There is a movement towards the concepts of integrated flood risk management and governance. In these concepts, each stakeholder prone to flooding is tasked with actively limiting flood impacts. Currently, relatively more research has focused upon the adaptation of private households and not on private businesses operating in flood-prone areas. This paper offers an extension of this literature on business-level flood adaptation by exploring the potential presence of moral hazard. The analyses are based on survey data collected in the aftermath of six floods across Germany between 2002 and 2013 to provide a first indication of the presence of moral hazard in private businesses. Moral hazard is where increased insurance coverage results in policyholders preparing less, increasing the risk they face, a counterproductive outcome. We present an initial study of moral hazard occurring through three channels: the performance of emergency measures during a flood, changes in precautionary behavior employed before a given flood occurred, and changes in the intention to employ additional precautionary measures after a flood. We find, much like for private households, no strong indication that moral hazard is present regarding past adaptation. However, there is a potential avenue after 2005 for insurance coverage to lower businesses' intentions to employ more adaptation measures after a flood. This has significant policy relevance such as opportunities for strengthening the link between insurance and risk reduction measures and boosting insurance coverage against flooding in general.
Climate change, along with socio-economic development, will increase the economic impacts of floods. While the factors that influence flood risk to private property have been extensively studied, the risk that natural disasters pose to public infrastructure and the resulting implications on public sector budgets, have received less attention. We address this gap by developing a two-staged model framework, which first assesses the flood risk to public infrastructure in Austria. Combining exposure and vulnerability information at the building level with inundation maps, we project an increase in riverine flood damage, which progressively burdens public budgets. Second, the risk estimates are integrated into an insurance model, which analyzes three different compensation arrangements in terms of the monetary burden they place on future governments' budgets and the respective volatility of payments. Formalized insurance compensation arrangements offer incentives for risk reduction measures, which lower the burden on public budgets by reducing the vulnerability of buildings that are exposed to flooding. They also significantly reduce the volatility of payments and thereby improve the predictability of flood damage expenditures. These features indicate that more formalized insurance arrangements are an improvement over the purely public compensation arrangement currently in place in Austria.
Starkregen in Berlin
(2021)
In den Sommern der Jahre 2017 und 2019 kam es in Berlin an mehreren Orten zu Überschwemmungen in Folge von Starkregenereignissen. In beiden Jahren führte dies zu erheblichen Beeinträchtigungen im Alltag der Berliner:innen sowie zu hohen Sachschäden. Eine interdisziplinäre Taskforce des DFG-Graduiertenkollegs NatRiskChange untersuchte (1) die meteorologischen Eigenschaften zweier besonders eindrücklicher Unwetter, sowie (2) die Vulnerabilität der Berliner Bevölkerung gegenüber Starkregen.
Eine vergleichende meteorologische Rekonstruktion der Starkregenereignisse von 2017 und 2019 ergab deutliche Unterschiede in der Entstehung und den Überschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten der beiden Unwetter. So war das Ereignis von 2017 mit einer relativ großen räumlichen Ausdehnung und langer Dauer ein untypisches Starkregenereignis, während es sich bei dem Unwetter von 2019 um ein typisches, kurzzeitiges Starkregenereignis mit ausgeprägter räumlicher Heterogenität handelte. Eine anschließende statistische Analyse zeigte, dass das Ereignis von 2017 für längere Niederschlagsdauern (>=24 h) als großflächiges Extremereignis mit Überschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten von unter 1 % einzuordnen ist (d.h. Wiederkehrperioden >=100 Jahre). Im Jahr 2019 wurden dagegen ähnliche Überschreitungswahrscheinlichkeiten nur lokal und für kürzere Zeiträume (1-2 h) berechnet.
Die Vulnerabilitätsanalyse basiert auf einer von April bis Juni 2020 in Berlin durchgeführten Onlinebefragung. Diese richtete sich an Personen, die bereits von vergangenen Starkregenereignissen betroffen waren und thematisierte das Schadensereignis selbst, daraus entstandene Beeinträchtigungen und Schäden, Risikowahrnehmung sowie Notfall- und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Die erhobenen Umfragedaten (n=102) beziehen sich vornehmlich auf die Ereignisse von 2017 und 2019 und zeigen, dass die Berliner Bevölkerung sowohl im Alltag (z.B. bei der Beschaffung von Lebensmitteln) als auch im eigenen Haushalt (z.B. durch Überschwemmungsschäden) von den Unwettern beeinträchtigt war. Zudem deuteten die Antworten der Betroffenen auf Möglichkeiten hin, die Vulnerabilität der Gesellschaft gegenüber Starkregen weiter zu reduzieren - etwa durch die Unterstützung besonders betroffener Gruppen (z.B. Pflegende), durch gezielte Informationskampagnen zum Schutz vor Starkregen oder durch die Erhöhung der Reichweite von Unwetterwarnungen. Eine statistische Analyse zur Effektivität privater Notfall- und Vorsorgemaßnahmen auf Grundlage der Umfragedaten bestätigte vorherige Studienergebnisse.
So gab es Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass durch das Umsetzen von Vorsorgemaßnahmen wie beispielsweise das Installieren von Rückstauklappen, Barriere-Systemen oder Pumpen Starkregenschäden reduziert werden können.
Die Ergebnisse dieses Berichts unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit für ein integriertes Starkregenrisikomanagment, das die Risikokomponenten Gefährdung, Vulnerabilität und Exposition ganzheitlich und auf mehreren Ebenen (z.B. staatlich, kommunal, privat) betrachtet.
Flood risk will increase in many areas around the world due to climate change and increase in economic exposure. This implies that adequate flood insurance schemes are needed to adapt to increasing flood risk and to minimise welfare losses for households in flood-prone areas. Flood insurance markets may need reform to offer sufficient and affordable financial protection and incentives for risk reduction. Here, we present the results of a study that aims to evaluate the ability of flood insurance arrangements in Europe to cope with trends in flood risk, using criteria that encompass common elements of the policy debate on flood insurance reform. We show that the average risk-based flood insurance premium could double between 2015 and 2055 in the absence of more risk reduction by households exposed to flooding. We show that part of the expected future increase in flood risk could be limited by flood insurance mechanisms that better incentivise risk reduction by policyholders, which lowers vulnerability. The affordability of flood insurance can be improved by introducing the key features of public-private partnerships (PPPs), which include public reinsurance, limited premium cross-subsidisation between low- and high-risk households, and incentives for policyholder-level risk reduction. These findings were evaluated in a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and support ongoing reforms in Europe and abroad that move towards risk-based premiums and link insurance with risk reduction, strengthen purchase requirements, and engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships.
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.