299Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.69.3.5 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 2020 (3) 299–316. Introduction The deterioration of the hydromorphological properties of river channels and riparian en- vironments in Europe, which is a long-term consequence of river regulation measures (Petts, G.E. et al. 1989), a type of land deg- radation (Kertész, Á. and Křeček, J. 2019), calls for restoration measures in the case of the majority of rivers (Tockner, K. and Stan- ford, J.A. 2002). Now experts agree that – in addition to the hydromorphology of river channels (Maddock, I. 1999) – rehabilitation should also extend to floodplain conditions (Brierley, G.J. and Fryirs, K.A. 2008; GWP- WMO 2012). The motives of joint river and floodplain restoration include (Wheaton, J.M. et al. 2015): – aquatic and riparian ecosystem/habitat restoration, – flood control and floodwater retention, – floodplain reconnection, – bank protection through planting arboreal vegetation, – sediment management, – improvement of water quality, aesthetic appearance and recreation opportunities. From a geomorphological point of view, improving channel-floodplain connectivity is a key issue in any rehabilitation project (Dezső, J. et al. 2019). This is a precondition to maintain or enhance biodiversity, produc- Adaptation of land use based on the assessment of inundation risk in the Kapos Valley, Southwest Hungary Péter GYENIZSE1, Dénes LÓCZY1, József DEZSŐ1, Ervin PIRKHOFFER1 and Marcin SŁOWIK 2 Abstract Complex river rehabilitation/restoration projects devote equal attention to the improvement of hydromor- phological conditions and the neighbouring floodplain environment. Since land use exerts a heavy control on the hydrological cycle of floodplains, land use optimization is a central task in floodplain rehabilitation. In floodplains where large surfaces are temporarily inundated, the optimal allocation of land use classes involves the preservation of wetlands, maintenance of grasslands (meadows and pastures) and forests, and the restric- tion of arable land to higher ground with the lowest inundation hazard. The detailed mapping of land use against the distribution of soil types and fluvial landforms provides a solid basis for land use optimization. Rehabilitation design is presented in the paper on the example of the Kapos Valley, where inundations in the wet year of 2010 caused great damage to agricultural crops and efforts are directed to better water manage- ment (excess water reduction and floodwater retention) on the floodplain. Land use conversions, which are less expensive and easier to implement, are preferred to structural (engineering) solutions. Keywords: floodplain rehabilitation, hydromorphology, paleochannels, peat bogs, Histosols, land use change, Kapos River Received February 2020; Accepted July 2020. 1 Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6. Hungary. E-mails: gyenizse@gamma.ttk.pte.hu, loczyd@gamma.ttk.pte.hu, pirkhoff@gamma.ttk.tpe.hu 2 Institute of Physical Geography and Environmental Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, ul. Wieniawskiego 1, 61-712 Poznań, Poland. Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.300 tivity, lowering and retarding flood wave peaks, reducing nutrient loads, improving water quality, trapping sediment, promoting groundwater recharge and other ecosystem services (Holmes, N.T.H. 1998). Worldwide research for the scientific foun- dation and solution of the problems of river channel and floodplain restoration/rehabilita- tion has produced a wealth of books and pa- pers written by geomorphologists, hydrolo- gists, engineers, ecologists and their joint teams over the recent decades (Nunnally, N.R. 1978; National Research Council 1992; Fischer, K.J. 1994; Sear, D. 1994; Kondolf, G.M. and Micheli, E.R. 1995; Hey, D.L. and Philippi, N.S. 1995; Brookes, A. 1996; Brookes, A. and Shields, F.D. Jr. 1996; Fennessy, M.S. and Cronk, J.K. 1997; Kauffman, J.B. and Beschta, R.L. 1997; Macdonald, K.B. and Weinmann, F. 1997; FISRW 1998; Theiling, Ch. 1998; U.S. Department of Commerce 1998; Wissmar, R.C. and Beschta, R.L. 1998; Tockner, K. et al. 1999; Downs, P. and Thorne, C.R. 2000; Zöckler, C. 2000; ECRR 2001; Bratrich, C. et al. 2002; Buijse, A.D. et al. 2002; Clarke, S.J. et al. 2003; Hulse, D. and Gregory, S. 2004; Hohausova, E. and Jurajda, P. 2005; Larsen, E.W. et al. 2006; Newson, M.D. and Large, A.R.G. 2006; Kline, M. 2007; Dworak, T. 2008; Schneider, E. 2010; WWF International 2010; Roni, P. and Beechie, T. 2013; Guerrin, J. 2014; Kiedrzyńska, E. et al. 2015; Hein, T. et al. 2016; Opperman, J.J. et al. 2017). As a theoretical background to the issue the classical concept of ’design with nature’ (McHarg, I. 1969), which also includes land- scape ecological aspects, can be detected. In addition to bringing planning in harmony with natural processes, sustainability is an- other foremost requirement, as it is common for any other planning task. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems involves raising the value of habitats for wildlife, increasing plant or community diversity (Manci, K.M. 1989), also preserving or even increasing landscape (land use) diversity. Today experiences on floodplain restoration are available for assessment from all parts of the world and all geographical environments (Moss, T. and Monstadt, J. 2008). Using physi- cal (channel and floodplain morphology, sedi- ment, flow, water quality [temperature and nutrients]) and biological indicators (fish, in- vertebrates, and aquatic and riparian plants), Roni, P. et al. (2019) evaluate the effectiveness of various floodplain restoration approaches on the basis of 180 papers. Bernhardt, E.S. et al. (2005) report about a comprehensive data- base of more than 37,000 river restoration pro- jects of various scale across the United States. The most common objectives were to enhance water quality, manage riparian zones, improve in-stream habitat, allow fish passage, and sta- bilize stream banks. Only 10 per cent of project records, however, mention continuous project monitoring. This means that the ecological ef- fectiveness of restoration activities cannot be evaluated in the majority of cases. In the first stage the morphological flood- plain and, within that, the floodway zone (i.e. the active floodplain – Bogárdi, I. and Balogh, E. 2014), allowed for inundation dur- ing floods and reserved for fluvial processes, should be delimited. The theoretical concepts to be applied in this delimitation are the geo- morphic recovery potential (Brooks, A.P. and Brierley, G.J. 2004; Fryirs, K.A. and Brierley, G.J. 2016), the streamway or erodible river corridor (Piégay, H. et al. 2005), dyke set-back (in the German literature: Deickrücklegung) (Fischer, K.J. 1994), and ’room for the river’ (Rohde, S. et al. 2006). The essence of these concepts is that free channel migration should be allowed within a zone (corridor) defined by human structures or agricultural land or any other land use types which have to be protected from bank erosion and flooding. Allowing free channel migration would spare considerable costs of water management and flood defence (Piégay, H. et al. 2005). The re- construction of river history is indispensable for planning restoration, to define realistic goals of restoration actions (Brierley, G.J. et al. 2002; Słowik, M. 2013). While in the floodway flood control is of decisive significance (ÖKO Rt., FÖMI and VÍZPART Kft. 2000; APFM-WMO 2017), over 301Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. the protected portions of the morphological floodplain a wide range of land use classes can