Designing a Flood Management and Insurance System in Hungary: A Model-Based Stakeholder Approach

  • Joanne Linnerooth-BayerEmail author
  • Anna Vári
  • Lisa Brouwers
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 32)


This chapter describes how an integrated catastrophe model aided a stakeholder policy process focusing on the design of the Hungarian flood insurance system. The process incorporated views on flood insurance held by the public, local authorities, government ministries and private insurers. It was based on extensive interviews, a public survey administered to 400 persons in the risk and non-risk communities and a stakeholder workshop. Stakeholder participation was aided by a catastrophe model that could demonstrate the distribution of future flood losses among the victims, the government and the insurers depending on the design of the insurance pool. The Hungarian stakeholders reached consensus on the design of the national insurance system with all its implications for loss reduction and burden sharing. This pilot study illustrates the use of information technology in a participatory, stakeholder setting, and as such is of interest to all policy makers seeking social consensus for disaster risk management policies.


Stakeholder processes Insurance Catastrophe modeling Tisza Flood risk management 


  1. Bran J, Borsos B (2009) Conservation and restoration of the globally significant biodiversity of the Tisza river floodplain through integrated flood plain management. Report commissioned by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water, Government of Hungary and United Nations Development Program, UNDP Atlas ID 0046904Google Scholar
  2. Brouwers L (2002) Spatial and dynamic modeling of flood management policies in the Upper Tisza, Interim report 03–002. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ekenberg L, Brouwers L, Danielson M, Hansson K, Johansson J, Riabacke A, Vári A (2003) Flood risk management policy in the Upper Tisza basin: a system analytical approach: simulation and analysis of three flood management strategies, Interim report 03–003. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Hajós B (2002) Flood defense in Hungary in the 21th century. Ezredforduló 2:24–27 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  5. Halcrow Water (1999) Flood control development in Hungary: feasibility study final report. Halcrow Group Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Horváth G, Kisgyörgy S, Sendzimir J, Vári A (2001) The 1998 Upper Tisza flood, Hungary: case study report, Draft paper. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  7. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mechler R (2007) Disaster safety nets for developing countries: extending public–private partnerships. In: Amendola A, Linnerooth-Bayer J et al (eds) Special issue on financial vulnerability. Environ Hazards 7 (1):54–61Google Scholar
  8. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Vári A, Thompson M (2006) Floods and fairness in Hungary. In: Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics and plural perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ney S (2002) Focus groups, citizen participation and governance in Europe, Synthesis report for EU project on pension reform and citizen participation.
  10. Ravetz J (2001) Models as metaphors: a new look at science. The Research Methods Consultancy Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Renn O, Thomas W (1995) A brief primer on participation. Philosophy and practice. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann U (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sendzimir J, Pahl-Wostl C, Kneiper C, Flachner Z (2010) Stalled transition in the upper Tisza river basin: the dynamics of linked action situations. Environ Sci Policy 13(7):604–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thompson M, Richard E, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  14. Vári A, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Ferencz Z (2003) Stakeholder views on flood risk management in Hungary’s Upper Tisza basin. In: Linnerooth-Bayer J, Amendola A (eds) Special edition on flood risks in Europe. Risk Anal 23:537–627Google Scholar
  15. Vereczki A (2010) Insurance and extreme weather. “CLIMA-21” brochures. Clim Change Impacts Responses 63:73–82 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  16. Verweij M, Thompson M (2006) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics and plural perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Vári
    • 2
  • Lisa Brouwers
    • 3
  1. 1.Risk, Policy and Vulnerability (RPV) ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Institute of SociologyHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations