Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Cooperation in flood risk management: understanding the role of strategic T

planning in two Austrian policy instruments
Thomas Thalera, Ralf Nordbeckb,*, Lukas Löschnerc, Walter Seherc
a
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
b
Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
c
Institute of Spatial Planning, Environmental Planning and Land Rearrangement, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Strategic land use planning assumes a pivotal role in flood risk management. By using formal instruments, spatial
flood risk management planning can (i) legally secure areas for flood retention or other flood protection measures (hazard reduction) as
strategic planning well as (ii) regulate settlement development in hazard areas and ensure flood-adapted land uses (damage pre­
governance vention). The interrelations between upstream and downstream riparian areas in flood risk management,
planning instruments
however, require regional or catchment-oriented approaches in strategic land use planning to better coordinate
catchment
partnership
land development options along rivers. This paper examines two strategic planning instruments in Austrian flood
risk management. The two instruments – Blauzone Rheintal in Vorarlberg and Schutzwasserwirtschaftlicher
Raumentwicklungsplan (SREP) in Carinthia – were developed by water authorities and spatial planning de­
partments to prevent settlement growth in flood-prone areas and to secure land for flood protection schemes.
Despite having similar problems in their backgrounds and objectives, the implementation processes of these
instruments differ significantly: while the Blauzone Rheintal was formalized as a legally binding regional land
use plan, the SREP was not developed beyond the pilot stage. This paper identifies important contextual con­
ditions and lessons learned to facilitate the scaling-up and replication of catchment-oriented spatial planning
instruments in other flood-prone regions.

1. Introduction encouraging the use of non-structural measures (Thaler et al. 2017;

Floodplain areas worldwide have always been attractive for new
residential and non-residential development (Löschner et al. 2017;
Paprotny et al. 2018). Especially in Alpine regions, there is strong
pressure to extend development into hazard areas, mainly owing to a
lack of land potentially suitable for permanent settlements. In past
years, various studies have observed a strong increase in new re­
sidential and non-residential properties in Alpine risk areas (Fuchs et al.
2017; Löschner et al. 2017; Thaler et al. 2018). Additionally, climate
change effects have an impact on the probability of future flood hazards
(Blöschl et al. 2019). Consequently, past and future land use, as well as
climate change, trigger an increase in potential human and economic
losses from future flood events (Dottori et al. 2018; Koks et al. 2019).
To reduce the negative impacts of future events, policy makers,
stakeholders and citizens use structural and non-structural measures of
flood risk management (Nordbeck et al. 2019; Thaler et al. 2019). There
has been a shift in flood risk management discourse away from struc­
tural flood protection schemes toward broader integrated management,
Seher & Löschner 2018a; Löschner & Nordbeck 2019). Spatial planning
has seized a prominent role in the ongoing flood hazards debate (Hutter
2007; Seher & Löschner 2018a; Löschner & Nordbeck 2019). The key
focus of spatial planning is on preventing future flood risks, in parti­
cular by employing regional and local protection and adaptation mea­
sures such as the designation of runoff and retention areas, the flood
proofing of new buildings or the implementation of sustainable urban
drainage measures (Dadson et al. 2017; McCarthy et al. 2018; Seher &
Löschner 2018b; Attems et al. 2020).
Managing the interrelations between upstream and downstream
riparian areas in flood risk management calls for a regional, catchment-
oriented planning approach to better coordinate stakeholder interests
and resulting development options along river stretches. These co­
ordination demands, however, are insufficiently met by regulatory
spatial planning instruments (Thaler et al. 2017; Seher & Löschner
2018b). In order to coordinate different sectoral land use interests in a
catchment and to enable concerted stakeholder action, strategic land
use planning is a viable option (Wiechmann 2018). With preventing

