Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to buildings

Open access
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A., Schmidtke, R.·2004·Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

Abstract

Abstract. Traditional flood design methods are increasingly supplemented or replaced by risk-oriented methods which are based on comprehensive risk analyses. Besides meteorological, hydrological and hydraulic investigations such analyses require the estimation of flood impacts. Flood impact assessments mainly focus on direct economic losses using damage functions which relate property damage to damage-causing factors. Although the flood damage of a building is influenced by many factors, usually only inundation depth and building use are considered as damage-causing factors. In this paper a data set of approximately 4000 damage records is analysed. Each record represents the direct monetary damage to an inundated building. The data set covers nine flood events in Germany from 1978 to 1994. It is shown that the damage data follow a Lognormal distribution with a large variability, even when stratified according to the building use and to water depth categories. Absolute depth-damage functions which relate the total damage to the water depth are not very helpful in explaining the variability of the damage data, because damage is determined by various parameters besides the water depth. Because of this limitation it has to be expected that flood damage assessments are associated with large uncertainties. It is shown that the uncertainty of damage estimates depends on the number of flooded buildings and on the distribution of building use within the flooded area. The results are exemplified by a damage assessment for a rural area in southwest Germany, for which damage estimates and uncertainty bounds are quantified for a 100-year flood event. The estimates are compared to reported flood damages of a severe flood in 1993. Given the enormous uncertainty of flood damage estimates the refinement of flood damage data collection and modelling are major issues for further empirical and methodological improvements.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/nhess-4-153-2004

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A., & Schmidtke, R.
Venue
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Published
2004-03-09
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
153-163
ISSN
  • 1561-8633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1684-9981
OpenAlex
W2132967462
Cited by
444
References
8
FWCI
3.71
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: Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to buildings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/nhess-4-153-2004
The paper
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A., & Schmidtke, R. (2004). Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to buildings. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-4-153-2004

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.