IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Flood Loss Models as Basis for Harmonization and Benchmarking

Author

Listed:
  • Tina Gerl
  • Heidi Kreibich
  • Guillermo Franco
  • David Marechal
  • Kai Schröter

Abstract

Risk-based approaches have been increasingly accepted and operationalized in flood risk management during recent decades. For instance, commercial flood risk models are used by the insurance industry to assess potential losses, establish the pricing of policies and determine reinsurance needs. Despite considerable progress in the development of loss estimation tools since the 1980s, loss estimates still reflect high uncertainties and disparities that often lead to questioning their quality. This requires an assessment of the validity and robustness of loss models as it affects prioritization and investment decision in flood risk management as well as regulatory requirements and business decisions in the insurance industry. Hence, more effort is needed to quantify uncertainties and undertake validations. Due to a lack of detailed and reliable flood loss data, first order validations are difficult to accomplish, so that model comparisons in terms of benchmarking are essential. It is checked if the models are informed by existing data and knowledge and if the assumptions made in the models are aligned with the existing knowledge. When this alignment is confirmed through validation or benchmarking exercises, the user gains confidence in the models. Before these benchmarking exercises are feasible, however, a cohesive survey of existing knowledge needs to be undertaken. With that aim, this work presents a review of flood loss–or flood vulnerability–relationships collected from the public domain and some professional sources. Our survey analyses 61 sources consisting of publications or software packages, of which 47 are reviewed in detail. This exercise results in probably the most complete review of flood loss models to date containing nearly a thousand vulnerability functions. These functions are highly heterogeneous and only about half of the loss models are found to be accompanied by explicit validation at the time of their proposal. This paper exemplarily presents an approach for a quantitative comparison of disparate models via the reduction to the joint input variables of all models. Harmonization of models for benchmarking and comparison requires profound insight into the model structures, mechanisms and underlying assumptions. Possibilities and challenges are discussed that exist in model harmonization and the application of the inventory in a benchmarking framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Tina Gerl & Heidi Kreibich & Guillermo Franco & David Marechal & Kai Schröter, 2016. "A Review of Flood Loss Models as Basis for Harmonization and Benchmarking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159791
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159791
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159791&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159791?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Md Shahinoor Rahman & Liping Di, 2020. "A Systematic Review on Case Studies of Remote-Sensing-Based Flood Crop Loss Assessment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Anshuka Anshuka & Floris F. Ogtrop & David Sanderson & Simone Z. Leao, 2022. "A systematic review of agent-based model for flood risk management and assessment using the ODD protocol," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2739-2771, July.
    3. Dennis Wagenaar & Tiaravanni Hermawan & Marc J. C. van den Homberg & Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts & Heidi Kreibich & Hans de Moel & Laurens M. Bouwer, 2021. "Improved Transferability of Data‐Driven Damage Models Through Sample Selection Bias Correction," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 37-55, January.
    4. Dominik Paprotny & Heidi Kreibich & Oswaldo Morales-Nápoles & Dennis Wagenaar & Attilio Castellarin & Francesca Carisi & Xavier Bertin & Bruno Merz & Kai Schröter, 2021. "A probabilistic approach to estimating residential losses from different flood types," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 2569-2601, February.
    5. Chi Truong & Matteo Malavasi & Han Li & Stefan Trueck & Pavel V. Shevchenko, 2024. "Optimal dynamic climate adaptation pathways: a case study of New York City," Papers 2402.02745, arXiv.org.
    6. Weihua Zhu & Kai Liu & Ming Wang & Sadhana Nirandjan & Elco E. Koks, 2023. "Improved assessment of rainfall-induced railway infrastructure risk in China using empirical data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1525-1548, January.
    7. Tobias Sieg & Thomas Schinko & Kristin Vogel & Reinhard Mechler & Bruno Merz & Heidi Kreibich, 2019. "Integrated assessment of short-term direct and indirect economic flood impacts including uncertainty quantification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.