Deliberative-Analytic Processes for Participatory Warning System Design for Landslide Hazards in Sitka, AK: Theory and Implementation

Abstract:

Evolving disaster risk reduction practices stress the importance of bottom-up, community, or ‘people-centered’ designs for risk reduction on the theory that such processes improve both the legitimacy and sustainability of risk management and risk reduction processes. Such warning systems are expected to engage with four elements: risk knowledge, monitoring and warning, dissemination and communication, and response capability. One way to achieve these goals is through development of what are known as participatory early warning systems. However, current literature lacks studies focused on debris flows of the type that occur in Sitka, and primarily use consultative approaches to community participation (eg. surveys and interviews) (Marchezini et al., 2018).

This paper applies theories of participatory warning system design to an evolving landslide warning system in Sitka, Alaska which utilizes a deliberative-analytic process derived from decision-making under deep uncertainty (DMDU) methods to inform system design through a series of community workshops. Other core elements of the system include an innovative network of moisture sensors installed in the hills (see Patton et al.), as well as citizen science-based data collection and analysis (see Siebert et al.).

First, the paper reviews the history of the relationships between the project team and the community, evolution of the intended participatory design process from initial proposal through the design of two in-person workshops and discusses changes in the proposed design of the warning system over time. It interrogates a shift in participant preferences for warning system which occurred the first and second workshops and develops several alternative hypotheses about the ways the structure of the workshops, participants, and types of information presented might have influenced discussion and preferences among participants. Finally, we reflect on the ways in which this approach embodies principles of participatory warning system design discussed in the literature and suggest improvements for future practice.