Advertisement

Contributions of Flood Insurance to Enhance Resilience–Findings from Germany

  • Annegret H. ThiekenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

In 2002, a severe flood caused financial losses of EUR 11.6 billion in Germany and triggered many changes in flood risk management. This chapter focuses on flood insurance, which is a voluntary supplementary insurance in Germany: it is explored how flood insurance has contributed to enhance resilience of flood-prone residents. The analyses are based on empirical data collected by post-event surveys in the federal states of Saxony and Bavaria and refer to the three pillars upon which the concept of flood resilience usually builds in the natural hazards context: recovery, adaptive capacity and resistance. Overall, the penetration of flood insurance has increased since 2002 and there is strong empirical evidence that losses of insured residents are more often and better compensated than those of uninsured despite the provision of governmental financial disaster assistance after big floods. This facilitation of recovery is, however, not the only contribution to flood resilience. Insured residents tend to invest more in further flood mitigation measures at their properties than uninsured. Obviously, flood insurance is embedded in a complex safety strategy of property owners that needs more investigation in order to be addressed more effectively in risk communication and integrated risk management strategies.

Keywords

Flood losses Recovery Climate change adaptation Saxony Bavaria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The presented work was mainly developed within the framework of the project “Coping with the flood in June 2013” funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; funding contract no. 13N13017). The survey data used were collected by a joint venture between the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, the Deutsche Rückversicherung AG, Düsseldorf, and the University of Potsdam. Besides own resources of the partners, additional funds were provided by BMBF in the framework of the following research projects: DFNK no. 01SFR9969/5, MEDIS no. 0330688, and Flood 2013 no. 13N13017.

References

  1. Bubeck P, Botzen WJW, Kreibich H, Aerts JCJH (2012) Long-term development and effectiveness of private flood mitigation measures: an analysis for the German part of the river Rhine. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:3507–3518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dovers SR, Handmer JW (1992) Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Glob Environ Change 2(4):262–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EC (2013) Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters (Communication No. COM (2013) 213 final). European Commission, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  4. Füssel H-M, Klein R (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. GDV (2016) Naturgefahrenreport 2016. GDV, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards 38(1/2):101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jongman B, Hochrainer-Stigler S, Feyen L, Aerts JCJH, Mechler R, Botzen WJW, Bouwer LM, Pflug G, Rojas R, Ward PJ (2014) Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large floods. Nat Clim Change 4:264–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kienholz H, Krummenacher B, Kipfer A, Perret S (2004) Aspects of integral risk management in practice. In: Considerations with respect to mountain hazards in switzerland. Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 56(3–4):43–50Google Scholar
  9. Kienzler S, Pech I, Kreibich H, Müller M, Thieken AH (2015) After the extreme flood in 2002: changes in preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany between 2005 and 2011. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:505–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla FT (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is the concept? Environ Hazards 5:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maccaferri S, Cariboni, F, Campolongo F (2011) Natural catastrophes: risk relevance and insurance coverage in the EU. JRC scientific and technical reports, EUR 25013 EN—2011Google Scholar
  12. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkov I (2013) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33(3):356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rözer V, Müller M, Bubeck P, Kienzler S, Thieken A, Pech I, Schröter K, Buchholz O, Kreibich H (2016) Coping with pluvial floods by private households. Water 8(7):304. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8070304
  14. Samuels PG, Morris MW, Sayers P, Creutin J-D, Kortenhaus A, Klijn F, Mosselman E, van Os A, Schanze J (2009) Advances in flood risk management from the FLOOD site project. In: Flood risk management: research and practice. Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48507-4, pp. 433–443Google Scholar
  15. Schwarze R, Wagner GG (2004) In the aftermath of Dresden: new directions in german flood insurance. Geneva papers on risk and insurance—issues and practise, 29(2):154–168Google Scholar
  16. Thieken AH, Bessel T, Kienzler S, Kreibich H, Müller M, Pisi S, Schröter K (2016a) The flood of June 2013 in Germany: how much do we know about its impacts? Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16:1519–1540. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1519-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thieken AH, Kienzler S, Kreibich H, Kuhlicke C, Kunz M, Mühr B, Müller M, Otto A, Petrow T, Pisi S, Schröter K (2016b) Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013. Ecol Soc 21(2):51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thieken AH, Kreibich H, Müller M, Merz B (2007) Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002. Hydrol Sci J 52(5):1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thieken AH, Mariani S, Longfield S, Vanneuville W (2014) Preface: Flood resilient communities—managing the consequences of flooding. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:33–39. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-33-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thieken AH, Müller M, Kreibich H, Merz B (2005) Flood damage and influencing factors: new insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany. Water Resour Res 41(12):W12430. https://doi.org/101029/2005WR004177
  21. Thieken AH, Pech I (2015) Risikovorsorge und Wiederaufbau. In: DKKV (ed) Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013: Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland. DKKV-Schriftenreihe Nr. 53, Bonn, Kap. 8, S. 170–183Google Scholar
  22. Thieken AH, Petrow T, Kreibich H, Merz B (2006) Insurability and mitigation of flood losses in private households in Germany. Risk Anal 26(2):383–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00741.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Earth and Environmental ScienceUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations