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
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Tipping Points in FRM
3. The EU Floods Directive 2007
4. Study Area and Methodology
4.1. Study Area
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Data Analysis
- First, the decision-making process refers to the aspect of planning and policy documents which influence the decision-making process of FRM. In our case, the FD is the central policy instrument. However, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Water Act 1959, as well as planning instruments, are directly linked to decision-making processes.
- Second, the organisational structure refers to actions which are necessary within the risk cycle (see Appendix A), such as planning and emergency planning. Furthermore, the structure includes actors which are necessary to grant performance within FRM and are therefore included in the risk cycle (e.g., working groups), as well as other factors which influence the performance of the FD such as the administrative burden or financial means.
- Third, collaboration, communication, and engagement processes are based on the concept of participatory FRM [69] which is strongly called for in the FD. We consider both changes of awareness among society as well as coordination and participation of public authorities and among stakeholders in our analysis.
- Finally, the management approach is strongly interrelated with the shift away from hazard-based flood management and towards risk-based flood management. In order to evaluate this, it is necessary to discuss institutional change [70], which is often lacking despite incremental change happening in other aspects of the conceptual framework.
5. Results
5.1. Impacts of the FD on the Decision-Making Process
5.2. Impacts of the FD on the Organisational Structure
5.3. Impacts of the FD on the Collaboration, Communication, and Engagement
5.4. Influence of the FD on the Management Approach
6. Discussion and Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Number | Risk Cycle | Measure |
---|---|---|
M01 | Provision | Developing and revising hazard zone plans |
M02 | Considering hazard zone plans | |
M03 | Developing basin-specific concepts to improve the water regime and the sediment budget | |
M04 | Considering local and regional (land use) planning | |
M05 | Setting a framework for realising and maintaining of flood risk management measures | |
M06 | Protection | Retention-efficient management of surface areas in the catchment |
M07 | Recovery of flood plains and sediment deposits | |
M08 | Planning and implementing structural protection measures | |
M09 | Realising and adapting property-level flood risk adaptation measures | |
M010 | Assessing and realising rezoning and resettlement | |
M11 | Improving and carrying out water supervision | |
M12 | Maintaining, operating, and improving structural protection measures | |
M13 | Developing regulations for operating flood prone or flood influencing facilities | |
M14 | Awareness | Preparing and providing information about flood risks for the public |
M15 | Encouraging active involvement regarding flood risk issues | |
M16 | Organising flood-education activities | |
M17 | Preparedness | Setting up and applying flood monitoring, forecasting, and warning systems |
M18 | Developing emergency plans | |
M19 | Ensuring prerequisites for the implementation of emergency plans | |
M20 | Recovery | Realising structural measures and restoration at water bodies directly after a flood event |
M21 | Assessing and removing flood damage at buildings and infrastructure and ensuring settlement of claims | |
M22 | Performing event documentation and damage analysis |
Appendix B
Interviews | Date | Position/function of interviewee |
---|---|---|
Interview 1 | June 23, 2016 | Academic/Researcher |
Interview 2 | June 24, 2016 | National authority |
Interview 3 | June 29, 2016 | Regional authority |
Interview 4 | June 29, 2016 | Regional authority |
Interview 5 | June 30, 2016 | Regional authority |
Interview 6 | July 6, 2016 | National authority |
Appendix C
- How did the Flood Directive 2007 influence policymaking in Austria?
- 2.
- What changes have you observed since the implementation of the EU Flood Directive in 2007?
- Did changes in the organisational structure occur? Did new working groups form? What type of cooperation did the EU Floods Directive result in? Why did those changes happen?
- Did changes in the decision-making process occur?
- Did changes result in the bureaucratic burden?
- Did the process result in a different selection of flood risk measures or did new ideas for measures arise? How were measures selected? For example, was hydraulic engineering in cooperation with the Austrian Service for Torrent and Avalanche control or in cooperation with other actors?
- Did changes affect financial means of the distribution of funds?
- Did this initiate a prioritisation/weighting of financial resources?
- Did changes affect risk communication?
- Did disaster management change?
- Did the participation process change?
- 3.
- How was the EU Floods Directive implemented? Have indicators been developed to monitor the implementation process? (update every six years)
- 4.
- What are the difficulties or obstacles of implementation?
- 5.
- Can the change(s) through implementation be seen as significant?
- Has change already happened independently of the EU Flood Directive?
- 6.
- Please briefly describe the political discussion between actors in flood risk management.
- Was there a focus within the amendment e.g., on disaster management, the protection of agricultural land, institutional change, risk and responsibility sharing, risk transfer, restrictions in spatial planning…?
- To what extent have these changes actually been implemented?
- 7.
- In natural hazards management, does Austria follow a safety- or a risk-based approach? What role did the EU Flood Directive 2007 play in this regard?
- 8.
