Abstract. Building houses in inundation areas is always a risk, since absolute flood protection is impossible. Where settlements already exist, flood damage must be kept as small as possible. Suitable means are precautionary measures such as elevated building configuration or flood adapted use. However, data about the effects of such measures are rare, and consequently, the efficiency of different precautionary measures is unclear. To improve the knowledge about efficient precautionary measures, approximately 1200 private households, which were affected by the 2002 flood at the river Elbe and its tributaries, were interviewed about the flood damage of their buildings and contents as well as about their precautionary measures. The affected households had little flood experience, i.e. only 15% had experienced a flood before. 59% of the households stated that they did not know, that they live in a flood prone area. Thus, people were not well prepared, e.g. just 11% had used and furnished their house in a flood adapted way and only 6% had a flood adapted building structure. Building precautionary measures are mainly effective in areas with frequent small floods. But also during the extreme flood event in 2002 building measures reduced the flood loss. From the six different building precautionary measures under study, flood adapted use and adapted interior fitting were the most effective ones. They reduced the damage ratio for buildings by 46% and 53%, respectively. The damage ratio for contents was reduced by 48% due to flood adapted use and by 53% due to flood adapted interior fitting. The 2002 flood motivated a relatively large number of people to implement private precautionary measures, but still much more could be done. Hence, to further reduce flood losses, people's motivation to invest in precaution should be improved. More information campaigns and financial incentives should be issued to encourage precautionary measures.

21During the last decades several destructive floods in Germany led to the impression that 22 the frequency and/or magnitude of flooding has been increasing. In this study, flood 23 time series are derived and analyzed for trends for 145 discharge gauges in Germany. A 24 common time period of 52 years ) is used. In order to obtain a country-wide 25 picture, the gauges are rather homogeneously distributed across Germany. Eight flood 26 indicators are studied, which are drawn from annual maximum series and peak over 27 threshold series. Our analysis detects significant flood trends (at the 10% significance 28 level) for a considerable fraction of basins. In most cases, these trends are upward; 29 decreasing flood trends are rarely found and are not field-significant.

In Germany, flood insurance is provided by private insurers as a supplement to building or contents insurance. This article presents the results of a survey of insurance companies with regard to eligibility conditions for flood insurance changes after August 2002, when a severe flood caused 1.8 billion euro of insured losses in the Elbe and the Danube catchment areas, and the general role of insurance in flood risk management in Germany. Besides insurance coverage, governmental funding and public donations played an important role in loss compensation after the August 2002 flood. Therefore, this article also analyzes flood loss compensation, risk awareness, and mitigation in insured and uninsured private households. Insured households received loss compensation earlier. They also showed slightly better risk awareness and mitigation strategies. Appropriate incentives should be combined with flood insurance in order to strengthen future private flood loss mitigation. However, there is some evidence that the surveyed insurance companies do little to encourage precautionary measures. To overcome this problem, flood hazards and mitigation strategies should be better communicated to both insurance companies and property owners.

ABSTRACT. 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.