spatial urn in lood risk anagement · hp (2017): flood risk, climate change and settlement...
TRANSCRIPT
THE SPATIAL TURN IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
A CASE STUDY OF AUSTRIA’S CHANGING FLOOD POLICIES
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED BY
MAG. LUKAS LÖSCHNER, BSC
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES (DR.NAT.TECHN.)
SUPERVISOR
UNIV.-PROF. DR. GERNOT STÖGLEHNER
INSTITUTE OF SPATIAL PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND LAND REARRANGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE, SPATIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES, VIENNA
APRIL 2018
ii
For Diana and Vincent
iii
iv
SYNOPSIS
Flood policies across Europe are changing in response to a series of major flood events in
the 1990s and early 2000s. While the traditional approach of flood protection was
informed by a firm belief in controlling rivers via engineering solutions, flood policy today
aims at managing the risks of flooding based on a combined approach to reduce the flood
hazard and the vulnerability to flooding. Framed by the EU Floods Directive
(2007/60/EC), which i.a. promotes flood retention on land rather than accelerating flood
discharge and mandates catchment-oriented rather than local solutions in flood risk
management, land resources and different spatialities of risk are emerging as critical factors
in flood risk management.
This dissertation explores the ongoing changes in flood policies in a framework paper and
ten peer-reviewed publications. The framework paper conceptualises the so-called “spatial turn” in flood risk management and reflects the growing relevance of land and space in
Austria’s flood policies. It distinguishes three conceptions of space – material-physical,
formal-regulatory, subject-based interactive – and links them to the territorial dimension
of floodplains and catchments. In this way a broader understanding of the “spatial turn” in
flood risk management, beyond the physical “room for the rivers” paradigm, can be
developed. It thus dissects the “spatial turn” in flood risk management into six spatial
constituents to delineate principal fields of scientific inquiry and practical action in the
nascent policy paradigm.
The conceptual framework of the “spatial turn” in flood risk management is applied and
tested for the case of Austria. Based on a fifteen-year study period (2002-2017), with the
seminal flood event in the year 2002 marking the starting point of inquiry, the dissertation
analyses the evolution of policy aims and policy instruments in the sectors water
management and spatial planning. Findings show that a “spatial turn” in flood risk management is taking place in Austria, albeit with different intensities in the six spatial
constituents. Generally, policy aims were found to explicitly account for the growing
relevance of land and the different spatialities of flood risk, however, policy intentions are
often not translated into operational activities. Inconsistencies in the policy instruments,
both within and across sectoral boundaries, were found to be one of the main constraints
for implementing a “spatial turn” in Austria’s flood policies.
The dissertation contributes to the scientific literature by making the concept of the
“spatial turn” tangible for researchers and practitioners in the field of flood risk
management. It provides a novel analytical lens to embed the ongoing shifts in flood
policies in a broader conceptual understanding of space and to delineate thematic areas of
scientific inquiry. By operationalizing the concept of the “spatial turn” the study also
builds a better practical understanding of the centrality of land and space in the nascent
policy paradigm. The identification of overlaps, interrelations but also inconsistencies in
flood policies supports flood policy-making and provides a basis for further developing
the “spatial turn” as an agenda in flood risk management.
v
vi
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Eine Reihe von Hochwasserschadensereignissen hat in den letzten Jahrzehnten in Europa
einen grundlegenden Wandel im Umgang mit Hochwassergefahren eingeleitet. Anstelle
der hauptsächlich auf technischen Schutzbauten basierenden Gefahrenabwehr werden
zunehmend integrative Ansätze entwickelt, die ein Bündel an Schutz-, Vorsorge- sowie
Bewältigungsmaßnahmen zur Verringerung von Hochwasserrisiken beinhalten. Mit der
Umsetzung der EU-Hochwasserrichtlinie (2007/60/EG), die u.a. den Hochwasserrückhalt
den Vorrang gegenüber linearen, abflussverschärfenden Verbauungen (z.B.
Hochwasserschutzdämme) gibt, sowie auf Einzugs- oder Flussgebietsebene ausgerichtete
Steuerungsansätze forciert, gewinnen flächen- und raumbezogene Faktoren im
Hochwasserrisikomanagement zunehmend an Bedeutung.
Die vorliegende Dissertation untersucht diese Entwicklungen im
Hochwasserrisikomanagement in einer Rahmenschrift und zehn peer-reviewten
Fachbeiträgen. In der Rahmenschrift wird der sogenannte „spatial turn“ im Hochwasserrisikomanagement konzeptualisiert und ein analytischer Rahmen entwickelt,
der es ermöglicht, die praktische Umsetzung flächen- und raumbezogener Ansätze kritisch
zu beleuchten. Der konzeptionelle Rahmen des „spatial turn“ basiert auf der Verknüpfung
von drei Raumkategorien – materiell-physischer Raum, formal-regulativer Raum und
subjektbasierter-interaktiver Raum – und deren Übertragung auf „Überflutungsgebiete“ und „Einzugsgebiete“ als die zwei maßgeblichen räumlichen Betrachtungsebenen im
Hochwasserrisikomanagement. Daraus werden sechs, räumlich differenzierte
Komponenten des „spatial turn“ abgeleitet, die die wesentlichen Untersuchungs- und
Handlungsfelder im Hochwasserrisikomanagement abgrenzen.
Der empirische Teil dieser Dissertation wendet den konzeptionellen Rahmen auf das
österreichische Hochwasserrisikomanagement an. Ausgehend vom
„Jahrhunderthochwasser“ 2002 untersucht die Arbeit die politischen Zielsetzungen und Steuerungsinstrumente in den Sektoren Wasserwirtschaft und Raumplanung für den
Zeitraum 2002-2017 und beurteilt auf diesen Grundlagen den „spatial turn“ im österreichischen Hochwasserrisikomanagement. Die Ergebnisse belegen für Österreich
einen Bedeutungsgewinn von flächen- und raumbezogenen Ansätzen in allen sechs
Komponenten des „spatial turn“, wenngleich in stark unterschiedlicher Ausprägung.
Während in einzelnen Bereichen eine hohe Kohärenz zwischen den
Steuerungsinstrumenten und den Zielsetzungen deutlich wird, zeigen sich in anderen
Bereichen (inter)sektorale Inkonsistenzen im Umgang mit Hochwasser, die eine
konsequentere Umsetzung einer „räumlichen Wende“ im österreichischen Hochwasserrisikomanagement hemmen.
Diese Dissertation ermöglicht durch die Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung des
„spatial turn“ im Hochwasserrisikomanagement eine differenziertere wissenschaftliche
und praktische Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Thema. Die Verknüpfung
unterschiedlicher Raumkategorien schafft ein umfassenderes Verständnis des „spatial turn“ und ermöglicht die Identifikation räumlich bedingter Wirkungszusammenhänge.
Damit liefert diese Arbeit eine wichtige Grundlage für eine Weiterentwicklung des „spatial
turn“ als Agenda im Hochwasserrisikomanagement.
vii
viii
_______________
LIST OF APPENDED PUBLICATIONS
Publication I* Nordbeck R, Steurer R, Löschner L (accepted, major revisions): The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: from flood control to anticipatory flood risk management. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management [SCI Impact Factor: 1.560]
Publication II* Löschner L, Herrnegger M, Apperl B, Senoner T, Seher W, Nachtnebel HP (2017): Flood risk, climate change and settlement development: a micro-scale assessment of Austrian municipalities. In: Regional Environmental Change 17, pp. 311–322. [SCI Impact Factor: 2.919]
Publication III Seher W, Löschner L (2017): Anticipatory Flood Risk Management – Challenges for Land Policy. In: Hepperle E, Dixon-Gough R, Mansberger R, Paulsson J, Hernik J and Kalbro T (Eds.) Land Ownership and Land Use Development – The Integration of Past, Present, and Future in Spatial Planning and Land Management Policies. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, pp. 77-88
Publication IV* Löschner L, Scherhaufer P, Nordbeck R, Seher W (2016): Scientist-stakeholder workshops: a collaborative approach for integrating science and decision-making in Austrian flood-prone municipalities. In: Environmental Science & Policy 55, pp. 345–352 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.751]
Publication V* Seher W, Löschner L (accepted, minor revisions): Risikoorientierte Raumplanung in Österreich: Merkmale und Umsetzungsoptionen am Beispiel von Hochwasserrisiken. In: disP – The Planning Review [SCI Impact Factor: 0.325]
Publication VI* Seher W, Löschner L (2018): Balancing upstream-downstream interests in flood risk management: experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria. In: Journal of Flood Risk Management 11, pp. 56-65 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.121]
Publication VII* Thaler T, Löschner L, Hartmann T (2017): The introduction of catchment-wide co-operations: Scalar reconstructions and transformation in Austria in flood risk management. In: Land Use Policy 68, pp. 563–573 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.089]
Publication VIII Nordbeck R, Löschner L, Scherhaufer P, Hogl K, Seher W (2018): Hochwasserschutzverbände als Instrument der interkommunalen Kooperation im Hochwasserrisikomanagement. In: Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft (online first)
Publication IX Seher W, Löschner L (forthcoming): Instrumente der Raumplanung für die Flächenvorsorge gegen Hochwassergefahren. In: Rudolf-Miklau F, Kanonier A (Eds.): Regionale Risiko Governance: Recht, Politik und Praxis. Verlag Österreich
Publication X Löschner L, Seher W, Nordbeck R, Kopf, M (forthcoming): Blauzone Rheintal: a regional planning instrument for future-oriented flood management in a dynamic risk environment. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (Eds.): Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land. Springer
* Publication listed in SCI/SSCI © Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2017
ix
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION_________________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 PROBLEM SETTING ____________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ________________________________________________________ 4
1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE ____________________________________________________________ 5
RESEARCH CONTEXT____________________________________________________________ 6
2.1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROJECTS________________________________________________ 6
2.2 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS _______________________________________________ 8
RESEARCH DESIGN _____________________________________________________________ 14
3.1 SPACE AND SPATIALITY AS CATEGORIES OF INQUIRY __________________________________ 14
3.2 CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT _______________________________ 15
3.2.1 Material-physical space ______________________________________________________ 16
3.2.2 Formal-regulatory space _____________________________________________________ 16
3.2.3 Subject-based interactive space ________________________________________________ 17
3.3 ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SPATIAL TURN ____________________________________ 18
3.3.1 The spatial turn “across the floodplain” _________________________________________ 18
3.3.2 The spatial turn “along the river” ______________________________________________ 20
3.4 EVALUATING THE SPATIAL TURN IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT _________________________ 23
THE SPATIAL TURN IN AUSTRIA’S FLOOD POLICIES _____________________________ 28
4.1 POLICY CONTEXT ____________________________________________________________ 28
4.1.1 River flooding in Austria _____________________________________________________ 28
4.1.2 Responsibilities and competences ______________________________________________ 29
4.1.3 The shift towards integrated flood risk management ________________________________ 31
4.2 THE SPATIAL TURN “ACROSS THE FLOODPLAIN” _____________________________________ 32
4.2.1 Land-Water Divide (material-physical space) ______________________________________ 32
4.2.2 Floodplain Development (formal-regulatory space) _________________________________ 35
4.2.3 Individual Adaptation (subject-based interactive space) ______________________________ 38
4.3 THE SPATIAL TURN “ALONG THE RIVER” ___________________________________________ 41
4.3.1 Catchment Processes (material-physical space) ____________________________________ 41
4.3.2 Coordination Area (formal-administrative space)___________________________________ 44
4.3.3 Burden Sharing (subject-based interactive space)___________________________________ 46
4.4 SYNTHESIS AND FUTURE POLICY ACTION ___________________________________________ 48
4.4.1 Material-physical space ______________________________________________________ 48
4.4.2 Formal-regulatory space _____________________________________________________ 49
4.4.3 Subject-based interactive space ________________________________________________ 50
DISCUSSION ____________________________________________________________________ 51
5.1 REFLECTION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ____________________________________________ 51
5.2 FURTHER RESEARCH AND OUTLOOK ______________________________________________ 56
CONCLUSION __________________________________________________________________ 59
REFERENCES __________________________________________________________________ 61
ANNEX_________________________________________________________________________ 77
PUBLICATION I______________________________________________________________________ 78
PUBLICATION II _____________________________________________________________________ 79
PUBLICATION III ____________________________________________________________________ 80
PUBLICATION IV ____________________________________________________________________ 81
PUBLICATION V _____________________________________________________________________ 82
PUBLICATION VI ____________________________________________________________________ 83
PUBLICATION VII ___________________________________________________________________ 84
PUBLICATION VIII___________________________________________________________________ 85
PUBLICATION IX ____________________________________________________________________ 86
PUBLICATION X _____________________________________________________________________ 87
xi
xii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM SETTING
Europe is prone and vulnerable to flooding. Since 1980 Europe was affected by
almost 700 damaging flood events that claimed 3 835 lives and produced overall
economic losses of USD 187 billion, nearly 20% of the worldwide total
(NatCatService, 2017). A more detailed look at flooding histories illustrates that the
number of damaging flood events in Europe increased noticeably in recent decades
(CRED, 2018; EEA, 2010). Following a flood-poor period (ca. 1950s-1980s) the
1990s mark the beginning of a more active flooding phase in Europe, with especially
drainage areas north of the Alpine ridge experiencing a succession of extreme events,
i.a. in 20021, 2005, 2013 (Blöschl et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2014; Kundzewicz et al.,
2013; Schmocker-Fackel and Naef, 2010). In addition to the destructive floods that
struck the British Isles in the summer of 2007, these events rank among the five
costliest2 floods in Europe since 1980 (NatCatService, 2017).
The succession of high-impact events accelerated an on-going shift in European
flood policies from a hazard-oriented approach of flood control to a more integrated
approach of flood risk management (Klijn et al., 2008; Samuels et al., 2006; Schanze,
2005). The traditional approach was informed by a firm belief in controlling rivers
via engineering solutions to reduce the probability of flooding. By contrast, nascent
flood policy aims at developing approaches that reduce the vulnerability to flooding
based on a portfolio of approaches comprising structural and non-structural
measures (Schanze et al., 2008; van Herk et al., 2015a; Publication I3). Flood risk
management moreover builds on the understanding that all constituents of flood risk
are dynamic (Fuchs and Keiler, 2013; IPCC, 2012; Jongman et al., 2012). In addition
to the possible climate-change effects on flooding, socio-economic processes (e.g.
population growth and land development) contribute to increasing levels of flood
risk and influence the development of long-range flood risk management strategies
(Di Baldassarre et al., 2013; Merz et al., 2014; Publication II).
The cornerstones of this fundamental change in flood policy – which some
observers describe as “paradigmatic” (Hartmann and Jüpner, 2014; Keiler and Fuchs,
2010; Schanze, 2013; Thomas and Knüppe, 2016) – are prominently outlined in the
EU Floods Directive4 (EFD). In response to a series of extreme flood events in the
1990s and early 2000s the EFD was initiated under the Dutch EU presidency in an
effort to develop common benchmarks for flood risk assessment and flood risk
1 The floods in 2002, which affected large parts of the Elbe and Danube river basins in Central
Europe, were particularly devastating with 47 fatalities and economic losses totalling EUR 20.9 billion. In some areas flood discharges reached return periods in excess of 500 years (EEA, 2010).
2 in terms of inflation adjusted insured losses
3 Cross-references to the appended Publications I-X are highlighted in bold.
4 EU Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (EC, 2007)
1
management across Europe5. Specifically, the EFD mandates (i) the implementation
of a portfolio of risk reduction measures comprising structural and non-structural flood
management options (Art. 7/2), (ii) a holistic approach which addresses all aspects of
flood risk management, including prevention, protection and preparedness (Art.
7/3), (iii) a river-basin approach to better coordinate flood risk management plans (Art.
7/1), (iv) the consideration of extreme event scenarios (Art. 6/3), (v) the stronger
involvement of policy sectors and stakeholder groups (Art. 10/2) as well as (vi) cyclical
reviews of risk assessments and risk management plans to better account for changes
in flood risk (Art. 14; own emphasis).
These defining features of flood risk management are indicative of a “spatial turn in flood risk management” (Hartmann and Jüpner, 2014; Löschner et al., 2014; Ruiten
and Hartmann, 2016). The increasing relevance of land and space in flood policy is
reflected in on-going policy efforts to (i) improve the connectivity between rivers and
floodplains, (ii) to develop catchment-oriented approaches in flood risk management
and (iii) to improve the sectoral interplay, in particular between water management
and spatial planning.
i. Floodplain connectivity: A fundamental principle of flood risk
management is to provide more space for the rivers (Hartmann, 2011;
Warner et al., 2012). After decades of structural flood control, narrowing
riverbeds and decoupling floodplains, flood policies today aim to reconnect
rivers with their adjacent floodplains as a means of decelerating water runoff
and to enhance the ecological and recreational values of riverscapes (Haslam,
2008; Sayers et al., 2013; Werritty, 2006). The Dutch “Room for the River
Programme” (Ruimte voor de Rivier) is a prominent forerunner of the
current policy paradigm6. Based on a portfolio of measures, including dike
relocation, deepening riverbeds or lowering floodplains, the Programme aims
to “[restore] the river’s natural floodplains in places where it is least harmful in order to protect those areas that need to be defended” (Rijkswaterstaat,
2016).
Floodplain connectivity, however, not only refers to the “retreat of flood
defence lines” and the restoration of floodplains for recurrent floodings (Ruiten and Hartmann, 2016). Importantly, it also denotes the extension of
the spatial boundaries of flood policy to include low frequency (or extreme)
events and areas protected by dikes and levees. These areas typically show a
high concentration of economic assets and damage potential, which is
5 The Floods Directive has meanwhile been incorporated into the national laws of EU Member
States. The first six-year cycle of implementation of the Flood Directive has been completed in 2015, and Member States are now moving into the second cycle (to be completed in 2021).
6 Similar government programs to shift flood policies “from vertical flood defences to horizontal
expansion (widening) of rivers” (Warner et al., 2012, p. 2) have been underway across Europe, cf. England (“Making Space for Water” - Defra, 2004), Germany (“Den Flüssen mehr Raum geben” -BMUB and BfN, 2015); “Nationales Hochwasserschutzprogramm” (LAWA, 2014) or France (“Espace de Liberté” - Bazin and Gautier, 1996).
2
activated when extreme floods exceed the design level of structural flood
defence (Collenteur et al., 2014; Di Baldassarre et al., 2009; Pigeon, 2017).
The stronger consideration of extreme events demands mechanisms, which
target local residents and other stakeholders (e.g. commercial businesses) in
flood-prone areas (Merz et al., 2014; Publication IV). As these actors have a
fundamental interest to live, conduct business etc. in “flood-safe areas” and
expect to be adequately protected against flooding, flood risk management
faces the challenge to mitigate future increases in flood damage (especially in
“flood protected” areas) without overly restricting land use options and imposing additional building requirements that may discourage land
development and deter future investments (Alfieri et al., 2016; Needham and
Hartmann, 2016; Publication V)
ii. Catchment orientation: Riparians of fluvial systems are inextricably linked
by the gravitational flow of water. Flood control schemes (e.g. dikes or
levees) aimed at protecting vulnerable areas, as well as the intensification of
land uses (e.g. land development, soil sealing, drainage of wetlands) generally
accelerate flood runoff and increase the downstream peak discharge (Plate,
2002). On the other hand, downstream riparians can benefit from upstream
measures of flood prevention (e.g. flood polders) or the extensification of
land uses (e.g. restoration of wet lands, natural retention areas) in the form of
attenuated and delayed peak flows (Penning-Rowsell and Tunstall, 1996).
Addressing these interdependencies – commonly referred to as upstream-
downstream relations (Hartmann, 2011b; Heiland, 2002; Scherer, 1990;
Publication VI) – calls for regional approaches in flood risk management
and coordination at a catchment or river basin scale (Publication VII). This
involves overcoming the “spatial misfit” between the bio-physical system (i.e.
the catchment or river basin) and the administrative and judicial boundaries
in flood risk management (Ekstrom and Young, 2009; Folke et al., 2007;
Moss, 2012; Publication VIII).
Faced with an incongruity between upstream (land use) interests and
downstream externalities, catchment-oriented flood risk management
moreover faces the challenge to develop mechanisms of burden sharing
between the providers and the beneficiaries of risk reduction services (Seher
and Löschner, 2015a; Thaler and Hartmann, 2016). This in particular refers
to land-intensive flood risk reduction measures, e.g. flood retention and flood
storage that are ideally realised in areas with a low damage potential.
Agriculture (and forestry) can – and are increasingly expected – to provide
the much-needed space to alleviate downstream flooding (Morris et al.,
2016). The accommodation of flood water on agricultural land, however, is
associated with limitations in agricultural production (e.g. crop failure or soil
contamination) and infringements on existing rights of property and land use
(Klaghofer, 2003; Neuwirth and Wagner, 2010). Mobilising (privately owned)
land for risk reduction services thus marks a serious challenge for flood
3
policy and there is growing need to develop innovative approaches to balance
upstream-downstream relations (Heiland, 2002; Thaler et al., 2015).
iii. Sectoral interplay: As issues of land and space gain relevance in flood risk
management, there arises a need to improve the sectoral policy coordination
at the nexus of water management and land management (Tempels and
Hartmann, 2014; Wiering and Immink, 2006). In the traditional defence-
oriented approach flood protection was considered the sole responsibility of
hydraulic engineers and water managers who had the task to control floods
and to keep flood water away from valuable farm land and urban areas
(Johnson et al., 2005). In flood risk management these actors still assume the
fundamental tasks of providing flood protection and reducing flood hazard
potentials. But as land resources emerge as deciding factors in flood risk
management, spatial planning can assume a fundamental role in the nascent
policy paradigm (Hartmann, 2011; Seher, 2011). On the one hand, spatial
planning can secure the necessary areas for land-intensive hazard reduction
measures, in particular flood retention (Greiving, 2008; Pohl and Zehetmair,
2011; Publication IX; Publication X). On the other hand, spatial planning
can limit the encroachment of settlements into hazard areas and contribute
towards reducing flood-related damages by regulating the location and types
of land uses, the intensity of land development, and the building design of
exposed structures (ARE et al., 2005; White and Richards, 2007).
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Despite recent advances in the study of land and space-related issues in flood risk
management and the growing proliferation of the term “spatial turn” in the scholarly
literature on flood risk management, considerable gaps remain in the theoretical
grounding and the empirical application of the concept in the field. This dissertation
aims to enhance the scientific and practical understanding of the “spatial turn” in flood risk management.
