Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (46)
- Postprint (5)
- Preprint (2)
- Report (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Germany (6)
- damage (4)
- governance (4)
- preparedness (4)
- August 2002 flood (3)
- Central Europe (3)
- Floods Directive (3)
- June 2013 flood (3)
- floods (3)
- frequency analysis (3)
Institute
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (58) (remove)
Flood risk management in Germany follows an integrative approach in which both private households and businesses can make an important contribution to reducing flood damage by implementing property-level adaptation measures. While the flood adaptation behavior of private households has already been widely researched, comparatively less attention has been paid to the adaptation strategies of businesses. However, their ability to cope with flood risk plays an important role in the social and economic development of a flood-prone region. Therefore, using quantitative survey data, this study aims to identify different strategies and adaptation drivers of 557 businesses damaged by a riverine flood in 2013 and 104 businesses damaged by pluvial or flash floods between 2014 and 2017. Our results indicate that a low perceived self-efficacy may be an important factor that can reduce the motivation of businesses to adapt to flood risk. Furthermore, property-owners tended to act more proactively than tenants. In addition, high experience with previous flood events and low perceived response costs could strengthen proactive adaptation behavior. These findings should be considered in business-tailored risk communication.
Die Hochwasserkatastrophe im Juli 2021 in Westdeutschland erfordert eine kritische Diskussion über die Abschätzung der Hochwassergefährdung, Aktualisierung von Hochwassergefahrenkarten und Kommunikation von extremen Hochwasserszenarien. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde die Extremwertstatistik für die jährlichen maximalen Spitzenabflüsse am Pegel Altenahr im Ahrtal mit und ohne Berücksichtigung historischer Hochwasser berechnet und verglichen. Die Schätzung der Wiederkehrperiode für das aktuelle Hochwasser mittels Generalisierter Extremwertverteilung (GEV) unter Berücksichtigung historischer Hochwasser schwankt zwischen etwa 2.600 und über 58.700 Jahren (90%-Konfidenzintervall) mit einem Median bei etwa 8.600 Jahren, wogegen die Schätzung, die nur auf der systematisch gemessenen Abflusszeitreihe von 74 Jahren basiert, theoretisch eine Wiederkehrperiode von über 100 Millionen Jahren ergeben würde. Die Berücksichtigung der historischen Hochwasser führt zu einer dramatischen Änderung der Hochwasserquan-
tile, die für eine Gefahrenkartierung zugrunde gelegt werden. Die Anpassung der GEV an die Zeitreihe mit historischen Hochwassern zeigt dennoch, dass das GEV-Modell möglicherweise die Grundgesamtheit der Hochwasser im Ahrtal nicht adäquat abbilden kann. Es könnte sich im vorliegenden Fall um eine gemischte Stichprobe handeln, in der die extremen Hochwasser im Vergleich zu kleineren Ereignissen durch besondere Prozesse hervorgerufen werden. Somit könnten die Wahrscheinlichkeiten von extremen Hochwassern deutlich größer sein, als aus dem GEV-Modell hervorgeht. Hier sollte in Zukunft die Anwendung einer prozessbasierten Mischverteilung
untersucht werden. Der Vergleich von amtlichen Gefahrenkarten zu Extremhochwassern (HQextrem) im Ahrtal mit den Überflutungsflächen vom Juli 2021
zeigt eine deutliche Diskrepanz in den betroffenen Gebieten und die Notwendigkeit, die Grundlagen zur Erstellung der Extremszenarien zu überdenken. Die hydrodynamisch-numerischen Simulationen von 1.000-jährlichen Hochwassern (HQ1000) unter Berücksichtigung historischer Ereignisse und des größten historischen Hochwassers 1804 können die Gefährdung des Juli-Hochwassers 2021 deutlich besser widerspiegeln, wenngleich auch diese beiden Szenarien die Überflutungsflächen unterschätzen. Besondere Effekte wie die Verklausung von Brücken und die geomorphologischen Änderungen im Flussschlauch führten zu noch größeren Überflutungs- flächen im Juli 2021, als die Simulationsergebnisse zeigten. Basierend auf dieser Analyse wird eine einheitliche Festlegung von HQextrem bei Hochwassergefahrenkartierungen in Deutschland vorgeschlagen, die sich an höheren Hochwasserquantilen im Bereich von HQ1000 orientiert. Zusätzlich sollen simulationsbasierte Rekonstruktionen von den größten verlässlich dokumentierten historischen Hochwassern und/oder synthetische Worst-Case-Szenarien in den Hochwassergefahrenkarten gesondert dargestellt werden. Damit wird ein wichtiger Beitrag geleistet, um die potenziell betroffene Bevölkerung und das Katastrophenmanagement vor Überraschungen durch sehr seltene und extreme Hochwasser in Zukunft besser zu schützen.
Flood damage estimation is a core task in flood risk assessments and requires reliable flood loss models. Identifying the driving factors of flood loss at residential buildings and gaining insight into their relations is important to improve our understanding of flood damage processes. For that purpose, we learn probabilistic graphical models, which capture and illustrate (in-)dependencies between the considered variables. The models are learned based on postevent surveys with flood-affected residents after six flood events, which occurred in Germany between 2002 and 2013. Besides the sustained building damage, the survey data contain information about flooding parameters, early warning and emergency measures, property-level mitigation measures and preparedness, socioeconomic characteristics of the household, and building characteristics. The analysis considers the entire data set with a total of 4,468 cases as well as subsets of the data set partitioned into single flood events and flood types: river floods, levee breaches, surface water flooding, and groundwater floods, to reveal differences in the damaging processes. The learned networks suggest that the flood loss ratio of residential buildings is directly influenced by hydrological and hydraulic aspects as well as by building characteristics and property-level mitigation measures. The study demonstrates also that for different flood events and process types the building damage is influenced by varying factors. This suggests that flood damage models need to be capable of reproducing these differences for spatial and temporal model transfers.
Am Abend des 29. Mai 2016 wurde der Ort Braunsbach im Landkreis Schwäbisch-Hall (Baden-Württemberg) von einer Sturzflut getroffen, bei der mehrere Häuser stark beschädigt oder zerstört wurden. Die Sturzflut war eine der Unwetterfolgen, die im Frühsommer 2016 vom Tiefdruckgebiet Elvira ausgelöst wurden. Der vorliegende Bericht ist der zweite Teil einer Doppelveröffentlichung, welche die Ergebnisse zur Untersuchung des Sturzflutereignisses im Rahmen des DFG-Graduiertenkollegs “Naturgefahren und Risiken in einer sich verändernden Welt” (NatRiskChange, GRK 2043/1) der Universität Potsdam präsentiert. Während Teil 1 die meteorologischen und hydrologischen Ereignisse analysiert, fokussiert Teil 2 auf die geomorphologischen Prozesse und die verursachten Gebäudeschäden. Dazu wurden Ursprung und Ausmaß des während des Sturzflutereignisses mobilisierten und in den Ort getragenen Materials untersucht. Des Weiteren wurden zu 96 betroffenen Gebäuden Daten zum Schadensgrad sowie Prozess- und Gebäudecharakteristika aufgenommen und ausgewertet. Die Untersuchungen zeigen, dass bei der Betrachtung von Hochwassergefährdung die Berücksichtigung von Sturzfluten und ihrer speziellen Charakteristika, wie hoher Feststofftransport und sprunghaftes Verhalten insbesondere in bebautem Gelände, wesentlich ist, um effektive Schutzmaßnahmen ergreifen zu können.
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.
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.
Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of (sic)6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of (sic)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.
Weltweit verursachen Städte etwa 70 % der Treibhausgasemissionen und sind daher wichtige Akteure im Klimaschutz bzw. eine wichtige Zielgruppe von Klimapolitiken. Gleichzeitig sind Städte besonders stark von möglichen Auswirkungen des Klimawandels betroffen: Insbesondere extreme Wetterereignisse wie Hitzewellen oder Starkregenereignisse mit Überflutungen verursachen in Städten hohe Sachschäden und wirken sich negativ auf die Gesundheit der städtischen Bevölkerung aus. Daher verfolgt das Projekt ExTrass das Ziel, die städtische Resilienz gegenüber extremen Wetterereignissen in enger Zusammenarbeit mit Stadtverwaltungen, Strukturen des Bevölkerungsschutzes und der Zivilgesellschaft zu stärken. Im Fokus stehen dabei (kreisfreie) Groß- und Mittelstädte mit 50.000 bis 500.000 Einwohnern, insbesondere die Fallstudienstädte Potsdam, Remscheid und Würzburg.
Der vorliegende Bericht beinhaltet die Ergebnisse der 14-monatigen Definitionsphase von ExTrass, in der vor allem die Abstimmung eines Arbeitsprogramms im Mittelpunkt stand, das in einem nachfolgenden dreijährigen Forschungsprojekt (F+E-Phase) gemeinsam von Wissenschaft und Praxispartnern umgesetzt werden soll. Begleitend wurde eine Bestandsaufnahme von Klimaanpassungs- und Klimaschutzstrategien/-plänen in 99 deutschen Groß- und Mittelstädten vorgenommen. Zudem wurden für Potsdam und Würzburg Pfadanalysen für die Klimapolitik durchgeführt. Darin wird insbesondere die Bedeutung von Schlüsselakteuren deutlich. Weiterhin wurden im Rahmen von Stakeholder-Workshops Anpassungsherausforderungen und aktuelle Handlungsbedarfe in den Fallstudienstädten identifiziert und Lösungsansätze erarbeitet, die in der F+E-Phase entwickelt und getestet werden sollen. Neben Maßnahmen auf gesamtstädtischer Ebene und auf Stadtteilebene wurden Maßnahmen angestrebt, die die Risikowahrnehmung, Vorsorge und Selbsthilfefähigkeit von Unternehmen und Bevölkerung stärken können. Daher wurde der Stand der Risikokommunikation in Deutschland für das Projekt aufgearbeitet und eine erste Evaluation von Risikokommunikationswerkzeugen durchgeführt. Der Bericht endet mit einer Kurzfassung des Arbeitsprogramms 2018-2021.
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 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.
Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013
(2015)
Flood risk analyses are often estimated assuming the same flood intensity along the river reach under study, i.e. discharges are calculated for a number of return periods T, e.g. 10 or 100 years, at several streamflow gauges. T-year discharges are regionalised and then transferred into T-year water levels, inundated areas and impacts. This approach assumes that (1) flood scenarios are homogeneous throughout a river basin, and (2) the T-year damage corresponds to the T-year discharge. Using a reach at the river Rhine, this homogeneous approach is compared with an approach that is based on four flood types with different spatial discharge patterns. For each type, a regression model was created and used in a Monte-Carlo framework to derive heterogeneous scenarios. Per scenario, four cumulative impact indicators were calculated: (1) the total inundated area, (2) the exposed settlement and industrial areas, (3) the exposed population and 4) the potential building loss. Their frequency curves were used to establish a ranking of eight past flood events according to their severity. The investigation revealed that the two assumptions of the homogeneous approach do not hold. It tends to overestimate event probabilities in large areas. Therefore, the generation of heterogeneous scenarios should receive more attention.