Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

04 Lossmodel

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 46

Climate Change Uncertainty and Risk: from

Probabilistic Forecasts to Economics of Climate


Adaptation
Reto Knutti, IAC ETH
David N. Bresch, Swiss Re/ETH
Assistants: Maria Rugenstein, Martin Stolpe, Anina Gilgen

Reto Knutti / ETH Zrich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Schedule
29.02.16 (1) Logistics, Introduction to probability, uncertainty and risk management,
introduction of toy model (RK, DB)
07.03.16 (2) Predictability of weather and climate, seasonal prediction, seamless
prediction (RK)
Exercise 1 (toy model)
14.03.16 (3) Detection/attribution, forced changes, natural variability, signal/noise,
ensembles (RK)
Exercise 2 (toy model)
21.03.16 (4) Probabilistic risk assessment model: from concept to concrete
application - and some insurance basics (DB)
28.03.16 Ostermontag (no course)
04.04.16 (5) Model evaluation, multi model ensembles and structural error (RK)
11.04.16 (6) Climate change and impacts, scenarios, use of scenarios, scenario
uncertainty vs response/impact uncertainty (RK, DB)
Exercise 3 (toy model), preparation of presentation
18.04.16 (7) Model calibration, Bayesian methods for probabilistic projections (RK)
25.04.16 (8) Presentations of toy model work, discussion (DB, RK)
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Schedule
02.05.16 (9) Basics of economic evaluation and economic decision making in the
presence of climate risk (DB)
Exercise 4 (introduction to climada)
09.05.16 (10) The cost of adaptation - application of economic decision making to
climate adaptation in developing and developed region (DB)
Exercise 5 (impacts)
16.05.16 Pfingstmontag (no course)
23.05.16 (11) Shaping climate-resilient development valuation of a basket of
adaptation options (DB)
Exercises 6 (adaptation measures, preparation of presentation)
30.05.16 (12) Presentations of climada exercise, discussion (DB, RK)

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Recap: Risk1 Management


Risk identification: Shared mental model, the prerequisite for awareness

perception is based on a shared mental model


wider sharing builds awareness

Risk analysis: Quantification, the basis for decision-making

Risk model: the quantitative expression of a shared mental model


allows to assess risk mitigation options

Risk mitigation: Prioritization based on metrics, options are to

avoid

prevent

transfer : Insurance puts a rice tag on risks incentive for prevention

or retain the risk

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Risk = Probability

Severity

The Risk Management Cycle


Identify

Ana
lyze

Mitigation options:
Avoid

Reduce
Prevent
Transfer
Retain
5

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Recap: Note on decision strategies


(a)

(b)

Source: UKCIP

In the face of high levels of uncertainty, which may not be readily resolved
through research, decision makers are best advised to not adopt a decision
strategy in which (a) nothing is done until research resolves all key
uncertainties, but rather (b) to adopt an iterative and adaptive strategy.
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Natural Nat Cat damages on the rise


and: Massive gap between economic and insured damage
Natural catastrophe damages 1980-2013, in USD billion

450
Uninsured losses

400

Insured losses

350

10-year moving average insured losses

300

10-year moving average total economic losses

250
200
150
100
50
0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Note: Amounts
Loss amounts
indexed
indexed
to 2012
to 2009
Source: Swiss Re
Source:
sigmaSwiss
catastrophe
Re, sigma
database
No 2/2010

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

2005

2010

Note on trend drivers

Ocean Drive, FL, 1926

The upward trend in natural catastrophe


damage is driven by:
Higher insurance penetration
Growing property values
Coastal value concentration
Higher vulnerabilities

Ocean Drive, FL, 2000

Climate change
Trend decomposition going forward ?
Economics of Climate Adaptation

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Fire versus Nat Cat damage need for simulation

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Fire vs. Nat Cat need for accumulation control

every
year
1 of 5000
houses

every
5000 years
Fire Risk

all houses

Nat Cat Risk


0.2 of house value

0.2 of house value


Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Experience or burning cost approach


Take historic data (often only few years), calculate expected value
Pro: easy to calculate and easy to communicate
Con: only looking backward, (very) incomplete sampling of phase space
Damage