Specifically, this study aims to contribute to the scientific literature by (i) embedding
the “spatial turn” in a broader conceptual understanding of space, and (ii) by
developing a novel conceptual framework for the evaluation of the “spatial turn” in flood risk management. Moreover, this dissertation aims to build empirical
knowledge about the “spatial turn” in flood risk management. To illustrate the changing relevance of land and space in flood policies, the conceptual framework is
applied for the case of Austria.
To address the above aims the study is guided by the following overarching research
questions:
4
i. How can the “spatial turn” in flood risk management be analytically framed
and operationalized through different conceptions of space?
ii. How can the “spatial turn” in flood risk management be evaluated? iii. What are the empirical evidences of the “spatial turn” in Austria’s flood
policies?
1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE
This doctoral thesis is organised in the form of a cumulative dissertation. It
comprises a synthesis framework paper and a compilation of ten peer-reviewed
publications (see Table 3 for an overview of the publication record)7.
The framework paper positions the appended publications within the analytical
concept of the “spatial turn” in flood risk management. Following this introductory
chapter, section 2 provides an overview of the research context, including the
research projects and the methods that the researcher applied in the appended
publications and in the framework paper. Section 3 presents the research design for
studying the “spatial turn” in flood risk management. Based on different conceptions
of space it operationalizes the spatial dimensions of analysis and outlines the
instrumental approach for the empirical evaluation. Section 4 applies the conceptual
framework for the case of Austria, evaluates the extent of the “spatial turn” in Austrian flood policies and identifies further policy needs. Section 5 reflects the main
research questions, discusses the study’s scientific and practical contribution and outlines further need for research. Finally, section 6 summarises the dissertation’s main conclusions.
The university guidelines for cumulative dissertations define a minimum of two publications as a
lead author and two publications in scientific journals with impact factor (BOKU, 2014). This dissertation consists of ten publications, thereof seven journal articles and three book chapters. Six articles have been published (respectively are accepted for publication) in journals with impact factor. The doctoral candidate is the lead author of three publications.
5
7
2 RESEARCH CONTEXT
2.1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROJECTS
The research findings presented and discussed in this dissertation were developed in
the course of four research projects (see Table 1). All projects have a thematic focus
in flood risk management and are characterised by interdisciplinary research
combining the following scientific fields: spatial planning, political science,
economics, water management and hydraulic engineering.
Research project Funding agency Duration Consortium
Anticipatory Flood Risk
Management under Climate
Change Scenarios: From
Assessment to Adaptation
(RiskAdapt)
Austrian Climate and Energy Fund;
Austrian Climate Research Program
(ACRP);
Grant Number: KR11AC0K00275
09/2012
– 05/2015
BOKU-InFER (LP)
BOKU-IRUB
BOKU-IWHW
The Financial Burden of
Natural Hazards on State
Budgets [Naturgefahren und
die Belastung von
Landeshaushalten] (NatBL)
Liaison Office of the Federal
Provinces
[Verbindungsstelle der
Bundesländer]
10/2014
– 04/2015
WIFO (LP)
BOKU-IRUB
BOKU-IWHW
Flood protection policies and
climate change adaptation in
Austria, Germany and
Switzerland (Flood-Adapt)
Austrian Climate and Energy Fund;
Austrian Climate Research Program
(ACRP);
Grant Number: KR14AC7K11809
09/2015
– 06/2018
BOKU-InFER (LP)
University Freiburg
University of Bern
Regional Floodplain
Management and Risk
Transfer Mechanisms:
assessing options for climate
adaptation (RegioFlood)
Austrian Climate and Energy Fund;
Austrian Climate Research Program
(ACRP);
Grant Number: KR15AC8K12549
06/2016
– 12/2018
BOKU-InFER (LP)
BOKU-IRUB
BOKU-IWHW
Table 1: Overview of research projects, funding authorities and project partners. [BOKU-IRUB: Institute of
Spatial Planning, Environmental Planning and Land Rearrangement; BOKU-InFER: Institute of Forest,
Environmental and Resource Policy; BOKU-IWHW: Institute of Water Management, Hydrology and
Hydraulic Engineering; WIFO: Austrian Institute of Economic Research; University Freiburg: Institute for
Environmental Social Sciences and Geography; University of Bern: Institute of Political Science & Oeschger
Centre for Climate Change Research; LP: project lead partner)
The following sections summarise the thematic content and aims of the research
projects:
RiskAdapt: The project analysed both aspects of risk – hazard and vulnerability – and considered their potential spatial and temporal developments in Austria and in
case study areas for the status quo and the year 2030. The approach integrates
quantifiable results from assessments of hazard, exposure and sensitivity and the
qualitative assessment of adaptive capacities. RiskAdapt investigated the
6
opportunities and constraints for decreasing flood risk by focusing on the integration
of knowledge from different scientific disciplines and stakeholders in flood risk
management (Löschner et al., 2016; Nordbeck et al., 2015).
NatBL: The project analysed the impact of natural hazards on the budgets of the
Austrian Länder (federal states). With a focus on floods, the interdisciplinary project
investigated the following issues in detail: the suitability of hydrological models to
reproduce observed economic flood damages, options in spatial planning and
building regulations to mitigate increases in flood damage. Policy-relevant
conclusions were i.a. derived from an online survey with experts in flood risk
management (Seher and Löschner, 2015b; Sinabell et al., 2015).
Flood-Adapt: The project investigates the future-orientation of flood policies at and
across federal and regional levels in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The
comparative study analyses the integration of climate change adaptation into flood
policies and its compatibility with the emerging policy paradigm of (integrated) flood
risk management. Selected case studies from Austria, Germany and Switzerland
showcase innovative approaches in future-oriented flood risk management and
highlight the role of land in climate-adapted flood policies (Löschner et al., 2017).
RegioFlood: The project investigates the opportunities and constraints of
establishing mechanisms for regional floodplain management under the conditions
of climate and land use change. The project develops and applies a novel method for
floodplain evaluation integrating political parameters, land use parameters,
hydrological and hydraulic parameters and economic parameters. Final results are
derived from comparing the applicability of different compensation mechanisms in
two selected catchment areas as regional/local case studies (Hogl et al., 2017).
The following table provides an overview of the projects’ thematic foci and lists the
corresponding appended publications and other scientific proceedings:
Research Project Thematic focus Publications
FloodAdapt
flood risk reduction strategies
future-orientation of flood policies
climate change adaptation
Publication I
RiskAdapt
anticipatory flood risk management
integrated vulnerability assessment
adaptation to extreme flood events
Publication II
Publication III
Publication IV
NatBL
residual flood risk
adaptation to extreme flood events
risk-oriented spatial planning
Publication V
RegioFlood
regional floodplain management
upstream-downstream relations
compensation mechanisms
Publication VI
Publication VII
Publication VIII
Publication IX
Publication X
Table 2: Thematic focus of the research projects and the associated publications
7
The following Table 3 provides an overview of the type of publications (which were
derived from the above research projects), the publication status and the publication
record:
N° Type Journal/Publisher Status Published Submitted
I Research
article
Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management
accepted for
publication
(major revisions8)
– 3 Nov 2017
II Research
article
Regional Environmental
Change
published 2 July 2016 11 Nov 2015
III Book
chapter
vdf Hochschulverlag AG published 10 Jan 2017 15 Jan 2016
IV Research
article
Environmental Science &
Policy
published 20 Aug 2015 30 Dec 2014
V Research
article
disP – The Planning Review accepted for
publication
(minor revisions8)
– 17 July 2017
VI Research
article
Journal of Flood Risk
Management
published 25 March 2018 22 Jan 2016
VII Research
article
Land Use Policy published 21 Aug 2017 29 Mar 2017
VIII Research
article
Österreichische Wasser-
und Abfallwirtschaft
published
(online first)
19 Feb 2018 30 Jan 2018
IX Book
chapter
Verlag Österreich forthcoming – 06 Dec 2017
X Book
chapter
Springer forthcoming – 12 Dec 2017
Table 3: Overview of the publication status and the publication history
2.2 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS
As illustrated in Table 4 this dissertation project encompasses a broad inventory of
(predominately qualitative) research methods. Depending on the thematic focus of
the respective publication, a different mix of methods was used in the research
The appended publication includes the revisions suggested by the reviewers.
8
8
process to develop the research findings presented in the appended publications and
the framework paper.
Research
Method
Publication N° Framework
Paper
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Case studies ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Integrative research reviews ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Documentary research ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Expert interviews ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Online surveys ✓ ✓
Geospatial analysis ✓ ✓ ✓
Scenario analysis ✓ ✓ ✓
Interactive workshops ✓
Table 4: Overview of research methods and their application in the publications by the PhD candidate
The following sections briefly describe the research methods applied in the
respective publications:
Case studies: A case study is a research method involving an up-close, in-depth, and
detailed examination of a subject of study (the case), as well as its related contextual
conditions (Gerring, 2006). In contrast to large-N studies, limiting research to
selected cases allows to reflect “on the relationship between empirical observations and the abstract concepts that form the core elements of hypotheses, theories and
mechanism-based explanations” (Blatter and Haverland, 2014, p. 20). In this vein,
case study research is of fundamental importance for this dissertation’s research approach. All publications draw on findings that were generated to a significant part
through the focused empirical investigation of “the properties of a bounded
phenomenon” (George and Bennett, 2005). Depending on the purpose and aim of
the respective case study (Harrison and Freeman, 1999) in-depth analyses were
conducted for various flood policy instruments, including flood-related spatial
planning instruments (cf. Publication IX and Publication X), regional coordination
instruments in flood protection and flood risk management (cf. Publication VII and
Publication VIII) or participatory instruments (cf. Publication IV). Moreover,
focused case studies were performed in selected case study areas. These include risk
assessments in flood-prone municipalities (cf. Publication II) or the analysis of
regional coordination in catchment areas and river sections (cf. Publication VI and
Publication VII), as well as the analysis of national and regional flood policies (cf.
9
Publication I). The following Table 5 provides a geographic overview of this
dissertation’s study areas:
Spatial
Level
Study
Area
Publication N° Framework
Paper
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
National Austria ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
State
Lower
Austria
✓
Vorarlberg ✓ ✓
River
Catchment
/ Section
Aist ✓ ✓ ✓
Ill-Wallgau ✓
Triesting Tal ✓
Municipal
Altenmarkt/
Flachau
✓ ✓ ✓
Perg ✓ ✓
Gleisdorf ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5: Geographic overview of the study regions
Integrative research review: An integrative research review is a type of literature
review, which presents and summarises the current state of knowledge on a topic to
10
further develop a research issue. Literature reviews aim to demonstrate a familiarity
with a body of knowledge, to show the path of prior research and how a current
project is linked to it, to integrate and summarize what is known in an area and to
learn from others and stimulate new ideas (Neuman, 2007). Integrative research
reviews specifically aim to evaluate the strength of the scientific evidence, to identify
gaps in current research and the need for future research, to build a bridge between
related areas of work, in order to generate a research question and identify a
theoretical or conceptual framework (Cooper, 1998). According to the above
understanding, integrative literature reviews were conducted for different areas of
flood-related research, including adaptive flood risk management (Publication I),
drivers of flood risk change (Publication II), integrated (risk) assessment (Publication
IV), risk-oriented spatial planning (Publication V), catchment-oriented flood risk
management (Publication VI) and politics of scale in flood risk management
(Publication VII).
Documentary research: Documentary research uses personal and official
documents as primary source material (Scott and Marshall, 2009). Documents
include all texts (e.g. newspaper articles, governmental communications) and images
(e.g. photographs) that have been recorded without a researcher’s intervention (Bowen, 2009). For this study’s empirical analysis of flood risk management in
Austria non-scientific documents and texts, in particular policy documents and legal
texts, are important sources of evidence (Prior, 2003) to evaluate the extent of the
“spatial turn” in Austrian flood policies (see section 4). But also within the appended
publications, the analysis of policy documents (such as water management strategies
or flood protection strategies), legal texts (such as spatial planning laws or building
codes) as well as spatial planning instruments (such as regional development
programmes or local land use plans) were an integral part of the research approach.
Expert interview: Interviews are a central resource of information in social science
research (Neuman, 2007). Based on the amount of control the interviewer exercises
over people’s responses there is a continuum of interview situations, ranging from
structured, through semi-structured to unstructured interviews (Bernard, 2012). The
structured interview, which is usually based on a questionnaire with a sequence of
questions, is at the quantitative end of the scale (and commonly used in survey
approaches), while the rest of the scale is generally the domain of qualitative research
(Edwards and Holland, 2013). Qualitative or semi-structured interviews are a
“thematic, topic-centred (...) interactional exchange of dialogue (...) where the
researcher has topics, themes or issues they wish to cover, but with a fluid and
flexible structure” (Edwards and Holland, 2013). In expert interviews, researchers
interview people who possess specialized “expert knowledge” (e.g. technical
knowledge or process-related expertise about interactions, organisational
constellations). Expert interviews are not about individual biographies but about a
person’s special knowledge and experiences that result from the actions,
responsibilities, obligations of the specific functional status within an organisation or
institution (Bogner et al., 2009). In this dissertation expert interviews were an
important part of the research approach. Twenty-seven interviews were conducted
with in total thirty experts in flood risk management. The interview partners
11
comprise scientific experts (n=5), policy experts from affiliated national agencies
(n=4), federal policy officers (n=4), state officials (n=10) as well as municipal
decision makers (n=5) and spatial planners (n=2). The interviews were recorded,
transcribed and coded using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti.
Online survey: Survey research is a form of quantitative research that involves the
collection of data from a sample of elements drawn from a defined population
through the use of a questionnaire (Fowler, 2013; Neuman, 2007). Online surveys
use survey applications to develop and publish surveys, collect responses, create
statistics, and export the resulting data to other applications (Wright, 2005). Online
surveys provide some major benefits due to their speed and timeliness, the ease of
data entry and analysis as well as the low administration costs; on the other hand,
limitations of online surveys include their impersonal character or the lack of online
experience of the respondents, with the effect of generally low response rates in
online surveys (Evans and Mathur, 2005). This dissertation used the online
application LimeSurvey to conduct online surveys among selected flood risk
management experts in Austria (N=55) as well as among all chairmen of Austrian
flood-related water associations (N=146).
Geospatial analysis: Geospatial analysis is an approach to applying analytic
techniques to geographic information that links features and phenomena on the
Earth’s surface to their locations. Geospatial analysis typically employs geographic
information systems (GIS) to capture, store, manipulate, analyse, manage, and
present spatial or geographic data (Smith et al., 2007). GIS-applications are widely
used to support flood monitoring and forecasting as well as the assessment and
mapping of flood hazard and flood risk (Schumann, 2011). In this dissertation GIS-
based spatial analysis was used to assess and map flood hazard exposure in three case
study municipalities.
Scenario analysis: Scenario analysis is a procedure describing the development of
scenarios, the comparison of scenario results, and the evaluation of their
consequences (Alcamo, 2008). A scenario can be defined as a description of a
possible future situation, including the path of development leading to that situation.
It typically consists of a description of an initial situation and of the key driving
forces and changes that lead to a particular future state (Kosow and Gassner, 2008).
Scenarios can support policy decisions by highlighting central elements of a possible
future and focusing attention on causal processes and key factors that will drive
future developments, as well as decision points that may influence the (hypothetical)
sequence of events (EEA, 2000). This dissertation uses scenario analysis to develop
and assess the likely influence of land development on flood hazard exposure in
flood-prone municipalities. The land development scenarios were generated for the
year 2030 on the basis of local and regional land use plans, household projections,
and the extrapolation of socio-economic data. To ensure the plausibility of the
scenarios, i.e. that they fall within the limits of what might conceivably happen, the
scenarios were developed with municipal authorities and planners.
Interactive workshops: Interactive workshops can be defined as “a structured set
of facilitated activities for groups of participants who work together to explore a
12
problem and its solutions, over a specific period of time, in one location (Pavelin et
al., 2014). Especially in research with strong policy relevance there is growing need
for better integration of science and decision-making (Jasanoff, 2009). By
contributing local knowledge, stakeholders can provide a plausibility or reality check
(Welp et al., 2006) and support the implementation of policy (Kloprogge and Sluijs,
2006). In this study interactive workshops involving local and regional decision-
makers in flood risk management were conducted in three case study municipalities.
The workshops aimed at i) reflecting determinants of risk based on different
scenarios, ii) identifying and verifying local context conditions, and iii) developing
and prioritizing adaptive measures for extreme flooding scenarios.
The above overview illustrates the range of research methods that were applied to
develop the findings documented in this dissertation. As shown in Table 4 this
framework paper employs a distinct set of research methods. Organised as a separate
case study of flood policies in Austria, the analysis is based on a review of a separate
body of literature and a comprehensive analysis of legal and policy documents in
water management, flood protection and spatial planning (see section 3.4). However,
this framework paper also substantially builds on the findings and the insights from
the above research projects. These were fundamental for developing a conceptual
framework of the spatial turn in flood risk management (see section 3.3) and for
providing complementary evidence of Austria’s changing flood policies (see section
4).
13
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 SPACE AND SPATIALITY AS CATEGORIES OF INQUIRY
This study uses the term “spatial turn” to denote the increasing relevance of land and
space in flood risk management. Generally speaking, the term “spatial turn” refers to
the “academic revalorization of space and spatiality” (Günzel, 2010, p. 90) and the
“heightened engagement with the concepts and ideas of space” (Castree et al., 2013,
p. 487) that spread across the social sciences and humanities since the end of the
1980s. The term was first mentioned by the US-American human geographer
Edward W. Soja in his work “Post-modern Geographies” (Soja, 1989). At first only
used in a passing reference (Döring and Thielmann, 2015), Soja later coined the term
with the aim to put “space and place at the centre of the analytical agenda” (Warf
and Arias, 2009, p. 2). Soja asserted his claim for the “centrality of space” (Davoudi
and Strange, 2009, p. 9) based on the observation that social scientists have long
prioritised historical and sociological perspectives and have overlooked spatial and
geographic perspectives (Günzel, 2010). According to Soja’s „trialectic of spatiality-
historicality-sociality“ (Soja, 2009, p. 22), the “spatial turn” thus offers a perspective
in which “the spatial could not be subordinated to time or the social” (Warf and
Arias, 2009, p. 6).
The diffusion of spatial perspectives across disciplines and the inflationary use of
spatial categories of analysis in social and cultural studies under the label “spatial
turn” also fed criticism problematizing the supposed evidence of the spatial turn
(Günzel, 2010; Lossau and Lippuner, 2004). Critics in particular object the term’s implicit suggestion that space was hitherto not considered conceptually useful in the
analysis of societal processes. They furthermore question the alleged centrality of
space and the “assignment of causal power to space per se [emphasis in original] in
determining human action” (Castree et al., 2013, p. 482).
Given these discussions it is important to differentiate between the “label” or “talk”
and the “agenda” of the spatial turn (Döring and Thielmann, 2015, p. 12). This
dissertation applies the term in the latter sense and investigates the “spatial turn” as a research (and policy) agenda. It thus builds on the notion that space and spatiality are
“crucial dimensions in understanding and tackling [policy] problems“ (Warf and
Arias, 2009, p. 6). Accordingly, in this dissertation space and risk are treated as
reciprocal concepts (November, 2008), reflecting that “space shapes risks and risks
(…) shape space” (Müller-Mahn, 2013, p. 203). In the case of “spatially fixed risks” (Pohl et al., 2013, p. 64), such as floods, avalanches or other natural hazards whose
spatial extent is well predictable and can be modelled and mapped, the spatial extent
of the physical process is evident.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the “spatial turn” in flood risk
management, however, there is need for inquiry beyond the material space and to
develop a more differentiated conceptualisation of the spatialities of risk. In this
regard, a fundamental distinction is generally made between an absolute and a
relational view of space. The former defines space as an absolute category – “it is an entity in itself independent of whatever objects and events occupy it” (Agnew, 2011,
14
p. 320). This view of space was challenged by the recognition that one cannot
describe physical space without considering the underlying social, economic, cultural
and physical processes (Davoudi and Strange, 2009; Löw, 2001). This relational
understanding of space abandons the exclusive notion of space as an “absolute geometric container in which social and economic life takes place” and considers space to be also “produced and constructed by people through social relations and
practices” (Castree et al., 2013, p. 479f.).
3.2 CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
In an effort to move beyond the absolute or “container” view of space, which has remained influential to date in particular in spatial sciences and GIS-based spatial
analysis (Graham and Healey, 1999; Ran and Nedovic-Budic, 2016), this study
applies a multi-facetted understanding of space to develop a more encompassing
conceptualisation of the “spatial turn” in flood risk management. In reference to
(Blotevogel, 2005; Läpple, 1991) the following three conceptions of space are thus
distinguished for the purpose of this study:
(i) Material-physical space: space is materially constituted – it is the physical
manifestation of ongoing processes in human-environment-systems
(ii) Formal-regulatory space: space is formally structured – legal boundaries
regulate competencies and jurisdictions in administrative systems
(iii) Subject-based interactive space: space is subjectively perceived – it is
shaped through human actions and social interactions
Figure 1: The schematic representation visualises three different conceptions of space (material-physical
space, formal-regulatory space and subject-based interactive space) in the form of interconnected layers to
illustrate that flood-prone areas are at once materially constituted, formally organised and subjectively
defined [own illustration]
15
3.2.2 FORMAL-REGULATORY SPACE
For the purpose of this study, the above three conceptual categories of space are
adopted for floodplains and catchments, as the two principal territorial units in
river systems (Goudie, 2013).
3.2.1 MATERIAL-PHYSICAL SPACE
In a material-physical understanding, space is materially constituted and marks the
physical manifestation of natural and socio-economic processes in coupled human-
environment-systems.
ad Floodplain: Floodplains are the relatively flat areas of land adjacent to a
stream or a river, which stretch from the banks of its channel to the base of
the enclosing valley walls and which experience flooding during periods of
high discharge (Goudie, 2013). Historically, floodplains are preferential areas
for agriculture (fertile soils) and economic production (hydro-power,
shipping). They are physically and materially defined by technical
interventions (e.g. flood control measures schemes), as well as by land use
change and urban development (Anderson et al., 1996). As “fully coupled
human-water systems” (Di Baldassarre et al., 2013), the dynamic interactions
between natural and socio-economic processes determine the level of flood
risk in floodplains.
ad Catchment: Catchments, or drainage basins, are areas of land that
contribute water and sediment to a specific outlet point on a stream (Goudie,
2013). Topographic, climatic and geological conditions have profound effects
on the characteristics and processes of catchments, including precipitation
and runoff, sediment delivery or vegetation cover. The occurrence and
intensity of flooding in river catchments is moreover influenced by human
interventions in the hinterland of rivers as well as along the rivers themselves.
