disasters: Focusing on the Good Times’. OECD Journal on
Budgeting 2010(1): 1-24.

Lovell, E., and le Masson, V. (2014) Equity and inclusion indisaster risk reduction: building resilience for all. London:

Planning institute of Jamaica. (2007) The Poverty-

Climate and Development Knowledge Network and theEnvironment Nexus: Establishing an Approach forOverseas Development Institute.

Determining Special Development Areas in Jamaica.
Sustainable Development and Regional Planning

Lovett, R.L. (2010) ‘Why Chile fared better than Haiti

Division. Kingston: Planning institute of Jamaica.

’. Nature Briefing, 10 March, 2010. London: Nature
Publishing Group (doi:10.1038/news.2010.100).

Rentschler, J. E. (2013) ‘Why Resilience Matters: The
Poverty Impacts of Disasters.’ Policy Research Working

MacDermott, T.K.J. (forthcoming, 2015) ‘Investing inPaper 6699. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Disaster Risk Management in an Uncertain Climate’.
World Bank Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.:

Rodin, J. (2014) The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong

World Bank.

in a World Where Things Go Wrong. Washington D.C.:
Public Affairs.

Madajewisz, M., Tsegay, A. and Norton, M. (2013)
Managing risks to agricultural livelihoods: Impact

Rogers, D. and Tsirkunov, V. (2011) ‘Costs and benefits

evaluation of the HARITA Program in Tigray, Ethiopia,

of early warning systems’. Background paper for

2009-2012. Oxfam America Evaluation Report. Boston:

Global Assessment Report. Geneva: United Nations

Oxfam America.

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).

Mechler, R., and Bouwer, L.M. (2015) ‘Understanding

Rose, A. (forthcoming 2015) ‘Capturing Co-Benefits oftrends and projections of disaster losses and climate

Disaster Risk Management on the Private Sector Side’.

change: Is vulnerability the missing link?’, ClimaticWorld Bank Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.:

Change 133(1): 23-35.

The World Bank.

Mechler, R., Mochizuki, J. and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.

Santucci, L., Puhl, I., Sinha, A. H. M. M., Enayetullah, I. and(forthcoming 2015) ‘Disaster risk management and fiscal

Agyemang-Bonsu, W. K. (2015) Valuing the sustainable

policy. From assessing fiscal risk to building resilience:development co-benefits of climate change mitigation

narratives, tools and evidences’. World Bank Policy

actions. Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social

Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).

Moody’s. (2015) ‘Flood risk in coastal Virginia supports

SCOR SE. (2013) Supply Chain and Contingent Businessneed for proactive planning, capital investments.

Interruption (CBI): A perspective on Property andAnnouncement: Moody’s Global Credit Research

Casualty. SCOR Global P&C Focus, December 2013. Paris:- 18 Jun 2015’. New York: Moody’s (http://www.

SCOR SE. http://www.scor.com/images/focus_cbi.pdf).

moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.
aspx?docid=PBM_1005298).

Seang, S. H. (2009) ‘A case study of mitigating flooding

Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

towards Flood Resilient Cities in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok:(2015) Seizing The Global Opportunity, The New Climate

UNESCAP.

Economy Report 2015. Washington DC: The Global

in city center of Kuala Lumpur’. In Innovative Strategies

Commission on the Economy and Climate.

Shepherd, A., Mitchell, T., Lewis, K., Lenhardt, A., Jones,

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and GFDRR.

poverty, disasters and climate extremes in 2030 (p. 72).

(2015) Unlocking the ‘Triple Dividend’ of Resilience: Why

London: ODI.

investing in disaster risk management pays off. Interim
Policy Note. Washington D.C. and London: GFDRR, and

L., Scott, L. and Muir-Wood, R. (2013) The geography ofStandard & Poor’s Rating Services. (2014) Special Report:

ODI. (www.odi.org/tripledividend).

Climate Change. Preparing for the Long Term. Standard

Patankar, A. (2015). ‘The Exposure, Vulnerability, andAuthority on Credit Quality. 28 May 2014. New York:

Ability to Respond of Poor Households to Recurrent

Standard & Poor’s Rating Services. McGraw Financial.

Floods in Mumbai.’ World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No. 7481.

