Inte grated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies
Methodology for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments in flood risk management (postEval)
Au gust 2007 Report Nr: T12-07-01
Summary of Contents:
Measures and Instruments
Conditions Evaluation framework Criteria, indicators and methods Selection of indicators Case study results Conclusions and recommendations
Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels HR Wallingford UK Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420 Project website: www.floodsite.net
FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Methodology for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments in Title flood risk management (postEval) Lead Author Alfred Olfert Contributors Jochen Schanze Distribution Project Team Olfert A and Schanze J (2007), Methodology for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments in flood risk management (postEval), Document Reference Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), FLOODsite Report T12-07-01, Dresden.
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes 07/01/07 1.0draft A. Olfert IOER 27/08/07 1.1draft A. Olfert IOER
DISCLAIMER This report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specific applications without first checking its suitability.
In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, various sections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the project consortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.
Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of material contained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specific commission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concerned for the particular application.
© FLOODsite Consortium
ii FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
SUMMARY
Design, implementation and operation of measures and instruments for effective and sustainable flood risk reduction require knowledge from previous practice. Systematic ex-post evaluation of interventions into the flood risk system and is an important basis for learning in support of future development of strategies and strategic options in flood risk management. Lacking methodological approaches currently prevent from comprehensive ex-post evaluation. As an effect, these remain uncommon, irregular and unsystematic.
The report drafts a “Methodology for ex-post evaluation of pre-flood measures and instruments” (ex-post EFM) for the investigation of (side-)effects, effectiveness, efficiency, robustness and flexibility of physical measures and policy instruments. The methodology aims at providing a framework for the evaluation of measures and instruments after their implementation. The framework is laid out to be generically applicable with all measures and instruments at project level. By applying the methodology, information about existing measures and instruments shall be made available for the planning of future flood risk reduction.
The Methodology addresses pre-flood and flood event measures and instruments at project level aimed at the reduction of flood risk respectively flood damage. Interventions in all elements of the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequences model are considers. Interventions of interest for ex-post evaluation are single measures and instruments or strongly connected combinations of those seen in the context of selected natural and societal conditions.
The Methodology mainly consists of criteria and methods for the evaluation of physical measures and policy instruments. These aim at exploring effects (incl. side-effects), effectiveness, cost effectiveness, robustness and flexibility of existing interventions in to the flood risk system under reverting to experiences from recent flood events. The overall performance of the interventions is investigated under consideration of hydrological, ecological, social and economic aspects. Corresponding to the multiple criteria approach of the methodology a wide range of methods is used including quantitative as well as qualitative approaches.
Natural and societal conditions are defined as part of the methodology and facilitate the case specific selection of criteria. The selection methodology enables a quick and systematic selection of appropriate criteria based on a partly formalised two step approach.
A wide range of measures and instruments are identified and classified as basis for the methodology. These are presented in a newly developed classification system. Classification and the identified types of intervention are presented in a web-based information system.
iii FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
CONTENTS
Document Information ii Document History ii Disclaimer ii Summary iii Contents iv
Table of contents
A METHODOLOGY...... 1
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Research questions for ex-post evaluation...... 2 1.3 Structure of the methodology ...... 3
2. Measures and instruments...... 6 2.1 Measures and instruments - interventions at project level...... 6 2.2 Measures and instruments in the flood risk system ...... 7 2.3 Measures and instruments – a classification...... 10 2.3.1 Why a new classification...... 10 2.3.2 Level 1: Physical measures and policy instruments...... 11 2.3.3 Level 2: Functional character of measures and instruments ...... 12 2.3.4 Level 3: Types of measures and instruments ...... 14 2.4 Single measures and instruments and combinations of those...... 16
3. Conditions for measures and instruments ...... 18 3.1 Importance of conditions ...... 18 3.2 Type of flood ...... 19 3.3 Probability of flood...... 20 3.4 Land use...... 20 3.5 Type of water body...... 20 3.6 Specific conditions...... 21
4. Evaluation framework ...... 22 4.1 Criteria – main viewpoints of evaluation...... 22 4.2 Indicators – yardsticks of evaluation ...... 23 4.3 Evaluation framework ...... 24
5. Indicators, evaluation of criteria and evaluation methods ...... 27 5.1 Evaluation of effects...... 27 5.1.1 Impacts of flooding and flood risk reduction ...... 27 5.1.2 Categories of effects...... 28 5.1.3 Indicators of hydrological and hydraulic effects...... 29 5.1.4 Indicators of socio-cultural effects...... 29 5.1.5 Indicators of economic effects ...... 30 5.1.6 Indicators of ecological effects ...... 32 5.1.7 Determination of effects...... 37
iv FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5.2 Evaluation of effectiveness...... 40 5.2.1 Effectiveness - the degree of goal achievement ...... 40 5.2.2 Objectives...... 42 5.2.3 Determination of effectiveness...... 42 5.3 Evaluation of efficiency – the benefit/cost ratio...... 45 5.3.1 Economic and non–economic effects in cost-effectiveness ...... 45 5.3.2 Benefits and costs in cost-effectiveness ...... 45 5.3.3 Determination of cost-effectiveness...... 47 5.4 Evaluation of robustness...... 49 5.4.1 Robustness as reliability of intended performance...... 49 5.4.2 Conditions of pressure...... 50 5.4.3 Determination of robustness under conditions of pressure ...... 50 5.5 Evaluation of flexibility...... 53 5.5.1 Flexibility versus irreversibility ...... 53 5.5.2 Determination of flexibility...... 54
6. Selection of indicators ...... 55 6.1 Introduction ...... 55 6.2 Step 1 - Formalised reduction of the overall indicator set...... 55 6.3 Step 2 - Case specific selection of criteria...... 57
B SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 59
7. Case study summaries...... 59 7.1 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden...... 59 7.2 Emergency storage at the Elbe river...... 60 7.3 Risk reduction activities on the Odra river ...... 61 7.4 Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin (Tisza A) ...... 62 7.5 Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation for flood and excess water defence along the upper Tisza river...... 62
8. Overview of applied indicators and obtained results...... 64
C CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 69
9. Conclusions regarding the application of the methodology ...... 69 9.1 Completeness and consistency of the indicator set...... 69 9.2 Conclusions regarding the determination of criteria...... 69 9.2.1 Determination of effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness...... 69 9.2.2 Determination of robustness...... 70 9.2.3 Determination of flexibility...... 70 9.3 Conclusions regarding the framework of evaluation...... 70 9.4 Challenges and constraints of ex-post evaluation in practice ...... 71 9.5 Complimentarity of measures...... 71
10. Recommendations for the choice of measures and instruments for flood risk reduction ...... 72
v FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
D REFERECES ...... 73
E ANNEXES ...... 81
ANNEX 1 APPENDICES TO THE METHODOLODY ...... 82
Appendix 1 Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effects...... 83
Appendix 2 Indicators of socio-cultural effects ...... 93
Appendix 3 Indicators of economic effects...... 105
Appendix 4 Inidcators of ecological effects...... 120
Appendix 5 List of identified measures and instruments ...... 148
ANNEX 2 CASE STUDY REPORTS...... 151
Report 1 Flood proving in the inundation areas of Dresden and Pirna (Germany) in the April 2006 Elbe river flooding
Report 1 Emergency Storage at the Elbe River
Report 3 Risk reduction activities on the Odra River
Report 4 Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin (Tisza A)
Report 5 Hungarian-Ukrainian Co-Operation for Flood and Excess Water Defence Along the Upper Tisza River
vi FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Tables
Table 1: Evaluation framework 26 Table 2: Indicators of hydrological and hydraulic effects 29 Table 3: Indicators of social effects 30 Table 4: Indicators of economic effects 32 Table 5: Indicators of effects related to soils and vegetation in source areas 33 Table 6: Indicators of limnological effects (WFD quality element level) 34 Table 7: Parameters of limnological effect-indicators and their relevance for the type of water body (based on WFD, Annex V) 35 Table 8: Indicators of ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shores 37 Table 9: Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effectiveness 40 Table 10: Indicators of social effectiveness 41 Table 11: Indicators of economic effectiveness 41 Table 12: Examples of intervention specific indicators of effectiveness 42 Table 13: Overview of used criteria in the cases and schematic results 64
Figures
Figure 1: The concept of ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments 4 Figure 2: Realisation of programme goals through projects (simplified from Virtanen & Uusikyla 2004) 6 Figure 3: Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model (cf. DETR 2000) 8 Figure 4: Categories of measures and instruments 13 Figure 5: Types of measures and instruments 14 Figure 6: Levels of information in ex-post evaluation of effects and effectiveness 25
vii FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
A METHODOLOGY
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Ex-post evaluation of flood risk management activities is a valuable means of information for learning from existing practices. Existing measures and instruments for flood risk reduction show different degrees of success in sustaining their performance and in achieving intended and unintended effects. Feedback about these issues is required to support further development of planning and implementation practices. However, the ex-post evaluation so far remains irregular and unsystematic. Kumar et al. (2001, p. viii) observe that: “… there is little post-audit assessment of past mitigation efforts.” Indeed, little advance has been achieved 30 years after Gilbert White (1975, referred to in Burby et al. 1988, p. 9) stated that “there is a remarkable lack of knowledge about the … effectiveness of floodplain regulations”. Pottier (2003) claims the situation as described by White being totally true for France in 2003.
Where at least partial evaluation is implemented, performance of flood defences often is found to deliver the expected results, sometimes even unexpected benefits are reported (Thompson et al. 1991, MAFF 1996, 1997). However, systematic learning from what is being done should be a part of any intervention, whereby from the evaluation perspective it is less important, whether it delivers successes and failures from which to learn.
On the one hand, the intended performance of interventions can vary significantly. For example, considerable damage was caused during the August 2002 Elbe river flood in Germany after many flood defences failed incl. capacity exceedance of even large and major dams, overtopping and breach of levees, the burst of at least one retention basin etc. (cf. e.g. DKKV 2003, MZP 2003, Büchele et al. 2004, LFUG 2004). Danhelka and Kubát (2004, p. 42) compared the August 2002 flood wave propagation through Prague managed by the Vltava river cascade with the result, that “in case of non- existence of reservoirs the course of flood in Prague would be approximately similar to the one really observed.” Similar effects are reported from other structures, too (Tucci & Villanueva 1999). Thompson and Penning-Rowsell (1994) report of little evidence of vulnerability reduction after installation of flood defences in Bangladesh due to uneven distribution of benefits and increased losses in case of failure. László and Tóth (2001) have compiled 140 known dike failures over the past 55 years in Hungary, most of those due to overtopping. Robert et al. (2003) report of flood zone designation in Canada failing totally to influence floodplain encroachment, etc.
On the other hand, flood risk reduction activities can also have a range of unintended, unexpected or even undesired effects (cf. Green et al. 1994). For example, Smith (1990) shows a case of extreme flood acceleration as consequence of the installation of a flood defence dam. Takahasi (1976) summarises three main effects of structural flood defence measures at river Tone (Japan): significant increase in peak flood discharge, rapid change of river regime and an increase of damage potential in protected areas following improved defence standards. Especially the latter effect has been a major issue in research for decades. White et al. (1958) have presented a study showing massive encroachment in floodplains of 17 US-American cities. Parker (1995a) describes a similar trend for England and Wales observing that “progressively higher levels of flood defence are provided to protect against progressively increasing flood damage potential” (Parker 1995a, p. 341). What Parker calls “escalator effect”, the Australian Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics refers to as the “levee paradox” describing the “increase in potential damage resulting from floods greater than the design level” (BTRE 2002, p. xiii).
The British Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE 2001, p. 41) states another widely known and often overlooked result of structures combating the hazard in one place (e.g. constraining a river within
1 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments higher banks or massive realignment) that may simply transfer the flood problem downstream (cf. also IKSR 1997, Lammersen et al. 2002). Dahl and Fischer (2003) underline this issue by a few recent examples from the 2002 Elbe Flood in Germany. Green et al. (1994) observed this effects downdrift of coastal defence structures.
Montz and Gunfest (1986) claim, that despite massive expenses on structural flood control works flood losses continue to rise as effect of encroachment into floodplains. As a consequence, Thompson et al. (1991) conclude, that “urbanisation tends to increase the value of flood damages prevented” – subsequently improving the benefit/cost ratio (see above), while Montz and Gunfest (1986) in general call into question the effectiveness of defence measures that increase damage potential. Seen against the background of fast rising flood damages (Munich Re Group 2004), this issue has a considerable dimension.
Apart from the discussion of the projects’ performance in preventing damage, also reports of ecological and social side effects call for attention. These are particularly relevant for the performance balance of a measure or instrument (Green et al. 1994). Adverse ecological effects of flood defence have often been emphasised. Results range from negative impacts on water quality, hydrological and hydro-morphological processes or on landscape aesthetics to the complete loss of riverine marshes, forests and species (e.g. Wolters et al. 2001). The conflict of many structural solutions of risk reduction and river ecology has been ironically addressed by a German nature conservation organisation with its publication “The Flood Damage Mitigation Catastrophe” (Weber 2003). However, a significant interest of environmental implications of fluvial and coastal flood management arose only recently (Evans et al. 2004a, p. 155).
In the light of the European Water Framework Directive (CEC 2000) the question for measures combining attitudes of flood risk reduction and ecological improvement of waters is increasingly raised (Wolters et al. 2001, Birkland et al. 2003, Geilen et al. 2004, Morris et al. 2004). In some fields of flood risk management such as the river channel management, the direct implication of the WFD are already significant (cf. Evans et al. 2004a, p. 250).
While societal benefits of many flood risk reduction activities are beyond question, there still exists a row of issues that are worth considering as negative, some of which cannot be fully compensated by the benefiting society. On the one hand, this can relate to private properties. Impacts can range from limitations of property uses in specially designated areas (e.g. in case of construction ban) to a complete loss of properties where area is needed for defences up to the resettlement of complete villages from areas not at risk e.g. to allow for barrage construction. On the other hand, impacts caused by certain outcomes of risk reduction such as environmental degradation can indirectly cause loss of life resources in other places. The issue is well known from developing countries where communities still often depend on local resources. Prominent examples are declining inland fisheries in Bangladesh due to activities of the Bangladesh flood action plan (Sultana & Thompson 1997) or the loss of coastal fisheries in Egypt due to sediment trapped in the Assuan dam (McCully 2001).
1.2 Research questions for ex-post evaluation To derive added value from past and current practice for the improvement of future flood risk management, a comprehensive methodology is needed which is able to provide required information for practice as well as for science. Thereby, the methodology must aim at two main issues. First, it should provide information for the management of risk reduction projects. Second, the derived information should support the middle and long term learning for future flood risk management. The evaluation methodology developed below, delivers a basis for systematic generation of information about the type and quality resp. quantity of intended and unintended effects of measures and instruments and provides procedures for the evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, robustness and flexibility.
2 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The methodology provides a framework for systematic evaluation of measures and instruments for flood risk reduction (in the following synonymic with ‘interventions’). As subject of evaluation the methodology addresses measures and instruments at project level (see chapter 2.1) under consideration of conditions under which these are implemented and operated.
The methodology is dedicated to the following five research questions: 1) Which effects (intended/unintended; direct/indirect; short term/long term) referring to type and quality a measure or instrument cause in a certain flood event or over its life cycle through interaction with physical and socio-cultural conditions, into which it was introduced? 2) How effective has a measure or instrument been (to which extent did a measure or instrument achieve the underlying objectives)? 3) How cost-effective has a measure or instrument been (ratio of direct and indirect benefits and costs)? 4) How robust is a measure or instrument in the light of changing conditions? 5) How flexible is a measure or instrument in the light of changing conditions?
Addressees of this retrospective information are primarily planners, implementing bodies and decision makers of future risk reduction interventions. For their informed action requires detailed information which points directly towards strengths and weaknesses of certain measures and instruments under specific conditions. The methodology’s approach is to shed light on various single issues connected with the realisation and operation of measures and instruments. An aggregation of evaluated issues would lead to a loss of that concrete information and is therefore not attempted. Instead, each single aspect is emphasised, thus providing a ‘multi-spectral’ view of an intervention and its outcomes in all related fields.
1.3 Structure of the methodology The focus of the methodology is the evaluation of the overall performance of measures and instruments. For this purpose, the methodology provides a framework for ex-post evaluation of such interventions. The framework is laid out to be generically applicable with all conceivable measures and instruments at project level in any element of the flood risk system (chapter 2.1). Figure 1 gives an overview of the general concept of evaluation into which the methodology is integrated. Here, the included elements provided by the methodology are connected to allow for an adequate evaluation of each case of evaluation.
Measures and instruments are seen as basic evaluable units, which either impose direct changes or trigger mechanisms, which under certain conditions can lead to various intended or unintended changes (chapter 2). These types of interventions with their different ways of functioning are an important factor for the scope of their evaluation. In combination with selected conditions, measures and instruments make up the case of evaluation. Only few conditions are defined within the methodology (chapter 3). Formalised criteria are limited to those most essential for the operation of most interventions. At the same time, conditions integrated into the methodology are restricted to those, which are applicable with all conceivable measures and instruments. Based on the defined cases, the methodology provides criteria, indicators as well as methods for their evaluation.
3 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
CONCEPT OF EX-POST EVALUATION
METHODOLOGY
CONDITIONS EFFECT METHODS METHODS Cross- INDICATORS for data case acquisition for the evaluation of compa- and effect rison analysis criteria Type of flood Type of Type of Type of INSTRUMENTS land use intervention MEASURES and and MEASURES water bodywater
Ia Ma
Effectiveness Efficiency
1 I M Case1 b b Robustness Flexibility
In Mn Measure/Instrument
Ia Ma
Effectiveness Efficiency
2 I M Case2 b b Robustness
Flexibility of cases COMPARISON In Mn Measure/Instrument
Ia Ma
Effectiveness Efficiency
n Case I M n b b Robustness Flexibility
In Mn Measure/Instrument
Figure 1: The concept of ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The core element of the methodology are operationalised indicators (see Figure 1) for the evaluation of intended and unintended effects, which can be related to the realisation and operation of an intervention. The indicator set provided by the methodology is a source base containing indicators for a large variety of different measures and instruments (see chapter 2) and considering the dimensions of sustainability (chapter 3). Depending on the type of intervention and also on further context conditions, each case requires an individual set of indicators derived from the overall set by the use of a selection method or tool (chapter 6). Indicators are partially operationalised by descriptive parameters, which allow its allocation to different context conditions applied for the definition of the case. They are the basis for subsequent evaluation in the criteria effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and robustness (chapter 4).
4 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
As most important part of the operationalisation, the methodology provides methods for the acquisition of data necessary for the analysis of the indicators. Corresponding to the multiple indicator set, the methods also reflect different approaches to the generation of information including quantitative and qualitative approaches. A multitude of approaches is not only needed to enable data generation, but also to reflect needs of stakeholders and to enhance final applicability of derived information (cf. Stockmann 2004, p. 12). Provided methods always represent one possibility for analysis. In many cases different methods are applied in practice to describe the same issue. In this case only a general indication is given on the kind of method needed. The methodology does not attempt to present all potentially applicable methods. Where possible, the methodology seeks to include most accepted methods for each indicator.
This scope leads to the ex-post determination of intended and unintended effects of measures and instruments. In a further step, the methodology provides approaches for the evaluation of effects in relation to objectives and costs of the intervention. In relation with objectives, the effectiveness is calculated using evaluation results for intended effects. In relation with obtained benefits and the investment costs cost-effectiveness is calculated. Finally, the methodology also provides approaches for the discussion of robustness and flexibility of interventions with regard to contextual changes and other aspects.
Generally, each evaluation case is regarded stand alone, and the principle idea of which is the feed back of information on one individual case. This implies that an evaluation case per se only provides information on this single case primarily addressing stakeholders related to this case. Cases are thus not necessarily comparable. However, the approach of the methodology also considers that a number of evaluations of similar interventions under comparable conditions can lead to comparability. By providing a structured approach based on a comprehensive set of indicators and the consideration of conditions, the methodology provides the basis for the compilation of potentially comparable evaluation cases. In future this could lead to surplus information gaining importance beyond that of single-case evaluation.
5 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
2. Measures and instruments
2.1 Measures and instruments - interventions at project level In the field of flood risk reduction, activities are realised at different levels. A basic differentiation exists between framework level and project level (cf. Mastop 2000). This differentiation is explicitly important for the evaluation, since also the effects of these activities can be regarded at different levels with consequences for the degree of detail, requiring other methodical approaches and evaluation designs.
The framework level is represented by strategies or programmes, as means of policies to provide the scope for subsequent action. Programmes can be seen as “frames of reference“ for action and are often the prime interest of evaluations (Mastop 2000). They usually integrate bundles of projects developed to contribute to the achievement of a programme’s goals. In flood risk management, programmes are represented by strategic plans for cooperation or action programs for certain rivers – both characterised by general goals for a wider area and aiming at the initiation of a certain course of action but not constituting such. Programmes need to be translated into single actions at project level before they lead to outcomes. As a result, their evaluation for outcomes in terms of risk reduction is only evaluable under consideration of activities they trigger and guide.
In contrast, project level activities are rather single, non-divisible interventions (cf. CEC 1997) characterised by their limitation in space and time and by the evolvement of clear effects (cf. Mastop 2000). Ossadnik (2003, p. 480f) defines a project as a well-defined effort, aiming at achieving specific goals under consideration of time limits and financial resp. cost oriented and capacity based restrictions. The project ends with the achievement of the defined goal, while premises are free for correction in the course of project development. Spatial limitations apply either to the physical extent of a scheme (dike, retention basin etc.) or to the area for which a specific information (e.g. flood zone regulation) is valid. Temporal limitation, here, can be understood in two ways. In a narrow sense, the temporal limitation is understood as the point of time where the measure or instrument of interest has fully materialised. In a broader sense, temporal limitation may be applied to the whole life time of a project, meaning that after its introduction a measure or instrument functions for a limited period time delivering the outcomes of interest for evaluation. During this life time, if necessary, the measure may receive further input in terms of operation and maintenance.
Essential for the differentiation is the understanding of the cause-effect relationship linking programmes and projects with their outcomes. Figure 2 explains the relationship of programmes and projects with respect to the generation of effects (outcomes). It founds on the understanding that each intervention into a system functions as an instance triggering specific processes which, in coincidence with individual conditions, lead to certain outcomes (cf. Pawson & Tilley 1997). The latter can be measured in terms of the number, type, scale, location and timing of development (cf. Vedung 1997 and others).
Framework level outcomes Framework level goals A B resulting from project level providing the scope for action achievements
Project level outcomes Project level activities I II (measures and instruments) resulting the project’s materialisation
Figure 2: Realisation of programme goals through projects (simplified from Virtanen & Uusikyla 2004)
6 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The main argument of the concept is that programme goals cannot be achieved directly. Instead, they are achieved through the implementation of single actions (e.g. measures and instruments) which induce certain changes. This understanding includes the assumption that the direct path from (A) (programme) to B (goal), does not exist. Instead, programme level goals are achieved by the realisation of projects, which translate the programme intentions into action (A→II). As a next step, these project level activities (measures and instruments) lead to project level results (I→II). Only after this, the cumulation of results from different single projects can contribute to the achievement of programme level goals (II→B).
This has a certain influence on the evaluation of measures and instruments for flood risk reduction. An evaluation of measures and instruments should aim at describing their outcomes following aspects individual to the interventions of interest. Given, that the actual implementation of goals of any level takes place at project level, also concrete „outcomes“ attributable to that interventions can only be achieved and evaluated at project level (cf. Klöti 1997, Virtanen & Uusikyla 2004). Therefore, the project level is the prime interest of the Methodology for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments.
Thus, measures and instruments are understood as projects aiming at the reduction of flood risk or flood damage through planned impact on the source, pathway, receptor or consequence of a flood hazard (chapter 2.2). In detail, projects are defined by the following characteristics:
• Well defined by temporal and spatial limits • Limited and assignable costs • Goals (at minimum those of flood risk reduction) • Measurable and assignable outcomes
In many cases, measures or instruments are implemented in compounds. As a result, also certain outcomes of those interventions can often not be allocated to single interventions. For example this can be the case with flood proofing measures at buildings. Often there is a combination of measures that finally all together lead to certain results. Therefore, in the evaluation, their interaction with the flood risk system needs to be seen as a compound. In order to give consideration to this, measures and instruments at project level can be:
1) Single measures or instruments at project level 2) Combinations of measures and/or instruments at project level (where single interventions are inseparably connected in terms of design or impact, chapter 2.4)
2.2 Measures and instruments in the flood risk system As will be shown below, a large variety of measures and instruments exists to reduce flood risk respectively flood damage. Measures and instruments can be applied in different phases of flood risk management and aim at achieving various effects which influence flood risk (Penning-Rowsell & Peerbolte 1994, cf. e.g. Pottier 1998, LAWA 2000a, BTRE 2002, Hoojer et al. 2004). All these interventions develop their effects as a result of the interaction with the flood risk system. However, most measures and instruments are designed to impact a certain element of the latter by the mechanisms specific to each single type of intervention. For better understanding of the classification presented below (chapter 2.3), the relation of measures and instruments with the flood risk system shall be briefly described.
One main concept describing the causal chain within the flood risk system is the Source-Pathway- Receptor-Consequence (S-P-R-C) model (DETR 2000). It describes the simplified processual relationship between the hazard and the resulting consequences. The model (Figure 3) proposes that any flood event (hazard) starts with an initiating event (= source, e.g. meteorological event, technical failure). Water is conveyed to exposed values over specific routs (pathway). In coincidence of the
7 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments flood event with exposed vulnerable elements (= receptor, e.g. properties, population) certain losses (consequences) can occur. The latter can be understood as the actual ‘materialisation of risk’ (cf. a.o. HM Treasury 2004, p. 48).
Consequence
Figure 3: Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model (cf. DETR 2000)
The main advantage of this system lays in the simple description of the causal chain between source and consequences. It also summarises the basic elements of the flood risk system which can be approached in terms of flood risk and flood loss reduction. With its four elements, the model describes both components of risk: ‘hazard’ and ‘vulnerability’ with exposure seen as the linking circumstance, rather than a separate component (cf. FLOODsite Consortium 2005). Hazard is represented by sources describing the triggering event of a flood including conditions which affect the concentration of flood water (e.g. specifics of runoff) and pathways describing the conditions influencing the propagation of flood water along its route. Vulnerability is represented by the receptor with its attributes describing the actual degree of exposure and susceptibility of elements at risk to the flood and by the consequences which result from the interference of hazard and the receptor. Schanze (2004) proposes the description of flood risk as a function of the elements of the SPRC-model. This function is set up to describe the factors which make up these elements as well as to show the interfaces where flood risk can be influenced by human intervention. Within this function, flood risk reduction factors are highlighted, which can influence the conditions through intervention into the system (adapted from Schanze 2004):
flood risk = f ((p,m,t)source, (g,i,r)pathway, (v,s,e)receptor, (l,c)consequence ) with p = probability (return period flood event) m = magnitude (amount of water) t = retention (before concentration in rivers) g = propagation (speed of downstream propagation) i = inundation (of area outside the discharge channel) r = reduction/detention/protection (of flood water along the pathway)
8 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments v = value (of elements at risk exposed to flood hazard) s = susceptibility (of elements at risk exposed to flood hazard) e = exposure + resistance and resilience (of elements at risk) l = losses (amount of incurred losses) c = compensation (of incurred losses)
Thus, there are options for risk reduction at any point of the causal chain (SPRC) leading from the source to consequences. With regard to sources, this is basically the retention of water in the area of provenance by reducing its concentration through increasing the retaining capacity of the land surface including earth and vegetative cover. This option only applies to terrestrial surfaces, it can not be applied in cases where the source is the failure of a central technical device (retention dam) or if source of flooding is the sea. With regard to pathways, the main options lie in the - even temporal - reduction or delay of discharge, the detention of flood water in and along the discharge channel and the protection of parts of the flood plain against inundation. In case of coastal flooding, the options with regard to pathways are limited to certain forms of energy accommodation and mainly the protection of the hinterland against inundation.
As far as the receptor is concerned, main options for risk reduction are the reduction of exposed elements at risk (temporal or permanent) and provisions increasing their resistance respectively resilience. Finally, consequences require a fundamentally different approach. While options with regard to sources, pathways and receptors always aim at the reduction of losses, this cannot be achieved after losses (negative consequences) have materialised. Here, the main option is the compensation of losses borne by the individual in order to reduce the consequences of these losses for the individual and the society. While the total loss will remain, the societal disadvantage may be lowered.
9 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
2.3 Measures and instruments – a classification 2.3.1 Why a new classification A classification in general donates order and lucidity to the large amount of existing measures and instruments. And usually, each classification reflects the perspective, from which interventions are seen. The past has seen manifold approaches dealing with the systematisation of approaches of what today we refer to as flood risk reduction. Many different classifications for flood risk reduction measures have been proposed in the past decades. The most often used classification of measures and instruments is based on the general distinction of ‘structural and non-structural measures’ (Smith & Tobin 1979, Penning-Rowsell & Peerbolte 1994, Marsalek et al. 2000, Kreibich et al. 2005). Furtherclassifications order by point of time including pre-flood, flood event and post-flood intervention, by character differentiating technical measures and regulatory, financial and communicative instruments (Hooijer et al. 2002) or by aim differentiating flood abatement, flood defence and flood impact mitigation (De Bruijn et al. 2003).
One of the most recent and most comprehensive of these was developed in the Foresight project differentiating “26 functional response groups” describing basic services, which they provide. Within these response groups “80 possible response measures, policies and interventions” are distinguished, which can contribute to the response groups (Evans et al. 2004b, pp. 25ff). However, none of these classifications provides a comprehensive and homologues classification of project level interventions describing their functioning with the flood risk system. However, such a classification is needed to describe the scope of interventions addressed by the methodology as well as for the operationalisation of the selection of evaluation criteria discussed in chapter 6.
Therefore, a new classification is proposed which tries to serve a number of requirements in order to be both consistent in itself and a basis for the methodology. This classification seeks to cope with following premises:
• The classification represents the full array of approaches to the reduction of flood risk before, during or after a flood event. In this scope, the balanced consideration of traditional as well as more recent approaches is a main challenge. • The classification is based on the functional characteristics of interaction between intervention and the flood risk system. • The classification considers that effects of interventions often go beyond the intended. Therefore, it avoids explicit and implicit reference to single effects in order to avoid prejudices regarding the full range of expectable impacts, which are issue of evaluation. • The classification is applicable to different contexts within Europe and allows as far as possible an unambiguous attribution of measures and instruments to a category or sub- category by scientists and practitioners. • The classification primarily addresses interventions at project level (clear temporal and spatial boundaries, +/- clearly assignable costs and outcomes).
The new classification is organised in three levels:
1. Differentiation of direct interventions (physical measures) and indirect interventions (policy instruments); 2. Description of the functional character of measures and instruments in their interaction with the flood risk system; 3. Description of types of measures and instruments differentiating the manner of intervention with the flood risk system within the functional groups.
Due to the chosen classification approach which is different from most previous typologies, only little of existing terminology is taken recourse to. Explicitly, the traditional differentiation of structural and
10 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments non-structural measures is not followed, as the general understanding of these terms does not permit a consistent differentiation of direct and indirect a swell as traditional and recent approaches. Instead,, the terms ‘measures’ and ‘instruments’ mark the basic differentiation of interventions.
2.3.2 Level 1: Measures and instruments At its first and most general level, the proposed classification is based on the differentiation of two general principles of intervention: direct interventions (physical measures) and indirect interventions (policy instruments).
Physical measures are direct interventions into the physical flood risk system, which generate physically tangible changes as their direct output. Examples are civil engineering works, flood proofing of buildings or cultivation techniques. The basic understanding of this group is widely consistent with the understanding shared by Marsalek (2000) and Petry (2002). Traditionally, physical measures primarily influence elements of the hydrological system (Amoros & Petts 1993, Pottier 1998) and are thus most prevalent in the field of hazard control addressing sources and pathways of flooding. However, physical measures are also applicable to the receptor (by evacuation of exposed population or flood proofing of buildings) and have certain importance for the mitigation of consequences (e.g. in course of post flood mitigation). Thus, physical measures can be applied at any point of the SPRC chain discussed above.
Measures are direct physical interventions into the physical flood risk system, which become manifest in the emerging or changing of technical and natural structures respectively of their patterns and properties as well as in the direct exposure of health and life to the flood hazard.
Complimentary to the widely accepted term measures, the term ‘instruments’ is applied to describe the indirect approaches of flood risk reduction. The term is not consistent with the often used term of non- structural measures. The term signals the principally different functioning of the concerned measures. Their essence is not the direct and tangible impact on the flood risk system, but the triggering of activities (incl. behavioural change) connected with flood risk. These interventions are thus rather tools that are used to achieve a certain goal that cannot be reasonably implemented directly. As synonym for ‘tool’ the term ‘instrument’ is widely used in European languages for policy action (policy instruments) based on economic options ('economic instruments', cf. OECD 1994, Tyagi & Saalmüller 2004), legal regulations (legal instruments, Pottier 1998 uses 'tools') and particularly in the field of spatial planning (Handmer 1996, ARL 1998, Morrison 2002, Hooijer et al. 2004). Also the EC communication (CEC 2004, p. 6) calls for “appropriate prevention instruments” to contribute to flood mitigation and the on proposed Floods Directive (CEC 2006) takes recourse to “financial instruments” as options of flood risk management.
Instruments are interventions, which influence the perception and behaviour of individuals and institutions, which in effect can also lead to the development of intended physical structures through inducing physical measures. Thus, the direct effect of policy instruments is the triggering of activities. The latter can be nearly obligatory (e.g. in case of binding land use regulations) or of a rather soft nature (in case of information instruments). Other instruments function by shaping vulnerability which does not necessarily materialise in physical changes (preparedness, risk perception etc.). While various types of vulnerability are being distinguished (Parker et al. 1997, Messner & Meyer 2006), most relevant for current flood risk management appear the social and partly the economic vulnerability.
Instruments are interventions into the socio-cultural flood risk system, deploying influence on human perception and behaviour thus triggering mechanisms which can (indirectly) lead to intended results incl. the development of physical structures, patterns and properties.
11 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The latter has a special importance for the evaluation of such instruments. In cases, where an instrument mainly influences the realisation of physical measures, the ex-post evaluation needs to take into account also its physical manifestation.
2.3.3 Level 2: Functional character of measures and instruments Measures and instruments can be characterised by manifold aspects. However, many of them are do not necessarily allow an unambiguous allocation of interventions. For example, certain measures and instruments can be applied in different phases of flood risk management (e.g. pre-flood or flood-event) and by different stakeholders (public authorities, private). Other aspects, such as the permanence of intervention, offer rather general distinctions which are not sufficient for the set up of a classification. Therefore, the functional character of the intervention is used in order to provide an unambiguous classification. It describes at a general level the interaction of the intervention with either the physical or the socio-cultural flood risk system. The functional groups consider the fundamental functional differences between physical measures and policy instruments (Figure 4).
As functional groups for the description of interaction with the physical flood risk system three categories are defined:
- Adaptation of existing non-built physical conditions by special management techniques - Control of physical conditions in the flood risk system by introduction and adaptation of built structures - Retreat of uses by temporal evacuation or permanent relocation of elements at risk
The three functional groups represent the three principles of interaction with the physical flood risk system. The first physical option is the adaptation of existing natural conditions, mainly those of the source and along pathways - e.g. by periodical application or adaptation of specific treatment techniques. The second is the structural control by man made conditions through the introduction and adaptation of built structures mainly with regard to the source, pathway and receptor - e.g. by controlling processes of runoff or reducing exposure and susceptibility of receptors. Finally, a third option is the retreat of elements reducing the exposure of the receptor by temporary evacuation or permanent retreat of uses.
Policy instruments, in contrast, have no possibility to directly influence the physical flood risk system. Their functioning is based on the triggering of mechanisms in the socio-cultural flood risk system, by influencing the action of stakeholders which can lead to changes also in the physical flood risk system. However, the effect of policy instruments can also be restricted to social factors such as perception, awareness or preparedness, which need not find manifestation in physical changes.
Four functional groups are identified describing the interaction of policy instruments with the socio- cultural flood risk system:
- Regulation of (mainly spatial) development based on legal backing - Stimulation of development and behaviour by positive and negative incentives - Communication of stakeholders for the benefit of perception, awareness, preparedness and behaviour - Compensation of consequences through distribution of flood risk and losses
The four functional groups are organised according to their rigidity of influence on the flood risk system. The only binding option is represented by the regulation of development backed by various legal constellations. The latter provide more or less restrictive frameworks of regulations allowing public administrations their enforcement. A next possibility of influence is the stimulation of development and behaviour through positive or negative financial incentives in order to achieve changes by appealing to economical interests of stakeholders. The third option is even less intervening and is represented by information of stakeholders providing information about different issues of flood risk management such as about the exposure of receptors, possibilities for action or flood warning,
12 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments thus appealing to the individual interests and responsibility. Finally, accepting that often losses cannot be fully avoided compensation of losses induced by flooding is an option to mitigate occurred harm and to foster recovery by distributing the costs over the wider community.
Regulation, Stimulation and Information instruments are applicable with the source, along pathways and with receptors and can often also impact the development of physical conditions. Furthermore, the provision of information can influence social factors like preparedness and perception, which are important for the implementation of other interventions as well as for the acceptability of risk. The application of compensation instruments is restricted to the Consequence-part of the SPRC-chain.
Measures and Instruments for flood risk reduction (pre-flood and flood-event)
PHYSICAL MEASURES POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Adaptation Control Retreat Regulation Stimulation Information Compensation measures measures measures instruments instruments instruments instruments Figure 4: Categories of measures and instruments
PHYSICAL MEASURES
Adaptation measures Adaptation measures are direct physical interventions into natural structures, the effect of which emanates from the application of specialised treatment techniques on land surfaces as well as in and along river channels (SPRC).
Control measures Control measures are direct physical interventions, the effect of which emanates from introduction, alteration or removal of built structures (SPRC).
Retreat measures Retreat measures are direct physical interventions, the effect of which emanates from temporal evacuation or permanent retreat of elements at risk from the flooded or flood prone area (SPRC).
POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Regulation instruments Regulation instruments are policy interventions, the effect of which emanates from prescriptive regulations and the legally backed enforcement power of administrations, mainly restricting the type and quality of land uses. Regulations are mainly tools of sectoral policies (SPRC).
Stimulation instruments Stimulation instruments are policy interventions, the effect of which emanates from financial incentives and disincentives offered to private or institutional stakeholders in response to certain behaviour or action (SPRC).
Communication instruments Communication instruments are policy interventions, the effect of which emanates from the provision of information to private or institutional stakeholders such as exposure of receptors, possibilities for action or flood warnings (SPRC).
13 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Compensation instruments Compensation instruments are policy interventions, the effect of which emanates from mechanisms distributing the risk respectively occurred losses over a wider community (SPRC).
2.3.4 Level 3: Types of measures and instruments Types of measures and instruments further differentiate functional groups defined above (Figure 4). Types of measures and instruments are based on the manner in which the intervention interacts with the flood risk system. The driving question behind the categories is: “What is being done?” (Figure 5).
Measures and Instruments for flood risk reduction
PHYSICAL MEASURES POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Adaptation Control Retreat Regulation Stimulation Communication Compensation measures measures measures instruments instruments instruments instruments management Flood storage storage Flood Retreat of uses Spatial planning planning Spatial Coastal alignment alignment Coastal Land management Land Warning/Instruction Financial incentives Financial Water management management Water Flood water transfer transfer water Flood Financial disincentives Financial technical infrastructure infrastructure technical Evacuation of human life of human Evacuation Environmental protection Environmental Risk and loss distribution loss and Risk River channel and coastal Communication/Dissemination Flood proofingbuildings of and Coastal energy accommodation accommodation energy Coastal Drainage and pumping systems pumping and Drainage Channel conveyance and capacity conveyance Channel Evacuation of assets and life stock life and assets of Evacuation Figure 5: Types of measures and instruments
In the following, types of measures and instruments are defined. Appendix 5 classifies all identified measures and instruments following the presented system.
MEASURES
Adaptation measures Land management (SPRC) Physical changes of patterns and properties of soil or vegetative cover by means of cultivation techniques and the choice of crop. Examples Conservation tillage, Transformation of forests
Channel and coastal management (SPRC) Removal, displacement, introduction of physical features incl. bed sediments, vegetation etc. in rivers, along river banks, in estuaries and along coasts. Example Dredging
Control measures Flood storage (SPRC) Hydraulic engineering structures in river channels, valleys and floodplains retaining surface discharge. Examples Reservoir, Pond, Detention basin
14 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Flood water transfer (SPRC) Hydraulic engineering structures conveying parts of the discharge into other catchments. Example Flood water diversions
Channel capacity and conveyance (SPRC) Hydraulic engineering structures in river channels, valleys, floodplains and estuaries influencing the shape and capacity of the river channel. Examples Channelisation, Dikes, Channel restoration
Coastal and estuarine defences (SPRC) Physical barriers to coastal floods along the coastline. Examples Dike, Flood Wall, Managed or unmanaged retreat
Coastal energy accommodation (SPRC) Physical elements introduced along the coastline to control the energy of currents or waves. Examples Offshore barriers, Beach nourishment
Drainage and pumping systems (SPRC) Drainage and pumping systems conveying waste, ground and flood water from vulnerable areas or pumping excess water into storage areas or into the river. Examples Central pumping devices (in urban areas), Local ground water lowering
Flood proofing of buildings and infrastructure (SPRC) Additions, changes and adjustments at buildings and technical infrastructure following two main approaches: Dry flood proofing by protection against the ingress of water Wet flood proofing by provisions in structure and installations against damage by water Examples(dry) Shielding with mobile/temporary barriers, Elevated construction Examples(wet) Waterproof construction material, elevation of installations
Retreat measures Evacuation of human life (SPRC) Temporary or permanent relocation of human life or life stock from of flood-prone or flooded areas. Examples Evacuation of especially vulnerable population
Evacuation of assets (SPRC) Temporary evacuation of assets (incl. life stock) from flood-prone or flooded areas. Examples Relocation of physical inventory at risk Change of interior uses in lower levels of frequently flooded buildings
Retreat of uses (SPRC) Permanent relocation or give up of sensitive uses from flood-prone areas. Examples Relocation of sensitive uses (offices, production facilities) from flood-prone areas or to upper levels, Give up of sensitive uses (e.g. sauna in basement)
15 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
INSTRUMENTS
Regulation instruments Water management designations (SPRC) Land use regulations backed by the enforcement power of water management related legislature. Examples Flood zones Prohibition to store harmful substances (e.g. chemicals) in floodplains Regulations for ‘Flood source areas’ (D, Saxony)
Spatial planning designations (SPRC) Land use regulations backed by the enforcement power of spatial planning legislature. Example Priority areas for certain uses
Environmental protection designations (SPRC) Land use relevant regulations backed by the enforcement power of environmental protection related legislature. Here, flood risk reduction is rather a side-effect of regulations addressing nature conservation. Examples Landscape Protection Area, Nature reserve, Nature 2000 area
Stimulation instruments Financial incentives (SPRC) Financial incentives encouraging activities which lead to the development of intended physical patterns/properties or behaviour. Example Subsidies and/or allowances for flood-proof construction of buildings
Financial disincentives (SPRC) Financial disincentives discouraging activities which lead to the development of unwanted physical patterns/properties or behaviour. Examples Levies/ imposts, Fines, Taxes
Information instruments Information/Dissemination (SPRC) Transfer of knowledge to and/or between stakeholders of flood risk management and the public using various communication media. Examples Information events, Brochures, Guidelines
Warning/Instruction (SPRC) Operational information of stakeholders and public about an upcoming/ongoing flood event incl. directives for action and behaviour. Example Official flood warning
Compensation instruments Risk and loss distribution (SPRC) Risk and loss distribution is realised by allocation of risk or the burden of losses on a larger community by public policy or private-sector initiative. Examples Flood insurance payments, Public relief (compensation payments) after flood event
2.4 Single measures and instruments and combinations of those As an object of evaluation, measures and instruments not always can be regarded as single intervention. In many cases, options realised to reduce flood risk are composed of a number of measures which act as a compound. Reason for implementing such portfolios can be manifold. Complex urban situations may not allow the construction of a continuous dike. Instead, a combination
16 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments of dike, flood walls and mobile defences can be applied to protect the flood plain. Flood proofing by shielding of single buildings may not provide sufficient risk reduction thus as further proofing measures may be taken which can additionally be complemented by evacuation measures. Or, regulation instruments may need support of financial stimulation in order to ensure implementation. In the end, the final outcome of risk reduction often cannot clearly be attributed to one single member of the implemented portfolio. Ex-post evaluation then needs to address a sensible combination of interventions.
In order to decide whether a single measure or a combination of several measures are the object of evaluation, three main questions need to be answered.
1. Are measurable outcomes generated by more than one intervention? If yes, can proportions of outcomes be certainly attributed to one intervention?
If the answer to both these question is no, than a combination of measures or instruments is the object of ex-post evaluation.
Example: If a protection line consists of different sections including a dike, flood walls and mobile defences, protecting together the same area, than the impact of neither of the measures can be evaluated without the other.
2. Does the intervention directly provide outcomes, or is it rather a trigger which requires subsequent action in order to achieve risk reduction?
This question mainly applies to instruments and implies that many instruments are triggers of action, which actually leads to risk reduction. Thus, if the answer is that risk reduction is actually a result of action triggered by the instrument, than the instrument’s impact on flood risk cannot be evaluated without taking account of the outcomes of the subsequent interventions.
Example: Instruments applied in the filed of risk reduction usually trigger subsequent action and by doing so contribute to risk reduction indirectly, being indispensable for the direct measures. As a result, an instrument “Contingent Plan” will remain worthless if it is not implemented by the foreseen contingent measures during a flood event. In order to describe the risk reduction effect of a contingency plan, the evaluation of the contingency action, which the plan guided cannot be omitted.
3. Does the intervention of interest provide its outcomes independently or does its performance rely on external input?
This question applies to most measures which are applied only during flood events and those which are implemented by non professionals (e.g. many flood proofing measures). Its aim is to explore whether all preconditions are fulfilled which are essential for the good performance of interventions. This is based on the assumption, that ex-post evaluation will provide valuable conclusions about measures only if these had the chance to be implemented in time and correctly. Thus, if the answer leads to the conclusion, that external input (e.g. trigger) is necessary, evaluation should consider the timeliness and quality of this input before conclusions can be made about the actually evaluated intervention(s).
Example: Most contingent measures require timely and sufficiently precise warning. If warning does not penetrate in time or does not convey the needed information, taken provisions (e.g. mobile flood defences) may not be finished in time. An evaluation without considering the timeliness and quality of warning information could than show insufficient effectiveness of risk reduction of flood proofing measures, but the result would remain meaningless.
17 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
3. Conditions for measures and instruments
3.1 Importance of conditions Measures and instruments always act as part of a system. Their implementation, operation and performance is always influenced by pre-existing (and changing) external natural and socio-cultural conditions defined by the system in which they are introduced. Above this, measures and instruments have own, internal, conditions which are also decisive for their performance and which can be influenced by external factors. While internal conditions are descriptive for the state of a measure or instrument at a certain point of time, external condition describe the scope, under which the intervention functions. Internal and external conditions are usually seen as variables which remain more or less stabile over a certain period of time (Hutter 2005). However, also the dynamic of the system which an intervention is part of can be an important aspect for its performance.
Internal conditions influence the functioning of measures and instruments from within. This may include factors such as the structural quality of a measure, but also the change of its constitution during its life cycle. Another factor is the political (at a rather operational level, e.g. extent and duration of political support) or cultural (e.g. planning culture, obedience) background of instruments or the availability of resources for the continuous support of instruments. May and Burby (1996, referred to in Parker et al. 1997, p. 30) identified institutional ‘capacity’ and ‘commitment’ (cf. also Pottier 1998) of public authorities as two fundamental internal factors determining the effectiveness of policy implementation: Where the capacity and commitment is low, policy implementation tends to be weak.
External conditions represent the natural (physical, ecological, e.g. flood event, physiography, land uses), political, social, economical (e.g. growth or shrinking, real estate market development) factors with which interventions interfere. According to Hutter (2005) external conditions are understood as more or less static boundary conditions under which a measure or instrument is introduced and operated. However, especially the magnitude of flood events is a highly variable external factor against which ex-post evaluation is realised.
Conditions influence the appearance and the functioning of each intervention. Appearance describes the substance in terms of its actual shape (e.g. technical design of a dike), its information content (e.g. of a land use regulation), or its organisation and capacity (e.g. evacuation, communication). The functioning refers to the conversion of the substance of an intervention into outcomes. Therefore, the knowledge of conditions is important for constructing the hypotheses of the cause-effect relationship upon which evaluation is based and also to allow for the analysis and later comparison of results (chapter 2.1).
Applied with the methodology, external conditions are used in conjunction with the measure or instrument of interest. As stated above (chapter 1.3) conditions are important for the definition of the case of evaluation. This entails all conditions, which are necessary for the description of the single case in order to sufficiently describe the evaluated situation which is important for its comparability with other cases. Accordingly, selected conditions are also an integral part of the methodology and used as scope for the formalised selection of potentially relevant indicators (chapter 6.2). However, the methodology only can use a limited set of conditions. It is restricted to those, which are important for the functioning of the intervention as well as to those, which are important for the selection of evaluation criteria. Basically, for the understanding of any case, both external and internal conditions are important. However, internal conditions are very specific to each single intervention and it appears not sensible to formalise those for all measures and instruments. These should be considered as part of the individual case description. External conditions are more comparable from case to case and some of them allow a formalisation for the use with all interventions. Therefore, a number of external conditions are formalised as obligatory elements for all interventions the methodology is applied with.
18 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The methodology addresses impacts of measures and instruments on the systems with which they interact. With regard to intended effects this will be usually the flood risk system with its physical and socio-cultural components. However, with regard to unintended effects, often other corresponding systems may be affected, such as the ecosystem, or the general socio-cultural system. These also contribute to the flood risk system, but go beyond this.
As stated above, the primary interest of measures and instruments is usually restricted to intended effects in the field of flood risk reduction. Therefore, conditions describing the elements of flood risk concept including hazard and vulnerability are most relevant for the work with measures and instruments of flood risk reduction (cf. also De Bruijn 2005). Three factors are chosen to describe the hazard with which a measure or instrument interacts: The genesis and attributes of flood events represented by the flood type, their probability by the recurrence period. The prevailing land use describes the general conditions of the affected socio-cultural system in the affected area. Finally, also the type of water body is considered. This condition addresses specialised issues of water bodies and is particularly important for the selection of ecological criteria.
In total four main conditions are mandatory for definition of the case:
• Type of flood event • Probability of event • Type of land use • Type of water body
As mentioned above, further specific conditions should be considered by individual cases.
3.2 Type of flood Flooding can evolve from different sources and occurs in different landscapes. Inland floods may be generated by heavy precipitation events, sudden snow melt, combinations of both or from technical failure of a retaining structure (river floods discussed e.g. by Merz 2002). Coastal floods arise from combinations of natural conditions at the sea involving high tide and landward wind storm. Through the conditions of genesis (source) and the physiography along the pathways different types of floods are characterised by specific dynamics. Fife types of floods are distinguished including the special case of urban flooding:
• Flash floods • Plain floods • Estuarine floods • Coastal floods • Urban floods
Flash floods are induced by heavy, often local, precipitation or sudden snow melt or combination of both. It is characterised by fast onset (minutes to hours after a causative event), a heavy multiplication of discharge and high flow velocities and is often accompanied by large sediment and debris flow.
Plain floods are induced by large scale precipitation or snow melt. In contrast to flash floods, slow rise floods or reverine floods are characterised by relatively slow onset (up to several days), a less severe increase of discharge, increased but still moderate flow velocities and moderate sediment and debris transport.
Estuarine floods are induced either by a costal flood whereby flood water is driven into the estuary or the incident of coastal and slow rise flooding meeting in the estuary.
19 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Coastal floods or storm surges are induced by the combination of temporary sea level rise resulting from extreme meteorological conditions and especially severe in coincidence with high-tide and is characterised by pronounced wave swell (Smith & Ward 1998, p. 148, Evans et al. 2004a, p. 264).
Urban floods or intra-urban floods are composed of storm water runoff induced by heavy precipitation on urban surfaces, and includes surface flood waves, internal flooding of areas and properties through overloaded sewer systems as well as through backing up of culverted and other water courses (cf. Evans et al. 2004a, pp 13, 138). Urban floods are characterised by fast onset, high dynamics of discharge and often uncertain pathways of the flood water.
3.3 Probability of flood
The probability is a measure for the recurrence period of an event with certain magnitude. It delivers information about the severity of a flood event and is thus important for the valuation of the performance of measures or instruments. No classification is proposed for this condition.
3.4 Land use As emphasised above, the land uses affected by flooding or flood risk reduction can be decisive for the types and amount of losses. This general societal condition is described by the type of land use such as developed and undeveloped areas. The two categories describe the type of assets which are exposed to the hazard respectively to the risk reduction intervention. It is assumed that, compared to developed areas, in non-built up areas generally different types of effects are generated and potential for losses lower. Therefore, only these to two categories are distinguished:
• Developed (urban/industrial/rural buildings or urban land uses affected) • Undeveloped (no buildings, only rural land uses)
3.5 Type of water body The type of water body is already partly considered by flood types. But, there are specific needs for the additional consideration of water bodies. Floods as well as flood risk reduction are often both closely related to certain water bodies. On the one hand, the ecological aspects of risk reduction requires due consideration of differences between water bodies. This allows the a priory exclusion of certain effects for certain types of intervention. On the other hand, certain interventions such as many flood proofing measures are only related to single buildings, but have no effect on the water body (this does not apply if these measures address exposure of hazardous substances). The inclusion of these relations enables the targeted consideration of potential side effects. For this reason, types of water bodies defined by the European Water Framework Directive are used for the specification of ecological factors touched:
• Rivers • Lakes • Transitional waters • Coastal waters
Rivers are bodies of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which may flow underground for part of its course (Article 2(4)).
Lakes are bodies of standing inland surface water (Article 2(5)).
20 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Transitional waters are bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline in character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by freshwater flows (Article 2(6)).
Coastal waters are waters on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters (Article 2(7)).
The relevance of an indicator for a water body is determined by the instruction given by the Water Framework Directive (Annex V). A table, allocating the limnological indicators to these types of water bodies is given in chapter 5.1.6.
3.6 Specific conditions The introduced conditions are considered to be the most important ones. However, these can be only a selection. Each case is specific and as such is defined by a multitude specific conditions which are important for understanding the effect spectrum as well as the intended performance of the intervention. A few of those shell be named here, the relevance of which should also be verified in all cases. These specific conditions include:
• Potential exposure of hazardous substances • Presence natural heritage sites • Presence cultural heritage sites • Political support • Quality of maintenance • Internal condition of measure or instrument
21 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
4. Evaluation framework
4.1 Criteria – main viewpoints of evaluation Within this methodology, two terms are distinguished when speaking of evaluation: criteria and indicators. On the one hand, criteria represent the basic viewpoints of evaluation. They mark the five basic aspects outcomes in general (effects), outcomes related to objectives (effectiveness), outcomes related to costs (cost-effectiveness), the reliability of intended outcomes (robustness) and the adaptability of interventions (flexibility). ON the other hand, indicators are defined mainly asspecific aspects of effects (chapter 4.2). In the following, the five categories of criteria are defined:
• Effects • Effectiveness • Cost-effectiveness • Robustness • Flexibility
Measures and instruments are characterised by different spectra of impact on the systems into which they intervene. These impacts are referred to as effects which are attributable to an intervention. Effects are understood as outputs and outcomes of measures and instruments. Basis for this definition is the result-chain-thinking presented in chapter 2.1. Two main types of outcomes are differentiated. Many effects correspond with intentions connected with an intervention (intended effects). However, effects can also occur outside the intended impact spectrum (unintended/side effects). Both types of effects are important to value the merits of an intervention as only the complete picture delivers sufficient information for future action:
The determination of effects is the basis for comprehensive evaluation of measures and instruments. They are essential for the determination of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and robustness. Therefore, the methodology bases on effects as the basic unit of evaluation and uses these for the valuation in the other categories.
Effectiveness describes the extent to which the objectives of an intervention are achieved (OECD 2002, p. 20f, CEC 2003, p. 45). It is based on intended effects and is dependent on the availability of objectives which can either be formulated in course of project planning or which need to be interpreted from the context of the intervention. Being also the traditional focus of evaluation, effectiveness analysis constitutes a core element of ex-post evaluation. However, the often found restriction of ex- post investigations to effectiveness only (Thompson et al. 1991, Subiras 1995) does not provide comprehensive evaluation.
Based on intended effects, the effectiveness of an intervention can be determined by relating those to certain objectives (chapter 5.2.3). Unintended effects might also become matter of effectiveness evaluation and could be valued against existing but not explicitly mentioned societal values. For example, for many ecological criteria related to water bodies, targets are defined and claimed by the Water Framework Directive entailing that flood risk reduction is expected to be achieved without negative impacts on the state of the water body respectively without endangering the later achievement of the required “good ecological status” or “good ecological potential” (WFD, Article 4).
In the light of changing societal priorities (Plate 2003) and considering financial limitations, the question for the relativity of costs and outcomes expressed through the benefit/cost relationship is increasingly raised. Herein, intended economic effects represent benefits. Costs are represented by intended and unintended as well as direct and indirect realisation, operation and maintenance costs of the intervention (chapter 5.3). Cost-effectiveness is a measure of how economically resources (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results (cf. OECD 2002, p. 21). Cost-effectiveness in ex-post
22 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments evaluation is expressed by the relation of observed intended effects (ideally benefit) and the corresponding expenditure of resources (cost) spent for the realisation of the intervention (chapter 5.3).
Effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in basic terms describe the interaction of flood risk reduction with the natural and societal systems. However, above these attention needs to be drawn to long term performance of interventions in the light of changing conditions (robustness) and their adaptability to those (flexibility).
Changing conditions may impact the functionality of a project which may have negative consequences on the basic performance. For example, resulting from climatic changes flood frequencies may increase leading to the situation that a scheme introduced to mitigate floods up to the 100 years event in future only responds to floods considerably below this standard. In the same time, encroachment into the floodplain may substantially increase vulnerability and thus the risk in a flood prone area may rise beyond the tolerable range. These considerations call for the introduction of robustness as a measure describing a projects ability to perform resp. to sustain its intended basic serviceability over a wide range of events and under known and unknown changes of other conditions. In basic terms, robustness is expressed comparing effectiveness of an intervention over its life cycle or in different cases (chapter 5.4.3).
Also based on these contextual changes, over the live time of an intervention, modifications may be necessary to adapt the project to changing conditions. The reasons may be various ranging from a new hazard situation to changed risk perception and connected expectations of ‘safety’. Flexibility describes a project’s operational and long term adaptability (chapter 5.5.2). Flexibility is discussed under consideration of reversibility of impacts and economical costs.
4.2 Indicators – yardsticks of evaluation In contrast to criteria, indicators are the practical units of evaluation which describe the performance of interventions. With other words, indicators are the “evaluative yardsticks against which the against which the value, worth or merit of an intervention is assessed.” (Vedung 1997, p. 294). The EVALSED guidance defines ‘indicators’ as aspects for the
Measurement of an objective to achieve; a resource mobilised; an output accomplished; an effect obtained; or a context variable (economic, social or environmental). The information provided by an indicator is a quantitative datum used to measure facts or opinions
The methodology for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments delivers a multitude of indicators. While an indicator itself primarily describes the aspect of interest that is to be evaluated, much more information needs to be attached to it to make it applicable for evaluation. The process of making indicators applicable is referred to operationalisation.
In a first step of operationalisation, for each indicator potential meathods for data acquisition are named. The question to be answered here is: By which technique or approach can the necessary data, describing the aspect be generated? Corresponding to the multiple criteria approach of the methodology, the methods also reflect different approaches to information generation. Therefore, a wide range of methods is considered reflecting the needs of the proposed indicators including quantitative and qualitative approaches. Provided methods always represent one possibility for data acquisition. In practice, different methods for the same indicator may be available. The methodology does not attempt to describe all available methods. Where possible, one certain method is proposed.
In a second step, an indicaor is made operational through its description in relation to the conditions, under which measures and instruments are regarded. The question behind this is: Under which conditions can the objective, resource, output or outcome described by the indicator potentially materialise? The answer to this questions decides whether the indicator is potentially relevant for the
23 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments evaluation of an intervention under certain conditions. But, the answer will never include, that the effect has really occurred, unless it is proved by the evaluation. However, this approach enables the exclusion all those conditions, which do not offer the potential for the outcome to materialise and as a result permit the formalised selection of indicators.
Thus, an indicator is always an aspect operationalised for evaluation. An indicator in the sense of this methodology is always an entirety of aspect of interest, its definition, the description of its applicability and the method for the provision of data.
4.3 Evaluation framework For almost two decades, ex-ante assessment of options has been developing approaches which give ample consideration to aspects beyond the technical performance. These approaches are usually synthetic and are based on multi-criteria analysis (DTLR 2000) or comprehensive benefit-cost techniques partly developed especially for appraisal of flood protection schemes (MAFF 1999, 2001). In contrast to this, ex-post evaluation is rather analytic, addressing the variety of single impacts in different fields of interest.
As discussed above, ex-post evaluation is based on the effects of measures and instruments under conditions which are important for their performance. An example is the hydraulic effect of temporal flood proofing of a building by shielding of entrances. If the measure does not fail, it can avoid the inundation of the building reducing the water level in the interior down to ‘zero’. Given, that the value and susceptibility of structures, installations and goods in the interior can be estimated, the economic effect can be calculated, expressed in terms of avoided economic losses. Based on the effect the effectiveness is calculated. The latter again is the bases for the consideration of robustness.
Effectiveness is expressed by the degree of goal achievement. Therefore, for the determination of effectiveness, the actual objective of an intervention is essential. Following the example of flood proofing, the reduction of flood level in the interior is clearly intended and “zero” flood level can be assumed as goal of the measure. In the case that the installed shields do not fail and inundation of the interior is fully avoided, the goal is fully achieved and hydraulic effectiveness can be described with “100%”. However, in case that the shields are overtopped, the interior can still suffer an inundation level similar to that without any shielding. In that case, hydraulic effectiveness could be as low as “0%”. This can be likewise for the economic effect of avoided losses.
However, this need not be so simple. For example, if the installed shields provide protection until the overtopping, time can be gained, which can be used for the evacuation of vulnerable objects to upper levels. In that case, also the hydraulic effectiveness equals “0%” in the end. But the economic effectiveness need not be as low, if the measure permitted the evacuation of exposed values. However, then economic effects and effectiveness needs to be related to the combination of applied measures.
The determination of outcomes in the categories effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness require different information. Robustness and flexibility are partially based on these categories. Figure 6 presents the three relevant levels of information and illustrates their relationship to effects, objectives and effectiveness (inspired by Hellstern & Wollmann 1984):
• Baseline condition - describing the state of the condition of an indicator prior to the implementation of an intervention • Target level - describing of how an intolerable baseline condition should be developed by the intervention (refers to intended effects only) • Observed/reached development of this condition – describing the reached development of the indicator (can be identical or even beyond the target level)
24 FLOODsite Task 12 / Methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Levels of information in ex-post evaluation of effects and effectiveness
Target level of condition (ex-ante)
Objective Observed development of condition (ex-post)
Effect Effectiveness Baseline condition (ex-ante)
Figure 6: Levels of information in ex-post evaluation of effects and effectiveness
The baseline condition can either be a certain intolerable condition of the flood risk system or even another condition not primarily addressed by the intervention. The intolerability of a condition, which ideally would give the impetus for an intervention, on the one hand, can be more or less static – this means already in place when discovered. On the other hand, this condition can also be dynamic. In this case the condition might be in transition from a still tolerable current state to an intolerable state in future. Therefore, when measuring the effect of an intervention, the reference value of the baseline condition requires due attention. In one case these can be the static, really observed conditions. In another case, this level needs to refer to the prognosis of this condition. This can make the evaluation of the real effect much more complicated, and sometimes even impossible. However, it is the essence of ex-post, to measure the actual impact, which requires clearness in the levels of information used.
The target level of the condition of interest mainly relates to conditions found intolerable previously. However, it may also relate to aspects which are affected without the intention (side effects). Target level is ideally stated prior to implementation or it can be interpreted from project documentation. If both is not the case, the target level can be determined by choosing a representative target level or by ex-post agreement of involved stakeholders. Often, side effects are not fully considered during project planning. However, for many affected conditions binding stipulations exist, that can be applied (e.g. limnological conditions defined by the WFD).
The really observed development of a condition is the level achieved through implementation of an intervention. In Figure 6 this level is shown schematically between baseline level and target level. In reality it can be identical with the target level or even reach states beyond. Especially with regard to unexpected and undesired side-effects the observed development can also worsen in comparison with the baseline condition.
These three information levels are essential for the evaluation of effects and effectiveness. Within this system, the effect is determined as the margin of states between the baseline condition and the observed development. The margin between baseline condition and the target level indicate the development intended by an intervention and thus expresses the objective. The latter is indispensable for the determination of effectiveness. Finally, effectiveness is determined by relating the effect to the actual objective. It is described by the proportion of fulfilling the objective in percent. Cost- effectiveness additionally requires the cost information acquired at effect-level.
Table 1 summarises the framework of evaluation as addressed in this methodology. It describes the categories of evaluation and illustrates relations between them as well as the pursued approaches for valuation.
25 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 1: Evaluation framework Effects Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility Definition Margin between baseline Proportion to which a pre- Benefit / Cost ratio Reliability of intended Possibility of an conditions and observed defined, or assumed considering only performance of an intervention to be adapted, conditions which can be objective of the intervention economic benefits and intervention in the light of replaced or removed while attributed to the of interest has been costs of the intervention changing conditions leaving little (negative) intervention of interest achieved. irreversible effects Involvement of criteria Hydrological Hydrological Consideration Effects in general in the categories of Ecological Ecological of effectiveness under Direct economic costs for evaluation Social Social different conditions specific matters. Economic Economic Cost-effectiveness Consideration of Intended and unintended Intended effects Intended direct and Intended effects within Intended and unintended effects indirect economic effectiveness benefits and costs Scale for valuation Absolute change of Stated or interpreted Relation of direct and - - conditions induced by objectives based on initial indirect benefits against intervention state and target level for attributable direct and indicators of interest indirect economic realisation costs Description of Genuine determination of Relation of effects to Relation of economic Consideration of effecti- Discussion of reversibility of relations between the effects that can be objectives effects (benefits) with veness under different effects and adaptability of categories attributed to the costs conditions during the life intervention to changing intervention cycle of one intervention conditions. Relation of resp. considering different realisation, operation and cases the intervention. maintenance costs General methodical Calculating the margin Calculation of goal Calculation of benefit- Strengths -Weaknesses Opportunities-Threats approaches for between baseline state achievement in %. cost ratio. determination and observed Determination of objective May involve annuali- Discussion in a Discussion in a development of conditions may involve expert sation of costs and their standardised framework standardised framework based on data from judgement or modelling relation to expected against varying conditions against varying conditions Statistics, Inquiry number of flood events Modelling, Judgement
26 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5. Indicators, evaluation of criteria and evaluation methods
5.1 Evaluation of effects 5.1.1 Impacts of flooding and flood risk reduction The main reason for the implementation of flood risk reduction is the expectation of certain effects on the flood risk system. At the same time, the main reason for ex-post evaluation is the experience that intended effects not necessarily accrue as expected and often side effects occur (chapter 4). As a result, not only impacts of flooding but also those of risk reduction are important. While the analysis of intended effects is not questioned, unintended effects are often neglected. However, they are important for establishing the balance between positive and negative consequences of interventions (cf. Cabinet Office 2003). The determination of effects delivers important information about the performance of an intervention. Knowledge of effects is indispensable for evaluation in the other categories.
Only few approaches comprehensively consider intended and unintended effects related to flood risk reduction. One attempt to systemise criteria for ex-post evaluation of risk reduction activities has been made by the French Ministry for the Environment (EDATER 2001). However, also the methodological preparation of EDATER remains limited to naming potential sources of information in the specific administrative context of France, rather than delivering a framework for comprehensive analysis and European wide application.
Impacts of floods and flood risk reduction can be differentiated in different ways. Most important terms in this respect are direct and indirect, tangible and intangible as well as primary and secondary effects (Smith & Ward 1998, Petry 2002, Messner & Meyer 2006).
Direct impacts occur immediately with or after the event or the realisation of an intervention. Direct losses e.g. as a consequence of the physical contact of the floodwaters (and carried objects and substances) with susceptible property. Direct benefits of risk reduction materialise as avoided losses. Indirect losses/benefits are effects, which can clearly be allocated to the flood event or the implementation of an intervention, but which are outcomes of direct losses/benefits.
Direct and indirect effects can furthermore be differentiated into effects, which can or should be expressed in monetary terms and such, which cannot (cf. Parker 1995b). These are referred to as tangible and intangible effects.
Furthermore, some authors also distinguish primary and secondary losses in order to differentiate losses which arise in first place and such which follow after these, not necessarily being influenced by the primary ones (cf. Smith & Ward 1998, Petry 2002). However, with finer differentiation of this kind also the exclusive allocation of effects to either of these categories becomes increasingly difficult if not impossible (cf. Otte 2003, p. 12).
The differentiation of direct and indirect respectively tangible and intangible effects does not concern the importance of the effects. On the one hand, the probably most important direct consequences, such as the loss or injury of human life – either through physical exposure, water borne disease or mental stress – are intangible (Smith & Ward 1998). On the other hand, indirect effects such as the disruption of business or out-migration of active population can cause the long term decay of an affected region and can consequently constitute the actually profound impact of flooding.
Alternative distinctions of effects are rather thematic and emphasise the most important thematic aspects of effects. These usually refer to human health, economic issues and often include cultural and ecological aspects (Schmidtke 1995, Otte 2003). Most differentiated are economic and social aspects. Comparatively little attention have so far experienced ecological and cultural effects. However, a few attempts exist to bring these dimensions together (Viljoen et al. 2001, Messner & Meyer 2006).
27 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Studies related to floods usually concentrate on tangible and as part of those to direct losses only (Smith 1990). However, there is a need to also include tangible as well as intangible effects (Penning- Rowsell & Green 2000, Lekuthai & Vongvisessomjai 2001, Floyd et al. 2003) and direct as well as indirect effects (Penning-Rowsell & Parker 1987, Penning-Rowsell & Green 2000). Vedung (2004, p. 114) emphasises, that a good evaluation is concerned with main effects in the target area, perverse or opposite effects (in the target area), side effects (outside the target area), and null effects (in or outside the target area). Especially the question of intangibles and of indirect effects is a major challenge for the theory building in the scope of establishing the evaluation design as basis for each single evaluation.
5.1.2 Categories of effects The Effect criterion of the methodology is dedicated to the description of the impact of interventions. Effects describe outputs and outcomes generated by measures and instruments through their intervention into the flood risk system as well as other systems. Therefore, indicators of effect cover the broadest range of issues compared to other criteria and provide the main indicator set. Selected indicators are used to generate further information in relation to targets (effectiveness), invested resources (cost-effectiveness), reliability (robustness) and adaptability (flexibility).
Effects from flood risk reduction can be expected with regard to different aspects of the physical and socio-cultural components of the flood risk system as well as from the interaction with other systems such as the wider eco-system. Therefore, four main categories of the effect-criterion are differentiated:
• Hydrological/hydraulic effects • Socio-cultural effects • Economic effects • Ecological effects
In general, interaction with the physical flood risk system materialises through hydrological and hydraulic effects in the field of drainage and retention (chapter 2.2). Although being part of the ecosystem interrelation, hydrological/hydraulic effects constitute primary services of many flood risk reduction interventions. These effects need to be regarded explicitly from the point of view of risk reduction rather than from ecosystem perspective. The evaluation of these effects is an important milestone in the evaluation of loss reduction achieved by the respective interventions. Therefore, these are considered in an own category, while limnological effects are captured in the category of ecological effects described below.
The interference with the societal component of the flood risk system leads to potential effects in the fields of socio-cultural effects on the one hand and on economic effects on the other hand. Socio- cultural effects describe the interaction of flood risk reduction interventions on usually intangible social and cultural values of the receptor. Economic effects describe the interaction of flood risk reduction with tangible and in monetisable values of the receptor. Under the term economic effects mainly financial issues are considered without restricting ‘economic’ to its narrower sense.
Besides the hydrological/hydraulic effects addressed above, flood risk reduction interventions can have considerable effect also on the ecosystem in general which the physical component of the flood risk system mainly is part of. Usually, this effect-category is no intended part of flood risk reduction. However, as interactions with the ecosystem are manifold for many groups of physical measures, ecological effects are often a considerable part of the impact spectrum of interventions. In order to capture the differences of interaction of flood risk reduction measures with the ecosystem, this category further distinguishes interactions with the mainly terrestrial ecosystems in source areas, interactions with the water body along the pathway (limnological effects) and specifics of interaction with the flood plain representing the ecological receptor of flooding and flood risk reduction.
28 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Inside these sub-categories, criteria are grouped, were possible, following existing classification systems. Hydrological, ecological, social and economic effects are grouped in subject-areas describing different thematic fields within the sub-categories.
Limnological effects further substantiated by ‘component-level’-categories defined in the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). These components are further differentiated into ‘quality elements’ following the WFD-classification.
5.1.3 Indicators of hydrological and hydraulic effects A major outcome of many flood risk reduction measures is their influence on the flood event itself – the hydrological hazard. Impacts on the event can be described by hydrological and hydraulic parameters expressing different aspects of flooding with relation to flood risk resp. flood damage. Table 2 gives an overview of indicators describing hydrological and hydraulic effects. These indicators do not describe the actual effect on flood risk resp. flood damage. From this perspective, hydrological and hydraulic effects are rather intermediate impacts in their consequence leading to certain outcomes in terms of risk or losses. However, these intermediate effects are important for the further evaluation and highly representative for the performance of many interventions. On the one hand, these effects are important for understanding the actual impact on the flood risk system. On the other hand, objectives of interventions are still often related only to hydrological/hydraulic aspects.
Next to hydrological/hydraulic standard parameters, conveyance is a special feature of stream hydrology related to the hydraulic performance of the channel cross sections. Especially in urban areas man made structures (e.g. bridges or culvers) can be highly influential for this issue. Discharge can exceed the hydraulic capacity of such structures or carried sediments or debris can fully or partially block these structures (Evans et al. 2004a, p. 309) with the result of inundating the adjacent land or even deviating flood waters (Jakob 2004). In urban areas, the factor of hydraulic performance is likewise connected to the conveyance of sewer networks (cf. Evans et al. 2004a, p. 312), which should aim at accommodating the accruing runoff to avoid urban flooding. This issue is closely related to the design of sewer networks – combined or separate – and is, therefore, also relevant in terms of surface water pollution over the path of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). However, sever networks can also become pathways for external flooding in urban areas (Evans et al. 2004a, p. 315f) by conveying flood water which rises above the level of the affected urban area.
Table 2: Indicators of hydrological and hydraulic effects Acronym Name of indicator Hydrological effects Hydr 1 Impact on maximum discharge Hydr 2 Impact on maximum flood level Hydr 3 Impact on speed of flood wave propagation Hydr 4 Impact on maximum flood extension Hydr 5 Impact on flood duration Hydr 6 Impact on flood frequency Hydr 7 Impact on blockage of discharge channel Hydr 8 Impact on sewer conveyance
For a characterisation of the criteria see Appendix 1.
5.1.4 Indicators of socio-cultural effects Indicators of socio-cultural effects describe various instances of social and cultural values which can be affected by flooding and/or flood risk reduction. The most profound impact here, are their effects on public health in terms of loss or injury of human life (BTRE 2002, Jonkman 2005, Penning- Rowsell et al. 2005). However, also “softer” aspects of public health are relevant, such as mental stress often caused by direct exposure to flooding, the implementation of interventions or by the loss or
29 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments damage of intangible values. Considering sustainability of socio-cultural systems also aspects such as concerned amenity values are relevant (Franklin et al. 2001).
Important are furthermore issues of social stability describing issues of daily life such as the temporary or permanent loss or gain of living or working places, or the financial burden borne by the affected persons.
Finally also aspects of cultural and natural heritage can be related to floods or flood risk reduction (EDATER 2001). Cultural heritage is represented by so called tangible cultural heritage goods, the value of which can be more or less quantified (Otte 2003, p. 14). Such goods can be defined "cultural heritage" in terms of the world wide accepted World Heritage Convention including Monuments, Groups of buildings and Sites of universal value (UNESCO 1972, Article 1). Consequently, natural heritage in socio-cultural terms is understood following the World Heritage Convention. Hereafter, natural heritage applies to natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, geological and physiographical formations and areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants natural sites natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty (UNESCO 1972, Article 2). Another possibility is the application of national heritage categories.
Table 3 presents socio-cultural indicators in the named three thematic groups. Beside these, many other aspects exist describing implications of flooding and flood risk reduction with socio-cultural systems. The short list of criteria seeks to give consideration to the most apparent issues. Further aspects can be thought of in the field of specific stress factors, certain intangible impacts (Floyd et al. 2003) and other. However, these seem to be often hardly detectible. Important are also social factors such as preparedness, perception, social resilience and other (cf. Messner and Mayer 2006). However, the latter aspects rather describe the social vulnerability but not outcomes of floods or risk reduction and are therefore not considered.
Table 3: Indicators of social effects Acronym Name of indicator Public health Soc 1 Impact on lives lost Soc 2 Impact on persons injured Soc 3 Impact on mental stress Soc 4 Impact on amenity value of public open space Social stability Soc 5 Impact on number of persons permanently displaced Soc 6 Jobs permanently lost or created Soc 7 Impact on number of days out of work Soc 8 Impact on number of financial flood losses per person Cultural and natural heritage Soc 9 Impact on loss or damage of cultural heritage Soc 10 Impact on loss or damage of natural heritage
For a description of the criteria see Appendix 2.
5.1.5 Indicators of economic effects Indicators of economic effects describe financial benefits and costs of measures and instruments. These criteria refer to direct and indirect tangible monetisable impacts of interventions through the interaction with the flood risk system.
Direct effects describe impacts, which are directly attributable to an implemented measure or instrument. They materialise through the direct interaction of an intervention with the flood event. Direct benefits derived from risk reduction are generally the avoided economic or financial losses in
30 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments case of flooding. Direct costs are the real implementation, operation and maintenance costs of interventions. The determination of implementation and maintenance costs is relatively simple compared other economic aspects. However, while this is true for most physical measures, costs of policy instruments are described by costs of the administrative apparatus dedicated to the elaboration and implementation of the instrument. Therefore, data availability in most countries of Europe may not allow the quantification of costs of policy measures and is, therefore, often assumed to equal zero.
Indirect effects describe impacts, which can be attributed to the implemented measure or instrument, but which materialise as a result of certain direct effects. For example, if a factory is flooded, avoided structural damages to the building, to production facilities or to production goods are typical direct effects risk reduction. In many cases these indicators will not yet sufficiently describe the effects of applied interventions. The reason is that these direct losses often are likely to cause the disruption of commercial activities, which as a consequence can lead to considerable losses of value added as a result of the named direct losses as the indirect loss. Avoiding such indirect effects is often an important consideration of flood risk reduction interventions and should not be overlooked in evaluation.
While this first example represents the issue of indirect benefits, also indirect costs of risk reduction need consideration. For example, a dike can successfully reduce flood risk in a defined area, which can lead to a sense of security causing intensive development in the original (now protected) inundation area. In case of failure, not only the initially protected damage potential is exposed, but also values which originally had not existed prior to the dike and which have been introduced due to the sense of security behind the embankment. This can lead to losses, which considerably exceed those, that would have occurred in case the dike had not been built in the past. These additional economic losses are seen as indirect costs of the intervention. However, the consideration of such indirect effects often brings additional effort and methodical difficulties into ex-post evaluation.
Economic costs can both refer to (1) the impacts of measures and instruments on flood losses as well as (2) to impacts which arise through their implementation independently from flood events. Thus, in another example, a construction ban imposed by a policy instrument may have prevented the construction of a new factory in the municipality (A). Its alternative construction in municipality (B) can lead to the loss of tax revenues for (A), which also represents an indirect economic cost at the level of single municipalities. While such impacts usually are irrelevant in strictly economical terms (as the taxes are not lost for the economy in general), they are important financial aspects at the level of municipalities. Since also flood risk reduction often takes place at this lowest administrative level, loss of tax revenues can be an important financial aspect here. Especially, as this type of economic cost materialises independently from the occurrence of flood events.
