Hidrológiai Közlöny, 2017 (97. évfolyam)
2017 / 3. szám - TRANSNATIONAL EFFORTS - Oroszi Viktor György - Tamás Enikő Anna - Tamás Beatrix: Flood management education in the Danube basin - needs and challenges
Viktor György Oroszi et al: Flood management education in the Danube basin - needs and challenges 25 expressed their need for the usage of existing structures as ICPDR, Sava Commission and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region Priority Area 5 (EUSDR PA5 The flood management cycle {Figure 1) consists of three phases: pre-flood preparedness, response during floods and post-flood recovery of areas and communities {Shreshta et al. 2011). Nowadays emphasis has been put on living together with floods rather than coping with them. Thus, simple flood defence turns into integrated flood management {Thieken et al. 2006). The mitigation of flood-related hazards can be reached with the help of structural and non-structural measures. Creation of headwater dams, improved embankments and the construction of new and heightening of already existing levees, or even the application of mobile solutions and water retention with the help of emergency flood reservoirs belong to the classic structural solutions. Despite structural measures (defence structures) will remain principal element to secure goods, property and primarily human health and safety, the possibilities of non-structural ways to mitigate flood risk became significantly important nowadays, because they tend to be potentially more efficient and more sustainable solutions on the long run (IWDM2003). The promotion of rainwater infiltration, the enhancement of soil conservation with reduction of soil erosion, proper landuse, the conservation and restoration of vegetation in mountainous areas and riparian woodlands, the reconnection of rivers with their floodplains, the maintenance of the vegetation, the improvement of land reclamation, the reconnection of dead branches, the relocation of dykes and opening natural levees, the discharge of excess water into natural flood retention areas, the dismantling of man-made obstacles of flow are well known non-structural solutions to reduce flood risks. They also support the three-step approach (retaining, storing and draining) in avoidance of the passing of water management problems to other regions {IWDM 2003). Improved common hydro-meteorological monitoring systems (like the Trans-Carpathian Flood Monitoring System along the Upper-Tisza River), data exchange platforms and flood forecasting models (e.g. the Morava-Dyje rainfall-runoff model, or the Rába/Raab, Ipoly/Ipel flood forecasting system), the setting up and operational use of early warning systems like the European Flood Alert System are essential steps in reaching well-preparedness {Dementi et al. 2013, ICPDR 2015a). environmental risks) and target the not fully utilized funds of the EU Programmes to implement structural and non- structural measures. Raising awareness is also essential to increase preparedness in all the regions. The elaboration of flood management strategies and flood defence and evacuation plans, furthermore regular joint exercises are essential, especially in transboundary areas. Nevertheless, these strategies should be better communicated to both insurance companies and property owners. Informing people about the flood risk of their residence and possibilities for flood insurance and flood loss mitigation would be a first step in strenghtening the disaster preparedness of private households. The role of insurance companies is also undeniable in risk management. Insurance companies should acknowledge the mitigation activities of private households through incentives (e.g. certificate of disaster resistance), or disseminate flood-adaptive building use and materials. An investigation {Thieken et al. 2006) has shown that 80% of insurers informed building owners of which flood hazard zone they were living in and only 25- 35% of the insurers gave advice before the 2002 flood in Saxony-Anhalt (Germany) on how to mitigate flood losses. In Saxony-Anhalt 35% of the insured households without flood experience declared that they had known about their living in a flood-endangered area in 2002. This applied only to 26% of the uninsured households without flood experience. In 2002 only 14% of private households clearly knew how to protect themselves and their assets, in 2013 this ratio was already 46 % and a higher percentage of households implemented mitigation measures. Nearly half (48.5%) of the insured households had acquired information regarding flood mitigation or participated in emergency networks, whereas only the third (33.9%) of the uninsured ones had done likewise {Thieken et al. 2006). The combination of flood insurance with land-use planning and damage mitigation is important to increase resilience. Dynamic adaptation of households to changing flood risk over time can reduce estimated flood risk by 19% to 56% as it was shown in case of Rotterdam {Haer et al. 2016). Strenghtened resilience and better preparedness can also be reached with the help of education related to flood
