90 M Kammerbauer and C Wamsler
difficult for 43 per cent and very difficult for 17 per cent. A majority of
respondents were overwhelmed by the application processes that were perceived as too bureaucratic. The complex wording and requirements proved
difficult to understand for many of the residents who had no higher education (47 possessed lower secondary education) or are migrants. Residents
generally received help from volunteers when applying for assistance or
other types of help. In Deggendorf, such help was particularly asked for
by seniors, individuals with health concerns or disabilities, residents with a
migration background, and renters who had been facing significant obstacles to their individual recovery. Beyond physical damage to structures and
property, health and psychological trauma were further impediments to
successful recovery and indicated the need for related assistance to support
sustainable risk reduction and adaptation.
Discussion
Private insurance can be an important governance mechanism to manage
the impacts of climate- and non-climate-related hazards, such as flooding.
It is an inherent part of both disaster risk management and climate adaptation approaches as it has the potential to reduce impacts and vulnerability
by enabling the prompt rehabilitation of damaged structures. In addition,
it can promote the creation of resilient structures, both before and after a
disaster occurs. However, since flood insurance coverage remains low in
Germany, flooding repeatedly results in the need for state and federal governments to step in and provide funding for rebuilding houses of uninsured
homeowners.
Our case study shows that vulnerability constitutes a major obstacle to
recovery, due to the lack of coordinated action within the given governance
configuration and the associated governmental and market actors, including insurance. The recovery in Deggendorf can be characterised as a return
to normal or a reconstruction according to the status quo by ‘rebuilding’
physical and social structures that contributed to the disaster in the first
place (Davis & Alexander 2016). The majority of homeowners decided
to stay in the area. They have rehabilitated their homes, built them anew
on the same site, or, to a lesser degree, have received replacement lots for
rebuilding. The few homeowners who decided to change existing structures
increased their resilience by raising structures or omitting residential uses
on the ground floor. In addition, the installation of new oil heaters is now
prohibited, but related oversight is limited. As a result, risks persist, and risk
reduction among residents has been heterogeneous and ad-hoc (Olshansky
& Chang 2009; Wamsler 2014; UNISDR 2015).
The recovery process in Deggendorf does not meet the requirements of
‘building back better’ (UNISDR 2015). Vulnerabilities continued to exist,
and comprehensive and long-term risk reduction was not achieved. Variables
of age, health, migration background, and access to financial resources or
difficult for 43 per cent and very difficult for 17 per cent. A majority of
respondents were overwhelmed by the application processes that were perceived as too bureaucratic. The complex wording and requirements proved
difficult to understand for many of the residents who had no higher education (47 possessed lower secondary education) or are migrants. Residents
generally received help from volunteers when applying for assistance or
other types of help. In Deggendorf, such help was particularly asked for
by seniors, individuals with health concerns or disabilities, residents with a
migration background, and renters who had been facing significant obstacles to their individual recovery. Beyond physical damage to structures and
property, health and psychological trauma were further impediments to
successful recovery and indicated the need for related assistance to support
sustainable risk reduction and adaptation.
Discussion
Private insurance can be an important governance mechanism to manage
the impacts of climate- and non-climate-related hazards, such as flooding.
It is an inherent part of both disaster risk management and climate adaptation approaches as it has the potential to reduce impacts and vulnerability
by enabling the prompt rehabilitation of damaged structures. In addition,
it can promote the creation of resilient structures, both before and after a
disaster occurs. However, since flood insurance coverage remains low in
Germany, flooding repeatedly results in the need for state and federal governments to step in and provide funding for rebuilding houses of uninsured
homeowners.
Our case study shows that vulnerability constitutes a major obstacle to
recovery, due to the lack of coordinated action within the given governance
configuration and the associated governmental and market actors, including insurance. The recovery in Deggendorf can be characterised as a return
to normal or a reconstruction according to the status quo by ‘rebuilding’
physical and social structures that contributed to the disaster in the first
place (Davis & Alexander 2016). The majority of homeowners decided
to stay in the area. They have rehabilitated their homes, built them anew
on the same site, or, to a lesser degree, have received replacement lots for
rebuilding. The few homeowners who decided to change existing structures
increased their resilience by raising structures or omitting residential uses
on the ground floor. In addition, the installation of new oil heaters is now
prohibited, but related oversight is limited. As a result, risks persist, and risk
reduction among residents has been heterogeneous and ad-hoc (Olshansky
& Chang 2009; Wamsler 2014; UNISDR 2015).
The recovery process in Deggendorf does not meet the requirements of
‘building back better’ (UNISDR 2015). Vulnerabilities continued to exist,
and comprehensive and long-term risk reduction was not achieved. Variables
of age, health, migration background, and access to financial resources or