@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} } @article{MerzApelDungNguyenetal.2018, author = {Merz, Bruno and Apel, Heiko and Dung Nguyen, Viet-Dung and Falter, Daniela and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Hundecha, Yeshewatesfa and Kreibich, Heidi and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Vorogushyn, Sergiy}, title = {From precipitation to damage}, series = {Global flood hazard : applications in modeling, mapping and forecasting}, volume = {233}, journal = {Global flood hazard : applications in modeling, mapping and forecasting}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, isbn = {978-1-119-21788-6}, issn = {0065-8448}, doi = {10.1002/9781119217886.ch10}, pages = {169 -- 183}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Flood risk assessments for large river basins often involve piecing together smaller-scale assessments leading to erroneous risk statements. We describe a coupled model chain for quantifying flood risk at the scale of 100,000 km(2). It consists of a catchment model, a 1D-2D river network model, and a loss model. We introduce the model chain and present two applications. The first application for the Elbe River basin with an area of 66,000 km(2) demonstrates that it is feasible to simulate the complete risk chain for large river basins in a continuous simulation mode with high temporal and spatial resolution. In the second application, RFM is coupled to a multisite weather generator and applied to the Mulde catchment with an area of 6,000 km(2). This approach is able to provide a very long time series of spatially heterogeneous patterns of precipitation, discharge, inundation, and damage. These patterns respect the spatial correlation of the different processes and are suitable to derive large-scale risk estimates. We discuss how the RFM approach can be transferred to the continental scale.}, language = {en} } @article{MetinNguyenVietDungSchroeteretal.2018, author = {Metin, Ayse Duha and Nguyen Viet Dung, and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Apel, Heiko and Kreibich, Heidi and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Merz, Bruno}, title = {How do changes along the risk chain affect flood risk?}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {18}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, number = {11}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-18-3089-2018}, pages = {3089 -- 3108}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Flood risk is impacted by a range of physical and socio-economic processes. Hence, the quantification of flood risk ideally considers the complete flood risk chain, from atmospheric processes through catchment and river system processes to damage mechanisms in the affected areas. Although it is generally accepted that a multitude of changes along the risk chain can occur and impact flood risk, there is a lack of knowledge of how and to what extent changes in influencing factors propagate through the chain and finally affect flood risk. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which considers changes in all risk components, i.e. changes in climate, catchment, river system, land use, assets, and vulnerability. The application of this framework to the mesoscale Mulde catchment in Germany shows that flood risk can vary dramatically as a consequence of plausible change scenarios. It further reveals that components that have not received much attention, such as changes in dike systems or in vulnerability, may outweigh changes in often investigated components, such as climate. Although the specific results are conditional on the case study area and the selected assumptions, they emphasize the need for a broader consideration of potential drivers of change in a comprehensive way. Hence, our approach contributes to a better understanding of how the different risk components influence the overall flood risk.}, language = {en} } @article{SultanaSiegKellermannetal.2018, author = {Sultana, Zakia and Sieg, Tobias and Kellermann, Patric and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Assessment of business interruption of flood-affected companies using random forests}, series = {Water}, volume = {10}, journal = {Water}, number = {8}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4441}, doi = {10.3390/w10081049}, pages = {16}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Losses due to floods have dramatically increased over the past decades, and losses of companies, comprising direct and indirect losses, have a large share of the total economic losses. Thus, there is an urgent need to gain more quantitative knowledge about flood losses, particularly losses caused by business interruption, in order to mitigate the economic loss of companies. However, business interruption caused by floods is rarely assessed because of a lack of sufficiently detailed data. A survey was undertaken to explore processes influencing business interruption, which collected information on 557 companies affected by the severe flood in June 2013 in Germany. Based on this data set, the study aims to assess the business interruption of directly affected companies by means of a Random Forests model. Variables that influence the duration and costs of business interruption were identified by the variable importance measures of Random Forests. Additionally, Random Forest-based models were developed and tested for their capacity to estimate business interruption duration and associated costs. The water level was found to be the most important variable influencing the duration of business interruption. Other important variables, relating to the estimation of business interruption duration, are the warning time, perceived danger of flood recurrence and inundation duration. In contrast, the amount of business interruption costs is strongly influenced by the size of the company, as assessed by the number of employees, emergency measures undertaken by the company and the fraction of customers within a 50 km radius. These results provide useful information and methods for companies to mitigate their losses from business interruption. However, the heterogeneity of companies is relatively high, and sector-specific analyses were not possible due to the small sample size. Therefore, further sector-specific analyses on the basis of more flood loss data of companies are recommended.}, language = {en} }