@article{KreibichMuellerSchroeteretal.2017, author = {Kreibich, Heidi and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Thieken, Annegret}, title = {New insights into flood warning reception and emergency response by affected parties}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {17}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-17-2075-2017}, pages = {2075 -- 2092}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Flood damage can be mitigated if the parties at risk are reached by flood warnings and if they know how to react appropriately. To gain more knowledge about warning reception and emergency response of private households and companies, surveys were undertaken after the August 2002 and the June 2013 floods in Germany. Despite pronounced regional differences, the results show a clear overall picture: in 2002, early warnings did not work well; e.g. many households (27 \%) and companies (45 \%) stated that they had not received any flood warnings. Additionally, the preparedness of private households and companies was low in 2002, mainly due to a lack of flood experience. After the 2002 flood, many initiatives were launched and investments undertaken to improve flood risk management, including early warnings and an emergency response in Germany. In 2013, only a small share of the affected households (5 \%) and companies (3 \%) were not reached by any warnings. Additionally, private households and companies were better prepared. For instance, the share of companies which have an emergency plan in place has increased from 10\% in 2002 to 34\% in 2013. However, there is still room for improvement, which needs to be triggered mainly by effective risk and emergency communication. The challenge is to continuously maintain and advance an integrated early warning and emergency response system even without the occurrence of extreme floods.}, language = {en} } @article{KellermannSchroeterThiekenetal.2020, author = {Kellermann, Patric and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Thieken, Annegret and Haubrock, S{\"o}ren-Nils and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {The object-specific flood damage database HOWAS 21}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {20}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, number = {9}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-20-2503-2020}, pages = {2503 -- 2519}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The Flood Damage Database HOWAS 21 contains object-specific flood damage data resulting from fluvial, pluvial and groundwater flooding. The datasets incorporate various variables of flood hazard, exposure, vulnerability and direct tangible damage at properties from several economic sectors. The main purpose of development of HOWAS 21 was to support forensic flood analysis and the derivation of flood damage models. HOWAS 21 was first developed for Germany and currently almost exclusively contains datasets from Germany. However, its scope has recently been enlarged with the aim to serve as an international flood damage database; e.g. its web application is now available in German and English. This paper presents the recent advancements of HOWAS 21 and highlights exemplary analyses to demonstrate the use of HOWAS 21 flood damage data. The data applications indicate a large potential of the database for fostering a better understanding and estimation of the consequences of flooding.}, language = {en} } @misc{KreibichMuellerSchroeteretal.2017, author = {Kreibich, Heidi and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Thieken, Annegret}, title = {New insights into flood warning reception and emergency response by affected parties}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {659}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41838}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-418381}, pages = {18}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Flood damage can be mitigated if the parties at risk are reached by flood warnings and if they know how to react appropriately. To gain more knowledge about warning reception and emergency response of private households and companies, surveys were undertaken after the August 2002 and the June 2013 floods in Germany. Despite pronounced regional differences, the results show a clear overall picture: in 2002, early warnings did not work well; e.g. many households (27 \%) and companies (45 \%) stated that they had not received any flood warnings. Additionally, the preparedness of private households and companies was low in 2002, mainly due to a lack of flood experience. After the 2002 flood, many initiatives were launched and investments undertaken to improve flood risk management, including early warnings and an emergency response in Germany. In 2013, only a small share of the affected households (5 \%) and companies (3 \%) were not reached by any warnings. Additionally, private households and companies were better prepared. For instance, the share of companies which have an emergency plan in place has increased from 10\% in 2002 to 34\% in 2013. However, there is still room for improvement, which needs to be triggered mainly by effective risk and emergency communication. The challenge is to continuously maintain and advance an integrated early warning and emergency response system even without the occurrence of extreme floods.