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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Mendonca, Marcos Barreto de & Gullo, Fernanda Teles, 2020. "Landslide risk perception survey in Angra dos Reis (Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil): A contribution to support planning of non structural measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Maria Pettersson & Marleen van Rijswick & Cathy Suykens & Meghan Alexander & Kristina Ek & Sally Priest, 2017. "Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 929-944, November.
    12. James S. Gruber & Jason L. Rhoades & Michael Simpson & Latham Stack & Leslie Yetka & Robert Wood, 2017. "Enhancing climate change adaptation: strategies for community engagement and university-community partnerships," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(1), pages 10-24, March.
    13. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," 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. 80(3), pages 1515-1537, February.
    14. Lauren Rickards & John Wiseman & Taegen Edwards & Che Biggs, 2014. "The Problem of Fit: Scenario Planning and Climate Change Adaptation in the Public Sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(4), pages 641-662, August.
    15. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    16. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    17. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Nicolas Rossignol & Pierre Delvenne & Catrinel Turcanu, 2015. "Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 129-141, January.
    19. Bernd Klauer & Martin Drechsler & Frank Messner, 2006. "Multicriteria Analysis under Uncertainty with IANUS—Method and Empirical Results," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 235-256, April.
    20. Diana MacCallum & Jason Byrne & Wendy Steele, 2014. "Whither Justice? An Analysis of Local Climate Change Responses from South East Queensland, Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(1), pages 70-92, February.

    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.