@article{SiegSchinkoVogeletal.2019,
  author    = {Sieg, Tobias and Schinko, Thomas and Vogel, Kristin and Mechler, Reinhard and Merz, Bruno and Kreibich, Heidi},
  title     = {Integrated assessment of short-term direct and indirect economic flood impacts including uncertainty quantification},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Public Library of Science},
  address   = {San Francisco},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0212932},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Understanding and quantifying total economic impacts of flood events is essential for flood risk management and adaptation planning. Yet, detailed estimations of joint direct and indirect flood-induced economic impacts are rare. In this study an innovative modeling procedure for the joint assessment of short-term direct and indirect economic flood impacts is introduced. The procedure is applied to 19 economic sectors in eight federal states of Germany after the flood events in 2013. The assessment of the direct economic impacts is object-based and considers uncertainties associated with the hazard, the exposed objects and their vulnerability. The direct economic impacts are then coupled to a supply-side Input-Output-Model to estimate the indirect economic impacts. The procedure provides distributions of direct and indirect economic impacts which capture the associated uncertainties. The distributions of the direct economic impacts in the federal states are plausible when compared to reported values. The ratio between indirect and direct economic impacts shows that the sectors Manufacturing, Financial and Insurance activities suffered the most from indirect economic impacts. These ratios also indicate that indirect economic impacts can be almost as high as direct economic impacts. They differ strongly between the economic sectors indicating that the application of a single factor as a proxy for the indirect impacts of all economic sectors is not appropriate.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EngelJacobsFydrichetal.2015,
  author    = {Engel, Mareike Carina and Jacobs, Ingo and Fydrich, Thomas and Ziegler, Matthias},
  title     = {Physical and psychological burden of psychotherapists in training},
  series = {Psychotherapeut},
  volume    = {60},
  journal   = {Psychotherapeut},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0935-6185},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00278-015-0055-2},
  pages     = {536 -- 545},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The demanding working and training conditions of psychotherapists in training (PiA) are discussed more and more frequently from social and research perspectives. The complementary focus on job and training pressure and its consequences have received little attention so far. The nationwide survey (N = 464) contains information on essential person-related and training-related risk factors and resources. Moreover, the study provides comparisons concerning different professional categories with high psychological and social demands as well as with the training conditions of psychotherapists in 2009. The study shows the difficulties and demanding situation of financing the training. The PiAs showed significantly higher stress levels than other groups of persons and comparably low resilience combined with a high working engagement. Only a few PiAs had a healthy behavioral and perceptional work pattern. The results underline the necessity for an examination of the training and working conditions of PiAs. Accordingly, options for interventions are presented.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BouwerPapyrakisPoussinetal.2014,
  author    = {Bouwer, Laurens M. and Papyrakis, Elissaios and Poussin, Jennifer and Pfurtscheller, Clemens and Thieken, Annegret},
  title     = {The costing of measures for natural hazard mitigation in Europe},
  series = {Natural hazards review},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Natural hazards review},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Society of Civil Engineers},
  address   = {Reston},
  issn      = {1527-6988},
  doi       = {10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000133},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The literature on the costing of mitigation measures for reducing impacts of natural hazards is rather fragmented. This paper provides a concise overview of the current state of knowledge in Europe on the costing of mitigation measures for the reduction of natural hazard risks (droughts, floods, storms and induced coastal hazards as well as alpine hazards) and identifies knowledge gaps and related research recommendations. Furthermore, it provides a taxonomy of related mitigation options, classifying them into nine categories: (1) management plans, land-use planning, and climate adaptation; (2) hazard modification; (3) infrastructure; (4) mitigation measures (stricto sensu); (5) communication in advance of events; (6) monitoring and early warning systems; (7) emergency response and evacuation; (8) financial incentives; and (9) risk transfer (including insurance). It is found that the costing of mitigation measures in European and in other countries has almost exclusively focused on estimating direct costs. A cost assessment framework that addresses a range of costs, possibly informed by multiple stakeholders, would provide more accurate estimates and could provide better guidance to decision makers. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.},
  language  = {en}
}