}, language = {en} } @misc{ThiekenBesselKienzleretal.2016, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Bessel, Tina and Kienzler, Sarah and Kreibich, Heidi and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Pisi, Sebastian and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {The flood of June 2013 in Germany}, series = {National Hazards Earth System Science}, journal = {National Hazards Earth System Science}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-97207}, pages = {21}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In June 2013, widespread flooding and consequent damage and losses occurred in Central Europe, especially in Germany. This paper explores what data are available to investigate the adverse impacts of the event, what kind of information can be retrieved from these data and how well data and information fulfil requirements that were recently proposed for disaster reporting on the European and international levels. In accordance with the European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), impacts on human health, economic activities (and assets), cultural heritage and the environment are described on the national and sub-national scale. Information from governmental reports is complemented by communications on traffic disruptions and surveys of flood-affected residents and companies. Overall, the impacts of the flood event in 2013 were manifold. The study reveals that flood-affected residents suffered from a large range of impacts, among which mental health and supply problems were perceived more seriously than financial losses. The most frequent damage type among affected companies was business interruption. This demonstrates that the current scientific focus on direct (financial) damage is insufficient to describe the overall impacts and severity of flood events. The case further demonstrates that procedures and standards for impact data collection in Germany are widely missing. Present impact data in Germany are fragmentary, heterogeneous, incomplete and difficult to access. In order to fulfil, for example, the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 that was adopted in March 2015 in Sendai, Japan, more efforts on impact data collection are needed.}, 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} } @misc{RoezerMuellerBubecketal.2017, author = {R{\"o}zer, Viktor and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Bubeck, Philip and Kienzler, Sarah and Thieken, Annegret and Pech, Ina and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Buchholz, Oliver and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Coping with pluvial floods by private households}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-400465}, pages = {24}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Pluvial floods have caused severe damage to urban areas in recent years. With a projected increase in extreme precipitation as well as an ongoing urbanization, pluvial flood damage is expected to increase in the future. Therefore, further insights, especially on the adverse consequences of pluvial floods and their mitigation, are needed. To gain more knowledge, empirical damage data from three different pluvial flood events in Germany were collected through computer-aided telephone interviews. Pluvial flood awareness as well as flood experience were found to be low before the respective flood events. The level of private precaution increased considerably after all events, but is mainly focused on measures that are easy to implement. Lower inundation depths, smaller potential losses as compared with fluvial floods, as well as the fact that pluvial flooding may occur everywhere, are expected to cause a shift in damage mitigation from precaution to emergency response. However, an effective implementation of emergency measures was constrained by a low dissemination of early warnings in the study areas. Further improvements of early warning systems including dissemination as well as a rise in pluvial flood preparedness are important to reduce future pluvial flood damage.}, language = {en} } @article{ThiekenBesselKienzleretal.2016, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Bessel, Tina and Kienzler, Sarah and Kreibich, Heidi and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Pisi, Sebastian and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {The flood of June 2013 in Germany}, series = {National Hazards Earth System Science}, journal = {National Hazards Earth System Science}, number = {16}, publisher = {Copernicus Publications}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-16-1519-2016}, pages = {1519 -- 1540}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In June 2013, widespread flooding and consequent damage and losses occurred in Central Europe, especially in Germany. This paper explores what data are available to investigate the adverse impacts of the event, what kind of information can be retrieved from these data and how well data and information fulfil requirements that were recently proposed for disaster reporting on the European and international levels. In accordance with the European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), impacts on human health, economic activities (and assets), cultural heritage and the environment are described on the national and sub-national scale. Information from governmental reports is complemented by communications on traffic disruptions and surveys of flood-affected residents and companies. Overall, the impacts of the flood event in 2013 were manifold. The study reveals that flood-affected residents suffered from a large range of impacts, among which mental health and supply problems were perceived more seriously than financial losses. The most frequent damage type among affected companies was business interruption. This demonstrates that the current scientific focus on direct (financial) damage is insufficient to describe the overall impacts and severity of flood events. The case further demonstrates that procedures and standards for impact data collection in Germany are widely missing. Present impact data in Germany are fragmentary, heterogeneous, incomplete and difficult to access. In order to fulfil, for example, the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 that was adopted in March 2015 in Sendai, Japan, more efforts on impact data collection are needed.