EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 7 (2016) E3S Web Conf., 7 (2016) 13006 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 13006
Number of page(s) 8
Section Non-structural measures and instruments
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160713006
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Begum, S., Stive, M. J. F., & Hall, J. W. (Eds.). (2007). Flood risk management in Europe: Innovation in policy and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  2. Benz, Arthur. (2005). Governance. In Ritter, E.-H. (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung (4th ed., pp. 404–408). Hannover: ARL. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berke, Philip R., & Campanella, Thomas J. (2006). Planning for Postdisaster Resiliency. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 192–207. doi:10.1177/0002716205285533 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brombach, Hansjörg, Jüpner, Robert, Müller, Uwe, Patt, Heinz, Werner, Richwien, & Vogt, Reinhard. (2013). Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen. In Patt, H. & Jüpner, R. (Eds.), Hochwasser Handbuch. Auswirkungen und Schutz (pp. 316–481). Heidelberg: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruijn, Karin M. de. (2005). Resilience and flood risk management: a systems approach applied to lowland rivers. Delft: Delft University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2012). A Review of Risk Perceptions and other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior. Risk Analysis, 32(9), 1481–1495. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Driessen, Peter P.J. Dieperink, Carel, Laerhoven, Frank, Runhaar, Hens A. C., &Vermeulen, Walter J.V., (2012). Conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance – Experiences from the Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(3), 143–160. doi:10.1002/eet.1580 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks Official Journal of the European Union, European Parliament and European Council 2007. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hartmann, Thomas. (2011a). Clumsy floodplains: Responsive land policy for extreme floods. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hartmann, Thomas. (2011b). Den Flüssen mehr Raum geben – Umsetzungsrestriktionen in Recht und Praxis. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 69(4), 257–268. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hartmann, Thomas. (2012). Land policy for German Rivers: Making Space for the Rivers. In Warner, J. F., van Buuren, A., & Edelenbos, J. (Eds.), Making space for the river (pp. 121–133). London: IWA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hartmann, Thomas, & Juepner, Robert. (2014). The Flood Risk Management Plan – An essential step towards the institutionalization of a paradigm shift. International Journal of Water Governance, 2(2), 107–118. doi:10.7564/13-IJWG5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience. In Schulze, P. C. (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31–43). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Houghton, John T., MacCarthy, James J., & Bert, Metz. (2001). Climate change 2001: Contribution of the working group I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge Univ. Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 23. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ [Google Scholar]
  16. Jüpner, R. (Ed.). (2005). Hochwassermanagement. Aachen: Shaker. [Google Scholar]
  17. Klijn, Frans, Samuels, Paul, & van Os, Ad. (2008). Towards flood risk management in the EU: State of affairs with examples from various European countries. International Journal of River Basin Management, 6(4), 307–321. doi:10.1080/15715124.2008.9635358 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tatiana, Kluvánková-Oravská. (2010). From government to governance? New governance for water and biodiversity in an enlarged Europe. Prague: Alfa. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kreibich, Heidi, Seifert, Isabel, Thieken, Annegret H., Lindquist, Eric, Wagner, Klaus, & Merz, Bruno. (2011). Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and businesses in Germany. Regional Environmental Change, 11(1), 59–71. doi:10.1007/s10113-010-0119-3 [Google Scholar]
  20. LAWA. (2003). Instrumente und Handlungsempfehlungen zur Umsetzung der Leitlinien für einen zukunftsweisenden Hochwasserschutz. Berlin. Retrieved from www.lawa.de [Google Scholar]
  21. Loucks, Daniel P., Stedinger, Jery R., Davis, Darryl W., & Stakhiv, Eugene Z. (2008). Private and public responses to flood risks. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(4), 541–553. doi:10.1080/07900620801923286 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Re., Munich (2014a). Schadenereignisse weltweit 1980 –2013: 10 teuerste Überschwemmungen für die Gesamtwirtschaft. NatCatSERVICE. Retrieved from https://www.munichre.com/…/Significant-Natural-Catastrophes/.pdf [Google Scholar]
  23. Re., Munich (2014b). Topics GEO – Natural catastrophes 2013. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/302-08121_en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Neubert, M., Naumann, T., Hennersdorf, J., & Nikolowski, J. (2016). The Geographic Information System-based flood damage simulation model HOWAD. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(1), 36–49. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12109 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Osberghaus, Daniel. (2015). The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany — Evidence from a nationwide survey. Ecological Economics, 110, 36–50. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Patt, H., & Jüpner, R. (Eds.). (2013). Hochwasser Handbuch: Auswirkungen und Schutz. Heidelberg: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Petrow, Theresia, Thieken, Annegret H., Kreibich, Heidi, Merz, Bruno, & Bahlburg, Cord H. (2006). Improvements on Flood Alleviation in Germany: Lessons Learned from the Elbe Flood in August 2002. Environmental Management, 38(5), 717–732. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-6291-4 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Poussin, Jennifer K., Botzen, W. W., & Aerts, Jeroen C. (2014). Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 69–77. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  29. David, Saurí-Pujol, Dolors, Roset-Pagès, Anna, Ribas-Palom, & Pujol-Pere, Caussa. (2001). The ‘escalator effect’ in flood policy: the case of the Costa Brava, Catalonia, Spain. Applied Geography, 21(2), 127–143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Scheibel, Marc, & Johann, Georg. (2015). Hochwasserpass – Überschwemmungsgefährdungen vorbeugen. Abwasserreport, 15(4), 4–5. [Google Scholar]
  31. Schinke, Reinhard, Neubert, Marco, & Hennersdorf, Jörg. (2013). Modellierung von Gebäudeschäden infolge von Grundhochwasser auf Grundlage gebäudetypologischer Untersuchungen und sythetisch ermittelter Schadensfunktionen. In Stamm, J. & Graw, K.-U. (Eds.), Technischer und organisatorischer Hochwasserschutz (pp. 365–372). Dresden: Dresdner Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tempels, Barbara, & Hartmann, Thomas. (2014). A coevolving frontier between land and water: dilemmas of flexibility versus robustness in flood risk management. Water International, 39(6), 872–883. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.958797 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. van Ree, C.C.D.F., Van, M. A., Heilemann, K., Morris, M. W., Royet, P., & Zevenbergen, C. (2011). FloodProBE: Technologies for improved safety of the built environment in relation to flood events. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(7), 874–883. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.03.010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wagner, Klaus. (2008). Der Risikoansatz in der europäischen Hochwassermanagementrichtlinie. Natur und Recht, 30(11), 774–779. doi:10.1007/s10357-008-1569-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.