Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

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

Should I stay or should I go? Factors in household decisions for or against T

relocation from a flood risk area
Sebastian Seebauer , Claudia Winkler
⁎

LIFE – Centre for Climate, Energy and Society, JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Waagner-Biro-Straße 100, Graz 8020, Austria

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Planned relocation may permanently reduce exposure to natural hazards; however, residents in designated re-
Planned relocation location zones are confronted with a broad array of challenges and face profound changes in their everyday lives.
Climate change The present study empirically illustrates how economic, emotional, risk and social dimensions underpin
Flooding household decisions to accept or decline a home buyout offer in a voluntary relocation program in the Eferding
Place identity
Basin, Austria. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 79 households living in the relocation zone,
Resettlement
transcribed and subjected to qualitative content analysis.
Risk appraisal and financial feasibility of moving to a new home function as entry points to the decision
process. Risk perception is strongly influenced by biographical experiences, traumatic memories, and personal
resources to cope with a flood event. Economic reasons are judged in the light of the children's future prospects.
Fear and uncertainty about future floods as well as a personal bond to the place are critical emotional factors. By
contrast, social relationships play a marginal role because those who leave tend to resettle close-by, and because
solitude and autonomy are valued higher than neighborhood networks. Status as a long-term resident, newcomer
or elderly person shifts the importance of specific factors, for instance, self-efficacy beliefs or intergenerational
considerations.
In order to facilitate relocation program implementation, compensation payments should be complemented
by communication efforts addressing the emotional and risk dimensions. Communication activities should ad-
dress those who leave as well as to those who stay and should be tailored to individual needs and resources of
residents.

1. Introduction
Flood events have become an increasing danger to settlement areas,
as more frequent and more severe extreme weather events due to cli-
mate change coincide with a lack of stringent land use planning and the
accumulation of human and economic assets in flood-prone areas
(Blöschl et al. 2017; APCC 2014; IPCC 2013). In consequence, flood risk
management plays a dominant role in climate change adaptation stra-
tegies (BMLFUW 2012; EU 2007). Within the inventory of structural
and non-structural responses to flood risk, the managed retreat of in-
dividuals from areas at risk may permanently reduce exposure to future
natural hazards (Siders 2019; López-Carr and Marter-Kenyon 2015).
However, retreating from areas at risk is highly contested, as it exposes
the involved households to a broad array of challenges, ranging from
coping with a financial burden to overcoming emotional attachment to
their previous residence (Lei et al. 2017; Binder et al. 2015; Perry and
Lindell 1997).
Retreating from high-risk areas has many faces: it may either de-
velop in an unplanned way, if there is hardly any time for preparation
and if evacuated residents cannot return to their former homes after the
immediate threat has passed, or as a planned, anticipatory process
under governmental oversight. In compulsory resettlement, residents
are forced to abandon their homes by the destruction of ecosystems or
agricultural land, or, in some cases, by state authority. By contrast, in
voluntary relocation, households need to be convinced and receive
public support, for example, monetary incentives in home buyout
programs (Imura and Shaw 2009). In less-developed countries, un-
planned, climate-induced displacement or compulsory resettlement
have become common responses to natural disasters (Matthews and
Potts 2018; McDowell 2013; de Sherbinin et al. 2011). Relocation re-
ceives less attention in industrialized countries, however (Perry et al.
1997). The distinction between unplanned/planned and compulsory/
voluntary retreat is not clear-cut though. Relocation plans may be im-
provised in the short, yet incentivizing, policy window after a disaster

