The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage"
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Damage assessments of natural hazards supply crucial information to decision support and policy development in the fields of natural hazard management and adaptation planning to climate change. Specifically, the estimation of economic flood damage is gaining greater importance as flood risk management is becoming the dominant approach of flood control policies throughout Europe. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art and identifies research directions of economic flood damage assessment. Despite the fact that considerable research effort has been spent and progress has been made on damage data collection, data analysis and model development in recent years, there still seems to be a mismatch between the relevance of damage assessments and the quality of the available models and datasets. Often, simple approaches are used, mainly due to limitations in available data and knowledge on damage mechanisms. The results of damage assessments depend on many assumptions, e.g. the selection of spatial and temporal boundaries, and there are many pitfalls in economic evaluation, e.g. the choice between replacement costs or depreciated values. Much larger efforts are required for empirical and synthetic data collection and for providing consistent, reliable data to scientists and practitioners. A major shortcoming of damage modelling is that model validation is scarcely performed. Uncertainty analyses and thorough scrutiny of model inputs and assumptions should be mandatory for each damage model development and application, respectively. In our view, flood risk assessments are often not well balanced. Much more attention is given to the hazard assessment part, whereas damage assessment is treated as some kind of appendix within the risk analysis. Advances in flood damage assessment could trigger subsequent methodological improvements in other natural hazard areas with comparable time-space properties.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis
Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., & Kim, S. (2017) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006 · Cited by 1,456
Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x · Cited by 759
A framework for global river flood risk assessments
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., & Bouwman, A. (2013) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013 · Cited by 448
Hydro-meteorological risk assessment methods and management by nature-based solutions
Sahani, J., Kumar, P., Debele, S., Spyrou, C., Loupis, M., Aragão, L., Porcù, F., Shah, M. A. R., & Di Sabatino, S. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133936 · Cited by 154
Ogie, R. I., Holderness, T., Dunn, S., & Turpin, E. (2018) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.11.004 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., & Thieken, A.
- Venue
- Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2010-08-18
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1697-1724
- ISSN
- 1561-8633 (ISSN-L)
- 1684-9981
- OpenAlex
- W2151514073
- Cited by
- 1,295
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage". https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010
- The paper
- Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., & Thieken, A. (2010). Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage". Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.