}, 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{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} } @article{RoezerMuellerBubecketal.2016, author = {R{\"o}zer, Viktor and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Bubeck, Philip and Kienzler, Sarah and Thieken, Annegret and Pech, Ina and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Buchholz, Oliver and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Coping with Pluvial Floods by Private Households}, series = {Water}, volume = {8}, journal = {Water}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4441}, doi = {10.3390/w8070304}, pages = {24}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Pluvial floods have caused severe damage to urban areas in recent years. With a projected increase in extreme precipitation as well as an ongoing urbanization, pluvial flood damage is expected to increase in the future. Therefore, further insights, especially on the adverse consequences of pluvial floods and their mitigation, are needed. To gain more knowledge, empirical damage data from three different pluvial flood events in Germany were collected through computer-aided telephone interviews. Pluvial flood awareness as well as flood experience were found to be low before the respective flood events. The level of private precaution increased considerably after all events, but is mainly focused on measures that are easy to implement. Lower inundation depths, smaller potential losses as compared with fluvial floods, as well as the fact that pluvial flooding may occur everywhere, are expected to cause a shift in damage mitigation from precaution to emergency response. However, an effective implementation of emergency measures was constrained by a low dissemination of early warnings in the study areas. Further improvements of early warning systems including dissemination as well as a rise in pluvial flood preparedness are important to reduce future pluvial flood damage.}, language = {en} } @article{PaprotnyKreibichMoralesNapolesetal.2020, author = {Paprotny, Dominik and Kreibich, Heidi and Morales-Napoles, Oswaldo and Wagenaar, Dennis and Castellarin, Attilio and Carisi, Francesca and Bertin, Xavier and Merz, Bruno and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {A probabilistic approach to estimating residential losses from different flood types}, series = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, volume = {105}, journal = {Natural hazards : journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0921-030X}, doi = {10.1007/s11069-020-04413-x}, pages = {2569 -- 2601}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Residential assets, comprising buildings and household contents, are a major source of direct flood losses. Existing damage models are mostly deterministic and limited to particular countries or flood types. Here, we compile building-level losses from Germany, Italy and the Netherlands covering a wide range of fluvial and pluvial flood events. Utilizing a Bayesian network (BN) for continuous variables, we find that relative losses (i.e. loss relative to exposure) to building structure and its contents could be estimated with five variables: water depth, flow velocity, event return period, building usable floor space area and regional disposable income per capita. The model's ability to predict flood losses is validated for the 11 flood events contained in the sample. Predictions for the German and Italian fluvial floods were better than for pluvial floods or the 1993 Meuse river flood. Further, a case study of a 2010 coastal flood in France is used to test the BN model's performance for a type of flood not included in the survey dataset. Overall, the BN model achieved better results than any of 10 alternative damage models for reproducing average losses for the 2010 flood. An additional case study of a 2013 fluvial flood has also shown good performance of the model. The study shows that data from many flood events can be combined to derive most important factors driving flood losses across regions and time, and that resulting damage models could be applied in an open data framework.}, language = {en} } @article{MetinDungSchroeteretal.2020, author = {Metin, Ayse Duha and Dung, Nguyen Viet and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Kreibich, Heidi and Merz, Bruno}, title = {The role of spatial dependence for large-scale flood risk estimation}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {20}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, number = {4}, publisher = {European Geosciences Union (EGU) ; Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-20-967-2020}, pages = {967 -- 979}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Flood risk assessments are typically based on scenarios which assume homogeneous return periods of flood peaks throughout the catchment. This assumption is unrealistic for real flood events and may bias risk estimates for specific return periods. We investigate how three assumptions about the spatial dependence affect risk estimates: (i) spatially homogeneous scenarios (complete dependence), (ii) spatially heterogeneous scenarios (modelled dependence) and (iii) spatially heterogeneous but uncorrelated scenarios (complete independence). To this end, the model chain RFM (regional flood model) is applied to the Elbe catchment in Germany, accounting for the spatio-temporal dynamics of all flood generation processes, from the rainfall through catchment and river system processes to damage mechanisms. Different assumptions about the spatial dependence do not influence the expected annual damage (EAD); however, they bias the risk curve, i.e. the cumulative distribution function of damage. The widespread assumption of complete dependence strongly overestimates flood damage of the order of 100\% for return periods larger than approximately 200 years. On the other hand, for small and medium floods with return periods smaller than approximately 50 years, damage is underestimated. The overestimation aggravates when risk is estimated for larger areas. This study demonstrates the importance of representing the spatial dependence of flood peaks and damage for risk assessments.