Environ Manage (2006) 38:717–732
DOI 10.1007/s00267-005-6291-4
Improvements on Flood Alleviation in Germany: Lessons
Learned from the Elbe Flood in August 2002
Theresia Petrow Æ Annegret H. Thieken Æ
Heidi Kreibich Æ Cord Heinrich Bahlburg Æ
Bruno Merz
Received: 9 September 2005 / Accepted: 17 February 2006
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract The increase in damage due to natural dis-
asters is directly related to the number of people who
live and work in hazardous areas and continuously
accumulate assets. Therefore, land use planning au-
thorities have to manage effectively the establishment
and development of settlements in flood-prone areas in
order to avoid the further increase of vulnerable assets.
Germany faced major destruction during the flood in
August 2002 in the Elbe and Danube catchments, and
many changes have been suggested in the existing
German water and planning regulations. This article
presents some findings of a ‘‘Lessons Learned’’ study
that was carried out in the aftermath of the flood and
discusses the following topics: 1) the establishment of
comprehensive hazard maps and flood protection
concepts, 2) the harmonization of regulations of flood
protection at the federal level, 3) the communication of
the flood hazard and awareness strategies, and 4) how
damage potential can be minimized through measures
of area precaution such as resettlement and risk-
adapted land use. Although attempts towards a coor-
dinated and harmonized creation of flood hazard maps
and concepts have been made, there is still no uniform
strategy at all planning levels and for all states
T. Petrow (&) Æ A. H. Thieken Æ H. Kreibich Æ B. Merz
Section Engineering Hydrology
GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam
Telegrafenberg 14473 Potsdam, Germany
E-mail: thpetrow@gfz-potsdam.de
C. H. Bahlburg
Landesplanung & Landeskunde
Wundtstr. 20
14059 Berlin, Germany
(Laender) of the Federal Republic of Germany. The
development and communication of possible mitiga-
tion strategies for ‘‘unthinkable extreme events’’ be-
yond the common safety level of a 100-year flood are
needed. In order to establish a sustainable and inte-
grated flood risk management, interdisciplinary and
catchment-based approaches are needed.
Keywords Spatial planning Æ Hazard maps Æ Risk
communication Æ Flood protection concepts Æ Elbe
Introduction
Historically, people often settled along rivers because
flood plains provide fertile farmland, resources for
economic development and drinking water, and they
act as corridors for transport (Smith and Ward 1998).
According to Borchert (1992), settlements with more
than 5000 inhabitants are located twice as often along
rivers than within the total area of Germany. However,
settlements may experience high damage in case they
are affected by floods. For example, along the river
Rhine, only 11% of the potentially affected area is
covered by settlements, but these account for 83% of
the total (estimated) losses during an extreme flood
(ICPR 2001). During severe floods in August 2002, the
cities of Dresden (approximately 473,000 inhabitants)
in Germany and the city of Prague (2 million inhabit-
ants) in the Czech Republic were the most affected
areas (Kreibich and others 2005a). Thus, the land use
in flood-prone areas highly influences the flood risk
and should be managed by appropriate land use
planning.
123
718
Preventing development of settlements and indus-
trial areas in flood-prone regions is the most effective
means to avoid an increase in the damage potential
(Egli 2002; Hooijer and others 2004). Furthermore,
open spaces along rivers can reduce the level of a flood
wave and mitigate damage downstream. In case of a
severe flood, these retention areas can be used for
emergency discharge (ICPR 2002). Therefore, land use
planning authorities play a significant role in the
development of the damage potential and thus in flood
risk management.
In general, flood risk management focuses on three
aspects: 1) flood abatement with the aim to prevent
peak flows, e.g., by the improvement of the water
retention capacities of the catchment; 2) flood control
that aims at preventing inundation with structural
measures, e.g., embankments or detention areas; and
3) flood alleviation with the aim to reduce flood im-
pacts by nonstructural measures such as hazard zoning
and flood-adapted spatial planning, flood-proofed
buildings, development or upgrading of early warning
systems, insurance, awareness campaigns in order to
improve the preparedness of people at risk, training
and putting rescue units on stand-by, etc. (Parker 2000;
de Bruijn 2005). This article focuses on flood allevia-
tion, especially through spatial planning and adjacent
measures.
In order to decide upon the land use of a specific
parcel, land use planning authorities gather informa-
tion about different stakeholder interests as well as
different types of hazard (e.g., flood). For sound
planning decisions, hazard mapping is an important
precondition. In a next step, hazard zones are to be
linked to distinct land use regulations, i.e., the con-
struction of residential buildings, industrial areas, and
important infrastructure should be prohibited in high
flood hazard zones.
In many countries, including Germany, the area
affected by a 100-year flood plays an important role
for flood risk management (Marco 1994; Watt 2000).
In this area, land use is often restricted and flood
defense (e.g., levees, flood retention basins) is fre-
quently designed to protect existing settlements up to
this flood level. However, by concentrating on a 100-
year flood, the assessment of the flood hazard has
often been reduced to the question of whether or not
an element at risk, e.g., an urban area or industrial
site, is located inside or outside the 100-year flood
line. This has caused people to feel safe behind levees
and to ignore the residual risk due to more extreme
events.
In recent years, a changing mentality can be seen
away from a promised safety towards flood risk
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
management, in which the response to a flood event is
accompanied by precautionary measures depending
on the severity of the event (Sayers 2002; Hooijer and
others 2004). Such a risk culture demands a broad
discussion about the existing hazards, the vulnerabil-
ity, and the resulting risks as well as possible mea-
sures of flood protection (DKKV 2003). Therefore,
essential questions are (PLANAT 1998): What can
possibly happen? How likely is it? What are the
consequences? Which consequences, e.g., fatalities,
cannot be tolerated? How much do certain safety
levels cost? What is the best way of dealing with the
residual risk? In this context, land use regulations
should be complemented by building codes and
information about private precautionary and pre-
parative measures. This requires a broad communi-
cation of existing risks and mitigation measures to the
public and authorities.
Finally, the control and reduction of the existing
damage potential and vulnerabilities might be desir-
able for the successful reduction of the flood risk, i.e.,
by a resettlement of existing highly endangered con-
struction or a risk-based loss compensation that moti-
vates people living in high-risk areas to invest in
precautionary measures.
In this article, the status of the above-mentioned
issues is evaluated for different administrative levels in
Germany, drawing particular attention to the impact of
a severe flood event that took place in August 2002.
Strengths and weaknesses of the existing land use
planning system as well as lessons learned are dis-
cussed, leading to the following conclusions: (1) hazard
mapping has to be extended for different levels of flood
hazard (return period >100 years); (2) a standard
hazard and risk mapping system as well as a uniform
strategy at all planning levels and for all states of
Germany is needed; (3a) flood-prone areas are not safe
as has been communicated so far and exhibit a large
damage potential; (3b) a broad and regular discussion
about the existing hazards, possible protection mea-
sures, and strategies for flood risk management must
be developed in order to be prepared for coming
events; and (4) in order to minimize the damage po-
tential in flood-prone areas, the planning authorities
and insurance companies should intensify their inter-
action with each other in the decision-making process
of legally binding development plans.
In the following, a short literature review is given
about the approaches of flood alleviation in other
countries. In the section ‘‘The German Land Use
Planning System and the State of Area Precautionary
Measures Before the Flood Event in 2002,’’ the Ger-
man spatial planning system as well as the situation
Environ Manage 38:717–732
before the flood event in 2002 is outlined with respect
to the mentioned key issues. In the section ‘‘The Flood
Event and Study Area,’’ the flood event is described
followed by a discussion of the changes in its aftermath
(Experiences and Consequences of the 2002 Flood).
Hazard Mapping and Land Use Regulations
After having experienced severely damaging flood
events, several countries have launched mapping pro-
jects and reformed their planning acts. In many coun-
tries, land use regulations and building codes are
directly linked to flood hazard maps, which show areas
affected by events with a certain return period. For
instance, in the United Kingdom, France, United
States, Canada, and New Zealand, the area affected by
a 100-year flood plays an essential role for flood miti-
gation (Marco 1994; Watt 2000). In the subsequent
paragraphs, a few examples for hazard mapping and
land use regulations in different European countries
are presented.
In Spain, spatial planning of flood areas is included in
the Water Act and some of its regulations (Menendez
2000). There are four zones for which restrictions in land
use are given: the ‘‘channel’’ (10-year flood zone); a re-
stricted-use area, i.e., a 5-m buffer on either side of the
channel; a surveillance zone, i.e., a 100-m-wide strip on
either side of the channel; and a flood risk zone, i.e.,
theoretical levels during floods with a return period of
500 years. In the first three zones, authorization is re-
quired for any kind of construction.
Flood hazard mapping in the Czech Republic is
done for four hazard levels at two different scales:
maps for the communal level are developed at the scale
of 1:10,000 to 1:25,000, whereas regional hazard maps
are established at a scale of 1:50,000 to 1:100,000 (EU
2005). Usually, flood protection measures are designed
for return periods of 100 years (Ministry of Environ-
ment of the Czech Republic 2004).
Switzerland heavily engages in mapping activities to
identify zones that are prone to natural hazards (e.g.,
Petrascheck 2002). The cantons are obliged to provide
hazard maps and to consider these maps in land use
planning (SFOWG-SFOSD-SAEFL 1997). Hazard
maps (scale 1:10,000) have been developed for many
communities for inundation and erosion. Four zones
are identified that range from ‘‘severe hazard’’ (pro-
hibited zone for construction and development) to
‘‘residual risk’’ (information, special requirements for
building) (Egli 2000; BWG 2001).
After a severe flood in 1995 in Norway, the Nor-
wegian flood inundation map project was initiated by
719
the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Direc-
torate. The aim is to reduce flood damage through
improved land use planning and emergency prepared-
ness (Berg 2002). Maps are created for six different
flood levels (the 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year
flood) along 1750 km of river length following uniform
technical guidelines (Hoydal and others 2000). The
guidelines also recommend implications for land use
planning and flood protection. It was defined that
domestic buildings should be safe against a 100-year
flood, whereas industry and important infrastructure
should be protected against at least a 200-year flood
(Hoydal and others 2000).
England and Wales have mapped flooded areas
since 1973 based on the Water Act (Environment
Group Research Report 2004). In 1991, the Water
Resources Act was introduced with the duty to carry
out periodic surveys for areas with flood hazard.
Based on this act, a mapping program started in 1994,
which is intended to produce detailed flood levels and
probability data for all large rivers and coastal areas
in England and Wales (Environment Group Research
Report 2004). In 1996, hazard maps were developed
by the Institute of Hydrology (Report 130), which
show the inundated areas as well as areas at risk for a
100-year flood by disregarding any existing flood de-
fense measures (Morris and Flavin 1996). The maps
were produced using catchment descriptors to esti-
mate the mean annual maximum flood depth. They
show the flood depth at every point along the river
network for catchments with more than 10 km2. Since
2000, the ‘‘Indicative Floodplain Maps’’ are available
to the public through the Internet (website of the
Environment Agency (EA)). These maps show
envelopes for 100-year fluvial floods as well as for a
200-year coastal flood. Moreover, ‘‘Catchment Flood
Management Plans’’ are being developed, which
provide a strategic planning framework at a large
scale (Ramsbottom 2002). These plans analyze the
current status of the flood risk and will outline the
development of sustainable flood risk management
within the next 50 years. Currently, the EA produces
‘‘Flood Risk Maps’’ for 100- to 1000-year flood events
(Environment Group Research Report 2004, p. 24).
For planning purposes, designated areas of a 100-year
flood are deemed to be suitable. Areas that will be
