@article{HanKuhlicke2021, author = {Han, Sungju and Kuhlicke, Christian}, title = {Barriers and drivers for mainstreaming nature-based solutions for flood risks}, series = {International journal of disaster risk science}, volume = {12}, journal = {International journal of disaster risk science}, number = {5}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {2095-0055}, doi = {10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4}, pages = {661 -- 672}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) are seen as a promising adaptation measure that sustainably deals with diverse societal challenges, while simultaneously delivering multiple benefits. Nature-based solutions have been highlighted as a resilient and sustainable means of mitigating floods and other hazards globally. This study examined diverging conceptualizations of NBS, as well as the attitudinal (for example, emotions and beliefs) and contextual (for example, legal and political aspects) barriers and drivers of NBS for flood risks in South Korea. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 experts and focused on the topic of flood risk measures and NBS case studies. The analysis found 11 barriers and five drivers in the attitudinal domain, and 13 barriers and two drivers in the contextual domain. Most experts see direct monetary benefits as an important attitudinal factor for the public. Meanwhile, the cost-effectiveness of NBS and their capacity to cope with flood risks were deemed influential factors that could lead decision makers to opt for NBS. Among the contextual factors, insufficient systems to integrate NBS in practice and the ideologicalization of NBS policy were found to be peculiar barriers, which hinder consistent realization of initiatives and a long-term national plan for NBS. Understanding the barriers and drivers related to the mainstreaming of NBS is critical if we are to make the most of such solutions for society and nature. It is also essential that we have a shared definition, expectation, and vision of NBS.}, language = {en} } @article{MerzKuhlickeKunzetal.2020, author = {Merz, Bruno and Kuhlicke, Christian and Kunz, Michael and Pittore, Massimiliano and Babeyko, Andrey and Bresch, David N. and Domeisen, Daniela I. and Feser, Frauke and Koszalka, Inga and Kreibich, Heidi and Pantillon, Florian and Parolai, Stefano and Pinto, Joaquim G. and Punge, Heinz J{\"u}rgen and Rivalta, Eleonora and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Strehlow, Karen and Weisse, Ralf and Wurpts, Andreas}, title = {Impact forecasting to support emergency management of natural hazards}, series = {Reviews of geophysics}, volume = {58}, journal = {Reviews of geophysics}, number = {4}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, issn = {8755-1209}, doi = {10.1029/2020RG000704}, pages = {52}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Forecasting and early warning systems are important investments to protect lives, properties, and livelihood. While early warning systems are frequently used to predict the magnitude, location, and timing of potentially damaging events, these systems rarely provide impact estimates, such as the expected amount and distribution of physical damage, human consequences, disruption of services, or financial loss. Complementing early warning systems with impact forecasts has a twofold advantage: It would provide decision makers with richer information to take informed decisions about emergency measures and focus the attention of different disciplines on a common target. This would allow capitalizing on synergies between different disciplines and boosting the development of multihazard early warning systems. This review discusses the state of the art in impact forecasting for a wide range of natural hazards. We outline the added value of impact-based warnings compared to hazard forecasting for the emergency phase, indicate challenges and pitfalls, and synthesize the review results across hazard types most relevant for Europe.}, language = {en} } @article{KreibichDiBaldassarreVorogushynetal.2017, author = {Kreibich, Heidi and Di Baldassarre, Giuliano and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H. and Apel, Heiko and Aronica, Giuseppe T. and Arnbjerg-Nielsen, Karsten and Bouwer, Laurens M. and Bubeck, Philip and Caloiero, Tommaso and Chinh, Do T. and Cortes, Maria and Gain, Animesh K. and Giampa, Vincenzo and Kuhlicke, Christian and Kundzewicz, Zbigniew W. and Llasat, Maria Carmen and Mard, Johanna and Matczak, Piotr and Mazzoleni, Maurizio and Molinari, Daniela and Dung, Nguyen V. and Petrucci, Olga and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Slager, Kymo and Thieken, Annegret and Ward, Philip J. and Merz, Bruno}, title = {Adaptation to flood risk}, series = {Earth's Future}, volume = {5}, journal = {Earth's Future}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2328-4277}, doi = {10.1002/2017EF000606}, pages = {953 -- 965}, year = {2017}, abstract = {As flood impacts are increasing in large parts of the world, understanding the primary drivers of changes in risk is essential for effective adaptation. To gain more knowledge on the basis of empirical case studies, we analyze eight paired floods, that is, consecutive flood events that occurred in the same region, with the second flood causing significantly lower damage. These success stories of risk reduction were selected across different socioeconomic and hydro-climatic contexts. The potential of societies to adapt is uncovered by describing triggered societal changes, as well as formal measures and spontaneous processes that reduced flood risk. This novel approach has the potential to build the basis for an international data collection and analysis effort to better understand and attribute changes in risk due to hydrological extremes in the framework of the IAHSs Panta Rhei initiative. Across all case studies, we find that lower damage caused by the second event was mainly due to significant reductions in vulnerability, for example, via raised risk awareness, preparedness, and improvements of organizational emergency management. Thus, vulnerability reduction plays an essential role for successful adaptation. Our work shows that there is a high potential to adapt, but there remains the challenge to stimulate measures that reduce vulnerability and risk in periods in which extreme events do not occur.}, language = {en} } @article{HanKuhlicke2019, author = {Han, Sungju and Kuhlicke, Christian}, title = {Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We}, series = {Water}, volume = {11}, journal = {Water}, number = {12}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4441}, doi = {10.3390/w11122599}, pages = {23}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people's perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.}, language = {en} } @misc{ThiekenKienzlerKreibichetal.2016, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Kienzler, Sarah and Kreibich, Heidi and Kuhlicke, Christian and Kunz, Michael and Muehr, Bernhard and Mueller, Meike and Otto, Antje and Petrow, Theresia and Pisi, Sebastian and Schroeter, Kai}, title = {Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013}, series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, volume = {21}, journal = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, publisher = {Resilience Alliance}, address = {Wolfville}, issn = {1708-3087}, doi = {10.5751/ES-08547-210251}, pages = {8612 -- 8614}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of (sic)6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of (sic)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{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} } @article{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}, series = {Ecology and society : E\&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, volume = {21}, journal = {Ecology and society : E\&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, number = {2}, publisher = {Resilience Alliance}, address = {Wolfville, NS}, issn = {1708-3087}, doi = {10.5751/ES-08547-210251}, 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} } @article{ThiekenOttoPisietal.2015, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Otto, Antje and Pisi, Sebastian and Petrow, Theresia and Kreibich, Heidi and Kuhlicke, Christian and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Kienzler, Sarah and M{\"u}ller, Meike}, title = {Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen}, series = {Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bew{\"a}hrungsprobe f{\"u}r das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland}, journal = {Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bew{\"a}hrungsprobe f{\"u}r das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland}, publisher = {Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge}, address = {Bonn}, isbn = {978-3-933181-62-6}, pages = {184 -- 196}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @book{ThiekenBesselCallsenetal.2015, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Bessel, Tina and Callsen, Ines and Falter, Daniela and Hasan, Issa and Kienzler, Sarah and Kox, Thomas and Kreibich, Heidi and Kuhlicke, Christian and Kunz, Michael and Matthias, Max and Meyer, Volker and M{\"u}hr, Bernhard and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Otto, Antje and Pech, Ina and Petrow, Theresia and Pisi, Sebastian and Rother, Karl-Heinz and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013}, series = {Schriftenreihe des DKKV ; 53}, journal = {Schriftenreihe des DKKV ; 53}, publisher = {Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge}, address = {Bonn}, isbn = {978-3-933181-62-6}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {207}, year = {2015}, language = {de} }