Search

Der demografische Wandel stellt eine komplexe Herausforderung für den territorialen und sozialen Zusammenhalt in unserer Gesellschaft dar. Dies deshalb, weil die Teilräume Österreichs in unterschiedlichem Maße von Veränderungen der Bevölkerungsgröße und der altersstrukturellen Zusammensetzung betroffen sind. Die bedarfsgerechte Planung und Bereitstellung von sozialer Infrastruktur wird auch aufgrund der Veränderungen der Haushaltsstrukturen und der Heterogenisierung der Bevölkerung infolge internationaler Zuwanderung zunehmend zur Herausforderung. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Auswirkungen des demografischen Wandels auf die soziale Infrastruktur im Bereich des Hochwasserrisikomanagements aus Sicht von Expert*innen aus dem Gesundheits- und Sozialbereich. 17 Expert*innen aus verschiedenen Bundesländern und Tätigkeitsbereichen beteiligten sich an einer schriftlichen Befragung im Frühjahr 2020. Sie beantworteten einen 29 Fragen umfassenden Fragenkatalog zu den Bedeutungszusammenhängen zwischen dem demografischen Wandel und dem Hochwasserrisikomanagement und gaben Empfehlungen für den künftigen Umgang mit dem Thema Demografie in den Risikomanagementkonzepten ab. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass beiden Themenfeldern eine hohe Relevanz zugeschrieben wird, diese jedoch tendenziell oberflächlich skizziert werden. Als Erklärung hierfür kann der Mangel an integrativer Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Fachdisziplinen angenommen werden. Dies wiederum führt dazu, dass man in diesem Politikfeld vom erklärten Ziel der WHO, nämlich der „Health-in-all-policies“, noch ein Stück weit entfernt ist.

Adapting urban spaces to the impacts of climate change is one of today's key challenges, especially when it comes to avoiding the associated social trade-offs which are often overlooked in planning and policy regulation. Based on a review of existing policy and legal documents from Vienna, we analyse how mitigation of green gentrification is already included in Viennese urban planning and policy, and how the administration tries to manage it strategically. Results show that while risks are generally limited, current policy and planning strategies show no awareness of the emerging risks of green gentrification as unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of SWS - Rundschau is the property of Verein fur interdisziplinare sozialwissenschaftliche Studien und Analysen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Although green roofs are considered as a no-regret adaptation measure that helps to address various impacts of climate change, they are still rather rare. This paper explores three major European cities that have policies in place that are supposed to facilitate the installation of green roofs. We ask what approaches were chosen by local authorities to promote green roofs and which factors facilitated their implementation. Our analysis is based on implementation literature in general as well as adaptation policy literature in particular. It combines literature reviews and eleven interviews with policymakers and other stakeholders. The study reveals that immediate threats and particular events (e.g., urban heat islands or floods), an overall social and political environment favoring green solutions, so-called change agents, and a supportive framing determine if green roofs are considered as an attractive solution. However, even when multiple benefits of green roofs are beyond doubt, local governments largely prefer fiscal incentives over mandatory policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper analyses and compares how federalism in Austria and Switzerland affected climate change mitigation in the fully decentralized building sectors of the two countries during the Kyoto Period (1990–2012). This is of interest because the environmental significance of federal political systems is still contested. We first review the literature on federalism in the context of environmental and climate policymaking, and we show that the effects of federal political systems can be positive or negative (depending on interactions between politics and problem characteristics). We then summarize the two qualitative country studies. By analysing who initiated and coordinated respective policies at what time and why, we show that respective policy changes neither emerged bottom‐up nor diffused between provinces/cantons, although the latter are fully responsible for building policies. While most policy changes were triggered by federal and/or European Union interventions, the provinces/cantons usually delayed and/or watered down policy changes to smallest common denominator solutions. Based on these findings we conclude that the building sectors of the two countries became more efficient despite, not because of federalism. Against this background we recommend centralizing building policies, or to engage sub‐national actors in national target‐setting early on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the impacts of federalism on environmental policy-making are still contested, many policy analysts emphasise its advantages in climate policy-making. This applies to the mitigation of climate change, in particular when federal governments (as in the U.S.) are inactive. More recently, federalism is also expected to empower sub-national actors in adapting to local impacts of climate change. The present paper analyses the role federalism in Austria played in greening the decentralised building sector (relevant for mitigation) on the one hand, and in improving regional flood risk management (relevant for adaptation) on the other. In line with the so-called matching school of the environmental federalism research strand we conclude that Austrian federalism proved to be more appropriate for regional flood protection than for mitigating climate change. We highlight that it is not federalism per se but federalism embedded in various contextual factors that shape environmental policy-making. Among these factors are the spatial scale of an environmental problem, the nitty-gritty of polity systems, and national politics (such as federal positions on climate change mitigation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ÖZP - Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of ÖZP - Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)