Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events

Natural Hazards and Earth System Science

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 1033-1046

  Merz, B ^a   Elmer, F ^a   Thieken, A H ^b  

^a GFZ GERMAN RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GEOSCIENCES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLOOD CONTROL; FLOOD DAMAGE; MITIGATION; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

GERMANY;

EID: 74049108822     PISSN: 15618633     EISSN: 16849981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-9-1033-2009     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abrahamsson, M. and Johansson, H.: Risk preferences regarding multiple fatalities and some implications for societal risk decision making - an empirical study, Journal of Risk Research, 9(7), 703-715, 2006.
2. Asbeck, E. L. and Haimes, Y. Y.: The partitioned multiobjective risk method (PMRM), Large Scale Syst., 6(1), 13-38, 1984.
3. BABS: Katastrophen und Notlagen in der Schweiz (KATARISK). Eine Risikobeurteilung aus der Sicht des Bevölkerungsschutzes, Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz (BABS), 83 pp., 2003.
4. Bates, P. D. and de Roo, A. P. J.: A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation, J. Hydrol., 236(1-2), 54-77, 2000.
5. Bohnenblust, H. and Slovic, P.: Integrating technical analysis and public values in risk-based decision making, Reliab. ENG. SYST. Safe., 59, 151-159, 1998.
6. Briem, E.: Gewässerlandschaften der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ATV-DVWK-Arbeitsbericht, 2003.
7. Bründl, M. (Ed.): Risikokonzept für Naturgefahren - Leitfaden. Testversion Februar 2009, Nationale Plattform für Naturgefahren (PLANAT), Bern, 420 pp., 2009.
8. Burby, R. J.: Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 171-191, 2006.
9. BUWAL: Praxishilfe. Kosten-Wirksamkeit von Lawinenschutz-Massnahmen an Verkehrsachsen, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern, 1999.
10. Dawson, R. and Hall, J.: Performance-based management of flood defence systems, Water Management, Issue WMI, 157, 35-44, 2004.
11. Eckstein, O.: Water resource development: the economics of project evaluation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 110-159, 1958.
12. Grothmann, T. and Reusswig, F.: People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not, Nat. Hazards, 38(1-2), 101-120, 2006.
13. Grünthal, G., Thieken, A. H., Schwarz, J., Radtke, K., Smolka, A., and Merz, B.: Comparative risk assessment for the city of Cologne, Germany - storms, floods, earthquakes, Nat. Hazards, 38(1-2), 21-44, 2006.
14. Haimes, Y. Y.: Risk modelling, assessment and management, John Wiley, New York, 1998.
15. Hergarten, S.: Aspects of risk assessment in power-law distributed natural hazards, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 309-313, 2004, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/4/309/2004/.
16. Hubert, P., Barny, M. N., and Moatti, J. P.: Elicitation of decisionmakers' preferences for management of major hazards, Risk Anal., 11(2), 199-206, 1991.
17. Jonkman, S. N. and Kelman, I.: An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths, Disasters, 29(1), 75-97, 2005.
18. Karlsson, P.-O. and Haimes, Y. Y.: Risk-based analysis of extreme events, Water Resour. Res., 24(1), 9-20, 1988.
19. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., and Ratick, S.: The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework, Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187, 1988.
20. Kleist, L., Thieken, A. H., Köhler, P., Müller, M., Seifert, I., Borst, D., and Werner, U.: Estimation of the regional stock of residential buildings as a basis for a comparative risk assessment in Germany, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 541-552, 2006, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/6/ 541/2006/.
21. Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. H., Petrow, Th., Müller, M., and Merz, B.: Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures - lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 117-126, 2005, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/5/ 117/2005/.
22. Lustig, T. L., Handmer, J. W., and Smith, D. I.: The Sydney Floods of 1986: Warnings, Damages, Policy and the Future, Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Canberra, 1988.
23. McMasters, S.: The influence of structural flood control structures on the level of development in Midwestern Floodplains, Master thesis, 1996.
24. Mechler, R.: Natural disaster risk management and financing disaster losses in developing countries, Verlag für Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe, 2004.
25. Merz, B.: Hochwasserrisiken. Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Risikoabschätzung, E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, 334 pp., 2006.
26. Merz, B. and Gocht, M.: Risikoanalyse Seckach/Kirnau, Teil II: Ermittlung von Schadenspotentialen. Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse, Unpublished report, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, 87 pp., 2001.
