@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}