In summer 2021 heavy precipitation caused major flooding in central Europe affecting areas in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. The Ahr-Valley in Germany was one of the most adversely affected area with more than 135 deaths and major destruction within a 60km path along the Ahr. The recovery and reconstruction process is still ongoing.  Most attention is given to the speed of reconstruction and the question whether reconstruction funds have been used according to the funding rules defined in the state and federal regulations. However, our presentation takes a different perspective. We explore the uptake and impact of scientific research within the reconstruction process of the Ahr-Valley. We explore how selected recommendations were taken up or ignored and outline ways to improve the consideration of climate resilient development in reconstruction after extreme events. The findings can also inform the global discourse on climate change adaptation and loss and damage under UNFCCC.

How to cite: Birkmann, J. and Truedinger, A.: Reconstruction and climate resilience: assessing the relevance and impact of scientific recommendations for resilient development after flood disasters- case study Ahr-Valley in Germany - , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-3304, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3304, 2025.

The humanitarian community is actively working to mitigate the human impact of extreme weather and climate events. Social protection is increasingly recognized as a promising mechanism to address the challenges posed by climate change, as it supports individuals and households in managing climate risks, thereby addressing drivers of vulnerability, building resilience capacities and contribute to adaptation strategies (Costella & McCord, 2023).

In this study, we focus on Ethiopia—a country grappling with the compounded risks of climate change and conflict—to examine the historical interplay between climate-related hazards, conflict, and social protection on food security. Our analysis centers on regions in Amhara and Oromia, where the national Productive Safety Net Programme has been operational for over 15 years.

Recently, Ethiopia has experienced severe floods and droughts that have significantly impacted crop yields, prices, and food security. However, future rainfall projections for the country exhibit considerable uncertainties. To address this, we are developing plausible future climate risk storylines that incorporate these uncertainties in rainfall projections and integrate both quantitative and qualitative insights from our historical analysis. These storylines aim to inform resilience-building efforts and the development of effective social protection systems and adaptation measures.

How to cite: Vogel, M. M. and Jack, C. D.: Climate risk storylines for Ethiopia: compounding impacts from climate change, conflict and social assistance , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-980, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-980, 2025.

Global warming, which has accelerated significantly since 1970, is driving rapid and observable climate change (IPCC AR6 2023). Southern European countries, particularly those in the Mediterranean region, are disproportionately affected due to their already hot and dry summer climates, making them highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Climate change exacerbate the situation, leading to more frequent extreme weather events and critical challenges such as heatwaves, droughts, and both fluvial and pluvial flooding.

In the ClimEmpower project[1] [2], funded under the Horizon Europe program, five South-European regions characterized by high climate risk and low adaptive capacity were studied to strengthen climate resilience. To empower these regions, a comprehensive analysis of climate-related data, services, and resilience indicators was conducted and regional partners involved to understand their specific needs and primary climate-related challenges, and to identify critical gaps along with methodologies to address them. A key focus of this inter- and transdisciplinary approach was the development and study of resilience indicators, which are essential for assessing the current state of resilience in these regions and for monitoring progress towards improved resilience over time.

This paper presents key findings from the comprehensive analysis of existing datasets and services related to climate hazards, impacts, exposure, and vulnerabilities, as well as gaps identified through collaboration with regional stakeholders. Additionally, an overview of climate change resilience indicators is provided which is based on an extensive analysis of approximately 500 indicators across climate, socio-economic, and governance domains. The analysis reveals an uneven distribution of indicators across different sectors, with a predominant focus on environmental, economic, and governance topics, while critical areas such as water and waste management, food security, and urban planning are notably underrepresented. Significant gaps between available data and indicators for representing region-specific needs were identified, highlighting the importance of prioritizing indicators that are meaningful and actionable for localized adaptation efforts.

Concluding, the study demonstrates that not all indicators hold equal relevance across all regions and quality, and relevance should be prioritized over the sheer quantity of indicators. Thus, the emphasis should be placed on indicators with high significance and ability to support the development of region-specific pathways to enhance climate resilience in vulnerable South-European regions, ensuring that resources are directed toward the most critical areas of need.