Modifications in the river morphology (e.g. straightening water courses) or
changes in land use (e.g. deforestation or artificial drainage) impact i.a. the
capacities to retain and store water in catchments and influence the flood
hazard potential for downstream areas (Rogger et al., 2017).
In a formal-regulatory understanding, space is organised though borders, property
lines and statutory provisions, which not only define land use and property rights but
also competencies and jurisdictions in administrative systems.
ad Floodplain: Floodplains are formally divided into flood hazard zones,
reflecting the spatial differences in flood frequencies and intensities. These
zones are hazard information which provide the basis for risk evaluation
(PLANAT, 2015). They indicate which areas are considered “unsafe” and
must be kept free of vulnerable land uses, and which parts of a floodplain are
“suitable” for land development. Spatial planning laws, building codes and
regulatory plans commonly refer to flood hazard zones to define zoning
16
3.2.3 SUBJECT-BASED INTERACTIVE SPACE
bans, zoning restrictions or building requirements for different parts of the
floodplain (Greiving, 2002). In flood risk management, flood hazard zones
moreover delineate the sectoral intervention options (e.g. between water
management and spatial planning) and mark the dividing line between public
and private responsibilities in flood risk management (Sayers et al., 2013).
ad Catchment: Catchments are (sub)divided into administrative units. The
political boundaries of countries, states or municipalities define the
jurisdictions and competencies in flood risk management and delineate the
political sphere of action, in which governmental institutions operate and
implement policies. While the administrative organisation of competencies
and responsibilities differs across policy fields, e.g. water management or
spatial planning (Wiering and Immink, 2006), they are commonly at odds
with the bio-physical and socio-economic processes that affect flooding on a
catchment level. Contrary to political action, flooding, sediment transport as
well as the effects of changes in river morphology or land use usually are not
confined to administrative borders (Moss, 2003).
In a subject-based interactive understanding, space is subjectively perceived and
produced through human actions and social interactions.
ad Floodplain: Floodplains are shaped by societal interactions based on
differences in the representation and perception of flood hazard and flood
risk. Public authorities objectively define flood hazard zones and determine,
which areas are (legally) suitable for land development. On the other hand,
the subjective relationship to territory has a bearing on the way hazards and
risks are perceived and assessed (Masuda and Garvin, 2006). Spatial
manifestations of flood risk perception are influenced by the (perceived and
real) distance to flood hazards (O’Neill et al., 2016) and the experience with
floodings – or the lack thereof (Pfister, 2009). The level of risk awareness
influences people’s behaviour in floodplains, including their likeliness to
inform themselves about evacuation plans or consider precautionary
measures (Bubeck et al., 2012a; Schanze, 2013).
ad Catchment: Catchments are fluvial systems, whose riparians are linked by
the gravitational flow of water. In flood risk management, upstream-
downstream relations are generally asymmetrical, as actions upstream can
have a significant impact downstream, while actions downstream usually have
little or no effect upstream (Versluis, 2008). Flood risk management on a
catchment scale is characterised by an incongruity between local interests – such as ensuring flood protection or providing profitable land for
development – and the downstream externalities, including the increase and
acceleration of flood discharge (Patt and Jüpner, 2013). Moreover,
catchment-based flood risk management is complicated by the ambiguity of
location – whether one is influenced by upstream actions or whether one’s
17
3.3.1 THE SPATIAL TURN “ACROSS THE FLOODPLAIN”
actions influence the downstream risk of flooding often depends on the
subjective point of view of the observer (cf. Scherer, 1990).
3.3 ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Building on the conceptions of space outlined above, this section further develops
the conceptual framework of the spatial turn in flood risk management. The
framework combines the above three conceptions of space (material-physical space,
formal-regulatory space and subject-based interactive space) with the two principal
territorial dimensions of study in flood risk management (catchments and
floodplains) to distinguish six constituents of the spatial turn in flood risk (see Table
2).
Material-Physical
Space
Formal-Regulatory
Space
Subject-based
Interactive Space
Flo
od
pla
in
Land-Water
Divide
Floodplain
Development
Individual
Adaptation
Catc
hm
en
t
Catchment
Processes
Coordination
Area
Burden
Sharing
Table 6: Overview of the six constituents of the spatial turn in flood risk
The following sections briefly describe, graphically illustrate and define a target state
for each constituent of the spatial turn to guide the empirical analysis and the
evaluation of Austria’s flood policies in section 4.
The first analytical dimension refers to the territorial dimension of the floodplain.
Based on the threefold conceptualisation of space outlined above, the following
constituents of space are distinguished for the spatial turn “across the floodplain”:
Material-physical space (“Land-Water Divide”): Providing “more room for the rivers” changes the material-physical division of land and water.
Defence-based approaches aim at “keeping water out” by technical means of
flood protection; rivers and floods are structurally confined and the
floodplain is characterised by a rigid land-water divide. Improving the
connectivity between the river channel and the floodplain (i.a. by widening
18
rivers, removing or relocating barriers) results in more frequent inundations
of the floodplain and a less rigid land-water divide (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Material-physical conception of the spatial turn “across the floodplain”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to widen rivers and improve the
connectedness between rivers and floodplains.
Formal-regulatory space (“Floodplain Development”): Planning
regulations commonly differentiate the suitability of building land according
to defined flood hazard areas. Such hazard-oriented approaches distinguish
between “suitable” and “unsuitable” land for development and effectuate
binary zoning decisions (“build” vs. “do not build”). Risk-oriented
approaches of floodplain development enable more differentiated land use
decisions (in areas suitable for land development) according to the intensity
of the flood hazard and the buildings’ susceptibility to harm, e.g. by elevating
buildings or regulating building uses (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Formal-regulatory conception of the spatial turn “across the floodplain”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in risk-oriented approaches of land development in
river floodplains.
19
3.3.2 THE SPATIAL TURN “ALONG THE RIVER”
Subject-based interactive space (“Individual Adaptation”): Flood risk
awareness is a deciding factor when it comes to individual adaptation.
Traditional defence-oriented approaches suggest complete safety for people
living and working in protected areas. In extreme events, people are taken by
surprise and react with ad hoc damage-reduction measures (e.g. sandbags).
Flood risk management, on the other hand, builds on the assumption that
there is no complete protection against floods. Raising risk awareness in
flood hazard areas and informing potentially affected people about the
possibilities to induce (voluntary) anticipatory adaptation, including
precautionary building measures (e.g. elevating floor levels, securing oil tanks,
using water-resistant materials) is an integral part of risk management (see
Figure 4).
Figure 4: Subject-based interactive conception of the spatial turn “across the floodplain”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to improve flood risk awareness and
foster anticipatory adaptation in hazard areas.
Summing up, the spatial turn for the territorial dimension of floodplains describes
policy efforts that
pursue the permeability of the land-water divide by reconnecting rivers with
floodplains and by providing more “room” for flood retention and runoff; promote a risk-oriented approach in floodplain development to better
account for differences in the susceptibility to flood damage;
foster the communication of flood risk and build risk awareness to facilitate
anticipatory individual adaptation measures.
The second analytical dimension refers to the territorial dimension of the catchment.
Based on the threefold conceptualisation of space outlined above, the following
constituents of are distinguished for the spatial turn “along the river”:
20
Material-physical space (“Catchment Processes”): Catchment-
orientation in flood risk management implies a change in the delineation of
the material-physical space. For water managers and hydrologists river
catchments form the boundaries for natural processes such as flooding or
sediment transport, which are traditionally studied in consideration of
boundary conditions (such as land use and human activities). With a growing
understanding of coupled human-water systems increasing attention is given
to the dynamic interplay between natural (flooding) processes and socio-
economic processes, such as land use change or settlement growth (see
Figure 5).
Figure 5: Material-physical conception of the spatial turn “along the river”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in catchment-oriented policy approaches that account for
the coupled interactions between flooding and land use processes.
Formal-regulatory space (“Coordination Area”): River floods do not
stop at administrative boundaries. The organisation of institutional settings is
thus crucial for coordinated approaches between upstream and downstream
areas. Traditionally, flood protection often pursued local solutions to reduce
flood hazards. In pursuit of “better fit” between biophysical boundaries and
administrative borders, flood risk management aims to develop coordinated
approaches in larger planning areas, such as river sections or, ideally, river
(sub)catchments (see Figure 6).
21
Figure 6: Formal-regulatory conception of the spatial turn “along the river”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to foster regional coordination in flood-
prone areas.
Subject-based interactive space (“Burden Sharing”): Upstream-
downstream relations in fluvial systems are asymmetrical and often shaped by
subjective perceptions of flooding processes. Upstream flood protection
schemes may have positive or adverse effects on downstream flood risk. The
shift towards integrated flood policies takes stronger consideration of these
riparian effects. It aims to more directly involve beneficiaries of risk
reduction measures in burden sharing (beneficiary principle), as opposed to
having the public bear the entire costs (community principle) (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Subject-based interactive conception of the spatial turn “along the river”
Target State: The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to involve beneficiaries of risk reduction
measures in burden sharing.
22
Summing up, the spatial turn for the territorial dimension of river catchments
describes policy efforts, which
pursue catchment-oriented flood risk management that considers coupled
interrelations of flooding and land use processes;
foster regional coordination between upstream and downstream riparians in
flood-prone areas;
promote burden sharing in catchment-oriented flood risk management based
on the beneficiary principle.
The following Table 7 summarises the target states formulated for all six analytical
constituents of the spatial turn in flood risk management:
Spatial Constituents Target States of the Spatial Turn in Flood Risk Management
Floodplain
“Land-Water
Divide” The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to widen rivers and improve the
connectedness between rivers and floodplains.
“Floodplain
Development” The “spatial turn” results in risk-oriented approaches of land development in
river floodplains.
“Individual
Adaptation” The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to improve flood risk awareness and
foster anticipatory adaptation in hazard areas.
Catchment
“Catchment
Processes” The “spatial turn” results in catchment-oriented policy approaches that account
for the coupled interactions between flooding and land use.
“Coordination
Area” The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to foster regional coordination in
flood-prone areas.
“Burden Sharing”
The “spatial turn” results in policy efforts to involve beneficiaries of risk
reduction measures in burden sharing.
Table 7: Spatial constituents and defined target states of the spatial turn in flood risk management
3.4 EVALUATING THE SPATIAL TURN IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
This dissertation applies the above analytical dimensions to investigate the spatial
turn in flood risk management for Austria. The analysis is based on a fifteen year
study period (2002-2017), with the seminal flood event in the year 2002 – which
affected large parts of Central Europe and produced economic losses totalling EUR
2.9 billion in Austria (Habersack and Moser, 2003; IKSE, 2004) – marking the
starting point of inquiry.
For two main reasons the 2002 flood event was selected as the initial point of
reference for this study’s analysis. For one, it was the first major flood event to affect
Austria since the mid-1960s (State Government of Carinthia, 1969). Following
several flood-poor decades, the floods in 2002 were a stark reminder of Austria’s
23
susceptibility to floods and that there is need for revised policy approaches to better
address the country’s vulnerability to river flooding. Secondly, the 2002 floods were
the first flood events that were thoroughly documented and researched in Austria,
and thus provide a rich data base for analysis. In the aftermath of the flood event the
Austrian ministries involved in flood policy-making commissioned a comprehensive
analysis of the flood event. Comprising a total of 46 (sub)projects (i.a. in
meteorology, hydrology, spatial planning and disaster protection) with more than 130
involved persons from more than 60 organizations, the research programme
FloodRisk brought together Austria’s leading researchers, policy makers and
practitioners in the field of flood risk management to improve the understanding of
the causes and effects of this extraordinary flood event (BMLFUW, 2004). The
FloodRisk programme generated new insights and identified deficits, as well as
“defined the necessary course of action with regard to future-oriented, integrated
flood management” as a novel policy paradigm in Austria (Habersack et al., 2005).
A few years later a follow-up research programme (FloodRisk II) was set up in
response to another severe (river and torrent) flood event in 2005, which particularly
affected Alpine regions in the West of Austria (EUR 555 million damage; Habersack
and Krapesch, 2006). The aim of FloodRisk II was to investigate remaining issues, in
particular relating to torrent floods, and to support future oriented implementation
strategies for integrated flood management in Austria (BMLFUW, 2009).
As illustrated in the schematic Figure 8 this dissertation analyses the spatial turn in
Austria’s flood policies for the study period 2002-2017 by comparing the initial
situation in 2002 (IS) with the status quo in 2017 (SQ) and evaluating the progress
towards the target state (TS), as defined for the six analytical constituents of the
spatial turn (see section 3.3).
The study first describes the initial situation (IS) of Austrian flood policies (in the
early/mid 2000s, following the flood events in 2002 and 2005) based on a review of
the main findings and recommendations from the programmes FloodRisk and
FloodRisk II. As (schematically) illustrated in Figure 8, the extent of the spatial turn
for the defined period in time (IS) may vary, depending on the initial policy situation
in each of the six analytical constituents of the spatial turn.
24
Figure 8: Schematic illustration of the evaluation of the spatial turn in flood risk management.
Depending on the level of the initial situation in 2002 (IS) and the status quo in 2017 (SQ), the
difference to the defined target state (TS) of the spatial turn may vary.
In a second step the study documents the progress in flood policies toward the
defined target state (TS) during the study period 2002-2017, i.e. between the initial
situation in 2002 (IS) and the status quo (SQ) (see Figure 8). This part of the study
considers policy documents, technical guidelines, legal codes etc. for the sectors
water management/flood protection and spatial planning (see section 4.1). The
analysis is supported by findings from FloodRisk-E(valuation), a comprehensive
evaluation programme (2013-2015), which was commissioned in the aftermath of a
further extreme flood event in 2013 to evaluate the status of implementation of the
policy recommendations that had been formulated in the previous research
programmes FloodRisk and Flood Risk II (Kanonier et al., 2015).
A concluding qualitative evaluation of the policy progress with respect to the
spatial turn is conducted for each of the six analytical constituents of the spatial turn.
The evaluation illustrates to which extent the defined target state (TS) has been
achieved, respectively where there is further need for policy action (see Figure 8).
The evaluation of the spatial turn for each of the six constituents is complemented
by research findings from the appended publications.
The three-part analysis of the policy progress and evaluation of the spatial turn in
flood risk management is based on the following:
For one, the dissertation investigates policy aims, which describe the explicit
adoption of a specific concern within the policies and strategies of a governance
system, with the aim of addressing the concern (Candel and Biesbroek, 2016). In
reference to Nordbeck (2013) and Hall (1993) the study differentiates policy aims in
(i) policy objectives, and (ii) policy goals. Policy objectives relate to conceptual or
strategically oriented aims in policy, as formulated in (non-binding) strategy
documents or policy guidelines. Policy goals, on the other hand, provide practical
25
guidance for policy-making and, as such, are commonly defined in legal texts or
other administrative documents.
Secondly, this study looks for evidences of the respective constituents of the spatial
turn in policy instruments to show “how intentions of [flood] policy are translated
into operational activities” (de Bruijn and Hufen, 1998, p. 12). If – as in a general
understanding – public policy is “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye, 1992, p. 3), then policy instruments refer to the techniques or means through
which governments attempt to attain their aims (Linder and Peters, 1990). One well-
established typology of policy instruments makes a threefold distinction between
legal, economic and communicative instruments – or, expressed in more popular
terms, between sticks, carrots and sermons – indicating that “the government may either force us, pay us or have us pay, or persuade us” (Vedung, 2003, p. 30):
The first family – regulatory instruments – are legal in nature and aim to
normalize behaviour and “influence people by means of formulated rules and
directives that mandate receivers to act in accordance with what is ordered in
these rules and directives” (Vedung, 2003, p. 30). In regard to flood risk
management a bundle of legal instruments can be applied to e.g. regulate
flood protection levels or define land development and building requirements
in flood-prone areas. The corresponding legal and statutory provisions are
commonly codified in legal texts, such as Water Acts, Spatial Planning Laws
or Building Acts (Kanonier, 2012).
The second family – economic instruments – encompass financial (dis)incentives
as a way of influencing behaviour by either “handing out or taking away material resources, be they in cash or in kind” (Vedung, 2003, p. 32). In
contrast to regulatory instruments, economic instruments are generally non-
coercive, as the addressees are usually left with a choice and some leeway
whether or not to accept a policy action. In flood risk management financial
instruments include (direct) public funding of flood protection measures,
(indirect) market-based instruments, such as public subsidies or taxes, as well
as insurance-related options to help finance losses caused by extreme events
(risk transfer). Economic instruments can be deployed to mitigate damage
potentials and reduce vulnerabilities in flood-prone areas, e.g. by enhancing
building adaptations in hazard areas or promoting risk-aware behaviour in
flood-prone areas (Mechler et al., 2016).
The third family – communicative instruments – refer to “attempts at influencing people through the transfer of knowledge, the communication of reasoned
argument, and persuasion” (Vedung, 2003, p. 33). Risk communication
assumes a prominent role in the nascent policy paradigm both in its
understanding as “information transfer (…) to overcome information
deficits” and as a more “conscious instrument for changing the attitudes and
behaviour of message recipients” (Demeritt and Nobert, 2014).
It is noteworthy that all three families of policy instruments can be applied in both a
positive and a negative way to attain a desired policy aim (Bemelmans-Videc et al.,
2003). For instance, regulatory policy instruments may be prescriptive or prohibitive,
economic policy instruments may be used to incentivise behaviour through subsidies
26
or have a penalising effect through taxes and charges, while communicative policy
instruments may be informative or propagandistic.
For the purpose of this study, it is also essential that policy aims are not necessarily
addressed by new policy instruments (e.g. novel instruments in water management or
spatial planning) but also through “changed settings” (Nordbeck, 2013), meaning the
adaptation of existing policy instruments (e.g. building laws) or the re-definition of
programmatic priorities (e.g. flood protection funding schemes).
27
4.1.1 RIVER FLOODING IN AUSTRIA
4 THE SPATIAL TURN IN AUSTRIA’S FLOOD POLICIES
This empirical part of this dissertation applies the conceptual framework presented
for the case of Austria. For better understanding it begins with an introductory
overview of the policy context of Austrian flood risk management and proceeds with
the evaluation of the spatial turn “across the floodplain” (section 4.2) and the spatial
turn “along the river” (section 4.3). Finally, section 4.4 provides a synthesis
evaluation of the spatial turn in Austrian flood risk management and highlights
further needs for policy action.
4.1 POLICY CONTEXT
Austria is a land-locked country in Central Europe with a surface area of 83 879 km2
and a population of about 8.7 million. Located within the Alps – the “hydrological rooftop” of Europe – Austria’s terrain is predominately mountainous in the west and
south, and mostly flat or gently sloping with large agricultural areas along the eastern
and northern margins. Due to its alpine topography and extensive forest land only
about 40 % of the Austrian territory is suitable for permanent settlement. Major
agglomerations are located in the eastern lowlands (Vienna metropolitan area) as well
as along the southern and northern Alpine fringes; in mountainous areas socio-
economic activities are topographically confined and concentrated in the alpine
valleys (see Figure 9).
Given its topography and variable climatic conditions Austria is exposed to multiple
natural hazards. While many alpine areas in Austria are prone to gravitational hazards
(such as landslides, debris flows, avalanches and torrents) fluvial flooding mainly
affects the lower lying parts of the country along Austria’s large and medium-sized
rivers (e.g. Danube, Rhine, Inn, Salzach, March). A recent study of flood hazard
exposure in Austria showed that more than 310 000 buildings (about 13 % of all
buildings) are located in flooding areas and more than 1.1 million residents in Austria
(or about 1 in 8 people) live in flood-prone areas9 (Fuchs et al. 2015).
The assessment was made for river floods with 1/100-year recurrence intervals and for torrent
floods with 1/150-year recurrence intervals.
28
9
4.1.2 RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMPETENCES
Figure 9: Overview of the Central European river network and aggregated land cover in Austria
(based on the CORINE land cover inventory). The Eastern lowlands, as well as the hilly regions to
the north and southeast of the Alpine ridge are characterised by a high share of agricultural land and a
dispersed settlement structure. In the Central and Western regions settlement areas are spatially
concentrated and often topographically confined to flood-prone Alpine valleys.
Following several decades without major flooding, in the past 15-20 years Austria
experienced a series of large-scale flood events along the Danube and its tributaries
(1997, 2002, 2006, 2013) and in the Western Alpine region (2005). In particular the
succession of the disastrous floods of 2002 and 2005 were a stark reminder that
Austria is highly vulnerable to river flooding (BMLFUW, 2011; Fuchs and Zischg,
2014).
Flood protection in Austria – as in other countries with federal political systems,
such as Germany or Switzerland – is characterised by fragmented responsibilities and
a complex distribution of competences between the national level, the state level
(Länder) and the municipal level (Kanonier, 2009; Nordbeck, 2014).
Water Management/Flood protection: At the national level, the organisation of
flood protection in Austria is subdivided in three areas: (i) river regulation and
supervision of waters, (ii) torrent control and (iii) maintenance and development of
waterways. The maintenance and regulation of all water bodies (with the exception of
torrents and waterways) is the responsibility of the Federal Water Engineering
Administration (Bundeswasserbauverwaltung, BWV). This task is fulfilled jointly
with the offices of the provincial governments and the Federal Ministry of
Sustainability and Tourism (Directorate IV/6 Protective Water Management).
Torrents fall within the competence of the Forest Engineering Service on Torrent
and Avalanche Control (Forsttechnischer Dienst der Wildbach- und
Lawinenverbauung WLV) at the Federal Ministry of Sustainability and
29
Tourism. Finally, the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology
(BMVIT, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie) is in charge
of the (international) waterways Danube, March and Thaya (BMLFUW, 2017a).
As outlined in Table 8, the legal basis of water management/flood protection is
defined in three main national acts: the Water Act (WRG, 1959), the Forest Act (FG,
1975) and the Hydraulic Engineering Development Act (WBFG, 1985). In addition,
federal policy documents, including foremost the Technical Guidelines for the
Federal Water Engineering Department (BMLFUW, 2015a) and the National Flood
Risk Management Plan (BMLFUW, 2016a) respectively provide technical and
strategic guidance concerning the implementation flood risk management policies in
Austria.
Water Management/Flood
Protection
Spatial Planning
Federal
Level
Legislation
Water Act
(WRG, 1959)
Forest Act
(FG, 1975)
Hydraulic Engineering
Development Act
(WBFG, 1985)
Directive for Hazard Zone Plans
(WRG-GZPV, 2014)
There are no legislative provisions for spatial planning at the Austrian federal level. The coordination of federal and state interests lies in the hands of the Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning (ÖROK).
