Partnership approaches in flood risk management : lessons from the Eastern Alps

In the past decades flood risk management has taken a paradigm shift away from a structural, securitybased approach towards more an integrated, risk-based approach. While the 'traditional' approach was informed by a firm belief in controlling rivers via engineering solutions, flood risk management today increasingly acknowledges


Introduction
Partnership development in flood risk management includes a shift in the flood risk management policy.Therefore, a clear statement is the implementation of catchment-wide management plan [1].This includes a broader co-operation between local authorities, especially in rural areas.The key aim is consensus building between the different groups [2,3] .H\ DVSHFWV DUH µLQFOXVLRQ power-sharing and joint decision-PDNLQJ ¶ DV ZHOO DV µDQ interaction of equals, rather than a subject-object UHODWLRQVKLS ¶ [2: p. 492].
Partnership arrangements are mainly based on interaction between the different actors and stakeholders.The interaction is strongly influenced and defined by the institutional framework and the relationships of exchange between the different actors and stakeholders under competitive or co-operative environments [4].The interaction within co-operations are influenced by the distance or proximity (socially or geographically) between the different involved actors [5].The concept of proximity is well known in the regional innovation literature [5,6,7,8,9].In this literature, the term SUR[LPLW\ LV XQGHUVWRRG DV WKH µEHQHILFLDO for the transfer RI NQRZOHGJH ¶ > p. 117).In particular, proximity allows this thesis to analyse the interaction between the different actors and stakeholders involved in partnership arrangements.The key interpretation is the rediscovery of the concept of space and place in the academic and policy discussion [10].Torre and Rallet [10] defined proximity as not only meaning ³being near him/her, but also means having a strong complicity within a person who is geographically distant, whatever that person belongs to the same circle of friends, family, or even to the same QHWZRUN ¶ [10: p. 48].According to the authors, the interregional relationships have a less important role compared to the intra-regional contacts and networks.Geographical proximity is the physical distance between the members of the co-operation, such as (1) naturally distance (in terms of km) and (2) based on individual judgement (in terms of individual perception and background).On the other hand, organisational proximity is defined as the interaction and co-operation between the different members in the co-operation [4,10].This includes aspects of personal interactions and similarities between the different members, like sharing experiences, language, knowledge and representatives.However, Moodysson and Jonsson [8] defined these arguments as µYDJXH DQG ORRVHO\ GHILQHG ¶ >: p. 118].Therefore, the aims of this paper are:

Literature review
This paper focuses on following categories: spatial, institutional, social, technology and relational proximity.Spatial proximity raises the aspect of physical distances between the different actors [4,5,6,8].This refers mainly to the aspect of transactions costs (e.g.transport costs), possibility to arrange meetings as well as possibility to monitor the efficient use of resources.Therefore, the geographical units play a crucial role in the aspect of informal meetings.Throughout informal meetings this has an important role in the inter-local cooperation.Balland [11] described the physical distance as WKH µVLPSOHVW ¶ IRUP RI DQDO\VLQJ WKH VSDWLDO SUR[LPLW\ Furthermore, spatial proximity also refers to the political boundaries between the different actors, e.g.district or regional boundaries.Second, institutional proximity refers to the aspect of regulative, normative, and cognitive aspects [6,8].Institutions have a direct influence on individuals, but also vice versa.Social proximity refers to the social relationship between the different actors within the co-operation [9], where trust plays a strong factor [11].Technology proximity expresses the shared understanding of technological experiences, knowledge and expertise.Technology is a key aspect and challenge in the in the flood risk management.The implementation of new technologies needs adequate structures, human resources and knowledge.In the past years, the aspect of technology in flood risk and environment management has become a more important aspect.The key driver was the increasing frequency of flood events and the needs of a more frequent evaluation and strategic flood planning, which includes an adaptation of new technologies and knowledge [13].The key arguments are that traditionalstructural measures (e.g.dykes and dams) cannot solve flood risks.Traditional flood protections are now viewed more critically, especially from society due to a possible negative impact to environment or failures, like a dam break.A key aspect is the different use of return period in the definition of flood defences or hazard maps.These cause interdependences between both organisations.In addition, the shift in the economic policy (e.g.fiscal squeeze) needs new technologies to reduce the costs.Nevertheless, the successful implementation of new technologies needs willingness and openness of public administrations and stakeholders.An important aspect is the coordination and combination of structural measures, preventive measures and operative measures during flood events started for flood prevention, protection and mitigation, e.g. an appropriate land use, early-warningsystems, a better communication between several public institutions and the population.However, this new approach needs an integrated and comprehensive action plan [14]