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sebastian.seebauer@joanneum.at (S. Seebauer), claudia.winkler@joanneum.at (C. Winkler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018
Received 18 July 2019; Received in revised form 30 October 2019; Accepted 20 November 2019
Available online 29 November 2019
0959-3780/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
(Braamskamp and Penning-Rowsell 2018), or residents may be pres-
sured informally by political actors or social networks to accept a home
buyout offer (Iuchi 2015).
Regardless of the specific type of relocation, research on the factors
that bring about (or cushion) detrimental impacts of relocation focuses
on the community level (Hino et al. 2017; Ferris 2015; Sipe and Vella
2014) or governmental actions (Mortreux et al. 2018). Critical gaps
remain in the understanding of how individual households form their
decisions in home buyout programs (Siders 2019; Matthews and Potts
2018; Binder et al. 2015). Policy handbooks published by the World
Bank (Correa et al. 2011; Cernea 1997) emphasize that the success of
relocation programs does not just depend on the terms of home buyout
payments, but that accompanying factors like risk governance, personal
resources and community dynamics play an equally important role.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework of
the dimensions underpinning individual decisions to relocate and to
apply this framework empirically to the case of a planned, voluntary
relocation administered in the Eferding Basin, Austria. This relocation
program was imposed in a top-down manner without involving those
affected in program design; thus, residents could decide freely whether
to stay or leave but had to abide by the predefined legal rules of the
program. By highlighting the decision criteria, resources and needs of
particular household types, we derive starting points for the facilitation
of future relocation programs, particularly in other developed countries
with similar governance. Note that this study covers the households’
considerations and expected impacts up to the point of deciding whe-
ther to stay or leave; the implementation of this decision, effects on
wellbeing and the ensuing coping processes are addressed in a com-
panion paper.
2. Theoretical Background
The multiple facets of relocation from natural hazard areas are re-
cognized by models of community resilience against natural disasters
(Correa 2011; Cutter et al. 2008; Cernea 1997, 2000) and by research
on relocation decision-making (Bukvic et al. 2015). Four dimensions
appear across these models after excluding aspects which mainly apply
to developing countries or which refer to institutional/administrative
instead of household-level perspectives (see Fig. 1): the economic, the
emotional, the risk and the social dimension. Next, we describe how
these four dimensions are reflected in existing research on relocation;
Fig. 1. Dimensions of processes and consequences in relocation programs.
2
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
while mostly referring to voluntary relocation, we also draw on insights
from compulsory resettlements. In line with our research interest in the
decision factors for or against relocating, the following section focuses
on expected, not experienced wellbeing outcomes; or, how affected
households anticipate the consequences of staying versus leaving and
frame their relocation decision in order to maintain or even improve
their current level of wellbeing.
The economic dimension is quite prominent in the literature. It en-
compasses opportunities for gainful employment (job availability at the
new site, access to agricultural plots, communal infrastructure like
schools, health care and shops), as well as financial affluence (regular
income, savings and other material assets, compensation payments)
(Bukvic 2015; Mallick and Vogt 2014). Economic constraints are often
tied to the existing building: residents decide against relocation if they
cannot afford to demolish their building or if they have not yet paid off
their mortgage (Okada et al. 2014; deVries and Fraser 2012). They may
rather choose to stay and invest in rebuilding and, if viable, flood-
proofing their houses (Okada et al. 2014). Large-scale disasters may
inflate local property prices in nearby, non-affected areas. In con-
sequence, households might be forced to move a significant distance
away from the affected area to afford a new home at a reasonable price
(Jha et al. 2010). Since affordability of good housing plays a critical
role in relocating, voluntary relocation programs typically include a
compensation scheme to incentivize those who leave (Perry and Lindell
1997). However, the offered buyout price needs to be perceived as fair
by the affected households, especially in relation to the market avail-
ability of similarly priced alternative housing (Braamskamp and
Penning-Rowsell 2018; deVries and Fraser 2012).
The emotional dimension particularly entails people's sense of be-
longing to the geographical area of the former residence. This emo-
tional bond is stronger if the place lived in is perceived as unique and
irreplaceable, and if residents feel a strong personal or intergenera-
tional connection to the locality (Binder et al. 2015). Residents may
oppose relocation despite severe natural hazard risk because of their
place's cultural heritage and spiritual meaning (Heslin et al. 2019; Hino
et al. 2017). Even if receiving extensive support to rebuild their live-
lihood at the new site, people still mourn their previous home (Kuhlicke
2008). However, if the emotional bond does not refer to a specific site
but rather to its attributes, people might also pursue their personal life
plan in another geographic location that features the same attributes,
for example, by realizing home ownership or living close to nature
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
somewhere else (Binder et al. 2015; Jha et al. 2010).
Concerning the relationship between people and places, the litera-
ture features an abundance of concepts: place attachment, place iden-
tity, rootedness, sense of place, place dependence, place satisfaction
and so forth (Lewicka 2011; Hernandez et al. 2007). For the purpose of
the present study, place attachment is understood as the emotional
bond to an area where people prefer to remain and where they feel
comfortable and safe, while place identity covers how a particular place
is an inextricable part of personal identity and self-image, for example,
if biographical memories have special meaning because the relevant
events occurred at that particular place (Binder et al. 2015; Hidalgo
2013).
The risk dimension reflects how the basic need for a safe environment
plays into the relocation decision – either as uncertainty about future
disasters at the old home, or as expectation of less or no threat at the
new home (Bukvic 2015; Mallick and Vogt 2014). Jha et al. (2010) find
voluntary as well as compulsory relocation to be more likely to be
successful if people trust in the suitability and safety of the new site.
Awareness of risks at the old site, and consequently a higher acceptance
of relocation, evolve from a community's disaster history, for example,
if the community is confronted regularly by natural hazard events
(Binder et al. 2015; deVries and Fraser 2012; Knobloch 2005; Perry and
Lindell 1997). However, not just communities, but also households
have a disaster history (Marg 2016; Kellens et al. 2013). Further, the
risk dimension includes the residents’ self-efficacy, in other words, their
feeling of being capable of carrying out preparedness actions and
coping with hazard impacts at one's own property (Bubeck et al. 2018).
Self-efficacy is particularly important in relocation decisions of elderly
citizens with physical impairments or limited support networks
(deVries and Fraser 2012).
The social dimension of community networks also affects the out-
come of a relocation process (Hino et al. 2017; Binder et al. 2015;
Okada et al. 2014). As people exhibit a strong desire to remain near
their family, friends and neighbors (Perry and Lindell 1997), the an-
ticipation of close-knit and familiar social networks at the new site
makes residents more willing to relocate (Binder et al. 2015; Mallick
and Vogt 2014). Involuntary resettlement is more likely to be successful
if people from the same community move together (Jha et al. 2010). A
strong collective place identity keeps households from leaving (Binder
et al. 2015) and, inversely, those less familiar with their community are
more willing to accept a voluntary relocation offer (deVries and Fraser
2012). Relocation may disrupt social networks (Tilt and Gerkey, 2016;
Sanders et al. 2003) and dissolve communities (Binder et al. 2015).
Those households who opt to stay have to prepare for diminishing so-
cial connections, lower safety or a rollback of communal services in a
less-populated area (Hino et al. 2017; Binder et al. 2015). Some initial
opponents later accept relocation upon realizing that much of their
community has moved away (Hino et al. 2017). Yet, it seems that the
social dimension does not apply uniformly, as Bukvic et al. (2015) re-
port that individual relocation decisions are only marginally concerned
with neighbors’ choices to leave or to stay and that some households are
reluctant to move away as part of a whole group.
In the remainder of the paper, we use these four dimensions to
understand and classify the reasons for households’ decisions for
staying in or leaving the Eferding Basin, Austria. While the four di-
mensions help to structure the rich interview data, they overlap to some
degree: For example, fear of flood impacts pertains to the emotional
dimension (e.g. worrying, recurring traumatic memories) as well as to
the risk dimension (e.g. overestimating flood return periods). Place
identity is seen as part of the emotional dimension (place as part of
oneself) as well as of the social dimension (place's community as part of
oneself). Economic difficulties and the disruption of social networks are
interrelated, especially in the case of involuntary resettlement (Tilt and
Gerkey, 2016).
3
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
3. Study area and relocation program
The Eferding Basin is a 60 km2 natural basin situated alongside the
Danube River in the province of Upper Austria. It has been a settlement
area for centuries: historically for agricultural use, because regular
flooding accounts for fertile soil; recently as residential sprawl of the
Linz urban region, which is 15 kilometers away (Provincial Government
of Upper Austria 2007). Due to these two land uses, the area's building
stock and population structure are divided into traditional farmhouses
inhabited by long-established families versus recently erected detached
houses inhabited by newcomers from the city of Linz. This polarity also
surfaces in the empirical results (see Section 5.2.1). The sparsely po-
pulated Eferding Basin is one of six retention areas situated along the
chain of hydropower plants alongside the Austrian part of the Danube
River (Anschober 2013). Severe flood events occurred in the area in
1954, 1967, 2002 and 2013. The 2013 flood affected 706 households in
the Eferding Basin, causing overall damage costing € 41 million.
(BMVIT 2015).
In the aftermath of the 2013 flood, public authorities initiated a
voluntary relocation program in the Eferding Basin. A relocation zone
was designated, comprising an area with high flood inundation and
deemed unprotectable by dams because of geomorphological circum-
stances, disadvantage for upstream/downstream communities and dis-
proportional costs (Löschner et al. 2017; Fig. 2). All 151 households
living in the relocation zone were subjected to the following conditions
(Schindelegger 2018; Weingraber & Schindelegger 2018): Households
who opt to leave receive 80% of their building's market value (based on
property prices prior 2013) and 80% of the demolition costs. Within
five years after signing the relocation agreement, the entire building
and its foundations have to be removed. Subsequently, the plot is re-
dedicated from building land to grassland. The plot itself remains in the
possession of the household and is not compensated for. Households
who opt to stay must not increase the building area and may not modify
the external walls of their homes. Replacements for existing agricultural
or commercial buildings may not exceed their former size. Flood-
proofing refurbishment of buildings is permitted, but is not subsidized
from public budgets. Strict spatial planning guidelines in the relocation
zone include a ban on construction of new buildings. Similar conditions
also applied in preceding relocation programs in the neighboring areas
since the 1970s (Schindelegger 2018).
Households willing to relocate had to sign the agreement by the end
of 2015; later, this deadline was extended to mid-2016 (Fig. 3). By
spring 2018, 80 out of the 146 households that requested a relocation
offer had accepted it; 60 buildings had already been fully demolished
(Weingraber and Schindelegger 2018). In parallel with the relocation
program, a general flood defense plan for the entire region was devel-
oped and published in February 2018. This plan foresees built protec-
tion in areas surrounding the relocation zone but does not affect flood
risks within the relocation zone itself.
The relocation program was implemented in a top-down non-in-
clusive governance process that imposed the rules described above on
all households living in the relocation zone. This policy approach was in
line with the Austrian disaster system assigning responsibility for flood
protection to governmental actors and providing extensive welfare
support to households affected by flooding (Thaler and Hartmann
2016). The absence of civic participation incited substantial public
protest (Schindelegger 2018), but the households in the relocation zone
lacked political power to negotiate or amend the terms of the program.
While the program was nominally voluntary, there was a strong in-
formal political impetus to encourage all residents to move out of the
relocation zone. Still, while residents had no saying in policy design, the
relocation program strictly adhered to the rule of law and entitled all
residents to equal claims, as it might not be expected for unplanned,
compulsory resettlement in developing countries.
The present paper elaborates how households form their decision to
stay or leave, apart from aspects of procedural and distributive justice
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018

Fig. 2. Eferding Basin.

(Lind and Tyler 1988). We do so for reasons of brevity and because we
observe justice aspects to contribute in only a minor way to the
households’ final relocation decision: although all interviewees per-
ceive the way the relocation policy was passed as highly unfair, they
accept the terms of the relocation program as a given starting point for
assessing their personal benefits and drawbacks of staying or leaving
(see Section 5.1.5). However, the minor role of procedural and dis-
tributive justice in the particular case of the Eferding Basin should by no
means suggest that these issues could be neglected when implementing
other relocation programs.
4. Method
4.1. Data
In three waves over the course of three years, semi-structured
qualitative interviews were conducted with citizens living in the re-
location zone. Interview duration was 60-90 minutes. Besides in-
vestigating the households’ relocation decision, the interviews ad-
dressed quality of life, social cohesion, coping processes, or governance
(see Table A.1 in the Appendix). Interview audio records were tran-
scribed for analysis.

Fig. 3. Timeline of events and interview waves.

