Refine
Year of publication
Language
- English (37) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (37) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (5)
- damage (4)
- governance (4)
- preparedness (4)
- August 2002 flood (3)
- Central Europe (3)
- Floods Directive (3)
- June 2013 flood (3)
- frequency analysis (3)
- insurance (3)
Institute
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (37) (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.
Models for the predictions of monetary losses from floods mainly blend data deemed to represent a single flood type and region. Moreover, these approaches largely ignore indicators of preparedness and how predictors may vary between regions and events, challenging the transferability of flood loss models. We use a flood loss database of 1812 German flood-affected households to explore how Bayesian multilevel models can estimate normalised flood damage stratified by event, region, or flood process type. Multilevel models acknowledge natural groups in the data and allow each group to learn from others. We obtain posterior estimates that differ between flood types, with credibly varying influences of water depth, contamination, duration, implementation of property-level precautionary measures, insurance, and previous flood experience; these influences overlap across most events or regions, however. We infer that the underlying damaging processes of distinct flood types deserve further attention. Each reported flood loss and affected region involved mixed flood types, likely explaining the uncertainty in the coefficients. Our results emphasise the need to consider flood types as an important step towards applying flood loss models elsewhere. We argue that failing to do so may unduly generalise the model and systematically bias loss estimations from empirical data.
Models for the predictions of monetary losses from floods mainly blend data deemed to represent a single flood type and region. Moreover, these approaches largely ignore indicators of preparedness and how predictors may vary between regions and events, challenging the transferability of flood loss models. We use a flood loss database of 1812 German flood-affected households to explore how Bayesian multilevel models can estimate normalised flood damage stratified by event, region, or flood process type. Multilevel models acknowledge natural groups in the data and allow each group to learn from others. We obtain posterior estimates that differ between flood types, with credibly varying influences of water depth, contamination, duration, implementation of property-level precautionary measures, insurance, and previous flood experience; these influences overlap across most events or regions, however. We infer that the underlying damaging processes of distinct flood types deserve further attention. Each reported flood loss and affected region involved mixed flood types, likely explaining the uncertainty in the coefficients. Our results emphasise the need to consider flood types as an important step towards applying flood loss models elsewhere. We argue that failing to do so may unduly generalise the model and systematically bias loss estimations from empirical data.
Flood loss data collection and modeling are not standardized, and previous work has indicated that losses from different flood types (e.g., riverine and groundwater) may follow different driving forces. However, different flood types may occur within a single flood event, which is known as a compound flood event. Therefore, we aimed to identify statistical similarities between loss-driving factors across flood types and test whether the corresponding losses should be modeled separately. In this study, we used empirical data from 4,418 respondents from four survey campaigns studying households in Germany that experienced flooding. These surveys sought to investigate several features of the impact process (hazard, socioeconomic, preparedness, and building characteristics, as well as flood type). While the level of most of these features differed across flood type subsamples (e.g., degree of preparedness), they did so in a nonregular pattern. A variable selection process indicates that besides hazard and building characteristics, information on property-level preparedness was also selected as a relevant predictor of the loss ratio. These variables represent information, which is rarely adopted in loss modeling. Models shall be refined with further data collection and other statistical methods. To save costs, data collection efforts should be steered toward the most relevant predictors to enhance data availability and increase the statistical power of results. Understanding that losses from different flood types are driven by different factors is a crucial step toward targeted data collection and model development and will finally clarify conditions that allow us to transfer loss models in space and time. <br /> Key Points <br /> Survey data of flood-affected households show different concurrent flood types, undermining the use of a single-flood-type loss model Thirteen variables addressing flood hazard, the building, and property level preparedness are significant predictors of the building loss ratio Flood type-specific models show varying significance across the predictor variables, indicating a hindrance to model transferability
The heavy rainfall events in recent years have caused great damage, which has increased the public awareness of the topic of heavy rainfall. For this reason, this article discusses how a systematic integration of heavy rainfall within the framework of the European Floods Directive would be possible and reasonable. For this purpose, a matrix covering possible synergies and barriers was created for all steps of the directive, which were then examined in 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives from specialized administration, the private sector and academia. Although there are some synergies, the additional effort required, especially regarding the identification of the risk areas and the higher level of detail required for risk modeling, would be so high that the European Floods Directive cannot be deemed to be an appropriate framework for heavy rainfall risk management. Nevertheless, there is a need for action, e.g. in the field of self-protection, improved risk communication to the population, combined with increased public and interagency cooperation.
