Search

Climate change is projected to heighten flood risk. To adapt to this higher flood risk, catchment-wide flood risk management (FRM) plans have become increasingly popular. These plans aim to implement risk reduction measures (RRMs), usually in rural areas on privately owned land, with the goal of reducing the vulnerability of downstream/urban regions. These interventions can have ramifications for rural/upstream areas as they restrict such areas’ spatial and economic growth. Despite these unequal outcomes of distributive justice, reasons for using the countryside/upstream areas are multifaceted, such as lowering the costs of implementation or attaining further co-benefits. In this paper, we aim to analyse how anticipated futures are used to legitimise the unequal distributive consequences of catchment-wide FRM. We combine insights from future studies involving a future perspective (expected, preferable, and probable futures) and the distributive justice literature to examine the debate on large-scale catchment-wide FRM plans in Austria and the Netherlands. In both countries, the debates remain rather implicit, even though the subsequent decisions can have substantial repercussions for the distribution of burdens and benefits. Whereas in the Netherlands expected futures are contested, in Austria desired justice implications are contested between authorities and locals. On the one hand, futures are harnessed by quanitifying desired futures and by embedding expected futures in decision-making tools. On the other hand, credibility of expected futures is descreased by framing them as more uncertain.

With rising global temperatures, cities increasingly need to identify populations or areas that are vulnerable to urban heat waves; however, vulnerability assessments may run into ecological fallacy if data from different scales are misconstrued as equivalent. We assess the heat vulnerability of 1983 residents in Vienna by measuring heat impacts, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity with mirrored indicators in the mapping paradigm (i.e. census tract data referring to the geographic regions where these residents live) and the surveying paradigm (i.e. survey data referring to the residents' individual households). Results obtained in both paradigms diverge substantially: meteorological indicators of hot days and tropical nights are virtually unrelated to self-reported heat strain. Meteorological indicators are explained by mapping indicators (R2 of 15-40 %), but mostly not by surveying indicators. Vice versa, experienced heat stress and subjective heat burden are mostly unassociated with mapping indicators but are partially explained by surveying indicators (R2 of 2-4 %). The results suggest that the two paradigms do not capture the same components of vulnerability; this challenges whether studies conducted in the respective paradigms can complement and cross-validate each other. Policy interventions should first define which heat vulnerability outcome they target and then apply the paradigm that best captures the specific drivers of this outcome.

Die Technische Zusammenfassung des APCC-Sonderberichts ″Landnutzung und Klimawandel in Österreich″ umfasst die Kernbotschaften der Kapitel 1–9. In ihr sind die Hauptaussagen zu den sozioökonomischen und klimatischen Treibern der Landnutzungsänderungen, zu den Auswirkungen von Landnutzung und -bewirtschaftung auf den Klimawandel, zu Minderungs- und Anpassungsoptionen im Kontext nachhaltiger Entwicklungsziele sowie zu Synergien, Zielkonflikten und Umsetzungsbarrieren von Klimamaßnahmen enthalten.

Die Zusammenfassung für Entscheidungstragende fasst die Inhalte des APCC Special Report „Landnutzung und Klimawandel in Österreich“ in komprimierter Form zusammen. Im Lichte des Zusammenhanges von Landnutzung, Klimawandel und gesellschaftlichem Wohlergehen werden die gegenwärtige Situation und zukünftige Entwicklungen in Österreich synoptisch beschrieben, wesentliche Optionen der Klimawandelanpassung und des Klimaschutzes dargestellt, deren Trade-offs und Synergien systematisch beleuchtet und zentrale Einsichten zur Umsetzung von Strategien zum Klimaschutz und der Klimawandelanpassung in Österreich zusammengefasst.

Dieses Kapitel beschäftigt sich mit den klimatischen, ökologischen und sozioökonomischen treibenden Kräften, welche die Landnutzung in Österreich in der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart maßgeblich bestimmt haben und die zukünftigen Entwicklungen beeinflussen werden. Es behandelt die in der Vergangenheit beobachteten und in der Zukunft erwarteten treibenden Kräfte von Landnutzungsänderungen in der Landwirtschaft (Abschn. 3.2), der Forstwirtschaft (Abschn. 3.3) und der Siedlungs- und Infrastrukturentwicklung (Abschn. 3.4). Abschließend werden die möglichen und erwarteten Auswirkungen dieser treibenden Kräfte auf die Bereitstellung der Ökosystemleistungen (ÖSL) beschrieben (Abschn. 3.5). Der Abbau von Mineralien wie Schotter oder Metalle wird aus Platzgründen nicht in diesem Kapitel behandelt, wenngleich es unumstritten ist, dass es sich auch dabei um landnutzungsrelevante Aktivitäten handelt. Kap. 3 unterscheidet zwischen natürlichen und anthropogenen Faktoren und wie sich diese auf die Landnutzung ausgewirkt haben und auswirken. Die sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen berücksichtigen dabei allerdings nicht die möglichen Anpassungs- oder Minderungsstrategien der einzelnen Sektoren, da diese in den Kap. 4 und 5 gesondert dargestellt werden.

The current flood risk management (FRM) system is under pressure. A changing climate, socio-demographic changes and economic crises lend prominence to the issue of how we can manage flood risk under these fragile circumstances and increase our resilience. Citizens play an important role in this which raises the question of how it might be possible to encourage them to take action. Social contracts define the relationship between the state and citizens and their reciprocal responsibilities. This paper will address the questions underlying the implications of changing social contracts in FRM for the state and its citizens. The authors have used a qualitative research methodology, conducting a policy document analysis and 45 semi-structured interviews with experts and citizens in the two case study regions of Steyr-Kirchdorf and Triestingtal in Austria. Results show that Austrian authorities have been responsible for the realization of technical measures. Nevertheless, the last decades have shown a paradigm shift towards a preventive risk management strategy fostering the use of property-level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) strategies. The legacy of past decades, of the state being responsible for risk management, prevails and the existence of public measures has hampered any motivation to act among citizens. Even with the experiences of past events, residents have delegated the responsibility to act to state authorities, a practice which does not support the approach of sharing the burden and the individualisation of risk. This paper demonstrates that changing the social contracts in FRM includes a wide range of legislative, economic and societal implications.

Across Europe there is an increasing behavioural turn in flood risk management, focussing on individual behaviour and responsibilities. For example, a greater focus on implementing property-level resilience measures. A conclusion from this trend is that there are additional burdens being placed on the residents of flood-prone areas, in the hope of reducing their overall burden; therefore, we must understand the burden that is being created as we can unintentionally create new patterns of inequality in terms of who is and is not protected if certain individuals can be judged to be overburdened. This is particularly relevant in the aftermath of disaster events when there is a push to build resilience. One concept for measuring this aspect of the burden generated is affordability, which seeks to define and measure what a suitable burden on an actor is, and then can be targeted for additional assistance, for example, loans, vouchers, or subsidies to eliminate the burden. The concept of affordability can be used to identify how to best spend resources after a disaster event to support a process of ‘building back better’; however, the way this burden can be defined and addressed can also be influenced by different social justice considerations and definitions. This research explores the implications of different social justice concepts for defining what is a reasonable burden that can be placed on the individuals expected to adapt to and limit flood impacts and on the policy strategies and outcomes.

Path dependency occurs when a contingent event predetermines what further steps can be taken and self-reinforcing mechanisms lock-in any further development on a sub-optimal trajectory. Path dependency is a prominent concept in the adaptation pathways literature, but insufficiently defined and operationalised. The present paper empirically tracks all constitutive elements of path dependency for four decades of flood risk management (FRM) in two alpine mountain regions in Austria, the Ennstal and Aist river catchments, using a mixed-methods approach. FRM governance has a critical role whether decisions lead to path dependency. Lock-in manifests not just in technical structures, but also in inertia of incumbent actor coalitions and management paradigms. Sub-optimality is hard to assess for lack of clearly defined protection targets; however, it appears in the ways that structural measures are implemented—too little, too late or with negative impacts on nature conservation. Past floods do not qualify as contingent events, as they have not fundamentally changed FRM practice. By contrast, technological and institutional shifts over longer periods, such as digital hazard maps and EU directives, have gradually reoriented FRM strategies. Institution-based self-reinforcing mechanisms are more prevalent than technology-based self-reinforcing mechanisms. Established actor coalitions combined with institutional density illustrate how those in charge uphold a path to defend their position, power and resources. Our recommendations for how to overcome path dependency in FRM governance are: encourage niche experiments, link FRM more closely with climate change adaptation, revise the national policy framework towards polycentric governance approaches and improve professional training.

