Hochwasserrisikomanagement

Müller, Uwe

doi:10.1007/978-3-8348-9729-9

Cited by 26 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Retreat with reconstruction of damaged buildings at another location has only been performed in isolated cases since 2002, e.g., in Röderau-Süd, near Dresden (Müller 2010), which among other things could be ascribed to the high costs, which will as a rule only be taken on partly by insurances or public authorities (DKKV 2015). In future, the role of relocation in flood risk management should be clarified.…”

Section: Adapted Use Of Flood-prone Areasmentioning

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: Adapted Use Of Flood-prone Areasmentioning

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

“…For example, in the Dresden region in the Free State of Saxony, Germany, after the Elbe river flood in August 2002, dykes were rebuilt, new dykes and water retention basins constructed, to mention only some measures (for an overview see Müller 2013, DKKV 2015. Changes in 'material' assets were and are accompanied by intensive efforts to develop new management approaches at regional and local level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from and for rare floods in Dresden – how public officials interpret damage simulation results at the building type level

Hutter

Schinke

2016

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Public officials in Dresden are concerned about learning from and for rare flood events like the Elbe river flood in August 2002. This is interesting because research on individual as well as organizational learning from rare events indicates that this kind of learning faces significant difficulties (e.g., overestimation of rare events for decisionmaking based on "emotionalized event experience"). Up to now, only little is known what and how public officials in Dresden specifically learn from and for rare floods. Therefore, the paper follows an exploratory purpose in line with principles of qualitative social research. Firstly, the paper explores dealing with rare floods with reference to a conceptual framework that highlights relations between regulative, normative, and cognitive institutions on the one hand and learning of public officials on the other. Secondly, it adopts a single case study design in Dresden with embedded sub-cases that are defined with reference to organizations of FRM. The case study shows, among others, that regulations like the Floods Directive are important for justifying FRM with regard to rare flood events which is less obvious than it sounds. However, public officials display different interpretations of the term "rare flood event", for instance, in the context of analysing the consequences of floods on the building stock. Furthermore, the case study findings indicate that public officials may follow alternative approaches to sustain commitment in the context of rare flood events (systematic versus pragmatic approach).

show abstract

Promoting flood risk reduction: The role of insurance in Germany and England

Surminski

Thieken

2017

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving society's ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from flooding requires integrated, anticipatory flood risk management (FRM). However, most countries still focus their efforts on responding to flooding events if and when they occur rather than addressing their current and future vulnerability to flooding. Flood insurance is one mechanism that could promote a more ex ante approach to risk by supporting risk reduction activities. This paper uses an adapted version of Easton's System Theory to investigate the role of insurance for FRM in Germany and England. We introduce an anticipatory FRM framework, which allows flood insurance to be considered as part of a broader policy field. We analyze if and how flood insurance can catalyze a change toward a more anticipatory approach to FRM. In particular we consider insurance's role in influencing five key components of anticipatory FRM: risk knowledge, prevention through better planning, property‐level protection measures, structural protection and preparedness (for response). We find that in both countries FRM is still a reactive, event‐driven process, while anticipatory FRM remains underdeveloped. Collaboration between insurers and FRM decision‐makers has already been successful, for example in improving risk knowledge and awareness, while in other areas insurance acts as a disincentive for more risk reduction action. In both countries there is evidence that insurance can play a significant role in encouraging anticipatory FRM, but this remains underutilized. Effective collaboration between insurers and government should not be seen as a cost, but as an investment to secure future insurability through flood resilience.

show abstract

Hochwasserrisikomanagement

Cited by 26 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

Learning from and for rare floods in Dresden – how public officials interpret damage simulation results at the building type level

Promoting flood risk reduction: The role of insurance in Germany and England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About