TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Pisi, Sebastian T1 - Vorhersagen und Warnungen im Mai / Juni 2013 JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 132 EP - 137 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Mueller, Meike A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schroeter, Kai T1 - The flood of June 2013 in Germany: how much do we know about its impacts? JF - Natural hazards and earth system sciences N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1519-2016 SN - 1561-8633 VL - 16 SP - 1519 EP - 1540 PB - Copernicus CY - Göttingen ER - TY - GEN A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - The flood of June 2013 in Germany BT - how much do we know about its impacts? T2 - National Hazards Earth System Science N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-97207 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - The flood of June 2013 in Germany BT - how much do we know about its impacts? JF - National Hazards Earth System Science N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1519-2016 IS - 16 SP - 1519 EP - 1540 PB - Copernicus Publications CY - Göttingen ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Schröter, Kai A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Müller, Meike T1 - Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 184 EP - 196 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - GEN A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 294 KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - June 2013 flood KW - governance KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100600 SN - 1866-8372 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : E&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - 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. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 SN - 1195-5449 VL - 21 IS - 2 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville, NS ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Muehr, Bernhard A1 - Mueller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schroeter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - 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. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 VL - 21 SP - 8612 EP - 8614 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Pisi, Sebastian T1 - Entwicklungn der technischen Systeme und der Organisaton in der Warnkette seit 2002 JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 123 EP - 132 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Callsen, Ines A1 - Falter, Daniela A1 - Hasan, Issa A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kox, Thomas A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Matthias, Max A1 - Meyer, Volker A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Pech, Ina A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Rother, Karl-Heinz A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 BT - Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland T3 - Schriftenreihe des DKKV ; 53 Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Thieken, Annegret T1 - Auswirkungen und Schäden JF - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 : Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 SP - 31 EP - 45 ER -