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