inundated by up to a 1000-year flood are subject to a
detailed risk assessment.
These are only a few examples for countrywide
flood-hazard mapping projects. In the sections ‘‘The
German Land Use Planning System, Flood Hazard
Mapping and Concepts for Flood Prevention,’’ and
‘‘Towards Harmonized Flood Management at the
123
720
Federal Level,’’ the status of hazard mapping in Ger-
many as well as recent changes in mapping projects and
land use regulations is reported, respectively.
Hazard Awareness and Risk Communication
The question of whether or not flood hazard maps
should be accessible for the public has been contro-
versially discussed not only in Germany. On the one
hand, property owners fear that a publication of flood
hazard maps will cause a decline in the value of
properties at risk (DKKV 2003). On the other hand, it
is argued that people should be informed about the
hazard they might be exposed to so that they can
prepare themselves. Kreibich and others (2005b)
showed that precautionary behavior is more likely to
be found in private households that know about the
flood exposure of their household. Wind and others
(1999) state that the damage is most effectively re-
duced in areas where people frequently experience
floods.
In 1993 and 1995, for instance, two large flood events
with similar water levels hit the Rhine and the Meuse
catchments. The damage in the city of Cologne with
more than 1 million inhabitants amounted to 150 mil-
lion DM (76.7 million e) in December 1993 (Vogt
1995), whereas the damage in January 1995 was esti-
mated to be only 65 million DM (33.2 million e). A
similar effect was observed in several communities in
the Meuse catchment (Wind and others 1999). This
tremendous reduction of damage can be explained by
an increased hazard awareness and the better knowl-
edge about what to do if a flood event is approaching
(Fink and others 1996; Plate and others 1999; Wind and
others 1999). However, another survey illustrates that a
flood event is almost forgotten after only a few years
(ICPR 2002).
To keep the awareness of the flood hazard at a high
level, some cities built flood information museums
(e.g., in Frankfurt/Odra, Germany; Rexburg, USA;
Johnstown, USA) in order to provide the public with
information and material about the flood history of the
area. Another source of information is the Internet,
where many regions and cities provide information
about the particular flood hazard of their area and
possible mitigation measures. For instance, in the
German states of North Rhine-Westphalia (http://
www.landesumweltamt.nrw.de/) and Baden-Wuert-
temberg in the district of Rastatt (http://www.landk-
reis-rastatt.de), flood hazard maps are provided by the
authorities through the Internet, which enable the
public to receive the relevant information and—if
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
necessary—to appropriately invest in flood mitigation
measures.
However, recent studies revealed that a publication
of flood hazard maps is not sufficient to motivate
people to invest in precautionary measures (Groth-
mann and Reusswig 2006) or to prevent flood plain
development (Benoı̂t and others 2003). Grothmann
and Reusswig (2006) found that most important for the
active investment in precautionary measures is the
perceived personal responsibility and ability to protect
oneself. Moreover, the ownership of property plays an
important role because homeowners have more possi-
bilities at their disposal and use these more frequently
(Grothmann and Reusswig 2006).
Investigations in Canada also show that the pub-
lication of hazard maps does not necessarily influence
the development of settlements. Because of a rapid
expansion of the Canadian population in the 1950s
and 1960s, the damage potential in flood-prone areas
rose similarly (Bouillon and others 1999). In 1976, an
agreement was signed by the governments of Canada
and Quebec to map flood-risk zones as well as to
make these maps available for the public. However,
Shrubsole and others (1997), Morris-Oswald and
others (1998), and Benoı̂t and others (2003) showed
that the development as well as the publication of
flood hazard maps had no effect on the decision
about building in flood-prone areas and the devel-
opment of the damage potential in several Canadian
regions.
A survey among property owners in Boulder, Col-
orado (USA) pointed out that information about the
flood risk of a property and about the costs of flood
insurance was communicated to prospective customers
rather late in the negotiating and purchase process of
residential buildings, namely, during closure (Chivers
and Flores 2002). Chivers and Flores (2002) concluded
that the lack of knowledge about flood risk and about
the costs of insuring against flood risk greatly hampers
the reduction of damage potential in floodplains as
intended by the US National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
That means the flood hazard and measures for flood
risk reduction have to be communicated more inten-
sively. Flood hazard information should be given to-
gether with information about possible flood losses and
their mitigation (insurance, precautionary measures).
The section ‘‘The German Land Use Planning System’’
discusses how flood risk is communicated in Germany,
and the section ‘‘Communication and Awareness of
the Flood Hazard’’ discusses what changes and
amendments were undertaken after the event in Au-
gust 2002.
Environ Manage 38:717–732
Reduction of the Damage Potential Through
Risk-Based Damage Compensation
Land use planning authorities, especially at the com-
munal level, can significantly influence the future
development of the damage potential in flood-prone
areas by assigning a specific land use to a parcel as well
as by issuing the building lease. To reduce the already
existing damage potential, land use regulations have to
be supplemented by other control measures. One
possibility is the resettlement of residences after they
were highly damaged by a severe flood event. In this
context, the linkage of land use planning with gov-
ernmental flood loss compensation programs and flood
insurance plays an important role.
One example of a linkage between planning
authorities and paying stakeholders (i.e., affected
people, insurance companies, federal government, the
public as a donator) can be found in the United States.
Communities must meet Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA)-approved flood mapping
requirements to be eligible for flood insurance.
FEMA’s Federal Insurance Administration runs the
NFIP, which makes flood insurance available to resi-
dents of communities that adopt flood plain ordi-
nances. The NFIP is (for most of the building owners)
a voluntary insurance and partly subsidized by the state
because buildings that were erected prior to the flood
insurance rate map are eligible for flood insurance at
lower rates (Platt 1999). More than 18,000 communi-
ties participate, and more than 3 million home and
business policies are in force. Insurance rates are based
on a classification into rough hazard zones. These in-
clude zone ‘‘A’’ for property located within the 100-
year flooded area, as well as ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’ for property
with a smaller degree of flood hazard (Burby 2001).
The building codes of the NFIP focus principally on the
elevation of the lowest floor (including the basement)
to the level of the 100-year flood in order to prevent
flood losses. Although new buildings have to fulfill
these requirements, older structures only have to be
adapted to these standards if they were ‘‘substantially
damaged’’ by a flood, i.e., if they were damaged by
more than half their value. This regulation, however,
did not anticipate immense repetitive losses caused in
old structures (Platt 1999).
Insurance coverage against flood losses is available
in several countries with a variety of approaches
ranging from a governmental disaster loss fund with a
fixed amount per year (e.g., in Finland), (restrictive)
private insurance (e.g., in Germany or the United
Kingdom), private insurance in combination with a
state reinsurance (e.g., in France) to a compulsory
721
building insurance for all building owners (e.g., in most
cantons of Switzerland or in Spain) (Swiss Re 1998;
Barraque 2000; Vetters and Prettenthaler 2003). One
example of how flood insurance is successfully linked
with the overall flood risk management can be found in
Switzerland. In many cantons of Switzerland, a com-
pulsory building insurance for all building owners ex-
ists, which is provided by (state) monopoly insurance
institutions. Insurance companies in Switzerland play
an important role in flood precaution and prevention
(von Ungern-Sternberg 2004). They can significantly
influence the planning process: If they deny insurance
coverage for a certain land parcel because of a natural
hazard, the land use plan will be adjusted towards a
manageable and insurable land use (Petraschek 2003,
personal communication).
Germany is one of the few European countries in
which private insurance companies launched insurance
against natural hazards as a supplementary contract to
insurance on contents or buildings (Vetters and Pret-
tenthaler 2003). There was also an initiative to intro-
duce mandatory insurance against natural disasters,
which was not successful (Schwarze and Wagner
2005).
The German Land Use Planning System and the State
of Area Precautionary Measures Before the Flood
Event in 2002
A number of severe floods hit Germany during the
1990s (e.g., Rhine 1993 and 1995; Odra 1997; Danube
1999). As a consequence of these events, planning
authorities in some states of Germany (German
Laender) started to tighten area precautionary mea-
sures and developed regulations at the regional and
state planning levels, which in turn have been imple-
mented at the communal level. However, countrywide
activities were rarely launched and thus hazard maps
differ among states with regard to their information
content, the included events, their spatial extent (in
some states there is only information for some com-
munities), the accessibility for the public, and the
implementation in land use planning.
For instance, in Bavaria, Hesse, or Saxony-Anhalt,
maps showing the expected flooded area for a 100-year
flood event have been produced. In Bavaria, these maps
have been published on the Internet (www.bayern.de/
lfw/iug/kart.html).
The limitation to the 100-year inundation area has a
big drawback because it may imply that people are safe
beyond the 100-year flood line. Therefore, the hazard
maps, e.g., in Saxony-Anhalt, consist of two parts: one
123
722
Fig. 1 Hazard map showing the
expected flooded area for a 100-year
flood, the flooded area if technical
measures fail (flood-prone area), and
the inundated area in August 2002
(Haase and others 2003)
that shows the expected flooded area for the 100-year
flood and another one that shows the extent of the
inundation if all technical flood defense fails (flood-
prone area) (Figure 1).
The second map might be introduced as a part of the
communal land use planning in Saxony-Anhalt. Both
areas usually show only the extent of these two flood
situations. No information is provided about other
possible flood scenarios, e.g., a flood with a higher
return period, or about the flood intensity (the inun-
dation depth, flow velocity, flood duration).
Initiatives already exist in Germany that partly
overcome these shortcomings by starting to analyze
less frequent but more extreme events, especially in the
catchment of the river Rhine. After the severe floods in
1993 and 1995, the International Commission for the
Protection of the river Rhine (ICPR), a joint initiative
of the countries sharing the catchment of the river
Rhine, launched a flood action plan (ICPR 1998).
Moreover, the hazard and risk maps were published in
the so-called Rhine-Atlas in 2001 showing the extent of
a 10-year flood, a 100-year flood, and the inundation
depth for an extreme flood (200-year flood up to
10,000-year flood) (ICPR 2001). The Rhine-Atlas with
information about the existing flood hazard is accessi-
ble to the public through the Internet (www.rheinatlas.
de). Similar examples can be found, e.g., for the cities
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
Cologne, Rastatt, and Darmstadt or in the flood action
plans for catchments in North Rhine-Westphalia.
However, because of the strong federal system, no
uniform and legally binding guidelines for flood hazard
mapping of different return periods and intensities
exist in Germany, which in turn results in a mixture of
initiatives ranging from the state to the communal le-
vel. This is not only true for hazard mapping but also
for land use planning and flood risk management in
general, which is outlined in the following paragraphs.
Because Germany is a member of the European
Union (EU), it is committed to putting the EU legis-
lation into practice. Thus, guidelines and directives are
implemented at the federal level of Germany, which, in
turn, provides a framework of regulations for all states.
The European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) represents a regional planning policy guide-
line, which aims at achieving a balanced and sustain-
able development (EC 1999). The concept proposes to
include the potential risk of flooding in the land use
planning process. Furthermore, an integrated approach
of land use planning and adapted land use should be
applied at the European scale. However, the ESDP
lacks a binding character and therefore stays at a
recommended level (EC 1999).
The European Water Framework Directive is the
only water-related directive with a binding character
Environ Manage 38:717–732 723

for the member states. Its objective is to achieve a
(very) good status of the groundwater and surface
water quality (European Parliament 2000). So far,
flood alleviation measures including area precaution-
ary measures are not addressed in the directive (DRL
2002). Only recently (January 2006), a new flood risk
management directive was proposed by the European
Commission, which has to be discussed now in the
European Parliament and the Council of Ministers
(EC 2006).
At the federal level, the German Basic Constitu-
tional Law (Article 28) requires the German govern-
ment (federal level) to grant the states an adequate
scope to legislate for their own territories (Turowski
2002). The principle of countervailing influence en-
sures the implementation of federal regulations at
the communal level as well as the consideration of
communal interests at the federal level.
Neither an independent law nor a directive for
precautionary flood protection exists at the federal le-
vel. In 1998, a policy was introduced into the Federal
Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz) dealing
with the specification and determination of flood
plains. Precautionary flood protection became part of
the highest level of the German planning regulations
and has to be implemented into all subsequent direc-
tives at all administrative levels. Besides this, the
Federal Water Resources Act (Wasserhaushaltsge-
setz—WHG) as well as the Federal Building Code
(Baugesetzbuch) include rules and regulations for
flood protection measures. Flood-prone areas, which
will be flooded in case of an extreme flood or a breach
of a dike, were not considered in the WHG until the
most recent change in the legislation in May 2005
(BMU 2005) (see below). Since the 1990s, efforts had
been made in Germany towards the integration of
more distinctive rules for land use, which allow modern
flood management (Bahlburg 2003; Heidland 2003).
However, the inclusion of flood-prone areas in the
WHG was achieved only in the aftermath of the ex-
treme flood event in August 2002.
Because of the federal system, each state decides
independently within the federal framework upon the
long-term land use, such as the protection and exten-
sion of retention areas as well as the protection and
management of flood-prone areas (Böhm and others
2004). Each state has its own legislation such as the
Water Resources Act, Planning Act, and on this basis
its own State Development Plan and Subregional
Plans, etc. However, the states are required to allow
their communities flexibility in their decision-making
unless there are binding mandatory regulations, which
have to be followed throughout the regional and
communal planning processes.
Local authorities, in turn, develop statutory plans
for the regulation of the communal interests within
their administrative borders. With the help of prepa-
ratory development plans and binding development
plans, the communal authorities assign a certain land
use to a specific land parcel. Therefore, the communal
level plays the key role in area precaution with respect
to the minimization of damage potential because at this
level, flood control measures and land use changes are
introduced and implemented. The binding develop-
ment plan plays a particularly important role, because
it provides restrictions for building permits. Moreover,
at the local level, authorities should have a vital
awareness of the hazard, because they know best about
the flood hazard and the flood history of the commu-
nity. Table 1 illustrates the scope of functions and the
relevant legislation of the corresponding level.
Land use planning with respect to flood risk man-
agement is mainly performed and decided by the state
or subregional and communal authorities, whereas
insurance companies, the public as a donator, and
people who are potentially affected by a flood and

