IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5505-d273614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obligation or Innovation: Can the EU Floods Directive Be Seen as a Tipping Point Towards More Resilient Flood Risk Management? A Case Study from Vorarlberg, Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Rauter

    (Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Thomas Thaler

    (Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Marie-Sophie Attems

    (Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Sven Fuchs

    (Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Environmental change is subject to discussion among scientists, practitioners, and policymakers. As increasing threats to both environment and society are on the agenda, alternative management approaches are gaining importance. This paper focuses on the influence of policy changes on flood risk management. There is evidence that shifts in settlement patterns and population growth might influence the dynamics of flood damage and loss. There is increased pressure to intensify land use, but also to keep free spaces for hazard mitigation and adaptation. In this paper, we focus on new regulative and management approaches associated with the implementation of the European (EU) Floods Directive in Austria. The concept of tipping points, which are defined as turning points for system change, has been applied. Based on semi-structured interviews we evaluate whether or not the implementation of the EU Floods Directive has triggered a system change in flood risk management. Our results show that triggers for change are past flood events and a general need for action rather than the implementation of the directive itself. Changes related to the EU Floods Directive are likely to happen in the long-term; however, these cannot yet be determined. The main challenges are associated with transparency and communication between policymakers and the affected society. So far, the requirements of the first policy cycle of the directive have been fulfilled. The second policy cycle will show further outcomes and potential needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Rauter & Thomas Thaler & Marie-Sophie Attems & Sven Fuchs, 2019. "Obligation or Innovation: Can the EU Floods Directive Be Seen as a Tipping Point Towards More Resilient Flood Risk Management? A Case Study from Vorarlberg, Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5505-:d:273614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5505/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5505/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magdalena Rauter & Arthur Schindelegger & Sven Fuchs & Thomas Thaler, 2019. "Deconstructing the legal framework for flood protection in Austria: individual and state responsibilities from a planning perspective," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(5), pages 571-587, July.
    2. Marjolijn Haasnoot & Hans Middelkoop & Astrid Offermans & Eelco Beek & Willem Deursen, 2012. "Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 795-819, December.
    3. Hartmann, Thomas & Spit, Tejo, 2016. "Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels – Consequences of the European flood risk management plan," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 361-367.
    4. Albrecht, Juliane, 2016. "Legal framework and criteria for effectively coordinating public participation under the Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive: European requirements and German transposition," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 368-375.
    5. E. Rollason & L. J. Bracken & R. J. Hardy & A. R. G. Large, 2018. "Rethinking flood risk communication," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 92(3), pages 1665-1686, July.
    6. Alexander, Meghan & Priest, Sally & Mees, Hannelore, 2016. "A framework for evaluating flood risk governance," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 38-47.
    7. Sven Fuchs & Veronika Röthlisberger & Thomas Thaler & Andreas Zischg & Margreth Keiler, 2017. "Natural Hazard Management from a Coevolutionary Perspective: Exposure and Policy Response in the European Alps," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(2), pages 382-392, March.
    8. Michael Nones, 2017. "Flood hazard maps in the European context," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 324-332, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rauter, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Maria & Thaler, Thomas & Fuchs, Sven, 2020. "Flood risk management in Austria: Analysing the shift in responsibility-sharing between public and private actors from a public stakeholder's perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Walter Leal Filho & Franziska Wolf & Stefano Moncada & Amanda Lange Salvia & Abdul-Lateef Babatunde Balogun & Constantina Skanavis & Aristea Kounani & Patrick D. Nunn, 2022. "Transformative adaptation as a sustainable response to climate change: insights from large-scale case