86 M Kammerbauer and C Wamsler
addresses featured three or more family names within a multi-family residential structure. 20 per cent of addresses listed in the 2012/2013 address
book were no longer listed in the 2014/15 edition. The related buildings
were either demolished or vacant. In addition, another 20 per cent showed
strong fluctuation among residents.
The interview participants were also purposefully selected and in accordance with their role in the recovery phase. They included members of
governmental institutions, civil society, and the market. The interview data
were used for qualitative content analyses (Schnell et al. 2011; Flick 2012). In
an email follow-up, interviewees could comment on the preliminary results
and provide additional information on the current situation on-site. The
data collected from the survey, the spatial analysis, and the interviews were
triangulated in order to test their validity (Miles & Huberman 1994, p. 41).
The data show in detail who was impacted, what damages were incurred to
homes, who was insured, who received government assistance, and what the
implications are.
Flood hazards, policy, and governance mechanisms
In Germany, floods are recurrent natural hazards with a significant economic impact. The majority of damage is due to riverine floods, both in
the form of sudden flash floods or those impacting large river systems. This
applies to the three major river catchment areas: the Rhine and Weser in
the west, the Elbe and Oder in the east, and the Danube in the south. In the
case of the latter, snowmelt or summer cyclone events contribute to riverine
floods (Marx et al. 2017, pp. 9–10). These events are further exacerbated by
precipitation on saturated soil or strong rainfall along sealed surfaces with
low permeability, such as in urbanised areas with high degrees of coverage
(Bronstert et al. 2017; pp. 87–99).
Flood hazards play an important role in German hazard legislation. The
1957 Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) and its notable revisions –
following the 2002 floods and the European Floods Directive 2007/60/EC
(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union 2007; Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany 2009) – indicate an increasing importance of flood
adaptation for spatial planning. This reflects a shift of the concept of protection as a responsibility of the state towards managerial approaches
based on the individual responsibility of mitigating risks to private property. However, state institutions seldom incentivise such individual responsibility in the context of preventing or managing potential flood disasters
(Hartmann & Albrecht 2014, Thieken et al. 2016). Disaster management
(Katastrophenschutz) spans the entire cycle of planning and preparedness,
response, recovery, and reconstruction. In general, states receive support
from the federal government in the case that a disaster is triggered by a
natural and/or climate-related hazard. Since legislation lies with the states,
frameworks, institutions, organisations, and measures can differ between
addresses featured three or more family names within a multi-family residential structure. 20 per cent of addresses listed in the 2012/2013 address
book were no longer listed in the 2014/15 edition. The related buildings
were either demolished or vacant. In addition, another 20 per cent showed
strong fluctuation among residents.
The interview participants were also purposefully selected and in accordance with their role in the recovery phase. They included members of
governmental institutions, civil society, and the market. The interview data
were used for qualitative content analyses (Schnell et al. 2011; Flick 2012). In
an email follow-up, interviewees could comment on the preliminary results
and provide additional information on the current situation on-site. The
data collected from the survey, the spatial analysis, and the interviews were
triangulated in order to test their validity (Miles & Huberman 1994, p. 41).
The data show in detail who was impacted, what damages were incurred to
homes, who was insured, who received government assistance, and what the
implications are.
Flood hazards, policy, and governance mechanisms
In Germany, floods are recurrent natural hazards with a significant economic impact. The majority of damage is due to riverine floods, both in
the form of sudden flash floods or those impacting large river systems. This
applies to the three major river catchment areas: the Rhine and Weser in
the west, the Elbe and Oder in the east, and the Danube in the south. In the
case of the latter, snowmelt or summer cyclone events contribute to riverine
floods (Marx et al. 2017, pp. 9–10). These events are further exacerbated by
precipitation on saturated soil or strong rainfall along sealed surfaces with
low permeability, such as in urbanised areas with high degrees of coverage
(Bronstert et al. 2017; pp. 87–99).
Flood hazards play an important role in German hazard legislation. The
1957 Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) and its notable revisions –
following the 2002 floods and the European Floods Directive 2007/60/EC
(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union 2007; Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany 2009) – indicate an increasing importance of flood
adaptation for spatial planning. This reflects a shift of the concept of protection as a responsibility of the state towards managerial approaches
based on the individual responsibility of mitigating risks to private property. However, state institutions seldom incentivise such individual responsibility in the context of preventing or managing potential flood disasters
(Hartmann & Albrecht 2014, Thieken et al. 2016). Disaster management
(Katastrophenschutz) spans the entire cycle of planning and preparedness,
response, recovery, and reconstruction. In general, states receive support
from the federal government in the case that a disaster is triggered by a
natural and/or climate-related hazard. Since legislation lies with the states,
frameworks, institutions, organisations, and measures can differ between