Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
Keywords
- damage (7)
- adaptation (5)
- vulnerability (5)
- Germany (4)
- floods (4)
- preparedness (4)
- August 2002 flood (3)
- Central Europe (3)
- Europe (3)
- Floods Directive (3)
- June 2013 flood (3)
- companies (3)
- early warning (3)
- governance (3)
- motivation (3)
- pluvial floods (3)
- risk management cycle (3)
- uncertainty (3)
- Bayesian networks (2)
- Costs (2)
- Damage (2)
- Disasters (2)
- Event (2)
- Hazards (2)
- Inoperability (2)
- June 2013 (2)
- Losses (2)
- Model (2)
- Random Forests (2)
- august 2002 (2)
- business interruption (2)
- capacities (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- emergency response (2)
- flood loss (2)
- frequency (2)
- hydro-meterological hazards (2)
- insurance (2)
- mitigation (2)
- object-based damage modeling (2)
- people (2)
- private households (2)
- probabilistic (2)
- probabilistic approaches (2)
- recovery (2)
- resources (2)
- risk (2)
- risk assessment (2)
- risk governance (2)
- social science (2)
- spatial scales (2)
- strategies (2)
- surface water flooding (2)
- variable importance (2)
- Can Tho (1)
- Climate adaptation (1)
- Damage modeling (1)
- Damage reduction (1)
- Flood (1)
- Flood risk management (1)
- Hurricane Harvey (1)
- Land-use planning (1)
- Mekong Delta (1)
- Natural hazard (1)
- Netherlands (1)
- Precaution (1)
- Rhine basin (1)
- Risk zoning (1)
- Vietnam (1)
- affected residents (1)
- average treatment effect (1)
- buildings (1)
- catchment (1)
- circulation patterns (1)
- climate change (1)
- climate change adaptation (1)
- coastal floods (1)
- continuous simulation (1)
- curves (1)
- damage assessment (1)
- damage model (1)
- damage surveys (1)
- data-mining (1)
- derived flood risk analysis (1)
- diagnostics (1)
- emergency (1)
- emergency preparedness (1)
- expected annual damage (1)
- extreme flood (1)
- extremes (1)
- flood (1)
- flood damage (1)
- flood events (1)
- flood genesis (1)
- flood loss estimation (1)
- flood loss model transfer (1)
- flood mechanisms (1)
- flood modelling; (1)
- flood risk (1)
- flood risk management (1)
- flood typology (1)
- flood-affected residents (1)
- flooding (1)
- fluvial floods (1)
- global environmental change (1)
- global sensitivity analysis (1)
- heavy-tailed distributions (1)
- historical floods (1)
- hydroclimatology of floods (1)
- hydrodynamic interactions (1)
- impact (1)
- impact forecasting (1)
- june 2013 Flood (1)
- loss modeling (1)
- loss models (1)
- losses (1)
- matching methods (1)
- mitigation behavior (1)
- mitigation measures (1)
- model (1)
- model validation (1)
- models (1)
- multi-sector risk (1)
- multilevel probabilistic flood loss model (1)
- multiparameter (1)
- multivariable (1)
- natural hazards (1)
- open data (1)
- pluvial flooding (1)
- policy (1)
- probabilistic modeling (1)
- public-participation (1)
- regression tree (1)
- remote (1)
- residential buildings (1)
- response (1)
- risk analysis (1)
- risk model chain (1)
- risk perceptions (1)
- river floods (1)
- sensing (1)
- surprise (1)
- upper tail behaviour (1)
- urban flooding (1)
- validation (1)
Reliable flood risk analyses, including the estimation of damage, are an important prerequisite for efficient risk management. However, not much is known about flood damage processes affecting companies. Thus, we conduct a flood damage assessment of companies in Germany with regard to two aspects. First, we identify relevant damage-influencing variables. Second, we assess the prediction performance of the developed damage models with respect to the gain by using an increasing amount of training data and a sector-specific evaluation of the data. Random forests are trained with data from two postevent surveys after flood events occurring in the years 2002 and 2013. For a sector-specific consideration, the data set is split into four subsets corresponding to the manufacturing, commercial, financial, and service sectors. Further, separate models are derived for three different company assets: buildings, equipment, and goods and stock. Calculated variable importance values reveal different variable sets relevant for the damage estimation, indicating significant differences in the damage process for various company sectors and assets. With an increasing number of data used to build the models, prediction errors decrease. Yet the effect is rather small and seems to saturate for a data set size of several hundred observations. In contrast, the prediction improvement achieved by a sector-specific consideration is more distinct, especially for damage to equipment and goods and stock. Consequently, sector-specific data acquisition and a consideration of sector-specific company characteristics in future flood damage assessments is expected to improve the model performance more than a mere increase in data.
The Value of Empirical Data for Estimating the Parameters of a Sociohydrological Flood Risk Model
(2019)
In this paper, empirical data are used to estimate the parameters of a sociohydrological flood risk model. The proposed model, which describes the interactions between floods, settlement density, awareness, preparedness, and flood loss, is based on the literature. Data for the case study of Dresden, Germany, over a period of 200years, are used to estimate the model parameters through Bayesian inference. The credibility bounds of their estimates are small, even though the data are rather uncertain. A sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the value of the different data sources in estimating the model parameters. In general, the estimated parameters are less biased when using data at the end of the modeled period. Data about flood awareness are the most important to correctly estimate the parameters of this model and to correctly model the system dynamics. Using more data for other variables cannot compensate for the absence of awareness data. More generally, the absence of data mostly affects the estimation of the parameters that are directly related to the variable for which data are missing. This paper demonstrates that combining sociohydrological modeling and empirical data gives additional insights into the sociohydrological system, such as quantifying the forgetfulness of the society, which would otherwise not be easily achieved by sociohydrological models without data or by standard statistical analysis of empirical data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.