Following the general distinction used above, economic criteria are grouped in four subject areas:
• Direct economic benefits • Indirect economic benefits • Direct economic costs • Indirect economic costs
31 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 4: Indicators of economic effects Acronym Name of indicator Direct economic benefits Econ 1 Direct economic losses avoided Econ 1a Avoided losses of built structures Econ 1b Avoided losses of technical installations Econ 1c Avoided losses of inventory Econ 1d Avoided losses of production facilities Econ 1e Avoided losses of production goods Indirect economic benefits Econ 2 Avoided losses of value added due to disruption of businesses Econ 3 % of losses covered by insurances Direct economic costs Econ 4 Capital costs of intervention Econ 4a Realisation costs (one time) Econ 4b Maintenance and operation costs (per year or event) Econ 5 Direct economic losses induced Indirect economic costs Econ 6 Loss of value added induced by intervention Econ 7 Loss of tax revenues
For a description of the indicators see Appendix 3.
Economic effects can generally be regarded from two perspectives: static related to the implementation costs of an intervention or the cumulated costs or impacts over time. Or they can be regarded dynamic, e.g. by expressing annualised values.
Economic effects of measures and instrument can reach into various further aspects, which, though clearly connected to the intervention, are very specific. An example is the impact on interventions on the development of the property values in the affected areas (cf. Shrubsole et al. 2003). Such effects are not covered by the methodology. However, these aspects are important and can constitute issues of specific interest in certain evaluations.
5.1.6 Indicators of ecological effects Ecological effects represent impacts of flood risk reduction on ecological systems with which they interact. This interaction is often connected with flood events. However, often already the physical manifestation of an intervention leads to impacts. Thus, ecological effects often can materialise independently from flooding. Three main parts of the ecosystem are related to floods and the effect of flood risk reduction: catchment surfaces in the source areas of floods, water bodies along the pathways of floods and inundation areas as the main ecological receptor of flooding. From the ecological perspective, all these elements are receptors for both the flooding as well as the impacts of flood risk reduction. But, due to the fundamentally different participation in the flood risk system, these elements are exposed to different types of pressures and respond by differently effects. Therefore, these three general fields of ecological effects are distinguished as categories of ecological effects of flooding and flood risk reduction:
• (A) Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation • (B) Limnological effects • (C) Effects on flood plain ecology
The first (A), is related to effects in source areas responding to pressures of flood risk reduction in the catchment, covering factors related to the natural retention of precipitation and concentration of runoff. The two most important elements here, are conditions of soil and vegetation cover. The second (B) relates to effects along the pathways of the flood. It responds to pressures on the ecological
32 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments features mainly of the surface water body described by limnological criteria. The third (C) field of ecological effects is related to receptor areas represented by flood plains where it partly overlaps with (B). Therefore, under (C) only issues specifically related to the flood plain ecology are addressed.
A – Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation in source areas For the reduction of flood risk, increasingly so called decentral interventions in the catchment are applied making advantage of large scale impacts of land management (cf. Potter 1991, cf. Uri 1998, Schmidt 2001, Holland 2004). The character of these interventions restricts their direct impact to the subjects of the top soil and the vegetative cover. Whereas intended outcomes on flood risk (here the flood hazard) are achieved over the influence on physical properties of the soil and the vegetative cover, the interventions can have specific side effects related to agricultural yield or the degree of naturalness of so treated areas. Following the general pathways, changes in the source areas can also lead to indirect effects in the water bodies and the affected flood plains. Table 5 gives an overview of indicators describing the impacts on related aspects in the source areas.
A multitude of additional factors can be effective in reducing the flood hazard. However, in many cases these are hardly quantifiable such as the effects of sealing or desealing of urban or rural surfaces (LAWA 2000b, p. 4). The following criteria respond to measurable ecological functions (regulation, production, information, cf. De Groot 1992).
Table 5: Indicators of effects related to soils and vegetation in source areas Acronym Name of indicator Effects on soils and vegetation in source areas Soil Ecol A1 Impact on the productiveness of the soil Ecol A2 Impact on the buffer capacity of the soil Ecol A3 Impact on soil erosion Ecol A4 Impact on the water holding capacity in the soil profile Vegetation Ecol A5 Impact on stock stability Ecol A6 Impact on biodiversity General aspects Ecol A7 Impact on nature conservation value
For a description of the indicators see Appendix 4.
B – Limnological effects Even though many measures and instruments realised in source areas, along the pathways and in receptor areas have no direct contact with surface water bodies, effects often can reach or materialise in those either onsite or downdrift. This can be through changes of land properties and their impacts on flood generation and the sediment regime, through direct interventions in the water course and their impacts on flow dynamics and hydraulics, morphology, connectivity, the sediment regime and the self-cleaning capacity or through interventions in flood plains and their impacts on the exposure of hazardous substances and the final cumulation of these impacts in the chemical and biological conditions of the water body. Therefore, surface water bodies constitute an important phase for the description of impacts of measures and instruments taken in course of flood risk management.
As a result, flood risk management also interferes with water management, for which the European Water Framework Directive (CEC 2000) provides the essential basis. The overall aim of the WFD is to avoid further deterioration of waters and to achieve “good ecological status” and “good surface water chemical status” in all bodies of surface water by 2015. Under certain conditions, the WFD (Article 4(3)) permits the designation of so called artificial water bodies (AWB) and heavily modified water bodies (HMWB). Here, the principal environmental objective is “good ecological potential”
33 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
(GEP) and “good surface water chemical status”, which both also have to be achieved by 2015 (ECOSTAT 2003). For the description and monitoring of ecological properties of water bodies, the WFD provides a comprehensive framework of quality elements and parameters, which is accepted by all member-states of the European Union.
For this reason, the WFD is an important basis for both, the description of effects of measures and instruments as well as for the identification of evaluation criteria with regard to direct of indirect impacts on surface water bodies. By applying the directive’s systematic for limnological effects, consideration is given to a comprehensive and accepted system. Furthermore, the obligation for all European member states to implement the WFD monitoring system ensures the distribution of know how for the evaluation of these indicators and the availability of assessment methods (cf. CIS Working Group '2.4' 2002, CIS Working Group '2.3' 2003, ECOSTAT 2003). Following the systematic of the Water Framework Directive, Table 6 provides a list of indicators for the evaluation of limnological effects. The criteria stick to the quality element level of the WFD classification. Assignment of indicators to water bodies is based on an analysis of quality elements (Table 7)
Table 6: Indicators of limnological effects (WFD quality element level) Acronym Name of indicator Rivers Lakes Trans. Coastal waters waters Biological quality elements Ecol B1 Impact on phytoplankton x x x x Ecol B2 Impact on microphytes and phytobenthos x x Ecol B3 Impact on benthic algae x Ecol B4 Impact on macroalgae and angiosperms x x Ecol B5 Impact on benthic invertebrate fauna x x x x Ecol B6 Impact on fish fauna x x x Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B7 Impact on hydrological regime x x Ecol B8 Impact on tidal regime x x Ecol B9 Impact on river continuity x Ecol B10 Impact on morphological conditions x x x x Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B11 Impact on general conditions x x x x Ecol B12 Impact on specific synthetic pollutants x x x x Ecol B13 Impact on specific non-synthetic pollutants x x x x
For a description of the indicators see Appendix 4.
The level of quality elements is determined by aggregation of parameters, by which the elements are defined. Altogether, the WFD considers a multitude of indicators. The applicability of an indicator is determined by its relation to a type of surface water body and its further specificities (e.g. the quality elements phytoplankton and macrophytes and phytobenthos are generally relevant for all types of surface water bodies, but in case of rivers only applicable in dependence whether it is plankton dominated or not (cf. LAWA 2003).
Finally, the actual level of assessment of limnological criteria following the Water Framework Directive is represented by parameters, which substantiate the quality element and which have different relevance for different types of water bodies. Impacts on these parameters are aggregated in order to determine effects for indicators listed above.
34 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 7: Parameters of limnological effect-indicators and their relevance for the type of water body (based on WFD, Annex V) Name of parameter Rivers Lakes Trans. Coastal waters waters Biological quality elements Phytoplankton Taxonomic composition of phytoplankton x x x x Average abundance of phytoplankton x x x x Average phytoplankton biomass x x x Frequency and intensity of planktonic blooms x x x x Microphytes and phytobenthos Taxonomic composition of macrophytes and phytobenthos x x Average abundance of macrophytes x x Average abundance of phytobenthos x x Macroalgae and angiosperms Taxonomic composition of macroalgae x x Presence of disturbance sensitive macroalgae taxa x x Macroalgal cover x x Taxonomic composition of angiosperms x x Presence of disturbance sensitive angiosperm taxa x x Average abundance of angiosperms x x Benthic algae Species composition of benthic algae x Abundance of benthic algae x Presence of disturbance-sensitive benthic algae taxa x Benthic invertebrate fauna Taxonomic composition of benthic invertebrate fauna x x x x Average abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna x x x x Presence of disturbance sensitive benthic invertebrate taxa x x x x Ratio of disturbance sensitive taxa to insensitive taxa x x x x Level of diversity of invertebrate taxa x x x x Fish fauna Species composition of fish fauna x x x Abundance of fish fauna x x x Presence of disturbance-sensitive fish species x x x Age structure of fish communities x x x Reproduction and development of particular fish species x x x Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Hydrological regime Quantity of water flow x x Dynamics of water flow x x Connection to groundwaters x x Water level x Residence time of water x Fresh water flow regime x x Tidal regime Wave exposure x x Direction and speed of dominant currents x River continuity Upstream and downstream continuity of river for fish fauna* x Downstream and upstream continuity of river for benthic x invertebrate fauna* Continuity of river for river sediments* x Morphological conditions Channel patterns x Width variation x
35 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Depth variation x x x x Flow velocities x Substrate conditions x x x Variation of substrate x Quantity of substrate x** x Structure of substrate x** x x x Structure and condition of the riparian zone x Structure and condition of the lake shore zone x Structure and conditions of inter-tidal zones x x Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements General conditions Nutrient conditions x x x x Level of salinity x x x** x** Acidification status (Alkalinity) x x Oxygenation conditions x x x x Acid neutralising capacity (ANC) x x Transparency x x x Thermal condition x x x x Specific synthetic pollutants Concentrations of hazardous synthetic substances x x x x Specific non-synthetic pollutants Concentrations of hazardous non-synthetic pollutants x x x x * differentiated in addition to the text of the WFD (Annex V) ** included following LAWA (2003)
C – Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shores Flood plains and coastal shores are areas typically receiving floods as well as impacts of flood risk reduction. In ecological terms, these are closely related to flooding and thus also to the impacts of measures and instruments on physical and chemical properties of floods. On the one hand, the genesis of flood plains and coastal shores is strongly related to the periodic flooding and the connected erosion and aggradation processes. On the other hand, while floods provide the inevitable basis for the existence of flood plain ecosystems, also the riverine and costal ecosystems receive existential impetus such as the purification of water and the temporary extension of habitat for specialised species (e.g. fish nurseries in flood plains). Therefore the connectivity of water bodies with their flood plains can be an important aspect for evaluation.
Many attributes depend directly on the close interaction of water body and flood plain respectively coastal shore. As for the terrestrial ecosystems, these relate also to the main ecological functions regulation, production and information (De Groot 1992). A few main criteria are proposed to capture these aspects with relation to both flood plains and coastal shores under the thematic group ‘Ecological functioning’. Through the close interrelation also with societal uses in flood prone areas, flood plains are not only receptors for floods but can also be sources for pollutants (Tobin et al. 2000, Geller et al. 2004), which can be released following the exposure to flood waters.
36 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 8: Indicators of ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shores Acronym Name of indicator Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Flood plain connectivity Ecol C1 Impact on the natural flood plain ratio Ecol C2 Impact on the frequency of ecologically valuable floods Ecological functioning Ecol C3 Impact on natural retention capacity of the floodplain Ecol C4 Impact on fertility of soils Ecol C5 Impact on accumulation of hazardous substances Ecol C6 Impact on species appearance Ecol C7 Impact on coastal erosion
For a description of the indicators see Appendix 4.
5.1.7 Determination of effects Goal and method The evaluation of effects consists mainly of two elements: the identification of the type and the description of the qualitative or quantitative impact of the intervention. On the one hand, determination of effects provides valuable information about the extent of impact the intervention developed on the aspects of interest. On the other hand, the description of effects is an indispensable basis for the next step – the valuation of effect against values in order to obtain effectiveness and cost- effectiveness.
Information about effects is mainly used unaggregated. In single case evaluations, effects are the information level required for management purposes of intervention. However, for the purpose of cross-sectional comparison of measures and instruments under similar conditions, it is conceivable to aggregate effects at different levels to allow for better comparability of measures and instruments.
The basic research question, related to the evaluation of effects is:
Which effects referring to type and quality resp. quantity were caused by a measure or instrument (over its life cycle) through intervention into natural and socio-cultural systems?
Under ‘effects’ intended and unintended, direct and indirect as well as short term and long term outcomes are understood. Effects are determined by describing the impact, a measure ore instrument had on the aspect of interest. The allocation of the effect to the evaluated intervention relies on the well-founded assumption of an causal relation of intervention and the change of certain properties.
Effects can be considered at different levels. Effects of certain interventions (e.g. flood proofing) can be restricted to single objects, households, firms, or small areas (the latter referring e.g. to ecological impacts). This would reflect the micro scale of effect assessment. However, many interventions are dedicated to larger areas, multiple structures and impact a multitude of households, firms or any other elements. In such cases, effects from multiple entities need to be cumulated per indicator including all affected elements. However, the cumulation by adding is only possible for indicators, the effect of which can be added, such as economic benefits or costs. For these criteria the following formula can be used: n effectindicator = ∑ei i=1 with effectindicator = cumulated effect regarding the indicator of interest
ei = observed effect on the single affected element
37 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
However, many effects cannot be added and their content needs to be cumulated by considering the average (avg). This applies for example for hydraulic effects – it is not sensible to add the reduction of flood levels achieved at different elements of the receptor. For these indicators an adapted formula is applied: n effectindicator = avg ei i=1 Applied levels of information The determination of the impact is based on the knowledge of the state of the evaluated aspect at different points of time. Important for effects are the following levels of information (cf. chapter 4.3):
• Baseline condition - describing the state of the condition of an aspect of interest prior to the implementation of an intervention (resp. the intolerable prognosis value) • Observed/achieved development of this condition – describing the achieved development of the condition of interest (can be lower, identical or even beyond the target level)
Example “Sealing of openings and pumping of ingress water to avoid flooding of a single building” Case: Shielding/sealing of doors, windows and cellar openings for the protection of a single structure in an urban area in combination with pumping of ingress water; 1:10 flood event (case taken from an investigation of flood proofing measures Dresden, April 2006 flood) Baseline condition: Residential building exposed to a 1:10 flood Potential for losses at structure and inventory: in case of a 1:10 flood: € 35.000 Indicators for the intended effect: a) Impact on maximum flood level (exterior/interior) b) Direct economic losses avoided (considering structural and inventory losses)
Determination of effects for indicators a and b In the following, the effect is determined both criteria a) and b). a) Impact on maximum (interior) flood level The effect is the difference of flood level observed outside and inside the building. This difference describes the hydraulic effect of the applied measures.
Observed exterior flood level: 25cm. Observed interior flood level in the ground flour: 0cm. Elevation of ground flour: 2cm Impact on maximum (interior) flood level: 23cm
Here, the effect was sufficient to fully avoid flooding of the ground flour of the building, which is especially important for the materialisation of losses. While the cellar was completely flooded. However, measures did not aim at reducing flood level in the cellar. b) Direct economic losses avoided (considering structural and inventory losses)
The effect is the difference of potential losses and really observed losses, determined by inquiry of the user of the building. This difference describes the economic effect of the applied combination of measures.
Loss potential with regard to the flood event: € 35.000 (15.000 structure and installations and 20.000 inventory).
38 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Really observed losses: € 8.000 (€ 7.000 structural and € 1.000 inventory) Direct economic losses avoided: € 27.000
39 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5.2 Evaluation of effectiveness 5.2.1 Effectiveness - the degree of goal achievement The evaluation of effectiveness is dedicated to the determination of the goal achievement, with other words of the extent, to which the intervention (its effects) has achieved certain expectations (objectives). As a result, the determination of effectiveness is based mainly on intended effects. For ex-post evaluation, effect indicators are selected which refer to individual intentions of the project. These intended effects are confronted with formulated or assumed objectives (chapter 5.2.3).
According to most usual objectives of measures and instruments, primarily hydrological/hydraulic, social and economic aspects are of interest for the investigation of effectiveness. However, in the light of the raising formalisation in the ecological sector (e.g. by the Water Framework Directive) effectiveness also becomes evaluable with regard to ecological criteria. For example, considering goals formulated in the Water Framework Directive as binding, they can be applied as goals also for activities related to water bodies as are many flood risk reduction measures (chapter 2). In this case, goals are assumed implicitly without being explicit goals of the project.
However, certain aspects are expressed in terms of effectiveness which are neither based ob effects nor which are risk reduction in a narrow sense. But similarly as the hydraulic issues of the effects criterion, these aspects describe essential basic outputs, which are required to properly consider the contribution of an intervention. For example, warning is essential as trigger for contingent measures. However, its performance hardly can be measured by outcomes in terms of loss reduction alone. But, the contribution can be verified through specific indicators such as the accuracy or penetration of warning (cf. Parker et al. 1994). Both can clearly be related to certain objectives such as the targeted lead time and the addressed population. Such indicators of effectiveness are considered in an extra category – the so called “intervention specific effectiveness”. Table 12 gives an outline of conceivable indicators which, however, due to the individuality of the indicators is not exhaustive.
Table 9 to Table 12 illustrate the principal of transformation of effect indicators. The examples are given taking recourse to indicators of effects listed above. However, the determination of effectiveness also requires the consideration of the objective connected with a certain effect. This intention cannot be reflected in the formulation of a criterion but is an individual task for any evaluation. The following categories of indicators of effectiveness are considered:
• Hydrological/hydraulic effectiveness (Table 9) • Social effectiveness (Table 10) • Economic effectiveness (Table 11) • Intervention specific effectiveness (Table 12)
Table 9: Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effectiveness Acronym Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effects Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic of effect- effectiveness indicator Hydr 1 Impact on maximum discharge Effectiveness in affecting maximum discharge Hydr 2 Impact on maximum flood level Effectiveness in affecting maximum flood level Hydr 3 Impact on speed of flood wave propagation Effectiveness in affecting the speed of flood wave propagation Hydr 4 Impact on maximum flood extension Effectiveness in affecting flood extension Hydr 5 Impact on flood duration Effectiveness in affecting flood duration Hydr 6 Impact on flood frequency Effectiveness in affecting flood frequency Hydr 7 Impact on number of channel blockage Effectiveness in affecting channel clogging Hydr 8 Impact on sewer conveyance Effectiveness in affecting sewer conveyance
40 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 10: Indicators of social effectiveness Acronym Indicators of social effects Indicators of social effectiveness of effect- indicator Public health Soc 1 Impact on lives lost Effectiveness in reducing loss of life Soc 2 Impact on persons injured Effectiveness in reducing the amount of persons injured Soc 3 Impact on mental stress Effectiveness in reducing the number of persons experiencing mental stress Soc 4 Impact on amenity value of public open space Effectiveness in sustaining amenity value of open space Social stability Soc 5 Impact on number of persons permanently Effectiveness in reducing the number of persons displaced permanently displaced Soc 6 Jobs permanently lost or created Effectiveness in reducing the number of jobs permanently lost respectively in increasing the number of jobs Soc 7 Impact on number of days out of work Effectiveness in reducing the loss of working days Soc 8 Impact on number on financial burden per Effectiveness in reducing the financial burden of person affected persons Cultural and natural heritage Soc 11 Impact on loss or damage of cultural heritage Effectiveness in reducing the loss or damage of cultural heritage Soc 12 Impact on loss or damage of natural heritage Effectiveness in reducing the loss or damage of natural heritage
Table 11: Indicators of economic effectiveness Acronym Indicators of economic effects of effect- indicator Direct economic benefits Econ 1 Direct economic losses avoided Effectiveness in avoiding direct economic losses Econ 1a Avoided losses of built structures Effectiveness in avoiding losses of technical installations Econ 1b Avoided losses of technical installations Effectiveness in avoiding losses of inventory Econ 1c Avoided losses of inventory Effectiveness in avoiding losses of production facilities Econ 1d Avoided losses of production facilities Effectiveness in avoiding losses of production goods Econ 1e Avoided losses of production goods Effectiveness in avoiding total economic losses Indirect economic benefits Econ 2 Avoided losses of value added due to disruption Effectiveness in avoiding losses of value added of businesses due to disruption of businesses Econ 3 % of losses covered by insurances Effectiveness in covering losses by insurances Direct economic costs Econ 4 Capital costs of intervention No relevance for effectiveness Econ 4a Realisation costs (one time) No relevance for effectiveness Econ 4b Maintenance and operation costs (per year or No relevance for effectiveness event) Econ 5 Direct economic losses induced No relevance for effectiveness Indirect economic costs Econ 6 Loss of value added induced by intervention No relevance for effectiveness Econ 7 Loss of tax revenues No relevance for effectiveness
41 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Table 12: Examples of intervention specific indicators of effectiveness Name of measure or Name of indicator instrument Flood warning Timeliness of warning (Effectiveness in achieving the lead time) Accuracy of warning (Effectiveness in forecasting the event) Penetration of warning (Effectiveness in reaching the addressees) Information Penetration of information (Effectiveness in reaching the addressees) Land use regulation Effectiveness in reducing building permits for a certain area … …
5.2.2 Objectives For the determination of effectiveness, observed effects are related to objectives formulated or assigned to these effects. For this reason, only intended effects are relevant for the determination of effectiveness. An indispensable prerequisite for the formulation of objectives is the availability of baseline conditions and potential target values for these aspects. However, often measures and instruments are realised without any clear objectives or targets being stated.
Thus, the formulation of objectives often is the first task which needs to be accomplished by the evaluator. If project documentation is available, target values can be derived from the considerations stated in project documentation. This requires an interpretation of described intentions and if necessary the consultation with stakeholders. If interventions are realised without clear expectations general targets need to be assumed. For example, evacuation or private flood proofing measures are such interventions, which are often being implemented expecting that they will reduce losses any way and without clear expectation of how much damage they should reduce. Here the evaluator needs to assign a value representative for a possible societal expectation. For example, “0” damage can be a possible goal against which the goal achievement can be assessed considering the loss potential as the other side of the scale.
Sometimes, objectives need to be determined event-specific. This can be the case, e.g. if the water level needs to be determined at which a defence would have failed without water level reduction by another measure. Such uncertain issued may require modelling or the judgement by experts.
5.2.3 Determination of effectiveness Goal and method Effectiveness is determined with the aim at depicting to which extent objectives of a project are met. It is represented by the degree of goal achievement in % related to the intended effect of interest. In the following, an example is given how effectiveness can be determined in a certain case. The approach should be applicable with all issues of effectiveness where required data are at disposition. Since effectiveness is expressed in %, quantitative data are the basis for the determination of effectiveness. If qualitative indicators are used, individual classifications can help to translate qualitative judgements into quantitative scales to enable the expression of effectiveness in %.
The basic research question, related to the evaluation of effectiveness is:
To which extent did a measure or instrument achieve its goal?
Effectiveness is calculated with the following formula:
effectindicator effectiveness = * 100% objectiveindicator with effectindicator = observed impact on an indicator of interest
objectiveindicator = intended impact on the indicator of interest
42 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The cumulation of effectiveness referring to different elements can be useful for interventions of which a multitude is being regarded (e.g. flood proofing measures in single structures). As for effects, cumulation by addition is only possible for effects which can be added (e.g. economic effects).
n ∑effectindicator effectiveness = i=n * 100% objectiveindicator, general with effectindicator = as above
objectiveindicator, general = generalised intended impact on the indicator of interest
Effects, that cannot sensibly be summed up must be treated by consideration of average (avg) of effect in different elements or cases:
n avg effectindicator effectiveness = i=n * 100% objectiveindicator, general
The application of the described method is restricted to indicators, which allow the quantitative expression of effects and objectives. Where quantification is not possible, in principal, effectiveness in terms of goal achievement can also be determined by judgement. However, this requires due attention to interests of experts resp. the involvement of several experts to neutralise subjectivity. The term ‘experts’ may also involve the most involved stakeholders such as affected land users.
Applied levels of information The following levels of information are used for the determination of effectiveness (cf. chapter 4.3):
• Baseline condition - describing the state of the condition of an aspect of interest (indicator) prior to the implementation of an intervention • Target level - describing how an intolerable baseline condition should be developed by the intervention • Observed/reached development of this condition – describing the achieved development of the indicator of interest
Example “Sealing of openings and pumping of ingress water to avoid flooding of a single building” This is the continuation of the example given for the effect criterion in chapter 5.1.7.
Case: Shielding/sealing of doors, windows and cellar openings for the protection of a single structure in an urban area in combination with pumping of ingress water; 1:10 flood event Baseline condition: Residential building exposed to a 1:10 flood Potential for losses at structure and inventory: in case of a 1:10 flood: € 35.000 Indicators for the intended effect: a) Effectiveness in affecting (interior) maximum flood level b) Effectiveness in avoiding direct economic losses (considering structural and inventory losses) Related effects: ad a) Impact on maximum flood level (interior) = reduction by 23cm ad b) Direct economic losses avoided = € 27.000 (considering € 7.000 structural losses and € 19.000 inventory losses avoided)
43 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Objective: No explicit goals are stated regarding the interventions by the land users Therefore, a general goal is determined assigning the target level to be ad a) Maximum interior flood level = 0cm ab b) Direct economic losses = € 0,- (both for structural and inventory losses)
The scale, at which effectiveness is determined is characterised by the margin between potential conditions without the interventions and the target conditions. Thus the margins describing 100% of goal achievement are as follows:
ad a) Maximum water level (interior) without intervention: 23cm 23cm – 0cm = 23cm = 100% Reduction of maximum flood level by 23cm equals 100% effectiveness.
Thus the objective for water level reduction is: 23cm
ad b) Maximum direct economic losses without intervention: € 35.000 (considering € 15.000 structural losses and € 20.000 inventory losses) 35.000€ - 0€ = 35.000€ = 100% Reduction of direct economic losses by € 35.000 equals 100% effectiveness (€ 15.000 for structural losses and € 20.000 for inventory losses)
Thus the objective for reducing direct economic losses is: € 35.000 (respectively € 15.000 for structural losses and € 20.000 for inventory losses)
Calculation of effectiveness: a) = 23cm / 23cm * 100 = 100% b) = 27.000€ / 35.000€ * 100 = 77,1% Structural losses = 7.000€ / 15.000€ * 100 =46,7% Inventory losses = 19.000€ / 20.000€ * 100 =95,0% Effectiveness: a) The applied combination of measures where 100% effective in reducing maximum (interior) water level in the ground flour of the building
b) The applied combination of measures where 77,1% effective in reducing direct economic losses, but with regard to structural losses the achieved effectiveness is 46,7% with regard to inventory losses the achieved effectiveness is 95,0%
44 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5.3 Evaluation of efficiency – the benefit/cost ratio 5.3.1 Economic and non–economic effects in cost-effectiveness The evaluation of cost-effectiveness is dedicated to the determination of the ratio between intended outcomes and expenses spent to obtain those. There is no normative objective against which the calculated cost-effectiveness can be valued. Rather, cost-effectiveness is a measure for how economic a desired outcome is generated. As the determination of effectiveness, also that of cost-effectiveness is based on intended effects. However, a further restriction to economic resp. financial aspects is laid upon the selection of relevant indicators.
This restriction is made in full awareness of existing benefit-cost approaches which include the monetisation of intangible effects (MAFF 1999, HM Treasury 2003). These are developed to give consideration to the grown perception of intangible values in the scope of ex-ante evaluation. The latter is aiming at the aggregation of as much as possible aspects in course of weighing of alternatives before implementation. However, the transformation of intangible values into financial units bears the risk of reducing information and does not offer surplus value for ex-post evaluation.
Goals of ex-post evaluation is to give feedback to the project management on the one hand and to stakeholders involved into the development of strategies and strategic alternatives on the other hand. This requires a high resolution of considered issues. A transformation of intangible effects to financial units can be considered at higher levels, but this is not considered as task of ex-post evaluation. The aim of the latter is rather the provision of highly resolved information that can be used for adaptation and learning for stakeholders at different levels of flood risk management. Weighting of tangible and intangible effects already in single ex-ante evaluations would mean to loose specific resolution. This problem is even larger if considering that information once reduced to financial units may thus easily become uninterpretable for different stakeholders and even less in culturally different regions.
Therefore, attempts to monetise both tangible and intangible costs is not pursued in this methodology. Instead, cost-effectiveness is considered as a purely economic resp. financial dimension extending the multiple criteria approach of the methodology by this certain aspect. As a consequence, only such effects are considered which represent purely financial issues described by economic benefits and costs. These can be direct or indirect effects such as the impact on economic losses of structures and inventory or the impact on value added losses and other. Relevant criteria for intended economic effects have been presented with direct and indirect economic benefits in chapter 5.1.5.
5.3.2 Benefits and costs in cost-effectiveness Benefits in cost-effectiveness are mainly represented by losses avoided through the implementation of measures and instruments. As a result, benefits are usually related to intended economic effects.
As for benefits, also for costs only economic costs are considered. These can be direct or indirect economic costs as presented in chapter 5.1.5. Costs are used as relation to effects, which accrue as reaction of the system impacted by an intervention. Many effects are generated as a singular reaction of the flood risk system resp. of other affected systems to the flood event (such as direct flood losses) or flood risk reduction. Other effects accrue over a period of time either as a delayed response to flooding (e.g. avoided losses of value added) or as a response to the intervention (e.g. loss of tax revenues).
Certain costs are singular costs such as the one time implementation costs of a measure. Other costs accrue over the life cycle of the measure or instrument such as the maintenance and operation costs. If the evaluation of an intervention is done at the end of its life cycle, all costs can be added. For many single event measures such as sand bagging or evacuation this is the case after one flood event. However, the life cycle of many measures and instruments reaches over years and decades. These interventions are usually designed to experience several floods. In these cases an intervention may often be of interest far before the end of its life cycle. In these cases only attributable costs can be
45 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments considered. These contain proportional one time realisation costs and additionally annualised maintenance and operation costs.
Attributable costs As factor for the calculation of attributable costs the frequency of flood exposure of the measure or instrument during its life cycle is important. Since attributable costs are relevant for evaluations during the life cycle of an intervention, this frequency is an assumption based on known flood frequencies at the location of the intervention. The frequency is calculated by dividing the expected life time (years) by the number of floods to which it is likely to be exposed during this life time:
yearslife time number of floods = return period with number of floods = expected number of floods during the life time of intervention, weighted according to the probability of expected flooding
yearslife time = Life expectancy (years) of measure or instrument if properly maintained until it needs replacement return period = Statistical return period of flooding for the location of the intervention
Using the statistical number of flooding the attributable costs for single flood events can be determined. However, as the calculation relies on assumed parameters, also attributable costs will remain an assumed measure. Nevertheless, this adaptation of costs allows the calculation of cost- effectiveness for certain flood events or for parts of the life cycle of an intervention respectively:
∑costsrealisation attributable costs = ( ) * floods experienced + costsoperation + costsmaintenance * age number of floods ∑ ∑ with attributable costs = costs that can be attributed to a single flood event assuming that the intervention will be exposed to more than one flood until it reaches the end of its life cycle. This measure relies on the assumption of a certain flood frequency at the location of the intervention.
costsrealisation = Realisation costs of the intervention at the beginning of its life cycle.
costsoperation = Operation costs during flood event
costsmaintenance = Annual maintenance costs of the intervention during its life cycle. floods experienced = expected number of floods during life time of intervention, weighted according to the probability of expected flooding age = Age of intervention number of floods = see above return period = see above
Example (1): If a mobile flood protection system with a life expectancy of 50 years is used in the annual flood zone (return period = 1), this calculation can assume 50 as the expectable number of floods during the life time. If the realisation costs are 50.000 and annual maintenance and operation costs (erection of mobile defences during flood event) are € 1.000, than attributable costs applicable to the evaluation of the intervention’s performance in one single event are € 2.000.
The same intervention can also be evaluated after 10 years taking into account all until than occurred flood events. Than the attributable costs ideally would equal € 20.000. However, after 10 years of operation adapted figures for maintenance and operation costs may have occurred. Ex-post evaluation should take account of this by adapting the used figures. An adaptation of the real flood frequency is
46 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments only sensible at the end of life time of the intervention. These attributable costs are related to cumulated real benefits for that period.
Example (2): The same flood protection system can be used at a location which is reached by floods of at minimum 10 years probability (return period = 10). Five years after acquisition of mobile defences, the first flood may occur. The attributable costs in this case sum up to € 11 000 (€10 000 realisation, € 1 000 operation per event, no extra maintenance costs). However, this figure may vary with any further flood event to occur.
5.3.3 Determination of cost-effectiveness Goal and method Cost-effectiveness aims at shedding light on the economic performance of an intervention. It is determined by relating economic benefits to economic costs. As explained above, depending on the type of intervention and perspective of evaluation, full economic costs or attributable costs need to be considered.
Evaluation before the end of the life cycle of an intervention often will require the consideration of attributable costs. Depending whether one or several flood events are considered in the evaluation, single flood benefits or cumulated benefits from multiple events are considered. While attributable costs are always restricted to assumptions which can be adapted during the life cycle, evaluations of interventions at the end of their life cycle can take recourse to really accrued benefits and costs. Cost- effectiveness is calculated using the following formula:
benefits benefit/cost = ∑ ∑attributable costs with benefits = cumulated effects describing the intended direct or indirect economic benefits of the intervention attributable costs = attributable costs describing the direct or indirect economic costs of the intervention
The cumulation of cost-effectiveness of different elements is realised over the consideration of cumulated direct economic benefits and their relation to cumulated direct and indirect tangible costs.
Information used The two main measures used for the determination of cost-effectiveness are direct economic effects representing benefits and costs:
• Direct and indirect economic benefits representing the effects • Direct and indirect economic costs representing costs
Example 1 “Cost-effectiveness of sealing of openings and pumping of ingress water to avoid flooding of a single building” This is the continuation of the example given for the effect criterion in chapter 5.1.7.
Case: Shielding/sealing of doors, windows and cellar openings for the protection of a single structure in an urban area in combination with pumping of ingress water; 1:10 flood event Economic benefits: Direct economic losses avoided = € 27 000 (€ 7 000 structural losses and € 19 000 inventory losses avoided)
47 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Cost categories: One time realisation costs sand bags = € 0 One time realisation costs (purchase) of pumps and stand by-unit = € 800 Operation costs of power generator per event (fuel) = € 300 (no further maintenance costs)
Attributable costs: Expected life time of pumps and power generator = 20 years Recurrence period of flooding at the location = 10 years ↳ number of floods = 20/10 = 2
800 attributable costs = ( + 300) * 1 + 0 = € 700 2
Calculation of cost effectiveness
direct economic losses avoided 27 000 cost-effectiveness = ∑ = = 38,6 proportionate costs 700
48 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5.4 Evaluation of robustness 5.4.1 Robustness as reliability of intended performance Robustness is generally understood as the „capability to cope with external stress“ (FLOODsite Consortium 2005). In case of measures and instruments, ‘capability to cope’ can be understood as the ability of a measure or instrument to perform according to its objectives, or with other words, to deliver the intended functions and services. ‘External stress’ can be understood mainly as pressures from internal and external conditions such as long term decay during its life cycle (internal) or certain flood events (external), which the intervention needs to resist to be able to perform as intended. This includes the assumption that, though designed to resist certain external stress in order to reduce flood risk, measures and instruments themselves can become subject to damage, which can lead to partial or full loss of serviceability (failure) during or already before a flood event.
Performance (serviceability) is always related to certain expectancy (objectives), which again usually will reflect a wider physical and societal context under which the measure or instrument is realised. However, context conditions are not always stabile. They can gradually change over time or experience sudden changes before or during a flood event. As a result, pressures which a measure or instrument is meant to cope with, can change in various ways, of which only some may be predicted while others can occur without alert. For example, climatic change can lead to a higher frequency of extreme events or flood plain encroachment can considerably increase loss potential of the receptor. Failing defences can increase the stress on downstream schemes at very short term. Physical measures can also lose stability in course of their long term decay and without it necessarily becoming apparent before the event and fail already exposed to below design standard floods. Comparably, this can also apply to organisational structures which are the basis for event management (including warning or evacuation), which may be insufficiently prepared if not duly sustained in the past. Herein lies an uncertainty of knowledge with respect to the potential pressure that may accrue. As a result, this uncertainty is also inherent to the consequences these pressures may have on the performance of interventions (cf. also Scotland Executive 2005a).
This entails, that ability of a measure or instrument to perform is influenced by a multitude of known and unknown conditions of stress and must thus be understood as the reliability of performance under various pressures. These pressures primarily reflect changing external conditions, to which a measure or instrument is exposed, such as the magnitude of a flood event. However, also the internal constitution of a measure or instrument can change considerably in the course of its life cycle (cf. Sayers & Simm 1997, cf. Tatham & McCann 2000). Therefore also internal conditions of measures and instruments can be important for the functioning of an intervention (cf. Hall et al. 2004). A fully intact intervention may be able to withstand considerably larger pressure than a poorly implemented or one which has experienced decay during its life cycle. In case of technical structures this can refer to material fatigue of metallic or concrete structures such as flood walls or dams or to the attenuation of earthen structures such as dikes by vegetation, animals or other causes. In case of policy instruments, internal conditions can refer to the deficient implementation of regulations such as land use restrictions through insufficient administrative capacities or to the decline of organisational structures through decreasing political support. Therefore, the consideration of reliability should not be restricted to external conditions.
Thus, the main definitorial term of robustness is the reliability of performance. Thereby, performance being the ability of a measure or instrument to sustain the basic functionality it is designed for. The main aspects related to performance is the reliability of functioning, which describes whether the measure or instrument is able to sustain its basic services resp. serviceability when exposed to various external and internal pressures. Functioning is understood as the basis for the generation of effects. Based on this understanding, the following understanding shall serve as definition for the term robustness:
49 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Robustness expresses the reliability of intended performance of a measures or instrument over a wide range of changing conditions.
In general terms, reliability can also be understood as the probability that a measure or instrument will deliver the intended performance under different pressures. It is thus closely related to effectiveness.
5.4.2 Conditions of pressure Looking from an ex-ante perspective, robustness of measures or instruments can be described with recourse to different pressure scenarios. ‘Pressure scenarios’ are assumed situations of plausible states of external or internal conditions, which can be essential for the performance of a measure or instrument. In ex-post evaluations such pressure scenarios are restricted to conditions which have really occurred. However, for further handling of evaluation results the information about the performance under different conditions is important. For example, for the evaluation of interventions such as flood retention or conveyance with a certain design standard it is essential whether they are exposed to a more or less natural event (up to or even above the design event) or whether the pressure is even higher through the failure of an upstream defence. This differentiation is also fundamental e.g. with regard to warning systems.
Thus, the description of relevant pressure conditions is necessary as reference for the determination of robustness. The main goal describing pressure conditions is to depict the type and extent of pressure, which could lead to reduced effectiveness of an intervention. Examples of such conditions are given in the following. These cover different external and internal pressures, which can be the background for the evaluation of robustness and cover issues such as different probabilities and genesis of flood events, long term changes of flood frequencies or changes of the internal constitution of the interventions.
Conditions of external pressure 1. Floods up to the design standard with varying magnitude (peak discharge, flood level) and dynamic (onset time, duration) 2. Floods above the design standard with varying magnitude (peak discharge, flood level) and dynamic (onset time, duration) 3. Failure of upstream defences causing flooding outside of the range of natural floods 4. Increasing frequency of flood events (e.g. due to climatic change or changed operation mode of upstream retention basins)
Conditions of internal pressure 5. Initial quality of realisation 6. a) Decay of physical structures due to aging or lack of maintenance (physical measures) resp. b) Loss of implementation power through lack of political support or loss of administrative capacity (policy instruments) The listed conditions of external and internal pressure should be understood as an outline of possible conditions. This list can be adapted and extended for individual cases or interventions.
5.4.3 Determination of robustness under conditions of pressure Goal and scope Understanding robustness as the reliability of performance, this category takes recourse to effectiveness. And by doing so it is related to intended effects. Compared to the previous categories effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the determination of robustness is a discussion rather than a calculation. It aims at the verbally argumentative summary of experiences with a certain intervention under different external and internal conditions. This summary completes the picture gained from
50 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments effectiveness. Using this approach, robustness can on the one hand be discussed for single interventions with recourse to their performance during the life cycle. On the other hand, robustness of types of intervention can be determined comparing the performance of the same type of intervention in different cases.
Given certain external and internal conditions or combinations of those, robustness is addressed by the question:
To which extent has the measure or instrument sustained the intended effects under given conditions of pressure?
To answer this question a clear scale is required as used for the determination of effectiveness. The information delivered through the measure of robustness is, whether an intervention is able to reliably sustain the expected services if confronted to different pressure scenarios including such, which exceed its design standard. The latter considers above design standard benefits, which describe how much of the initial benefits persist after design standard of an intervention is exceeded (Penning- Rowsell 1996). This issue is considered by the pragmatic calculation of effectiveness, considering intended effects disregarding conditions of their materialisation.
In contrast to the measure ‘effectiveness’, pressure conditions are qualitative issues and as such can hardly be formalised in a way to be usable for calculation. Therefore, valuation of performance against observed pressure conditions is a matter for verbal argumentative confrontation of calculated effectiveness with these conditions. In order to obtain a comparable format of valuation, the format of a Strengths and Weaknesses is proposed. This format is derived from the so called Strengths- Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats framework, which gives a common format for the structured discussions of qualitative issues connected with the performance of measures and instruments (SWAT analysis, cf. EVALSED 2003). The remaining two aspects of the SWAT-framework are applied for the discussion of flexibility which completes the framework.
Strengths: Under which conditions has the intervention or type of intervention achieved sufficient reliability of effectiveness?
Weaknesses: Under which conditions has the intervention or type of intervention failed to achieve sufficient reliability of effectiveness?
Thereby, the understanding of the term ‘sufficient reliability’ is dependent of the criterion of effectiveness. Threshold levels are matter of negotiation between involved/affected stakeholders. Discussion of robustness can be supported by arithmetic measures describing the variation of effectiveness under different conditions. An applicable measure is for example the coefficient of variation for the different obtained figures describing effectiveness of an intervention in the criterion of interest.
Example 1 “Sealing of openings and pumping of ingress water to avoid flooding of a single building” This case is the extended continuation of the case begun in chapter 5.1.7. The extension refers to a number of considered single cases of flood proofing. Since the examples given above refer to a single event, they are not sufficient for the discussion of robustness. The discussion here involves various elements (buildings) in the inundation area of the April 2006 flood in Dresden (Olfert 2007).
Conditions: - varying flood levels - different flood duration - different types and qualities of implementation - different maintenance during operation
51 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
The named case study gives an example how the complex issue fo robustness can be approached given the effectiveness and indication of selected conditions. As is shown, the discussion of robustness can hardly be conducted in a formalised scheme. Even the unambiguous state of conditions not always is possible.
As a summary of the robustness discussion in the case study, certain strengths are and weaknesses are described:
STRENGTHS Among the strengths of flood proofing is clearly their potential for very effective reduction of flood levels in the interior of buildings. Especially if applied as a combination of shielding and other sealing measures, also losses of building structures can be reduced. Additionally, hydraulic flood proofing measures can deliver important time reserves for the accomplishment of complimentary flood proofing and evacuation measures and remain valuable even if overtopped after a certain time.
The simple function of evacuation measures through disconnecting mobile values from the hazard by temporally excluding the exposure of objects makes evacuation measures highly reliable. They show high effectiveness values over all regarded internal and external conditions and thus prove to be particularly robust interventions. Additionally evacuation measures are usually easily implemented by many stakeholders and can often be implemented without causing financial costs.
WEAKNESSES The main weakness of many flood proofing measures is their tendency to loos all benefits in case of failure due to overtopping or for any other reason. Especially contingent flood proofing measures often require extensive maintenance during the flood event and are thus not applicable by all stakeholders. Due to the limited pressures, which shielding measures and building structures can be exposed, flood proofing measures functioning as barrier to avoid the flooding of the building are mainly appropriate for small and medium floods respectively in the edge areas of larger floods. Especially if barriers cause too large gradients between exterior flood level and the level inside the buildings, the resulting pressures can damage the construction, which in effect can result in even higher losses.
Evacuation of inventory and mobile goods can require considerable logistic and physical efforts in order to relocate all potentially exposed values both in time and to proper places. Especially in case of larger floods this can cause capacity shortages in exposed properties. Where not enough lead time is available, evacuation of mobile values may not realise their full potential or can even endanger involved stakeholders. Especially sensitive and fragile objects can suffer harm during by evacuation measures.
52 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
5.5 Evaluation of flexibility 5.5.1 Flexibility versus irreversibility The future of flooding and the performance of flood risk reduction options face changing conditions (cf. chapter 5.4). The internal constitution of implemented interventions, as well as various external context conditions including physical properties of flood hazards, the frequency of their occurrence or public expectations may call for the adaptation of existing solutions. With other words, flexibility may be required from flood risk reduction options. However, different intervention are more or less adaptable (Evans et al. 2004b, p. 226f).
In general terms, flexibility is defined as the capability to adapt to new situations (cf. Brockhaus Enzyklopädie 1998, Oxford Concise Dictionary 2001). Scotland Executive (2005b, p. 45) mentions flexibility as prerequisite for sustainability by defining the latter as “the degree to which flood defence solutions avoid tying future generations into inflexible … options“. Vis et al. (2003, p. 38)1 describe flexibility related to flood risk management options as their “…ability to adjust quickly and without great efforts to changing circumstances as well as the ability to prevent future regrets”. Based on these considerations, the following understanding shall serve as definition for flexibility:
Flexibility is the ability of a measure or instrument to be adapted, replaced or removed at low effort while leaving little (negative) irreversible effects.
The elements analysed for flexibility are previously realised measures and instruments. The term adaptability represents the main definitorial attribute of flexibility. It refers to the ability of a measure or instrument to permit changes. Replacement and removal need to be seen from the perspective of the life cycle of any intervention and also as options for adaptation of strategic alternatives of flood risk management. An example is the removal or relocation of dikes in terms of a wider reconsideration of the risk reduction strategy. Effort summarises resources such as time and finances needed to introduce the changes. It is considered, that adaptation, replacement and removal in most cases will be rather a matter of effort than of general possibility. Therefore, the effort needed to introduce changes is an important criterion for the evaluation of flexibility. Finally, the reversibility of changes, introduced or caused by the realisation, operation and the simple existence of an intervention emphasises the complexity of interactions of an intervention with the systems with which it intervenes. Thus, in this respect flexibility is also seen as the opposite of irreversibility – flexible can only be, what is nor irreversible. This implies the reversibility of the interventions itself as well as the reversibility of adverse impacts representing intangible costs of interventions.
Flexibility can be regarded with respect to different dimensions of time:
• Operational flexibility • Middle-term and long-term flexibility
Operational flexibility applies to the ability of change in a flood event. It describes the adaptability of a certain measure or instrument in the course of event and applies mainly to changes, which are provided by the concept of the intervention. It is supposed, that this type of flexibility will mainly apply to non-permanent interventions. Middle- and long-term flexibility apply to the adaptability in general, without recourse to an ongoing event. They describe the general capability for conception or structural changes to permanent interventions.
Types of operational adaptability Extension – improvement of the design standard during flood event Removal/opening – elimination during flood event
1 Quoting WL | Delft Hydraulics (2000). Ruimte voor water: op welke gronden? (in Dutch). Report T2335, WL | Delft Hydraulics, August 2000.
53 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Types of middle-term and long-term adaptability Extension - improvement of the design standard Replacement – choosing new location/validity by using the same substance (e.g. material or information content) Substantial changes – adaptation of the substance of intervention without destruction (e.g. land use changes in emergency polders to avoid ecological damage) Feasibility - financial feasibility expressed by the ratio of one time realisation costs and annual costs.
5.5.2 Determination of flexibility As follows from the above mentioned, the determination of flexibility is rather a discussion of findings and observation than a measurement through indicators. Nevertheless, indicators applied in the other categories of evaluation can contribute information required for the considerations of flexibility. Relevant information could be contributed for example by values for:
• Length of the life cycle The shorter the life cycle of an intervention, the faster its replacement/adaptation may be possible. • Costs for realisation and/or withdrawal/dismantlement of a measure or instrument The lower these costs, the more likely a new decision on further investments can be justified from a political point of view • Requirement of time for adaptation of intervention The less time is needed, the more likely is the implementation of adaptations • Ratio of realisation costs and annual costs The lower the ratio, the higher is the proportion of operation and maintenance costs, the faster can an adaptation be justified from an economic point of view • Extent and reversibility of side effects The less side effects an intervention has and the more reversible these are, the more adaptable the intervention is from the sustainability perspective • etc.
For example a dike will have comparatively high implementation as well as dismantlement resp. relocation costs while being operatively adaptable to a certain extent to the event (rise or opening). A relocation would be an administratively highly complicated, expensive and time consumptive process (e.g. dike relocation at the middle Elbe river in Germany). A land use designation prohibiting construction in certain areas is likely to be relatively inexpensive and can be changed after a time without causing very high expenses (e.g. flood zone adaptation in Dresden after the August 2002 flood). These two examples do not necessarily constitute alternatives for the same problem. However, they shell give an idea of the possible variability of the issue.
54 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
6. Selection of indicators
6.1 Introduction The case specific selection of indicators is a sensitive step in the evaluation process and a challenge for each evaluation. Therefore, beside the provision of a general set of operationalised indicators a method for the individual selection of indicators from the main set constitutes and integral part of the methodology.
The goal of the selection method is to provide an as far as possible formalised framework for the extraction of indicators from the overall set in order to support the composition of a case-specific set of indicators covering the full spectrum of potential intended and unintended effects as basis for the evaluation of effects, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, robustness and flexibility.
It has been emphasised before that the functioning of measures and instruments is largely determined by the context in which they are realised. Therefore, indicators are identified in dependence of the applied measure or instrument and the context in which these are realised and operated. To do so, an understanding of the cause effect relationships linking the intervention with outcomes (Chen 1990, Vedung 1997) is not only a general basis for the evaluation, but is also indispensable for the case specific selection of representative evaluation criteria.
The selection of indicators takes place under consideration of conditions. Some of those can be systematically described with their influence on the potential effect spectrum. Such conditions are applicable for an automatic selection of potentially relevant indicators. For example the condition ‘coastal water’ from the category ‘type of water body’ allows to automatically exclude all criteria, which are only relevant for rivers. Other conditions and their influence on effect pathways of an intervention can be much more specific and can hardly be systemised for all criteria. These conditions cannot be used for an automatic selection. However, they can be as important and should be considered for the selection of an optimal indicator set in an individual procedure. Examples are the individual features of design and accomplishment of a measure or societal variables which can influence the functioning of instruments. Reflecting these two situations, the methodology proposes a two step approach for the selection of a case specific indicator set:
1. Step 1 - Formal reduction of the overall asset of indicators 2. Step 2 - Case specific selection of relevant indicators
6.2 Step 1 - Formalised reduction of the overall indicator set The goal of the formalised reduction is to reduce the overall asset of indicators to those indicators, which could be potentially relevant considering the formalised conditions. This reduction is achieved by exclusion of those indicators, which are not connected to the intervention under the given constellation of conditions by any conceivable effect pathway. This is based on the assumptions of the theory-based evaluation approaches (Chen 1990, Pawson & Tilley 1997), which conclude, that an effect can only materialise as consequence of an action if there is an effect pathway, which links the intervention and the outcome. This step is supported by the provided web-based selection tool.
As the first selective issue, the intervention itself is considered taking into account its specific functional characteristics discussed at the level of sub-categories in chapter 2.3.4. Further specification are made by the consideration of external conditions, which are systemised and applied with all indicators such as type of water body, with which the measure or instrument is realised, the type of flood which the intervention has to cope with, or the land use with which the intervention or its impact interferes.
55 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Finally, not only measures and instruments, but also the evaluation itself is realised under certain conditions which forms the scope for the determination of a case specific indicator set. For the selection of criteria, also the perspective of evaluation is important. It helps to specify the indicator needs for the evaluation addressing effects in interaction with one or more flood events respectively for flood-independent evaluation.
The following five categories are used for the formalised reduction of indicators:
• Functional character of measures and instruments (chapter 2.3.3) • Type of flood (chapter 3.2) • Type of water body (chapter 3.5) • Type of land use (chapter 3.4) • Perspective of evaluation
Criteria remaining after the formalised reduction, can be regarded as ‘potentially relevant’. However, further confirmation by considering individual characteristics of the specific case which are not formalised in this methodology (chapter 3.6). For the formalised reduction of criteria, the named selection categories are considered in conjunction. In order to be classified ‘potentially relevant’, criteria must be found relevant for each of the five categories.
Formalisation of the ‘functional character of intervention’ The functional character of an intervention is implicit to the classification of measures and instruments (chapter 2). Here, the full array of practiced approaches to the reduction of flood risk resp. flood damage at project level is considered. Due to the partially fundamental differences of the intervention logic of measures and instruments, many impacts addressed by indicators are only conceivable with certain interventions. And vice versa, regarding one certain intervention, many indicators can be disregarded a priory, considering that there is no conceivable effect path leading to the related effect to which the indicator responds.
The selection is achieved by excluding all those effects which neither can be connected with the intervention directly nor indirectly. Thereby not only the total lack of linkage between intervention and effect can exclude the selection of the latter. An indicator cannot be chosen if the extent to which an in intervention influences a potential outcome can not be clearly established.
For example, no traceable effect path is conceivable from the evacuation of human life (see chapter 5.1.4) to impacts on the fish fauna in the adjacent river, because the measure does not interfere with any element of the flood risk system, which could directly or indirectly lead to impacts on the water body and as consequence on the fish fauna. But, flood proofing of an industrial plant may hinder the escape of hazardous substances und thus can indirectly be relevant for biological elements. However, whether this lind really exists in a certain case is an issue of individual selection described in step 2.
Even more complicated is the selection with policy instruments which by definition only lead to outcomes indirectly. Here, the specific content of the regulation, stimulation, etc. is decisive, whether a certain effect is conceivable or not. For example a financial incentive as such only causes certain activities as primary output. At this level not even can be stated which kind of activity this is. However, if this activity would have to do e.g. with stimulating land use changes in a polder area, the outcome could be highly relevant for ecological aspects of polder operation. In case of the August flood 2002, a different land use in the emergency polder of the Havel river could have had considerably reduced oxygen consumption, which might have prevented the massive fish kill after the stored and practically oxygen-free water was released into the river (cf. Böhme 2005).
56 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Formalisation of ‘type of flood’ The type of flood is selective for a number of indicators. E.g. many effects which are relevant for coastal or riverine floods are not relevant for urban floods.
Formalisation of ‘type of water body’ The differentiation of involved water bodies allows the pre-selection of potentially relevant criteria based on the framework proposed by the Water Framework Directive. Therefore, the relation to involved water bodies is primarily applicable for limnological criteria. The four types of surface water bodies considered are defined in chapter 3.5.
The main assumption is that certain criteria are only relevant with certain water bodies and do not apply to other as depicted in Table 6. On this basis, potentially relevant limnological criteria can be pre selected or excluded for the second selection step.
Formalisation of the ‘type of land use’ For the outcomes of a measure or instrument it is important to which type of land use it is related. Many aspects may not be relevant if only urban or industrial uses are concerned. Vice versa, if a measure or instrument is situated in a purely rural area without development and its impacts do not reach urban areas again different outcomes need to be considered. The complicated issue about the formalisation of this selection criterion is that in many cases an intervention may be located in a rural area but has clear, and often intended, outcomes in urban areas and vice versa.
This selection criterion allows the differentiation whether an intervention is only related to urban areas or only to rural areas or whether both types of land use are concerned.
Formalisation of the ‘perspective of evaluation’ Two main perspectives of evaluation describe the evaluation approach in relation to the flood event. The perspectives are based on the proposition that the evaluation of outcomes from interventions should refer to both, the outcomes from flood events influenced by an intervention as well as the impacts of an intervention independently from flood events.
The first perspective refers to the evaluation of a measure or instrument in light of a single or multiple flood event(s). The second perspective considers the evaluation of outcomes, which materialise independently from flood events. The latter perspective focuses on effects of an intervention, which occur from the interaction of the intervention with the physical and societal systems into which it is introduced. This is for instance relevant for evaluations of interventions after implementation and before their first exposure to flooding. Thus, the second perspective primarily applies to economic costs and side effect of the intervention. It is only available for pre flood interventions and cannot be applied with flood event measures. However, while the flood independent perspective excludes flood related issues, it is implicit to the evaluation addressing one or more flood events.
6.3 Step 2 - Case specific selection of criteria Criteria remaining after the formalised reduction, are further individually selected on a case by case basis, using the knowledge about the specific functioning of the evaluated measure or instrument under the specific conditions (intervention logic), about the goals of the intervention, existing targets and also about the specific interest of the involved parties. As a result, it allows a very flexible arrangement of the indicator set. However, this step can also be a challenge to the evaluator’s commitment to a complete evaluation.
In the following, a guideline is proposed, how this individual selection can be accomplished. However, its use and the resulting set of chosen criteria rely very much on the knowledge of the evaluators about the intervention logic and also on the individual focus and scope of evaluation.
57 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
1. Selection of criteria for the final set. Question 1: Is it possible/likely, that the intervention bears (positive / negative) consequences for the issue represented by the indicator, if thoroughly considering the character, accomplish- ment and context of the intervention?
If no, the criterion is not further regarded. If yes, the criterion is subject to a plausibility check in Questions 2a and 2b.
The question initiates the detailed debate about each single criterion left after the stepwise reduction of the overall set. The answer to the question with regard to each single criterion implies the evaluator’s detailed knowledge about the intervention logic with regard to performance as well as to economic, ecological and social issues. The answer to the question describes whether an impact on the indicator is potentially conceivable with respect to character, accomplishment and context of the intervention. The answer leaves open the consideration whether or to which extent the impact really occurred or whether the evaluation is feasible if seen against the background of available resources.
2. Plausibility check Question 2a: Can the potential effect on the selected issue be fully attributed to the intervention?
If yes, criterion is selected and due to the feasibility check under 3. If no, Question 2b.
Question 2a pays respect to the fact, that a system is not only impacted by the evaluated intervention. Much more activities and conditions are possible, which can have impact on selected indicators. The evaluation will only be plausible, if investigated effects can really be attributed fully or to a known extent to the evaluated intervention. If parallel actions and further conditions do not allow this attribution, evaluation of the indicator may be obsolete.
Question 2b: Are other conditions involved in the effect addressed by the indicator and is the extent of their impact identifiable?
If yes, criterion in selected and due to the feasibility check under 3. If no, criterion should be left out.
Question 2b opens the debate on criteria, which, though relevant, cannot be evaluated in the light of the intervention of interest only.
3. Feasibility check Finally the feasibility check is a pragmatic step, challenging each selected indicator with the question, whether its investigation is feasible against the background of available resources including existing data, finances and skills.
This question opens the scope to adapt the scope of evaluation to the real possibilities of the evaluator respectively the requirement of the evaluation. However, its placement in the last position shall also emphasise, that indicators should not be disregarded a priory due to financial or other constraints. Rather, each evaluation should be transparent about which outcomes are to be expected and which could indeed be investigated.
58 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
B SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS
7. Case study summaries The methodology is tested in fife case studies. On the one hand, these deliver insight into the overall performance of different measures and instruments applied in the field of flood risk reduction. ON the other hand, case studies are conducted with the aim to test the methodology and to generate exemplary findings on effects, effectiveness, cost effectiveness, robustness and flexibility of different measures. The following five case studies are realised.
Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden Emergency Storage at the Elbe River Risk reduction activities on the Odra River Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin (Tisza A) Hungarian-Ukrainian Co-Operation for Flood and Excess Water Defence Along the Upper Tisza River
7.1 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden The case study is dedicated to the evaluation of private risk reduction measures implemented in single buildings. Background for the investigation is a 1:10 to 1:15 flood event, which occurred along the Elbe River in April 2006. The study addresses single measures and combinations of measures based on single cases representing one building each. It is thus a cross-sectional study intergrading information from different single cases under comparable external conditions. Given the relatively small magnitude of the event, all affected buildings in the study area the Cities of Dresden and Pirna are addressed. In total, 24 single cases are considered for the study. Due to the character of regarded measures, the emphasis is manly on economic criteria, while also social, ecological and hydraulic criteria are considered. Most regarded cases are combinations of pre-flood and flood-event measures. In almost all cases these are combinations of dry and wet flood proofing of the building with the evacuation of values or retreat of uses. Hydraulic measures where able to successfully withstand surface water levels over 100 cm. Effectiveness of these measures is differentiated for the ground floor and for the basement. Thís differentiation gives consideration to existing building structures, use patterns and defence attitudes. With regard to the ground floor, the hydraulic performance of applied measures is usually found to be over 80 % water level reduction, in many cases up to 100 %. However, in cases with lower hydraulic effectiveness, relevant flood proofing measures tend to fail fully. With regard to water level reduction in basements, still a number of mostly newly constructed buildings could prove high effectiveness over 90 % even in cases with exterior water level above 350 cm over cellar floor. Nonetheless, the average hydraulic effectiveness of flood proofing measures is lower than that in the ground floors due to considerably higher pressure (ground and surface water level) and the prevailing traditional permeable brick work construction. The overall economic effectiveness of applied measures results in an average of 74 % loss reduction. Seven of 24 cases reached an overall economic effectiveness higher than 90 % but only three below 50 %. However, this effect can not fully be allocated to dry flood proofing measures, which were applied in most cases, since only 11 % of single cases were successful in totally reducing ingress of water. As the study shows, even in cases with fully or partially failed dry flood proofing, losses to inventory and production goods and facilities could be reduced by up to 92 %. This indicates that evacuation and retreat measures such as the evacuation (e.g. lifting of inventory to upper floors) or the
59 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments temporary removal of heating centrals and fuse boxes can play an important role for the overall success of regarded combinations of interventions. While physical injuries are no issue in the case study, mental stress is considered an important factor. However, mental stress is usually related to the implemented measures carrying the notion that implementation of such measures often considerably increases mental stress. As a result, implementation private risk reduction measures are often considered to increase mental stress rather than reduce it by decreasing losses. The described effects where achieved at partially very high cost-effectiveness. Wherever possible, proprietors and users implement the measures privately, thus considerably cutting realisation costs. As a result, median cost-effectiveness is high reaching the value of 41 with extremes of 1 and over 400. With regard to robustness, conditions with relation to hydrological/hydraulic effectiveness of interventions could be identified. Defences tended to fail with raising flood water. Defences failed in cases of households composed of elderly persons, not capable of maintaining the defences through the flood event. Flood proofing was more successful where affected stakeholders had sufficient and good quality information. A positive correlation was found between the level of income and the effectiveness of flood proofing measures. Results allow the derivation of conclusions with direct relevance for action of public authorities involved in flood risk reduction. First, private action of stakeholders can provide effective, in total robust and often very cost-effective options for flood risk reduction in small and middle events. Therefore, private action should actively be considered in strategic planning as real alternative or supportive option of risk reduction. Second, the regarded forms of risk reduction are free of undesired hydraulic or ecological side effects. However, implementation can cause mental stress especially for vulnerable population. Third, private stakeholders often lack the perception of the own responsibility for flood risk reduction. This calls for active communication work from the side of local authorities. Fourth, information instruments applied by city authorities are not sufficient or do not effectively reach affected stakeholders. A consequent communication strategy is required to reach the audience. Different social and economic backgrounds of stakeholders can cause different vulnerability and requires different types of information and support.
7.2 Emergency storage at the Elbe river
The case study addresses the performance of an emergency storage area (polder) along the Elbe river. Context of evaluation is the August 2002 flood event (1:180). The main purpose of the flood storage area is to cut flood peaks in order to protect the urban area of the city of Wittenberge. The case study is based on the analysis of investigations and modelling conducted in course of different research and monitoring activities in the area after the regarded flood event. The performance of the emergency storage is described by taking recourse to a number of criteria proposed by the methodology.
As modelling results show, maximum discharge could be cut by 500 m³/s. This resulted in a decrease of the expectable maximum flood level at the target gauge Wittenberge by 41 cm. Since the polder was effectively operated for flood water storage, no increase of flood wave propagation can be assumed for the measure in this case. Instead, by cutting the flood peak, subsequent flood levels started to decrease already cca 24 hours before peak discharge (see above) was reached. It is assumed, that this performance avoided the failure of central defences in the industrial area of Wittenberge, thus avoiding considerable economic losses.
Economic costs of the intervention consider initial implementation costs, operation costs as well as induced damage of agriculture, fisheries and buildings. Avoided losses are considered based on meso- scale loss analysis for the potentially affected area. However, it turned out impossible to determine a target level for the intervention, as it is highly dependant from the shape of the flood hydrograph and the timing of operation. The determination of the optimum for the case would have required modelling activities, which where not feasible in the scope of the case study. It can be assumed high, since
60 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments decrease of flood level prevented subsequent defences from failure. However, a quantitative determination of effectiveness is not made. Taking into account full realisation costs, a benefit-cost ratio of 2 is calculated.
While the applied measure was found to be very effective at still acceptable cost-effectiveness, the mode of operation has led to severe ecological side effects. The impact on fish fauna was severe due to the long water storage, oxygen concentration in the polder water and when released also in the adjacent Havel River reach decreased to values of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l. This resulted in an almost complete fish extinction at a length of 40 km of the Havel River forcing its ecological condition to bad. In total, a loss of more than 10 million individuals is estimated.
Flexibility is addressed by focusing on adaptability with regard to adverse ecological side effects and economic consequences of these changes. The investigation shows that adaptations of operation mode and land uses are possible and can lead to effective reduction of risk for comparable events. However, this would involve the installation of inlet structures, which would allow the better regulation of in- and outflow from the polders. Together with less intensive agricultural practices, this could result in a reduced oxygen consumption and a better mixing ratio during outflow. However, the use of inlet structures instead of dike blasting is more expensive by a factor of 5 to 6. Also the change of agricultural practices requires high political and financial investment for its implementation.
7.3 Risk reduction activities on the Odra river
The case study is dedicated to the evaluation of the levee system and the monitoring – forecasting - warning system during the 1997 Odra flood. The study is based on an extensive analysis of documents on the hydrological/hydraulic flood event and forecasting and warning activities during the event. It takes recourse to mainly hydrological/hydraulic indicators proposed by the methodology such as maximum discharge, maximum water level or flood duration. By using these, main parameters of the flood event are described in detail for a number of profiles of the Odra river.
The evaluated structural flood defences proved to be dramatically inadequate to cope with the magnitude of the 1997 Odra river flood. As a result, defences, designed for smaller magnitudes failed when exposed to higher pressure. Internal conditions of the levee system, designed for 1:100 events is often inappropriate due to poor quality of construction material and natural decay of the structure. Thus, the actual state of flood protection of all towns in the valley of the Upper Odra is found to be not sufficient to protect the flood prone land.
The case study gives a detailed overview of the hydro-meteorological observation network and analyses the forecasts, warnings and their conveyance to the recipients. It is shown, that 75 % of the respondents did not or not in time receive the flood warning, while only 2 % stated to have received warning in time.
The accuracy of warning is regarded in several cross sections showing that in most cases the forecasted flood levels where underestimated up to over 80 cm, while in one case expected flood levels where level overestimated by cca 20 cm.
It is concluded, that the development of both the levee-system and observation and warning system took place in the context of low consciousness of flood risk. As a result, organisation was weak especially in the beginning of the flood. Also the legislation base was inadequate to sufficiently define responsibilities which would have allowed for more adequate event management.
61 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
7.4 Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin (Tisza A)
The objective of the case study is to test the role of contingency planning, including the development and deployment of flood emergency organisations during the emergency operation during extreme floods. The regarded contingency plan is a policy instrument laid out to organise and guide the operation of flood defences during flood events. In particular, the case study evaluates the role of contingency planning in case of protected floodplains.
The investigation is based on the identification of content and the application of the contingency plans and organisational frameworks used in Hungary. The evaluation is based on extensive document analysis including planning documents and documentation of operation of defences along the regarded stretch of the Tisza river. Analysis of the available documentation related to the April 2000 flood along the Middle-Tisza River with the aim of deriving conclusions on the effectiveness, efficiency and robustness of contingency planning.
The case study gives an extensive overview of contents of contingency plans and organisational frameworks of flood management in Hungary and draws a detailed picture of the specifics of the April 2000 flood as well as the emergency action implemented on the basis of existing contingency plans. Based on detailed figures about applied work force, facilities and material absorbed during by emergency works, costs of the implementation of contingency plans are derived.
The case study shows, that emergency action guided by contingency plans has effectively managed the flood, which exceeded the design capacities of the defence structures. Flood levels could be managed reaching levels up to 80cm above the design level. This avoided the inundation of more than 12 000 km2 land in the end leading to fully avoided losses in areas at risk. With the aid of an estimation of potential losses, an overall economic effectiveness of the implementation of all emergency measures guided by contingency planning is about 100 %. By relating avoided losses with costs of emergency measures at existing defence structures a benefit-cost ratio of 13 is calculated.
Comparing flood characteristics of four floods occurred since 1970, the case study comes to the conclusion that robustness of the contingency plans in Hungary has been proved in several cases under high pressure.
7.5 Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation for flood and excess water defence along the upper Tisza river
The case study is dedicated to the evaluation of trans-national co-operation in the Tisza river basin with the focus on Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation. It is based on extensive analysis of plans, co- operation activities and organisation structures of authorities in Hungary and Ukraine.
The case study provides an extensive overview of existing flood protection and flood defence structures, the legal framework and the institutional system of flood defence. A discussion of the defence organisation of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG) in 1998 and 2001 sheds light into recent changes in the organization of Hungarian water management during that period. Furthermore the current structure of water administration is described.
Based on this, the international co-operation between Hungary and Ukraine is addressed with the focus on the Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border water convention, regulating issues of co-operation and information exchange. The discussion of these documents shows that under the territorial force of the Hungarian-Ukrainian water-related, trans-boundary convention the informatics, data transfer and monitoring developments have created the basis of an up-to-date flood monitoring and forecasting system on the catchment area of the Upper Tisza River.
62 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
A detailed discussion of the Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation connected with flood defence comes to the result that between 1997 and 2004, the levees were strengthened on a total length of 90 km, while a further 40 km still urgently requires reinforcement. Also the strengthening of the remaining 130 km would be important. However, in 2004, on the Hungarian side, about 35% of the flood levees still fail to reach the height necessary for ensuring the safety to be guaranteed by the state.
Furthermore, the case study addresses the establishment, development, operation and maintenance of the flood observation, forecasting and warning system describing the basic goals of the development to be realised, elements of the flood information system, requiring development, the development of the water quality protection system as well as realised actions. It is concluded, that while the foreseen actions fulfil planned requirements and the built-in informatics system is up to date, the monitoring and forecasting system of the Upper Tisza is still in need for further development.
The case study concludes that realised activities contributed to increasing the efficiency of the measures taken before and during the floods. The speed and frequency of mutual information was significantly improved, shortening the time period necessary for the preparations for flood defence and enabling continuous communication during the flood period. At the same time, also the flood risk is being reduced as a consequence of the implementation of the various plans.
63 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
8. Overview of applied indicators and obtained results The following table gives an overview of indicators applied in the case studies. Table 13 is understood as the summary of exemplary results from the cases. Case studies and case study results are different by flood event, type of flood, magnitudes and many other conditions. Therefore, no comparison is attempted. Table 13: Overview of used criteria in the cases and schematic results Indicators Application and results Case Dresden (IOER) Case Lower Elbe (UniPo) Case Odra (UniPo) Case Tisza A (HEUR Aqua) Case Tisza B (VITUKI) 10 year plain flood, 180 year plain flood, comparison of 24 single >100 years flood > 100 years flood Cross border cooperation calamity polder cases of buildings Hydrologi cal /
Hydraulic effects Hydr 1 - 500m3/s - reduction in six sections Reduction in 24 single cases at dike level between 278cm Ground floor: up to 110cm and 430cm Hydr 2 Reduction by 41cm Basement: up to over while extending the intended 200cm performance by 13cm to 97cm Hydr 4 12 686 km2 Socio- cultural effects Results not significant, since Soc 2 - - flood event too small Certain sense of mental Soc 3 stress imposed by imple- - - mentation of measures
64 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
87 persons permanently Soc 5 displaced Reduction of closure times Soc 7 of businesses up to 50%, - - but too little data Not specifically referring to UNESCO heritage areas; referring to different locations Soc 9 - - Inundation and damage of buildings with cultural value such as museums, churches, castles a.s.o. Economic effects
Residential: up to 50 T€, cca 17.000 T€ modelled avg. 26 T€, med. 27 T€ assuming the breach of Econ 1 - € 2 883.7 million Commercial: up to 230 T€, defences in the city of avg. 76 T€, med. 45 T€ Wittenberge Econ 1a Econ 1a and Econ 1b jointly can not be differentiated - can not be differentiated considered Econ 1b up to 230 T€, avg. 41 T€, can not be differentiated - can not be differentiated med. 6 T€ up to 150 T€, avg. 38 T€, Econ 1c can not be differentiated - can not be differentiated med. 14 T€ Econ 1d None affected can not be differentiated - can not be differentiated Econ 1e only one single case, 3 T€ can not be differentiated - can not be differentiated only commercial uses Econ 2 up to 185 T€, avg. 54 T€, - - med. 35 T€
Econ 4 costs for combinations of - - in total € 210 million
65 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
measures in single cases € 98 T€ million costs for the contingency plan with up to 43 T€, avg. 4,5 T€, including data med. 1 T€ € 209,8 million for residential: up to 2,5 T€, subsequent emergency avg. 2 T€, med. 0,8 T€ operation and post event commercial: up to 42 T€, restoration avg. 6 T€, med. 1,5 T€ up to 43 T€, avg. 4,5 T€, med. 1 T€ residential: up to 2,5 T€, Econ 4a can not be detailed avg. 2 T€, med. 0,8 T€ commercial: up to 43 T€, avg. 6 T€, med. 1,5 T€ Only occasionally, since most interventions single Econ 4b event measures 100 T€ to 225 T€ per breach up to 2 T€, avg. 1 T€, med. 0 € singular not quantified damages through 7.300 T€ million as losses in Econ 5 - evacuation and installation the polder area of defences complete fish extinction about 10 million individuals in an about 40km section of Ecol B6 - the river temporary bad conditions according to WFD cannot be detailed at the Ecol B12 + level of single buildings, - - 13 indirectly through avoiding the exposure and leakage of
66 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
hazardous substances Effectiven ess regarding the performance up to 100% water level of the reinforcement reduction in ground flood measures and basement of buildings Hydr 2 - In all cases 100% Ground floor: 63% average Regarding the dike as total Basement: 34% average Up to 130% Hydr 4 100% avg. 79%, med. 90% residential avg. 67%, med. Econ 1 82% - 100% commercial: avg. 86%, med. 90% avg. 51%, med. 67% residential avg. 37%, med. Econ 1a+b 34% - commercial: avg. 66%, med. 85% avg. 91%, med. 93% residential avg. 88%, med. Econ 1c 93% - commercial: avg. 94%, med. 95% only commercial Econ 2 - avg. 65%, med. 88%
Cost effectiven
67 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments ess up to over 200, avg. 56, med. 24 Benefit/Co residential: up to 203, avg. 2,0 13,7 st ratio 47, med. 21 commercial: up to over 400, avg. 60, med. 31 Specific criteria measured in various cross sections Accuracy of forecast reaching values between underestimation by 82cm up to overestimation by 21cm in 23 of 24 cases warning 2% received sufficiently Penetration was received early enough early, 98% warning arrived of warning to take all foreseen risk too late reduction measures
68 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
C CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9. Conclusions regarding the application of the methodology
9.1 Completeness and consistency of the indicator set Case study investigations had initially started with a preliminary indicator set with the aim to test available indicators and the methods for calculation of outcomes based on raw data. Due to the orientation of case studies and data availability, as expected a considerable part of the overall indicator set is tested. As a result, a number of adaptations have been introduced improving the initial set both in terms of consistency and completeness.
Mainly tested and adapted are indicators in the categories hydraulic, social and economic effects. Considerably less applied are ecological criteria. On the one hand this is due to the character of regarded measures. For example, while flood proofing and evacuation in single buildings measures can have a certain impact on the leakage of hazardous substances, this impact cannot be described on the level of river or flood plain ecology. On the other hand, while regarded defence schemes such as dikes and polders can have tremendous ecological impacts, too little information is available to scrutinise these issues within Task 12.
As a result it is expected, that the proposed indicator set in the area of hydrological, social and economic effects already does represent a well applicable complete and consistent set of indicators to describe relevant outcomes of various types of interventions. A number of those was successfully applied in different cases and at different scales of resolution from the catchment scale down to the single building level. As far as ecological indicators are concerned, further tests would be helpful. Even though most ecological indicators are based on an adopted European classification of issues relevant for different water bodies, the question remains how easily these can be applied in the proposed framework for ex-post evaluation.
9.2 Conclusions regarding the determination of criteria 9.2.1 Determination of effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness As an important part of the methodology, procedures for the determination of outcomes with regard to different indicators are developed. For the determination of effects, effectiveness and cost- effectiveness formulas for the calculation are defined. These procedures have been tested and partially enhanced within the case studies.
Many of the proposed indicators of effects where described in several case studies. Their calculation and further application in the criteria effectiveness and cost-effectiveness have proved to be sufficiently simple while – given the quality of used parameters - providing reliable results. Especially the automatised application of the formulas within the Dresden case study has shown the good applicability of these numerical procedures within statistical tools for the analysis of raw data. Based on this, it can be concluded that the formulas developed for the determination of effects, the effectiveness, and the cost effectiveness provide well practicable guidelines for the evaluation.
Nevertheless, the calculated result is always as good as the quality of used information. In many cases, raw data material may need additional treatment in order to obtain data adjusted to the exact needs of the issue. For example, realisation costs require due consideration, since not always full costs can be assigned to the intervention. A special importance has the differentiation of attributable costs in contrast to the life time costs of interventions. The developed formula requires the application of only a certain portion of full costs in order to obtain higher reliability of results.
69 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
This has turned out to be particularly helpful for single event related evaluation, where only the attributable costs as well as realisation and maintenance costs of an intervention can be considered. However, as proposed by the methodology the determination of the applicable portion of costs is based on annual costs and – if necessary - the return period of a past flood event. Especially the application of the return period in order to adjust costs to a certain applicable part of an intervention’s life time will always remain somewhat speculative as long as the ex-post evaluation is done before the end of the life time. At the same time, long lasting measures and instruments require early evaluation to allow for timely learning and – if necessary – adaptation. As a result, a certain degree of imprecision will remain if a timely (intermediate) ex-post evaluation is aimed at.
9.2.2 Determination of robustness The determination of robustness is based on the effectiveness of an intervention over a series of different conditions and over a period of time. This approach requires the availability of effectiveness data either form a single intervention facing a series of flood events in order to conclude about the reliability of one certain intervention. Or, the approach requires effectiveness data from various similar interventions (e.g. earthen dike) in order to obtain more general conclusions with regard to this specific type of intervention.
A series of comparable data for the same or comparable interventions or combinations of those is required to derive conclusions regarding their robustness. Within the conducted case studies this was only possible in the Dresden case study, where a series of cases with combination of flood proofing measures could be inquired. Robustness with the applied definition turns out to be an aggregative measure allowing a more general view on the performance of an intervention resp. a number of interventions or even combination of measures. The surplus value of robustness is that it looks on certain interventions or combinations facing various conditions of pressure. As a result less specific but at the same time more universally valid conclusions are possible regarding the merits of certain types of risk reduction. Additionally, as done in the Dresden case study, the comparison of effectiveness values against the background of specific conditions can lead to specific lessons learned, which can helpful to provide required conditions for the optimum performance of risk reduction.