Table 1 Administrative levels, legislations, and scope of functions within the German spatial planning system
Comprehensive planning/legal basis Sectoral planning/legal basis
Administrative level Scope of functions Land use planning Water & flood management

European Union Overall principles and
regulations
Federal (national) level Principles, aims, general
and obligatory regulations
State level Comprehensive planning
(16 German Laender) for every state
Subregional level Comprehensive planning
for every subregion
Communal level Mandatory regulations
European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP)(not binding)
Federal Spatial Planning Act
(ROG) and Minister’s Conference
of Regional Policy/Federal
Building Code (BauGB)
16 State Planning Acts and respective
State development plans
(Sub-) Regional development plans
Local development plans for
every community
European Water Framework
Directive (WFD)(binding)
Federal Water Resources
Act (WHG)
16 Water Resources Acts
Local water and flood
protection plans

123
724
responsible for damage compensation can rarely
influence the decision processes. Thus, the planning
authorities and the stakeholders, who are responsible
for compensation, are not linked appropriately. The
communities—as the lowest but final deciding stake-
holders—play the key role for flood precaution mea-
sures because they can specify measures for the
minimization of the damage potential for flood-prone
areas (Böhm and others 2004). According to the Ger-
man law, they have the possibility and duty to involve
public bodies and interested people in the planning
process through hearings. However, they are not
required to account for concerns and suggestions
mentioned in these hearings. Rarely, planning author-
ities, who are responsible for the land use develop-
ment, are called to account for wrong land use
planning decisions. Besides the mandatory hearings,
insurance companies, the public and potentially af-
fected people can therefore hardly influence the deci-
sion-making processes.
The Flood Event and Study Area
The catchment of the river Elbe has a long flood his-
tory. For more than 900 years, written chronicles exist
about flood events in the Elbe catchment and for other
large rivers in middle Europe (Weikinn 1958; Mudel-
see and others 2002). Large flood events occurred
along the Elbe River in 1784, 1799, 1845, and 1890, and
in the tributary river Mulde in 1858 and 1954 as well as
in the eastern part of the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge)
in 1897, 1927, and 1957 (SMUL 2002). For that reason,
numerous flood protection measures exist all over the
catchment such as flood retention basins on the
northern slopes of the Ore Mountains, 1231.6 km of
dikes along the Elbe River, as well as retention areas
and polders in the lower parts of the catchment (ICPE
2004).
Two main landscape units can be found in the Elbe
catchment (148,268 km2) (ICPE 2004): mountainous
areas in the southern parts of the catchment and plains
and lowlands along the Elbe River itself as well as in
the northern part of the catchment. Two flood types
result from these landscape units. In the mountainous
areas, quickly rising flash floods (definition according
to the International Glossary of Hydrology (1992))
dominate, whereas the Elbe River features slowly ris-
ing floods. These flood types were also distinguished
during the August 2002 flood.
In the first half of August 2002, two separate strong
cyclones brought lasting and heavy rainfalls that re-
sulted in devastating flood events: First came a low
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
pressure system from France via northern Italy to
central Europe (August 6–8, 2002), which brought the
first floods and saturated the soils in most of the
mountain ranges in Bohemia, Bavaria, and Saxony
(Ulbrich and others 2003, Mikhailov and others 2004).
The second precipitation event, which mainly caused
the tremendous damage, was triggered by a Genoa
Cyclone Type Vb weather system (August 9–13, 2002)
and reached especially southeastern Germany (Sax-
ony), Austria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia
(Mikhailov and others 2004). This Vb weather system is
a low pressure system that moves very slowly from the
Gulf of Genoa northwards. It can accumulate large
amounts of moist and warm air over the Mediterranean
Sea, which is transformed into large amounts of pre-
cipitation that fall along the northern slopes of the Alps
and mountain ranges in Central and Eastern Europe.
For instance, on August 12, a daily precipitation of
312 mm was measured in Zinnwald-Georgenfeld, the
largest value in Germany since the beginning of regular
measurements (DWD 2002; Ulbrich and others 2003).
During the event, 38 people were killed (21 people
in Germany) and substantial parts of the infrastructure
as well as many houses were destroyed. The most af-
fected states in Germany were Saxony and Saxony-
Anhalt along the river Elbe and its tributaries as well
as Bavaria along the river Danube and its tributaries
(Figure 2).
The flood event was very heterogeneous with re-
spect to discharge, water level, and the respective re-
turn periods. In the Czech Republic as well as at some
tributaries of the Elbe in Germany, return periods of
up to 1000 years were estimated for the second flood
event, whereas along the Elbe River itself the return
period was estimated to be 50 to 200 years. Table 2 lists
the return period, the maximum discharge, and max-
imum water level for the 2002 flood, and for compar-
ison the long-term mean discharge of four stations in
the Elbe catchment. Detailed information about the
spatial distribution of the return periods and the
damage can be found in ICPE (2004).
The total costs were first estimated to be 11.3 billion
e for Germany and the Czech Republic (ICPE 2004).
In the meantime, however, the costs, only for Ger-
many, rose to 11.6 billion e (Thieken and others 2006).
In the aftermath of the Elbe flood in August 2002, a
‘‘Lessons Learned’’ study was carried out (DKKV
2003). The objective of this study was to evaluate the
current status of flood management in Germany in the
light of the flood event, and to develop recommenda-
tions for different aspects of flood risk management,
precautionary measures, and early warning. In the
framework of this project, a workshop was arranged to
Environ Manage 38:717–732 725

Fig. 2 Study area and affected rivers

during the August 2002 flood in
Germany (Data sources: DLM1000,
VG250, Hochwasserlinien des Elbe-
Ó
Hochwassers BKG, Frankfurt am
Main, 2004; Überschwemmungsgebiet
der Mulde in Sachsen-Anhalt: UFZ
Leipzig, 2003; Überschwemmte
Flächen Hochwasser in Sachsen
August 2002: Sächsisches Landesamt
für Umwelt und Geologie, Staatliche
Umweltfachämter Chemnitz, Leipzig,
Plauen und Radebeul,
Landestalsperrenverwaltung Sachsen,
Stadtverwaltungen Landeshauptstadt
Dresden/Umweltamt, Chemnitz/
Umweltamt, Zwickau/Umweltamt
und Olbernhau; Informationssystem
Wasserwirtschaft der bayerischen
Wasserwirtschaftsverwaltung 2004
(www.bayern.de/lfw))

exchange experiences about the status quo of flood
prevention, its deficits, and possible improvements at
different scales and administrative levels in Germany.
Representatives from the ministries (for environmental
and/or water issues) of all German federal states, from
communal authorities, and from universities took part
in the workshop. In order to supplement the findings of
the workshop, informal interviews with experts at land
use, urban planning, and water management authori-
ties at the communal level in Saxony and Saxony-An-
halt were undertaken. Based on our analyses, changes
in area precautionary measures after the flood event
are discussed in the following section.
Experiences and Consequences of the 2002 Flood
The flood in August 2002 revealed weaknesses of the
existing legislation and regulations at all administrative
levels as outlined in the section ‘‘The German Land
Use Planning System.’’ The following section discusses
the attempts that have been made towards more ade-
quate flood risk management in Germany.
Flood Hazard Mapping and Concepts for Flood
Prevention
The development of hazard maps and flood protection
concepts is urgently needed for all flood-prone com-
munities in order to be better prepared for possible
flood events. It is particularly important to develop
concepts that incorporate different levels of flood
protection and a variety of structural and nonstructural
measures (DKKV 2003). Nonstructural measures pre-
vent or mitigate flood impact by planning and regu-
lating floodplain use, by enhancing preparedness, by
education and warning of people at risk, or by redis-
tributing flood damage via insurance or other financial
instruments (DKKV 2003; de Bruijn 2005). These
measures can also be classified into preventive, pre-
cautionary, and preparative measures. Although pre-
vention aims at avoiding inundation of and damage in

