Resilient Futures Initiative

Case studies

Solution Use high-resolution, insurance industry catastrophe flood-and-loss modeling to quantify how mangrove extent changes storm-surge flood depths and resulting property losses by comparing “With Mangroves” vs “No Mangroves” scenarios. Key challenge Mangrove impacts on storm-surge losses are spatially variable and storm-severity dependent, with mixed effects for properties inside or seaward of mangrove forests and limited fine-scale evidence for decision-making. Context The study analyzes Florida, a coastline with high hurricane storm-surge exposure, valuable coastal properties, and extensive mangrove forests. Using kilometer-scale flood and loss modeling (∼100 m in the coastal floodplain), it estimates how mangroves modify storm surge and resulting damages, both as average annual loss (AAL) in Collier County using representative synthetic storms drawn from a 100,000-year catalog, and for historical events Hurricane Irma (2017) and Hurricane Ian (2022) across southern Florida. Reported results include annual avoided losses of US$67 million in Collier County and event-scale reductions of US$725 million (14%) for Irma and about US$4.1 billion (≈30%) for Ian from storm surge damages. Solution in practice The authors apply an insurance industry-standard catastrophe risk modeling workflow that couples a physics-based storm surge/overland flooding model with an economic loss model to estimate property-level storm-surge losses under two land-cover scenarios: present-day mangroves (“With Mangroves”) and a counterfactual where mangroves are absent (“No Mangroves,” represented by lower-friction land cover such as developed open space/open water). The approach quantifies avoided losses by comparing damages between scenarios, and maps spatial patterns showing that mangroves always reduce losses for landward properties, with significant benefits extending roughly 11–14 km inland depending on the event, while effects for properties inside and seaward of mangroves are net positive but mixed and can sometimes increase damages. Impact / outcome USD 67m a year in avoided losses in Collier County; USD 725m (14%) for Irma and about USD 4.1bn (~30%) for Ian. Next steps Use the quantified, high-resolution evidence on avoided losses and spatial variability to inform targeted conservation/restoration and adaptive management of mangroves as “natural infrastructure,” prioritize investments where landward property protection benefits are highest, and incorporate up-to-date mangrove extent (and ideally health/density) data into storm-surge risk assessments to support incentives such as premium reductions or resilience investments; further studies are also indicated to better capture waves, dynamic vegetation drag, and more realistic counterfactual land-use scenarios. Organizations involved Authoring: Cell Reports Sustainability - peer-reviewed study Implementation partners Data Providers; Insurers; Civil Society Organizations; Regulators & Policymakers
USA
Quantifying mangrove storm-surge loss reduction using insurance catastrophe models — Florida (Collier County; Hurricanes Irma & Ian)
Solution Insurer-led flood risk assessment, site visits, and policy-supported resilience planning for port-adjacent assets Key challenge Port resilience is difficult because risks are systemic and interdependent across neighboring assets Context Japan’s ports are highly exposed to sea-level rise, storm surge, coastal flooding, and typhoon-related impacts, while interdependence across assets complicates incentives for individual investment Solution in practice After heavy losses at a major vehicle storage yard, Tokio Marine assessed the site’s flood risk and recommended raising ground levels. The company implemented the investment, and later experiences showed no comparable severe losses. The case also informed wider MLIT-led guidance for coordinated port resilience planning Impact / outcome Raising ground levels at the storage yard - no comparable severe losses since; informed MLIT-led port resilience guidance. Next steps Standardize port and coastal risk assessment methods, strengthen coordination across neighboring port assets and operators, and connect insurer-led analytics more directly to investment planning and public policy frameworks. Organizations involved Authoring: Tokio Marine; Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) Actors: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), Japan Implementation partners Insurers; Regulators & Policymakers; Infrastructure Owners & Operators; Local Governments
Japan
Applying insurance analytics and policy frameworks to enable port resilience investments — Japan
Solution Physical risk assessment and resilience upgrades linked to improved insurance terms Key challenge Adaptation investments require upfront spending while benefits are often uncertain and not always reflected in insurance pricing Context Following severe extreme weather including the Haikui Typhoon and Black Rain of 2023, Link assessed its Hong Kong portfolio and identified flooding and typhoons as dominant acute risks Solution in practice Link invested HKD 8 million in targeted flood and typhoon resilience measures, including detachable flood barriers, flood sensors, drainage improvements, relocating electrical switchboards, flood-response protocols, monitoring systems, and emergency drills. AXA modelled the financial benefits, and Link secured improved insurance terms including an 11.7% premium reduction for 2025 Impact / outcome HKD 8m of flood and typhoon measures secured improved insurance terms, including an 11.7% premium reduction for 2025. Next steps Expand resilience-linked insurance approaches across larger real estate portfolios, strengthen the evidence base linking asset-level resilience measures to improved underwriting outcomes, and encourage broader insurer recognition of verified risk reduction measures. Organizations involved Authoring: Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) Actors: Link REIT; AXA Implementation partners Insurers; Asset Owners & Managers; Property value chain stakeholders
