Conflicting and complementary policy goals as sectoral integration challenge: an analysis of sectoral interplay in flood risk management

Abstract

The paradigmatic shift from traditional flood defense toward integrated flood risk management has widened the sectors and policies affected and has spurred a growing interest of scholars to understand cross-sectoral flood policy integration. In this paper we argue that the cross-sectoral goal relationship—ranging from complementary to conflictual policy goals—is a useful conceptual framework to understand (1) the policy integration challenge at hands and (2) in particular the unfolding policy integration from a processual perspective. For our empirical analysis we identify three policy subsystems that are highly important for sectoral interplay in flood risk management: agriculture, hydropower generation, and spatial planning. Using Austria as a case study we illustrate the goal relationships and sectoral policy integration challenges in each of these fields of interaction. Based on 45 expert interviews in the selected policy sectors we provide useful insights into the current processes of flood policy integration. The empirical findings from our case studies show that sectoral goal relationships and the nature of the policy integration challenge drive flood policy integration. More pronounced land use conflicts are more strongly reflected in different actor interests, policy frames, policy goals, and the choice of policy instruments. Sectoral goal relationships are an important factor to explain the unfolding policy integration process. Complementary policy goals result in rather informal, harmonious integrative negotiations on strengthening synergies by using soft policy instruments. On the contrary, conflictual policy goals lead to more formal negotiations among the affected sectors relying on hard, regulative instruments.

Rising Water, Rising Voices: Empowering Communities Through The Flood Emergency Response Plan

“…The desired results underscore the resolute commitment to fashioning a community fortified against the challenges of floods. Through comprehensive community preparedness and the cultivation of resilience, the potential impact of flood events on both human and environmental fronts is systematically curtailed [13]. By fostering an elevated understanding of sustainable practices, the study reinforces the integration of proactive measures that, in turn, minimize the ecological footprint of floods.…”

Spatial Planning and Land-Use Management

“…Decision-making in hard spatial planning is often centralized, with limited input from local communities [15,16]. Conversely, soft planning embraces a collaborative and flexible approach, adopting a bottom-up perspective that emphasizes community engagement, negotiation, and consensus-building.…”