Table 2 Return periods, water level, and discharges for different stations in the Elbe catchment
City Prague Nossen Dresden Wittenberge

River Vltava Freiberger Mulde Upper Elbe Middle Elbe

Return period (years) 500 300–400 100–200 70 (after flooding of polders)
Long-term mean discharge (m3/s) 150 7 327 681
Maximum discharge 2002 (m3/s) 5200 690 4580 3830
Maximum water level 2002 (m) 7.82 4.67 9.40 7.34

123
726
Fig. 3 Swiss flood hazard mapping
scheme (h = inundation depth; v = flow
velocity; a = years) (SFOWG and others
1997)
v h > 2m2/s
2m >h > 0.5m
Intensity
2m /s> v h > 0.5m2/S
2
v h > 0.5m2/S
flood-prone areas, precaution and preparation help to
limit and manage adverse effects of a catastrophe and
to build up coping capacities by the above-mentioned
nonstructural measures (e.g., PLANAT 2004).
The existing practice in Germany of mapping only
the flooded area of a 100-year flood event (and in some
cases the corresponding flooded areas if all technical
measures fail (see Figure 1)) is insufficient because it
may imply that people are safe beyond the 100-year
flood line. Besides this, the concentration on the 100-
year flood as a benchmark for land use planning is
questionable. It would be worthwhile to consider less
frequent, but more damaging floods also. A major
shortcoming is the disregard of intensity information
(e.g., water depth) within flood zones. Such informa-
tion is extremely useful for flood prevention and
emergency management. Risk-based management in
terms of land use planning would enrich the current
planning with respect to information about extreme
flood events, about what could possibly happen,
and about appropriate prevention and mitigation
strategies.
Several countries in Europe, e.g., Switzerland,
England, or Norway, have much experience in hazard
mapping, which should be considered by the German
authorities after such an extreme event. For instance,
Norway develops hazard maps for six different
levels, which also include extreme floods (i.e., 500-
year). Also, the Environment Agency in England
produces hazard maps for different return periods up
to 1000 years (see the section Hazard Mapping and
Land Use Regulations). One example to overcome this
deficit in Germany is the successful integration of
the Swiss flood hazard mapping scheme, which was
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
strong
h > 2m
oder prohibition-area
medium
(residual)-
risk-area
oder command-area
weak
H < 0.5m
oder
advice-area
high medium small
1-30a 30-100a 100-300a
Probability
introduced by the state of Saxony as a consequence of
the August 2002 flood. Hazard maps (scale 1:10,000)
are developed, which show four zones that range from
‘‘severe hazard’’ (prohibited zone for construction and
development) to ‘‘residual risk’’ (information, special
requirements for building) (Figure 3) (Egli 2000; BWG
2001). The state is now developing hazard maps for
different scenarios: 20-year flood, 100-year flood, and a
more extreme event. This is defined to be either a 500-
year flood or a water level that corresponds to 1.5 times
the water level of the 100-year flood (Saxon State
Agency for Environment and Geology 2003, personal
communication). Based on the hazard maps (1:10,000)
for every community, the authorities in Saxony devel-
op ‘‘generalized hazard maps’’ at the rather coarse
scale of 1:100,000. These generalized maps are merged
into a flood hazard atlas for all major rivers in Saxony.
This atlas will also include severe historical flood
events and will thus provide an overview about the
historic and current flood hazard in Saxony (Saxon
State Agency for Environment and Geology 2003,
personal communication). The Rhine-Atlas serves as
an example (ICPR 2001; see the section The German
Land Use Planning System).
Also, states that were not affected by the August
2002 flood have now intensified their efforts in flood
hazard mapping. For example, as a result of the
development of flood action plans for all catchments in
North Rhine–Westphalia, technical guidelines for flood
hazard mapping were launched (MUNLV 2003).
Baden-Wuerttemberg also developed a flood hazard
mapping scheme and aims to map the inundation areas
for all catchments >10 km2 by 2010 (www.hochwasser.
baden-wuerttemberg.de/gefahrenkarten.html). However,
Environ Manage 38:717–732
a standard system for flood hazard and risk mapping
that is valid for all states of Germany has not been
developed so far. A first workshop concerning the
standardization of flood hazard mapping was held in
November 2004 lead-managed by the LAWA
(Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser–German Working
Group of the Federal States on Water Issues). Cur-
rently, recommendations for flood hazard mapping are
being developed (Kleeberg 2005).
In the aftermath of the August 2002 flood, new
concepts and plans for flood prevention measures
have been developed as well. These are catchment-
wide concepts, which will include the delineation of
flood hazards at the communal scale as well as rec-
ommendations of how to implement these prevention
measures. Saxony has developed flood protection
concepts for all major catchments (rivers, for which
the state is responsible) as well as all smaller catch-
ments, especially for tributary rivers, which were
severely damaged by flash floods in 2002. Aside from
all activities aimed at improved flood alleviation, the
implementation of flood precaution measures remains
uncertain. It is expected that the final evaluation of
the flood mitigation measures’ efficiency will be pos-
sible only in 20 years (LTV 2003). In view of such
long time periods, it is uncertain whether the political
commitment for flood prevention that has evolved
from the 2002 flood will be sustained until the con-
cepts are implemented. Furthermore, the conse-
quences of disregarding the new concepts and
legislation remain unclear. So far, there are no regu-
lations to ensure the appropriate implementation of
flood precautionary measures.
Although many states undertook numerous activi-
ties, the coordination among them on the one hand and
the coordination among the communities on the other
hand have to be strengthened in order to establish
uniform strategies, plans, and concepts.
Towards Harmonized Flood Management at the
Federal Level
Immediately after the flood event, the German gov-
ernment developed a five-point program, which aims at
improving precautionary flood protection measures
(BMU 2003). The important objectives of the program
are the reactivation of flood zones, the joint estab-
lishment of a flood protection program for the federal
and state levels, and a more intensified catchment-
based flood management.
Based on the five-point program, the German Fed-
eral Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conserva-
tion, and Nuclear Safety developed a Flood Control Act
727
with the aim to better manage the existing flood risk
(BMU 2004). This Act passed the German cabinet in
May 2005 (BMU 2005). It introduces a set of guidelines
and legislation for flood management measures that are
binding for all states. The program demands amend-
ments in many laws such as the Federal Water
Resources Act, the Federal Building Code, and the
Federal Regional Planning Act. Changes in the Federal
Water Resources Act comprise further regulations for
floodplains and flood-prone areas. For the latter, regu-
lations ensure the identification and the appropriate
conservation status of these areas within the next 5 to 7
years. In the Flood Control Act, statutory floodplain
zones are defined as the area affected by the 100-year
flood. Flood-prone areas are enlarged to the areas that
will be affected if the flood protection fails as shown in
Figure 1. For the first time, a consistent countrywide
standard for flood hazard information is defined.
Moreover, a duty to avert, minimize, or mitigate
losses is introduced in order to relate the economic
development of an area to its natural hazards. Another
step towards enhanced flood protection and river
management is a new uniform federal framework for
catchment-based flood protection plans, which has to
be adjusted to international standards. These plans also
incorporate measures to deal with a 200-year flood.
Changes in the present Federal Building Code of
Germany mainly affect the communities. At this level,
it is required to note statutory floodplain zones and
flood-prone zones in the binding development plan.
Thus, the public gets necessary information about the
existing flood hazard, could use it for site selection, and
could take into account precautionary measures
already at the stage of building design.
The Flood Control Act is the first attempt to pool
together flood protection measures at the national
level (BDLA 2003). Furthermore, it aims at amending
area precautionary measures and flood-related land
use planning. However, representatives from industry
and commerce partly criticize the Act for being too
restrictive for the economy in flood-prone areas
(DIHK 2003). They demand a broad involvement in
the development of plans for flood-prone areas. Fur-
thermore, it is feared that these changes could lead to
more restrictions, rules, and regulations, which will
impede the authorities to implement and execute
the already existing laws (DIHK 2003). Although the
Flood Control Act includes necessary amendments, the
possibility still remains to allow a building permit in
the 100-year flood zone, when meeting all of the nine
conditions (e.g., no possibility for another land parcel
in the community; flood-adapted building on the
new area is ensured; no negative consequences for
123
728 Environ Manage 38:717–732

upstream or downstream communities) listed in the

Act (BMU 2005). The recently proposed Flood Risk
Management Directive from the EU (EC 2006) could
further support a uniform approach for catchment-
wide flood risk management. It could strengthen the
role of the international commissions for large river
systems (e.g., for the Rhine the ICPR; Elbe ICPE;
Danube ICPDR), which already pursue catchment-
based management.

Communication and Awareness of the Flood

Hazard

Both the analyses of extreme flood events as well as the

publication of such information are, even despite fre-
quent flood events, still the exception rather than the
rule. Many communities in Germany seem to evade
the analysis of extreme flood events (beyond the 100-
year flood) and its communication with the public. In
order to provide sustainable land use planning, ex-
treme events must not be ignored during the local
planning process. Authorities often fear that the public
would be unable to handle the risk and the community
could suffer economic consequences from the price
decline of flood-prone areas (Schwarze and Wagner
2005). Thus, some states develop hazard maps but do
not plan to publish them permanently or restrict the
access. As a consequence, the public may not be aware
of the existing hazards and, if a building site is chosen,
does not invest in flood prevention and precaution
measures. Chivers and Flores (2002) also report from
the United States that the lack of knowledge or late
information about the existing flood risk and insurance
costs hampers the reduction of damage potential in
floodplains. Nevertheless, there are countries like
Canada, France, or England where hazard maps are
available to the public through the Internet in order to
provide the necessary information and suggestions for
flood-adapted building for potential owners. Initiatives
for public access also exist in Germany, e.g., North
Rhine-Westphalia and Baden Wuerttemberg, which
publish hazard maps on the Internet. This should be
extended to all German states.
In the aftermath of the 2002 flood, some communi-
ties installed or extended historical flood marks, which
will keep the awareness of the flood hazard at a high level
(Figure 4). Additionally, communities started to carry
out regular information gatherings at which the public is
informed about the possibilities to mitigate or even
prevent flood damage. But since these measures are not
mandatory for all flood-prone communities, they are
mostly used in communities with either an extensive
flood history or a vital awareness of the hazard.
Fig. 4 Historical and recent flood marks at Schloss Pillnitz near
Dresden (Grünewald 2003)
Damage Compensation and Minimization of the
Damage Potential
According to the current German law, it is not possible
to effect resettlements in flood-prone areas. People
who are not willing to move to less flood-prone areas
are protected by the law. After receiving the building
lease from the binding development plan, people can
stay as long as they prefer to. Even if a house is com-
pletely destroyed by a flood, the owner can still stay
and rebuild it at the same location (Heiland 2002).
Additionally, insurance companies are generally re-
quired to pay for the entire reconstruction costs for the
damage only if people stay at the same spot. Other-
wise, insurance companies only compensate the cur-
rent value. In other countries, e.g., the United States,
the National Flood Insurance Program sets a limit of
damage for old buildings within a flood plain. If these
buildings are damaged more than 50%, they have to be
adapted to new standards during reconstruction (Platt
1999). Such regulations would also be desirable in
Germany.
After the Elbe flood in 2002, however, an exception
was made in order to support people who wanted to
move to a flood-safe location: insurance also compen-

