Search results1 – 10 of over 1000
Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) initiatives have strong roots in Philippine society not only because of the country's contributory vulnerability to…
Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) initiatives have strong roots in Philippine society not only because of the country's contributory vulnerability to disasters but also because of a culture of community cooperation known as bayanihan and a history of social movement driven by the citizens’ discontent with bad governance leading to social injustice and environmental degradation (Heijmans, 2009). CBDRM in the Philippines has been a mechanism for change within civil society (Allen, 2006; Heijmans, 2009). In this way, community-based approaches are a fundamental form of empowerment of participants and a compelling strategy for enforcing the transmission of ideas and claims from the bottom up (Allen, 2006).
This paper aims to explore how different risk perceptions of experts, institutions and laymen have to be taken into consideration if non-governmental organizations and…
This paper aims to explore how different risk perceptions of experts, institutions and laymen have to be taken into consideration if non-governmental organizations and donors want to include the community in disaster risk reduction. Otherwise, community-based disaster risk management will not be community-based.
This research is based on an intensive literature review, as well as a four-month felt study in Kathmandu (November 2011-February 2012). This study explores, from a social constructive point of view, the relationship among international, national and local actors in the effort to conduct disaster risk reduction in Nepal through a community-based approach.
The Kathmandu Valley is at risk of being hit by an earthquake at anytime. If an earthquake hits, it will cause total devastation. Although the Nepalese are aware of the risks of a potential earthquake, very few have begun preparations. The author finds that the lack of preparation is partly caused by different risk perceptions among experts, institutions and laymen.
Involving the community in disaster risk reduction today is widely accepted as the right way to work with disaster risk reduction. But, rarely the question is made: are we really involving the community by taking their risk perception serious, and not just accepting the risk perceptions from experts and institutions of science as being the right way to perceive disaster risk. The author finds that there is a tendency to ignore the community in community-based earthquake preparedness in Nepal.
Understanding bottom-up approaches including local coping mechanisms, recognizing them and strengthening community capacities is important in the process of disaster risk…
Understanding bottom-up approaches including local coping mechanisms, recognizing them and strengthening community capacities is important in the process of disaster risk reduction. The purpose of this paper is to address the questions: to what extent existing disaster policies in Nepal support and enable community-based disaster resilience? and what challenges and prospects do the communities have in responding to disaster risk for making communities resilient?
This paper is based on policy and academic literature reviews complimented by field research in two communities, one in Shankhu, Kathmandu district and another in Satthighare, Kavrepalanchowk district in Nepal. The author conducted in-depth interviews and mapped out key disaster-related policies of Nepal to investigate the role of communities in disaster risk management and post-disaster activities and their recognition in disaster-related policies.
The author found that existing literature clearly identifies the importance of the community led initiatives in risks reduction and management. It is evolutionary phenomenon, which has already been piloted in history including in the aftermath of Nepal earthquake 2015 yet existing policies of Nepal do not clearly identify it as an important component by providing details of how communities can be better engaged in the immediate aftermath of disaster occurrence.
The author conducted this research based on data from two earthquake affected areas only. The author believes that this research can still play an important role as representative study.
The practical implication of this research is that communities need to understand about risks society for disaster preparedness, mitigation and timely response in the aftermath of disasters. As they are the first responders against the disasters, they also need trainings such as disaster drills such as earthquakes, floods and fire and mock practice of various early warning systems can be conducted by local governments to prepare these communities better to reduce disaster risk and casualties.
The mantra of community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) is community engagement, which means the involvement of local people to understand and prepare against their local hazards and risks associated with disaster and haphazard development. CBDRM approaches motivate people to work together because they feel a sense of belongingness to their communities and recognize the benefits of their involvement in disaster mitigation and preparedness. Clearly, community engagement for disaster risk reduction and management brings great benefits in terms of ownership and direct savings in losses from disasters because the dynamic process allows community to contribute and interchange ideas and activities for inclusive decision making and problem solving.
This research is based on both primary and secondary data and original in case of its findings and conclusion.
Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) has been recognized since the mid-1990s. However, in the changing environment of the new millennium and the move toward…
Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) has been recognized since the mid-1990s. However, in the changing environment of the new millennium and the move toward disaster risk reduction (DRR), the community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) has been evolving in recent years. In Vietnam, many projects and programs in CBDRR have been carried out since the year 2000, and these programs tried to increase the resilience of the most vulnerable villages and communes. These projects aim to strengthen the capacity of the communities to become more aware and responsive to their short-and long-term needs through participatory risk assessment and identification, prioritization, and implementation of risk reduction measures.
The community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) approach has been taken by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as a common approach to build resilient communities in…
The community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) approach has been taken by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as a common approach to build resilient communities in their disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts. The approach has been initially implemented in the developing world by NGOs, followed by international organizations like the International Federations of Red Cross and Red Crescent (Benson, Twigg, & Myers, 2001; Maceda, Gaillard, Stasiak, Le Masson, & Le Berre, 2009). The approach is now increasingly promoted among local governments in order to strengthen the links between the official disaster management system and community-based organizations (Kafle & Murshed, 2006). There are many case studies of DRR projects with community-based approaches by NGOs and local governments, and there are many variations as well (Heijmans, 2009).
According to the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) (2008), Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country to natural hazards and disasters due to its geography, high…
According to the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) (2008), Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country to natural hazards and disasters due to its geography, high population density, and poverty. The country is exposed to a variety of recurring natural hazards such as floods, cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, and riverbank erosion (Ministry of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM), 2007). Furthermore, Harmeling (2010) mentioned that Bangladesh heads the list of countries most at risk for floods. Bangladesh has suffered from 93 large-scale natural disasters in the period from 1991 to 2000 that killed 0.2 million people and caused loss of property valued at about 59 billion dollars in the agriculture and infrastructure sectors (Climate Change Cell, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Bangladesh, 2009). Fig. 1 represents different natural hazard-prone areas of Bangladesh.
Disaster management agencies are mandated to reduce risk for the populations that they serve. Yet, inequities in how they function may result in their activities creating…
Disaster management agencies are mandated to reduce risk for the populations that they serve. Yet, inequities in how they function may result in their activities creating disaster risk, particularly for already vulnerable and marginalized populations. In this article, how disaster management agencies create disaster risk for vulnerable and marginalized groups is examined, seeking to show the ways existing policies affect communities, and provide recommendations on policy and future research.
The authors undertook a systematic review of the US disaster management agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), examining its programs through a lens of equity to understand how they shape disaster risk.
Despite a growing commitment to equity within FEMA, procedural, distributive, and contextual inequities result in interventions that perpetuate and amplify disaster risk for vulnerable and marginalized populations. Some of these inequities could be remediated by shifting toward a more bottom-up approach to disaster management, such as community-based disaster risk reduction approaches.
Disaster management agencies and other organizations can use the results of this study to better understand how to devise interventions in ways that limit risk creation for vulnerable populations, including through community-based approaches.
This study is the first to examine disaster risk creation from an organizational perspective, and the first to focus explicitly on how disaster management agencies can shape risk creation. This helps understand the linkages between disaster risk creation, equity and organizations.
The importance of community-based organizations to support relief works in the aftermath of disasters is widely recognized as indispensable in providing quickly the needed…
The importance of community-based organizations to support relief works in the aftermath of disasters is widely recognized as indispensable in providing quickly the needed help for affected populations (Bajek, Matsuda, & Okada, 2008; Nagasaka, 2008; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008; Shaw & Goda, 2004; Suzuki, 2006). Although communities’ involvement in rescue operations is essential, their role in rehabilitation and future disaster preparedness activities is equally important in the process of forming a disaster-resilient society (Nagasaka, 2008). Furthermore, the level of interaction between local authorities and communities within different phases (preparedness, relief, and rehabilitation) of the disaster management cycle requires attention to effectively implement community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR).
Definition of community varies based on its perspective. Many people describe community in different ways. McMillan & Chavis (1986) described community as “a feeling that…
Definition of community varies based on its perspective. Many people describe community in different ways. McMillan & Chavis (1986) described community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together.” This definition is preferred in the current context because of its general nature. Community includes not only the people living in a certain location, but also the local government, local business sectors, local academic bodies, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) (Shaw, 2006a).