@article{OttoKellermannThiekenetal.2018,
  author    = {Otto, Antje and Kellermann, Patric and Thieken, Annegret and Costa, Maria Manez and Carmona, Maria and Bubeck, Philip},
  title     = {Risk reduction partnerships in railway transport infrastructure in an alpine environment},
  series = {International journal of disaster risk reduction},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {International journal of disaster risk reduction},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2212-4209},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.025},
  pages     = {385 -- 397},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The transport sector is crucial for the functioning of modern societies and their economic welfares. However, it is vulnerable to natural hazards since damage and disturbances appear recurrently. Risk management of transport infrastructure is a complex task that usually involves various stakeholders from the public and private sector. Related scientific knowledge, however, is limited so far. Therefore, this paper presents detailed information on the risk management of the Austrian railway operator gathered through literature studies, in interviews, meetings and workshops. The findings reveal three decision making levels of risk reduction: 1) a superordinate level for the negotiation of frameworks and guidelines, 2) a regional to local level for the planning and implementation of structural measures and 3) a regional to local level for non-structural risk reduction measures and emergency management. On each of these levels, multi-sectoral partnerships exist that aim at reducing the risk to railway infrastructure. Chosen partnerships are evaluated applying the Capital Approach Framework and some collaborations are analyzed considering the flood and landslide events in June 2013. The evaluation reveals that the risk management of the railway operator and its partners has been successful, but there is still potential for enhancement. Difficulties are seen for instance in obtaining continuity of employees and organizational structures which can affect personal contacts and mutual trust and might hamper sharing data and experiences. Altogether, the case reveals the importance of multi-sectoral partnerships that are seen as a crucial element of risk management in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BubeckBotzenLaudanetal.2018,
  author    = {Bubeck, Philip and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and Laudan, Jonas and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H. and Thieken, Annegret},
  title     = {Insights into flood-coping appraisals of protection motivation theory},
  series = {Risk analysis},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Risk analysis},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0272-4332},
  doi       = {10.1111/risa.12938},
  pages     = {1239 -- 1257},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Protection motivation theory (PMT) has become a popular theory to explain the risk-reducing behavior of residents against natural hazards. PMT captures the two main cognitive processes that individuals undergo when faced with a threat, namely, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. The latter describes the evaluation of possible response measures that may reduce or avert the perceived threat. Although the coping appraisal component of PMT was found to be a better predictor of protective intentions and behavior, little is known about the factors that influence individuals' coping appraisals of natural hazards. More insight into flood-coping appraisals of PMT, therefore, are needed to better understand the decision-making process of individuals and to develop effective risk communication strategies. This study presents the results of two surveys among more than 1,600 flood-prone households in Germany and France. Five hypotheses were tested using multivariate statistics regarding factors related to flood-coping appraisals, which were derived from the PMT framework, related literature, and the literature on social vulnerability. We found that socioeconomic characteristics alone are not sufficient to explain flood-coping appraisals. Particularly, observational learning from the social environment, such as friends and neighbors, is positively related to flood-coping appraisals. This suggests that social norms and networks play an important role in flood-preparedness decisions. Providing risk and coping information can also have a positive effect. Given the strong positive influence of the social environment on flood-coping appraisals, future research should investigate how risk communication can be enhanced by making use of the observed social norms and network effects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DiBaldassarreKreibichVorogushynetal.2018,
  author    = {Di Baldassarre, Giuliano and Kreibich, Heidi and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Aerts, Jeroen and Arnbjerg-Nielsen, Karsten and Barendrecht, Marlies and Bates, Paul and Borga, Marco and Botzen, Wouter and Bubeck, Philip and De Marchi, Bruna and Llasat, Carmen Maria and Mazzoleni, Maurizio and Molinari, Daniela and Mondino, Elena and Mard, Johanna and Petrucci, Olga and Scolobig, Anna and Viglione, Alberto and Ward, Philip J.},
  title     = {Hess Opinions: An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection},
  series = {Hydrology and earth system sciences : HESS},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Hydrology and earth system sciences : HESS},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Copernicus},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1027-5606},
  doi       = {10.5194/hess-22-5629-2018},
  pages     = {5629 -- 5637},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as "levee effect", "safe development paradox" or "safety dilemma". In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.},
  language  = {en}
}