The need for a compound risk governance system and management practice is argued in this paper. We find that, historically, risk management strategies have been developed for single hazards and are often subject to path dependency. It is thus difficult to adapt them to a situation that has compound risks. The lack of attention to compound risks in current risk management practices often leads to potential side effects—positive or negative—on other risks and can also result in related management strategies being overlooked. This can ultimately cause barriers to larger transformational adaptation efforts and lead to the intensification of existing societal inequalities or to the creation of new ones. To alert policy- and decision-makers to the need to move towards compound-risk management strategies, we argue that risk management must explicitly highlight various elements of path dependencies, the positive and negative side effects of single-hazard risk management, the appearance of new social inequalities, and the intensification of existing ones.

Environmental and socio-economic developments induce land-use changes with potentially negative impacts on human well-being. To counteract undesired developments, a profound understanding of the complex relationships between drivers, land use, and ecosystem services is needed. Yet, national studies examining extended time periods are still rare. Based on the Special Report on land use, land management and climate change by the Austrian Panel on Climate Change (APCC), we use the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to (1) identify the main drivers of land-use change, (2) describe past and future land-use changes in Austria between 1950 and 2100, (3) report related impacts on ecosystem services, and (4) discuss management responses. Our findings indicate that socio-economic drivers (e.g., economic growth, political systems, and technological developments) have influenced past land-use changes the most. The intensification of agricultural land use and urban sprawl have primarily led to declining ecosystem services in the lowlands. In mountain regions, the abandonment of mountain grassland has prompted a shift from provisioning to regulating services. However, simulations indicate that accelerating climate change will surpass socio-economic drivers in significance towards the end of this century, particularly in intensively used agricultural areas. Although climate change-induced impacts on ecosystem services remain uncertain, it can be expected that the range of land-use management options will be restricted in the future. Consequently, policymaking should prioritize the development of integrated land-use planning to safeguard ecosystem services, accounting for future environmental and socio-economic uncertainties.

Flood risk management (FRM) is facing various challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity losses. Traditional structural FRM measures are now not always feasible as responses to these challenges. One answer might be the use of policy experiments to promote innovation. This paper aims to assess and to explain why innovations in FRM are rarely implemented. We analysed seven innovative strategies across Austria that combine several different approaches. Each is concerned with risk reduction systems designed to save space, time and possible rising costs. The research used 76 qualitative standardised semi-structured interviews with key FRM experts conducted between 2012 and 2021 in order to examine transition pathways through time. The results show that there exist numerous drivers and barriers to debating, designing and implementing FRM innovations. The capture of transition pathways nevertheless shows the system shift from a more traditional understanding towards a transformative path, which created new understandings of the role of the different actors in FRM as well as new institutional settings. However, these policy experiments were still led by the relevant public administrations as they are the main funders, the principal actors in the planning and implementation phases in the realisation of many of these innovations.

Demographic trends across Europe indicate that many regions face sustained population decline due to aging and out-migration. Rural regions are often prone to flood hazards and have repeatedly been affected by damaging events in the past. However, we lack in-depth knowledge about how demographic trends challenge their capacities, abilities, and plans to manage flood risks. In this paper, we aim to close this gap. We employed a mixed-methods approach in the Gailtal-region in Carinthia (Austria), which combines the assessment of exposure to flood risk, social vulnerability, coping ability and adaptation capacity, as well as a discourse analysis. This comprehensive approach was designed to assess how demographic change impacts flood risk management. The findings do not support the hypothesis that population decline increases communities’ social vulnerability and reduces their coping ability and adaptation capacity. Additionally, the selected municipalities showed a strong increase in exposure. This is an example of the exposure paradox, which describes the phenomenon that settlement and population dynamics are not interconnected at all, especially in regions with a limited share of suitable land. Finally, our results show that current flood risk management and the corresponding social and political discourse mainly neglect the challenge of population decline. Overall, this study indicates that public administrations need to address the challenges of weak communities in flood risk management and consider how they might empower local authorities and citizens to adapt to future events – in full consideration of the demographic trends they have to expect.

