@misc{KuhlickeMassonKienzleretal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Masson, Torsten and Kienzler, Sarah and Sieg, Tobias and Thieken, Annegret and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Multiple flood experiences and social resilience}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {1}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51650}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-516500}, pages = {28}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Previous studies have explored the consequences of flood events for exposed households and companies by focusing on single flood events. Less is known about the consequences of experiencing repeated flood events for the resilience of households and companies. In this paper, we therefore explore how multiple floods experience affects the resilience of exposed households and companies. Resilience was made operational through individual appraisals of households and companies' ability to withstand and recover from material as well as health and psychological impacts of the 2013 flood in Germany. The paper is based on three different datasets including more than 2000 households and 300 companies that were affected by the 2013 flood. The surveys revealed that the resilience of households seems to increase, but only with regard to their subjectively appraised ability to withstand impacts on mobile goods and equipment (e.g., cars, TV, and radios). In regard to the ability of households to withstand overall financial consequences of repetitive floods, evidence for nonlinear (quadratic) trends can be found. With regard to psychological and health-related consequences, the findings are mixed but provide tentative evidence for eroding resilience among households. Companies' resilience increased with respect to material assets but appears to decrease with respect to ability to recover. We conclude by arguing that clear and operational definitions of resilience are required so that evidence-based resilience baselines can be established to assess whether resilience is eroding or improving over time.}, language = {en} } @misc{ThiekenKienzlerKreibichetal.2016, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Kienzler, Sarah and Kreibich, Heidi and Kuhlicke, Christian and Kunz, Michael and M{\"u}hr, Bernhard and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Otto, Antje and Petrow, Theresia and Pisi, Sebastian and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013}, issn = {1866-8372}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100600}, pages = {12}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlickeSeebauerHudsonetal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Seebauer, Sebastian and Hudson, Paul and Begg, Chloe and Bubeck, Philip and Dittmer, Cordula and Grothmann, Torsten and Heidenreich, Anna and Kreibich, Heidi and Lorenz, Daniel F. and Masson, Torsten and Reiter, Jessica and Thaler, Thomas and Thieken, Annegret and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {3}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51769}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-517696}, pages = {24}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.}, language = {en} }