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ralf.nordbeck@boku.ac.at (R. Nordbeck).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.001
Received 3 March 2020; Received in revised form 28 July 2020; Accepted 2 August 2020
Available online 20 August 2020
1462-9011/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Thaler, et al.
future flood risk as the overarching goal, strategic land use planning in
flood risk management makes use of different governance arrangements
to coordinate largely competing land use interests in catchments and
along river stretches.
The primary aim of this paper is to evaluate how governance ar­
rangements influence the strategic land use planning process in flood
risk management (plan making and plan implementation) regarding
two examples in Austria. Here, we assess several questions: who took
the lead in the plan-making process (distribution between the spatial
planner and water manager), how can power relationships and policy
coordination influence planning outcomes, and how is the strategic
planning process mediated between conflicting parties? The second aim
of the paper is to assess whether the planning strategies effectively
secured and mobilized land for flood retention and runoff. The reg­
ulatory approach to spatial planning is able to restrict or prevent land
uses that hamper flood retention capacities (Löschner et al., 2019);
however, regulatory planning instruments are limited in mobilizing
land, i.e., to make land available and accessible for flood protection or
to realize land uses that are desirable in terms of flood runoff and flood
retention (e.g., grassland and floodplain forests). As long as structural
measures are not realized to enable or support flood storage, regulatory
planning approaches may be regarded as sufficient. If land is required
for structural flood protection measures or if flood-compatible culti­
vation is to be achieved, there is a need for extended spatial planning
approaches or accompanying measures of land policy. The paper also
explores whether strategic planning approaches are able to go beyond
the respective limitations of regulatory planning. The paper is orga­
nized as follows: section 2 contributes to the current planning theory
debate on strategic planning as a result of political processes. Section 3
provides an overview of the case studies employed and the identifica­
tion of the key stakeholders and methods employed. The results are
presented in section 4, while section 5 distills key conclusions and re­
flects on future directions.
2. Theoretical background: Planning as a political process
Spatial planning is not only a regulatory instrument but also a social
process and plays a key role in the ongoing policy discussion and de­
cision-making process largely because it translates policies and legis­
lation in the practical implementation process (Albrechts 2015;
Albrechts et al. 2019). As a result, spatial planning is a ‘political project’
(Allmendinger & Haughton 2009: 2547). The key roles of spatial
planning include coordinating different interests, interpreting policy
directions and monitoring the implementation process (Scharpf 1973;
Allmendinger 1998). Consequently, spatial planning never acts in­
dependently. It is necessary to see it in a much broader context within
the different policy discussions, e.g., agriculture or physical structures
(such as infrastructure, residential, and non-residential properties)
(Oliveira et al. 2018; Oliveira and Hersperger, 2019). Therefore, spatial
planning is the field in “which people shape and govern spaces and take
into account social, economic, and environmental issues” (Van Assche
et al., 2013: 179), where the governance structure influences the spatial
planning process and outcomes. However, spatial planning is often seen
as a regulatory instrument instead of a strategic view of physical
landscape management (Hutter 2007; Albrechts et al. 2019). Strategic
spatial planning has become more relevant over the last 30 years. Since
the 1990s, many urban agglomerations worldwide have begun using
this concept to develop a new relationship between rural-urban lin­
kages, usually for focusing on a timeframe 20-50 years in the future
(Hersberger et al. 2018). The aim of strategic planning is to provide a
vision (nonbinding outcome) for common spaces resulting from a wide
range of different stakeholders (Oliveira et al. 2018). Strategic planning
includes four phases. The first phase (plan making) focuses on selecting
stakeholders who develop a common vision and a framework of how to
implement the plan. The second phase (plan) defines concrete land use
changes. The third phase (plan implementation) includes the
171
Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177
realization of concrete actions. It is highly influenced by questions of
who has power, who has access to resources, and who dictates the
discourse. The final phase includes transforming the land (Hersberger
et al. 2018). Of course, crucial questions are who is involved and what
are the possibilities to engage in the planning process (Short Gianotti
et al. 2018; Meng et al. 2019; Thaler and Seebauer 2019; Pasquier et al.
2020)?
Procedurally, the strategic land use planning approach builds on
collaborative planning. Planning process, interaction and mobilization
of stakeholders form an integral part of strategic planning. The strategic
planning process is highly influenced by governance arrangements,
such as collaboration between different stakeholders, negotiation pro­
cesses, or planning practices (Fürst 2004; Oliveira et al. 2018; Schmitt
and Wiechmann, 2018). The process is framed by external and internal
factors, including resources, responsibilities, legal framework, political
discourse, and the overall planning process, such as learning, the
planning mode, or organizing the planning process (Hutter 2007). The
analysis of collaborative processes, however, tends to deliver un­
satisfactory results if power, dominance of interests, and the assertion
of strong stakeholders are not taken into account (Selle 2004).
3. Research framework
3.1. Methodology
This paper investigates regional spatial planning approaches in two
different case studies in Austria: Blauzone Rheintal in Vorarlberg and
Schutzwasserwirtschaftlicher Raumentwicklungsplan (SREP) in Carinthia.
The study refers to the interaction between water engineers and spatial
planners in flood risk management at the catchment level. This study
uses two data collection techniques: (a) primary data sources (semi-
structured in-depth interviews, appendix A) and (b) policy and legal
documents (appendix B). We chose a semi-structured research approach
to understand the design, challenges and barriers to developing and
implementing both instruments in the policy discussion. The document
analysis provided background information about the context in which
decision-makers and stakeholders in the case studies operate.
Information and insights derived from the documents were valuable
additions to the knowledge base, in particular as a mean to track change
and development (Bowen 2009; Yin 2018). The interview guideline
included a mix of closed- and open-ended questions. The interview
guidance used the following headings: (1) the aim and objective of the
strategic planning process; (2) the role of different stakeholders; (3)
interaction between different stakeholders; (4) legal status; and (5)
decision process and implementation.
In total, we conducted thirteen semi-structured interviews with
stakeholders at the regional and local levels who were involved in the
planning process between 2012 and 2016; some experts in the SREP
example were interviewed at a four-year follow-up wave to capture the
developments between 2012 and 2016. In addition, we conducted two
semi-structured interviews with spatial planners in other federal states
in Austria. The aim was to analyze the transferability of the instruments
to other regions. The selection processes were conducted through net­
works and recommendations from other interviewees. The interviews
were conducted face-to-face in the office of the interviewee and took 50
– 80 minutes. Furthermore, additional notes were taken during and
after the interview. Additionally, the interviews ended with an open-
ended question as a means to encourage interviewees to reflect on the
dialogue as well as to add additional information in a narrative form
(Rogan et al. 2005). The fully transcribed interviews were analyzed
systematically with MAXQDA based on an analytical technique of
coding data segments.
3.2. Case study descriptions
The first case study is the SREP in Carinthia, which was
T. Thaler, et al.
Fig. 1. Location of case studies within the Austrian territory (Data Source: data.gv.at – Open Data Austria).
implemented within two catchments, Moll and Gurk (Fig. 1). Topo­
graphically, the region is located within the Eastern Alps area with a
mixture of mountain terrain and flat valleys. The population is mainly
concentrated around the urban areas in the flat valleys (Ward and Parks
2013) or in the floodplain areas in the mountain regions.
The recent flood frequency and history show various flood events in
past years but especially in 1965 and 1966. Nevertheless, the commu­
nities present a high-risk perception (Fleischhauer et al. 2012). Ad­
ditionally, demographic characteristics demonstrate strong depopula­
tion processes as a result of young people moving toward the main
urban areas in Carinthia and an aging population structure. The main
economic activities in these areas include agricultural land use, small-
medium businesses, energy production (hydropower) and tourism. The
only large tourism infrastructure is in the Moll catchment.
The Rhine Valley section in the most western Austrian province of
Vorarlberg represents the second case study (Fig. 1). This lower part of
the alpine Rhine Valley, separated into Austrian and Swiss areas, forms
a wide basin ranging from the alpine ridge to the Bodensee. Due to its
favorable location and transport infrastructure, the Rhine Valley is one
of the most dynamic regions in Central Europe. The Austrian side is
experiencing strong settlement growth. The residential population has
increased by 10.3 % (since 2005), and it is expected that the vast ma­
jority of the future population growth of the province will be con­
centrated in the Rhine Valley (State Government of Vorarlberg 2019).
