Having read chapter sent to me by John Twigg on Education, Information and Communications on geohazards, I have had some thoughts and have made some annotations to the text.
• It is important to understand the community one is seeking to help. This is more than just knowing a little about the culture, any project needs to communicate with local population what their needs, priorities and indigenous knowledge and capacity.
• Although risk management and education about risks posed is important, but must be informed by communities experience and perception of the risk. There is probably an argument therefore of setting up education projects while having a close dialogue with local population.
• Visualisation, talk and modelling etc are the best ways to analyse and transmit knowledge. Is it also possible to get local people involved in the measurement, monitoring of hazards – i.e. appointing someone to be responsible for looking for warning signs and communicating dangers at the local level. (same principal as putting seismographs in UK and US schools – i.e. it generates interest and provokes people into wanting to find out more…However it is important that this information is available and accessible when the time comes.
• There is an argument that vulnerable people can explain their perspectives clearly to outsiders if given the opportunity to do so…How did Kubilay find this in Pakistan? What was the most effective method? Workshops? Talking/Meetings? Teaching? Informal chats?
• Many disaster programmes should include communications and awareness raising: Public Education is often undertaken by people without special training or skills which results in ‘fragmented, one-off, short-term interventions’. Education therefore needs to be an ongoing basis, developing over time as local knowledge becomes moiré sophisticated’.
No comments:
Post a Comment