Articles | Volume 10, issue 1
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 3–5, 2010
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-3-2010
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 3–5, 2010
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-3-2010

  05 Jan 2010

05 Jan 2010

Reply to Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by C. M. Rheinberger (2009)

B. Merz1, F. Elmer1, and A. H. Thieken2 B. Merz et al.
  • 1Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Section 5.4, Germany
  • 2alpS – Centre for Natural Hazard and Risk Management and University of Innsbruck, Grabenweg 3, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Abstract. In a comment to our recently published paper on the "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" (Merz et al., 2009), C. M. Rheinberger questions the use of relative damage as a suitable indicator for risk aversion and the use of the resulting risk aversion functions in judging flood mitigation measures. While the points of criticism are important and should be accounted for, most of these points are considered in our original paper. More importantly, we do not agree with the conclusion that the use of relative damage as indicator for risk aversion is generally not appropriate in decision making about flood mitigation measures.

Altmetrics