Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk reduction: the contribution of participatory mapping

Abstract

Integrating scientific and local knowledge within disaster risk reduction (DRR) using methods that encourage knowledge exchange and two-way dialogue is a difficult yet important task. This article shows how participatory mapping can help in fostering integrative DRR through the involvement of a large range of stakeholders. It draws on a project conducted in the municipality of Masantol, Philippines that is regularly affected by flooding and other natural hazards. Participatory 3-Dimensional Mapping, or P3DM, has been used for both risk assessment and DRR planning. P3DM facilitates the interpretation, assimilation and understanding of geo-referenced data by making them visible and tangible to everyone. Given that maps are scaled and geo-referenced, P3DM also helps in incorporating both local and scientific knowledge through a two-way dialogue in DRR.Plate 3 Disaster risk reduction plan designed for the village of Sapang Kawayan,

Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards

“…The, often tacit, knowledge that groups and individuals use to frame dimensions of uncertainty are fluid products of ongoing decisionmaking, shared experiences and assumptions and broader mental models. Community-based disaster risk management and other participatory approaches provide mechanisms by which to incorporate this plurality of perspectives into the co-production of knowledge (Williams and Dunn 2003;Cronin et al 2004;Gaillard 2006;Cadag and Gaillard 2014). Similarly, joint fact-finding techniques can be employed to help groups work through science-intensive policy and planning disputes to create a shared vision and inform collective decision-making, even in situations with high degrees of uncertainty (Karl, Susskind, and Wallace 2007;Schenk 2016).…”

Decision-Making: Preventing Miscommunication and Creating Shared Meaning Between Stakeholders

“…Throughout this chapter we focus on the response phase of a crisis. There are however many other complementary approaches to enhance risk communication with communities living with volcanic risk, which we do not consider here, including community-based disaster risk management and other participatory techniques (see review in Barclay et al 2008; and also Williams and Dunn 2003;Cronin et al 2004;Gaillard 2006;Cadag and Gaillard 2014).…”

Challenges of Volcanic Crises on Small Islands States

“…Activities to engage citizens in the science emerged to a large degree in the three case studies, suggesting that further possibilities be investigated, based on literature and past work in this area (e.g. Cadag and Gaillard 2012;DFID 2003;Kelman et al 2015;Mercer and Kelman 2010;Texier-Teixeira et al 2013). Examples of activities are collecting data, mapping exposure and vulnerability, assisting with communication, and organising town hall meetings between scientists and citizens-all of which should happen before a crisis so that a crisis simply continues this work and the long-standing relationships, rather than starting anew during the most difficult time period.…”