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

A Review of Studies on Participatory Early Warning Systems (P-EWS): Pathways to Support Citizen Science Initiatives

“…The authors stated that deliberative planning does not naturally result in sharing responsibilities, once the audience can have different opinions about their own engagement in the control and maintenance of the EWS. However, the deliberative planning was an effective platform for information and for shared ownership in the EWS (Preuner et al, 2017).…”

Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

“…There is a rich discourse in the field of volcanic risk governance that identifies many factors that drive the 'effectiveness' of communication (Leonard et al 2014;Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014;Doyle et al 2015;Christie et al 2015;Mothes et al 2015;Scolobig et al 2017;Preuner et al 2017).…”

“…Additional file 3 contains a complete time-line of iterative initiatives and associated published literature. Despite the paradigm shift noted above, advances in expert and academia-driven Mode-1 science have not been matched by corresponding improvements in communication practices that help decision-makers to make more informed risk-mitigation decisions and better use of risk-mitigation arrangements (IFRC 2015;Preuner et al 2017;Scolobig et al 2017). Critics of traditional linear models (including US/ NRC 1996; Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014;Preuner et al 2017;Scolobig et al 2017) have argued that those models: 1. failed to address the questions that users see as relevant or to reflect the perspectives and concerns of risk management stakeholders (often described as including 'public officials', 'interested and affected parties', and 'at-risk individuals'); 2. communicated unhelpful scientific information to decision-makers leading them to make unwise decisions; 3. confined scientific analysis to good characterisations of volcanic behaviour; 4. failed to identify the need for, and/or inappropriately restricted, stakeholder participation; and 5.…”

“…• People-focussed; and • Related the competencies needed by scientists for continuous 'adaptation' rather than continuous 'improvement' during all phases of knowledge production. Weinberg 1972;Bartley 1971;Gibbons et al 1994;US/NRC 1996;Shackley and Wynne 1996;Grabill and Simmons 1998;Nowotny 2003;Van Nuffelen 2004;Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006;Renn 2008;Hessels and Lente 2008;Wachinger and Renn 2010;Stirling 2010;OECD 2015;Preuner et al 2017;Scolobig et al 2017;Papale 2017. testing scientific assessments and products (such as volcanic hazards assessments) exist and can be readily found. They allude indirectly to the problem of quality 'standard equivocality' that was considered by Bretton et al (2015) who: (1) argued that objectively measuring the methodological rigour of volcanic hazard assessments (i.e.…”

Supporting participative pre‐flood risk reduction in a UNESCO biosphere

“…Existing institutional arrangements must be questioned, and in some cases, responsibility must be assigned to citizens (Scolobig, Prior, Schröter, Jörin, & Patt, 2015). Conversely, the public must be prepared to share responsibility and information with authorities; paradoxically, the public may not always see their own involvement as a positive development (Preuner et al, 2017). Moreover, conflicts between public and private interests may emerge compromising accountability and decision-making.…”