@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{TarasovaMerzKissetal.2019,
  author    = {Tarasova, Larisa and Merz, Ralf and Kiss, Andrea and Basso, Stefano and Bl{\"o}chl, G{\"u}nter and Merz, Bruno and Viglione, Alberto and Pl{\"o}tner, Stefan and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Schumann, Andreas and Fischer, Svenja and Ahrens, Bodo and Anwar, Faizan and B{\´a}rdossy, Andr{\´a}s and B{\"u}hler, Philipp and Haberlandt, Uwe and Kreibich, Heidi and Krug, Amelie and Lun, David and M{\"u}ller-Thomy, Hannes and Pidoto, Ross and Primo, Cristina and Seidel, Jochen and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Wietzke, Luzie},
  title     = {Causative classification of river flood events},
  series = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2049-1948},
  doi       = {10.1002/wat2.1353},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {A wide variety of processes controls the time of occurrence, duration, extent, and severity of river floods. Classifying flood events by their causative processes may assist in enhancing the accuracy of local and regional flood frequency estimates and support the detection and interpretation of any changes in flood occurrence and magnitudes. This paper provides a critical review of existing causative classifications of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events, discusses their validity and applications, and identifies opportunities for moving toward more comprehensive approaches. So far no unified definition of causative mechanisms of flood events exists. Existing frameworks for classification of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events adopt different perspectives: hydroclimatic (large-scale circulation patterns and atmospheric state at the time of the event), hydrological (catchment scale precipitation patterns and antecedent catchment state), and hydrograph-based (indirectly considering generating mechanisms through their effects on hydrograph characteristics). All of these approaches intend to capture the flood generating mechanisms and are useful for characterizing the flood processes at various spatial and temporal scales. However, uncertainty analyses with respect to indicators, classification methods, and data to assess the robustness of the classification are rarely performed which limits the transferability across different geographic regions. It is argued that more rigorous testing is needed. There are opportunities for extending classification methods to include indicators of space-time dynamics of rainfall, antecedent wetness, and routing effects, which will make the classification schemes even more useful for understanding and estimating floods. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water Extremes Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods},
  language  = {en}
}