Advertisement

Risk Perception and Action to Reduce the Impact of Floods in the Czech Republic

  • Mohan Kumar BeraEmail author
  • Petr Daněk
Reference work entry

Abstract

In the Czech Republic, the increasing impacts of floods in the late twentieth century led local communities and governments to question the usefulness of conventional ways in reducing the risk of disaster. This chapter aims to understand how changes in risk perception and in the disaster management paradigm have influenced the strategies local communities and government use to reduce the risk of floods. It finds that the perception of risk has been changed by coordination between villagers and local governments, the acceptability of local leadership, social capital and social network, community resilience, a sense of community, and by changes in insurance policies. Villagers trust the local government’s efforts to reduce the impacts of floods, and the local government cannot overlook the people’s voice in disaster management measures. Clearly, both risk perception and consciousness of self-responsibility towards society influence people in the Czech Republic to engage in reducing the risk of disaster.

Keywords

Flood Disaster Risk perception Disaster reduction Czech Republic 

References

  1. AFP (2009) Six dead in Czech floods: emergency services. Staff Writers Prague (AFP). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Six_dead_in_Czech_floods_emergency_services_999.html. Accessed 12 May 2016
  2. Armas I, Avram E (2009) Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Nat Hazards 50(2):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brázdil R (2006) Climate change and losses through natural disaster: some remarks from experience in the Czech Republic. Climate change and disaster losses workshop: understanding and attributing trends and projections. Munich ReGoogle Scholar
  4. Brázdil R et al (2006) Historical and recent floods in the Czech Republic: causes, seasonality, trends, impacts. In: Schanze J et al (eds) Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures: NATO science series, vol 67. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brázdil R, Řezníčková L, Valášek H et al (2011) Fluctuations of floods of the river Morava (Czech Republic) in the 1691–2009 period: interactions of natural and anthropogenic factors. Hydrol Sci J 56(3):468–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody SD, Highfield W, Alston L (2004) Location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environ Behav 36(2):229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A et al (2008) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Čamrová L, Viktorová D (2006) Policy-making decisions under the thumb of disasters – a case of the floods in the Czech Republic. Curr Polit Econ Russia East Cent Eur 21(3):203–204Google Scholar
  9. Cutter SL, Carolina S, Boruff BJ et al (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doğulu C, Karanci AN, Ikizer G (2016) How do survivors perceive community resilience? The case of the 2011 earthquakes in Van, Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 16:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duží B, Vikhrov D, Kelman I et al (2017) Household measures for river flood risk reduction in the Czech Republic. J Flood Risk Manage 10(2):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Union (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal European Union, p 27Google Scholar
  13. Figueiredo E, Valente S, Coelho C et al (2008) Coping with risk: analysis on the importance of integrating social perceptions on flood risk into management mechanisms – the case of the municipality of Águeda, Portugal. J Risk Res 12(5):581–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S et al (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Government of the Czech Republic (2000) Act No. 240/2000 Coll. Crisis ActGoogle Scholar
  16. Government of the Czech Republic (2001) Act No. 254/2001 coll. (Water Act)Google Scholar
  17. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazard 38(1):101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jóhannesdóttir G, Gísladóttir G (2010) People living under threat of volcanic hazard in southern Iceland: vulnerability and risk perception. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(2):407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klemešová K, Andráško I (2015) Perception of floods – towards more effective flood management in the Czech Republic. Carpathian J Earth Environ Sci 10(2):199–208Google Scholar
  20. Kubát J (1999) 1997/1998 Floods in the Czech Republic: hydrological evaluation. In: Marsalek J et al (eds) Flood issues in contemporary water management: NATO science series. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ministry of Agriculture (2007) Plán hlavních povodí České republiky, schválen usnesením vlády České republiky ze dne 23. května 2007 č. 562Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of the Environment (2006) Plán hlavních povodí České republiky – 2. pracovní verzeGoogle Scholar
  23. Ministry of the Environment (2012) Předběžné Vyhodnocení Povodňových Rizik, V České Republice, 2011, Implementace Směrnice Evropského Parlamentu A Rady 2007/60/ES, O Vyhodnocování a Zvládání Povodňových Rizik, verze 5.0Google Scholar
  24. Momtaz S, Shameem M (2016) Experiencing climate change in Bangladesh: vulnerability and adaptation in coastal regions. Academic, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Motoyoshi T (2006) Public perception of flood risk and community-based disaster preparedness. In: Ikeda S et al (eds) A better integrated management of disaster risks: toward resilient society to emerging disaster risks in mega-cities. TERRAPUB, Tokyo, pp 121–134Google Scholar
  26. Pynn R, Ljung GM (1999) Flood insurance: a survey of Grand Forks, North Dakota, homeowners. Appl Behav Sci Rev 7(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raaijmakers R, Krywkow J, Veen A (2008) Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 46(3):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasid H, Haider W (2002) Floodplain residents’ preferences for non-structural flood alleviation measures in the Red River basin, Manitoba, Canada. Water Int 27(1):132–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raška P (2015) Flood risk perception in Central-Eastern European members states of the EU: a review. Nat Hazards 79(3):2163–2179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701Google Scholar
  32. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanghellini LPS, Collentine D (2008) Stakeholder discourse and water management-implementation of the participatory model CATCH in a Northern Italian Alpine sub-catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12(2):317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165(3899):1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stojanov R, Duží B, Daněk T et al (2015) Adaptation to the impacts of climate extremes in Central Europe: a case study in a rural area in the Czech Republic. Sustainability 7(9):12758–12786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Svahn C (2013) Risk perception and communication: a study on how people living in the Tisza river basin, Hungary perceive the risk of floods and how the flood risk communication between authorities and the public could be improved. MA thesis, Stockholm University, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  37. Terpstra T (2011) Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness. Risk Anal 31(10):1658–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Terpstra T, Gutteling JM (2008) Households’ perceived responsibilities in flood risk management in the Netherlands. Int J Water Resour Dev 24(4):555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vávra J, Lapka M, Cudlínová E et al (2015) Local perception of floods in the Czech Republic and recent changes in state flood management strategies. J Flood Risk Manage 10(2):1–15Google Scholar
  40. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C et al (2013) The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zaleskiewicz T, Piskorz Z, Borkowska A (2002) Fear or money? Decisions on insuring oneself against flooding. Risk Decis Policy 7(3):221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Economic GrowthNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of GeographyMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations