| Volumes and Issues Contents of Issue 1 |
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/3/2010/
doi:10.5194/nhess-10-3-2010
© Author(s) 2010. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Reply to Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by C. M. Rheinberger (2009)
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.
Full Article (PDF, 233 KB) Comment
Citation: Merz, B., Elmer, F., and Thieken, A. H.: Reply to Comment on "Significance of "high probability/low damage" versus "low probability/high damage" flood events" by C. M. Rheinberger (2009), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 3-5, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-3-2010, 2010. Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager XML