Underwriter
experience

Frequency
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Scenario
Definition: A scenario is a snapshot that describes a possible and plausible
future. Scenario analysis is a systematic approach to anticipate a broad
range of plausible future outcomes
Scenario analysis is used in general
as a risk management tool to assess the potential impact of an event or
development to anticipate and understand risks
as a tool to spot new business opportunities and to discover strategic
options
as foresight in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity and
interdependency
for evaluation of highly uncertain events that could have a major impact
to steer mitigation strategies, implementation and monitoring by reviewing
and tracking different possible developments
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Forecast

Scenario

Focuses on certainties,

Focuses on uncertainties,

disguises uncertainties

Conceals risks
Results in a single-point
projections

legitimizes recognition of
uncertainties

Clarifies risk
Results in adaptive
understanding

Sensitivity analysis
Quantitative > qualitative

Diversity of interpretations
Qualitative > quantitative

Forecast

The present The path

Scenarios

The future
Current
realities
(mental maps)
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Alternative
future images

Probabilistic modeling
Construct all possible states, requires system understanding
Pro: full sampling of phase space
Con: huge effort
Note: still scenarios, NOT forecasts
Damage

Probabilistic
modeling

Underwriter
experience

Scenario
Considerations

Frequency
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Natural Catastrophe Risk Assessment Model

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Natural Catastrophe Risk Assessment Model


Hazard

How strong?
How frequent?

Vulnerability

Assets

Damage function

Exposure database

Whats the impact?

Where?
What?

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Probabilistic multi-hazard risk assessment

climada

Open-source (GitHub, on MATLAB and Octave), makes use of a wide variety of open-access databases and
provides various interfaces (open architecture)
Widely used, basis for several peer-reviewed publications, past and on-going collaborations with ETH Zrich,
MeteoSwiss, Uni Bern, NCAR, TNC, consultants https://github.com/davidnbresch/climada
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

climada: High-resolution (1x1km) damage model

Bangladesh

climada
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

climada: High-resolution (1x1km) damage model

Bangladesh

climada
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclones in the Indian ocean

historic
~ 25 years

probabilistic
~ 5000 years
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Understanding the hazard how strong

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic

historic
~100 years

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic

historic
~100 years

probabilistic
~10000 years
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclones in the West Pacific

historic
~ 50 years

probabilistic
~ 5000 years
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclones in the Southern hemisphere

historic
~ 50 years

probabilistic
~ 5000 years
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Note on validation
Both the historical dataset and
especially the probabilistic set
need to be carefully validated,
as an example, we show the
validation of intensity
distributions:
historical catalogue, 34
storms (upper panels)
probabilistic event set, 3391
storms (lower panels)
red line shows an extreme
value distribution (Gumbel)

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclone intensity the wind field (1/3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclone intensity the wind field (2/3)


We use the Holland wind field model
The 1-min sustained wind at
gradient wind level (boundary
layer height & no surface
effects) is modelled using the
Holland 2008 approach. It
models the first-order vortex of a
tropical cyclone.
The translational speed (also
called celerity) is added
geometrically.

Holland, G. J., 1980: An analytic model of the wind and pressure


profiles in hurricanes. Monthly Weather Review, 108, 1212-1218.

Vickery, P.J. and D. Wadhera, 2008: Statistical models of Holland


pressure profile parameter and radius to maximum winds of
hurricanes from flight-level pressure and H*wind data. J. Appl.
Meteor. Clim.
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Tropical cyclone intensity the wind field (3/3)


Landfall correction (not part of Exercise)
A topography module corrects
the Holland model for large
scale topography, but still
assumes a gradient level wind,
i.e. at boundary layer height.
The approach of Vickery et al.
2009 corrects the wind for the
boundary layer and surface
properties.

Vickery, P.J. et al., 2009: A Hurricane Boundary Layer and Wind


Field Model for Use in Engineering Applications. J. Appl. Meteor.
Clim.

and an update of the Holland approach:


Holland, G. J., 2008: A Revised Hurricane PressureWind Model,
Monthly Weather Review, 136, 3432-3445.

