This paper analyses the science-policy interactions in the field of flood risk governance against the background of climate change. By the example of three neighbouring Alpine regions (Switzerland, Southern Germany and Austria), the study strives to shed further light on how flood risk governance regimes embrace the possible impacts of climate change. It builds on the assumption that flood risk management, as a 'technical' policy field, is strongly influenced by scientific evidence and that differences in how countries incorporate climate change can be explained by the way science and policy are brought together in the respective national arenas. We structure the empirical analysis along three dimensions: (i) dynamics of knowledge creation; (ii) institutionalization of the science-policy interface; and (iii) pathways of influence of expertise on policy development. We find that there is a mixed, though increasing influence of climate change on flood risk governance in the three selected Alpine regions. Climate adaptation has become an important issue of flood policy in all three study areas, and this shift has been strongly supported by evidence-based arguments.

The climate change factor (CCF) is a precautionary instrument for technical flood protection that was introduced in Southern Germany in the early 2000s. The CCF was designed as a surcharge value to be added to all new technical flood protection facilities, such as dams, protection walls, and retention areas. This paper deconstructs the conditions and processes that led to the creation of this new policy instrument. Following the instrument choice framework, the paper analyzes in a heuristic manner, the institutions, actors, discourses, and decision context that were part of this process from the early 1990s to 2004, when the instrument was introduced. In order to better understand the scope of this regional instrument, the paper also briefly depicts four non-representative cases of flood risk and protection management, where the instrument was either applied or avoided. The article closes with an assessment of the CCF, concluding that the innovativeness of this instrument faded once the overarching sectoral paradigm shifted from technical flood protection to more comprehensive flood risk management.