@article{ZingraffHamedHueeskerLuppetal.2020, author = {Zingraff-Hamed, Aude and H{\"u}esker, Frank and Lupp, Gerd and Begg, Chloe and Huang, Josh and Oen, Amy M. P. and Vojinović, Zoran and Kuhlicke, Christian and Pauleit, Stephan}, title = {Stakeholder mapping to co-create nature-based solutions}, series = {Sustainability}, volume = {12}, journal = {Sustainability}, number = {20}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2071-1050}, doi = {10.3390/su12208625}, pages = {23}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) are inspired and supported by nature but designed by humans. Historically, governmental stakeholders have aimed to control nature using a top-down approach; more recently, environmental governance has shifted to collaborative planning. Polycentric governance and co-creation procedures, which include a large spectrum of stakeholders, are assumed to be more effective in the management of public goods than traditional approaches. In this context, NBS projects should benefit from strong collaborative governance models, and the European Union is facilitating and encouraging such models. While some theoretical approaches exist, setting-up the NBS co-creation process (namely co-design and co-implementation) currently relies mostly on self-organized stakeholders rather than on strategic decisions. As such, systematic methods to identify relevant stakeholders seem to be crucial to enable higher planning efficiency, reduce bottlenecks and time needed for planning, designing, and implementing NBS. In this context, this contribution is based on the analysis of 16 NBS and 359 stakeholders. Real-life constellations are compared to theoretical typologies, and a systematic stakeholder mapping method to support co-creation is presented. Rather than making one-fit-all statements about the "right" stakeholders, the contribution provides insights for those "in charge" to strategically consider who might be involved at each stage of the NBS project.}, 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} } @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} } @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} } @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} } @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{MadrugadeBritoOttoKuhlicke2021, author = {Madruga de Brito, Mariana and Otto, Danny and Kuhlicke, Christian}, title = {Tracking topics and frames regarding sustainability transformations during the onset of the COVID-19 crisis}, series = {Sustainability / Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)}, volume = {13}, journal = {Sustainability / Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)}, number = {19}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2071-1050}, doi = {10.3390/su131911095}, pages = {19}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Many researchers and politicians believe that the COVID-19 crisis may have opened a "window of opportunity " to spur sustainability transformations. Still, evidence for such a dynamic is currently lacking. Here, we propose the linkage of "big data " and "thick data " methods for monitoring debates on transformation processes by following the COVID-19 discourse on ecological sustainability in Germany. We analysed variations in the topics discussed by applying text mining techniques to a corpus with 84,500 newspaper articles published during the first COVID-19 wave. This allowed us to attain a unique and previously inaccessible "bird's eye view " of how these topics evolved. To deepen our understanding of prominent frames, a qualitative content analysis was undertaken. Furthermore, we investigated public awareness by analysing online search behaviour. The findings show an underrepresentation of sustainability topics in the German news during the early stages of the crisis. Similarly, public awareness regarding climate change was found to be reduced. Nevertheless, by examining the newspaper data in detail, we found that the pandemic is often seen as a chance for sustainability transformations-but not without a set of challenges. Our mixed-methods approach enabled us to bridge knowledge gaps between qualitative and quantitative research by "thickening " and providing context to data-driven analyses. By monitoring whether or not the current crisis is seen as a chance for sustainability transformations, we provide insights for environmental policy in times of crisis.}, language = {en} } @article{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 = {WIREs Water}, volume = {7}, journal = {WIREs Water}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2049-1948}, doi = {10.1002/wat2.1418}, pages = {1 -- 22}, 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} } @article{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 = {Weather, Climate, and Society}, volume = {12}, journal = {Weather, Climate, and Society}, number = {1}, publisher = {American Meteorological Society}, address = {Boston}, issn = {1948-8327}, doi = {10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0069.1}, pages = {63 -- 88}, 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} } @phdthesis{Kuhlicke2008, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian}, title = {Ignorance and Vulnerability : the 2002 mulde flood in the city of Eilenburg (Saxony, Germany)}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {207 S.: Ill., garph. Darst.}, year = {2008}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Kuhlicke2008, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian}, title = {Ignorance and Vulnerability - The 2002 Flood in the City of Eilenburg (Saxony, Germany)}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {207 S., : graph. Darst.}, year = {2008}, 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} } @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{deBritoKuhlickeMarx2020, author = {de Brito, Mariana Madruga and Kuhlicke, Christian and Marx, Andreas}, title = {Near-real-time drought impact assessment}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {15}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {10}, publisher = {IOP Publ.}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aba4ca}, pages = {11}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Contemporary drought impact assessments have been constrained due to data availability, leading to an incomplete representation of impact trends. To address this, we present a novel method for the comprehensive and near-real-time monitoring of drought socio-economic impacts based on media reports. We tested its application using the case of the exceptional 2018/19 German drought. By employing text mining techniques, 4839 impact statements were identified, relating to livestock, agriculture, forestry, fires, recreation, energy and transport sectors. An accuracy of 95.6\% was obtained for their automatic classification. Furthermore, high levels of performance in terms of spatial and temporal precision were found when validating our results against independent data (e.g. soil moisture, average precipitation, population interest in droughts, crop yield and forest fire statistics). The findings highlight the applicability of media data for rapidly and accurately monitoring the propagation of drought consequences over time and space. We anticipate our method to be used as a starting point for an impact-based early warning system.}, language = {en} }