Policy
Documents
Technical Guidelines for the Federal
Water Engineering Department
(BMLFUW, 2015a)
National Flood Risk Management
Plan (BMLFUW, 2016a)
Flood Protection in Austria
(BMLFUW, 2006a)
Austrian Spatial Development
Concept (ÖROK, 2011)
Recommendations of the
Austrian Conference on Spatial
Planning
(ÖROK, 2017, 2015, 2005)
State
Level
Legislation
There are no legislative provisions for water management and flood protection at the Austrian state level. State authorities in water management exercise federal executive power (i.e. indirect federal administration).
Spatial Planning Laws
(OÖ ROG, 1994)
Building Codes
(OÖ. BauTG, 2013)
Policy
Documents
Water Management Strategies
(cf. State Government of
Vorarlberg, 2016)
Spatial Planning Programmes
(cf. State Government of Styria,
2005; State Government of
Vorarlberg, 2013)
Table 8: Overview of the main (federal and state) laws and policy documents in Austrian water
management/flood protection and spatial planning
At the state level there are no legislative provisions for water management and flood
protection. State authorities in water management, however, exercise federal
executive power (through indirect federal administration) and have the competences
30
4.1.3 THE SHIFT TOWARDS INTEGRATED FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
to draft flood-related policy documents, such as water management programmes or
water management strategies (see Table 8).
Municipalities have no legal competence in flood protection. As recipients of federal
and state funding for the implementation of flood protection measures,
municipalities (and municipal associations) are interested parties in flood risk
management and as such eligible to file funding applications for flood protection
projects.
Spatial Planning: In contrast to water management and flood protection, which are
shaped by strong competencies at the national level, there are no federal legislative
provisions for spatial planning in Austria. The coordination of federal and regional
interests lies in the hands of ÖROK, the Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning.
The main competencies concerning spatial planning are located at the state level
(Länder). Spatial planning laws and building codes are passed by the federal states.
State governments are also responsible for drafting spatial planning instruments,
such as (legally-binding) sectoral or regional Spatial Planning Programmes (see Table
8), which may i.a. be used to secure large-scale areas for flood retention and flood
runoff.
At the municipal level local authorities have the task to take concrete planning
decisions while respecting all guidelines and plans elaborated at the higher
administrative level. The local level disposes of three main planning instruments
(local spatial development strategies, land use plans and building schemes) to regulate
land development in flood-prone areas. “Local spatial development strategies” are
strategic planning instruments with a mid-term planning horizon (10-15 years) to
define i.a. priority areas for future land development. In terms of flood-related
planning, local spatial development strategies may be used to mitigate increases in
damage potential by anticipating future land developments and allocating demands
for space outside flood-prone areas. “Land use plans” allocate land uses and future
demands for space on the plot level according to the suitability of locations. Land use
plans provide the most effective instrument to keep flooding and retention areas free
of vulnerable land uses and limit the encroachment of settlement areas into hazard
areas. Finally, “building schemes” may be used to regulate the design of physical
structures in flood-prone areas (including wet flood-proofing) to prevent flood
damage.
Within the administrative and institutional system outlined above, flood policies in
Austria underwent significant changes since the flood events in the early 2000s. In
particular the seminal event in 2002 ignited “a fundamental shift in Austrian flood
policy away from a structural, security-based approach of flood protection towards
an integrated approach of flood risk management characterized by a preference for
non-structural flood mitigation measures and an enhanced vertical and horizontal
coordination, in particular between flood protection and spatial planning” (Publication III).
31
4.2.1 LAND-WATER DIVIDE (MATERIAL-PHYSICAL SPACE)
According to a high-level policy maker, in the aftermath of the devastating floods the
responsible actors engaged in a “process of introspection” to evaluate “how such immense damage could occur notwithstanding large investments in flood protection” (Publication I). Based on lessons from the 2002 floods a strategic policy document
in 2006 defines the cornerstones of integrated flood management as (i) a holistic
view of the risk cycle integrating the three elements prevention, response and
aftercare, (ii) the integration of flood protection into other policy fields such as
spatial planning, agriculture and forestry, transportation and tourism, and, (iii)
individual solutions, e.g. through enhanced risk awareness among those potentially
affected by floods and by facilitating precautionary measures with financial incentives
(BMLFUW, 2006a).
This nascent policy paradigm illustrates the underlying shift away from structural,
defence-based approaches of flood protection in Austria and indicates a “growing
importance of land resources in flood risk management” (Publication III). But how
precisely does the changing relevance of land become evident in Austria’s flood
policies? And is it appropriate to conclude that a “spatial turn” is taking place in
flood risk management in Austria? The following sections set out to address these
questions by evaluating Austria’s flood policies based on the conceptual framework
outlined in chapter 3.
4.2 THE SPATIAL TURN “ACROSS THE FLOODPLAIN”
This section applies the scheme outlined in section 3.3 to determine the extent of the
spatial turn “across the floodplain”, i.e. for the three analytical dimensions of the
floodplain. For each analytical constituent of the spatial turn, the section (i) outlines
the initial situation (IS), (ii) documents the policy progress towards the status quo
(SQ) and (iii) provides a qualitative evaluation of the spatial turn to indicate which
extent of the defined target state (TS) has been achieved.
INITIAL SITUATION
The flood events in 2002 and 2005 made evident the adverse consequences of
traditional flood policies, in particular linear flood defence and river regulation. As
documented in the research programmes FloodRisk and FloodRisk II, these
measures significantly reduce the capacities for flood runoff and flood retention, and
thus represent a main reason for the past years’ increase in flood hazard potential
(BMLFUW, 2009, 2004).
To limit further decoupling of floodplains the study FloodRisk suggest that “future flood control should primarily involve non-structural measures”; in cases where
technical measures for linear flood protection cannot be avoided, the “loss of
retention capacity must be compensated by making equally effective lands available”
(Habersack et al., 2005, p. 24). The study further recommends that in mountainous
32
areas and torrent catchments, rivers and torrents should be provided with sufficient
room for extreme runoff to reduce the risk of river bank erosion for buildings,
infrastructure facilities and other vulnerable land uses (BMLFUW, 2009).
In view of a series of catastrophic dike breaches that led to uncontrolled flooding
and activated large damage potential in protected areas, FloodRisk moreover
highlighted the need to better consider extreme flooding scenarios in hydraulic
engineering, i.a. by designing facilities such as dike spillways as part of the protective
structures (Habersack et al., 2005).
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
Flood policy aims in Austria were (re)defined in response to the seminal flood
events in the early 2000s and based on the recommendations of the research
programmes FloodRisk and FloodRisk II. The policy document “Flood Protection in
Austria”, drafted after completion of the FloodRisk programme, highlights that
“future flood protection is first and foremost ensured through spatial measures” (such as spatial planning provisions or the preservation of natural flood retention and
runoff), while also acknowledging the need “to protect the built-up environment and
economic areas through protective measures” (BMLFUW, 2006a, p. 9). In general,
however, flood protection measures shall be based on the following guiding
principles: “avoidance of those measures that would increase erosion and discharge”; “support of the natural possibilities of water retention and improvement of bed load
balance”; “conservation and reactivation of natural run-off and retention areas”
(BMLFUW, 2006a, p. 13).
The Technical Guidelines for the Federal Water Engineering Department (RIWA-T),
which were revised in 2015, reiterate the above maxims and policy objectives by
defining a hierarchy of flood protection measures. Accordingly, (i) passive (non-
structural) flood protection (i.e. adaptation of use to the flood hazard) has priority
over active flood protection (structural protection measures), and (ii) retention
measures have priority over linear structural measures. The selection of measures as
well as any deviation from the hierarchy of measures have to be justified (BMLFUW,
2015a, p. 15).
The Federal Water Act formulates comparable policy aims, following a
comprehensive amendment in 2011 as part of the implementation of the EFD into
national law. The Water Act defines that in Areas of Potentially Significant Flood
Risk (APSFR) appropriate objectives shall be established, if applicable, with a focus
on non-structural measures of flood prevention, in particular securing flood runoff
areas and areas suitable for flood retention (§55l WRG).
Policy efforts to implement the above policy aims are leveraged through different
policy instruments. In this regard, public funding schemes for flood protection
projects play an important role within the family of economic instruments. For one,
in order to preserve agricultural and forest areas as natural flooding areas, the
technical guidelines (RIWA-T) define that federal or state funding is no longer
provided for measures protecting agricultural/forest land (BMLFUW, 2015a, p. 18).
33
Secondly, with regard to widening rivers and providing land for flood retention and
flood runoff, the acquisition and/or compensation of privately-owned land and
properties (e.g. of riparian strips or flood retention areas, or compensation areas for
the loss of flood retention) are eligible for federal funding (BMLFUW, 2015a, p. 20).
In this vein, federal funding rates may increase or decrease depending on whether
flood protection measures create, maintain or reduce the available space for flood
runoff and flood retention (BMLFUW, 2015a, pp. 20–21). Finally, planning of flood
protection measures has to take into consideration overload flooding scenarios
(BMLFUW, 2015a, p. 20). To prevent dike breach and to enable controlled flooding
in extreme events, flood protection measures have to be implemented by applying
the newly developed guidelines for spillways of dikes (BMLFUW, 2006b).
Aside from (direct) funding schemes, measures to enhance water retention and
prevent soil erosion along rivers are also supported through public subsidies. For
instance, the Austrian agri-environmental programme (ÖPUL) grants agricultural
subsidies to compensate the extensification of agricultural land uses in riparian strips
(BMLFUW, 2016b, p. 22). Moreover, the Environmental Subsidizations Act (UFG,
1993) was amended to enable public funding for the improvement of the ecological
status of rivers, specifically by measures aiming to restructure morphologically
modified river stretches10 (Habersack et al., 2015a). Finally, large-scale efforts aiming
to improve land-water connectivity (and the ecological status or rivers) are
commonly financed through EU co-funded environmental projects, notably LIFE-
projects (BMLFUW, 2017b).
Apart from (direct and indirect) funding schemes to improve the connectivity of
rivers and floodplains, there exist few legal instruments in Austria that explicitly
support the policy aims of providing more room for rivers. Following the
implementation of the EFD into Austrian national law through an amendment of the
Water Act in 2011, hazard maps have to be developed for Areas of Potentially
Significant Flood Risk (APSFR). The corresponding federal directive for hazard
maps, issued in 2014, indicates that flood runoff and/or flood retention areas, which
are needed to alleviate downstream flood hazard potential in the APSFR, must be
displayed as “red-yellow hatched” areas (and shall be kept free from vulnerable land
uses (WRG-GZPV, 2014). Concerning the problem of riverbank erosion in extreme
flood events, the directive for hazard maps moreover designates that areas prone to
riverbank scars have to be zoned as “Red Zones” and thus have to be kept free of
buildings, infrastructure and other vulnerable land uses (Habersack et al., 2015a, p.
18).
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Since the seminal floods in the early 2000s there has been significant policy progress
towards widening rivers and improving the connectedness between rivers and
The funding guidelines came into force in 2009 but there is currently no more funding available to
support the above measures.
34
10
4.2.2 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT (FORMAL-REGULATORY SPACE)
floodplains. Policy aims in Austria were redefined to highlight the need to prevent
the further loss of flood runoff and flood retention capacities and to improve the
connectivity of rivers and floodplains. The corresponding policy objectives are clearly
formulated in strategy documents and technical guidance documents. However, there
is no legal basis for this re-orientation in flood policy, as the respective policy aims
concerning e.g. the prioritisation of measures are not mentioned in legal texts, such
as the Federal Water Act.
Austrian flood policy predominately applies economic policy instruments to widen
rivers and improve river-floodplain connectivity. Especially national funding for
flood protection measures is used as a powerful leverage to implement policy
priorities across the country. This re-orientation of flood protection funding schemes
reflects a changed “setting” of existing policy instruments and supports the
ecological orientation of Austrian flood risk management (Mühlmann et al., 2017).
On the other hand, the analysis shows a lack of regulatory (land policy) instruments
to leverage river-floodplain connectivity; this can be seen as a significant impediment
for further policy progress toward the defined target state.
Moreover, despite the “rhetorical prioritization” of non-technical and planning
measures and their proliferation through public funding schemes, structural flood
protection measures remain high on the Austrian flood policy agenda, albeit in better
consideration of extreme event scenarios by providing flood spillways (Publication
I). In this vein, flood retention measures (i.e. controlled retention basins or polders)
are increasingly implemented to effectively reduce flood loads. As the adjacent
floodplains are usually “activated” when certain design thresholds are exceeded (e.g. 1/100 year floods for flood spillways, or 1/30 year floods for polders), these
measures reflect only a limited improvement in the river-floodplain connectedness.
As documented in the National Water Management Plan, in Austria 30 % of
watercourses are affected by structural and morphological changes of their
riverbanks and riverbeds (the majority as a result of flood protection measures). In
particular, Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) thus show a poor
ecological status, as 80 % of APSFR (located in catchments larger than 10 km2) fail
to meet the ecological quality objectives indicated in the EU Water Framework
Directive11 (BMLFUW, 2017c).
INITIAL SITUATION
The floods in 2002 and 2005 made evident the concentration of assets in flood-
prone areas and ignited a public debate about the accountability of spatial planning
for the large damage to buildings and infrastructure (Kanonier, 2004). The research
programmes FloodRisk and FloodRisk II investigated the damage potential in flood-
11 Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
(EC, 2000)
35
prone areas and highlighted the need for spatial planning to better fulfil its primary
task of “risk prevention” by regulating land development in hazard areas. This
includes, among other, (i) a better display of flood hazard information in the spatial
planning instruments and the legally binding consideration of hazard maps in spatial
planning laws, (ii) zoning prohibitions for building land in flood runoff and flood
retention areas and, (iii) preventing land development in emergency runoff areas (cf.
Hanten and Eberstaller, 2005; Prettenthaler et al., 2009).
In this vein, the findings from FloodRisk moreover suggest that “risk reduction” (in the sense of mitigating future increases in damage potential) should be defined as an
official task in local and regional spatial planning (BMLFUW, 2004, p. 108f.) In
particular, FloodRisk recommends introducing mandatory building provisions and
making better use of the building codes to limit the increase in damage potential in
flood hazard areas. This also concerns those parts of the floodplain, which may be
affected in low frequency events (1/300-year floods) or in the event of dike breach
or other structural failure. However, as the findings from FloodRisk show, it is not
considered economically feasible to prohibit land development in these areas; rather,
it may be useful to define building requirements to reduce the increase in damage
potential in areas of residual flood risk (BMLFUW, 2004).
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
Significant policy efforts were made in response to the floods in 2002 and 2005 to
limit the infringement of vulnerable land uses in hazard areas and to mitigate flood
damage in extreme flood events (Kanonier et al., 2015). On the state level planning
authorities imposed tighter land use controls (in particular zoning bans) for defined
hazard areas, while some Austrian states introduced restrictions for zoned building
land, such as temporal limits for land development (cf. Styria) or the possibility to re-
zone flood-prone building land (cf. Lower Austria) (Kanonier et al., 2015).
Despite these improvements, there are few indications that land development in
Austria is increasingly risk-oriented. Unlike water management and flood protection – which ostensibly adopted a “language of risk” in its policy aims as part of the policy
shift from flood control to flood risk management (cf. BMLFUW, 2016a) – spatial
planning in Austria still overwhelmingly avoids usage of (flood) risk terminology.
The Styrian Spatial Planning Act, for instance, defines as a guiding principle of spatial
planning that settlements shall be developed based on the “avoidance of natural
hazards” (§ 3 Stmk ROG, 2010; own emphasis and translation). The only Austrian
state that defines risk-oriented policy aims is Upper Austria. According to Art. 2/1
spatial planning shall aim to “avoid and reduce the risk [own emphasis] from natural
hazards for existing and future settlement areas” (OÖ ROG, 1994).
In recent years, some federal states in Austria also developed risk-oriented policy
instruments. For instance, in Upper Austria, an amendment to the Building Code
defines structural regulations for the “flood-protected design of buildings” located in 100-year hazard areas, as well as in areas, which are “no longer located in 100-year
hazard areas due to technical flood protection”. These regulations define i.a. that the
top edge of flooring has to be installed at least 50 cm above the initial 100-year flood
36
level (i.e. before realisation of the flood defence), and that walls, ceilings and opening
have to be sealed against water infiltration (§ 47 OÖ. BauTG, 2013). Similarly, in
Styria (non-binding) guidelines concerning flood-adapted building methods also
apply for “areas of residual flood risk”, i.e. areas affected when design floods are exceeded or when flood defences fail (State Government of Styria, 2009; own
translation).
Moreover in Tyrol, an amendment to the Spatial Planning Law defines that in flood
exposed areas a written supplement to the local land use plan – indicating the need
for structural adaptation measures or adaptations in land use (e.g. no residential uses
in ground floors) – may be required in order for areas to be declared suitable as
building land (§ 37 TROG, 2016). Moreover, a “security concept” specifying
organisational precautions, such as the timely evacuation of parking lots, may be
required for flood-prone areas to mitigate damage in the event of a flood (Schroll,
2017).
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Since the early 2000s the Austrian Länder make more effective use of spatial planning
laws and building codes for preventing a further increase in flood hazard exposure
and flood damage potential. Notwithstanding these developments, spatial planning in
Austria remains to be shaped by hazard-oriented approaches. With the exception of
Upper Austria, state planning laws formulate policy aims targeting the avoidance of
floods and other natural hazards. Rather than differentiating the suitability of
building land according to the intensity of the (flood) hazard and the buildings’ susceptibility to harm, policy goals in Austria distinguish between “suitable” and
“unsuitable” building areas to effectuate binary zoning decisions (“build” vs. “do not build”). However, despite the persistence of hazard-oriented approaches, the analysis
shows a proliferation of risk-oriented policy instruments, indicating a gradual shift in
Austrian spatial planning from hazard aversion to flood risk management (ÖROK,
2017). In recent years some state governments also amended their spatial planning
laws to enforce flood-adapted land uses in areas of residual risk or adapted their
building codes to differentiate the type of building use in flood-prone areas. These,
however, are isolated examples, which do not indicate a fundamental shift towards
risk-oriented policy aims and instruments in spatial planning.
The above “persistence of hazard-based approaches” in spatial planning in Austria is confirmed by findings from an online survey among practitioners and scientific
experts in spatial planning and flood risk management (Publication V). The survey
shows a general approval for risk-based approaches (i.e. flood-adapted building
provisions) in medium flood hazard areas (i.e. between 30-year and 100-year flood
zones). However, in areas with low probability of flooding (i.e. < 1/100-recurrence
intervals) there is a reluctance to introduce development restrictions, irrespective of
the concentration of damage potential in these areas. This consensus concerning the
existing definition of acceptable levels of risk was also reflected in scientist-
stakeholder workshops in flood-prone municipalities, where the proposed flood-
adapted land use options in areas of residual risk were considered to be effective but
37
4.2.3 INDIVIDUAL ADAPTATION (SUBJECT-BASED INTERACTIVE SPACE)
also highly controversial, due to the associated infringements on land use and
property rights as well as the expected increase in construction costs (Publication
III, Publication IV).
INITIAL SITUATION
Private households and businesses were heavily affected by the floods in 2002. In
Lower Austria and Upper Austria, which suffered the highest economic damage of
the Austrian states, private households and businesses accounted for more than 78 %
of the total damage (EUR 1.1 billion) (Habersack and Fuchs, 2003). The research
programmes FloodRisk and FloodRisk II show that a large share of the damage was
the result of exceptional flooding intensities (high inundation levels and/or high
flooding velocities). However, significant flood damage was also recorded in areas
with low water levels. According to FloodRisk many of these damaging effects could
have been avoided through flood-proofing measures, such as the elevation of
utilities, anchoring oil tanks and other sources of contamination, or using water
resistant materials (BMLFUW, 2009, 2004).
FloodRisk also found that a limited risk awareness in hazard areas, especially in areas
protected by structural flood defence, was one of the reasons for the lack of
(voluntary) adaptation measures on the level of individual households and businesses
(BMLFUW, 2004). A detailed study of the disaster relief system moreover shows that
the reliance on the public sector for flood protection marked a decisive constraint for
increased risk awareness, highlighting the need for “stronger incentives for collective
and individual risk prevention” (Habersack et al., 2005; Prettenthaler et al., 2004).
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
In the aftermath of the flood events in the early 2000s design levels for flood
protection were not increased. Rather, flood policy makers in Austria reiterated that
public authorities provide flood protection only up to defined flooding thresholds (in
general 1/100 flood events) and highlighted the importance of individual
precautions: “in spite of the public sector’s responsibility for flood control measures,
also each individual person is responsible for making provisions for his/her own
protection at an acceptable level” (BMLFUW, 2017d).
Policy aims after 2002 reflect the strong relevance of private responsibilities in
Austria’s flood risk management. Policy documents stress the importance of
“providing good information and appropriate incentives” to support “individual contribution to precautionary flood protection” (BMLFUW, 2006a, p. 9). These
policy principles are reiterated in the National Flood Fisk Management Plan, which
defines “strengthening risk and hazard awareness” as one of its four main objectives
(BMLFUW, 2016a, p. 29; own translation). The Technical Guidelines for the Federal
Water Engineering Department (RIWA-T) further elaborate the aim to “enhance the acceptance and the understanding of flood protection measures by affected persons”
38
and to raise risk awareness by improved risk communication, especially concerning
“aspects of residual risk and individual precautions” as a means to mitigate damage
potentials in protected areas (BMLFUW, 2015a, p. 47; own translation).
These policy aims are paralleled by substantial efforts on all levels of government to
develop (communicative) policy instruments aimed at promoting public knowledge
about and awareness of flood hazards (BMLFUW, 2010, 2009). In the course of the
implementation of the EFD, which i.a. mandates the consideration of low frequency
events, the information base for individual adaptation measures was greatly
improved. Based on the directive for flood hazard maps (WRG-GZPV, 2014) i.a.
areas affected in 300-year flood events and in the case of structural failure have to be
displayed in flood hazard maps. In addition, since 2015 flood hazard and flood risk
maps are publically accessible for all Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk
(APSFR) on the Austrian online water information system (WISA). Comprehensive
flood hazard information is moreover provided on the Austrian state governments’
geographic information systems as well as on the national platform for hazard
information (eHORA-National Hazard Overview & Risk Assessment Austria).
Finally, national authorities published a series of guidebooks and brochures to
inform about the possibilities of individual adaptation against floods (cf. BMLFUW,
2015b).
Despite explicit policy aims to incentivise private adaptation measures, however,
economic instruments still play a minor role in Austria’s flood policies and are
currently not used as a leverage to reduce the accumulation of damage potential in
flood-prone areas. The only exception is Lower Austria, where private home owners
can apply for state subsidies when implementing private flood protection measures
(i.e. wet flood proofing) as part of building refurbishments (NÖ WF-RL, 2015).