9.2.3 Determination of flexibility The determination of flexibility could not be tested within the case studies. Methodological challenges remain with regard to indicators of flexibility and their valuation.
9.3 Conclusions regarding the framework of evaluation The framework of evaluation describes the relation of different criteria in the scope of the overall evaluation. It shows the central importance of the effect criterion for the determination of outcomes of the subsequently following criteria effectiveness, cost effectiveness and robustness, while flexibility remains widely independent from these.
Conducting ex-post evaluation through the full framework, allows to derive comprehensive conclusions about interventions of interest in their conditions. It provides a wide range of information for drawing conclusions about the general appropriateness of implemented interventions as well as about the potential for improvements. Broader applied investigations allow conclusions for decision makers with regard to possible or necessary steps for support or governance of risk reduction approaches. However, considering the full range of criteria and following all relevant indicators also requires real interest and sufficient resources in order to obtain the complete pattern of the intervention of interest.
For the time being, the methodology provides case specific indicators sets to the evaluator. The free choice by the evaluator can lead to an unrepresentative narrowing of the evaluation focus. This can lead to a distorted overall picture of the evaluation. To avoid this, development is needed to provide standardised minimum indicator sets which insure that all aspects are covered.
70 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
9.4 Challenges and constraints of ex-post evaluation in practice Ex-post evaluation, though not completely new, meets many difficulties in practice. These reach from methodological difficulties over shortage of data and resources to the lack of understanding for its necessity, apprehension of negative consequences and sheer refusal to disclose the full situation. With regard to the latter, also data protection issues are important. However, the list of restrictions is not complete.
The herewith proposed criteria, indicator set, methods for data acquisition, procedures for the determination of criteria as well as the tool for case specific indicator selection provide aid to solve the methodological part of the problem. However, still many obstacles remain for the self-evidence of ex- post evaluation. This was also shown in course of case study investigations. Often, the differentiation between ex-post evaluation of interventions and event analysis cause problems. While detailed event analyses have reached high acceptance, their intentions remain very different form those of ex-post evaluation as addressed here. Effect analysis describes the event and its impacts. Ex-post evaluation of interventions describes how applied measures and instruments have influenced the event and its impacts. Thus, event analysis can provide a part of the data needed in ex-post evaluation of interventions, but the former can not deliver the insight into the performance if measures and instruments in its widest sense. The fact that the surplus content and information benefit achievable with ex-post evaluation often remains unclear, shows the large importance of promoting the understanding for ex-post evaluation.
Restrictions such as data availability, preparedness of involved stakeholders to cooperate or the interest of the evaluator can narrow the focus of the evaluation. As a result, an incomplete picture may be drawn of an intervention. The understanding of the importance of providing the full spectrum should be developed with regard to both the evaluator and involved public actors and private stakeholders.
Data available to the evaluator often imprecisely describe the issue of interest. On the one hand, data such as realisation costs available for an intervention can either miss considerable parts or include expenses unrelated to risk reduction. On the one hand, the elevation of a heating central in a building in the scope of renewing the heating system causes only little extra costs if compared with the full costs of the new heating system. On the other hand, the evaluation may need to consider only a part of the life time of an intervention and thus can only consider the attributable realisation costs. For example a newly constructed dike constructed to hold over decades may be challenged by flooding already short after construction. As a result, attributable costs representing the past life time of the intervention needs to be used to adequately describe the merits of the intervention. Otherwise results risk to become invalid.
In total, ex-post in the trial case studies has proved to be possible but also time consumptive. This is partly due to the testing function of the cases. However, clear and practical guidelines are also needed to simplify the procedure and to enable the broader application of the methodology.
9.5 Complimentarity of measures The methodology addresses both single intervention and combinations of those. With combinations, portfolios of interventions are meant which are jointly applied to achieve risk reduction in complex situations. Possible combinations can be dike and flood wall or various flood proofing measures or even the combination of flood proofing measures and evacuation measures (Olfert 2007). These can also be combinations of policy instruments such as public relief and insurances.
However, a closer look will unveil that hardly any measure or instrument does really work as a single interventions and even the addressed combinations of interventions only cover a part of involved interventions. For example the stability of a dike over time can rely on the type of maintenance while
71 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments the latter can be reliant on applicable policies and financing instruments in the background. The protection or even heightening of a dike during a flood event requires specific contingency plans and the availability (financing) of a prepared staff to implement the planned contingency measures. The effect and effectiveness of evacuation widely relies on the timeliness, penetration and quality of warning, the same is true for all contingent measures (e.g. many forms of flood proofing). Last but not least, the successful regulation of land uses in many cases may require additional financial stimulation.
Thus, the performance of most measures and instruments cannot really by separated from the additional conditions which enable their functioning. If it is partly done in the scope of the proposed methodology, then for reasons of practicability. In order to obtain the full picture and to learn what can be learned, measures and/or instruments which compliment the regarded interventions need to be explicitly taken in account. It should be avoided to conclude about a certain intervention without the due consideration of all considerably influencing factors and especially the complimentary intervention.
10. Recommendations for the choice of measures and instruments for flood risk reduction The regarded cases address different measures and instruments for flood risk reduction under different conditions. The range of regarded interventions reaches from the programme level instrument “contingency planning” or whole dike systems over calamity polders to small scale measures at single building level. This constellation only allows conclusions about the performance of each intervention under its specific conditions. It is generally not possible to compare the performance of regarded interventions among each other. However, the methodology and its testing in case studies does touch a number of issues, which allow the formulation of recommendations for the choice of measures and instruments.
As argued above, for each situation more than one solution is possible. Case studies show, the respective values obtained in evaluations, interventions can differ widely. While very good values can be obtained with very different approaches of risk reduction, the difference of performance among the same type of interventions can be considerable. The latter variation is mainly a cause of differing internal and external conditions of state and pressure, which as a result lead to different performance of the same type of intervention. Additionally, type of measure, implementation details and further conditions can also be decisive about further aspects including cost effectiveness, robustness or side effects. The challenge is to select the most appropriate measures or combinations of those in order to provide the optimum contribution to risk reduction (effectiveness) while doing it on reasonable benefit/cost ratio and ensuring the least possible if not zero negative side effects.
As a result, the first recommendation which can be given relates to the due consideration of the whole array of relevant aspects including the spectrum of intended and unintended effects, the effectiveness, cost effectiveness, robustness and flexibility. These criteria describe important issues of the overall performance of measures and instrument. It is supposed that none of these can be sensibly neglected neither while looking on an intervention from the ex-post perspective, nor when deciding about new options.
In this framework, the effect criterion delivers the widest scope of insight into the effect spectrum of an intervention. The spectrum can uncover intended and unintended effects described by hydrological/hydraulic, social, ecological, economic indicators. It is recommended, that comprehensive spectra of effects be considered also for the choice of measures and interventions. Not least this would considerably support ex-post evaluation by providing expectancy values for the questioned parameters.
72 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
D REFERECES Amoros C and Petts G E (1993), Hydrosystèmes Fluviaux (Fluvial Hydrosystems), Collection d'écologie, Masson, Paris, Milan, Barcelona, pp300. ARL (Ed.) (1998), Methoden und Instrumente der Räumlichen Planung (Methods and Instruments of Spatial Planning), Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL), Hannover. Birkland T A, Burby R J, Conrad D, Cortner H and Michener W K (2003), River Ecology and Flood Hazard Mitigation, Natural Hazards Review, 4/1, 46-54. Böhme M (2005), Probleme mit dem Sauerstoff (Problems with Oxygene), In Schadstoffbelastung nach dem Elbe-Hochwasser 2002 (Contamination after the Elbe River Flood 2002), (Eds, Böhme M, Krüger F, Ockenfeld K and Geller W), Magdeburg, pp67-74. Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (1998), Flexibel / Flexibilität, In Brockhaus Enzyklopädie,, Vol. 7 (Ed, Brockhaus), F.A. Brockhaus, Mannheim, pp377f. BTRE (2002), Benefits of Flood Mitigation in Australia, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE), Canberra, available at http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/reports/r106/r106.pdf, pp165. Büchele B, Mikovec R, Ihringer J and Friedrich F (2004), Analysis of Potential Flood Retention Measures (Polders) at the Elbe River in Saxony-Anhalt, In 11th Magdeburg Seminar on Waters in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessment, Protection, Management, UFZ Centre of Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle. Burby R J, Bollens S A, Holloway J M, Kaiser E, J., Mullan D and Shaeffer J R (1988), Cities Under Water: A Comparative Evaluation of Ten Cities' Efforts to Manage Floodplain Land Use, Program on Environment and Behaviour, Monograph 47, University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioural Science, Boulder, Colorado, available at http://www.crid.or.cr/crid/CD_Agua/pdf/eng/doc8517/doc8517.htm, pp250. Cabinet Office (2003), The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes for Policy Evaluation and Analysis, Cabinet Office, London, available at http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/evalpolicy/magenta/guidance-notes.asp. CEC (1997), Evaluating EU Expenditure Programmes: A Guide to intermediate and ex post evaluation, Commission of the European Communities (CEC), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/guide_en.pdf. CEC (2000), Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive - WFD), Official Journal of the European Communities, L 327/1/. CEC (2003), The Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development: The Guide, Commission of the European Communities (CEC), DG Regio, available at http://www.evalsed.info (12 August 2005), pp148. CEC (2004), Flood Risk Management - Flood Prevention, Protection and Mitigation, Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2004)472, Brussels, pp11, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur- lex/en/com/cnc/2004/com2004_0472en01.pdf (12 August 2005). CEC (2006), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the Assessment and Management of Floods (Floods Directive), Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 2006/0005(COD), Brussels, pp20, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/com_2006_15_en.pdf (12 August 2005). Chen H-T (1990), Theory-Driven Evaluations, SAGE, Newbury Park, Calif, pp326. CIS Working Group '2.3' (2003), Guidance on Establishing Reference Conditions and Ecological Status Class Boundaries for Inland Surface Waters, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.3 – REFCOND, available at http://www- nrciws.slu.se/REFCOND/7th_REFCOND_final.pdf (accessed 12 August 2005). CIS Working Group '2.4' (2002), Guidance on Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification systems for Transitional and Coastal Waters, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.4 (COAST), available at http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/koeZA-JAmoGUWx4QREBQCyCYCx3fZsTR6Fh-
73 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
q9f4G0IrU1-XEt-Z- DcOlIhd1Tqtwz22R3RU2tGhDWPNsE5GoqJSmHyhAIJ2/6CHvSjRb0UhrgGl/Ecological%2 0Classification%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 12 August 2005). Dahl U and Fischer J (2003), Nach der Flut (After the Flood), Chemnitzer Verlag, Chemnitz, pp127. Danhelka J and Kubát J (2004), Effect of the Vltava River Cascade on 2002 Flood in Prague, In 11th Magdeburg Seminar on Waters in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessment, Protection, Management, UFZ Centre of Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Leipzig, pp41-42. De Bruijn K M, Green C H, Johnson C and McFadden L (2003), Evolving Concepts in Flood Risk Management: Searching for a Common Language, Working paper submitted to Natural Hazards, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University. De Bruijn K M (2005), Resilience and Flood Risk Management. A Systems Approach Applied to Lowland Rivers. Ph. D Thesis., Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. De Groot R S (1992), Functions of Nature - Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision-Making, , Wolters-Noordhoff Groningen, pp315 DETR (2000), Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR), Environment Agency (EA), Institute for Envoronment and Health (IEH), London, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/. DKKV (Ed.) (2003), Lessons Learned: Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland - Lernen aus der Katastrophe 2002 im Elbegebiet (Lessons Learned: Flood Prevention in Germany - Learning from the 2002 Catastrophe in the Elbe Basin), Schriftenreihe des DKKV, 29, Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge (DKKV), available at http://www.dkkv.org/upload/dkkv_final.pdf. DTLR (2000), Multi Criteria Analysis: A Manual, DETR appraisal guidance, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DTLR), available at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_about/documents/pdf/odpm_about_pdf_60852 4.pdf (www.sfu.ca/mpp/pdf_news/811-04%20UK%20MCA%20Manual.pdf), pp158. ECOSTAT (2003), Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2 A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), Rome, pp47, available at http://www.umweltdaten.de/wasser/Ecological_Classification_Guidance.pdf (accessed 08. July 2005). EDATER (2001), Estimation des Dégâts Après "Grands Événements" (Damage Assessment after "Major Events"), Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, Direction de la Prévention des Pollutions et des Risques, Montpellier, pp83, available at http://www.prim.net/professionnel/documentation/Rapport_P0110.pdf. EVALSED (Ed.) (2003), Evaluating Socio Economic Development, Sourcebook 2: Methods & Techniques, DG Regional Policy, available at http://www.evalsed.info. Evans E P, Ashley R, Hall J W, Penning-Rowsell E C, Saul A, Sayers P B, Thorne C R and Watkinson A R (2004a), Forsight. Future od Flooding. Scientific Summary: Volume I - Future Risks and Their Drivers, Office of Science and Technology, London, pp366, available at http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/Reports_and_Pu blications/Volume1/Contents.htm. Evans E P, Ashley R, Hall J W, Penning-Rowsell E C, Saul A, Sayers P B, Thorne C R and Watkinson A R (2004b), Forsight. Future od Flooding. Scientific Summary: Volume II - Managing Future Risks, Office of Science and Technology, London, pp366, available at http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/Reports_and_Pu blications/Volume2/Contents.htm. FLOODsite Consortium (2005), Language of Risk, HR Wallingford, FLOODsite Report Nr: T32-04- 01, Wallingford. Floyd P, George C, Tunstall S M, Tapsell S, Green C H, Jones-Lee M and Metcalf H (2003), The Appraisal of Human-Related Intangible Impacts of Flooding, In Proceedings of the 38th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp07.5.1 - 07.5.8.
74 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Franklin J, Gillham A and Braithwaite P (2001), Sustainability Assessment of Flood Alleviation Schemes in the UK, In Proceedings of the 36th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp12.3.1. - 12.3.14. Geilen N, Jochems H, Krebs L, Muller S, Pedroli B, Van der Sluis T, Van Looy K and Van Rooij S (2004), Integration of Ecological Aspects in Flood Protection Strategies: Defining an Ecological Minimum, River Research and Applications, 20/3, 269 - 283. Geller W, Ockenfeld K, Böhme M and Knöchel A (Eds.) (2004), Schadstoffbelastung nach dem Elbe- Hochwasser 2002 – Ermittlung der Gefährdungspotentiale an Elbe und Mulde’ (Contamination after the Elbe River Flood in 2002 - Determination of Hazard Potential along the Elbe and Mulde Rivers), UFZ-Umweltforschungszentrum, Magdeburg, available at http://www.halle.ufz.de/hochwasser/. Green C H, van der Veen A, Wierstra E and Penning-Rowsell E C (1994), Vulnerability Refined, Analysing Full Flood Impacts, In Floods Across Europe, Flood Hazard Assessment, Modelling and Management, (Eds, Penning-Rowsell E C and Fordham M), Middlesex University Press, London, pp32-68. Hall J W, Thorne C R and H. T I (2004), The Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project - Drivers and Magnitude of Future Flood Risk, In Proceedings of the 40th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp11.3.1-11.3.10. Handmer J (1996), Policy Design and Local Attributes for Flood Hazard Management, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4/4, 189-197. Hellstern G-M and Wollmann H (1984), Entwicklung, Aufgaben und Methoden von Evaluierung und Evaluierungsforschung (Development, Tasks and Methods of Evaluation and Evaluation Science), In Wirkungsanalysen und Erfolgskontrolle in der Raumordnung (Utitity Analysis and Assessment od Success in Spatial Planning), Vol. 154 (Ed, Academie for Spatial Planning and Regional Development) Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung / Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte, Vincentz, Hannover, pp7-28. HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, Treasury guidance, TSO, London, available at http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/greenbook/data_greenbook_index.cfm, pp114. HM Treasury (2004), The Orange Book: Management of Risk - Principles and Concepts, TSO, London, available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/FE6/60/FE66035B-BCDC-D4B3- 11057A7707D2521F.pdf (accessed 17.11.2005), pp50. Holland J M (2004), The Environmental Consequences of Adopting Conservation Tillage in Europe: Reviewing the Evidence, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 103/, 1-25. Hooijer A, Klijn F, Kwadijk J and Pedroli G B M (Eds.) (2002), Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management in the Rhine and Meuse River Basins: Main results of the IRMA SPONGE research program, Vol. 18-2002, NCR-publication. Hooijer A, Klijn F, Pedroli G B M and van Os A G (2004), Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management in the Rhine and Meuse River Basins: Synopsis of the findings of IRMA- SPONGE, River Research and Applications, 20/, 343-357. Hoojer A, Klijn F, Pedroli G B M and van Os A G (2004), Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management in the Rhine and Meuse River Basins: Synopsis of the findings of IRMA- SPONGE, River Research and Applications, 20/, 343-357. Hutter G (2005), Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Reduction, Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development, FLOODsite Report T13-05-01, Dresden. ICE (2001), Learning to Live With Rivers - Final Report of the ICE's Presidential Commission the Review the Technical Aspects of Flood Risk Management in England and Wales, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), London, available at http://www.ice.org.uk/rtfpdf/iceflooding.pdf, pp84. IKSR (1997), Hochwasserschutz am Rhein : Bestandsaufnahme (Flood Protection at The Rhine River : An Inventory), Internationale Kommission zum Schutze des Rheins (IKSR), Koblenz, pp62.
75 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Jakob T (2004), Weißeritzhochwasser im Gebiet der Stadt Dresden, In Ereignisanalyse - Hochwasser August 2002 in den Osterzgebirgsflüssen (Event Analysis - August 2002 Flood in the Rivers of the Eastern Ore Mountains), (Ed, LFUG), Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie (LFUG), Dresden, pp110-115. Jonkman S N (2005), Global Perspectives on Loss of Human Life Caused by Floods, Natural Hazards, 34/2, 151 - 175. Klöti U (1997), Inhaltliche und methodische Anforderungen an wissenschaftliche Politikevaluationen (Requirements for Content and Methodology in Scientific Policy Evaluations), In Einführung in die Politikevaluation, (Eds, Bussmann W, Klöti U and Knoepfel P), Hebling & Lichtenhahn, Basel, Frankfurt (M), pp39-57. Kreibich H, Thieken A H, Petrow T, Müller M and Merz B (2005), Flood Loss Reduction of Private Households Due to Building Precautionary Measures – Lessons Learned from the Elbe Flood in August 2002, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5/, 117-126, available at http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/nhess/5/nhess-5-117.pdf. Kumar A, Burton I and Etkin D (2001), Managing Flood Hazard and Risk: Report of an Independent Expert Panel, Government of Canada, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Ottawa, available at http://www.ocipep.gc.ca/research/resactivites/disMit/Man_Fld_Haz/2000-D010_e.pdf, pp60. Lammersen R, Engel H, van de Langemheem W and Buiteveld H (2002), Impact of River Training and Retention Measures on Flood Peaks Along the Rhine, Journal of Hydrology, 267/, 115- 124. LAWA (2000a), Handlungsempfehlung zur Erstellung von Hochwasser-Aktionsplänen (Guide for the Development of Activity Plans for Floods), Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA), Schwerin, pp12, available at http://www.lawa.de/lawaroot/pub/kostenlos/hwnw/Handlung.pdf. LAWA (2000b), Wirksamkeit von Hochwasservorsorge- und Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen (Effectiveness of Flood Prevention and Flood Protection Measures), Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA), Schwerin, pp10, available at http://www.lawa.de/pub/kostenlos/hwnw/hwschutz.pdf. LAWA (2003), Musterverordnung zur Umsetzung der Anhänge II und V der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik (Exemplarey Regulatation for the Implemenmtation of Annex II and Annex V of the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy), Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA), Schwerin, pp105, available at http://www.lawa.de/pub/download.html. Lekuthai A and Vongvisessomjai S (2001), Intangible Flood Damage Quantification, Water Resources Management, 15/, 343-362. LFUG (2004), Ereignisanalyse - Hochwasser August 2002 in den Osterzgebirgsflüssen (Event Analysis - August 2002 Flood in the Rivers of the Eastern Ore Mountains), Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie (LFUG), Dresden, pp188. MAFF (1996), Flood and Coastal Defence: Post Project Evaluation Summary Report 1994/95, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, since 2001 DEFRA), London, pp29. MAFF (1997), Flood and Coastal Defence: Post Project Evaluation Summary Report 1995/96, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, since 2001 DEFRA), London, pp47. MAFF (1999), Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance: A Procedural Guide for Operating Authorities - Economic Appraisal, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, since 2001 DEFRA), FCDPAG3, London, pp102, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/pubs/pagn/fcdpag3/default.htm. MAFF (2001), Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance: A Procedural Guide for Operating Authorities - Overview (Including General Guidance), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, since 2001 DEFRA), FCDPAG1, London, pp42, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/pubs/pagn/fcdpag1.pdf. Marsalek J, Watt W E, Zeman E and Sieker F (Eds.) (2000), Flood Issues in Contemporary Water Management: Proceedings, NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Coping with Flash Floods: Lessons from Recent Experience ; Malenovice, Czech Republic, May 16 - 21, 1999,
76 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
NATO science series : Series 2, Environmental security, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, London. Mastop H J M (2000), The Performance Principle in Strategic Planning, In The Revival of Strategic Planning, (Eds, Salet W and Faludi A), Royal Netherland Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, pp143-156. May P J, Burby R J, Ericksen N J, Handmer J W, Dixon J E, Michaels S and Smith D I (1996), Environmental Management and Governance -Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability, Routledge, London, pp254. McCully P (2001), Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, Zed, London, pp359. Merz R (2002), Understanding and Estimating Flood Probabilities at the Regional Scale, Vol. 181, Wiener Mitteilungen, TU-Wien, Wien. Messner F and Meyer V (2006), Flood Damage, Vulnerability and Risk Perception - Challenges for Flood Damage Research, In Flood Risk Management - Hazards, Vulnerability, Mitigation Measures, (Eds, Schanze J, Zeman E and Marsalek J) NATO Special Series, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp149-167. Montz B and Gunfest E C (1986), Changes in American Urban Floodplain Occupancy Since 1958: The Experiences of Nine Cities, Applied Geography, 6/, 325-338. Morris J, Hess T, Gill A, Howsam P and White S (2004), The Water Framework Directive and Flood Management - A Missed Opportunity?, In Proceedings of the 39th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp04.3.1 - 04.3.11. Morrison N (2002), Developing Indcators to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Land Use Planning, In Planning in the UK - Agendas for the New Millennium, (Eds, Rydin Y and Thornley A), Ashgate, London, pp91-102. Munich Re Group (2004), Great Natural Catastrophes, Vol. 2004, Topics geo 1/2004: Annual Review of Natural Catastrophes 2003, Munich Re Group, available at http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-03971_en.pdf (accessed 04. July 2005), pp12-15. MZP (2003), Vyhodnocení katastrofální povodne v srpnu 2002 - 3. etapa : Posouzení vlivu vodních del na prubeh povodne (Evaluation of the Catastrophic Flood in August 2002 - 3rd Phase : Assessment of Effects of Retention Dams on the Course of the Flood), Water management research institute T. G. Masaryk (VUV) on behalf of the Czech Ministry for the Environment (MZP), Prague, available at http://www.chmi.cz/hydro/pov02/1etapa/obsah1.html, pp79. Nagy L and Tóth S (2001), Dike Failures in the Last 200 Years in Hungary, In Proceedings of the 36th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp08.4.1 - 08.4.8. OECD (Ed.) (1994), Managing the Environment - The Role of Economic Instruments, OECD documents, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. OECD (2002), Evaluation and Aid Effectiveness - Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Paris, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf, pp37. Olfert A (2007), Risk Reduction in Residential and Commercial Buildings During the April 2006 Flood in Dresden - Case study, contribution to FLOODsite Report T12-07-01, Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden. Ossadnik W (2003), Controlling, Lehr- und Handbücher der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Oldenbourg, Munich, Vienna, pp564. Otte C (2003), Küsten als Objekt regionalökonomischer Risikoforschung – am Beispiel des Projektes RECOACT (Coasts as Subject of Regional-Economic Risk Research), University of Bremen, Department of Economics, Institute for Institutional and Social-Economics (iise), 52, Bremen, pp55. Oxford Concise Dictionary (2001), Flexible, In Oxford Concise Dictionary, (Ed, Pearsall J), Oxfrod University Press, New York, pp542. Parker D J, Fordham M and Torterotot J-P (1994), Real-Time Hazard Management: Flood Forecasting, Warning and Response, In Floods Across Europe, Flood Hazard Assessment,
77 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Modelling and Management, (Eds, Penning-Rowsell E C and Fordham M), Middlesex University Press, London, pp135-166. Parker D J (1995a), Floodplain Development Policy in England and Wales, Applied Geography, 15/4, 341-363. Parker D J (1995b), Floods in Cities: Increasing Exposure and Rising Impact Potential, Built Environment, 21/2/3, 114-125. Parker D J, Islam N and Chan N W (1997), Reducing Vulnerability Following Flood Disasters: Issues and Practices, In Reconstruction After Disaster: Issues and Practices, (Ed, Awotona A), Ashgate, Aldershot, pp23-44. Pawson R and Tilley N (1997), Realistic Evaluation, SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, pp235. Penning-Rowsell E C and Parker D J (1987), The Indirect Effects of Floods and Benefits of Flood Alleviation: Evaluating the Chesil Sea Defence Scheme, Applied Geography, 7/, 263-288. Penning-Rowsell E C and Peerbolte B (1994), Concepts, Policies and Research, In Floods Across Europe, Flood Hazard Assessment, Modelling and Management, (Eds, Penning-Rowsell E C and Fordham M), Middlesex University Press, London, pp1-17. Penning-Rowsell E C (1996), Incorporating Above-Design Standard (ADS) Benefits into the Appraisal of Flood Alleviation Schemes, In Proceedings of the 31st MAFF conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, MAFF Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), London, pp5.1.1 - 5.1.9. Penning-Rowsell E C and Green C H (2000), New Insights into the Appraisal of Flood-Alleviation Benefits : (1) Flood Damage and Flood Loss Information, J.CIWEM, 14/, 347-353. Penning-Rowsell E C, Floyd P, Ramsbottom D and Surendran S (2005), Estimating Injury and Loss of Life in Floods: A Deterministic Framework, Natural Hazards, 36/1-2, 43 - 64. Petry B (2002), Coping with Floods - Complementarity of Structural and Non-Structural Measures, In Flood Defence '2002 : Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Flood Defence, Beijing, China, September 10 - 13, 2002, (Ed, Wu B), Science Press, Beijing, New York, pp60-70, available at http://www.cws.net.cn/cwsnet/meeting-fanghong/v10106.pdf (accessed 22. June 2005). Plate E J (2003), Neue Gedanken zum Hochwassermanagement (Recent Thoughts on Flood Management), In Das Elbe-Hochwasser: Eine neue Dimension der Naurkatastrophe? (The Elbe Flood: A New Dimension of a Natural Catastrophe?), (Ed, Paschke E) Hamburger Wasserbau-Schriften 1, Schüthe, Hamburg, pp40-57. Potter K W (1991), Hydrological Impacts of Changing Land Management Practices in a Moderatized Agricultural Catchment, Water Resources Research, 27/5, 845-855. Pottier N (1998), L’utilisation des outils juridiques de prévention du risque d’inondation : évaluation des effets sur l’homme et l’occupation du sol dans les plaines alluviales (application à la Saône et à la Marne) (The Use of Tools for Flood Prevention: Evaluation of Effects on Man and Land Use Control in Floodplains - Application to the Saone and Marne Rivers), Thèse de doctorat de Sciences et Techniques de l’Environnement de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, pp436. Pottier N, Hubert G and Reliant C (2003), Quelle Efficacité de la prévention réglementaire dans les zones inondables? Éléments d'évaluation (On the Effectiveness of Regulating Instruments of Flood Prevention), Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 105/, 14-23. Robert B, Forget S and Rousselle J (2003), The Effectiveness of Flood Damage Reduction Measures in the Montreal Region, Natural Hazards, 28/, 367-385, available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5092043&PDF=1. Sayers P B and Simm J (1997), Residual Life: Its Assessment and Importance in Terms of Coastal Management and Benefit Analysis, In Proceedings of the 32nd MAFF conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, MAFF Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), London, ppH.1.1 - H.1.14. Schanze J (2004), Flood Risk Management - A Basic Framework, In NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Flood Risk Management - Hazards, Vulnerability and Mitigation Measures, (Eds, Schanze J, Zeman E and Marsalek J) Springer, Ostrov, CZ, pp1-20.
78 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Schmidt W-A (2001), Beitrag der Landwirtschaft zum Hochwasserschutz (The Contribution of Agriculture to Flood Protection), In Hochwasserschutz heute - nachhaltiges Wassermanagement (Contemporary Flood Protection - Sustainable Water Management), (Eds, Heiden S, Erb R and Sieker F) Initiativen zum Umweltschutz 31, Erich Schmidt, Berlin, pp219-236. Schmidtke R F (1995), Sozio-ökonomische Schäden von Hochwasserkatastrophen (Socio-economic Losses from Flood Disasters), Wasserbau-Mitteilungen der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 40/, 143-156. Scotland Executive (2005a), Approaches to Risk (Chapter 6), In Flood Prevention Schemes - Guidance for Local Authorities, (Ed, Schotland Executive), Schotland Executive, Edinborough, available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/10/0794935/49513 (accessed 10. November 2005). Scotland Executive (2005b), Economic Appraisal (Chapter 5), In Flood Prevention Schemes - Guidance for Local Authorities, (Ed, Schotland Executive), Schotland Executive, Edinborough, available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/10/0794935/49513 (accessed 10. November 2005). Shrubsole D, Brooks G and Halliday R (2003), An Assessment of Flood Risk Management in Canada, ICLR Research Paper Series – No. 28, Institute for Catastrpphic Loss Reduction (ICLR), available at http://iclr.org/pdf/ICLR_%20Flood%20Report.pdf, pp1-127. Smith D I (1990), The Worthwhileness of Dam Failure Mitigation : An Australian Example, Applied Geography, 10/, 5-19. Smith K and Tobin G (1979), Human Adjustment to the Flood Hazard, Topics in applied geography, Longman, London, pp130. Smith K and Ward R C (1998), Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impacts, Wiley, Chichester, Weinheim, pp382 Stockmann R (2004), Was ist eine gute Evaluation : Einführung zu Funktionen und Methoden von Evaluationsverfahren (What is a Good Evaluation : Introduction to Functions and Methods of Evaluation Techniques), Centrum für Evaluation, Universität des Saarlandes, CEval- Arbeitspapiere 9, Saarbrücken, pp20, available at http://www.ceval.de/de/downloads/workpaper/workpaper9.pdf. Subiras J (1995), Policy Instruments, Public Deliberation and Evaluation Processes, In Environmental Policy in Search of New Instruments, (Ed, Dente B), Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp143-157. Sultana P and Thompson P M (1997), Effects of Flood Control and Drainage on Fisheries in Bangladesh and the Design of Mitigating Measures, Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 13/43-55. Takahasi Y (1976), Evaluation of Flood Control Under Changing Conditions, Journal of Hydrology, 28/2-4, 265-270. Tatham B C and McCann E C (2000), Assessment of the Residual Life of Flood Defence Assests, In Proceedings of the 35th MAFF conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, MAFF Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Keele, pp05.1.1 - 05.1.7. Thompson P M, Wigg A H and Parker D J (1991), Urban Flood Protection Post-Project Appraisal in England and Wales, Project Appraisal, 6/2, 84-92. Thompson P M and Penning-Rowsell E C (1994), Socio-Economic Impacts of Floods and Flood Protection: A Bangladesh Case Study, In Disasters, Development and Environment, (Ed, Varely A), John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Tobin G A, Brinkmann R M and Burell E (2000), Flooding and Distribution of Selected Metals in Floodplain Sediment in St. Marlies, Idaho, Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 22/3, 219-232. Tucci C E M and Villanueva A O N (1999), Flood Control Measures in Uniao da Vitoria and Porto Uniao: Structural vs. Non-Structural Measures, Urban Water, 1/, 177-182. Tyagi A C and Saalmüller J (2004), Integrated Flood Management, In Proceedings of the 39th DEFRA conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, Conference D F C M), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, pp07.1.1 - 07.1.12.
79 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
UNESCO (1972), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris. Uri N D (1998), The Environmental Consequences of Conservation Tillage Adoption Decision in Agriculture in the United States, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 103/, 9-33. Vedung E (1997), Public Policy and Program Evaluation, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. Vedung E (2004), Evaluation Research and Fundamental Research, In Evaluationsforschung : Grundlagen und ausgewählte Forschungsfelder (Evaluation Research : Basics and Selected Research Fields), (Ed, Stockmann R) Sozialwissenschaftliche Evaluationsforschung 1, Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp111-134. Viljoen M F, du Plessis L A and Booysen H J (2001), Extending Flood Damage Assesssment Methodology to Include Sociological and Environmental Dimensions, Water SA, 27/4, 517- 521, available at www.wrc.org.za. Virtanen P and Uusikyla P (2004), Exploring the Missing Links Between Cause and Effect : A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Micro-Macro Conversions in Programme Evaluation, Evaluation, 10/1, 77-91, available at http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/77. Vis M, Klijn F, De Bruijn K M and Van Buuren M (2003), Resilience Strategies for Flood Risk Management in the Netherlands, International Journal of River Basin Management, 1/1, 33– 40, available at http://www.jrbm.net/pages/archives/JRBMn1/Rinus.PDF. Weber J (2003), Hochwasser in Sachsen : Ursachen und Maßnahmen zur Risikominderung (Floods in Saxony : Causes and Measures for Risk Reduction), Grüne Liga Sachsen e.V., Dresden. White G F, Calef W C, Hudson J W, Mayer H M, Shaeffer J R and Volk D J (1958), Changes in Urban Occupance of Floodplains in the United States, University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper 57, Chicago. White G F (1975), Flood Hazard in the United States : A Research Reassessment, University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Boulder, Colorado, pp141. Wolters H A, Platteeuw M and Schoor M M (Eds.) (2001), Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Management of Floodplains - Ecology and Safety Combined, NCR-Publication 09-2001, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, available at www.irma- sponge.org.
80 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
E ANNEXES
Content
ANNEX 1 APPENDICES TO THE METHODOLODY ...... 82 Appendix 1 Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effects...... 83 Appendix 2 Indicators of socio-cultural effects ...... 93 Appendix 3 Indicators of economic effects...... 105 Appendix 4 Inidcators of ecological effects...... 120 Appendix 5 List of identified measures and instruments ...... 148
ANNEX 2 CASE STUDY REPORTS...... 151 Report 1 Flood proving in the inundation areas of Dresden and Pirna (Germany) in the April 2006 Elbe river flooding Report 1 Emergency Storage at the Elbe River Report 3 Risk reduction activities on the Odra River Report 4 Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin (Tisza A) Report 5 Hungarian-Ukrainian Co-Operation for Flood and Excess Water Defence Along the Upper Tisza River
81 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
ANNEX 1 APPENDICES TO THE METHODOLODY
82 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Appendix 1 Indicators of hydrological/hydraulic effects
83 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on maximum discharge
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Velocity, depth, discharge (m3/s)
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrological modelling Probability classes (20-, 50-, 100- year flood) Available method 1D models
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes no
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
84 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on maximum flood level
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Height of flood crest over normal resp. absolute altitude m/cm
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydraulic modelling Probability classes (20-, 50-, 100- year flood) Available method 2D models
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes no
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
85 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on speed of flood wave propagation
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Travel time of flood crest d, h, min
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrological modelling -
Available method 1D models
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes no
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
86 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on maximum flood extension
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Land area flooded in flood event ha, km2
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydraulic modelling -
Available method 2D / 3D models
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
87 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on flood duration
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Flood level h, min
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydraulic modelling -
Available method [to come]
Description [space for description of method]
References Ericksen N J (1986), Creating Flood Disasters?, Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication Number 77, NWSACA, National Water and Soil Division, Wellington, p. 20 Parker D J, Green C H and Thompson P M (1987), Urban Flood Protection Benefits : A Project Appraisal Guide, Gower, Aldershot, p. 46
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
88 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on flood frequency
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of flood events of certain magnitude in a certain river cross-section - in a certain period of time
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrological modelling -
Available method 2D models
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
89 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on channel blockage
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of river channel blockages by debris and/or sediments number/event, number/year
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
monitoring -
Available method Total number of channel blockage / clogging in river section over a time period Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes no no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes no no no
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes no no no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
90 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on sewer conveyance
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Hydrological/hydraulic criteria Subject area - Hydr 8
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
to come to come
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrauliv modelling of sewer system to come
Available method urban sewer network modelling ArcEgmo Urban Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes no no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes no no yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes no no no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
91
FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Appendix 2 Indicators of socio-cultural effects
93 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on lives lost
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Public health Soc 1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of lives lost in a certain flood event, due to direct exposure to the - flood
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
loss of live modelling -
Available method Loss of life models
Description [space for description of method]
References Smith K and Tobin G (1979), Human Adjustment to the Flood Hazard, Topics in applied geography, Longman, London, p. 2
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
94 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on physical injuries
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Public health Soc 2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number or proportion of persons injured in a flood event -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry -
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
95 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on mental stress
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Public health Soc 3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Proportion of affected population reporting to have experienced major mental - stress during or after a flood event
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes no
96 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on amenity value of open space
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Public health Soc 4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Stated appreciation of affected public open space -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no no
97 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Persons permanently displaced
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Social stability Soc 5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of persons permanently displaced -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
official statisticts to come
Available method review of official statistics
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes no yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no no
98 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Jobs permanently lost or created
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Social stability Soc 6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of jobs permanently lost or created -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
official statisticts to come
Available method review of official statistics
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no no
99 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on days out of work
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Social stability Soc 7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Number of working days out of work -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes no yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no no
100 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on financial flood losses per person
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Social stability Soc 8
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Financial burden of flood losses per person in the affected area TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry to come
Available method calculation from inquired losses and number of persons (per area or household) Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no no
101 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Cultural heritage lost or damaged
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Cultural and natural heritage Soc 9
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Cultural goods of established value destroyed or damaged by direct exposure - to flood or by the intervention
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
expert judgement -
Available method Expert judgement based on criteria set by UNESCO 1972
Description [space for description of method]
References UNESCO (1972), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris.
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
102 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Natural heritage lost or damaged
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Sociao-cultural criteria Subject area Cultural and natural heritage Soc 10
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Natural goods of established value destroyed or damaged by direct exposure - to flood or by the intervention
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
expert judgement -
Available method Expert judgement based on criteria set by UNESCO 1972
Description [space for description of method]
References UNESCO (1972), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris.
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
103
FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Appendix 3 Indicators of economic effects
105 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of built structures
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided at the structure of buldings TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method e.g. HOWAD
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
106 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of installations
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided at installations of buildings TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method e.g. HOWAD Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected Description without intervention
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
107 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of inventory
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided at the inventory of buildings TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method e.g. HOWAD Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected Description without intervention
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
108 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of production facilities
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided at production facilities TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected without intervention Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
109 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of production goods
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided at production goods TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected without intervention Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
110 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Direct economic losses avoided
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic benefits Econ 6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable flood damage avoided in total or splpitted by categories TEU such as 'losses to residential properties', 'losses to commercial properties', 'technical infrastructure', etc.
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
damage modelling, standardised inquiry, expert judgement -
Available method Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected Description without intervention
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
111 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided losses of value added due to disruption of businesses
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic benefits Econ 7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Total losses of value added to businesses due to business disruption (e.g. of TEU production, delivery, service etc.) avoided in a certain flood event
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry -
Available method Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected
Description without intervention
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
112 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Avoided loss of tax revenues
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic benefits Econ 8
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
to come TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
official statistics to come
Available method Difference between observed monetisable losses and those losses expected without intervention Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
113 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion % of losses covered by insurances
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic benefits Econ 9
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
to come %
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
insurance statistics, standardised inquiry to come
Available method Iquiry of insurances or affected stakeholders
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes yes n o
114 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Realisation costs of intervention
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic costs Econ 10
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Direct monetisable costs TEU
Rationale
Financial resources spent for the realisation of the intervention
Methodical approach Classification
project documentation -
Available method Document review
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes no yes
115 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Maintenance and operation costs
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Direct economic costs Econ 11
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
to come TEU, TEU/a
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
project documentation to come
Available method Document review
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes no yes
116 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Loss of value added induced by the intervention
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic costs Econ 12
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Loss of value added (incl. first, second and third sectors) induced by TEU intervention
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
standardised inquiry to come
Available method Difference between monetisable losses and those losses expected without
Description intervention
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes no yes
117 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Loss of tax revenues
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic costs Econ 13
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Loss of tax revenues to municipatlities as far as induced by the intervention TEU
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
official statistics to come
Available method Document review
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes no no
118 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Increase of damage to residential and commercial properties induced by the intervention
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Economic criteria Subject area Indirect economic costs Econ 14
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Losses of residential and commercial properties as far as induced by the TEU intervention
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
risk modelling to come
Available method application of results of hydraulic modelling (2D/3D) in damage modelling
Description (HOWAD)
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes no
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes yes no yes
119 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Appendix 4 Inidcators of ecological effects
120 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on the productiveness of the soil
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Soil ecology Ecol A1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Ability of the soil to produce crop to come
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
121 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on the buffer capacity of the soil
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Soil ecology Ecol A2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Ability of the soil to buffer (chemically filter) precipitation water incl. to come atmospheric immissions
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
122 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on soil erosion
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Soil ecology Ecol A3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Soil erododibility (mass of soil material lost from agricultural surface in kg/ha*a design precipitation event due to surface runoff induced erosion)
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement Individual
Available method Direct measurement in defined parcels
Description using portable rainfall simulator (1m2 reference surface) comparison of state with and without interevntion References [space for description of method] Lal R (Ed.) (1994), Soil Erosion Research Methods, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Fla. Zimmerling B (2004), Beregnungsversuche zum Infiltrationsverhalten von Ackerböden nach Umstellung der konventionellen auf Konservierende Bodenbearbeitung, Dissertation im Fachbereich Geowissenschaften und Geographie der Universität Hannover, Horizonte 15, Der Andere Verlag, Hannover.
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
123 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on water holding capacity in the soil profile
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Soil ecology Ecol A4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Water volume in the soil profile held against the gravitation % of dry soil volume
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement Individual
Available method Drying of saturated soil at 105 C, establishing volume difference comparison of state with and without interevntion Description
[space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
124 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on stock stability
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Vegetation ecology Ecol A5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Stock stability -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
expert judgement to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
125 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on biodiversity
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area Vegetation ecology Ecol A6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Biodiversity -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
126 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on nature conservation value
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Effects on the ecology of soil and vegetation Subject area General aspects Ecol A7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Value for nature conservation of the concerned area -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
expert judgement Individual
Available method Expert judgement under recourse to criteria defined by relating legislature
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
127 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on phytoplankton
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Taxonomic composition of phytoplankton
Average abundance of phytoplankton
Average phytoplankton biomass
Frequency and intensity of planktonic blooms
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V Description Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 40f; p. 48f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
128 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on microphytes and phytobenthos
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Taxonomic composition of macrophytes and phytobenthos
Average abundance of macrophytes
Average abundance of phytobenthos
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Description Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 40f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
129 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on macroalgae and angiosperms
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Taxonomic composition of macroalgae
Presence of disturbance sensitive macroalgae taxa
Macroalgal cover
Taxonomic composition of angiosperms
Average abundance of angiosperms
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Description Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters no no yes no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
130 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on benthic algae
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Species composition of benthic algae
Abundance of benthic algae
Presence of disturbance-sensitive benthic algae taxa
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Description Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 40f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters no yes no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
131 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on benthic invertebrate fauna
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Taxonomic composition of benthic invertebrate fauna
Average abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna
Presence of disturbance sensitive benthic invertebrate taxa
Ratio of disturbance sensitive taxa to insensitive taxa
Level of diversity
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Description Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 40f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
132 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on fish fauna
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Biological quality elements Ecol B6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Level of diversity of invertebrate taxa
Abundance of fish fauna
Abundance of fish fauna
Presence of disturbance-sensitive fish species
Age structure of fish communities
Reproduction and development of particular fish species
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification Description Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 40f Dußling et al. 2005
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
133 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on hydrological regime
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: .
Quantity of water flow
Dynamics of water flow
Connection to groundwaters
Water level
Residence time of water
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Description Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 52f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
134 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on tidal regime
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B8
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: -
Fresh water flow regime
Wave exposure
Direction and speed of dominant currents
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Description Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters no no yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
135 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on morphological conditions
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B9
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: - Channel patterns Width variation Depth variation Flow velocities Substrate conditions Variation of substrate Quantity of substrate Structure of substrate Structure and condition of the riparian zone Structure and condition of the lake
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification Description
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 43f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes no no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
136 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on river continuity
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Limnological criteria Subject area Hydromorphological quality elements supporting the biological elements Ecol B10
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
River continuity -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement individual
Available method According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes no no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
137 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on general conditions
Category Effects Sub-category Limnological criteria Acronym Subject area Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological Ecol B11 elements
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Multiple, including: - Nutrient conditions Level of salinity Acidification status (Alkalinity) Oxygenation conditions Acid neutralising capacity (ANC) Transparency Thermal condition
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Description Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V, Trophic states (lakes)
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring, p. 45f
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
138 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on specific synthetic pollutants
Category Effects Sub-category Limnological criteria Acronym Subject area Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological Ecol B12 elements
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Concentrations of WFD priority list substances µg/L, mg/L
Other synthetic substance depending on catchment pressures
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters Description According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
139 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on specific non-synthetic pollutants
Category Effects Sub-category Limnological criteria Acronym Subject area Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological Ecol B13 elements
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Concentrations of selected non-synthetic substances µg/L, mg/L
Other synthetic substance depending on catchment pressures
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
Monitoring programs, expert judgement see WFD Annex V
Available method Multiple, responding to parameters Description According to WFD, Annex V, and regional implementation
[space for description of method]
References CIS Working Group '2.7' (2003), Guidance on Monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.7 Monitoring
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
140 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on natural flood plain ratio
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Floodplain connectivity Ecol C1
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Area of natural floodplain -
Total floodplain area
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
measurement see WFD Annex V
Available method Ratio of natural floodplain area / available floodplain area before and after Description intervention
[space for description of method]
References Lorenz C M (1999), Indicators for Sustainable Management of Rivers (Thesis, Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam), Febodruk, Amsterdam
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
141 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on frequency of ecologically valuable floods
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Floodplain connectivity Ecol C2
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Frequency of above bank full flows of the river /year
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrological modelling, monitoring to come
Available method monitoring of observable frequency
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
142 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on natural retention capacity of floodplain
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Ecological functioning Ecol C3
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Rate of flood water uptake of flood plain mm/d
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
hydrological modelling to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References [to come]
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes no no
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
143 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on the productivity of floodplain soils and land subsidence at coasts
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Ecological functioning Ecol C4
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
to come to come
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References Petry B (2002), Coping with Floods - Complementarity of Structural and Non- Structural Measures, In Flood Defence '2002 : Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Flood Defence, Beijing, China, September 10 - 13, 2002, (Ed, Wu B), Science Press, Beijing, New York, pp60-70
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability no yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
144 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on accumulation of hazardous substances
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Ecological functioning Ecol C5
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Concentration of hazardous substances in soil and or plant species mg/l
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
field measurement, modelling to come
Available method
[space for description of method] Description References Knöchel A and Ockenfeld K (2004), Ergebnisse und Folgerungen - ein Überblick (Results and Conclusions - Overview), In Schadstoffbelastung nach dem Elbe- Hochwasser 2002 - Ermittlung der Gefährdungspotentiale an Elbe und Mulde’ (Contamination after the Elbe River Flood in 2002 - Determination of Hazard Potential along the Elbe and Mulde Rivers), (Eds, Geller W, Ockenfeld K, Büöhme M and Knöchel A), UFZ- Umweltforschungszentrum, Magdeburg, pp3-13
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
145 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on species appearance
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Ecological functioning Ecol C6
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Indices, selected species -
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
monitoting to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References e.g. Leyer I (2004), Effects of Dykes on Plant Species Composition in a Large Lowland River Floodplain, River Research and Applications, 20/7, 813 - 827.
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
146 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Name of criterion Impact on coastal erosion
Category Effects Acronym Sub-category Ecological effects in flood plains and at coastal shorelines Subject area Ecological functioning Ecol C7
Parameter indicative for criterion Unit
Ratio of loss of coastal sediments to come
Rationale
to come
Methodical approach Classification
monitoting to come
Available method
Description [space for description of method]
References Evans E P, Ashley R, Hall J W, Penning- Rowsell E C, Saul A, Sayers P B, Thorne C R and Watkinson A R (2004b), Forsight. Future od Flooding. Scientific Summary: Volume I - Future Risks and Their Drivers, Office of Science and Technology, London
Applicability with type of water body Rivers Lakes Transitional waters Coastal waters no no no yes
Applicability with type of flood Flash flood Slow rise flood Estuarine flood Coastal flood Urban flood yes yes yes yes yes
Applicability with type of land use Appl. with perspective of evaluation Developedl Undeveloped Single/Mltpl. event Event independent
Applicability yes yes yes yes
Potential relevence for the determination of Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Robustness Flexibility yes no no yes
147 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Appendix 5 List of identified measures and instruments In the following, response interventions differentiated in the Foresight project are allocated to the presented classification. To be consistent with the approach of the classification, only interventions at project level are considered. Responses representing policies are not included.
Classification of measures and instruments Measure / Functional Type of intervention Name of measure or instrument Instrument character Physical Adaptation Land management 1 Conservation tillage measures measures 2 Agricultural crop change 3 Terracing of agricultural surfaces 4 Reforestation 5 Forest transformation 6 Adapted backing techniques (forestry) 7 Improvement of soil permeability of urban surfaces (desealing) 8 Roof planting River channel and coastal 9 Conservation, non-structural rehabilitation, management restoration of rivers, lakes and wetlands 10 Dredging of river channels 11 Beach nourishment (coastal sand suppletion) 12 Promoted formation of protective natural landforms Control Channel conveyance 13 Dikes/embankments/flood walls (construction / measures modification / strengthening) 14 Dikes/embankments/flood walls (relocation / removal / controlled breaking) 15 Ring dikes 16 Mobile, Demountable, inflatable etc. defences 17 Removal of obstacles in the flood way 18 Bypasses 19 Green rivers 20 Modification of discharge cross section (widening, deepening) 21 Channelisation (straitening, hard bed and bank lining) 22 Structural rehabilitation measures at rivers (incl. daylighting, re-connection to lakes) 23 Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation (floodplain lowering) 24 Emergency repair of structures Flood water storage 25 Retention areas (reservoirs behind dams) 26 Detention areas (dry, behind dams) / calamity polders 27 Detention ponds 28 Compartmentalisation of detention areas (polders) 29 Weirs and sluices (controllable and not controllable)
148 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
30 Urban water detention / rainwater harvesting / rainwater management 31 Floodplain / wetland storage (riparian and wetland impoundments) 32 Channel storage (temporary) 33 Storage along/adjacent to flood systems 34 Structural floodplain rehabilitation/restoration 35 Underground storage facilities Flood water transfer 36 Flood water transfer to neighbouring catchments Coastal alignment 37 Dikes/embankments/walls along coastlines 38 Change of configuration of coastline 39 Managed retreat of coastal defenses Coastal energy 40 Offshore barriers/energy converters/wave accommodation breakers Drainage and pumping 41 Urban sewer separation (foul and storm systems sewers) 42 Urban drainage design (network capacity, gully pots) 43 Multiple drainage systems 44 Offsite pumping pumps for urban sewer relief from flood waters 45 Pumped ground water extraction/lowering during flood events Flood proofing of 46 Boundary walls around single structures buildings and 47 Mobile/semi-mobile boundary defenses around infrastructure single structures 48 Waterproofing of earthbound basement walls and base plates 49 One-way valves on sewer lines 50 Sealing of basement openings 51 Sealing of doors and windows 52 Installation of pumps for ingress water (Automatic sump-pumps) incl. power supply/generation 53 Elevated construction / elevation of buildings (mounds, stills) 54 Controlled flooding with flood water (contingent loading) 55 Controlled flooding with drinking water (contingent loading) 56 Structural loading of structures 57 Vertical anchoring of structures (anchors, stills) 58 Contingent loading of structures to avoid buoyancy (e.g. sand bags) 59 Location of central heating at upper floors (permanent) 60 Location of fuse boxes, electrical circuits and sockets at higher levels 61 Buoyancy protection to oil, fuel and gas tanks
62 Introduction of flood proof floor and wall covers (e.g. flagstones)
149 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
63 Utilisation of material unsusceptible to flood water in the construction of the building 64 Flood proofing of immobile goods (turning off electrical connections etc.) 65 Change of heating technology (e.g. from oil to gas or wood based systems) Retreat Evacuation of human life 66 Officially ordered evacuation of human life measures and pets from flood prone / flooded areas Evacuation of assets and 67 Evacuation of mobile goods to upper floors or life stock out of the flood prone area 68 Evacuation of vehicles out of the flood prone area 69 Evacuation of sources for hazardous substances (fuels, other chemicals) 70 Location of items with high monetary or ideational values at upper floors 71 Location of especially sensitive uses at floors above likely flood level 72 Temporary removal of installations (heating central, fuse box) 73 Policy Regulation Spatial planning 74 Land use designations (legally binding) instruments instruments 75 Zoning / design standards Water management 76 Flood zone designation
Environmental protection 77 Nature protection areas / National parks 78 Landscape protection areas 79 Nature 2000 areas 80 Contract based nature protection/management
Stimulation Financial incentives 81 Allowances for risk adapted instruments construction/adjustments 82 Subsidised loans for risk adapted construction/adjustments 83 Write-down for risk adapted construction/adjustments Financial disincentives 84 Flood plain charges 85 Fines for violation of regulations / obligations 86 Cutback of insurance payments in case of not compliance with obligation Information Information/Dissemination 87 Hazard and Risk Maps instruments 88 Distribution of information on flood loss reduction over various media 89 Public information events on flood risk and damage prevention 90 Professional consultation of concerned population on damage prevention Warning/Instruction 91 Official flood warning Compensation Risk and loss distribution 92 Compulsory insurance instruments 93 Self-insurance 94 Public relief
150 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
ANNEX 2 CASE STUDY REPORTS
151 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Report 1 Flood proving in the inundation areas of Dresden and Pirna (Germany) in the April 2006 Elbe river flooding
Inte grated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies
Task 12 Dresden Case Study
Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
March 2007 Contribution to Report: T12-07-01
Summary of Contents:
Introduction
Evaluation Interpretation of results Lessons learned
Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels HR Wallingford UK Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420 Project website: www.floodsite.net
Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the Title April 2006 flood in Dresden Lead Author Alfred Olfert Contributors Distribution Project Team Olfert A (2007), Risk reduction in private and commercial Document Reference buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden, Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden.
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes 07/03 1.0 A. Olfert IOER 07/08 1.1 A. Olfert IOER
DISCLAIMER This report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specific applications without first checking its suitability. ()
In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, various sections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the project consortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.
Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of material contained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specific commission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concerned for the particular application.
© FLOODsite Consortium
ii Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
SUMMARY
The aim of this case study is the ex-evaluation of small scale private risk reduction measures. After the devastating August 2002 flood, in April 2006 a 10 to 15 years flood occurred along the Elbe river. In areas not protected by central defences, many buildings and their contents were again exposed to flooding. Risk reduction here was only possible through privately implemented interventions. Given the experiences from the previous flood, improved risk perception and preparedness have enabled the implementation of a large variety of small scale risk reduction measures on the level of single buildings. The case study sets out to analyse the overall performance of these measures.
The investigation takes place in the scope of Task 12 of the FLOODsite project, which is dedicated to the development and testing of a comprehensive methodology for the ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments. The methodology provides the framework and methods for the evaluation of the criteria effects, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and robustness, which are applied in the present study. Furthermore, the methodology provided a comprehensive asset of indicators supported by a partially formalised tool for the case specific selection of indicators.
Based on the indicator set provided by the methodology and the requirements of the evaluation of criteria, a standardised data inquiry form is developed and used for data acquisition. The investigation addresses residentially and commercially used objects of selected regions in the cities of Dresden and Pirna. As only a relatively small number of objects are affected by the flood, the selection of test objects is based on a complete inventory count in the study area. As a result, 24 single cases at object level are included in the investigation. Main selection criterion is the provision of a consistent data set based on the inquiry form.
Reflecting the reality in the study area, most single cases represent combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures. Therefore, effects and consequently also the other criteria reflect the performance of combination of measures. Only certain indicators allow the assignment of the effect to certain measures or measure groups.
As the evaluation shows, a large variety of flood proofing and evacuation measures are applied by residential and commercial stakeholders in the study area. An increase by more than 400 % compared with the August 2002 flood can be stated. This increase is mainly observed in the field of flood proofing measures. In total, 74 % economic losses could be avoided in the regarded cases. Seven of 24 cases reached an overall economic effectiveness higher than 90 % but only three cases below 50 %. However, only 11 % of cases are successful in totally reducing ingress of water. However, even in cases with fully or partially failed dry flood proofing, losses to inventory and production goods and facilities could be reduced to 92 %. This indicates the particular relevance of evacuation and retreat measures such as the evacuation of inventory or the temporary removal infrastructure.
Most regarded measures are implemented by internal action, thus considerably reducing realisation costs. As a result, the median benefit/cost ratio of the combinations of measures is relatively high at 41. While many flood proofing measures aiming at controlling the ingress of water have shown very good performance, particularly retreat and evacuation measures have proved to be highly reliable with regard to their effectiveness. However, with regard to the overall effectiveness of private risk reduction a differentiated picture must be drawn. It becomes apparent, that especially elderly and less informed stakeholders achieve considerably worse effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of risk reduction. Additionally, given the generally low degree of information of exposed land users, much potential for further improvement of performance also in the relatively successful cases can be concluded. As a result, private risk reduction in general and more susceptible groups especially should receive more attention by the official risk management. More and better information and support is needed to ensure reliability of performance of private risk reduction measures.
iii Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
CONTENTS
Document Information ii Document History ii Disclaimer ii Summary iii Contents iv
Table of contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aim of investigation ...... 1 1.2 Background...... 1 1.3 Research contents and questions ...... 1
2. Case study investigation...... 2 2.1 Case study description ...... 2 2.2 Flood proofing and evacuation measures ...... 3 2.3 Approach ...... 4 2.4 Indicators ...... 5 2.5 Evaluation...... 6 2.5.1 Flood proofing and evacuation measures applied in the cases...... 6 2.5.2 Combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures ...... 7 2.5.3 Evaluation of effects and effectiveness...... 9 Indicator Hydr 2 - Impact on maximum (interior) flood level...... 9 Indicator Soc 2 - Impact on physical injuries...... 13 Indicator Soc 3 - Impact on mental stress ...... 13 Indicator Soc 7 - Impact on days out of work...... 13 Indicator Econ 1 - Direct economic losses avoided ...... 13 Indicator Econ 2 - Indirect economic losses avoided...... 15 Indicator Econ 12, 14 - Induced losses ...... 18 Indicator Ecol B12, B13 - Impact on hazardous substances ...... 18 2.5.4 Evaluation of cost effectiveness...... 20 Financial benefits of applied measures ...... 20 Attributable costs of applied interventions - Indicator Econ 10...... 20 Cost effectiveness of applied interventions...... 22 2.5.5 Evaluation of robustness ...... 23 Reliability of effectiveness under different conditions ...... 23 Strengths ...... 28 Weaknesses...... 29 2.5.6 Additional feedback from case studies...... 29
3. Discussion of results ...... 31 3.1 Discussion of evaluation results ...... 31 Representativeness of results ...... 31 Reliability of results...... 31 Validity of results...... 32 3.2 Discussion of the applied methodology...... 32
4. Conclusions and lessons learned ...... 33 4.1 Conclusions with regard to applied measures...... 33 4.2 Lessons learned with regard to involved stakeholders ...... 33
iv Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Lessons learned for private stakeholders ...... 33 Lessons learned for public authorities...... 34 4.3 Research needs ...... 36
References ...... 37
Annex 39
Tables
Table 1: Identification of the case 2 Table 2: List of considered flood proofing and evacuation measures 3 Table 3: Applicability of indicators with cases 8 Table 4: Measures with relevance for leakage of hazardous substances 19
Figures
Figure 1: Implementation of flood proofing measures in the cases (2006 and 2002) 6 Figure 2: Implementation of evacuation measures in the cases (2006 and 2002) 7 Figure 3: Number of flood proofing and evacuation measures implemented in the cases 8 Figure 4: Effect of indoor water level reduction in the basement 10 Figure 5: Effect of indoor water level reduction in the ground floor 10 Figure 6: Effectiveness in reducing indoor water level 12 Figure 7: Effectiveness in reducing indoor water level in cases with ≥80 % and <80 % individual effectiveness 12 Figure 8: Average number of information sources used in cases with ≥80 % and <80 % individual effectiveness 12 Figure 9: Avoided direct economic losses 15 Figure 10: Avoided indirect economic losses 16 Figure 11: Effectiveness in reducing direct economic losses 17 Figure 12: Effectiveness in reducing indirect economic losses 18 Figure 13: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures 20 Figure 14: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures 21 Figure 15: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures in cases 22 Figure 16: Cost-effectiveness of flood proofing and evacuation measures 23 Figure 17: Total economic effectiveness related to exterior flood levels 24 Figure 18: Total economic effectiveness and hydraulic effectiveness 25 Figure 19: Effectiveness in reducing inventory losses and hydraulic effectiveness 25 Figure 20: Total economic effectiveness and general preparedness 26 Figure 21: Total economic effectiveness and household income 27 Figure 22: Total economic effectiveness and household size 28 Figure 23: Total economic effectiveness and household age 28
v Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
1. Introduction
1.1 Aim of investigation The investigation is part of the European research project FLOODsite. The aim is to test the methodology for the ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments. Under measures and instruments, interventions in the field of flood risk reduction are understood. The testing entails the case specific selection of indicators and the application of proposed methods for the determination of the criteria effects, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and robustness. Main aim is the testing of completeness, consistency and practicability of the methodology with a really existing case. At the same time, the case is used to investigate effects, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and robustness of private risk reduction measures and combinations of those.
1.2 Background In April 2006, a flood with a probability of about 1:10 occurred along the Saxon section of the Elbe river. The regarded river section is protected as European Nature 2000 area and is partially listed as World Heritage. Thus, only very little traditional flood protection is in place along the river. As a result, in a narrow corridor at both sides of the river a number of buildings situated in the natural flood plain where reached and partially inundated by flood waters. Close to the river channel, inundation depths of up to 300 cm where observed. However, the majority of affected buildings was affected by flood water levels of several decimetres only. Many buildings were affected only by ingress of ground water in the basement. In total, comparatively little economic losses and no causalities have occurred.
However, the event needs to be seen against the context of previous flood events and the individual consternation of exposed land users. In August 2002 an about 1:100 to 1:150 years flood had occurred in the same section of the Elbe river following a decades long period of minor flooding only. The 2002 Elbe river flood was preceded by extreme flash floods in the region. Altogether the August 2002 flood events have caused tremendous economic and socio-cultural losses and still remain present in the memory of people in the region. These events have shown very impressively how exposed the region is to flooding after more than a generation had not seen considerable flooding.
The comparatively small event of April 2006 was again accompanied by large media coverage, mainly caused by a massive outcry of affected and potentially affected land users. Arguments where raised such as lacking flood protection, lacking support or irresponsive action of public authorities. However, while in 2002, almost all stakeholders where hit more or less surprisingly, much more preparedness can be assumed of all stakeholders in 2006. Also a newly introduced paragraph in the updated Saxon Water Act states that land users in inundation areas are responsible for their protection (SächsWG 2004, §38). Altogether this forms an important part of the background for the current degree of awareness of land users in the inundation area.
1.3 Research contents and questions Against the discussed background, the present case study sets out to scrutinise the actual situation of flood protection in the area affected in April 2006 as shaped by private small scale measures. The case study addresses a complex set of partially interrelated flood proofing and evacuation measures. Furthermore, the study pays attention to factors influencing the preparedness and the effectiveness of measures. Therefore, research questions of the investigation are also partly interwoven.
The main research questions are: Which measures were applied in the April 2006 flood compared with the August 2002 flood? Which social, economical, hydraulic and ecological effects have the applied measures? How effective are applied measures in reducing economic losses?
1 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
How cost-effective are applied measures? How robust are applied measures with regard to various conditions? Which are the key factors related to the effectiveness of applied measures? (taking recourse to conditions of implementation and operation)
2. Case study investigation
2.1 Case study description The case study area is composed of two discrete inundation areas along the Elbe river in the Cities of Dresden and Pirna. It entails the inundation area of the April 2006 flood, which has affected a number of properties already flooded by the August 2002 flood.
The April 2006 flood is described as a 1:10 to 1:20 event (City of Dresden 2006). It thus represents small to medium events. These provide a particularly suitable background for a methodology test with small scale private measures. In contrast, extreme events such in August 2002 provide though real but rather rare and for methodological tests little suitable cases. Large floods in many parts of their inundation area often reach or exceed critical thresholds beyond which the many risk reduction measures loose their intended effects. The issue of above design benefits is discussed by Penning- Rowsel (1996). If addressed by a single investigation, this can lead to distorted results with little expression regarding the merits of an intervention and the use of the methodology. Small to medium floods represent regularly recurring events, the destructiveness of which can be well managed by manifold private actions. At the same time, if looking at losses caused by frequently recurring floods, the latter need not be less important in the long term. Therefore, the April 2006 flood can be regarded as a representative flood event suitable to test the developed methodology and promising with regard to specific evaluation results. Nonetheless, the methodology should be applicable as well with large and extreme flood events.
Another particularly promising condition of the investigation is that after the August 2002 flood increased risk awareness may have led to the area-wide implementation of private risk reduction measures. Also improved flood warning and a certain flood experience should allow for timely application of measures allowing the recourse to fully implemented interventions.
Table 1: Identification of the case
Intervention Single of flood proofing and evacuation measures and combinations of those applied in residential and commercially used properties
Name of intervention Flood proofing measures (various, Figure 1)
Evacuation measures (various, Figure 2)
Location if intervention Inundation area of the Elbe river flood in April 2006 in the Cities of Dresden and Pirna (Germany)
Classification (sub-category) Flood proofing of buildings and technical infrastructure
Evacuation of human life and assets, Retreat of uses
Conditions
Perspective of evaluation Single event evaluation
Type of flood Slow rise flood
Magnitude of event (probability) 1 : 10 flood
2 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Type of water body concerned River
Land uses addressed urban land use (developed), residential and small commercial users
Individual conditions Area affected by the August 2002 Elbe river flood
Receptors very sensitive to the issue of flooding after having been strongly affected by the last flood
Little systematic information of the receptors on possible flood proofing measures
Often active sense of own irresponsibility for flood risk reduction connected with often strong expectation of centrally organised and implemented risk reduction
Improved forecasting and warning system compared to the 2002 flood
2.2 Flood proofing and evacuation measures Object of investigation are small scale private risk resp. loss reduction measures implemented before and during the flood event. Main focus is on flood proofing and evacuation measures. The investigation is based on a number of single cases, each representing one affected property. As expected, almost all properties apply more than one measure. As a result, identified effects usually must be attributed to more than one intervention. Thus, with regard to most cases, the investigation shows results not for single measures, but for combinations of measures. Only for some indicators, effects can be allocated to certain measures or measure groups.
Many different measures are at disposal for small scale flood risk reduction in single properties. The potential of such measures to reduce losses has been shown in the past in a number of studies and reviews (Penning-Rowsell & Green 2000, Kreibich et al. 2005). The current study sets out to evaluate the compound of these measures and their effects on the basis of single properties. To do so, the full set of flood proofing and evacuation measures identified in Task 12 of the FLOODsite project is integrated into the study design. It considers 18 different options for flood proofing and 13 possible evacuation measures. These are no alternative measures, but are often complimentary and usually applied in different combinations. Table 2 gives the complete overview of considered flood proofing and evacuation measures. As evaluation results will show, not all of these were finally found implemented in the single cases considered for the study. Nevertheless, the availability of the full list ensures, that respondents can unambiguously identify the own implemented measures. The latter is especially important given the fact, that private risk reduction often takes place by intuition and without systematic knowledge about the full range of option and their different adequacy.
Table 2: List of considered flood proofing and evacuation measures Measures with the aim to avoid the ingress of water into the building a. Flood wall / embankment (permanent) b. Mobile / semi mobile flood defence systems (temporal) c. Sealing of earthbound basement walls and base plates d. One-way valves on sewer lines e. Sealing of basement openings f. Sealing of doors and windows g. Installation of pumps against ingress water (incl. power supply) h. Elevated construction (mounds, stills, walls)
Measures with the aim to avoid buoyancy of the building a. Structural loading of buildings / parts of buildings b. Contingent loading (flooding) with flood water c. Contingent loading (flooding) with drinking water
3 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Measures with the aim to reduce loss potential of infrastructure a. Location of central heating at upper floors (permanent) b. Change of heating technology c. Buoyancy protection of fuel tanks d. Location of fuse boxes, electrical circuits and sockets at higher levels e. Introduction of flood proof floor and wall covers (e.g. flagstones) f. Utilisation of construction material unsusceptible to water g. Elevation of susceptible infrastructure (electrical sockets etc.)
Permanent adaptation of uses within the building a. Location of items with high monetary values at upper floors (permanent) b. Location of items with high ideational values at upper floors (permanent) c. Location of sensitive uses at upper floors (permanent) d. Give up of susceptible uses
Temporary relocation or protection of objects and hazardous substances a. Evacuation of mobile building components on higher ground b. Evacuation of mobile inventory/production goods on higher ground c. Flood proofing of immobile inventory/goods d. Evacuation of vehicles from flood prone areas e. Evacuation of hazardous substances f. Temporary removal of installations
Evacuation of human life and pets a. Officially ordered evacuation of persons b. Self organised evacuation of persons c. Evacuation of pets
2.3 Approach The investigation addresses small scale private measures implemented by residential and commercial users of affected properties in the cities of Dresden and Pirna. Considered are only small and for the area typical commercial uses such as retail and gastronomy. Residential uses are only considered in the City of Dresden.
Methodological basis is the methodology for the evaluation of measures and instruments developed in Task 12 of the FLOODsite project. Beside a complex set of hydrological/hydraulic, socio-cultural, economic and ecological indicators, the methodology provides methods for the derivation of the main criteria effect, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, robustness and flexibility. In the scope of the investigation, all elements of the methodology are tested.
As a fist step, a selection tool and method are used to select appropriate indicators. This insures hat all potentially relevant indicators for the description of intended and unintended effects are considered. Furthermore, additional indicators for the description of the cases are defined. Identified indicators are integrated into a standardised inquiry form by transforming indicators into questions and matrices providing defined answer options resp. requesting defined single data.
In a second step, basic parameters for the description of the selected indicators are inquired. This also includes costs of interventions as well as of incurred losses. This step is based on a standardised inquiry of affected land users. All considered households and commercial users were informed about the investigation prior to the first personal contact. The inquiry form is left for completion upon explicit approval to participate in the survey. Each spread sheet was reviewed immediately after receiving in order to avoid misinterpretation of data. Spread sheets, which did not provide a minimum data set respectively which contained obvious inconsistencies where excluded from the analysis. Certain obvious mistakes regarding realisation costs are adjusted on the basis of expert judgement in order to improve comparability of the cases. As a third step, main criteria are calculated on the basis of data for basic parameters and by applying the methods provided with the methodology.
4 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
An important part of the study is the consideration of context conditions, which are important for the performance of measures and instruments and which at the same time can be influenced by of administrative stakeholders. On the one hand, these conditions are mainly policy instruments which can be applied at different administrative levels such as regulations, financial stimulations or the provision of information or warnings. On the other hand, conditions can also be private insurance policies. In order to reflect the possible influence of these conditions on the implementation and performance of regarded measures and measure groups, they are integrated into the study design as side parameters. The interpretation of the performance of measures in the light of these conditions can deliver important evidence for the further development of policy instruments.
2.4 Indicators The selection of indicators took place with the aid of the provided web-based tool. In total, 16 indicator representing socio-cultural, economic and ecological issues are considered. Annex 1 gives an overview of the indicators proposed by the tool. In an extra column of the annex, methods are detailed which where applied for the investigation of data for the respective criterion.
1. Indicator of hydrological and hydraulic effects Hydr 2 Impact on maximum flood level
2. Indicator of social effects Soc 2 Impact on physical injuries Soc 3 Impact on mental stress Soc 7 Impact on days out of work Soc 8 Impact on financial burden per person
3. Indicator of economic effects Econ 1 Avoided losses of built structures Econ 1a Avoided losses of built structures Econ 1b Avoided losses of installations Econ 1c Avoided losses of inventory Econ 1d Avoided losses of production goods Econ 1e Avoided losses of production facilities Econ 2 Avoided losses of value added due to disruption of businesses Econ 4 Capital costs of intervention Econ 4a Realisation costs of intervention Econ 4b Maintenance and operation costs Econ 6 Loss of value added induced by the intervention
4. Indicator of ecological effects Ecol B12 Impact on specific synthetic pollutants Ecol B13 Impact on specific non-synthetic pollutants
5 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
2.5 Evaluation 2.5.1 Flood proofing and evacuation measures applied in the cases A wide variety of flood proofing and evacuation measures were realised before and during the April 2006 Elbe river flood in the cities of Dresden and Pirna (Germany). Flood proofing measures and evacuation measures are applied in equal measure. In total, 84 flood proofing measures (Figure 1) and 81 evacuation measures (Figure 2) are identified in the case studies. Usually several measures from both groups are combined. This mainly holds true for the April 2006 flood (grey bar in the figures). However, as will be shown below, the total number of applied measures in one case has no impact on the effectiveness in reducing losses. The review of applied measures also allows the comparison of the same measures applied with the August 2002 flood. As can be seen in both figures, a comparatively small number of flood proofing measures was applied in the August 2002 (black bar in the figures), which makes up only 18 % of measures applied in 2006. However, already in 2002 evacuation measures constituted an important measure group (64 %, Figure 2).
Most frequently applied flood proofing measures are pumps against the ingress of flood water (54 %), which are always applied in combination with measures to avoid the ingress of water such as the sealing of basement openings (50 %) or the sealing of doors and windows (50 %). Also frequently applied are conceptional measures such as locating of heating devices (38 %) and electrical installations (33 %) at upper floors or the use of unsusceptible construction material (29 %). In 33 % of cases, mobile and semi-mobile flood protection systems are applied. While these measures usually were also implemented in 2002, other measures are applied only occasionally in 2006 and were practically not applied in 2002. This concerns the installation of flood proof wall and floor covers (13 %), contingent loading of buildings, the change of heating technology, one way valves in the sewer systems and other with only one application (4 %) each in the survey.
Realisation of flood proofing measures in April 2006 and August 2002 Number (n=24) 54% Inst allat io n of pump s against ingress wat er (incl. p ower supp ly) 8% 50% Sealing of basement op enings 25% 50% Sealing of doors and windows 8% 38% Lo cat io n of cent ral heat ing at up per f lo ors (p ermanent ) 4% 33% Locat io n of f use b oxes, elect rical circuit s and socket s at hig her levels 4% 33% M obile / semi mobile flood defence systems (temporal) 4% 29% Utilisation of construction material unsusceptible to water 17 % Int roduction of flood proof f loor and wall covers (e.g. flagstones) 13 % Contingent loading (flooding) with flood water 4% 8% Change o f heat ing t echnolo gy 8% Elevated construction (mounds, stills, walls) 4% 4% Structural loading of buildings / parts of buildings 4% Contingent loading (flooding) with drinking water 4% One-way valves o n sewer lines applied April 2006 4% Elevation of susceptible infrastrusture (electrical sockets etc.) applied August 2002
Figure 1: Implementation of flood proofing measures in the cases (2006 and 2002)
Looking at evacuation measures, the clear dominance of measures aimed at the temporal removal of values is obvious (Figure 2). Almost all cases (92 %), evacuated mobile inventory and production
6 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden goods from flood prone levels. Also the removal of vehicles from flood prone ground is quite common (54 %). Often implemented is the self-organised evacuation of persons (38 %) and pets (21 %). A number of further evacuation measures are applied less often, but are still important by their total number. Among these are the evacuation of mobile building components, permanent location of values with high ideational values, temporary removal of installations, permanent relocation of sensitive uses or of high monetary values (21 % each). As occasional measure also the give up of susceptible uses in reaction to flood risk was named (one case).
In contrast to flood proofing measures, evacuation measures where widely implemented also during the August 2002 flood. Of 81 evacuation measures, 64 % were also applied in 2002.
Realisation of evacuation measures in April 2006 and August 2002 Number (n=24) 92% Evacuat io n of mob ile invent o ry/ prod uct io n go od s on hig her g ro und 63% 54% Evacuat io n of vehicles f rom f loo d p ro ne areas 42% 38% Self organised evacuat io n of persons 33% 21% Evacuat ion o f p et s 21% 21% Evacuat ion o f mo bile b uilding comp onent s on hig her g ro und 8% 21% Locat io n of it ems wit h high id eat io nal values at up per f lo ors (p ermanent ) 8% 21% Temporary removal of installations 4% 17 % Locat ion o f sensit ive uses at up per f lo ors (p ermanent ) 8% 17 % Locat io n of it ems wit h high mo net ary values at up per f lo ors (p ermanent ) 8% 17 % Flood proofing of immobile inventory/goods 4% 13 % Of f icially o rd ered evacuat io n of persons 13 % 4% Evacualt io n of hazard ous sub st ances 4% applied April 2006 4% Give up of susceptible uses applied August 2002
Figure 2: Implementation of evacuation measures in the cases (2006 and 2002)
2.5.2 Combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures In 24 cases, 165 flood proofing and evacuation measures are identified. Usually, between three and 10 measures are applied per property, while cases with less ore more measures are rather exceptional (Figure 3). In cases with more than one applied measure (all but two cases), combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures are realised.
In cases with several applied measures, many effects must be seen as a result of the bundle of these measures. In these cases, only certain effects (e.g. hydraulic effects) are attributable to a single measure or a certain group of measures.
As a result, with regard to most indicators the investigation regards combinations of measures instead of single measures. This forms a special challenge for the interpretation of results, since in hardly any case certain effects can be attributed to only one measure. Furthermore, the difference of individual conditions of the cases and the difference of applied combinations of measures allows the application of different indicator sets in the cases. For example, the effect on structural damage can only be evaluated if the respondent was also the proprietor, effects on value added can only be considered with commercially used properties, hydraulic effects can only be evaluated where relevant measures are applied. As a result, each case responds to a different indicator set (Table 3). However, a number of indicator such as most economic indicator are applicable to all cases.
7 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Flood proofing and evacuation measures in cases
1 6 2 13 3 10 4 8 5 13 6 5 7 6 8 10 residential 9 5 commercial 10 8 11 8 12 6 13 3 14 3 cases 15 4 16 7 17 14 18 1 19 1 20 15 21 4 22 5 23 5 24 7
0 5 10 15 number of applied flood proofing and evacuation measures
Figure 3: Number of flood proofing and evacuation measures implemented in the cases
Table 3: Applicability of indicators with cases
Indicator
Case Hydr 4 Soc 2 Soc 3 Soc 7 Soc 8 Econ 1 Econ 2 Econ 3 Econ 7 Econ 10 Econ 11 Econ 12 Econ 14 Ecol B12 Ecol B13 1 x x x x x x x x 2 x x x x x x x x 3 x x x x x x x x x x x 4 x x x x x x x x x x 5 x x x x x x x x x x x 6 x x x x x x x x x 7 x x x x x x x x x 8 x x x x x x x x x x x 9 x x x x x x x x 10 x x x x x x x x
8 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
11 x x x x x x x x x x 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13 x x x x x x x x x 14 x x x x x x x x x 15 x x x x x x x x x x 16 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18 x x x x x x 19 x x x x x x x x x x 20 x x x x x x x x x x x x 21 x x x x x x x x x x 22 x x x x x x x x x 23 x x x x x x x x x x 24 x x x x x x x x x x
2.5.3 Evaluation of effects and effectiveness Indicator Hydr 2 - Impact on maximum (interior) flood level Main causative factors for losses of small and middle plain floods is the ingress of water into the interior of the building and moisture penetration into the construction. As a result, most often applied flood proofing measures aim at the reduction of exactly these processes. However, only a minority of measures aims at keeping away the flood waters from the building by external barriers. Usually, different combinations of flood proofing measures are implemented addressing different weak points of buildings and using different response strategies.
