Natural Hazards and Earth System Science www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net 1561-8633 1684-9981 10 1 2010 10.5194/nhess-10-1-2010 http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/ http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/nhess-10-1-2010.html http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1/2010/nhess-10-1-2010.pdf 1 2 2010-01-05 Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by Merz et al. (2009) C. M. Rheinberger rheinberger@slf.ch WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Risk Management Group, 7260 Davos, Switzerland This comment is meant to shed some light on the use of so-called "risk aversion functions" in the management of flood risks and other natural hazards as recently proposed in this journal (Merz et al., 2009). In particular, I resume the discussion as to whether the relative damage is a suitable indicator of risk aversion and lay out why the use of this indicator may lead to inefficient decisions upon flood mitigation measures. Merz, B., Elmer, F., and Thieken, A. H.: Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1033–1046, 2009.