be present. Floodplain soils have long been used for arable farming, horticulture and grazing with increasing intensity (Posthumus, H. et al. 2008; Xie, H.L. et al. 2019), while lower-lying wetlands are valuable for water management, forestry, tourism and nature conservation purposes (WWF 2004). The broad range of floodplain land uses makes the setting of rehabilitation objectives difficult. Rehabilitation can only be successful if it is designed parallel to an incessant process of reconciliation of interests in various circles of stakeholders (see e.g. Ball, T. 2008). Intensive agricultural use of floodplains has led to environmental problems. For instance, reclaimed peatlands have suffered deteriora- tion through oxidation of peat and the related ground subsidence (Verhoeven, J.T.A. and Setter, T.L. 2010). In spite of their significance for landscape ecology and nature conserva- tion, wetlands continue to be under threat of being drained and reclaimed. Agriculture is the most important non-point source of wa- ter pollution and, in addition to their hydro- logical role (Bullock, A. and Acreman, M.C. 2003), the buffering capacity of wetlands is vi- tal for the efficient functioning of floodplains (Fennessy, M.S. and Cronk, J.K. 1997). A new aspect of the optimization of flood- plain land use is related to climate change (Didovets, I. et al. 2019; Fehér, Z.Zs. and Rakonczai, J. 2019). In addition to catchment management, river runoff, the temporal and spatial patterns of floods and droughts in- creasingly depend on the changing climate (Klug, H. 2016). Rainfall distribution tends to be the sole control of the regimes of riv- ers (like the Kapos in Southwest Hungary) which only drain low hilly regions with negligible winter snow cover. Extreme flood- plain inundations closely correlate with ex- treme rainfall events (such as in spring and autumn of 2010). It has only recently been incorporated into water management policy that surplus water has to be stored in the floodplain to mitigate ensuing drought haz- ard (Somlyódy, L. 2011). A land use analysis from nature conserva- tion aspect (ÖKO Rt., FÖMI, VÍZPART Kft. 2000) and feasibility studies of development (Gergely E. et al. 2000) have considered re- habilitation needs for the Kapos catchment. These studies, however, failed to investigate all aspects of a complex transformation of the floodplain. The conclusions drawn from both our hydrogeomorphological studies (the de- scription of embayments and gaps, valley and floodplain asymmetry, channel reconstruc- tions) and landscape ecological assessments supply further information to the achievement of the rehabilitation goals (Lóczy, D. 2013). Objectives In order to identify the tasks of floodplain re- habilitation, within the complex hydromor- phological and landscape ecological research project of the Kapos floodplain the following questions have been raised (Lóczy, D. 2013): – How serious is the flood hazard in the morphological floodplain? – How do the landscape patterns of the broader catchment, the protected flood- plain (its wetlands) and the active flood- plain compare with each other? – What is the land capability of the individu- al floodplain sections? To what extent does the actual land use pattern provide ecosys- tem services? What would be an optimal land use pattern like and how to achieve it? – How can the rehabilitation potential be rated for the Kapos floodplain? The present paper does not cover all of these issues. It is restricted to those which are relevant for land use optimization, i.e. assessments of flood hazard, land capability, land use pattern and rehabilitation potential. Study area In Hungary morphological floodplains extend over 30 per cent of the county’s territory. In lowland areas huge expanses of land are af- fected by excess water hazard (Pálfai, I. 2009). Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.302 They are vulnerable as almost 3 million peo- ple live there in 400 settlements, and 200 ma- jor industrial plants, 32 per cent of the railway network, and 15 per cent of public roads are also located in these areas (Somlyódi, L. 2011). The medium-sized catchment of the Kapos River covers 3,295.4 km2 in the South Transdanubian Hills region and the Mecsek Mountains (Lóczy, D. 2013 – Figure 1). The Kapos River is 112.7 km long. The morphologi- cal floodplain (without that of the tributaries) extends over 104.2 km2, which makes up 3.3 per cent of the total catchment area. Consequently, runoff from the hilly parts of the catchment is concentrated in an area of limited extension. The source of the Kapos is south of the vil- lage Kiskorpád at ca. 180 m above sea level and its confluence with the Sió Canal (the outflow of Lake Balaton to the Danube) is at 96 m elevation. The upper Kapos catchment has a sub-at- lantic climate with mean annual temperature sligthly above 10 °C and annual precipitation of 680–720 mm, while the eastern part is sub- continental (10.8–11.0 °C and 650–690 mm). The water regime shows low-water stages in August–early September and high water most often in March (caused by snowmelt in the hills) (Table 1). Most of the other extremes in the regime are due to summer showers. In the embayments downstream of the town of Dombóvár rainy weather can raise ground- water levels rapidly and create extensive tem- porary waterlogging (Gergely, E. et al. 2000). As a direct corollary of regional tectonics, a remarkable asymmetry and remarkably reg- ular alternation of floodplain constrictions (gaps) and relatively wide embayments are typical for the geomorphology of the middle and lower sections of the Kapos Valley. In the loess landscape a low-energy meander- ing planform evolved superimposed over landforms of coarser alluvia inherited from a high-energy Pleistocene braided river system (Słowik, M. et al. 2020). At the mouths of tributary valleys small and very flat alluvial fans have accumulated. In the abandoned channels and backswamps of the embayments peat bogs formed in historical times. Poor drainage was only improved by riv- er flow regulation (Bencze, G. 2000). The inven- tory of peatlands in Hungary, compiled in the 1970s, recorded former peat bogs of 851 ha area (9,140,000 m3 peat reserves) in the abandoned channels and backswamps of the Kapos and its tributaries (Dömsödi, J. 1980). Flow regulation and the accompanying floodplain drainage induced peat decomposition. Fibric Histosols (fibrous peat) have been humified to Hemic Histosols (mucky peat, muck) and, finally, to Humic Histosols (earthy peat or ’black earth’). Along the headwaters fibrous peat is found in 5–6 m thickness, while in the lower valley segment of the valley muck and humified peat beds occur in 1 m thickness (Gergely, E. et al. 2000). On fluvial sand deposits Fluvisols are predominant. Methods The steps followed in the present research were the following: – delineation of the morphological flood- plain of the Kapos River; – reconstruction of a historical drainage pat- tern which had existed before river regula- tions started; Fig. 1. Topography of the Kapos catchment. Source: DEM with 10-metre resolution, DDVÍZIG. 303Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. – survey and assessment of present-day land use based on remote sensing information; – mapping floodplain soils and landforms; – assessment of inundation hazard; – determination of criteria for and estimation of rehabilitation potential; – identification of needs for land conversion and design of an optimal land use pattern. The morphological floodplain of the Kapos River was delimited using the Multiresolution Valley Bottom Flatness (MrVBF) index (Gallant, J.C. and Dowling, T.I. 2003). The algorithm identifies several assumptions re- ferring to the flatness and low elevation of floodplains and their dependence on terrain pattern properties. The computing algorithm of the MrVBF index is compatible with the ArcInfo GRID module. The valley bottoms are delimited at a range of scales. A given site is considered to belong to valley bottom at a given scale if it is sufficiently low and flat at that scale. At each step of the procedure, in the newly generated DEM cell size increases by a factor of 3, and the slope threshold reduces by a factor of 2. (For more details see Lóczy, D. et al. 2012). The floodplain reconstruction based on the MrVBF index was compared with the delimitation relying on the interpretation of the Second Military Survey map sheets (from 1857–1859). The land use class ’wet meadow’ approximately coincides with the floodplain, where no arable fields were cultivated at that time. Another opportunity for correction was provided by aerial photographs from the time of the 2005 flood. Archive maps were also used to detect the positions of river channels before flow regu- lations. Occasionally several river branches were active in the same period. No single archive map could supply us with this in- formation – a joint interpretation of several sources had to be employed: georeferenced map sheets of the First (1783–1784), the Second (1857–1859) and the Third Military Survey (1881–1882), a 1:10,000-scale topo- graphic map (revised in 1999), aerial photo- graphs of the General Directorate of Water Management (OVF) for the 2005 and 2010 floods and Google Earth maps for the identi- fication of surfaces (paleochannels) then cov- ered with excess water. The analyses were made in ArcGIS version 9.2 Spatial Analyst environment. In addition, paleochannels could be identified on the basis of their (peaty) soils shown on the soil map. To prevent the transport of nutrients to wa- ter bodies, the optimal land use types along the floodplain margin are a forest zone, tree rows or grassed strips (Cronk, J.K. 1997; and Rogger, M. et al. 2017). The continuity of these land use classes within a 100-metre wide zone was also assessed from the land use map. In the framework of the soil survey a total of 40 soil profiles were analyzed. The sites of soil pits and auger holes were selected on the basis of microtopography (as reflected by the DEM). Thus, the surveyed soil profiles are assumed to represent all classes of flu- vial landforms in the floodplain. Soil samples were analysed in the Lovász György Physical Table 1. Basic hydrological data on the watercourses of the Kapos system, 1995–2005 Stream Length Catchment Site of gauge Low flow Mean flow Median high flow Absolute record flow km river km m3 s-1 Kapos 112.7 3126.4 Kaposvár-Fészerlak, 86.0 Kurd, 43.7 Pincehely, 7.9 0.055 1.000 1.040 1.724 6.160 6.190 7.54 46.80 42.40 45.5 130.0 174.0 Koppány Baranya Canal Orci Stream Surján Stream 63.6 38.0 27.2 23.8 747.1 606.5 133.1 112.8 Tamási, 14.5 Csikóstőttős, 3.2 Orci, 5.1 Szentbalázs, 4.5 0.160 0.120 0 0 1.210 1.830 0.550 0.290 30.90 68.00 27.00 10.30 77.0 110.0 27.0 37.0 Sources: Hydrological Yearbooks 1997–2008; Dövényi, Z. 2010 Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.304 Geographical Laboratory of the Faculty of Sciences, University of Pécs, for grain size dis- tribution, mineral composition, organic matter content and for type and content of carbon- ates. Grain size distribution was established by the Fritsch Analysette A22_32 laser equip- ment in the measurement range of 0.3 to 300 µm. Index values were determined according to the Hungarian standard MSZ08 0206/1-78, while water soluble salts were measured (in m/m salt%) according to the Hungarian stand- ard MSZ08 0206/2-78. Carbonate contents were determined by Scheibler’s calcimeter (German standard DIN 18 129). For the mineral com- position of soil samples a Shimadzu TGA 50 thermogravi-meter was applied, which meas- ures mass changes caused by decomposition reactions in proportion to rising temperature. Samples of 40 mg mass each were analysed at 10 °C min-1 heating rate. The soil subtypes and varieties were first identified in the Hungarian genetic classifi- cation system and then referred to the WRB system. The information from point-like soil surveys was extended based on the distri- bution pattern of fluvial landforms. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys were per- formed across abandoned Kapos channels in embayments (Słowik, M. et al. 2020) to reveal the internal structure of paleochannels and backswamps supplemented with 30 auger holes and corings. To estimate the age of the palaeomeanders, 14C dating was carried out in the Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory (Poland), for 20 samples of terrestrial plant macrofossils and charcoal pieces using Accelerator Mass Spectometry (AMS). For the assessment of rehabilitation oppor- tunities, water retention potential was used as the principal criterion. For floodplains three types of retention capacity are usually identified (Dostal, T. et al. 2012): – Water retention capacity of soils – some deposits (sands) are sufficiently porous to absorb a high proportion of floodwater. – Passive retention capacity of the floodplain – retention in backswamps, abandoned channels or other depressions of some embayments. – Transformation effect of river channels and their floodplains – assuming that during overbank flow current velocity drops and, thus, the flood wave is decelerated. The floodwater retention capacity of the Kapos floodplain was estimated from soil hydrological data. Maximum water capac- ity and storage capacity (the amount of water released from a unit volume of soil by gravi- tation) was rendered to the main horizons of typical soil profiles. Passive (surface water) retention capacity was estimated from the DEM and added to soil retention. Although estimations of the rate of flood peak disper- sion and propagation along the river-flood- plain corridor would have been useful for restoration planning, such data were not available. Therefore, flood wave deceleration was ignored in the calculations. The classes of rehabilitation poten- tial (mapped for the Danube by WWF International 2010 or for the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve Mura-Drava-Danube by Schwarz, U. 2013) express the degree to which connectivity between sites with high water retention potential and the main river channel can be restored. The potential varies with the floodplain segments identified (for the Kapos: Lóczy, D. et al. 2012). The engi- neering measures of floodplain restoration (Buijse, A.D. et al. 2002) are not treated here. The alternatives of restoration/rehabilita- tion are referred into one of three groups (Smith, M.P. et al. 2008): ’no action’, passive or active intervention (Table 2). The ’no ac- tion’ alternative means that the channelized river is capable of restoring its close-to-natu- ral conditions over the long term without any human assistance. In this case the recovery potential is high. From such a strategy, how- ever, it cannot be expected that a fully natural state is restored – not even in the very long term. Active rehabilitation aims at ’products’ (creating landforms and vegetation/land use assumed to be more favourable), while pas- sive (or non-structural) rehabilitation strives at generating processes which are expected to indirectly lead to favourable conditions later in the future (Wheaton, J.M. et al. 2019). 305Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. For mapping the extent of inundation during floods, an important information for floodplain rehabilitation and land use opti- mization, was estimated from aerial photo- graphs taken by the Pécs Aeroarchaeology Theca (Photo 1). The distribution of inundated areas was confirmed by satellite image inter- pretation (Rakonczai, J. et al. 2003), using the image first available after the most recent ma- jor flooding of autumn 2010 (from band 6 of the Landsat-7 [ETM+] image for 24 September 2010). It shows the actual distribution of pix- els where reflectance was predominantly controlled by water surface. (Reflectance was calibrated for fish-ponds in the study area.) The drainage network was superimposed Table 2. Comparison of the three rehabilitation approaches* Recovery potential General approach Strategy Example for intervention High ’no action’ No intervention in the hope of natural re- covery, i.e. that the river itself obliterates the consequences of minor disturbances. Disturbances of natural origin (such as floods) lead to an equilibrium state over the long run. Medium passive After implementing flood control meas- ures, the free response of river channel is allowed and promoted. Purchasing land in the riparian zone by the state to secure space for meander development. Low active Correction of the alignment of the channelized river in order to establish a stable channel, incorporating passive procedures. New channel alignment, bank rein- forcement using natural methods but allowing space for the ’fine tuning’ of flow pattern. *Modified after Smith, M.P. et al. 2008. Photo 1. The Döbrököz area on an aerial photograph (May 2010) taken by the Pécs Aeroarchaeology Theca (Photo by Szabó, M.) Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.306 on the image from the Hungarian Water Management Database (although with sub- stantial allocation error). The smoothed en- velope curve embraces all ’water’ pixels and provides at least an approximation potentially waterlogged areas. (This kind of reconstruc- tion, however, only shows a partial picture of excess water inundation. Also areas with groundwater table immediately [less than 20 cm] below the surface could have been right- fully included among those stricken by excess water – Rakonczai, J. et al. 2003.) The need for land conversion was identi- fied based on a rapid land capability assess- ment with limited data requirement (’prac- tical land assessment’ Dömsödi, J. 2011). It only covers eight (complex) components of land quality in a weighted system (Table 3). According to their productivity, the genetic soil types which occur in floodplains are re- ferred into four classes (numbers III and IV are only usable for meadow and reed econo- my). The assessment was supplemented with land suitability considerations, where a cru- cial criterion was how long the individual crops can tolerate spring–early summer in- undation without severe reduction in yields (Petrasovits, I. and Balogh, J. 1975 – Table 4). Table 3. Main factors in land evaluation for practical agricultural purposes* Number Factor of land quality Maximum score of agricultural site quality 1 Topography (topographic position, slope, mean depth to ground- water table, erosion and deflation hazards) Local climate (exposure) 18 2 Genetic soil type (obtained from the map ‘Genetic soil types of Hungary’) 9 3 Chemical properties of topsoil (pH, carbonates, salinity) 10 4 Physical soil type (specific resistance) Soil structure 9 5 Properties reducing subsoil quality (water conductivity, soil properties causing deficiency in productivity down to 150 depth) 18 6 Depth of humus layer, Soil depth 9 7 Suitability for arable and other land uses 9 8 Land capability (how many crops can be cultivated profitably) 18 Total 100 *Revised after Dömsödi, J. 2011. Table 4. Inundation tolerance of agricultural crops widely grown in Hungary measured in percentage of yield loss* Crop Duration of inundation, days March April 3 7 11 15 3 7 11 15 Winter cereals Maize Sunflower Sugar-beet 5 – – 10 15 – – 50 30 – – 100 50 – – 100 10 20 10 10 25 80 20 50 40 100 50 90 70 100 80 100 May June 3 7 11 15 3 7 11 15 Winter cereals Maize Sunflower Sugar-beet 20 10 15 10 40 50 30 50 70 80 80 90 100 100 100 100 20 10 20 10 50 40 40 40 80 75 80 90 100 100 100 100 *After Petrasovits, I. and Balogh, J. 1975. 307Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. Enduring waterlogging primarily precludes arable farming, while tree plantations and grazing lands are tolerant for inundation of several weeks’ duration. In the case of maize even one-week duration means 80 per cent yield loss. Sunflower is also somewhat less sensitive to inundation in May. Results and discussion The map reconstruction of the groundplan of the Kapos paleochannel system presents an intricate low-energy anastomosing/braid- ing pattern with some meandering channels (Figure 2). There is a zone along the floodplain margin where paleochannels could not be mapped. This fact can be explained by inten- sive sheetwash from the neighbouring slopes onto the floodplain. The washed-down loess deposits obliterate the traces of paleochannels from the surface and also raise the elevation of the ground surface. This has important im- plications for land use (see later). Creating new Kapos channel sections re- quires space and it is only feasible in the broadest embayments. Previous rehabilita- tion proposals for the Kapos floodplain (for instance, Gergely, E. et al. 2000) suggested channel rearrangements (primarily along the Kurd section) to reduce flood hazard. From a purely geomorphological viewpoint, the es- tablishment of several more or less parallel, meandering channels would be an optimal solution for the restoration of a close-to-nat- ural drainage pattern. This can be achieved through taking advantage of the infilled chan- nels still traceable in microtopography and returning to the 19th-century regulation plans, which relied on several lateral canals running along the floodplain margins (Beszédes, J. and Herman, J. 1829). Such marginal canals could have some benefits even today: – they conduct away the flash floods gener- ated on tributary streams; – dissipate the energy of floods; – isolate the main channel from the non- point pollution of agricultural (or accident) origin (see Kronvang, B. et al. 2004); – raise groundwater levels even during dry spells. A detailed reconstruction of paleochannels was conducted by Słowik, M. et al. (2020) for the Kapos-Koppány confluence area. They discovered that single-thread meandering planform was active here since the Late Glacial. This low-energy meandering system was characterized by elongate bends with circular pools near apexes. The meanders evolved through oblique accretion, periods of cut-offs in the Late Glacial, and periods of flow discontinuation during the last 4,000 years (cf. Słowik, M. et al. 2020). Are there real opportunities for dyke reloca- tion (ECRR 2001; Clarke, S.J. et al. 2003) in the Kapos Valley? In the densely built-up upper (Kaposvár–Dombóvár) section any channel translocation would be difficult to implement. Downstream, however, in the broad embay- ments, where the floodplain rehabilitation po- tential is higher, they are worth of considera- tion. In the reach between settlements Szakály and Regöly (river km 27–24), dyke relocation seems to be an obvious and low-cost solution. Here dyke construction was unnecessary in the first place since parallel with the dyke, at ca Fig. 2. Reconstruction of old Kapos channels in the Döbrököz and Kurd–Csibrák embayments (38–51 river km) for the early 19th century (drawn by Gyenizse, P. af- ter information from military survey maps). The black dashed line indicates the boundary of the morphologi- cal floodplain and the magenta enveloping lines the channels farthest away from the valley centre line. Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.308 50 m distance, a relatively high natural levee of sand rises (Photo 2). The functioning of this landform of natural origin as a flood-control structure would also improve the water sup- ply of the floodplain. To the space between the present dyke and the natural levee (which was probably also deepened as a navvy pit from where material for dyke construction was gained) the active floodplain could be extend- ed. The bank zone being suitably landscaped, it would add to the wetlands of the Kapos Valley, store water during floods and create valuable habitats for nature conservation. Using soil survey information, a remark- able soil water retention capacity was identi- fied. The calculations resulted in a total maxi- mum dynamic water capacity of 6,139,000 m3 for the 4.45 km2 area of embayments. Out of this amount 2,251,000 m3 can be pumped out. The assessment of the rehabilitation poten- tial is primarily based on the opportunities for floodwater retention and flood risk reduc- tion (see Lóczy, D. 2013). The results show that the rehabilitation proposals should focus on floodplain segments IV and V (Figure 3), where a combination of a range of interven- tions could improve the ecological conditions of the floodplain. Rehabilitation potential is relatively high along the reach around the confluence of the most important tributary, the Koppány (although the channelized riv- ers are deeply in-sized). The riverine wet- lands can only be restored if groundwater levels are raised. The silt layers of low per- meability in this floodplain section favours water retention after floods. (By sporadic measurements typical grain size of suspend- ed load was found to range from 0.033 mm to 0.079 mm with a median value of 0.040 mm – cited by Bogárdi, J. 1971). However, it is doubtful whether this would be sufficient to maintain the wetlands during summer drought. The constructed wetlands to be formed in the confluence area could be connected to the already existing Pacsmag fish-ponds, an im- portant bird refuge, Ramsar site and Nature Reserve of 487 ha area. The constructed wet- land would also increase the aesthetic value of the floodplain landscape. Photo 2. The natural levee at Szakály with a row of poplars on the right bank of the Kapos River (Photo by Lóczy, D.) 309Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. Fig. 3. Rating the rehabilitation potential of the various hydromorphological sections of the Kapos floodplain (by Lóczy, D.). The floodplain sections are identified according to Lóczy, D. (2012). II–VI = floodplain sections (river section I. has no floodplain); 1–5 = rehabilitation potentials (1 = lowest; 5 = highest one). As far as the rationalization of land use is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that fol- lowing the great river regulations and even in the period between 1960 and 1980 an im- portant objective of water management was the increase of arable land (by 25–30 per cent) and formation of large agricultural fields (up to 300 ha area) (Bognár, Gy. 1989). Nature conservation requirements have only been observed since the late 1980s. The land use map of the Kapos floodplain (Figure 4) shows that forests predominant in floodplain sec- tion II are replaced by agricultural land in section III; a balance is struck between land use classes in section IV, while grasslands occupy the largest area in V and in the em- bayments of section VI, where forests en- tirely disappear. In addition, the continuity of land use classes in the floodplain sections was described quantitatively (Table 5). It was found that in sections IV and V the buffer strip is continuous over almost one-third of the floodplain margin, which offers some protection against environmental pressure. Interruption of this buffer zone by arable fields have to be eliminated in the future. Floodplain areas critical for land use have been identified relying on the findings of soil mapping and land capability assessment. There are sections, e.g. the Koppány con- fluence area, where flood and excess water hazard is so high that in land use planning nature conservation has absolute priority over agricultural production. Arable farming should retreat to areas where excess water hazard is low. As a general guideline, be- cause of their relative close association, land use classes can be made correspond to the main landform units (Table 6). In particular cases, however, exceptions can be made. The land capability assessment only shows minor variations in land quality (Table 7), but it is striking that in both embayments studied former peat bogs (with Eutric Histosol) are least suitable for arable farming, while the cher- nozem meadow soils on loess (Mollic Gleysol) favour this type of land use. This finding has to be considered in the design of land use pattern. Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.310 Fi g. 4 . L an d us e m ap o f t he K ap os fl oo dp la in (b y G ye ni zs e, P .). 1 = cl os e- to -n at ur al fo re st ; 2 = o th er fo re st (t re e pl an ta tio n) ; 3 = sh ru bs , t re e ro w s; 4 = m ea do w s; 5 = gr ee n ar ea in s ett le m en t; 6 = w at er lo gg ed a re a, re ed -b ed ; 7 = fi sh -p on d; 8 = g ar de n, o rc ha rd ; 9 = v in ey ar d; 1 0 = ar ab le la nd ; 1 1 = bu ilt -u p ar ea . 311Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. Table 7. Assessment of overall land capability in the major embayments of the Kapos floodplain* Genetic soil subtype or variety Approximate WRB equivalent Floodplain landforms Main properties Soil parent material Soil score A B chernozem mead- ow soil Mollic Gleysol loess slope depos- it along margins gentle slope, medium deep groundwater table loess 70 70 ’humous carbon- ate’ soil on sand Mollic Arenosol, Regosols natural levees higher relief, deeper ground- water table medium sand 50 52 meadow soil, meadow alluvial soil (Fluvi-mollic) Gleysol medium flood- plain level flat, seasonally waterlogged fine sand 67 65 boggy meadow soil Eutric Histosol oxbows, back- swamps low position, waterlogged calcareous silt with muck 48 48 earthy peat (’black earth’) Humic Histosol backswamps low position, waterlogged calcareous silty clay 58 57 *Compiled by Lóczy, D. 2019. A = Döbrököz–Csibrák embayment; B = Szakály–Keszőhidegkút embayment. Table 5. Continuity of land use in the 100-m wide strip along the river in the different floodplain segments* Number of segment Length of river reach, km Area of marginal strip with bushes and trees, km2 Ratio of strips with close-to- natural vegetation in the marginal zone left-bank right-bank Total area, km2 % III IV V VI 17.7 19.2 21.3 28.2 0.88 1.19 1.12 1.96 1.63 2.14 2.07 1.52 2.51 3.34 3.19 3.48 25.35 30.38 30.31 27.21 *Compiled by Lóczy, D. 2019. Table 6. Land use proposals for floodplain landforms of different elevation Landforms Frequency of inundation Proposed land use, economic activities River terraces Flood-free, occasional excess water from precipitation Built-up, arable, forest, grazing land, orchard, hunting, gathering (mushrooms, forest fruits etc.) Natural levees Rare and short-term inundation Orchard, horticulture, arable, forest, hunting, gathering (mushrooms, forest fruits etc.) Low floodplain level Irregular inundation (in 5–10-year intervals) Pasture, meadow, forest, fishing, growing me- dicinal plants, hunting Backswamps, aban- doned channels Regular (seasonal) long-term in- undation Reed-cutting, aquatic plants, waterfowl, hunting, gathering (medicinal plants, dried flowers etc.) Conclusions The proposed changes in