4
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
Table 1
Factors in the relocation decision.
decision: leave
decisive factors children's prospects (eco)
uncertainty (risk)
fear of next flood event (emo)
accompanying factors current social network (soc)
future social network expectations (soc)
amount of compensation payment (eco)
Note: Factors in each quadrant are ordered by prevalence within the respective group of interviewees. Underlying dimensions are indicated as eco
(economic), emo (emotional), risk and soc (social).
Interviewee recruitment for the first interview wave applied a three-
stage process: First, information leaflets were distributed via municipal
newspapers. Second, all residents living in the relocation zone were
personally approached at their doorstep to collect contact data of
people willing to be interviewed. Third, appointments at the inter-
viewees’ homes were arranged by phone call. The second and third
interview waves also drew on these collected contact data to arrange
interview appointments. Thereby, 78, 44 and 27 interviews were con-
ducted in the first, second, and third wave, respectively, resulting in a
sample of 79 unique households. Note that the first wave was concluded
before the official deadline for accepting the relocation offer had
passed. Sample sizes decreased over time, partly due to participant
dropout (e.g. loss of interest, outdated contact data) and partly because
restricted research budgets forced us to prioritize selected households,
especially those with critical and interesting developments. Interviewee
recruitment and selection applied a purposive sampling approach,
aiming to capture the full scope of livelihoods and decision dynamics;
nevertheless, the sample distribution in the first wave is fairly re-
presentative for the area's population (Table A.2 in the Appendix gives
sample characteristics in all three waves; Table A.3 gives sample
characteristics of those who stay versus those who leave). As tenancies
are not common in Austrian rural regions, most interviewees are
homeowners.
The interviews were conducted longitudinally at yearly intervals in
order to capture transformative processes over time. However, within
the three-wave timeframe, hardly any household revised its relocation
decision; therefore, we capitalize on repeated interviews with the same
households to gather a more detailed picture of their considerations but
analyze the data cross-sectionally. In-depth longitudinal analysis is
conducted in the aforementioned companion paper on coping pro-
cesses.
4.2. Analytical approach
We employ qualitative content analysis (Döring and Bortz 2016;
Mayring 2010), using MAXQDA software for coding the interview
transcripts. Responses are structured in a category system, starting
deductively from the economic, emotional, risk, and social dimensions
as superordinate categories, then extending inductively to refined
subcategories. After coding each interview individually, case-specific
subcategories are summarized applying a cross-case analysis (Döring
and Bortz 2016) and embedded within the overall category system.
Memos (explanatory notes used in MAXQDA) describe the categories
and create anchor examples. Verbatim interview quotes used in this
paper are translated from German. Typification, that is to say, con-
solidating similar characteristics into household types, illustrates dif-
ferent views of long-term residents, newcomers and older residents
(Döring and Bortz 2016; Mayring 2010). We do not exhaustively report
all observed categories, but discuss only the most frequent factors, as
these are more likely to apply to other relocation contexts.
The unit of analysis is the entire household. The interviews were
conducted with the household head or with the couple living together;
in some cases, children, grandparents or other family members were
5
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
decision: stay
place identity (emo)
amount of compensation payment (eco)
children's prospects (eco)
self-efficacy (risk)
emotional resilience (emo)
high life satisfaction (emo)
also present. However, data on individual views of household members
is too fragmentary to allow for intra-household comparisons.
We refrain from reporting any numerical estimates of the pre-
valence of specific decision factors because of the qualitative nature of
our data. Numerical estimates might not reflect the actual distribution
among all residents in the relocation zone as the sample may be biased
by self-selection of those who were willing to participate in the study.
Moreover, individual views were presented in an open conversation
partially structured by an interview guideline; therefore, if a household
did not mention a specific decision factor, we cannot ascertain whether
this household should indeed not be counted to this factor's numerical
prevalence, or whether this factor just did not come to the interviewee's
mind at the time of the interview.
However, decision factors are weighted by importance: Decisive
factors (trigger aspects) represent the very root of the decision to leave
or to stay. Decisive factors are indicated if interviewees explicitly name
them as their motivation for leaving or staying, if they (over-)empha-
size or become emotional when talking about a certain aspect, or if they
address a certain aspect repeatedly in different contexts or in different
interview waves. By contrast, accompanying factors (circumstantial
aspects) play a reinforcing role but are not prime determinants of the
relocation decision.
5. Results
5.1. Factors in the relocation decision by dimension
5.1.1. Economic dimension
Almost every household requests an official estimate of the offered
compensation payment, some only out of curiosity. For most house-
holds, the amount of the compensation payment (see Table 1; factors
featured in this table are printed in italic in the text) does not suffice for
financing a new home, especially as it does not cover the costs for
obtaining a new building plot. Households who stay disdain the com-
pensation amount, in order to self-justify their relocation decision; they
regard the offered sum as inadequate, if not insulting, and they parti-
cularly criticize the exclusion of the former building plot from the
compensation payment. Households who leave are grateful to receive
financial support; some see the payment as enabling them to move into
modern, high-quality housing.
Personal circumstances such as having recently started a family or
retirement play into the economic perspective as well, as they diminish
the household's disposable income and savings. Households generally
wish to stay within the area, close to their social networks, family ties,
school- and workplaces. Unfortunately, prices on the local real estate
market have risen sharply recently (“In the last ten years, the housing
costs rose by about 30%, and the plot prices tend to be even higher. With so
little [compensation money], a new start is not possible.”).
Most households want to maintain the standard of living in a de-
tached house they have enjoyed for years or even decades. However,
due to high housing prices, they can only afford an apartment or a small
row house in a densely built neighborhood from the compensation
payment, unless they additionally take out a bank loan. This
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
particularly encourages multi-generation households to reject the re-
location offer because they cannot finance a new home big enough for
the entire family. Many households have already spent substantial sums
on repairing their old building after the 2013 flood, before the reloca-
tion program was eventually announced, meaning significant cuts in
their liquidity. Some households even balance the costs of repeatedly
renovating their existing place after flooding against the costs of re-
locating and building a new home (“In my case, receiving 80% [of the
building value] means a loss of almost 100,000 Euro [compared to the total
market value]. With 100,000 Euro, I can finance four, five or even ten
floods, and if I get some damage compensation from the insurance, it will last
for a lifetime.”).
The children's prospects are a major reason for leaving or staying in
the flood area. Among those who opt to leave, parents are concerned
about passing on a flood-prone building to their children that is prac-
tically worthless as it cannot be flood-proofed or sold for a proper price.
They see it as their responsibility to relocate in order to save their
children from later (financial) troubles, even if this forces them to give
up their familiar surroundings (“It is about passing on property values
from generation to generation. That's why I [relocate]. You are never the
owner of things, always just the steward.”). Additionally, the children
themselves often do not want to inherit a building in a flood risk zone.
They are well aware of the hard work of tidying up after a flood, the
financial burden of recurring renovations, and that the compensation
payment offered now by far exceeds the price they could ask later for
the house on the real estate market after the relocation program has
expired (“Our son said: You would punish me by giving me this [house].”).
In the event that the property has already been transferred to the next
generation, households report that they respect their children's decision
to move or to stay, though they have their personal preferences (“It is
her decision, it is her house. […] Well, of course, I played my part. But I was
very relieved when she decided to stay.”).
However, households who stay also give their children's prospects
as a fundamental reason for their decision. They are proud of what they
have accomplished and want to preserve the existing property as a
heritage for their offspring and future family generations. Moreover,
they expect to get into debt if they relocated and built a new home, and
they refuse to impose this financial burden on their children (“We would
start from zero and the next generation would blame us for being in-
debted.”).
5.1.2. Emotional dimension
Households who leave describe living in permanent fear of the next
flood event (see Table 1). For many residents, their emotional sensitivity
is the main motivation for relocating. This fear manifests itself in
sleeplessness or restlessness in times of heavy rainfall. Some do not dare
to go on holidays in the early summer flood season because their con-
stant concern would not allow them to enjoy their time away. Some
households report considerable mental stress and impairment of their
everyday wellbeing (“At night when it's dark and I hear the sound of the
rain I have to close the windows, because I am scared. I do not want to go out
in the evening when it rains. It has broken so much in me.”). Households
who have decided to leave but have not yet abandoned their old home
look forward to leaving their fear behind and starting a more easygoing
period of their lives.
Households who stay seem unaffected by this anxiety. They de-
monstrate emotional resilience; particularly, those who grew up in the
area hold a matter-of-fact attitude towards flooding and consider floods
to be normal events in the course of nature in a riverine landscape. Yet,
a household's emotional resilience is not pivotal for the outcome of the
relocation decision but rather constitutes the personal backdrop against
which the decision is made.
A mindset of emotional detachment among households who stay
also becomes apparent when they underscore the negligible impact the
flood situation and the relocation program have on their overall high life
satisfaction. Generally, all households report a high level of life
6
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
satisfaction. Households tend to compare their living situation to others
who are much worse off and emphasize the importance of good health
and the wellbeing of the family.
Place identity, that is to say, a close biographical relationship and
sense of belonging to the residence, is a strong motivation to stay. Some
residents grew up and spent their whole life in the area; some house-
holds cannot imagine living somewhere else, regardless of the flood
risk. This applies especially to older people, some of whom were born in
the exact house they still inhabit. Some families, mainly farmers, have
cultivated their land for generations and struggle with the idea of giving
