With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood o...With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood or resolved in isolation.Analysts have suggested that many of the Polycrisis symptoms have been at least partially triggered by negative externalities,that is,costs arising from economic activity that are not covered by market prices and thus not internalized in national and international decision making,leading to suboptimal decisions on climate action,energy and food security,global financial stability,among others.Externalities have generally been framed as negative.Positive externalities,that is,societal benefits that indirectly arise from activities and transactions have less often been considered.International policy debate on disaster risk reduction(DRR)and climate change adaptation(CCA)over the last years,as stipulated by international compacts in 2015(the Sendai Framework,the SDGs,and the Paris Agreement),has built on positive externality discussion,albeit not explicitly so.Disaster risk reduction and CCA analysts have emphasized the need for orienting risk management investments towards interventions that generate so-called multiple or triple resilience dividends.This means extending the focus in decision making from avoiding and reducing impacts and risks to also considering development(co-)benefits arising irrespective of disaster event occurrence.In this context,the“Triple Dividend of Resilience”(TDR)concept and framework has suggested that in addition to risk reduction benefits(dividend 1),dividends would also arise from benefits associated with unlocked development(dividend 2)as well as from co-benefits(dividend 3),for example,from investments into disaster-safe and energy efficient housing.Yet,despite the increasing burdens imposed by systemic disaster and climate risks and wide-spread recognition of this concept over a decade as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk,it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment across scales into disaster and climate risk reduction.We argue that this systemic underinvestment is,at least partially,due to a lack of conceptual clarity of the TDR with regard to the framing around the dividend 2,a lack of awareness and solid evidence on the positive externalities,as well as interrelationships between resilience dividends in space and time.Based on a snowballing review of the limited literature on the TDR as well as an examination of empirical and model-based evidence,we present the state of the art on the TDR framework.We examine the various dividends in terms of epistemological and methodological contributions building on empirical and modeling methods for supporting decision making as well as evidence for decision making across scales from local to global.Overall,we suggest that there indeed can be positive externalities and solid co-benefits from disaster and climate risk reduction.Systemic risk research and practice coupled with resilience dividend reasoning may thus help to better identify those dividends for improved decision making on disaster and climate risk(reduction).We further show how analysts and decision makers may better consider those various resilience dividends beyond the reduction of losses as well as assess dependencies in risk and benefits’creation across micro and macro scales.As we suggest,enhanced methods and better awareness for potential externalities may enable more comprehensive consideration of DRR and CCA interventions with benefits arising at various scales.This may eventually also lead to enhanced disaster risk and climate risk governance,which is key for tackling relevant risk challenges in a polycrisis context.展开更多
The freemium pricing model has become mainstream in the software industry.A large user base can induce positive network effects while expanding security risks associated with unpatched users.This study explores a two-...The freemium pricing model has become mainstream in the software industry.A large user base can induce positive network effects while expanding security risks associated with unpatched users.This study explores a two-stage decision problem faced by software vendors that involves a freemium versioning strategy and a subsequent security-patching strategy when taking both the positive network externality and negative security externality into consideration.It is noteworthy that a joint effect of the two externalities on the vendor’s management decisions exists.First,we analytically derive three patching strategies for the vendor:PS_(1)(rebates all users),PS_(2)(rebates only freeware users),and PS_(3)(rebates no users).Our results indicate that,if the strength of the positive network externality is relatively low,the optimal security-patching strategy will be significantly affected by the negative security externality.Specifically,when the intensity of the negative security externality is low,the vendor’s optimal patching strategy will be PS_(1).However,with the increase in the negative security externality,the optimal patching strategy changes to PS_(2) and then to PS_(3),whereas the strategy spaces of PS_(1) and PS_(2) decrease in the positive network externality to zero.Nevertheless,if the strength of the positive network externality is relatively high,the vendor is better off selecting PS_(1) when the negative security externality is low.However,when the negative security externality is high,PS_(3) is optimal.Furthermore,based on optimal patching strategies,we reveal the optimal conditions required for the vendor to adopt the freemium model compared with commercial only.Of interest,we find that the vendor adopting the freemium version is also influenced by the interaction of the two externalities.Finally,through numerical experiments,we find that the vendor and social planner’s interests can be aligned under certain conditions.However,this is not always the case.展开更多
Payments for ecosystem services(PES) are one kind of important tool for environmental protection, and have been widely studied by international scholars and conservationists. Based various definitions of PES from rece...Payments for ecosystem services(PES) are one kind of important tool for environmental protection, and have been widely studied by international scholars and conservationists. Based various definitions of PES from recent articles, we have outlined four principles for PES: parity, measurability, additionality and conditionality, and then have used these principles to develop a formula to calculate a standard for PES. Finding a way to use PES to achieve a win-win relationship between economic growth and environmental protection in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region(BTHR) is a key task for Chinese government. Synergetic development of BTHR has become a national strategy, like The Belt and Road Initiative. This article employed the formula we developed to calculate the net horizontal PES amounts that each provincial government within BTHR should pay. Our findings show that Beijing should have paid 10.44×10~9 Yuan(0.4% of Beijing’s GRP) and Tianjin 16.56×109 Yuan(0.93% of Tianjin’s GRP) to Hebei in 2016.展开更多
