While researching different methods of Community based Disaster maagment and past education projects I read a very interesting article in the Bulletin of Volcanology (March 2004) on how Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) was used in Ambae Island, Vanuatu in order to allow scientist to understand important local perspectives while avoiding ‘top down’ plans imposed by previously by outside agencies. Past attempts at volcanic hazard awareness involved scientists visiting villages and showing video’s while distributing hazard maps in French and English.
However this did not lead to a better understanding of the hazards faced by the community because the maps contained to much geological information, which only served to confuse the local population. It was previous projects such as this this that caused mistrust among the community and further heightened when in 1995 an evacuation order was given, after increased activity at the crater, but an eruption did not ensue.
Consequently the PRA approach sought to be somewhat less dogmatic aiming to listen rather than lecture, while emphassising visual and diagrammatic techniques over verbal ones. This led to community mapping, followed by hazard mapping and the planning and discussion of evacuation routes. Most importantly, community hazard maps were simplified using three solid colours to indicate the principal hazards and the areas they were most likely to affect. Additionally the text was translated into Bislana (the local langauge).
Although the project was effective in many areas and the local population are no doubt better prepared, there were some interesting outcomes from the project that I would like to highlight and give thoughts on:
1. It was thought that ‘short and effective’ visits were best to undertake when carrying out the hazard mapping tasks so that it fitted in with community life, such as making funeral preparations, festival preparation and other normal events. I can see how this would be beneficial as one of the aims was not to be too intrusive. However, I wondered whether it would have been possible to hold yearly evacuation drills, even making a competition between villages to evacuate quicly and efficiently. Otherwise, there may be a danger that the work carried out would be slowly lost.
2. The society on Ambae is still extremely patriachal with a number of high ranking males (usually the head chief and assistant chiefs) making decisions about disaster management with no discussion or information sharing at all with women and children. Women only workshops highlighted this difference and many women reported that this is what has happened in the past when hazard warnings have been given by the authorities. This clearly places women and children at risk as they are not informed enough to make their own decisions about when to evacuate an area. The researchers working with the communities argued that including women and youths on the disaster committe improves the efficiency of transferring decision making deliberations to their sections of the community. What I found interesting was that although the researchers were trying to move away from ‘top down’ approaches, the community they were working with had there own ‘top down’ approach! For example, the chiefs communicating only with high ranking males who then made decisions about disaster risk, arguably placing the more vulnerable sections of their society - namely women and children most at risk!
Would it be possible to communicate with the chiefs the importance of full community participation in hazard management. How did the chiefs feel when ‘outsiders’ went to the crater without their permission when previously only high ranking males were allowed? It is most likely that they were marginalised in their own backyard and a parallel could be drawn between this and how women and children may feel in the community about disaster management that they are not involved in discussion. It could also be pointed out that when previous ‘experts’ in the form of visiting scientists ordered them to evacuate, some did not trust them and did not leave their homes.
What would have changed their minds?
Part of reducing hazard vulnerability is understanding the dangers, knowing how to evacuate and where to. If all sections of the community are aware of this, they can work together to overcome the difficulties and dangers presented by geohazard events.
What I am curious about now is whether this approach has now been taken in Vanuatu or in other communities that have such patriachal views? If anyone can help me out with this I will be interested and you can post a reply to this here
However this did not lead to a better understanding of the hazards faced by the community because the maps contained to much geological information, which only served to confuse the local population. It was previous projects such as this this that caused mistrust among the community and further heightened when in 1995 an evacuation order was given, after increased activity at the crater, but an eruption did not ensue.
Consequently the PRA approach sought to be somewhat less dogmatic aiming to listen rather than lecture, while emphassising visual and diagrammatic techniques over verbal ones. This led to community mapping, followed by hazard mapping and the planning and discussion of evacuation routes. Most importantly, community hazard maps were simplified using three solid colours to indicate the principal hazards and the areas they were most likely to affect. Additionally the text was translated into Bislana (the local langauge).
Although the project was effective in many areas and the local population are no doubt better prepared, there were some interesting outcomes from the project that I would like to highlight and give thoughts on:
1. It was thought that ‘short and effective’ visits were best to undertake when carrying out the hazard mapping tasks so that it fitted in with community life, such as making funeral preparations, festival preparation and other normal events. I can see how this would be beneficial as one of the aims was not to be too intrusive. However, I wondered whether it would have been possible to hold yearly evacuation drills, even making a competition between villages to evacuate quicly and efficiently. Otherwise, there may be a danger that the work carried out would be slowly lost.
2. The society on Ambae is still extremely patriachal with a number of high ranking males (usually the head chief and assistant chiefs) making decisions about disaster management with no discussion or information sharing at all with women and children. Women only workshops highlighted this difference and many women reported that this is what has happened in the past when hazard warnings have been given by the authorities. This clearly places women and children at risk as they are not informed enough to make their own decisions about when to evacuate an area. The researchers working with the communities argued that including women and youths on the disaster committe improves the efficiency of transferring decision making deliberations to their sections of the community. What I found interesting was that although the researchers were trying to move away from ‘top down’ approaches, the community they were working with had there own ‘top down’ approach! For example, the chiefs communicating only with high ranking males who then made decisions about disaster risk, arguably placing the more vulnerable sections of their society - namely women and children most at risk!
Would it be possible to communicate with the chiefs the importance of full community participation in hazard management. How did the chiefs feel when ‘outsiders’ went to the crater without their permission when previously only high ranking males were allowed? It is most likely that they were marginalised in their own backyard and a parallel could be drawn between this and how women and children may feel in the community about disaster management that they are not involved in discussion. It could also be pointed out that when previous ‘experts’ in the form of visiting scientists ordered them to evacuate, some did not trust them and did not leave their homes.
What would have changed their minds?
Part of reducing hazard vulnerability is understanding the dangers, knowing how to evacuate and where to. If all sections of the community are aware of this, they can work together to overcome the difficulties and dangers presented by geohazard events.
What I am curious about now is whether this approach has now been taken in Vanuatu or in other communities that have such patriachal views? If anyone can help me out with this I will be interested and you can post a reply to this here