up the family estate. They are strongly committed to preserving what
their ancestors have built. These households often highlight the age of
the estate and feel as if they would eradicate their family's history if
they accepted the relocation offer (“The main roof beam says that the
house was constructed in 1749. This house has withstood 20 floods and it is
still there. Why should we be the generation that tears it down?”).
Some households articulate a strong connection to the place but
decide to leave anyway. Here, other reasons prevail like the expectation
of recurring flood disasters and the associated emotional and financial
burden. Nevertheless, these households prefer to stay in the sur-
rounding region and typically set up their new homes less than ten
kilometers away. Rather than sustaining their place identity to their
house, they strive to uphold their place attachment to the area by re-
settling in the near vicinity, which allows them to maintain family ties
and a strong bond to a rural, green and peaceful landscape. Being able
to stay in familiar surroundings alleviates the emotional strain of
abandoning and tearing down the former home.
5.1.3. Risk dimension
Generally, the flood risk perception of residents in the relocation
zone is characterized by a diffuse and nebulous uncertainty about the
unpredictability and unreliability of future developments (see Table 1),
compared to the rational, hydrologically substantiated considerations
of the public authorities and their civil engineering contractors. Re-
sidents do not appraise the threat in terms of flood return periods or
monetary damage potential, but mostly infer their future risk from prior
flood experiences and informal local expertise, passed on from one
generation to the next. Households that stay judge the probability of a
flood in the near future as rather small. One household who stays
gravely misinterprets the statistics of flood return periods: “I read that
[the 2013 flood] was a meteorological event which happens on average
every 300 years, so with this probability I expect the next flood to happen in
2313.”
For households who leave, the uncertainty of future risk combined
with a high threat of flooding and the expectation of great damage
constitutes a main motivation for accepting the relocation offer. They
expect floods to become more severe, due to the combination of heavy
rain events, surface sealing or erosion from intensive agriculture along
the Danube River and the effects of climate change. Many households
assume that during the next flood, the sparsely populated relocation
zone will be deliberately sacrificed as a flood retention basin to protect
the nearby downstream city of Linz and its extensive residential, in-
dustrial and infrastructure assets. Many households simply do not want
to live with this permanent threat anymore. Their pessimistic risk ap-
praisal coincides with the severe mental burden and restlessness caused
by the constant presence of the flood threat and the feeling of being
(physically) overwhelmed by the effort required for preparedness ac-
tion. Relocating households strive to restore their quality of life („I have
had enough; even if the water does not come back for the next 30 years,
that's fine. I will finally live somewhere safe and will not have to deal with
this anymore.“). Here, conceptual overlap with the fear aspect in the
emotional dimension becomes apparent.
How strongly the risk appraisal drives the decision to leave or stay
largely depends on the household's self-efficacy, its self-ascribed ability
to effectively prepare for and cope with a flood event. In most cases,
households who stay exhibit a higher level of self-efficacy. They have
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
learned to live with the flood threat; they trust in their ability to tackle
the challenge of future floods – a deep-seated attitude which
strengthens their confidence in the decision to stay (“It does not take me
long to prepare everything in case of a flood. […] I can live with it, I am
always prepared for a flood.”). Contrarily, households with weak self-
efficacy regarding flood prevention and recovery tend to accept the
relocation offer. Interestingly, self-efficacy has two faces among
households who stay: high self-efficacy for taking dedicated action
when a flood arrives affirms them in their choice to reject the relocation
offer. However, low self-efficacy for constructing a new home some-
where else, that is to say, for managing the multiple tasks of procuring a
building plot, supervising craftsmen, doing manual work with one's
own hands and so on, leads to the same decision. In some cases, the
combination of high self-efficacy for flood preparedness and low self-
efficacy for building construction supplies the background for a de-
termined decision to stay.
5.1.4. Social dimension
Contrary to previous research (see Section 2), social dynamics do
not emerge as a major factor in the relocation decision. Most of both
leaving and staying households do not coordinate with the neighbors on
whether to relocate. Naturally, opinions and information are ex-
changed, but the households emphasize that the relocation decision is
to be made exclusively within the family, regardless of their neighbors’
actions.
Households who leave tend not to move far away, which mirrors
their desire to uphold their current social networks, family ties and
contacts (Table 1). While the social network is seen as a comfort factor
and does influence where the new home is located, it is only a sec-
ondary reason for the relocation decision. Despite having good neigh-
borhood relationships at the old residence, many households – espe-
cially leavers – do not rely on neighborhood bonds and are indifferent
regarding their neighbors, mostly because they consider these contacts
as marginally important, easily substitutable or remaining the same due
to the short distance from the new home. Moving a considerable dis-
tance is not common in Austria. Consequently, households who leave
do not perceive their change of residence as a threat to their existing
social network.
Households who stay also present their individual decision as in-
dependent of the neighbors, but they attach greater weight to their
social network than those who leave. Out of respect and courtesy, they
would not interfere in their neighbors’ relocation decision, but they are
nevertheless relieved when they hear that some of their neighbors are
remaining in their houses as well. Possibly, they realize that in an area
that will be less populated after the relocations have been completed,
they need to care for their remaining contacts in order to receive ev-
eryday community support and neighborly help.
Households who leave are more confident in their decision if they
already know the neighbors at the new residence and have clear posi-
tive future social network expectations (“Some other resettlers are moving to
the same area [as we do]. We will have no problem integrating socially at the
new place.”). Households who stay note rather unemotionally that they
expect the social contacts with their leaving neighbors to fade away
quickly. However, some households who initially stay behind in an
increasingly deserted area later switch to accepting the relocation offer
as they do not want to be left alone in a socially deteriorating en-
vironment (“I want to live in an area where society has a future and where
everyone is active and wants to move forward. Here, no one does anything.
The elderly wait and the others relocate anyway.”).
5.1.5. Perceived fairness
Households criticize procedural justice aspects in the rules of the
relocation program. Most, but not all households consider receiving just
80% of the building's value as unfair; however, they agree with the
official estimate of the market value of their building that forms the
basis for calculating the compensation payment. The extension of the
7
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
deadline for accepting the relocation offer is seen as unfair by house-
holds who feel that they have been unnecessarily urged to make their
decision before the first deadline. Not compensating the building plot is
a point of major discontent because households perceive the depre-
ciation from building land to grassland as financial loss if not ex-
propriation (“I am no longer the master of my own property. But I am
nevertheless expected to pay taxes and vote for those who in fact ex-
propriated me.”).
Households consider the program's equal treatment of all residents
in the relocation zone as fair. They reject the notion of tailoring re-
location terms to individual cases because they worry this would give
rise to inequality and jealousy. For instance, allowing old people to
spend their remaining years in their familiar home by postponing the
building's demolition is expected to raise quarrels on who qualifies for
such a postponement. However, distributive justice is assessed differ-
ently if it pertains to favoring regions than people. The households
endorse that the thinly populated Eferding Basin merits less flood
protection and could function as a retention area for the downstream
urban and industrial region of Linz. Yet, they tie this distributive con-
cession to procedural demands: receiving public esteem for accepting
higher flood impacts for the sake of others; as well as timely and reli-
able flood warnings to be able to evacuate their families and belong-
ings.
5.1.6. Intermediate discussion
The economic, emotional, risk and social dimensions of the decision
whether to relocate cannot be easily balanced against each other, as
each entails a broad scope of factors with varying relevance to each
individual household's decision. Generally, risk appraisal and the fi-
nancial framework function as entry points to more extensive delib-
erations. Thus, the amount of compensation payment plays a major role
when households initially calculate whether they are able to afford a
new home. However, as soon as households reflect thoroughly on the
detailed advantages and disadvantages of relocating, much more
complex patterns emerge: Economic reasons are judged in the light of
the children's future prospects. Risk perception is strongly influenced by
personal experiences and memories of the traumatic situation during
the 2013 flood. The constant presence of a dreaded yet uncertain flood
threat as well as peoples’ place identity critically shape households’
relocation decision. Age appears as an important background variable,
as life stage and physical frailty play into economic considerations and
a lifelong personal bond to the area manifests as a strong feeling of
belonging (age effects are detailed in Section 5.2.2 below). In most
households, the final decision whether to leave or stay develops from an
agglomeration of personal circumstances (“It is not the flood playing the
biggest role in relocation – it's peoples’ life situation.”).
Our findings are largely in line with previous relocation research:
the importance of economic aspects and the compensation sum (Bukvic
2015; Fraser et al. 2006), the crucial role of the present risk situation
(Bukvic 2015; Mallick & Vogt 2014; Jha et al. 2010), as well as re-
sidents' avoidance of staying behind in a socially deteriorating en-
vironment (Hino et al. 2017; Binder et al. 2015). We do not observe
differences by socio-economic or racial characteristics as mentioned in
the literature (Binder et al. 2019; Henry 2013; Frey et al. 2007) because
the population in the Eferding Basin is rather homogeneous and does
not include significantly deprived households. Nevertheless, some
multi-generational households face economic disadvantage because
even the combined incomes of several household members do not suf-
fice to afford a new house big enough to provide separate residential
units for all parties living in the household. Regional job availability,
which is highlighted in other studies (Mallick & Vogt 2014; Jha et al.
2010), is hardly relevant in the Eferding Basin as relocating households
move to close-by settlements and the metropolitan region of Linz offers
good job opportunities and short commuting distances. Relocating
farmers, however, have to manage longer travel distances from their
new house to their riverside farmlands.
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018