基金funding received from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement No.101056898(DECIPHER)the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance。
文摘With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood or resolved in isolation.Analysts have suggested that many of the Polycrisis symptoms have been at least partially triggered by negative externalities,that is,costs arising from economic activity that are not covered by market prices and thus not internalized in national and international decision making,leading to suboptimal decisions on climate action,energy and food security,global financial stability,among others.Externalities have generally been framed as negative.Positive externalities,that is,societal benefits that indirectly arise from activities and transactions have less often been considered.International policy debate on disaster risk reduction(DRR)and climate change adaptation(CCA)over the last years,as stipulated by international compacts in 2015(the Sendai Framework,the SDGs,and the Paris Agreement),has built on positive externality discussion,albeit not explicitly so.Disaster risk reduction and CCA analysts have emphasized the need for orienting risk management investments towards interventions that generate so-called multiple or triple resilience dividends.This means extending the focus in decision making from avoiding and reducing impacts and risks to also considering development(co-)benefits arising irrespective of disaster event occurrence.In this context,the“Triple Dividend of Resilience”(TDR)concept and framework has suggested that in addition to risk reduction benefits(dividend 1),dividends would also arise from benefits associated with unlocked development(dividend 2)as well as from co-benefits(dividend 3),for example,from investments into disaster-safe and energy efficient housing.Yet,despite the increasing burdens imposed by systemic disaster and climate risks and wide-spread recognition of this concept over a decade as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk,it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment across scales into disaster and climate risk reduction.We argue that this systemic underinvestment is,at least partially,due to a lack of conceptual clarity of the TDR with regard to the framing around the dividend 2,a lack of awareness and solid evidence on the positive externalities,as well as interrelationships between resilience dividends in space and time.Based on a snowballing review of the limited literature on the TDR as well as an examination of empirical and model-based evidence,we present the state of the art on the TDR framework.We examine the various dividends in terms of epistemological and methodological contributions building on empirical and modeling methods for supporting decision making as well as evidence for decision making across scales from local to global.Overall,we suggest that there indeed can be positive externalities and solid co-benefits from disaster and climate risk reduction.Systemic risk research and practice coupled with resilience dividend reasoning may thus help to better identify those dividends for improved decision making on disaster and climate risk(reduction).We further show how analysts and decision makers may better consider those various resilience dividends beyond the reduction of losses as well as assess dependencies in risk and benefits’creation across micro and macro scales.As we suggest,enhanced methods and better awareness for potential externalities may enable more comprehensive consideration of DRR and CCA interventions with benefits arising at various scales.This may eventually also lead to enhanced disaster risk and climate risk governance,which is key for tackling relevant risk challenges in a polycrisis context.
文摘The freemium pricing model has become mainstream in the software industry.A large user base can induce positive network effects while expanding security risks associated with unpatched users.This study explores a two-stage decision problem faced by software vendors that involves a freemium versioning strategy and a subsequent security-patching strategy when taking both the positive network externality and negative security externality into consideration.It is noteworthy that a joint effect of the two externalities on the vendor’s management decisions exists.First,we analytically derive three patching strategies for the vendor:PS_(1)(rebates all users),PS_(2)(rebates only freeware users),and PS_(3)(rebates no users).Our results indicate that,if the strength of the positive network externality is relatively low,the optimal security-patching strategy will be significantly affected by the negative security externality.Specifically,when the intensity of the negative security externality is low,the vendor’s optimal patching strategy will be PS_(1).However,with the increase in the negative security externality,the optimal patching strategy changes to PS_(2) and then to PS_(3),whereas the strategy spaces of PS_(1) and PS_(2) decrease in the positive network externality to zero.Nevertheless,if the strength of the positive network externality is relatively high,the vendor is better off selecting PS_(1) when the negative security externality is low.However,when the negative security externality is high,PS_(3) is optimal.Furthermore,based on optimal patching strategies,we reveal the optimal conditions required for the vendor to adopt the freemium model compared with commercial only.Of interest,we find that the vendor adopting the freemium version is also influenced by the interaction of the two externalities.Finally,through numerical experiments,we find that the vendor and social planner’s interests can be aligned under certain conditions.However,this is not always the case.
基金Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences(XDA19030104)National Key Research and Development Programme of China(2017 YFA0603004)
文摘Payments for ecosystem services(PES) are one kind of important tool for environmental protection, and have been widely studied by international scholars and conservationists. Based various definitions of PES from recent articles, we have outlined four principles for PES: parity, measurability, additionality and conditionality, and then have used these principles to develop a formula to calculate a standard for PES. Finding a way to use PES to achieve a win-win relationship between economic growth and environmental protection in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region(BTHR) is a key task for Chinese government. Synergetic development of BTHR has become a national strategy, like The Belt and Road Initiative. This article employed the formula we developed to calculate the net horizontal PES amounts that each provincial government within BTHR should pay. Our findings show that Beijing should have paid 10.44×10~9 Yuan(0.4% of Beijing’s GRP) and Tianjin 16.56×109 Yuan(0.93% of Tianjin’s GRP) to Hebei in 2016.