How to cite: Tötzer, T., Bügelmayer-Blaschek, M., Hochebner, A., Kozlowska, A., Schneider, M., Chatzichristaki, C., Molina Lopez, P., Murano, I., Xekalakis, G., and Havlik, D.: Climate change resilience in South-European regions: data, services, indicators and gaps, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-9170, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-9170, 2025.

A significant challenge of resilience measurement lies in taking a complex, multi-dimensional concept and operationalizing it in a concrete and measurable way. The next generation FRMC (Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities) framework and tool is providing such a measurement within a standardized approach (e.g. not dependent on the location it is applied to), and which therefore can be used across the globe. It is based on the Sustainable Livelihood Framework and includes 44 indicators called ‘sources of resilience’ that are distributed across and represent critical aspects of five complementary ‘capitals’ (5C). The sources are selected for the roles they play in helping people on their development path and/or providing capacity to withstand and respond to shocks. We present the dynamics of these resilience indicators over time based on a large-scale empirical assessment of communities across the globe that are exposed to flood risks. In more detail, resilience indicators are measured for a baseline as well as endline period (over 2-4 years) and in case of flood hazard events, a post-event analysis was performed to identify corresponding damages. The baseline survey involved 325 communities across 22 developing countries, with data collected from over 19,000 households as well as focus groups, key informants, and secondary sources. This survey represented a total community population of more than 1 million people and generated over 2.5 million data points from 14,300 graded sources. The endline survey engaged 280 communities of the 325 in 19 developing countries. Post-event surveys were conducted in 66 communities across 7 developing countries that have experienced a flood event. Lastly, an interventions survey analysed in which communities’ interventions were implemented. Based on a Confirmatory Factor analysis, Structural Equation modelling as well as a Boosted Regression Tree approach we found important differences in the dynamics of resilience over time which are not only dependent if hazard events have realized but also in regard to the resilience levels communities are starting from during the baseline period. Our empirical findings should therefore provide a better understanding about actual resilience trajectories that can take place and the important dimensions that may influence them over time. 

How to cite: Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Chapagain, D., Velev, S., Guimaraes, R., and Keating, A.: Dynamics of Resilience over Time: A global empirical study on the community level for flood risks, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-10572, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10572, 2025.

Recent catastrophic storms and flood events—including Hurricanes Helene and Milton (2024), Ian (2022) in the United States, and severe floods in Valencia, Spain (2024), Belgium, and Germany (2021)—highlight the critical need for comprehensive resilience planning in coastal and riverine communities. With a global rise in both the frequency and severity of weather and climate disasters, coastal regions are increasingly vulnerable, facing significant risks and economic losses. This work presents an integrated framework to support flood resilience and optimize evacuation strategies by leveraging big data, high-resolution flood and storm surge models, and advanced predictive tools. This framework combines high-resolution computational fluid dynamics and finite element models to evaluate flood damage and structural vulnerability under different hurricane intensities. By capturing both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in hazard assessment, building resilience, and community preparedness, it provides a robust basis for proactive flood risk management. The framework also includes a multidimensional flood-damage assessment model, which goes beyond traditional depth–damage relationships by incorporating building-specific factors such as height, age, configuration, and construction material. Structural resilience is calculated as a function of recovery time, community preparedness, and the severity of flood-induced damage, thus enabling a detailed, community-scale risk assessment. Validated through large-scale storm surge and 2D inundation simulations, this framework offers actionable insights for emergency managers, policymakers, and local stakeholders. By integrating hydrodynamics, structural data, and socio-economic factors, this comprehensive approach empowers communities with data-driven resources for making informed decisions to reduce risk and improve adaptive capacity. This framework is positioned to be highly impactful for diverse users—including property owners, insurance companies, real estate businesses, and regional decision-makers—as it addresses the complex challenges of flood resilience in the face of increasing extreme weather events.

How to cite: Nazari, R. and Karimi, M.: Enhancing Community Resilience, Flood Risk Assessment, and Decision-Making in the Face of Extreme Weather Events, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-78, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-78, 2025.