& Poor’s Ratings Services: Credit Week, The Global

Standard & Poor’s Rating Services. (2015) Climate

Vorhies, F. and Wilkinson, E. (forthcoming, 2015) ‘Co-

Change Will Likely Test The Resilience Of Corporates’

Benefits of Disaster Risk Management’. World Bank

Creditworthiness To Natural Catastrophes. Ratings

Policy Research Papers. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Direct, 20 April 2015. New York: Standard & Poor’s
Rating Services. McGraw Financial.

Wilkinson, E. (2012) ‘Transforming disaster risk
management: a political economy approach’. Working

Subbiah, A. R., Bildan, L., and Narasimhan, R. (2008)

and Discussion Papers, January, 2012. London: Overseas‘Background paper on assessment of the economics

Development Institute.

of early warning systems for disaster risk reduction’.
Report submitted to the World Bank Group, Global

World Bank. (2012) Mekong Integrated Water Resources

Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR/Management Project. Project Appraisal Document.

Contract 7148513). Bangkok: Regional Integrated

Washington D.C.: The World Bank (www-wds.worldbank.

Multi-Hazard Early Warning System, Asian Disasterorg/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2

Preparedness Center.

012/02/19/000333038_20120219222343/Rendered/
PDF/540090PAD0Box30official0use0only090.pdf).

Surminski, S. (2014) ‘The role of nce in reducing direct
risk: the case of flood insurance’, International Review ofWorld Bank. (2013) World Development Report 2014.

Environmental and Resource Economics 7(3-4): 241-278.

Risk and Opportunity: Managing Risk for Development.

(ISSN 1932-1473). (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60764/).

Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

The Economic Times. (2011) ‘Honda to cut production

World Bank. (2014a) ‘A Novel Approach to Disaster Risk

at Indian arm by half’. 26 April 2011. (http://articles.

Management: The Story of Mexico.’ 1 October 2014.

economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-26/

Washington D.C.: The World Bank. (www.worldbank.org/

news/29475341_1_supply-chain-production-honda-siel.

en/results/2014/10/01/novel-approach-to-disaster-risk-

Accessed 19 November, 2015).

management-mexico)

Tinputz District Disaster Risk Management Committee

World Bank (2014b) ‘Implementation Completion(2014) Tinputz District Disaster Risk Management Plan,

and Results Report, Vietnam Natural Disaster Risk

Autonomous Region of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea:

Management Project’. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Tinputz District DRM Committee. (www.undp.org/
content/dam/papua_new_guinea/docs/Publications/Tinputz%20DRM%20Plan_ver27Nov2014%20(1).pdf)
Tran, P. (2013) Lessons from Typhoon Nari. Storm
Resistant Housing Shown To Be Effective. Hanoi,
Vietnam: Institute for Social and Environmental
Transition-International.

World Bank. (2015) Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016.
World Economic Forum. (WEF) (2015) The Global Risks
report 2015. Geneva: Davos, World Economic Forum.
World Resources Institute. (WRI) (2008) Roots ofResilience - Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington
D.C.: World Resources Institute.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA). (2014) Revision: World Urbanization
Prospects. New York: UNDESA.
United Nations Development Programme Jamaica(UNDP). (2012) Water is Life: Empowering St. Elizabeth
Farmers. UNDP Stories. Kingston: UNDP Jamaica (www.
jm.undp.org/content/jamaica/en/home/ourwork/
povertyreduction/successstories/rainwaterharvesting/).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
(2013) Cyclone Phailin in India: Early Warning andTimely Actions Save Lives. Sioux Falls: UNEP, Global
Environmental Alert Service.
UNISDR. (2015a) Making Development Sustainable: The
Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment
Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.

Photo Credits
cover: Danilo Victoriano

UNISDR. (2015b) ‘Chile’s investment in disaster risk

p.16 : Direct Relief

reduction pays off’. UNISDR News Archive. 17 September,p. 25: Kashish Das Shrestha / USAID

2015. Geneva: UNISDR (http://www.unisdr.org/

p. 30: Danilo Pinzon / World Bankarchive/45810).

37

About ODI
ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development andhumanitarian issues.

www.odi.org

About GFDRRThe Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities
to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local, national,
regional, and international partners, GFDRR provides grant financing, technical assistance, training and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate
risk management in policies and strategies. Managed by the World Bank, GFDRR is
supported by 34 countries and 9 international organizations.

www.gfdrr.org