IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i4p54-d114021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Preuner

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

  • Anna Scolobig

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

  • JoAnne Linnerooth Bayer

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

  • David Ottowitz

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

  • Stefan Hoyer

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

  • Birgit Jochum

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

Abstract

During a participatory process in Gmunden, Austria, the organizational and responsibility-sharing arrangements for a landslide warning system proved to be contested issues. While questions on the warning system technology and the distribution of information, including the alarm for evacuation, could be resolved with the support of experts, controversies arose on the financial and legal responsibilities that ensure long-term and effective monitoring for the protection of the landslide-prone community. This paper examines how responsibilities can be shared among the residents, experts, and public authorities during the design and operation of landslide warning systems. In particular, we discuss the outcome and implications of three stakeholder workshops where participants deliberated on warning-system options that, in turn, were based on a discourse analysis of extensive stakeholder interviews. The results of the case study show that an end-user orientation requires the consideration of stakeholder worldviews, interests, and conflicts. Paradoxically, the public did not fully support their own involvement in the maintenance and control of the warning system, but the authorities promoted shared responsibility. Deliberative planning does not then necessarily lead to responsibility sharing, but it proved effective as a platform for information and for shared ownership in the warning system.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:54-:d:114021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/54/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/54/
    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. Andrea Damm & Katharina Eberhard & Jan Sendzimir & Anthony Patt, 2013. "Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria," 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. 69(1), pages 165-183, October.
    3. Olivia Patterson & Frederick Weil & Kavita Patel, 2010. "The Role of Community in Disaster Response: Conceptual Models," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(2), pages 127-141, April.
    4. Newig, Jens & Kochskämper, Elisa & Challies, Edward & Jager, Nicolas W., 2016. "Exploring governance learning: How policymakers draw on evidence, experience and intuition in designing participatory flood risk planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 353-360.
    5. 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.
    6. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    9. Challies, Edward & Newig, Jens & Thaler, Thomas & Kochskämper, Elisa & Levin-Keitel, Meike, 2016. "Participatory and collaborative governance for sustainable flood risk management: An emerging research agenda," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 275-280.
    10. Roger Few & Katrina Brown & Emma L. Tompkins, 2007. "Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 46-59, January.
    11. Löschner, Lukas & Nordbeck, Ralf & Scherhaufer, Patrick & Seher, Walter, 2016. "Scientist–stakeholder workshops: A collaborative approach for integrating science and decision-making in Austrian flood-prone municipalities," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 345-352.
    12. Thaler, Thomas & Levin-Keitel, Meike, 2016. "Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 292-301.
    13. De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
    14. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Yaoyao Wu & Hao Guo & Jing’ai Wang, 2018. "Quantifying the Similarity in Perceptions of Multiple Stakeholders in Dingcheng, China, on Agricultural Drought Risk Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    5. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    6. Robert Osei-Kyei & Vivian W. Y. Tam & Ursa Komac & Godslove Ampratwum, 2023. "Review of the Relationship Management Strategies for Building Flood Disaster Resilience through Public–Private Partnership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Xu, Ying & Findlay, Christopher, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: Evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    8. 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.
    9. Raissa Sorgho & Carlos A. Montenegro Quiñonez & Valérie R. Louis & Volker Winkler & Peter Dambach & Rainer Sauerborn & Olaf Horstick, 2020. "Climate Change Policies in 16 West African Countries: A Systematic Review of Adaptation with a Focus on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-21, November.
    10. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    11. Melanie Rock & Gwendolyn Blue, 2020. "Healthy publics as multi-species matters: solidarity with people’s pets in One Health promotion," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Tubridy, Fiadh & Lennon, Mick & Scott, Mark, 2022. "Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: The environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Gurib-Fakim, A. & Smith, L. & Acikgoz, N. & Avato, P. & Bossio, Deborah & Ebi, K. & Goncalves, A. & Heinemann, J. A. & Herrmann, T. M. & Padgham, J. & Pennarz, J. & Scheidegger, U. & Sebastian, L. & T, 2009. "Options to enhance the impact of AKST on development and sustainability goals," IWMI Books, Reports H042792, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Ying Xu & Christopher Findlay, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), pages 866-880, October.
    16. Ebrahim Ahmadisharaf & Alfred J. Kalyanapu & Eun-Sung Chung, 2017. "Sustainability-Based Flood Hazard Mapping of the Swannanoa River Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Vizinho, André & Avelar, David & Fonseca, Ana Lúcia & Carvalho, Silvia & Sucena-Paiva, Leonor & Pinho, Pedro & Nunes, Alice & Branquinho, Cristina & Vasconcelos, Ana Cátia & Santos, Filipe Duarte & Ro, 2021. "Framing the application of Adaptation Pathways for agroforestry in Mediterranean drylands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    19. David M. Iwaniec & Elizabeth M. Cook & Olga Barbosa & Nancy B. Grimm, 2019. "The Framing of Urban Sustainability Transformations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-10, January.
    20. Ulf Stein & Benedict Bueb & Gabrielle Bouleau & Gaële Rouillé-Kielo, 2023. "Making Urban Water Management Tangible for the Public by Means of Digital Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.

    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:4:p:54-:d:114021. 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.