The selected case studies both represent innovative regional ap­
proaches to prevent future settlement growth in flood-prone areas and
to secure land as flood retention areas. Both planning instruments re­
spond to similar problems and pursue similar goals relating to flood risk
management. However, the implementation processes of the planning
instruments differ significantly: while the Blauzone Rheintal was for­
malized as a legally binding regional land use plan, the SREP was not
developed beyond the pilot stage. The cross-case comparison enables us
therefore to identify important contextual conditions for catchment-
oriented spatial planning instruments in other flood-prone regions.
4. Results
In this section we will compare our two cases of strategic planning
in Carinthia (SREP) and Vorarlberg (Blauzone Rheintal) along the four
analytical dimensions of plan making, planning outcome, plan
172
Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177
implementation and land mobilization.
4.1. Strategic flood risk management planning in Carinthia
In the early 2000s, the SREP was introduced as a new planning tool
by the water authorities (BWV) of Carinthia. The SREP combines the
aspects of spatial planning with water and flood risk management. The
SREP tries to incorporate different stakeholders with different back­
grounds and interests into the planning process to achieve multiple
benefits from the decision process (i1; i5). The management approach
uses interaction and engagement between different stakeholders to
develop a common strategic management plan. Consequently, the SREP
opens up a planning discussion, encouraging the discussion toward a
more strategic planning process. The SREP has strong overlaps with
existing planning instruments, e.g., hazard zone maps. However, the
SREP focuses on future development in a whole catchment and not only
in a single municipality.
4.1.1. Plan making and planning outcome
The SREP includes a four-step process, consisting of between three
and five workshops (i1; i2; i3). The first step foresees the exchange of
information between different stakeholders regarding current and fu­
ture development expectations. The interviews show that the exchanges
of information about future developments play a key role in the overall
planning process (i1; i3; i4; i5). In these cases, different stakeholders
defined a common vision concerning future land use in the catchment.
Overall, the SREP included pivotal ideas and priorities about spatial
development in the catchment.
The exchange of information pointed out future land use demands.
A primary objective of this step is not only to ensure that there are flood
retention areas in the catchment but also to ensure the needs of spatial
planning in terms of ensuring housing and commercial development.
The interviews show that this step presents high interdependencies
between the different stakeholders. For example, hydropower and river
restoration, flood protection measures and residential and non-re­
sidential development in potential floodplain areas are interwoven. The
main conflicts between high-priority water demand zones and high-
priority development areas are palpable, such as ensuring flood reten­
tion areas in the catchment as well as new development in the flood­
plain areas. This is because of a lack of available land (i1).
T. Thaler, et al.
The third step includes the negotiation process between the dif­
ferent stakeholders to satisfy their needs. The key objective is to find a
compromise between the different future land use demands. The main
challenges relate to the highest priorities of each stakeholder, e.g., new
developments in risk areas. The flood risk management authorities re­
served a stronger position compared to that of the municipal stake­
holders and their development interests. Upon analyzing the inter­
views, it was first noted that the water engineering department presents
a stronger position in the overall discussion. The BWV mainly satisfies
its needs by maintaining the highest priority (i1; i4; i5). Second, the
habitus of the planners and the local stakeholders were explored. The
interaction and use of the language as well as the quality of networks
play an important role in satisfying individual needs. Furthermore, the
interviews show that coalitions between different stakeholders are im­
portant (i3). For example, farmer unions and water engineers built a
coalition to ensure the preservation of agricultural land close to urban
areas. Preserving the land also ensures flood retention, resulting in an
increase in the security of downstream municipalities. The main argu­
ment for this land preservation was to avoid future residential and non-
residential development on existing farmland.
The fourth step includes the final agreement between the different
stakeholders about future land use provisions in the catchment. The
final proposal includes selective measures and actions that different
stakeholders must follow. The outcome was an informal agreement
between the different parties, which was translated to local develop­
ment concepts and local land use plans. The outcome of both man­
agement plans shows a strong security discussion centered on reducing
the impact of future flood events. A second goal has been to increase the
overall risk awareness of each stakeholder in the catchment, and finally,
the SREP encourages a common future strategy in the catchment.
Despite seeming relatively comprehensive, the SREP failed to in­
corporate other issues, such as multi-hazard discussions, economic and
social developments in the region, and emergency management.
4.1.2. Plan implementation and land mobilization
The SREP includes two main aspects: (1) a functional aspect, which
focuses on the problem of themes, and (2) a territorial aspect, which
includes geographical scale (territorial or natural boundaries). The
functional point of view refers to integrating the flood risk management
debate into the ongoing planning discussion. The SREP tries to build
synergies between both topics to manage land use more effectively. The
territorial aspects refer to the catchment. The regional planning dis­
cussion is oriented toward natural catchment boundaries. Furthermore,
the SREP has been understood as a flexible construction to arrange
cooperation between different stakeholders, including different com­
munities and non-state stakeholders. In terms of the SREP, the inter­
actions of stakeholders from different sectors (e.g., regional and local
authorities, businesses, and farmers) produce a common management
plan for the catchment. A key important issue is the flexibility of the
SREP to respond to local needs (i3). Consequently, the regulatory
process between different stakeholders is weakly organized due to low
institutionalized agreements. An important aspect is the self-organiza­
tion of the group, which is based on a network formed between dif­
ferent agents.
The measures of flood risk management, in particular structural
measures, need to be realized on land that is owned by farmers, citizens
or other private entities. Land availability is, on the one hand, relevant
in terms of (private) property rights, while on the other hand, con­
flicting land use demands such as housing and commercial development
or intensive types of agriculture reduce the amount of land suitable for
flood risk management. The mobilization of land for flood risk man­
agement measures is based on the negotiations between different au­
thorities, both provincial and local. As the planning outcome has to be
implemented in the local development concepts and the local land use
plans, it makes sense to include suitable sites for structural measures in
the negotiations and to secure them by means of appropriate zoning
173
Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177
categories. Therefore, the SREP may provide for land mobilization by
way of stakeholder negotiations.
In summary, the SREP is a non-statutory management plan that
includes a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the different stakeholders.
In practice, the SREP combines ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ decision-making
to secure private land for flood risk management. The SREP included
current flood risk, ecological and geomorphologic problems, the iden­
tification of stakeholders, and the aims and needs of different stake­
holders. However, the management plans still missed the links toward
emergency management plans and stakeholders. The SREP was not
developed beyond the pilot stage as the main deficit of the instrument.
The main reason was the lack of political interest and support within
the federal state of Carinthia as well as also in other regions in Austria
to implement the SREP nation-wide (i1; i12; i13).
4.2. The Blauzone Rheintal – a regional plan to secure large-scale flood
areas
In 2005, Vorarlberg suffered a major flood event. With total damage
to households, businesses, and infrastructure amounting to more than
EUR 180 million, it was the costliest hazard event in Vorarlberg to date
(State Government of Vorarlberg 2015). One of the key challenges for
flood policy makers following the flood events in 2005 was providing
space for flood alleviation measures and preventing urban sprawl into
potential hazard areas. Faced with a lack of appropriate regulatory
instruments to secure land for structural measures, regional authorities
in water management and spatial planning engaged in an intersectoral
coordination process to identify and delineate suitable areas. The main
motivation was to develop an instrument that combines flood risk
management and catchment-wide land use management to implement
regional flood alleviation schemes as well as to mobilize land to ensure
private land to implement flood storage areas. In 2013, following an­
other large flood event, the Vorarlberg state government issued the
Blauzone Rheintal, a legally binding regional land use plan that des­
ignates flood runoff and flood retention areas along the Rhine and its
tributaries.
4.2.1. Plan making and planning outcome
After 2005, the regional authorities started a discussion about the
implementation of new land use management instruments to reduce the
impact of future flood events (IRKA and IRR 2005). The first concept,
the Development Concept Rhine Valley, was adopted in December 2005