Hong Kong SAR, China
Securing property insurance premium reductions through building resilience — Hong Kong
Solution Start with a place rather than a peril: bring farmers, water utilities, local authorities and the environmental agency around a single catchment, aligning environmental stewardship payments, flood-risk reduction and water-quality improvement into one Program that no individual participant could have funded or justified alone. Key challenge The Severn Valley suffers average annual losses of around GBP 150 million ($205 million) from flooding, the catchment spans two nations (Wales and England) with different regulators and funding regimes, and the scheme envisages up to GBP 1 billion ($1.3 billion) of investment - far beyond public grant funding alone. Context The River Severn has recorded some of its highest levels in decades in the past seven years alone. Modelling shows that up to 100 million cubic metres of water will need to be stored during large flood events - equivalent to 11 days of the United Kingdom's water supply - to better protect more than 3,000 homes and businesses at risk. The catchment covers rural areas and all property types across the Severn Valley and Shropshire, crossing the England-Wales border. Solution in practice Jointly led by the national Environment Agency, Shropshire and Powys Councils and Oliver Wyman, the scheme is the flagship project of a wider cross-border partnership treating catchment-scale resilience as a driver of regional growth. The emerging design combines more than 25,000 nature-based interventions with engineered water storage, aimed at managing a one-in-100-year flood with an allowance for impacts of future climate change. Early delivery is already under way: more than 140 natural flood management measures - leaky dams, ponds and wetlands - have been installed upstream. The coalition is now working with beneficiaries of the risk reduction, from insurers and developers to farmers and government, to identify channels for funding the scheme. Once completed, it is expected to support up to GBP 5 billion ($6.8 billion) in wider economic impact. The coalition is exploring several routes to close the funding gap: green finance as an established starting point, through carbon credit sales and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) units; working with large infrastructure operators across rail, water, energy and highways to jointly shape the scheme around their own resilience needs, capturing the value that catchment-scale risk reduction offers assets that would otherwise be exposed to flooding; and wider mechanisms targeted at businesses and communities in the local economy, explored through the Marches Forward Partnership, a cross-border alliance of four councils seeking trailblazer green growth status, including regulatory freedoms and investment zone status. Together these sit alongside blended public and private finance, with the mix still to be confirmed. Impact / outcome More than 140 natural flood management measures installed; designed to protect 3,000+ homes and businesses and support up to GBP 5bn of wider economic impact. Next steps The priority now is turning these routes into firm commitments: resolving free-rider risk among beneficiaries, securing insurer participation and confirming which mechanisms and investors will anchor the model. Lessons from this process are intended to inform how similar catchments could be financed elsewhere. The playbook identifies two connected areas where innovation is required. Making the national security and productivity case: the economic arguments most often cited are insured loss avoidance and property value protection, while others - supply chain protection, fiscal revenue stabilization and maintaining labor productivity - are less quantified in ways that reach central governments and treasury departments, and developing that evidence base would unlock a scale of co-investment currently absent from most coalitions, requiring greater ownership and advocacy from local government actors. Governance frameworks for transboundary coalitions: the hardest design question is how costs, benefits and decision rights are shared across jurisdictions, and the river basin and coastal coalition examples have each had to solve this from scratch - there is an opportunity to develop replicable collaboration templates, drawing on water law, watershed management and municipal finance precedents, to make the structure more straightforward for capital markets and insurers who might want to participate. Organizations involved Authoring: Marsh Actors: Environment Agency; Shropshire Council; Powys County Council; Oliver Wyman; Marches Forward Partnership Implementation partners Regulators & Policymakers; Local Governments; Investors & Banks; Insurers; Civil Society Organizations; Property value chain stakeholders
United Kingdom
A whole-catchment coalition — the Shropshire Valley Water Management Scheme
Solution A single institution that represents the place - a community organization, municipality or homeowners’ association - arranges one policy covering many households at once, giving the community better negotiating power, lower cost per household and the ability to link cover directly to local risk reduction. Key challenge If households and businesses are uninsured or underinsured this can prolong local disruption and delay wider community recovery after an extreme weather event: around 14% of US homeowners have no cover at all, a figure that rises to over 90% in low-income Asian economies, while 74% of small businesses globally are underinsured. Context Conventional insurance fails those who need it most. Low- and moderate-income households in New York City’s flood-exposed urban neighbourhoods are hit hardest and recover slowest: they hold few savings and are often unable to access post-disaster loans, while federal assistance arrives late or not at all. A 2021 framework developed by Guy Carpenter with the Wharton Risk Center set out an alternative: community-based catastrophe insurance (CBCI), in which a community institution arranges cover on behalf of its members. Solution in practice In March 2023, the framework became reality. The Center for NYC Neighborhoods, a housing non-profit, purchased parametric flood cover in partnership with the NYC Mayor's Office of Climate and Environmental Justice, the Environmental Defense Fund and SBP. When flooding in pilot neighbourhoods exceeds a preset threshold, measured through satellite imagery, ground sensors and even social media images, the insurer pays the Center directly. The Center then distributes emergency grants of up to $15,000 per household, up to $1.1 million in total, within days rather than months. The funding for the development and implementation of this cover in year one was provided by the US National Science Foundation. Impact / outcome Parametric cover pays emergency grants of up to $15,000 per household (up to $1.1m in total) within days. Next steps The pilot was designed as a blueprint for replication, but its success depends on trusted community institutions with established local networks - in this case a network of thirty housing counselling groups built during Hurricane Sandy recovery. A key challenge remains sustainable funding: NGO and municipal budgets are not structured to sustain insurance programs over time. Replication will therefore require funding mechanisms such as resilience levies, blended finance vehicles or embedding the premium cost within broader municipal resilience budgets. The playbook adds that the community-based model is relevant wherever individual insurance take-up is low, with civil society organizations playing a key role as trusted intermediaries between insurers and the communities they serve; communities, insurers and local governments could explore adaptations suited to their own institutions and regulatory settings, and initiatives such as the Insurance for Good Solutions Catalyst - which partners with communities, non-profits and the public sector on innovation in risk transfer - offer a starting point for identifying partners and existing solutions. Organizations involved Authoring: Marsh Actors: Center for NYC Neighborhoods; NYC Mayor's Office of Climate and Environmental Justice; Environmental Defense Fund; SBP; Guy Carpenter; Wharton Risk Center; US National Science Foundation Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Local Governments; Insurers; Regulators & Policymakers; Data Providers
USA
One policy, one community — community based catastrophe insurance, New York City
Solution Develop an integrated coastal flood risk management system combining elevated parkland, flood barriers, deployable gates, and drainage improvements across a waterfront neighborhood Key challenge Flood risk crosses neighborhood boundaries, so local protection works must connect to wider systems rather than operate as isolated barriers Context Following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Battery Park City advanced a set of interrelated projects as part of the Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency effort. The area includes vulnerable waterfront open space, community facilities, and edge conditions where floodwaters can enter from surrounding low points. Solution in practice The Battery Park City Authority is advancing three linked projects: the South Battery Park City Resiliency Project, the North/West Battery Park City Resiliency Project, and the completed Ball Fields and Community Center Resiliency Project. Together they combine continuous flood barriers, raised and redesigned public space, deployable barriers, and drainage improvements, with connections to adjacent neighbourhoods. Impact / outcome Ball Fields and Community Center Resiliency Project completed; South and North/West projects in progress. Next steps Support cross-boundary coordination so neighborhood-scale flood protection connects into a wider Lower Manhattan resilience system, maintain joint planning across agencies and adjacent communities, and sustain structured community engagement through design, delivery, and long-term operations. Organizations involved Authoring: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Actors: Battery Park City Authority Implementation partners Local Governments; Infrastructure Owners & Operators; Property value chain stakeholders; Civil Society Organizations
USA
Battery Park City resilience projects — Lower Manhattan, New York
