Advertisement

Public-Private Cooperation for Climate Adaptation—Providing Insurance Loss Data to the Municipalities

  • Åshild Lappegard HaugeEmail author
  • Cecilie Flyen
  • Christoffer Venås
  • Anne Kokkonen
  • Carlo Aall
Chapter
  • 93 Downloads
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

This chapter discusses experiences from public-private cooperation for climate services providing insurance loss data (from weather related damage) on asset level for Norwegian municipalities.‘Insurance loss data’ display insurance adjustments on address level after nature hazards. The chapter compiles results from three successive studies performed in the period from 2013 to 2018. The studies examined the utility value of insurance loss data for 10 municipalities and investigated the attitudes in the 8 largest Norwegian insurance companies for sharing such data. The findings demonstrate that insurance loss data on asset level can improve municipal understanding of both current and future climate risks, and thus improve the effect and quality of measures to prevent and adapt to such risks. However, with respect to data quality, precise time and place for damage occurrence is essential. With respect to data availability, it is essential that the insurance companies are willing to share loss data with municipalities working with mitigation of risks. Commercial sensitivity is important for the companies, and therefore only restricted entities should be allowed access to the data. The insurance companies also stressed their responsibility for protection of privacy for their customers. Finding solutions to the data access and privacy is up to national authorities. As a direct follow-up of the findings and the recommendations from the studies, The Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection and Finance Norway are cooperating in developing a climate service called ‘knowledge bank’ for compiling and providing access to data on natural hazard events. The knowledge bank is relating to both current and future climate, strengthening municipalities in their work on risk prevention, and climate change adaptation. Loss data from insurance companies are one type of data they are including.

Keywords

Climate change adaptation Municipalities Climate services Insurance loss data Claims data Public-private cooperation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Finance Norway, the Norwegian Environment Agency, partners of www.Klima2050.no, and the Norwegian Research Council for financial support. We are also grateful to all the informants who contributed with their valuable information to make this research happen.

References

  1. Aall C, Øyen CF, Miles M, Hafskjold LS, Bruaset S, Almås AJ, Gjerde O, Groven K, Heiberg E (2011) Klimaendringenes konsekvenser for kommunal og fylkeskommunal infrastruktur. Delrapport 1: Kunnskapsstatus. [Consequences of climate change for municipally and regionally owned infrastructure. Partial report 1: status of knowledge.]. In: Aall C (ed). Vestlandsforskning, Sogndal, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  2. Aall C, Baltruszewicz M, Groven K, Almås A-J, Vagstad F (2015) Føre-var, etter-snar eller på-stedet-hvil? Hvordan vurdere kostnader ved forebygging opp mot gjenoppbygging av fysisk infrastruktur ved naturskade og klimaendringer? [Prepared, wise after the event or status quo? How to evaluate costs for prevention against costs for reconstruction of physical infrastructure after natural hazards]. Vestlandsforskning, SogndalGoogle Scholar
  3. Aall C, Husabø I, Groven K (2017) Status og muligheter ved bruk av skadedata i arbeid med klimatilpasning [Status and possibilities with the use of loss data in climate adaptation] VF-rapport 12/2017. Vestlandsforsking, SogndalGoogle Scholar
  4. Almås A-J (2013) Climate adaptation and mitigation in the building sector: towards a sustainable built environment. Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernet DB, Prasuhn V, Weingartner R (2017) Surface water 539 floods in Switzerland: what insurance claim records tell us about the damage in space and time. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 17:1659–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brevik R, Aall C, Rød JK (2014) Pilotprosjekt om testing av skadedata fra forsikringsbransjen for vurdering av klimasårbarhet og forebygging av klimarelatert naturskade i utvalgte kommuner [Pilot project on testing of loss data from the insurance business for evaluation of climate vulnerability and prevention of climate related natur hazards in chosen municipalities]. Vestlandsforsking, SogndalGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinkman S, Kvale S (2014) InterViews—learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Cialdini RB (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 55:591–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clayton S, Devine-Wright P, Swim J, Bonnes M, Steg L, Whitmarsh L, Carrico A (2016) Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. Am Psychol 71:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Groeve T, Poljansek K, Ehrlich D, Corbane C (2014) Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in EU member states—a comprehensive overview of current practice in EU member states. JRC, Scientific and policy reports. EU, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  12. De Moel H, Van Alphen J, Aerts JCJH (2009) Flood maps in Europe—methods, availability and use. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebeltoft M, Aall C (2016) Using insurance claims data to strengthen municipalities’ effort to prevent climate-related natural hazards. In: ICUR2016, International conference on urban risks, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksen S, Øyen CF, Kasa S, Underthun A (2009) Weakening adaptive capacity? Effects of organizational and institutional change on the housing sector in Norway. Clim Dev Earthscan J 1:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flyen C, Mellegård SE, Bøhlerengen T, Almås A-J, Groven K (2014) Bygninger og infrastruktur - sårbarhet og tilpasningsevne til klimaendringer [Buildings and infrastructure—vulnerability and adaptability to climate change]. In: SINTEF FAG. SINTEF Byggforsk, OsloGoogle Scholar
  16. Flyen C, Hauge ÅL, Almås A-J, Godbolt ÅL (2017) Municipal collaborative planning as a key factor for climate resilience in the built environment. Int J Disaster Resilience Built Environ 9:58–69Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35:472–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gradeci K, Labonnote N, Sivertsen E, Time B (2019) The use of insurance data in the analysis of Surface Water Flood events—a systematic review. J Hydrol 568:194–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van Den Berg B (2010) Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanssen-Bauer I, Førland EJ, Haddeland I, Hisdal H, Mayer S, Nesje A, Nilsen JEØ, Sandsven S, Sandø AB, Sandø A, Sorteberg B, Ådlandsvik B (2015) Climate in Norway 2100—a knowledge base for climate adaptation M-406. The Norwegian Centre for Climate Services, OsloGoogle Scholar
  21. Hattermann FF, Wortmann M, Liersch S, Toumi R, Sparks N, Genillard C, Hayes B (2018) Simulation of flood hazard and risk in the Danube basin with the Future Danube Model. Clim Serv 12:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauge ÅL, Almås A-J, Flyen C, Stoknes P-E, Lohne J (2017) User guides for climate adaptation of buildings and infrastructure in Norway—characteristics and impact. Clim Serv 6:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauge ÅL, Flyen C, Venås C, Aall C, Kokkonen A, Ebeltoft M (2018a) Attitudes in Norwegian insurance companies towards sharing loss data—public-private cooperation for improved climate adaptation. Klima 2050-report. SINTEF Building and Infrastructure, OsloGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauge ÅL, Hanssen GS, Flyen C (2018b) Multilevel networks for climate change adaptation—what works? Int J Clim Change Strat Manage (In Press)Google Scholar
  25. IPCC (2018) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  26. JBD (2018) The Natural Perils Insurance Act. In: Preparedness TMOJA (ed) LOV-2018-06-15-37. The Ministry of Justice and Preparedness, OsloGoogle Scholar