Conceptual framework
Stage 1 (inadequately integration): key problems are physical distance between the different actors (functional proximity), low degree of trust between the actors (social proximity) or lack of benefits from the co-operation.A key barrier is the local trap of the communities, the fear to lose competences, power and limitations of selfgoverning.Additionally, often there is no clear definition of sharing responsibility between the different actors as well as unequal ± asymmetric power sharing (Razafindrabe et al. 2012).In addition, a key barrier is the uncertainty regarding future developments.
The results are strongly conflicts between the different actors.This includes a relative low willingness for cooperating [5].The integration process is mainly based on developing and funding structural flood defence measures.The conceptual framework shows that there is low integration in the harmonisation of non-structural measures, especially regarding emergency managements and spatial planning.In general, harmonisation and use of non-structural flood defence measures are secondary goals.However, the different actors recognise the individual benefits of the inter-local co-operation.
Stage 2 (semi-integration): goes a step further.In contrast to stage 1, the level of engagement includes also nonstructural measures in the policy discussion.The harmonisation of non-structural measures between the different communities is not fully integrated, specifically spatial and land use management or emergency management plans.In this stage of co-operation local authorities still define individual objectives, also based on given political ± institutional barriers.
Stage 3 (full integration): includes the full integration between the different communities.We assume this as the final step in the inter-local co-operation process.The focus is on the implementation and maintenance of structural measures as well as full harmonisation of nonstructural instruments, e.g.spatial governance approach and catchment-based emergency management plan.The introduction of spatial governance framework, the communities exchange information (e.g.round tables, meetings) about their developments in relation to localland use in the next years.The key objective is the use of a mix of different management instruments to reduce the impact of future flood events.An important issue is to avoid contradictory policy directions in the inter-local cooperation.Throughout, an important consideration is the social learning process between the different actors.
This framework represents an ideal type to reduce the complexity.In practice we cannot find these, clear distinctions between the different stages.In fact, there are more mixes between the different models between the different instruments.

Method and case study description
The research method applied in this paper is centrally focussed on a qualitative research design.The structure is using a heuristic ± circular perspective with a focus on multi-methodology, based on primary and secondary data collection, multiple case studies as well as multianalytical methods [17,18].The aim of semi structured in-depth interviews is to understand better the current policy documents, especially background information and how they are adopted on the ground both of these factors are not available from the secondary data source.In research studies, there exist a lack of sufficient information and data from the secondary data sources, so qualitative methodology is a useful instrument to collect new data [19].The semi-structure interviews were conducted between February and May 2012; in total 29 stakeholders were interviewed.We selected three different study sides (figure 1) in three different Federal States to analyse the differences and commonalities to achieve a broader overview of the development of partnership approaches in flood risk management.

Triesting-Region
The Triesting region shows a long tradition of structural flood defence measures.Analysing the catchmentmanagement plan and local project appraisals, the Triesting-Tal follows two main strategies.A first step is the implementation of local flood defence schemes, mainly in the downstream ± industrial communities.Although the regional authorities support this decision, this project blocked the implementation process goal of the catchment management plans in the past.The second step includes the implementation of flood storage in the upstream areas.In 2006, the project team updated the study resulting in the implementation of five flood storage areas with an average dam height of 5 to 8 m in the middle and upper part of the catchment, including the implementation of 2.5 km linear flood defence measures.This doubled the total project costs.However, the communities showed no or only minor interest in the implementation of this catchment management plan.Since 2009-10 the co-operation got a fresh boost.In March 2012 the Triesting-Tal inter-local co-operation realised its first flood storage project in the upstream catchment area.Next steps included the construction of a further flood storage near to the community Altenmarkt an der Triesting.Although this project was co-funded by the Triesting-Tal, the effect for the downstream communities is not given.This project was mainly done to encourage Altenmarkt an der Triesting to join the inter-local co-operation.Finally, the Triesting-Tal management plan has included semi-integrated flood risk management strategy.Nevertheless, the Triesting-Tal flood risk management strategy has no inter-local postflooding measures.

Aist-Region
The Aist catchment, after the flood event of 2002, the national and regional authorities as well as local councillors started a draft management plan for the catchment.The strategy introduced a holistic view of the catchment with the key aspect to implement flood storage and ensure natural retention areas to reduce the flood peak.The first step includes the implementation of local flood defence measures.Here, the communities are responsible for the implementation.However, the interlocal co-operation is paying the required partnership funding.The second step includes the implementation of flood storage in the catchment.The study identified 25 potential flood storage areas with a total retention volume of ca.7.5 million m³.This includes a reduction of the peak flow 350 m3s-1 to 240m3s-1.The total costs are estimated with 30 million Euros (4 Euros per m3 retention).However, the greatest benefits will impact the downstream community Schwertberg with a total reduction of the peak discharge of 109 m3s-1 [20] the overall goal is to restore the forest close to the river banks by planting flood proofed trees.

Ill-Walgau-Region
The Ill-Walgau catchment shows a long tradition in the regulation of the river.The river development schemes include three key objectives.The first objective refers to the implementation of the WFD.The second objective is to increase the biodiversity within the catchment.The third objective refers to the implementation of flood storages in the catchment to reduce the flood peak in the catchment.The river development scheme includes the implementation of five flood storages in the catchment.
First, the key differences between the selected case studies refer to the number of communities and involved members.The study sites include between 12 to 27 members in the partnership approach.Moreover, most of the examples demonstrate linkages to non-state actors and stakeholders, such as small-business companies, utility companies or private householders.On the other side, the Aist and Triesting-Tal study sites show the challenge of non-members (free riders) within the interlocal co-operation process with the consequences that the non-members get the benefits from the co-operation without contributing (financially) to the costs.Second, key differences between the three study sites are the involvement of regional organisations in the inter-local co-operation.A third aspect refers to the initiation process.The Aist study sites, in contrast to the other three study sites, includes a strong bottom-up approach in the development of the inter-local co-operation.The main reason is the strong engagement of local grassroots organisations and policy makers in decision-making practices.

.4 Public-private partnership
FLOODrisk 2016 -3 rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management