Effects The primary effect of flood proofing measures implemented to control the ingress of water into the building, is the influence on the water level inside the object which can be decisive for the extent of losses incurred in case of flooding. This hydraulic measure does not directly describe the actual reduction of losses. However, for many flood proofing measures the purely hydraulic performance describes an important intermediate step towards loss reduction. Furthermore, knowing about the hydraulic effectiveness of certain measures will allow a better valuation of the overall effectiveness of the combinations with evacuation measures.
A number of flood proofing measures are capable of providing these hydraulic effects (measures with the aim to avoid the ingress of water into the building, Table 2). Looking at cases with at least one measure from this group, a differentiated picture can be drawn regarding their hydraulic performance. Figure 4 gives an overview of the achieved reductions of water levels in buildings differentiating first floor and, where existing, the basement. The figures show the hydraulic effect, described by the difference which was achieved between the exterior and interior water level.
The differentiation between effects in the first floor and the basement is made for several reasons. Firstly, due to usual uses of the buildings a major leap of the potential damage curve usually takes place with reaching the ground floor [e.g. HOWAD]. Secondly, the type of uses results in a different attitude of users towards the protection of the basement and the first floor. Basements in the study area are usually used as storage for objects with low value, while in the first floor highly valued living or commercial functions as well as expensive installations are concentrated, which can cause comparably high losses in case of flooding. Also the usual brick construction of most exposed buildings does not permit the full protection of the building without risking the collapse of the masonry. Therefore, while there is a strong tendency to avoid flooding of the first floor, flooding of the basement is often accepted. As a result, the majority of respondents put more effort in avoiding the flooding of the first floor than that of the cellar. Thirdly, a number of newer buildings do not posses a basement which would make these cases less comparable to the others if basement and first flood were not distinguished.
9 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
As can be shown, applied flood proofing measures are capable of considerably reducing the interior water level both at ground levels and in basements. Water level reduction up 100 cm are regularly achieved in first floors, where the exterior water column did not exceed critical levels. In one case even a reduction of 110 cm could be achieved against a water column of 120 cm. The different performance of applied measures in the cases with 200 cm exterior water column is based on the different applied measures. In one case interior water level is successfully reduced by evacuation of the mobile construction. In the other case the shielding failed (due to poor construction) when exterior flood level exceeded the design level.
Reduction of indoor water level in Reduction of indoor water level in the basement the 1st floor
0 12 0 1 1 110 200 40 2 0 2 18 0 23 3 0 3 23 215 4 213 4 200 5 80 5 200 32 7 0 7 0 260 8 0 8 91 9 81 9 210 15 10 0 10 220 200 11 0 11 200 110 12 10 0 12 cases cases 200 50 13 0 13 20 240 90 14 240 14 90 270 58 15 70 15 58 250 17 10 0 17 0 200 19 19 0 0 75 20 20 70 280 60 21 80 21 60 250 10 0 22 0 22 0 18 0 20 23 18 0 23 20 18 0 25 24 0 24 0
0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 effect on water level reduction (cm) effect on water level reduction (cm)
potential level reduced by potential level reduced by
Figure 4: Effect of indoor water level Figure 5: Effect of indoor water level reduction reduction in the basement in the ground floor
Buildings in the inundation area are also exposed to substantial ground water level raise even without being reached by surface water. Therefore, basement level in such an event are even more exposed to the flood than first floors, which are often not reached. As basements demonstrable contribute to the overall losses (Müller & Thieken 2005), this aspect was additionally looked at.
As can be seen, despite the usual building substance – elder brick work buildings prevail in the study area – water level can still be reduced by more than 100 cm in basements, too (Figure 5). In single cases, even much higher levels up to 240 cm are managed. Remarkably is the reduction of high water
10 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden levels independently from the age and the construction type of the buildings. However, after 1990 constructed buildings usually have integrated provisions in the founding and construction design such as elevated construction, white tray construction or the abandonment of a basement level.
As can also be seen, in many cases no water level reduction could be realised in the basement. Beside the sheer lacking of experience with technical flood proofing measures, there are several reasons for this. Basically, the dominating permeable brick work construction of fundament walls and the loos brick pavement over natural ground often do not allow considerable gradients of the water column from outside to inside without imposing risk on the construction. Thus, the flooding of building with water was even applied as countermeasure to avoid the trickling of ground water through the brick work which otherwise can seriously damage the construction by elutriation of joints and the destruction of the brick pavement.
Effectiveness Looking at the effectiveness in reducing indoor water level again a differentiated picture can be draft for the first floor and the basement of affected buildings (Figure 6). Many cases are very successful with reducing interior water level reaching effectiveness values close to 100 %. These high levels of effectiveness are particularly important for loss reduction, since most damage of inventory and installations in the interior occurs within the lower centimetres and decimetres of the used level. Not surprisingly, effects in most cases mainly concentrate on the reduction of water levels in the first floor (63 % average), while effectiveness in the basement is considerably lower (34 % average).
Effectiveness of indoor water level reduction
92% 1
2 0% 10 0 % 3 0%
4 99%
5 40% 0% 7 0%
8 0%
9 89%
10 0% 10 0 % 11 0%
12 91% 40% 13 0%
cases 10 0 % 14 10 0 % 10 0 % 15 26%
17 40% 0% 19 20 93% 10 0 % 21 29% 0% 22 0% 10 0 % 23 10 0 % 0% 24 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% effectiveness 1st floor basement
11 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Figure 6: Effectiveness in reducing indoor water level
With regard to the first floor, the mentioned situation can be emphasised by comparing the overall effectiveness below and above 80 % individual effectiveness in the single cases. Here, all cases above 80 % individual effectiveness achieve an average effectiveness of 98 % (Figure 7). In contrast, cases below 80 % individual effectiveness achieve an average effectiveness of only 8 %, while this figure is only achieved due to one case reaching 40 % and the rest remaining as l ow as 0 %. It can be concluded, that if flood proofing measures are effective, they usually can contribute significantly to risk reduction, while a failure usually means a complete failure.
Average effectiveness in reducing water level in the first floor of buildings for cases with ≥80% and <80 individual effectiveness
≥80% 98%
< 80% 8%
Figure 7: Effectiveness in reducing indoor water level in cases with ≥80 % and <80 % individual effectiveness If looking for reasons why certain properties are more effective in reducing interior flood level than other, particularly one condition appears connected. It is the general preparedness of the users measured by looking at the number of types of used for the own information about private small scale risk reduction measures. In total, seven types of potentially available information sources where given for approval by the respondents. As a result, users of most successful properties used two to three times more information sources(3,3 against 1,4) indicating their higher consciousness of flooding and degree of preparedness to implement risk reduction measures (Figure 8).
Average number of information sources used in cases reaching effectiveness ≥80% and <80 individual effectiveness
≥80% 3,3
< 80% 1,4
Figure 8: Average number of information sources used in cases with ≥80 % and <80 % individual effectiveness
Furthermore, the study provides indications that further factors may have influence on the hydraulic effectiveness of flood proofing measures. Households with higher income seem to be more effective than such with lower income. Properties without insurance protection tend to be more effective than insured once. However, as household income is only available for residential uses, the sample size is not sufficient to draw conclusions on these correlations with respect to hydraulic effectiveness. Nevertheless, these and more factors are discussed in chapter 2.5.5 against the background of the overall economic effectiveness.
12 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Indicator Soc 2 - Impact on physical injuries This indicator has not delivered significant results as the extent of flood event represented only limited danger to human life and health in the study area. No specific measures needed to be taken in order to avoid such losses.
Indicator Soc 3 - Impact on mental stress The indicator was applied in the scope of the standardised inquiry. However, although obtained data are instructive, they do not allow valid interpretation of results. While most respondents did provide data referring to mental stress, personal discussions unveil that the issue was interpreted differently than intended by the inquiry. The intention was to describe, how the fact of taking risk reduction measures and thus reducing risk influences mental stress. It must be concluded that the full dimension was seen only by a minority of respondents.
The majority reflected the response from the perspective of being neglected und thus forced to protect themselves, while expecting floor risk reduction as external service (e.g. by the construction of a dike). As a result, most responses convey that implementation of measures itself goes along with increased mental stress. As can be concluded from the discussions, most these information do not take into account the obviously very good values of loss reduction. Although interesting as observation, this impedes the analysis of the data obtained. Thus, with regard to the methodology, further development is needed to enable valid results for the indicator.
Nevertheless, even the simple observation should be taken as instructive. The documentation of considerable mental stress going along with self dependent flood risk reduction can be one reason why certain single cases achieve below average effectiveness. For example is this one plausible factor to explain the situation shown in Figure 23, where retired households fall considerably behind the rest in terms of effectiveness.
Indicator Soc 7 - Impact on days out of work Indicator can not be substantiated, since from only two cases data are available.
Indicator Econ 1 - Direct economic losses avoided Direct economic losses materialise through the direct contact of flood water and its forces and exposed values. The reduction or avoiding of direct economic losses is doubtlessly one of the most common aims of flood risk reduction measures. And, in contrast to the above discussed hydraulic effects, the reduction of economic losses forms an actual effect in terms of risk reduction. Direct economic losses are seen as the manifestation of risk when the flood water reaches susceptible values. Thus, different categories of these values are regarded in order to obtain a differentiated picture of incurred and avoided losses. These are represented by a number of indicators describing economic impacts of interventions on values in residentially and commercially uses objects (acronym of indicator):
• Avoided losses of built structures and installations (Econ 1a and Econ 1b) • Avoided losses of mobile and immobile inventory (Econ 1c) • Avoided losses of production facilities (Econ 1d) • Avoided losses of production goods (Econ 1e)
Both the observed and the avoided losses are inquired directly from affected households and businesses. However, it turns out, that especially for private persons it is often not easy to differentiate the different categories. In most cases, documentation of costs and values is poor and thus, values given are based on estimations. When confronted with the question for potential and incurred losses, households as well as businesses often leave the impression of summing up the costs as well as observed and potential losses for the first time. However, despite the perceivable attempt to provide as close to reality figures as possible, the differentiation of loss categories often remains a problem. As a result, in many cases only cumulated figures for direct and indirect losses are available.
13 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
A remarkable property of most figures related to costs is that they, though representative for the situation in the study area, do not represent universally valid values of the market which is also true for the realisation of risk reduction measures (chapter 2.5.4.). With a few exceptions such as the temporal relocation of heating centrals and fuse boxes, risk reduction measures are implemented by internal action of the land users. As a result, if al all, only material costs are considered by the respondents. Also rehabilitation works after the flood, which can give an indication of incurred losses are often realised by internal action and without the involvement of firms. In these cases, no bills exist to substantiate mitigated losses. As a result, obtained loss information are estimations of the own financial input and do not consider the private work invested into rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the figures obtained are valuable for the considerations of this study and do represent really incurred values for costs and benefits. They thus represent the realistic situation in the study area.
Figure 9 shows avoided direct losses compared to potential losses. Absolute values of avoided losses vary heavily depending on the use of the affected property. Avoided losses in the sector of residential uses correlates strongly with household income and are connected with exposed values. The absolute effect of avoiding losses reached up to 50 T€ in two cases and is found to be 26 T€ in average. The latter figure corresponds with an over average yearly salary and, therefore, is to be valued high if considering the short return period the regarded flood event.
While many small businesses show similar amounts of exposed values as in residential uses, in about 30 % of commercially used properties considerably higher values can be exposed. As a result, with an average of 76 T€ successful risk reduction yields comparably high absolute benefits. However, as also seen in the figure, this need not be connected to the effectiveness of risk reduction. This aspect is discussed below.
Due to the given structure of regarded businesses in the area, loss categories describing effects on production goods and production facilities are, with one exception, not affected. Therefore, these categories are not further considered. Figure 9 presents the total amount of direct losses avoided. The differentiation of losses of structures and installations (Econ 1+2) and inventory (Econ 3) is made in Figure 11.
14 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Avoided direct economic losses (residential and commercial users)
60.000 potential losses 1 54.000 avoided losses 30.000 2 29.800 35.000 3 27.000 20.000 4 18 . 0 0 0 60.000 5 49.000 26.000 7 1. 0 0 0 20.000 8 6.000 residential 15 0 . 0 0 0 11 13 5 . 0 0 0 commercial 10 . 0 0 0 12 7.000 15 0 . 0 0 0 13 15 0 . 0 0 0 14
cases 50.000 15 45.000 250.000 16 230.000 5.000 17 4.000 28.000 20 28.000 60.000 21 55.000 4.000 22 3.500 200.000 23 18 0 . 0 0 0 5.500 24 3.000
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 avoided direct economic losses (€)
Figure 9: Avoided direct economic losses
Indicator Econ 2 - Indirect economic losses avoided Indirect economic losses materialise as a result of direct effects, which either stop the creation of value due to occurred losses of production goods and facilities or which prevent the creation of values and realisation of revenue through the loss of other infrastructure such as power supply or the access to markets. This indicator is connected to commercial activities and thus exclusive to businesses in the study area. From the perspective of commercial uses, indirect losses are as important as direct losses and complement the overall picture of costs and benefits of risk reduction. The regarded indicator is:
• Avoided losses of value added due to disruption of businesses (Econ 2)
In the investigation, this indicator is addressed by differentiating two issues in order to better oversee the distribution of potential losses. On the one hand, losses of rental income are queried. On the other hand, actual losses to value added of businesses is addressed.
As responses show, losses of value added is an important aspect of risk reduction of commercial uses (Figure 10). In many cases, this factor can equal or even exceed the value of direct losses. Almost all inquired businesses reported about issues connected to indirect losses. However, this is restricted to avoided losses of value added (Econ 2). In no case avoided losses to rental income are observed. The reason for this is that no heavily affected rental structures are affected in the study area. Nevertheless, in a different study area this indicator may have gained importance.
15 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Avoided indirect economic losses (commercial uses only)
11 16 . 0 0 0 potential losses 8.000 avoided losses 12 16 2 . 0 0 0 13 15 0 . 0 0 0 200.000 14 18 5 . 0 0 0 40.000 15 35.000 33.000 16 0
cases 40.000 17 35.000 45.000 20 15 . 0 0 0 60.000 21 55.000 8.000 22 4.000
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 avoided indirect economic losses (€)
Figure 10: Avoided indirect economic losses In order to measure the obtained effects against a comparable scale, effectiveness is calculated by defining a common objective for all cases. The most obvious objective that can be applied to all cases is the goal of reducing economic losses to 0 (zero). By calculating the effectiveness using this scale, a comparable statement can be obtained, describing the proportion of potential losses that could be reduced. As a result, 100 % effectiveness would mean, that despite given loss potential observed losses could be completely avoided.
As discussed above, not in all cases potential and observed losses could differentiate. Nevertheless, where this was possible, a differentiated view of the effectiveness in the categories can be drawn. Figure 11 shows the calculated total effectiveness in reducing direct economic losses. Where possible, this information is substantiated by the contributing categories of structures/installations and inventory. As the figure shows, the overall economic effectiveness with regard to direct losses with a few exceptions reaches values between 50 % and 100 %. The average effectiveness is found to be 74 %. Cases with differentiated loss categories show that average effectiveness in reducing inventory losses (91 %) usually considerably exceeds the effectiveness in reducing losses of structures and installations (51 %).
16 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Effectiveness in reducing direct economic losses
1 90% 2 99% 53 % 3 95% 77% 4 90% 80% 5 90% 82% 0% 7 10 0 % 4% 14 % 8 67% 30% residential 90%c ommer c ial 11 90% 90% 12 70% 13 10 0 %
cases 15 90% 92% 16 92% 80% 17 80% 20 10 0 % 10 0 % 21 92% 22 88% 88% 23 90% 0% 24 55%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% economic effectiveness (direct) structure and installations inventory total avoided losses
Figure 11: Effectiveness in reducing direct economic losses The reason for this observation can partially be explained if recalling that the single cases constitute combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures. On the one hand, as shown above, a number of cases failed in reducing the interior flood level – which is a contribution of certain flood proofing measures. On the other hand, it is remarkable that the lowest figure describing effectiveness in reducing inventory losses is 67 %, while there are several cases with effectiveness in reducing losses of structures and installations between 15 % and 0 %. It becomes obvious, that the high effectiveness in reducing inventory losses cannot be fully attributed to flood proofing measures. Instead, a considerable contribution of evacuation measures to the overall effectiveness and to the effectiveness in reducing inventory losses in particular must be stated. This correlation becomes even more evident if relating the latter effectiveness values to the hydraulic effectiveness (Figure 18 and Figure 19). While there is a positive correlation between overall economic effectiveness and hydraulic effectiveness, the latter figure shows that no correlation exists between hydraulic effectiveness and effectiveness in reducing inventory values. This proves that evacuation measures are a highly important contribution in small scale risk reduction.
The effectiveness in reducing indirect economic losses is often closely related to that of reducing direct losses. If direct losses can be minimised main internal factors for the creation of indirect losses are mitigated. As a result, the generally high values of effectiveness in avoiding direct economic losses in many cases leads to comparably high values regarding indirect losses (Figure 12). However, in a considerable part of cases, effectiveness only reaches 50 % and below.
17 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Effectiveness in reducing indirect economic losses (commercial users)
11 50% 13 93% 14 93% 15 88% 16 0%
17 88% cases 20 33%
21 92%
22 50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% economic effectiveness (indirect)
Figure 12: Effectiveness in reducing indirect economic losses
Indicator Econ 12, 14 - Induced losses
Loss of value added induced by the intervention (Econ 12) No case of increased losses of value added was described in the regarded cases.
Increase of damage to residential and commercial properties induced by the intervention (Econ 14) Based on information obtained with the inquiry, no case of increased losses induced by implemented risk reduction measures can be identified. All cases in total could considerably reduce losses. However, single cases report of damage occurred due to implementation of certain measures.
In one case a strong percolation of groundwater caused visible destabilisation of brick pavement in the cellar. However, this damage is not described in financial terms. In order to avoid further damage, the gradient was reduced by stepwise filling the basement with flood water. In two cases minor losses of inventory due to evacuation measures where reported. However, this has not led to increased losses. As a result, these are rather side effects which, in the latter case, have slightly decreased the difference between potential and observed losses.
Indicator Ecol B12, B13 - Impact on hazardous substances
Impact on specific synthetic (Ecol B12) and non-synthetic pollutants (Ecol B13) The number of measures addressing issues directly related to the exposure of hazardous substances such as heating oil and other chemicals have considerably increased from 2002 to 2006 (Table 4). In nine cases central heating was permanently located or relocated on upper floors (2002 only 1). In five cases the exposure of related installations (e.g. central heating boiler) where temporarily removed. In two cases the heating technology is changed to less hazardous fuel material such as from oil to gas or wood thus excluding the exposure of heating oil tanks.
The sheer fact that exposure of fuels and in one case also other chemicals war diminished provides indication that there might also be an effect on the leaking of hazardous substances.. Nevertheless, the potential impact of applied measures on hazardous substances takes place on a micro scale of a single building and therefore cannot be measured for this event on the level of the affected water body such as the Elbe river.
18 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Table 4: Measures with relevance for leakage of hazardous substances 2006 2002 Num % of Num % of Name cases cases Location of central heating at upper floors 9 38 % 1 4 % (permanent) (11a) Temporary removal of installations (13f) 5 21 % 1 4 % Change of heating technology (11b) 2 8 % 0 0 % Evacuation of hazardous substances (13e) 1 4 % 1 4 % Buoyancy protection to fuel tanks 0 0 % 0 0 %
19 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
2.5.4 Evaluation of cost effectiveness Financial benefits of applied measures Financial benefits of applied measures are described in chapter 2.5.3 as avoided direct and indirect losses in different categories.
Attributable costs of applied interventions - Indicator Econ 10 Attributable costs are calculated from the implementation costs under consideration of annual maintenance and operation costs, life expectancy of the measure and the recurrence period of the flood event (Olfert 2007). Figure 13 and
Figure 14 show attributable costs calculated according the proposed method. The figures depict minimum, maximum and average costs stated by the respondents. As discussed for avoided direct economic losses, these reflect real costs of mainly self made measures. They, thus, hold true for the individual cases, but do not necessarily represent representative market values of these measures. However, the figures do indicate possible costs of privately realised small scale measures.
As can be seen, costs of measures are usually relatively low. Average values rarely exceed several hundred Euros per single measure. While most technical flood proofing measures often cause appreciable costs, for most evacuation measures usually no costs are given. The usual position of average costs close to the minimum amount indicates, higher costs for applied measures are rather exceptions and most measures are usually implemented at very low costs.
20 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Proportionate costs of applied flood proofing measures (min, average, max, total)
0 10.000 20.000
costs (€)
Figure 13: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures Most investments with regard to flood proofing measures is done for measures against the ingress of flood water including the sealing of openings, mobile defence systems and pumps. Considerably less costly are attributable costs for unsusceptible respectively Protective construction material and the change of heating technology or its location at upper floors. Other measures such as the contingent flooding (loading) of buildings are implemented with no additional costs. Only exceptionally prefabricated flood proofing systems are applied.
Most evacuation measures are usually implemented at very low or no costs. This is due to the fact that some of those are realised in the scope of general reorganisations of interior uses, many contingent evacuation measures are realised by direct action of either family members or other helpers. Nevertheless, also single evacuation measures can come along with considerable investments if specialised services or paid staff need to be involved. Particularly the evacuation of mobile parts of buildings can be very costly if heavy technique needs to be applied. Also the evacuation of mobile goods causes costs mainly for commercial uses. Also the temporary removal of installations usually calls for the involvement of firms. For measures, which can be accomplished by purely internal action usually no costs are mentioned. This emphasises, that respondents usually do not count the invested work as costs, which is important for the understanding of other cost values, too.
21 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Proportionate costs of applied evacuation measures (min, average, max, total)
0 10.000 20.000 30.000 costs in €
Figure 14: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures
In total, a differentiated picture must be drawn regarding the expenses invested into risk reduction in the cases. Figure 15 shows attributable costs of risk reduction measures summed up in cases. As basis for the calculation of cost effectiveness, only measures with relevance for economic effects are considered (Annex 3). The most apparent difference is between residentially and commercially used properties. While the former implement risk reduction measures at usually very low costs, the latter tend to invest considerably more into risk reduction. Residential properties have invested an average of € 870 per household in risk reduction measures. Commercial users spent an average of about € 6 700. Neglecting the extremes the median expense of commercial users is still about € 1 500 and thus almost double the value compared with residential uses.
22 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Costs of risk reduction measures in cases
1 267 2 925 3 0 4 755 5 2.650 6 0
7 1. 16 7
8 1. 2 0 0 residential
9 80 c ommer c ial
10 11. 9 3 7
11 42.000
12 11. 6 3 3
13 700 14 4.500 cases 15 1. 9 3 3 16 7.450 17 1. 0 0 0 18 0
19 200
20 7.760
21 10 . 9 3 3
22 16 7
23 0
24 18 0
0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 cumulated proportionate costs (€)
Figure 15: Average attributable costs of flood proofing measures in cases
Cost effectiveness of applied interventions Cost effectiveness is described as the benefit/cost ratio of measures applied in the cases. Usually, effects of several measures sum up to the overall economic benefit of the risk reduction attempt in a case. For this reason, also the regarded attributable costs are those of combinations of measures. Thus, cost effectiveness is a highly aggregative measure describing whether and to which extent the implemented risk reduction measures are financially justified in a certain case. At the same time, in most cases the clear attribution of the ratio to a certain measure or measure group cannot be done.
As only financial benefits are considered for the calculation of cost effectiveness, only costs for those measures are applied which potentially contribute to the achievement of these benefits. For example, evacuation of tangible values can be very important for the amount of avoided losses, while the costs for evacuation of human life are not counted.
Figure 16 shows benefit/cost ratios obtained for the cases. As can be seen, the usual ratio lies between 10 and around 40. In the latter case this means that forty times the investment for risk reduction was avoided on the loss side. In few cases benefit/cost ratios below 10 are observed. In two case the ratio
23 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden even reaches values more than 200 resp. 400. In total it can be concluded, that private small scale risk reduction can be very cost effective.
Cost-effectiveness of flood proofing and evacuation measures
1 2 32 203 3 4 24
5 18
7 1
8 5 residential 11 3 c ommer c ial 12 1 13 429 14 41
cases 15 41
16 31
17 39 20 6 21 10
22 21 23
24 17
0 10203040 benefit / cost ratio (€)
Figure 16: Cost-effectiveness of flood proofing and evacuation measures
2.5.5 Evaluation of robustness Reliability of effectiveness under different conditions Robustness is regarded as the reliability of performance seen against different conditions of external and internal pressure (Olfert 2007). While external pressures are mainly represented by different stages and dynamics of flooding, internal pressures refer to the quality of implementation and the actual constitution of a measure at the time when exposed to external pressures. As discussed above, instead of single measures again the applied combinations of measures are regarded. In order to describe robustness, obtained values of effectiveness are related to different external conditions. As conditions only issues are considered which potentially can be influenced by administrative stakeholders (see chapter 2.3). It is expected that certain conditions show high and more reliable values of effectiveness than other.
The external condition of flooding is sufficiently described by the 10 years flood event. Where barriers for flood water are used, design level of installed defences is not overtopped – with one exception. Nevertheless, in some cases defences and other flood proofing measures do not deliver the expected results. With regard to economic effectiveness, a wide range of effectiveness values is obtained describing the different success of applied measures. The flood event in its observed magnitude as the main external pressure is not found to be a dominating decisive factor for the overall economic
24 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden effectiveness of measures. This becomes manifest if looking at obtained values of economic effectiveness in the light of flood levels which the different objects are exposed to (flood level above the main inlet of the building). As Figure 17 shows, no correlation is apparent in this respect.
As a result, other external factors of implementation and operation are in the focus of robustness considerations. Since the majority of applied measures are either temporal or single case measures, none of them can be expected in place prior to the source event (precipitation in the catchment). But, as important as the measures is their implementation and operation during the flood event by the users of the affected properties. Therefore, factors related to the implementation and operation provide potential for deriving information about the situations which allow the expectation of reliable effectiveness of these mostly individually realised measures.
Total economic effectiveness and flood level
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economic effectiveness
0% 0 50 100 150 200 flood level over inlet (cm)
Figure 17: Total economic effectiveness related to exterior flood levels In the following, a selection of factors are presented, which show certain relation to the reliability of effectiveness in single cases. These factors are not only important for explaining possible correlation between effectiveness and conditions. They must primarily be seen as factors, which could be targets for official action aimed at supporting private risk reduction activities (see chapter 4).
A large variety of such external factors is included in the inquiry and tested for correlation with effectiveness. A number of factors which a priory can be connected to effectiveness of measures did not show expectable correlation. One such factor is the lead time, available to each individual case for the implementation of risk reducing measure. However, the amount of time (measuring in hours between arrival of the first warning and exterior flooding of the building) is found to be not correlated to the success of risk reduction. This can easily be explained by the fact, that after the devastating flood of August 2002 potentially exposed land users are sufficiently aware of their own exposure. This is supported by the intensive media coverage of upcoming flood events already days ahead of its arrival in the region. As a result, concrete flood warning usually will reach the households and business after most persons are already informed about the upcoming flood from the media.
However, a number of internal and external factors do indicate issues connected to the performance of private risk reduction. The first, internal, factor is the effectiveness of hydraulic flood proofing measures introduced as a barrier between the flood water and the interior of the affected building. As Figure 18 shows, cases with successful flood proofing usually also achieved high values for the overall economic effectiveness. Thus, such flood proofing measures can play an important role for the overall success of the risk reduction attempts. However, as the figure also shows, beside very effective cases of flood proofing there are also cases were measures seem to fail almost fully. One possible
25 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden explanation is that the realisation of such measures is often complex and require permanent attention, which cannot be provided by all stakeholders. This is also emphasised by the described perception of respondents, that the implementation of risk reduction measures is a major stress factor. Nevertheless, even some cases with failed flood proofing have achieved still considerable economic effectiveness.
Total economic effectiveness and hydraulic effectiveness (1st floor) 100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economic effectiveness 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% hydraulic effectiveness
Figure 18: Total economic effectiveness and hydraulic effectiveness A look at the effectiveness in reducing losses on inventory in the light of hydraulic effectiveness emphasises, that at least in cases with failed flood proofing measures other interventions must play a role in risk reduction. The fact that effectiveness in reducing inventory losses is very high in all cases shows that especially evacuation measures, which are directed towards the reduction of exposure of inventory prove to be highly reliable in their performance. As a result, in can be concluded that evacuation measures can be highly robust options for reducing risk to inventory and mobile goods in general.
Effectiveness in reducing inventory losse s a nd hydaulic effectiveness (1st floor)
100%
80%
60%
40% inventory losses 20% effectiveness in reducing
0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% hydraulic effectiveness
Figure 19: Effectiveness in reducing inventory losses and hydraulic effectiveness As previously discussed (chapter 2.5.3), there seems to be a relation between the hydraulic effects and the aspect, how well informed respondents are about possibilities of flood risk reduction. The latter is indicated by the number of existing sources of information used by the respondent. At the same time, it represents the preparedness of the stakeholders to implement appropriate measures. In order to show
26 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden possible connections, total economic effectiveness is related to the number of potentially available information sources used (Figure 20). As the figure shows, with regard to the reliability of performance two groups can be distinguished among the cases (indicated by ovals around groups of cases). The first group represents cases with a wide range of economic effectiveness between almost 0 % and above 90 %, indicating that not only the number of sources, but possibly the quality of sources and also further factors are involved in the success of risk reduction. However, the second group refers to cases where at least two and up to seven potential information sources where used. Here, the range of effectiveness is considerably smaller and the cases are located at minimum 60 %, but most achieving values above 80 % total economic effectiveness. This relation indicates that information about possibilities of private risk reduction can be a very important factor for successful implementation of appropriate measures.
Total economic effectiveness and preparedness
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economic effectiveness
0% 01234567 number of information sources used
Figure 20: Total economic effectiveness and general preparedness A next external factor showing a relation to economic effectiveness of risk reduction is the household income. As the latter is only available for households, cases representing commercial uses are not considered. Figure 21 shows the total economic effectiveness in relation to income groups – group 1 representing households with monthly income up to € 1000, group 5 over € 3500. The relation which becomes obvious is that while lower income households can achieve good overall effectiveness values. Effectiveness values cover a wide range with households reaching very low performance. On the other hand, there are households with income above € 2500 which seem to achieve more reliable performance of risk reduction. However, this relation needs not only to be seen in the potential for expenses for the benefit of risk reduction. Attributable costs for measures implemented in the cases do not necessarily correlate with household income.
27 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Total economic effectiveness and household income
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economic effectiveness
0% 012345 level of household income
Figure 21: Total economic effectiveness and household income The next, seemingly related aspects are household size (Figure 22) and the closely related age of household members (Figure 23). In the study area, household size is usually are related to the phase of life of respondents. As a result, smaller households mainly represent elder and retired persons, while larger household size is represented by more or less young families with children. At the same time, this issue is also connected to the income situation, as retired persons tend to dispose over considerably lower monthly income compared with the working population. Not least, also the connection with the overall preparedness to implement risk reduction measures can be assumed as elderly people also tend to have reduced access to sources of information about possibilities of risk reduction.
Figure 22 shows the relation of the total economic effectiveness to the number of persons in a household. As above, two groups can be made up. The first group is represented by two person households. Here, values for the economic effectiveness are spread over a wide range between over 60 %, but often considerably lower down to almost 0 %. The second group is made up of households with three and more persons. Almost all economic effectiveness values of this group are noticeable above 80 % and in one case even achieving 100 %.
28 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Total economic effectiveness and household size
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economiceffectiveness
0% 012345 number of persons in household
Figure 22: Total economic effectiveness and household size Figure 23 shows the relation of the total economic effectiveness to the number of retired persons in a household. The statement of the figure is that households, made up by elderly people tend to reach considerably lower economic effectiveness values. This is supported by the observation, that many private risk reduction measures require strong personal engagement and consequent maintenance particularly of flood proofing measures. It can be expected, that elderly people often will not be able to cope with this pressure by themselves and are thus in need of special support unless high probability of failure is accepted.
Total economic effectiveness and household age
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% total economic effectiveness
0% 012 number of persons over 65 years
Figure 23: Total economic effectiveness and household age As a result, conclusions can be drawn with regard to strengths and weaknesses of the regarded flood proofing and evacuation measures and combinations of those.
Strengths Among the strengths of flood proofing is clearly their potential for very effective reduction of flood levels in the interior of buildings. Especially if applied as a combination of shielding and other sealing measures, also losses of building structures can be reduced. Additionally, hydraulic flood proofing
29 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden measures can deliver important time reserves for the accomplishment of complimentary flood proofing and evacuation measures and remain valuable even if overtopped after a certain time.
The simple function of evacuation measures through disconnecting mobile values from the hazard by temporally excluding their exposure makes evacuation measures highly reliable. They show high effectiveness values over all regarded internal and external conditions and thus prove to be particularly robust interventions. Additionally, evacuation measures are usually easily implemented by many stakeholders and can often be implemented without causing financial costs.
Weaknesses The main weakness of many flood proofing measures is their tendency to loos all benefits in case of failure due to overtopping or for any other reason. Especially contingent flood proofing measures often require extensive maintenance during the flood event and are thus not applicable by all stakeholders. Due to the limited pressures which shielding measures and building structures can be exposed to flood proofing measures functioning as barrier to avoid the flooding of the building are mainly appropriate for small and medium floods respectively in the edge areas of larger floods. Especially if barriers cause too large gradients between exterior flood level and the level inside the buildings, the resulting pressures can damage the construction which in effect can result in even higher losses.
Evacuation of inventory and mobile goods can require considerable logistic and physical efforts in order to relocate all potentially exposed values both in time and to proper places. Especially in case of larger floods this can cause capacity shortages in exposed properties. Where not enough lead time is available, evacuation of mobile values may not exhaust their potential or can even endanger involved stakeholders. Especially sensitive and fragile objects can suffer harm through evacuation measures.
2.5.6 Additional feedback from case studies Flooding appears to be a highly present topic in the inundation areas of Dresden and Pirna. Affected persons are highly concerned about the own risk as well as about missing central flood protection schemes. As a result, the personal contact to the dwellers and commercial users of the inundation areas conveyed much more information than explicitly requested by the standardised format of the inquiry. In most cases, respondents had the need to share much more experience than was touched by the form. Resulting discussions after the completion of the spread sheets where assertively permitted.
Intensive communication was particularly important to satisfy the large need for communication of respondents on the issue of flooding and flood risk reduction. In all cases the topics where brought up by the test persons. They covered a wide field of issues including the responsibilities for flood risk reduction, general policy of flood protection, observed support during floods, history of flooding and perceived changes, possibilities of self-help, the living with regular flooding, possibilities for improvements and many more. In the following, some issues which appeared most important shall be addressed. a) Responsibilities for flood risk reduction The majority of addressed test persons when confronted with the issue of the study expressed their strong discontent with missing central defences. It was clearly conveyed that private risk reduction measures are mainly taken by force facing the fact of missing defences. A sentence, which representatively describes the conveyed notion is: “This is not what I am interested in, I am interested in a defence scheme for the area.” This attitude is especially surprising, as test persons conveying this notion in fact usually were quite active and often successful in risk reduction. However, the own responsibility often is being strictly denied. Instead, a strong expectancy exists, that flood risk reduction is a task of official authorities. The affected stakeholders feel neglected during the flood event. Private action is rather associated with mental and physical stress and usually not with risk reduction while partly the considerably reduced losses are not being actively perceived as reducing stress.
30 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
b) Missing information and support by the city An also regularly brought up issue concerns the information policy and practical support by the city. While the improved quality and timeliness of warning are widely appreciated, heavy critics is expressed regarding the lack of information on the operational level. It is generally found fault that during the flood event no precise information can be obtained from official persons, that engaged brigades are often not able to answer questions properly and that the disaster management authority is not reachable on weekend during the flood. Additionally, lacking provision of sand bags is heavily criticised. However, although information about self help measures was described as lacking or of insufficient quality, in the standardised part of the inquiry, only very few respondents expressed their wish for more and better information about risk reduction measures on the private level. This again emphasises the principal denial of private provisions. c) Disinterest by city authorities There is a partly impetuous discomfort with the position of city officials connected with the perception that certain generally comparable city districts of Dresden are being treated differently than other. Comments made by many respondents resemble an outcry to pay more attention to their situation. d) Increase of flood risk through new development and flood risk management elsewhere Respondents often claimed, that new development constricts the flood ways and thus increases flood risk for their own properties. Additionally it is often perceived that less densely populated areas are “sacrificed” for the sake of central city areas through the refusal to construct defences.
31 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
3. Discussion of results
3.1 Discussion of evaluation results Representativeness of results Evaluation results in the case study are based on an in depth inquiry and analysis of 24 single cases, each of these describing measures and outcomes on a single object scale. Given the comparatively small inundation area of the April 2006 flood, only a relatively small number of objects are affected. Therefore, in order to select the sample, all potentially affected objects in a defined district are addressed. From the entirety of potentially affected objects, the number of considered single cases is limited only by the real consternation, the preparedness to participate and the provision of a minimum quality and quantity of information. As a result, the sample can be regarded as representative from a statistical point of view for both residential and commercial uses in the study area. This is supported by the good dispersion of descriptive properties such as building type, age, family situation and income among the respondents.
Reliability of results Private flood risk reduction only in the most uncommon cases is documented by stakeholders. All available data are those given by the respondents. Here, different types of data allow different degrees of reliability of results:
a. Descriptive properties concerning the type of building, parameters of flooding or the personal situation can be expected to be safe as they either form the general knowledge respectively the prime interest and observation of the respondents.
b. Data regarding the types of applied measures can also be expected to be fully reliable, as the respondent is guided by a consistent set of options which was well accepted by the respondents.
c. Cost information regarding applied measures and occurred financial losses are values estimated by the respondent. These values are likely to describe the situation as far as it can be overlooked by the respondent. Usually, the values only contain the real financial outlays and do not consider the time invested into the realisation of measures or the abatement of losses. However, this clearly does reflect the practical costs and should be regarded as reliable if accepting the cost understanding of the respondents. However, as is the nature of assumed values, they may differ slightly if asking the same person a second time.
d. Cost information regarding potential losses that would have occurred if the flood occurred without any risk reduction measures being implemented is also based on estimation of the respondent. Thereby it must be accepted, that the respondents have no possibility to calculate the actual loss potential. This is especially complicated with regard to losses of the construction. However, the observation that respondents usually take their time to come up with figures shows the attempt to make an as close to reality as possible estimation. Also the usually rounded figures indicate that these figures are rather rough estimations. Nevertheless, for the time being, no adequate methods for better estimation at the level of single objects are available. The alternative would mean very cost and time-consumptive involvement of experts which, as the made attempt shows, additionally would endanger the availability of study objects. These values, although compared to the other to be characterised as least reliable, are the only available evidence for loss potential in this type of study.
e. Valuation of certain aspects such as the contentment with the performance of a measure, the timeliness and quality of warning and other aspects is purely subjective. However, being captured based on a widely used ordinal scale, the values are expected to be reliable.
32 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
As a result, it can be concluded that obtained information in generally is reliable. However, different degrees of reliability must be distinguished. A more or less exact picture can be drawn regarding the flood event in each object and the implemented risk reduction measures as well as different context factors. A still instructive information even on the level of single objects provide the cost values of implementation costs and flood losses. Less reliable, but at least indicative are the values of potential losses. However, if used as relation for the determination of effectiveness and in a cross case comparison, the obtained values do have a valuable informative character which cannot be neglected especially given the case that potentially more reliable figures might not be available without the involvement of unfeasible methods. Nevertheless, this conclusion should lead to even more guidance of respondents regarding the relevant categories
Validity of results As inquiry method, a standardised inquiry supported by a spread sheet is applied. The method was tested in a pre-test and adaptations made to insure, that all questions are correctly interpreted by the respondents. However, certain values do require treatment by experts in order to achieve full comparability. This mainly applies to the costs of measures. In some cases an adjustment of received values is necessary, as the real proportions of general construction costs which can be allocated as surplus costs to the measures is necessary. This sometimes occurring inconsistency by respondents must be accepted and requires due attention by the evaluator and if necessary the involvement of additional experts. Applied calculation methods for the criteria where developed as part of the applied methodology and tested in this case study and are assumed to deliver valid results.
As far as the generalisation to other cases is concerned, a limitation must be made. Most regarded single cases represent different combinations of flood proofing and evacuation measures and as such very specific individual cases. Most results, therefore, shed light on the performance of certain cases of combinations of measures. Additionally, as the wide majority of applied measures is implemented by private persons, no comparability exists regarding the internal quality of measures. As a result, evaluation results on the level of single objects are first of all valid for the regarded single cases. The aggregation of single case values to average numbers is usually only done in the complimentary text. By far more expressive is the view on the cases under comparable external conditions. However, aggregation in groups can be sensible if a more general look on private flood proofing is aimed at. For example, city authorities may not be interested in single cases but rather in a more general performance of private flood risk reduction. In such cases an acceptable validity can be achieved through generalisation is.
3.2 Discussion of the applied methodology The methodology has provided a clear scope for the investigation. By providing relevant indicators it supports the development of a comprehensive evaluation design. While the initial indicator set reflected a wide scope of potentially relevant issues for the study, the selection algorithm required some adaptations, which were realised with the testing of the indicator selection tool. The proposed formulas for the calculation of effects, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and the framework for the consideration of robustness appear to be pragmatic and helpful.
As a result, the methodology as adapted during its application in this case can be regarded as applicable to further investigations of private flood proofing and evacuation measures.
All regarded measures are sufficiently reflected by the proposed methodology. Indicators as well as the selection method and tool have been adapted and are now considered to be well applicable. The investigation has tested one approach to the identification of data for the basic parameters of the investigation. Other methods for the generation of such data are partially in stage of development (e.g. HOWAD for loss estimation). These might be considered in future.
33 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
However, while the methodology has provided a helpful scope for the investigation, it must be emphasised that the methodology hardly can deliver case specifically applicable investigation designs or even inquiry methods for the basic parameters. These must be developed in the scope of the individual case study design - for example, as done here, by developing a case specific inquiry form.
4. Conclusions and lessons learned
4.1 Conclusions with regard to applied measures As the study has clearly shown, applied combinations of measures are usually very effective in reducing different categories of losses. A possible conclusion is, that under given conditions private flood proofing and evacuation measures can make up very effective solutions which can considerably reduce the losses.
However, in some cases insufficient success can be observed. The sample size does not permit the explanation of differences in performance by the types of measures in general. Rather, additional internal and external reasons must be looked at. There is some indication that the success of measures is dependant on their internal conditions, most often connected to the quality of implementation and operation. This internal quality can vary substantially, as most measures are implemented, maintained and operated by non professionals. However, in this context also external factors such as pre flood information and preparedness are important. For example it seems that especially elderly and low income households achieve under average performance of risk reduction. A wider sample would be helpful to gain more information about these additional factors and possible the influence of certain measures and combinations of those.
4.2 Lessons learned with regard to involved stakeholders Lessons learned for private stakeholders A large variety of privately applicable measures to reduce flood risk are at disposal for residential and commercial land users in flood prone areas. In many cases a sensible combination of these measures allows the effective reduction of losses at least in small and middle flood events but probably also beyond this. Most of the applied measures can be realised by private action and with the assistance of helpers. As a result, measures can be taken at relatively low costs reaching very good effectiveness. At the same time, effects can be achieved at very good benefit/cost ratios. As could be shown, the wide range of applied flood proofing and especially evacuation measures can deliver reliable risk reduction over a wide range of conditions.
These measures require self dependant action by the potentially affected stakeholders. This implies the full perception of the own risk as well as the readiness to invest financial resources and time into their implementation and operation. An increasing choice of specialised firms offer their services in the field of risk reduction of private properties including mobile protection systems, constructional adaptations as well as contingent services such as sand bagging or evacuation and transport of mobile goods.
However, the majority of affected persons is not sufficiently informed about available options of risk reduction and their correct implementation, maintenance and operation. If risk reduction is to be realised with best effects, the active information about the real risk and the possibilities of risk reduction are important. Only few respondents have proved to have gathered the available information sources. Although, it shell not remain unmentioned that the information sources especially about privately realisable options still remain insufficient. Results indicate that better informed land users achieved more reliable risk reduction values and better cost-effectiveness values at not necessarily higher costs. However, certain groups of people appear more susceptible (e.g. elderly) to flood losses than others (e.g. young families). Their active support can be an important issue for community networks to avoid singularly high losses during well manageable flood events.
34 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Finally, life and commercial activities in flood prone areas also require a minimum degree of readiness to live with floods. Discussions with affected land users convey the impression that the own role as not only potentially affected but also as active stakeholder and actor of floor risk management is often not accepted. Good flood risk reduction requires the permanent preparedness to receive warning information and to react to those within hours or few days by implementing prior planned measures.
Nevertheless, in a few cases, respondents have clearly expressed acceptance of the situation. Here, the vicinity of the riverine landscape poses a main reason for the choice of the living and/or working space. Instead of central defences these respondents express the preparedness to invest into flood proofing and to be prepared for contingent measures while, however, expecting much more information and support from the city.
Lessons learned for public authorities Private risk reduction measures are often not seen as being related to the activities of public authorities. At the same time, public authorities at different levels share responsibilities for flood risk management and implement a number of risk reduction measures financed by public budgets. However, usually these interventions concentrate on central measures such as dikes, river training and management of sewage systems. Directly confronted with the issue of private risk reduction, the responsible authorities state these were outside of their competences and therefore not further regarded. Most flood risk management concepts such as that of Dresden completely neglect the option of risk reduction by means of small scale private action. As a result, while for example the regulation of land uses or the compensation of losses do intervene with issues of single properties small scale measures at the level of single buildings remain unconsidered.
At the same time the public dispute about flood risk conveys the impression that only two options exist: either full protection or full exposure and loss. But as the present study shows, this picture impression does not reflect reality. In the contrary, results of the study prove that there is a wide field of officially nearly totally neglected options which can contribute highly valuable solutions to risk reduction in places, where by central defences is technically not feasible or cannot be implemented due to various other reasons such as financial restrictions, issues of cultural heritage or environmental protection.
With regard to different priorities of risk reduction in e.g. urban areas, it remains questionable why stakeholders in certain areas are assisted with regard to risk reduction (e.g. by central defences) and other are not. Higher concentrations of values and people cannot be a sufficient explanation, since the flood losses are always the losses of individuals. And societal aspects of flood losses always imply the cumulation of losses. Therefore, the task of societal risk management is not only to provide in risk reductions where values and people are particularly high. Instead the task is to offer appropriate solutions to different forms and extents of risk.
This study claims, that public authorities responsible for risk reduction should not only concentrate on projects which involve central protection schemes. Instead they should take into account the full array of existing measures and instruments (Olfert 2007) and offer appropriate assistance to all potentially affected land users. Here, the support of private measures can offer a valuable complimentary option. The emphasis is on support of private measures. While there is general agreement that private action should be left to private stakeholders the challenge is to develop appropriate instruments in order to provide optimum support of these activities.
From this perspective, the present study offers a number of lessons learned also for administrative stakeholders:
1) Areas without central flood protection are not unprotected and stakeholders not necessarily committed to uncontrollable flood losses. Already without official support potentially affected
35 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden stakeholders apply a large variety of flood proofing and evacuation measures and can considerably reduce losses. A main reason for this success is the improved warning system which enables all stakeholders to timely take all foreseen measures.
2) Private small scale action on the level of single buildings can provide very effective options for flood risk reduction. While this holds true for small and medium sized floods, the potential can still be considerable for large floods due to the good reliability of certain measure groups such as evacuation measures.
3) Private risk reduction can often be realised at relatively low costs and often achieve very good benefit/cost ratios. This means that these measures need not be reserved to high income households and particularly well running businesses. In contrary, through the possibility to implement self made options, small scale measures can be easily realised by virtually all income groups.
4) Despite the low costs, many risk reduction measures are reliable options which prove very effective through various conditions. This particularly hold true for evacuation measures.
5) However, not all measures are applied as successfully by different stakeholders. Unprepared and especially susceptible stakeholders can have difficulties to insure the effectiveness of these measures. For example, many flood proofing measures require the availability of material and capacities to implement and operate the defence. Evacuation of the inventory requires physically capable actors. Many measures require intensive operation activities during the flood and cause mental stress. This often cannot be accomplished e.g. by elderly households and other susceptible groups. Additionally, it can be expected that also cases with quite successful risk reduction have still potential to further improve the performance of risk reduction.
6) As shown with the results, information and active support of potentially affected stakeholders can be important factors to improve the individual effectiveness and cost effectiveness of interventions. Support of private risk reduction activities must be understood as main task for public authorities. Information and warning instruments, financial incentives as well as direct assistance by organised helpers and the support of community networks can be successful strategies of public authorities in so called unprotected areas.
7) Beside their high potential for risk reduction, small scale measures are widely free of undesired hydraulic or ecological side effects. This makes them an interesting alternative in all particularly sensitive cases.
8) Potentially affected private stakeholders often lack the awareness of the risk situation and the acceptance for the own role in flood risk management. For the time being, there is an almost exclusive expectancy that risk reduction be provided by public authorities. This calls for active communication work from the side of local authorities by developing and applying appropriate information and communication instruments.
9) Potentially affected private stakeholders usually lack the systematic knowledge about possible risk reduction options. Many potentially available information souorces do not reach exposed land users. As a result, many by intuition installed defences may fail due to insufficient implementation or maintenance during operation. It seems insufficient to name information sources in official newsletters or to distribute general leaflets in local departments. Appropriate instruments should be applied to insure that each land user in flood prone areas possesses specific guidelines for successful risk reduction. This includes the provision of understandable guidelines for the implementation and operation of risk reduction measures and if necessary case specific on-site consultation by experts.
10) Private risk reduction measures have proved to be an important contribution to the overall risk reduction by reducing direct losses of residential and commercial stakeholders. The latter also achieved good effectiveness values in reducing indirect losses. This is not only important for the
36 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden viability of affected households and businesses. By avoiding social hardship cases and by sustaining economic activities while at the same time causing no side effects this also constitutes an important contribution to the overall society. This aspect of private small scale action should not be neglected when considering these options. And particularly the fact that these measures are taken at private expenses of affected stakeholders, the resolute support of the activities should become a self understanding part of official flood risk reduction strategies.
4.3 Research needs The study reflects the outcomes of mainly self dependently taken flood risk reduction measures. Here, a good comparability exists of main descriptive and quantitative data. However, there is only limited comparability of measures and combinations of measures and their outcomes due to unratable internal conditions of the measures. These describe the actual way and quality of implementation, maintenance and operation of the measures, which can be decisive for their performance.
Therefore, research on the actual internal quality of private risk reduction measures should be carried out in order to better understand the qualities and problems of implementation. On the one hand this would enable to asses the further protection of the already successful measures and measure groups. On the other hand this knowledge could help to substantiate the necessary support of self dependently acting stakeholders.
A large part of these measures are contingent measures, which can only be observed during very short periods during and, in cooperation with affected land users immediately after the event. Therefore, research on this issue requires the preparation of a complete and sufficiently operational methodology which can be applied during these short periods. Here, the problem of lacking quality standards may be an obstacle. A need also remains for not only describing what can be done, but to define how exactly flood proofing measures are implemented correctly.
37 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
References City of Dresden (2006), Bericht zum Frühjahrshochwasser 2006, City of Dresden, Dresden, available at http://www.dresden.de/ger/02/or/vorgang/ueberschwemmung.pdf. Kreibich H, Thieken A H, Petrow T, Müller M and Merz B (2005), Flood Loss Reduction of Private Households Due to Building Precautionary Measures – Lessons Learned from the Elbe Flood in August 2002, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5/, 117-126, available at http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/nhess/5/nhess-5-117.pdf. Müller M and Thieken A H (2005), Elementartarife könnten weiter differenziert werden: Keller und Öltanks erhöhen das Schadenpotenzial - Untersuchungen des Sommerhochwassers 2002 (Tarifs of Natural Hazard Insurances can be Further Differentiated: Basements and Oil Tanks Increase Loss Potential - Analysis of the Summer Flood 2002), Versicherungswirtschaft, 60/2, 145-148. Olfert A (2007), Methodology for Ex-Post Evaluation of Measures and Instruments for Flood Risk Reduction, Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), FLOODsite Report T12-07-01, Dresden. Penning-Rowsell E C (1996), Incorporating Above-Design Standard (ADS) Benefits into the Appraisal of Flood Alleviation Schemes, In Proceedings of the 31st MAFF conference of river and coastal engineers, (Ed, MAFF Flood & Coastal Management Conference), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), London, pp5.1.1 - 5.1.9. Penning-Rowsell E C and Green C H (2000), New Insights into the Appraisal of Flood-Alleviation Benefits : (1) Flood Damage and Flood Loss Information, J.CIWEM, 14/, 347-353. SächsWG (2004), In Sächsisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt 13/2004(Ed, Sächsische Staatskanzlei) Sächsische Staatskanzlei, Dresden, pp482-531.
38 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Annex
Annex 1 List of indicator proposed by the selection tool and implemented methods Annex 2 Data inquiry form (German) Annex 3 Applicability of indicator with measures Annex 4 Applied combinations of measures in the cases
39
Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Annex 1 List of indicators proposed by the selection tool and implemented methods Acro- Indicator used intend Measured parameter Unit Method applied for Comment nym ed data inquiry
1. Indicator of hydrological and hydraulic effects Hydr 2 Impact on maximum flood level yes x Impact on interior flood level (measured in the building) cm Standardised inquiry Indicator needs adaptation to interior flood level Hydr 6 Impact on flood frequency no Number of flood events of certain magnitude in a - Statistics of Indicator inappropriate since certain river cross-section in a certain period of time hydrological bodies single case evaluation 2. Indicator of social effects Soc 1 Impact on lives lost no Number of lives lost in a certain flood event, due to - Local/Regional Case not relevant for loss of life direct exposure to the flood statistics Soc 2 Impact on physical injuries yes Number or proportion of persons injured in a flood - Local/Regional - event statistics Soc 3 Impact on mental stress yes Influence of applied measures on mental stress - Standardised inquiry - Soc 4 Impact on amenity value of open no Stated appreciation of affected public open space - Standardised inquiry Aspect not touched by regarded space interventions Soc 7 Impact on days out of work yes x Number of working days out of work - Standardised inquiry Addressed only for commercial users Soc 8 Impact on financial burden per yes Financial burden of flood losses per person in the TEU Standardised inquiry Only for dwellers person affected area Soc 9 Impact on cultural heritage lost or no Cultural goods of established value destroyed or - Expert judgement Not concerned in the damaged damaged by direct exposure to flood or by the investigated area intervention 3. Indicator of economic effects Econ 1 Direct economic losses avoided yes X Sum of direct monetisable flood losses avoided TEU Sum of 1a to 1e Econ 1a Avoided losses of built structures yes X Direct monetisable flood losses avoided at the TEU Standardised inquiry Inquired mutually with Econ 2 structure of buildings Econ 1b Avoided losses of technical yes X Direct monetisable flood losses avoided at installations TEU Standardised inquiry Inquired mutually with Econ 1 infrastructure/installations of buildings Econ 1c Avoided losses of inventory yes X Direct monetisable flood losses avoided at the TEU Standardised inquiry - inventory of buildings Econ 1d Avoided losses of production yes X facilities Econ 1e Avoided losses of production yes x goods Econ 2 Avoided losses of value added due yes x Total losses of value added to businesses due to TEU Standardised inquiry - to disruption of businesses disruption of economic activities (e.g. of production, delivery, service etc.) avoided in a certain flood event Econ 4 Attributable costs of intervention Yes X Sum of eligible realisation and maintenance / TEU Sum of 4a and 4b
41 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
implementation costs Econ 4a Realisation costs of intervention yes Direct monetisable costs TEU Standardised inquiry Inquiry of absolute values, of absolute values, calculation of attributable costs calculation of attributable costs Econ 4b Maintenance and operation costs yes Expenses spent for regular maintenance and/or TEU/ Standardised inquiry - operation during flood event a Econ 6 Loss of value added induced by the yes Loss of value added (incl. first, second and third TEU Standardised inquiry Indirectly considered by intervention sectors) induced by intervention requesting independently losses with and without intervention Econ 5 Direct economic losses induced by yes Losses of residential and commercial properties as far TEU Standardised inquiry Indirectly considered by the intervention as induced by the intervention requesting independently losses with and without intervention 4b. Indicator of limnological effects Ecol B12 Impact on specific synthetic (yes) Concentrations of WFD priority list substances Standardised Inquiry. Impact of single buildings on pollutants Other synthetic substance depending on catchment Question for leakage concentration in water body not pressures of fuel or other detectible, therefore, chemicals investigation whether and how much leaked or was prevented from leakage Ecol B13 Impact on specific non-synthetic (yes) Concentrations of selected non-synthetic substances Standardised Inquiry. Impact of single buildings on pollutants Other synthetic substance depending on catchment Question for leakage concentration in water body not pressures of fuel or other detectible, therefore, chemicals investigation whether and how much leaked or was prevented from leakage
42 Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Annex 2 Data inquiry form (German)
43 LEIBNIZ-INSTITUT FÜR ÖKOLOGISCHE RAUMENTWICKLUNG e.V. Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung Dresden (IÖR), Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden
Befragung von Gebäudeeigentümern, privaten Haushalten und ge- werblichen Nutzern im Überschwemmungsgebiet des Elbe-Hochwassers im April 2006
zu
Wirksamkeit, Kosten-Wirksamkeit und Nebenwirkungen privater Vorsorgemaßnah- men im Fall des Elbe-Hochwassers im April 2006
Nach August 2002 hat das Elbe-Hochwasser vom April 2006 erneut teils erhebliche Schäden verursacht. Dennoch konnten im vergleich zum August-Hochwasser 2002 viele Schäden durch private Vorsorgemaßnahmen abgewendet oder gemindert werden. Hierbei spielte die Hochwassererfahrung, das „Vorbereitetsein“, vorhandene Informationen sowie die weiter- entwickelten Vorhersage- und Warnsysteme eine wichtige Rolle.
Mit dieser Befragung sollen einerseits Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden welche Maßnahmen durch die Betroffenen selbst vor oder während des Elbehochwassers im April 2006 ergriffen worden sind, um Hochwasserschäden zu vermeiden oder zu mindern. Andererseits untersu- chen wir, in wie fern die Stadt Dresden und das Land Sachsen diese Eigenvorsorge durch Informationen, Warnungen, Förderinstrumente usw. ausreichend unterstützt haben.
Die Untersuchung dient dem Lernen aus Hochwasserereignissen. Dies ist unabdingbar für die weitere Entwicklung der Hochwasservorsorge. Die Berücksichtigung Ihrer Erfahrungen aus dem letzten Hochwasser ist daher sehr wichtig wenn es darum geht, die Schäden eines nächsten Hochwassers zu vermeiden oder zu mindern. Wir bitten Sie daher, diese Untersu- chung durch das vollständige Ausfüllen des Fragebogens zu unterstützen. Die Befragung erfolgt anonym und dient ausschließlich wissenschaftlichen zwecken.
Das vollständige Bearbeiten des Fragebogens ist wichtig und dauert in der Regel ca. 30 Mi- nuten.
Für Rückfragen stehen wir Ihnen gern zur Verfügung
Alfred Olfert
Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung Dresden (IÖR) Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden Telefon: 0351 4679-233 (Fax: -212) Email: [email protected]
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 2 von 13
Teil I Allgemeine Informationen zum Gebäude und dem Hochwasser In diesem Teil interessieren uns Eigenschaften des Gebäudes sowie des Hochwassers. Die- se Informationen sind wichtig für den vergleich von Maßnahmen und deren Wirkungen.
1. Art des Gebäudes und Bebauungsart (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 Einfamilienhaus 2 hochwertiges Einfamilienhaus / Villa
3 Mehrfamilienhaus 4 Bauernhaus ggf. mit Wirtschaftsgebäuden
5 Gewerbeimmobilie Bebauungsart
7 Einzeln stehend 8 Doppelhaus 9 Reihenbebauung
2. Baujahr und Bauweise des Gebäudes (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 vor 1870 2 1870 bis 1918 3 1918 bis 1945
4 1945 bis 1990 5 1990 bis 2002 5 nach 2002 Bauweise
7 Bauweise mit Holz (z.B. Fachwerk) 8 Massivbauweise 9 sonstiges
3. Sie sind in Bezug auf das betroffene Gebäude (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen) a) 1 Eigentümer 2 Mieter/Pächter b) 1 Bewohner 2 Gewerblicher Nutzer
4. Wasserstand am und im Gebäude Welche Höhe erreichte das Flutwasser am und im Gebäude?
Wasserstand außen am Gebäude über der Geländeoberkante: ……… cm Im Keller/Untergeschoss: ……… cm über dem Fußboden Im Erdgeschoss/Hochparterre: ……… cm über dem Fußboden Im 1. Obergeschoss: ……… cm über dem Fußboden
5. Bauliche Besonderheiten
Höhe der Türschwelle (Eingangstür) in das Gebäude über der Geländeoberkante: ……… cm Höhe der Kellerräume: ca. ……… cm kein Keller
6. Art des Flutwassers (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen, Mehrfachnennungen möglich)
1 Hochwasser 2 Grundwasser 3 beides
7. Dauer der Überflutung
Wie viele Tage war das Gebäude dem Flutwasser ausgesetzt? ……… Tage
8. Schadstoffbelastung des Flutwassers und Quellen der Belastung War das Flutwasser durch Heizöl oder andere Schadstoffe deutlich wahrnehmbar verunreinigt?
Art der Verunreinigung Wenn ja: Wo befand sich die Quelle der
(bitte ankreuzen, Mehrfachnen- Verunreinigung nungen möglich) Im Gebäude oder Außerhalb des Ge- weiß auf dessen bäudes und dessen Weiß ja nein nicht Grundstück Grundstücks nicht a)Heizöl/Benzin 1 2 3 1 2 9 b) Chemikalien 1 2 3 1 2 9 c) Haushaltsabwässer 1 2 3 1 2 9
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 3 von 13
Teil II Private Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung oder Minderung des Schadens In diesem Abschnitt wollen wir erfahren, welche Maßnahmen an oder in Ihrem Gebäude zur Reduzierung von Hochwasserschäden durchgeführt worden sind und wie diese gewirkt haben. Das können Maßnahmen sein, die bereits vor dem Hochwasser bestanden haben oder auch solche, die erst als Reak- tion auf das nahende Hochwasser ergriffen worden sind. Bitte wählen Sie aus der Liste der Maßnahmen diejenigen aus, die ausgeführt wurden. IIa Bauliche Veränderungen am Gebäude oder in den von Ihnen genutzten Räumen
9. Maßnahmen mit dem Ziel, das Eindringen von Wasser in die genutzten Räumlichkeiten zu verhindern Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Betriebskosten/ Zu welchem Teil Bestand diese Wer hat die Arbeiten Dauer- Realisierungs- Mehrkosten hat die Maßnah- Maßnahme maßgeblich ausgeführt? haftigkeit Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. kosten pro Jahr oder me Ihre Erwar- bereits im der Maß- Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) Ereignis tungen erfüllt? August 2002? Eigen- Fach- Hilfs- nahme bitte eine Schätzung. (gerundet) (grob, in %) ja nein leistung Firma kräfte (Jahre)*
a) Dauerhafte Hochwasserschutzwand oder -aufschüttung € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… b) Zeitweilige/Mobile Hochwasserschutzsysteme € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… c) Abdichtung erdberührender Kellerwände und Bodenplatten € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… d) Einbau eines Rückstauventils im Abwassersystem € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… e) Abdichten von Kelleröffnungen (z.B. Sandsäcke, Panäle) € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… f) Abdichten von Türen und Fenstern (z.B. Panäle) € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… g) Installation und Betrieb von Pumpen gegen eindringendes € ………… € ………… ………… % ……… Wasser, einschließlich der Stromversorgung 1 2 1 2 3 h) (andere) ……………………………………………… € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ………
10. Schutz der Gebäudesubstanz durch Ballastierung oder gezielte Flutung Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Betriebskosten/ Zu welchem Teil Bestand diese Wer hat die Arbeiten Dauerhaf- Realisierungs- Mehrkosten hat die Maßnah- Maßnahme maßgeblich ausgeführt? tigkeit Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. kosten pro Jahr oder me Ihre Erwar- bereits im der Maß- Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) Ereignis tungen erfüllt? August 2002? Eigen- Fach- Hilfs- nahme bitte eine Schätzung. (gerundet) (grob, in %) ja nein leistung Firma kräfte (Jahre)* a) Ballastierung/Verankerung des Gebäudes durch unterirdi- € ………… € ………… ………… % ……… sche Anker, Erdüberdeckung, Sandsäcke 1 2 1 2 3 b) Gezielte Flutung des Objekts mit Flusswasser € ………… XXXXX ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 XXXX c) Gezielte Flutung des Objekts mit Trinkwasser € ………… XXXXX ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 XXXX d) (andere) …………………………………………………… € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… ______* Nach wie vielen Jahren muss diese Maßnahme voraussichtlich vollständig erneuert werden?
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 4 von 13
11. Maßnahmen zur Senkung des Schadenspotentials an der Gebäudeinfrastruktur Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Betriebskosten/ Zu welchem Teil Bestand diese Wer hat die Arbeiten Dauer- Realisierungs- Mehrkosten hat die Maßnah- Maßnahme maßgeblich ausgeführt? haftigkeit Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. kosten pro Jahr oder me Ihre Erwar- bereits im der Maß- Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) Ereignis tungen erfüllt? August 2002? Eigen- Fach- Hilfs- nahme bitte eine Schätzung. (gerundet) (grob, in %) ja nein leistung Firma kräfte (Jahre)*
a) Verlagerung der Heizungsanlage in höhere Stockwerke € ………… XXXXX ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 XXXX b) Änderung der Heizart (z.B. von Öl auf Gas, Sonne etc.) € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 XXXX c) Auftriebsicherung für Heizöl- Benzin- und Gastanks € ………… XXXXX ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… d) Verlagerung des Hauptsicherungskastens in höhere Berei- € ………… XXXXX ………… % XXXX che des Gebäudes 1 2 1 2 3 e) Einbringen wasserabweisender Boden- und Wandbeläge € ………… XXXXX ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… f) Gezielte Verwendung feuchteresistenter Baustoffe** in den Schichtenfolgen hochwassergefährdeter Wand-, Decken- € ………… XXXXX ………… % ……… und Fußbodenkonstruktionen (Mehrkosten verglichen mit 1 2 1 2 3 der Verwendung von „Normalbaustoffen“) g) (andere) …………………………………………………… € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… ______
IIb Dauerhafte und zeitweilige Nutzungsänderungen im Gebäude
12. Dauerhafte Nutzungsänderungen im Gebäude Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Betriebskosten/ Zu welchem Teil Bestand diese Wer hat die Arbeiten Dauer- Realisierungs- Mehrkosten hat die Maßnah- Maßnahme maßgeblich ausgeführt? haftigkeit Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. kosten pro Jahr oder me Ihre Erwar- bereits im der Maß- Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) Ereignis tungen erfüllt? August 2002? Eigen- Fach- Hilfs- nahme bitte eine Schätzung. (gerundet) (grob, in %) ja nein leistung Firma kräfte (Jahre)* a) Dauerhafte Verlegung von Gegenständen mit hohem mate- € ………… XXXXX ………… % XXXX riellen Wert in Hochwassersichere Bereiche 1 2 1 2 3 b) Dauerhafte Verlegung von Gegenständen mit hohem ideel- € ………… XXXXX ………… % XXXX len Wert (z.B. Erinnerungen) in hochwassersichere Bereiche 1 2 1 2 3 c) Dauerhafte Verlagerung besonders sensibler Nutzungen in € ………… XXXXX ………… % XXXX Hochwassersichere Bereiche (z.B. Arbeitszimmer) 1 2 1 2 3 d) (andere) …………………………………………………… € ………… € ………… ………… % 1 2 1 2 3 ……… ______* Nach wie vielen Jahren muss diese Maßnahme voraussichtlich vollständig erneuert werden? ** z.B. Schaumglasdämmung, Gusasphaltestrich, Stahlbeton, Zementestrich (d.h. Verzicht auf feuchteempfindliche Baustoffe wie Anhydritestriche, Gipskartonverklei- dungen, mineralische und organische Dämmstoffe, Holz und Holzwerkstoffe einschl. Fenster und Türen, Lehm und Strohlehm)
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 5 von 13
13. Vorübergehende Verlagerung oder Sicherung von Gegenständen und Schadstoffen Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Haben Sie eine solche In wie fern hat die Maßnahme Wer hat die Arbeiten Realisie- Maßnahme bereits im ihren Zweck erfüllt? maßgeblich ausgeführt? Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. rungskosten August 2002 ergriffen? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) ankreuzen) Zweck nicht Zweck Eigen- Fach- bitte eine Schätzung. ja nein Hilfskräfte erfüllt erfüllt leistung Firma a) Vorübergehende Umsetzung mobiler Gebäudeteile in hoch- € ………… wassersichere Gebiete (z.B. durch mobile Bauweise) 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 b) Vorübergehende Verlagerung beweglicher Gegenstände in € ………… obere Stockwerke oder hochwassersicher gelegene Gebiete 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 c) Vorübergehende Sicherung nicht beweglicher Gegenstände € ………… gegen Hochwasserschäden 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 d) Vorübergehende Verlagerung von Fahrzeugen in hochwas- € ………… sersichere Gebiete 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 e) Vorübergehende Auslagerung oder Sicherung von Schad- € ………… stoffquellen (z.B. Heizöl, andere Chemikalien) 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 f) Vorübergehende demontage von Installationen (z.B. Heizan- € ………… lage, Sicherungskasten etc.) 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 g) (andere) …………………………………………………… € ………… 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
IIc Evakuierung von Personen und Haustieren
14. Evakuierung von Personen und Haustieren Welche dieser Maßnahmen haben Sie umgesetzt? Einmalige Haben Sie eine solche In wie fern hat die Maßnahme Wer hat die Arbeiten Realisie- Maßnahme bereits im ihren Zweck erfüllt? maßgeblich ausgeführt? Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. rungskosten August 2002 ergriffen? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet) ankreuzen) bitte eine Schätzung. Zweck nicht Zweck Eigen- Fach- ja nein Hilfskräfte erfüllt erfüllt leistung Firma a) Zentral organisierte Evakuierung von Personen aus dem € ………… überschwemmungsgefährdeten Gebiet 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 b) Eigenverantwortliche Evakuierung von Personen aus dem € ………… überschwemmungsgefährdeten Gebiet 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 c) Evakuierung von Haustieren € ………… 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 d) (andere) …………………………………………………… € ………… 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 6 von 13
Teil III Schäden an Personen, Hausrat, Gewerblichen Anlagen und Bausubstanz sowie Einkommensverluste In diesem Abschnitt interessieren wir die tatsächlich durch das Hochwasser entstandenen Schäden. Auch wenn in Teil II keine Maßnahmen genannt werden konnten, bitten wir Sie dennoch, den entstandenen Schaden anzugeben. Sofern Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden, sind wir ganz besonders an der Abschätzung interessiert, wie sich diese auf die Höhe des tatsächlich entstandenen Schadens ausgewirkt haben. Letzteres erfordert eine Vorstellung darüber, wie hoch der Schaden ungefähr gewesen wäre, wenn die Maßnahmen nicht ergriffen worden wären.
Diese Aussagen sind ganz besonders wichtig wir die Auswertung des gesamten Bogens. Bitte nehmen Sie sich die erforderliche Zeit für die genauest mögliche Beantwortung der Fragen unter 15. und 16.
IIIa Direkte materielle Schäden
15. Schäden an Bausubstanz einschl. Installationen sowie an beweglichem und unbeweglichem Inventar
Wie hoch ist der entstandene Schaden? Höhe des tat- Wie hoch wäre der Schaden War diese Wirkung sächlich eingetre- gewesen, wenn die oben ge- beabsichtigt? Bitte bearbeiten Sie alle Zeilen. tenen Schadens nannten Maßnahmen nicht Wenn Sie den Schaden nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie (gerundet, €) ergriffen worden wären ja nein bitte eine Schätzung (kein Schaden = 0). (gerundet, €) a) Gesamtschaden an der Bausubstanz und Installationen des Gebäudes (inkl. Türen, Zargen, Fenster, Heizung etc. € ………… € ………… 1 2 (Bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie der Gebäudeeigentümer sind) b) Schäden an beweglichem Inventar (z.B. Möbel) € ………… € ………… 1 2 c) Schäden an nicht beweglichem Inventar (z.B. Wandschrank) € ………… € ………… 1 2 d) Schäden an Produktionsanlagen (Bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie der gewerblicher Nutzer des € ………… € ………… 1 2 Gebäudes sind) e) Schäden an Produktionsgütern (Bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie der gewerblicher Nutzer des € ………… € ………… 1 2 Gebäudes sind) f) (andere) ……………………………………………………… € ………… € ………… 1 2
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 7 von 13
IIIb Indirekte materielle Schäden
16. Einkommens- und Wertschöpfungsverluste (Bitte nur ausfüllen wenn Sie Eigentümer oder gewerblicher Nutzer des Gebäudes sind)
Wie hoch ist der entstandene Schaden? Höhe des tat- Wie hoch wäre der Schaden War diese Wirkung sächlich eingetre- gewesen, wenn die oben ge- beabsichtigt? Bitte bearbeiten Sie alle Zeilen. tenen Verlusts nannten Maßnahmen nicht Wenn Sie den Schaden nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie ergriffen worden wären bitte eine Schätzung (kein Schaden = 0). (gerundet, €) ja nein a) Entgangene Mieteinnahmen durch hochwasserbedingten € ………… € ………… Lehrstand (in €) 1 2 b) Hochwasserbedingte Wertschöpfungsverluste z.B. durch € ………… € ………… Unterbrechung von Produktion oder Verkauf (in €) 1 2 c) Dauer der Wertschöpfungsunterberechung (in Arbeitsstun- ……… Stunden ………… Stunden den Stunden gesamt) 1 2 d) (andere) ……………………………………………………… € ………… € ………… 1 2
IIIc Indirekte nicht materielle Schäden
17. Schäden an Personen, Haustieren und ideellen Werten (Bitte nur ausfüllen wenn Sie Mieter/Bewohner oder gewerblicher Nutzer des Gebäudes sind)
Welcher Schaden ist Ihnen entstanden? Wie groß bewerten Sie den erfahrenen Wie groß wäre dieser persönliche Scha- Schaden für sich persönlich? den gewesen, wenn Sie die oben genann- Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen) ten Maßnahmen nicht ergriffen hätten? Wenn Sie die Kosten nicht genau beziffern können, geben Sie geringer sehr großer weiß bitte eine Schätzung. Schaden Schaden größer gleich kleiner nicht
a) Physische Verletzung von Personen 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 9 b) Seelischer Stress von Personen 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 9 c) Verlust oder Verletzung von Haustieren 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 9 d) Verlust oder Beschädigung nicht ersetzbarer Gegenstände
(z.B. alte Fotos, Schmuck etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 9 e) (andere) ……………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 9
18. Umweltschäden Sollte mit einer der ergriffenen Maßnahmen das Austreten wassergefährdender Stoffe (z.B. Heizöl) verhindert werden? (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 ja 2 nein wenn ja: welcher Anteil der dem Hochwasser ausgesetzten Schadstoffe konnte vom Austritt bewahrt werden? ……… %
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 8 von 13
Teil IV Ausgleich von Hochwasserschäden
19. Ausgleich von Hochwasserschäden durch Versicherungen Bestand eine auf das Hochwasserereignis 2006 anwendbare Hausrat- oder Gebäudeversi- cherung? (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 ja 2 nein wenn ja: Welcher Anteil der Sachschäden war versichert? (in %)
ca. ………… % 9 weiß nicht
Haben Sie die Versicherung in Anspruch genommen?
1 ja 2 nein
Bestand diese oder eine ähnliche Versicherung bereits vor August 2002?
1 ja 2 nein 9 weiß nicht
20. Ausgleich von Hochwasserschäden durch Zuwendungen der öffentlichen Hand nach April 2006 Wurden die beim Elbehochwasser im April 2006 entstandenen Schäden durch Zuwendun- gen der öffentlichen Hand ganz oder teilweise ausgeglichen? (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 ja 2 nein
21. Ausgleich von Hochwasserschäden durch Zuwendungen der öffentlichen Hand nach Au- gust 2002 Wurden die beim Elbehochwasser im August 2002 entstandenen Schäden durch Zuwen- dungen der öffentlichen Hand ganz oder teilweise ausgeglichen? (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
Hatten Sie bereits nach dem Elbe-Hochwasser 2002 Ausgleichszahlungen der öffentlichen Hand und Spendengelder erhalten? (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 ja 2 nein
Welcher Anteil der beim Elbe-Hochwasser 2002 entstandenen Sachschäden wurde durch Zuwendungen der öffentlichen Hand und Spenden gedeckt?
………… % 9 weiß nicht
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 9 von 13
Teil V Informationen, Hochwasserwarnungen, Anreize, Auflagen
Va Hochwasserwarnungen und Informationen zur Eigenvorsorge
22. Hochwasserwarnungen und Vorhersagen Aus welchen Quellen und zu welchem Zeitpunkt haben Sie im April 2006 eine Hochwasser- warnung und die Vorhersage über die erwartete Hochwasserhöhe erhalten? (Bitte benennen Sie alle Quellen von Warnungen und Vorhersagen, die Sie ereicht haben.)
Welche dieser Warnungen haben Sie Stunden Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit dem Zeitpunkt der erhalten? vorher* Warnung bzw. der Exaktheit der Vorhersage? (rund) (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen) Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutref- sehr nicht weiß fenden Zeilen. zufrieden zufrieden nicht a) Amtliche Hochwasserwarnung über Rund- Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 funk und Fernsehen Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Amtliche Hochwasserwarnung über Email, Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 SMS oder Fax Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Hochwasserwarnung durch installierte Si- Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 renen Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Hochwasserwarnung mittels Durchsagen Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 aus fahrenden Fahrzeugen Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 e) Berichte über das bevorstehende Ereignis Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 in den Medien Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Warnung durch Freunde/Bekannte oder Zeitpunkt …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 Nachbarn Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 Zeitpunkt g) (andere) …………………………………… …… 1 2 3 4 5 9 Exaktheit 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) keine Warnung erhalten ______* Stunden vor der Ankunft des Flutwassers am Gebäude
Gibt es etwas, womit Sie insbesondere zufrieden oder unzufrieden sind?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………
War es Ihnen möglich, in der Zeit nach der Hochwasserwarnung sämtliche vorgesehene Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen zu vollenden?
1 ja 2 nein 9 keine Maßnahmen vorgesehen wenn nein: Wie viele Stunden haben Ihnen gefehlt, um sämtliche vorgesehene Maßnah- men zu vollenden?
ca. ……… Stunden 9 weiß nicht
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 10 von 13
23. Informationen über Hochwassergefährdung des Gebäudes Aus welcher Quelle wussten Sie, ob das Gebäude bei Hochwasser überflutet werden könn- te? Bitte bewerten Sie, wie hilfreich die Informationsquellen für Ihre Eigenvorsorge waren.
Welche Informationsquellen standen Ihnen Wie hilfreich fanden Sie diese Informatio- zur Verfügung? nen für Ihre Eigenvorsorge? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen) Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffen- sehr nicht weiß den Zeilen. hilfreich hilfreich nicht
a) Erfahrung aus früheren Hochwassern 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Einsicht in Gefahren- oder Risikokarten 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Information über Presse, Rundfunk, Fernse-
hen 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Broschüren / Faltblätter 1 2 3 4 5 9 e) Teilname an einer Informationsveranstaltung 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Information durch Freunde / Bekannte 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) Selbstrecherchierte Informationen z.B. durch Anfrage bei amtlichen Stellen oder Recherche 1 2 3 4 5 9 im Internet h) (andere) ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 9 i) keine Information verfügbar
Gibt es etwas, das Sie insbesondere hilfreich oder nicht hilfreich faden?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………
24. Informationen über private Vorsorgemaßnahmen Aus welcher Quelle wussten Sie, wie Sie sich, das Gebäude und das Inventar im Falle eines Hochwassers schützen können? Bitte bewerten Sie, wie hilfreich die Informationsquellen für Ihre Eigenvorsorge waren.