and introduced the idea of establishing natural retention and runoff
areas for extreme hydrometeorological events along the Rhine. The
development concept foresaw that the local land use plans introduce
and preserve these retention areas. In the following years, regional
authorities conducted various measures to coordinate spatial planning
and flood protection to improve the spatial prerequisites for flood risk
management and to secure runoff and retention areas (i7, i8, i11). One
of the suggested measures was the establishment of so-called “Blue
Zones” (Frei and Kopf 2011). The following extreme flood event in June
2013 was the final push for the adoption of the Blauzone regulation in
December 2013 (State Government of Vorarlberg 2013).
The Blauzone Rheintal faced two key challenges in the plan-making
phase. First, there was a need for a broader harmonization of data,
concepts and language between the departments of water management
and spatial planning. For example, the hydrological data and models for
300-year flood events and emergency runoff generated disconnected
flooding areas, which could not be mapped into a single land use plan.
The data had to be transformed by the spatial planning authorities into
a more coherent map of flood areas based on defining landscape and
geographic features, such as roads, property lines or terrain edges (i8).
Second, the Blauzone Rheintal excluded all vulnerable land uses, i.e., all
developed areas as well as land designated for building areas, in ad­
dition to priority areas for future settlement development that already
had been designed in local land use plans. This exclusion was
T. Thaler, et al.
incorporated to minimize conflicts with landowners and to maintain
development options for the municipalities (i7, i8, i9, i10).
The Blauzone regulation was issued as a legally binding directive,
which obliges the affected municipalities to amend their local land use
plans and zone areas located within the “Blauzone” as so-called open
space reserve areas. This means that no development is permitted in
those reserve areas with the exception of enlarging existing agricultural
facilities (State Government of Vorarlberg 2013). The directive pursues
three major aims: (1) the risk of flooding in existing settlement areas,
i.e., built areas as well as areas zoned as building land in the local land
use plans, is reduced. To minimize a further increase in damage po­
tential, zoning building land in the designated flood hazard areas is
severely restricted; (2) existing and potential flood retention areas are
kept free of development to reduce flood peaks. These areas particularly
include agricultural and forest areas with low damage potential, which
may also be temporarily flooded in extreme events; and (3) areas with
low damage potential are secured for future flood control measures to
preserve long-term flood risk management options (State Government
of Vorarlberg 2013).
The Blauzone is overwhelmingly located in the so-called
“Grünzone”, which was established in 1977 to preserve open spaces and
agricultural areas of regional importance in the Rhine Valley (i7, i8,
i11). Accordingly, the Blauzone predominately includes areas with low
damage potential, such as agricultural land. Highly vulnerable areas,
i.e., developed areas, as well as zoned building land for building were
excluded. Thus, existing land use restrictions facilitated the im­
plementation of the Blauzone.
4.2.2. Plan implementation and land mobilization
The Blauzone Rheintal was implemented by a regional authority
and is legally binding for twenty-two local authorities. The im­
plementation process also includes a wider debate with local stake­
holders, such as representatives of all affected municipalities as well as
representatives of agricultural and commercial associations and land­
owners. However, the participation process focused on informing and
consulting local stakeholders about the development of the planning
instrument. Nevertheless, the lack of broader participation did not
create a protest movement against the instrument. Main reason is the
development opportunities of the municipalities were hardly limited by
the new instrument. Further, the Blauzone Rheintal accepted some
exceptions for private landowners. Private landowners (mainly farmers)
feared further land use restrictions in the newly designated open space
areas, a reduction in land value and limitations in further farm exten­
sions (i7; i8, i10).
The implementation process of the Blauzone Rheintal is associated
with infringements on future land use opportunities. By zoning large-
scale flood runoff and flood retention areas, this regional land use plan
regulates which land uses are compatible with the overall aim of pro­
viding more space for the Rhine and mitigating flood damage potential
(Löschner et al., 2019). The Blauzone Rheintal mainly relates to a way
of providing flood retention where structural measures, such as dams or
additional basins, are not required to enable flood storage. In this re­
spect, there is no immediate need for land mobilization or a compen­
sation for restricting private property rights.
However, to a certain extent, the Blauzone Rheintal also aims to
secure areas for future structural flood control measures, such as an
intended relocation of the Rhine outlet into the Bodensee. Such mea­
sures do not provide compatible land use options, which raises the issue
of mobilizing the requested land resources. With its normative out­
come, the Blauzone Rheintal is not able to directly support land ac­
quisition. The Blauzone Rheintal directive, however, requests local
planning authorities to zone so-called “open space reserve areas”,
which – according to the provincial spatial planning act of Vorarlberg –
have to remain accessible for defined public purposes (in this case,
flood risk management). As alternative land use options are very re­
stricted, the blue zones indirectly facilitate land mobilization.
174
Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177
Furthermore, the information of landowners and other stakeholders on
spatial provisions during the planning process is likely to make land­
owners and municipalities aware of which land will be requested for
flood control measures.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
The SREP and the Blauzone Rheintal provide a strategic planning ap­
proach on how to manage flood hazards at the catchment level, where
strategic planning is understood as a vision-oriented integrative framework
for sectoral planning, projects and communicative planning approaches
(Wiechmann 2018). The SREP tried to be an action-oriented plan by em­
ploying a strategic perspective (see also Hersberger et al. 2018), and can be
referred to as a communicative planning approach. The Blauzone Rheintal
is a traditional sectoral planning instrument at regional level following a
territory-based strategy and including participatory elements to reduce re­
sistance of municipalities and landowners.
Overall, both instruments failed to fully satisfy the requirements of
strategic planning. The main focus – of both instruments – is on flood ha­
zards, but consideration should also be given to combining these issues with
other development-related topics to achieve a more holistic view. Both in­
struments include a broader catchment-based perspective within the plan­
ning process, in contrast to the traditional Austrian planning system.
Important aspects in this respect include engaging new stakeholders in the
planning process and integrating different thematic aspects into decision-
making. Furthermore, a key point of both instruments is the strategic long-
term vision with a focus on the whole catchment.
Both, the SREP and the Blauzone Rheintal have been designed to
secure flood-runoff and flood-retention areas in terms of avoiding
conflicting land uses there (e.g. housing or commercial development).
However, both instruments also provide land mobilization options for
flood risk management, the SREP as a result of negotiations on land use,
the Blauzone by restricting alternative land use options by zoning
regulations. Our results also highlight that both instruments combine
formal and informal planning approaches, each in different intensities.
Regarding plan-making, the SREP is organized bottom-up whereas the
Blauzone Rheintal as a traditional instrument of land use planning
applies a top-down access. The SREP was initiated by the water man­
agement authority, but the plan making was mainly driven by local
authorities in terms of intended future developments. Indeed, im­
plementing the SREP confronts the question of power between the
different stakeholders. The water management authority had the power
to proof and accept the final plan. The plan making of Blauzone
Rheintal was mainly driven by the water management authority in
close collaboration with the spatial planning authority. Local autho­
rities were able to inform and express their interest but had less re­
sponsibility. A key task of both instruments is to mitigate the current
and the potential risk that is present in the catchment. Furthermore, the
land use plan shifts the planning perspective toward a new spatial level,
i.e., a regional catchment perspective. Introducing the SREP and the
Blauzone Rheintal enforced the creation of a new decision-making
process. Both instruments managed to change the level of planning
from a local approach toward a regional (catchment) perspective.
Planning at the catchment level includes a wider range of stake­
holders with different interests in terms of decision-making (Thaler &
Seebauer 2019). Thus, the SREP incorporated the needs of various
stakeholders in the planning process. Based on the catchment level, the
SREP tried to negotiate between the different interests to engender both
economic growth and a higher cost-efficient security level in the
catchment. The planning process of the Blauzone Rheintal focused more
on information and consultation but overall followed a similar path.
Land mobilization is likely to occur similarly in both instruments:
mainly informally. However, zoning private land for flood risk man­
agement was organized in a different way. The SREP zoned private land
based on the negotiation process between local authorities. The out­
come was that the SREP allowed exemptions for individual local
T. Thaler, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177

