@article{SchroeterKreibichVogeletal.2014, author = {Schroeter, Kai and Kreibich, Heidi and Vogel, Kristin and Riggelsen, Carsten and Scherbaum, Frank and Merz, Bruno}, title = {How useful are complex flood damage models?}, series = {Water resources research}, volume = {50}, journal = {Water resources research}, number = {4}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0043-1397}, doi = {10.1002/2013WR014396}, pages = {3378 -- 3395}, year = {2014}, abstract = {We investigate the usefulness of complex flood damage models for predicting relative damage to residential buildings in a spatial and temporal transfer context. We apply eight different flood damage models to predict relative building damage for five historic flood events in two different regions of Germany. Model complexity is measured in terms of the number of explanatory variables which varies from 1 variable up to 10 variables which are singled out from 28 candidate variables. Model validation is based on empirical damage data, whereas observation uncertainty is taken into consideration. The comparison of model predictive performance shows that additional explanatory variables besides the water depth improve the predictive capability in a spatial and temporal transfer context, i.e., when the models are transferred to different regions and different flood events. Concerning the trade-off between predictive capability and reliability the model structure seem more important than the number of explanatory variables. Among the models considered, the reliability of Bayesian network-based predictions in space-time transfer is larger than for the remaining models, and the uncertainties associated with damage predictions are reflected more completely.}, language = {en} } @article{PaprotnyKreibichMoralesNapolesetal.2020, author = {Paprotny, Dominik and Kreibich, Heidi and Morales-Napoles, Oswaldo and Wagenaar, Dennis and Castellarin, Attilio and Carisi, Francesca and Bertin, Xavier and Merz, Bruno and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {A probabilistic approach to estimating residential losses from different flood types}, series = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, volume = {105}, journal = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0921-030X}, doi = {10.1007/s11069-020-04413-x}, pages = {2569 -- 2601}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Residential assets, comprising buildings and household contents, are a major source of direct flood losses. Existing damage models are mostly deterministic and limited to particular countries or flood types. Here, we compile building-level losses from Germany, Italy and the Netherlands covering a wide range of fluvial and pluvial flood events. Utilizing a Bayesian network (BN) for continuous variables, we find that relative losses (i.e. loss relative to exposure) to building structure and its contents could be estimated with five variables: water depth, flow velocity, event return period, building usable floor space area and regional disposable income per capita. The model's ability to predict flood losses is validated for the 11 flood events contained in the sample. Predictions for the German and Italian fluvial floods were better than for pluvial floods or the 1993 Meuse river flood. Further, a case study of a 2010 coastal flood in France is used to test the BN model's performance for a type of flood not included in the survey dataset. Overall, the BN model achieved better results than any of 10 alternative damage models for reproducing average losses for the 2010 flood. An additional case study of a 2013 fluvial flood has also shown good performance of the model. The study shows that data from many flood events can be combined to derive most important factors driving flood losses across regions and time, and that resulting damage models could be applied in an open data framework.}, language = {en} }