Residents downplay the importance of the neighborhood network
for their relocation decision, partly because they tend to stay in the area
anyway. Possibly, the freedom of choice in a voluntary relocation, as in
the Eferding Basin, makes residents less dependent on social support
than in the compulsory resettlements described in Hino et al. (2017) or
Jha et al. (2010). Furthermore, neighborhood networks could be oc-
casional and noncommittal so that they are not missed much: New-
comers, who moved to the area recently, typically do not exhibit close
social relationships with their neighbors because of daily outward-
bound commuting, a solitary lifestyle and a lack of family ties in the
area. Long-term residents, who have spent their whole life in the area,
typically live in dispersed farmsteads and have a mindset of self-re-
liance and autonomy (see the following Section 5.2.1).
Residents voice harsh critique, even outrage, regarding the lack of
procedural justice in the non-deliberative governance process, but their
objections are largely disconnected from their personal decision to stay
or leave. They accept the constraints defined by the relocation pro-
gram's ruleset even though they consider these constraints as unfair,
particularly that the building plot is not compensated. Regarding dis-
tributive justice, households appreciate that equal rules apply to all
residents in the relocation zone; however, they are willing to accept
higher flood impacts for the sake of the downstream Linz region.
5.2. Factors in the relocation decision by types of residents
5.2.1. Long-term residents vs. newcomers
Table 2 compares factors concerning the relocation decision among
long-term residents and newcomers. Long-term residents are inter-
viewees (or at least one spouse in the case of a couple) who grew up in
the house that is situated in the relocation zone, or who grew up in the
same village, or whose house has been in the property of the family for
several generations. Many work as (part-time) farmers, with a strong
work-related bond to the area. By contrast, newcomers are interviewees
(or both spouses in the case of a couple) who moved to the area as
adults and who are not connected to the area by birth or marriage. Most
newcomers commute to their workplace outside the area on a daily
basis. Note that although labeled as newcomers, some of these house-
holds have been living in the relocation zone for decades. According to
the abovementioned criteria, 19 households are classified as newcomers
and 59 households are classified as long-term residents (based on first
interview wave; Table A.2). Newcomers are more likely to accept the
relocation offer compared to long-term residents.
Both groups share the uncertainty of future flood risk as a major
factor in their relocation decision. However, their risk perception is
strongly influenced by their personal experiences: Long-term residents
tend to see recurring floods as part of their lives. They grew up with the
constant presence of the flood threat; traditional knowledge and prac-
tices for coping with floods have been passed on within the family for
generations. These extensive coping abilities are also mirrored by the
accompanying factors self-efficacy, flood experiences and emotional resi-
lience, which make long-term residents inclined to stay. Long-term re-
sidents assess flood impacts in technical/hydrological terms (e.g. water
depth, speed of flood discharge) and have a clear understanding of how
a flood event unfolds (how long the roads are accessible for evacuating
machinery, furniture and livestock; how soon the public electricity grid
is short-circuited; etc.). By contrast, newcomers cannot draw on an
ingrained body of household-level flood risk management strategies;
hence, for newcomers fear of future floods and the associated psycho-
logical burden is one of the most important reasons to relocate (“There
are many [people] who needed to see a psychiatrist after the last flood. I
have to admit that for a while I took sedatives myself.”).
For long-term residents, deciding on relocating involves the addi-
tional challenge of their offspring being unwilling to take over the farm.
For the parents, closing down the farm business amounts to much more
than just tearing down buildings – it also means giving up an economic
activity, daily and seasonal routines, and ultimately a way of life.
Therefore, families with children who are reluctant or too young to take
over the farm either take the relocation offer as an opportunity to scale
down or even sell their farm, or relocate their house, storage buildings
and stables to a safe area and put up with longer travel distances to
their fields in the relocation zone. Newcomers generally are not bound
to the region by a family business; therefore, economic matters enter
their relocation decision only as accompanying factors regarding ex-
isting financial savings and the missing compensation for the plot.
Long-term residents and newcomers both feel a close bond to the
area, though this manifests itself differently. Long-term residents report
a deep-seated place identity, referring to family ties, cultivating the land
in the case of farmers, childhood memories associated with particular
places, and close friendship with former schoolmates who turned into
neighbors. This personal bond is closely connected to considerations in
regards to establishing a future social network and maintaining the cur-
rent social network when leaving the area. Newcomers articulate place
attachment as the fulfillment of their dream of a family house in the
countryside, surrounded by the beauty of a riverside landscape but still
close to the amenities of the metropolitan region of Linz (“We are fond
of this house. It's as if we have been here forever.”). While long-term re-
sidents feel inextricably connected to the area itself, newcomers are
bound to their residential situation. Therefore, newcomers tend to ac-
cept the relocation offer if they expect to restore this residential si-
tuation at another location. If leaving, newcomers also take future social
network expectations into account.
5.2.2. Elderly households
Age significantly affects the decision whether to leave or stay:
previous relocation studies associate older age with stronger