A new web-based portal, Resilience Studio, has been developed to help explore large spatio-temporal risk scenario libraries of mixed adaptation strategies to multi-source hazards in the face of rapid climate change. The software is demonstrated using global flood hazard maps at 30m resolution and 5m resolution for a UK case-study, combined with world population data to provide an equitable measure of expected annual flood risk to people now and in the future, anywhere globally. The studio environment permits exploration of how risk is expected to change across a wide range of through-time (decadal) ‘what-if’ mitigation scenarios including property flood resilience, embankments, early warning and nature-based solutions (following Hankin et al., 2022). The framework is agnostic to the type of hazard and metrics, including natural capital assessments of multi-hazards, and permitting a more complete system understanding.  

We demonstrate how the integrated whole-life benefits of user-selected adaptation pathways, tempered by estimated mitigation costs, can be visualised in a new way to permit dynamic appraisal of trade-offs. The user can explore introducing mitigations at the best point in time to anticipate tipping points from projected step changes in future risk (Hankin et al., 2023). The intention is to develop M-L co-pilot suggestions for more efficacious pathways to assist with long term, dynamic planning using benefit-cost as an objective function.  Finally, to help with on-demand appraisal of supplementary risk scenarios outside of the library, a new QGIS based tool, QFlow, is demonstrated to show rapid inundation modelling and impact analysis - creating flexibility for adding unforeseen flood hazards such as reservoir breach failure.

Hankin, B., Sampson, T., Ilyasova, A., Pleijter, G., 2023.How do climate change pathway assumptions effect economic viability and prioritisation of flood projects? Proceedings of the Irish National Hydrology Conference. https://hydrologyireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/09-B-Hankin-T-Sampson-JBA-Pathways_edit01-2.pdf

Hankin, B., Ramirez, L., Wood, I., Green, A., Quincieu, E., Lauren, Y., and Lawless, M.: Integrated flood risk management prioritization in Indonesia, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-9246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-9246, 2022.

How to cite: Hankin, B., Evans, A., Maslen, S., Bromley, T., Roberts, J., Robinson, P., Lowis, A., Dudman, J., and Lawless, M.: Exploring whole-life trade-offs for mixed adaptation pathways with a large risk-scenario-library using Resilience Studio enhanced with QFlow , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-5182, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5182, 2025.

The July 2021 floods in Europe stand out as one of the most devastating flood-related disasters to impact the continent in recent years - affecting multiple countries at once. As climate change intensifies, such cross-border disasters are expected to become more frequent. This underscores the importance of understanding the patterns and limits of how households in different nations respond to shared flood crises. Using unique cross-country survey data from flooded homeowners, we find evidence of financial, institutional, and psychological limits to adaptation on the building level. Insurance compensation is the main driver of private adaptation actions shortly after flooding. However, over the long term, the intensity of flood experiences plays a pivotal role in shaping household adaptation intentions. Households that suffered significant flood damage are more likely to take steps to mitigate future risks to their homes. Yet, this intention encounters limits for extreme flood damage. Once experienced flood damages exceed a threshold of 58% of the home reconstruction value, homeowners begin to view private adaptation efforts as less effective, prompting a shift toward relocating to safer areas.

How to cite: Endendijk, T., Rodriguez Castro, D., Dillenardt, L., Kumar Guntu, R., Botzen, W., de Moel, H., Thieken, A., Kreibich, H., Dewals, B., and Aerts, J.: Emerging patterns and limits in household cross-border flood adaptation, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-10617, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10617, 2025.

This study investigates the relationship between community resilience indicators and flood-related mortality and morbidity across 66 communities worldwide. Using the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework, we examine how five distinct forms of capital - social, financial, physical, human, and natural - influence three specific outcomes: direct flood-related fatalities, deaths within three months post-flood, and flood-related injuries.

The research employs a quasi-experimental design with regression adjustments to analyze the relationship between resilience levels and these mortality and morbidity outcomes. Our methodology incorporates key demographic factors, including age distribution, gender composition, and urban-rural residence, while also accounting for flood exposure and hazard characteristics such as return periods and the percentage of the community affected.

The FRMC framework provides a comprehensive dataset compiled through multiple data collection methods, including household surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and secondary sources. The study specifically uses baseline data to assess pre-existing resilience levels and post-event data to measure mortality and injury impacts.

Our analytical approach begins with Principal Component Analysis to derive consolidated measures for each type of capital. The quantitative research design carefully controls for demographic vulnerabilities and flood exposure or hazard characteristics, recognizing that these factors may significantly influence the relationship between resilience and both mortality and morbidity outcomes.

The study makes several important contributions to the existing literature on flood resilience impacts. First, it provides a systematic analysis of how different forms of community capitals affect both mortality and injuries in flood-affected areas. Second, it considers both immediate and delayed mortality impacts, accounting for deaths occurring up to three months after flood events. Third, it examines these relationships while controlling for demographic factors and flood exposure or hazard levels, offering insights into how resilience effects may vary across different community contexts.

This research has significant implications for policy and practice in flood risk management and community resilience building. By understanding how different forms of capital influence mortality and injury patterns, policymakers and practitioners can better target interventions to reduce flood-related deaths and injuries. The findings may help inform more effective strategies for protecting vulnerable populations and strengthening community resilience to flood events.

Furthermore, by examining both immediate and delayed mortality effects alongside injury patterns, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of flood impacts on communities. This broader perspective is crucial for developing more effective long-term disaster response and recovery strategies.

How to cite: Guimaraes, R., Velev, S., and Chapagain, D.: The Effect of Community Resilience Measures on Morbi-Mortality Indicators Following Floods: An Empirical Assessment., EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-17601, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-17601, 2025.

How to cite: Velev, S. and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.: Measuring resilience capacity for transformational adaptation across the world , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-17565, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-17565, 2025.

Despite wide-spread recognition and rhetoric regarding the burdens imposed by simple and systemic disaster and climate risks as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk, it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment into disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) at individual project level as well as country scale. To this effect, international policy debate over the last years in the wake of the international compacts of 2015 has emphasized the need for orienting such investments toward interventions that generate so-called triple or multiple resilience dividends. Such dividends include reducing loss of lives and livelihoods, unlocking development, and creating development co-benefits. In addition to risk reduction benefits from project investment (1st dividend), these suggested dividends would arise from positive externalities, such as unlocked development (2nd dividend) and co-benefits (3rd dividend), e.g. investment into health systems with returns from treating disaster-affected patients and those affected by idiosyncratic events, such as from disease or accidents. In economic parlance, externalities (also called spill-overs) can be considered the benefits (if positive) or costs (if negative) not directly captured in market prices or transactions. In our discussion, we consider externalities as the unplanned positive or negative effects arising from risk management investment. While externalities have been considered in sustainability decision-making for public sector investment decisions for many issues, in DRR and CCA they are generally not yet well captured, which gave rise to the concept of triple dividend decision-making propositions.  

Yet, while triple and multi resilience dividend decision-making have received attention in policy and practice over the last decade, evidence remains scarce, particularly as to the 2nd dividend (the externalities). We suggest that systemic risk research with its focus on interdependent systems coupled with resilience dividend decision-making reasoning may point a way forward for improved decision-making on disaster and climate risks (reduction). 

This article queries what resilience assessment methods, metrics and evidence exist to address interconnected systemic and global catastrophic risks for informing efforts towards transformational resilience across systems. Based on insights and examples from decision-making analysis as well as systemic risk research we show how analysts and decision-makers can better consider the various resilience dividends, i.e., positive externalities and co-benefits of disaster risk reduction measures beyond the reduction of losses and assess dependencies in risk and benefits' creation across micro and macro scales. As we suggest, this may enable a more comprehensive evaluation of interventions with benefits arising at various scales, thus in many cases, where there are strong dependencies across systems, such benefits may result in reduced cost (trade-offs) and increased benefits (or synergies) for risk reduction and resilience. 

How to cite: Zebrowski, P., Clercq-Roques, R., Patil, P., and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.: Resilience in the Polycrisis. Addressing multiple risks through multiple resilience dividends, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-21772, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-21772, 2025.