Evolving inter-regional co-operation in flood risk management: distances and types of partnership approaches in Austria

Abstract

Flood risk management and policy in Europe are changing, so the role of local and catchment-wide flood risk management plans is now key contemporary issues in flood policy. A new policy agenda is to enhance inter-local solutions instead of local flood alleviation schemes. This paper analyses the new role of those local authorities and stakeholders in flood risk management as well as how the nature of the partnerships is established and operated, focusing especially on the main barriers and challenges. This paper examines catchment-based flood risk management in Austria. Catchment-based flood risk management was analysed in three different Austrian regions (Aist in Upper Austria, Triesting-Tal in Lower Austria and Ill-Walgau in Vorarlberg). The current functions of a partnership approach in flood risk prevention lie within the selection of sites for conservation of regionally important retention areas, harmonising spatial planning instruments and awareness-raising for protective measures on an inter-local level. The empirical results are currently characterised by a lack of sufficient co-operation between the members as well as with the regional authorities. The three case studies show different backgrounds and developments. The results show that the inter-local co-operation process is in no cases fully achieved. Some of the case studies show a higher integration in one field than others.

Negotiating land for flood risk management : upstream‐downstream in the light of economic game theory

“…Rouillard et al, ). Fewer scholars have addressed the relationship between upstream and downstream from the aspect of land use planning and trade‐off (Scherer, ; Hartmann, ; Rouillard et al, ; Thaler et al, ). Economic observations on flooding and the relation between upstream and downstream are also rare (i.e.…”

Effects of government flood expenditures: the problem of crowding‐out

“…Changes in the responsibility‐sharing in flood risk management (FRM) is widely addressed due to changing climate patterns, the continual increase in potential flood damages, and so on (e.g. Penning‐Rowsell and Priest, ; Thaler et al ., , among many others). Central governments and their agencies, local governments, the insurance industry, land users as well as particular households are all considered to be relevant actors within the complex system.…”

“…Despite several decentralisation and participatory efforts Europe‐wide (as described, e.g. by Thaler et al ., ; Thaler and Levin‐Keitel, ), central governments play the most important roles in FRM in the majority of countries. They shape regulatory frameworks, bear the ultimate responsibility for crisis management and often provide a critical amount of money for postdisaster emergency relief and flood prevention measures.…”

Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe

“…For centuries, water boards have been essential institutions in the Netherlands (van der Cammen et al 2012). These are local authorities that have evolved as bottom-up initiatives since the 13th century and are responsible for water control, including the maintenance of dikes (van Steen and Pellenbarg 2004).…”