Table 1
Comparison between SREP and Blauzone Rheintal in strategic flood risk management planning.
SREP Blauzone Rheintal

Plan making
Planning outcome
Plan Implementation
Effect on land mobilization
Initiated by regional authority, but plan making process follows a distinctive
bottom-up approach, where local authorities define their development needs
in coordination with the regional water authority.
Non-formalized negotiation results are formalized in local land use planning.
Broad local participation and engagement by local authorities and
stakeholders, such as blue light organizations, tourism organizations or farmer
representatives
Zoning is based on negotiations; land mobilization is likely to occur
subsequently.
Pronounced top-down approach with inter-sectoral coordination
between spatial planning and water authorities at the regional
level.
Legally binding land use regulation
Broad information and consultation of municipalities and
landowners minimized implementation problems
Land mobilization is likely to occur as a consequence of a
restrictive zoning category.

authorities to build residential and non-residential buildings in flood­
plain area as the upstream local authorities mitigate the current and the
potential risk. The Blauzone Rheintal imposed land use restrictions on
private land based on top-down decisions but allowed exemptions to
avoid conflicts with private landowners and municipalities. Regarding
zoning, the SREP is indicated to be more flexible. The cooperation be­
tween the different stakeholders at the local level is flexible and can
react quickly to the needs of different actors in the sense of overcoming
barriers between different agents. The regulation process between dif­
ferent actors, however, is quite weakly organized due to low in­
stitutionalized agreements. Finally, the advantages of both instruments
in comparison to traditional flood risk management strategies, such as
the implementation of hazard maps in local land use planning, are (1)
the more holistic view, e.g., taking into account the different land use
patterns, social and political aspects and nature conservation, (2) the
catchment-based perspective, (3) the risk-based approach and (4) the
focus on future development instead of on the current state (Table 1).
Notwithstanding different planning cultures and legal backgrounds,
regional land use planning instruments are widely used. Their political
significance, however, is comparably low, mainly due the lack of flex­
ibility and the often lengthy planning processes (Beutl 2010).
Against this background of a challenging planning environment,
both instruments have a high acceptance and significance by its re­
gional and local authorities. This can be attributed to three character­
istics of the planning process: first, to a close cooperation of water
management and spatial planning authorities, second, to concessions to
local authorities and agricultural landowners (in case of the Blauzone
Rheintal) and to local authorities (in case of the SREP) and third, to a
continuous communication process during the implementation phase.
Regarding different planning cultures, coordination, willingness to
compromise concerning planning results – negotiated or conceded a
priori – and stakeholder information can be applied in various other
strategic planning contexts. Consequently, both cases show a shift from
regulatory policy and instruments towards a broader strategic devel­
opment approach in spatial planning (Albrechts, 2015) with the aim to
enable citizens to involve in the planning process (Altrock, 2008). A key
task is the engagement and empowerment of different actors to get
involved in the decision making process (Thaler & Seebauer 2019). In
summary, strategic planning includes five main criteria: (1) long-term
view and vision, (2) integrated different aspects and disciplines, (3)
sustainable development, (4) communication and (5) stakeholder en­
gagement and strategic planning should be understood as a part of the
current social-political process. Consequently, spatial planning never
acts autonomously and independently from other policy fields. Overall,
this paper shows that the introduction of both instruments provides a
wide range of new opportunities and partnerships as well as consider­
able conflicts and unbalanced developments.
Author statement
Thomas Thaler, Ralf Nordbeck, Lukas Löschner and Walter Seher
equally contributed to the design and implementation of the research,
to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
This research received financial support from the Austrian Academy
of Sciences (ÖAW) within the research program of Earth System
Sciences (ESS) (Integrated Flood Risk Management in Mountain Areas:
Assessing Sectoral Interdependencies, Conflicts and Options for Policy
Coordination (POCO-FLOOD) and Demographic change and hydro­
logical hazards: flood risk management in Alpine areas facing popula­
tion decline and demographic aging (DemoHazAlps)). This paper was
written within the framework of COST-Action LAND4FLOOD (Natural
Flood Retention on Private Land).