studies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Vafadarnikjoo, Amin & Chalvatzis, Konstantinos & Botelho, Tiago & Bamford, David, 2023. "A stratified decision-making model for long-term planning: Application in flood risk management in Scotland," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rauter, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Maria & Thaler, Thomas & Fuchs, Sven, 2020. "Flood risk management in Austria: Analysing the shift in responsibility-sharing between public and private actors from a public stakeholder's perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Thomas Thaler, 2021. "Just retreat—how different countries deal with it: examples from Austria and England," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 412-419, September.
    3. Susana Goytia, 2021. "Issues of Natural Resources Law for Adopting Catchment-Based Measures for Flood Risk Management in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    5. Vizinho, André & Avelar, David & Fonseca, Ana Lúcia & Carvalho, Silvia & Sucena-Paiva, Leonor & Pinho, Pedro & Nunes, Alice & Branquinho, Cristina & Vasconcelos, Ana Cátia & Santos, Filipe Duarte & Ro, 2021. "Framing the application of Adaptation Pathways for agroforestry in Mediterranean drylands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Vincent Caby & Lise Frehen, 2021. "How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 226-236.
    7. Maria Pettersson & Marleen van Rijswick & Cathy Suykens & Meghan Alexander & Kristina Ek & Sally Priest, 2017. "Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 929-944, November.
    8. Fekete, Alexander & Fuchs, Sven & Garschagen, Matthias & Hutter, Gérard & Klepp, Silja & Lüder, Catharina & Neise, Thomas & Sett, Dominic & von Elverfeldt, Kirsten & Wannewitz, Mia, 2022. "Adjustment or transformation? Disaster risk intervention examples from Austria, Indonesia, Kiribati and South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Babaeian, Fariba & Delavar, Majid & Morid, Saeed & Srinivasan, Raghavan, 2021. "Robust climate change adaptation pathways in agricultural water management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    10. Matteo Giuliani & Andrea Castelletti, 2016. "Is robustness really robust? How different definitions of robustness impact decision-making under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 409-424, April.
    11. Adam Choryński & Iwona Pińskwar & Dariusz Graczyk & Michał Krzyżaniak, 2022. "The Emergence of Different Local Resilience Arrangements Regarding Extreme Weather Events in Small Municipalities—A Case Study from the Wielkopolska Region, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.
    12. Löschner, Lukas & Nordbeck, Ralf, 2020. "Switzerland’s transition from flood defence to flood-adapted land use–A policy coordination perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Judy Lawrence & Robert Bell & Adolf Stroombergen, 2019. "A Hybrid Process to Address Uncertainty and Changing Climate Risk in Coastal Areas Using Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis & Real Options Analysis: A New Zealand App," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Charalampos Skoulikaris & Yannis Krestenitis, 2020. "Cloud Data Scraping for the Assessment of Outflows from Dammed Rivers in the EU. A Case Study in South Eastern Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, September.
    15. Sandrine Mathy & Patrick Criqui & Katharina Knoop & Manfred Fischedick & Sascha Samadi, 2016. "Uncertainty management and the dynamic adjustment of deep decarbonization pathways," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(sup1), pages 47-62, June.
    16. Chi Truong & Matteo Malavasi & Han Li & Stefan Trueck & Pavel V. Shevchenko, 2024. "Optimal dynamic climate adaptation pathways: a case study of New York City," Papers 2402.02745, arXiv.org.
    17. Bhandari, Pratik & Creighton, Douglas & Gong, Jinzhe & Boyle, Carol & Law, Kris M.Y., 2023. "Evolution of cyber-physical-human water systems: Challenges and gaps," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Kerim Koc & Zeynep Işık, 2020. "A multi-agent-based model for sustainable governance of urban flood risk mitigation measures," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 1079-1110, October.
    19. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Érika Monteiro & Francisco Estrada & Giulia Pesaro & Scira Menoni, 2017. "Economic Assessment of Mitigating Damage of Flood Events: Cost–Benefit Analysis of Flood-Proofing Commercial Buildings in Umbria, Italy," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 42(4), pages 585-608, October.
    20. Ioannis Kougkoulos & Myriam Merad & Simon J. Cook & Ioannis Andredakis, 2021. "Floods in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and lessons for French flood risk governance," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(2), pages 1959-1980, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5505-:d:273614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.