Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Adaptation (1)
- Alpine hazards (1)
- Coastal hazards (1)
- Costs (1)
- Droughts (1)
- Floods (1)
- Mitigation (1)
- Natural hazards (1)
- Risk reduction (1)
- adaptation to climate change (1)
Institute
Flood damage has increased significantly and is expected to rise further in many parts of the world. For assessing potential changes in flood risk, this paper presents an integrated model chain quantifying flood hazards and losses while considering climate and land use changes. In the case study region, risk estimates for the present and the near future illustrate that changes in flood risk by 2030 are relatively low compared to historic periods. While the impact of climate change on the flood hazard and risk by 2030 is slight or negligible, strong urbanisation associated with economic growth contributes to a remarkable increase in flood risk. Therefore, it is recommended to frequently consider land use scenarios and economic developments when assessing future flood risks. Further, an adapted and sustainable risk management is necessary to encounter rising flood losses, in which non-structural measures are becoming more and more important. The case study demonstrates that adaptation by non-structural measures such as stricter land use regulations or enhancement of private precaution is capable of reducing flood risk by around 30 %. Ignoring flood risks, in contrast, always leads to further increasing losses-with our assumptions by 17 %. These findings underline that private precaution and land use regulation could be taken into account as low cost adaptation strategies to global climate change in many flood prone areas. Since such measures reduce flood risk regardless of climate or land use changes, they can also be recommended as no-regret measures.
In the aftermath of the severe flooding in Central Europe in August 2002, a number of changes in flood policies were launched in Germany and other European countries, aiming at improved risk management. The question arises as to whether these changes have already had an impact on the residents' ability to cope with floods, and whether flood-affected private households are now better prepared than they were in 2002. Therefore, computer-aided telephone interviews with private households in Germany that suffered from property damage due to flooding in 2005, 2006, 2010 or 2011 were performed and analysed with respect to flood awareness, precaution, preparedness and recovery. The data were compared to a similar investigation conducted after the flood in 2002.
After the flood in 2002, the level of private precautions taken increased considerably. One contributing factor is the fact that, in general, a larger proportion of people knew that they were at risk of flooding. The best level of precaution was found before the flood events in 2006 and 2011. The main reason for this might be that residents had more experience with flooding than residents affected in 2005 or 2010. Yet, overall, flood experience and knowledge did not necessarily result in building retrofitting or flood-proofing measures, which are considered as mitigating damages most effectively. Hence, investments still need to be stimulated in order to reduce future damage more efficiently.
Early warning and emergency responses were substantially influenced by flood characteristics. In contrast to flood-affected people in 2006 or 2011, people affected by flooding in 2005 or 2010 had to deal with shorter lead times and therefore had less time to take emergency measures. Yet, the lower level of emergency measures taken also resulted from the people's lack of flood experience and insufficient knowledge of how to protect themselves. Overall, it was noticeable that these residents suffered from higher losses. Therefore, it is important to further improve early warning systems and communication channels, particularly in hilly areas with rapid-onset flooding.
Costing natural hazards
(2014)
The literature on the costing of mitigation measures for reducing impacts of natural hazards is rather fragmented. This paper provides a concise overview of the current state of knowledge in Europe on the costing of mitigation measures for the reduction of natural hazard risks (droughts, floods, storms and induced coastal hazards as well as alpine hazards) and identifies knowledge gaps and related research recommendations. Furthermore, it provides a taxonomy of related mitigation options, classifying them into nine categories: (1) management plans, land-use planning, and climate adaptation; (2) hazard modification; (3) infrastructure; (4) mitigation measures (stricto sensu); (5) communication in advance of events; (6) monitoring and early warning systems; (7) emergency response and evacuation; (8) financial incentives; and (9) risk transfer (including insurance). It is found that the costing of mitigation measures in European and in other countries has almost exclusively focused on estimating direct costs. A cost assessment framework that addresses a range of costs, possibly informed by multiple stakeholders, would provide more accurate estimates and could provide better guidance to decision makers. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.