A framework for comparing permanent and forecast-based flood risk-reduction strategies.

Flood risk can be reduced at various stages of the disaster management cycle. Traditionally, permanent infrastructure is used for flood prevention, while residual risk is managed with emergency measures that are triggered by forecasts. Advances in flood forecasting hold promise for a more prominent role to forecast-based measures. In this study, we present a methodology that compares permanent with forecast-based flood-prevention measures. On the basis of this methodology, we demonstrate how operational decision-makers can select between acting against frequent low-impact, and rare high-impact events. Through a hypothetical example, we describe a number of decision scenarios using flood risk indicators for Chikwawa, Malawi, and modelled and forecasted discharge data from 1997 to 2018. The results indicate that the choice between permanent and temporary measures is affected by the cost of measures, climatological flood risk, and forecast ability to produce accurate flood warnings. Temporary measures are likely to be more cost-effective than permanent measures when the probability of flooding is low. Furthermore, a combination of the two types of measures can be the most cost-effective solution, particularly when the forecast is more skillful in capturing low-frequency events. Finally, we show that action against frequent low-impact events could more cost-effective than action against rare high-impact ones. We conclude that forecast-based measures could be used as an alternative to some of the permanent measures rather than being used only to cover the residual risk, and thus, should be taken into consideration when identifying the optimal flood risk strategy.

Financing agricultural drought risk through ex-ante cash transfers.

Despite advances in drought early warning systems, forecast information is rarely used for triggering and financing early actions, such as cash transfer. Scaling up cash transfer pay-outs, and overcoming the barriers to actions based on forecasts, requires an understanding of costs resulting from False Alarms, and the potential benefits associated with appropriate early interventions. On this study, we evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of cash transfer responses, comparing the relative costs of ex-ante cash transfers during the maize growing season to ex-post cash transfers after harvesting in Kenya. For that, we developed a forecast model using Fast-and Frugal Trees that unravels early warning relationships between climate variability, vegetation coverage, and maize yields at multiple lead times. Results indicate that our models correctly forecast low maize yield events 85% of the time across the districts studied, some already six months before harvesting. The models' performance improves towards the end of the growing season driven by a decrease of 29% in the probability of False Alarms. Overall, we show that timely cash transfers ex-ante to a disaster can often be more cost-effective than investing in ex-post expenditures. Our findings suggest that early response can yield significant cost savings, and can potentially increase the effectiveness of existing cash transfer systems.