@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{SurminskiThieken2017,
  author    = {Surminski, Swenja and Thieken, Annegret},
  title     = {Promoting flood risk reduction},
  series = {Earth's Future},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {Earth's Future},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2328-4277},
  doi       = {10.1002/2017EF000587},
  pages     = {979 -- 1001},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Improving society's ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from flooding requires integrated, anticipatory flood risk management (FRM). However, most countries still focus their efforts on responding to flooding events if and when they occur rather than addressing their current and future vulnerability to flooding. Flood insurance is one mechanism that could promote a more ex ante approach to risk by supporting risk reduction activities. This paper uses an adapted version of Easton's System Theory to investigate the role of insurance for FRM in Germany and England. We introduce an anticipatory FRM framework, which allows flood insurance to be considered as part of a broader policy field. We analyze if and how flood insurance can catalyze a change toward a more anticipatory approach to FRM. In particular we consider insurance's role in influencing five key components of anticipatory FRM: risk knowledge, prevention through better planning, property\&\#8208;level protection measures, structural protection and preparedness (for response). We find that in both countries FRM is still a reactive, event\&\#8208;driven process, while anticipatory FRM remains underdeveloped. Collaboration between insurers and FRM decision\&\#8208;makers has already been successful, for example in improving risk knowledge and awareness, while in other areas insurance acts as a disincentive for more risk reduction action. In both countries there is evidence that insurance can play a significant role in encouraging anticipatory FRM, but this remains underutilized. Effective collaboration between insurers and government should not be seen as a cost, but as an investment to secure future insurability through flood resilience.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EichhornRuscheWeith2021,
  author    = {Eichhorn, Sebastian and Rusche, Karsten and Weith, Thomas},
  title     = {Integrative governance processes towards sustainable spatial development},
  series = {Journal of environmental planning and management},
  volume    = {64},
  journal   = {Journal of environmental planning and management},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0964-0568},
  doi       = {10.1080/09640568.2020.1866509},
  pages     = {2233 -- 2256},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Due to the high concentration of people and infrastructures in European cities, the possible impacts of climate change are particularly high (cities' social, economic and technical vulnerabilities). Adaptation measures to reduce the sensitivity of a city to climate risks are therefore of particular importance. Nevertheless, it is also common to develop compact and dense urban areas to reduce urban sprawl. Urban infill development and sustainable spatial climate policies are thus in apparent conflict with each other. This article examines how German cities deal with the tensions between these two policy fields. Using six case studies, a new heuristic analysis method is applied. This study identifies three key governance aspects that are essential for promoting the joint implementation: instruments, organisation and interaction. Based on our case studies, we conclude that successful implementation can only be achieved through integrative governance including all three domains.},
  language  = {en}
}