Adaptation pathway approaches (APAs) have become an increasingly popular means of facilitating local and regional anticipatory planning under the influence of climate change. Many studies in this field of research identify path dependencies as a key barrier to adaptation efforts. However, their respective definitions of path dependency are often vague and impede a comprehensive integration of this concept into APAs. We fill this gap by systematically exploring the constituent characteristics and conditions of path dependency based on the original theoretical literature that emerged in the 1980s and early 2000s. We then propose an operationalization based on examples of flood risk management practice, and highlight ways in which APAs may contribute to revealing and anticipating technological and institutional path dependencies. This conceptual work serves as a comprehensive and systematic baseline for analyzing path dependency in empirical studies using APAs within and beyond the flood risk context.

Entscheidungen im lokalen Management von klimabedingten Risiken, wie z.B. im Hochwasserrisikomanagement, erfolgen regelmäßig sehr rasch nach einem Ereignis, u.a. auch aufgrund massiven Drucks der lokalen Bevölkerung. Dabei werden meist Maßnahmen umgesetzt, die allgemein bekannt sind und dem Stand der Technik entsprechen. Diese singulären und sich an der Vergangenheit orientierenden Entscheidungen führen aber dazu, dass sich das Schadenspotential in den Gemeinden und Regionen meist weiterentwickelt und den zukünftigen Herausforderungen im Risikomanagement aufgrund des Klimawandels nur unzureichend genügt. Deshalb ist es wichtig, aktuelle Pfadabhängigkeiten frühzeitig zu erkennen und eine Entkoppelung davon zu erzielen. Nur so kann ein antizipatives Klimarisikomanagement umgesetzt und verstetigt werden, welches auch über einzelne klimabedingte Risiken hinweg agiert. Der Leitfaden „Gestaltung von Anpassungspfaden im Klimarisikomanagement“ dient als mögliche Erweiterung des „Vorsorgechecks Naturgefahren im Klimawandel“, welcher den Status Quo aller in einer Gemeinde möglichen Naturgefahren abhandelt. Dieser Leitfaden richtet sich somit vorrangig an jene österreichischen Gemeinden, die entweder bereits einen solchen „Naturgefahrencheck“ absolviert haben oder dies in Zukunft noch vorhaben. Der Leitfaden schlägt fünf konkrete Schritte vor, um im Anschluss an die Methodik des Naturgefahrenchecks (1) das Bewusstsein für die Zusammenhänge zwischen einzelnen klimabedingten Risiken zu schärfen, (2) aus den bisher gemachten Erfahrungen im Naturgefahrenmanagement für die „neuen“ Risiken zu lernen und (3) gemeinsam konkrete Maßnahmen zu entwerfen und nächste Umsetzungsschritte zu definieren, wie diese Risiken in Zukunft zusammen gedacht und proaktiv angegangen werden können. Der Leitfaden ist so aufgebaut, dass bei Bedarf auch jeder Schritt als einzelnes gesondertes Erweiterungsmodul für den „Vorsorgechecks Naturgefahren im Klimawandel“ dienen kann.

20 augustus 2020, Contains fulltext : 221401.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood‐related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household‐level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.

A common assertion in discussions of flooding is that risk perception is critical and is linked to risk‐mitigating behavior. Furthermore, many assert that the adverse effects of floods could be reduced by changes in risk communication, thereby influencing risk perception to foster mitigating behavior. We argue that these assertions are based on quite questionable underlying assumptions: That stakeholders are generally aware of flood risk, that they have the capacity to engage in disaster risk reduction, and that their actions can be effective. The belief in and policies influenced by these three questionable assertions support, in turn, policies that shift responsibility for flood risk reduction onto individuals and homeowners, without regard for social and spatial justice issues. In contrast, we argue that context matters to understanding the complexity of the relation between flood risk perception and behavior, local power relations, and other constraints and opportunities that affect stakeholders. While the academic community has long played a pivotal role in supporting practical flood risk management, future research should take a more critical perspective on the underlying assumptions and focus on improving coordination across theories, methods, and variables, fostering comparative studies across disciplines, contexts, and scales.