Appendix A. Complete List of Interviews

Authority Where When

1 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Carinthia 2012 (follow up 2016)
2 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Carinthia 2012 (follow up 2016)
3 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Carinthia 2012
4 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Carinthia 2012
5 Consultant Federal State of Carinthia 2012 (follow up 2016)
6 Regional Authority Spatial Planning Federal State of Carinthia 2012 (follow up 2016)
7 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Vorarlberg 2016
8 Regional Authority Spatial Planning Federal State of Vorarlberg 2016
9 Regional Authority Climate Change Adaptation Federal State of Vorarlberg 2016
10 Federal Authority Torrent and Avalanche Control Federal State of Vorarlberg 2016
11 Regional Authority Water Management Federal State of Vorarlberg 2016
12 Regional Authority Spatial Planning Federal State of Salzburg 2012
13 Regional Authority Spatial Planning Federal State of Upper Austria 2012

175
T. Thaler, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177

Appendix B. Policy and legal documents

Level of Type of documents

governance

National • Forestry Law 1975

• Guidelines for demarcating hazard zones for the National Water Engineering Administration – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water
Management 2006
• Guidelines for hazard zoning – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management 2011
• Hazard Zoning Decree 1976
• Hazard Zoning Decree 2014
• Law on Funding Hydraulic Structures 1985
• Law on Precautions for the Harmless Drainage of Alpine Waters 1884.
• National Flood Risk Management Plan – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management 2016
• Technical guidelines for hazard zoning according to §42a Water Act – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management 2016
• Technical guidelines for the Austrian Service of Torrent and Avalanche Control – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management 2006
• Water Act 1954
• FloodRisk II - Vertiefung und Vernetzung zukunftsweisender Umsetzungsstrategien zum integrierten Hochwasserschutz
Regional • Amt der Kärntner Landesregierung/Abt. 18 Wasserwirtschaft 2009, Der Schutzwasserwirtschaftliche Raumentwicklungsplan SREP – Leitfaden
• Spatial Planning Act 2015, Federal State of Vorarlberg, Austria
• Spatial Planning Act 2018, Federal State of Carinthia, Austria
• National Flood Risk Management Plan. Risk area: Alpenrhein 8001 – Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management 2016
• Blauzone Rheintal. Regulation of the State Government of Vorarlberg on the establishment of local open spaces for protection against flooding in the Rhine Valley –
State Government of Vorarlberg 2013
• 10Regional
years later. 2005 extreme flood event. Measures and strategy - State Government of Vorarlberg 2015
• Integral flood
population forecast 2015 to 2050 - State Government of Vorarlberg 2016
• protection. Recognize, mitigate and accept risks - State Government of Vorarlberg 2016