Moreover, flood damage in Austria is predominately compensated in the aftermath
of flood events through the (tax-funded) national disaster relief fund, in general
without linking the allocation of funds with the flood hazard or flood risk in the
affected areas (Habersack et al., 2017; Prettenthaler and Köberl, 2015). Despite
efforts to introduce flood insurance as a means of market-based risk transfer, there
exists no comprehensive insurance system against flood hazards, as in e.g.
Switzerland, where flood insurance and risk transfer mechanisms are an integral
component of flood risk management. In general, there is only very limited insurance
for private households. Where insurance is provided, insurers have moved towards
linking insurance premiums with individual protective measures in the aftermath of
damaging events. This is also the state of practice in the insurance of major risks,
where insurers require structural or organisational adaptations as a condition for
flood risk insurance (Prettenthaler and Köberl, 2015).
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Since the early 2000s Austria’s flood policy makers stepped-up efforts to improve
flood risk awareness and foster anticipatory adaptation in hazard areas. Austrian
flood policies aim to improve risk awareness and promote individual adaptation.
39
Strategic policy objectives acknowledge the relevance of personal responsibilities in
flood risk management and the importance of promoting risk aware behaviour, also
in protected areas. However, there exist no corresponding policy goals in legal texts
and thus no legal basis to pursue these policy aims.
Austrian flood policy makers also developed a range of policy instruments to
improve the information base concerning flood hazard and flood risk. Legal
instruments, such as buildings regulations, as well as economic (dis)incentives,
however, are only used to a limited extent as a means of promoting the construction
of flood-adapted buildings.
As the findings in the appended publications show, in particular spatial planning
could make better use of its existing instruments (especially at the local level) to
leverage individual adaptation measures in flood prone areas. An online survey
among practitioners and scientific experts in flood risk management shows that
displaying additional hazard information (concerning low frequency events, i.e.
1/300 year floods, and residual flood risk) in land use plans could improve risk
awareness and support individual adaptation in Austria’s flood-prone municipalities
(Publication V). Also, participatory visioning processes e.g. for local development
plans, may be used to communicate flood risks and build risk awareness. In a series
of workshops a participatory format was implemented to sensitize local and regional
stakeholders for future flood risks and to develop and prioritise adaptation measures.
In the workshops “fostering individual responsibilities” was identified as a key
priority for anticipatory flood risk management (Publication III). Moreover the
workshops illustrate a “strong municipal leverage to implement many of the
proposed measures” 12 (Publication IV).
In one of the case studies, municipal authorities actually changed the local spatial development
strategy in response to the workshops. Specifically, the municipality decided to re-zone the extent of a priority development area based on the indications that these areas may be subject to future (climate-induced) flooding.
40
12
4.3.1 CATCHMENT PROCESSES (MATERIAL-PHYSICAL SPACE)
4.3 THE SPATIAL TURN “ALONG THE RIVER”
This section applies the evaluation scheme outlined in section 3.3 to determine the
extent of the spatial turn “along the river”, i.e. for the three analytical dimensions of
the catchment. For each analytical constituent of the spatial turn, the section (i)
outlines the initial situation (IS), (ii) documents the policy progress towards the status
quo (SQ) and (iii) provides a qualitative evaluation of the spatial turn to indicate
which extent of the defined target state (TS) has been achieved.
INITIAL SITUATION
Another thematic focus of the research programmes FloodRisk and FloodRisk II
included the catchment-orientation of Austrian flood policies (BMLFUW, 2009). A
sub-study of (inter)national approaches in river basin management showed that a
range of integrated approaches in flood risk management on the scale of larger river
sections or river catchments were already in place at the time (Lumasegger and
Michor, 2009). However, these approaches primarily focus on water management
and ecology and insufficiently consider land use change and lack integration with
spatial planning (ibid, 108).
These findings are partly supported by a sub-study of regional instruments to secure
and manage floodplains (Lumasegger et al., 2009). The study documents a range of
catchment-based instruments in water management. Some of these, such as Regional
Studies (Regionalstudien), which are superordinate catchment-based water
management tools that deal in particular with natural hazards and spatial planning,
are considered to be “particularly useful for river basins or regions with intensive
demands on land use, high settlement density and extensive infrastructure, but also
for river basins with intensive development and change of existing use” (BMLFUW,
2006a, p. 16). Notwithstanding the existence of catchment-oriented instruments the
research programme FloodRisk II identifies particular need for interdisciplinary
instruments that better integrate aspects of water management and spatial planning in
order to secure flood areas in river catchments (Lumasegger et al., 2009, p. 28).
In this regard, a sub-study of spatial planning in catchment-oriented flood risk
management highlights that the existing (local and regional) spatial planning
instruments are in fact well suited for securing large-scale areas for flooding. The
study shows that there is “no need for new planning instruments” for this purpose; rather, existing (regional spatial planning) instruments should be applied on a broader
scale to secure areas for flood retention and runoff. (Beutl and Seher, 2004, p. 78)
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
The implementation of the EFD and its river basin approach into national law and
policy documents fostered the catchment-orientation of Austrian flood risk
management. For one, the river basin approach is reflected in (revised) policy aims.
41
Most prominently, the Federal Water Act defines “catchment-oriented planning” as a
guiding principle in flood risk management; specifically, flood risk management plans
have to account for the particular characteristics of (sub-)catchments and consider
i.a. land use and spatial planning (§ 55 WRG). In this regard the Federal Water Act
moreover highlights the importance of securing flood-discharge areas as well as areas
suitable for flood retention in Areas of Potentially Significant Food Risk (APSFR). In
addition, the Technical Guidelines for the Federal Water Engineering Department
(RIWA-T) lists fundamental objectives of hydraulic engineering, including the
“catchment-orientated consideration of water bodies” and the “identification of flood runoff and flood retention areas” in order to prevent land development in these areas (BMLFUW, 2015a, p. 14; own translation).
By contrast, Spatial Planning Acts make no reference to catchment-wide approaches,
notwithstanding that regional spatial planning in Austria is generally guided by the
principle of functionality. For instance, the Spatial Planning Act of Lower Austria
defines a region “as a contiguous area, which is characterised by similar problems or
functional relations” (§ 1 NÖ ROG, 2014; own translation).
In an effort to better implement catchment-oriented flood policies, which better
account for the couple interrelations between flooding and land use, in particular two
policy instruments in flood risk management were recently adapted or newly
developed. For one, River Development and Risk Management Schemes
(Gewässerentwicklungs- und Risikomanagementkonzepte, GE-RM) were devised to
support coordinated flood policies for (sub-)catchments and river sections as well as
for APSFR. Building on the existing instrument of River Development Schemes,
GE-RM define mid- to long-term development aims, a principal set of measures as
well as the course of action for flood protection, river development and flood risk
management. GE-RM are intended to assume a pivotal role as a “planning
instrument for integrated river basin management” (Mühlmann et al., 2017; own
translation) by linking and coordinating policy objectives and measures, in particular
with the national water development plan and the national flood risk management
plan, with other planning authorities as well as with relevant policy sectors, notably
spatial planning, disaster control or nature conservation (BMLFUW, 2017e, 2015a).
In order to leverage catchment-oriented approaches, federal funding is only provided
for flood protection measures if they are implemented on the basis of GE-RM
(Mühlmann et al., 2017).
A second policy instrument aimed at supporting catchment-oriented approaches in
flood risk management is the Regional Water Management Programme
(Wasserwirtschaftliches Regionalprogramm). This instrument in water management
was developed in the course of the implementation of the EFD into the Federal
Water Act to include issues related to flood risk management. Regional Water
Management Programmes are developed on the basis of hazard maps and may be
issued as binding directives in order to legally designate large-scale areas for flood
retention, flood runoff or flood protection measures, or to prohibit land
development in defined hazard areas. In combination with their flexible design – their spatial extent may be adapted according to the particular needs in a given river
catchment or river section – Regional Water Management Programmes are a suitable
42
instrument to improve coordination with spatial planning on a regional level
(Habersack et al., 2017; Kanonier et al., 2015).
While catchment-oriented approaches are well established in Austrian water
management (and increasingly consider the complementary concerns of land use and
land development in river basin) there still exist only few cases of regional spatial
planning instruments that account for flood management concerns (Kanonier et al.,
2015). One prominent example is the so-called “Blue Zone Rhine Valley” (Blauzone
Rheintal), which constitutes a legally binding regional plan to designate large-scale
areas for flood retention and flood runoff in the Rhine valley. The plan was issued in
2013 by the state government of Vorarlberg to secure flood hazard areas and to
mitigate future increases in flood risk (State Government of Vorarlberg, 2013).
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
In the past fifteen years Austrian flood policies were increasingly oriented away from
the local towards the level of river catchments and river sections. In particular since
the implementation of the EU Floods Directive Austrian flood policies further
emphasise the integrated, catchment-oriented approaches in flood risk management.
Corresponding policy aims are formulated in strategy documents and in technical
guidelines (i.e. policy objectives) as well as in legal texts in the form of policy goals.
In recent years, existing policy instruments in water management were adjusted to
better implement integrated catchment-oriented approaches in flood risk
management. Notably, the GE-RM and the Regional Water Management
Programme enable considering the coupled interactions between flooding and land
use.
Despite these efforts there remain considerable implementation gaps. In practice,
protective measures are often not planned on the basis of catchment-oriented
approaches (Habersack et al., 2015b). Consequently, the “reciprocal effects, synergies
as well as upstream-downstream effects of protection measures are not always
sufficiently considered” (BMLFUW, 2016a, p. 50). In an effort to proliferate
catchment-oriented concepts a guidance document was recently developed to
support the establishment of GE-RM for integrated river basin management
(BMLFUW, 2017e; Mühlmann et al., 2017). Similar efforts may be needed to
promote a wider use of Regional Water Management Programmes. Despite its
promising design as a catchment-oriented policy instrument, to date not a single
Programme has been issued with regard to flood risk management (Publication IX).
In terms of spatial planning, areas suitable for flood retention and flood runoff
continue to be predominately secured by means of local planning instruments.
Regional approaches in flood-related spatial planning aiming to secure flooding areas
on a large scale, however, are only applied in isolated cases (Publication IX,
Publication X). The regional plan “Blauzone Rheintal” marks an innovative
planning instrument not only because it secures large-scale areas for flooding to
prevent flood damage in a flood-prone region. Importantly, the regional plan also
“secures the necessary land resources” for future flood control measures (such as the
43
4.3.2 COORDINATION AREA (FORMAL-ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE)
relocation of the Rhine outlet into the Bodensee), and thus “preserves the space for
manoeuvre for the long-term commitments associated with many measures in flood
risk management” (Publication X).
INITIAL SITUATION
The large-scale flood events in 2002 and 2005 highlighted that local solutions are no
longer viable and that there is a need for regional approaches beyond municipal
boundaries to “account [for] the interaction between individual measures” (Habersack et al., 2005, p. 14). Within the research programmes FloodRisk and
FloodRisk II detailed sub-studies concerning inter-municipal cooperation were
conducted (Beutl and Seher, 2004; Seher and Berger, 2009). The studies show that
inter-municipal cooperation is particularly relevant as many conflicting issues related
to securing areas for flood retention can only be solved in a cross-border approach
(Beutl and Seher, 2004). In particular, the studies indicate that formalised
cooperation (e.g. water associations) are suitable formats to foster inter-municipal
cooperation in the field of flood risk management (Beutl and Seher, 2004; Seher and
Berger, 2009). As defined in the Federal Water Act, water associations under public
law (Wasserverbände) can be established between administrative bodies (i.e.
municipalities) and those in charge of maintaining public traffic routes, such as the
Austrian Railways (§ 87 WRG, 1959). In addition, water cooperatives
(Wassergenossenschaften) may be established among non-state actors, including
private landowners, who have a stake in or are affected by flood protection measures
(§ 78). The involved parties have to bear the costs for establishing the associations
and cooperatives, but national and state funding is provided for the development of
relevant technical documents and assessments (WBFG, 1985).
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
Austrian flood policy aims to enhance cross-border cooperation by improving the
organisational embedding in formalised structures. The National Flood Risk
Management Plan defines the “development of frameworks for the implementation and maintenance of flood protection” as one of eight priority measures for
preventive flood risk management (BMLFUW, 2016a, p. 58; own translation).
Developing suitable organisational and legal frameworks is intended to better match
the costs and benefits among the affected municipalities along a river or within a
catchment and to facilitate the implementation and financing of flood protection and
flood retention measures (BMLFUW, 2016a, p. 58). Similarly, the Austrian Spatial
Development Concept emphasises “closer cooperation and improved harmonization between higher and lower altitude municipalities” as a means to secure “solidary” flood retention areas (ÖROK, 2011, p. 65).
Regional coordination in flood risk management is supported through existing
policy instruments, primarily by means of formalised water associations and
44
cooperatives as defined in the Federal Water Act. In the last years, state spatial
planning authorities promoted various types of inter-municipal cooperation (e.g.
regional development concepts, planning associations) in order to better coordinate
municipal development perspectives on a regional scale. However, within the
planning-oriented cooperation approaches implemented so far, flood risk
management is still an issue of secondary importance (ÖROK, 2017).
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Since the floods in the early 2000s Austrian flood policies actively pursue regional
coordination in flood-prone areas. In particular the policy aims were reiterated to
highlight the importance of regional coordination in flood risk management. Both in
water management /flood protection and in spatial planning, the importance of
closer coordination among river riparians is highlighted as a means for more effective
flood risk management in a catchment setting. However, novel instruments to
leverage these aims were not developed and there has been no change in the type or
setting of policy instruments to promote regional cooperation in flood-prone areas.
As indicated in the National Flood Risk Management Plan, 43 % of all APSFR have
existing associations or cooperatives to support the coordinated implementation of
flood risk reduction measures. In the remaining APSFR there are no intentions to
develop such institutional settings, either because the APSFR consists of only one
municipality or because the responsible authorities see no need to develop
coordinated measures (BMLFUW, 2016a).
Since the late 1980s the number of flood-related water associations in Austria
increased from 133 to currently 164 (Publication VIII). Findings from an online-
survey among the associations’ chairmen indicate that water associations assume an
important role to foster regional coordination in flood risk management, e.g.
regarding the maintenance of waterways, the realisation of flood protection schemes
or the preservation of retention areas. According to the respondents the primary
motivations to establish a cooperation were to improve flood protection for existing
settlements and economic considerations (e.g. cost-reduction, public subsidies as well
as synergies with other municipalities). Risk prevention measures through spatial
planning measures, on the other hand, are of minor role for water associations,
indicating a weak link between the main aims of water associations (as defined in the
Federal Water Act) and spatial planning.
In-depth qualitative case studies of flood-related water associations confirm the
above benefits (Publication VI; Publication VII). Overall, these studies show that
formal cooperation settings provide “local authorities (…) the ability to get more
involved in the flood risk management policy” (Publication VII). They provide a
platform for the common representation of interests and needs (e.g. for funding and
administrative support) at higher administrative levels (Publication VII;
Publication VIII).
The case studies moreover show that water associations are suited for the
implementation of land-intensive flood protection solutions, e.g. flood storage areas.
45
4.3.3 BURDEN SHARING (SUBJECT-BASED INTERACTIVE SPACE)
For one, by pooling resources the implementation of such measures is “less
expensive than individual solutions for each community”; secondly, associations can
support local authorities in the process of “negotiat[ing] with private land
landowners about compensation agreements or purchase of farmland” (Publication
VII).
Finally, case studies confirm that the consideration of formal land use planning in
water associations is often inadequate. While water associations are usually entitled to
exert influence on land use planning, the association is in a “weak legal position
especially when it comes to imposing sanctions for misconduct” (Publication VI).
As “there remain substantial gaps in ensuring land use regulations to effectively
manage the development of vulnerabilities in a catchment, (…) governance
arrangements (such as inter-municipal cooperations) should be complemented by
formal approaches of land use planning” (Publication VI). In this regard, the
Regional Water Management Programme (Wasserwirtschaftliches
Regionalprogramm) would provide a suitable instrument to improve the
coordination between water associations and spatial planning on a regional level.
INITIAL SITUATION
The flood events in the early 2000s illustrated the need to better consider the
interrelations between upstream and downstream municipalities in river catchments
by “developing models that equalise the burden between municipalities” (Habersack
et al., 2005, p. 14). As part of the research programme FloodRisk Beutl and Seher
(2004) investigated financial burden sharing between the providers of flood retention
areas and the downstream beneficiaries. The study shows that flood retention
measures are generally financed based on the community principle (whereby state
actors, i.e. federal and regional government or municipalities, exclusively provide the
necessary financial means for flood protection). Despite the growing claims for a
more equitable distribution of costs and benefits based on the beneficiary principle
to deliver solutions for flood hazard reduction among river riparians, there exist no
examples of cases with direct economic linkage between upstream and downstream
municipalities (Beutl and Seher, 2004, p. 57).
To more directly involve beneficiaries in financial burden sharing, the study
recommends using formal settings for inter-municipal cooperation (e.g. water
associations) where riparian municipalities contribute towards a fund based on a
defined contributions’ key. According to Art. 44/1 and Art. 78 of the Federal Water
Act the beneficiaries of flood protection measures can in fact be obliged by the
federal or state authorities to contribute to the construction costs as well as the
maintenance costs, depending on the extent to which they benefit directly or
indirectly (prevention of future flood losses) from a protection measure. (Rudolf-
Miklau et al., 2015). In cases where flood protection schemes (and their beneficial
consequences) extend over more than one municipality, municipalities or district
authorities may also be obliged to bear parts of the costs as administrative
46
representatives. However, it is the internal affair of the involved municipal and/or
district authorities how the funds are raised (Art. 44/2).
To foster financial burden sharing in flood risk management a follow-up sub-study in
FloodRisk II developed a model for directly involving the beneficiaries of upstream
flood retention measures. The model includes water-related parameters as well as
land use related parameters in an effort to reflect burdens/benefits related to an
increase/decrease in flooding as well as associated opportunities/limitations in land
use. The model moreover considers the economic strength of the riparians, to
account for the fact that usually (economically weaker) rural municipalities provide
flood retention services for downstream settlements (Eberstaller et al., 2009).
POLICY PROGRESS TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO
Austrian flood policy aims formulate the need to more directly involve the
beneficiaries of flood protection measures. The National Flood Risk Management
Plan highlights that (inter-municipal) cooperation assumes a fundamental role toward
“compensating or balancing the benefits and burdens between upstream and
downstream riparians”, in particular for the implementation of “comprehensive,
large-scale and conflict-ridden projects” (BMLFUW, 2016a, p. 58f; own translation).
Similarly, the Austrian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change highlights the need
to promote inter-municipal cooperation through the “introduction of compensation
mechanisms and risk transfer models between municipalities or bodies under public
law (…) for the compensation of mutual land use between upstream and
downstream communities” (BMLFUW, 2012, p. 118).
As existing regulations in the Federal Water Act provide a strong legal basis to
involve the beneficiaries in burden sharing, the above policy aims have not been
translated into new or adapted policy instruments.
EVALUATION OF THE SPATIAL TURN
Austrian flood policies are only rhetorically shifting towards a stronger involvement
of the beneficiaries of risk reduction measures in burden sharing. Policy aims
highlight that burden sharing between upstream and downstream riparians is key to
effective flood risk management, and they articulate the need to involve the
beneficiaries of risk reduction measures in burden sharing. However, no new policy
instruments have been developed to leverage these aims.
Despite a strong legal basis, in practice the development of burden sharing between
upstream and downstream riparians is a conflict-ridden and cumbersome process.
For one, “land use is a substantial issue (…) because of the tension between public
interest at catchment level and private property rights on the local scale”
(Publication III). In many cases of upstream-downstream cooperation, large-scale
retention measures cannot be realised due to the resistance of affected local
landowners (Publication VI; Publication VII). In other cases, there is strong
resistance by the beneficiaries (e.g. land owners, businesses) to financially contribute
47
4.4 SYNTHESIS AND FUTURE POLICY ACTION
4.4.1 MATERIAL-PHYSICAL SPACE
towards the implementation and maintenance costs of flood protection schemes,
because they expect the public to provide (and pay for) flood protection.
To address these issues some associations develop cost-allocation schemes that
include indirect compensation elements. A survey of water association chairmen
shows that associations are in fact overwhelmingly financed through unequal
contributions of the involved municipalities. However, the cost allocation schemes
only in few cases consider the realised benefits from a flood protection measure or
the damage potential in the respective municipalities. Rather, the most widely used
parameters are more general and refer to e.g. the riparian’s share of the river or the riparian’s share of the cooperation area (Publication VIII).
Case studies of flood-related associations show that “downstream municipalities with
high flood risks contribute significantly more than upstream municipalities, which
provide land for flood storage. The low contributions of the latter can be regarded as
compensation for taking over or sharing risks in a regional setting” (Publication
VI). In practice, power inequalities between upstream and downstream
municipalities often inhibit cooperative solutions. Due to the “lack of benefits” as
well as the “financial risks and costs” associated with the provision of flood retention areas, “upstream municipalities have a lower interest (…) to engage in co-operation” with the result that “downstream municipalities are strongly dependent on the
municipalities in the upstream area” (Publication VII). Findings from case study
research, however, also indicates that “compensation should not be considered in
terms of monetary transfers alone” as “close functional ties (due to commuter
relations and economic interdependencies)” can facilitate an agreement on a
solidarity-based cost allocation” (Publication VI).
This section synthesises the findings from the above empirical analysis of the spatial
turn in Austria’s flood policies and derives further needs for policy action to promote
the development of flood policies toward the respective target states of the “spatial turn”. As indicated in the methodological overview (see section 3.4) the time period
of future policy “trajectories” is unknown, and may thus vary according to the type
of issues addressed and the timeliness of policy efforts.
Land-Water Divide The reorientation of Austria’s funding schemes for flood protection substantially contributed towards prioritizing non-technical measures over
structural measures. Instead of accelerating runoff, flood water is increasingly
retained (in low vulnerable areas) to reduce the flood hazard potential. Despite these
advancements there remains need for action to widen rivers and improve the
connectedness between rivers and floodplains. Current approaches predominately
constitute project-based solutions for defined areas. In order to widen rivers and
reconnect floodplains on a larger scale there is need to develop more overarching
48
4.4.2 FORMAL-REGULATORY SPACE
policy approaches (e.g. in form of encompassing (agricultural) subsidy programs13) as
well as regulatory (land) policy instruments (e.g. land consolidation) to e.g. support
the relocation or removal of old (primary) dikes, which historically protected
agricultural land against recurrent flooding.