  27. Klöckner CA (2015) The psychology of pro-environmental communication. Beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Labonnote N, Hauge ÅL, Sivertsen E (2019) A climate services perspective on Norwegian stormwater-related databases. Clim Serv 13:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lisø KR, Kvande T (2007) Klimatilpasning av bygninger. SINTEF Byggforsk, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. Meadow AM, Guido Z, Crimmins MA, Mcleod J (2016) From principles to action: applying the National Research Council’s principles for effective decision support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s watch office. Clim Serv 1:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles E, Snover A, Binder LW, Sarachik E, Mote P, Mantua N (2006) An approach to designing a national climate service. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(52):19616–19623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Næss L, Bang G, Eriksen E, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Change Part A 15:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Næss R, Solli J, Sørensen K (2011) Brukbar klimakunnskap [Useable climate knowledge]. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 52:329–354Google Scholar
  34. NOU (2015) NOU 2015: 16 Overvann i byer og tettsteder — Som problem og ressurs [Storm water run-off in cities and communities—a problem and a resource]. Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon Informasjonsforvaltning, OsloGoogle Scholar
  35. NRC (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. The National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Brien K, Sygna L (2013) Responding to climate change: three spheres of transformation. In: Transformation in a changing climate, University of Oslo, Oslo, 19–21 June 2013, pp 16–23Google Scholar
  37. O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Sygna L, Naess LO (2006) Questioning complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio 35:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opach T, Rød JK (2018) Developing a dashboard visualizing the compensation data on damages caused by extreme events. Kart og Plan 78:207–220Google Scholar
  39. Rød JK (2013) Naturskadeforsikring og utbetaling etter 1980 [Insurance against natural hazards and payment after 1980]. In: Bye LM, Lein H, Rød JK (eds) Mot en farligere fremtid? Om klimaendringer, sårbarhet og tilpasning i Norge [Towards a more dangerous future? About climate change, vulnerability and adaptation in Norway]. Akademika, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwab M, Storch HV (2018) Developing criteria for a stakeholder-centred evaluation of climate services: the case of extreme event attribution for storm surges at the German Baltic Sea. Meteorol Hydrol Water Manage Res Oper Appl 6:1–9Google Scholar
  41. Schwarze R, Schwindt M, Weck-Hannemann H, Raschy P, Zahn F, Wagner GG (2011) Natural hazard insurance in Europe: tailored responses to climate change are needed. Environ Policy Gov 21:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soares MB, Alexander M, Dessai S (2018) Sectoral use of climate information in Europe: a synoptic overview. Clim Serv 9:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spekkers MH, Kok M, Clemens F, Ten Veldhuis JAE (2013) A statistical analysis of insurance damage claims related to rainfall extremes. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:913–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoknes PE (2015) What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: toward a new psychology of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  45. Street R, Parry M, Seemore JS (2015) A European research and innovation roadmap for climate services. EU, Publication Office, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  46. Street RB, Buontempo CC, Mysiak J, Karali E, Pulquério M, Murray V, Swart R (2018) How could climate services support Disaster Risk Reduction in the 21st century. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 34:28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sussman R, Gifford R (2013) Be the change you want to see: modeling food composting in public places. Environ Behav 45:323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tajfel H (2010) Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Tompkins E, Adger W (2005) Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Torgersen G (2017) Sustainable planning to reduce urban flooding—an interdisciplinary approach. Ph.D., NMBU Norwegian University of Life SciencesGoogle Scholar
  51. UNDRR (2019a) Opportunities to integrate disaster reduction risk and climate resilience into sustainable finance. In: UNDRR (ed) Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Regional Office for Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  52. UNDRR (2019b) Socioeconomic and data challenges disaster risk reduction in Europe. In: UNDRR (ed) The European science & technology advisory group. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Regional Office for Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaughan C, Dessai S (2014) Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. WIREs Clim Change 5:587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WMO (2011) Climate knowledge for action: a global framework for climate services—empowering the most vulnerable. Report No. 1065, World Meteorological OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhou Q, Panduro TE, Thorsen JB, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K (2013) Verification of flood damage modelling using insurance data. Water Sci Technol 68:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Åshild Lappegard Hauge
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Cecilie Flyen
    • 1
  • Christoffer Venås
    • 1
  • Anne Kokkonen
    • 2
  • Carlo Aall
    • 3
  1. 1.SINTEF Building and InfrastructureOsloNorway
  2. 2.BI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway
  3. 3.Western Norway Research InstituteSogndalNorway
  4. 4.Inland Norway University of Applied SciencesLillehammerNorway

Personalised recommendations