}, 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{KreibichBottoMerzetal.2016, author = {Kreibich, Heidi and Botto, Anna and Merz, Bruno and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {Probabilistic, Multivariable Flood Loss Modeling on the Mesoscale with BT-FLEMO}, series = {Risk analysis}, volume = {37}, journal = {Risk analysis}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0272-4332}, doi = {10.1111/risa.12650}, pages = {774 -- 787}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Flood loss modeling is an important component for risk analyses and decision support in flood risk management. Commonly, flood loss models describe complex damaging processes by simple, deterministic approaches like depth-damage functions and are associated with large uncertainty. To improve flood loss estimation and to provide quantitative information about the uncertainty associated with loss modeling, a probabilistic, multivariable Bagging decision Tree Flood Loss Estimation MOdel (BT-FLEMO) for residential buildings was developed. The application of BT-FLEMO provides a probability distribution of estimated losses to residential buildings per municipality. BT-FLEMO was applied and validated at the mesoscale in 19 municipalities that were affected during the 2002 flood by the River Mulde in Saxony, Germany. Validation was undertaken on the one hand via a comparison with six deterministic loss models, including both depth-damage functions and multivariable models. On the other hand, the results were compared with official loss data. BT-FLEMO outperforms deterministic, univariable, and multivariable models with regard to model accuracy, although the prediction uncertainty remains high. An important advantage of BT-FLEMO is the quantification of prediction uncertainty. The probability distribution of loss estimates by BT-FLEMO well represents the variation range of loss estimates of the other models in the case study.}, language = {en} } @article{RoezerKreibichSchroeteretal.2019, author = {R{\"o}zer, Viktor and Kreibich, Heidi and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and M{\"u}ller, Meike and Sairam, Nivedita and Doss-Gollin, James and Lall, Upmanu and Merz, Bruno}, title = {Probabilistic Models Significantly Reduce Uncertainty in Hurricane Harvey Pluvial Flood Loss Estimates}, series = {Earths future}, volume = {7}, journal = {Earths future}, number = {4}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, issn = {2328-4277}, doi = {10.1029/2018EF001074}, pages = {384 -- 394}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Pluvial flood risk is mostly excluded in urban flood risk assessment. However, the risk of pluvial flooding is a growing challenge with a projected increase of extreme rainstorms compounding with an ongoing global urbanization. Considered as a flood type with minimal impacts when rainfall rates exceed the capacity of urban drainage systems, the aftermath of rainfall-triggered flooding during Hurricane Harvey and other events show the urgent need to assess the risk of pluvial flooding. Due to the local extent and small-scale variations, the quantification of pluvial flood risk requires risk assessments on high spatial resolutions. While flood hazard and exposure information is becoming increasingly accurate, the estimation of losses is still a poorly understood component of pluvial flood risk quantification. We use a new probabilistic multivariable modeling approach to estimate pluvial flood losses of individual buildings, explicitly accounting for the associated uncertainties. Except for the water depth as the common most important predictor, we identified the drivers for having loss or not and for the degree of loss to be different. Applying this approach to estimate and validate building structure losses during Hurricane Harvey using a property level data set, we find that the reliability and dispersion of predictive loss distributions vary widely depending on the model and aggregation level of property level loss estimates. Our results show that the use of multivariable zero-inflated beta models reduce the 90\% prediction intervalsfor Hurricane Harvey building structure loss estimates on average by 78\% (totalling U.S.\$3.8 billion) compared to commonly used models.}, language = {en} } @article{SairamSchroeterLuedtkeetal.2019, author = {Sairam, Nivedita and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and L{\"u}dtke, Stefan and Merz, Bruno and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Quantifying Flood Vulnerability Reduction via Private Precaution}, series = {Earth future}, volume = {7}, journal = {Earth future}, number = {3}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, issn = {2328-4277}, doi = {10.1029/2018EF000994}, pages = {235 -- 249}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Private precaution is an important component in contemporary flood risk management and climate adaptation. However, quantitative knowledge about vulnerability reduction via private precautionary measures is scarce and their effects are hardly considered in loss modeling and risk assessments. However, this is a prerequisite to enable temporally dynamic flood damage and risk modeling, and thus the evaluation of risk management and adaptation strategies. To quantify the average reduction in vulnerability of residential buildings via private precaution empirical vulnerability data (n = 948) is used. Households with and without precautionary measures undertaken before the flood event are classified into treatment and nontreatment groups and matched. Postmatching regression is used to quantify the treatment effect. Additionally, we test state-of-the-art flood loss models regarding their capability to capture this difference in vulnerability. The estimated average treatment effect of implementing private precaution is between 11 and 15 thousand EUR per household, confirming the significant effectiveness of private precautionary measures in reducing flood vulnerability. From all tested flood loss models, the expert Bayesian network-based model BN-FLEMOps and the rule-based loss model FLEMOps perform best in capturing the difference in vulnerability due to private precaution. Thus, the use of such loss models is suggested for flood risk assessments to effectively support evaluations and decision making for adaptable flood risk management.}, language = {en} } @misc{MetinDungSchroeteretal.2018, author = {Metin, Ayse Duha and Dung, Nguyen Viet and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Apel, Heiko and Kreibich, Heidi and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Merz, Bruno}, title = {How do changes along the risk chain affect flood risk?