IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i3p37-d107949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Warning System Options for Landslide Risk: A Case Study in Upper Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Scolobig

    (Climate Policy Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Zurich 8092, Switzerland)

  • Monika Riegler

    (Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg 2361, Austria)

  • Philipp Preuner

    (Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg 2361, Austria)

  • JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer

    (Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg 2361, Austria)

  • David Ottowitz

    (Department of Geophysics, Geological Survey of Austria (GSA), Vienna 1030, Austria)

  • Stefan Hoyer

    (Department of Geophysics, Geological Survey of Austria (GSA), Vienna 1030, Austria)

  • Birgit Jochum

    (Department of Geophysics, Geological Survey of Austria (GSA), Vienna 1030, Austria)

Abstract

This paper explores warning system options in the landslide-prone community of Gmunden/Gschliefgraben in Upper Austria. It describes stakeholder perspectives on the technical, social, economic, legal and institutional characteristics of a warning system. The perspectives differ on issues such as responsibility allocation in decisions regarding warnings, technologies used for monitoring and forecasting, costs and financial aspects, open data policies and the role of the residents. Drawing on the theory of plural rationality and based on a desk study and interviews, stakeholder perspectives and discourses on the warning system problem and its solution were elicited. The perspectives formed the basis for the specification of three technical policy options for a warning system in Gschliefgraben: a minimal-cost and cost-effective system; a technical-expert system; and a resident-centered system. The case demonstrates the importance of accounting for a plurality of values and preferences and of giving voice to competing discourses in communities contemplating warning systems or other public good policies. This paper concludes that understanding the different and often conflicting perspectives and technical policy options is the starting point for formulating an agreed compromise for an effective warning system. We describe the compromise solution in an accompanying paper included in this Special Issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Scolobig & Monika Riegler & Philipp Preuner & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer & David Ottowitz & Stefan Hoyer & Birgit Jochum, 2017. "Warning System Options for Landslide Risk: A Case Study in Upper Austria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:3:p:37-:d:107949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/3/37/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/3/37/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Upasna Sharma & Anthony Patt, 2012. "Disaster warning response: the effects of different types of personal experience," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 60(2), pages 409-423, January.
    2. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    3. Roger Kasperson, 2014. "Four questions for risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1233-1239, November.
    4. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    5. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    6. Heather Lazrus & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom, 2016. "“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 411-427, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philipp Preuner & Anna Scolobig & JoAnne Linnerooth Bayer & David Ottowitz & Stefan Hoyer & Birgit Jochum, 2017. "A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philipp Preuner & Anna Scolobig & JoAnne Linnerooth Bayer & David Ottowitz & Stefan Hoyer & Birgit Jochum, 2017. "A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    3. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    4. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    5. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    6. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    7. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    8. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    9. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    10. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    11. Yuki Miura & Huda Qureshi & Chanyang Ryoo & Philip C. Dinenis & Jiao Li & Kyle T. Mandli & George Deodatis & Daniel Bienstock & Heather Lazrus & Rebecca Morss, 2021. "A methodological framework for determining an optimal coastal protection strategy against storm surges and sea level rise," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(2), pages 1821-1843, June.
    12. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    13. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    14. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    15. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    17. Upasna Sharma & Anna Scolobig & Anthony Patt, 2012. "The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(2), pages 1357-1371, November.
    18. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    19. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:3:p:37-:d:107949. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.