Community-driven disaster risk reduction: a case study of flood risk management in Brandon, MB, Canada

Author(s):  
Etsuko Yasui ◽  
Brian A. Kayes
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida Wallin

<p>Knowledge has been shown to be more effectively implemented in practice when produced in collaboration between researchers and other stakeholders as the co-produced knowledge is more likely to be accepted and found relevant. Knowledge co-production processes have however been found guilty of depoliticizing and hiding political struggles to the end of reinforcing existing unequal power relations and prevent broad societal transformation from taking place. From this perspective, knowledge co-production can come into conflict with participatory governance that focuses on the empowerment and capacity building of actors, social justice and advocacy. In this presentation I take a closer look at this conflictual perspective and propose a research focus on knowledge practices for exploring and analyzing participatory governance options for flood risk management (FRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). I do this by exemplifying and presenting a research design developed within the newly started PARADeS-project.</p><p>The PARADeS-project is a research project led by German research institutions in close collaboration with partners in Ghana and with the overall aim to contribute to enhancing Ghana’s national flood risk and disaster management strategy. Co-production of knowledge is foreseen to take place in several workshops including collaborative modelling, scenario- and policy back-casting exercises. One of the planned project outputs is a concept of participatory governance in FRM and DRR based on the findings from a stakeholder analysis, a policy network analysis and a participatory assessment of different policy options.</p><p>In this project context a research focus on stakeholders’ knowledge practices can be used to inform and improve the participatory governance concept and facilitate its implementation process. Knowledge is used by stakeholders as a powerful resource in suggesting certain policy options and convincing others of their necessity. Knowledge practices entail how actors use knowledge to argue, convince and make decisions. Through knowledge practices, stakeholders decide what knowledge to base decisions on and how to convince others of their position using that knowledge. What knowledge becomes accepted as legitimate in such interactions - often deliberative settings - can be decisive for the acceptability of any policy option. It is therefore important to study not only the different types of stakeholders and technical options for FRM and DRR, but the interaction between stakeholders and how they use information and co-create knowledge - the knowledge practices.</p><p>Within the presentation I discuss the proposed research design for how to study knowledge practices and how to make use of these findings when going from research project and co-production of knowledge to a concept of participatory governance in flood risk management and disaster risk reduction in Ghana.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1202-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiko Murase ◽  
◽  

Practical flood management depends on the extent to which the cost of taking risks is shared in a society among governments, interested parties, communities, and individuals. Risk management calls for identification, analysis, assessment, control, avoidance, minimization, or elimination of unacceptable risks through policies, procedures, and practices under three strategies for risk management: reduction, retention, and transfer. Flood risk management under a variety of uncertainties, such as the impacts of climate change, favors the implementation of flexible and adaptive management in top-down and bottom-up approaches. The former uses projections of global or spatially downscaled models to drive resource models and project impacts. The latter uses policy or planning tools to identify which changes in climate would most threaten their long-range plans or operations. Particularly for the bottom-up approaches, appropriate indicators that directly assess the flood risk of each area are essential. This study analyzes the international efforts of robust flood management from the top-down and bottom-up approaches, such as insurance and indicator and management systems, to seek incentive mechanisms for risk management. To implement international commitments, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, there are gaps in implementing a holistic approach to flood management strategies and, therefore, mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and addressing sustainable development. The robustness of flood management requires the capacity-building necessary to understand and sufficiently respond to flood hazards, vulnerabilities, and benefits as an important evolutionary link in the transition between implementing global development goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, and disaster risk-reduction activities. There are three challenges: data and information infrastructure, inter-disciplinary knowledge development, and trans-disciplinary policy.


Author(s):  
Kevin K. C. Hung ◽  
Sonoe Mashino ◽  
Emily Y. Y. Chan ◽  
Makiko K. MacDermot ◽  
Satchit Balsari ◽  
...  

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 placed human health at the centre of disaster risk reduction, calling for the global community to enhance local and national health emergency and disaster risk management (Health EDRM). The Health EDRM Framework, published in 2019, describes the functions required for comprehensive disaster risk management across prevention, preparedness, readiness, response, and recovery to improve the resilience and health security of communities, countries, and health systems. Evidence-based Health EDRM workforce development is vital. However, there are still significant gaps in the evidence identifying common competencies for training and education programmes, and the clarification of strategies for workforce retention, motivation, deployment, and coordination. Initiated in June 2020, this project includes literature reviews, case studies, and an expert consensus (modified Delphi) study. Literature reviews in English, Japanese, and Chinese aim to identify research gaps and explore core competencies for Health EDRM workforce training. Thirteen Health EDRM related case studies from six WHO regions will illustrate best practices (and pitfalls) and inform the consensus study. Consensus will be sought from global experts in emergency and disaster medicine, nursing, public health and related disciplines. Recommendations for developing effective health workforce strategies for low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries will then be disseminated.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Šakić Trogrlić ◽  
Grant Wright ◽  
Melanie Duncan ◽  
Marc van den Homberg ◽  
Adebayo Adeloye ◽  
...  

People possess a creative set of strategies based on their local knowledge (LK) that allow them to stay in flood-prone areas. Stakeholders involved with local level flood risk management (FRM) often overlook and underutilise this LK. There is thus an increasing need for its identification, documentation and assessment. Based on qualitative research, this paper critically explores the notion of LK in Malawi. Data was collected through 15 focus group discussions, 36 interviews and field observation, and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that local communities have a complex knowledge system that cuts across different stages of the FRM cycle and forms a component of community resilience. LK is not homogenous within a community, and is highly dependent on the social and political contexts. Access to LK is not equally available to everyone, conditioned by the access to resources and underlying causes of vulnerability that are outside communities’ influence. There are also limits to LK; it is impacted by exogenous processes (e.g., environmental degradation, climate change) that are changing the nature of flooding at local levels, rendering LK, which is based on historical observations, less relevant. It is dynamic and informally triangulated with scientific knowledge brought about by development partners. This paper offers valuable insights for FRM stakeholders as to how to consider LK in their approaches.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document