the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article: Insuring the green economy against natural hazards – charting research frontiers in vulnerability assessment
Abstract. The insurance of green economy assets against natural hazards is a growing market. This study explores whether currently available published knowledge is adequate for the vulnerability assessment of these assets to natural hazards. A matrix is constructed to demonstrate the vulnerability to functional loss of 37 asset classes in the renewable energy, green construction, resource management, carbon capture and storage, energy storage and sustainable transportation sectors. The 28 hazards adopted range from environmental and geophysical events to oceanic, coastal, and space weather events. A fundamental challenge in constructing the matrix was the lack of an asset-hazard taxonomy for the green economy. Each matrix cell represents the vulnerability of an asset to a specific hazard, based on a comprehensive systematic literature review. A confidence level is assigned to each vulnerability assessment based on a literature density heat map. The latter highlights specific knowledge gaps, and in particular a lack of quantitative vulnerability studies that appropriately represent all functional loss mechanisms in green economy assets. Apart from charting research gaps, a main output of this study is the proposal of a representative asset-hazard taxonomy to guide future, quantitative research that can be applied by the insurance industry.
- Preprint
(1378 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-82', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2024-82/nhess-2024-82-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Harikesan Baskaran, 23 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-82', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2024
The study provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerability of green economy assets to natural hazards, identifying key gaps in the literature and proposing a structured taxonomy for future research. The methodology is well-defined, and the use of a systematic literature review to construct a vulnerability matrix is robust. However, there are areas where the paper could be improved to enhance its clarity, depth, and utility.
The introduction effectively sets the context for the study. However, it could benefit from a clearer explanation of the significance of the green economy in the context of climate change and insurance (lines 24-35). Including more recent statistics or projections could provide a stronger foundation.
While the paper identifies gaps in the literature (lines 50-55), it would be useful to elaborate on why these gaps exist. Are they due to the novelty of the technologies, lack of historical data, or other reasons? This could help guide future research more effectively.
The proposed taxonomy is central to the study (lines 75-120). It would be beneficial to provide more justification for the selection of specific assets and hazards. For instance, why were certain assets or hazards prioritized over others? This could help readers understand the choices made and the potential limitations.
The systematic review process is well-outlined (lines 130-155). However, providing more detail on the search strategy, databases used, and inclusion/exclusion criteria could enhance transparency and replicability.The presentation of the vulnerability matrix (lines 190-210) is comprehensive. However, it might be helpful to include a few illustrative examples or case studies to demonstrate how the matrix can be applied in real-world scenarios. This could make the findings more tangible for practitioners.
The literature heat map (lines 220-250) is a valuable addition. However, it could be enhanced by a more detailed discussion of the trends observed. For instance, why are certain asset-hazard intersections more researched than others? Are there specific barriers to research in certain areas?
The discussion provides a good overview of the key findings (lines 285-390). However, it could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the implications for different stakeholders, such as policymakers, insurers, and researchers. What specific actions should they take based on these findings?
While the paper outlines future research needs (lines 380-400), it could be more specific. For example, identifying specific technologies or methodologies that could be used to address the identified gaps would be helpful.
The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings (lines 420-430). However, it could be strengthened by reiterating the practical implications and the urgency of addressing the identified research gaps in light of climate change and increasing natural hazards.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-82-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Harikesan Baskaran, 23 Aug 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-82', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2024-82/nhess-2024-82-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Harikesan Baskaran, 23 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-82', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2024
The study provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerability of green economy assets to natural hazards, identifying key gaps in the literature and proposing a structured taxonomy for future research. The methodology is well-defined, and the use of a systematic literature review to construct a vulnerability matrix is robust. However, there are areas where the paper could be improved to enhance its clarity, depth, and utility.
The introduction effectively sets the context for the study. However, it could benefit from a clearer explanation of the significance of the green economy in the context of climate change and insurance (lines 24-35). Including more recent statistics or projections could provide a stronger foundation.
While the paper identifies gaps in the literature (lines 50-55), it would be useful to elaborate on why these gaps exist. Are they due to the novelty of the technologies, lack of historical data, or other reasons? This could help guide future research more effectively.
The proposed taxonomy is central to the study (lines 75-120). It would be beneficial to provide more justification for the selection of specific assets and hazards. For instance, why were certain assets or hazards prioritized over others? This could help readers understand the choices made and the potential limitations.
The systematic review process is well-outlined (lines 130-155). However, providing more detail on the search strategy, databases used, and inclusion/exclusion criteria could enhance transparency and replicability.The presentation of the vulnerability matrix (lines 190-210) is comprehensive. However, it might be helpful to include a few illustrative examples or case studies to demonstrate how the matrix can be applied in real-world scenarios. This could make the findings more tangible for practitioners.
The literature heat map (lines 220-250) is a valuable addition. However, it could be enhanced by a more detailed discussion of the trends observed. For instance, why are certain asset-hazard intersections more researched than others? Are there specific barriers to research in certain areas?
The discussion provides a good overview of the key findings (lines 285-390). However, it could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the implications for different stakeholders, such as policymakers, insurers, and researchers. What specific actions should they take based on these findings?
While the paper outlines future research needs (lines 380-400), it could be more specific. For example, identifying specific technologies or methodologies that could be used to address the identified gaps would be helpful.
The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings (lines 420-430). However, it could be strengthened by reiterating the practical implications and the urgency of addressing the identified research gaps in light of climate change and increasing natural hazards.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-82-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Harikesan Baskaran, 23 Aug 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
439 | 105 | 28 | 572 | 13 | 19 |
- HTML: 439
- PDF: 105
- XML: 28
- Total: 572
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1