123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
sated 100% of the damage if the damaged building was
reconstructed at another place. However, the price for
a new land parcel is in general neither covered by the
insurance nor by governmental aid.
Moreover, at least two affected communities in
Saxony started to move settlements to less flood-prone
areas. They have supported inhabitants financially
when moving to less flood-prone areas. Because this
was an exception, it should be further supported in
order to develop risk-based flood damage compensa-
tion. Nevertheless, this is an example of cooperation
and joint action between planning authorities, the
insurance industry, and the affected people. Also in
this case, expenses for a new land parcel had to be
covered privately. This remains problematic and must
be solved before the next extreme event calls for a
similar exception.
Surprisingly, a survey among insurance companies in
Germany indicated that they are reluctant to partici-
pate in land use planning, building precaution, disaster
response, or other relevant fields for flood precau-
tionary measures (Thieken and others 2006). The only
exception is the development of hazard maps through
the German Insurance Association since 2000: the
so-called ZÜRS system (Kleeberg 2001; Kron 2003a),
which is, however, not available to the public. The
system consists of four hazard classes (before the flood
event in 2002 only three classes), which correspond to
different return periods (10, 50, 100, and 200 years),
which in turn correspond to the insurability of build-
ings within the specific zone (Kron 2003b). Similar
systems exist in the Czech Republic and Switzerland,
where hazard maps are generated also for four hazard
zones (Czech Republic) and six zones in Switzerland.
However, these data are also not available for the
public.
The survey among German insurance companies
also revealed that insurance against natural hazards is a
routine business, i.e., the terms are established in a
uniform procedure with little room to negotiate and
relatively small profit margins (Thieken and others
2006). Therefore, expenses for consultancy, appraisal,
and control of mitigation measures are too high in
comparison to premiums and profit margins.
Immediately after the August 2002 flood, the Ger-
man government launched a reconstruction aid fund of
7.1 billion e (Sonderfond Aufbauhilfe). Furthermore,
money from the European Union Emergency Fund
(444 million e), public donations (350 million e), and
insurance compensation (1.8 billion e) were available
for loss compensation (Mechler and Weichselgartner
2003; DZI 2004; Schwarze and Wagner 2004). The
origin and amount of money for damage compensation
729
exemplify the need for a better linkage between the
planning authorities on the one hand, and private
individuals, insurance companies, as well as other
authorities, which pay for damage, on the other hand.
There was discussion about introducing a mandatory
insurance policy for damage due to natural hazards.
The idea was to pool the risks of different natural
hazards into one policy. However, no compromise
between the insurance companies and the ministers of
finance could be achieved (Schwarze and Wagner
2005).
An intensified integration of the different stake-
holders can be accomplished by integrating them early
in the land use planning processes and thus providing
the ‘‘potential paying side’’ (e.g., insurance companies)
with information on the flood hazard. Furthermore, it
would be desirable to strengthen the power of the
private insurance industry in Germany according to
their role in Switzerland, where in most cantons a
compulsory building insurance for all building owners
exists (Thieken and others 2006). There, insurance
companies can deny coverage for hazardous land par-
cels and can therefore significantly influence local
planning processes. Without this option and given low
profit margins, a lively engagement of insurance com-
panies in the German planning process is not to be
expected. An early involvement of potentially affected
people is also desirable when assigning specific land
use, to allow for an adapted land use and for flood
protection measures.
Conclusion
The floods along the Elbe, the Danube, and their tribu-
taries in 2002 revealed various weaknesses in the Ger-
man flood management system. Based on the
subsequent analysis of the event, the following lessons
learned can be identified: (1) hazard mapping must be
extended to different levels of flood hazard; (2) a stan-
dard hazard and risk mapping system as well as a uni-
form strategy at all planning levels and for all states of
Germany is needed; (3a) it should be communicated that
flood-prone areas, e.g., behind dikes, are not safe and
exhibit large damage potential; (3b) a broad and regular
discussion about the existing hazards, possible protec-
tion measures, and strategies for flood risk management
must be developed in order to be prepared for coming
events; and (4) in order to minimize the damage poten-
tial in flood-prone areas, the planning authorities and
insurance companies should intensify their interaction
with each other in the decision-making process of legally
binding development plans.
123
730
First steps are the development and extension of
hazard maps showing more than the 100-year flood
line, maps at different scales, as well as catchment-
based concepts for flood protection. The new Flood
Control Act strengthens the federal level because it
introduces a legally binding countrywide standard for
flood hazard information and a set of guidelines and
legislation for flood management measures. However,
it is not sufficient to launch precautionary measures
immediately after a flood event in the affected areas. A
continuous process of communication and the devel-
opment of sustainable flood risk management are
needed across Germany.
Acknowledgments This work was part of the Lessons Learned
study (DKKV 2003), which was completed by a group of
researchers from the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, the
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, and the Disas-
ter Research Unit of the Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel.
The study was funded by the German Red Cross and coordi-
nated by the German Committee for Disaster Reduction
(DKKV). We dedicate special thanks to our interview partners
from the authorities in the study areas and to all organizations
that provided data.
References
Bahlburg C. H. 2003. Klimaänderungen und die Aufgaben der
räumlichen Planung–Welchen Beitrag kann die räumliche
Planung zu einem raumorientierten Risikomanagement in
Technik und Umwelt, insbesondere im Hinblick auf eine
Klimaänderung leisten? Erfahrungen aus Berlin-Branden-
burg. Pages 132–153 in H. Karl, J. Pohl (eds.), ARL
(Academy of Spatial Research and Regional Planning).
Raumorientiertes Risikomanagement in Technik und Um-
welt–Katastrophenvorsorge durch Raumplanung. ARL
Forschungs-und Sitzungsberichte, Hannover. (in German)
Barraque B. 2000. Prevention des inondations en Europe: Hy-
draulique, assurances, ou solidarité? (Flood prevention in
Europe: Hydraulics, insurance or solidarity?). Houille
Blanche 2000:71–78 (in French)
BDLA (Bund Deutscher Landschaftsarchitekten–Federation of
German Landscape Architects). 2003. Weniger Sandsäcke–
mehr Vorsorge. Stellungsnahme zum geplanten Gesetz zur
Verbesserung des vorbeugenden Hochwasserschutzes,
(Comment on the 08.09.2003). http://www.bdla.de/ (access
on the 27.01.2005), Berlin (in German)
Benoı̂t R., S. Forget, J. Rouselle. 2003. The effectiveness of flood
damage reduction measures in the Montreal region. Natural
Hazards 28:367–385
Berg H. 2002. Flood inundation maps–mapping of flood prone
areas in Norway. IAHS-AISH-publication 271:313–316
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reak-
torsicherheit–German Federal Ministry for the Environ-
ment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety). 2003.
5-Punkte-Programm der Bundesregierung: Arbeitsschritte
zur Verbesserung des vorbeugenden Hochwasserschutzes.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety (Publ.), Bonn (in German)
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reak-
torsicherheit–German Federal Ministry for the Environ-
ment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety). 2004. Den
Flüssen mehr Raum geben–Schäden vermeiden, Bundesk-
abinett beschließt Hochwasserschutzgesetz. Press release.
(03.03.2004). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Publ.), Bonn (in German)
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reak-
torsicherheit–German Federal Ministry for the Environ-
ment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety). 2005.
Gesetz zur Verbesserung des vorbeugenden Hochwasser-
schutzes. Bundesgesetzblatt 2005, Teil 1 Nr. 26. Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety (Publ.), 9th May 2005. Bonn (in German)
Böhm H. R., B. Haupter, P. Heiland, and K. Dapp. 2004.
Implementation of flood risk management measures into
spatial plans and policies. River Research and Applications
20:255–267
Bouillon M.-C., F. P. Brissette, C. Marche. 1999. Le risque
d’inondation et son évolution sur la rivière Châteauguay.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 26(2):186–196
Borchert J. 1992. Flusskorridore als überregionale Verb-
undstrukturen. Natur und Landschaft 67:413–418. (in Ger-
man)
Burby R. J. 2001. Flood insurance and floodplain management:
the US experience. Environmental Hazards 3:111–122
BWG (Swiss Federal Office for Water and Geology (Publ.)).
2001. Hochwasserschutz an Fliessgewässern. Bern. 73 pp (in
German)
Chivers J., N. E. Flores. 2002. Market failure in information: The
National Flood Insurance Program. Land Economics
78:515–521
De Bruijn K. M. 2005. Resilience and flood risk management, A
systems approach applied to lowland rivers. DUP Science,
Delft, PhD Thesis, 210 pp
DIHK (Deutschen Industrie– und Handelskammertag–The
Association of German Chambers of Industry and Com-
merce). 2003. Stellungnahme des Deutschen Industrie–und
Handelskammertages (DIHK) zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes
zur Verbesserung des vorbeugenden Hochwasserschutzes
vom 07.08.2003. The Association of German Chambers of
Industry and Commerce (Publ.), Berlin (in German)
DKKV (Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge–German
Committee for Disaster Reduction). 2003. Hochwasservor-
sorge in Deutschland–Lernen aus der Katastrophe 2002 im
Elbegebiet. Schriftenreihe des DKKV 29 Lessons Learned.
Bonn. (in German)
DRL (Deutscher Rat für Landespflege–German Council for
Land Stewardship). 2002. Hochwasserschutz–was soll, was
kann, was muss er leisten. 12 pp. Bonn. (in German)
DWD (German Weather Service). 2002. Das Niedess-
chlagsgeschehen in Mitteleurop in den arsten 12 Tagen des
August 2002. http://www.dwd.de/de/FundE/Klima/KLIS/
prod/special/regen/rr-extrem_200208.pdf
DZI (Deutsches Zentralinstitut für soziale Fragen). 2004. DZI
Spenden-Almanach 2004/05. Berlin. (in German)