Table 2
Factors in the relocation decision of long-term residents and newcomers.
decision: leave decision: stay

long-term residents decisive factors
accompanying factors
newcomers decisive factors
accompanying factors
children's prospects (eco) place identity (emo)
uncertainty (risk) children's prospects (eco)
willingness to take over farm (eco) amount of compensation payment (eco)
current social network (soc) self-efficacy (risk)
amount of compensation payment (eco) flood experiences (risk)
future social network expectations (soc) emotional resilience (emo)
fear of next flood event (emo) amount of compensation payment (eco)
uncertainty (risk) children's prospects (eco)
children's prospects (eco) place attachment (emo)
future social network expectations (soc) self-efficacy (risk)
financial savings (eco) high life satisfaction (emo)
newcomers‘ looser place attachment (emo) no compensation for plot (eco)

Note: Factors in each quadrant are ordered by prevalence within the respective group of interviewees. Underlying dimensions are indicated as eco (economic), emo
(emotional), risk and soc (social).

8
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
Table 3
Factors in the relocation decision of households aged over 50 years.
decision: leave decision: stay
decisive factors uncertainty (risk) place identity (emo)
children's prospects (eco) older age perspective (eco)
fear of next flood event amount of compensation
(emo) payment (eco)
accompanying factors future social network self-efficacy (risk)
expectations (soc)
newcomers‘ looser place flood experiences (risk)
attachment (emo)
financial savings (eco) high life satisfaction (emo)
Note: Factors in each quadrant are ordered by prevalence within the respective
group of interviewees. Underlying dimensions are indicated as eco (economic),
emo (emotional), risk and soc (social).
attachment to the familiar environment as well as with physical lim-
itations and frailty, which in turn reduce self-efficacy for coping with
flood impacts (Cong et al. 2018; deVries and Fraser 2012). Here, we
highlight the decision factors for leaving or staying among households
whose head is aged (or the average age in case of a couple) more than
50 years. This specific age marks several biographical transitions:
children have grown up and left the parental home; real estate loans
have been paid back; households anticipate an approaching retirement
or are retired already and plan for their remaining years. Among these
older residents, reasons for staying or leaving are framed differently.
Households over 50 years who stay state their older age perspective as
a dominant factor in their relocation decision (see Table 3). The age
perspective manifests itself in economic limitations (such as a low
credit rating, low income as a pensioner, doubts about paying back
bank loans in their remaining lifespan), in physical limitations and
frailty, and in the wish to spend the rest of their life in peace and quiet
(“We are at an age when it is difficult to start all over again. It's easier for
younger people. I would be busy constructing [the new house] for the next 20
years. That's not possible at our age.”). Households in their fifties or
sixties decide to stay because they anticipate being financially ex-
hausted by the time a new home would be ready to move into. The
amount of compensation payment is considered too low if they have to
make ends meet with a lower monthly income as soon as they are re-
tired (“In my case, it is a financial matter. I would have to invest all the
money I have put aside for retirement and would have no financial reserve
left.”). In addition, they do not want to spend their remaining mobile
years on a construction site. In particular long-term residents older than
70 years who stay mention the burden of age as making the effort to
start a new life and to adapt daily errands and routines to a new living
environment seemingly unmanageable, together with place identity as a
deep rootedness to the current home.
Among households aged over 50 years who stay, the two faces of
self-efficacy from Section 5.1.3 reappear. On the one hand, they do not
feel capable of managing moving to another place or even building a
new house. On the other hand, they report high self-efficacy for dealing
with the flood situation at their property by drawing on their own as
well as intergenerational flood experiences. The general high life sa-
tisfaction of older stayers and the contrasting low importance ascribed
to flood events further strengthens their resolve to turn down the re-
location offer.
Residents over 50 years of age who leave state similar reasons to the
aggregate of all households who make the same decision: fear of the next
flood event, uncertainty and children's prospects in general lead to ac-
cepting the relocation offer. Older-aged leavers frame their reasoning in
the context of already existing or anticipated frailness: they do not
expect to be physically fit enough to manage another flood, especially if
they are older than 70 years (“I am not afraid of the flood itself, but I do
accept that at my age I no longer have the [physical] stamina, which is
necessary for cleaning up afterward.”). Physical frailty also extends to the
social network, as their friends and relatives who could provide
9
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
essential aid during a flood emergency are of similar age. As a positive
side effect, relocating opens up the option of moving to a barrier-free,
accessible new dwelling.
In multi-generational households, the aspects of older age may in-
fluence relocation decisions indirectly, if the household head belongs to
the younger generation but has to take the needs of elderly parents or
grandparents into account. Households who stay emphasize that they
could not expect their parents or grandparents to move away in their
old age, particularly if they are in need of nursing care. Others decide to
leave despite the grandparents’ old age, as other reasons, like risk, fi-
nancial burden, or the children's future prospects prevail. One house-
hold went to great lengths to coax the almost 90-year-old grandfather
into moving: “Well, he had the whole year [to get used to the idea]. We put
up a webcam at the construction site [of the new residence], so he could
always watch how the construction progresses. Now, he wants to go to the
site himself and see it every week. He reconsidered; he is on our side now.”
6. Conclusions
Planned relocation is an adaptation strategy to flood hazards that
aims to permanently remove people and assets from areas at risk.
However, residents in a designated relocation zone take a range of other
decision factors besides risk into account. In a voluntary buyout pro-
gram such as that in the Eferding Basin, Austria, each individual
household's decision to stay or leave is underpinned by a unique array
of reasons; however, across the sample of 79 interviewees, we observe
recurring considerations that can be structured into the economic,
emotional, risk and social dimension of relocation decisions.
Understanding relocation decision-making as a primarily rational pro-
cess, as do Henry (2013) and most political/administrative actors in the
Eferding Basin, yields a too narrow view. The decision process is in-
itiated by a rational comparison of the buyout sum, income and savings
against the costs of a new home. However, if they turn out to be basi-
cally equivalent, more important factors emerge: fear of the next flood
event and place identity are strong emotional drivers; risk appraisal is
colored by personal experiences and mental strategies for dealing with
uncertainty; taking the step to stay or leave is governed by efficacy
beliefs about flood preparedness or building construction, respectively.
A status as long-term resident, newcomer or elderly person shifts the
importance of certain factors, for instance in terms of higher self-effi-
cacy among more experienced households. The decision to stay or leave
is taken from an intergenerational, not an egocentric perspective, as the
children's prospects carry critical weight. These four dimensions pre-
sumably apply to other relocation schemes as well, even though deci-
sive and accompanying factors may emerge differently depending on
the local context.
Our findings indicate possible approaches how relocation program
managers could facilitate households’ decision-making or increase the
acceptance rate of buyout offers. A higher compensation payment could
work as a door opener encouraging households to take the first step
towards concrete decision-making. Compensating for not just the
building itself, but also the plot, as well as offering new building plots
below market prices or priority treatment in designating new building
areas could alleviate economic concerns. Addressing the emotional and
risk factors in the decision-making process calls for extensive commu-
nication efforts between the program authorities and the affected citi-
zens. A central contact point could offer personal counseling, compile
information on legal and financial procedures, facilitate access to con-
struction companies and tradespeople, assist in resolving intergenera-
tional or bureaucratic conflicts, coordinate households with similar
interests, and act as a mouthpiece between residents and political ac-
tors. However, such a contact point would face multiple challenges in
retaining a position as mediator, offering empathic yet neutral support,
respecting privacy, balancing equal treatment of all against targeted
support for those in need, and maintaining a proactive, trustful re-
lationship with all residents before, during and after the relocation.
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
Many interviewees express a need for an information and counseling
hub, as they struggle with accessing reliable and comprehensive in-
formation from various administrative bodies and lack an opportunity
to tell their story and to come to terms with their feelings and experi-
ences. Such a contact point should not just cater for those who leave but
should also extend its services to those who stay. Considering that re-
sidents avoid the relocation topic with neighbors out of courtesy and
respect for their autonomy, we advise against transferring (parts of) this
contact point's agenda to neighborhood support groups; however, fo-
cusing on the different, possibly conflicting, views of all persons living
together in a household may hold untapped potential for advancing
research and for household-level support programs. Communication
efforts in voluntary relocation programs should have a clear mandate
whether they aim to convince residents to leave, or whether they aim to
support households in making their choices, no matter the outcome.
Designing more flexible program conditions tailored to the in-
dividual needs, resources and competencies of long-term residents,
newcomers, elderly people or other groups could alleviate residents’
concerns. Specific groups highlight decision factors where they expect
disproportional impacts: for instance, elderly households lack the
physical fitness for constructing a new house; low-income households
are restricted in affording new accommodation, as the value and
therefore the absolute compensation amount for their old building
tends to be lower, and they are less eligible for bank loans than the
more affluent. However, the interviewed residents disapprove of
abandoning the equality principle in favor of flexible conditions be-
cause they expect preferential treatment to lead to inequality and jea-
lousy. In Austria, governmental actors implementing a relocation pro-
gram act under the oversight of democratically elected representatives;
an extensive welfare state prevents that deprivation from relocation
results in a total loss of livelihood. Thus, it should be kept in mind that
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018.
Appendix
Table A.1
Main interview topics
Wave 1 Wave 2
Place attachment Change of life situation since last appointment
Social contacts Social contacts
Quality of life Quality of life
Experience of the 2013 flood Risk appraisal
Risk appraisal Information and participation
Information and political governance Private implementation of relocation
Private implementation of relocation Decision-making relocation
Relocation offer Situation at old/new residence
Integration at the new place of residence
10
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
issues of procedural and distributive justice in the study area pale in
comparison to the wellbeing impacts of development-forced displace-
ment and resettlement in less-developed countries (Herath et al. 2017).
Methodologically, multiple interview waves allow eliciting how
households scope options, refine appraisals, commit to staying or
leaving, and reflect on their decision in hindsight. Following this gra-
dual process of decision-making helps in differentiating decisive from
accompanying factors; even though our interviewees did not revise
their relocation decisions, their underlying reasoning did evolve over
time. Single-wave studies might struggle with contacting each house-
hold at its particular moment of making a definite decision so to avoid
response bias by initial optimism or retrospective whitewashing; while
those who leave could be approached immediately after signing the
relocation contract, the moment of deciding is much harder to pinpoint
among those who stay. Besides reconstructing the decision process,
repeated interviews seem essential if the buyout terms change during
the course of the program, and for tracking long-term impacts.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research received financial support from the Austrian Climate
and Energy Fund and was carried out within the ACRP program (project
number: B567142). We thank all interviewed households for inviting us
to their homes and sharing their views and experiences. Philipp
Babcicky and Martin Wenk provided essential support.
Wave 3
Change of life situation since last appointment
Social contacts
Quality of life
Risk appraisal
Information and participation
Decision-making and implementation of relocation
Situation at old/new residence
Personal learning
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018

Table A.2
Sample characteristics by interview wave
Characteristic Sample Population
2018
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Total number of households 78 44 27 n.a.

interviewed

Relocation decision/status n.a.