- Are there tangible examples of change?
- 9
- Can you identify a direction for future development?
- 10
- Do you have any further comments?
References
- Pelling, M.; Dill, K. Disaster Politics: Tipping Points for Change in the Adaptation of Sociopolitical Regimes. Prog. Hum. Geog. 2010, 34, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamson, M. Flood risk management in Europe: The EU ‘Floods’ directive and a case study of Ireland. Int. J. River Basin Manage. 2018, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nones, M. Flood hazard maps in the European context. Water Int. 2017, 42, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, T.; Spit, T. Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels - Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiering, M.A.; Arts, B.J.M. Discursive Shifts in Dutch River Management: ‘Deep’ Institutional Change or Adaptation Strategy? Hydrobiologia 2006, 565, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holub, M.; Fuchs, S. Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria – legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys. 2009, 9, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, S.; Thaler, T. Tipping points in natural hazard risk management: How societal transformation can provoke policy strategies in mitigation. J. Extreme Events 2017, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keiler, M.; Knight, J.; Harrison, S. Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A 2010, 368, 2461–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gobiet, A.; Kotlarski, S.; Beniston, M.; Heinrich, G.; Rajczak, J.; Stoffel, M. 21st century climate change in the European Alps—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 1138–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, S.; Keiler, M.; Zischg, A. A spatiotemporal multi-hazard exposure assessment based on property data. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys. 2015, 15, 2127–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fuchs, S.; Röthlisberger, V.; Thaler, T.; Zischg, A.; Keiler, M. Natural hazard management from a coevolutionary perspective: Exposure and policy response in the European Alps. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2017, 107, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thaler, T.; Priest, S.J.; Fuchs, S. Evolving inter-regional co-operation in flood risk management: Distances and types of partnership approaches in Austria. Reg. Environ. Change 2016, 16, 841–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holub, M.; Hübl, J. Local protection against mountain hazards – state of the art and future needs. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys. 2008, 8, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holub, M.; Suda, J.; Fuchs, S. Mountain hazards: Reducing vulnerability by adapted building design. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 66, 1853–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, T.; Attems, M.-S.; Bonnefond, M.; Clarke, D.; Gatien-Tournat, A.; Gralepois, M.; Fournier, M.; Murphy, C.; Rauter, M.; Papathoma-Köhle, M.; et al. Drivers and barriers of adaptation initiatives – How societal transformation affects natural hazard management and risk mitigation in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, M.W.; Quigley, M.C.; Van Ballegooy, S.; Deam, B.L.; Bradley, B.A.; Hart, D.E.; Measures, R. The Sinking City: Earthquakes Increase Flood Hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. GSA Today 2015, 25, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gersonius, B.; R, A.; Jeuken, A.; Pathinara, A.; Zevenbergen, C. Accounting for uncertainty and flexibility in flood risk management: Comparing Real-In-Options optimisation and Adaptation Tipping Points. J. Flood Risk Manage. 2015, 8, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papaioannou, G.; Efstratiadis, A.; Vasiliades, L.; Loukas, A.; Papalexiou, S.M.; Koukouvinos, A.; Tsoukalas, P. An Operational Method for Flood Directive Implementation in Ungauged Urban Areas. Hydrology 2018, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, C. Competent authorities for the flood risk management plan - reflections on flood and spatial planning in England. J.Flood Risk Manage. 2017, 10, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, L 288, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, T.; Jüpner, R. Der Hochwasserrisikomanagementplan: Herausforderung für Wasserwirtschaft und Raumplanung. In Wasserbaukolloquium 2013. Tech. organisatorischer Hochwasserschutz, Stamm; Stamm, J., Graw, K.-U., Eds.; Dresdner Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen: Dresden, Germany, 2013; pp. 183–192. [Google Scholar]
- Albrecht, J. Legal framework and criteria for effectively coordinating public participation under the Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive: European requirements and German transposition. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evers, M. Integrative river basin management: Challenges and methodologies within the German planning system. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newig, J.; Challies, E.; Jager, N.W.; Kochskämper, E. What Role for Public Participation in Implementing the EU Floods Directive? A Comparison with the Water Framework Directive, Early Evidence from Germany and a Research Agenda. Environ. Policy Gov. 2014, 24, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedelin, B. The EU Floods directive trickling down: Tracing the ideas of integrated and participatory flood risk management in Sweden. Water Policy 2017, 19, 286–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heintz, M.D.; Hagemeier-Klose, M.; Wagner, K. Towards a Risk Governance Culture in Flood Policy—Findings from the Implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany. Water 2012, 4, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priest, S.J.; Suykens, C.; Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W.; Schellenberger, T.; Goytia, S.