References
Albrechts, L., 2015. Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 42 (3), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1068/
b130104p.
Albrechts, L., Barbanente, B., Monno, V., 2019. From stage-managed planning towards a
more imaginative and inclusive strategic spatial planning. Environment and Planning
C: Politics and Space 37 (8), 1489–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2399654419825655.
Allmendinger, P., 1998. Planning practice and the post-modern debate. International
Planning Studies 3 (2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479808721710.
Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., 2009. Critical reflections on spatial planning.
Environment and Planning A 41 (11), 2544–2549. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42227.
Altrock, U., 2008. Strategieorientierte Planung in Zeiten des Attraktivitätsparadigmas. In:
Hamedinger, A., Frey, O., Dangschat, J.S., Breitfuss, A. (Eds.), Strategieorientierte
Planung im kooperativen Staat. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp.
61–86.
Attems, M.-A., Thaler, T., Genovese, E., Fuchs, S., 2020. Implementation of property level
flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: choices and decisions. WIREs Water 7 (1),
e1404. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1404.
Beutl, H., 2010. Regional Governance und Regionalplanung: Zwei Fallbeispiele aus
Niederösterreich. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Geographie und Regionalforschung.,
Wien.
Blöschl, G., Hall, J., Viglione, A., Perdigao, R.A.P., Parajka, J., Merz, B., Lun, D.,
Arheimer, B., Aronica, G.T., Bilibashi, A., Bohac, M., Bonacci, O., Borga, M.,
Canjevac, I., Castellarin, A., Chirico, G.B., Claps, P., Frolova, N., Ganora, D.,
Gorbachova, L., Gül, A., Hannaford, J., Harrigan, S., Kireeva, M., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen,
T.R., Kohnova, S., Koskela, J.J., Ledvinka, O., Macdonald, N., Mavrova-Guirguinova,
M., Mediero, L., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Murphy, C., Osuch, M.,
Ovcharuk, V., Radevski, I., Salinas, J.L., Sauquet, E., Sraj, M., Szolgay, J., Volpi, E.,
Wilson, D., Zaimi, K., Zivkovic, N., 2019. Changing climate both increases and de­
creases European river floods. Nature 573, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-019-1495-6.
Bowen, G.A., 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal 9 (2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Dadson, S.J., Hall, J.W., Murgatroyd, A., Acreman, M., Bates, P., Beven, K., Heathwaite,
L., Holden, I.P., Lane, S.N., O’Connell, E., Penning-Rowsell, E., Reynard, N., Sear, D.,
Thorne, C., Wilby, R., et al., 2017. A restatement of the natural science evidence
concerning catchment-based’ natural’ flood management in the UK. Proceedings of
the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473 (2199),
20160706. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0706.
Dottori, F., Szewczyk, W., Ciscar, J.-C., Zhao, F., Alfieri, L., Hirabayashi, Y., Bianchi, A.,
Mongelli, I., Frieler, K., Betts, R.A., Feyen, L., 2018. Increased human and economic
losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming. Nature Climate Change 8,
781–786. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0257-z.
Fleischhauer, M., Greiving, S., Flex, F., Scheibel, M., Stickler, T., Sereinig, N.,
Koboltschnig, G., Malvati, P., Vitale, V., Grifoni, P., Firus, K., 2012. Improving the
active involvement of stakeholders and the public in flood risk management – tools of
an involvement strategy and case study results from Austria, Germany and Italy.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12 (9), 2785–2798. https://doi.org/10.
5194/nhess-12-2785-2012.
Frei, R., Kopf, M., 2011. Blaue Zonen in Vorarlberg. Forum für Raumplanung, pp. 5–6.
Fuchs, S., Röthlisberger, V., Thaler, T., Zischg, A., Keiler, M., 2017. Natural hazard
management from a co-evolutionary perspective: exposure and policy response in the
European Alps. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107 (2), 382–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1235494.
Fürst, D., 2004. Planungstheorie – Die offenen Stellen. In: Altrock, U., Günter, S., Huning,
S., Peters, D. (Eds.), Perspektiven der Planungstheorie. Leue Verlag, Berlin, pp.
238–255.
Hersberger, A.M., et al., 2018. Urban land-use change: the role of strategic spatial plan­
ning. Global Environmental Change 51, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2018.05.001.
Hutter, G., 2007. Strategic planning for long-term flood risk management: Some sug­
gestions for learning how to make strategy at regional and local level. International
Planning Studies 12 (3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470701640168.
IRKA, IRR, 2005. Entwicklungskonzept Alpenrhein—Kurzbericht. Internationale
Regierungskommission Alpenrhein und Internationale Rheinregulierung, Koblenz.
Koks, E.E., Thissen, M., Alfieri, L., de Moel, H., Feyen, L., Jongman, B., Aerts, J.C.J.H.,
2019. The macroeconomic impacts of future river flooding in Europe. Environmental
Research Letters 14, 084042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3306.
Löschner, L., Hernegger, M., Apperl, B., Senoner, T., Seher, W., Nachtnebel, H.P., 2017.
Flood risk, climate change and settlement development: a micro-scale assessment of
Austrian municipalities. Regional Environmental Change 17 (2), 311–322. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1009-0.
Löschner, L., Nordbeck, R., 2019. Switzerland’s transition from flood defence to flood-
adapted land use–A policy coordination perspective. Land Use Policy. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.032.
Löschner, L., Seher, W., Nordbeck, R., Kopf, M., 2019. Blauzone Rheintal: A regional
planning instrument for future-oriented flood management in a dynamic risk en­
vironment. In: Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L., McCarthy, S. (Eds.), Nature-Based Flood
Risk Management on Private Land. Disciplinary Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary
Challenge. Springer Nature, Basel, pp. 141–154.
McCarthy, S., Viavattene, C., Sheehan, J., Green, C., 2018. Compensatory approaches and
engagement techniques to gain flood storage in England and Wales. Journal of Flood
Risk Management 11 (1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12336.
Meng, M., Dabrowski, M., Tai, Y., Stead, D., Chan, F., 2019. Collaborative spatial plan­
ning in the face of flood risk in delta cities: A policy framing perspective.
Environmental Science & Policy 96, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.
03.006.
Nordbeck, R., Steurer, R., Löschner, L., 2019. The future orientation of Austria’s flood
policies: from flood control to anticipatory flood risk management. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 62 (11), 1864–1885. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09640568.2018.1515731.
Oliveira, E., Hersperger, A.M., 2019. Disentangling the governance configurations of
strategic spatial plan-making in European urban regions. Planning Practice &
Research 34 (1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2018.1548218.
Oliveira, E., Tobias, S., Hersperger, A.M., 2018. Can strategic spatial planning contribute
to land degradation reduction in urban regions? State of the art and future research.
Sustainability 10, 949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040949.
Paprotny, D., Sebastian, A., Morales-Nápoles, O., Jonkman, S.N., 2018. Trends in flood
losses in Europe over the past 150 years. Nature Communication 9, 1985. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-018-04253-1.
Pasquier, U., et al., 2020. “We can’t do it on our own!”—Integrating stakeholder and