Catchment processes: Austria’s flood policies have become increasingly
catchment-oriented, in particular due to the implementation of the EFD into
national law. Policy aims to better account for the systemic interrelations between
flooding and land use on the scale of catchment or river sections are supported
through the (re)development of integrated instruments in water management,
notably the GE-RM and the Regional Water Management Programme. As only few
of these instruments have been implemented, it remains to be seen, whether they will
meet the expectations and contribute towards a better coordination between issues
of water management/flood protection and land use in river catchments. The
example of the Blauzone Rheintal shows that existing regional spatial planning
instruments are well suited for securing large-scale areas for flood retention and land-
intensive flood protection measures, indicating that such instruments could be
promoted in other flood-prone areas.
Floodplain Development: In recent years, spatial planning has stepped up policy
efforts to limit land development in flood-prone areas, in particular in 100-year
flooding areas. Land use regulations are predominately oriented along defined hazard
areas and do not deliver risk-oriented approaches, which differentiate land use
decisions according to the intensity of the flood hazard and the risk elements
susceptibility to harm. To mitigate the increase in damage potential in areas protected
by technical flood defence, as well as in areas with no building bans, there is need to
leverage flood-adapted buildings or building use through e.g. building codes or local
building plans. Moreover, given the increasing design of spillways in hydraulic
engineering (to enable a controlled overtopping instead of an uncontrolled failure of
dikes), there would be further need to secure corridors for emergency flood runoff in
local spatial development strategies or local land use plans.
Coordination area: Austrian flood policy emphasises the need for regional
coordination in flood-prone areas based on the existing cooperation instruments, as
defined in the Federal Water Act. Flood-related associations have been established in
many catchments respectively river sections to better leverage different tasks in flood
risk management, such as the joint realisation and maintenance of flood protection
measures. The empirical analysis, however, shows a lacking consideration of land use
13 As in France (Espace de Liberté) or in Germany (Sonderrahmenplan "Präventiver
Hochwasserschutz”)
49
4.4.3 SUBJECT-BASED INTERACTIVE SPACE
change and land development in the cooperation areas. In particular to secure land
for regional flood retention measures, there is need to improve the linkages with
formal spatial planning instruments.
Individual Adaptation: Substantial advancements in flood policies were made with
regard to improving risk awareness in flood-prone areas, especially in areas without
building bans. Policy efforts, however, focus on providing the relevant hazard and
risk information, while economic and financial instruments to foster anticipatory
adaptation remain largely unused. Flood policies could make better use of subsidies
(e.g. housing subsidies) to foster flood-adapted behaviour and create incentives for
flood-proofing. Moreover, linking compensation payments from the national disaster
relief fund (KatFonds) with requirements for individual adaptation measures may
also contribute towards mitigating future flood damages. Finally, participatory
planning processes at the municipal level could be used more actively to
communicate (residual) flood risk and promote anticipatory adaptation measures in
flood-prone areas.
Burden Sharing: There has been comparatively little policy progress in terms of the
involvement of the beneficiaries of risk reduction measures in burden sharing. While
the legal possibilities to develop burden sharing schemes in water associations and
cooperatives are clearly defined in the Federal Water Act, there are few successful
examples (in river flooding), which document a distribution of costs and benefits
based on the beneficiary principle. The empirical analysis indicates that actors
benefitting from flood protection measures usually perceive themselves not as
“beneficiaries” per se but as people who are “affected” by flooding and are entitled
to be protected against flooding based on the community principle. To overcome
these obstacles there may be need to step up policy efforts to build acceptance for
burden-sharing through participatory approaches, to create stronger incentives or
even to consider regulatory approaches to overcome the traditional community
principle in the financing of flood protection schemes.
50
5 DISCUSSION
This dissertation was motivated by the desire to build for a more thorough
scientific and practical understanding of the ongoing changes in flood policy. Given
the considerable gaps in the conceptual and theoretical grounding as well as the
empirical application of the spatial turn in flood risk management, the aims of the
dissertation were (i) to embed the concept of the spatial turn in flood risk
management in a broader conceptualisation of space and (ii) to develop a
framework that allows to critically reflect ongoing shifts in flood policy. Thus, the
conceptual framework of the spatial turn was applied for the case of Austria with
the intention not only to illustrate the relevance of land and space in Austria’s nascent flood policies, but – above all – to test the framework’s general applicability
for empirical studies of flood policy change.
This section discusses the conceptual framework and the empirical findings
concerning the spatial turn in Austria’s flood policies. It begins with a reflection of the main research questions and then outlines further research needs for studies
related to the spatial turn in flood risk management.
5.1 REFLECTION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research design and the main findings of this dissertation are reflected based
on the study’s overarching research questions:
How can the spatial turn in flood risk management be analytically framed and
operationalized through different conceptions of space?
How can the spatial turn in flood risk management be evaluated?
What are the empirical evidences of the spatial turn in Austria’s flood
policies?
How can the spatial turn in flood risk management be analytically framed and operationalized
through different conceptions of space?
The study uses three conceptions of space – material-physical, formal regulatory,
subject-based interactive – to operationalize the spatial turn in flood risk
management. This widens the analytical scope of the spatial turn beyond a
“container” view of space and the material structures that physically define “spatially fixed (flood) risk” (Pohl et al., 2013, p. 64). By also considering the
regulatory system and the social, economic and cultural processes that shape
riverscapes, the framework builds on a reciprocal understanding of space and risk
(Müller-Mahn, 2013).
Relating back to the schematic illustration of the three interconnected conceptions
of space (see Figure 1, p.15), it becomes evident that the spatial turn is “visible” only in its material-physical expression. Its formal-regulatory and subject-based
interactive “layers” indicate the underlying spatialities of (administrative) practice
(Handlungsräume) (cf. Moss, 2003) and (social) interaction (Interaktionsräume) (Löw,
51
2001) of the spatial turn in flood risk management. In this vein, the policy shift
towards “accommodating water” (Wesselink, 2007) and “making space for rivers”
(Warner et al., 2012) becomes physically apparent in the widening of river beds, the
removal of flood defences or the provision of flood storage areas. These (material-
physical) changes in the riverine landscape are complemented by formal-regulatory
changes (e.g. concerning the legal definition of flood hazard zones and the
assignment of land use rights) as well as societal processes whereby e.g. lines of
conflict between public-private or upstream-downstream are negotiated (subject-
based interactive space).
The adoption of these three conceptions of space for floodplains and catchments
(as the two principal territorial units in river systems) provides the basis of the
conceptual framework. It thus dissects the complex notion of the spatial turn in
flood risk management into six distinct analytical constituents as a basis for
identifying spatially defined challenges in flood policies. This conceptualisation of
the spatial turn in flood risk management is a novel approach to “framing” ongoing changes in flood policies. It makes evident that policy efforts are not limited to
(materially) accommodating water on land and providing more (physical) space for
rivers. Rather, the development of novel flood policies also entails (regulatory)
changes in the formal-legislative organisation of riparian areas to mitigate future
increases in flood damage and to improve the coordination across administrative
boundaries. Moreover, changing flood policies come with a proliferation of actors
involved in the implementation process. The framework makes evident the
different (subjective) bearings to flood hazard and flood risk and highlights the
importance of (interactive) stakeholder processes, in particular for flood
preparedness and flood response.
By illustrating a continuum with a defined target state for each constituent of the
spatial turn, the framework orients the focus of inquiry from a descriptive-analytical
to a normative as well as procedural notion of the spatial turn. This allows to
explore not just weather or not a spatial turn is taking place (cf. Ruiten and
Hartmann, 2016) but to reflect to which extent flood policies have progressed
toward the respective target states. These target states were defined by the author in
reflection of the scientific debates and the practical realities of ongoing changes in
flood policies. However, the target states were not developed in accordance with
flood policy makers. It is therefore important to note that the target states do not
constitute normative policy-based targets that have to be pursued at all cost. For
instance, concerning the “land-water divide” (see section 4.2.1), policy makers may
note that widening rivers and improving the connectedness between rivers and
floodplains is not possible or feasible everywhere, as structural flood defences
remain indispensable to effectively protect settlements and other vulnerable areas
against flooding. Similarly, risk-oriented approaches in “floodplain development” (section 4.2.2) may not necessarily constitute a desirable approach from a policy
maker-perspective. In particular, in flooding areas with low recurrence probability
(which includes residual flood risk areas), cost-benefit considerations may show
that the damage-mitigation effects of flood-adapted land uses do not principally
52
outweigh the associated costs and foregone benefits (Gersonius et al., 2008;
Kreibich et al., 2015).
While the conceptual framework uses three spatial dimensions to delineate six
specific constituents of the spatial turn in flood risk management, the definition of
the respective target states is flexible and may be adjusted according to different
policy needs and contexts. In this vein, it is possible to further develop the
conceptual framework by co-developing the different target states together with
Austrian authorities in water management and spatial planning.
How can the spatial turn in flood risk management be evaluated?
This study deployed an instrumental perspective to qualitatively evaluate the spatial
turn in flood risk management for the case of Austria. In order to identify “policy
evidences” of the spatial turn in Austria’s flood risk management, i.e. to determine
whether or not (and to which extent) flood policies progressed toward the defined
target states of the spatial turn, the study analysed policy aims and policy
instruments – the latter including regulatory, economic and communicative types of
instruments. The application of the “classic” typology of instruments proved useful
to illustrate that modern flood risk management is characterised by a bundle of
(structural and non-structural) measures (Schanze et al., 2008) and to highlight that,
complementary to regulatory approaches, financial incentives as well as (risk)
communication are a significant part of policy efforts to deliver a spatial turn in
flood risk management. In this regard, the instrumental approach chosen for this
study also showed that policy aims need not necessarily be addressed by novel
policy instruments in water management or spatial planning. Rather, flood policies
are often also re-oriented through changes in the “policy settings” (Nordbeck,
2013), such as the adaptation of existing policy instruments (e.g. building laws) or
the re-definition of programmatic priorities (e.g. flood protection funding schemes).
Although the above typology of policy instruments is well-established (cf.
Bemelmans-Videc et al., 2003), changes in the mode of governing have fed
criticism that the traditional instruments, which were generated for hierarchical
relationships in policy-making, are no longer appropriate in a network setting, as
they disregard i.a. (informal) power relations in multi-stakeholder policy settings
(Nispen and Ringeling, 1998, p. 207). This also applies for this field of study, as the
policy shift from flood defence to flood risk management ostensibly leads to a
pluralisation of actors and interests (Butler and Pidgeon, 2011; Thaler, 2015).
Despite its focus on the “classic” policy instruments, this study offers room for the
analysis of power relations between state and non-state actors. The “subject-based
interactive” conception of space specifically allows integrating the perspectives and
interests of non-state actors (such as flood-affected residents, businesses or land
owners) into the analysis of changing flood policies. In fact, by linking the
traditional typology of instruments to the three different conceptions of space, the
influence of changing actor constellations on flood-policy making may be
identified. For the case of Austria, the analysis thus reveals that the policy context
of flood risk management is characterised by a persistence of hierarchical
53
administrative settings and top-down approaches with comparatively little room for
non-governmental bottom-up initiatives. In particular, the policy sectors analysed in
this study (water management/flood protection and spatial planning) exhibit a
strong centralization of authority, where state actors and policy makers across the
different levels of government clearly define the course of policy action in flood
risk management (Kanonier, 2012; Seher, 2011).
Whereas the instrumental approach is suitable for identifying which policy aims and
policy instruments are deployed within the different spatial constituents of the
spatial turn, the study’s methodological approach does not contain a set of criteria
to clearly assess the extent of the spatial turn in flood risk management. Given this
lack of a scalar level of measurement it is not possible to plot the “initial situation” and the “status quo” in terms of their relative distance to the defined target state (see Figure 8, p.25. The analysis thus merely allows drawing general conclusions
and approximating (rather than evaluating) the magnitude of the “policy progress”
for the study period (2002-2017) – respectively the need for future policy action – along the continuum of the spatial turn. This shortcoming in terms of scaling also
implies that a cross-comparison of flood policy change within the six constituents
of the spatial turn in flood risk management is not fully possible.
A scalar representation of the findings would demand a standardised scheme for
classifying the empirical evidence in terms of the policy and the policy instruments.
Such a classification of the “initial situation” and the “policy progress” could in
principle be established based on the three types of instruments (regulatory,
economic, and communicative) that are used to address the policy aims in the
respective constituents of the spatial turn. Accordingly, the number and/or scope
of the policy instruments could determine the level of measurement. However, as
this study’s empirical analysis shows, such a scaling approach bears specific
challenges because not all instruments are equally deployed in the respective
constituents. For example, in terms of “floodplain development” (section 4.2.2)
policy efforts focus mainly on regulatory approaches to limit the infringement of
vulnerable land uses in hazard areas, whereas in terms of “individual adaptation (section 4.2.3), communicative instruments (e.g. build risk awareness) or economic
instruments (e.g. incentivise flood-adapted behaviour) are predominately applied to
reach the defined target state.
Keeping these limitations in mind, future studies of the spatial turn in flood risk
management would benefit from a method of scaling. This would provide a basis
for a consistent evaluation of the six constituents of the spatial turn in flood risk
management, and it would also facilitate the cross-case comparison of flood policy
changes in different countries. Finally, policy makers themselves could benefit from
more defined levels of measurement because this would allow “measuring” the
“distance to target” and pinpointing those policy areas that need particular attention
and adjustment.
54
What are the empirical evidences of the spatial turn in Austria’s flood policies?
The focus on policy aims and policy instruments provides policy evidences
concerning the spatial turn in Austria’s flood risk management. The analysis illustrates through which policy aims and policy instruments Austria’s flood policies could be led towards the defined target states of the spatial turn. It is important to
note, however, that this study does not provide empirical findings concerning
policy outcomes: whether or not policy aims and policy instruments actually deliver
policy change towards the defined target states could thus not be evaluated based
on the applied methodology.
This becomes evident in both dimensions of the spatial turn, namely “across the
floodplain” and “along the river”. In the former, for instance, there is scant
evidence for “risk-oriented” approaches of land development as individual Austrian
Länder have changed building codes or spatial planning laws to better differentiate
the type of land uses and buildings according to the intensity of the flood hazard
(see section 4.2.2). While the existence of these policy instruments indicates a
spatial turn (towards the defined target state), the study provides no empirical basis
to evaluate the instruments’ effectiveness in terms of mitigating a further increase in
flood damage (cf. Bubeck et al., 2012b). This limitation also applies for catchment-
oriented policy instruments within the analytical dimension of the spatial turn
“along the river”. For instance, River Development and Risk Management Schemes
(Gewässerentwicklungs- und Risikomanagementkonzepte, GE-RM) and the
Regional Water Management Programmes (Wasserwirtschaftliches
Regionalprogramme, RePro) are both examples of instruments, which were
designed to improve coordinated flood policies at the level of (sub-)catchments and
river sections. They thus constitute promising approaches to better account for the
“coupled interactions” between flooding and land use (see section 4.3.1). Whether
these instruments are able to actually deliver the intended change toward
catchment-oriented flood risk management, however, remains to be evaluated. In
fact, while the GE-RM is a young instrument and there is only limited experience
concerning its implementation (Mühlmann et al., 2017), to date not a single RePro
has been implemented in the field of flood risk management.
Moreover, by investigating policy aims and policy instruments the study reflects a
rational understanding of policy-making, which assumes that government policy
explicitly chooses objectives and selects instruments pertaining to the defined
objectives. Critics point out that this simplification – which is in itself illustrated by
the metaphor “policy instrument” or “policy tool” – runs the risk of
“instrumentalistic thinking, of a mechanistic approach to policy processes” (Nispen
and Ringeling, 1998, p. 211). In practice, the goals and means may often be not
“linked to each other” and the means not “ready for utilization” (ibid).
Notwithstanding these concerns, the study’s focus on policy aims and policy
instruments is suitable as it allows exploring inconsistencies in Austria’s changing flood policies. The latter becomes particularly evident in the dimension “Individual
Adaptation” (see section 4.2.3). Whereas the respective policy aims explicitly
mention the need to incentivise private adaptation measures, the empirical analysis
55
revealed only limited evidences for economic policy instruments. Rather than using
financial means to foster an adaptation of buildings, policy makers predominately
rely on providing and communicating information on flood hazard (and flood risk)
to achieve the desired effects.
The study of Austria’s flood policies, however, also indicates that there are areas
where policy instruments cohere with the defined policy aims. For instance, in the
analytical dimension “Land-Water Divide” (see section 4.2.1) a change in funding
schemes (economic instruments) has provided a powerful leverage to reinforce the
priorities laid out in the policy aims. Also, the dimension “Catchment Processes
(see section 4.3.1) indicates that catchment-oriented policy instruments were
formulated specifically to meet the aims of national flood policies and the standards
mandated by the EU Floods Directive.
5.2 FURTHER RESEARCH AND OUTLOOK
The aim of this dissertation was to enhance the understanding of the spatial turn in
flood risk management. The conceptual framework of the spatial turn provides a
novel approach to reflect ongoing changes in flood policy; its application for the
Austrian case, however, raises new questions and illustrates that there is need for
further research to advance this field of study.
A fundamental issue, which has thus far only received limited attention in flood
policy research, is the sectoral interplay between water management and spatial
planning. While the idea that water management and spatial planning need to
collaborate in the field of flood risk management is established and widely accepted
(Wiering and Immink, 2006), more in-depth studies of policy coordination between
the two sectors are needed to better understand the implementation challenges
related to the spatial turn in flood risk management. This includes, on the one hand,
output-oriented approaches to explore in further detail the possibilities and
limitations of “[adjusting] sectoral policies in order to make them mutually enforcing and consistent” (Stead and Meijers, 2009, p. 322). On the other hand, there is also
need for process-oriented perspectives to cross-sectoral flood policy-making, which
investigate the origins, the driving forces and the actors that promote flood policy
change. Such approaches could help explain how, in the aftermath of a shock event,
a redistribution of resources and power occurs and how “advocacy coalitions” in flood risk management translate their beliefs into actual flood policies (Albright,
2011; Meijerink, 2005).
In order to better align the policy aims and the policy instruments that are deployed
within and across the policy sectors water management and spatial planning there is
also need to improve the evidence base concerning the (reciprocal) effects of policy
instruments. With regard to the spatial turn “across the floodplain”, there is in fact a
lack of empirical evidence concerning the long-term effects of flood defence
measures on the accumulation of flood damage potential in protected areas. This
“safe-development-paradox” (Burby, 2006) needs to be studied in Austria more
comprehensively for river flooding as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of
56
existing policy instruments (in particular building regulations and economic
(dis)incentives) aimed at mitigating the further increase in flood damage in flood-
prone areas. Similarly, with regard to the spatial turn “along the river”, this dissertation’s analysis of Austria’s changing flood policies indicates that there are
substantial gaps in the empirical understanding of upstream-downstream relations.
To support the implementation of catchment-oriented approaches in flood risk
management the positive and negative effects of risk reduction measures (e.g. linear
flood defences, retention basins etc.) on river riparians have to be better accounted
for.
In the ongoing research project RegioFlood (see section 2.1), the PhD candidate
collaborates with researchers in water management and political science to
specifically addresses this research gap by expanding an existing methodology for the
evaluation of floodplains (FEM-Floodplain Evaluation Matrix; Habersack et al.,
2013). This so-called Extended-FEM is being developed for defined river stretches
to better assess the downstream effects of hydraulic engineering measures (e.g. levees
and retention basins). By illustrating the expected future changes in flood hazard
potential, flood exposure and flood damage on the level of river stretches, the
Extended-FEM supports anticipatory approaches in flood risk management and the
cross-border coordination of flood policies in larger hydrological units.
Although economic growth, land development and land use change are widely
acknowledged as the key drivers in flood risk change, there is limited knowledge
regarding the interrelations between socio-demographic change and flood risk
management. In particular, the effects of population ageing and out-migration on the
different components of the flood risk management cycle (preparedness, response,
recovery) are poorly understood, not least because studies in flood risk management
overwhelmingly focus on urban areas with dynamic economic and land development
(Cutter et al., 2016). The PhD candidate is one of the co-researchers in the recently
started interdisciplinary research project DemoHazAlps14 that aims to shed light on
the (predominately rural) areas with declining residential populations in the Alpine
region, to investigate how population change influences flood hazard exposure,
(structural and social) vulnerability to flooding as well as the (individual and societal)
capacities to recover from extreme events in these areas (Bausch et al., 2014). Given
the long-term financial commitment of structural flood protection measures (in
particular levees and retention basins), the project also explores, whether the
prospect of population decline promotes a spatial turn in flood risk management in
those areas and leads i.a. to a prioritised implementation of non-structural measures
(e.g. land development restrictions, avoidance of hazard areas, improvement of
floodplain connectedness etc.).
Finally, this dissertation shows that while land resources are emerging as a critical
factor in flood risk management, the provision of the necessary land (e.g. for flood
14 funded in the Earth System Sciences (ESS) research programme by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW): https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2017/PDF/ESS-Projekte2015_ABSTRACTS.pdf
57
storage, emergency flood runoff or river widening) is often hampered by the lack of
availability and accessibility of the (often privately owned) land. Fundamentally,
policy efforts to deliver a spatial turn in flood risk management are overridden by a
conflict of interest between the public aim (to provide land for flooding) and the
private interest (to limit infringements in private property rights and maintain
opportunities for land development) (Kenyon et al., 2008). The PhD candidate has a
leading role in the on-going COST Action (CA) Land4Floods15, which explores these
issues with the aim to overcome this “policy delivery gap” (Moss, 2008). The CA
aims to build a better understanding of the different options and mechanisms to
leverage the required land for floods and to overcome, respectively prevent, flood-
related conflicts in land use. To this end, the CA in particular aims to improve the
understanding of (i) the effects of land use and land management on local and
catchment-scale hydrology, (ii) the institutional and legal conditions, including the
regulation of land use and property rights, and (iii) the different tools and
instruments that support the communication of different actor groups for the
mobilization of private land for flood retention.16
15 The COST Action “Natural Flood Retention on Private Land” (CA16209) brings together about one hundred predominately European researchers and practitioners from different fields of study related to natural flood management. The PhD candidate is a co-leader of the Working Group “Retention and Land”. For more information see: http://www.land4flood.eu/.
16 Current publication activities in the CA “Land4Flood” include i.a. the preparation of an edited Special Issue entitled “Mobilising Land for Floods - Instruments for the Spatial Turn in Flood Risk Management”. The PhD candidate is of the guest editors of the special issue.
58
6 CONCLUSION
This dissertation’s conceptual and empirical study of the spatial turn in flood risk
management indicates that a reorientation of Austria’s flood policies has taken root
following a series of devastating flood events in the early 2000s. These “shock
events” accelerated an ongoing shift from defending against floods towards
managing the risks of flooding. By developing a novel conceptual framework and
testing it for the case of Austria, this dissertation is able to show that a spatial “turn” in flood risk management is in progress and that land resources and spatialities of
flood risk are of strong relevance for designing flood policies.
