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

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

Resources, 2017, vol. 6, issue 4, 1-16

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.

Keywords: warning system; landslide risk; technical-policy option; responsibility sharing; public participation; 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:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/54/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/54/ (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:4:p:54-:d:114021

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 ().