IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i3p585-600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Views on Flood Risk Management in Hungary's Upper Tisza Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Vari
  • Joanne Linnerooth‐Bayer
  • Zoltan Ferencz

Abstract

With escalating costs of flood mitigation and relief, a challenge for the Hungarian government is to develop a flood mitigation and insurance/relief system that is viewed as efficient and fair by the many stakeholders involved. To aid policymakers in this task, this article reports on a recent study to elicit stakeholder views on flood risk management in the Upper Tisza Basin, including views on appropriate means of reducing losses and for transferring the residual losses from the direct victims to taxpayers or an insurance pool. This study is part of a project to develop an integrated approach to flood risk management coordinated by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in collaboration with Swedish and Hungarian researchers. The discussion begins by describing the background of flood risk management problems in the Upper Tisza Basin. The results of interviews carried out with selected key stakeholders and the results of a public survey eliciting views on flood risk management are reported. The final section draws conclusions on incorporating stakeholder views into a flood risk management model, which will be used to illustrate policy paths at an upcoming stakeholder workshop. The conclusions are also of direct interest to Hungarian policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Vari & Joanne Linnerooth‐Bayer & Zoltan Ferencz, 2003. "Stakeholder Views on Flood Risk Management in Hungary's Upper Tisza Basin," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 585-600, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:3:p:585-600
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    2. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    4. Jean Paul Vanderlinden & Juan Baztan & Tracey Coates & Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Francois Hissel & Idrissa Oumar Kane & Phoebe Koundouri & Loraine McFadden & Dennis Parker & Edmund Penning-Rowsell & Luc, 2015. "Nonstructural Approaches to Coastal Risk Mitigations," DEOS Working Papers 1523, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Elizabeth A Albright & Deserai Crow, 2019. "Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Kerim Koc & Zeynep Işık, 2020. "A multi-agent-based model for sustainable governance of urban flood risk mitigation measures," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 1079-1110, October.
    7. Matthew Wood & Daniel Kovacs & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1349-1368, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:3:p:585-600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.