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.
Protection motivation theory (PMT) has become a popular theory to explain the risk-reducing behavior of residents against natural hazards. PMT captures the two main cognitive processes that individuals undergo when faced with a threat, namely, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. The latter describes the evaluation of possible response measures that may reduce or avert the perceived threat. Although the coping appraisal component of PMT was found to be a better predictor of protective intentions and behavior, little is known about the factors that influence individuals’ coping appraisals of natural hazards. More insight into flood-coping appraisals of PMT, therefore, are needed to better understand the decision-making process of individuals and to develop effective risk communication strategies. This study presents the results of two surveys among more than 1,600 flood-prone households in Germany and France. Five hypotheses were tested using multivariate statistics regarding factors related to flood-coping appraisals, which were derived from the PMT framework, related literature, and the literature on social vulnerability. We found that socioeconomic characteristics alone are not sufficient to explain flood-coping appraisals. Particularly, observational learning from the social environment, such as friends and neighbors, is positively related to flood-coping appraisals. This suggests that social norms and networks play an important role in flood-preparedness decisions. Providing risk and coping information can also have a positive effect. Given the strong positive influence of the social environment on flood-coping appraisals, future research should investigate how risk communication can be enhanced by making use of the observed social norms and network effects.
As one of the 195 member countries of the United Nations, Germany signed the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR). Among other targets, the SFDRR aims at reducing direct economic losses caused by natural hazards by 2030. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) has hence proposed a methodology for estimating direct economic losses per event and country, based on experiences from developing countries. Since its usability in industrialized countries is unknown, this study presents the first implementation and validation of this approach in Germany. The methodology was tested for the three costliest natural hazard types in Germany, i.e. floods, wind and hail storms, considering 12 case studies between 1984 and 2016. Although the event-specific input data requirements are restricted to the number of damaged or destroyed units per sector, incomplete event documentations did not allow a full validation of all sectors necessary to describe the total direct economic loss. New modules (cars, forestry, paved roads, housing contents and overall costs of urban infrastructure) were developed to better adapt this methodology to German conditions. Whereas the original UNISDR methodology both over-and underestimates the losses of the tested events by a wide margin, the adapted methodology is able to calculate losses accounting well for all event types except for flash floods. Hence, this approach serves as a good starting point for macro-scale loss estimations. By implementing this approach into damage and event documentation and reporting standards, a consistent monitoring of the SFDRR could be achieved.
Flood damage can be mitigated if the parties at risk are reached by flood warnings and if they know how to react appropriately. To gain more knowledge about warning reception and emergency response of private households and companies, surveys were undertaken after the August 2002 and the June 2013 floods in Germany. Despite pronounced regional differences, the results show a clear overall picture: in 2002, early warnings did not work well; e.g. many households (27 %) and companies (45 %) stated that they had not received any flood warnings. Additionally, the preparedness of private households and companies was low in 2002, mainly due to a lack of flood experience. After the 2002 flood, many initiatives were launched and investments undertaken to improve flood risk management, including early warnings and an emergency response in Germany. In 2013, only a small share of the affected households (5 %) and companies (3 %) were not reached by any warnings. Additionally, private households and companies were better prepared. For instance, the share of companies which have an emergency plan in place has increased from 10% in 2002 to 34% in 2013. However, there is still room for improvement, which needs to be triggered mainly by effective risk and emergency communication. The challenge is to continuously maintain and advance an integrated early warning and emergency response system even without the occurrence of extreme floods.
Research suggests that providing weather forecast end users with additional information about the forecast uncertainty of a possible event can enhance the preparation of mitigation measures. But not all users have the same threshold for taking action. This paper focuses on the question of whether there are influencing factors that determine decision thresholds for numerical weather forecast information beginning at which the general public would start to take protective action. In spring 2014, 1342 residents of Berlin, Germany participated in a survey. Questions related to the following topics: perception of and prior experience with severe weather, trustworthiness of forecasters and confidence in weather forecasts, and sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Within the questionnaire a scenario was created in order to determine individual decision thresholds and see whether subgroups of the sample lead to different thresholds.