Looking back at the historical shifts in flood policies it is hard to imagine that the
current approach may at some point be considered inadequate to meet the needs of
future generations. For the time being, however, the principles of flood risk
management define the cornerstones of a widely accepted policy framework, which
aims to reduce flood hazards (by, where possible, retaining floods as a means of
decelerating and attenuating flood discharge) and to mitigate further increases in
flood damage (by, where adequate, adapting the spatial patterns of land use and
adjusting the structure and usage of buildings).
The concept of the spatial turn in flood risk management outlined in this dissertation
captures these requirements of our time. As the case of Austria shows, the strategic
direction of policy action is rather clear; the real challenge therefore lies not
necessarily in knowing what to do, but in translating policy intentions into
operational activities to overcome implementation gaps. Most evidently, policies
aiming to provide more “room for the rivers” (e.g. widening rivers, storing and
retaining floods on agricultural land) are often hampered by the lack of availability
and accessibility of land. Better mechanisms are thus needed to mobilise the required
land resources for flooding. However, it is not just physical land, which is a crucial
factor in flood risk management. As this dissertation makes evident based on a novel
conceptual framework and the empirical analysis of Austria’s changing flood policies,
the integration of the following administrative and subject-related spatial concerns in
flood policy-making are decisive for delivering a spatial turn in flood risk
management:
For one, the study highlights the importance of harmonising land use regulations
across flood hazard zones to prevent “binary” land use decisions (safe/non-safe) and
the accumulation of damage potential in flood protected areas. Secondly, there arises
a need to re-negotiate the division of responsibilities between the government and
private actors to improve risk awareness and individual adaptation to floods. Third,
accounting for the dynamic interactions in flooding processes and land use patterns
in catchments can support robust flood protection schemes that reach their intended
effects under a wider range of disturbances. Fourth, bridging administrative
boundaries between upstream and downstream riparians is highlighted as a
precondition to better coordinate flood risk management in catchments river
sections. Finally, flood policy makers face the challenge to thoroughly consider the
riparian effects of risk reduction measures if they wish to better account for the
59
respective distribution of burdens and benefits in the financing of flood protection
schemes.
This study of the spatial turn in flood risk management is thus of both academic
and practical relevance. The dissertation contributes to the scientific literature by
making the concept of the spatial turn more tangible for researchers in the field of
flood risk management. The three conceptions of space – material-physical, formal
regulatory, subject-based interactive – and their adoption for floodplains (i.e. spatial
turn “across the floodplain”) and catchments (i.e. spatial turn “along the river”) provide a novel analytical lens to embed the ongoing shifts in flood policies in a
broader conceptual understanding of space and to delineate thematic areas of
scientific inquiry.
The conceptual framework was developed in an effort to build a more
encompassing understanding of the spatial turn in flood risk management. By
drawing on a range of different concepts and scholarly debates, the framework is
explicitly general in scope; as it is not tailored specifically for the Austrian case it is
valid for a range of policy contexts. Accordingly, the framework may be applied to
analyse the spatial turn in flood risk management in federal countries (such as
Switzerland, which fundamentally changes its flood policies following seminal
floods in 1987) as well centrally organised countries (such as France, which
renewed its flood policies in the mid-1990s in the aftermath of extensive flooding).
In addition to focused national studies the conceptual framework of the spatial turn
in flood risk management provides a starting point for comparative studies of flood
policy change in different countries. Given the regional dimension of the 2002
floods and its devastating effects across much of Central Europe, the framework
for instance may be used as a basis for a cross-case comparison of flood policy
change in Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic.
While the framework is generally suited for comprehensive policy studies of the
spatial turn in flood risk management, it may also provide the starting point for
more refined studies to explore individual analytical dimensions of the spatial turn
in greater depth. Based on the identification of (in)consistencies between policy
aims and policy instruments follow-up studies, for instance, may focus on the
impacts of changing flood policies to evaluate their effectiveness in achieving the
desired effects.
In this vein this dissertation is also valuable for policy makers and practitioners in
flood risk management. The study illustrates that space and spatiality are not just
conceptually useful but “crucial dimensions in understanding and tackling [policy] problems“ (Warf and Arias, 2009, p. 6). By operationalizing the concept of the
spatial turn the study also builds a better practical understanding of the centrality of
land and space in the nascent policy paradigm. The analysis exposes general needs
for policy action and helps identifying overlaps, interrelations but also
inconsistencies in flood policies as a basis for further developing the “spatial turn” – not merely as a label but as an agenda – in flood risk management.
60
7 REFERENCES
Agnew, J.A., 2011. Space and Place, in: The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowledge. SAGE, London, pp. 316–330.
Albright, E.A., 2011. Policy Change and Learning in Response to Extreme Flood Events in Hungary: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Policy Stud. J. 39, 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00418.x
Alcamo, J., 2008. Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Elsevier.
Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., Baldassarre, G.D., 2016. Increasing flood risk under climate change: a pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies. Clim. Change 136, 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1641-1
Anderson, M.G., Walling, D.E., Bates, P.D., 1996. Floodplain processes. Wiley.
ARE, BWG, BUWAL, 2005. Empfehlungen Raumplanung und Naturgefahren. Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (ARE) / Bundesanstalt für Wasser und Geologie (BWG) / Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern.
Bausch, T., Koch, M., Veser, A. (Eds.), 2014. Coping with Demographic Change in the Alpine Region. Actions and Strategies for Spatial and Regional Development, European Studies of Population. Springer, Heidelberg.
Bazin, P., Gautier, E., 1996. Un espace de liberté pour la Loire et l’Allier : de la détermination géomorphologique à la gestion / Optimum streamways for the Loire and Allier. Rev. Géographie Lyon 71, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.3406/geoca.1996.4355
Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R.C., Vedung, E.O., 2003. Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
Bernard, H.R., 2012. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. SAGE.
Beutl, H., Seher, W., 2004. FloodRisk I. TP 02 – Möglichkeiten der Flächenvorsorge in Hochwasserabflussräumen – Handlungsspielräume von Gemeinden und Gemeindekooperationen, am Beispiel von Gemeinden im Oberlauf der Triesting/Niederösterreich. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Blatter, J., Haverland, M., 2014. Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Blöschl, G., Gaál, L., Hall, J., Kiss, A., Komma, J., Nester, T., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R.A.P., Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Viglione, A., 2015. Increasing river floods: fiction or reality? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2, 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1079
Blotevogel, H.H., 2005. Raum, in: Handwörterbuch Der Raumordnung. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung ARL, Hannover.
BMLFUW, 2017a. Organisation of flood protection in Austria. Available online:https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/english/water/Protection-against-natural-hazards/Organisation-of-flood-protection-in-Austria.html [WWW Document]. URL https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/english/water/Protection-
61
against-natural-hazards/Organisation-of-flood-protection-in-Austria.html (accessed 11.2.17).
BMLFUW, 2017b. Ökologische Maßnahmen an Flüssen und Bächen [WWW Document]. WasserAktiv. URL http://www.wasseraktiv.at/map/4,unterer-inn-mit-auen-life-projekt.html (accessed 11.13.17).
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2017c. Nationaler Gewässerbewirtschaftungsplan 2015. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW, 2017d. Flood protection and individual precautions [WWW Document]. URL https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/english/water/Protection-against-natural-hazards/Floodcontrol.html (accessed 11.16.17).
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2017e. Leitfaden Gewässerentwicklung- und Risikomanagementkonzepte (GE-RM). Vorläufige Fassung 2017. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2016a. Nationaler Hochwasserrisikomanagementplan 2015. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2016b. Agrarumweltprogramm ÖPUL 2015. Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Natur. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2015a. Technische Richtlinien für die Bundeswasserbauverwaltung (RIWA-T). Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2015b. Leben mit Naturgefahren. Ratgeber für die Eigenvorsorge bei Hochwasser, Muren, Lawinen, Steinschlag und Rutschungen. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, WIen.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2012. The Austrian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2011. Vorläufige Bewertung des Hochwasserrisikos 2011. Bericht zur Umsetzung in Österreich. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2010. Die Kraft des Wassers - Richtiger Gebäudeschutz vor Hoch-und Grundwasser. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2009. FloodRisk II. Vertiefung und Vernetzung zukunftsweisender Umsetzungsstrategien zum integrierten Hochwassermanagement. Synthesebericht. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2006a. Hochwasserschutz in Österreich. Flood protection in Austria. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW, 2006b. Freibord-Überstromstrecken. Leitfaden zur Festlegung des erforderlichen Freibordes anhand projektspezifischer Rahmenbedingungen
62
einschließlich der Kriterien für die Anordnung von Überströmstrecken. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMLFUW (Ed.), 2004. Analyse der Hochwasserereignisse vom August 2002 – FloodRisk. Synthesebericht. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
BMUB, BfN (Eds.), 2015. Den Flüssen mehr Raum geben. Renaturierung von Auen in Deutschland. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB); Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Berlin/Bonn.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., Menz, W., 2009. Interviewing Experts. Springer.
BOKU, 2014. Richtlinien für die Umsetzung der Studienpläne zu den Doktoraten der Bodenkultur (Dr.nat.techn.) und der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Dr.rer.soc.oec.) an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, die mit 1. Oktober 2014 in Kraft getreten sind. Wien.
Bowen, G.A., 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qual. Res. J. 9, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2012a. A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior. Risk Anal. 32, 1481–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., Kreibich, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2012b. Long-term development and effectiveness of private flood mitigation measures: an analysis for the German part of the river Rhine. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12, 3507–3518. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3507-2012
Burby, R.J., 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing About Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 604, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205284676
Butler, C., Pidgeon, N., 2011. From ‘Flood Defence’ to ‘Flood Risk Management’: Exploring Governance, Responsibility, and Blame. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 29, 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1068/c09181j
Candel, J.J.L., Biesbroek, R., 2016. Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sci. 49, 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y
Castree, N., Kitchin, R., Rogers, A., 2013. A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press.
Collenteur, R.A., Moel, H. de, Jongman, B., Baldassarre, G.D., 2014. The failed-levee effect: Do societies learn from flood disasters? Nat. Hazards 76, 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1496-6
Cooper, H.M., 1998. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. SAGE.
CRED (Ed.), 2018. EM-DAT. The Emergency Events Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Brussels.
Cutter, S.L., Ash, K.D., Emrich, C.T., 2016. Urban–Rural Differences in Disaster Resilience. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 106, 1236–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740
63
Davoudi, S., Strange, I., 2009. Space and place in twentieth-century planning. An analytical framework and an historical review, in: Davoudi, S, Strange, I. (Eds.), Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Planning. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 7–42.
de Bruijn, H., Hufen, H., 1998. The traditional approach to policy instruments, in: Peters, B.G., Nispen, F.K.M. van (Eds.), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 11–32.
Defra, 2004. Making Space for Water: Developing a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra Publications, London.
Demeritt, D., Nobert, S., 2014. Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management. Environ. Hazards 13, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.924897
Di Baldassarre, G., Castellarin, A., Brath, A., 2009. Analysis of the effects of levee heightening on flood propagation: example of the River Po, Italy. Hydrol. Sci. J. 54, 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.6.1007
Di Baldassarre, G., Kooy, M., Kemerink, J.S., Brandimarte, L., 2013. Towards understanding the dynamic behaviour of floodplains as human-water systems. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17, 3235–3244. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3235-2013
Döring, J., Thielmann, T., 2015. Spatial Turn: Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur-und Sozialwissenschaften. transcript Verlag.
Dye, T.R., 1992. Understanding public policy. Prentice Hall PTR.
Eberstaller, J., Eberstaller-Fleischanderl, D., Gabriel, H., Kirnbauer, R., Seebacher, F., Haidvogl, G., Stelzhammer, M., Berger, H., Seher, W., 2009. FloodRisk II. TP 9.4: Integrative Gewässerentwicklung und interkommunaler Lastenausgleich- Flächenbedarf und –ausgleich für HW-Schutz (Retention und Schadensminimierung), Siedlungsentwicklung und Ökologie (WRRL). Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
EC, 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. European Commission.
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. European Commission.
Edwards, R., Holland, J., 2013. What is Qualitative Interviewing? A&C Black.
EEA, 2010. Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. Technical report No 13/2010. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA, 2000. Cloudy Crystal Balls: An Assessment of Recent European and Global Scenario Studies and Models. OOPEC.
Ekstrom, J., Young, O., 2009. Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol. Soc. 14, online.
Evans, J.R., Mathur, A., 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 15, 195– 219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
FG, 1975. Forstgesetz [Federal Forest Act]. BGBl 440/ 1975.
64
Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Svedin, U., 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 12, online.
Fowler, F., 2013. Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., 2013. Space and time. Coupling dimensions in natural hazard risk management?, in: Müller-Mahn, D. (Ed.), The Spatial Dimension of Risk How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes. Routledge, New York, pp. 189–201.
Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., Zischg, A., 2015. A spatiotemporal multi-hazard exposure assessment based on property data. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15, 2127– 2142. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-2127-2015
Fuchs, S., Zischg, A., 2014. Vulnerabilitätslandkarte Österreich, Kurzfassung, IAN Report 152. Institut für Alpine Naturgefahren, Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, Wien.
George, A.L., Bennett, A., 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press.
Gerring, J., 2006. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Gersonius, B., Zevenbergen, C., Puyan, N., Billah, M., 2008. Efficiency of Private Flood Proofing of New Buildings – Adapted Redevelopment of a Floodplain in The Netherlands, in: Proverbs, D., Brebbia, C.A., Penning-Rowsell, E. (Eds.), Flood Recovery, Innovation and Response, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. WIT Press, Southampton, Boston, pp. 247– 259.
Goudie, A., 2013. Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. Routledge.
Government of Vorarlberg, 2013. Blauzone Rheintal. Verordnung der Vorarlberger Landesregierung über die Festlegung von überörtlichen Freiflächen zum Schutz vor Hochwasser im Rheintal. Bregenz.
Graham, S., Healey, P., 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. Eur. Plan. Stud. 7, 623–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319908720542
Greiving, S., 2008. Katastrophenprävention durch Raumplanung, in: Felgentreff, C., Glade, T. (Eds.), Naturrisiken Und Sozialkatastrophen. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 241–250.
Greiving, S., 2002. Räumliche Planung und Risiko. Gerling Akademie Verlag, Müchen.
Günzel, S. (Ed.), 2010. Raum. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart.
Habersack, H., Bürgel, J., Kanonier, A., Neuhold, C., Stiefelmeyer, H., Schober, B., 2017. Erzielte Verbesserungen und verbleibender Handlungsbedarf im Integrierten Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Österreich – FloodRisk_E(valuierung)Achieved improvement and remaining needs for action in integrated floodrisk management in Austria – FloodRisk_E(valuation). Österr. Wasser- Abfallwirtsch. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-017-0446-4
65
Habersack, H., Bürgel, J., Petraschek, A., Stiefelmeyer, H., 2005. Analysis of the Floods of August 2002 – FloodRisk. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna.
Habersack, H., Fuchs, H., 2003. Hochwasser 2002. Datenbasis der Schadensbilanz 2002. ZENAR Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Wien.
Habersack, H., Krapesch, G. (Eds.), 2006. Hochwasser 2005 – Ereignisdokumentation der Bundeswasserbauverwaltung des Forsttechnischen Dienstes für Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung und des Hydrographischen Dienstes, Synthesebericht. Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft; Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Wien.
Habersack, H., Moser, A. (Eds.), 2003. Plattform Hochwasser. Ereignisdokumentation Hochwasser August 2002. ZENAR Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Wien.
Habersack, H., Schober, B., Haspel, D., Hangl, M., 2015a. FloodRisk-E(valuierung). Teilprojekt Geomorphologie. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Habersack, H., Schober, B., Hauer, C., 2013. Floodplain evaluation matrix (FEM): An interdisciplinary method for evaluating river floodplains in the context of integrated flood risk management. Nat. Hazards 75, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0842-4
Habersack, H., Schober, B., Rudolf-Miklau, F., 2015b. FloodRisk-E(valuierung). Teilprojekt Hochwasserrisikomanagement. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T.R.,
Kriaučiūnienė, J., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lang, M., Llasat, M.C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N., Mediero, L., Merz, B., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R.A.P., Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A., Blöschl, G., 2014. Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18, 2735–2772. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014
Hall, P.A., 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comp. Polit. 25, 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
Hanten, K., Eberstaller, J., 2004. FloodRisk I: TP 07: Raumordnung und Hochwasserschutz am Beispiel der Traisen – Siedlungsentwicklung und Schadensanalyse. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Harrison, J.S., Freeman, R.E., 1999. Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. Acad. Manage. J. 42, 479–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/256971
Hartmann, T, 2011. Den Flüssen mehr Raum geben – Umsetzungsrestriktionen in Recht und Praxis. Raumforsch. Raumordn. 69, 257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-011-0091-5
Hartmann, T., 2011. Clumsy Floodplains: Responsive Land Policy for Extreme Floods. Routledge.
66
Hartmann, T., Jüpner, R., 2014. The Flood Risk Management Plan: An Essential Step Towards the Institutionalization of a Paradigm Shift. Int. J. Water Gov. 2, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.7564/13-ijwg5
Haslam, S.M., 2008. The Riverscape and the River. Cambridge University Press.
Heiland, P., 2002. Vorsorgender Hochwasserschutz durch Raumordnung, interregionale Kooperation und ökonomischen Lastenausgleich. Verein z. Förd. d. Inst. WAR, Darmstadt.
Hogl, K., Nordbeck, R., Scherhaufer, P., Seher, W., Löschner, L., Habersack, H., Zahnt, N., Schober, B., Herrnegger, M., Wesemann, J., 2017. Regional Floodplain Management and Risk Transfer Mechanisms: assessing options for climate adaptation. Interim Activity Report 2. Klima- und Energiefonds, Wien.
IKSE (Ed.), 2004. Dokumentation des Hochwassers vom August 2002 im Einzugsgebiet der Elbe. Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe, Magdeburg.
IPCC (Ed.), 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S., 2009. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Johnson, C.L., Tunstall, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 2005. Floods as Catalysts for Policy Change: Historical Lessons from England and Wales. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 21, 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620500258133
Jongman, B., Ward, P.J., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2012. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and changes. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 823– 835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004
Kanonier, A. (Ed.), 2012. Raumplanung und Naturgefahrenmanagement, Forum Raumplanung 19. Lit-Verlag, Wien.
Kanonier, A., 2009. Synthesebericht Recht. FloodRisk II Vertiefung und Vernetzung zukunftsweisender Umsetzungsstrategien zum integrierten Hochwassermanagement. Synthesebericht. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Kanonier, A., 2004. Analyse der Hochwasserereignisse vom August 2002 – FloodRisk. Workpackage Raumordnung. ÖROK - Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz, Wien.
Kanonier, A., Giese, K., Hattenberger, D., Kerschner, F., Weber, K., 2015. FloodRisk E(valuierung). Teilbericht Recht-Raumordnung. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Keiler, M., Fuchs, S., 2010. Berechnetes Risiko. Mit Sicherheit am Rande der Gefahrenzone, in: Egner, H., Pott, A. (Eds.), Geographische Risikoforschung. Zur Konstruktion Verräumlichter Risiken Und Sicherheiten. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 51–68.
Kenyon, W., Hill, G., Shannon, P., 2008. Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land Use Policy 25, 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.003
67
Klaghofer, E., 2003. Hochwasser und Landnutzung. Schriftenreihe Bundesamtes Für Wasserwirtsch. 19, 60–69.
Klijn, F., Samuels, P., Os, A.V., 2008. Towards flood risk management in the EU: State of affairs with examples from various European countries. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 6, 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2008.9635358
Kloprogge, P., Sluijs, J.P.V.D., 2006. The Inclusion of Stakeholder Knowledge and Perspectives in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change. Clim. Change 75, 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-0362-2
Kosow, H., Gassner, R., 2008. Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis: Overview, Assessment. and Selection Criteria. DIE.
Kreibich, H., Bubeck, P., Vliet, M.V., Moel, H.D., 2015. A review of damage-reducing measures to manage fluvial flood risks in a changing climate. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 20, 967–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9629-5
Kundzewicz, Z.W., Pińskwar, I., Brakenridge, G.R., 2013. Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009. Hydrol. Sci. J. 58, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.745082
Läpple, D., 1991. Essay über den Raum. Für ein gesellschaftswissenschaftliches Raumkonzept, in: Häußermann, H., Ipsen, D., Krämer-Badoni, T., Läpple, D., Rodenstein, M., Siebel, W. (Eds.), Stadt Und Raum. Centaurus-Verlag, Pfaffenweiler.
LAWA, 2014. Nationales Hochwasserschutzprogramm. Kriterien und Bewertungsmaßstäbe für die Identifikation und Priorisierung von wirksamen Maßnahmen sowie ein Vorschlag für die Liste der prioritären Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung des präventiven Hochwasserschutzes. LAWA -Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Heidelberg.
Linder, S.H., Peters, B.G., 1990. An Institutional Approach to the Theory of Policy-Making: The Role of Guidance Mechanisms in Policy Formulation. J. Theor. Polit. 2, 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002001003
Löschner, L., Apperl, B., Herrnegger, M., Hogl, K., Nachtnebel, H., Nordbeck, R., Scherhaufer, P., Schulz, K., Seher, W., Senoner, T., 2016. Vorausschauendes Hochwasserrisikomanagement unter Berücksichtigung von Klimawandelszenarien: Von der Bewertung zur Anpassung, in: Fekete, A., Hufschmidt, G. (Eds.), Atlas Verwundbarkeit Und Resilienz. Pilotausgabe Zu Deutschland, Österreich, Liechtenstein Und Schweiz. Köln und Bonn, p. 89.
Löschner, L., Nordbeck, R., Steurer, R., 2017. Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Österreich: Anpassungsstrategien in einem dynamischen Risikoumfeld, in: Tagungsband 18. Klimatag. Klimaforschung in Österreich. 22.-24. Mai 2017. Climate Change Centre Austria, Wien, pp. 108–109.
Löschner, L., Thaler, T., Seher, W., 2014. Tracing the “Spatial Turn” in Flood Risk Management: a Co-Evolutionary Perspective on Policy Change., in: AESOP (Ed.), AESOP Annual Congress: From Control to Co-Evolution. EBook of Abstracts.
Lossau, J., Lippuner, R., 2004. Geographie und Spatial Turn. Erdkunde 56, 201–211.
Löw, M., 2001. Raumsoziologie. Suhrkamp, Berlin.
