Flood preparation
at a range of scalesRoman Konieczny 1, Zbigniew Kundzewicz 2
1 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management - State Research Institute, Cracow, Poland2 Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland
QUESTIONS:
What entities are involved in flood preparations?
What measures do they undertake to be prepared to the next flood?
How to improve the effectiveness of implemented measures?
How to integrate all actors?
Governmentaladministration
Program and actors
ACTORS:
Building on higher ground
Using flood shields
Building walls
Building levees
Reinforcement of river banks
Stream regulation
ACTIONS:Inhabitants flooded every few years usually under-take actions to be better prepared to the next flood.
According to question-naire survey performed in two villages in the southern part of Poland, many inhabitants (approximately 60%) of such areas undertake some preparatory/preventive measures.
Activity ofinhabitants, farmers, business owners…
These activities are not supported by the official flood risk management system.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Building flood walls and levees
Using floodproofed materials
relocating electric and heating instalation
Sealing outside walls
River and stream regulations
Building second storey on one-story house
Using sewer backflow prevention
Temporary shields on doores and windows
Voluntary flood insurance
Carrying of house drainage ditches
Keeping rain water out of home
Family flood plan
Percent of respondentsPresent [%] Before flood [%]
Activity ofinhabitants, farmers, business owners…
Questionnaire survey carried out in the project in the southern part of Poland (approximately 1000 respondents) indicate that more than 10% - 20% of inhabitants undertake recently some action reducing flood losses in the future.
Graph shows additionally strong influence of experience on undertaken measures.
Activity of local self-governments
Rzeszów Commune11 water gauges
Brzesko Commune3 water gauges
Staszów District4 water gauges
Ropczyce District13 water gauges
Sanok District4 water gauges
Tarnów District8 water gauges
Łańcut District5 water gauges
Debica District9 water gauges
Jasło District14 water gauges
Mielec District8 water gauges
Żywiec District33 rain & water g.
Świdnica District3 water gauges
Kłodzko District39 rain & water g.
Wrocław Commune11 water gauges
Elbląg City10 Water gauges
Local Flood Monitoringand Warning Systems
Num
ber
of auto
matic w
ate
r gauges insta
lled,
adm
inis
tere
d a
nd m
ain
tain
ed b
y local self-
govern
ments
is h
igher
then 5
0%
of w
ate
r gauges
esta
blis
hed b
y N
ational H
ydro
-Mete
o S
erv
ice.
Mleczka River Basin11 water gauges
Dąbrowa Tarnowska District6 rain 6 water g.
Integrated Local Flood Warning SystemM
on
ito
rin
g r
ain
an
d f
loo
d l
eve
ls
Fo
rec
as
tin
g h
eig
ht
an
d t
ime
Ide
nti
fic
ati
on
en
dan
ge
red
are
s
Ide
nti
fic
ati
on
pe
op
le a
t th
rea
t
No
tifi
ca
tio
n s
ys
tem
Local self-governemt
National services
Endangered
groups:
Inhabitants
Firm owners
Workers living
outside the area
Tourists
Trabvellers
passing the area
Disabled persons
Local Flood Warning Systems established by local self-governments are not supported in
any way by official national flood risk reduction system. In consequence many of them do
not keep the standards of such solution – they are less efficient.
Activity ofgovernmental administration
Analysis of 107 national or regional flood plans, strategies and programmes prepared after the 1997 flood (the largest flood in Poland in 20th century) indicated that
reduction of exposure and vulnerability is seldom planned.
493
305
242
182
94
4029
12 9 7 7 6 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 10
100
200
300
400
500
600
Buildin
g of r
eserv
oirs
Regulatio
n of r
ivers
Main
tain
ing o
f flo
od pro
tect
ion st
ruct
ure
Buildin
g and m
ainta
ing l
evees
Forest
pro
tect
ion a
nd refo
rest
ratio
n
Buildin
g and m
ainta
inin
g dra
inage
syst
em
Main
tain
ing o
f stre
ams a
nd rive
rs
Collect
ing f
lood lo
ss a
nd dam
age d
ata
Prote
ctio
n of a
gricu
ltura
l land re
tentio
n
Removin
g the ri
ver bottl
enecks
Rain w
ater h
arvest
ing i
n urb
an are
as
Buildin
g th
e late
ral c
hannels
Land a
cquisi
tions p
rogr
am
National f
lood w
arnin
g im
prove
ment
Impro
vem
ent of f
lood re
sponse
pla
ns
Buildin
g lo
cal f
lood w
arnin
g sys
tem
s
Wate
r rete
ntion o
n Urb
an areas
Impro
vem
ent of c
atch
ment r
etenct
ion
Impro
vem
ent of h
ealth a
nd sanita
ry sy
stem
Flood re
searc
h develo
pment
Changing r
eserv
oir opera
ting r
ules
Changing o
f build
ings
’ purp
ose
Nu
mb
er
of
me
as
ure
s in
pla
ns
Structuralmeasures
Non-structuralmeasures
The range of actions undertaken in Poland is relatively broad.
However, this does not result from policies developed at the State
level. It is rather a manifestation of the independent activity of
different groups. No interaction, hence limited effectiveness.
Activities on flood risk reduction taken by the
administration focused on structural
solutions. Local focus could be different (land
use, rainwater management, local water
storage, or slowing down runoff).
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Grassroot actions are based on a knowledge
of the risks, sources and mechanisms of
floods (resulting of experience), but little (if
any) knowledge about performance of flood
risk reduction measures (e.g. dikes,
embankments, walls, storages).
Improve the process of learning from floods, e.g. via post-
flood analyses and reporting. Good examples: reports led by
Sir Michael Pitt (UK) and General Gerald Galloway (USA),
with recommendations of changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
All hands on deck for preparation of flood risk
management plans – real social participation and not
only exchange of information or consultation.
Information transfer both top down and bottom up.
Improve education, e.g. via nationwide school
of natural hazards (school curricula, training for
administration, businesses, media), with
emphasis on prevention.
