Flood Risk of Municipalities in Upper Basins of Slovakia

  • Ľ. SolínEmail author
  • M. Sládeková Madajová
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 70)


The aim is to present a comprehensive, integrated flood risk assessment for municipalities located in the upper basins. An integrated approach perceives the flood risk as the combination of flood hazard and vulnerability. The flood hazard is expressed as the potential of the basin to flood due to basin attributes. The vulnerability is understood as inherent characteristics of municipalities that create the potential of municipalities for the susceptibility of houses to damage and of people to suffer physical and mental harm and the ability of people to cope with negative consequences of floods. A spatial multicriteria decision analysis was applied to express the flood risk relatively by an ordinal scale. Municipalities were classified into the five classes of flood risk by an aggregation of sub-indices reflecting flood hazard and vulnerability. An integrated approach addresses the assessment and management of the flood risk in a more complex way and eliminates the negative effects of more traditional engineering approaches.


Flood hazard Flood risk Integrated assessment Multicriteria analysis Upper basins Vulnerability 



This article was written under Project No. 2/0038/15 Flood Risk Assessment and Integrated Management on the Regional Level funded by the VEGA Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic.


  1. 1.
    United Nations (UN) (1992) Internationally agreed glossary of basic terms related to disaster management risk. UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    United Nations (UN), Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) (2004) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Accessed 9 Feb 2014
  3. 3.
    United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development, a global report. Accessed 9 Feb 2014
  4. 4.
    Schneiderbauer S, Ehrlich D (2004) Risk, hazard and people’s vulnerability to natural hazards: a review of definitions, concepts and data. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, European Commission – Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), BrusselGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EU Floods Directive (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks. Off J Eur Union L288/27. Accessed 8 Nov 2014
  6. 6.
    Act on Flood Protection No. 7 (2010) Slovakia. Accessed 10 Dec 2015 (in Slovak)
  7. 7.
    Act on Flood Protection No. 71 (2015) Slovakia. Accessed 10 Dec 2015 (in Slovak)
  8. 8.
    Solín Ľ (2014) Niekoľko poznámok k predbežnému hodnoteniu povodňového rizika na Slovensku a k vytvoreným mapám povodňového ohrozenia a rizika (Several comments on the preliminary flood risk assessment in Slovakia and on the flood hazard and flood risk maps). Životné prostredie 48(4):236–239Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Government of the Slovak Republic (2010) Programme of Landscape Revitalisation and Integrated Management of River Basins in the Slovak Republic. Resolution of the Government No. 744. Accessed 12 May 2011
  10. 10.
    Weingartner R, Barben M, Spreafico M (2003) Floods in mountains areas – an overview based on examples from Switzerland. J Hydrol 282:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minár J, Trizna M, Barka I, Bonk R (2005) Povodňový potenciál na území Slovenska (Flood potential on the territory of Slovakia). Geografika, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solín Ľ (2011) Regionálna variabilita povodňovej hrozby malých povodí na Slovensku (Regional variability of flood threat in small basins of Slovakia). Geogr Čas 63:29–52Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters.2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Messner F, Meyer V (2005) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception – challenges for flood damage research, discussion papers. Department of Economics, UFZ (Umweltforschungszentrum), Leipzig–Halle. Accessed 12 Aug 2013
  15. 15.
    Fuchs S (2009) Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria – paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 9:337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) (2004) Integrated flood management, Technical Document No. 1. WMO and GWP (World Meteorological Organization and Global Water Partnership), Geneva. Accessed 5 Nov 2011
  17. 17.
    Brown JD, Damery SL (2002) Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social and technical perspectives. Trans Inst Br Geogr 27:412–426Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) (2006) Social aspects and stakeholder involvement in integrated flood management, Technical Document No. 4. WMO and GWP (World Meteorological Organization and Global Water Partnership), Geneva. Accessed 5 Nov 2011
  19. 19.
    Solín Ľ (2012) Spatial variability in the flood vulnerability of urban areas in the headwater basins of Slovakia. J Flood Risk Manage 5:303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: conceptual frameworks and definitions. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards, United Nations. University Press, New York, pp 9–54Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thywissen K (2006) Components of risk: a comparative glossary. United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), BonnGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: a general applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Chang 17:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hufschmidt G (2011) A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts. Nat Hazards 58:621–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adger N, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morrow H (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Green C (2004) The evaluation of vulnerability to flooding. Disaster Prev Manage (4):323–329Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Penning-Rowsell E, Floyd P, Ramsbottom D, Surendran S (2005) Estimating injury and loss of life in floods: a deterministic framework. Nat Hazards 36:43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton CH, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borden AK, Schmidtlein MC, Emrich CHT, Piegorsch WW, Cutter SL (2007) Vulnerability of U.S. cities to environmental hazards. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 4(2):1–21Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meyer V, Haase D, Scheuer S (2007) GIS-based multicriteria analysis as decision support in flood risk management, discussion papers 6. UFZ (Umweltforschungszentrum), Leipzig-HalleGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simpson DM, Human RJ (2008) Large-scale vulnerability assessments for natural hazards. Nat Hazards 47:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Damm M, Fekete A, Bogardi JJ (2010) Intersectoral vulnerability indices as tools of framing risk mitigation measures and spatial planning. In: 2nd international interdisciplinary conference on predictions for hydrology, ecology, and water resources management: changes and hazards caused by Direct Human Interventions and Climate Change, Prague, 20–23 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krasovskaia I (2005) Perception of flood hazard in countries of the North Sea region of Europe. Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, OsloGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kievik M, Gutteling JM (2011) Yes, we can: motivate Dutch citizens to engage in self-protective behaviour with regard to flood risks. Nat Hazards 59:1475–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Joseph R, Lamond J, Proverbs DG (2015) Homeowners’ perceptions of property-level flood risk adaptations (PLFRA) measures: the case of the summer 2007 flood event in England. Int J Saf Secur Eng 5(3):251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Soetanto R, Mullins A, Achour N (2017) The perceptions of social responsibility for community resilience to flooding: the impact of past experience, age, gender and ethnicity. Nat Hazards 86:1105–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cheah ET, Jamali D, Johnson JEV, Sung MC (2011) Drivers of corporate social responsibility attitudes: the demography of socially responsible investors. Br J Manag 22:305–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Panwar R, Han X, Hansen E (2010) A demographic examination of societal views regarding corporate social responsibility in the US forest products industry. Forest Pol Econ 12:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wells VK, Ponting C, Peattie K (2011) Behaviour and climate change: consumer perceptions of responsibility. J Mark Manag 27(7–8):808–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Valentine G (2001) Social geographies: space and society. Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Delanty G (2003) Community. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tapsell SM, Penning-Rowsell EC, Tunstall SM, Wilson TL (2002) Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions. Philos Trans R Soc.
  45. 45.
    Hakes JK, Viscusi WK (2004) Dead reckoning: demographic determinants of the accuracy of mortality risk perception. Risk Anal 24(3):651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bartlett S (2008) Climate change and urban children: impacts and implications for adaptation in low and middle income countries, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series – Climate Change and Cities 2. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harvatt J, Petts J, Chilvers J (2011) Understanding householder responses to natural hazards: flooding and sea-level rise comparisons. J Risk Res 14(1):63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ellis RJ, Thompson F (1997) Seeing green: cultural biases and environmental preferences. In: Ellis RJ, Thompson M (eds) Culture matters: essays in honour of Aaron Wildavsky. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Steg L, Sievers I (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav 32(2):248–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4:465–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Larson L, Whiting J, Green G (2011) Exploring the influence of outdoor recreation participation on proenvironmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local Environ 16(1):67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liao KH (2014) From flood control to flood adaptation: a case study on the lower Green River Valley and City of Kent in King County, Washington. Nat Hazards 71:723–750. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pitt M (2008) The Pitt review – learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Cabinet Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Solín Ľ, Skubinčan P (2013) Flood risk assessment and management: review of concepts, definitions and methods. Geografický Časopis 65(1):23–44Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Coburn AW, Spence RJS, Pomonis A (1994) Training manual: vulnerability and risk assessment, 2nd edn. UNDP Disaster Management Training Programme. Accessed 13 Dec 2010
  56. 56.
    Flood Site (2006) Guidelines for socio-economic flood damage evaluation. FLOOD site project report number T9-06-01, Wallington. Accessed 13 Dec 2010
  57. 57.
    Parikh JK, Parikh KS (1998) Valuing environment in developing countries: a challenge. In: Uno K, Bartelmus P (eds) Environmental accounting in theory and practice. Kluwert Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, pp 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bouma JJ, Francois D, Troch P (2005) Risk assessment and water management. Environ Model Softw 20:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cochrane H (2004) Economic loss: myth and measurement. Disaster Prev Manag 13:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rose A (2004) Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev Manag 13:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20:703–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Meyer V, Scheuer S, Haase D (2009) A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany. Nat Hazards 48:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Apel H, Aronica GT, Kreibich H, Thieken AH (2009) Flood risk analyses – how detailed do we need to be? Nat Hazards 49:79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Solín Ľ, Skubinčan P, Madajová M (2014) A preliminary flood-risk assessment of municipalities located in headwater basins of Slovakia based on the integrated approach. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Risk analysis IX, WIT transactions on information and communication technologies. WIT Press, Southampton, UK, pp 61–72Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tate E (2012) Social vulnerability indices: a comparative assessment using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Nat Hazards 63:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mušinka A, Škobla D, Hurrle J, Mtlovičová K, Kling J (2014) Atlas rómských komunít na Slovensku 2013 (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia 2013). UNDP, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Michálek A (2005) Koncentrácia a atribúty chudoby v Slovenskej republike na lokálnej úrovni (concentration and attributes of poverty in the Slovak Republic at the local level). Geografický Časopis 57(1):3–22Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Thieken AH, Petrow T, Kreiblich H, Merz B (2006) Insurability and mitigation of flood losses in private households in Germany. Risk Anal 26(2):383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Holub M, Fuchs S (2009) Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria: legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Madajová M, Solín Ľ, Michálek A (2015) Vývoj a priestorová variabilita poistenia obyvateľstva proti riziku povodne na Slovensku v období 2002–2011 (The Development and Spatial Variability of Flood Risk Insurance in Slovakia in the Period 2002–2011). Ekonomický Časopis 63(2):167–187Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Slovak Insurance Association (2016) Poistné produkty na slovenskom poistnom trhu (Insurance products on the Slovak insurance market). Accessed 13 June 2016
  73. 73.
    Solín Ľ, Madajová M, Skubinčan P (2015) Mitigating flood consequences: analysis of private flood insurance in Slovakia. J Flood Risk Manag.
  74. 74.
    Johnson CL, Priest SJ (2008) Flood risk management in England: a changing landscape of risk responsibility? Int J Water Resour Dev (4):513–525.
  75. 75.
    Carter RA (2012) Flood risk, insurance and emergency management in Australia. J Emerg Manag 27(2):20–25Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Solín Ľ, Sládeková Madajová M, Michaleje L (2017) Flood hazards in the headwaters area: lessons learned from a survey of households in the upper Myjava basin, Slovakia. Water Pol.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geography, Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations