welt.de
GDV Flood Check Highlights German Building Vulnerability
The German Insurance Association (GDV) provides a free online flood risk assessment tool; new construction should prioritize elevated locations and robust materials, while existing buildings can be retrofitted with reinforced roofs, windows, and backwater valves; only about 50 percent of German buildings are insured against elemental damage, prompting calls for construction bans in flood zones.
- How do the recommended preventative measures for new versus existing buildings differ, and what are the cost implications of retrofitting older structures?
- The GDV's flood check highlights the vulnerability of German properties to extreme weather. For new constructions, preventative measures like elevated building sites and robust materials are crucial. Existing buildings can be retrofitted with measures such as improved roofing, reinforced windows, and backwater valves.
- What immediate actions can homeowners and builders take to mitigate flood and heavy rain risks, given the GDV's online flood check reveals high vulnerability?
- The German Insurance Association (GDV) offers a free online flood check to assess individual risk. Homeowners and renters can input their address to determine their risk of heavy rain and flooding. Further protective measures are available for new and existing constructions.
- What are the long-term economic and societal implications of insufficient flood protection in Germany, considering the current insurance coverage rates and the insurers' call for construction bans in vulnerable areas?
- The significant number of uninsured buildings against elemental damage in Germany (approximately 50 percent, except Baden-Württemberg at 94 percent) underscores the need for increased preventative measures and potentially mandatory insurance. Insurers are advocating for construction bans in flood-prone areas, reflecting the increasing economic impact of extreme weather events.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes individual responsibility and insurance solutions, potentially downplaying the need for broader societal action and systemic changes to infrastructure and land use planning. The headline and introduction focus on actions homeowners can take, rather than larger-scale solutions.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and informative. However, phrases like "wetterfest" (weatherproof) in the context of new constructions could be considered slightly loaded, implying that older buildings are inherently less safe.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on protective measures and insurance options, but omits discussion of governmental roles in flood mitigation, infrastructure development, and community preparedness. It also doesn't address the socioeconomic disparities that might influence access to protective measures or insurance.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by primarily focusing on individual actions (building modifications, insurance) as solutions to flood risk, neglecting systemic factors and collective responsibilities.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article promotes building practices and renovations that increase resilience to extreme weather, thus contributing to safer and more sustainable communities. Recommendations include choosing building locations wisely, employing robust construction methods, and implementing water management systems. These measures directly support the creation of resilient infrastructure and reduce the risks associated with natural disasters, aligning with SDG 11. Retrofitting existing buildings to withstand extreme weather also contributes to the longevity and sustainability of urban environments.