Europe’s Water Towers Under Pressure. Governing Hydro-Social Relations in the Alps
Scheduled
TBA
TBA
Chair
Sauerwein-Schlosser, Carlotta
Co-chair(s)
Ruiz Peyré, Fernando
Thematic Focus
Adaption, Policy, Resources, Spatial Planning, Sustainable Development
Keywords
Hydro-Social Imaginaries, Waterscapes
Abstract/Description
Water is a fundamental resource for human settlement and economic activity in the Alpine region. Beyond infrastructure, social norms and legal arrangements governing water use have profoundly shaped landscapes and societal organization. Traditional irrigation systems embody the long-standing co-evolution of water, society, and territory. Such material and institutional configurations are embedded in broader narratives of water security, risk, and regional development that shape policy priorities and legitimize water management approaches.
In recent decades, water use in the Alps has diversified and intensified. Retention basins, irrigation, artificial snowmaking, and hydropower facilities increasingly reshape Alpine landscapes, altering hydrological flows and transforming the social organization of water use. However, the further expansion of such infrastructure is contested: while proponents frame these investments as essential for climate change adaptation and water security, critics highlight cumulative ecological impacts, unequal access, increasing water-related conflicts, and technocratic decision-making that reinforce path dependencies.
Against this backdrop, this session explores water use and governance in the European Alps from interdisciplinary perspectives. By integrating hydrological, social, and governance perspectives, it aims to advance a comprehensive understanding of water-related transformations under climate change. We invite empirical case studies, comparative analyses, and conceptual contributions from all disciplines that address the interplay among hydrological conditions, infrastructure development, governance arrangements, and social resilience.
Key questions include:
What formal and informal water governance arrangements characterize Alpine regions across scales?
How have hydrological conditions, seasonal variability, and natural storage shaped water use and infrastructure development, and how have societal interventions, in turn, transformed hydro-ecological systems over time?
How do climate-induced changes in precipitation and natural storage affect water provision and governance today?
Which imaginaries, narratives, norms, and policy frameworks shape water-related decision-making in the Alps?
How can water use strategies and infrastructure projects be designed and implemented to ensure participation, evidence-based discussion, and broad consensus?
Registered Abstracts
ID: 3.94
New Challenges for Water Governance in the Austrian Alps: The Case of Upper Carinthia
Melissa Hiltl
Abstract/Description
This contribution presents an empirical case study organized around a ten-month action research process on water supply challenges in Upper Carinthia, a region increasingly affected by changes in water quantity and the spatial-temporal availability of water throughout the year. The research process originated from the locally identified issue of recurrent water scarcity, leading to reduced regional resilience and water insecurity. Subsequently, reduced snow accumulation, prolonged dry periods, and increased rainfall events in both amount and magnitude can be observed, further intensifying these vulnerabilities. Building on the existing regional association “LAG Nockregion-Oberkärnten”, this research cooperation aims to promote strategic planning for water availability and utilization, environmental education, and knowledge transfer. After identifying a need for adaptive policies, the research process reveals that water security in Upper Carinthia is not only endangered by climate-induced changes in precipitation and natural storage but also intensified by seasonal overuse, water-intensive needs like private pools, and fragmented organization resulting from a mix of private and public providers.
Using action research as a methodological approach, this PhD project combines participatory problem definition, co-production of knowledge, and iterative research cycles to investigate the question: “Which regional governance capacities characterize water supply in the regional association of the Nockregion-Oberkärnten?” The study employs a set of qualitative research methods, including document analysis of planning and regulatory frameworks, stakeholder workshops in August 2025 and March 2026, and 13 semi-structured interviews with regional authorities and representatives from agriculture, tourism, and water utilities, both private and public.
Research results are analyzed inductively using grounded theory, allowing empirical findings to directly inform local interventions via policy recommendations and subsequent research on regional water governance. Firstly, the study shows that climate change leads to new patterns of water availability, posing new, so far unknown, obstacles to resilient regional development in the European Alps. Secondly, the study demonstrates how action research can serve as a hydro-social learning laboratory, generating scalable data to address regional issues and identify state-of-the-art questions regarding Alpine water use and governance. Upscaling these case study findings can foster an understanding of the benefits of knowledge co-production for water-related transformations under climate change.
ID: 3.104
Formal Rules and Informal Practices: Mechanisms Supporting Coordination in Water Governance Systems in the Austrian Alps
Katharina Bauer Sauerwein-Schlosser, Carlotta
Abstract/Description
Even when formal structures are in place to support coordination and collaboration, persistent implementation deficits continue to undermine the effectiveness of water governance. Understanding implementation processes is therefore crucial for evaluating governance performance and identifying opportunities for improvement. To guide this evaluation, ‘water governance principles’ have been conceptualised, whose application must account for local contexts and specific environmental and social settings. Against this backdrop, we combine institutional analysis and socio-ecological conflict analysis to examine decision-making structures, actor constellations, and their underlying dynamics. We address the following questions: through which coordination mechanisms are water-related plans developed and implemented at the local-to-regional scale, and how do these mechanisms enable or constrain trust, stakeholder engagement, and consensus-building across diverse water-land uses? The first case study analyses land-water sustainability challenges in the development of coordinated flood risk management and aquatic ecology restoration plans, focusing on the role of agriculture in this process. The second case study investigates the negotiation of trade-offs between nature conservation and hydropower expansion, highlighting challenges around achieving energy system efficiency while upholding existing conservation rights. We analyse planning documents and stakeholder interviews to map formal and informal processes and relevant actors involved, and examine how principles – in particular around trust and engagement – influence stakeholder involvement and create opportunities for collaboration across process stages. Conceptually, the comparative analysis advances the understanding of how governance principles can be applied to analyse different types of water governance challenges within multi-level, cross-sector governance systems, while shedding light on the implementation gap between governance structures and governance outcomes. Findings can inform policy design for participatory planning and management processes, thereby supporting adaptive water resource management and ecosystem restoration.
ID: 3.223
Smart Irrigation in Practice: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Implementation
Marianne Kuntz
Abstract/Description
Digital sensor-based irrigation technologies have been successfully developed and tested in fruit and viticulture systems. Building on these experiences, ongoing experimental work within the project “Wasser-Pilot – Optimisation of irrigation in grassland farming, arable farming, fruit growing and viticulture” aims to adapt and evaluate these technologies for grassland and arable farming under practical field conditions, taking into account agronomic, economic, and operational aspects.
However, experiences from the South Tyrolean fruit and viticulture sector show that, despite the availability of technical solutions and robust scientific evidence, the large-scale implementation of digitally supported, demand-oriented irrigation remains limited. This suggests the presence of significant barriers to broader adoption, including concerns related to data security, the need to adjust established irrigation practices, economic uncertainties, and limited access to information and advisory services.
To better understand these challenges and address them in a structured way, a stakeholder workshop is being conducted to complement the experimental field work within the project, applying a PESTLE analysis approach. Representatives from agriculture, advisory services, research, administration, and technology providers jointly identify key external factors influencing the adoption of digital irrigation systems and explore potential solution pathways.
ID: 3.222
After the Ice: Co‑Creating a Science‑Based Water Future for the Ötztal
Jutta Kister
Abstract/Description
The CoWaVis project – “Water Availability and Use in a Deglaciated Ötztal: A Co-Creative Development of a Common Vision for the Future” is working on current and future water use in the high-alpine region in the context of global warming, and is working towards developing a shared vision for the future that takes the water needs of all stakeholders in a fair and balanced way. The project addresses changes in the availability and seasonal distribution of water in the future. At the same time, changed water requirements in the economic sectors of agriculture, tourism and energy production can be anticipated. Questions arise regarding the equitable distribution between economic demand and the retention of water within ecosystems and the landscape, as well as with regard to current and anticipated future social conflicts. Through a co-creative process with regional research partners, the aim is to develop an evidence-based, shared vision for the future of water availability and use in the Oetz Valley.
The interdisciplinary research team uses a variety of future-making techniques to open up a space for evidence-based discussion. Thus, the project is building up a strategy for water-related envisioning of the regional future. The project CoWaVis is funded by the Austrian Academy of Sciences and located at the University of Innsbruck.
Submitted Abstracts
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
Abstracts are only visible to (co-)chairs at the moment. Please log in with your account to see this list.
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
We are processing your request…Just a few seconds — thanks for your patience…Almost done — preparing everything for you…Huuuh… this seems to be a difficult thing 🤔I’m not sure if I can manage this right now…
Please refresh the page — I think something went wrong.
If this happens again, please get in touch with us.