Welche Informationsquellen standen Ihnen Wie hilfreich fanden Sie diese Informatio- zur Verfügung? nen für Ihre Eigenvorsorge? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen) Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffen- sehr nicht weiß den Zeilen. hilfreich hilfreich nicht
a) Amtliche Informationen (Stadt/Land/Bund) 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Broschüren / Faltblätter 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Presse, Rundfunk, Fernsehen 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Öffentliche Veranstaltungen 1 2 3 4 5 9 e) Fachliteratur / Berichte 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Persönliche Beratung durch Fachleute 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) (andere) ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) keine Information erhalten
Gibt es etwas, das Sie insbesondere hilfreich oder nicht hilfreich faden?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 11 von 13
IVb Finanzielle Anreize und behördliche Auflagen zur Realisierung von Maßnahmen
25. Finanzielle Anreize zur privaten Hochwasserschadensvorsorge Hatten Sie die Möglichkeit eine finanzielle Förderung für die Umsetzung privater Hochwas- serschutzmaßnahmen in Anspruch zu nehmen? Welche war das. Bitte beurteilen Sie wie hilfreich das war für die Schadensreduzierung. (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
Hatten Sie die Möglichkeit eine solche Wer hat die Maßnahmen Wie hilfreich war diese Förderung? Förderung zur nutzen? gefördert? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen) Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutreffenden Zeilen. Land/ Versorgungs- sehr nicht weiß Stadt Bund unternehmen hilfreich hilfreich nicht a) Zuschüsse für vorbeugende Maß-
nahmen 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Steuerliche Abschreibungen für vor-
beugende Maßnahmen 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) (andere)……………………………… 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 9
26. Auflagen zur Realisierung privater Hochwasserschadensvorsorge Bestanden für Ihr Gebäude Auflagen zur Hochwasservorsorge? Welche waren das. Bitte beurteilen Sie wie hilfreich das war für die Schadensreduzierung. (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
Bestand eine solche Auflage? Wer hat die Auflage Wie hilfreich war diese Förderung? erteilt? (bitte jeweils nur ein Kästchen Bitte bearbeiten Sie nur die für Sie zutref- ankreuzen) fenden Zeilen. sehr nicht weiß Stadt Versicherung hilfreich hilfreich nicht a) Auflagen bezüglich baulicher Merkmale z.B. Ständerbauweise, Bau auf Aufschüt-
tungen, Verzicht auf Keller bei Neubau 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9 von Gebäuden b) Auflagen zur Verwendung feuchteresisten-
ter Baustoffe 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Auflagen zur Um- oder Nachrüstung der Heizungsanlagen bzw zur Lagerung von 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9 Heizöl, Gas oder anderen Chemikalien) d) entfällt e) Auflagen zum nachträglichen Einbau von Vorrichtungen für den zeitweiligen Verbau 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9 von Gebäudeöffnungen f) Auflagen zur Flutung des Kellers durch Flutwasser im Hochwasserfall als Retenti- 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9 onsraumausgleich g) (andere)……………………………… 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 9
27. Sächsisches Wassergesetz Das Sächsische Wassergesetz (§99 Abs. 3) verpflichtet jeden, der durch Hochwasser betrof- fen sein kann, im Rahmen seiner Möglichkeiten und des Zumutbaren, eigene Vorsorgemaß- nahmen zum Schutz vor Hochwasser und der Schadensminimierung zu treffen.
Ist Ihnen diese Aussage des Gesetzes bekannt?
1 ja 2 nein
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 12 von 13
Teil VI Persönliche Angaben Abschließend bitten wir Sie um einige persönliche Informationen. Diese sind wichtig für die statistische Auswertung Ihrer Angaben. Wir bitten Sie daher, die folgenden Felder genauso sorgfältig auszufüllen, wie die vorangegangenen.
28. Ihr Geschlecht
1 männlich 2 weiblich
29. Hochwassererfahrung Waren Sie bereits vor dem Hochwasser im April 2006 einmal als Eigentümer oder Nutzer eines Gebäudes von einem Hochwasser unmittelbar betroffen?
1 ja, zuletzt im Jahr ………… 2 nein
Waren Sie oder zumindest ein Mitglied Ihres Haushalts durch das Elbe-Hochwasser im Au- gust 2002 unmittelbar betroffen?
1 ja 2 nein
30. Zusammensetzung Ihres Haushalts (bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie Bewohner des betroffenen Gebäudes sind)
Anzahl der Personen im Haushalt? ………… Anzahl der Personen über 65 Jahren? ………… Anzahl der Personen unter 18 Jahren …………
31. Haushaltseinkommen (bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie Bewohner des betroffenen Gebäudes sind)
Das monatliche Netto-Einkommen aller Haushaltsangehörigen zusammen beträgt: (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 bis 1000 € 2 1000 bis 1500 € 3 1500 bis 2500 €
4 2500 bis 3500 € 5 über 3500 €
32. Art des Gewerbes (bitte nur angeben, wenn Sie gewerblicher Nutzer des betroffenen Gebäudes sind) (zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen)
1 Industrie 2 Einzelhandel
3 Gaststätten und Hotels 4 sonstiges Dienstleitungsgewerbe
5 Verkehrsgewerbe 6 Reisegewerbe
7 Freiberufler
Sonstiges Im Rahmen eines Parallelprojektes (VERIS Elbe) führt ein Bausachverständiger unseres Institutes derzeit Detailuntersuchungen der entstandenen Schäden durch. Ziel ist die Ent- wicklung eines Modells zur detaillierten Hochwasserschadensvorhersage für Städte. Hierzu werden anhand ausgewählter Objekte die entstandenen Schäden detailliert anhand der Rechnungen der Schadensbeseitigung ermittelt. Wenn Sie bereit sind, diese Untersu- chung zu unterstützen, bitten wir Sie, hier oder auf einem gesonderten Blatt Ihre Adresse anzugeben.
Befragung „Private Vorsorgemaßnahmen“ Seite 13 von 13
Teil VI Ergänzende Informationen Mit der Beantwortung der vorangegangenen Fragen haben Sie bereits eine Menge Informa- tionen zur Verfügung gestellt.
Hier bitten wir Sie noch uns mitzuteilen, was Sie selbst aus dem Hochwasser 2006 für Ihre Eigenvorsorge gelernt haben. Was hätten Sie anders machen können, um eine noch besse- re Eigenvorsorge zu ermöglichen? Warum hat möglicherweise etwas nicht ganz so funktio- niert, wie es vorgesehen war?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Welche zusätzliche Unterstützung seitens der Stadt Dresden oder des Landes Sachsen wünschen Sie sich, um in Zukunft noch besser Eigenvorsorge betreiben zu können? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Task 12 Risk reduction in private and commercial buildings during the April 2006 flood in Dresden
Annex 3 Applicability of indicator with measures
Aim of measure Flood barrier ballasting Loss potential Change of use Retreat Evacuation Indicator 09b 09d 09e 09f 09g 09h 10a 10b 10c 10d 11a 11b 11d 11e 11f 11g 12a 12b 12c 12d 13a 13b 13c 13d 13e 13f 13g 14a 14b 14c Hydr 2 Impact on maximum x x x x x x flood level Soc 2 Impact on physical x x injuries Soc 3 Impact on mental x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x stress Econ 1 Direct economic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x losses avoided Econ 1a Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x built structures Econ 1b Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x installations Econ 1c Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x inventory Econ 1d Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x production goods Econ 1e Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x production facilities Econ 4 Capital costs of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x intervention Econ 4a Realisation costs x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Econ 4b Maintenance and x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x operation costs Econ 5 Direct economic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x losses induced Econ 6 Loss of value added
induced Econ 7 Avoided losses of x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x value added Ecol B12 Impact on specific x x x x x x x x x x x synthetic pollutants Ecol B13 Impact on specific x x x x x x x x x x x non-synthetic pollutants
57 Task 12 Case study Ex-post evaluation of private flood loss reduction in Dresden and Pirna in the April 2006 Elbe river flood
Annex 4 Applied combinations of measures in the cases Measure Ingress protection Buoyancy protection Reduction of loss potential Adaptation of uses Retreat of uses Evacuation
Case No Sum 09b 09d 09e 09f 09g 09h 10a 10b 10c 10d 11a 11b 11d 11e 11f 11g 12a 12b 12c 12d 13a 13b 13c 13d 13e 13f 13g 14a 14b 14c 1 6 x x x x x x 2 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 10 x x x x x x x x x x 4 8 x x x x x x x x 5 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 5 x x x x x 7 6 x x x x x x 8 10 x x x x x x x x x x 9 5 x x x x x 10 8 x x x x x x x x 11 8 x x x x x x x x 12 6 x x x x x x 13 3 x x x 14 3 x x x 15 4 x x x x 16 7 x x x x x x x 17 14 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18 1 x 19 1 x 20 15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21 4 x x x x 22 5 x x x x x 23 5 x x x x x 24 7 x x x x x x x
58 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Report 1 Emergency Storage at the Elbe River
Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies
Report TASK 12 / ACTIVITY 2 / ACTION 2 CASE STUDY “EMERGENCY STORAGE AT THE ELBE RIVER”
October 2006
Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels, HR Wallingford, UK Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420 Project website: www.floodsite.net
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Title Report – Case study “Emergency storage at the Elbe River” Lead Author Saskia Förster Contributors Axel Bronstert Distribution [Click here and list Distribution] Document Reference [Click here and enter Document Reference]
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes 03/05/06 1.0 S. Förster UniPo 18/10/06 1.1 S. Förster UniPo 20/11/06 1.2 A.Olfert IOER comments 06/03/07 2.0 S. Förster UniPo
DISCLAIMER This report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specific applications without first checking its suitability.
In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, various sections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the project consortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.
Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of material contained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specific commission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concerned for the particular application.
© FLOODsite Consortium
Rev No: 1.1 1 October 2006
CONTENTS
Document Information 1 Document History 1 Disclaimer 1 Contents 2
1. Definition of the case ...... 3 1.1 Identification of measure ...... 3 1.2 Identification of conditions...... 4 1.3 Description of case ...... 5
2. Case specific selection of evaluation criteria ...... 6
3. Evaluation...... 8 3.1 Evaluation of effects...... 8 3.2 Evaluation of effectiveness...... 9 3.3 Evaluation of cost-effectiveness...... 10 3.4 Evaluation of robustness...... 10 3.5 Evaluation of flexibility...... 11
4. Interpretation of results, conclusions, recommendations ...... 12 4.1 Interpretation of evaluation results ...... 12 4.2 Discussion of the applied methodology...... 13
5. References ...... 14
Tables
Tab. 1: Characterisation of the measure according to the ex-post EFM Tab. 2: Characterisation of the conditions according to the ex-post EFM
Figures
Fig. 1: Investigation area of case study: storage basins at Lower Havel River Fig. 2: Effect of controlled retention on hydrograph (dashed line), unaffected hydrograph (solid line) Fig. 3: Investigation area of case study: flood detention area at Lower Havel River Fig. 4: Result of database query Fig. 5: Observed (with peak reduction) and reconstructed (without peak reduction) discharge hydrograph at gauge Wittenberge during Elbe flood in August 2002 (BfG 2002, modified)
Rev No: 1.1 2 October 2006 1. Definition of the case
1.1 Identification of measure A flood storage reservoir is a technical measure of flood protection, which is either on-stream or off- stream (Hall et al. 1993, p. 121). Following this definition a flood polder is an off-stream reservoir typically located along the middle reaches of large rivers. Flood polders serve the primary purpose of temporary water storage during large flood events in order to reduce the peak level of a flood wave and thus alleviate the flood risk for downstream areas with higher vulnerability. Figure 1 shows the principles behind off-stream flood storage areas. Usually, the storage reservoir is enclosed by a separation dike to the river and by an additional polder dike to the hinterland if an increasing topography does not limit the water flow (Fischer et al. 2005).
Fig. 1: Schematic of off-stream flood storage Fig. 2: Effect of controlled retention on hydrograph (dashed reservoir line), unaffected hydrograph (solid line)
Ideally the discharge up to a pre-defined level will be passed into the storage reservoir by use of control structures. For a maximum peak reduction effect the flood wave should be cut horizontally (Fig. 2). This optimal control can only be achieved using mechanically or electrically operated inlet and outlet structures. The structures can be of different types, e.g. vertical, radial or tilting gates. Furthermore, opening and closing of the control structures should follow a pre-defined event-specific control strategy. During large flood events the storage reservoir is flooded through an inlet structure in the separation dike. The emptying of the reservoir is typically done through an outlet structure. The storage area should be cleared of stored water as soon as possible to allow for the possibility of a second flood wave following closely on the first provided that water levels in the main river and the overall catchment management operation set no constraints on quality and quantity of the water release (Hall et al. 1993, p. 140). Also, the longer the inundation duration, the larger the negative effects to vegetation. Long inundation durations following a flood event can be lethal for vegetation types or lead to dramatic shifts in the vegetation composition, even when the storage area is regularly flooded in mean hydrological years (Baptist et al. 2006). In general, for an effective peak reduction flood storage areas need to be relatively large in relation to the river discharge. The land within the storage area may be used for agriculture or other low-intensity purposes, but is not suitable for buildings or similar investments (Smith and Ward 1998, p. 214). Beside flood alleviation as primary function and justification flood storage reservoirs may also serve further purposes like environmental enhancement, nature conservation or recreation.
In this case study the use of the flood storage area at the Lower Havel River during the Elbe flood in August 2002 will be evaluated. According to the classification proposed in the ex-post EFM the case
Rev No: 1.1 3 October 2006 can be defined as a physical control measure of flood water storage. In the Source-Pathway-Receptor- Consequences model the measure is applied to control the river discharge along the pathway of the flood water in order to lower the flood risk for receptor areas and reduce negative consequences resulting from dike failures and land inundation.
Category Physical control measure Sub-category Flood water storage Measure Flood emergency storage area Tab. 1: Characterisation of the measure according to the ex-post EFM
1.2 Identification of conditions The measure is applied to slow rise flood events at the middle reaches of the Elbe River in north-east Germany. The runoff seasonality of the Elbe River is mainly influenced by the Czech and German middle-mountain regions which cover about 30 % of the catchment area. It can be characterised as a rain-snow-regime with highest monthly run off values during March and April and a low run off period from June to November. Compared to the discharge behaviour of some other large European rivers, e.g. the Rhine, water storages of glaciers and permanent snow buffering both flood discharge and low flow are absent in the Elbe due to the lack of glaciers in the catchment. More than 80 % of the floods occur during the winter and spring season in consequence of snow melt associated with intense rain fall. Floods in winter or spring are characterised by long durations, while summer floods caused by heavy continuous rains typically last only a few days but usually have higher flood magnitudes. In the past centuries freezing river stretches causing ice jams or break-up of ice barriers were a major reason for winter floods. However, due to the regional warming following the end of the Little Ice Age (after 1800) and due to increased water temperatures caused by the inflow of waste water and cooling water during the last several decades, the risk of ice floods has markedly decreased (Bronstert 2006, Mudelsee et al. 2003). The shape of the flood wave is one determining factor for the effectiveness of the peak reduction. Sharp-peaked flood waves with short duration (like the August 2002 flood event) can be more effectively cut off than wide flood waves of long durations (like the April 2006 flood event).
The flood storage area is used for peak reduction of flood events with relatively low return periods of 1 in 90 years or less. The return period of the flood event in August 2002 was estimated to be about 180 years based on the discharge series 1900–2002 of Wittenberge gauge station.
The measure is located in a rural area, but its outcomes may occur in rural or urban areas downstream along the river. Generally, flood storage reservoirs are designated in areas of rural use with relatively low damage potential. By flooding the storage areas the inundation risk for downstream regions with higher vulnerability such as urban areas can be reduced.
The case study site is of high ecological value. It is internationally known as an important site for migratory birds. Major parts of the flood storage area are protected under the European Habitats Directive (NATURA 2000 site) and Birds Directive (Special Protection Area). The flood storage area at the Lower Havel River was constructed in the 1950ies. Beside flood protection it served the purpose of enabling intensive agricultural use in the area. The system was used for the first and only time for flood peak reduction during the Elbe flood in August 2002. The case study will focus on the evaluation of the measure in the light of this single event.
Perspective of evaluation Single event evaluation Type of flood Slow rise floods Probability of flood Floods of low recurrence intervals (approx. 180 years recurrence interval at gauge Wittenberge for flood event under investigation) Type of water body Rivers Land use Rural (intervention), rural/urban (outcomes)
Rev No: 1.1 4 October 2006 Tab. 2: Characterisation of the conditions according to the ex-post EFM
1.3 Description of the case The largest emergency storage area along the Elbe River is situated on the tributary Havel near its confluence with the Elbe in Germany (see Fig. 3). It consists of six large polder basins comprising a maximum volume of approx. 110 millions m³. Additionally approx. 140 millions m³ can be retained in the Havel flood plain itself, resulting in a total potential retention volume of both the Havel flood plain and the polder basins of approximately 250 millions m³.
Before the extensive dike-construction and water-engineering works the flood plain of the Lower Havel River was characterised by frequent and continuous inundations. It served Fig. 3: Investigation area of case study: flood detention as an extensive natural retention area for the area at Lower Havel River Elbe River. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the desired purpose of farming required the construction of dikes. In order to intensify agriculture however maintain the ability of this region to retain flood peaks of the Elbe at the same time, the construction of a complex system of flood storage reservoirs along the Lower Havel River was planned. The river works included the construction of weirs at the Havel outlet into the Elbe River. The whole system was completed in 1956. Thus it became possible to control the inflow of Elbe water into the Havel River, i.e., to stop river flow from the Havel into the Elbe (and to accumulate the Havel water in the flood plains of the Lower Havel River) and/or to divert and temporarily retain the Elbe flood peak in the storage system. Today main land use types are grassland and arable land, whereas the area is only sparsely populated.
Floods at the Elbe River have caused enormous damages over the last centuries, however the flood of the Elbe River and its tributaries in August 2002 reached the highest ever observed water levels at many gauging stations. The flood was caused by a so-called "Vb weather type" known for triggering summer floods in Central Europe by transporting warm and humid air masses from the Mediterranean Sea to Central Europe where the warm air collides with cold sub-arctic air masses causing wide spread and heavy rain storms. In summer 2002 a continuous rain in the period from the 1st to the 10th of August immediately preceding a heavy rain period from the 11th to the 13th of August led to more than three times the annual precipitation mean in some regions of the Elbe catchment. Damage and loss of life caused by the flood were most dramatic in the Upper Elbe region particularly owing to the short warning times. In the Middle and Lower Elbe part the flood was attenuated and therefore less extreme but still severe. The attenuation can be attributed to unintentional dike failure and overtopping at several locations as well as to the controlled flood peak reduction by flooding the emergency storage area at the Lower Havel River (IKSE 2004).
Although the construction of the emergency storage system was already completed in the 1950, it was flooded for the first time during the Elbe flood in August 2002 when about 75 millions m³ of Elbe water was retained in the system. A flood peak reduction of about 40 cm (corresponding to a discharge of approximately 500 m³/s) at the gauge Wittenberge, which is situated about 30 km downstream, could be achieved.
Rev No: 1.1 5 October 2006 2. Case specific selection of evaluation criteria In a first step, evaluation criteria were selected using the web-based tool provided in the project and the conditions identified in chapter 1.2. Accordingly, a number of 45 criteria were drawn from the database (Fig. 4).
Rev No: 1.1 6 October 2006
Fig. 4: Result of database query (date of access 29/09/06)
For most flood protection measures/instruments such as dikes, warning systems or land use regulations the location of the intervention and the location of the area affected by the intervention are closely related. However, emergency storage areas are a special case in the sense that the water storage area and the area downstream along the river that benefits from the intervention are often kilometres apart. When applying the measure, effects occur or are prevented in the intervention area as well as in the benefiting area. Hence, both have to be considered when evaluating the intervention.
The temporary water storage in the emergency storage area during a large flood reduces the risk of dike failures and hence the risk of inundation downstream along the river. When evaluating cost- effectiveness benefits of the intervention in form of prevented damage need to be quantified. However, the identification of the benefiting areas is a challenging task as this would require a probabilistic failure assessment based on the reliability of the flood defence structures (Förster et al. 2005). Hence, for evaluating cost-effectiveness in this study a simplified approach was chosen when assessing the damage reduction due to the polder use in the town of Wittenberge, situated 30 km downstream of the confluence of Elbe and Havel.
The number of evaluation criteria is also restricted by data constraints. For example, the water storage in the polder basins and the subsequent release has multiple temporary ecological effects. However, the evaluation of most ecological criteria would require extensive field investigations before, during and after the intervention. Such investigations have only been conducted for selected criteria. In case of the emergency storage area under investigation the impact on the fish fauna was most evident and widely reported. Hence, in this study the evaluation of ecological impacts will be restricted to this aspect. Other criteria that were pre-selected from the database are not of relevance in this specific case of intervention such as impact on lives lost as in case of slow rise floods the evacuation time is sufficient to prevent fatalities.
Considering the aforementioned constraints the following criteria were selected from the pre-selected list for further investigation: Hydr 1 Impact on maximum discharge Hydr 2 Impact on maximum flood level Hydr 3 Impact on speed of flood wave propagation Hydr 4 Impact on maximum flood extension Hydr 5 Impact on flood duration
Rev No: 1.1 7 October 2006 Econ 1 Direct economic losses avoided Econ 4 Capital costs of intervention Econ 4a Realisation costs Econ 4b Maintenance and operation costs Econ 5 Direct economic losses induced by the intervention Ecol B5 Impact on fish fauna
3. Evaluation
3.1 Evaluation of effects The intervention under investigation has the main purpose of flood peak reduction. Therefore, an impact on the maximum discharge or flood level of the Elbe River is the major intended outcome of the intervention. When realising the measure, however, further effects or consequences accrue.
Hydrological effects During the Elbe flood in August 2002 75 million m³ Elbe water were temporarily retained in the emergency storage area. Consequently, the flood hydrograph at the downstream gauge Wittenberge was reduced by 41 cm (LUA 2002) corresponding to a discharge reduction of approx. 500 m³/s. As an effect of weir control the attenuated flood peak reached the gauge Wittenberge one day earlier than expected without intervention (see Fig. 5). Effects on the flood extension and duration have to be considered separately for the emergency storage area and for the downstream area that benefits from the intervention. The emergency storage area comprises an area of nearly 24,000 ha. During the Elbe flood in 2002 only 5 out of 6 polder basins were used for water storage. The maximum allowed water level of 26.40 m a.s.l. was not reached by 40 cm. Hence, only a storage volume of 170 million m³ instead of potentially possible 250 million m³ was Fig. 5: Observed (with peak reduction) and reconstructed (without used. Depending on the land elevation peak reduction) discharge hydrograph at gauge Wittenberge level, flood duration ranged between during Elbe flood in August 2002 (BfG 2002, modified) about one and four weeks when the sill levels of the dike breaches or structures were reached. During the Elbe flood in 2002 several dike failures upstream of the intervention site occurred, however, none downstream. This fact can partly be attributed to the peak reduction effect achieved by the intervention under investigation.
Ecological effects Water retention in an emergency storage area can have several unintended ecological effects such as a temporal impact on the species appearance, soil erosion (primarily directly behind inlets) and sedimentation, deposition of pollutants and an impact on the water quality. For the case under investigation the impact on the fish fauna due to a dramatic decrease in water oxygen concentration was the major ecological problem occurring in the emergency storage area. The high bacterial oxygen consumption in the polder basin water was a consequence of the high nutrient availability due to an intensive agricultural use and high water temperatures as a result of the hot weather conditions, low water levels in the polder basins and long retention time. An oxygen
Rev No: 1.1 8 October 2006 concentration of 3 mg/l is lethal for many fish populations (Böhme et al. 2005). Due to the long water storage, oxygen concentration in the polder water and when released also in the adjacent Havel River reach decreased to values of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l (Buchta 2003) resulting in an almost complete fish extinction at a length of 40 km of the Havel River. More than 10 million fish died (Böhme et al. 2005). Due to fish immigration a young fish stock will develop within few years. However, the natural development of a fish stock that is structured in age and size und that is usable for fishery purposes will take several years. For fish ecological purposes the restocking with eel is necessary in order to compensate the losses.
Economic effects Direct economic costs arising from the intervention are realisation costs, maintenance and operation costs and losses occurring due to the water storage in the polder basins in the sectors agriculture, infrastructure and fishery. The dikes surrounding the polder basins serve several purposes. Initially they were constructed to enable farming and protect buildings and infrastructural facilities. Hence, no additional investments were required for setting up and maintain the flood protection system. Accordingly, construction and maintenance costs for the dikes were not considered in the economic analysis. During the flood event operation costs in form of blowing breaches in the dikes and their subsequent reconstruction occur. Per breach costs are estimated at 25.000 € for blowing up and range between 75.000 and 200.000 € for reconstruction. Damage to agriculture amounted to approx. 2.2 million €, damage to the road network was estimated to approx. 4.5 million €. Damage to buildings amounted to 0.126 million €. This sum was comparatively low, because of the limited number of houses and due to the fact that the maximum tolerable water level was not reached. Losses to fishery as ascertained by the authorities for compensation purpose amounted to 0.47 million € (Bronstert 2004).
During the flood in August 2002 no dike failures downstream of the intervention site occurred. This can to some extent be attributed to the utilisation of the storage area. However, a statement on the avoided economic losses appears to be rather difficult. Therefore, a simplified approach was chosen when assuming that the mobile flood protection walls in the harbour of the town Wittenberge would fail unless the storage area was used for peak reduction. Wittenberge is situated approx. 30 km downstream of the confluence of Havel and Elbe Rivers. For reasons of amenity flood protection walls instead of embankments protect the harbour against floods. These walls are estimated to have a larger failure probability than the adjacent embankments. The expected damage resulting from the dike failure was estimated in a meso-scale damage analysis to be approx. 17 million € (Gocht 2004a, Förster et al. 2005).
3.2 Evaluation of effectiveness The main purpose of the intervention is the flood peak reduction. This aim could be achieved when using the emergency storage area for water retention during the flood in August 2002 (see chapter 3.1). The flood peak reduction was considered very successful by the water authorities. However, there was no specific objective in terms of peak reduction given prior to the intervention. Therefore a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness would lack data at the moment. However, a study on the maximum possible peak reduction and other aspects is underway, which will deliver the required data in future.
Generally, the effectiveness of the intervention is mostly affected by: • the shape of the flood hydrograph where a higher peak reduction is obtainable for steep hydrographs, • the well-timed operation of the weirs at the confluence of Havel and Elbe River and the controlled opening of the polder basins and • the discharge amount of the tributary Havel.
Rev No: 1.1 9 October 2006 3.3 Evaluation of cost-effectiveness The cost-effectiveness is expressed by means of a benefit-cost ratio taking costs and avoided losses into account as detailed in chapter 3.1. A benefit-cost ratio of 2 was calculated indicating that the utilisation of the flood emergency storage area was economically beneficial, although at a rather low level. However, the final decision on the utilisation of certain risk reduction measures is often of political nature and is not necessarily based on figures. Construction and maintenance costs were not included in the assessment since the polder dikes were initially constructed to enable agricultural use and protect buildings and roads. Consequently, the result is independent from the anticipated lifetime of the protection system and the discount rate. If costs for construction and maintenance were shared between the different purposes, the benefit-cost ratio would be considerably lowered. Also, the result would become sensitive to changes in the anticipated lifetime and discount rate (Gocht 2004b, Förster et al. 2005). However, the distribution of costs between different uses, which benefit from the investment would likely result in a better benefit/Cost ratio. However, this would require the association of the costs with different purposes, which is unfeasible in this scope. This analysis was only based on direct tangible costs. An inclusion of indirect costs such as caused by traffic or business interruption and intangible effects such as environmental impacts of inundation would alter the result.
3.4 Evaluation of robustness Until now the investigated flood emergency storage area was used for water retention only once in its lifetime. Hence, from practical experience its serviceability can only be evaluated for one certain set of conditions. In this chapter some points of criticism of the utilisation of the emergency storage area during the flood in August 2002 and the effect of a variation in selected conditions will be briefly discussed.
Although a considerable peak reduction was achieved when using the storage area during the flood in August 2002 (see chapter 3.1), the following problematic aspects have to be pointed out. Firstly, the storage area was under-utilised as only 170 out of 250 million m³ of storage volume were used. This is due to the fact that the maximum possible water levels were not reached and that one polder basin was not flooded at all. Secondly, only one out of six polder basins is equipped with an inlet structure, whereas the others need to be filled by dike blasting. Due to little experience in the quantity of blasting agent to be used, initial attempts failed leading to a delayed opening of some of the basins. The water level reduction effect could have been significantly higher for the 2002 event if weir control and dike blasting were optimized1. Thirdly, the death of thousands of fish and other riverine animals in the Havel River reach was a strong negative side-effect of the intervention. It had a huge impact on the local fishery as well as on the river ecology.
When discussing the effect of varying conditions on the serviceability of the flood protection measure, variations in flood frequency and magnitude, in the land use and hence vulnerability and the state of the dike system along the Elbe River should be considered as main pressures on the system. The flood emergency storage area will be utilised for reducing Elbe flood waves in a certain range of flood magnitudes. This range is affected by the design level of the Elbe dike system. There is no need in attenuating floods with a return period less than the design level of the dikes downstream of the storage area. According to the water authorities the utilisation of the polder system is considered if forecasted water levels exceed 745 cm at Wittenberge gauge. This water level corresponds to a return period of 90 years based on the discharge series 1900-2002. The return period of the August 2002 flood was estimated to be about 180 years. Hence, a reconstruction of the dikes will have a direct effect on the utilisation of the emergency storage area. The higher the dike levels and the stronger the protection systems downstream, the less often the polders need to be utilised for flood alleviation. In
1 A study on this and other aspects was commissioned by the responsible water authorities and is in its final stage. Results will be available soon.
Rev No: 1.1 10 October 2006 case of very large flood events, however, the Elbe dike system upstream of the storage area will most probably fail and therefore limit the magnitude of the arriving flood waves.
Beside river works, variations in flood frequency may be a result of climate change. In the past centuries, freezing river stretches, causing ice jams and/or break-up of ice barriers was a major reason for winter floods. However, due to an increase of air temperature during the last several decades, the risk of ice floods has markedly decreased (Mudelsee et al. 2003). Currently the emergency storage area is not designed for frequent flooding, because most of the polder basins are not equipped with inlet structures. Hence, costs for dike blasting and reconstruction accrue every time the polder basins are used for water storage.
Changes in land use in the intervention area as well as in the benefiting area downstream along the Elbe River have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of the measure. Whereas the land use type in the emergency storage area can be attributed as rural, the potentially inundated area that benefits from the intervention can be rural and/or urban depending on the location of a potential dike failure. Highest economic damage is expected to occur in urban areas, while the future development of the accumulation of values directly affects the cost-benefit ratio. Expected losses in the agriculturally dominated emergency storage area are in the sectors infrastructure and agriculture, where maximum losses are caused by flood events occurring shortly before harvest.
3.5 Evaluation of flexibility In the preceding chapter several points of criticism of the utilisation of the emergency storage area during the flood in August 2002 were mentioned. These points can be overcome to some extent by adapting the system. The construction of inlet structures, land use change and operation options as three major fields of adaptation will be discussed in the following.
Currently only one of the polder basins is equipped with an inlet structure that provides sufficient discharge capacity, whereas the other polder basins need to be filled through dike breaches created by controlled explosions. Hence, the affected dike segments have to be reconstructed after every utilisation of the storage area. Different from flooding through breaches, inlet structures allow for the control of the rate at which the polder basin fills and drains. Accordingly, the inflow can be stopped in order to restrict the water level to the maximum tolerable height and hence protect buildings and settlements. The heavy drop in oxygen concentration in the Havel River reach and the resultant death of thousands of fish was caused by the rapid release of water from the basins into the Havel River. A delayed release of water from the polder basins (as feasible with inlet structures) and/or allowing a higher discharge from the Havel River would have altered the mixing ratio and hence the oxygen concentration could have been kept above a level of 3 mg/l (Böhme et al. 2005) tolerable for many fish populations. Another advantage of inlet structures is that they enable the so-called “ecological flooding”. By regular flooding of the low-lying area it allows for the development of ecologically valuable wetland species and biodiversity enhancement. With respect to realisability, however, costs for the construction and maintenance of inlet structures are much higher than those for blowing breaches and the subsequent reconstruction of the affected dike segment. When assuming a lifetime of the 30 and 80 years for machines and construction works, respectively, and further assume that the polder system is utilised every 90 years (see chapter 3.4), the use of inlet structures instead of dike blasting is more expensive by a factor of 5 to 6 (Bronstert 2004).
A further option to adapt the polder system is a change in land use. The damage that occurred in the polder basis during the August 2002 flood can partly be attributed to an inappropriate land use. Currently the polder basins at the Havel mouth are intensively farmed. The farming land is used as fields and grassland in approximately equal shares. The main crops are winter grain and sweet corn. It could be discussed to establish an elevation-dependent land use scheme similar to other flood emergency storage areas. In low-lying areas the development of inundation tolerant vegetation communities by means of “ecological flooding” could be established, whereas intensive agricultural use could be allowed in areas with a low risk of inundation. This procedure allows for both, flood
Rev No: 1.1 11 October 2006 protection and environmental enhancement. However, it would involve a compensation of the farmers at high costs.
In order to reduce losses in the intervention area an event-specific utilisation of the available storage area can be applied since six polder basins exist. The number of polder basins to be filled is selected depending on the required storage volume. This procedure enables the reduction of the affected area while providing sufficient storage volume.
4. Interpretation of results, conclusions, recommendations
4.1 Interpretation of evaluation results Flood emergency storage areas as a measure of technical flood protection already exist or are in the planning process along many rivers. The emergency storage area investigated in this study has general characteristics in common with other storage areas, but it also shows certain specifics as will be discussed in the following.
Like the majority of cases the storage area under investigation is situated at the middle reach of a large river and is used for water storage during flood events of low return period. Its main purpose is reducing the flood peak in order to decrease the probability of dike failures and inundation of areas downstream along the river. The peak reduction effect will be most effective for rather steep hydrographs, whereas hydrographs with a long peak can only be reduced to a small extent. Ideally, the flood wave is cut horizontally, while using the complete storage volume. A prerequisite for an optimal control is a precise flood forecast and the existence of control structures. For an effective peak reduction a large storage volume compared to the river discharge is required. This fact also applies to the aspect of cost-effectiveness as the construction costs for dikes and control structures are comparatively high. These costs, however, rise only slightly with an increase in storage area and volume. Finding suitable locations for the designation of emergency storage areas that have a large volume and a relatively low damage potential is a major challenge. Due to the fact that often only small areas are available, water authorities embark on a strategy of combining the reduction effect of a number of storage areas along a river reach. The operation of several storage areas though is generally more difficult than it is the case for a single site (Green et al. 2000). The flood protection system along a river has to be evaluated as a whole since one measure may have an impact on the effectiveness of other measures. The dike heightening along the Elbe, for example, will increase the magnitude of the flood event for which the use of the emergency areas for peak reduction is reasonable, because there is no need in reducing a flood peak of a 1:100 event if the dikes downstream are designed to withstand flood events of higher magnitude. An important aspect concerning flood emergency storage areas is the often unresolved question of sharing costs and benefits between areas along the river. On the one hand, costs accrue in the intervention area in form of construction and maintenance costs of dikes and control structures and damage due to dike opening and water storage. On the other hand, benefits appear downstream in form of prevented damage as the use of the storage area reduces the failure probability of the dike system and therefore the risk of inundation downstream along the river. The flood emergency storage area at the Middle Elbe River is situated in two different federal states. An administrative agreement between these two federal states regulates who decides on using the storage area and who bears the costs for compensation. Currently a treaty between the two affected federal states as well as the benefiting federal states is under negotiation. It will also cover the aspect of sharing compensation costs.
Different from other flood emergency storage areas the water is retained in six large polder basins situated on either side of the tributary Havel. Hence, the storage area is not directly connected to the flood affected river. Due to this special situation the effectiveness of the peak reduction strongly depends on the initial water levels in the tributary. Water is stored in the tributaries’ floodplain (140 million m³) as well as in the polder basins (110 million m³). Hence, water retention in the Havel
Rev No: 1.1 12 October 2006 floodplain is controlled by weirs at the Havel outlet into the Elbe River. After the floodplain is filled to a pre-defined water level, the polder basins are opened by use of control structures or dike blasting. Although already constructed in the 1950ies the storage area was used for water retention for the first time during the Elbe flood in August 2002. The evaluation could therefore only be based on a single event. The flood peak reduction was considered successful by the water authorities and cost-effective on the basis of the simplified approach in the study at hand. However, negative side-effects have to be stated in form of water quality problems that resulted in an almost complete fish extinction in the affected Havel River reach.
Current discussions on the designation of further emergency storage areas at the Elbe and other European Rivers show the relevance of the issue in the context of flood risk management. Several sites along the Middle Elbe River have already been proposed as potential locations for flood retention and investigated in terms of flood peak reduction potential (IKSE 2003, Helms et al. 2002).
The investigated case shows that flood peaks can effectively be attenuated by the measure. However, further investigations are required in order to optimise the operation (timely weir control) and minimise negative side effects. The planned construction of inlet structures instead of dike blasting will facilitate the operational use. Currently the responsible water authorities of both federal states have commissioned an extensive study to investigate several aspects of the measure (incl. ecological effects, groundwater behaviour, peak reduction potential for a range of flood situations) and hence optimise the future use of the polder system.
4.2 Discussion of the applied methodology Providing an evaluation scheme that can be applied to a variety of flood protection measures is a highly challenging task. In the study at hand the evaluation methodology was applied to a flood emergency storage area, which was only used in a single flood event until now. The database query facilitated the process of criteria selection as it delivered a comprehensive selection of potential evaluation criteria. From the pre-selected list, suitable criteria were then chosen in view of relevance, data constraints and resource limitations. When conducting the study it emerged that direct economic losses occurring in the intervention area had to be included in the assessment as an additional economic criterion.
The proposed methodology could not fully be applied in the case study at hand due to certain restrictions. For example, there was no objective give in form of a quantitative statement to compare the peak reduction effect with. It is hard to predict what would have happened without lowering the flood peak. Most probably dikes would have failed or been overtopped at several places at the Elbe River downstream of the storage area. An evaluation of cost-effectiveness turned out to be a highly comprehensive and challenging task since it requires the assessment of the dike fragility downstream along the river, the calculation of the flood affected area for each of the dike failure cases and the estimation of the associated damage. In order to avoid this comprehensive investigation, in many studies such as in the one at hand only a few most probable scenarios are analysed.
An evaluation of the robustness of a flood protection measure, that is its reliability under varying conditions, should be based on several flood events. On the basis of a single flood event, however, robustness can only be evaluated for one specific set of conditions. The effect of further conditions would then be based on theoretical considerations as done in the study at hand.
Although often neglected in practice and research, the ex-post evaluation of flood protection measures and instruments can provide valuable information. When evaluating several protection measures, different types of measures can be compared in terms of their general effectiveness and their cost- benefit ratio. Further, common side-effects can be identified in view of transferring knowledge from one flood protection system to another. This procedure, however, would require the evaluation of a large number of flood protection measures and instruments using standardised methods and standardised forms.
Rev No: 1.1 13 October 2006
5. References Baptist, M.J. et al. (2006). Flood detention, nature development and water quality in a detention area along the lowland river Sava, Coratia. Hydrobiologia, 565, 243-257. Böhme, M., Krüger, F., Ockenfeld, K., Geller, W. (eds) (2005). Contamination loads after the Elbe flood 2002 (in German), http://www.ufz.de/data/HWBroschuere2637.pdf. 101 p. Bronstert, A. (2006). Overview of current perspectives on climate change. In: Knight, D.W., Shamseldin, A.Y. (2006). River Basin Modelling for Flood Risk Mitigation. Taylor & Francis. London. Bronstert, A. (ed.) (2004). Flood Risk Reduction by the Use of Detention Areas at the Elbe and Odra River (in German). Brandenburgische Umweltberichte Nr. 15. Potsdam. http://pub.ub.uni- potsdam.de/zsr/bub/door/door15.htm. p. 212. Buchta, R. (2003). Flood protection and land use in the Lower Havel floodplain – consequences from the Elbe flood in August 2002 (in German). Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege Brandenburg, No. 3, pp. 80-84. German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG) (2002), The Flood of August 2002 in the Elbe Area (in German), http://elise.bafg.de/servlet/is/3967/. p. 49. Gocht, M. (2004a). Damage potential analysis for the downstream riparian area (in German). IN: Bronstert, A. (ed.) (2004). Gocht, M. (2004b). Benefit-cost analysis (in German). IN: Bronstert, A. (ed.) (2004). Green, C.H., Parker, D.J., Tunstall, S.M. (2000). Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options, Thematic Review IV.4 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org Fischer M., Schindler M., Strobl T. (2005). Controlled Flood Polders - an effective method for reducing floods in middle reaches of rivers. Proceedings of XIIth World Water Congress in New Delhi. Förster et al. (2005), Flood risk reduction by the use of retention areas at the Elbe River, Intl. J. River Basin Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 21-29. Hall, M.J., Hockin, D.L. and Ellis, J.B. (1993). Design of flood storage reservoirs. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, CIRIA, London. Helms et al. (2002), Statistical analysis of the flood situation and assessment of the impact of diking measures along the Elbe (Labe) river, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 267, pp. 94–114. International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (IKSE) (2003), Elbe flood action plan (in German). http://elise.bafg.de/servlet/is/5130/ . p. 79. International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (IKSE) (2004), Documentation of the August 2002 flood at the Elbe River (in German). http://elise.bafg.de/servlet/is/6889/. p. 207. Landesumweltamt Brandenburg LUA (2002): The Elbe flood in summer 2002 (in German). Bericht des Landesumweltamtes. Nr. 73. Mudelsee, M., Börngen, M., Tetzlaff, G., Grünewald, U. (2003). No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe. Nature 425, 166-169. Smith, K. and Ward, R. (1998). Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impact. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester.
Rev No: 1.1 14 October 2006 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Report 3 Risk reduction activities on the Odra River
FLOODsite Report TASK 12 / ACTION 5 Case study “Risk reduction activities on the Odra River” (levees and warning systems)
Report by Professor Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz & Ms Iwona Pińskwar Dated 22 September 2006
Contents
Introduction ...... 2 Odra flood of summer 1997 in a nutshell...... 2 Ex-post analysis of the levee system...... 3 Warning system at the Odra during the 1997 flood ...... 4 Observation network ...... 5 Forecasts, warnings and their conveyance ...... 5 Lessons learnt...... 7 Examples of tangible developments...... 8 Conclusions ...... 9 References ...... 9 Annexes...... 10 Annex 1 – Criteria of hydrological effects...... 10 Jelenia Góra Province...... 10 Wałbrzych Province ...... 12 Katowice Province ...... 14 Opole Province...... 16 Wrocław Province...... 19 Leszno Province ...... 21 Legnica Province...... 21 Zielona Góra Province ...... 22 Gorzów Wielkopolski Province ...... 23 Szczecin Province ...... 24 Annex 2 Warnings in Polish provinces during the July 1997 flood: factual information... 25 Wałbrzych Province ...... 25 Opole Province...... 25 Jelenia Gora Province...... 26 Annex 3 – Criteria of social and economic effects and specific criteria...... 26 Jelenia Góra Province...... 26 Wałbrzych Province ...... 27 Katowice Province ...... 28 Opole Province...... 30 Wrocław Province...... 31 Leszno Province ...... 32 Legnica Province...... 33 Zielona Góra Province ...... 34 Gorzów Province...... 34 Szczecin Province ...... 35
Introduction
The aim of the present report is to evaluate two flood protection measures (levee system and the monitoring – forecasting - warning system) and their performance during the destructive Odra flood in summer 1997 in an ex-post way. The levees are an important example of structural flood protection levees, traditionally defending the riparian population and property by constraining the water. The monitoring – forecasting – warning system belongs to non-structural measures. It can save lifes, by timely evacuation, and reduce material damages. It is demonstrated how the existing flood preparedness system proved to be largely inadequate. It has been considerably strengthened since the deluge. However, no large and area-covering floods occurred on the Odra since 1997 (except from local flash flood events on tributaries, e.g. in 1998), so it cannot be verified how well the new developments fulfil the expectations. The specification of the problem follows: Type of water body Rivers Type of flood Flash flood / Slow rise flood Perspective of evaluation Single event / Event independent Potential relevance for the determination of Effectiveness Efficiency Robustness
Odra flood of summer 1997 in a nutshell
The most disastrous recent abundance of water in the recent history of Poland was the Odra flood in summer 1997. It had a truly international dimension, hitting three riparian countries: Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany, causing 110 fatalities in the first two countries and large material losses in all three, of the order of several billion USD. The Odra flood of 1997 was a result of exceptionally intense precipitation covering a large area. During the first stage of the disastrous 1997 Odra flood in Poland (Kundzewicz et al., 1999), a fast runoff increase was noted after the intense rainfall in the Upper Odra and its highland tributaries. The flood virtually ruined the town of Kłodzko (31 000 inhabitants) located at the river Nysa Kłodzka, tributary to the Odra. In the second stage, a huge flood wave propagated downstream on the Odra. Due to the size of the wave it was not possible to avoid inundation of towns, yet, thanks to the time lag, some preparation could be made. The flood devastated such large towns, as Racibórz (65 000 inhabitants), Opole (131 000) and Wrocław (700 000). At the gauge Racibórz-Miedonia, the historic record stage of 838 cm and the record discharge of 1630 m3 s-1 were exceeded by much higher values of 1045 cm and 3260 m3 s-1, respectively, in 1997. In Opole, the water level outstripped the absolute historic maximum by 173 cm (777 cm in 1997, as compared to 604 cm in 1813 and 584 cm in 1985). The flood protection system of Wrocław was designed for a flow rate of 2400 m3 s-1, while the peak flow in July 1997 was higher by nearly half. The peak of the flood flattened while travelling downstream, so the return period of the maximum was decreasing with distance. Finally, in the third stage, high water reached the stretch of the boundary between Poland and Germany and, further downstream, the Lower Odra. There was more time for heightening and strengthening embankments. The fight to save towns and land was largely successful on the Polish side. On the German side, breaches of embankments and significant material losses were recorded. During the flood of 1997, the alarm levels were exceeded uninterruptedly over several weeks. The exceedance of the historic maximum water levels lasted from 4 to 7 days at the upper Odra to about 16 days in Połęcko. The nation-wide toll for both the Odra and Vistula floods of summer 1997 was an all-time high in Poland as far as economic losses are concerned. There is no official figure for material losses but the mean estimate is around 12 billion PLN (see specification in Box 1. The number of fatalities reached 54. The number of evacuees was 162,000. Around 665,000 ha of land were flooded, of which 450, 000 ha was agricultural.
Box 1: Specification of material damage • enterprises: 2917.7 mln zł • damage in infrastructure, suffered by communities and state budget agencies, destruction of streets and public roads and water structures: 4 972.6 mln • damage in the agriculture sector: 2.5-2.7 mld = 2500 – 2700 mln • damage in forestry 197.3 mln • damage in households: 1 447 mln (towns: 729.3 mln, villages: 717.7 mln) Damage estimate does not include: o values of net benefits lost due to reduction of activities of enterprises In 1997, assessed by affected units: 191.3 mln zł o extraordinary costs related to the flood action and removing the flood impacts o losses of religion institutions o the cost of construction of 1000 appartments to flood victims.
In the light of objective hydrological data, it is clear that the disaster could not have been avoided. The flood magnitude was exceptionally high. Indeed, if a flood record is doubled and the flood recurrence interval gets into the range of several hundreds or thousands of years, there is no way to avoid high material losses. The event made the broad public aware of how dangerous and destructive a flood can be. It also demonstrated the weaker and stronger points of the flood defence and helped identify the most pressing needs for improvements. Indeed, every link in the chain of operational flood management was found to be in the need of strengthening. The structural flood defences, for several larger towns upon the Odra and its tributaries and for vast areas of agricultural land, proved to be dramatically inadequate for such a rare flood. Flood defences, designed for smaller, more common floods, fail when exposed to a much higher pressure. Organisation was also a weak point, especially in the beginning of the flood, even when the extraordinary scale of event and the effect of shock are considered. Legislation was inadequate; for example concerning financing flood action and division of responsibilities and competence. As a result, regional and local authorities were uncertain as to their share in the decision making (with financial implications). The upsides were: accelerated awareness raising and generation of national solidarity. The saving of towns and land during the third stage of the flood, the protection of the Lower Odra was a real success story. The impression of disorder gradually decreased with the development of flood. Indeed, if a surprise of such an extraordinary scale occurs, time is needed to adapt. The flood of 1997 was the highest flood on record, both in hydrological terms (peak stage, flow, inundated area) and in economic terms (material losses). It was an effect of exceptionally intensive precipitation covering a large area. This very rare hydrological event was superimposed on a complex, and dynamically changing, socio-economic system of a country-in-transition.
Ex-post analysis of the levee system
Levee system has been and continues to be the principal structural flood protection measure used on the River Odra. Its task is to disconnect parts of the floodplain from the river by forming a physical barrier to the flood water. However, the system failed to form a physical barrier during the 1997 flood – the existing dikes proved to be largely inadequate. A major part of levees on the Polish section of the River Odra were built in the 19th century, and in the beginning of the 20th century, in particular after a dramatic flood disaster of 1903. In this time, Poland did not exist as an independent country and the Odra (Oder) River Basin belonged to Austria and Prussia / Germany. The materials from which the levees were built do largely differ in mechanical properties, such as bulk density and filtration coefficient. After some time, in a large part of levees, built from local cohesive and organic grounds, serious changes have taken place. Cracks and macropores accelerate the filtration process and diminish the resistance parameters of the core. This, in consequence, leads to weakening of the structure and a possible breach. The state of levee bed is of considerable importance for stability and safety. In the past, the bed was not cleared of sediments and vegetation, trees and bushes. Reaches of old river bed were left unchanged near the bottom of the levee. They are places where the bottom and the core of the levee may get weakened. Often, levees do not have filtration covers and drainages and do not have access roads. Geological structure of river valleys is heterogeneous. In the neighborhood of the levee, piping and ground wash-outs are not uncommon. If the bed contains loose sands, intensive filtration can occur and wash out the bed. . Levees were designed for a 100-year water, with exceedance probability of Q[m3/s] = 0.01. However, they have been challenged by a number of larger floods in the 20th century, such as 1902, 1903, 1965, 1977, 1985 and 1997, and in particular the last one. Actual state of flood protection of all towns in the valley of the Upper Odra is not sufficient. The conveyance capacity in Racibórz is up to 1500m3/s (while the maximum flow rate of 3120 m3/s occurred in 1997) in Koźle - - up to 1200m3/s (3060 m3/s in 1997), in Krapkowice - up to 1100 m3/s (3170 m3/s in 1997), in Oława - up to 500 m3/s (3550 m3/s in 1997). None of the analyzed towns has the potential to pass safely a 100-year (design) flood wave. The town of Wrocław, the largest town on the Odra, has approximately 45 km of levees. In Wrocław, the water supply intakes are inundated already during floods greater than 30-year water. Existing levees dating back to 19th and early 20th century needed strengthening and heightening and the riparian boulevards – repair or reconstruction. The system was expected to be able to convey a culmination wave of the amplitude of 2400 m3/s; in 1997: 3640 m3/s. In the conditions existing before the 1997 flood in the area of the Wrocław water node, it was possible to pass a flood wave with the maximum of 1850 m3/s (with the use of the polder Oławka and the bypass to Widawa). Then, the water surface would be below 1-1.5 m under the top of the levee, according to numerical model computations. The control flow for the flood defense system of Wrocław can potentially reach 2200 m3/s under the condition of complete reconstruction of boulevards, strengthening of some segments of levees, clearing the area between levees of drawbacks (e. g. complexes of small gardens) and reaching full efficiency of all control structures on weirs and polders. Annex 1 contains detailed information on performance of the levee system, including detailed specification of damages in different categories.
Warning system at the Odra during the 1997 flood
In order to build an efficient flood preparedness system, a truly holistic perspective is needed, embracing a suite of components, such as monitoring, forecasting, warning, dissemination, and response. A weakest link in the above chain decides on the performance of the whole system. In an ideal system, an accurate forecast is translated into a reliable warning, which is broadly and effectively disseminated to the communities at risk who, in turn, take adequate loss-reducing actions. A flood forecast should give information as to when (timing), where (location), and how intense (magnitude) natural disasters are likely to occur in the near future (minutes, hours, days, up to weeks), how they will travel downstream and evolve, and what secondary effects they may cause. Among the criteria or indicators of warnings are such as: warning errors ratio, penetration of warning (proportion of those who need information and receive it to those who need information), degree of satisfaction, etc. To some extent, warnings errors can be regarded as those in statistical testing, i. e., error of the first kind – warning related to a disaster that has not materialized, versus errors of the second kind - lack of warning against a disaster that actually occurred. Yet, the analogy is not complete; a flood warning in the Netherlands in 1995 resulted in an order of massive evacuation. A disaster has not arrived, as the weakened levees withstood the water masses. Yet, even if a disaster has not occurred, the warning, and the evacuation, were justified, and taken positively by the population – the risk of dike failure was very high. Forecasting and warning systems are often seen as relatively inexpensive non-structural measures of flood protection. They are advantageous alternatives to politically unpalatable permanent evacuation of floodplains and to very expensive, and also politically controversial, large structural flood protection measures (or costly upgrades of the existing infrastructure).
Observation network
The observation network run by the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (IMGW) has been weakened due to insufficient funding. Its technical level has also deteriorated. It was not able to provide the necessary information. The number of meteorological stations with observations around the clock decreased from 36 to 26, the other stations being converted to day-only stations. The number of rain gauges decreased from 1045 to 819 (by 22%). A large part of water level stations were destroyed or damaged. As many as 76 river stage were destroyed and 22 damaged; 30 precipitation stations were destroyed and 24 damaged (see Table 1). In many water gauges the maximum level of the existing scale was exceeded. It was difficult if at all possible to reach the gauge. It was not possible to convey the results of observations and measurement due to the interruption of telecommunication links or breaks in electricity energy supply. Numerous levee breaches and inundations of river valleys did not make it possible to use rating curves (stage-discharge relations).
Table 1 Damages in observation network. River Numer of gauges Numer of limnigraphs Total destroyed damaged destroyed damaged Odra 10 2 3 2 17 Sumina - - 1 - 1 Nysa Kłodzka 20 5 3 3 31 Oława 6 - 2 - 8 Widawa 2 - - 1 3 Bystrzyca 6 3 3 4 16 Kaczawa 9 1 4 1 15 Barycz 3 - 1 1 5 Bóbr 12 4 9 7 32 Nysa Łużycka 2 - 3 3 8 Warta 6 7 1 2 16 Total 76 22 30 24 152
Forecasts, warnings and their conveyance
Coordination of flood protection and mitigation in Poland is the mandate of the Flood Protection Committees, which exist at the national (CKP), provincial (WKP), district (RKP), and commune / town levels (GKP and MKP, respectively). The mandate of the national hydrometeorological service (Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, IMGW) includes responsibility for hydrological networks, observations, data transmission and hydrological forecasting. The two branches of IMGW, responsible for hydrological information and forecasts during the Odra flood, were located in Wrocław (upper and middle Odra) and Poznań (border stretch and lower Odra). There are two status thresholds used in statements and warnings in Poland – an alert level and an alarm level of the river stage. According to the legislation in the Republic of Poland, announcing and denouncing the status of flood alert and alarm belong to the competence of a chairperson of the Provincial Flood Protection Committee (WKP). The 1997 flood clearly demonstrated that this has not been a pragmatic solution in a case of a fast, destructive flood. During the 1997 Odra flood, warnings (alert state and alarm state) were announced by mayors of towns and communes, based on their own observation of the situation, before the decisions on alert / alarm were issued by the chairman of the Provincial (województwo) Flood Protection Committee, i. e. WKP (typically - a governor). As only Flood Protection committees are entitled to declare alert state and alarm state, decisions made by mayors – sanctioning the factual state, on the principle of self- defense and common sense, did not follow the letter of law. The actions were spontaneous, with no uniform leadership. On 6 July, Mayor of Stronie Śląskie informed the secretary of WKP on launching flood alert on the territory of the town. The Mayor of Głuchołazy issued warning, based on own observations of the behaviour of the river and reading a stage gauge. In Mysłakowice commune, on 7 July at 7.00 a.m., deputy mayor declared alarm and evacuation, informing by phone the Provincial Flood Protection Committee in Jelenia Góra, i. e. the authority, which should have issued alarm. On 7 July, at 2.30 a.m., a fire brigade took decision to evacuate inhabitants of Wilkanów. Chairmen of Provincial Flood Protection Committees were, in general, late with declaring alert and alarm status. They also did not order reservoir operators to lower early the reservoir level, in some cases interpreting this not to be their responsibility. Further downstream, the advance warning (e. g. in Wrocław – 24 hr warning) helped reduce losses by flood fighting activities (flood proofing, sandbags). In Slubice – flood banks were heightened by 1.2-1.5 m. The German riparian area received advance warning – several days before the flood visit. In the Annex 2, specific information about warnings during the July 1997 flood in several Polish provinces has been assembled. According to NIK, early warning system consisting of early detection, forecasting, and conveying the information was not stable and destruction-proof. It was basically based on an observation network rather than automatic system of measurements. Frequency of prepared forecasts was too low. The telecommunication system, based mainly on telephone network, failed. The same informations were conveyed by different units of IMGW. The list of recipients of warnings on dangerous hydrological and meteorological events was not updated since 1986. The messages were conveyed in a routine way, without alarming the appropriate services, and in particular the Minister of Environment Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry about the catastrophic dimension of the forthcoming flood. Occurrence of a large, rare, flood of high return period unveiled specific weaknesses of the monitoring-forecast-warning systems. Among the shortcomings are the following: - Hydrological models were prepared (and validated) for much lower water levels and discharges - In the first stage of flood, the system of distribution of the products of the hydrometeorological service (IMGW) did not work correctly. The service was “taken by surprise”. - First warnings on the forthcoming intensive precipitation and the possibility of exceedance of alarm water levels were sent to province (województwo) flood protection committees on 4 July 1997. - On 5-6 July 1997, the IMGW hydrometeorological network started to operate in the flood emergency mode, and the conveyance of information, messages, and forecasts commenced, consistent with the plans of conveyance of flood information, existing in branch offices of IMGW. - Difficulties in conveyance of forecasts and messages occurred. Several flood protection committees lost the standard telecommunication facilities, or were evacuated from permanent locations and did not inform the IMGW on the new phone numbers. - There were cases of negligence on the part of some flood protection committees. Some forecasts and alerts were not disseminated by flood protection committees to lower-level committees and administration. This put additional burden on the IMGW services, who had to provide information to a much broader list of recipients. Irregularities reported by controls after the flood, referred to different levels of the administration system. The Minister of Environment Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, as the ex officio Chair of the Supreme Flood Protection Committee did not take a decision to convene a meeting and to commence activity of the Supreme Flood Protection Committee, despite the information provided by the IMGW from 4 July 1997 on, about the hydrological situation (long- lasting and intense rainfall), and from 7 July 1997 on, messages about floods. The first high level action was the convening by the Council of Ministers on 8 July 1997 of a task force for coordination of action aimed at curbing the flood consequences, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration. The failure of the warning system means that it is not able to transmit the information to the target audience - potentially exposed population. An aggregate evaluation of the timing of receipt of warnings about flood danger in 1997 (base on studies by IPS PAN and IMGW) show the following illustration of poor performance: - warnings were not provided in time – 75 % respondents (affected inhabitants) - in the last moment - 18 % - arrived somewhat too late - 5 % - arrived sufficiently early - 2 % Only 2% of affected population was satisfied from the timeliness of warning. In 70 % of controlled communities no information and awareness raising activity about the flood danger was carried out (NIK).
Lessons learnt
Flood vulnerability and hazard were not seriously considered by political elites and the broad public in Poland before 1997. In 1989, when the country entered a period of transition, the nation became aware of the emerging social and economic opportunities. Immense needs in every area became apparent and virtually every sector requested more and more public money. Under such circumstances, and in the long-term absence of really disastrous floods, the expenditures on flood protection were low. The 1997 event made the public at large aware of how dangerous and destructive a flood can be. It also demonstrated the weak elements of the defence system and helped identify the most pressing needs for improvements. The structural flood defences, for several larger towns upon the Odra and its tributaries and for vast areas of agricultural land, proved to be totally inadequate for such a rare flood. Flood defences, designed for smaller, more common floods, were bound to fail when exposed to a much higher pressure (Kundzewicz et al., 1999). As stated by the International Commission for the Protection of the Odra, among the necessary activities were: - improvement and coordination of flood warning services and improvement of long-term flood forecasts - modernization of flood forecasting and warning system – to extend the lead time and reduce damage, for the whole catchment. This includes recognition of needs of modernization of the network of stage and rain gauges, automatization, data transmission, technical upgrading of flood warning centers, including telecommunication facilities (phone, radio, fax, working also without mains supply), creation or modernization of system of informing and warning the population (via media, or automatic warning), enhancing regional, inter-regional and inter-national flow of information related to flood, precipitation, observations, forecasts and developing forecast models (based on quantitative precipitation forecasts, rainfall-runoff, and flood routing). After the flood of 1997, there have been considerable investments in Poland, aimed at improvement of flood preparedness systems, including strengthening the flood forecasting and warning systems (e. g. broader use of modern technology, radar, GIS). Efforts have been made to upgrade the monitoring systems, to render stream gauges more robust, and communication and data transmission systems, more reliable than during the 1997 flood. Many deficiencies of the performance of players in Flood Protection actions of 1997 have been identified in the comprehensive report prepared by the National Chamber of Control (NIK, 1998). It is clear that the distribution of responsibilities, understanding of duties and complicated links between the actors need to be improved. The principal player was the Ministry of Environment Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry (with Minister playing the role of Chairperson of the Central Flood Protection Committee, yet, detailed specification of duties lacking). Typically, shortcuts and delegating mandate and responsibility to lower level (subsidiarity principle) would help. According to the legislation existing during the flood, the low-level authorities were not entitled to announce the alert or the alarm status. They had to wait for the statement of this status being issued by the Provincial Flood Protection committees (WKP) and such decisions came delayed by many hours, sometimes a day or more. Also the information flow was deficient – hydrometeorological stations reported to their regional branches (albeit making information available, on request, also to local authorities). The conditions of participating in flood actions, and financial consequences, were not clearly defined (Army, Police, Fire Brigades). Issuance of instruction on participation of armed forces in flood mitigation action was triggered by the flood in July 1997 (therefore in several cases, the army was reluctant as to its involvement). Polish Civil Defense has been oriented to act in case of war rather than peace! The nation and the relevant services have learnt the lesson. In case of the second flood wave in July 1997, the preparedness and performance was far better than during the first wave, when the nation was largely taken by surprise. Among the downsides of the forecasting and warning system was the telecommunication system. Some 189 thousand telecommunication links were disconnected. Damage to the network of TPSA (Polish Telecom) was severe, yet , beside TPSA there were 16 other players active in the telecommunication area. Mobile phones proved to provide more reliable communication.
Examples of tangible developments
After the destructive 1997 flood, the flood preparedness systems, including structural measures (such as levees) and non-structural measures (such as monitoring-forecasting-warning system) have been essentially overhauled. Table 2 presents the expenditures on flood protection dikes and pump stations in 1995-2004 (in million of current PLN). Indeed, the expenditures on flood protection more than doubled in 1997 in comparison to 1996 and nearly doubled in 1998 in comparison to 1997 (i.e. more than quadrupled in 1998 in comparison to 1996). Table 3 specifies the length of the constructed and reconstructed flood protection dikes (in km). Also this Table demonstrates that the rate of construction or reconstruction of dikes grew considerably after the flood.
Table 2 Expenditures on flood protection dikes and pump stations in 1995-2004 (in million of current PLN). Source: GUS.
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Flood protection dikes 39,1 49,9 105.5 203.5 228,5 243,4 171,9 161,9 222,9 250,5 and pump stations
Table 3 The total length of the constructed and reconstructed flood protection dikes (in km). Source: GUS.
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Length of constructed and reconstructed flood protection dikes (in km). 110 309 266 204 163 103 190 243
As examples of specific activities, one could mention rebuilding and strengthening of levees (heightening by 80 cm) at Mokry Dwór on the Oławka polder, which flood-proofs the Wrocław water supply system. In many localities affected by the 1997 flood, modernization of flood protection levees took place (e.g. on the Bystrzyca at Pracze Odrzanskie on the Bóbr at Wleń, and on the Płóczka and Srebrna at Lwówek Śląski, at the Nysa Kłodzka in Lewin Brzeski). Detailed information is contained in Pińskwar (2006). Considerable improvements have been also achieved in the flood monitoring-forecast-warning system. It was found that the centralized structure of the system did not help in the process of dissemination. Now, IMGW provides forecasts directly to the relevant communes. Since the 1997 flood, a large-scale programme of automatizing the system of observation, transmission, and data distribution has been implemented (therein about 250 stations in the Odra Basin upstream to the mouth of Nysa Łużycka (Lausitzer Neisse) and 38 in the border reach and the Warta basin. A system of eight meteorological radars (POLRAD) has been deployed. After the three first radars, in Legionowo near Warszawa, Ramża hill near Katowice and Pastewnik hill near Bolków, there are five further stations, in Tarnów, Rzeszów, Poznań, Gdynia and Szczecin, all equipped with Doppler meteorological radars. Moreover, multiple local warning systems have been launched, e.g. in the District Office in Kłodzko (automatic monitoring system with 19 river stage stations and 20 precipitation stations) and in Kędzierzyn-Koźle (automatic monitoring system and a system of dissemination consisting of sirens and louudspeakers), the Municipal Office in Nowa Ruda (based on citizen network of observers and cellular phone connections – warning dissemination by sms), the District Office in Świdnica (alerting after exceedance of threshold values at 4 precipitation stations and 5 river stations). Detailed information is contained in Pińskwar (2006).
Conclusions
An efficient flood preparedness system requires a truly holistic perspective. There is no one-fits-all solution and the optimal system should be based on an optimal site-specific set of options. Among them are structural measures, such as river dikes, and non-structural measures such as the system of monitoring, forecasting, warning, dissemination, and response. Both these measures have played, and continue to play, a very important role in the flood preparedness system in the Odra Basin. A weakest link in the above chain decides on the performance of the whole system. It was demonstrated that the flood preparedness system existing in the time of the 1997 flood was to be largely inadequate for the dimension of the deluge and failed to provide protection. However, lessons have been learnt and the system has been considerably strengthened in the last decade since the flood. Since no large and area- covering floods occurred on the Odra since 1997 (except from local flash flood events on tributaries), it remains to bee seen whether the new developments fulfil the expectations.
References
Automated local flood warning systems handbook (1997) Weather Service Hydrology Handbook No. 2 (available at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/docs/alfws-handbook/).
Barszczyńska, M., Bogdańska-Warmuz, R., Konieczny, R., Madej, P., Siudak, M. (2005) Zdążyć przed powodzią. Przewodnik metodyczny na temat lokalnych systemów monitoringu i ostrzeżeń powodziowych. IMGW, Kraków, 86 stron.
Bokszczanin, A. (2003) Społeczne i psychiczne reakcje dzieci i młodzieży na powódź 1997 roku. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Psychologicznego PAN. Warszawa, 199 stron.
Centrum Informacyjne Rządu (1997) Klęska powodzi. Przegląd Rządowy, 6-7 (72-73), I – XLVII.
Centrum Informacyjne Rządu (1998) Wyniki badania i szacunek skutków powodzi w 1997 r. Przegląd Rządowy, 4 (82), 154 – 175.
Centrum Informacyjne Rządu (1998) Straty w dobrach kultury w czasie powodzi. Przegląd Rządowy, 4 (82), 176 – 185.
Chlebicki, Z. (1997) Powódź w Kotlinie Kłodzkiej w lipcu 1997. Gazeta Obserwatora IMGW, 6, 29 – 33.
Chojnacki, J., Zawada, H. (1998) Powódź w lipcu 1997 roku i jej skutki. Gospodarka Wodna, 3, 107 – 113.
Dubicki, A., Słota, H., Zieliński, J. (red) (1999) Dorzecze Odry. Monografia powodzi, lipiec 1997. IMGW, Warszawa, 241 stron.
Dz.U. (1997) Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 22 lipca 1997 r. w sprawie ustalenia wykazu gmin, na obszarze których wystąpiła powódź, oraz zasad udzielania i sposobu rozliczania dotacji celowych dla tych gmin na finansowanie bieżących zadań własnych. Dz. U. z dnia 24 lipca 1997 r.
Forum Naukowo-Techniczne – Powódź 1997. Wstępna ocena przyczyn, rozmiarów i skutków. Ustroń k. Wisły, 10-12 września 1997. 3 części.
Grela, J., Słota, H., Zieliński, J. (red) (1999) Dorzecze Wisły. Monografia powodzi, lipiec 1997. IMGW, Warszawa, 199 stron.
Hunt JCR (1995) Forecasts and warnings of natural disasters: the roles of national and international agencies, Meteorol. Appl. 2, 53-64
Kaniasty, K. (2003) Klęska żywiołowa czy katastrofa społeczna? Psychospołeczne konsekwencje polskiej powodzi 1997 roku. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. Gdańsk, 318 stron.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., Szamałek, K. & Kowalczak, P. (1999) The Great Flood of 1997 in Poland, Hydrol. Sci. J. 44(6) 855- 870.
Łoziński, W., Tarnowski, J. (1997) Raport z Potopu ’97. Agencja Wydawniczo Reklamowa. Wrocław. 228 stron.
Malinowska-Małek, J. (1997) Powódź w lipcu 1997 w dorzeczu Odry. Gazeta Obserwatora IMGW, 6, 12 – 17.
MKOO (1999) Dorzecze Odry. Powódź 1997. MKOO, Wrocław.
Nigg, J. (1995) Risk communication and warning systems. Chapter 33 in: Hotlick-Jones, T., Amendola, A. & Casale, R. (eds) Natural Risk and Civil Protection, E & FN Spon, 369-382
NIK [Supreme Chamber of Control] (1998) Informacja o wynikach kontroli stanu zabezpieczenia przeciwpowodziowego kraju oraz przebiegu działań ratowniczych w czasie powodzi na terenie południowej i zachodniej Polski w lipcu 1997 (Information on results of control and the state of flood protection of the country and the course of flood mitigation activities during the flood in the southern and western Poland in July 1997) NIK, Warsaw.
NIK (2000) Informacja o wynikach kontroli usuwania skutków powodzi z lipca 1997 r. przez administrację publiczną.
Opole. Kalendarium powodzi. Materiały ze strony: http://www.opole.pl/miasto/powodz.html
Parker, D. J. (1988) Emergency service response and costs in British floods, Disasters 12 50-69.
Pińskwar, I. (2006) Working material for FLOODsite case study (in Polish, manuscript)
Plate, E. J. (1999) Flood risk management: a strategy to cope with floods. In: Bronstert, A. Ghazi, A., Hladny, J., Kundzewicz, Z. & Menzel, L. (eds) The Odra / Oder flood in summer 1997: Proceedings of the European Expert Meeting in Potsdam, 18 May 1998, 115-128.
Prognozy IMGW Poznań dla dolnej Odry (1997) Materiały niepublikowane.
Skąpski, R. (1997) Służba Hydrologiczno-Meteorologiczna IMGW w okresie powodzi w lipcu i sierpniu 1997. Gazeta Obserwatora IMGW, 6, 4 - 7.
Stallings, R. A. (1991) Ending evacuations. Intern. J. of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 9(2) 183-200.
Szczegielnik, Cz. (1995) Ochrona od powodzi miast w dolinie górnej Odry. W: Ochrona miast przed powodzią – koncepcje i doświadczenia. Materiały konferencyjne. Kraków, 20 – 22 IX 1995, IV: 1 -16.
UM Wrocław (1997) Powódź. Raport strat we Wrocławiu. 95 stron.
Zieliński, J. (1997) Raport Dyrektora z działalności Instytutu Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej w czasie powodzi w dorzeczu Wisły i Odry w lipcu i sierpniu 1997. Gazeta Obserwatora IMGW, wydanie specjalne.
Annexes
Annex 1 – Criteria of hydrological effects
Jelenia Góra Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow KACZAWA: Świerzawa 66.3 km, Q1%(1957-1997) = 97.9 m /s 3 frequency Hydrologi I wave: Qmax = 106 m /s 3 cal effects II wave: Qmax = 152 m /s = Q0.08%
max water Alarm level 150 cm, level I wave: Hmax = 400 cm II wave: Hmax = 465 cm Criteria of Criteria hydrological effects Time I wave: 06.07.1997 at 20.00 - 10.07.1997 duration II wave: 19.07.1997 at 08.00 - 26.07.1997 at 14.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at14.00 II wave: 20.07.1997 at 12.00
Flood max flow BÓBR: Bukówka 262.9 km, Q1%(1949-1997) = 44.1/s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 8.62 m /s = Q50% II wave: Q = 7.94 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water Alarm level 150 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 149 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 144 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at08.00 II wave: 18.07.1997, at 23.00 - 19.07.1997, at 05.00 3 Flood max flow BÓBR: Kamienna Góra 248 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 131 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 119 m /s = Q2% 3 II wave: Qmax = 93.4 m /s max water Alarm level 120 cm, Hydrol level I wave: H = 280 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 254 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 20.00 - 13.07.1997 at 08.00 above the II wave: 18.07.1997 at 11.00 - 29.07.1997 at 20.00 alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at23.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 11.00 3 Flood max flow BÓBR : Wojanów 218 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 247 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 189 m /s II wave: Q = 229 m3/s = Q Hydrol max 2% Hydrologi max water Alarm level 200 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 380 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 405 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at 08.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 14.00 3 Flood max flow BÓBR: Jelenia Góra 205.1 km, Q1%(1948-1997) = 476 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 530 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 574 m /s = Q0.3% max water Alarm level 160 cm, Hydrol level I wave: H = 470 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 490 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 08.00 - 11.07.1997 at 20.00 above the II wave: 18.07.1997 at 17.00 – 28.07.1997 at 20.00 alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at23.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at20.00 3 Flood max flow BÓBR: Dabrowa Bolesław. 132.5 km, Q1%(1967-1997) = 534 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 380 m /s II wave: Q = 570 m3/s = Q Hydrol max 0.8% Hydrologi max water Alarm level 250 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 550 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 625 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 09.07.1997, at 20.00 - 10.07.1997, at 02.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 23.00 3 Flood max flow KWISA: Mirsk 105.7 km, Q1%(1969-1997) = 396 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 119 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 216 m /s = Q5% max water Alarm level 400 cm, Hydrol level I wave: H = 500 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 554 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 06.07.1997, at 20.00 – 08.07.1997, at23.00 above the II wave: 19.07.1997, at 02.00 – 23.07.1997, at 20.00, 26.07.1997, at alarm level 14.00 – 27.07.1997, at 14.00
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at 14.00 II wave: 19.07.1997, at 14.00 3 Flood max flow KWISA: Nowogrodziec 56.2 km, Q1%(1961-1997) = 322 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 68 m /s II wave: Q = 177 m3/s = Q Hydrol max 9% Hydrologi max water Alarm level 280 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 340 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 467 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 09.07.1997, at 08.00 – 14.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 14.00 3 Flood Hydrol max flow NYSA ŁUŻYCKA: Zgorzelec 151.4 km, Q1%(1948-1997) = 554 m /s Hydrologi 3
of of frequency ogical I wave: Qmax = 140 m /s eria Crit cal effects 3 criteria II wave: Qmax = 195 m /s = Q25% max water Alarm level 290 cm, level I wave: Hmax = 444 cm
II wave: Hmax = 500 cm culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at11.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 08.00 3 Flood max flow WITKA: Ostróżko 10.2 km, Q1%(1965-1997) = 294 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 207 m /s II wave: Q = 226 m3/s = Q Hydrol max 4% Hydrologi max water Alarm level 200 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 298 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 300 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at 20.00 II wave: 19.07.1997, at 23.00 - 20.07.1997, at 20.00 – 23.00 Pollution Sewage treatment plant in Jelenia Góra damaged – Raw sewage conveyed to the River Bóbr. Old landfill in Łąki near Bolesławiec inundated.