floodplain land use could have beneficial effects even on the short run. The damage caused by flooding would be reduced and floodwater retention enhanced. Over an undeveloped and vegetated flood- plain floodwater can spread out without ma- jor damage and can be stored in floodplain soils and landforms before it evaporates. The Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.312 biggest challenge of successful restoration of the wetlands, however, is the raising of the groundwater levels. Silt layers of low permea- bility in the floodplain may reduce infiltration. However, the incised Kapos and Koppány ca- nals drain groundwater from the underlying layers of coarse sands inherited from high-en- ergy braided system active in Late Pleniglacial and at the beginning of the Late Glacial. Afforestation is desirable in the higher lev- els of the Kapos floodplain since the roots of arboreous vegetation promote infiltration, recharge groundwater and store moisture in multi-fold higher amounts than the soils of arable fields or meadows. At the same time, the trees and herbaceous plants of the riparian zone transfer huge amounts of water from the floodplain to the atmosphere by transpiration and reduces flood wave crests. This contra- dicts the river engineers’ view who are critical about floodplain roughness and flood protec- tion infrastructure and claim that higher reten- tion in a floodplain forest could lead locally to raised groundwater tables. For restoration projects a certain freeboard at dykes has to be permitted to secure local flood protection. Through improving connectivity and wa- ter availability floodplain biodiversity could also be enhanced and the nature conservation function strengthened. In the backswamps arable farming should be replaced by mead- ows connected to the ecological network and gallery forests along watercourses. Arable (or possibly organic) farming should be restricted to higher-lying, terrace- like surfaces with minimum excess water in- undation hazard, favourable soil properties and water availability (ÖKO Rt., FÖMI and VÍZPART Kft. 2000). Although the marginal floodplain zone with washed-down loess ve- neer (’higher floodplain level’) is suitable for arable farming, the intensity of cultivation has to be kept within limits even here and a buffer zone has to be excluded from intensive cultivation. In arable fields of poor produc- tivity cereal and oil crop growing should be gradually replaced by the cultivation of or horticultural crops (e.g. horse raddish, which has some tradition in the region), while the lowest-lying tracts could be used for medici- nal plants, as meadows or forests – with re- gard to landscape ecological consideration. The main goals of rehabilitation should be flood control also including temporal flood- water retention (subordination of land use to flood control); improvement of landscape pat- tern (providing connections in all directions); increasing the effectiveness of buffer zones in order to reach better river water quality and establishing a floodplain economy in harmo- ny with nature conservation considerations. Future research should exploit the advan- tages offered by a systematic hydromorpho- logical survey and hydraulic modelling for a more precise definition of the sites and tasks of restoration with purposes of flood control as well as the establishment of ecological cor- ridors and buffer strips. Acknowledgements: Authors are grateful to the Hungarian National Scientific Fund (OTKA, contract number K 104552), the GINOP-2.3.2.15-2016-00055 research fund and the Programme Excellence in Higher Education Institutions 2019, Topic II. 3. (“Innovation for sustainable life and environment”) for financial support. REFERENCES APFM-WMO 2017. Selecting measures and designing strategies for integrated flood management. Associated Programme on Flood Management. Geneva, World Meteorological Organization. Ball, T. 2008. Management approaches to floodplain restoration and stakeholder engagement in the UK: A survey. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 8. (2): 273–280. Doi: 10.2478/v10104-009-0021-0 Bencze, G. 2000. Vízimunkálatok a Sió–Kapos–Sárvíz vízrendszerén a XVIII–XIX. században (Water man- agement measures in the Sió–Kapos–Sárvíz river system in the 18–19th centuries). Honismeret 28. (2): 99–101. Available at http://www.vjrktf.hu/carus/ honisme/ho000222.htm Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwin, P., Hart, D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G.M., Lake, P.S., Lave, R., Meyer, J.L., O’Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Powell, B. and Sudduth, E. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308. (5722): 636–637. Doi: 10.1126/sci- ence.1109769 313Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. Beszédes, J. and Herman, J. 1829. Kapos mocsárainak Plánuma… (Plan of swamps along the Kapos River…). Manuscript map. Kaposvár, Hungary, Somogy County Archive. Bogárdi, J. 1971. Vízfolyások hordalékszállítása (Sediment transport of watercourses). Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. (in Hungarian) Bogárdi, I. and Balogh, E. 2014. Floodway system op- eration along levee-protected rivers. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 140. (8): Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000391 Bognár, Gy. (ed.) 1989. Vízfolyások környezetbe illő szabá- lyozása (Stream regulation by setting in the environ- ment). Budapest, VITUKI. Bratrich, C., Truffer, B. and Wehrli, B. 2002. River restoration projects – understanding success and failure. Report to the NCEAS National River Restoration Synthesis (NRRS) working group meeting in 14 September 2002. 1–13. Brierley, G.J., Fryirs, K.A., Outhet, D. and Massey, C. 2002. Application of the River Styles framework as a basis for river management in New South Wales, Australia. Applied Geography 22. 91–122. Doi: 10.1016/ S0143-6228(01)00016-9 Brierley, G.J. and Fryirs, K.A. 2008. River futures. an inte- grative scientific approach to river repair. The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Brookes, A. 1996. Floodplain restoration and rehabilita- tion. In Floodplain Processes. Eds.: Anderson, M.G., Walling, D.E. and Bates, P.D., Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, 553–576. Brookes, A. and Shields, F.D. Jr. (eds.) 1996. River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Projects. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Brooks, A.P. and Brierley, G.J. 2004. Framing realistic river rehabilitation targets in light of altered sediment supply and transport relationships: lessons from East Gibbsland, Australia. Geomorphology 58. (1–4): 107–123. Buijse, A.D., Coops, H., Staras, M., Jans, L.H., van Geest, G.J., Grift, R.E., Ibelings, B.W., Oosterberg, W. and Roozen, F.C.J.M. 2002. Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshwater Biology 47. 889–907. Available at https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00915.x Bullock, A. and Acreman, M.C. 2003. The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and Earth System Science 7. (3): 358–389. Doi: 10.5194/ hess-7-358-2003 Clarke, S.J., Bruce-Burgess, L. and Wharton, G. 2003. Linking form and function: towards an eco-hydro- morphic approach to sustainable river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13. 439–450. Dezső, J., Lóczy, D., Salem, A.M. and Nagy, G. 2019. Floodplain connectivity. In The Drava River: Environmnetal Problems and Solutions. Ed.: Lóczy, D., Cham, Switzerland, Springer, 215–230. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92816_14 Didovets, I., Krysanova, V., Bürger, G., Snizhko, S., Balabukh, V. and Bronstert, A. 2019. Climate change impact on regional floods in the Carpathian region. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 22. 1–14. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.01.002 Dostal, T., Valentová, J., Weyskrabova, L., Koudelka, P., David, V. and Valenta, P. 2012. Retention and flood control effects of floodplains. Proceedings, 9th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, Vienna, 17–21 September 2012. Available at http://www. ise2012.boku.ac.at/papers/16172_2.pdf Downs, P. and Thorne, C.R. 2000. Rehabilitation of a lowland river: Reconciling flood defence with habi- tat diversity and geomorphological sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management 58. (4): 249–268. Doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0327 Dömsödi, J. 1980. A hazai tőzeglápok (tőzegek) osz- tályozása (Classification of peat bogs in Hungary). Földrajzi Értesítő / Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 29. (3–4): 485–494. (in Hungarian with English summary) Dömsödi, J. 2011. Földminősítés és földértékelés (Land assessment and evaluation). Budapest, Szent Gellért Kiadó. (in Hungarian with English summary) Dworak, T. 2008. Flood risk management and floodplain restoration in Europe: recent policy developments at EU level. In Restoring Floodplains in Europe. Eds.: Moss, T. and Mondstadt, J., London, IWA Publishing, 47–60. ECRR 2001. River restoration in Europe. Conference on River Restoration, Proceedings. Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA), Riza report 2001.023. Lelystad, The Netherlands, RIZA. Available at http://distance. ktu.lt/kbridge/IRBM/Unit1_2/resources/documents/ Annex1_1.2F.pdf Fehér, Z.Zs. and Rakonczai, J. 2019. Analysing the sensitivity of Hungarian landscapes based on climate change induced shallow groundwater fluctuation. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (4): 355–372. Doi: 10.15201/hungeobull.68.4.3. Fennessy, M.S. and Cronk, J.K. 1997. The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particu- larly nitrate. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27. 285–317. Fischer, K.J. 1994. Fluvial geomorphology and flood control strategies: Sacramento River, California. In The variability of large alluvial rivers. Eds.: Schumm, S.A. and Winkley, B.R., New York, ASCE Press, 115–139. FISRW 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration – Principles, Practices and Processes. Subdocument 57.6/2:EN3/ PT.653. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fryirs, K.A. and Brierley, G.J. 2016. Assessing the geomorphic recovery potential of rivers: forecasting Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.314 future trajectories of adjustment for use in manage- ment. Water 3. (5): 727–748. Doi: 10.1002/wat2.1158 Gallant, J.C. and Dowling, T.I. 2003. A multiresolution index of valley bottom flatness for mapping deposi- tional areas. Water Resources Research 39. 1347–1353. Doi: 10.1029/2002WR001426 Gergely, E., Géczi, Cs., Horváth, J., Jakab, A., Jónás, Gy.-né, Károlyi, Z.-né, Mattányi, Zs., Szalai, Z., Szabó, I. and Ress, S. 2000. Kapos folyóvölgy – Lehetőségterv (Kapos river valley – Feasibility plan). Budapest, Öko Zrt. Guerrin, J. 2014. A floodplain restoration project on the River Rhône (France): analyzing challenges to its implementation. Regional Environmental Change 15. (3): 559–568. Doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0650-8 GWP-WMO 2012. Conservation and Restoration of Rivers and Floodplains. Associated Programme on Flood Management, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Integrated Flood Management Tool Series. Geneva, World Meteorological Organization. Available at https://www.floodmanagement.info/publications/ tools/APFM_Tool_13.pdf () Hein, T., Schwarz, U., Habersack, H., Nichersu, I., Preiner, S., Willby, N. and Weigelhofer, G. 2016. Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River. Science of the Total Environment 543. (A): 778–790. Doi: 10.1016/j. scitotenv.2015.09.073. Hey, D.L. and Philippi, N.S. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: The Upper Mississippi River Basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3. (1): 4–17. Doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00070.x Hohausova, E. and Jurajda, P. 2005. Restoration of a river backwater and its influence on fish assemblage. Czech Journal of Animal Science 50. (10): 473–482. Holmes, N.T.H. 1998. Floodplain Restoration. In United Kingdom Floodplains. Eds.: Bailey, R.G., Jose, P.V. and Sherwood, B.R., Otley, UK, Westbury Publishing, 29–41. Hulse, D. and Gregory, S. 2004. Integrating resilience into floodplain restoration. Urban Ecosystems 7. (3): 295–314. Doi: 10.1023/B:UECO.0000044041.94705.52 Kauffman, J.B. and Beschta, R.L. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 22. (3): 12–24. Kertész, Á. and Křeček, J. 2019. Landscape degra- dation in the world and in Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (3): 201–221. Doi: 10.15201/ hungeobull.68.3.1. Kiedrzyńska, E., Kiedrzyński, M. and Zalewski, M. 2015. Sustainable floodplain management for flood prevention and water quality improvement. Natural Hazards 76. 955–977. Doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1529-1 Kline, M. 2007. River Corridor Planning Guide to Identify and Develop River Corridor Protection and Restoration Projects. Draft. Vermont River Management Program. Waterbury, VT, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Klug, H. 2016. Bodenfunktionen und Hochwasser- entstehung. In Der Wert des Bodens in der Wasser-wirtschaft. Vorstellung des ÖWAV- Arbeitsbehelfs 47 „Bodenfunktionen in der Wasserwirtschaft“. Wien, Österreichischer Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaftsverband (ÖWAV). Kondolf, G.M. and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Management 19. (1): 1–15. Doi: 10.1007/BF02471999 Kronvang, B., Larsen, S.E., Jensen, J.P., Andersen, H.E., Lázár, A. and Féher, J. 2004. Catchment re- port: Kapos, Hungary. Trend analysis, retention and source apportionment. EUROHARP report 7-2004, NIVA report SNO 4790-2004. Oslo, Norway, EUROHARP-NIVA. Larsen, E.W., Girvetz, E.H. and Fremier, A. 2006. Assessing the effects of alternative setback levee scenarios employing a river meander migration model. Environmental Management 37. (6): 880–897. Doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0220-9 Lóczy, D. 2013. Hydromorphological-geoecological foundations of floodplain management: Case study from Hungary. Saarbrücken, Lambert Academic Publishing. Lóczy, D., Pirkhoffer, E. and Gyenizse, P. 2012. Geomorphometric floodplain classification in a hill region of Hungary. Geomorphology 147–148. 61–72. Doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.040 Macdonald, K.B. and Weinmann, F. (eds.) 1997. Wetland and riparian restoration: Taking a broader view. Report EPA910-R-97-007. Seattle, WA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. Graden City, NY, Natural History Press. New edition: 1995. New York, John Wiley and Sons. Maddock, I. 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41. 373–391. Doi: 10.1046/j.1365- 2427.1999.00437.x Manci, K.M. 1989. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 89. (20). Available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70122966 Moss, T. and Monstadt, J. (eds.) 2008. Restoring Floodplains in Europe. Policy Contexts and Project Experiences. London, IWA Publishing. National Research Council 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/cata- log/1807.html Newson, M.D. and Large, A.R.G. 2006. ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromorphological quality’ and river restoration: a challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31. 1606–1624. Doi: 10.1002/esp.1430 Nunnally, N.R. 1978. Stream renovation: An alterna- tive to channelization. Environmental Management 2. 403–411. Doi: 10.1007/BF01872915 315Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316. Opperman, J.J., Moyle, P.B., Larsen, E.W., Florsheim, J.L. and Manfree, A.D. 2017. Floodplains: Processes and Management for Ecosystem Services. Oakland, CA, University of California Press. ÖKO Rt., FÖMI and VÍZPART Kft. 2000. A magyaror- szági folyók töltésezett szakaszán kialakult hullámterek területhasználatának jellemzése (Description of land use in the active floodplains of channelized rivers in Hungary). Report. Budapest, Office for Nature Conservation, Ministry of Environment. Pálfai, I. 2009. Inland flooding in Hungary. Riscuri şi catastrophe 8. (7): 193–201. Petrasovits, I. and Balogh, J. 1975. Növénytermesztés és vízgazdálkodás (Crop cultivation and water manage- ment). Budapest, Mezőgazdasági Kiadó. Petts, G.E., Möller, H. and Roux, A.L. (eds.) 1989. Historical Change of Large Alluvial Rivers: Western Europe. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons. Piégay, H., Darby, S.E., Mosselman, E. and Surian, N. 2005. A review of techniques available for de- limiting the erodible river corridor: a sustainable approach to managing bank erosion. River Research and Applications 21. (7): 773–789. Doi: 10.1002/rra.881 Posthumus, H., Hewett, C.J.M., Morris, J. and Quinn, P.F. 2008. Agricultural land use and flood risk management: engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire. Agricultural Water Management 95. (7): 787–798. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.02.001 Rakonczai, J., Csató, Sz., Mucsi, L., Kovács, F. and Szatmári, J. 2003. Az 1999. és 2000. évi alföldi belvíz- elöntések kiértékelésének gyakorlati tapasztalatai (Experiences from the evaluation of the 1999 and 2000 excess water inundations in the Great Hungarian Plain). Vízügyi Közlemények, Special Issue 4. 317–336. Rogger, M., Agnoletti, M., Alaoui, A., Bathurst, J.C., Bodner, G., Borga, M., Chaplot, V., Gallart, F., Glatzel, G., Hall, J., Holden, J., Holko, L., Horn, R., Kiss, A., Kohnová, S., Leitinger, G., Lennartz, B., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R., Peth, S., Plavcová, L., Quinton, J.N., Robinson, M., Salinas, J.L., Santoro, A., Szolgay, J., Tron, S., van den Akker, J.J.H., Viglione, A. and Blöschl, G. 2017. Land use change impacts on floods at the catchment scale: Challenges and opportunities for future research. Water Resources Research 53. WR020723. Doi: 10.1002/2017WR020723 Rohde, S., Hostmann, M., Peter, A. and Ewald, K.C. 2006. Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 78. 50–70. Doi: 10.1016/j.landurb- plan.2005.05.006 Roni, P. and Beechie, T. 2013. Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine Processes and Habitats. New York, Wiley-Blackwell. Roni, P., Hall, J.E., Drenner, S.M. and Arterburn, D. 2019. Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: A review of methods and recom- mendations for future monitoring. WIREsWater 6. (4): e1355. Doi: 10.1002/wat2.1355 Schneider, E. 2010. Floodplain restoration of large European rivers, with examples from the Rhine and the Danube. In Restoration of Lakes, Streams, Floodplains, and Bogs in Europe. Wetlands: Ecology, Conservation and Management 3. Ed.: Eiseltová, M., Dordrecht, Springer, 185–223. Doi: 10.1007/978-90- 481-9265-6_11 Schwarz, U. 2013. Assessment of the Restoration Potential in the Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Mura- Drava-Danube. Vienna, WWF Austria. Sear, D. 1994. River restoration and geomorphol- ogy. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 4. 169–177. Doi: 10.1002/aqc.3270040207 Słowik, M. 2013. Transformation of a lowland river from a meandering and multi-channel pattern into an artificial canal: retracing a path of river channel changes (the Middle Obra River, W-Poland). Regional Environmental Change 13. 1287–1299. Doi: 10.1007/ s10113-013-0453-3 Słowik, M., Dezső, J., Kovác, J. and Gałka M. 2020. The formation of low-energy meanders in loess landscapes (Transdanubia, Central Europe). Global and Planetary Change 184. 103071. Doi: 10.1016/j. gloplacha.2019.103071 Smith, M.P., Schiff, R., Olivero, A. and MacBroom, J. 2008. The Active River Area: A Conservation Framework for Protecting Rivers and Streams. Boston, MA, The Nature Conservancy. Available at. http://www. floods.org/PDF/ASFPM_TNC_Active_River_Area. pdf Somlyódi, L. (ed.) 2011. Magyarország vízgazdálkodása: helyzetkép és stratégiai feladatok (Water management in Hungary: state of the art and strategic tasks). Budapest, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Theiling, Ch. 1998. Floodplain geomorphology and river habitat. Chapter 4, River Restoration. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://www. umesc.usgs.gov/documents/reports/1999/status_ and_trends/99t001_ch04lr.pdf Tockner, K., Schiemer, F., Baumgartner, C., Kum, G., Weigand, E., Zweimuller, I. and Ward, J.V. 1999. The Danube restoration project: species diversity pat- terns across connectivity gradients in the floodplain system. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15. 245–258. Tockner, K. and Stanford, J.A. 2002. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation 29. 308–330. Doi: 10.1017/ S037689290200022X U.S. Department of Commerce 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Springfield, VA, US Department of Commerce. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ stream_restoration/newtofc.html Verhoeven, J.T.A. and Setter, T.L. 2010. Agricultural use of wetlands: opportunities and limitations. Annals of Botany 105. 155–163. Doi: 10.1093/aob/ mcp172 Gyenizse, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69 (2020) (3) 299–316.316 Wheaton, J.M., Fryirs, K.A., Brierley, G.J., Bangen, S.G., Bouwes, N. and O’Brien, G. 2015. Geomorphic mapping and taxonomy of fluvial landforms. Geomorphology 248. 273–295. Doi: 10.1016/j.geo- morph.2015.07.010 Wheaton, J.M., Bennett, S.N., Bouwes, N., Camp, R., Maestas, J.D. and Shahverdian, S.M. 2019. Principles of low-tech process-based restoration. In Low-Tech Process-Based Restoration of Riverscapes: Design Manual. Eds.: Wheaton, J.M., Bennett, S.N., Bouwes, N., Maestas, J.D. and Shahverdian, S.M., Logan, UT, Utah State University Restoration Consortium, 1–31. Wissmar, R.C. and Beschta, R.L. 1998. Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems a catchment perspective. Freshwater Biology 40. 571–585. Doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00383.x WWF 2004. Living with floods. Achieving ecologically sustainable flood management in Europe. Policy Briefing. Brussels, World-Wide Fund for Nature, European Policy Office. Available at http://wwf.panda.org/ about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do_/ policy_and_events/epo/initiatives/freshwater.cfm WWF International 2010. Assessment of the restoration po- tential along the Danube and main tributaries. Working paper for the Danube River Basin. Final Draft. Vienna, World-Wide Fund for Nature. Available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_restora- tion_potential_danube.pdf Xie, H.L., Huang, Y.Q., Chen Q.R., Zhang, Y.W. and Wu, Q. 2019. Prospects for agricultural sustainable intensification: A review of research. Land 8. 157–184. Doi: 10.3390/land8110157 Zöckler, C. 2000. Wise Use of Floodplains – review of resto- ration projects in a number of European countries. WWF European Freshwater Programme. Cambridge, UK, WWF. Available at http://www.panda.org/down- loads/europe/RiverRestoration.pdf