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; van Doorn-Hoekveld, W.J.; Beyers, J.C.; Homewood, S. The European Union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: Lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries. Ecology Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keessen, A.M.; Rijswick, H.F.M.W. Adaptation to climate change in European Water Law and Policy. Utrecht Law Review 2012, 2012, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenton, T.M.; Held, H.; Kriegler, E.; Hall, J.W.; Lucht, W.; Rahmstorf, S.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 1786–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentley, R.A.; Maddison, E.J.; Ranner, P.H.; Bissell, J.; Caiado, C.C.S.; Bhatanacharoen, P.; Clark, T.; Botha, M.; Akinbami, F.; Hollow, M.; et al. Social Tipping Points and Earth Systems Dynamics. Fron. in Environ. Sci. 2014, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milkoreit, M.; Hodbod, J.; Baggio, J.; Benessaiah, K.; Calderón-Contreras, R.; Donges, J.F.; Mathias, J.D.; Rocha, J.C.; Werners, S.E. Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—an interdisciplinary literature review. Environ. Res. Letters 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grodzins, M. Metropolitan Segregation. Sci. Am. 1957, 197, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goering, J.M. Neighborhood tipping and racial transition: A review of social science evidence. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1978, 44, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwab, W.A.; Marsh, E. The tipping-point model: Prediction of change in the racial composition of Cleveland, Ohio, neighborhoods, 1940–1970. Environ. Plann. A 1980, 12, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, E.P. The tipping-point in racially changing neighborhoods. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1963, 29, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schelling, T.C. Micromotives and Macrobehavior; W W Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference; Little, Brown and Company: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bramson, A.L. Measures of tipping points, robustness, and path dependence. arXiv 2008, arXiv:arXiv:0811.0633v1. [Google Scholar]
- Nuttall, M. Tipping Points and the Human World: Living with Change and Thinking about the Future. AMBIO 2012, 41, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, P.; Galaz, V.; Boonstra, W.J. Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology Soc. 2014, 19, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, M.L.; Tjornbo, O.; Enfors, E.; Knapp, C.; Hodbod, J.; Baggio, J.A.; Norström, A.; Olsson, P.; Biggs, D. Studying the complexity of change: Toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology Soci. 2004, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthur, B.W. Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought. In Complexity and the Economy; Arthur, B.W., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK; Santa Fe Institute: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Galla, T.; Farmer, J.D. Complex dynamics in learning complicated games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 1232–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Scheffer, M.; Carpenter, S.R. Catastrophic regime shiftsin ecosystems: Linking theory to observation Trends. Ecology Evol. 2003, 18, 648–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Stockholm Resilience Centre. Insight #2 Regime Shifts. Social-ecological Systems Contain Various Tipping Points or Thresholds that can Trigger Large-scale Reorganization. Available online: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.3e9bddec1373daf16fa438/1459560 363336/Insights_regimeshifts_120111–2.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2016).
- Kwadijk, J.C.J.; Haasnoot, M.; Mulder, J.P.M.; Hoogvliet, M.M.C.; Jeuken, A.B.M.; Van der Krogt, R.A.A.; Van Oostrom, N.G.C.; Schelfhout, H.A.; Van Velzen, E.H.; Van Waveren, H.; et al. Using Adaptation Tipping Points to Prepare for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, a Case Study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Clim. Change 2010, 1, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howden, S.M.; Soussana, J.F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Chhetri, N.; Dunlop, M.; Meinke, H. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19691–19696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, F.; Khan, M.S.A.; Warner, J.; Moors, E.; Terwisscha Van Scheltinga, C. Integrated Adaptation Tipping Points (IATPs) for urban flood resilience. Environ. Urban. 2018, 30, 575–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, J. Disturbance and responses in geomorphic systems. In The SAGE Handbook of Geomorphology; Gregory, K.J., Goudie, A.S., Eds.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2011; pp. 555–566. [Google Scholar]
- Merz, B.; Hall, J.; Disse, M.; Schumann, A. Fluvial flood risk management in a changing world. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys. 2010, 10, 509–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Buuren, A.; Jan Ellen, G.; Warner, J.F. Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: Toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology Soc. 2016, 21, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, S.; Karagiorgos, K.; Kitikidou, K.; Maris, F.; Paparrizos, S.; Thaler, T. Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: A contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 3183–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe; Technical report no 13/2010; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official J. Eur. Communities 2000, L 327, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
- Penning-Rowsell, E.; Johnson, C.; Tunstall, S. ‘Signals’ from pre-crisis discourse: Lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policy change? Global Environ. Change 2006, 16, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexander, M.; Priest, S.; Mees, H. A framework for evaluating flood risk governance. Environ. Science Policy 2016, 64, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BMLFUW. Nationaler Hochwasserrisikomanagementplan 2015; BMLFUW: Vienna, Austria, 2016.
- WKO. Vorarlberg in Zahlen. Available online: https://www.wko.at/service/vbg/zahlen-daten-fakten/VIZ2017_Web.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2018).
