DOI: 10.4324/9781003157571-9
7 Flood insurance
A governance mechanism
for supporting equitable risk
reduction and adaptation?
Mark Kammerbauer and Christine Wamsler
Introduction
In Germany, increasing numbers and severity of flood events result in
significant economic losses. Flood insurance is considered an important
governance mechanism to reduce related long-term impacts, involving private market, governmental and civil society actors (Kammerbauer 2019).
However, whilst flood impacts are increasing and flood insurance is available to all homeowners, coverage is low. Why do such disparities persist
and how can they be addressed to reduce risks and to assist particularly
vulnerable populations? How effective is the current governance system for
managing and adapting to hazard and disaster impacts? How does it relate
to efforts to adapt to climate change? And what role can insurance play to
improve the current governance mechanisms for supporting equitable risk
reduction and adaptation?
We explore these questions based on a case study of the German city of
Deggendorf, which was strongly affected by the 2013 Danube flood. The
case shows that being insured against floods is no guarantee for citizens to
be able to ‘build back better.’ At the same time, it discloses different equity
issues related to flood insurance. In this book chapter, we explain this situation and the associated contradictions and complexities of the recovery
phase after the Danube flood. After introducing our case study context and
methods, we describe the flood governance system and policies in Germany
and how they interrelate with urban planning, climate change policies,
and flood insurance. The following results section shows how the Danube
flood played out in our case study: who was impacted and why, who had
insurance coverage and who not, and who could therefore benefit (or was
excluded) from financial governmental assistance to cover rebuilding costs.
The results indicate discrepancies between the concept of civil protection in
Germany and the EU-wide initiative for flood management with its emphasis on individual responsibility. In this context, insurance plays a counterproductive role as it has not led to the reduction of vulnerabilities of at-risk
communities. We conclude with recommendations on how to improve the
role of flood insurance for sustainable and equitable flood risk governance.
7 Flood insurance
A governance mechanism
for supporting equitable risk
reduction and adaptation?
Mark Kammerbauer and Christine Wamsler
Introduction
In Germany, increasing numbers and severity of flood events result in
significant economic losses. Flood insurance is considered an important
governance mechanism to reduce related long-term impacts, involving private market, governmental and civil society actors (Kammerbauer 2019).
However, whilst flood impacts are increasing and flood insurance is available to all homeowners, coverage is low. Why do such disparities persist
and how can they be addressed to reduce risks and to assist particularly
vulnerable populations? How effective is the current governance system for
managing and adapting to hazard and disaster impacts? How does it relate
to efforts to adapt to climate change? And what role can insurance play to
improve the current governance mechanisms for supporting equitable risk
reduction and adaptation?
We explore these questions based on a case study of the German city of
Deggendorf, which was strongly affected by the 2013 Danube flood. The
case shows that being insured against floods is no guarantee for citizens to
be able to ‘build back better.’ At the same time, it discloses different equity
issues related to flood insurance. In this book chapter, we explain this situation and the associated contradictions and complexities of the recovery
phase after the Danube flood. After introducing our case study context and
methods, we describe the flood governance system and policies in Germany
and how they interrelate with urban planning, climate change policies,
and flood insurance. The following results section shows how the Danube
flood played out in our case study: who was impacted and why, who had
insurance coverage and who not, and who could therefore benefit (or was
excluded) from financial governmental assistance to cover rebuilding costs.
The results indicate discrepancies between the concept of civil protection in
Germany and the EU-wide initiative for flood management with its emphasis on individual responsibility. In this context, insurance plays a counterproductive role as it has not led to the reduction of vulnerabilities of at-risk
communities. We conclude with recommendations on how to improve the
role of flood insurance for sustainable and equitable flood risk governance.