27. Merz, B. and Thieken, A. H.: Flood risk curves and uncertainty bounds, Nat. Hazards, submitted, 2009.
28. Olschewski, A.: Abschätzung von Hochwasserschäden an Wohngebäuden - ein Modellvergleich, Diploma thesis, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 109 pp., 2007.
29. Parker, D., Tapsell, S., and McCarthy, S.: Enhancing the human benefits of flood warnings, Nat. Hazards, 43, 397-414, 2007.
30. Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Green, C.: Enhanced appraisal of flood alleviation benefits, in: Floods, Routledge Hazards and Disasters Series, edited by: Parker, D. J., London and New York, 214-237, 2000.
31. Petrow, T., Thieken, A. H., Kreibich, H., Merz, B., and Bahlburg, C. H.: Improvements on flood alleviation in Germany: Lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002, Environ. Manage., 38(5), 717-732, doi:10.1007/s00267-005- 6291-4, 2006.
32. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., and Gibson, R.: Risk perception, in: Royal Society Study Group Risk: Analysis Perception and Management, Royal Society, London, 89-134, 1992.
33. PLANAT: Strategie Naturgefahren Schweiz, Synthesebericht, Nationale Plattform Naturgefahren (PLANAT), Bern, 88 pp., 2005.
34. PLANAT: Risikoaversion. Entwicklung systematischer Instrumente zur Risiko- bzw. Sicherheitsbeurteilung bei naturbedingten und technischen Risiken. Phase 1: Darstellung und Analyse heute verwendeter Ansätze, Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz (BABS), Nationale Plattform Naturgefahren (PLANAT), Bern, 2007.
35. Plattner, Th., Plapp, T., and Hebel, B.: Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 471-483, 2006, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/6/471/2006/.
36. Queensland Government: Disaster loss assessment guidelines, State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia, 127 pp., 2002.
37. Renn, O.: The role of risk perception for risk management, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 59, 49-62, 1998.
38. Rose, A., Porter, K., Dash, N., Bouabid, J., Huyck, C., Whitehead, J. C., Shaw, D., Eguchi, R. T., Taylor, C., McLane, T. R., Tobin, L. T., and Ganderton, P. T.: Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants, Nat. Hazards Rev., 8(4), 97-111, 2007.
39. SAB (Saxon Relief Bank): Fördermitteldatenbank Hochwasser 2002, data as of 2004.
40. Sayers, P. B., Hall, J. W., and Meadowcroft, I. C.: Towards riskbased flood hazard management in the UK, Civil Eng., 150(5), 36-42, 2002.
41. Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H.: Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood, Risk Anal., 28(3), 771-778, 2008.
42. Slovic, P.: Perception of Risk, Science, 236, 280-285, 1987.
43. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischhoff, B.: Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents, Manage. Sci., 30(4), 464-474, 1984.
44. Slovic, P. and Weber, E. U.: Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Paper prepared for discussion at the conference "Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World", Palisades, New York, 12-13 April, 2002.
45. Tapsell, S. M. and Tunstall, S. M.: The health and social effects of the June 2000 flooding in the north east region: report to the Environment Agency, Enfield, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, 2001.
46. Thieken, A. H., Kreibich, H., Müller, M., and Merz, B.: Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of floodaffected residents in Germany in 2002, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52(5), 1016-1037, 2007.
47. Thieken, A. H., Müller, M., Kleist, L., Seifert, I., Borst, D., and Werner, U.: Regionalisation of asset values for risk analyses, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 167-178, 2006, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/6/ 167/2006/.
48. Thieken, A. H., Olschewski, A., Kreibich, H., Kobsch, S., and Merz, B.: Development and evaluation of FLEMOps - a new Flood Loss Estimation Model for the private sector, Flood Recovery, Innovation and Response, 118, 315-324, 2008.
49. Tobin, G. A.: The levee love affair: A stormy relationship, Water Resour. Bull., 31, 359-367, 1995.
50. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority): An economic evaluation of proposed flood protection plans on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Report prepared for The Rock Island District, 2004.
51. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Reactor safety study. An assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants, WASH 1400 NUREG-75/014, The Commission, Washington DC, 1975.
52. van Manem, S. E. and Brinkhuis, M.: Pilot case flood risk, in: Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, edited by: Der Kiureghian, A., Madanat, S., and Pestana, J. M., Millpress, Rotterdam, 881-887, 2003.
53. Vis, M., Klijn, F., de Bruijn, K., van Buuren, M.: Resilience strategies for flood risk management in the Netherlands, Intl. J. River Basin Management, 1(1), 33-40, 2003.
54. Weber, E. U. and Milliman, R.: Perceived risk attitudes. Relating risk perception to risky choice, Manage. Sci., 43, 122-143, 1997.