176
T. Thaler, et al.
scientific knowledge of future flood risk to inform climate change adaptation plan­
ning in a coastal region. Environmental Science & Policy 103, 50–57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.016.
Rogan, R., O’Connor, M., Horwitz, P., 2005. Nowhere to hide: Awareness and perceptions
of environmental change, and their influence on relationships with place. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 25 (2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.
03.001.
Schmitt, P., Wiechmann, 2018. Unpacking spatial planning as the governance of place.
Extracting potentials for future advancements in planning Research. disP – The
Planning Review 54 (4), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2018.1562795.
Scharpf, F.W., 1973. Planung als politischer Prozeß. In: Naschold, F., Väth, W. (Eds.),
Politische Planungssysteme. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 167–202.
Seher, W., Löschner, L., 2018a. Risk-Oriented Spatial Planning in Austria: Characteristics
and Implementation Options in Flood Risk Management. disP – The Planning Review
54 (3), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2018.1525202.
Seher, W., Löschner, L., 2018b. Balancing upstream–downstream interests in flood risk
management: experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria. Journal of
Flood Risk Management 11 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12266.
Selle, K., 2004. Kommunikation in der Kritik? In: Müller, B., Löb, S., Zimmermann, K.
(Eds.), Steuerung und Planung im Wandel. Festschrift für Dietrich Fürst. VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 229–256.
Short Gianotti, A.G., Warner, B., Milman, A., 2018. Flood concerns and impacts on rural
landowners: An empirical study of the Deerfield watershed, MA (USA).
Environmental Science & Policy 79, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.
10.007.
State Government of Vorarlberg, 2013. Blauzone Rheintal. Verordnung der Vorarlberger
Landesregierung über die Festlegung von überörtlichen Freiflächen zum Schutz vor
Hochwasser im Rheintal. State Government of Vorarlberg, Bregenz.
State Government of Vorarlberg, 2015. 10 Jahre danach. Jahrhundert-Hochwasser 2005.
177
Environmental Science and Policy 114 (2020) 170–177
Maßnahmen und Strategie. State Government of Vorarlberg, Bregenz.
State Government of Vorarlberg, 2019. Regionale Bevoelkerungsprognose 2019 bis 2050
(Regional population forecast 2019 to 2050). Online: https://vorarlberg.at/
documents/21336/91082/Regionale+Bev%C3%B6lkerungsprognose+2019+bis
+2050.pdf/e325e56b-1415-4812-82f2-a11328e60a1b, [last access: 21.2.2020]. .
Thaler, T., Attems, M.-S., Bonnefond, M., Clarke, D., Gatien-Tournat, A., Gralepois, M.,
Fournier, M., Murphy, C., Rauter, M., Papathoma-Köhle, M., Servain, S., Fuchs, S.,
2019. Drivers and barriers of adaptation initiatives – How societal transformation
affects natural hazard management and risk mitigation in Europe. Science of the
Total Environment 650, 1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.
306.
Thaler, T., Löschner, L., Hartmann, T., 2017. The introduction of catchment-wide co-
operations: Scalar reconstructions and transformation in Austria in flood risk man­
agement. Land Use Policy 68, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.
08.023.
Thaler, T., Seebauer, S., 2019. Bottom-up citizen initiatives in natural hazard manage­
ment: Why they appear and what they can do? Environmental Science & Policy 94,
101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.012.
Thaler, T., Zischg, A., Keiler, M., Fuchs, S., 2018. Allocation of risk and benefits—dis­
tributional justices in mountain hazard management. Regional Environmental
Change 18 (2), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1229-y.
Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., de Jong, H., 2013. Co-evolutions of planning
and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems. Planning
Theory 12 (2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212456771.
Wiechmann, T., 2018. Strategische Planung. Akademie für Raumforschung und
Landesplanung. Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung, Hannover:
Verlag der ARL, pp. 2609–2621.
Yin, R.K., 2018. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Los Angeles
SAGE.