Contributions of Flood Insurance to Enhance Resilience–Findings from Germany
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.
KeywordsFlood losses Recovery Climate change adaptation Saxony Bavaria
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.
- EC (2013) Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters (Communication No. COM (2013) 213 final). European Commission, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- GDV (2016) Naturgefahrenreport 2016. GDV, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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