Criteria of limnologi Levees were destroyed at the length of approximately 5 490 meters. protection Efficiency of
Wałbrzych Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Międzylesie 167 km, Q1%(1952-1997) = 69.2 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 86.7 m /s = Q0.5% 3 II wave: Qmax = 6.48 m /s Hydrol Hydrologi max water Alarm level 70 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 277 cm criteria Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 84 cm
hydrological effects hydrological effects culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at21.00 II wave: 20.07.1997 at 08.00
Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Bystrzyca Kłodzka 147.8 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = frequency 290 m3/s 3 I wave: Qmax = 424 m /s = Q0.09% 3 II wave: Qmax = 54.4 m /s max water Alarm level 180 cm, Hydrol level I wave: H = 638 cm Hydrologi max ogical Gauge destroyed. Data from levelling, backwater from the bridge. cal effects criteria II wave: Hmax = 160 cm time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 80.00 – 09.07.1997 at 80.00 above the II wave: no data. alarm level culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at22.00 Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 21.07.1997, at 20.00 3 Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Kłodzko 127.4 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 641 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 1340 m /s = Q0.002% 3 II wave: Qmax = 296 m /s max water Alarm level 240 cm, level I wave: H = 655 cm Hydrol max Hydrologi Gauge destroyed. River flew through the town centre. ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 331 cm effects criteria time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 14.00 - 10.07.1997 at 14.00 above the II wave: 19.07.1997 at 14.00 - 23.07.1997 at 08.00 alarm level Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at02.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 11.00 3 Flood Hydrol max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Bardo 111.4 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 1322 m /s Hydrologi 3 frequency ogical I wave: Qmax = 1790 m /s = Q0.2% cal effects 3 criteria II wave: Qmax = 455 m /s max water Alarm level 250 cm, level I wave: Hmax = 770 cm Zniszczenie wodowskazu: dane z niwelacji effects II wave: Hmax = 392 cm time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 14.00 - 10.07.1997 at 14.00 above the II wave: 19.07.1997 at 14.00 - 23.07.1997 at 08.00 Criteria of hydrological Criteria alarm level Crit Criteria of hydrological Criteria of Criteria of hydrological Criteria of hydrological Criteria of hydrological Criteria of hydrological eria effects hydrological effects effects effects effects effects of frequency Flood frequency Flood frequency Flood frequency Flood frequency Flood frequency Flood frequency Flood culmination Hydrol Hydrol Hydrol Hydrol Hydrol Hydrol Hydrol criteria criteria criteria criteria criteria criteria criteria ogical ogical ogical ogical ogical ogical ogical Hydrologi Hydrologi Hydrologi Hydrologi Hydrologi Hydrologi Hydrologi cal effects cal effects cal effects cal effects cal effects cal effects cal effects cal effects level water max max flow alarm level alarm above the time duration level water max max flow level water max max flow level alarm above the time duration level water max max flow level alarm above the time duration level water max max flow level alarm above the time duration level water max max flow max flow culmination culmination culmination culmination culmination culmination II wave: II wave: II wave: II wave: II wave: I wave: Alarm level140cm, (Wilczka) WILCZY POTOK II wave: I wave: I wave: Alarm level160cm, Ś I wave: Alarm level120cm, Ś 17.00 –25.07.1997, at23.00 II wave: I wave: Alarm level80cm, BYSTRZYCA DUSZNICKA II wave: I wave: Alarm level140cm, BIA II wave: I wave: Alarm level120cm, BIA II wave: II wave: Gauge destroyed.Data fromleveling. II wave: Gauge destroyed.Data fromleveling. II wave: Gauge destroyed.Data fromleveling. II wave: II wave: II wave: Gauge destroyed.River flew through thetowncentre. II wave: Gauge destroyed.Data fromleveling. II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: BYSTRZYCA II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: II wave: I wave: I wave: I wave: II wave: II wave: 58.9 m 1997) I wave: I wave: II wave: II wave: I wave: II wave: II wave: I wave: I wave: I wave: I wave: CINAWKA CINAWKA = 117 m = 117 Ł Ł A L A L 3 /s H 07.07.1997 at08.00 - 10.07.1997 at20.00 H H H H H Q 08.07.1997, at03.00 08.07.1997, at01.00 –02.00 07.07.1997, at22.00 08.07.1997, at02.00 07.07.1997, at21.00 –.22.00 07.07.1997, at20.00 07.07.1997, at20.00 Q Q Q Q Q Q 07.07.1997, at09.00 –09.07.1997, at20.00 06.07.1997 at08.00 - 16.07.1997 at08.00 06.07.1997 at08.00 - 09.07.1997 at17.00 18.07.1997 at14.00 - 27.07.1997 at08.00 20.07.1997 at08.00 19.07.1997 at14.00 –26.07.1997 at08.00
Q Q Q 19.07.1997, at11.00 –22.07.1997, at23.00, 24.07.1997, at H H H Q H H H 20.07.1997, at10.00 20.07.1997, at10.00 20.07.1997, at05.00 20.07.1997, at14.00 23.07.1997, at08.00 20.07.1997, at05.00 no data Q Q Q Ą Ą max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max max DECKA DECKA 3 /s = 430 cm= 430 m = 700 = 365cm m = 425 = 315cm m = 150 = no data = no = 450cm m = 230 = 361cm m = 237 = 235cm m = 75.6 : Gorzuchów 8,2 km,Gorzuchów : : T = 236cm m = 80 = 180cm m = 93.0 = 120cm = nodata = 294 m = 294 = 402cm m = 170 = 254cm m = 97.1 = 136cm m = 22.8
: Jugowice 79,9 km,: Jugowice
ł umaczów 23.6 km, : : L 3 3 3 3 3 3 /s 3 /s = Q /s = Q /s = Q /s = /s = Q /s = Q /s = Ż 3 3 /s =Q /s 3 3 3 /s =Q /s /s
/s /s /s ą elazno 4.9 km,elazno 4.9
dekZdrój 22.4 km,
0.04% 0.2% 0.002% 0.8% 0.2%
6%
0.5%
: Szalejów Dolny3.8 km, : 5.2 Wilkanów km,
Q Q Q 1%(1948-1997) 1%(1951-1997) 1%(1947-1997) Q 1%(1961-1997) Q 1%(1961-1997) = 225 m = 222 m = 180 m = 180
= 386 m = 386 Q 1%(1948-1997) 3 3 Q /s /s 3 = 250 m = 250 /s 1%(1948- 3
/s
= 3 /s
max water Alarm level 60cm, level I wave: Hmax = no data II wave: Hmax = 339 cm, data via leveling
time duration 04.07.1997 at 20.00 - 25.07.1997 at 08.00 above the alarm level culmination II wave: 20.07.1997, at 09.00 3 Flood max flow BYSTRZYCA: Krasków 50.7 km, Q1%(1948-1997) = 512 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 202 m /s II wave: Q = 239 m3/s = Q Hydrol max 4% Hydrologi max water Alarm level 150 cm, ogical cal effects level I wave: Hmax = 391 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 407 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 20807.1997, at 08.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 05.00 3 Flood max flow STRZEGOMKA: Łażany 37.6 km, Q1%(1949-1997) = 122 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 63,2 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 114 m /s = Q1% max water Alarm level 140 cm, Hydrol level I wave: H = 282 cm, Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 366 cm, data via leveling cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 07.07.1997, at 08.00 – 10.07.1997, at08.00 above the II wave: 19.07.1997, at 08.00 – 26.07.1997, at 20.00 alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at 20.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 04.00 – 05.00 Pollution Damaged sewage treatment plant in Świdnica – sewage (treated only mechanically) entered the water of the River Bystrzyca below the Mietków reservoir. Damaged sewage treatment plant in Kłodzko – raw sewage entered the water of the River Nysy Kłodzka. Inundated Kryteria Kryteria efektów limnologi 11 active landfills and 2 old landfills. Destruction of appr. 30 300 meters of levees. protection Efficiency of
Katowice Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow Odra: Chałupki 20.7km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1390 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 2160 m /s = Q0.05% 3 II wave: Qmax = 493 m /s max water level Alarm level 420 cm, I wave: Hmax = 705cm Hydrol Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrologi ogical at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew cal effects criteria through the town centre. II wave: Hmax = 510cm time duration I wave: 6.07.1997, at5.00 – 15.07.1997, at 11.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 02.00 – 24.07.1997, at 14.00 level Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at15.00 - 17.00 II wave: 21.07.1997 at 20.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Krzyżanowice 33.6 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1735 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 2880 m /s = Q0.03% 3 II wave: Qmax = 751 m /s max water level Alarm level 500 cm, I wave: Hmax = 912 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrol Hydrologi at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew ogical cal effects through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 688 cm time duration I wave: 6.07.1997, at10.00 – 13.07.1997, at 20.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 05.00 – 24.07.1997, at 13.00 level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at20.00 - 22.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 02.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Miedonia 55.5 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1846 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3120 m /s = Q0.03% 3 II wave: Qmax = 715 m /s max water level Alarm level 600cm, I wave: Hmax = 1045cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrol Hydrologi at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew ogical cal effects through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 730cm time duration I wave: 6.07.1997, at17.00 – 14.07.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 12.00 – 25.07.1997, at 04.00 level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 9.07.1997, at06.00 - 08.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 08.00 - 14.00 3 Flood max flow PIOTRÓWKA: Zebrzydowice 15.3km, Q1%(1951-1997) = 45,3 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 53.2 m /s = Q0.3% 3 II wave: Qmax = 27.2 m /s Hydrol Hydrologi ogical max water level Alarm level 230 cm, cal effects criteria I wave: Hmax = 374 cm
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 254 cm culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at05.00 - 08.00 hydrological effects hydrological effects II wave: 21.07.1997 at 20.00 3 Flood max flow SZOTKÓWKA: Gołkowice 3.4 km, Q1%(1963-1997) = 58.2 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 44.8 m /s = Q4% II wave: Q = 17.6 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 320 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 400 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 348 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at08.00 - 10.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 20.00 3 Flood max flow PSINA: Bojanów 9.0 km, Q1%(1970-1997) = 81.1 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 86.4 m /s = Q0.8% II wave: Q = 715 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 210 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 330 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 233 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 9.07.1997, at06.00 - 08.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 14.00 3 Flood max flow RUDA: Ruda Kozielska 12.7 km, Q1%(1957-1997) = 47.0 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 62.5 m /s = Q0.1% II wave: Q = 33.4 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 310 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 375 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 350 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at16.00 - 17.00 II wave: 19.07.1997, at 08.00 3 Flood max flow KŁODNICA: Gliwice 46.2 km, Q1%(1951-1997) = 87.7 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 88.1 m /s = Q1% II wave: Q = 51.6 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 200 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 360 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 283 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 8.07.1997, at16.00 - 17.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 08.00, 17.00 3 Flood max flow WIDAWA: Krzyżanowice 66.3 km, Q1%(1968-1997) = 139 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 250 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 42.6 m /s max water level Alarm level 150 cm, I wave: H = 407 cm Hydrol max Hydrologi Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 338 cm effects criteria time duration 08.07.1997, at 20.00 – 05.08.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm level Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 14.07.1997, at 01.00 II wave: 26.07.1997, at 20.00 - 23.00 Inorganic Nine active and 3 old landfills inundated. Total destruction to 50 pollution m od sewers conveying sewage from two districts of Racibórz to the sewage treatment plant. About 3 500 m3 of raw sewage entered the Odra via storm drainage.
Odra: Chałupki 20.7km Concentration of Chromium (mgCr/l), acceptable 0.05 mgCr/l Increase from 0.002 mgCr/l to 0.04 mgCr/l Olza: Chemiczn Limnol Koncentracja Concentration of Lead (mgPb/l), acceptable 0.05 mgPb/l e i fizyko- ogical związków Increase from 0.02 mgPb/l to 0.08 mgPb/l chemiczne Organic effects Odra: Chałupki 20.7km elementy pollution Concentration ChZT-Cr (mgO2/l) Before the flood – 18.7 During the flood – 25.05 After the flood – 19.1 Microbiologi Odra: Chałupki 20.7km cal pollution Coli count Before the flood – 0.004 During the flood – 0.0004
Kryteria efektów limnologicznych After the flood – 0.001÷0.004 About 16 403 m of levees destroyed or damaged. Levee breach in 7 sites: - Olza and Odra break the dikes near the order crossing in Chałupki - in Chałupki and Krzyżanowice (left bank) - in Raciborzu (levee on a relief channel and along the Odra) protection - in Gorzyce Commune Efficiency of Inundated area about 580km2. Lack of levees at the 55km long reach between Chałupki and Koźle led to lowering of the flood wave.
Opole Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow Odra: Koźle 97,2 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1555 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3060 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 797 m /s max water level Alarm level 500 cm, I wave: Hmax = 947 cm Hydrol Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to Hydrologi ogical flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River cal effects criteria flew through the town centre. II wave: Hmax = 676 cm time duration I wave: 07.07.1997, at8.00 – 15.07.1997, at 8.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 11.00 – 26.07.1997, at 11.00 level Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at02.00 – 04.00 II wave: 23.07.1997 at 08.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Krapkowice 124,7 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1751 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3170 m /s = Q0.04% 3 II wave: Qmax = 876 m /s max water level Alarm level 450 cm, I wave: Hmax = 1032 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to Hydrol Hydrologi flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River ogical cal effects flew through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 604 cm time duration I wave: 07.07.1997, at20.00 – 16.07.1997, at 06.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 20.00 – 26.07.1997, at 16.00 level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at16.00 - 18.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 20.00 3 Flood Hydrol max flow Odra: Opole 152.2 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 1750 m /s Hydrologi 3
of of frequency ogical I wave: Qmax = 3170 m /s = Q0.04% eria Crit cal effects 3 criteria II wave: Qmax = 880 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, I wave: Hmax = 777 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew through the town centre.
II wave: Hmax = 510 cm time duration I wave: 07.07.1997, at14.00 – 16.07.1997, at 23.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 17.00 – 27.07.1997, at 20.00 level culmination I wave: 11.07.1997, at04.00 - 06.00 II wave: 24.07.1997, at 02.00 - 10.00 Flood max flow Odra: Ujście Nysy 180.6 km, 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3540 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 1060 m /s max water level Alarm level 530 cm, I wave: Hmax = 768 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to Hydrol Hydrologi flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River ogical cal effects flew through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 638cm time duration 07.07.1997, at 20.00 – 30.07.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 20.00 II wave: 23-24.07.1997, at 21.00 - 13.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Brzeg Most 199.1 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 2072 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3530 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 780 m /s max water level Alarm level 380 cm, I wave: Hmax = 730 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to Hydrol Hydrologi flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River ogical cal effects flew through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 560 cm time duration 07.07.1997, at08.00 – 05.08.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 23.00 II wave: 24-24.07.1997, at 11.00 - 20.00 3 Flood max flow BIERAWKA: Grabówka 5.0 km, Q1%(1951-1997) = 101 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 104 m /s = Q0.9% 3 II wave: Qmax = 42.7 m /s Hydrol Hydrologi ogical max water level Alarm level 140 cm, cal effects criteria I wave: Hmax = 389 cm
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 269 cm culmination I wave: 09.07.1997, at14.00 hydrological effects hydrological effects II wave: 22.07.1997 at 08.00 3 Flood max flow KŁODNICA: Lenartowice 7.4 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 89.2 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 49.7 m /s = Q11% II wave: Q = 42.7 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 140 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 367 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 269 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 9.07.1997, at13.00 - 15.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 08.00-20.00 3 Flood max flow STRADUNIA: Kamionka 6.6 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 28.1 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 29.8 m /s = Q0.8% II wave: Q = 9.12 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 180 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 304 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 216 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 9.07.1997, at19.00 - 20.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 08.00 - 14.00
Flood max flow OSŁOBOGA: Racławice Śląskie 27.4 km, Q1%(1957-1997) = 139 frequency m3/s 3 I wave: Qmax = 144 m /s = Q0.8% Hydrol II wave: Q = 33.4 m3/s Hydrologi max ogical max water level Alarm level 320 cm, cal effects criteria I wave: Hmax = 438 cm Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 400 cm culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at 17.00 hydrological effects hydrological effects II wave: 20.07.1997, at 17 – 22.07.1997 at 05.00 - 11.00 3 Flood max flow PRÓDNIK: Pródnik 18.7 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 250 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 195 m /s = Q3% II wave: Q = 80.3 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 230 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 472 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 353 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at11.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 20.00 3 Flood max flow BIAŁA: Dobra 1.8 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 47.2 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 39.0 m /s = Q2% II wave: Q = 31.6 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 200 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 328 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 310 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 09.07.1997, at 11.00 – 12.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 08.00
Flood max flow MAŁA PANEW: Staniszcze Wielkie 42.5 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = frequency 165 m3/s 3 I wave: Qmax = 154 m /s = Q2% Hydrol II wave: Q = 67.0 m3/s Hydrologi max ogical max water level Alarm level 300 cm, cal effects criteria I wave: Hmax = 445 cm Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 335 cm culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 07.00 – 11.07.1997, at07.00 hydrological effects hydrological effects II wave: 23.07.1997, at 08.00 3 Flood max flow MAŁA PANEW: Turawa 17.1 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 90.4 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 154 m /s = Q15% II wave: Q = 54.0 m3/s Hydrol max Hydrologi max water level Alarm level 250 cm, ogical cal effects I wave: Hmax = 358 cm effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 356 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 07.00 – 11.07.1997, at07.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 16.00 – 21.07.1997, at 17.00
Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Nysa (zbiornik) 60.5 km, Q1%(1951-1997) = 704 frequency m3/s Hydrol Hydrologi I wave: Q = 1500 m3/s = Q ogical max 0.003% cal effects II wave: Qmax = no data effects criteria
Criteria of Criteria culmination I wave: 08.07.1997, at 16.00 - 09.07.1997, at 21.00 hydrological II wave: no data 3 Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Kopice 32.0 km, Q1%(1958-1997) = 783 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 1410 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 732 m /s Hydrol max water level Alarm level 280 cm, Hydrologi ogical I wave: H = 747 cm cal effects max criteria Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 578 cm culmination I wave: 09.07.1997, at 12.00 hydrological effects hydrological effects II wave: 22.07.1997, at23.00 - 23.07.1997, at05.00 3 Flood max flow NYSA KŁODZKA: Skorogoszcz 7.5 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 980 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 1200 m /s = Q0.3% 3 II wave: Qmax = 699 m /s max water level Alarm level 250 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 562 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 481 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration 07.07.1997 at 23.00 - 05.08.1997 at 08.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at20.00 - 11.07.1997, at02.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 14.00 - 24.07.1997, at02.00
Flood max flow BIAŁA GŁUCHOŁASKA: Głuchołazy 18.6 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = frequency 357 m3/s 3 I wave: Qmax = 490 m /s = Q0.2% 3 II wave: Qmax = 75.4 m /s max water level Alarm level 120 cm, Hydrol Hydrologi I wave: H = 380 cm ogical max cal effects II wave: Hmax = 151 cm effects criteria time duration I wave: 06.07.1997 at 08.00 - 09.08.1997 at 20.00 above the alarm II wave: 19.07.1997 at 20.00 - 22.08.1997 at 20.00 level Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 07.07.1997, at08.00 II wave: 20.07.1997, at 02.00 Inorganic Sewage treatment plant in Nysa damaged – Sewage, after pollution mechanical treatment only, conveyed to the River Nysa Kłodzka Municipal sewage treatment plant in Opole and the Metalchem industrial sewage treatment plant damaged – Sewage, after mechanical treatment only, conveyed to the River Odra. Municipal landfill „Proszowice” in Opole inundated (some 150- 200 metric ton of solud waste flushed away). Zalaniu uległo składowisko wyłączone z eksploatacji w Kędzierzynie Koźlu.
Odra: Opole 152.2 km Concentration of Chromium (mgCr/l), acceptable 0.05 mgCr/l After flood without increase: 0.01 mg Cr/L Chmical Concentration of Lead (mgPb/l), acceptable 0.05 mgPb/l Limnol and Concentration of After flood without increase: 0.016 mgPb/L ogical phisycal compounds Concentration of Copper (mg Cu/L) effects compound After flood without increase: 0.01 mg Cu/L s Concentration of dissolved Oxygen(mg O2 / L) Before the flood – 6.4 During the flood – 4.1 After the flood – 6.6 Organic Odra: Opole 152.2 km pollution Concentration ChZT-Cr (mgO2/l) Before the flood – 32.0 During the flood – 84.0 After the flood – 34 - 39 Microbiol Odra: Opole 152.2 km ogical Coli count pollution Before the flood – 0.01 During the flood – 0.0004
Kryteria efektów limnologicznych After the flood – 0.01 About 33 234m of levees were damaged In the Opole Province.The waters of the Odra inundated the area od over 500 km2. Numerous damages, breaches.
Damage to levees in the Opole Province protection Efficiency of
Wrocław Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow Odra: Oława 216,5 km, Q1%(1950-1997) = 2046 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3550 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 760 m /s max water level Alarm level 430 cm, I wave: Hmax = 766 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrol Hydrologi at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 630 cm criteria time duration 07.07.1997, at 8.00 – 5.08.1997, at 17.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 11 – 12.07.1997, at 23.00-02.00
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria 12.07.1997, at 04.00 II wave: 24.07.1997, at 22.00, 24.00 25.07.1997, at 02.00-08.00, 16.00, 18.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Trestno 242.1 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 2109 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3640 m /s = Q0.01% 3 II wave: Qmax = 1380 m /s max water level Alarm level 430 cm, I wave: Hmax = 724 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrol Hydrologi at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew ogical cal effects through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 574 cm time duration 10.07.1997, at05.00 – 01.08.1997, at 23.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 12.07.1997, at15.30 - 13.07.1997, at02.00 II wave: 25.07.1997, at 12.00 - 26.07.1997, at 04.00 Flood max flow Odra: Rzędzin 261.1 km frequency max water level Alarm level 400 cm, I wave: H = 1030 cm Hydrol max Hydrologi Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow ogical cal effects at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew effects criteria through the town centre. II wave: Hmax = 824 cm culmination I wave: 13.07.1997, at06.00 - 16.00 Criteria of hydrological Criteria II wave: 25-26.07.1997, at 17.00 - 14.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Brzeg Dolny 284,7 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 2451 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3200 m /s = Q0.02% 3 II wave: Qmax = 1630 m /s max water level Alarm level 530 cm, I wave: Hmax = 970 cm Hydrol Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrologi ogical at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. cal effects criteria II wave: Hmax = 788cm time duration 10.07.1997, at05.00 – 04.08.1997, at 14.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 13-14.07.1997, at 21.00 - 01.00 Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 25.07.1997, at 08.00, 26.07.1997 at 08.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Malczyce 304.8 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 2166 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3100 m /s = Q0.1% 3 II wave: Qmax = 1710 m /s max water level Alarm level 500 cm, I wave: Hmax = 792 cm Hydrol Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrologi ogical at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. cal effects criteria II wave: Hmax = 684 cm time duration 10.07.1997, at14.00 – 05.08.1997, at 05.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 14-15.07.1997, at 22.00 – 06.00 Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 25-27.07.1997, at 05.00 - 17.00 3 Flood max flow OŁAWA: Oława 28.8 km, Q1%(1950-1997) = 77.5 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 41.2 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 55.8 m /s = Q4% max water level Alarm level 250 cm, Hydrol Hydrologi I wave: Hmax = 350 cm ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 388 cm effects criteria time duration I wave: 09.07.1997, at 17.00 – 13.07.1997, at08.00 above the alarm II wave: 20.07.1997, at 08.00 – 26.07.1997, at 17.00 level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 11.07.1997, at11.00 II wave: 23.07.1997 at 02.00 3 Flood max flow ŚLĘŻA: Ślęża 5.0 km, Q1%(1956-1997) = 85.1 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 25.4 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 46.5m /s = Q10% max water level Alarm level 240 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 344 cm. Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 432 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 08.07.1997, at 08.00 – 13.07.1997, at08.00 above the alarm II wave: 19.07.1997, at 14.00 – 30.07.1997, at 20.00, level 01.08.1997, at 20.00 – 03.08.1997, at 20.00
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 05.00 – 11.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 14.00 3 Flood max flow BYSTRZYCA: Jarnołtów 12.8 km, Q1%(1954-1997) = 360 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 104 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 475 m /s = Q0.3% max water level Alarm level 250 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 391 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 486 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration I wave: 08.07.1997 at 08.00 - 16.07.1997 at 14.00 above the alarm II wave: 18.07.1997 at 08.00 - 12.08.1997 at 20.00 level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 12.07.1997, at08.00 II wave: 21.07.1997, at 21.00 – 24.00 Inorganic Municipal landfill „Maślice” in Wrocław inundated – 1776 metric pollution ton of solid waste flushed awal. Odra: Wrocław, poniżej ZCH „Rokita" Concentration of dissolved Oxygen(mg O / L) Chmical 2 Before the flood – 10.43 Limnol and Concentration of During the flood – 6.2 ogical phisycal compounds After the flood – 3.7 effects compound Organic s Odra: Oława 216.5 km pollution Concentration ChZT-Cr (mgO2/l) Before the flood – 27.55 During the flood – 107.0 Kryteria efektów limnologicznych After the flood – 38
The flood damaged over 43 km of levees and the Odra inundated some 460 m2 of area, thereof 250 on the right side and 210 on the left side. Altogether in the Wrocław Province there were 33 dike breaches.
Efficiency of protection
Leszno Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow BARYCZ: Osetno 17.5 km, Q1%(1948-1997) = 202 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 40.1 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 204 m /s = Q1% max water Alarm level 330 cm, Hydrol Hydrologi level I wave: Hmax = 276 cm ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 452 cm effects criteria time duration 19.07.1997 at 18.00 - 09.08.1997, at08.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 15.07.1997, at20.00 II wave: 28.07.1997 at 11.00 i 23.00 Over 11 km of levees were damaged and the area of 150 km2 inundated.
Efficiency of protection
Legnica Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow Odra: Ścinawa 331.9 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 2000 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3000 m /s = Q0.1% 3 II wave: Qmax = 1700 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, I wave: Hmax = 732 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow Hydrol Hydrologi at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew ogical cal effects through the town centre. criteria II wave: Hmax = 629 cm time duration 08.07.1997, at14.00 – 9.08.1997, at 23.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria culmination I wave: 15.07.1997, at 13.00-14.00 II wave: 26-27.07.1997, at 02.00 – 05.00
3 Flood Hydrol max flow Odra: Głogów 392.9 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 1998 m /s Hydrologi 3
of of frequency ogical I wave: Qmax = 3040 m /s = Q0.1% eria Crit cal effects 3 criteria II wave: Qmax = 2160 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, I wave: Hmax = 712 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow at polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. River flew through the town centre.
II wave: Hmax = 666 cm time duration 10.07.1997, at08.00 – 14.08.1997, at 02.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 16.07.1997, at 01.00 – 05.00 II wave: 27.07.1997, at 02.00 - 28.07.1997, at 14.00 Pollution Sewage treatment plant in Głogów damaged – Sewage, after mechanical treatment only, conveyed to the River Odra. Sewage treatment plant in Ścinawa damaged – Sewage, after mechanical treatment only, conveyed to the River Zimnica.
effects Old industrial landfill „Budmet” ( Lubin), plant in Zimnice Criteria of Criteria
limnological inundated. (some 150-200 metric ton of solud waste flushed away). Over 12 km of levees were damaged and the area of 240 km2 inundated. protection Efficiency of
Zielona Góra Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry 3 Flood max flow Odra: Nowa Sól 429.8 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 2215 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3040 m /s = Q0.1% 3 II wave: Qmax = 1930 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, I wave: Hmax = 681 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow at Hydrol Hydrologi polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. ogical cal effects II wave: Hmax = 638 cm criteria time duration 11.07.1997, at14.00 – 13.08.1997, at 20.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 16.07.1997, at 21.00
Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 27 - 28.07.1997, at 23.00 - 05.00
3 Flood max flow Odra: Cigacice 471.3 km, Q1%(1946-1997) = 2188 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3050 m /s = Q0.1% 3 II wave: Qmax = 2320 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 681 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 636 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration 12.07.1997, at14.00 – 15.08.1997, at 02.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 19.07.1997, at01.00 - 02.00 II wave: 29.07.1997, at 11.00 - 14.00 Flood max flow Odra: Nietków 490.5 km, 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 667 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 1580 m /s max water level Alarm level 400 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 1030 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: H = 824 cm cal effects max effects criteria time duration 12.07.1997, at 14.00 - 16.08.1997, at 20.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 19.07.1997, at01.00 II wave: 28-30.07.1997, at 05.00 - 08.00 Flood Hydrol Hydrologi max flow Odra: Krosno 514.1 km C ri te frequency ogical cal effects max water level Alarm level 350 cm, I wave: Hmax = 667 cm Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. II wave: Hmax = 575 cm
prędkość I wave: rozchodzenia fali II wave: culmination I wave: 21.07.1997, at 17.00 - 20.00 II wave: 29 - 30.07.1997, at 17.00 - 02.00 3 Flood max flow Odra: Połęcko 530.3 km, Q1%(1947-1997) = 2394 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 3200 m /s = Q0.1% 3 II wave: Qmax = 3040 m /s max water level Alarm level 350 cm, I wave: Hmax = 595 cm Hydrol Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow at Hydrologi ogical polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. cal effects criteria II wave: Hmax = 589 cm time duration 12.07.1997, at17.00 – 16.08.1997, at 20.00 above the alarm level culmination I wave: 24.07.1997, at 09.00 – 19.00 Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 29 - 30.07.1997, at 18.00 - 05.00 3 Flood max flow BÓBR: Żagań 74.5 km, Q1%(1961-1997) = 917 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 290 m /s II wave: Q = 705 m3/s = Q Hydrolo Hydrol max 3% max water level Alarm level 400 cm, gical ogical I wave: Hmax = 526 cm effects criteria effects
Criteria of Criteria II wave: Hmax = 702 cm hydrological culmination I wave: 11.07.1997, at 20.00 II wave: 23.07.1997, at 02.00 3 Flood max flow KWISA: Łozy 13.0 km, Q1%(1954-1997) = 394 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 107 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 128 m /s = Q15% max water level Alarm level 330 cm, Hydrolo Hydrol I wave: Hmax = 340 cm gical ogical II wave: Hmax = 500 cm, niwelacja
effects criteria effects time duration above I wave: 09.07.1997, at 14.00 – 10.07.1997 the alarm level II wave: 20.07.1997, at 08.00 – 25.07.1997, at 08.00, 27.07.1997, at 08.00
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at 02.00 II wave: 22.07.1997, at 17.00 3 Flood max flow NYSA ŁUŻYCKA: Gubin 13.4 km, Q1%(1953-1997) = 602 m /s 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 68 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 217 m /s = Q25% max water level Alarm level 400 cm, Hydrolo Hydrol I wave: H = 328 cm gical ogical max II wave: Hmax = 470 cm effects criteria effects time duration above 22.07.1997, at 20.00 – 25.07.1997 the alarm level culmination I wave: 10.07.1997, at14.00 Criteria of hydrological Criteria II wave: 23.07.1997, at 17.00 - 24.1997, at 05.00 Pollution Sewage treatment plants in Bytom Odrzański and Nowa Sól damaged – Sewage, partly treated only, conveyed to the River Odra. Industrial sewage treatment plant in Połupin damaged – untreated sewage conveyed to the River Odra. Sewage treatment plant in Czerwieńsk damaged – raw sewage conveyed to the River Zimna Woda. Inundation of 6 active and 4 old landfills. Criteria of Criteria
limnological effects
2 Length of damaged levees 120 km, inundated area 150 km . protection Efficiency of
Gorzów Wielkopolski Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description categor parameter y Flood max flow Odra: Słubice 584.1 km 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 2570 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 3000 m /s max water level Alarm level 370 cm, I wave: Hmax = 616 cm Hydrolo Gauge destroyed. Data from leveling. Observation refers to flow at Hydrologic gical polders, behind the levee. Levee breach occurred. al effects criteria II wave: Hmax = 637 cm time duration above 14.07.1997, at14.00 – 18.08.1997, at 08.00 the alarm level culmination I wave: 22.07.1997, at 14.00 23.07.1997, at 08.00 Criteria of hydrological effects of hydrological effects Criteria II wave: 27 -.07.1997, at 16.00 - 17.00
1. Inorganic Odra: Kostrzyn pollution Concentration of dissolved Oxygen (mg O2 / L) Befor the flood – 10.8 During the flood – 2.7 After the flood – 4.5 Concentration PO4 (mg PO4 / L) Chmical Befor the flood – 0.23 Limnol and Concentration of During the flood – 0.56 2. Organic ogical phisycal compounds Concentration ChZT-Cr (mgO2/l) pollution effects compound Befor the flood – 13.0 s During the flood – 50.5 Wahania stężenia ekstraktu eterowego od 0.3 do 2.8 mg/L. 3. Microbiol Nie stwierdzono istotnych zmian w stanie sanitarnym. ogical pollution Criteria of limnological effects .Since the levees broke on the German side, the Gorzów Province survived the flood without major damage.
protection Efficiency of
Szczecin Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description catego parameter ry Flood max flow Odra: Gozdowice 645.3 km 3 frequency I wave: Qmax = 2740 m /s 3 II wave: Qmax = 3180 m /s max water level Alarm level 410 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 630 cm Hydrologi max ogical II wave: Hmax = 659 cm
ff t cal effects criteria time duration 17.07.1997, at18.00 – 23.08.1997, at 14.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 24.07.1997, at01.00 - 14.00 II wave: 31.07.1997, at 13.00 – 01.08.1997 at08.00 Flood max flow Odra: Widuchowa 701.8 km, frequency I wave: Qmax = no data II wave: Qmax = no data max water level Alarm level 620 cm, Hydrol I wave: H = 720 cm . Hydrologi max ogical II wave: Hmax = 759cm
ff t cal effects criteria time duration 21.07.1997, at 14.00 - 16.08.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm level
Criteria of hydrological Criteria culmination I wave: 26.07.1997, at08.00 II wave: 02.08.1997, at 20.00 – 03.08.1997 at 17.00 Flood Hydrol max flow Odra: Gryfino 718.5 km Hydrologi frequency ogical I wave: Q = no data cal effects max criteria II wave: Qmax = no data max water level Alarm level 570 cm, I wave: Hmax = 609 cm II wave: Hmax = 649 cm Criteria of Criteria time duration 21.07.1997, at 20.00 - 15.08.1997, at 08.00 above the alarm hd l i l fft level the Provincial Flood Protection Committee) convened Civil Defense,Directorof Environment Protection One of more evident failure stories was notedinK evident failurestorieswas One ofmore Wa Annex 2WarningsinPolishprovincesdurin Republic on the Odra and on Bia Republic onthe Odraand Wroc Province OfficeinOpolefromIMGW at to(unman 6.00a.m.,On 6July a faxarrived Opole Province noon. At 15.00 (3.00 p.m.), theWKPmayorsalerted ofG agreedto Provincial Floodmeet intheProvinceofficeat12.00 Protection Committee(WKP).They ofthe theSecretary officerofProvinceServicecontacted 11.00a.m. emergency IMGW Katowice.At On 6 July at9.13a.m. Hydrometeorological Station On6July the inK emergency officerintheProvinceOfficeabout aspects ofperformancewerepoor,andgrave irregularitieswereobserved. largely wrong(fartoolow!). largely change ofweather;thedataonprecipitationin basinofNysa K 19 hrs afterexceedenceofthealertstageand of theMunicipal Flood Protection CommitteeinK the deputy chair ofWKPannounced alarm stateforfi night to getinformation aboutthe stage,beforehistrip toWarsaw,on at 7 July 4.20 a.m. At7.00a.m., actioninitiate any on6July, andissuedneitheral itwasknownthat 80cm (yet by the alarm level contacted the status).Theofficer non-emergency its tributaries(theProvincialFloodProtection undertaken on thesame by territory two players!) tolauncha Protection Committeetojoinforcesand theCommune theMunicipal Flood by FloodProtectionCommitteeand made was a.m., decision (or Commune) FloodProtection Committee,butprovid Hydrometeorological stationinKlodzko reportedto IMGW Wroc 11.00, andmissing 14.00 readingswere -expl Severalinstancesofnegligencehavebeen stationinK hydrometeorological provided incomplete informationonwaterlevel.Af at On7July 2.30 a.m. theFireBrigadetook leadership ofthe of request forassistance Frontier Guardswasnot floors). Municipal Police wakedinhabitantsandcalledthem to ofthe aboutthewaterrise.Apatrol (MKP) oftheMunicipalFlood ProtectionCommittee secretary Protection Committee(WKP). him reques todelegatesoldiers.HEREFUSED! whichauthority, should have issuedthealertand alarmstatus. fire brigades),informing (at8.00a.m.) theProvi Protection Committee,and at 2.00-4.00 a.m., he of FireBrigadephonedto of theDistrictCommittee
ł culmination brzych Province WKP Wa On 7 July, the flood has been devastating already in theK floodhasbeendevastatingalready On 7July, On 7 July at On 7July 4.00 a.m., officer oftheMunicipalPolice emergency inK military unit,urgingThe CommuneFloodProtectionthe headofalocal Committeecontacted Ś ł brzych reports not havingreceivedbrzych informationon7 from July IMGWaboutviolent l ą sk Military District. sk Military ł a Glucho ł odzko should collect observationin on3-hr intervals, 6July, yet ł azka rivers. At 9.32 a.m., a similar information azka rivers.At9.32a.m., came a similar from ł hrs after exceedence of the alarm stage!!!). hrs afterexceedenceofthealarm stage!!!). aw, informing about exceeded alarm states in the Czech intheCzech alarm states aw, informing aboutexceeded exceedence of alert water levels at Nysa K at Nysa exceedenceofalertwaterlevels Committee (WKP) office was not mannedduringthewas (WKP) office Committee 100 cm ThechairofWKPdidnot causesinundation). disseminated warning andundertookdisseminated warning evacuation (via ert nor alarm.madephone callsduring He the three ncial Flood Protection Committee (WKP), i. e. the (WKP),i.e.the ncial FloodProtection Committee deputy chairofWKP,informingonexceedence deputy ting aformal viatheProvincial Flood procedure ł heeded, beingmade dependent on decision ofthe odzko took place on7July 29 at 9.00a.m. (nearly Office. GovernorofOpole Province (Chairmanof ł ter exceeding of the alarm level was observed, the ter exceedingofthealarm levelwasobserved, g theJuly1997flood:factualinformation ned) Environmentned) ProtectionDepartmentofthe noted. Hydrometeorological stationinK noted. Hydrometeorological odzko, inthe Wa II wave: II wave: I wave: civil defense,at1.10a.m. Flood totheCommune decision toevacuateinhabitantsof Wilkanów. A joint committee (before – the same actions were the same actions (before– joint committee ve communes,andalertfor towns.First meeting a meetingat18.30 (6.30 p.m.), whichmadea ed information at 7.00 onrequest.On8July anation: observers were aged (retired). (retired). anation: observerswereaged leave(inresult,they they went to higher 26.07.1997, at20.00 - 27.07.1997, at08.00 03.08.1997, at11.00 - 04.08.1997, at08.00 ł ucho ł odzko. At0.10a.m., officer emergency ł ł azy and Prudnik,azy provincial headof aw ratherthandirectlyto Municipal ł brzych Province, where several Province,whereseveral brzych ł odzka werelaterfoundto be ł odzko sent a message to the tothe message odzko senta ł odzko informed the
ł odzka and odzka and ł odzko decision to annunce flood alarm in the province. Thin announcement was disseminated at 20.00 (8 p.m.) by fax to all district Flood Protection committees, urging to initiate action. On 7 July 6.55 a.m., information was sent to the Main Flood Protection Committee in Warsaw, RZGW Wrocław, IMGW Wrocław and Katowice, Province Head of Police, Fire Brigade, Army. By law, the WKP was obliged to issue orders to reservoir operators to lower the volume of stored water and to create a flood reserve. However, the Governor of Opole did not order reservoir operators to lower the reservoir level (according to his interpretation of rules, the unit responsible for issuing such an order was a Regional Disposition-Information Centre). District Flood Protection Committees only distributed the statement from the Provincial Flood Protection Committee by telephone calls to communes, but mayors have themselves decided on issuance of alarm. For example, on the river Biała Głuchołazka in Gluchołazy, the alarm state was 120 cm, while the observed state was 200 cm. As no warning has arrived from the Provincial Office, Mayor of Gluchołazy himself issued warning, based on own observations of the behaviour of the river and reading a stage gauge.
Jelenia Gora Province On 6 July at 21.30 (7.30 p.m.), first information was distributed by the IMGW about exceedence of alarm levels. On 7 July, the chair of the WKP issued alert in the province, and entitled chairpersons in districts to announce alarm in their areas. The city of Jelenia Góra has not received a warning before 7 July, when the first flood wave arrived. The WKP started work on 7 July at 7.30 a.m., already during flood. The WKP announced alarm in the whole province on 7 July at 22.00 (10 p.m.), levied 13 July. However, WKP did not order reservoir operators to reduce storage by increasing discharge: e. g. low discharge from power-flood dam in Pilchowice continued. Before the second flood wave, forecasts made action possible: on 17 July at 1.10 a.m., WKP announced an alert for the whole province, on 18 July at 21.00 (9 p.m.) alarm in Jelenia Góra and Mysłakowice, while on 19 July at 9.00 a.m. - alarm for the whole province (with information forwarded to GKP Warsaw, RKP, ODGW, and WKP in neighbouring provinces – Legnica, Wałbrzych, Zielona Góra.)
Annex 3 – Criteria of social and economic effects and specific criteria
Jelenia Góra Province Criteria Sub-category Sector Measured Description parameter Criteria of social 2 people effects Number of 1. Fatalities fatalities Public health 2. Evacuees Number of Most affected people evacuated by themselves. Organized evacuation of 757 Social criteria evacuees people from 14 towns and villages, therein: Jelenia Góra - 245, Wleń (168), Lwówek Śląski (97), Marciszów (60). 3. Damage and Damage and Damaged Natural Science Muzeum in Cieplice, church in Szklarska Poręba, destruction of Cultural destruction of palaces in Ciechanowice, Wojnów and Biedrzychowice cultural heritage heritage cultural heritage Criteria of Assessment of damage, after GUS: economical Direct Direct damage Assessment of damage in state (budget) units and communes (including roads effects economic and water structures): 253.7 mln PLN (replacement value); 104.8 mln PLN 1. Direct damage costs (evidence value)
Flood damage in enterprises: 48.3 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures: 34.8 mln PLN.
Economical Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection criteria Committee: National roads: 14 km – 1130 thousand PLN Province roads: 35 km – 5274 thousand PLN Commune roads: 241 km – 16 329 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 13 szt. – 641 thousand PLN Bridges on [rovince and commune roads: 187 szt. – 14510 thousand PLN Buildings: 1 677 – 14 407 thousand PLN Levees: 5 490 mb – 2 269 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 125 szt. – 4 800.2 thousand PLN Banks of rivers and streams: 218.03 km – 39 706.7 thousand PLN Areale areas: 3564 ha – 8 030 thousand PLN Greek areas: 2684 ha – 1482 thousand PLN
Assessment of damage according to ministries Total in Province: 140 837 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 19 241 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 48 246 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 19 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 21 023 thousand PLN Remaining ministries: 52 307 thousand PLN Specific criteria I wave: – intervention IMGW Wrocław: 1. Conveyance of 01.07.1997 forecast for 09.07-13.07.97 for South-West Poland alert [no heavy rainfall forecast]. 04.07.1997 at 12.30 Alert on foreseen precipitation in the basin of upper Odra and Nysa Kłodzka Hydrological messages: forecast increase of water level and exceedance of alarm levels in the basin of upper Odra and Nysa Kłodzka
Forecast water levels on the Odra: Chałupki 520 cm 6.07 at 11.00 Krzyżanowice 640 cm 6.07 at 17.00 Miedonia 700 cm 6.07 at 23.00 Koźle 550 cm 7.07 at 15.00 Krapkowice 480 cm 7.07 at 20.00 Opole 430 cm 8.07 at 02.00
06.07.97 at 21.30- information on exceedance of alarm levels on the River. Kamienna (by 15cm) and Bóbr (ny 4cm) 07.07.97 at 7.00 river Kamienna reaches 270 cm, alarm level exsceeded by 50cm, r. Bóbr (Wojanów) by 30 cm
Several departures from statutory duties of IMGW, incomplete information
II wave Information about the II wave issued by IMGW with large time advance
2. Perception of I wave information Province Flood Protection Committee (WKP) in Jelenia Góra 07.07.97 at 8.00 – flood alert, at 22.00 – flood alarm in Province WKP did not order dam operators to increase the discharge. On 08.07.1997 at 7.00 – uncontrolled overflow and threat of inundation of the Town Wleń
II wave Province Flood Protection Committee (WKP) in Jelenia Góra 17.07.97 at 1.10 – flood alert, 18.07 at 21.00 - flood alarm for Jelenia Góra and Mysłakowice; 19.07.97 at 9.00 flood alarm in Province 19.07.1997 at 14.35 water reched the crown of the Cieplice weir, earlier – evacuation of inhabitants from Cieplice 20.07.1997 at 20.00 – evacuation of population near Wleń, assistance of 2 helicopters
3.
Wałbrzych Province Criteria Sub-category Sector Measured Description parameter Criteria of social 14 people drowned, therein 6 in Kłodzko, 1 w Stronie Śląskie, 1 effects Numer of in Wałbrzych 1. Fatalities Public fatalities 2. Evacuess health Number of 6934; large part declined the call for evacuation (inhabitants of evacuess Żelazno, Morzyszów, Ołdrzychowice, Krosownice in commune Social criteria of Kłodzko. 3. Damage and Damage and Kłodzko – 140 historical buildings damaged, heritage buildings destruction of destruction of from end of XIX and beginning of XX centurie, on the Natural and cultural cultural Piaskowa island were inundated. Gothic bridże dating back to cultural heritage heritage 1390 damaged, cloister complex and Franciscan chiurch and heritage collections contained tgherein, damaged. In the whole province – 500 zabytkóheritage buildings damaged. Criteria of Assessment of damage, after GUS: Economic economical Direct Direct damage Assessment of damage in state (budget) units and communes criteria effects economic (including roads and water structures): 157.9 mln PLN 1. Direct damage costs Flood damage in enterprises: buildings and structures: 72.4 mln PLN,machinery 55.9.
Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection Committee: Total (excluded flood action and indirect damage): 1301.5 mln PLN National roads: 66 km – 55 278 thousand PLN Province roads: 120 km – 83 930 thousand PLN Commune roads: 1491 km – 460 897 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 3 szt. – 7 106 thousand PLN Bridges on [rovince and commune roads: 184 szt. – 97 506 thousand PLN Buildings: 5888 szt. – 181 322 thousand PLN Levees: 30 300 mb – 8 343 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 26 szt. – 13 600 thousand PLN Banks of rivers and streams: 451 km – 293 665 thousand PLN Arable areas: 22 219 ha – 30 273 thousand PLN Green areas: 5 138 ha – 6 175 thousand PLN Others: 63 436 thousand PLN
Assessment of damage according to ministries Total in Province: 1 334 548 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 508 983 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 333 084 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 48 550 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 158 938 thousand PLN Remaining ministries: 284 993 thousand PLN
2. Costs of action Indirect Costs of action Costs, after Province Flood Committee 33.1 mln PLN economic Numer of flood fighters per day In the time of maximum threat: costs State Fire Brigade: 700 firemen, 170 vehicles and 50 pumps. Police: 1041 policemen, 229 vehicles Civil Defence: 63 formations – 1048 persons 4 helicopters Kryteria I wave specyficzne – 06.07.1997 at 9.13 Hydrometeorological stadion in Kłodzko interwencja informs the Governor by telephone about the exceedence of 1. Przekaz alarm levels of Nysa Kłodzka and its tributaries in the areas of ostrzeżenia Międzylesie, Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Lądek Zdrój and Żelazno. It also conveyed messaged to the WKP in Wałbrzych, but not to GKP in Kłodzko (statutowy duty). KMKP and GKP received information on demand only. The station should curry out observations etery 3 hours, but on 06.07.1997 failed to carry out observations at 11.00 and 14.00. On 07.07.1997 at 8.00-14.00 further water level rise from
397cm too 550cm, after 14.00 fall to 510 cm at 17.00. At 20.30 station informed MPK in Kłodzko that water falls, while after 20.00 it raised again.
II wave 16.07.1997 at 23.45 IMGW Wrocław: information on heavy precipitation issued 2. Perception of I wave information Information conveyed to the governor’s secretariate did not trigger necessary action.
3. Accuracy of No hydrological forecasts were available: forecast - Nysa Kłodzka - Wilczy Potok - Biała Lądecka - Bystrzyca Dusznicka - Bystrzyca - Ścinawka - Strzegomka
Katowice Province Criteria Sub-category Sector Measured Description parameter Criteria of social a 60-years old female drowned effects Numer of 1. Fatalities fatalities 2. Evacuees Public health Numer of Evacuation of 650 people from Racibórz, initially people did not evacuees want to evacuate; later – difficult access to population 3. Inconveniences Social criteria Awareness of Racibórz: lack of electricity, telecommunication, restriction of sale inconvenience of fuels, ban on sale of alkohol 4. Damage and Damage and Water destroyed many parks destruction of Cultural and destruction of Racibórz: losses in municipal complexes, in St John Baptist Chuch cultural natura cultural heritage and In defense walls heritage heritage Inundation of Racibórz State Archives – destruction of documents of former Racibórz Principality
Criteria of Racibórz town: inundation of 2/3 of area. economic effects Direct Direct damage Sewers – total destruction of 50 m of sewers conveying odcinka sewage to 3. Direct damage economic the treatment plant costs PKS: 36 autobuses inundated, Faktory of Coal Elektrodes – damage due to explosion In contact with cold water (insured at the level of 50 thousand PLN only) „Despol” – meat industry – loss of 40 tons of meat products RaFaKo Railways station, post orfice and phone central inundated Old landfill in Racibórz-Brzezie – inundated Damage in commune Racibórz: 62 763 thousand PLN Damage in commune w Gminie Kuźnia Raciborska: 18 712 thousand PLN
Assessment of damage, after GUS: Assessment of damage in the whole Province (basins of Odra and Wisła) state (budget) units and communes (including roads and water structures): 668.1 mln (replacement value); 466.3 mln PLN PLN (evidence value)
Flood damage in enterprises: 281.8 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures: 173.3 mln PLN.
Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection Committee in the Odra Basin: Total (excluded flood action and indirect damage): 490.2 mln PLN National roads: 28.3 km – 2 347 thousand PLN Province roads: 89.5 km – 5 577 thousand PLN Economic Commune roads: 278 km – 14 308 thousand PLN criteria Bridges on national roads: 10 szt. – 1 208 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 68 szt.– 7 787 thousand PLN Buildings: 2 286 szt. – 375 895 thousand PLN Levees: 13 362 mb – 15 608 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 302 szt. – 5 199 thousand PLN Banks of rivers and streams: 494 km – 32 439 thousand PLN Arable areas: 12 626 ha – 22 378 thousand PLN Green areas: 6 677 ha – 5 693 thousand PLN Others: 1 737thousand PLN:
Assessment of damage in the Odra Basin, according to ministries Total in Province: 1 120 725 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 124 330 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 23 118 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 210 641 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 11852 thousand PLN Remaining ministries: 3.0 mln PLN
4. Avoided direct Direct Avoided direct Evacuation of equipment by Przedsiębiorstwo Komunikacji Miejskiej and damage economic damage Zakład Usług Komunalnych gains 5. Costs of action Indirect Costs of action Costs of action, after WKP In the Odra bsin 627.5 mln PLN, maximun economic numer of flood fighters deployed at any time instance 700. costs 4. Specific I wave criteria IMGW Wrocław: Alert 04.07.1997 at 12.30 Alert on expected rain in the basin of upper Odra and dissemination Nysa Kłodzka Hydrological messages: forecast increase of water level and exceedance of alarm levels
II wave Information about the II wave disseminated by IMGW with high time advance 16.07.97 at 23.45 and 17.07.97 at 22.10 Alert on expected rain in the basin of upper Water level forecasts and warnings – In place
Opole Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter Criteria of social 25 fatalities, therein 9 in Opole (1 person – 86-year old male commited effects Numer of suicide, dumping from a bridge to the River Odra) 1. Fatalities fatalities 2. Stress Procent of Adults: population - 12 months after the flood – post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), all subject to stress symptoms – detected in 40 % of examined sample - 20 months after the flood – PTSD detected in 31 % of examined sample - 28 months after the flood – PTSD detected in 22 % of examined sample More stress symptoms detected in females than in males and in elderly. Public Children: health - 28 months after the flood – post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), all symptoms – detected in 18 % of examined children and youth aged 11-21. In over 50 % of the examined ample, particular, adverse health symptoms related to flood experience have been observed. Social A clear tendency to more negative reactions of older children (over 15 criteria years of age) as compared to younger (aged 11-15). Examined girls had
more PTSD symptoms and depressions than boys. 3. Evacuess Numer of Evacuation of 23 500 persons, warnings via Police vehicles with evacuees loudspeakers, local radio stations – Radio Opole, Radio Park 4. Damage and Damage and Damage iin schools – 2 450 thousand PLN destruction of destruction of Opole: inundation of multiple objects at the Island Pasieka and in cultural heritage cultural heritage Odrzańskie Suburb; Main Library of the University of Opole. Inundation of ca. 100 thousand volumes of books and pereiodicals. Destroyed collection from 1929-1945 and the post-war period. Province Public Cultural Library – loss of about 43 thousand units and 6 buildings heritage Nysa: building of museum (1608-1729), library in late-renaissance House of Town Weight (1604), Library of Higher Seminar of Śląsk Opolski; inundation of 3-4 thousand of volumes (17th-18th century) and 500 volumes of 19th century duplicates. Losses in communes Lubsza and Popielów and in Brzeg – in Piastowski Castle and Minorites Chuch. Criteria of Evaluation of damage, after GUS: economical Direct Direct damage Assessment of damage in state (budget) units and communes (including effects economic roads and water structures): 456.1 mln (replacement value); 161.3 mln 1. Direct damage costs PLN PLN (evidence value)
Flood damages of enterprises: 569.3 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures 408.0 mln PLN
Assessment of damages after Province Flood Protection Committeee (excluding expenditures on flood action and indirect damages): 1 011.5 mln PLN National roads: 131.7 km – 23 066 thousand PLN Province roads: 182.1 km – 16 965 thousand PLN Commune roads: 926.7 km – 68 896 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 48 szt. – 4 143 thousand PLN Economic Bridges on province and commune roads: 574 – 29 562 thousand PLN criteria Buildings: 25 815 – 417 444 thousand PLN Levees: 33 234 mb – 36 226 thousand PLN Hydrotechnic structures: 83 szt. – 16 277 thousand PLN Bank sof rivers and streams: 902.4 km – 34 039 thousand PLN Arable areas: 61 480 ha – 156 217 thousand PLN Green areas: 25 360 ha – 17 004 thousand PLN Others: 191 634 thousand PLN
Assesment of damage according to ministries Total in Province: 1 088 178 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 561 386 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 6 512 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 41 911 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 118 217 thousand PLN Others ministries: 300 952 thousand PLN 2. Indirect damage Indirect Indirect damage Damage after WKP 15.9 mln PLN economic 34 cases of looting and theft costs 3. Avoided direct Direct Avoided direct Evacuation of hospitals in Kędzierzyn-Koźle and Nysa. damage ekonomic damage Protection of enterprises– Opole Power Station, Jedlice metal factory gains Library of Higher Seminar of Śląsk Opolski in Nysa – saved incunabuls and early prints (XVI cent. and partly XVII and XVII cent.)
4. Cost of action Indirect Cost of action Costs after WKP 60.8 mln PLN, maximum numer of flood fighters at any economic time: Fire Brigaades 810 firemen, 210 fire brigade vehicles. Police 1818 costs policemen, 278 vehicles, 1 helicopter. Civil Defence – 148 formations, 2178 people.
Specific criteria– 06.07.1997 at 6.00, IMGW Wrocław, and at 9.32 also IMGW Katowice, interwention - I inform the Governor Orfice on exceedance of alarm stages on the Odra on WAVE the Czech side at Svinow by 90 cm and on the Polish side in Chałupki by 1. Przekaz 54 cm and on Biała Głuchołaska in Jeseniku by 34 cm and on Kłonica in ostrzeżenia Gliwice by 2cm. At 9.00 alarmowe levels exceeded by: In Svinow – 154 cm, in Chałupki – 100cm At 15.00: in Chałupki –by 138 cm, in Miedonia – 14 cm, on the Nysa Kłodzka in Bystrzyca – 40 cm in Kłodzko – 55 cm IMGW did not prepare timely information on forecast inflows to reservoirs Otmuchów and Nysa on the Nysa Kłodzka. Forecast – late on 7 and 8 July, during the flood.
2. Perception of WKP in Opole information 06.07.1997 at 11.Governor Office informs secretary of WKP in Opole. 06.07.1997 at 15.00 mayors of Głuchołazy and Prudnik, GOvernor, and several other decision makers informed about the flood threat WKP did not inform reservoir managers (Nysa-Otmuchów) nor Water Management Direction, administering these reservoirs WKP did not order increasing spill from thesse reservoirs Alarm state was introduced by loocal authorities, earlier than WKP RKP in Nysa No flood alarm announced. Inaction re: need of increasing spill at reservoirs
Wrocław Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter 1. Evacuees Number of Evacuation from 71-90 towns and villages in 19 communes (towns); evacuees 12856 people
2. Inconvenience Awareness of Higher ford pprices, no telecommunication, lack of water and electricity, inconvenience inpassable streets 3. Damage and Damage and Loss In eduation sektor: 4824 thousand PLN destruction of destruction of In Province, inundation of 12 churches, 10 palaces and castles Cultural and cultural heritage cultural heritage In Wrocław, damage to 11 cultural institutions (theatres, musea, libraries, natura biblioteki), 13 churches, 5 bridges damaged, Uniwersity Library (20 heritage thousand nooks damaged), Library of Medical Academy (120 thousand volumes) Criteria of Inundation of town communes: economical Direct Direct damage - Wrocław (26.5 % of the area) effects economic - Oława (20 - 30 %) 5. Direct damage costs Other communes: - above 30 %: Święta Katarzyna - 20 - 30 %: Miękinia, Oława, Środa Śląska, Wińsko - 10 - 20 %: Brzeg Dolny, Czernica, Jelcz-Laskowice, Jordanów Śląski, Kąty Wrocławskie, Malczyce, Mietków, Oborniki Śląskie, Prusice, Wiązów, Wołów, - 5 - 10 %: Kostomłoty, Strzelin, Żmigród, - < 5 %: Długołęka, Kondratowice, Wisznia Mała, , Inundated villages: Siechnice, Św. Katarzyna, Radwanice, Maślice Economical Wielkie, partly Maślice Małe criteria Damage in Wrocław 787.6 mln: - 84 schools, - inundated landfill in Maślice - roads: 90 300 thousand - ZOO: 618.6 thousand - 2 443 buildings - Urban communication (28.4 km tramwaj rails): 60 000 thousand - energy sector:183 000 thousand
Evaluation of damage, after GUS: Assessment of damage in state (budget) units and communes (including roads and water structures): 1 522 mln (replacement value); 597.5 mln PLN (evidence value)
Flood damages of enterprises: 1 408.5 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures 633.4 mln PLN
Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection Committee: Ogółem (bez wydatków na akcję przeciwpowodziową i strat pośrednich): 882 102 mln PLN National roads: 66.4 km – 15 150 thousand PLN Province roads: 99.4 km – 9 867 thousand PLN Commune roads: 206.3 km – 16 381 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 29 szt. – 3 695 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 84 – 5 441 thousand PLN Buildings: 7 473 – 287 573 thousand PLN Levees: 43 643 mb – 44 058 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 66 szt. – 12 388 thousand PLN Banks of rivers and streams: 358.3 km – 12 702 thousand PLN Arable areas: 19 723 ha – 55 728 thousand PLN Green areas: 9 680 ha – 10 600 thousand PLN Inne: 408 519 thousand PLN
Assesment of damage according to ministries: Total in Province: 974 404 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 245144 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 21 066 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 503 570 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 30 064 thousand PLN Others: 174 560 thousand PLN 6. Indirect damage Indirect Indirect damage Damage after WKP 59.7 mln PLN economic 34 cases of criminal acts, therein 11 cases of looting or theft, 19 cases of costs mis-appropriation or theft of donations 7. Avoided direct Direct Avoided direct Uniwersity Library in Wrocławiu – 300 thousand books transferred to damage economic damage hjigher floors gains 8. Action Indirect Cost of action Costs, after WKP 13.2 mln PLN. Maximum number of flood fighters: economic 5025 firemen, 725 policemen, 3675 civil defence fighters costs Kryteria 04.07.1997 at 13.15 IMGW Wrocław to Governor Office: forecast of specyficzne – heavy precipitation, local exceedence of alarm values interwencja 06.07.1997 at 13.00 message from IMGW Wrocław: forecast of heavy 3. Przekaz precipitation up to 90 mm/day, exceedence of alarm values ostrzeżenia at Nysa Kłodzka and Odra, therein in Chałupki by 100cm; forecast of exceedance of alarm level in Opole by o 30 cm on 08.07.1997 at 2.00 Forecast for 10.07.1997 at 12.00 for Opole 588cm, tj. 188cm above alarm level. 07.07.1997 at 10.16 information from IMGW Wrocław: gauge Brzeg - bridge 419 cm, 39 cm above alarmlevel, Oława 440 cm, 10 cm above alarm. 08.07.1997 at 9.31 message on alarm exceedences: Station Alarm level (cm) Observed faktyczny (cm) Opole 400 457 Ujście Nysy Kłodzkiej 530 576 Brzeg - most 380 505 Oława 430 540
12.07.1997 – flood culmination passes Wrocław: hydrological service, IMGW evacuated to 1st floor, electicity cut-off at 23.00. Further work using radio-telephone and accumulator. Use of intermediary of Obserwatory at Śnieżka and Met Station In Legnica. 17.07.1997 at 21.00 Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. launches emergency phone line at IMGW
4. Perception of WKP in Wrocław information 07.07.1997 at 14.30 session of WKP we Wrocławiu, all discharge facilities oin the Odra opened, increased discharge from the Nysa Reservoir. 08.07.1997 at 13.00 alarm, at 17.34 – 20.50 information conveyed to all RKP, WPK in Opole, Legnica and Wałbrzych and GKP in Warszawa
Leszno Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter 1. Evacuess Number of 4 249 people from 45 places
evacuess Criteria of Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection economical Direct Direct damage Committee: effects economic National roads: 14.4 km – 2 013 thousand PLN 1. Direct damage costs Province roads: 8.3 km – 1 125 thousand PLN Commune roads: 16.7 km – 778.7 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 8 szt. – 122.1 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 19 – 373.6 thousand PLN Buildings: 373 szt. – 619 thousand PLN Levees: 11 025 mb – 26 151 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 134 szt. – 2 295 thousand PLN Economical Banks of rivers and streams: 259 km – 5 395 thousand PLN criteria Arable areas: 5 828 ha – 2 490 thousand PLN Green areas: 9 710 ha – 2 387 thousand PLN
Assesment of damage according to ministries: Total in Province: 46 527 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 41 496 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 619 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 4 412 thousand PLN 2. Action Indirect Costs of action 900 thousand PLN economic costs Kryteria specyficzne – interwencja 1.
2. Perception of 10.07.1997 – flood alarm disseminated information - protection of levees of Odra and Barycz - 12 July: evacuation of people and animals (efficient, all people obeyed)) 13.08.1997 flood alarm cancelled 3. Accuracy of I wave: forecast - Ścinawa: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 732 cm, underestimation: 82 cm - Głogów: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 712 cm, underestimation: 62 cm II wave: - Ścinawa: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 629 cm, overestimation: 21 cm - Głogów: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 666 cm, underestimation: 16 cm
Legnica Province Kryteria Podkategoria sektor Mierzony parametr 1. Evacuess Number of 11 thousand people
evacuess Criteria of economical Direct Direct damage Assessment of damage according to the Province Flood Protection effects economic Committee: 1. Direct damage costs National roads: 25.3 km – 3 192 thousand PLN Province roads: 22 km – 4 017 thousand PLN Commune roads: 61.6 km – 4 193 thousand PLN Bridges on national roads: 28 szt. – 14 558 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 97 – 5 057 thousand PLN Buildings: 426 – 8 719 thousand PLN Levees: 12 600 mb – 4 375 thousand PLN Hydrotechnical structures: 7 szt. – 65 thousand PLN Economical Banks of rivers and streams: 340 km – 2 860 thousand PLN criteria Arable areas: 17 963 ha – 23 915 thousand PLN Green areas: 5 385 ha – 2 583 thousand PLN
Assesment of damage according to ministries: Total in Province: 100 661 thousand PLN Ministry of Agriculture: 55 118 thousand PLN Ministry of Environment Protection, Natura Resources and Forestry: 1 791 thousand PLN Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration 619 thousand PLN Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy: 31 017 thousand PLN Others ministries: 12 116 thousand PLN Specific criteria - intervention
1. Accuracy of I wave: forecast - Ścinawa: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 732 cm, error (underestimation): 82 cm - Głogów: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 712 cm, error (underestimation): 62 cm II wave: - Ścinawa: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 629 cm, error (overrestimation):: 21 cm - Głogów: forecast - 650 cm, observed: 666 cm, error (underestimation): 16 cm
Zielona Góra Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter 1. Cultural Damage and Nowa Sól: damage to the complex of historical houses Cultural heritage damage destruction to Krosno Odrzańskie: 20 historical houses, castle and store inundated heritage cultural heritage
Criteria of Assessment of damage, after GUS: economic effects Direct Direct Assessment of damage in state (budget) units and communes (including 1. Direct economic economic costs roads and water structures): 272.2 mln PLN (replacement value); 115.2 economic losses costs mln PLN (evidence value)
Flood damage in enterprises: 24 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures: 6.8 mln PLN.
Assessment of damages after Province Flood Protection Committeee National roads: 7.1 km – 1 008 thousand PLN Economic Province roads: 15.2 km – 292 thousand PLN criteria Commune roads: 330 km – 21 340 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 30 – 5 691 thousand PLN Buildings: 1605 – 37 978 thousand PLN Levees: 121 600 mb – 64 418 thousand PLN Hydrotechnic structures: 61 szt. – 13 565 thousand PLN Bank sof rivers and streams: 317 km – 79 580 thousand PLN Arable areas: 12 761 ha – 34 446 thousand PLN Green areas: 13 785 ha – 18 104 thousand PLN
Evaluation of losses after ministries: total: 325 659 thousand PLN
Gorzów Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter 1. Numer of Numer of 27.07.1997 evacuation of the town of Słubice
evacuees evacuees Criteria of Assessment of damage, after GUS: ekonomic efects Direct Direct damage Flood damage in enterprises: 27.3 mln PLN, therein buildings and structures: 1. Direct damage economic 22.9 mln PLN. costs Assessment of damages after Province Flood Protection Committeee National roads: 3.9 km – 4 047 thousand PLN Province roads: 30.7 km – 7 100 thousand PLN Commune roads: 114 km – 9 580 thousand PLN Bridges on province and commune roads: 1 – 25 thousand PLN Economic Buildings: 213 – 1 435 thousand PLN criteria Levees: 43 540 mb – 2 743 thousand PLN Hydrotechnic structures: 6 szt. – 115 thousand PLN Bank sof rivers and streams: 33 km – 162 thousand PLN Arable areas: 3 870 ha – 5 775 thousand PLN Green areas: 4 471 ha – 2 287 thousand PLN Others: 191 634 thousand PLN
Evaluation of losses after ministries: total: 55 902 thousand PLN
Specific criteria – IMGW Wrocław: intervention Forecast of I wave for Słubice on the Odra: 660 cm 20.07.1997 1. Dissemination Forecast of II wave for Słubice on the Odra: 650 cm 28.07.1997 of information
Forecasting was difficult due to dike breaches on the German side, up]stream of Słubice and floods on tributaries (due to high discharges from reservoirs)
2. Perception of 14.07.1997 flood alarm informaction 15.07.1997 evacuation call, closing down the order crossings in Słubice, Kostrzyn, Świecko 14.08.1997 cancelling the flood alarm 3. Accuracy of Forecast of maximum stage: forecast Gauge Forecast stage [cm] Actual stage [cm] Difference Hprog.-H ob. Słubice 660 616 (22/23-7-97) + 44 cm 650 637 (27-7-97) + 13 cm
Szczecin Province Criteria Sub- Sector Measured Description category parameter Criteria of Direct Direct damage Assessment of damage in the Odra Basin, according to ministries Economic economic effects economic Total in Province: 12 140 thousand PLN criteria 1. Direct losses damage 2. Accuracy of Verification of hydrological forecasts forecast Gauge on the Forecast water level Observed water Difference Odra [cm] level [cm] Hprog.-H ob. Gozdowice 661 659 (31/1-7/8-97) + 2 cm Widuchowa 783 759 (2/3-8-97) + 24 cm Gryfino 662 649 (3/4-8-97) + 13 cm
FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Report 4 Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin (Tisza A)
Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies
TASK 12 / ACTION 4 Case Study „Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin (Tisza A)”
November 2006
Summary of Contents:
Summary – General approach Identification of the elements of the contingency plans and organisational frameworks used in Hungary Analysis of the flood of April 2000 along the Middle-Tisza River Economic effectiveness efficiency and robustness of the contingency plans
Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels, HR Wallingford, UK Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420 Project website: www.floodsite.net
FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Action 4 – Ex-Post Evaluation of Measures and Instruments – Title Case Study Tisza “A” Lead Author Sandor Toth Contributors [Click here and list Contributors] Distribution Project Team Document Reference Contingency Planning in the Tisza River Basin
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes 11/11/06 1.0 S. Toth HEURAqua 16/03/07 1.1 S. Toth HEURAqua 10/06/07 1.2 A.Olfert IOER Only partial review of chapter 3.3. Recommendations for ammendments
DISCLAIMER This report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specific ap- plications without first checking its suitability.
In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, various sections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the project con- sortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suf- fered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.
Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of material contained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specific com- mission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concerned for the particular application.
© FLOODsite Consortium
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 2 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
SUMMARY
FLOODsite Task 12
Action 4 Case study “Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin (Tisza A)” (H-EURAqua) Objective: To test the role of contingency planning, including the development and deployment of flood emergency organisations during the emergency operation against the extreme flood of April 2000. Approach: Identification of the elements of the contingency plans and organisational frameworks used in Hungary. Analysis of the available documentation related to the April 2000 flood along the Middle-Tisza River with the aim of deriving conclusions on the effectiveness, effi- ciency and robustness of contingency planning as much as possible. General characteristics: case study site is part of the Middle-Tisza region situated in the Hungarian Great Plain. Floodplain of the River Tisza is protected by flood embankments. Involved measures and instruments: Objective of the case study is to test the role of contingency plan- ning, including the development and deployment of flood emergency organisations during the emer- gency operation against the extreme flood of April 2000. Context, referring to ‚type of flood’: floods threatening the case study site are slow rise fluvial floods, re- sulting in general from the superposition of multipeak floods of the Upper-Tisza and the major upstream tributaries like the River Bodrog, River Szamos, etc. Flood flow characteristics may be influenced by the backwater effect of floods of downstream tributaries like Hármas-Körös, Maros, as well as by the recipient Danube River (Fig. 7.). Probability of flood (recurrence period): the design flood in the region is the 1 in 100 years flood, however the existing defences do not meet these requirements everywhere. Both height and cross section deficien- cies can be found along the defences. Despite this, they have several times been defended in case of ex- treme floods with the additional efforts of the emergency activities. Characteristic prevailing land use type is a mixture of mostly undeveloped (rural land uses with rather sparse communities) and developed (urban/industrial/rural buildings or urban land uses) areas, however, the rural land use covers developed agriculture on the one hand and valuable natural assets on the other. In Case Study Tisza River “A” we evaluated the role of contingency planning in case of protected floodplain. Contingency plan under such circumstances is typically a structural related non-structural measure or instrument. We analysed the content and the application of the contingency plans during the extreme flood of April 2000. Since contingency planning was not covered by the offered set of measures of the methodology, we made proposals for hydrological criteria suitable for the evaluation of effectiveness. Hydrological effectiveness of contingency planning in terms of exceedance of the design flood level was in the range of 13-97 cm along 300 km river section, in terms of prevented load in comparison with the design load, the weighted average effectiveness is 117.7%. Economic effectiveness in terms of avoided economic losses by cost comparison method is 93%. Cost effectiveness of the contingency plans by comparison avoided economic losses and the cost of contingency plans (economic benefit /economic cost ratio), as well as by comparison of the costs of contingency planning and the above two elements is very convincing. Robustness of the contingency plans in Hungary has been proved in several cases under high pressure. The methodology for the ex-post evaluation of flood hazard and risk mitigation measures and instru- ments is a powerful tool for the assessment of effects and effectiveness of flood risk management in- terventions and measures.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 3 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
CONTENTS
Document Information ii Document History ii Disclaimer ii Summary iii Contents iv
1. Identification of the elements of the contingency plans and organisational frameworks used in Hungary ...... 6 1.1 Brief introduction to flood defence in Hungary...... 6 1.2 Elements of the contingency plans ...... 8 1.2.1 Introduction...... 8 1.2.2 Content of contingency plans in Hungary:...... 8 1.2.3 Content of confinement plans in Hungary: ...... 13 1.3 Organisational frameworks of flood management used in Hungary...... 14 1.3.1 Legal background...... 14 1.3.2 The allocation of public functions of flood management...... 14
2. Analysis of the flood of April 2000 along the Middle-Tisza River ...... 19 2.1 The origins of the flood wave...... 19 2.2 Emergency action ...... 19 2.3 Typical data on the magnitude of the flood fighting effort...... 27
3. Application of the Methodology for Ex-Post Evaluation of Measures and Instruments in the Case study Tisza A ...... 30 3.1 Definition of the case, formalised reduction of the overall indicator set...... 30 3.1.1 Characterisation of the measure or instrument subject to investigation30 3.1.2 Identification of the conditions ...... 32 3.2 Case specific selection of criteria ...... 32 3.3 Evaluation...... 34 3.3.1 Hydrological effectiveness...... 34 3.3.2 Economic effectiveness...... 35 3.3.3 Cost effectiveness...... 35 3.3.4 Robustness...... 36 3.4 Interpretation of results...... 36 3.4.1 Validity and representativeness of evaluation...... 36 3.4.2 Conclusions about the evaluated instrument...... 37 3.4.3 Recommendations for the methodology ...... 37
4. References ...... 39
Tables Table 1 Comparison of peak water levels on Tisza river in 1999 and 2000 27 Table 2 Flood fighting activities in different years 28 Table 3 Proposed criteria of hydrological effects for contingency planning 33
Figures Figure 1 The Carpathian Basin 5 Figure 2 Mean annual discharge of rivers entering and leaving Hungary 6 Figure 3 The flood alleviation scheme of Hungary 6
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 4 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
Figure 4 Longitudinal profile - example 10 Figure 5 Structure of the State Water Services 14 Figure 6 Allocation of public tasks of flood management 16 Figure 7 River network and flood defences in the Tisza Valley in Hungary 19 Figure 8 The Borsóhalom and Jásztelek flood detention basins along the Zagyva River 20 Figure 9 Flood hydrographs at gauging stations Vásárosnamény (684,45 fkm) and Szolnok (334,6 fkm) during the 2000 spring flood 21 Figure 10 Forecasted flood crest over the design flood level (DFL) 21 Figure 11 Temporary heightening was built along the Middle-Tisza in a total length of 310 km 22 Figure 12 Peak water stages at different floods on river Tisza 28 Figure 13 Flood phenomena and emergency works during the floods of 1998-2000 29 Figure 14 Daily flood fighting workforce during the flood 2000 29
Photos Photo 1 Temporary heightening made of sandbags 23 Photo2-7 Pulling down buildings erected on the river bank in Csáklya street, Szolnok, to protect the city 24 Photo 8 Piping at Tiszaroff 25 Photo 9 Preparation of big-bags 25 Photo 10 Placement of big-bags with helicopter 26 Photo 11 Tiszasas piping in different phases 26
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 5 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
1. Identification of the elements of the contingency plans and organ- isational frameworks used in Hungary
1.1 Brief introduction to flood defence in Hungary
Hungary is situated in the deepest part of the basin formed by the Carpathian Mountains and the Eastern foothill of the Alps (see Fig. 1.). The catchment of our major rivers is outside the country, thus 96 % of our surface water resources come from abroad (see Fig. 2.), and the floods are also generated in the 1000-3000 m ranges of the surrounding countries. The propa- gation of the flood waves reaching the plains of Hungary slow down thus the superposition of multipeak floods may increase the duration of the floods to 50-120 days along the lower reaches of our rivers. Fig. 1. The Carpathian Basin
Torrent upstream regimes: 28-36 hrs after rainfall 8-10 m rise of water level
Flood duration: 5-20 days
25-100 days
As a result of integrated flood alleviation activities extending to complete river valleys that had been started in the 20’s of the XIXth century, recently 97 % of the floodplain is protected. Length of primary flood defences exceeds 4200 km (see Fig. 3.). Flood alleviation of greater floodplain basins was finished in 1937, so far the continuous reinforcement and heightening of the embankments, as well as construction of shorter levee sections to protect the deeper parts of some settlements situated at the fringe of the floodplain was the scope of develop- ments. There is 48.000 km2, 51,6 % of the total territory of the country is prone to damages caused by water – this degree of risk can be compared only to that of the Netherlands. From the 48.000 km2 the floodplain of smaller creeks consist of about 4.000 km2, the rest is the flatland that is prone to inundations caused by undrained excess or standing water. This territory com- prises the deep floodplain of the rivers extending to 21.200 km2, 23 % of the territory of the country. National wealth accumulated in the floodplain reaches the value of USD 20 billion,
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 6 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
40 % of arable lands, 32 % of the railways, 15 % of the main roads, 646 communities, inhab- iting 2,3 million people are situated in the floodplain (Tóth, 1993). Fig. 2. Mean annual discharge of rivers entering and leaving Hungary
Fig. 3. The flood alleviation scheme of Hungary
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 7 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
1.2 Elements of the contingency plans 1.2.1 Introduction Integrated flood defence plans and registers (databases) are the collection of all important technical and other relevant data on the floodplain and the defence structures recorded in ap- propriate forms and system, containing technical description (incl. the brief history of the de- velopment of the defence structure, summary of experience gained during previous floods, singular spots and sections of special attention etc.), general plan, detailed layout, long- and cross sections, data on geotechnical survey of the embankment and the foundation soil, geo- technical cross- and long profiles, evaluation of stratification of the foundation soil, examina- tions on the stability factors, plans of structures crossing the embankment, etc.(Blöch H.– Camphuis N. C.–Dekker R.–Malek O.– Rethoret H.– Rivaud J. P.–Sar A. v. d.– Tóth S, 2003). Since in Hungary 97% of the floodplains are protected by structural defences, mainly earthen embankments, these plans in Hungary are prepared for each flood defence section as basic unit of the organisation of emergency operation along the structural defences. Integrated flood defence plans are made in 4 copies and are to be stored − in the centre of defence of the given section of the dike, − in the archive of the territorial engineering department, − in the information centre of the Technical Controlling Headquarters of the District En- vironment and Water Directorate (the territory of the country is covered by 12 DEWDs, established on catchment basis), − as well as in the National TCHq located at the Hungarian Water Centre and Public Ar- chives of the Ministry of Environment and Water. Updating of the plans and registers are to be completed by 10 December every year (KHVM1,1997). Such plans are essential for the engineering assessment of the conditions and capacity of the defences not only during emergency but they serve basic information for the justification and prioritization for development planning as well. Confinement plans are to be prepared in advance in each separate floodplain basin for the contingency of a breach in the defences. The confinement plan contains information on the morphology of the floodplain basin (flood area), including the valley bottom line(s), long- and cross sections of those, technical parameters of the built or designated confinement defence lines, incl. roads and railways, volume-stage functions of the floodplain basin and that of its well defined cassettes (cells). The plan gives proposals of possible localization of inundation on the base of predicted possible locations of levee failures. In case of emergency the flow and storage in the floodplain of water flow in through a breach can be forecasted with the ac- tual data of a breach using the computerized expert system prepared in advance, supporting the organization and control of rescue-, evacuation- and confinement activity. 1.2.2 Content of contingency plans in Hungary: (Nagy L-né-Szepessy J.-Tóth S.-Vágó J.-Zorkóczy Z., edited by Litauszki I., 1987) − Technical description = Introduction to the defence section Identification of the protected flood area(s) or part of flood area in case of large flood areas (flood plain basins), protected by the given flood defence section Extension of the protected area and briefing on the economic characteristics
1 Hungarian abbreviation for the Ministry of Transport, Communication and Water Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 8 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
Communities and population in the protected area Length of the defences, total, km earthen embankments (dikes), km flood walls, km high banks, km = Details of the defence section Historical background, development of the defences Geotechnical characterization of the soil built in the dike, as well as of the subsoil conditions Experiences of previous flood emergency operation Structures crossing the defences Singular spots and sections to be especially inspected during floods (for example: sections prone to wave erosion, mean bed curves near the dike, oxbows, ancient riv- erbed crossing the dike, sections or spots with regular seepage, sand boiling, opera- tion of drains, etc. = Characterization of the flood bed / floodway Coverage of flood bed or floodway with forest Data regarding summer dikes (if any) River sections prone to ice jamming Facilities and routes of emergency shipping, Buildings in the floodway = Registered data of the defence section Data of the gauges (spot, fkm; height of “0” point a.s.l.; reading capacity); Guarding sections Magazines supplied with basic materials, tools, social accessories for emergency op- eration Guard’s house, workmen’s’ hostel Gated sluices and pumping stations connected to the defence section, brief informa- tion on the main data, dimensions, purposes and operation of the structure = Telecommunication Data concerning communication facilities of the defence section, telephone and fax numbers of guard houses, flood defence centres, section engineering centres, other important telecommunication numbers = Data concerning confinement and evacuation of the protected flood basin in case of levee breach Communities threatened in case of levee breach Evacuation routes Facilities of confinement (incl. roads, railways, confinement dikes, etc.) Ring dikes of communities = Reservoirs, polders, emergency reservoirs influencing the hydrologic regime of the rivers Basic data and operational order of the above facilities = Annexes (if any)
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 9 FLOODsite Project Report Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
− General layout Map of the watercourse network of the DEWD in proper scale (1:200,000 for instance) representing all the important defence structures of the DEWD, such as = Main (primary) defences = Defence sections = Confinement defences = Reservoirs, emergency reservoirs, polders = Rivers, creeks, canals = Pumping stations, guards’ houses, magazines, defence centres, headquarters of section engineering centres and that of the DEWD itself = as well as settlements, roads, railways, airports, etc. − Detailed layout In a scale of 1:50,000 to 1:10,000 depending on the extension and the possibility of rep- resentation all the information below: = Main defences (with the border of guarding sections) = River (with fkm stationing and name) = Delineation of the floodplain (flood extent) = Confinement works = Polder, emergency reservoir = Forests or wave protecting forest belt (if any) = Slope revetment (starting and ending sections in km+m) = Drainage canals or other structures (starting and ending sections in km+m) = Diaphragm wall or sheet-pile in the dike (if any) (starting and ending sections in km+m) = Road or revetment on the crest (starting and ending sections in km+m) = Summer dike (with name and stationing in kms, junctions starting and ending sections in km+m) = Ring dike (with name and stationing in kms) = Shipping routes and facilities for low immersion vessels in the floodway = Sections of former levee breaches (with sections in km+m) = Possible pits = Bridges (with their names) = Pumping stations (with names) = Main canals (network) (with names) = Guards’ houses, magazines with name and registration code = Longitudinal profiles o Drawn longitudinal profile Vertical scale 1:100, horizontal scale corresponding to the scale of the detailed layout. Points and structures to be represented: Crest heights in full line Protected side toe in full line Waterside toe in dotted line Design flood level in blue full line Design crest (design flood + prescribed freeboard) in full red line Record flood crest in blue fine full lines with the indication of the year of occurrence
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 10
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 Fig. 4. Longitudinal profile - example
Crossing structures, especially pipelines, gated sluices with characteristic dimen- sions and flow level Gauges Revetments, walls, diaphragm walls, drains, etc. o Written longitudinal profile (list of every facility along the flood defence section)
= (Characteristic) cross sections Undistorted profiles in scale of 1:100 or 1:200, with the indication of the design flood level. In case the bank of the mean bed is closer to the dike than 100 m, bank should also be shown. In case there is a change in the characteristic profile, the new profile should be given. Section borders referring to the validity of the characteristic sections should be indicated. = Characterization of the geotechnical conditions of the dike o Technical description detailing the character and the methodology of the survey(s) or investigations made in or along the dikes and their foundation soils. Surveys and investigations - Spot or section of survey (section km) - Purpose of survey - Methodology and details - Geotechnical evaluation = Stratification with geohydrological classification = Measured parameters = Section of validity o Stability analysis Briefing the results without detailing the calculations. Representation of the results in proper format
o Surveys and investigations made during floods Brief information, with an indication to the corresponding water stage o Facilities constructed for the observation of the dikes during floods (wells, piezometers, etc.- short description, characteristics, warning levels and draw- ings) o Longitudinal profile of observed phenomena during floods o Longitudinal profile of stratification of foundation soil (based on resistivity tests) o Characteristic cross sections of the structure of the dikes indicating the development of the profile o List of crossings with ancient riverbeds, oxbows, dead oxbows
= Register and plans of crossing constructions (pipelines, gated sluices, etc.) o Content of the plan of crossing structure Brief technical description with the characteristics of operation (max. 1 page) General layout and the necessary sections of the structure in proper scale (1:100 if possible) Protocols of the regular (annual) inspection and QC
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 12
= Other supporting materials o Acts, governmental and ministerial decrees regulating flood defence o Summary of the reports on previous emergency operations o Summarized data of the joining main defences o Manuals (if available) on flood defence, materials, machinery and equipment suitable for flood emergency operation o List of geodetic reference points along the defence section o List of important telephone numbers o Org chart of emergency operation o Guidelines, commands of the organization for emergency operation o International relations and regulations o Log-book of emergency operation The plans and databases are recommended to be developed under GIS using AutoCAD.
1.2.3 Content of confinement plans in Hungary: = Technical description similar to that of the flood contingency plan, but concentrating on o possible breaching sections along the main defences and the consequences of the breach, o routing and spreading the water broke through, o structures crossing the floodplain bordering the cassettes of the floodplain o volume of cassettes, estimated filling time and level of each cassette o structures, culverts in the bordering constructions of the cassettes o accessories or materials needed to fill the gaps and close the openings and culverts o manpower needed for the above intervention o lead time needed for the above intervention o organizational plans of confinement activities = Detailed layout representing all the information on the protected floodplain/cassette similarly to that of the layout of the flood emergency plan, but also containing o Roads, railways, man made confinement dikes with stationing in km+m o Valley bottom lines and canals with stationing in km+m o Indication of the location of chosen characteristic valley cross sections o Gaps, openings and culverts in the cassette bordering structures with their name, loca- tion (section in km+m), main dimensions, flow level, etc. o Deep points of the cassette, where the water could only be pumped out, with proposal to the location of mobile pumps = Longitudinal and cross sections of each bordering structures with indications to their junctions to main defences or to each other, with their crossing structures (openings, gaps, culverts, gated sluices) = Longitudinal and cross sections of the main canals with junctions and crossing struc- tures = Valley cross sections = Stage-Volume curves = Calculations, models (if available)
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 13
= Assessment of existing flood defence structure data (levees, flood retention and other reservoirs), including the characterization of the recent capacity of the defence works Based on data available in the flood emergency plans and registers, and on visual in situ inspection. The plans and databases are recommended to be developed under GIS using AutoCAD and computerised DSS tools in order to model the inundation processes. – Organisational schemes The personnel of the organisation that is responsible for the maintenance and the operation of the defences should establish, maintain and train an effective organisation of flood emer- gency operation (Blöch H.– Camphuis N. C.–Dekker R.–Malek O.– Rethoret H.– Rivaud J. P.–Sar A. v. d.– Toth S, 2003). The organisation should be structured task wise at each (flood plain basin or flood defence section / river (sub)basin / county or prefecture / national / transnational), level, and is pro- posed to be structured bottom up but commanded top-down. The personal responsibilities and the delegations of powers should be clearly defined, securing that the emergency opera- tions of a defence section providing flood prevention for a separate floodplain basin (flood area) are conducted by an experienced and trained manager (preferably with hydraulic engi- neering skills). The plan of human resources allocation, material, equipment and machinery supply should be broke down to flood defence sections and should also contain provisions for the deployment as the level of alert is growing.
1.3 Organisational frameworks of flood management used in Hungary
1.3.1 Legal background
The Act LVII of 1995 on Water Management clearly declares the state and municipal respon- sibilities concerning water management, waters and hydraulic facilities on the basis of na- tional or regional and local interest. The most important provisions of the Act from the view- point of flood management are as follows: It is the obligation of the state, the local governments, and the parties interested in the preven- tion or elimination of the damage to carry out the tasks necessary in the interest of controlling water damage, that is, to construct, develop, maintain, and operate the water-control works, as well as to carry out emergency defence operations. Regulation, organization, direction, and control of the activities aimed at the prevention and mitigation of water damage, and carrying out of emergency defence operations, which exceed local public responsibilities are declared as state responsibilities. Under the provisions of the Act, carrying out of tasks as well as construction, maintenance and operation of facilities serving national or regional interest is the obligation of the state, while tasks related with local interest are in the competence of the municipalities. The Act declares that in flood areas extending to the built-up area of more than two communities, flood defence is considered as regional interest. The defences of regional interest are owned by the state, and the locally competent district environment and water directorate (DEWD) is responsible for managing and maintaining them.
1.3.2 The allocation of public functions of flood management The responsibility for performing the technical activities related to flood defence is assigned to the state water agencies, the State Water Service (SWS), structure and components of which is illustrated in Fig. 5. They are also responsible for the regional planning, organiza- Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 14
tion and professional guidance and supervision of flood control and emergency operations of other interested parties, including supply of all the data and information concerning hydrome- teorological, fluvial hydraulic conditions as well as structural data of existing flood defence structures in order to assist the preparation of structural and non-structural preventive and emergency plans of other interested bodies. Fig. 5. Structure of the State Water Services
Ministry of Environment and Water
VITUKI 5 Regional Research Institute for Water Works Environment and Water
12 Water Management Boards
Hungarian Water Centre National Environment, and Public Archives Nature conservation and Water Agency
Cities having 12 District Central 12 District independent emergency Environment Flood and Drainage Environment organisation and Water Directorate Emergency Nature conservation Budapest, Gyõr, Szentendre, Baja, Mohács Organisation and Water Agency
DEWD owned construction Ltds.
Technical activities mentioned above cover the followings: − Preventive measures and preparation: = Improvement of non-structural methods o establishment and operation of monitoring network and forecast o evaluation of the changing hydrological conditions o establishment and operation of information system, o assessment of flood risks, preparation and update of long term development plan of flood management o transboundary (international) cooperation = Preparation for operative emergency actions o preparation of emergency plans, o establishment and maintenance of emergency organizations, their preparation and training, o regular supervision and check of the above issues o maintenance of defences and that of the stockpile of material resources of emergency operations , − Protection: = Construction, development and maintenance of structural defences
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 15
− Mitigation: = organization, control and implementation of technical activities during flood emergency operation covering all the activities incl. o monitoring of the defences, o interventions in order to save the stability of the defences, o additional temporary reinforcements or heightening in case of local deficiency sandbagging or mudboxing, etc., to avoid overtopping, construction of temporary supporting berms or ribs, counterbalancing basins made of sandbags or other appropriate materials to avoid stability loss of slopes or that of the foundation due to saturation, or sand boiling (hydraulic failure), etc.; The service comprises under the guidance of the Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) the Hungarian Water Centre and Public Archive (HWCPA) and the district environmental and water directorates (DEWD). The territory of the country is divided on the basis of the catchment principle into twelve dis- tricts, which form hydrographic units, with a DEWD competent in each in the field of techni- cal tasks of water management as well as in the operation of the state owned water manage- ment facilities. Legislation, policy and strategy of the SWS are set by the MEW, while operative control of the DEWDs is provided by the HWCPA. The regional functions are performed by the DEWDs. Functions of state water administration are organised separately: the powers of first-instance deci- sion are vested with the district environment, nature conservation and water agencies (DENWAs), on the second instance with the National Environment, Nature conservation and Water Agency (NENWA). The expertise to the legal decisions is provided by the competent DEWD and HWCPA, respectively. The Minister of MEW controls the technical functions of flood fighting with support by the National Technical Controlling Headquarters (NTCHq)2 as long as the workforce and re- sources of the SWS can control the emergency situation. Local defence along the primary defences is the responsibility of the local director as the head of defence at the particular DEWD involved. In cases of flood emergency, the entire person- nel, machines, equipment, and materials of the DEWD can be mobilized - in accordance with the plans prepared in advance - for emergency service. The flood defences of a DEWD consist normally of 10-15 defence sections (30-50 km long each), the local controllers of which are assigned from among the personnel by the director of the DEWD. Direct technical assistance in flood emergencies is provided by the Flood- and Drainage Emergency Non-profit Organization (FDEO) seated in Budapest, with trained workforce, ma- chines and equipment enabling it to carry out a variety of engineering operations, such as pile- and sheet pile driving, area lighting, dewatering, blasting, separate country-wide communica- tion, ice control with special ice-breakers and aerial reconnaissance with the own flying ser- vice. At times of flood emergency the FDEO is under the direct control of the NTCHq. De- fence squads equipped, except for the flying service, like the FDEO, but of smaller capacity are available at each DEWD and are under the control of the director of the DEWD in his area of competence.
2 NTCHq is composed of the staff of HWCPA and of the Department for Water Damage Mitigation of the MEW and is lead by the head of the Department for Water Damage Mitigation of the MEW. Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 16
The Hydrological Forecasting Service within the VITUKI Environmental and Water Man- agement Research Institute supports floods emergency activities by collecting, and analysing the hydrometeorological data and compiling these into flood forecasts. Besides the technical defence functions, a number of administrative measures are necessary, such as − the support of the actions of the primary intervener organisation3 according to the con- tinuously changing demands in manpower, materials, machinery, transportation, logistics and traffic organisation belonging to these; − activities in connection with the protection of the endangered territories and population including prevention (public awareness raising, preparation and training of population and that of the leaders of the communities, civil emergency planning, etc.), protection incl. evacuation (implementation of the plans with a continuous feedback, adjustment of the plans to the changing situation and application of the changes in implementation, informa- tion of the public, etc.), social and health care of the evacuated as well as of the partici- pants of the emergency operation, order keeping both in the operational zone and in the evacuated area and finally the rehabilitation including the disinfection of the affected area, the assessment of the damages, and the repair and reconstruction of the damaged buildings and constructions. The Minister MEW is supported in national coordination of technical and administrative is- sues of emergency activities by the coordinators of the cooperating ministries through the NTCHq (see Fig.6.). Fig.6. Allocation of public tasks of flood management Flood prevention and protection Flood mitigation / emergency
of regional interest of local interest of regional interest of local interest
competence of competence of competence of Technical tasks Administrative tasks Ministry of Environment local governments local governments and measures and measures and Water and of other interested and of other interested via State Water Services competence of Transportation: Min of Econ Ministry of Environment and Transp and Water via State Water Services Communication: Min of Inform and Telecomm
Disaster mgmt: Home Office, Harmonisation and control of NGDDM technical and administrative tasks Special tasks: Min of Defence, National control: Hun Armed Forces −till Alert III: Minister of MoEW Order keeping: Home Office, Extreme emergency: Gov. Coord. Comm. Police, Border Police competent deputy: Min. of MoEW
Regional control: Hygienic and medical care : County Defence Committee Min for Health
Local control: Social care: Local Defence Committee Min for Youth, Family and Social Care
3 DEWDs in case of emergency operations of regional interest; the local government in case of emergency op- erations of local interest Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 17
The implementation of the administrative activities related to defence is organized and guided in cases of emergency by the County and Municipal/Local Defence Committees established according to the Act CX of 1993 on Defence. These committees are presided: in the case of the County Defence Committees: by the chairman of the county assembly, in Municipal Defence Committee: by the Lord Mayor, in Local Defence Committees: by the mayor. Members are the heads of the regional and local organizations competent in performing these particular ac- tivities: the director of (county/municipal) public administration office, the county chief no- tary / town clerk, the mayor of a town vested with county rights, the commander responsible for the deployment of army forces, heads of order keeping and central controlled organs de- termined by the Government (among these: police, border police, county directorates of disas- ter management / civil defence, communications inspectorate, healthcare and epidemic con- trol, transportation inspectorate/directorate, DEWD). The flood defence organization introduced briefly in the foregoing performs the functions of defence on the basis of technical-, mobilization-, warning-, confinement-, rescue- and evacua- tion plans prepared in advance. Staff members, workforce and equipment from DEWDs not exposed to flood emergency in their own area may be commanded by the NTCHq to those in distress. Experience shows that coincidence of significant emergency operation in the Danube and Tisza Valley is rather rare, therefore an organised cooperation between Danube and Tisza Valley DEWDs has been es- tablished and thus technical personnel including experienced guards are mutually considered in the mobilisation plan of the respective DEWDs. Additional resources are only drawn upon once those of the SWS are exhausted. In emergency situations, which extend to large regions where several DEWDs are no more capable of handling, national control is taken over by the government commissioner. The commissioner is the Minister of MEW. To perform all defence activities in such emer- gency situations, he is vested with powers to draw on the labour of the population, further on the equipment, tools, materials, machines and vehicles of economic organizations, following the rules laid down in the National Flood Emergency Mobilization and Cooperation Plans. In cases where the public workforce is inadequate, he is authorized to resort by the intermediary of the Minister of Defence as well as the Minister of Interior to the units and equipment of the armed and law enforcement corps as well. The state secretaries of cooperating ministries im- plement administrative tasks of emergency operations. In exceptional cases of emergency, like an impending national disaster, supreme control is taken over by a Governmental Coordinatory Committee, the members of which are the ad- ministrative state secretaries of the sectors involved in flood fighting. The GCC is a decision preparatory organism to the government. Its power is exercised through the government com- missioner (Act LXXIV of 1999). In conclusion mention must also be made of the organization of local damage control, which is a responsibility of the municipalities. Local damage control is understood as mitigation of effects of intensive local rainfall that might cause inundations in the deepest parts of a com- munity, mitigation of effects of the flood of small torrential streams crossing villages not pro- tected by embankments, and similar, local problems. The tasks involved being of local impor- tance, the organization is founded on the local government structure of the various communi- ties. The head of the defence organization is the mayor, who is free to request in cases of emergency technical assistance from the DEWD competent in the area. The activities of local damage control are performed by the local governments and are super- vised by the competent DEWD.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 18
2. Analysis of the flood of April 2000 along the Middle-Tisza River The extreme flood, which started on the 3rd of April, 2000 presented greatest and most dan- gerous test of the defences and the water agencies along the Tisza River thus far. Analyses have implied that the load on the defences was of the one-in-five hundred years magnitude, whereas the Hungarian provisions require these to withstand the one-in-hundred years flood only. Unfortunately, no more than 60.5 % of the levees had been built to the required dimen- sions thus far, therefore extraordinary efforts had to be made to fill the gap in the performance of the defences. Existence of precise contingency plans and cautious organisation of the emergency activities helped to defend the dikes.
2.1 The origins of the flood wave The precipitation between November, 1999 and March, 2000 was 140-160 % of the mean of the years on record. This implied that the excess rain varied from 40 to 190 mm on the vari- ous sub-catchments. Precipitation was especially abundant on the Upstream Tisza catchment. Snow started accumulating in the mountains in early November. Alternating mild and cold spells, repeated snowfalls have consolidated and fed the snow cover continuously. The water volume accumulated in the snow cover on the catchment pertaining to the Szeged station has grown to 7 km3, and was thus considerably larger than normal. By mid-March the thickness of the snow cover in the mountains above 1000 m altitude was greater than 60 cm in average, but data up to 200 cm have also been registered (Middle-Tisza DEWD, 2000). January has passed in relative calm, but things took an adverse turn in February. Flood waves of medium proportion had travelled down virtually all rivers in the Tisza Basin, coinciding with inundation in the Plains by undrained runoff larger than in the abnormal year of 1999. The disastrous cyanide plume has also passed down the Tisza in February. In the first half of March rains varying from 20 to 35 mm fell on the whole catchment and started flood waves approximating the 2nd degree warning level on the Tisza and her major tributaries. Daytime temperatures grew steadily towards the end of March. In the Plains the daily highs reached +20 °C and even in the mountains temperatures as high as 5-10 °C were measured. The ensuing high-rate snowmelt was accelerated by rains totalling at 43.7 mm on the Upstream Tisza, 13.6 mm on the Szamos-Kraszna and 34.9 mm on the Bodrog catch- ments, respectively. The resulting runoff has raised the water levels further. On the 5th of April another storm front has reached the Carpathians and caused abundant rain- fall. Depths varied between 15 and 40 mm, but some stations recorded 60-90 mm. Rain and snowmelt runoff have triggered another flood wave on the Tisza and her tributaries. This has overtaken the former one, the two merging into a huge flood wave in the river network. Al- though there was no major flood along the upstream reaches, owing to the extremely flat slope of the river (3-6 cm/km) an unprecedented record flood passed down the Middle Tisza reach. It should be noted that the flood volume passed the Szeged station was estimated at 15 thousand million m3, approximately twice as much as the total runoff in a normal year.
2.2 Emergency action Prompted by the report on the abundant rainfalls in the early days of April, the District Envi- ronment and Water Directorates (DEWDs) have announced the degrees of warning appropri- ate to the new situation. The first data and assessments have already implied the likelihood of high flood levels of extended duration, requiring extraordinary emergency measures. The Na- tional Technical Controlling Headquarters (NTCHq) was mobilized to start organizing and supervising these operations (OVF, 2000).
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 19
For the Tisza section downstream of Tokaj water levels higher than those on record, on the Bodrog such approaching the former peak were predicted. Fig. 7. River network and flood defences in the Tisza Valley in Hungary
The first critical situation developed on the flashy Zagyva river, where because of the rain the day before, alert III was announced on the 6th of April already. In order to prevent major losses, by the record peak stage on the Jásztelek gauge the emergency reservoirs Jásztelek and Borsóhalom were opened (Fig. 8.) the same day at 17.10 and 18.00 hours, respectively. These diversions have introduced slow recession over the middle reach of the river. The County Emergency Committee evacuated the population and their property from the area of the emergency reservoirs (Middle-Tisza DEWD, 2000).
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 20
Fig. 8. The Borsóhalom and Jász- telek flood detention basins along the Zagyva River. By the 7th of April warnings were announced practically for all streams in the Tisza Valley. The forecast based on the actual situation has predicted record peak levels for the whole Tisza reach downstream of Tokaj. An abnormally high peak, 1020 ±20 cm was expected at Szolnok town. NTCHq has transferred the flood emergency squads and technical personnel of the DEWDs along the Danube to strengthen the DEWDs along the Tisza (OVF, 2000). Work was started without delay on building temporary defences and strengthening weak sections known from the respective parts of the contingency plans. Stocks of emergency materials were de- posited at strategic points. Sum- mer dikes delaying the passage of flood waves and built irregularly were cut back to the au- thorized height along the critical Middle-Tisza reach. In the residential areas of the towns Szolnok and Csongrád the buildings, which were found during previous floods to hinder emergency measurers and temporary defences, were demolished and cleared. The race against time has started. The first army units were deployed the same day. Because of the very grave flood situation, upon a joint proposal of the locally competent DEWDs and the county defence committees, the emergency Governmental commissioner took the initiative to the Government at declaring the state of emergency and at announcing the extraordinary alert. The Government has declared on the 8th of April 2000, as of 22.00 the state of emergency for the Tisza reach Vásárosnamény-Csongrád, the full length of the Bodrog, the Fekete-, Fe- hér- and Kettős-Körös rivers, the downstream reach of the Szamos and Kraszna rivers, the Sajó River between Inérhát and Kesznyéten, the Lónyai Principal, further the Hortobágy- Berettyó between Ágota and Mezőtúr. Extraordinary alert for the levees of 1342 km total length along both sides of the aforementioned river sections were announced. In an unprecedented manner, the full available workforce, all equipment and emergency squads of the state water service were deployed. The technical personnel were even so just enough to provide guidance and supervision (without relief shifts). For implementation of the measures, for guard duties, involvement of outside forces (municipalities, army, police, etc.) was necessary. The changes in the workforce deployed on emergency operations are illus- trated in Fig. 14. (OVF, 2000). The ten days’ forecast lead-time (Fig. 9.) on the Middle-Tisza reach was enough to raise the dikes by temporary defences, as well as to provide protection against saturation by laying foil on the wet slopes and to reinforce certain sections well in advance where necessary.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 21
Fig. 9. Flood hydrographs at gauging stations Vásárosnamény (684,45 fkm) and Szolnok (334,6 fkm) during the 2000 spring flood
stage (cm) rainfall (mm) 1100 50 1000 cm 11 days 1000 DFL 17 days peak of 1970: 24 days 900 40 Alert III: 800 cm 32 days 800
700 Szolnok 30 600
500 20 400
300 Upstream Tisza rainfall Vásárosnamény 200 10
100
0 0 01 Apr 03 Apr 05 Apr 07 Apr 09 Apr 11 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 19 Apr 21 Apr 23 Apr 25 Apr 27 Apr 29 Apr 01 May01 May03 May05 May07 May09 May11 24 March 26 March 28 March 30 March
Fig.10. Forecasted flood crest over the design flood level (DFL)
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 22
Fig 11. Temporary heightening was built along the Middle-Tisza in a total length of 310 km
Photo 1. Temporary heightening made of sandbags On the right-hand side of the Bodrog River the unprecedented flood has overtopped the high banks considered safe enough thus far and caused severe losses. Low village sections were flooded, people were evacuated and several homes collapsed. Similar situations developed also along the Middle Tisza, at the so- called “high-bank” villages (Tószeg, Vezseny, Tiszavárkony, Tiszajenő, Nagyrév, Martfű, etc.). The lower parts of these had to be protected by temporary defences built within a few days. These succeeded in pre- venting direct inundation, but seepage water has caused severe losses (M-T DEWD, 2000).
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 23
In the residential areas of the towns Szolnok and Csongrád, some homes and sheds that had either been built on the river bank or at the levee toe had to be demolished to clear the way for temporary defences (Middle-Tisza DEWD, 2000).
Photo 2-7. Pulling down buildings erected on the river bank in Csáklya street, Szolnok, to protect the city However, concerns were expressed as regards the behaviour, safety of the levees under ex- tended exposure to abnormally high water levels. The first sign of distress was the 30-35 long and 40-50 cm deep slump on the slope of the levee between Tiszasüly and Kőtelek. The fissure at Akolhát followed next. Emergency meas- ures were introduced without delay according to the instructions of the staff expert dispatched to the site.
The number of such evidences of distress kept growing over the next days of abnormal expo- sure (along the Tiszasüly-Kőtelek-Nagykörű-Dobapuszta section), so that it was decided on
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 24
the 16th of April to evacuate part of the population from the villages Tiszasüly, Kőtelek and Hunyadfalva.
Photo 8. Piping at Tiszaroff
Evidences of dimin- ished stability were noted at a number of points along other levee sections of the Middle-Tisza reach. The County Emer- gency Committee has therefore proposed to evacuate a population of 22 000 from further 16 exposed communi- ties and several isolated farms. The number of people actually evacuated was 260 only. The temporary dike along the high bank at Tiszajenő started sliding and was stabilized. Concen- trated emergence of seepage at the garden district of Szolnok town has indicated impending failure of the embankment of the former National Road No.4. Two emergency squads of the water agency have coped with the emergency. Photo 9. Preparation of big-bags As the flood wave moved downstream, the state of extreme emergency was ex- tended on the 18th of April to the Csongrád- southern border Tisza reach and the Hármas- Körös up to Öcsöd village, that is to lev- ees of 1641 km length. Emergency operations were on-going along levees of 2150 km to- tal length, 75 % of which were in the state of extraordinary emergency. The registered work- force has approached 20 000 by then, the largest since the 1970 flood. To provide assistance in the unprecedented emergency operations, relief in the form of volun- teers, material and equipment has arrived in the most critical period from all over Europe, from the Ukraine, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Germany and other near and distant countries, from organizations and individuals (OVF, 2000).
The peak at Szolnok – 1041 cm, or 1 cm higher than predicted – has surpassed by 67 cm the former one on record and persisted from the 18th to the 20th of April. The subsequent reces- sion was a very slow one, the peak advancing to the downstream section. The continuing very
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 25
high water level presented a severe load on the saturated levees and prompt action was neces- sary at several points. Photo 10. Placement of big-bags with helicopter
Slumping of the levee toe at the downstream end of the Atka oxbow had to be arrested and safety had to be re- stored on the 22nd of April. Eruption of a dangerous boil gave rise to serious concern next, while on the 26th the emergency squad was called in to stabi- lize the levee slope at Nagyfa. Photo 11. The Tiszasas piping in different phases
Thanks to the absence of any major rain over the catchment and to the disappearance of the snow cover, there was no runoff any more and the flood started receding steadily, though slowly. The load on the levees has diminished accordingly at a slow rate. Following the effec- tive emergency actions and the attenuation of the flood along the upstream parts of the stream network, the state of extreme emergency was revoked on the 2nd of May for the Vásáros- namény-Sajó mouth Tisza section, the Bodrog, the Fekete- Fehér- and Kettős-Körös, the Szamos and the Kraszna rivers, the Lónyai Principal and the downstream sections of the Sajó river. The flood commissioner was authorized at the same time to revoke the state of emer- gency over the remaining levees as the river stage sunk to the prescribed levels. The state of
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 26
extreme emergency was accordingly revoked on the 9th of May on the whole Hungarian part of the Tisza Basin.
2.3 Typical data on the magnitude of the flood fighting effort Record peaks were read on all gauges of the Tisza River between Tiszabercel (+4 cm) Mindszent (+18 cm), the highest at Tiszaug, where the peak was 88 cm above the former on record, with the Szolnok gauge second at + 67 cm. This means that along the 350 km Tisza reach - not to speak of the tributaries affected by backwater from the recipient, like the Lónyai Principal, the Sajó, the Zagyva and the Hármas-Körös - the levees were exposed to unprece- dented head of water. Abnormal levels were combined with abnormal duration, in that the re- cord peak at Tokaj lasted for 4 days only, while at Szolnok for 18. Flood peaks above or close to the HHW were registered on the rivers Bodrog, Szamos, Kraszna, Sajó, Tarna, Zagyva (emergency storage), Fehér-Körös (the breach in Romania averted the need of emergency storage), the Fekete-, Kettős- and Hármas Körös, the Sebes- Körös and the Maros. Along the entire length of the Tokaj-Csongrád Tisza section the flood of 2000 has surpassed the design level (once-in-hundred years) and rose to the prescribed crest of the design flood + 1 m safety freeboard. Taking into consideration that the levees along this section have not been raised to the prescribed height (design flood + 1 m), this alone demonstrates the magni- tude and effectiveness of the emergency efforts in 2000. Table 1. Comparison of peak water levels on Tisza river in 1999 and 2000 River, gauge Earlier max. Peaking in Peaking in Alert degree 1999 2000 I. II. III. (cm) date (cm) date (cm) date BODROG Felsőberecki 550 650 700 747 1980 795 03.13 783 04.08 Sárospatak 450 686 1888 738 03.14 737 04.11 TAKTA Kesznyéten 300 370 450 586 1979 626 03.16 Lónyay Principal Kemecse 700 750 800 876 1941 873 04.11 Kótaj 650 700 780 898 1888 860 1999 898 04.11 TISZA Tokaj 650 750 800 880 1979 894 03.15 928 04.12 Tiszapalkonya 500 600 650 733 1979 774 03.16 804 04.13 . Tiszadorogma 600 670 720 797 1979 840 03.19 883 04.15 Kisköre-alsó 600 700 800 908 1979 978 03.20 1030 04.17 Szolnok 650 750 800 909 1979 974 03.22 1041 04.20 Csongrád 650 750 850 935 1970 891 03.25 994 04.20 Mindszent 650 750 850 982 1970 891 03.25 1000 04.21 Szeged 650 750 850 960 1970 817 03.25 929 04.23 HORTOBÁGY-BERETTYÓ Borz 250 300 350 403 1966 433 03.08 Mezőtúr upstream 600 650 700 733 1979 780 03.09 flood gate HÁRMAS-KÖRÖS Kunszentmárton 943 1970 985 04.20
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 27
Fig. 12. Peak water stages at different floods on river Tisza
98 a
1970. year flood 96
Tokaj 1998. year flood 1999. year flood
Tiszapalkony 94 2000. year flood ó DFL Tiszadorogma
f 92 Tiszafüred k Kisköre-als
Tiszarof 90 ű Szolno
Martf 88 Water table above s.l.Baltic above table Water Tiszaug t 86 Csongrád
Mindszer 84 Szeged
82 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 Distance from the mouth (km)
The levees were raised over 310 km total length, underseepage emerged along 350 km, con- centrated trickles were noted at 1100 sites, 127 boils were controlled by sub-levee basins, and the slope slumped at 26 sites with 950 m total length. These were stabilized with support- ing ribs made of sandbags. Failure was imminent in the residential area of Szolnok Town at the national road No.4, at the Tiszasas bend, at the Mindszent pumping station and near Tiszasüly. Failure was prevented, but even minor floods may cause concern at these sites. The defences were severely tested and locally damaged by the flood. Table 2. Flood fighting activities in different years Item 1998 1999 2000 Length of defence in emergency (km) 1605 2700 2980 Extreme water level (km) 450 562 1612 Length where the water level was over the earlier (km) 96 450 471 Days of emergencies in the year 138 186 114 Days of extreme emergencies in the year 12 25 32 Maximal defence workforce 8 000 11 000 20 000 Used sandbags (mil.) 1.2 1.5 10.5 Protected area (km2) 3 000 11 494 12 686 Avoided damage, billion HUF (Halcrow Water, 1999) 177.302 679.305 749.751
Fig. 13. Flood phenomena and emergency works during the floods of 1998-2000
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 28
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 2000 ) m (k ) 1999 ike km ) d e ( km ) he g ( m 1998 t pa ke (k ) er e di g m ) nd se y in (k m u e ar n n (k e ik or te tio t e) ag D p igh a en c p m e itig m ie ee Te h m ce (p S ke e or gs Di v f in a ein il W r Bo ag b nd Sa
The following volumes of material were used for the emergency measures: o Temporary defence (crest dike) 310 km o Sandbag, pieces 10.5 million o Sandbags for controlling the Tiszasas boil 30 000 o Sand 160 000 m3 o Plastic foil 507 000 m2 o Sheetpile 13 000 m2 o Rock 24 000 tons o Gravel 72 000 m3 o Stakes, pieces 65 000 o Torches, pieces 300 000 Fig. 14. Daily flood fighting workforce during the flood 2000
20000
18000 police
16000 soldiers public workers 14000 water 12000
10000 Person 8000
6000
4000
2000
0 ápr. 6. ápr. 8. máj. 2. máj. 4. máj. 6. máj. 8. máj. ápr. 10. ápr. 12. ápr. 14. ápr. 16. ápr. 18. ápr. 20. ápr. 22. ápr. 24. ápr. 26. ápr. 28. ápr. 30. máj. 10. máj. 12. máj. 14.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 29
During the critical emergency period (April 18-21) some figures from the daily report read as follows:
o Workforce total 20 000 that of water agencies 8 000 Number of mechanical equipment operated simultaneously: o Construction equipment 433 o Other machines 137 o Road vehicles 1 595 o Water craft 53 o Military amphibians 8 o MI-8 helicopters 6 o Mobile pumps 55
Costs and losses o According to the estimates of the ministries involved, the cost of the emergency opera- tions to control the river flood and the inundation by undrained runoff amounted to 29,020.6 million HUF. o The total costs of emergency operations by the water agency amounted to 13.2 billion HUF. o The total of losses and restoration amounted to 54,536.7 million HUF (OVF, 2000).
3. Application of the Methodology for Ex-Post Evaluation of Meas- ures and Instruments in the Case study Tisza A
3.1 Definition of the case, formalised reduction of the overall indi- cator set
3.1.1 Characterisation of the measure or instrument subject to investigation Subject of this case study is testing the role of contingency planning, including the de- velopment and deployment of flood emergency organisations during the emergency op- eration against the extreme flood of April 2000. Contingency plans in general are the collection of all important characteristic data − on expectable floods (SPRC), − on the rivers and their floodplains and, if appropriate, the defence structures (SPRC), − on the population, assets, cultural and natural heritage, potential pollution sources (SPRC) − on the vulnerability of the different receptors with a view to possible consequences recorded in appropriate forms and system, establishing the technical and organisational framework for the mitigation of the consequences (stable and/or mobile/temporary de- fences, technical, material and human resources as well as logistics to make them avail- able on the right place in the right time, organisational schemes with a clear allocation of responsibilities and authorisations on each level, preparation and provision of infor- mation for the crisis management of large-scale and local disasters; sources of and ac-
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 30
cess to real-time information on situation development; potential risks; provision of ex- pertise/experts/resources). In case of an open floodplain contingency planning may be considered as typical non- structural preventive measure, focusing on temporary defence with a view to increase lead time of evacuation (for the case the forecasted parameters of the flood exceed the capacity of temporary defences). However, in case of protected floodplain these plans will focus on the emergency opera- tion, repair and temporary increasing the capacity of the defences and in this respect contingency planning, being prerequisite of successful operation of the defence struc- tures to avoid failure of the defence structures and consequent inundation of the pro- tected area, can be considered as structural related non-structural measure. Practice, at least in Hungary justifies that the performance of the structural defences can be ex- tended successfully beyond their designed capacities by appropriate countermeasures in case the lead time of the forecast is sufficient and adequately trained and prepared or- ganisations are available to implement the contingency plan. Of course, local conditions of the defence structures, especially in case of flood embankments made of earth, like According to the classification system set up by the methodology of ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments, contingency planning can be classified as physical measure, the functional character of which is rather control measure either in case of open or protected floodplains, but in case of the previous one the controlling function is rather limited and serves the successful implementation of retreat measures. Concerning the type of intervention the identification is rather difficult since the contin- gency plan itself cannot be classified according to the given list but contributes to the successful implementation of different measures, again, depending on whether the floodplain is open or protected by structural defences. If the floodplain is protected, types of interventions served by contingency planning depend on the character of the structural defences. In case flood defence is provided by flood embankments (dikes) and flood walls (stable or mobile), the contingency plan serves channel conveyance, and among the measures to be applied we will definitely see emergency repair of structures (being No.24 in the list of measures). If the protection strategy is built on flood storage or detention, contingency plan will focus on flood water storage, in case flood protec- tion is solved by diversion canal, the contingency plan will contain provisions serving flood water transfer and in case the problem is groundwater flooding or seepage behind dikes, etc., the contingency plan will deal with drainage and pumping systems. Among the prevailing topographic, hydrographic and climatic conditions in the majority of the floodplain basins (flood areas) in Hungary flood protection interventions to be implemented are combinations of the above solutions, most frequently channel convey- ance combined with drainage and pumping systems either in urban or rural areas. Flood water storage is also often used, especially along the smaller tributaries characterised by flash floods, mainly in the form of detention basins behind the dikes. The new strategy in the Tisza Valley is built on giving more space for the rivers, enhancing floodplain storage and application of detention basins (see Fig. 3. on page 7). Recent past and present contingency plans of the case study site focus on channel con- veyance and drainage and pumping, in the very near future they will be supplemented with flood water storage.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 31
3.1.2 Identification of the conditions Type of flood: floods threatening the case study site are slow rise fluvial floods, resulting in general from the superposition of multipeak floods of the Upper-Tisza and the major up- stream tributaries influenced by the backwater effect of floods of major downstream tribu- taries, as well as by the recipient Danube River. Type of water body: river. Probability of flood (recurrence period): the design flood in the region is the 1 in 100 years flood, however the existing defences do not meet these requirements everywhere. Both height and cross section deficiencies can be found along the defences. Despite this, they have several times been defended in case of extreme floods with the additional efforts of the emergency activities. The recurrence period of the flood in 2000 was over 300 years. Characteristic prevailing land use type is a mixture of mostly undeveloped (rural land uses with rather sparse communities) and developed (urban/industrial/rural buildings or urban land uses) areas, however, the rural land use covers developed agriculture on the one hand and valuable natural assets on the other. Perspective of evaluation: evaluation of the instrument is done in the light of a single flood event (the spring flood of 2000).
3.2 Case specific selection of criteria Contingency planning as such or anything similar is not mentioned neither among the 19 different types of interventions nor among the 94 different measures or instruments listed in Appendix 5 of the methodology. Since the criteria selection tool located for testing purposes on http://www2.ioer.de/floods/html/floodsitedb-ioer.php is based on the intervention types and conditions, no direct solution can be found. However, if we consider the role and the result of the implementation of contingency planning we might conclude that without the information, organisational framework, etc. provided by the contingency plan, without the regular monitoring of the develop- ment and propagation of the flood, without regular and systematic checking of the con- ditions of the structural defences under load, without proper and timely observation and evaluation of harmful phenomena threatening the integrity of the defences, the planned performance of the defences cannot be expected. Even the best planned and built defence structures may be severely damaged leading to loss of stability if unattended while series of examples justify that even in case of 30-50 cm overtopping, or in case of a slope slide weakening the full profile in an extent of 1/3 – 1/2, the capacity of the dikes can be rehabilitated and maintained with properly im- plemented additional efforts (emergency heightening, supporting and counter weighting the dry side toe and the slipped slope, etc.). Successful prevention of overtopping or structural failure of the defences thus preven- tion of flooding of protected area is strongly dependent on the proper establishment and application of contingency plans. Based on this approach, criteria of some hydrological effects attributed to physical con- trolling measures are also attributable to contingency planning. However, it is important to note that contingency planning alone is unable to influence hydrological characteris- tics of a flood, only together with something kind of physical interventions.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 32
But even in case of an open floodplain, (or in case of confinement / localisation of a flood broke through the dike) properly applied interventions (erection of mobile barri- ers, sandbagging, closure of culverts, etc.) planned in advance in the contingency (or confinement / localisation) plan can have significant impact first of all on flood exten- sion, or on flood level observed in the flooded area. Based on the above considerations, the following criteria of hydrological effects can be selected: Table 3. Proposed criteria of hydrological effects for contingency planning
Acro- Measured pa- Criterion Unit Remark nym rameter
1. Criteria of hydrological effects Hydr 2M Impact on maximum Height of flood crest m/cm In case of protected flood area prevented flood level over normal resp. ab- the measured parameter is pro- solute altitude posed to be exceedance of DFL4 (DFL+ X), [cm] Hydr 4M Impact on maximum Flood level, land area m In case of open floodplain, as land area protected protected in flood event a.s.l., well as in case of protected from flooding by ha, floodplain when flood crest ex- emergency action km2 ceeds DFL or in case of dike failure as a result of confine- ment / localisation. Hydr 5M Impact on the in- Flood level, elapsed m In case of open floodplain, for crease in lead time time until flooding is a.s.l., the case the forecasted pa- of evacuation prevented h, min rameters of the flood exceed the capacity of temporary de- fences. The plausibility check of these criteria, e.g. whether the potential effect on the selected issue can fully be attributed to the evaluated intervention (e.g. to contingency or local- isation planning) or not, answer can be definite yes for the selected criterion. This defi- nite ‘yes’ also expresses our confidence in the successful implementation of the contin- gency plans by a trained and experienced personnel and confirms our conviction that contingency plan containing the broad knowledge and information on the defences and on the floodplain characteristics, on organisational, information source and flow and lo- gistical frameworks as described in chapters 1.2 and 1.2 of this report and also extend- ing to training and capacity building is prerequisite of successful emergency operation, moreover, no success can be expected without it. Concerning criteria of social effects listed in the methodology, no lives were lost and no injuries attributable to the spring flood of 2000 occurred (Soc 1 and 2), no cultural heritage was damaged or lost (Soc 9) and there is no data on natural heritage lost or damaged (Soc 10). There are no data available on criteria listed under Soc 4, 6, 7, and 8. There were no inquires made to assess proportion of affected population reporting to have experienced major mental stress during or after a flood event (Soc 3), however, part of population totalling to 25 thousand capita who were subject to temporary evacuation might have had such problems. In comparison with the total number of de- fended population (1.214.063 capita) they represent 2%.
4 DFL = design flood level Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 33
Finally, as a result of demolition of some houses in Szolnok and Csongrád towns, built on the river bank or at the levee toe (as reported in page 24) to enable successful de- fence of the low-lying parts of the towns including 52.000 inhabitants living there, 87 people were permanently displaced (Soc 5). As regards criteria of economic effects, there are no data available to determine pa- rameters related to Econ 2,3 6-9. Data on direct economic losses avoided (Econ 1) as well as on realisation costs of inter- vention (Econ 5) are determined and the related effects will be evaluated. No data are available concerning criteria of ecologic effects.
3.3 Evaluation 3.3.1 Hydrological effectiveness 3.3.1.1 Impact on maximum prevented flood level, (Hydr 2) measured parameter: exceedance of DFL5 (DFL+ X), [cm] effectiveness = experienced load / designed load
Gauge Tokaj Tiszafüred Kisköre Szolnok Tiszaug Csongrád fkm 543,1 430,5 403,1 334,6 267,6 246,2 Designed load* (initial aim) 2.65c 2.15cm 3.33cm 3.11cm 3.44cm 3.21cm m Experienced load (overall 2.78c 2.81cm 4.30cm 3.91cm 3.96cm 3.44cm aim of contigency action, m Hydr 2a) Operational reduction aim of 13cm 66cm 97cm 80cm 52cm 23cm contingency action X, cm (Hydr 2) 13cm 66cm 97cm 80cm 52cm 23cm Effectiveness measured 104.9 130.7% 129.1% 125.7% 115.1% 107.2% against initial aim % Effectiveness of operative 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% contingency action 6 *HDFL – HAlert I, [m] Average effectiveness with regard to the initial aim weighted according to fkm length: 117,7%
Effectiveness of contingency operation is due to avoided dike failures in all sections 100%.
3.3.1.2 Impact on maximum land area protected from flooding by emergency action (Hydr 4) Total extension of the flood area threatened by the extreme flood of spring 2000: 12 686 km2 Land area protected from flooding by emergency action: 12 686 km2 Effectiveness: 100%
5 DFL = design flood level 6 Alert I – designated characteristic water stage at designated gauging stations corresponding to the water surface reaching the water side toe of the dikes in the length exceeding half of the length of the flood defence section. Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 34
3.3.2 Economic effect and effectiveness Economic effect – direct losses avoided (Econ 1) Determination of the avoided economic losses is based on the Feasibility Study done by Hal- crow and Partners (Halcrow Water, 1999) in which assessment of the components of flood losses for every single flood area in Hungary was determined. Utilising the data determined by Halcrow and Partners, in the frame of this case study we made an analysis how the different floods in the period of 1998-2000 threatened the different flood areas along River Tisza. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2 on page 28 of this report. − since failure in the defences thus inundation of protected flood areas were successfully prevented, avoided damage in 2000 was as much as € 2 883.66 million (749,751 million HUF) Economic effectiveness Evaluation is based on cost comparison method.
Economic effectiveness by the fully avoided economic losses in the potential inunda- tion areas is 100%
3.3.3 Cost effectiveness Economic/financial costs of contingency plan and contingency measures The realisation costs of the full contingency action, or in other words, the value of the contin- gency plans is not easy to estimate since it is the result of the continuous activity and collec- tion and registration of the experience and data of the past 150 years. Estimates on the production costs of the underlying contingency plan provided by different consulting engineering companies for the territory affected by the 2000 spring flood vary be- tween HUF 21.5 million and HUF 25.5 million. Calculations will be made with the higher value. Remark: 1 EUR ≈ 260 HUF
Costs of emergency operation and restoration in 2000 amounted to € 209.76 million (54,537 million); this amount is to be deducted from the avoided damage
As a result, the total costs of contingency planning and emergency action is € 210.00 million
Comparison of the flood mitigation costs and the cost of contingency plans (29,020.6 million /25.5 million = 1138.1) reveals that the proportion of contingency plan is less than 0,1%
Economic/financial benefits of contingency action
3.3.4 Cost effectiveness
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 35
3.3.3.1 Cost effectiveness of the contingency plans can be determined by comparison of the avoided economic losses and the cost of contingency plans (economic benefit /economic cost ratio):
695,214 million / 25.5 million = 27263.3 ≈ 27300
In other words it means that unit expenditure on contingency planning benefits over 27 thousand times in avoided losses of one single flood reaching or exceeding the pa- rameters of the design flood.
3.3.3.2 Cost effectiveness of the emergency operation can be determined by comparison of the avoided damages and. the flood mitigation costs (economic benefit /economic cost ratio):
€ 2 883.66 million / € 210.00 million = 13,5
3.3.5 Robustness Robustness of the contingency plans including the deployment of the emergency or- ganisation has been proved under real high pressure, namely during a flood event far exceeding the design flood. It is important to mention that in the past six years Hungary was hit by extreme floods exceeding previous flood peaks in 1998 along the Upper Tisza, in 1999 along the Bodrog and Middle-Tisza, in 2000 again along the Middle-Tisza, in 2001 again along the Upper Tisza (this time suffering a dike breach, but the confinement activities were successful), in 2002 along the Danube and finally in 2006 along the Danube and the Middle- and Lower-Tisza and her tributaries, the Hármas-Körös and the Maros rivers. Except for the 2001 flood, despite the extreme high and durable loads, and the conse- quent series of harmful phenomena observed, failure of dikes was successfully pre- vented as a result of the quality of the contingency plans and the experience of the per- sonnel controlling and implementing the emergency response. In other words, robustness of the contingency plans in Hungary has been proved in several cases under high pressure. Robustness of localisation/confinement plans proved in March 2001 – after the Upper- 3 Tisza dike breach (Voutflow=130 Mm ) scale of inundation was successfully minimized and thus 9 communities were prevented from inundation.
3.4 Interpretation of results
3.4.1 Validity and representativeness of evaluation Results obtained from the evaluation of the hydrologic and economic effects of the application of contingency plans during the extreme flood of spring 2000 along the Middle-Tisza are of course valid as far as the available data and the applied compara- tive methods are concerned and proved our long experience. If just looking back for the past decade, we experienced series of extreme floods from November 1998 till March 2001 along River Tisza. Within the elapsed 28 month flood alerts lasted 24 months (!), and the total duration of Alert III and extraordinary alert extended to 9 month! Record flood bringing new maxima along the Hungarian Danube section up- Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 36
stream Budapest was experienced in August 2002. Finally, after two calm years 2005 brought significant floods again, and the spring of 2006 created extreme floods along the Central-Danube and the Middle- and Lower-Tisza and its main tributaries, break- ing record flood stages on several gauging stations. All of these floods, except for the dike failure on the Upper-Tisza in 2001 were successfully managed, in a great part due to the availability and application of the continuously updated contingency plans. Concerning representativeness of the performance of contingency planning under comparable conditions it has to be mentioned that in case of slow rising fluvial floods threatening extensive floodplains similar performance is to be expected in the field of hydrological effectiveness. As far as economic effectiveness and cost effectiveness are concerned it has to be taken into consideration that the accumulated wealth, or in other words, the damage potential in the Hungarian flood plain basins (flood areas) is rather low, corresponding to the performance parameters of our developing economy. There- fore in developed countries or regions even better economic performance is expect- able.
3.4.2 Conclusions about the evaluated instrument In the foregoing, overall utility of the contingency plans have been proved. Hydrologi- cal effectiveness of this instrument has been similar in the series of extreme floods of the past decade, during the flood of 2006 was even higher. Economic effectiveness, as discussed, depending on the development rate of the economy can also be much higher. Robustness is proved by series of application. We can conclude that contingency plans constitute indispensable pre-condition for ef- fective event management first of all at existing defence system, but in open floodplain as well, if the contingency plan is tailored properly to the given conditions. Confinement / localisation plans elaborated in advance for worst case breach scenarios are prerequisites of effective control of inundation and minimisation of adverse ef- fects. Further improvement of utility can be achieved by digitization of CPs and L/CPs and integration into GIS based DSS tool to support emergency operation at lo- cal/regional/national level.
3.4.3 Recommendations for the methodology The methodology that offers 19 different types of interventions broken further down to 94 different measures or instruments listed in Appendix 5 combined with the criteria selection tool offering in some typical cases over 40-45 criteria to be taken into con- sideration is a strong instrument giving a very broad scale of possibilities for the ex- post evaluation of flood hazard and risk mitigation measures and instruments. In this research output we investigated the effects of one of the most important meas- ure to raise preparedness of organisations obliged by law to perform emergency re- sponse and mitigation activities during flood events, namely that of contingency plan- ning (including a special type called confinement or localisation plan for the contin- gency of failure of the defence structures). Since such types of measures or anything similar was not part of the otherwise very broad scope of the measures and instruments investigated by the methodology, we made an attempt to identify first of all hydrologi- cal criteria by modification of Hydr 2, 4 and 5 for the evaluation of contingency plan-
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 37
ning. The social, economic and ecological criteria available in the methodology are suitable to cover the case of contingency planning as well (it is another question that for many of the criteria listed data are not or hardly available). In case the proposals we offered to the evaluation of contingency planning are accept- able, the methodology will cover all the important interventions, measures and the cri- teria of the evaluation of their effects, effectiveness, robustness and flexibility.
Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 38
4. References 1. BLÖCH H.– CAMPHUIS N. C. –DEKKER R. –MALEK O. – RETHORET H. – RIVAUD J. P.–SAR A. V. D.– TÓTH S. (2003), EU Best Practice Document on Flood Prevention, Pro- tection and Mitigation - Brussels-Athens 2. HALCROW WATER (1999), Hungary flood control development and rehabilitation project, Feasibility Study, Final report, Budapest 3. Hungarian Water Centre and Public Archives and VITUKI archives and databases 4. MIDDLE-TISZA DEWD (2000), Report on the 2000 spring flood emergency operation 5. NAGY L-né-SZEPESSY J.-TÓTH S.-VÁGÓ J.-ZORKÓCZY Z., edited by LITAUSZKI I. (1987), Manual on the construction and maintenance of flood embankments. OVH7, Budapest 6. OVF8(2000), Final report on the flood emergency operation 7. TÓTH, S. (1993), Overview of Flood Defence Problems in Hungary. Proceedings of the UK- Hungarian Workshop on Flood Defence, VITUKI, Budapest, Hungary pp. 57-78. 8. TÓTH, S. (1995), Organization and preparation for flood defence activities in Hungary. Pro- ceedings of the NATO ASI held in Budapest, May, 1994. J. Gardiner et al (eds.): Defence from Floods and Floodplain Management. © 1995. Kluwer Academic Publisher 9. ACTS, DECREES, REGULATIONS − Act CX of 1993 on Defence − Act LVII of 1995 on Water Management − Act LXXIV of 1999 on the control and organisation of disaster management − KHVM9: 10/1997. (VII. 17.) KHVM decree on the organisational and operational rules of the national control of the emergency operation for flood and excess water mitigation. − KHVM: 15/1997 (IX. 19.) KHVM decree on the design flood levels of the rivers (1997c) 10. OLFERT A and SCHANZE J (2006), Report on the Methodology for Ex-Post Evaluation of Measures and Instruments, Leibniz Institute for Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), FLOODsite Report T12-06-02, Dresden.
7 Hungarian abbreviation for the National Water Authority 8 National Directorate for Water Management 9 Hungarian abbreviation for the Ministry of Transport, Communication and Water Contingency planning in the Tisza river basin - HEURAqua 11 November 2006 39 FLOODsite Task 12 Report on the methodolgy for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments
Report 5 Hungarian-Ukrainian Co-Operation for Flood and Excess Water Defence Along the Upper Tisza River
VITUKI ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND WATER MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE H-1095 Budapest, Kvassay Jenő út 1. Hungary Phone: (361) 215-6140; (36-1) 215-8160 ► Telefax: (361) 216-1514 E-mail: [email protected] ► Internet: http://www.vituki.hu
Case study „Tisza river - B”
I. ANALYSING THE ROLE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF WATER MANAGEMENT AND THE ORGANIZATIONS CO-OPERATING THEREWITH IN HUNGARY
II. EVALUATION OF THE HUNGARIAN-UKRAINIAN CO-OPERATION FOR FLOOD AND EXCESS WATER DEFENCE ALONG THE UPPER TISZA RIVER
Author: Károly Konecsny
August 2006.
Case study „Tisza river - B”
I. ANALYSING THE ROLE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF WATER MANAGEMENT AND THE ORGANIZATIONS CO-OPERATING THEREWITH IN HUNGARY
I.1 Physio-geographical, hydrographical, technical and legal conditions of flood protection
I.1.1 Physio-geographical and hydrographical conditions, the motives of flood endangerment
Hungary is situated within the Catchment of the River Danube, on the deepest part of the hydrographically uniform Carpathian Basin. 70% of the national area is below 200 m sea level and hardly 1% of it surpasses the level of 500 m. The eastern part, called the Great Hungarian Lowland, is the deepest part of the country, its elevations varying between 80 and 100 m above sea level.
The total length of the hydrographic network of Hungary is 95,000 km, from which 2,801 km is the length of the rivers managed by the Water Management Service. Among them, the major rivers belonging to the Danube Valley (i.e., the western part of the national area) with a total length of 1,352 km include: the Danube itself (417 km), the Dráva River (143 km) and the Ráckeve Branch of the Danube (58 km). The total length of the major rivers in the Tisza Valley is 1,449 km, including the Tisza itself with 585 km. The length of the Hungarian rivers considered as regulated is 940 km. On the remaining length of 1,861 km, river training or complementary riverbed regulation will only be carried out, whenever major targets - flood-, ice- or sediment management, navigation or other water uses - require it and the measures to be taken do not have damaging impacts on the environment. The total length of waterways suitable for major ships is 1,622 km, from which 249 km are navigable only periodically.
The rivers crossing the national area originate from the surrounding mountain catchments, i.e., from the Alps (sea level: above 2000-3000 m) and the Carpathians (above 1500-2300 m). The slope of the rivers, when reaching the flatland area of Hungary, is reduced drastically, so their floods necessarily are accumulating on Hungarian territory.
Due to the orographic conditions, 21,200 km², i.e., 23% of the national area is situated below the critical flood level of the rivers, creating a flood control problem which is unique in Europe. The climate of the catchments and of Hungary is influenced by three major impacts: that of the Atlantic, the continental and the Mediterranean one. As a consequence, violent and durable floods can occur on the rivers in any period of the year, in springtime triggered typically by intense precipitation activity (occasionally accompanied by snowmelt), and in other seasons by intense precipitation on extended territories.
2
When extreme continental climatic effects prevail, Hungarian rivers may freeze in during the winter, the thickness of ice covers reaching 25-50 cm. If the warming-up during springtime arrives from the West, the flood waves of the Danube and its western tributaries reaching the national area may meet a yet standing ice cover, breaking it up in an upstream to downstream order thus causing extremely dangerous icejam-floods.
According to the results of a mathematical-statistical investigation of the floods of Hungarian rivers, floods of medium hight can in the average be expected every 2-3 years, significant floods every 5-6 years, and great floods every 10-12 years.
It is particularly the Upper Tisza and its tributaries as well as the Körös Rivers, whose runoff regime is very violent, so that within 24-36 hours after any significant precipitation falling onto their catchments (abroad) the water levels on the Hungarian border may rise even by 8-10 metres. The duration of the major floodwaves may reach on the upper river stretches 5-10 days, on the middle and lower stretches 50-120 days.
Figure 1: Flood defences and protected flood plains in Hungary (Szlávik 2003)
The area of 21,200 km², endangered by floods, is divided into 151 sub-catchments, from any of which during inundation by flood no water can reach the neighbouring sub- catchments. The borders of these sub-catchments are natural land elevations, artificial defence facilities and linear structures (the embankments of roads, railways, etc.). From the 151 flood-protection sub-catchments, 55 are situated in the Danube Valley and 96 in the Tisza Valley. The sub-catchments of the Tisza Valley cover 72.9% of the total floodplain area of the country. The floodplains include 40% of the arable land of the country, here are situated 32% of the railways, 15% of the roads and over 2000 industrial plants, here are living 2.3 million inhabitants in 646 settlements, here is being
3 produced 30% of the GDP of the country, while the estimated value of the national wealth accumulated on the floodplains is 5,100 billion HUF and the average damage caused by inundation in the various sub-catchments reaches 32% of the economic values accumulated thereon.
I.1.2 Flood protection, flood defence structures
As a consequence of Hungary’s geographical conditions, the retaining of the floods along the headwater stretches of the rivers, in storage reservoirs (i.e., runoff regulation by reservoirs) has to exluded from the methods of flood protection, since the headwater parts of the catchments are situated outside the country’s area. The slope of the rivers crossing the lowlands is very small, therefore a high-water regulation of the rivers, i.e., the cutting of their meanders and the construction of parallel levees on both sides thereof, had been adopted in the 19th century. As a consequence, nowadays 97% of the floodplains is protected against inundations. The remaining 3% floodplains are situated along the narrow valleys of minor rivers.
In Hungary, the critical flood for levee dimensioning is the water stage of the ice-free floods of 100 years of recurrence. The exceptions are the capital Budapest, the two major towns Győr and Szeged and the oil-field of Algyő, where the critical flood is - in consideration of the high number of inhabitants and the great economic values - the flood of an average recurrence of 1000 years, further the Danube stretch between Esztergom and the southern state border, where the modified enveloping curve of the maximum ice-free water stages is the basis for flood levee dimensioning.
The system of flood defence structures consists of the following facilities: The first-order flood defence structures (levees) created along the rivers, with a total length of 4,181 km, from which 3,920 km are soil levees, 23 km flood protection walls and 238 km are high riversides Emergency reservoirs in the lowland, aiming at the retention of the flood peaks of the rivers with violent runoff regime and relatively small flow discharges (altogether 11 reservoirs, with a total capacity of 389 million m³) Localization lines aiming at the prevention or steering the propagation of eventually inundations, including built structures, natural land elevations and other kinds of artificial structures (such as ramparts of roads and railways)
The share of levees built-out up to the prescribed dimensions was in 1998 57.7% (2,264 km), and in 2001, 62.4 % (2.447 km). Of course, also the levees not reaching yet their prescribed dimensions, can be defended by increased defence efforts.
As for the measures to be taken for managing and limiting the floods surpassing the critical values of 100 years recurrence, Hungary’s branch of water management has elaborated for the Tisza River the conceptual plan, called the Expansion of the Vásárhelyi Plan (Pál Vásárhelyi having been the leading engineer according to whose concept the regulation of the Tisza River had taken place in the second half of the 19th century). The main elements of this Expansion Plan are the following: Development of draining and retention of floods Improvement of the flow discharge capacity of the high-water riverbed Sanitation of the surroundings of bridges and other bottle-necks, construction of bridges in the wash-land
4 Demolition of natural and artificial (summer) dikes within the wash-land Wash-land sanitation, changes in land use, plantation and expansion of groves not hampering runoff, creation of grazing grounds and meadows, amplification of the green corridor Retention and storage of floods Creation of lowland (emergency) flood reservoirs.
The elaborated and socially accepted concept of the new Vásárhelyi Plan provides the creation of 14 storage reservoirs with a surface of 750 km² in the Hungarian Lowland, suitable to lead out from, and back into, the river a water volume of 1.5 km³ in a regulated manner. This system would enable a lowering by 1 m of the water level surpassing the critical flood water stage by 1 m.
The lowland area of Hungary is divided into 85 excess water drainage systems. The specific capacity of the drainage canal system varies between 10 and 78 l.s-1.km-2, its weighted areal average value being 27.2 l.s-1.km-2. This capacity ensures to drain off within 15 days time the excess water volume occurring once in 10 years.
On Hungary’s lowland part, covering 44.5 thousand km², the total length of the excess water drainage canal network is 42.6 thousand km, from which at present 8,460 km are exclusive state property, managed by District Water Authorities (VÍZIG), another 19,200 km is also state property, managed by water associations, the remaining canals being the property of municipalities and private entities. For accelerating the draining of excess water, 348 pumping stations with a total capacity of 815 m³.s-1 were established along the main canals (mostly in their mouth sections), from which 228 stations with a total capacity of 654 m³.s-1 are exlusive state property.
Additionally, there is a stock of mobil pumps, consisting of 540 entities with a capacity of 170 m³.s-1 as well as an excess water storage system, with a stable capacity of 141 million m³ and a provisional capacity of 170 million m³, both of them substantially helping to drain off the excess waters.
55% of the national area is a mountainous and hilly region, divided into 103 catchments covering an area of 47.7 thousand km. The total length of the watercourses thereon is 57,000 km, from which 4,170 km is exclusive state property, managed by the competent District Water Authorities (VÍZIG), while 17,000 km are also state property, but managed by water associations. All the remaining water courses and former diversion canals are properties of the municipalities and private entities.
The runoff control of settlements is aiming to drain off the damaging waters, originating from floods, precipitation, excess water, groundwater and the so called outskirts waters. According to the prevailing prescriptions, the drainige canal systems of settlements are supposed to drain off the precipitation waters expected with a probability of 1-3%.
I.1.3 Legal framework
The legal rules regulating the activities of flood defence, the organizations responsible for their implementation and the respective obligations of the citizens can be divided in two groups: that of the laws concerning water management and the group of other connected statutory provisions. The categories of such rules are the following: the acts
5 accepted by the Parliament, the governmental rules issued by the Government and the decrees and orders issued by the Ministers of various branches.
The statutory privisions concerning water management can be divided according to the following four principal topics: the general rules, the rules concerning the preparation for flood defence, the rules of flood defence and the rules concerning the measures to be taken after finishing defence activities. The following prevailing rules belong to this group: The Act No. LVII on water management The governmental rule No. 232/1996 (XII.26) Korm. , on the rules of defending from water-caused damages The governmental rule No. 46/1999 (III.18.)Korm. , on the utilization of wash- land, riverside lanes and of territories endangered by inundation and underseepage The ministerial rule No. 10/1997 (VII.17.) KHVM, on the defence from flood and excess waters The rule of the Council of Ministers No. 16/1982 (IV.22.) MT, on emergency flood reservoirs, The ministerial rule No. 1/1991 (K.H.V.Ért.7.) KHVM, on the organizatory and operative rules of nationwide steering of the defence from floods and excess waters The ministerial rule No.6/1989 (V.13.) KVM, on financing and clearing of accounts of the defence against water- and environment-related damages The governmental rule No. 183/2003 (XI.5) Korm., on the tasks and competences of the regional organizations directed by the National General Inspectorate for Environment and Water (OKVF), by the National General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management (OKTVF) and by the Minister for Environment and Water The governmental rule No. 269/2003 (XII.24.) Korm., on the modification of selected governmental rules concerning the tasks and competences connected with environmental protection, nature convservation and water management The governmental rule No. 341/2004 (XII.22.) Korm., on the tasks and competences of the regional organization directed by the National General Inspectorate for Environment, Nature Conservation and Water (OKTVF), by the National General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water (OKTVF) and by the Minister for Environment and Water The ministerial rule No. 3/2005 (II.22.) KvVM, on the modification of ministerial rules concerning selected tasks and competences in the field of environmetal protection, nature conservation and water management The governmental rule No. 276/2005 (XII.20.) Korm., on the tasks and comptences of national and regional state management organizations directed by the Minister for Environment and Water
The related other Acts and legal rules mostly regulate the tasks of National Defence, municipalities and catastrophe defence: The Act No. LXV of 1990, on the local municipalities The Act No. CX of 1993, on National Defence
6 The governmental rule No 114/1995 (IX.27.) on the civic defence categories and defence requirements of settlements The Act No. XXXVII of 1996 on Civic Defence
I.2 The institutional system of flood defence
Dimensions, structure and efficiency of the institutional system have been transformed at several times in the past, according to the prevailing professional and/or political points of view. In this respect, continuous changes were typical particularly during the last decade. As a consequence, the organization of water management, successfully active during the four great floods on the Tisza River and the two great excess water defence periods between 1998 and 2001 as well as during the grave cyanide and heavy metal pollution of the Tisza River in 2001, is quite different from the present organization. The so far last substantiall transformation of the system took place at the end of 2005.
During the last 15 years, the personnel employed in water management was reduced by 80-85%.
I.2.1 The organization of Hungarian water management during the period 1998- 2002
During the period 1998-2001, four great floodes occurred on the Tisza River (in November 1998, March 1999, April 2000 and March 2001), each of whose peaks surpassing all previously registered records. During this period, the water-related activities were mostly carried out in the framework of the Ministry for Transport, Telecommunication and Water Management (KHVM), while special issues were handled also by the Ministry for Environmental Protection (KÖM), by the Ministry for Agriculture and Regional Development (FVM), by the Ministry of the Interior (BM), by the Ministry for National Defence (HM) and by the Ministry for Public Health (EM).
The implementation of the tasks of KHVM was ensured, within the Ministry, by the professional activity of its so called water management block, directed by the Deputy State Secretary for Water Management.
Under the general supervision of the Ministry (KHVM), central professional and official steering of the defence activities was provided by the National Water Authority (OVF), while the related activities of research and technical development were carried out by the Water Management Research Institue (VITUKI p.l.c.). The nationwide special tasks of water damage prevention (operating a central squad of flood defence, ice breaking, explosions for defence) were implemented by the Flood Protection and Excess Water Control Centre (ÁBKSz).
The Central Inspection of OVF monitored continuously (in 24 hours shifts) the actual status of defence activities against floods, excess water inundations, ice floods and water pollution. Through a nationwide computer network, it was directly connected with the the Ministry for Transport, Telecommunication and Water (KHVM), with the 12 District Water Authorities of the country (VÍZIG), with the Water Management Research Centre (VITUKI p.l.c.), with the Flood Protection and Excess Water Control Centre
7 (ÁBKSz), with the National Meteorological Service (OMSz), with the National General Directorate for Catastrophe Defence (OKVF), with the Ministry for National Defence (HM) as well as with a number of further institutions and persons playing an important role in the defence activities. Communication was implemented, already at that time, mostly through the Information System of Water Damage Averting and Defence (VIR). A GIS system was in operation, based on the data of hydrotechnical objects. VIR was operated, on a Lotus Notes base, primarily for communication purposes.
Figure 2: The present organisatory structure of the Organization of the National Control of Flood Emergency Operation Hungary. Preparedness: Disaster Control
Defence agains water damages is ensured by building, preventively, of defence facilities and, whenever necessary, by various flood defence actions. For carrying out the latter, human and material sources are required. As for human resources, it is the Water Management Branch, that provides a squad of experts, necessary for professionaly implementing the defence activities. During flood defence periods, more than 3000 members of the Branch are involved in the activities (out of the total personnel of 4500). The material sources are those materials, tools, machines and equipments, which are used during the defence activities.
8
The units trained for special measures are the defence squads of the Water Management Branch. Their activities include sheet wall construction (driving 6-12 m long, interconnected steel plates into the soil), water transport, areal and line lighting, prevention of water quality damages, ice breaking and explosion. They are responsible to ensure a good standard status of the defence sources, to investigate and adopt new, effective technologies.
In the flood defence storehouses of the country, 4.5 million sandbags, half a million torches, over 400 pumps, 160 equipments for driving-in and pulling-out steel plates or piles and a great amount of other special materials, tools and machines are in permanent readiness. In the harbours, 21 icebreaker ships are waiting for deployment.
I.2.2 The defence organization of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG) in 1998
The regional institutions of the management administration were the 12 District Water Authorities (VÍZIG) of the country, each of them being responsible for a determined catchment area. The Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG), with its headquaters at the town Nyίregyháza, was responsible for the catchment of the Upper Tisza River. Any District Water Authority was an indepentently husbanding regional organ of the state administration, directed by the Minister; it was an independent legal entity, financed from the state budget. One of the tasks of such a Authority was the implementation of defence activities on the protection structures exclusively owned by the State and managed by the Authority, further the professional steering of the water damage defence activities of the municipalities and the water associations and issuing information connected with the defence against water damages.
For the steering of defence activities, according to §17 of the Water Management Act, the Minister (KHVM) was responsible, through the National Water Authority, until the extraordinary defence situation started. During the latter, the Flood Defence Commissioner was the responsible person, through the National Technical Steering Staff (OMIT). Whenever the danger was particularly great (emergency status), the responsibility was - on the basis of a particular rule - with a Government Commission, including Ministers, under the leadership of the Minister of the Interior and with the Flood Defence Commissioner, as his deputy. The tasks of the Commissioner were carried out by the Minister for Transport, Telecommunication and Water (KHVM), deputized, whenever necessary, by his Executive State Secretary. The organisatory ond operative rules of steering flood and excess water defence on the national level, are detailedly described in the order No. 1/1998 (KHV Ért.7.) KHVM of the competent Minister, determining the tasks and the organisatory structure outside the periods of preparedness, during the periods of I., II., and III. order preparedness and after the beginning of a period of extraordinary readiness. The District Water Authorities had the task to carry out defence activities on the defence strucures owned exclusively by the State and managed by the Authorities themselves, further to professionally steer the water-damage averting activities of the municipalities and the water associations and to provide information about the defence activities for the public.
The County Defence Commissions were responsible for steering the state administration tasks of flood and excess water defence on the regional level and for co-
9 ordinating the technical and administrative components of defence. After the declaration of an extraordinary readiness (emergency situation), the Chairperson of the County’s General Assembly was responsible for steering, co-operating with the County’s Defence Commission.
Figure 3: Orographie and river network of the Upper-Tisza Basin
The Chairperson of the latter was the Chairperson of the County’s General Assembly, while its secretary was the Head of the Regional Office of the Regional Defence Bureau, its members being: the County Recorder, the Head of the County’s Bureau for State Administration, the Mayor of the town Nyίregyháza, the Head of the County’s Police Office, the Commander of the County’s Replacement Centre, the Commander of the County’s Fire Department, the County’s Chief Medical Officer, and - in the case of flood and excess water defence - the Directors of the regionally competent District Water Authorities (FETIVÍZIG). Further invited participants of the sessions of the Commission were: the Director of Bus Traffic, the Commander of the Customs and Revenue Office, the Chief of the the County’s Red Cross Department, the Director of the Station for Veterinary Hygiene and Food Control, the Director of the County Office of the Ministry for Agriculture (FM), the Director of the Station for Plant Hygiene and Soil Protection, the Director of the Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, the Director of the local centre of the State Railways, the Chief Medical Officer of the Ambulance Station.
10 The action area of 5,464 km² of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG) - which in the meantime was transformed into the Upper Tisza Directorate for Environment Protection and Water Management (FETIKÖVÍZIG) - covers almost the whole area of the County Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and minor parts of the Counties Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén and Hajdú-Bihar. From a physio-geographical aspect, it is closely connected with the Upper Tisza River, covering the whole Hungarian part, up to Záhony, of its catchment, including the Hungarian parts of the catchments of the tributaries Túr, Kraszna and Szamos and the left-side catchment of the Záhony-Tokaj section of the Tisza River, with the catchment of the Lónyay Main Canal, collecting the waters of the region Nyίrség (www.fetikovizig.hu).
Due to the physio-geographic and flood-hydrological conditions of this action area, the tasks of water damage-averting activity thereon are substantial even in a nationwide comparison. In the 116 settlements lying under the critical flood levels of the rivers, there are living 180,000 people. The area endangered be floods is 1965 km², and is protected by flood levees in the length of 541 km. Here is situated 15% of the main defence lines of the country and 10% of its river network. Within the action area of the Authority, there are 17 sub-catchement of flood defence and 12 ones of excess water protection.
The total length of the exclusively state-owned and by the Authority managed excess water drainage canals on the area is 1,040 km. There are 11 excess water pumping stations at the canals’ mouthes and 4 stations for slope increase, along the canals, whose total capacity is 64.2 m³.s-1. The specific drainige capacity of the excess water drainange facilities is 32.6 l.s-1.km-2. There are also 18 stable and provisional storage reservoirs, suitable for the retention of an excess water volume of 36.6 million m³. There are bilateral contracts and regulations listing the defence-related tasks with the neighbouring countries, such as Ukraine and Romania.
In order to be able to carry out its own obligatory defence activities, the Authority concluded several agreements, ensuring the required personnel and machinery, with the FETIVÍZ company with limited liability (exclusively owned by the Authority itself), with the bus company VOLÁN, with various water associations, with the military, with the civic defence, with the fire department, with the Central Danube-Valley District Water Authority (KÖDUVÍZIG) and with the Public Roads p.l.c. There are also preliminary contracts with private enterpreneurs about the provision of machinery and transportation facilities.
The Director of the Authority - as defence leader - was technically steering the flood defence activities through his deputies and his staff, the latter being assisted by specialized groups. It was the staff’s responsibility to harmonize the co-operation between these specialized groups as well as between the groups and the staff itself. The leaders of the latter reported to the staff. The local responsible leader of defence activities was the head of section defence. The tasks requiring special skill and equipment were resolved by the defence squad.
The structure and the way of operation of the defence organization of the District Water Authority was regulated by the Regulations of Water Damage Averting, containing an exact description of all possible events and situations, the decision levels and the order
11 of hierarchy. The planning of the defence activities of the Authority have been and is still being planned, already since 1998, according to quality-ensuring system ISO-9002.
Figure 4: Sections of flood defence on the action area of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG/FETIKÖVÍZIG) (www.fetikovizig.hu)
The efficiency of the operations of the defence organization have always been determined, besides the legal and the technical background, by the existence of personnel conditions, by the training, experience and the necessary number of the members of that personnel. As a consequense of the administrative measures taken during the last years, the original number of personnel of the District Water Authority FETIVÍZIG, about 1500, has considerably been reduced, counting in 1998 merely 448 members, from which 229 took directly part in the defence activities. Thus the Authority was not able any more to solve its tasks only by adopting its own personnel, concluding frame contracts with various organizations and private persons for ensuring the necessary personnel for technical guidance, assistant guards and physical manpower.
Within the defence organization of the Authority, 7 experts belonging to contracted alien entities were acting as leaders of section defence and of specialized groups. The personnel of the Authority was not enough to encompass the whole technical steering of defence, thus it was compelled to apply with the National Technical Steering Staff (OMIT) that technical leaders and defence squads of other District Water Authorities be transferred into the Upper Tisza region. Assistant guards were provided by the municipalities.
On the basis of the mentioned decisions reducing its personnel in the early 1990s and the experience gained during the Christmas flood of 1993, the Upper Tisza District Water Authority required - in the frame of a co-operation contract concluded with the organization of Civic Defence (PV) - the establishment of decentralized, quickly
12 mobilizable flood defence units on the territory of the county involved. These units were organized by PV, under professional guidance of the Authority in 10 localities with a total of 500 members. During the flood in November 1998, following the request of the Authority, all the 10 units were put in readiness and deployed on various spots of defence.
Figure 5: The local participants directing defence activities during the flood of November 1998 on the Upper Tisza River (on the basis of the volume on the flood of 1998, published in 2001)
In order to increase the efficiency of defence against various water-related damages, including water pollution, in 1979 a Technical Security Service (MBSz) was established at alll District Water Authorities, including FETIVÍZIG. The members of the defence squad - as long as not deployed - were working in the frame of this MBSz and the FETIVÍZ p.l.c. During deployment, the MBSz was directed by the section defence leader, but carried out its work independently. The alarming of the squad took place according to a previously compiled and continuously updated plan of alarming. The personnel of the defence squad counted 94 persons in 1998, from which 60% belonged to the Authority and 40% to the FETIVÍZ p.l.c. In 1996, also a group for driving down 8 m long sheeting plates was established and denominated Regional Defence Squad.
During the preparatory period, the work of the County’s Defence Commission was carried out by a secretariat, counting 5 experts. The activities of the Commission were supported - depending on the actual, changing situation - by the secretariat, by the legal and administrative team, by the operative working group for catastrophe averting, the working group for information and that for supply and security. The County’s Defence Commission carried out the steering of defence administration in co-operation with the local defence commissions. In 1998, ten such commissions were operating: that of Csenger, Fehérgyarmat, Kisvárda, Mátészalka, Nyίregyháza, Tiszavasvári,
13 Vásárosnamény, Záhony, Nagykálló and Nyίrbátor. The regions of the first 8 local commissions listed were directly endangered by the flood, thus they were directly concerned, while the two last locall commissions (those of Nagykálló and Nyίrbátor) were dealing, whenever necessary, with the reception of evacuated inhabitants and by providing public manpower. The local defence commissions also co-ordinated the public administrative tasks connected with the defence activities carried out in their regions concerned. The execution of the local tasks of flood defence was directed in co- operation with the mayors, the town-clerks and the mayors’’ offices.
The units of the Hungarian Army (MH), designated for flood defence, took a very active and significant part in the flood defence activities of 1998. In this year, the Army made available 16 defence working groups, 2 light rescue groups, 2 heavy rescue groups, 3 teams for water transport, 6 teams for explosion, 2 detachments for water cleaning, 2 groups with earthwork machinery, 2 groups for camp catering and 1 aerial group. Lately, the strength of the Hungarian Army has considerably been reduced, causing also a reduction of personnel made available for flood defence. As a consequence, the number of 3000, made available in 1998, was merely the half of the number mobilized in 1993. The manpower and the machinery of the Army - based also on their multi- annual experiences - could provide a very effective work on various fields of flood defence. Their working teams - depending on the actual requirements, and independently from their provenince - could be deployed for defence, rescue and rehabilitation works, under central co-ordination, on the areas of the District Water Authorities concerned. Their professional guidance was provided by the defence leaders of the Authorities, through the competent officers of the teams.
The Organization of Civic Defence for the County Szabolcs-Szatmár Bereg counted in 1998 18,151 co-workers. Within this personnel, there were 10 Complex Groups for Flood Defence, with 500 members, directly involved in flood defence activities. The Headquaters of the Organization was active within the County’s Defence Commission. The representatives of Civic Defence were also present in the local defence commissions and those of the settlements concerned. They played an important role in the evacuation and reception of inhabitants, on the basis both of a continuously updated plan of evacuation and accomodation, and of an annually surveyed and updated plan of public manpower mobilization.
The Corps of Frontier Guards, belonging to the Ministry of the Interior (BM), participated in the defence works according to the requests of the County’s Defence Commission. In 1998, depending on the actual defence situation, the personnel of 10 Frontier Guard Directorates and 3 specialized high schools for frontier guard education were made available E.g., the Frontier Guard Directorate of Nyίrbátor participated with 112 persons (reserve corps included), with 5 trucks and a transport capacity for 600 persons.
The number of police officers detached in 1998 for flood defence, was 430. Their task was maintenance of public order, property protections, securing eventual road blocks, facilitating the travel of defence powers.
The municipalities provided the majority of defence manpower and the full assistant guard staff of the District Water Authority. Each settlement had its flood and excess water defence plan, concerning its own area, basically determining their activities. Under the co-ordination of the county’s and the local defence commissions, the
14 execution of local defence tasks were directed by the mayors. During the time of defence, inspections were ensured at the mayors’’ offices (or in those of the district- notaries) functioning at the same time as inspections of civic defence (or of the local defence commissions).
I.2.3 The defence organization of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (FETIVÍZIG) in 2001
In March 2001, the so far highest (historical) peak water stages were registered on the stretch of the Upper Tisza between Tiszabecs and Záhony. As a consequence, levee failure took place on the right (Bereg) side of the river, where the levee’s development was under way but not yet finished. The failure led to heavy damages, since the water inundated not only agricultural land and traffic lines, but also a number of settlements.
As a consequence of the execution of administrative measures taken, the number of personnel of the District Water Authority had further been reduced between November 1998 and 2001 by about 100 persons (from 448 to 345). Due to various reasons (illness, holidays, etc.) only a part of the reduced personnel could be involved in flood defence, thus the Authority was not able any more - even jointly with the manpower available from partner Authorities - to carry out its tasks of flood defence. So it employed an increased number of personnel (as compared with 1998), on the basis of frame contracts concluded with various institutions and private entities as technical leaders, assistant guards and physical manpower. During the flood defence activities in March 2001, the personnel of the Authority, along with that of the partner Authorities, was only 20-30% of the manpower involved in flood defence. The same statement holds for the machinery and transport vehicles requested.
In the previous year (2000), the Directorate of Catastrophe Defence, originating from the fusion of Civic Defence and Fire Department, had established in the county 9 complex teams of flood defence, deployed successfully during the March 2001 flood. There were stable and good contacts also between the Authority and the representatives of the police, the border guards and the Army.
The defence squad - before being deployed - kept working within the technical Security Service (MBSz) and the FETIVÍZ p.l.c. The alarming of the squad takes place according to a previously prepared and continuously updated plan of alarming. Its deployment was made difficult this time by the fact that the Authority was not able to provide the necessary transport vehicles neither from its own stock nor from that of the FETIVÍZ p.l.c., thus being compelled to ensure the missing vehicles by private contracts. The number of the defence squad deployed in 2001 was 100, from which 50 were the experts of the Authority, 48 those of the FETIVÍZ p.l.s. and 2 were the contracted outsider persons.
I.3 The structure of water administration since 2003
From 2002, within the new governmental structure of the country, the issues of water management, including those of flood defence, were transferred from the Ministry for Transport, Telecommunication and Water Management (KHVM) into the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management (KvVM). According to the
15 governmental rule No. 183/203 (XI.5.) Korm, the previously existing National Water Authority (OVF) was incorporated into the National General Directorate for Environment, Nature Conservation and Water (OKTVF). The official tasks of water management were transferred to a new institution, namely to the National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature Protection and Water.
On the basis of the governmental rule No. 183/2003 (XI.5.) Korm., the 12 District Water Authorities (VÍZIG), establihed according to catchment areas, were transformed into Directorates for Environmental Protection and Water Management (KÖVÍZIG). The official tasks of water management instances of the former Authorities were transferred to the 12 Water Inspectorates (VIFE). Within one year’s time, the latter were terminated, there tasks being transferred to the 12 Inspectorates for Envinronment, Nature Conservation and Water Management (KÖTEVÍFE). Thus, at present the regional tasks of flood defence have to be solved in the region of the Hungarian-Ukrainian state border by the Upper Tisza Directorate for Environmental Protection and Water Management (FETIKÖVÍZIG), with headquarters in Nyίregyháza.
The National General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management (OKTVF) used to be a central, independently husbanding, budgetary institution, directed by the Minister for envorinmental protection and water management, with headquaters in the capital Budapest and with competence for the whole country. It was steering the water, environmental and water quality damage defence activities of the Directorates for Environmental Protection and Water Management, carrying out also the tasks connected with the operation of the Technical Steering Staff and the the Central Inspection.
Neither did these changes avoid the Research Center for Water Managemnt (VITUKI p.l.c.), representing the scientific background institution of the Ministry. It was transformed into a company of public utility (c.p.u.) and commissioned with further tasks of environmental investigation. Now its name is VITUKI Research Institute for Environmental Protection and Water Management (VITUKI c.u.p). Within this institution exists the National Hydrographic Service, issuing daily hydrographic information and hydrological forecasts.
In December 2005, the OKTVF was terminated. A part of the tasks and experts involved in flood defence were transferred into the institution called Water Management Center and Public Collections (VKK) with a further reduced staff of 67 persons. The nationwide activities of flood and excess water defence are co-ordinated here by merely 4 experts. The Flood Protection and Excess Water Control Centre (ÁBKSz) keeps existing, but in the form of a company of public utility, now under the name of Company for Flood Protection, Excess Water Contol and Environmental Security (ÁBKSz c.p.u.).
Since the last reorganization, the Upper Tisza Directorate for Environmental Protection and Water Management (FETIKÖVÍZIG) is a regional budgetary organ of the state administration, an independently husbanding, independent legal entity, directed by the Minister for environmental protection and water management. FETIVÍZIG is carrying out, on the basis of the regulations of the governmental rules No. 183/2003 (XI.5.) Korm., 269/2003 (XII.24.) Korm., 341/2004 (XII.22.) Korm., and 3/2005 (II.22) Korm. the tasks of its competence, particularly the tasks connected with defence from water-, environment- and water quality related damages (75.11 General public administration).
16 It carries out its tasks, as determined in the VII. Act of 1995 (On water management) and in the governmental rule No. 341/2004 (XII.22) Korm., on the territory of its competence. The latter covers, as in the past, almost the whole territory of Szabolcs- Szatmár-Bereg County with minor parts of the Counties Borsod-Abaúj Zemplén and Hajdú-Bihar.
According to financial prescriptions, the summarized amount of incomes originating from the undertaking activities of the Directorate must not surpass, in two subsequent years, one third of its effective total incomes, including the support received from the State budget.
The Organizatory and Operative Regulations as well as the annual working plan of the Directorate are confirmed by the Executive State Secretary of the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management, while its other regulations are confirmed by its Director. The Directorate is led by the Director, carrying out his tasks either personally, or, in a deputized way, through this Technical or Finance Vice Director, or else through the competent departments or regional sub-units of the Directorate.
Figure 6: The defence organization of the Upper Tisza Directorate for Environmental Protection and Water Management FETIKÖVÍZIG in 2005 (www.fetikovizig.hu)
The Directorate is responsible for the implementation, within its territory of action, the operative tasks of environmental protection and water management, as laid down in the
17 pertinent legal rules. Its main tasks include also the regional organization, steering and implementation of flood and excess water defence. The Directorate FETIKÖVÍZIG is carrying out its multifold task through its professional and functional/administrative departments and its regional sub-units. Since 2004, the Technical Security Service (MBSz) ― which plays an important role in the defence activities ― has been integrated into the regional sub-unit No.I, called Nyίri Szakaszmérnökség. There is a close co-oparation between the Directorate and the Upper Tisza Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management, the municipalities, the husbanding institutions, the companies for environmental protection and water management and the water associations. The general territorial and the partial interests have to be harmonized with the governmental tasks and requirements of environmental protection and water management within the frame of such co-operations.
The Directorate FETIKÖVÍZIG is in a close co-operation, regarding the waters in the state border zone, with the Ukrainian, Romanian and Slovak water management entities on the field of information exchange regarding flood defence, river training, excess water control, water quality protection, water resources development and hydrological data, etc. The co-operation is based, in all three relations, on intergovernmental pacts. In the case of flood and excess water defence activities, the Directorate takes part with its whole personennel and stock of equipment in the steering and implementation of the relevant tasks.
In the summer of 2006 - after the repeatedly occured great spring floods on the Danube and the Tisza rivers and the parliamentary elections - there will be further substantial changes in the organization of water management, parallelly to the changes expected in the State administration, concerning the water management organizations both on national, medium and regional level.
I.4 International co-operation
Both the runoff regime and the water quality of the Hungarian rivers are in first line determined by the climatical and geographical conditions of, as well as the land uses and runoff regulating measures taken on, the foreign parts of their catchments. At the same time, the rivers occasionally form also state borders, on a total length of 482.3 km. Additionally, there are further 373.2 km of rivers of common interest with the neighbouring countries. As a consequense, for implementing the tasks of flood defence, international co-operation is necessary. Hungary has valid pacts on the border waters with all of her neighbouring countries. They are originating from the time of the peace-treaty of Trianon, concluded in 1920 just after First World War, by which Hungary’s national area was considerably reduced. In the course of the peace-treaty negotiations, the representatives of the succession states had agreed - in consideration of the physio-geographical conditions of the Carpathian Basin - with the Hungarian proposal that an international commission be established for controlling all future water- and forest-related activities which may interfer with the interests of another State. The devastations due to floods after Second World Ware made again necessary the water-related co-opeartion between the neighbouring countries. Until the conclusion of the new pacts, the prescriptions of those concluded before 1938 were generally taken
18 into account The first new pacts were then concluded, after the negative experiences gained in 1947-48 with the floods of the Tisza River, with the Soviet Union and Romania.
Also modifications of selected pacts and conclusion of new bilateral water-related pacts took place between the interested Governments. The Hungarian-Soviet pact was renewed in 1981. The Hungarian-Romanian pact was modified in 1969 and in 1986. The political changes taking place in Central-East-Europe and the Soviet Union have created a new situation between the subjects of the bilateral water-related agreements. Ukraine, Slovenia, Croatia and Slovakia came into being. Also the constitutional forms of Romania and Hungary have been changed. These facts themselves made necessary both a revision of the previously existing bilateral water-related agreements and the initiatives for concluding new pacts.
The first water-related pact with the independent Ukraine was signed in 1993 and proclaimed in 1994. The pact which is valid presently, was signed in 1997. The latter pact takes into account also the recommendations of the Helsinki Convention (Chapter II).
The first water-related bilateral pact between Hungary and Romania was signed in 1924. After Second World War, 4 further pacts were signed (in 1950, 1965, 1970 and1986). The so far last one, signed on 15 September 2003, is entitled: „AGREEMENT between the Governments of the Hungarian Republic and Romania on the co-operaation aiming at protecting and substainably utilizing the border waters”. This new pact is of course more up-to-date than the previous ones, taking into account both the rules of the EU Water Framework Directive and the content of the international agreements signed in Helsinki and Sofia. The Hungarian-Romanian Water Commission is supported by its Sub-commission for Flood and Excess Water Defence. In 1993, a detailed regulation of flood defence was also accepted.
19
II. EVALUATION OF THE HUNGARIAN-UKRAINIAN CO-OPERATION FOR FLOOD AND EXCESS WATER DEFENCE ALONG THE UPPER TISZA RIVER
II.1 General evaluation of the Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border water convention and co-operation
The international legal basis of the present Hungarian-Ukrainain cross-border co- operation is the Convention between the Government of the Hungarian Republic and the Republic of Ukraine on transboundary water management issues, signed on November 11th, 1997, in Budapest (governmental rule No. 117/1999 (VIII.6.) Korm.) and followed by an exchange of memoranda about its ratification on 16 April 1999. The Convention consists of 17 paragraphs and 2 annexes. Each of its paragraphs is connected, directly or indirectly, with flood and excess water defence; most closely, among them, paragraph 6 (Planning works), paragraph 9 (Flood and excess water defence) and paragraph 10 (Exchange of information). According to the 8. indent of paragraph 13, the Regulations on averting water-induced damages and on co-operation in the fields of hydrometeorology, of water management and of water quality pollution form integral parts of the Convention.
II.1.1 The antecendents of the Hungarian-Ukrainian water-related cross-border co- operation
The Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border water-related co-operation is the continuation of the former Hungarian-Soviet co-operation. After Second World War, works aiming at increasing flood safety were carried out in the two countries concerned at the beginning, independently from each other. On the basis of the flood catastrophe occurring during the winter of 1947-48 in the Bereg region, negotiations between the governmental delegations of the two countries took place, on Hungarian initiative, in Uzhgorod (Soviet Union), during the period May 29th-June 9th, 1950. As a result of this meeting, a Convention was concluded „between the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, concerning the measures to be taken on the Hungarian-Soviet state border, in the surroundings of the Tisza River, in order to prevent flood damages and to regulate the conditions of water runoff”. The main feature of this Convention, in force between 1950 and 1981, was its focussing on the prevention of flood damages. During these three decades, however, a wide-ranging co-operation, considerably exceeding the frame of the original Convention, came gradually into life between the water management organs of the two interested countries. By 1981, the conditions became ripe for a renewal of the cross- border Convention, by considerably widening its professional content. The second Convention, signed on June 22nd, 1981 in Moscow, already encompasses all the following topics: protection from damages caused by floods, excess waters and ice phenomena; protection from water pollution, water quality control; sharing water resources; exchange of information. Already at that time, an important principle was laid down, according to which any water management activity, planned or implemented in the Tisza Catchment, with impacts on the runoff regime of the cross-border watercourses, has to be agreed upon between the parties concerned. This stipulation practically meant an extension of the Convention’s
20 validity, in more aspects, to the whole Trans-Carpathian part of the Tisza Catchment. For supporting the implementation of the dispositions of the Convention of 1981, regulations defining the concrete operative tasks were compiled. They detailedly define the tasks, frameworks, technical data and organizatory conditions of the co-operation in the fields of flood and excess water defence, water quality protection, hydrology and water resources development.
One of the particularities of the Hungarian-Ukrainian (Soviet) water-related co-operation was, that parallelly with the intergovernmental cross-border co-operation in more instances also various technical-scientific co-operations were run, leading to a gradual widening of the professional content of the water-related cross-border connections. E.g., between 1986 and 1990, the Parties produced, in the framework of the scientific- developing co-operation entitled „The information measuring system for flood defence forecast and water resources development on catchment basins”, the detailed plan of a uniform, automatic monitoring system for flood forecasting on the Upper Tisza. The concept of this plan is nowadays still valid.
The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the establishment of the independent state of Ukraine requested the assuring of the legal continuity and renewal of the water- related cross-border Convention. Therefore, on January 22nd, 1992, an intent declaration was signed in Kiev, according to which the water related co-operation between Hungary and Ukraine has to be continued on the basis of the Hungarian-Soviet cross-border Convention of 1981 and at the same time work has to be initiated for elaborating a new Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border Convention.
In the spirit of this declaration, the first Convention signed in 1993 remained identical with that of 1981. According to its closing clause, however, it would be in force only for three years and cannot be prolongated. During this time, the Parties were preparing a Convention with new content, while taking into account the recommendation of UN- EEC, entitled „Agreement about the protection and utilization of transboundary watercourses and international lakes”. On November 11th, 1997 the Convention was signed and is valid also nowadays.
II.1.2 General professional evaluation of the content of the Convention
Within the Tisza Catchment, primarily a typical upstream-downstrem controversy is prevailing. On the second place, the interest conflict connected with a joint utilization of limited water resources is also present. Thus Hungary’s goal of international co- operation consists in striving to minimize the unfavourable consequences of these controversies and in pushing, wherever possible, the implementation of developments of common advantages.
As for the Hungarian-Ukrainian relation, there were more examples during the last years for the implementation, mostly with financial assistence from Hungary, of developments of common advantages. Their results could be utilized both in the joint development of the flood forecasting system and in the implementattion of joint projects of planning and research. The present Hungarian-Ukrainian transboundary water-related Convention provides the necessary prerequisites for flood and excess water defence due to the fact that its areal competence is not limited onto the near-to-border stretches and sections of the
21 watercourses concerned, but it encompasses the whole catchment (Convention, paragraph 1). Thus the co-operating Parties undertook the obligation to previously agree upon any measure to be taken within the catchment with transboundary impacts. Owing to this principle of co-operation, a number of important flood defence-related investigations and verifications took place between 2000 and 2005.
The areal validity of the Convention is reflected also in the hydrometeorological and water management regulations, attached to the Convention. They prescribe for the whole Ukrainian catchment of the Upper Tisza the systematic daily exchange of data and information, supporting flood forecasting.
In connection with flood defence, item 1 of paragraph 9 of the Convention stipulates: „The Contracting Parties do not allow interventions on their own territories, which would lead to a significant increase of the agreed upon maximum flow discharges.”
Paragraph 9 ensures the harmonization of flood defence preparations, mutual help on the cross-border watercourses, the keeping in preparedness of defence capacities (machinery, materiaas, equipments) for this purpose.
Item 2 of paragraph 6 rules: „The plans of water management activities having impact on the transboundaryr watercourses have to be agreed upon between the Parties.” This regulation enables the agreement on the plans concerning flood prevention and ensures that the Parties adopt identical safety standards when designing the facilities of flood protection in the border zone, thus creating a system of uniform safety on both sides of the border. This effort is particularly important because the protection of flood defence sub-catchments crossed by the border can be ensured only jointly by the flood and excess water defence facilities available on both sides of the border. A good example for this issue was provided by the flood on the Upper Tisza in March 2001, when dike breaks taking place on the Hungarian side (in the Bereg region) led to inundation on Ukrainian territory, and viceversa, dike breaks on the Ukrainian side caused inundations of Hungarian areas.
The present Hungarian-Ukrainian water-related transboundary Convention takes into account also international recommendations by making reference, in its Preambulum, to the UN-EEC convention, accepted in Helsinki on March 16th, 1992, „On the protection and utilization of cross-border watercourses and international lakes” as well as to the Convention, signed on June 29th, 1994, in Sofia: „On the safeguarding and sustainable utilization of the Danube”.
The operative implementation of the Convention is regulated by its Paragraph 13 (The Governmental Commissioners), by Paragraph 14 (The Working Plan of the Governmental Commisioners), and by Paragraph 16 (Application of the Pertinent Multi- lateral Inter-state and Intergovernmental Agreements).
The protocols of the sessions of the Governmental Commissioners detailedly contain the evaluation of the joint activities carried out between two sessions and the working plan and time schedule of the tasks decided for the next year. The implementation of the working plan, agreed upon by the Governmental Commissioners, is the responsibility of their deputies, of the leaders of the Expert Task Forces and occasional individual experts. The task of the persons responsible for operative implementation
22 includes the involvement, whenever necessary, of further organizations and institutions, which directly would not be responsible for the implementation.
Content and methodology of implementation of the operative tasks listed in the paragraphs of the Convention are described in the regulations of co-operation. At present, there are three such co-operation regulations in force. The following two of them are related to flood and excess water defence:
The regulation of co-operation related to averting water damages of the Hungarian Republic and Ukraine.
Goal and content of the Regulation: This document regulates, in accordance with the paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Convention, the measures to be taken on the catchments of the rivers and canals forming and crossing the state border, before, during and after the occurrence of flood waves, aiming at a well harmonized and highly efficient joint activity of the Parties resulting in draining off the floods and excess waters with minimal damage. The competent local water management organs and the data of facilities involved in this co-operation, are listed in the annexes of this Regulation of co-operation.
The Parties exchange between each other the map sketches of the near-to-border areas, indicating on them the flood levees, the canals forming and crossing the state border, gauging stations, sluices and pumping stations, further the longitudinal profiles of the canals and levees situated near to the border. Information concerning the changes in the technical data of canals, structures and pumping stations will be conveyed in time.
In order to co-ordinate their activities, the Parties annually mutually check up their plans concerning the hydrotechnical measures influencing the cross-border waters; they organize in each autumn a joint survey of the defence facilities situated on the territories of both countries concerned. The experiences gained during these surveys have to be described, along with the tasks carried out in the past year and the works envisaged for the future year, in the protocol of the survey.
When compiling the plans of water management development on the near-to- border areas, the Parties mutually inform each other about the planned interventions, whenever their implementation may have impacts on the cross- border watercourses. They annually and mutually check up both the water management activities foreseen for the next year and those implemented in the past year, if they influence the near-to-border watercourses, exchanging their execution plans between each other. The competent organs of water management identify and mark recording cross sections of the riverbeds at critical sites for flood events (in the surruondings of bridges, hydrotechnical facilities and bank protection works situated near to dikes) where joint riverbed measurements will annually be made and evaluated. The runoff conditions will be checked up and evaluated - by adopting a joint methodology - each fifth year, taking measures, whenever necessary, for terminating the factors unfavourably affecting the runoff conditions.
23 In view of eventually dangerous hydrometeorological phenomena and of any occasional defect of a hydrotechnical work, the competent water management organs are in continuous contact with each other. Both Parties nominate their experts, responsible for forwarding the flood-defence related information to the other Party as well as for the implementation of the operative measures.
The regulation of co-ordination related to hydrometeorology and water resources development between the Hungarian Republic and Ukraine
Goal and content of the Regulation: To ensure the continuous exchange of operative hydrometeorological data, forecasts, alarms and other information relevant for the territory of the catchments of common interest, joint analysis and evaluation of the status and technical level of the observation networks, organization of joint flow discharge measurements and other joint observations (of the riverbed conditions, of the ice and water temperature, morphological assessments of the riverbed, etc.) on the cross-border sections, determination of hydrometeorological characteristics, exchange of research results obtained in the field of hydrometeorology and water resources development, joint investigation on the genesis, movement and other features of flood waves causing damages on the territory of the Parties.
Based on the Regulations of co-operation, there is a continuous and undisturbed exchange of information both during flood defence periods and other times. The expert groups, appointed by the Governments, make available for each other the basic data necessary for flood warning and forecasting, depending on flood situations, even occasionally considerably overfulfilling the orders of the Regulations.
The informatic, data transfer and monitoring developments, realized mostly from a support of the Hungarian Government between 1999-2005, have created the basis of a flood monitoring and forecasting system (considered up-to-date even by European standards) on the catchment area of the Upper Tisza River, under the territorial force of the Hungarian-Ukrainian water-related, transboundary Convention. This system, established from a support of the Hungarian Government, was qualified as up-to-date and exemplary also by the international expert group operating in the frame of the NATO-Ukraine Project on Catastrophe Defence, even recommending its extension to the neighbouring sub-catchments of Tisza River.
II.2 A detailed evaluation of the Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation connected with flood defence
II.2.1 Protection capability, maintenance and operation of the flood defence systems
The system of flood defence levees and their equipments, built out in the Tisza Valley during nearly one century and a half, keeps being the most important tool of flood defence of the area. The strengthening and hightening of the levees has been an almost continuous activity, up to our days. According to the presently valid national strategy of flood defence, the levees have to be developed by taking into account the
24 prevailing so-called critical flood water levels. The critical flood water stages of the Hungarian rivers were revised at various occasions The last such revision took place in 1990. The critical levels thus determined were later confirmed by the ministerial order No. 15/1997 (IX.19.) KHVM.
On the territory of competence of the Upper Tisza Directorate for Environmental Protection and Water Management (FETIVÍZIG), regionally connected with the Hungarian-Ukrainian co-operation, there are flood levees with a total length of 544 km, from which 541 km are earth dikes, 0.111 km flood protection walls and 3 km are high riversides. The stretches of common interest of the two countries, resp. their characteristics are detailedly listed in the annexes of the Regulation of averting water- related damages (annex No. 3.1 of the Regulations). The length of these stretches of common interest is 71.2 km on the Hungarian side, and 34.7 km on the Ukrainian side.
The comprehensive revision of the levee system of the Upper Tisza region, including the levees situated along the Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border watercourses, took place in 1996, prompted by the Christmas flood waves on the Upper Tisza in 1993 and 1995. Based on the results of this revision, the most recent development program of flood defence was started in 1997. Just at its very beginning, in November 1998, a flood wave occurred, nearly leading to a catastrophe, surpassing the formerly registered maximum water stages at a number of Hungarian and Ukrainian gauges on the Upper Tisza. By considering the experiences gained with the flood of November 1998, the conception of flood defence development of 1996 was revised and correspondingly modified. Thus the basis of the investment programs after 1998, including the presently valid one, is the just mentioned study.
The so far obtained results of the development programme on Hungarian territory
As a result of the development works started in 1997, the status of the flood defence system has improved. Along the Tisza stretch with the most violent runoff regime, the development of the right- and left-side levees was finished between the settlements Tiszabecs and Olcsvaapáti, resp. Tarpa and Jánd. In 2004, also the construction of the levees along the Szamos River, commenced as long as 30 years ago, was terminated. The levee stretches on the Túr River and the Palád Creek, in 2001 overtopped by the flood (causing also dike breaks), were reconstructed in the same year, and even hightened along the lower stretch of the Túr River.
Summarizing: Between 1997 and 2004, the levees were strenghtened on a total length of 90 km, while a further 40 km still urgently requires reinforcement. Also the strengthening of the remaining 130 km would be important. In 2004, on the Hungarian side, about 35% of the flood levees still fail to reach the hight necessary for ensuring the safety to be guaranteed by the State.
By 2004, the crests of the reinforced leeves - in order to facilitate their easier approach - were covered by solid pavement in a total length of 50 km. The covered crest ensures good accessibility of the defence lines, so that the neccesary measures can be taken earlier and cheaper.
25 The 144 constructive works built into the levees are mostly in good conditions, although there are some among them needing urgent renewal. The reconstruction of the sluices of Nagyecsed and Tiszakóród was finished in the last year.
The conditions of the river training works of a total length of 160 km, along the Rivers Tisza and Szamos, are rather varied. The great floods of the last years have further deteroriated the already before them (often since more decades) existing damages. The main danger is represented by the meanders situated near to the flood levees. On the Tisza there are 26, and on the Szamos 4 such river stretches, where the establishment or resp. reconstruction of riverbank protection requires urgent actions. During the last 6 years, 6 such river bends were adjusted. In 2004, river traning activities were carried out on 4 sites.
On the stretches of Hungarian-Ukrainian common interest, levee reinforcment took place on a total lenght of 18.5 km between 2000 and 2004. What is more, the execution of planned Hungarian developments can be expected in the Bereg sub-catchment and along the Túr River, also influencing on the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian sub-catchments.
Protection capability of the levee system on the Ukrainian side
The large-scale plans of the Tisza-regulation, launched in 1846, were confined on the river’s stretches situated between Vilok and its confluence with the Danube. Later on, continuous levees were erected on the right side until Vinohradiv, and on the left side until the surroundings of Korolevo. According to Ukrainian information sources, in 1950 the total lenght of the levees in Carpathian Ukraine used to be 40.8 km, being increased until nowadays to 265.2 km (including Uzh and Latoritsa, the two tributaries of the Bodrog River).
The major part of the the flood levee system of Carpathian Ukraine was erected along the main branch of the Tisza River, in continuation, downstream from the stretch Vinohradiv - Korolevo. Along its tributaries (Rika, Tereshva, Tereblia), generally there are only a few km long levees upstream from their mouthes. Additionally, only minor areas and settlement parts are protected on some broadening valley sections by levees, functioning also as flow spreading structures.
The levee system in the Upper Tisza region is generally weak, as a whole, not having been dimensioned (both in respect of hight and cross-section) for the flood level of 1% exceedance probability. The only exception is the stretch between Vari and Vinohradiv, reinforced after the flood of 1970. Typical for the status of the levees was the great number and frequency of levee breaks during the great floods occurring between 1998 and 2001.
Along the Upper Tisza, there are still two major floodplains not yet protected by levees: the Basins of Khust and Tiachiv. Both of them, situated along the Tisza stretch upstream the state border, have extensions of about 60 km². They represent a natural storage capacity of about 100-150 million m³. Would they be protected by levees in the future, the peak water stages along the stretch Tiszabecs-Tivadar (in Hungary) would increase by several decimeters, within the domain of IIIrd degree defence readiness.
26
Figure 7: Chart of the institutions involved in forecasting in Ukraine (NATO 2002)
The result of the development programmes obtained on Ukrainian territory
In the preliminary plan of development, there is foreseen a renewal of the total lenght of 824.7 km of facilities (including levees and riverbank protections), to be dimensioned for the floods of 1% probability of exceedance, and, additionally the erection of 132 km of new levees, the latter serving mostly the protection of settlements, partly connected with the building of lowland (emergency) flood storage reservoirs.
Statements of appraisal:
The joint Hungarian-Ukrainian effort to obtain an equal degree of safety on the stretches of common interest within the levee system of the Upper Tisza region, is quite approvable. The transboundary Convention provides the framework for reaching this goal. At the same time, the Hungarian Party has to count also with the fact that the implementation of the Ukrainian programme of levee development may lead to increased flood levels in Hungary, since as its consequence there will be in Ukraine a lower number and probability of levee breaks. These impacts have to be analysed jointly and the results of this analysis have to be taken into account in the course of continued planning of the emergency flood storage programme of the Ukrainian and the Hungarian side. For the execution of this task, a joint research-design programme has to be compiled.
27 The Ukrainian and Hungarian programmes of flood levee development, concerning stretches of common interest, have to be harmonized. The timing of their implementation should be synchronized.
II.2.2 Elaboration of the conceptions laying the foundation for the development of the flood defence systems of the Upper Tisza region
According to paragraph 2 of the Hungarian-Ukrainian water related transboundary Convention, the Parties harmonize between each other the water management activities planned on the cross-border watercourses, mutually inform each other, harmonizing the water management activities planned on the catchment of the Tisza River, which may have impacts on the water quality and the runoff regime of the cross- boarder watercourses; further do their best in order to prevent, control and mitigate all damaging effects extending themselves beyond the border. According to paragraph 6, however, the plans of water manegement activities influencing on the cross-border waters have to be harmonized.
In accordance with the above quoted two paragraphs, the Parties commenced between 2000 and 2004 the harmonization of two Ukrainian conceptual plans with eminent responsibility for flood prevention, namely: 1. Technical tasks of the automatic information system planned for Carpathian Ukraine (study), and 2. Conception of the flood defence developments planned for Carpathian Ukraine (study-plan), in agreement with the „Budapest Declaration” signed by the Ministers of Water Management of the 5 countries sharing the Tisza Catchment (May 25th, Budapest) and with the Declaration of the two Prime Ministers directly concerned and the respective protocol (Uzhgorod, April 9th, 2001).
During the IXth Session of the Governmental Commissioners, held from 19 to 23 June 2001 (see item III of the protocol of the session), the Hungarian Party was informed by the Ukrainian Party that the Ukrainian State Commission for Water Management intends to terminate in the IIIrd quarter of 2001 the modification of the „Preliminary Plan on complex flood defence in the Ukrainian part of the Tisza Catchment”, by taking into consideration the resolutions of the meeting of the representatives of the water management organs of Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary, held in Uzhgorod, on February 17th, 1999. The material of this Preliminary Plan was then handed over to the Hungarian Party in July 2001.
The gist of this Preliminary Plan can be summarized as follows (according to the pertinent research report of VITUKI p.l.c):
When compiling the complex preliminary plan of the Tisza Catchment, the Authors, adopting detailed scientific investigations, analysed the conditions of the catchment, determined the range of the possible technical and other measures as well as the impacts of their implementation on the environment. They found that the former strategy of flood defence, for more than 100 years trying to ensure the flood defence of the territory exlusively by the adoption of flood protection levees, does not lead to satisfactory results. This statement is verified by the flood waves of gradually increasing discharges and water levels, leading also to catastrophes,
28 including the (in many respects) the so far greatest and most destructive flood of March 2001.
The Authors of the preliminary plan elaborated therefore a complex strategy of flood defence which would mitigate, based on the up-to-date principles of river basin management, the peak levels both in the sub-catchments and the riverbeds, by adopting watershed control and water storage in the mountanious and lowland regions, decreasing in such a way the hydraulic load on the flood defence levees. At the same time, they propose to reconstruct the flood defence levees and to increase their hight, by taking into account not only the requirements of the critical flood, but also the levels of the flood of March 2001.
Thus the preliminary plan is containing, in the spirit of a complex approach, both active and passive measures of flood defence, the latter including the creation of storage reservoirs and measures against erosion, resulting in the decrease of the volume and velocity of surface runoff.
The goal of creating flood storage reservoirs in the headwater regions is to reduce the peak dischares of the flood waves originating therefrom or arriving thereon. The preliminary plan solves this task by proposing the creation of 42 new storage reservoirs exclusively for flood mitigation, with a total capacity of 288.4 m³. A minor addition to this volume would be the extension, in the last period of implementation, of 5 existing water resources management reservoirs, by creating an additional capacity of 14.1 million m³ made available for flood mitigation. As a remarkable feature of this conception, the 42 reservoirs would have the only purpose of flood mitigation, thus excluding the usual well-known conflicts between the interests of flood defence and energy production.
Another remarkable feature of the conception - obviously prompted also by environmental considerations - is that it proposes a number of small reservoirs instead of a few great ones. The relatively small reservoirs, uniformly spread all over the catchment, ensure an equable decrease of the flood waves in the whole catchment, by mitigating the peak levels already in the headwater districts.
For each of the reservoirs in the headwater region, such a volume was proposed that it reduce the peak discharge of the arriving flood wave of 1% probability (occurring once in 100 years) to the level of the flood wave of 10% probability (occurring once in 10 years). However, since not only the flood waves mitigated by these headwater reservoirs reach the Tisza, but also the non-mitigated ones originating from the uncontrolled areas situated downstream of them, flood wave mitigation had to be proposed along the main river itself, too. For this purpose, 22 flatland reservoirs (polders) were planned with a total capacity of 233.6 m³. To ensure a gradual flattening of the floodwaves, these planned flatland reservoirs will have a coffered character, with a possibility of regulated re-conduction of water (unlike in the case of the headwater reservoirs).
In the preliminary plan, an important role is attached to the anti-erosion measures, with the purpose to decrease the velocity of the water flowing on the surface and to prevent the carrying away of soil grains. Since these interventions, from the hydrological point of view, reduce the volume of surface runoff, modifying the
29 relation between surface and subsurface runoff, they also represent efficient tools of flood defence. One part of the anti-erosion interventions adopt the rehabilitation of the vegetation cover, particularly by restoring the original conditions of forests, and further adopt other suitable methods of soil and forest management.
Figure 8: Allocations of the flood retaining reservoirs in the Ukrainian sub-catchment
However, the active tools of flood defence (i.e., the planned flood storage capacity of half a billion m³) would still not be enough to provide a satisfactory protection for the territories and settlements along the rivers against a possible flood runoff volume of 1.5- billion m³. The preliminary plan therefore proposes to maintain and even to reinforce the passive tools of flood protection, i.e., the flood levees and, in this connection, to regulate certain stretches of the beds and banks of the rivers.
The preliminary plan proposes the renewal of the whole levee system with a total lenght of 824.7 km, dimensioning it for the critical flood of 1% probability of exceedance, plus the building of 132 km of new levees, the latter ensuring first of all an enhanced protection of the settlements, while they are partly connected also with creation of the lowland reservoirs.
In the preliminary plan, the issues connected with the development of hydrological monitoring and forecasting are considered as components of flood defence. It is pointed out that a proper planning of flood defence and the averting of catastrophes is only possible on the basis of reliable, representative and permanently available hydrological data and forecasts. Therefore it stipulates not only the further operation of the presently existing 31 gauging stations, but also the re-opening of the 15 earlier closed-down stations and the establishment of 25 new
30 ones, thus more than redoubling the number of the observation stations in operation on the area. The gauges should be operated as telemetric and discharge-recording stations, according to the project AIVSz.
The preliminary plan also underlines the importance of international co-operation in flood defence and urges a better co-operation between the countries sharing the Tisza Catchment.
The official Hungarian standpoint on the prelimiary plan can be found in the annex No. 28 of the protocol of the XIth session of the Governmental Commissioners (held in Baja, Hungary, from 10 to 14 June 2002). The gist of this standpoint is the following: The starting principles of the plan are good, it takes into account the guidelines of the EU Water Framework Directive There is a considerable Hungarian agreement on the following issues: importance of the development of the monitoring system, the creation of a system of dry storage reservoirs for flood mitigation, the necessity to reinforce the existing flood levees Besides the positive effects, there are also negative ones, with unfavorable impacts on the whole catchment, including Hungary: the flood volume will not decrease, the time duration of floodwaves may increase, there will be an increased probability of coincidence of the flood waves of the Tisza and those of its tributaries Szamos, Borsa and Bodrog The Hungarian standpoint underlines the necessity to further and detailedly investigate the joint effect of the complex interventions on flood mitigation, the investigation of the compound flood waves and of the coincidence of flood waves, the urgent implementation of the hydrological observation network.
Conclusions: It is recommended to continue the Ukrainian preparatory works for planning, by taking into consideration the Hungarian standpoint quoted above In the course of further harmonizations, the elements related to the Upper Tisza of the New Vásárhelyi Plan must also be taken into account. Joint investigations on the analysis of the collective effects of the planned Ukrainian and Hungarian interventions should also be carried out. For this purpose, a joint programme of modelling-planning has to be elaborated. This programme may support the further planning activities on the Hungarian and Ukrainian side and may help to establish the future joint operation schedules of storage reservoirs It has to be shown to the Ukrainian Party that the flood defence developments implemented within the first phase of the New Vásárhelyi Plan, will increase also the flood safety of the near-to-border areas of Ukraine, thus they will be favourable also for that country In accordance with the Budapest Declaration, the co-operating Parties should undertake concrete steps for obtaining EU sources in the interest of a joint and harmonized implementation of their flood defence conceptions.
It is important to mention that in 2005 a joint Hungarian-Ukrainian INTERREG tender was elaborated, on whose basis the preparation of the common flood defence-land management-nature conversation development of the cross-border region can be commenced.
31
II.2.3 Elaboration of the plans laying the foundation for the further development of common excess water systems
One of the decisions of the IXth session of the Governmental Commissioners for transboundary waters (held in Odessa, on 19-23 June 2001) was - also taking into consideration the declaration of the two Prime Ministers, issued on 9 April 2001 - that the excess water defence development plan, aiming at the prevention of inundation of the settlements situated in the catchments of the main canals Szipa, Csaronda and Dédai-Micz, has to be elaborated before 31 October 2001 (item 1 of Chapter II of the protocol).
The goal of the elaboration of the study is: to discover the causes of inundations, and by taking them into account, to determine the technical measures whose implementation would terminate (or at least minimize) these excess water inundations and the related damages primarily in the settlemens but possibly also in their surroundings, on the territories of both countries concerned. As a part of this study, the revision of the excess water system from the viewpoint of watershed management, the experiences gained during the excess water defence activities of March 1999 and of the defence activities during the extrordinary flood of 2001 were evaluated and the necessary harmonized technical interventions were determined.
The Bereg excess water system is situated partly in Hungary and partly in Ukraine. The interventions and events taking place in the catchment crossed by the state border, have mutual impacts on each other. Thus the system can successfully be managed only when handled as a whole entity. This fact was verified by the extraordinary excess water events of 1999 and the extraordinary flood of 2001, when on both sides of the border considerable areas, including settlements, were inundated.
When elaborating the possibilities both of the protection from, and the utilization of, excess waters, the physio-geographical conditions of the catchment concerned, the present potential capabilty and status of the system, the functioning capacity of the operating organizations and the considerable bilateral relations were taken in consideration.
The elaboration of the study was implemented through the Expert Groups for averting water-related damages. The assessments to be used as a basis for the study were carried out by the water management organs of the countries concerned, on-site inspections were held on both sides of the border, and finally the data and development needs were transferred with protocols during the sessions of the Expert group.
This plan was accepted by the Xth session of the Governmental Commissioners for cross-border waters. At the same time, it was decided that „the executive plans of the most urgent works must be prepared before 30 July 2002. After the necessary harmonizations, the labours of construction must be commenced at once (item III.1 of the Protocol of the session).
32 According to item III.1 of the protocol on the XIth session of the Governmental Commissioners for cross-border waters, the Hungarian Party had commenced the planning of the most urgent developments and the aquisition of environmental protection permissions required for the executive plans. The Hungarian plans were accepted by the Ukrainian Party. At the same time, there is no mention in the protocol of the commencement of works on the Ukrainian side.
II.2.4 Establishment, development, operation and maintenance of the flood observation, alarming and forecasting system
The hydrological events of the last years (1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) have repeatedly shown that high and violent flood waves have to be expected in any period of the year on the Upper Tisza and its tributaries, due to the flood-hydrologiacal and hydrometeorological features of the latter. This hydrological situation unambigously determines the common goals for the development of the flood forecasting system of the Upper Tisza: the lead time of alerting flood information and forecasts has to be increased, the reliability of water level and discharge forecasts has to be improved in order to make possible to commence in time the measures for preventing and protecting from catastrophes. The various expert materials and concept studies compiled in Hungary and Ukraine have shown that these goals can be obtained by a suitably built- up operation of an observation, data forwarding and processing system established for the whole catchment, whose components are well fitting to, and complement each other.
In view of the particularly dangerous hydrological situation, both in the period 2002-2004 and also during the preceeding times, special attention was paid to the development of the flood forecasting system. Both on the basis of the water-related transboundary Convention and in the frame of independent co-operative agreements, significant developments of common interest were implemented.
On the basis of the quadrilateral meeting of the Governmental Commissioners of Hungary, Ukraine, Romania and Slovakia, held on 16-17 February 1999, and following various expert meetings, an Agreement of Co-operation between the Hungarian Ministry for Transport, Telecommunication and Water Management (KHVM) and the Ukrainian State Water Management Commission was signed on 17 November 1999, concerning the Hungarian support for developing the Ukrainian flood defence system. The Hungarian Party provided an aid of 100 million HUF for the development of the flood defence information system of Trans-Carpathia in the form of technical tools and on-site implementation. The basic goals of this development were the following:
To ensure more time for the organization of defence activities by increasing the lead times of flood forecasts To improve the reliability of the forecasts concerning water levels during floodwaves
The envisaged development programme was implemented, in good quality, by deadline. It resulted in the basis of a joint Hungarian-Ukrainian flood alarming and forecasting system, which very efficiently helped the defence activities already during the great flood on the Upper Tisza in March 2001. Both the microwave connection for speech and data transfer between Uzhgorod and Nyíregyháza and the speech-forwarding network
33 in Trans-Carpathia proved to be very useful. Hydrological information was well supported by the 2 automatic hydrographic stations (in Khust and Tiachiv) – established as pilot devices – while it became clear that the number of stations has to be increased significantly.
Figure 9: Structure of the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian hydrological telemetry system (Konecsny-Lucza-Bálint 2006)
The IXth session of the Governmental Commissioners (held in Odessa, 29-30 June 2001) ruled - on the basis of the experiences gained in March 2001, taking also into consideration the pertinent technical conception prepared by the Ukrainian Party - that the development of the flood forecasting system on the Upper Tisza must be continued.
On 30 October 2002, an Agreement of Co -operation was concluded „between the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management of the Hungarian Republic and the Ukrainian State Commission for Water Management, concerning the aid granted by the Hungarian Party for the development of the Ukrainian flood defence system, on the basis of the experiences gained during the last years with the floods of the Tisza River and with its extraordinary contaminations, originating from a third country”. According to this Agreement, a humanitarian aid of 215 million HUF was to be provided by the Hungarian Party in the form of technical tools and local execution (150
34 million HUF for the telemetric system used for flood alarm and 65 million HUF for the installation of an automatic station for water quality monitoring and alarming).
The main items of the Agreement of Co-operation are the following:
1. The basic goals of the development to be realized: a) to ensure more time for the organization of flood defence by increasing the lead time of flood forecasts, b) to improve the reliability of the forecasts concerning the water levels to be expected during floodwaves c) continuous monitoring of water quality parameters, alarm in emergency situations, assuring the lead time for the necessary interventions
2. The elements of the flood information system, requiring development a) The hydrographic observation network oriented to flood hydrology b) The canals for speech and data conveyance, serving data collection c) The data bases, hardware and sofware tools of the flood information system d) The methods and models used for data processing, analysis and forecast
3. Development of the water quality protection system Annexion of the Tisza River’s automatic system for water quality monitoring and alarming to the Regional Alarming System of the Danube, establishment of a forecasting and alarming system (based on a continuous observation of water quality parameters), information transfer
4. The concrete tasks of development in Trans-Carpathia a) establishment of 9 complex hydrographic stations b) establishment of 3 stations for precipitation and air temperature measurement c) instituting an automatic equipment for water quality measurement and alarm, attached to a hydrographic station
The execution of these developments took place under the survey of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority, Nyίregyháza, in respect to the water quality stations in agreement with the Upper Tisza Environmental Inspectorate. Participants of the execution were the Upper Tisza District Water Authority, the Trans-Carpathia Water Authority and a number of Hungarian sub-contractors. The investment was finished duly by deadline.
The main conclusions concerning the works executed are the following: When designing the plans of the system, the previously prepared Hungarian and Ukrainian development programmes were duly taken into account The built-in informatic system contains up-to-date and standard hardware and software elements, satisfying the requirements of our days The monitoring and forecasting system of the Upper Tisza, however, still cannot be considered as accomplished. The development works have to be continued on the basis of the middle-range programme (by increasing the number of stations in the headwater regions, by jointly processing the data of meteorological radar and ground stations, by carrying out cartographic and geodetic works required by forecasting, by developing the models of flood forecast). An additional important task of development is the coupling of the
35 informatic systems of the Hungarian and Ukrainian organs for flood and catastrophe defence in the Upper Tisza region The developments were realized in the spirit of international recommendations, equallly serving the flood defence interests of the Hungarian and the Ukrainian Party
Figure 10: Scheme of the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian hydrological telemetric system (Konecsny-Lucza-Bálint 2006)
II.2.5 The elaboration and maintenance of joint plans for flood localization
In March 2001, a great flood occurred on the Hungarian and Ukrainian stretches of the Upper Tisza, whose peak water stages at many points significantly surpassed the previously recorded maxima. As a consequence, levee breaks happened both on the Ukrainian and Hungarian sides. The levee breaks having occurred in Hungary, at the village Tarpa, on March 6th, 2001, led to a partial inundation of the joint Hungarian- Ukrainian sub-catchment Bereg. It was a prompt task to localize the thus escaped water, resp. to divert its flow within the sub-catchment in such a way that the damages be minimized. The organization of this activity was the task of the Hungarian water management organs, in co-opeartion with the Ukrainian ones.
In view of the extraordinary flood danger, the experts of the two countries participated jointly in the defence activities. The Ukrainian organs took part, by making available machinery and materials, in the building of localization lines of the village Lónya, since it could be approached only from the Ukrainian side. The Hungarian Party, on the other hand, took a number of measures aiming at the decrease of water load on Ukrainian areas and to conducting back the waters on the Ukrainian side, by increasing the hight of deponies on the canal banks, closing down culverts and road cuttings for water
36 retention, and even by inundating certain less valuable areas for saving others on the Ukrainian side.
In order to accelerate water conduction in the Tisza and to lead the water from the inundated areas into the Verhne-Sernie Canal, the Hungarian Party allocated and operated 30 mobile pumps with a total capacity of 15 m³.s-1 at the mouthes of the connecting canals. Further, it made available for the Ukrainian Party the following items: manpower consisting of 137 persons for allocation and operation of the pumps, 400,000 sandbags, 2,000 torches, 6,000 m plastic foil, 38 motor vehicles, as well as the necessary amount of diesel fuel for continuously operating the pumps.
After surveying the experiences gained with the flood inundations taken place in 2001 in the Bereg sub-catchment, an agreement was reached at the IXth session of the Hungarian-Ukrainian Governmental Commissioners (held in Odessa, on 19-23 June 2001) about devoting top priority, from both sides, to the implementation of the tasks included in the declaration of the meeting of the two Prime Ministers (on 9 April 2001) and in the documents on the meeting of the two competent Ministers (of 25 March 2001). The transboundary Commissioners agreed - on the basis of item 6 of the protocol of the Ukrainian and Hungarian Prime Minister (held in Uzsgorod, on 9 April 2001) - to consider the flood- and excess water sub-catchements Bereg and Beregovo, independently from the state border, as a uniform system. In view thereof, they decided to make compile various plans. One of them was the plan entitled „Uniform localization plan for preventing from inundation the inhabited areas under catastrophic conditions”.
The elaboration of this uniform localization plan was carried out under the supervision of the Deputy Commisioners and the leaders of the water damage averting expert groups. In the course of planning, various harmoniziation meetings were held. The works were financed jointly by the two Parties. The plan was duly accomplished by the deadline of 20 April 2002.
The content of the Plan can be summarized as follows:
The most important basis for planning and inundation modelling was the unified Hungarian-Ukrainian raster and vectorgraphical map stock of the scale M=1:10,000. The maps received from the Ukrainian Party were fully digitalized, including the contour lines. From the Hungarian side, the raster stock and the digitalized contour lines were available, both in the scale of 1:10,000. These two stocks were unified along the state border, with the help of fitting points, resulting in the unified digitalized cartographic model of the joint flood defence sub-catchment.
The elaboration of the concrete version of localization within the area was supported by a 2D inundation model run on the basis of 16 pre-established inundation scenarios. The computations of dam-failure hidraulics concerning 28 various cases contain values between 9 and 357 million m³. In the 16 scenarios considered in the plan, the outflowing water volume varies in the case of the Borshava River between 31 and 45 million m³, in the case of the Tisza River between 98 and 274 million m³. The expected enactments of flood inundations are presented in the plan for16 pre-determined typical cases. The possible concrete solutions of the pertinent interventions is presented in a series of annexes.
37 The solutions of protecting the settlements
In the Bereg sub-catchment, in the case of dam failure, the most important task of localization is - taking into account the limited possibilities of a more extended action - to quickly establish individual protection of the settlements concerned, whenever the necessary time is available. The endangerment degrees of the different settlements by flood inundation are quite different: The mostly endangered settlements are those situated along the riverbanks. If dam failure happens in one of these settlements or in its close neighbourhood, there is no chance for its protection. The task is to evacuate it at once. 17 settlements (villages) belong to this group. If there is an imminent risk of dam failure or an extraordinary flood is being forecast, these settlements have to be evacuated, with the exception of the defence personnel, prior to the occurrence of dam failure. There are 4 settlements that the outflown water can reach within a very short time. There are 18 settlements situated in the deep part of the sub-catchment, thus characterized with a high frequency of endangerment, depending of the sites of dam failure. The majority of these settlements can be protected only with the help of building ring dams, and only if the latter were erected in time. There are 7 settlements not, or only slightly endangered by flood inundation.
The concrete possibilities of protecting the settlements are contained in a series of annexes, in which the expected time of the beginning of inundation (counted from the moment of dam failure) as well as the location and hight of the defence line to be built are indicated for each settlement and for each of the scenarios.
In connection with the plan submitted to the Xth session of theTransboundary Governmental Commissioners (Baja, Hungary, 10-14 June 2002), the following resolution was proferred (item III of the protocol):
Investigations concerning the applicability, on sub-catchment and settlement level, of the localization plan have to be carried out on both sides, evaluating the experiences (before 30 September 2002) A training course has to be arranged on the adoption of the localization plan for the concerned experts of both Parties (before 30 October 2002)
The XIth session of the transboundary Governmental Commissioners (Uzhgorod, 23-27 June 2003) declared: „The investigation and control of the applicabilty, on sub- catchment level, of the Hungarian-Ukrainian joint localization plan of the flood defence sub-catchment Bereg has been carried out on the Hungarian side. The on-the-site investigations confimed the practical applicability of the plans. A training course was held for the experts of the Hungarian party on the practical adoption of the Hungarian- Ukrainian joint localization plan of the flood defence sub-catchment Bereg. The programs necessary for adopting the localization plan were handed over by the Hungarian Party to the Ukrainian Party on 31 October 2002.
The software requirements and the content of adaptation works necessary for the application of the plan on the Ukrainian side, were determined by the computer experts of the two Parties (annex 19 of the protocol of the XIth session). For the adaption and
38 teaching of the plan to the Ukrainian side as well for financing the inclusion into the local plans of catastrophe defence, the Ukrainian Party has submitted in April 2004 a TACIS application, attaching to it the supporting declarion of the Upper Tisza District Water Authority (Hungary). The application has been accepted and on its basis the adaption and teaching of the plan has been commenced. These activities will be finished at the end of 2006.
Summarizing statements: The new plan of flood localization will only play an effective role if care will be taken of its continuous maintenance and also its legal enforcement will be ensured Based on the localization plan, also the pertinent plans for catastrophe defence (rescuing, evacuation, mobilization) have to be renewed Also the joint localization plan for the sub-catchment along the rivers Palád, Batár and Túr has to be elaborated, by taking into account the experiences gained during the flood of March 2001, when the water leaking through the left-side dam failure occuring on Ukrainian territory, has inundated also Hungarian areas.
II.2.6 Joint research related to flood prevention
According to item 5 of paragraph 14 of the traunsbounday water-related Convention, the Commissioners provide, on the basis of a separated agreement on contract, mutual support for each other to carry out scientific, planning and executive works connected with the near-to-border rivers.
Between 2000 and 2004, there was first a trilateral (Hungarian-Ukrainian-Romanian), and later a bilateral (Hungarian-Ukrainian) joint reasearch team dealing with the impacts of forest management in the Upper Tisza catchment onto flood runoff.
The research reports resulting from the trilateral co-operation, compiled by the Hungarian Party, were handed over to the Ukrainian Party on 8 November 2000 and 3 May 2001 (item 1 of the protocol of the IXth session of transboundary Governmental Commissioners). After that, another session of the Commissioners evaluated the results obtained (item 1.2 of the protocol of the Xth session).The Governmental Commissioners also agreed to take a tour of inspection and consultation in Trans-Carpathia in the fourth quarter of 2002. This consultation took palace in the frame of an extraordinary session of the Commissioners (Uzsgorod, 28-29 October 2002), resulting in the following important findings and proposals:
„After a mutual exchange of information, the Commissioners, also hearing the information offered by scientists, experts and advisers from water and forest management, state that the Parties are carrying out expedient activities for solving the tasks as determined on the sessions No. VII, VIII, IX and X of the Commissioners, for investigating the genesis and the marching down of flood waves.
The experts of the Hungarian and Ukrainian Party have jointly compiled in 2000-2001 the following studies:
39 Connection between forest and water management in the catchment of the Upper Tisza. Investigations on flood wave genesis, Phase I, 2000. Hungarian-Ukrainian-Romanian Co-operation. The impacts of the changes in forest cover in the Upper Tisza Catchment onto the flood regime of the Tisza River. Investigations on flood wave genesis, Phase II. Hungarian-Ukrainian-Romanian Co-operation.
The importance of these investigations is underlined also by the fact that the extraordinary floods occurring in the Tisza Catchment in 1992, 1993, 1998, 1999 and 2001 drew repeatedly the attention to the necessity to investigate the primary causes of these extraordinary phenomena, leading to an increased feeling of threatenedness of the population living on the areas endangered by floods.
The Commisioners have ascertained that one of the causes leading to floods is the forest cover, widely being dealt with both on the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian scientific- practical conference on forest management (June 1999) and on the conferences held on the same topic in Hungary and Ukraine during the period 2000-2002. The Ukrainian Party informed the Hungarian Party that during the session of the County Council of Trans-Carpathia a number of resolutions have been delibarated, on the basis of the mentioned and other scientic materials, aiming at reducing clear-fellings and an increased control of forest management.
The Ukrainian Party futher informed the Hungarian Party that both the State Organs and the agencies for forest management in Trans-Carpathia, taking into account the importance of forest management for the genesis and the utilization of water resources, have made significant efforts in the last years, according to a scientifically based procedure of wood yield regulation, their main goal being the regeneration of forests.
The order of 26 July 1995 of the Ukrainian Government has declared a moraturium for the clean-felling of beech and pine woods on the versants of the Trans-Carpathian mountains. 57% of the forests of the County are catagorized as ecologically protected areas.
The short range (2002-2006) and the long range (until 2015) complex flood defence program of the Trans-Carpathian part of the Tisza Catchment (approved on 24 October 2001, on the basis of the resolution No. 1388 of the Ukrainian Council of Ministers) envisages the planting of protective woods on an area of 26.36 km² in the high mountains, and on 16.84 km² in the catchments of the minor watercourses. In the last years, such plantations have taken place on 2.70 km².”
After this orientation, lectures were delivered, laying down, on the basis of the jointly executed previous works and of the mutual information by the Hungarian and Ukrainian Party, a number of findings concerning the relationships between forest management and flood genesis.
The Commissioners entrusted their deputies with the joint elaboratation and preparation of a proposal of tasks for determined goals. The mutually agreed upon proposal should be submitted to the Commissioners before 1 May 2003. The proposal being compiled, it was approved by the session of the transboundary water-related Governmental Commissioners (Uzhgorod, 23-27 June 2003) according to the following:
40
1. The Commissioners acknowledge that works are being carried out in order to assess the impact of forest management onto the floods, according to the agreement concluded at the extraordinary meeting of the Transboundary Water-related Governmental Commissioners of the Hungarian Republic and Ukraine, held in Uzhgorod, on 28-29 October 2002. The Parties have discussed and analysed this topic during that extraordinary meeting, dealing with the impact of forest management onto the floods of the Trans-Carpathian region. As a result of this consultation, the following main guidelines were determined for the future: In connexion with the impact of forest cover on flood genesis, significant research activities are under way in the Tisza Catchment. On this topic, complex investigations are carried out by the following institutions: Ecological Research Institute of the Carpathians (Lviv), Ukrainian College on Mountain Forestry (Ivano-Frankivsk), Trans-Carpathian Research Station of Forestry (Mukachevo), the Trans-Carpathian Biospherical Nature Conservation Area (Rakhiv) and the National University of Uzsgorod. In March of this year, a scientific-practical conference took place in Uzhgorod on the topic: „The ecosystem of the present forests of Trans-Carpathia, the long-range directions of development of the forest management of the country.” The collected proceedings of the conference will be issued during this year. Elaboration and putting into force of normatives on various regional levels (County Council, state administration of the County, Office of Forest Management, Office for the Management of Nature and Resources), for promoting priority of nature conservation versus profit-oriented forestry The forwarding of questions to the central organs of the State (Supreme Council, Ukrainian Government, the State Forest Office of Ukraine) concerning the legal regulation of environment-friendly forest management and the acceptance of the normatives of the latter Activity of social organizations and media for the involvement of the inhabitans in the environment-friendly forest management, establishment of school and college forestry, wide-spread propaganda of nature conservation
2. Collection, systematization and evaluation of the so far compiled studies, data, information, and lectures dealing with the impact of forest management onto flood genesis 3. Organisation of a joint scientific expert conference on the role of forests in water management, elaboration of a joint research methodology and problematics related to the most relevant topics. 4. Investigations on runoff from catchments in order to find out how the changes in meteorological characteristics, in those of surface runoff and forest cover did influence on the genesis of the great floods of the recent years. a) The appropriate degree of forest cover on the sub-catchments belonging to selected watercourse sections has to be investigated, along with the impacts of the areal, choronological and status structure of the forested areas of the Eastern Carpathians onto the floods. b) It has to be investigated, which chronological distribution and which times of felling are optimal for the water retaining capacity of the forests. The alternative possibilities of forest utilization have to be examined, with
41 special regard to the rehabilitation of their upper limit elevation, with reduction of the alpine pasture areas. c) The relation between runoff coefficient and precipitation has to be investigated. On the basis of the so far available studies and results, a revision of the system and the equipments of hydrological observation has to carried out. With the involvment of the experts of both Parties, a harmonized methodology has to be elaborated, occasionally including on- site expeditions.
To the protocol of the extraordinary session of the Governmental Commissioners on 28- 29 October 2002, the two following annexes are attached: „The Act of Ukraine: Moratorium for the clear-cuttings of beech and pine forests in the mountains of Trans- Carpathia (annex No. 7.1), the Resolution No. 295 of THe Trans-Carpathian County Council on the consequences of the spring floods in the County, and its Resolution No.298 on the reduction of wood felling (annex No. 7.2).
Summarizing statements: The so far executed investigations on the topic are particularly important and probably have an exemplary value in the bilateral co-operation on the Tisza Valley. The value of the works would be increased if Hungary, as a member of the European Union, could efficiently support Ukraine in obtaining the financial sources promoting the planned forest management programmes, favourable also for flood prevention It is important to commence and implement the envisaged further research programme as soon as possible (protocol of the XIth session of the Governmental Commissioners) Applications to the source INTERREG could provide a suitable possibility of financement for the envisaged further joint investigations
II.3 Other co-operations related to the bilateral Convention on cross- border waters
II.3.1 The joint NATO-Ukraine project for increasing the flood defence capabilities in Trans-Carpathia
The catchment of the Upper Tisza is being shared by four countries: Ukraine, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. Significant stretches of the river form the state borders between Ukraine and Romania, and between Ukraine and Hungary.
After the catastrophic events of November 1998, the Ukrainian Ministry for Catastrophe Defence officially approached NATO asking for a support for averting flood damages in Trans-Carpathia. NATO, complying with the request, established in the frame of the programme Partnership for Peace an expert group for compiling a Study of Evaluation and submitting practically executable proposals to increase the efficiency of flood and catastrophe defence systems in Trans-Carpathia. In the expert group, led by Belgium, 9 countries were represented: the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States (as NATO members), further Slovakia, Romania and of course Ukraine, as the interested Party. It was expected, first, that the study would provide practical guidelines for the countries concerned about how to harmonize their
42 developments for flood defence, and, second, to lay a basis for the second, executive phase of the programme. At the beginning of February 2001, the Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SPEPC) of NATO approved of the Ist Phase of the action plan compiled by the Expert Task Force consisting of the representatives of the member and associated states of NATO. The basic goal of the joint NATO-Ukraine project on flood preparation and defence is to increase the reliabilty and the lead time of forecasts and to improve the efficiency of the developments for flood defence in the whole Tisza Valley, thus maximizing the reduction of the damaging consequences of inundations. The study was expected, first, to provide practical guidelines for the countries concerned about how to harmonize their developments for flood defence, and second, to lay a basis for the second, executive phase of the programme.
More than 40 flood and catastrophe defence experts of the 9 countries involved were co-operating. The work was divided according to tasks and not according to state borders. Thus, the experts of the countries interested in development took part, besides the NATO experts, in the elaboration of each of the work chapters. On the working meetings, on one hand, the professional requirements of the four countries were agreed upon, and a „feed back”” of the standpoints of governmental, non govermental and other concerned agencies was ensured, on the second.
The practical work of the Expert Task Force was commenced on 3-4 September 2001 in Uzhgorod (Ukraine). Its next meeting took place in Hungary, where the members got acquainted with the first phase of the world-standard flood observation network, connecting the Hungarian and Ukrainian areas in one and the same system, along with the still existing problems and requirements for further development. The direct, personal contacts were truly beneficial for unambigously determining the activities and focal areas.
Figure 11: The hydrological and meteorological telemetrysystems in the Upper Tisza Catchment (Konecsny-Lucza-Bálint 2006)
43
The primary goal of the analysis was to identify the critical pitfalls - on the field of technical advancement, legal regulation, international co-operation and telecommunication - hampering a more efficient defence against water-related damage. Another goal was to formulate for the Ukrainian authorities proposals which would help them in compiling applications to be submitted to inernational developing and financing institutions. The study is divided in the following chapters:
Institutional and legal background G.I.S. Hydometeorological data and network Flood monitoring and forecasting Flood defence, flood protection Tasks of catastrophe defence
At the beginning of the work, the Budapest Declaration signed by the competent Ministers of the five countries sharing the Tisza Catchment (the so-called Tisza Water Management Forum) was already in force. The projects supported by TACIS, PHARE- CBC, DANCE and UNDP were officiating more or less with the same goals. The Expert Task Force therefore took upon itself to compare the various international projects among themselves and to ensure that the Task Force’s recommendations and proposals be in agreement with the Budapest Declaration. According to the Task Force’s finding, the Tisza Water Management Forum established by the Budapest Declaration on May 2001, could provide efficient frames for the flood defence co- ordination going on in the Tisza Catchment.
The conclusion of the project took place in two steps: After the Closing report being finished, ther was a Closing Conference in Budapest, on 6-7 May 2002, led jointly by the Hungarian state secretary for transport and water management and by the NATO-CEPD, with high-level representatives participating from all countries interested. On a session of SCEPC, held in Brussels, at NATO Headquaters, on 25 June 2002, the results obtained were expounded jointly by the leaders of the project and the Expert Task Force. The Commission appraised the results very positively, pointing out that the concluded project - although some countries had expressed severe doubts before its launching - proved to be one of the very few projects concluded duly by deadline and in good quality.
By successfully implementing the suggestions of NATO, Ukraine may create an efficient flood defence system. The Study of Evaluation enables the planners and developers to establish an up-to-date hydrometeorological observation system, which would provide real-time statellite images from high risk areas, enabling to identify those endangered by inundation and the mapping of the regions inclined to earth slides. This information will be available for the national and regional organs of the countries concerned, helping them to establish a new and more efficient defence organization which in the future would save human lifes and reduce material losses.
The issues of the Ukraine-NATO Project were first dealt with during the VIII th Session of the water-related transboundary Governmental Commissioners. The Hungarian Party informed the Ukrainian Party that a writ had been received by the Hungarian Ministry of
44 the Interior, according to which the compilation of a NATO-Ukrainian Project was under way on flood prevention and defence in the Trans-Carpathian region. The writ was handed over to the Ukrainian Party (annex No. 28 of the VIIIth session), while the Hungarian Party issued the declaration that it will support the implementation of the content thereof.
Information were given about the progress of the Project during the meeting of the Deputy Commissioners on 30-31 January 2002 (see the annexes No. 11 and 29 of the XIth session of the Governmental Commissioners). The Ukrainian Party informed the Hungarian Party that in May 2002 the joint NATO-Ukraine Project on flood prevention and defence in the Trans-Carpathian region was finished. The conclusions and proposals of the Project will be taken into account when further developing the AIR- TISZA project and also wihin the activities of the Tisza Water Management Forum.
II.3.2 Pentalateral co-operation in the Tisza Valley on the basis of the Budapest Declaration
The subsequent floods occurring during the period 1998-2001 drew again the attention to the importance of a multilateral co-operation in the Tisza Valley. After the flood on the Upper Tisza in November 1998, Ukraine took the initiative to convene a quadrilateral meeting in Uzsghorod, on 16-17 February 1999. In 2001, prompted by a joint Hungarian-Ukrainian initiative (based on a declaration issued at the meeting of the two Prime Ministers), a pentalateral meeting of Ministers took place in Budapest, where the Budapest Declaration was accepted and the Water Management Forum for the Flood Defence in the Tisza Valley was established for the co-ordination of the flood defence- related co-operation on the Tisza and its Catchment. The gist of the Declaration is the following: 1. For the co-ordination of the flood defence activities on the Tisza River and its Catchment, the Water Management Forum for the Flood Defence in the Tisza Valley (further on: the Forum) is established. 2. In the frame of the Forum, the leaders of the governmental organs responible for water management activities in their respective countries meet each other regularly (at least yearly) 3. For co-ordinating the professional work to be carried out in the frame of the Forum, each country nominates one co-ordinator and communicates her/his name by 31 May 2001 to the other Parties. The national co-ordinators form a working team, chaired alternately (by annual rotation) 4. The expert teams led by the national co-ordinators convene regularly (at least every half year, on the territory of the actually chairing country) for the implementation of the professional co-operation going on in the frame of the Forum 5. The cooperation in frame of the Forum includes a) the developments concerning information exchange b) the harmonization of national flood defence developments and interventions c) the determination of the flood prevention and defence activities to be carried out jointly d) the offering of surveys for interested outsiders on the actual issues of national policies for averting water-related damages, in order to involve them into the realization of the tasks of the Forum.
45
In connexion with the Budapest Declaration, the following events took place in the frame of the Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border co-operation:
th The IX (bilateral) session of the Governmental Commissioners (Odessa, 19- 23 June 2001) stated that the Declaration of the Ministers responsible for water management of the five countries, signed in Budapest on 25 May 2001, had opened a new perspective also for the bilateral co-operation. Based on the Budapest Declaration, on the preceeding declaration of the Ukrainian and Hungarian Prime Minister and the protocol of the latter meeting, bilateral tasks were identified. th According to item V.1 of the protocol on the X session of the Governmental Commissioners (Baja, Hungary, 10-14 June 2002), the Parties have surveyed the statements of the Meeting of Co-ordinators, held, in connexion with the Budapest Declaration, on 5-6 June 2002 in Budapest. The Governmental Commissioners agreed upon the testing of the methodology of the preliminary environment impact study, elaborated by the Working Group No. VI of the Forum, both on the New Vásárhelyi Plan and on the complex preliminary plan of flood defence of the Trans-Carpathian part of the Tisza Catchment. th The XI session of the Governmental Commissioners acknowledged that on 23 May 2003 Ukraine took over from Hungary the chair of the pentalateral Water Management Forum of the Tisza Valley (item VI.1 of the protocol of the session). The meeting of the National Co-ordinators of the countries involved in the Forum (held in Uzhgorod, on 29-30 May 2003) had demonstrated that the progress of implementation of the flood defence conception of the Tisza Catchment was in accordance with the Working Programme. The Parties agreed that the pentalateral co-operation carried out in the framework of the Water Management Forum of the Tisza Valley could further be developed by compiling the river basin management plan of the Tisza Valley, according to the recommendations of the EU Water Framework Directive.
Summarizing statements: Since the acceptance of the Budapest Declaration (25 May 2001), each session of the Governmental Commissioners was dealing with the identification of tasks deriving from the pentalateral co-operation The initiatives of the Hungarian and the Ukrainian Party were striving to contribute to fill the pentalateral co-operation with concrete content It has to be decided what a role should be attributed by the countries of the Tisza Catchment to the Water Management Forum of the Tisza Valley: Do they embed the Forum’s efforts into the activity of ICPDR or do they prefer to continue to independently deal with the issues of flood defence?
II.3.3 Internationally financed other projects
Between 2000 and 2004, a number of internationally financed projects were (and still are) in progress, related to the region where the Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border Convention is in force. These projects were dealt with at various fora of the water- related cross-border co-operation, where mutual information was given on the progress and results of these projects:
46 With the financial support of the Danish Government, the development of forecasting models (based on MIKE 11) are under way for the Tisza-tributaries Uzh, Latoritsa and Bodrog. With support from the Small TACIS project, one automatic station was installed on the Uzh River at Uzhgorod. A project, important also from the Hungarian point of view, was initiated on the end of 2003 in Trans-Carpathia, with TACIS financement of 3 million Euros. The tender of this project was prepared on the basis of the results of the NATO- Ukraine Project. Its content is in accordance with the goals of the Budapest Declaration. According to the tender, the project has to focus on four principal issues: harmonizing the flood defence startegies of the countries sharing the Tisza Catchment, development of flood forecasting, further development of the flood monitoring system existing on the Upper Tisza, harmonization of the flood- and catastrophe defence activities between the countries of the region. The works on the project will soon be concluded.
Summarizing statements: The various projects are useful from the point of view of the Hungarian-Ukrainian bilateral flood prevention activities A continuous co-operation between the fora based on intergovernmental agreements and the working organizations of the projects has not yet been established. As a consequence, no co-ordination and concordance between the development projects can be ensured. The will of the governments and regional organs cannot be enforced directly. The professional supervision of the projects is not with the persons/institutions responsible for the flood safety of the region. It is particularly unfortunate that in the case of the TACIS project (commenced in 2003 with a budget of 3 million Euros) the tasks originally defined in the tender were re-interpreted and no cross-border conciliation took place. The local executor is amplifying the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian automatic flood monitoring system (established from Hungarian governmental aid) without submitting the plan of amplification to the Hungarian Party for agreement. In the frame of the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian investigation, special attention should be paid to the analysis of the activities carried out within this project.
47
III. POSSIBILITIES OF THE ADOPTION OF THE METHODOLOGICAL DEVICES AND CRITERIA ELABORATED IN THE FRAME OF THE 12 TASKS, ONTO THE INTERNATIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE CO-OPERATION ON THE UPPER TISZA RIVER
As it was detailedly shown in Chapter II, after the great floods occurring in the last time (1998, 2001) on the Upper Tisza, a number of flood defence measures were taken and there was also a significant development of international co-operation, ranging over many spheres. Regarding the Ukrainian-Hungarian relation, in this respect the following activities have to be listed:
Harmonizations regarding the capability, maintenance and operation of flood defence systems; Elaboration of development conceptions, laying the foundations for the development of the flood defence systems on the Upper Tisza; Elaboration of plans laying the foundation for the further development of the joint excess water defence systems; Establishment, development, operation and maintenance of the flood monitoring, alarming and forecasting system; Elaboration and maintenance of joint plans of localization of eventual inundations; Joint research works concerning flood prevention; Joint NATO-Ukraine project for increasing the flood defence capabilities in Trans- Carpathia; Pentalateral co-opeartion in the Tisza Valley (Tisza Forum) on the basis of the Budapest Declaration; Joint participation in other projects of international financing
All these activities contributed to increasing the efficiency of the measures taken before and during the floods. E.g., the speed and frequency of mutual information was significantly improved, enabling to shorten the time period necessary for the preparations for flood defence and enabling continuous communication during the flood period. At the same time, also the flood risk is being reduced as a consequence of the implementation of the various plans.
Since the methodology and system of devices (TRIAL TOOL) and criteria elaborated in the frame of the 12 TASKS does not include any criteria concerning mutual data exchange, alarm, forecast and information, they cannot be analysed on this basis in relation to the Upper Tisza.
48
IV. REFERENCES
BÁLINT Z., KONECSNY K. (2002), Development of a Flood alarm and Forecasting System on the Upper-Tisza River Basin. 21st Conference of the Danube Countries on the hydrological forecasting and hydrological bases of water managment. 2-6 September 2002. Bucharest. BODNÁR G. (1996), Organisation of flood defence in the Upper Tisza River and its tributaries. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXVIII. Number 1. pp. 51-68. HANKÓ Z., ORLÓCI I., BAUER M. (2001), Again about floods in Hungary - and how should it go any further. (hungarian) Hidrológiai Közlöny (Journal of the Hungarian Hydrological Society) Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 3-13. HORKAI A., SZLÁVIK L. (2003), Experiences with the application of the Water Emergency Information System (VIR) during the 1998-2001 floods. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Volume IV. Comprehensive and methodological studies of the floods and inundation in 1998 and 2001. pp. 189-200. ILLÉS L. (2002), Concept of the development of flood forecasting in the Upper Tisza river. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXXIV. Number 1. pp. 5-45. ILLÉS L., KERTI A., BODNÁR G. (2003), Confinement plan for the Bereg basin. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Volume IV. Comprehensive and methodological studies of the floods and inundation in 1998 and 2001. pp. 231-275. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (1996), Flood hydrograph hydrology of the Upper Tisza River, December, 1995. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXVIII. Number 1. Budapest. pp. 30-50. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2000), Data of the hydrological influence of forests in the Upper Tisa catchment by the maximum discharge. IVth International Hidrology Conference Water and Protection of Aquatic Environment in the Central Basin of the Danube. 20-23 september 20-23. Subotica. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2000), Hydrological Analysis of the November 1998 Flood on the Upper Tisza. Vision of the Development for the Forecasting System and Flood Defence. XXth Conference of the Danubian Countries on Hydrological Forecasting and Hydrological bases of Water Managmant. 4-8 September 2000. Bratislava. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2000), The efect of forests on the generation of floods of the Upper Tisza river basin. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXXII. Number 2. Budapest. pp. 167-198. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2001), Hydrological assessment of the flood waves. (hungarian) In: The 1998 November flood in the Upper Tisza river basin (book). FETIVIZIG- VIZITERV Nyíregyháza-Budapest. pp. 13-75. ILLÉS L. KONECSNY K. (2001), Flood forecasting. (hungarian) In: The 1998 November flood in the Upper Tisza river basin (book). FETIVIZIG-VIZITERV Nyíregyháza-Budapest. pp. 77-126. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2001), Flood defence activities in the foreigner Upper Tisza areas. (hungarian) In: The 1998 November flood in the Upper Tisza river basin (book). FETIVIZIG-VIZITERV Nyíregyháza-Budapest. pp. 77-126. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K., KOVÁCS S., SZLÁVIK L. (2003), Hhydrology of the 1998 November flood. Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Volume I.: The 1998 flood. pp. 47- 76. ILLÉS L., KONECSNY K. (2003), Flood forecasting on the 1998 November flood in the Upper Tisza river basin. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering). Specially volume1998-2001. Vol. I. The 1998 flood. pp. 77-84. KÁNTOR I., SZÖLLŐSI Z. (2003), The role of the Central Flood emergency Task Force in
49 fighting the 1998-2001 floods in the Tisza Valley. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Volume IV. Comprehensive and Methodological Studies of the Floods and Inundation in 1998 and 2001. pp. 13-29. KONECSNY K. (1999), Water developments and their impact on runoff in the Upper Tisa catchment. The Upper Tisa Valley. Preparatory proposal for Ramsar site designation and an ecological background Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian and Ukrainian co- operation. TISCIA monograph series. Szeged 1999. pp. 309-338. KONECSNY K. (2000), The role of the foreigner areas landscape transformation of the water conditions in the Hungarian Plains. (hungarian) In: The role and the significance of the water in Hungarian Plains (Alföld). Vol. 6. Békéscsaba. pp. 27-45. KONECSNY K. (2000), The organizational issues in flood situations and in excess water defence situations. (hungarian) XVIII Annual Conference of the Hungarian Hydrological Society (MHT). 5st –6nd julie 2000. Veszprém. KONECSNY K. (2002), The impact of mountain forests on runoff, with special regard to the Uptsream-Tisza catchment. (hungarian) Hidrológiai Közlöny (Journal of the Hungarian Hydrological Society) Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 327-331. KONECSNY K. (2003), Hydrologic assessment of the flood waves on the Upstream Tisza in 1998-2001. (hungarian) Hidrológiai Közlöny (Journal of the Hungarian Hydrological Society) Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 75-86. KONECSNY K. (2003), Experiences gained with the development and operation of the network of automated river gauges along the Upstream-Tisza River. (hungarian) Hidrológiai Közlöny (Journal of the Hungarian Hydrological Society) Vol. 83, No 4 july-august, pp. 193-206. KONECSNY K. (2004), Hhydrology of the flood. (hungarian) In: The 2001 March flood in the Upper Tisza river basin (book). Chapter II. FETIKÖVIZIG-VIZITERV Ltd Nyíregyháza. pp. 13-70. KONECSNY K. (2006), Experience from operation of the joint Hungarian-Ukrainian hydrological telemetry system of the Upper Tisza. Transboundary Floods: Reducing Risks Trough Flood Management. Edited by J. Marsalek et al. NATO Sciences Series. IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences-Vol. 72. ©Springer. Dordrecht. pp. 33-44. KONECSNY K., FĂRCAŞ R., FETEA P., LUCZA Z. (2001), Joint Hungarian-Romanian hydrological experiences on the River Túr during the great March 2001. flood on the Upstream Tisza. (hungarian) MHT. International Confer. on Water and Nature Conservation in the Danube-Tisza River Basin. Debrecen 19-21 september 2001. KONECSNY K., LUCZA Z., BÁLINT G. (2006), Development of the Upper Tisza hydrological telemetry system: results and plans for extension. XXIII Conference of the Danubian Countries on the Hydrological Forecasting and Hydrological Bases of Water Management. 28-31 August 2006 Belgrade-Serbia and Montenegro. Procedings. (CD+poster). PASCHE, E., KRAßIG, S., SCHLIENGER, M., (2002): Flood prevention strategies for the Upper Tisza river. The International Conference Preventing and Fighting Hydrological Disasters. 21st, 22nd November 2002. Timisoara (Romania) pp. 135-142. STĂNESCU V.AL., DROBOT R. (2002), Non-structural measures for flood effect mitigation. (romanian) Editura HGA Bucureşti SZILÁGYI J., BÁLINT G., CSÍK A., GAUZER B., HOROSZNÉ GULYÁS M. (2006), Simulation of the superposition of floods in the Upper Tisza region. Transboundary Floods: Reducing Risks Trough Flood Management. Edited by J. Marsalek et al. NATO Sciences Series. IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences-Vol. 72. ©Springer. Dordrecht. pp. 171-182. SZLÁVIK L. (1999), Task of preventing and fighting water hazards, concept of developing the national information system, implementation and operation. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. V. LXXXI. Number 1, pp. 8-53. SZLÁVIK L. (2000), Strategic issues of flood control in Hungary. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXXII. Number 3-4, pp. 552-594. SZLÁVIK L. (2003), Research projects proposed in the light of the 1998-2000 floods.
50 (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. IV. Comprehensive and Methodological studies of the Floods and Inundation in 1998 and 2001. pp. 278-304. SZLÁVIK L., BUZÁS ZS., ILLÉS L., TARNÓY A. (1997), International cooperation for managing the water recources of the Tisza River valley. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXIX. Number 3, pp. 277-336. SZLÁVIK L., REICH GY. (1995), State and tasks of water management in Hungary. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXVII. Number 3-4, pp. 384-422. SZLÁVIK L., VARGA M., VÁRADI J. (1996), Experiences with the national level management of water damage control activities in the period December 1995-June 1996. (hungarian) Vízügyi Közlemények (Hydraulic Enginering) Vol. LXXVIII. Number 1. pp. 5-29. TÓTH S., NAGY L. (2006), Dykes failures in Hungary of the past 220 years. Transboundary Floods: Reducing Risks Trough Flood Management. Edited by J. Marsalek et al. NATO Sciences Series. IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences-Vol. 72. ©Springer. pp. 247-258. *** (1996), Flood control development in the Upstream Tisza region. Baseline study. FETIVIZIG Nyíregyháza. *** (1992), Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Helsinki. *** (1994), Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River. Sofia. *** (2002), Joint Ukraine-NATO Project on Flood Preparedness and Response in Carpathian Region. Bruxelles. *** (2002), Flood control concept of the Tisza valley. Working programme. Tisza River Basin Forum and Flood Control. VITUKI. Budapest *** (2006), Research Implementation Plan. Theme 2. Task 12 - Identification and ex-post evalution of existing flood mitigation and defence measures. January 2006. In: Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies. EU FLOODsite Project.
51