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Damage calculation (1/2)


The damage is calculated for each single asset at each location for each
scenario or event, so basically damage = value * damage function (see
below), looped over assets and events
damage = asset value * MDD * PAA
damage function
damage is the damage from ground up, from the first dollar, so to speak
asset value is the total value of the asset
MDD is the Mean Damage Degree (the damage for a given intensity at
an affected asset) - how strongly an asset is damaged. Range 0..1 (from
none to total destruction)
PAA is the Percentage of Assets Affected (the percentage of assets
affected for a given hazard intensity) - how many assets are affected.
Range 0..1 (from none affected to all affected)
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Damage calculation (2/2)


So far, the hazard intensity did not show up in the calculation, did we miss
something? Well, the damage is a function of the hazard intensity, hence:
MDD = f(hazard intensity)
PAA = f(hazard intensity)
where hazard intensity is the hazard's intensity at each asset for each
event. Since the damage also depends on the asset type, we have in fact:
MDD = f(hazard intensity, asset type)
PAA = f(hazard intensity, asset type)

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Mean Damage Ratio

Notes on damage function

Hazard Intensity

Uncertainty of the
hazard intensity
+
Uncertainty of the
damage
results in
Convoluted Distribution
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Insurance - Basics

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Insurability
Insurance is the mutual cover of a fortuitous, assessable need
of a large number of similarly exposed business
Alfred Manes, 1877-1963
mutuality: numerous exposed parties must join together to form a risk
community, to share and diversify the risk large number
fortuitous or randomness: time of occurrence must be unpredictable,
occurrence itself must be independent of the will of the insured
assessability: damage probability and severity must be quantifiable
similarly exposed business large number
plus: economic viability: private insurers must be able to obtain a riskadequate premium

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Effect of insurance (1/4)


Time series of annual result
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50

average result 0.15, stddev 0.60

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

-1.00

Effect of insurance (2/4)


Time series of annual result (after prevention)
price for prevention
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50

average result 0.19 (+25%), stddev 0.56 (-8%), prevention price 0.01
effect of prevention: stabilize result, reduce volatility
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

-1.00

Effect of insurance (3/4)


Time series of annual result (after prevention and insurance)

price for prevention


and insurance
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50

average result 0.17 (+12%), stddev 0.43 (-29%), prev+ins price: 0.13
effect of insurance: reduce (extreme) volatility
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

-1.00

Effect of insurance (4/4)


raw

result
0.15

stdev
0.60

price*

+ prevention
0.19 (+25%) 0.56 (-8%) 0.01
cost-effective adaptation (net gain of 0.04 at cost of 0.01 )
+ insurance
0.17 (+12%) 0.43 (-29%) 0.01+0.12
substantial reduction of volatility, result increase even after deduction
of prevention cost and insurance premium affordable!
insurance alone
0.12 (-17%) 0.45 (-25%) 0.153
prevention (strongly) incentivizes insurance
*price is already taken into account in result

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

The main function of risk transfer

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Insurance conditions
proportional:
non-proportional:

damageafter=damagebefore*share
damageafter=min(max(damagebefore-deductible,0),cover)

non-proportional

cover

from ground-up damagefgu (total area) to damage


after conditions, conditions get applied in the
following sequence:

proportional

1) coinsurance
2) deductible
3) cover (we show the overspill)
4) share (see also 1-share)
hence we calculate as follows:
damage after conditions=min[
max(damagefgu*{1-coinsurance}deductible,0),cover] *share

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Note on insurance conditions the reality

Portfolio of assets
Policy 1
Site 1

...

Policy 2
Site 2

Coverage 1

...

Site m

Coverage 2

...

Policy n

e.g. ZIP code 12345

Coverage p

Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

e.g. Building

Damage accumulation

In reality, risk transfer happens on several (repeated) hierarchical levels,


such as:

Forms of insurance
Risk transfer can be agreed upon based on different triggers:
indemnity1, also called incurred or occurred damage
parametric, also called index
modelled (well, a form of parametric)
and with different partners, such as:
policyholders from macro (e.g. large corporates in Texas) to micro
(e.g. smallholder farmers in Ethiopia Example)
insurers (reinsurers insure them)
other reinsurers, called retrocession
capital market, called insurance-linked security (ILS) or
often also Cat Bond ( Example)
public sector (PPP Example)
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

1specific

or market-share

Microinsurance case study Ethiopia

http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/crm/The_R4_Rural_Resilience_Initiative.html

Cat
case
study Amrica
North
CatBond
Bond
North
America

http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/crm/experts_on_multicat_mexico.html

Efficient monopolies

Source: Efficient Monopolies. The Limits of Competition in the European


Property Insurance Market, Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg,
Oxford University press, 2004.
ISBN 0-19-926881-9
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

Efficient monopolies
40% more
expensive for
the same cover

Efficient Monopolies. The Limits of Competition in the European Property Insurance Market, Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, Oxford University press, 2004.
Reto Knutti / IAC ETH Zurich | David Bresch / Swiss Re

You might also like