Offer accepted - relocation 5 6 10
completed
Offer accepted - relocation in 26 15 12
progress
Offer declined 39 22 5
Still undecided 8 1 0

Municipality (old residence)

Alkoven 28 15 5 55 %
Goldwörth 18 12 9 8%
Walding 32 17 13 38 %

Mean age (years)a

20-40 19 14 7 30 %
41-60 39 21 14 30 %
61-89 20 9 6 40 %
20-49 32 22 10 48 %
50-89 46 22 17 52 %

Duration of residenceb n.a.

Long-term residents 59 32 20
Newcomers 19 12 7

Form of residencec
Single/two family house 72 39 22 77 %
Apartment 6 5 5 23 %

Farmyardd n.a.
Yes 22 11 10
No 56 33 17

Family statuse
Single/couple households, 29 13 11 63 %
no children
Households with children 29 20 11 35 %
Multi-generation households 20 11 5 2%

Highest education degreef

Compulsory education 8 2 1 26 %
Vocational education 36 19 10 50 %
Secondary school (with 15 13 8 14 %
school leaving exam)
Higher education (university 19 10 8 10 %
level)

Absolute numbers of households interviewed. Population data according to Statistics Austria, Annual Population Statistics.
a
Refers to owners of building/head of household. Children and grandparents not included. Based on Wave 1. Population data refer to the age classes: 20-39/40-
59/60-89 years and 20-49/50-89 years.
b
Long-term residents: The interviewee (or at least one person in the case of a couple) has grown up in the village or at least nearby, or the house has been family
property for a long time. Newcomers: The interviewee (or both people in case of a couple) did not grow up in the relocation area but moved there from another area.
c
Population data are only available at level of province of Upper Austria.
d
Households situated in a farmyard prior to the 2013 flood; number includes households who gave up farming after relocation.
e
Households with children refer to children under 18 years. Multi-generation households refer to households which contain, in addition to parent(s) and children
under 18 years, grandparents and/or children over 18 years, who run their own household. Population data are only available at national level for 2017.
f
Refers to owners of building/head of household. Children and grandparents not included. Based on Wave 1. Population data are only available for 2011, at
national level.

11
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018

Table A.3
Sample characteristics by relocation decision.
Decision: stay Decision: Undecideda
leave

Municipality (old residence)

Alkoven 20 7 2
Goldwörth 14 16 2
Walding 5 13 0

Mean age (years)b

20–40 9 9 1
41–60 18 21 1
61–89 12 6 2
20–49 14 17 1
50–89 25 19 3

Duration of residencec
Long-term residents 34 23 3
Newcomers 5 13 1

Form of residence
Single/two family house 35 34 4
Apartment 4 2 0

Farmyardd
Yes 7 13 2
No 32 23 2

Family statuse
Single/couple households, no 12 18 0
children
Households with children 15 11 3
Multi-generation households 12 7 1

Highest education degreef

Compulsory education 17 15 0
Vocational education 18 15 0
Secondary school (with school 5 10 0
leaving exam)
Higher education (university 10 7 2
level)

Household's income (net, per

month)
< 1.099 € 1 1 0
1.100 € - 1.599 € 6 3 1
1.600 € - 2.599 € 12 7 1
2.600 € - 3.999 € 8 10 0
4.000 € - 5.500 € 3 4 0
> 5.500 € 1 3 0
Unspecified 8 9 2

Damage (self-rated)g
0-2 1 0 0
>2 - 4 5 3 0
>4 - 6 12 4 2
>6 - 8 10 12 1
>8 - 10 10 15 0
Unspecified 1 3 1

Absolute numbers of households interviewed.

a
Status at last interview.
b
Refers to owners of building/head of household. Children and grandparents not included. Based on Wave 1.
c
Long-term residents: The interviewee (or at least one person in the case of a couple) has grown up in the village or at least nearby, or the house has
been family property for a long time. Newcomers: The interviewee (or both people in case of a couple) did not grow up in the relocation area but
moved there from another area.
d
Households situated in a farmyard prior to the 2013 flood; number includes households who gave up farming after relocation.
e
Households with children refer to children under 18 years. Multi-generation households refer to households, which contain, in addition to parent
(s) and children under 18 years, grandparents and/or children over 18 years, who run their own household.
f
Refers to owners of building/head of household. Children and grandparents not included. Based on Wave 1.
g
Ten-step rating scale from 0 = no damage to 10 = very high damage.

