Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

Compound inland flood events: different pathways, different impacts and different coping options


Thieken,  Annegret H.
External Organizations;

Samprogna Mohor,  Guilherme
External Organizations;


Kreibich,  H.
4.4 Hydrology, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Müller,  Meike
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

(Publisher version), 2MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Thieken, A. H., Samprogna Mohor, G., Kreibich, H., Müller, M. (2022): Compound inland flood events: different pathways, different impacts and different coping options. - Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS), 22, 1, 165-185.

Cite as: https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_5009687
Several severe flood events hit Germany in recent years, with events in 2013 and 2016 being the most destructive ones, although dynamics and flood processes were very different. While the 2013 event was a slowly rising widespread fluvial flood accompanied by some severe dike breaches, the events in 2016 were fast-onset pluvial floods, which resulted in surface water flooding in some places due to limited capacities of the drainage systems and in destructive flash floods with high sediment loads and clogging in others, particularly in small steep catchments. Hence, different pathways, i.e. different routes that the water takes to reach (and potentially damage) receptors, in our case private households, can be identified in both events. They can thus be regarded as spatially compound flood events or compound inland floods. This paper analyses how differently affected residents coped with these different flood types (fluvial and pluvial) and their impacts while accounting for the different pathways (river flood, dike breach, surface water flooding and flash flood) within the compound events. The analyses are based on two data sets with 1652 (for the 2013 flood) and 601 (for the 2016 flood) affected residents who were surveyed around 9 months after each flood, revealing little socio-economic differences – except for income – between the two samples. The four pathways showed significant differences with regard to their hydraulic and financial impacts, recovery, warning processes, and coping and adaptive behaviour. There are just small differences with regard to perceived self-efficacy and responsibility, offering entry points for tailored risk communication and support to improve property-level adaptation.