Risk Assessment of the Impact of Natural Disasters in Rural Areas and Application of the Cost–Benefit Analysis

Authors

  • STEFAN PETROV University of National and World Economy – Sofia, Bulgaria Author

Keywords:

risk management, vulnerable sectors, cost-benefit analysis, rural areas

Abstract

In the last decade, the issue of implementing adequate approach for managing the risk of natural disasters has become a serious concern. The financial resources needed for the renewal the damages of the weather and climate change events are limited. However, the evaluation methodology applied for assessment of the different types of risk is general not specified for agriculture sector. The agriculture sector is very sensitive to increase of the average temperature and rainfalls, also. The climate change impacts on the productivity, yield and on income of agricultural holdings. The main purpose of the report is to identify the key issues concern to the quantitative assessments of the disasters risk. The Public authorities following the EU conception for climate change adaptation and there are official documents and guidelines for risk management of the floods and other disasters. The guidelines consist of different measures sure for prevention of the negative climate change consequences. The selection of the package of measures implied at local level is defined by the needs of population, business structures and probability of risk events. The analysis cost–benefit could be used for assessment of the options for mitigation of the risks. The funding is not enough to assess the social and economic impact at different levels. This paper reviews key, commonly accepted, approaches to systematizing risk management measures included in national guidelines and catalogues, and comments on the difficulties that arise when applying the Cost–benefit Analysis for their assessment. The different approaches for systematizing the measures for risk assessment, which are included in national documents, are reviewed. Additionally the good practice in risk assessment of climate change negative impacts is outlined.

References

Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., Weimer, D. L., 2011. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 4th. Pearson, Boston.

Morrow, B. H., 1999. Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18.

Bankoff, G., 2004. The Historical Geography of Disaster: “Vulnerability” and “Local Knowledge” in Western Discourse. Earthscan, London, UK.

Koksm, E. E., L. Carrera, O. Jonkeren, J. C. J. H. Aerts, T. G. Husby, M. Thissen, G. Standardi, J. Mysiak. Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing Input-Output and Computable General Equilibrium models”,published by Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Venice, Italy, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, the Netherlands.

A Floods Working Group (CIS) Resource document Flood Risk Management, Economics and Decision Making Support – October 2012.

Environmental Agency National Report on the Environment State and Protection in the Republic of Bulgaria in 2014, issued 2016.

Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020, European Commission.

Guide to economic appraisal: Carrying out a cost benefit analysis, Central Expenditure Evaluation Unit, September 2013 (http://publicspendingcode.per.gov.ie)

Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Bulgaria, Methodological guidelines for preliminary flood risk assessment,

http://www3.moew.government.bg/files/file/Water/Povarhnostnivodi/PORN/Chast_B_28062011.pdf

Risk and Vulnerability Analysis and Assessment of the Bulgarian Economic Sectors to Climate Change – Special Section: MEW, 2013.

Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC.

Downloads

Published

29.09.2017

How to Cite

PETROV, S. (2017). Risk Assessment of the Impact of Natural Disasters in Rural Areas and Application of the Cost–Benefit Analysis . Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management, 62(3), 17-25. https://agriacad.eu/ojs/index.php/bjaem/article/view/3096