68
Lumasegger, M., Manhart, V., Michor, K., 2009. TP 9.2 - Vergleich bestehender Instrumente und Vorgaben der Raumplanung und Wasserwirtschaft in Österreich in Hinblick auf eine Flächenfreihaltung und -sicherung (Grundlagenstudie). Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Lumasegger, M., Michor, K., 2009. FloodRisk II. TP 9.1.1 - Zusammenfassende Evaluierung transnationaler und nationaler Leitprojekte zum Thema „integriertes Hochwassermanagement“ als Basis für die Erstellung einer Broschüre. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Masuda, J.R., Garvin, T., 2006. Place, culture, and the social amplification of risk. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 26, 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00749.x
Mechler, R., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Koehler, M., Jenkins, K., Surminski, S., Williges, K., 2016. Economic Instruments, in: Novel Multi-Sector Partnerships in Disaster Risk Management. Results of the ENHANCE Project. EU FP7 project ENHANCE, Brussels, pp. 69–97.
Meijerink, S., 2005. Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. J. Eur. Public Policy 12, 1060– 1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270745
Merz, B., Aerts, J., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Baldi, M., Becker, A., Bichet, A., Blöschl, G., Bouwer, L.M., Brauer, A., Cioffi, F., Delgado, J.M., Gocht, M., Guzzetti, F., Harrigan, S., Hirschboeck, K., Kilsby, C., Kron, W., Kwon, H.-H., Lall, U., Merz, R., Nissen, K., Salvatti, P., Swierczynski, T., Ulbrich, U., Viglione, A., Ward, P.J., Weiler, M., Wilhelm, B., Nied, M., 2014. Floods and climate: emerging perspectives for flood risk assessment and management. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14, 1921–1942. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1921-2014
Morris, J., Beedell, J., Hess, T. m., 2016. Mobilising flood risk management services from rural land: principles and practice. J. Flood Risk Manag. 9, 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12110
Moss, T., 2012. Spatial Fit, from Panacea to Practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Soc. 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04821-170302
Moss, T., 2008. Policy shifts and delivery gaps: contexts of floodplain restoration in England and W ales, in: Moss, T., Monstadt, J. (Eds.), Restoring Floodplains in Europe. Policy Contexts and Project Experiences. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 201–226.
Moss, T., 2003. Das Flussgebiet als Handlungsraum. Institutionenwandel durch die EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie aus raumwissenschaftlichen Perspektiven. LIT Verlag, Müchen.
Mühlmann, H., Pleschko, D., Michor, K., 2017. Gewässerentwicklungs- und Risikomanagementkonzepte als Planungsinstrument für ein integratives FlussraummanagementRiver Development and Risk Management Concepts as planning instruments for an Integrative River Basin Management. Österr. Wasser- Abfallwirtsch. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-017-0437-5
69
Müller-Mahn, D. (Ed.), 2013. The Spatial Dimension of Risk How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes. Routledge, New York.
NatCatService [WWW Document], 2017. URL http://natcatservice.munichre.com/ (accessed 5.27.17).
Needham, B., Hartmann, T., 2016. Planning by Law and Property Rights Reconsidered. Routledge.
Neuman, 2007. Social Research Methods, 6/E. Pearson Education.
Neuwirth, J., Wagner, K., 2010. Agricultural land management and flood risks— Interrelations. J. US-China Public Adm. 7, 24–29.
Nispen, F.K.M. van, Ringeling, A., 1998. On instruments and instrumentality: a critical assessment, in: Peters, B.G., Nispen, F.K.M. van (Eds.), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 204–217.
NÖ ROG, 2014. NÖ Raumordnungsgesetz [Lower Austrian Spatial Planning Act], LGBl. Nr. 3/2015.
NÖ WF-RL, 2015. NÖ Wohnungsförderungsrichtlinien 2011, 6. Änderung.
Nordbeck, R., 2014. Klimawandel und vorsorgender Hochwasserschutz in Österreich: eine entwicklungsdynamische Analyse der Anpassungskapazitäten (2002-2012). InFER Discussion Paper 2. Universiträt für Bodenkultur Wien, Wien.
Nordbeck, R., 2013. Internationaler Politiktransfer und nationaler Politikwandel: Ausbreitung und Effektivität des Umweltaktionsprogramms in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Springer-Verlag.
Nordbeck, R., Apperl, B., Hogl, K., Löschner, L., Nachtnebel, H., Scherhaufer, P., Schulz, K., Seher, W., Senoner, T., 2015. RiskAdapt - Anticipatory Flood Risk Management under Climate Change Scenarios: From Assessment to Adaptation. Final Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna.
November, V., 2008. Spatiality of risk. Commentary. Environ. Plan. A 40, 1523– 1527. https://doi.org/doi:10.1068/a4194
O’Neill, E., Brereton, F., Shahumyan, H., Clinch, J.P., 2016. The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood-Risk Perception: The Role of Distance. Risk Anal. 36, 2158–2186. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12597
OÖ. BauTG, 2013. Landesgesetz über die bautechnischen Anforderungen an Bauwerke und Bauprodukte [Upper Austrian Building Code] LGBl.Nr. 35/2013.
OÖ ROG, 1994. Oö. Raumordnungsgesetz [Upper Austrian Spatial Planning Law]. LGBl.Nr. 114/1993.
ÖROK (Ed.), 2017. ÖROK-Empfehlung Nr. 57 „Hochwasserrisikomanagement". Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz, Wien.
ÖROK (Ed.), 2015. Risikomanagement für gravitative Naturgefahren in der Raumplanung. Fachliche Empfehlungen & Materialienband, Schriftenreihe 193. Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz, Wien.
ÖROK (Ed.), 2011. Austrian Spatial Development Concept (ÖREK 2011), Scope of Action 2020. ÖROK - Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning, Vienna.
70
ÖROK (Ed.), 2005. ÖROK-Empfehlung Nr. 52 zum präventiven Umgang mit Naturgefahren in der Raumordnung (Schwerpunkt Hochwasser). Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz, Wien.
Patt, H., Jüpner, R., 2013. Hochwasser-Handbuch: Auswirkungen und Schutz. Springer-Verlag.
Pavelin, K., Pundir, S., Cham, J.A., 2014. Ten Simple Rules for Running Interactive Workshops. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003485
Penning-Rowsell, E., Tunstall, S.M., 1996. Risks and resources: defining and managing the floodplain, in: Anderson, M.G., Walling, D.E., Bates, P.D. (Eds.), Floodplain Processes. Wiley, London, pp. 493–533.
Pfister, C., 2009. Die ,,Katastrophenlücke“ des 20. Jahrhunderts und der Verlust traditionalen Risikobewusstseins. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 18, 239– 246. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.18.3.10
Pigeon, P., 2017. Dike Risk: Revealing the Academic Links Between Disaster Risk Reduction, Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Migration, in: Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Fernández, M., Penna, I.M., Jaboyedoff, M., Gaillard, J.C. (Eds.), Identifying Emerging Issues in Disaster Risk Reduction, Migration, Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Shaping Debates and Policies. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 67–80.
PLANAT, 2015. Sicherheitsniveau für Naturgefahre. Materialien. Nationale Plattform für Naturgefahren, Bern.
Plate, E., 2002. Flood risk and flood management. J. Hydrol. 2–11.
Pohl, J., Zehetmair, S. (Eds.), 2011. Risikomanagement als Handlungsfeld in der Raumplanung, Arbeitsmaterial der ARL Nr. 357. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung ARL, Hannover.
Pohl, J., Zehetmair, S., Mayer, J., 2013. Risk, space and system theory. Communication and management of natural hazards, in: Müller-Mahn, D. (Ed.), The Spatial Dimension of Risk How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes. Routledge, New York, pp. 52–67.
Prettenthaler, F., Amrusch, P., Habsburg-Lothringen, C., 2009. FloodRisk II. TP 3.1: Hochwasserschadenspotentialabschätzung auf Basis GZP für Bemes-sungsereignisse. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Prettenthaler, F., Hyll, W., Türk, A., Vetters, N., 2004. Erfahrungen mit dem Österreichischen Katastrophenfonds im Rahmen des Hochwassers August 2002. Umweltbundesamt, Wien.
Prettenthaler, F., Köberl, J., 2015. FloodRisk-E(valuierung). Teilprojekt Ökonomie. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Prior, L., 2003. Using Documents in Social Research. SAGE.
Ran, J., Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2016. Integrating spatial planning and flood risk management: A new conceptual framework for the spatially integrated policy infrastructure. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 57, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.01.008
Rijkswaterstaat, 2016. Fact Sheet. Dutch Water Programme Room for the River.
71
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., Blöschl, G., 2017. Land use change impacts on floods at the catchment scale: Challenges and opportunities for future research. Water Resour. Res. 53, 5209–5219. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020723
Rudolf-Miklau, F., Rainer-Wenger, K., Anker, F., 2015. Solidarische Finanzierung und Erhaltung von Schutzmaßnahmen. Wassergenossenschaften als “Risiko-Governance-Modell” des Wildbach- und Lawinenschutzes. Recht Finanz. Für Gemeinden RFG 79–83.
Ruiten, L.J. van, Hartmann, T., 2016. The spatial turn and the scenario approach in flood risk management—Implementing the European Floods Directive in the Netherlands. AIMS Environ. Sci. 697–713. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2016.4.697
Samuels, P., Klijn, F., Dijkman, J., 2006. An analysis of the current practice of policies on river flood risk management in different countries. Irrig. Drain. 55, S141–S150. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.257
Sayers, P., Li, Y., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Shen, F., Wen, K., Chen, Y., Le Quesne, T., 2013. Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. UNESCO, Paris.
Schanze, J., 2013. The long way towards tolerable flood risks - initial lessons learnt from the recent Central European floods. J. Flood Risk Manag. 6, 167–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12059
Schanze, J., 2005. Theoretical and methodological basics of flood risk management in Europe, in: Schanze, J., Zeman, E., Marsalek, J. (Eds.), Flood Risk Management - Hazards, Vulnerability, Mitigation Measures. Springer, pp. 1– 20.
Schanze, J., Penning-Rowsell, E., Nachtnebel, H., Meyer, V., Königer, P., Hutter, G., Olfert, A., Parker, D., Harris, T., Werritty, A., Neuhold, C., Holzmann, H., 2008. Systematisation, evaluation and context conditions of structural and non-structural measures for flood risk reduction. FLOOD-ERA Joint Report. ERA-Net Crue, London.
Scherer, D., 1990. Upstream/downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press.
Schmocker-Fackel, P., Naef, F., 2010. Changes in flood frequencies in Switzerland since 1500. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14, 1581–1594. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1581-2010
Schroll, E., 2017. Risikoorientierte Raumplanung durch naturgefahrenangepasste Bauweisen. Masterarbeit am Institut für Raumplanung, Umweltplanung und Bodenordnung, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Wien.
Schumann, A.H., 2011. Flood Risk Assessment and Management: How to Specify Hydrological Loads, Their Consequences and Uncertainties. Springer Science & Business Media.
Scott, J., Marshall, G., 2009. A Dictionary of Sociology. OUP Oxford.
72
Seher, W., 2011. Integrated Flood Management in Austria - The Contribution of Spatial Planning, in: Hepperle, E., Dixon-Gough, R., Kalbro, T., Manberger, R., Meyer-Cech, K. (Eds.), Kernthemen Der Bodenpolitik: Nachhaltige Entwicklung Und Interessenausgleich. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, Zürich, pp. 253–265.
Seher, W., Berger, H., 2009. FloodRisk II. TP 9.3.2 - Praktische Umsetzung künftiger Strategien risikoarmer Raumnutzung, Projektteil Interkommunale Kooperation. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (BMVIT), Wien.
Seher, W., Löschner, L., 2015a. Vertical and Horizontal Risk-Sharing in Flood-Related Planning: Coping with Climate Change Related Uncertainties, in: Hepperle, E., Dixon-Gough, R., Mansberger, R., Paulsson, J., Reuter, F., Yilmaz, M. (Eds.), Challenges for Governance Structures in Urban and Regional Development. vdf Hochschulverlag, Zurich, pp. 301–310.
Seher, W., Löschner, L., 2015b. Analyse der Fachliteratur und der Raumordnungsgesetzgebung im Hinblick auf Möglichkeiten zur Berücksichtigung von Restrisikobereichen in der Raumplanung, in: WIFO (Ed.), Naturgefahren Und Die Belastung von Landeshaushalten. WIFO -Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Wien.
Sinabell, F., Böhs, G., Lackner, S., Pennerstorfer, D., Habersack, H., Löschner, L., Samek, R., Schober, B., Seher, W., 2015. Naturgefahren und die Belastung von Landeshaushalten. WIFO - Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
Smith, M.J.D., Goodchild, M.F., Longley, P., 2007. Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques and Software Tools. Troubador Publishing Ltd.
Soja, E., 2009. Taking space personally, in: The Spatial Turn. Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 11–35.
Soja, E.W., 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso.
State Government of Carinthia (Ed.), 1969. Hochwasser in Kärnten - Eine Dokumentation. Klagenfurt.
State Government of Styria (Ed.), 2009. Leitlinie für die Durchführung der örtlichen Raumordnung und von Bauverfahren bei Gefährdungen durch wasserbedingte Naturgefahren. Graz.
State Government of Styria, 2005. Programm zur hochwassersicheren Entwicklung der Siedlungsräume LGBl. Nr. 117/2005 [Programme for Flood-Safe Development in Settlement Area]. Graz.
State Government of Vorarlberg, 2016. Water Management Strategy 2020. Bregenz.
State Government of Vorarlberg, 2013. Blauzone Rheintal. Verordnung der Vorarlberger Landesregierung über die Festlegung von überörtlichen Freiflächen zum Schutz vor Hochwasser im Rheintal. Bregenz.
Stead, D., Meijers, E., 2009. Spatial Planning and Policy Integration: Concepts, Facilitators and Inhibitors. Plan. Theory Pract. 10, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229752
73
Stmk ROG, 2010. Steiermärkisches Raumordnungsgesetz [Styrian Spatial Planning Act], LGBl. Nr. 49/2010.
Tempels, B., Hartmann, T., 2014. A co-evolving frontier between land and water: dilemmas of flexibility versus robustness in flood risk management. Water Int. 39, 872–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.958797
Thaler, T., 2015. Rescaling in flood risk governance – new spatial and institutional arrangements and structures. Middlesex University, Flood Hazard Research Centre School of Science & Technology, London.
Thaler, T., Hartmann, T., 2016. Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe. Nat. Hazards 83, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2305-1
Thaler, T.A., Priest, S.J., Fuchs, S., 2015. Evolving inter-regional co-operation in flood risk management: distances and types of partnership approaches in Austria. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0796-z
Thomas, F., Knüppe, K., 2016. From Flood Protection to Flood Risk Management: Insights from the Rhine River in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Water Resour. Manag. 30, 2785–2800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1323-9
TROG, 2016. Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetz 2016 [Tyrolian Spatial Planning Act], LGBl. Nr. 101/2016.
UFG, 1993. Umweltförderungsgesetz - UFG [Environmental Subsidizations Act], BGBl. Nr. 185/1993.
van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., 2015. Understanding the transition to integrated flood risk management in the Netherlands. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 15, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.11.001
Vedung, E.O., 2003. Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories, in: Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R.C., Vedung, E.O. (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers, pp. 21–58.
Versluis, A.J., 2008. We all live downstream: Disaster, land change and reciprocity in a Haitian watershed (Dissertation). Clark University, Worchester, MA.
Warf, B., Arias, S. (Eds.), 2009. The Spatial Turn. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge, London.
Warner, J.F., Buuren, A. van, Edelenbos, J., 2012. Making Space for the River. IWA Publishing.
WBFG, 1985. Wasserbautenförderungsgesetz [Federal Hydraulic Engineering Development Act] BGBl. Nr.148/1985.
Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Jaeger, C.C., 2006. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.002
Werritty, A., 2006. Sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm? Area 38, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00658.x
Wesselink, A.J., 2007. Flood safety in the Netherlands: The Dutch response to Hurricane Katrina. Technol. Soc., Perspectives on Hurricane Katrina 29, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.01.010
74
White, D.I., Richards, D.J., 2007. Planning policy and flood risk: The translation of national guidance into local policy. Plan. Pract. Res. 22, 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701770050
Wiering, M., Immink, I., 2006. When Water Management Meets Spatial Planning: A Policy-Arrangements Perspective. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 24, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0417j
WRG, 1959. Wasserrechtsgesetz [Federal Water Act] BGBl 215/1959.
WRG-GZPV, 2014. Verordnung über die Gefahrenzonenplanungen nach dem Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959 WRG-Gefahrenzonenplan-VO.
Wright, K.B., 2005. Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 10, 00–00. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x
75
76
8 ANNEX
Publication I* Nordbeck R, Steurer R, Löschner L (accepted, major revisions): The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: from flood control to anticipatory flood risk management. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management [SCI Impact Factor: 1.560]
Publication II* Löschner L, Herrnegger M, Apperl B, Senoner T, Seher W, Nachtnebel HP (2017): Flood risk, climate change and settlement development: a micro-scale assessment of Austrian municipalities. In: Regional Environmental Change 17, pp. 311–322. [SCI Impact Factor: 2.919]
Publication III Seher W, Löschner L (2017): Anticipatory Flood Risk Management – Challenges for Land Policy. In: Hepperle E, Dixon-Gough R, Mansberger R, Paulsson J, Hernik J and Kalbro T (Eds.) Land Ownership and Land Use Development – The Integration of Past, Present, and Future in Spatial Planning and Land Management Policies. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, pp. 77-88
Publication IV* Löschner L, Scherhaufer P, Nordbeck R, Seher W (2016): Scientist-stakeholder workshops: a collaborative approach for integrating science and decision-making in Austrian flood-prone municipalities. In: Environmental Science & Policy 55, pp. 345–352 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.751]
Publication V* Seher W, Löschner L (accepted, minor revisions): Risikoorientierte Raumplanung in Österreich: Merkmale und Umsetzungsoptionen am Beispiel von Hochwasserrisiken. In: disP – The Planning Review [SCI Impact Factor: 0.325]
Publication VI* Seher W, Löschner L (2018): Balancing upstream-downstream interests in flood risk management: experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria. In: Journal of Flood Risk Management
11, pp. 56-65 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.121]
Publication VII* Thaler T, Löschner L, Hartmann T (2017): The introduction of catchment-wide co-operations: Scalar reconstructions and transformation in Austria in flood risk management. In: Land Use Policy 68, pp. 563–573 [SCI Impact Factor: 3.089]
Publication VIII Nordbeck R, Löschner L, Scherhaufer P, Hogl K, Seher W (2018): Hochwasserschutzverbände als Instrument der interkommunalen Kooperation im Hochwasserrisikomanagement. In: Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft (online first)
Publication IX Seher W, Löschner L (forthcoming): Instrumente der Raumplanung für die Flächenvorsorge gegen Hochwassergefahren. In: Rudolf-Miklau F, Kanonier A (Eds.): Regionale Risiko Governance: Recht, Politik und Praxis. Verlag Österreich
Publication X Löschner L, Seher W, Nordbeck R, Kopf, M (forthcoming): Blauzone Rheintal: a regional planning instrument for future-oriented flood management in a dynamic risk environment. In: Hartmann T, Slavikova L, McCarthy S (Eds.): Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land. Springer
_______________
* Publication listed in SCI/SSCI © Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2017
77
_________________________________
PUBLICATION I
The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: from flood control to
anticipatory flood risk management
authored by:
R. Nordbeck, R. Steurer and L. Löschner
accepted with major revisions for publication in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
co-conducted expert interviews and data analysis; co-developed analytical framework;
co-authored all sections of the article
78
_________________________________
PUBLICATION II
Flood risk, climate change and settlement development: a micro-scale
assessment of Austrian municipalities
authored by:
L. Löschner, M. Herrnegger, B. Apperl, T. Senoner, W. Seher and H.-P. Nachtnebel
published in:
Regional Environmental Change 17 (2017), pp 311–322
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
leading role in drafting and coordinating the publication; assessment of flood hazard
exposure; leading role in formulating results and discussion section
79
_________________________________
PUBLICATION III
Anticipatory Flood Risk Management – Challenges for Land Policy
authored by:
W. Seher and L. Löschner
published in:
Land Ownership and Land Use Development - The Integration of Past, Present, and
Future in Spatial Planning and Land Management Policies
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
co-performed risk assessment; co-design and implementation of scientist-stakeholder
workshops; co-authoring of the manuscript
80
_________________________________
PUBLICATION IV
Scientist-stakeholder workshops: a collaborative approach for integrating
science and decision-making in Austrian flood-prone municipalities
authored by:
L. Löschner, P. Scherhaufer, R. Nordbeck and W. Seher
published in:
Environmental Science & Policy 55 (2016), pp 345–352
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
leading role in drafting and coordinating the publication; co-design and
implementation of scientist-stakeholder workshops; leading role in formulating
methods, results and discussion section
81
_________________________________
PUBLICATION V
Risikoorientierte Raumplanung in Österreich: Merkmale und
Umsetzungsoptionen am Beispiel von Hochwasserrisiken
authored by:
W. Seher and L. Löschner
accepted with minor revisions for publication in:
disP – The Planning Review
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
equally contributing author
82
_________________________________
PUBLICATION VI
Balancing upstream-downstream interests in flood risk management:
experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria
authored by:
W. Seher and L. Löschner
published in:
Journal of Flood Risk Management 11(2018): pp 56-65
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
equally contributing author
83
_________________________________
PUBLICATION VII
The introduction of catchment-wide co-operations: Scalar
reconstructions and transformation in Austria in flood risk management
authored by:
T. Thaler, L. Löschner and T. Hartmann
published in:
Land Use Policy 68 (2017) pp 563–573
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
contributed to writing and editing the manuscript
84
_________________________________
PUBLICATION VIII
Hochwasserschutzverbände als Instrument der interkommunalen
Kooperation im Hochwasserrisikomanagement
authored by:
R. Nordbeck, L. Löschner, P. Scherhaufer, K. Hogl and W. Seher
published in (online first):
Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft
Printed with consent of the copyright holder
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
leading role in developing the online survey; leading role in formulating the methods
and results section
85
_________________________________
PUBLICATION IX
Instrumente der Raumplanung für die Flächenvorsorge gegen
Hochwassergefahren
authored by:
W. Seher and L. Löschner
accepted for publication in:
Regionale Risiko Governance: Recht, Politik und Praxis
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
equally contributing author
86
_________________________________
PUBLICATION X
Blauzone Rheintal: a regional planning instrument for future-oriented
flood management in a dynamic risk environment
authored by:
L. Löschner, W. Seher, R. Nordbeck and M. Kopf
accepted for publication in:
Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land
Contribution of the PhD candidate:
leading role in drafting and coordinating the publication; co-performed expert interviews; leading role in formulating sections 1-3 and 5
87