4.6 Article

Can the risk of coastal hazards be better communicated?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.008

关键词

Coastal hazards; Risk; Reinsurance; Risk education; Risk communication; Client thinking

资金

  1. Guy Carpenter
  2. National Research Foundation Singapore under its Singapore National Research Fellowship scheme (National Research Fellow Award) [NRF-RF2010-04]
  3. National Research Foundation Singapore
  4. Singapore Ministry of Education under the Research Centres of Excellence initiative
  5. National University of Singapore Start-up Grant [R-109-000-223-133]
  6. comprises Earth Observatory of Singapore [103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Destructive coastal hazards, including tsunami inundation and storm surges, periodically affect many of the world's coasts. To quantify the risk of such events and to identify premium levels for such hazards, the insurance industry commonly uses the available scientific literature, coupled with probabilistic modelling. Often, communicating the results of the modelling to clients is difficult, as it involves world or regional scale risk maps and complex statistics of recurrence intervals and exposure. Risk maps are particularly problematic because they necessarily generalise the information conveyed to the mapping scale, thereby reducing detail. As a result, entire coastlines can be labelled as high risk, discouraging clients from investing, and/or leading to inappropriately high premium levels. This raises the question: What is the best way to communicate risk at a regional scale without broad generalisations? in our study, we have used historical events as case studies via the pedagogical premise of Concept, Example, Consequence, and created a novel multifaceted poster map. Our approach will encourage reinsurance industry practitioners and clients to reconsider their communication of risk, re-evaluate localised risk, and provide a detailed alternative to the broad generalisations found in many products in the marketplace.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据