12
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
References
Anschober, R., 2013. Beantwortung der schriftlichen Anfrage betreffend
Hochwasserereignis 2013. Landesrat für Umwelt, Energie, Wasser und
KonsumentInnenschutz, Land Oberösterreich, Linz.
APCC,Kromp-Kolb, H., Nakicenovic, N., Steininger, K., Gobiet, A., Formayer, H., Köppl,
A., Prettenthaler, F., Stötter, J., Schneider, J, (Hg.), 2014. Österreichischer
Sachstandsbericht Klimawandel 2014 (AAR14). Austrian Panel on Climate Change
(APCC). Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Österreich.
Binder, S.B., Baker, C.K., Barile, J.P., 2015. Rebuild or relocate? resilience and post-
disaster decision-making after hurricane sandy. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 56,
180–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9727-x.
Binder, S.B., Barile, J.P., Baker, C.K., Kulp, B., 2019. Home buyouts and household re-
covery: neighborhood differences three years after Hurricane Sandy. Environ.
Hazards 18 (2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2018.1511404.
Blöschl, G., Hall, J., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R., Merz, B., Arheimer, B., Aronica, G.T.,
Bilibashi, A., Bonacci, O., Borga, M., Čanjevac, I., Castellarin, A., Chirico, G.B., Claps,
P., Fiala, K., Frolova, N., Gorbachova, L., Gül, A., Hannaford, J., Harrigan, S., Kireeva,
M., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T.R., Kohnová, 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., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Sauquet, E., Šraj,
M., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A., Volpi, E., Wilson, D., Zaimi, K., Živković, N., 2017.
Changing climate shifts timing of European floods. Science 357 (6351), 588–590.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2506.
BMLFUW, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, 2012. Die österreichische Strategie zur Anpassung an den
Klimawandel. Wien.
BMVIT, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, 2015.
Hochwasserdokumentation Donau 2013. Wien.
Braamskamp, A., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 2018. Managed retreat: a rare and paradoxical
success, but yielding a dismal prognosis. Environ. Manag. Susta. Devel. 7 (2),
108–136. https://doi.org/10.5296/emsd.v7i2.12851.
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W., Laudan, J., Aerts, J., Thieken, A., 2018. Insights into flood-coping
appraisals of protection motivation theory: empirical evidence from Germany and
France. Risk Anal. 38 (6), 1239–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12938.
Bukvic, A., Smith, A., Zhang, A., 2015. Evaluating drivers of coastal relocation in
Hurricane Sandy affected communities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13, 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.008.
Cernea, M., 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations.
World Devel. Vol. 25 (No. 10), 1569–1587 1997. World Bank. PII: S0305-750X(97)
00054-5.
Cernea, M., 2000. Risks, safeguards, and reconstruction: a model for population dis-
placement and resettlement. In: Cernea,Michael, M., McDowell, Christopher (Eds.),
Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees, Washington DC
2000.
Cong, Z., Nejat, A., Liang, D., Pei, Y., Javid, R.J., 2018. Individual relocation decisions
after tornadoes: a multi-level analysis. Disasters 42 (2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.
1111/disa.12241.
Correa, E., Cortes, F.R., Sanahuja, H., 2011. Populations at Risk of Disaster: A
Resettlement Guide. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., Webb, J., 2008. A place-
based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
Environ. Change 18, 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.
Döring, N., Bortz, J., 2016. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und
Sozialwissenschaftler. 5. Auflage. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-540-33306-7.
EU, 2007. Directive of the European Parliament and of the council on the assessment and
management of flood risks. Off J. Eur. Union 2007/60/EC 288 (27), 27–34.
Ferris, E., 2015. Climate-induced resettlement: environmental change and the planned
relocation of communities. SAIS Rev. Int. Affa. 35 (1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.
1353/sais.2015.0001.
Fraser, J.C., Doyle, M.W., Young, H., 2006. Creating effective flood mitigation policies.
Eos, Transactions. Am. Geophys. Union 87 (27), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2006EO270002.
Frey, W.H., Singer A., Park D. (2007). Resettling New Orleans: The First Full Picture from
the Census. The Brookings Institution. Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy.
Retrieved from:http://cretscmhd.psych.ucla.edu/nola/volunteer/FederalReports/
Resettling%20New%20Orleans%20The%20First%20Full%20Picture%20from
%20the%20Census.pdf.
Henry, J., 2013. Return or relocate? An inductive analysis of decision-making in a dis-
aster. Disasters 37 (2), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.
01303.x.
Herath, D., Lakshman, R., Ekanayake, A., 2017. Urban resettlement in Colombo from a
wellbeing perspective: Does development-forced resettlement lead to improved
wellbeing? J. Refugee Stud. 30 (4), 554–579. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/few043.
Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M.C., Salazar-Laplace, M.E., Hess, S., 2007. Place attachment and
place identity in natives and non-natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 27 (4), 310–319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003.
Heslin, A., Deckard, N.D., Oakes, R., Montero-Colbert, A., 2019. Displacement and
Resettlement: Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Contemporary Migration.
In: Mechler, R., Bouwer, L., Schinko, T., Surminski, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J (Eds.),
13
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
Loss and Damage from Climate Change. Climate Risk Management, Policy and
Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_1. ISBN:
978-3-319-72025-8.
Hidalgo, C.M., 2013. Operationalization of place attachment: A consensus proposal.
Estudios de Psicología 34 (3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1174/
021093913808295190.
Hino, M., Field, C.B., Mach, K.J., 2017. Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard
risk. Nature Climate Change 7, 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3252.
Imura, M., Shaw, R., 2009. Challenges and potentials of post-disaster relocation. Asian J.
Environ. Disaster Manag. 1 (2), 199–221.
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Climate Change 2013 - the
physical science basis, summary for policymakers. Available at: http://www.
climatechange2013.org/(accessed October 2018).
Iuchi, K., 2015. Planning resettlement after disasters. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 80 (4),
413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.978353.
Jha, A.K., Barenstein, J.D., Phelps, P.M., Pittet, D., Sena, S., 2010. Safer homes, stronger
communities: a handbook for reconstructing after natural disasters. World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2409.
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., De Maeyer, P., 2013. Perception and communication of flood
risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal. 33 (1), 24–49. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x.
Knobloch, D.M., 2005. Moving a community in the aftermath of the great 1993 Midwest
flood. J. Contemp. Water Res. Edu. 130 (1), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-
704X.2005.mp130001008.x.
Kuhlicke, C., 2008. Naturrisiken und Umsiedlungen. Die Umsiedlung Valmeyers (USA)
nach dem Mississippi-Hochwasser von 1993. In: Felgentreff, C., Glade, T. (Eds.),
Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Springer, Berlin.
Lei, Y., Finlayson, M., Thwaites, R., Shi, G., Cui, L., 2017. Using government resettlement
projects as a sustainable adaptation strategy for climate change. Sustainability 9 (8),
1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081373.
Lewicka, M., 2011. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J.
Environ. Psychol. 31, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001.
Lind, E., Tyler, T., 1988. The Social Psychology Of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press, New
York.
López-Carr, D., Marter-Kenyon, J., 2015. Human adaptation: Manage climate-induced
resettlement. Nature 517 (7534), 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/517265a.
Löschner, L., Herrnegger, 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. Reg. Environ. Change 17 (2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10113-016-1009-0.
Mallick, B., Vogt, J., 2014. Population displacement after cyclone and its consequences:
empirical evidence from coastal Bangladesh. Natural Hazards 73 (2), 191–212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0803-y.
Marg, O., 2016. Resilienz von Haushalten gegenüber extremen Ereignissen.
Schadenserfahrung, Bewältigung und Anpassung bei Hochwasserbetroffenheit.
Springer, VS.
Matthews, T., Potts, R., 2018. Planning for climigration: a framework for effective action.
Climatic Change 148 (4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2205-3.
Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 11. Auflage.
Weinheim: Beltz.
McDowell, C., 2013. Climate change adaptation and mitigation: implications for land
acquisition and population relocation. Development Pol. Rev. 31 (6), 677–695.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12030.
Mortreux, C., Safra de Campos, R., Adger, W.N., Ghosh, T., Das, S., Adams, H., Hazra, S.,
2018. Political economy of planned relocation: A model of action and inaction in
government responses. Global Environ. Change 50, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.008.
Okada, T., Haynes, K., Bird, D., van den Honert, R., King, D., 2014. Recovery and
Resettlement Following the 2011 Flash Flooding in the Lockyer Valley. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.
01.001.
Perry, R.W., Lindell, M.K., 1997. Principles for managing community relocation as a
hazard mitigation measure. J. Contingenc. Crisis Manag. 5 (1), 49–59. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-5973.00036.
Provincial Government of Upper Austria, 2007. Natur und Landschaft / Leitbilder für
Oberösterreich. Band 8: Raumeinheit Eferdinger Becken. Amt der
oberösterreichischen Landesregierung, Naturschutzabteilung. Linz.
Sanders, S., Bowie, S.L., Bowie, Y.D., 2003. Chapter 2 - Lessons learned on forced re-
location of older adults. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 40 (4), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J083v40n04_03.
Schindelegger, A., 2018. Relocation for Flood Retention in Austria. In: Hepperle, E.,
Paulsson, J., Maliene, V., Mansberger, R., Lisec, A., Guelton, S. (Eds.), Opportunities
and Constraints of Land Management in Local and Regional Development. vdf,
Zürich, pp. 111–120.
de Sherbinin, A., Castro, M., Gemenne, F., Cernea, M.M., Adamo, S., Fearnside, P.,
Krieger, G., Lahmani, S., Oliver-Smith, A., Pankhurst, A., 2011. Preparing for reset-
tlement associated with climate change. Science 334 (6055), 456–457. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1208821.
Siders, A.R., 2019. Social justice implications of U.S. managed retreat buyout programs.
Climatic Change 152 (2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2272-5.
Sipe, N., Vella, K., 2014. Relocating a flood-affected community: good planning or good
politics? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 80 (4), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.
S. Seebauer and C. Winkler
2014.976586.
Thaler, T., Hartmann, T., 2016. Justice and flood risk management: Reflecting on dif-
ferent approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe.
Natural Hazards 83 (1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2305-1.
Tilt, B., Gerkey, D., 2016. Dams and population displacement on China's Upper Mekong
River: Implications for social capital and social–ecological resilience. Global Environ.
Change 36, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.008.
de Vries, D.H., Fraser, J.C., 2012. Citizenship Rights and Voluntary Decision Making in
14
Global Environmental Change 60 (2020) 102018
Post-Disaster U.S. Floodplain Buyout Mitigation Programs. Int. J. Mass Emergenc.
Disast. 30 (1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.008.
Weingraber, F., Schindelegger, A., 2018. Konfliktfeld Absiedelung von
Hochwasserrisikogebieten: Grundlagen und Governance-Prozesse am Beispiel des
Eferdinger Beckens (OÖ). In: Rudolf-Miklau, F., Kanonier, A (Eds.), (Hrsg.). Regionale
Risiko Governance. Recht, Politik und Praxis, Verlag Österreich, pp. 539–555 ISBN
978-3-7046-8006-8.