Complex environmental problems affect multiple policy sectors, decision-making levels and territories simultaneously and, as such, call for encompassing policy solutions. However, no consensus exists on how encompassing policy solutions are designed. A trade-off persists between single instruments, leading to sectoral “silo” thinking and complex instrument mixes, constituting the risk of not being implemented due to actors' objections. Policy designs, including balanced policy mixes, can fulfil various goals, interests and priorities; address numerous challenges; and involve multiple actors. Such balanced policy mixes, however, can only manage complex environmental problems successfully when supported by actors belonging to different sectors, levels and territories. This study therefore analyses the political feasibility of balanced instrument mixes via actors' policy preferences in the case of Swiss flood risk management. Public and private actors involved in flood risk management are surveyed on their preferred instrument mixes. Based on these preference data, the political feasibility of instrument mixes is evaluated by combining the number (density) and coerciveness (intensity) of instruments with the balance of different instrument types (balance) in an index. Results indicate that actors' preferences for a balanced instrument mix are weak. In particular, actors' roles and sectoral interests in the policy design process influence their preferences. These findings suggest that policy mixes, including simple, minimally intervening and sector-specific flood risk management instruments, are more likely to be politically feasible than balanced instrument mixes. Therefore, traditional “silo” thinking continues to outweigh encompassing policy solutions and impedes possible steps towards an integrated flood risk management approach in Switzerland.

中文翻译：

---

瑞士洪水风险管理的政治：工具组合的政治可行性

复杂的环境问题同时影响多个政策部门、决策层和领土，因此需要综合性的政策解决方案。然而，对于如何设计包含性的政策解决方案，尚未达成共识。单一工具之间的权衡仍然存在，导致部门“孤岛”思维和复杂的工具组合，构成了由于参与者的反对而无法实施的风险。政策设计，包括平衡的政策组合，可以实现各种目标、利益和优先事项；应对众多挑战；并涉及多个参与者。然而，这种平衡的政策组合只有在属于不同部门、级别和领土的参与者的支持下才能成功管理复杂的环境问题。因此，在瑞士洪水风险管理的情况下，本研究通过参与者的政策偏好分析了平衡工具组合的政治可行性。参与洪水风险管理的公共和私人参与者接受了他们首选的工具组合的调查。基于这些偏好数据，结合数字（工具的密度）和矫顽力（强度）与指标中不同工具类型的平衡（平衡）。结果表明，演员对平衡乐器组合的偏好较弱。特别是，参与者在政策设计过程中的角色和部门利益会影响他们的偏好。这些发现表明，政策组合，包括简单的、干预最少的和特定部门的洪水风险管理工具，比平衡的工具组合更有可能在政治上可行。因此，传统的“筒仓”思维继续超过包含政策解决方案的重要性，并阻碍了瑞士采用综合洪水风险管理方法的可能步骤。