Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and businesses in Germany

被引:137
作者
Kreibich, Heidi [1 ]
Seifert, Isabel [2 ]
Thieken, Annegret H. [3 ]
Lindquist, Eric [4 ]
Wagner, Klaus [5 ]
Merz, Bruno [1 ]
机构
[1] Helmholtz Ctr Potsdam Germany Res Ctr Geosci GFZ, Sect Hydrol 5 4, D-14473 Potsdam, Germany
[2] Norwegian Inst Water Res NIVA, Sect Climate & Environm Modelling, Oslo, Norway
[3] Leopold Franzens Univ Innsbruck, Ctr Nat Hazard & Risk Management, AlpS, Innsbruck, Austria
[4] Texas A&M Univ, Inst Sci Technol & Publ Policy, College Stn, TX USA
[5] Tech Univ Munich, Chair Forest & Environm Policy, D-8050 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
关键词
Emergency measures; Flood management; Focusing event; Learning; Precautionary measures; EXTREME EVENTS; CLIMATE-CHANGE; ELBE FLOOD; RISK; MITIGATION; PERCEPTIONS; UNCERTAINTY; RESIDENTS; PEOPLE; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1007/s10113-010-0119-3
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Using the focusing event framework, a comprehensive analysis of private households' and businesses' preparedness was undertaken in the aftermath of the 2002 and 2006 flood events on the Elbe River in Germany. In August 2002, preparedness of households (n = 235) and businesses (n = 103) was low: 30% of the households and 54% of the businesses took no precautionary measures before the flood event. Many undertaken emergency measures were ineffective, since only 26% of all households knew how to react when the flood warning came, and only 9% of businesses had an emergency plan in place. Due to this extreme flood, double-loop learning occurred in many households and businesses, so that many did implement precautionary measures. The distribution of adopted precautionary measures for households fits well to Preisendorfer's low-cost hypothesis, but does not apply for businesses. Only 10% of the households (n = 112), but still 29% of the businesses (n = 41) were unprepared before the flood in 2006. Significant improvement in flood preparedness activities is still necessary. Particularly for businesses, regulatory programs and programs encouraging proactive behaviour should be implemented. The focusing event framework proofed to be a useful tool for a differentiated analysis of the responses to and learning due to a disaster also in the commercial and private sector.
引用
收藏
页码:59 / 71
页数:13
相关论文
共 66 条
[21]   Perceptions of flood risk: A case study of the Red River flood of 1997 [J].
Burn, DH .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 1999, 35 (11) :3451-3458
[22]   Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: An assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations [J].
Dankers, Rutger ;
Feyen, Luc .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2008, 113 (D19)
[23]  
[DKKV Deutsches Komitee fur Katastrophenvorsorge], 2003, SCHRIFT DKKV, V29
[24]   The flood event 2002 in the Elbe river basin causes of the flood, its course, statistical assessment and flood damages [J].
Engel, H .
HOUILLE BLANCHE-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE L EAU, 2004, (06) :33-+
[25]   People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not [J].
Grothmann, T ;
Reusswig, F .
NATURAL HAZARDS, 2006, 38 (1-2) :101-120
[26]   Evaluation of flood hazard maps in print and web mapping services as information tools in flood risk communication [J].
Hagemeier-Klose, M. ;
Wagner, K. .
NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2009, 9 (02) :563-574
[27]   National-scale assessment of current and future flood risk in England and Wales [J].
Hall, JW ;
Sayers, PB ;
Dawson, RJ .
NATURAL HAZARDS, 2005, 36 (1-2) :147-164
[28]   Interdisciplinary planning of nonstructural flood hazard mitigation [J].
Hayes, BD .
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT-ASCE, 2004, 130 (01) :15-25
[29]  
Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (IKSE), 2004, DOK HOCHW AUG 2002 E
[30]  
ISDR, 2004, TERM BAS TERMS DIS R