From Flood Protection to Flood Risk Management: Condition-Based and Performance-Based Regulations in German Water Law

Hartmann, Thomas; Albrecht, Juliane

doi:10.1093/jel/equ015

Cited by 39 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Particularly, the German Flood Protection Act of 2005 (Artikelgesetz zur Verbesserung des vorbeugenden Hochwasserschutzes) and the European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC; EC 2007) introduced important changes in the German Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz). This marked a further shift from a purely technically oriented flood defense toward a more integrated flood risk management system that also considers nonstructural measures to minimize adverse effects of flooding (Hartmann and Albrecht 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013

Thieken¹,

Kienzler²,

Kreibich³

et al. 2016

E&S

147

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013

Thieken¹,

Kienzler²,

Kreibich³

et al. 2016

E&S

147

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The permitting processes in England, France, and Sweden thus denote flexibility and adaptability elements in the form of integrative assessments and performance-based rules (see Ebbesson 2010, Hartmann andAlbrecht 2014). Performancebased rules entail that the actual boundaries for the activity are set by the conditions of the permit, which also favors subsidiarity.…”

Section: The Regulatory Framework For Flood Defense Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This literature often focuses on legal adaptation for water quality or water supply. There are few examples of comprehensive studies on adaptation in national water laws in relation to increasing flood risks (see, e.g., Godden and Kung 2011, Hartmann and Albrecht 2014, Gilissen 2015. Our intention is to contribute to this scientific area by exploring the legal rules governing flood defense in several countries and by providing insights on the manner in which these enhance or hamper adaptive governance; this is in line with identified needs for further research (see Ebbesson andHey 2013, Chaffin et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries

Goytia¹,

Pettersson²,

Schellenberger³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Whereas existing literature on the interactions among law, adaptive governance, and resilience in the water sector often focuses on quality or supply issues, this paper addresses adaptation in national water laws in relation to increasing flood risks. In particular, this paper analyzes the extent to which legal rules governing flood defense infrastructure in a selection of European countries (England, France, Sweden, and The Netherlands) allow for response and adaptation to change and uncertainty. Although there is evidence that the legal rules on the development of new infrastructure require that changing conditions be considered, the adaptation of existing infrastructure is a more complicated matter. Liability rules fail to adequately address damages resulting from causes external to the action or inaction of owners and managers, in particular extreme events. A trend toward clearer, and in some cases, increased public powers to ensure the safety of flood defense infrastructure is observed. The paper concludes that legal rules should ensure not only that decisions to build flood defenses are based on holistic and future-oriented assessments, but also that this is reflected in the implementation and operation of these structures.

show abstract

“…Pursuant to the directive, each Member State of the European Union must adopt appropriate plans regarding flood risk management. These actions, indeed, marked a new approach regarding flood risk mitigation [HARTMANN, ALBRECHT 2014].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodology for flood risk appraisal in Lithuania

Kriščiukaitienė¹,

Baležentis²,

Galnaitytė³

et al. 2015

Journal of Water and Land Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a methodology for flood risk mapping as envisaged by the Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks [Directive 2007/60/EC]. Specifically, we aimed at identifying the types of flood damage that can be estimated given data availability in Lithuania. Furthermore, we present the main sources of data and the associated cost functions. The methodology covers the following main types of flood threats: risk to inhabitants, risk to economic activity, and social risk. A multi-criteria framework for aggregation of different risks is proposed to provide a comprehensive appraisal of flood risk. On the basis of the proposed research, flood risk maps have been prepared for Lithuania. These maps are available for each type of flood risk (i.e. inhabitants, economic losses, social risk) as well as for aggregate risk. The results indicate that flood risk management is crucial for western and central Lithuania, whereas other parts of the country are not likely to suffer from significant losses due to flooding.

show abstract

From Flood Protection to Flood Risk Management: Condition-Based and Performance-Based Regulations in German Water Law

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013

Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013

Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries

A methodology for flood risk appraisal in Lithuania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About