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.

No abstract

No abstract

<p>A consensus is emerging that restoring the fire-adapted forest ecology through nature-based solutions (NBS), such as prioritizing fire-resistant vegetation, promoting less fire-prone forests, enabling grazing by herbivores in areas facing land abandonment, prescribed burns, and restricted or risk-adapted development in wildlands, can reduce the risk of extreme wildfires. This paradigm shift away from fire suppression towards a fire loss-prevention strategy is urgently needed. The question is whether risk financing strategies, especially insurance, can untap the potential for promoting NBS, for example, by providing protection in case of damages from livestock grazing or prescribed burns, or by giving discounts to forest owners and homeowners that pursue ecological fire-prevention measures. Additionally, insurers can provide (parametric) policies that repair ecological damage, for example, for coral reefs after extreme storms, or policies that transfer the construction or liability risk of NBS. Since wildfire mitigation is to a large extent collective, another potential policy option to support NBS is community-based insurance strategies. This presentation will explore the opportunities and constraints for public and private insurers to support NBS for wildfire risk management. It reflects on-going research in three recently funded Horizon Europe projects: (<em>Cross sector dialogue for wildfire risk management</em> (FireLogue), <em>Building a safe haven for climate extremes</em> (The HuT), and <em>Nature for insurance and insurance for nature</em> (NATURANCE).</p>