Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
- Other (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- August 2002 flood (3)
- Central Europe (3)
- ERA5 (3)
- Floods Directive (3)
- June 2013 flood (3)
- Turkey (3)
- flood hazards (3)
- governance (3)
- hierarchical clustering (3)
- pathway (3)
The most severe flood events in Turkey were determined for the period 1960–2014 by considering the number of fatalities, the number of affected people, and the total economic losses as indicators. The potential triggering mechanisms (i.e., atmospheric circulations and precipitation amounts) and aggravating pathways (i.e., topographic features, catchment size, land use types, and soil properties) of these 25 events were analyzed. On this basis, a new approach was developed to identify the main influencing factor per event and to provide additional information for determining the dominant flood occurrence pathways for severe floods. The events were then classified through hierarchical cluster analysis. As a result, six different clusters were found and characterized. Cluster 1 comprised flood events that were mainly influenced by drainage characteristics (e.g., catchment size and shape); Cluster 2 comprised events aggravated predominantly by urbanization; steep topography was identified to be the dominant factor for Cluster 3; extreme rainfall was determined as the main triggering factor for Cluster 4; saturated soil conditions were found to be the dominant factor for Cluster 5; and orographic effects of mountain ranges characterized Cluster 6. This study determined pathway patterns of the severe floods in Turkey with regard to their main causal or aggravating mechanisms. Accordingly, geomorphological properties are of major importance in large catchments in eastern and northeastern Anatolia. In addition, in small catchments, the share of urbanized area seems to be an important factor for the extent of flood impacts. This paper presents an outcome that could be used for future urban planning and flood risk prevention studies to understand the flood mechanisms in different regions of Turkey.
The most severe flood events in Turkey were determined for the period 1960-2014 by considering the number of fatalities, the number of affected people, and the total economic losses as indicators. The potential triggering mechanisms (i.e., atmospheric circulations and precipitation amounts) and aggravating pathways (i.e., topographic features, catchment size, land use types, and soil properties) of these 25 events were analyzed. On this basis, a new approach was developed to identify the main influencing factor per event and to provide additional information for determining the dominant flood occurrence pathways for severe floods. The events were then classified through hierarchical cluster analysis. As a result, six different clusters were found and characterized. Cluster 1 comprised flood events that were mainly influenced by drainage characteristics (e.g., catchment size and shape); Cluster 2 comprised events aggravated predominantly by urbanization; steep topography was identified to be the dominant factor for Cluster 3; extreme rainfall was determined as the main triggering factor for Cluster 4; saturated soil conditions were found to be the dominant factor for Cluster 5; and orographic effects of mountain ranges characterized Cluster 6. This study determined pathway patterns of the severe floods in Turkey with regard to their main causal or aggravating mechanisms. Accordingly, geomorphological properties are of major importance in large catchments in eastern and northeastern Anatolia. In addition, in small catchments, the share of urbanized area seems to be an important factor for the extent of flood impacts. This paper presents an outcome that could be used for future urban planning and flood risk prevention studies to understand the flood mechanisms in different regions of Turkey.
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.
The most severe flood events in Turkey were determined for the period 1960–2014 by considering the number of fatalities, the number of affected people, and the total economic losses as indicators. The potential triggering mechanisms (i.e., atmospheric circulations and precipitation amounts) and aggravating pathways (i.e., topographic features, catchment size, land use types, and soil properties) of these 25 events were analyzed. On this basis, a new approach was developed to identify the main influencing factor per event and to provide additional information for determining the dominant flood occurrence pathways for severe floods. The events were then classified through hierarchical cluster analysis. As a result, six different clusters were found and characterized. Cluster 1 comprised flood events that were mainly influenced by drainage characteristics (e.g., catchment size and shape); Cluster 2 comprised events aggravated predominantly by urbanization; steep topography was identified to be the dominant factor for Cluster 3; extreme rainfall was determined as the main triggering factor for Cluster 4; saturated soil conditions were found to be the dominant factor for Cluster 5; and orographic effects of mountain ranges characterized Cluster 6. This study determined pathway patterns of the severe floods in Turkey with regard to their main causal or aggravating mechanisms. Accordingly, geomorphological properties are of major importance in large catchments in eastern and northeastern Anatolia. In addition, in small catchments, the share of urbanized area seems to be an important factor for the extent of flood impacts. This paper presents an outcome that could be used for future urban planning and flood risk prevention studies to understand the flood mechanisms in different regions of Turkey.
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.
Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013
(2015)
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.