}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {1067}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-46879}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-468790}, pages = {22}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Flood risk is impacted by a range of physical and socio-economic processes. Hence, the quantification of flood risk ideally considers the complete flood risk chain, from atmospheric processes through catchment and river system processes to damage mechanisms in the affected areas. Although it is generally accepted that a multitude of changes along the risk chain can occur and impact flood risk, there is a lack of knowledge of how and to what extent changes in influencing factors propagate through the chain and finally affect flood risk. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which considers changes in all risk components, i.e. changes in climate, catchment, river system, land use, assets, and vulnerability. The application of this framework to the mesoscale Mulde catchment in Germany shows that flood risk can vary dramatically as a consequence of plausible change scenarios. It further reveals that components that have not received much attention, such as changes in dike systems or in vulnerability, may outweigh changes in often investigated components, such as climate. Although the specific results are conditional on the case study area and the selected assumptions, they emphasize the need for a broader consideration of potential drivers of change in a comprehensive way. Hence, our approach contributes to a better understanding of how the different risk components influence the overall flood risk.}, language = {en} } @article{SairamBrillSiegetal.2021, author = {Sairam, Nivedita and Brill, Fabio Alexander and Sieg, Tobias and Farrag, Mostafa and Kellermann, Patric and Viet Dung Nguyen, and L{\"u}dtke, Stefan and Merz, Bruno and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Kreibich, Heidi}, title = {Process-based flood risk assessment for Germany}, series = {Earth's future / American Geophysical Union}, volume = {9}, journal = {Earth's future / American Geophysical Union}, number = {10}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken, NJ}, issn = {2328-4277}, doi = {10.1029/2021EF002259}, pages = {12}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Large-scale flood risk assessments are crucial for decision making, especially with respect to new flood defense schemes, adaptation planning and estimating insurance premiums. We apply the process-based Regional Flood Model (RFM) to simulate a 5000-year flood event catalog for all major catchments in Germany and derive risk curves based on the losses per economic sector. The RFM uses a continuous process simulation including a multisite, multivariate weather generator, a hydrological model considering heterogeneous catchment processes, a coupled 1D-2D hydrodynamic model considering dike overtopping and hinterland storage, spatially explicit sector-wise exposure data and empirical multi-variable loss models calibrated for Germany. For all components, uncertainties in the data and models are estimated. We estimate the median Expected Annual Damage (EAD) and Value at Risk at 99.5\% confidence for Germany to be euro0.529 bn and euro8.865 bn, respectively. The commercial sector dominates by making about 60\% of the total risk, followed by the residential sector. The agriculture sector gets affected by small return period floods and only contributes to less than 3\% to the total risk. The overall EAD is comparable to other large-scale estimates. However, the estimation of losses for specific return periods is substantially improved. The spatial consistency of the risk estimates avoids the large overestimation of losses for rare events that is common in other large-scale assessments with homogeneous return periods. Thus, the process-based, spatially consistent flood risk assessment by RFM is an important step forward and will serve as a benchmark for future German-wide flood risk assessments.}, language = {en} } @article{MetinNguyenVietDungSchroeteretal.2018, author = {Metin, Ayse Duha and Nguyen Viet Dung, and Schr{\"o}ter, Kai and Guse, Bj{\"o}rn and Apel, Heiko and Kreibich, Heidi and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Merz, Bruno}, title = {How do changes along the risk chain affect flood risk?}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {18}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, number = {11}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-18-3089-2018}, pages = {3089 -- 3108}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Flood risk is impacted by a range of physical and socio-economic processes. Hence, the quantification of flood risk ideally considers the complete flood risk chain, from atmospheric processes through catchment and river system processes to damage mechanisms in the affected areas. Although it is generally accepted that a multitude of changes along the risk chain can occur and impact flood risk, there is a lack of knowledge of how and to what extent changes in influencing factors propagate through the chain and finally affect flood risk. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive sensitivity analysis which considers changes in all risk components, i.e. changes in climate, catchment, river system, land use, assets, and vulnerability. The application of this framework to the mesoscale Mulde catchment in Germany shows that flood risk can vary dramatically as a consequence of plausible change scenarios. It further reveals that components that have not received much attention, such as changes in dike systems or in vulnerability, may outweigh changes in often investigated components, such as climate. Although the specific results are conditional on the case study area and the selected assumptions, they emphasize the need for a broader consideration of potential drivers of change in a comprehensive way. Hence, our approach contributes to a better understanding of how the different risk components influence the overall flood risk.}, language = {en} }