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

Anna Scolobig, Monika Riegler, Philipp Preuner, JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, David Ottowitz, Stefan Hoyer and Birgit Jochum
Additional contact information
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

Resources, 2017, vol. 6, issue 3, 1-19

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.

Keywords: warning system; landslide risk; technical policy option; stakeholder perspectives; warning communication and decision making (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/3/37/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/3/37/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:3:p:37-:d:107949

Access Statistics for this article

Resources is currently edited by Ms. Donchian Ma

More articles in Resources from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().