Solution Introduce incentives for developers to incorporate rainwater harvesting and reuse systems into new housing developments, particularly for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing Key challenge The current regulatory framework is fragmented, alternative water sources are not required under Building Regulations, and developers face additional cost, risk, and delivery complexity when considering shared reuse systems Context The proposal responds to rising surface water flood risk and growing water stress in the UK. It highlights the case for using rainwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce demand for treated water, improve resilience, and lower household water use. Solution in practice The proposal sets out three mechanisms to accelerate adoption: faster water utility connection approvals for developments that include rainwater reuse, tax treatment that supports investment in water-related resilience measures, and matched funding from insurers and water companies for preventative action. Impact / outcome Policy proposal - no outcomes reported yet. Organizations involved Authoring: UK Parliament (Julia Buckley MP) Implementation partners Infrastructure Owners & Operators; Property value chain stakeholders; Regulators & Policymakers; Insurers
United Kingdom
Rewarding rainwater reuse in new housing developments — UK
Solution Express the value of a nature-based intervention in the metric insurers use to make decisions - average annual losses - so that community-scale and nature-based place resilience measures can be quantified and recognised in catastrophe models. Key challenge Catastrophe models are the lens through which insurers view a place, but while most models capture large-scale defences such as river dykes and coastal flood-wall systems, very few capture community-scale interventions or nature-based solutions effectively - so investment in the resilience of a place cannot be fully recognized in the price of insurance. Context The 2018 Camp Fire killed 86 people and destroyed 95% of the structures in Paradise, California, including 11,000 homes, causing $16.5 billion in total losses and $12.5 billion in insured losses, the costliest disaster globally that year. Insurers responded by withdrawing, with non-renewals in California rising 31% in 2019 alone. The withdrawal that followed was not just a pricing failure, it was a signal that the market lacked the tools to assess which properties could be made resilient and which could not. The setting is suburban and semi-rural residential areas in the wildland-urban interface. Solution in practice The Nature Conservancy, working with Guy Carpenter, a reinsurance broker, gathered granular data about Paradise: which houses were destroyed, property boundaries from public records, and how much homes cost to rebuild. They fed this into the insurance pricing model, then tested what happened if they added green spaces and parks around the town's edge designed to slow fire spread. The results: these green buffers alone reduced the modelled losses by 27%; when combined with modern building codes, which independently reduce losses by a further 20%, the two measures together produced a compounded reduction of around 42%, cutting total modelled losses from over $10 billion to around $6 billion. That shift would materially improve the risk profile and support more viable insurance outcomes, subject to pricing, market capacity and regulatory conditions. The analysis demonstrates that incorporating place-based resilience measures into insurers’ models can quantify their risk reduction benefits and establish a quantifiable return on resilience investment. Impact / outcome Green buffers cut modelled wildfire losses by 27%; combined with modern building codes, about 42% (from over $10bn to around $6bn). Next steps The capability to reflect place-based resilience in modelling therefore exists; what limits its use is not technical capacity but the consistency of demand and the maturity of the evidence base across different contexts, pointing to a role for market innovation alongside data vendors as well as public policy. For example, Colorado's HB 1182 regulation, passed in 2025, requires insurers to account for property, community and landscape-scale mitigation in both pricing and coverage decisions, and offers a model other jurisdictions could adopt to incentivize this behaviour. Location also matters within the intervention itself: the green buffers were 5 to 27% effective depending on where they were placed, so benefit-cost analysis must guide which areas to prioritise. The playbook identifies two areas where innovation is required. Methodologies fit for the decision being made: place-based risk assessment methodologies can be improved across the property value chain, including robust place-based risk assessment for asset managers with insurability as one indicator of underlying risk, and resilience-adjusted credit analysis for banks, requiring close collaboration among these actors. Clarity on what models can and cannot be used for: climate and catastrophe models serve portfolio-level hazard screening, financial impact assessment across return periods, and pricing or underwriting decisions, but are not designed for site-level or place-based resilience decisions, for which engineering analysis is required - using CAT and climate models for site-level resilience produces confident but incorrect answers. Organizations involved Authoring: Marsh Actors: The Nature Conservancy; Guy Carpenter Implementation partners Data Providers; Insurers; Civil Society Organizations; Local Governments
