@article{HudsonThieken2022, author = {Hudson, Paul and Thieken, Annegret}, title = {The presence of moral hazard regarding flood insurance and German private businesses}, series = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, volume = {112}, journal = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]}, issn = {0921-030X}, doi = {10.1007/s11069-022-05227-9}, pages = {1295 -- 1319}, year = {2022}, abstract = {There is a movement towards the concepts of integrated flood risk management and governance. In these concepts, each stakeholder prone to flooding is tasked with actively limiting flood impacts. Currently, relatively more research has focused upon the adaptation of private households and not on private businesses operating in flood-prone areas. This paper offers an extension of this literature on business-level flood adaptation by exploring the potential presence of moral hazard. The analyses are based on survey data collected in the aftermath of six floods across Germany between 2002 and 2013 to provide a first indication of the presence of moral hazard in private businesses. Moral hazard is where increased insurance coverage results in policyholders preparing less, increasing the risk they face, a counterproductive outcome. We present an initial study of moral hazard occurring through three channels: the performance of emergency measures during a flood, changes in precautionary behavior employed before a given flood occurred, and changes in the intention to employ additional precautionary measures after a flood. We find, much like for private households, no strong indication that moral hazard is present regarding past adaptation. However, there is a potential avenue after 2005 for insurance coverage to lower businesses' intentions to employ more adaptation measures after a flood. This has significant policy relevance such as opportunities for strengthening the link between insurance and risk reduction measures and boosting insurance coverage against flooding in general.}, language = {en} } @article{UnterbergerHudsonBotzenetal.2018, author = {Unterberger, Christian and Hudson, Paul and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and Schroeer, Katharina and Steininger, Karl W.}, title = {Future public sector flood risk and risk sharing arrangements}, series = {Ecological economics}, volume = {156}, journal = {Ecological economics}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0921-8009}, doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.019}, pages = {153 -- 163}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Climate change, along with socio-economic development, will increase the economic impacts of floods. While the factors that influence flood risk to private property have been extensively studied, the risk that natural disasters pose to public infrastructure and the resulting implications on public sector budgets, have received less attention. We address this gap by developing a two-staged model framework, which first assesses the flood risk to public infrastructure in Austria. Combining exposure and vulnerability information at the building level with inundation maps, we project an increase in riverine flood damage, which progressively burdens public budgets. Second, the risk estimates are integrated into an insurance model, which analyzes three different compensation arrangements in terms of the monetary burden they place on future governments' budgets and the respective volatility of payments. Formalized insurance compensation arrangements offer incentives for risk reduction measures, which lower the burden on public budgets by reducing the vulnerability of buildings that are exposed to flooding. They also significantly reduce the volatility of payments and thereby improve the predictability of flood damage expenditures. These features indicate that more formalized insurance arrangements are an improvement over the purely public compensation arrangement currently in place in Austria.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BerghaeuserSchoppaUlrichetal.2021, author = {Bergh{\"a}user, Lisa and Schoppa, Lukas and Ulrich, Jana and Dillenardt, Lisa and Jurado, Oscar E. and Passow, Christian and Samprogna Mohor, Guilherme and Seleem, Omar and Petrow, Theresia and Thieken, Annegret}, title = {Starkregen in Berlin}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-50056}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-500560}, pages = {44}, year = {2021}, abstract = {In den Sommern der Jahre 2017 und 2019 kam es in Berlin an mehreren Orten zu {\"U}berschwemmungen in Folge von Starkregenereignissen. In beiden Jahren f{\"u}hrte dies zu erheblichen Beeintr{\"a}chtigungen im Alltag der Berliner:innen sowie zu hohen Sachsch{\"a}den. Eine interdisziplin{\"a}re Taskforce des DFG-Graduiertenkollegs NatRiskChange untersuchte (1) die meteorologischen Eigenschaften zweier besonders eindr{\"u}cklicher Unwetter, sowie (2) die Vulnerabilit{\"a}t der Berliner Bev{\"o}lkerung gegen{\"u}ber Starkregen. Eine