@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} } @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} } @phdthesis{Schroeter2020, author = {Schr{\"o}ter, Kai}, title = {Improved flood risk assessment}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-48024}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-480240}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {408}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Rivers have always flooded their floodplains. Over 2.5 billion people worldwide have been affected by flooding in recent decades. The economic damage is also considerable, averaging 100 billion US dollars per year. There is no doubt that damage and other negative effects of floods can be avoided. However, this has a price: financially and politically. Costs and benefits can be estimated through risk assessments. Questions about the location and frequency of floods, about the objects that could be affected and their vulnerability are of importance for flood risk managers, insurance companies and politicians. Thus, both variables and factors from the fields of hydrology and sociol-economics play a role with multi-layered connections. One example are dikes along a river, which on the one hand contain floods, but on the other hand, by narrowing the natural floodplains, accelerate the flood discharge and increase the danger of flooding for the residents downstream. Such larger connections must be included in the assessment of flood risk. However, in current procedures this is accompanied by simplifying assumptions. Risk assessments are therefore fuzzy and associated with uncertainties. This thesis investigates the benefits and possibilities of new data sources for improving flood risk assessment. New methods and models are developed, which take the mentioned interrelations better into account and also quantify the existing uncertainties of the model results, and thus enable statements about the reliability of risk estimates. For this purpose, data on flood events from various sources are collected and evaluated. This includes precipitation and flow records at measuring stations as well as for instance images from social media, which can help to delineate the flooded areas and estimate flood damage with location information. Machine learning methods have been successfully used to recognize and understand correlations between floods and impacts from a wide range of data and to develop improved models. Risk models help to develop and evaluate strategies to reduce flood risk. These tools also provide advanced insights into the interplay of various factors and on the expected consequences of flooding. This work shows progress in terms of an improved assessment of flood risks by using diverse data from different sources with innovative methods as well as by the further development of models. Flood risk is variable due to economic and climatic changes, and other drivers of risk. In order to keep the knowledge about flood risks up-to-date, robust, efficient and adaptable methods as proposed in this thesis are of increasing importance.}, 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} }