EC (European Commission (Publ.)). 1999. European spatial
development perspective. Towards balanced and sustainable
development of the territory of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 78 pp.
EC (European Commission (Publ.)). 2006. A proposed Directive
flood risk management. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environ-
ment/water/flood_risk/dir_asses.htm. (accessed on 24 January
2006)
Environ Manage 38:717–732
EU (European Union (Publ.)). 2005. Questionnaire on Hazard
mapping. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/
prote/hazard_mapping/mss_eea_cc/czech/hazard_map-
ping.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2006)
Egli T. 2000. Gefahrenkarten für die Bauvorsorge und Notfall-
planung. Workshop Vorbeugender Hochwasserschutz auf
kommunaler Ebene 13./14.12.2000. Dresden Institut für ök-
ologische Raumentwicklung. Umweltbundesamt Berlin (in
German)
Egli T. 2002. Hochwasserschutz durch nachhaltiges Schadenpo-
tenzialmanagement. Internationales Symposium 2002 in
Zürich: Moderne Methoden und Konzepte im Wasserbau,
Zürich, 9 pp. (in German)
Environment Group Research Report. 2004. Requirements for
flood mapping: Scoping study—Final report. JBA Consult-
ing Scottish Executive 2004. Environment Group Research
Report 2004/03. Edinburgh
European Parliament. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field
of water policy. Official Journal of the European Commu-
nities, Luxembourg, 72 pp
Fink A., U. Ulbrich, H. Engel. 1996. Aspects of the January 1995
flood in Germany. Weather 51:34–39
Grothmann T., F. Reusswig. 2006. People at risk of flooding:
Why some residents take precautionary action while others
do not. Natural Hazards 38:101–120
Haase D., T. Weichel, M. Volk, C. Gläßer, J. Birger, D. Zober, P.
Reinartz, T. Heege, R. Müller, M. Schroeder. 2003.
Flächenhafte Erfassung der Hochwassergebiete mittels Fern-
erkundungsdaten. Tagungsband Statusseminar des BMBF-
Ad-hoc-Verbundprojektes, Freiberg, pp. 43–57 (in German)
Heidland F. 2003. Die Leistungsfähigkeit raumordnerischer
Instrumente zur Steuerung von Katastrophenrisiken. In H.
Karl, J. Pohl (eds.), ARL (Academy of Spatial Research and
Regional Planning). Raumorientiertes Risikomanagement
in Technik und Umwelt–Katastrophenvorsorge durch
Raumplanung. ARL Forschungs-und Sitzungsberichte,
Hannover, pp 102–113 (in German)
Heiland P. 2002. Vorsorgender Hochwasserschutz durch Raum-
planung, interregionale Kooperation und ökonomischen
Lastenausgleich. Technische Universität Darmstadt, Schrif-
tenreihe WAR 143. PhD Thesis. Darmstadt (in German)
Hooijer A., F. Klijn, G. Bas, M. Pedroli, A. D. G. Van Os. 2004.
Towards sustainable flood risk management in the Rhine
and Meuse River basins: Synopsis of the findings of IRMA-
SPONGE. River Research and Applications 20:343–357
Hoydal O. A., H. Berg, I. Haddenland, L. E. Petterson,
A. Vokso, E. Oydvin. 2000. Procedures and guidelines for
flood inundation maps in Norway. PIK-Report 65:404–410
ICPE (International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe).
2004. Dokumentation des Hochwassers vom August 2002 im
Einzugsgebiet der Elbe. Magdeburg (in German)
ICPR (International Commission for the Protection of the
Rhine). 1998. Flood action plan on flood defence. Koblenz
ICPR (International Commission for the Protection of the
Rhine). 2001. Rhine atlas 2001. Koblenz
ICPR (International Commission for the Protection of the
Rhine). 2002. Hochwasservorsorge–Maßnahmen und ihre
Wirksamkeit. Koblenz (in German)
International Glossary of Hydrology. 1992. http://www.cig.ens-
mp.fr/~hubert/glu/aglo.htm (accessed on 17 January 2006)
Kleeberg H.-B. 2001. Zur Hochwasser-Zonierung der deutschen
Versicherungswirtschaft. Pages 39–50 in Hochwasser-Nied-
rigwasser-Risiken. Conference Proceedings, Nürnberg:
ATV-DVWK 2001
731
Kleeberg H.-B. (ed). 2005. Hochwasser-Gefahrenkarten. Forum
für Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung Heft 08/05.
Fachgemeinschaft Hydrologische Wissenschaften der DWA
Kreibich H., T. Petrow, A. H. Thieken, M. Müller, B. Merz.
2005a. Consequences of the extreme flood event of August
2002 in the city of Dresden, Germany. IAHS Red Book
293:164–173
Kreibich H., A. H. Thieken, T. Petrow, M. Müller, B. Merz.
2005b. Flood loss reduction of private households due to
building precautionary measures—Lessons learned from the
Elbe flood in August 2002. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences 5:117–126
Kron W. 2003a. Hochwasserrisiko und Überschwemmungsvor-
sorge in Flussauen. In H. Karl, J. Pohl (eds.), ARL (Acad-
emy of Spatial Research and Regional Planning).
Raumorientiertes Risikomanagement in Technik und Um-
welt—Katastrophenvorsorge durch Raumplanung. ARL
Forschungs-und Sitzungsberichte, Hannover (in German)
pp 79–101
Kron W. 2003b. Überschwemmungsschäden und Versicherung
(Flood losses and insurance). Wasserwirtschaft 93:8–12 (in
German)
LTV (Dam Authority of Saxony). 2003. Grundlagen und
Randbedingungen der Wiederbebaubarkeit im
Überschwemmungsgebiet bei HQ 100. Hochwasserschutz-
konzept im Schadensgebiet der Fließgewässer I. Ordnung
Los 2–Müglitz, LTV. Pirna (in German)
Marco J. B. 1994. Flood risk mapping. Pages 353–373 in G. Rossi,
N. Harmancioglu, V. Yevjevich (eds), Coping with floods.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Mechler R., J. Weichselgartner. 2003. Disaster loss financing in
Germany—The case of the Elbe River floods 2002. Laxen-
burg: IIASA interim report IR-03-021
Menendez M. 2000. Design discharge calculations and flood
plain management. European Commission (Directorate
General XII): FLOODaware Final report, Cemagref, 53–82
Mikhailov V. N., M. V. Mikhailova, V.N. Morozov, M.V. Kor-
nilov, V. N. Khudoleev. 2004. Catastrophic flood on the
Danube River in August 2002. Russian Meteorology and
Hydrology 1:53–57
Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. 2004. August
2002 catastrophic flood in the Czech Republic, Prague
Morris D. G., R. W. Flavin. 1996. Report no. 130. Flood risk map
for England and Wales. Institute of Hydrology (Publ.),
Wallingford
Morris-Oswald T., S. P. Simonovic, J. Sinclair. 1998. Efforts in
flood damage reduction in the Red River Basin: Practical
considerations. Report prepared for the Environmental
Adaptation Research Group, Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Toronto
Mudelsee M., M. Börngen, G. Tetzlaff, W. Feck-Yao. 2002.
Towards predicting catastrophic flood events: an analysis of
historical data of rivers Elbe and Oder. Pages 103–111 in
G. Tetzlaff, T. Trautmann, K. S. Radtke (eds.), Zweites
Forum Katastrophenvorsorge Extreme Nature-
reignisse—Folgen, Vorsorge, Werkzeuge. DKKV, Bonn (in
German).
MUNLV (Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Land-
wirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen). 2003. Leitfaden Hochwasser-Gefahrenkarten.
21 pp. (in German)
Parker D. J. (ed). 2000. Floods, volume 1. Routledge, London,
UK
Petrascheck A. 2002. Risk assessment and hazard zone planning
in Switzerland. Österreichische Wasser-und Abfallwirtschaft
54:123–127
123
732
PLANAT (National Platform for Natural Hazards in Switzer-
land). 1998. From protection against hazards to the
management of risk. Bundesamt für Wasser und Geologie,
Bern
PLANAT. 2004. The cycle of integrated risk management.
Switzerland ( < http://www.planat.ch/>www.planat.ch - risk
management) (accessed on 28 October 2004)
Plate E. J., B. Merz, C. Eikenberg. 1999. Natural disasters:
Strategies for mitigation and disaster response. Final report
by the German IDNDR Committee at the end of the
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Ger-
man IDNDR-Series 17. Bonn
Platt R.H. 1999. From flood control to flood insurance: Changing
approaches to floods in the United States. Environments
27:67–78
Ramsbottom D. 2002. Catchment flood management: Procedures
and tools. MITCH Workshop II, Potsdam
Sayers P., J. Hall, R. Dawson, C. Rosu, J. Chatterton, R. Deakin.
2002. Risk assessment of flood and coastal defences for
strategic planning (RASP)—A high level methodology.
DEFRA Conference of Coastal and River Engineers, Keele
University, HR Wallingford
Schwarze R., G. G. Wagner. 2004. In the aftermath of Dres-
den: New directions in German flood insurance. Geneva
Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practise 29:
154–168.
Schwarze R., G. G. Wagner. 2005. Versicherungspflicht gegen
Elementarschäden–Ein Lehrstück für Probleme der volks-
wirtschaftlichen Politikberatung. Research Notes 3/2005,
DIW, Berlin, 38 pp. (in German)
SFOWG, SFOSD, SAEFL (Swiss Federal Office for Water and
Geology, Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development,
Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape).
1997. Empfehlungen zur Berücksichtigung der Hochwas-
sergefahren bei raumwirksamen Tätigkeiten. Bern (in Ger-
man)
Shrubsole D., V. J. Hammond, R. Kreutzwiser, I. Woodley.
1997. Assessing floodplain regulation in Glen Williams,
Ontario, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management
50:301–320
123
Environ Manage 38:717–732
Smith K., R. Ward. 1998. Floods physical processes and human
impacts. John Wiley and Sons, New York
SMUL (Saxon Ministry for the Environment and agriculture).
2002. Hochwasserschutz in Sachsen. Materialien zur Was-
serwirtschaft. Dresden (in German)
Swiss Re. 1998. Überschwemmung – ein versicherbares Risiko?
Marktübersicht. Zurich: Swiss Re. 36 pp. (in German)
Thieken A. H., T. Petrow, H. Kreibich, B. Merz. 2006. Flood
losses, insurance cover and precautionary behavior of pri-
vate households affected by the August 2002 flood in Ger-
many. Risk Analysis 26(2):383–395
Turowski G. 2002. Spatial planning in Germany—Structures and
concepts: Studies in spatial development. Akademie für
Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL)
Ulbrich U., T. Brücher, A. H. Fink, G. C. Leckebusch, A. Krü-
ger, J. G. Pinto. 2003. The central European floods of Au-
gust 2002: Part 1—Rainfall periods and flood development.
Weather 58:371–377
Vetters N., F. Prettenthaler. 2003. Extreme Wetterereignisse:
Nationale Risikotransfersysteme im Vergleich. Institute of
National Economy, University of Graz. 25 pp
Vogt R. 1995. Hochwasser in Köln (Floods in Cologne). Pages
48–55 in Documentation of the Workshop ‘‘Mit dem
Hochwasser leben’’ (in German)
von Ungern-Sternberg T. 2004. Efficient monopolies—The limits
of competition in the European property insurance market.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 176 pp
Watt W. E. 2000. Twenty years of flood risk mapping under the
Canadian National Flood Damage Reduction Program. In
Marsalek J., et al. (eds), Flood issues in contemporary water
management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp
155–165
Weikinn C. 1958. Quellentexte zur Witterungsgeschichte Euro-
pas von der Zeitwende bis zum Jahre 1850: Hydrographie,
Teil 1 (Zeitwende.1500). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 531 pp.
(in German)
Wind H. G., T. M. Nierop, C. J. de Blois, J. L. de Kok. 1999.
Analysis of flood damages from the 1993 and 1995 Meuse
floods. Water Resources Research 35:3459–3465