- ZAMG. Jahrbuch der Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik: Gesamtjahresauswertung Metainformationen Niederschlag; ZAMG: Hohe Warte, Vienna, Austria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung. 10 Jahre danach - Jahrhundert-Hochwasser 2005: Maßnahmen und Strategie; Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung: Bregenz, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, T. Contesting land policies for space for rivers – rational, viable, and clumsy floodplain management. J. Flood Risk Manage. 2011, 4, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IV. Die Vorarlberger Industrie. Die wichtigsten Daten über unsere Industrie. Available online: https://vorarlberg.iv.at/media/filer_public/43/b1/43b179b7-c315–4a4b-bfbc-a01f48164e32/170404_industriefolder_final_web.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2018).
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, L.A. Snowball sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1961, 32, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Voogt, D.L.; Bisschops, S.; Munaretto, S. Participatory social capacity building: Conceptualisation and experiences from pilots for flood risk mitigation in the Netherlands. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 99, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufmann, M. Limits to change – institutional dynamics of Dutch flood risk governance. J. Flood Risk Manage. 2018, 11, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HORA. Natural Hazard Overview & Risk Assessment Austria. 2019; p Digital Hazard Map.
- BMNT. WASSERAKTIV – lebende Flüsse, saubere Seen. Available online: https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wasser-oeffentlich/wasseraktiv/wasseraktiv.html (accessed on 23 April 2019).
- BMNT. Generation Blue. Available online: https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wasser-oeffentlich/generation-blue/generationblue.html (accessed on 23 April 2019).
- Republic of Austria. Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959 BGBl. Nr. 14/2011. 1959.
- Republic of Austria. Forstgesetz 1975 BGBl. 440/1975. 1975.
- Habersack, H.; Bürgel, J.; Petraschek, A. FloodRisk II Vertiefung und Vernetzung zukunftsweisender Umsetzungsstrategien zum integrierten Hochwassermanagement; Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: Vienna, Austria, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rauter, M.; Schindelegger, A.; Fuchs, S.; Thaler, T. Deconstructing the legal framework for flood protection in Austria: Individual and state responsibilities from a planning perspective. Water International 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordbeck, R.; Steurer, R.; Löschner, L. The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: From flood control to anticipatory flood risk management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuhold, C. EU Floods Directive implementation in Austria. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Managemnet, Lyon, France, 17–21 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Charalambous, K.; Bruggeman, A.; Giannakis, E.; Zoumides, C. Improving Public Participation Processes for the Floods Directive and Flood Awareness: Evidence from Cyprus. Water 2018, 10, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mees, H.L.P.; Uittenbroek, C.J.; Hegger, D.L.T.; Driessen, P.P.J. From citizen participation to government participation: An exploration of the roles of local governments in community initiatives for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, T.; Zischg, A.; Keiler, M.; Fuchs, S. Allocation of risk and benefits – distributional justices in mountain hazard management. Reg. Environ. Change 2018, 18, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollason, E.; Bracken, L.J.; Hardy, R.J.; Large, A.R.G. Rethinking flood risk communication. Nat. Hazard. 2018, 92, 1665–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, F.; Gersonius, B.; Veerbeek, W.; Alam Khan, M.S.; Wester, P. The role of extreme events in reaching adaptation tipping points: A case study of flood risk management in Dhaka, Bangladesh. J. Water Clim. Change 2014, 6, 729–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufmann, M.; Mees, H.; Liefferink, D.; Crabbé, A. A game of give and take: The introduction of multi-layer (water) safety in the Netherlands and Flanders. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haasnoot, M.; Middelkoop, H.; Offermans, A.; Van Beek, E.; van Deursen, W.P. Exploring Pathways for Sustainable Water Management in River Deltas in a Changing Environment. Clim. Change 2012, 115, 795–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diermanse, F.; Tromp, F. Flood resilience: European experience. Available online: www.floodplainconference.com/papers2015/Ferdinand%20Diermanse.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2018).
- Sinaba, B.; Huber, N.P.; Kufeld, M.; Schüttrumpf, H. A Harmonized Flood Damage Assessment Approach for the Transnational Meuse basin. In Comprehensive Flood Risk Management; Klijn, F., Schweckendiek, T., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ramm, T.; Watson, C.; White, C. Describing adaptation tipping points in coastal flood risk management. Computers Environ.Urban Sys. 2018, 69, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rauter, M.; Thaler, T.; Attems, M.-S.; Fuchs, S. 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 2019, 11, 5505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195505
Rauter M, Thaler T, Attems M-S, Fuchs S. 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. 2019; 11(19):5505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195505
Chicago/Turabian StyleRauter, Magdalena, Thomas Thaler, Marie-Sophie Attems, and 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 11, no. 19: 5505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195505