USA
Incorporating wildfire buffers into catastrophe models — Paradise, California
Solution Apply neighborhood-scale wildfire mitigation standards to new housing developments so that home design, spacing, defensible space, and perimeter treatment work together to reduce ignition and structure-to-structure fire spread Key challenge Wildfire losses are driven not only by individual home vulnerability but also by neighborhood layout, perimeter exposure, ember intrusion, and fire spread between structures Context IBHS expanded its Wildfire Prepared program to include a Neighborhood designation aimed at reducing conflagration risk at community scale. KB Home’s Dixon Trail in Escondido became the first new-home community to achieve the designation, while Mercury partnered with IBHS to support insurance discounts for certified wildfire-prepared homes. Solution in practice The designation requires mitigation at both home and neighborhood scale. At Dixon Trail, homes were built to the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Plus standard and the neighborhood design incorporated features such as Class A fire-rated roofs, ember- and flame-resistant vents, non-combustible zones, defensible space, and separation between structures. Mercury Insurance introduced premium incentives tied to IBHS wildfire-prepared designations for eligible homes. Impact / outcome Dixon Trail (Escondido) was the first new-home community to earn the Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood designation; Mercury offers premium incentives for designated homes. Next steps Expand neighborhood-scale wildfire standards beyond pilot developments, strengthen insurer recognition of verified mitigation measures, and build stronger links between subdivision design, resilience certification, and long-term insurability. Organizations involved Authoring: Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) Actors: KB Home; Mercury Insurance Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Property value chain stakeholders; Insurers; Local Governments
USA
IBHS Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood designation — KB Home and Mercury Insurance
Solution Embed physical climate risk assessment into bank credit and portfolio processes and use blended climate-finance facilities to structure and lend for client resilience investments. Key challenge Fragmented climate risk and credit decisions (and underpricing of environmental/social externalities) makes adaptation investments harder to justify and finance at scale. Context CIB is the largest private-sector bank in Egypt with established relationships in agriculture, food and beverage, and water-intensive industries, and it integrates sustainability across policies, strategic initiatives, financed transactions, and operations. The bank created a Sustainable Finance Strategy with an integrated Environmental & Social Risk Management (ESRM) system, using materiality analysis and heatmap-based methodologies to capture sector vulnerabilities and geographic exposure, feeding an ESG risk scoring framework being rolled out to reflect climate risk in credit evaluation and portfolio oversight. Solution in practice CIB applied its climate/ESG risk scoring and ESRM approach with corporate food-industry clients exposed to heatwaves, water stress and temperature-driven supply chain disruption, then worked with them to identify and finance targeted resilience investments through its Climate Finance Program developed with PROPARCO and supported by blended finance from the GCF. Three example financings include a modern greenhouse system with drip irrigation and IoT monitoring (USD 5.2 million and 99 million EGP) to reduce water consumption; wave breakers for a port (EGP 1.3 billion) to improve anti-flooding protection amid sea-level rise; and local manufacturing capacity (USD 4 million) for advanced wastewater treatment technologies (e.g., hybrid filters, sludge collectors, flocculators, regulation gates). To scale, CIB launched the “Brain Trust” initiative at COP27, combining a governance mechanism (CIB, clients, DFIs, and external technical partners) to validate designs and mechanisms, with an operational framework that runs from risk identification and project design through financial structuring, instrument selection, and impact measurement/disclosure/reporting. Impact / outcome Financed greenhouse irrigation (USD 5.2m + EGP 99m), port wave breakers (EGP 1.3bn) and wastewater technology manufacturing (USD 4m). Next steps Build partnerships between commercial banks and MDBs/DFIs to support pre-screening projects against adaptation standards and validate risk assessments, while expanding granular physical-risk data infrastructure that captures the geographic location of client assets and operations (not only headquarters). Extend the physical-risk assessment methodology to additional sectors and geographies and continue investing in data, methodology, and talent to translate climate risk into credit-relevant metrics that enable systematic scale-up of adaptation finance. Organizations involved Authoring: Commercial International Bank (CIB); World Economic Forum; Marsh Actors: PROPARCO; Green Climate Fund (GCF) Implementation partners Regulators & Policymakers; Asset Owners & Managers
Egypt
Embedding physical climate risk and resilience into corporate lending — Commercial International Bank (CIB), Egypt

Resilient Futures Initiative

A World Economic Forum Initiative
© 2026 All rights reserved
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service