vergleichende meteorologische Rekonstruktion der Starkregenereignisse von 2017 und 2019 ergab deutliche Unterschiede in der Entstehung und den {\"U}berschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten der beiden Unwetter. So war das Ereignis von 2017 mit einer relativ großen r{\"a}umlichen Ausdehnung und langer Dauer ein untypisches Starkregenereignis, w{\"a}hrend es sich bei dem Unwetter von 2019 um ein typisches, kurzzeitiges Starkregenereignis mit ausgepr{\"a}gter r{\"a}umlicher Heterogenit{\"a}t handelte. Eine anschließende statistische Analyse zeigte, dass das Ereignis von 2017 f{\"u}r l{\"a}ngere Niederschlagsdauern (>=24 h) als großfl{\"a}chiges Extremereignis mit {\"U}berschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten von unter 1 \% einzuordnen ist (d.h. Wiederkehrperioden >=100 Jahre). Im Jahr 2019 wurden dagegen {\"a}hnliche {\"U}berschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten nur lokal und f{\"u}r k{\"u}rzere Zeitr{\"a}ume (1-2 h) berechnet. Die Vulnerabilit{\"a}tsanalyse basiert auf einer von April bis Juni 2020 in Berlin durchgef{\"u}hrten Onlinebefragung. Diese richtete sich an Personen, die bereits von vergangenen Starkregenereignissen betroffen waren und thematisierte das Schadensereignis selbst, daraus entstandene Beeintr{\"a}chtigungen und Sch{\"a}den, Risikowahrnehmung sowie Notfall- und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Die erhobenen Umfragedaten (n=102) beziehen sich vornehmlich auf die Ereignisse von 2017 und 2019 und zeigen, dass die Berliner Bev{\"o}lkerung sowohl im Alltag (z.B. bei der Beschaffung von Lebensmitteln) als auch im eigenen Haushalt (z.B. durch {\"U}berschwemmungssch{\"a}den) von den Unwettern beeintr{\"a}chtigt war. Zudem deuteten die Antworten der Betroffenen auf M{\"o}glichkeiten hin, die Vulnerabilit{\"a}t der Gesellschaft gegen{\"u}ber Starkregen weiter zu reduzieren - etwa durch die Unterst{\"u}tzung besonders betroffener Gruppen (z.B. Pflegende), durch gezielte Informationskampagnen zum Schutz vor Starkregen oder durch die Erh{\"o}hung der Reichweite von Unwetterwarnungen. Eine statistische Analyse zur Effektivit{\"a}t privater Notfall- und Vorsorgemaßnahmen auf Grundlage der Umfragedaten best{\"a}tigte vorherige Studienergebnisse. So gab es Anhaltspunkte daf{\"u}r, dass durch das Umsetzen von Vorsorgemaßnahmen wie beispielsweise das Installieren von R{\"u}ckstauklappen, Barriere-Systemen oder Pumpen Starkregensch{\"a}den reduziert werden k{\"o}nnen. Die Ergebnisse dieses Berichts unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit f{\"u}r ein integriertes Starkregenrisikomanagment, das die Risikokomponenten Gef{\"a}hrdung, Vulnerabilit{\"a}t und Exposition ganzheitlich und auf mehreren Ebenen (z.B. staatlich, kommunal, privat) betrachtet.}, language = {de} } @article{HudsonBotzenAerts2019, author = {Hudson, Paul and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H.}, title = {Flood insurance arrangements in the European Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change}, series = {Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions}, volume = {58}, journal = {Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0959-3780}, doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101966}, pages = {13}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Flood risk will increase in many areas around the world due to climate change and increase in economic exposure. This implies that adequate flood insurance schemes are needed to adapt to increasing flood risk and to minimise welfare losses for households in flood-prone areas. Flood insurance markets may need reform to offer sufficient and affordable financial protection and incentives for risk reduction. Here, we present the results of a study that aims to evaluate the ability of flood insurance arrangements in Europe to cope with trends in flood risk, using criteria that encompass common elements of the policy debate on flood insurance reform. We show that the average risk-based flood insurance premium could double between 2015 and 2055 in the absence of more risk reduction by households exposed to flooding. We show that part of the expected future increase in flood risk could be limited by flood insurance mechanisms that better incentivise risk reduction by policyholders, which lowers vulnerability. The affordability of flood insurance can be improved by introducing the key features of public-private partnerships (PPPs), which include public reinsurance, limited premium cross-subsidisation between low- and high-risk households, and incentives for policyholder-level risk reduction. These findings were evaluated in a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and support ongoing reforms in Europe and abroad that move towards risk-based premiums and link insurance with risk reduction, strengthen purchase requirements, and engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships.}, language = {en} } @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} }