Review ArticleTowards people-centred approaches for effective disaster risk management: Balancing rhetoric with reality
Introduction
Top-down approaches to disaster risk management (DRM) have formed the basis for managing the consequences of natural hazards [1], [2]. These approaches were typically deployed by government organisations specifically established with technical capacities and expertise, and with a centralised and hierarchical model of management. However, the last decades have seen extensive discussions about the most appropriate ways to manage the potential consequences of natural hazards and to transform disaster risk reduction policies towards more pro-active investments in prevention and preparedness [3], [4], [5], [6]. There have been moves away from this top-down, ‘command and control’ style of DRM to approaches that are ‘people-centred’ and include, among others, increased stakeholder participation, responsibility shifts from the authorities to the public, greater transparency in risk/uncertainty communication and social/institutional capacity building [1], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Compared to the past, when DRM agencies focused on safety regulations on the one hand and ex-post recovery on the other, agencies following this ‘people-centred’ approach now seek to transfer a great deal of risk management responsibility from the government to the citizens, demanding that the latter take precautionary actions that are appropriate for their unique situations.
At the same time, the way in which the consequences of natural hazards are managed is slowly adapting to suit a number of changing environmental, economic, technological, social and institutional circumstances. These include, for example, increased frequency of extreme events, climate change and an over-stressed environment, increasing population and urban development in metropolitan areas, the new impacts of modern information and communication technologies, and social media [3], [13], [14].
We begin with a description of top-down approaches in the context of these changing circumstances, then describe the key characteristics of novel approaches to DRM decision making, which are increasingly advocated by international organisations and national governments. These people-centred approaches are based on the assumption that involving people in risk decisions empowers them, encourages ownership, responsibility, and participation. This may result in more effective DRM outcomes [8], [9], [11]. There is no one form of people-centred DRM, and variation depends on factors like: the way emphasis is placed on public participation for the design of risk mitigation options, emergency plans or warning systems; how the adoption of precautionary actions at the household level is advocated; or, if emphasis is placed on new risk communication strategies.
To highlight a variety of issues that (if not adequately addressed), could hinder the application of people centred approaches, we present the results of three case studies [6], [7], [11], [12]. We focus especially on the challenges related to responsibility sharing between the authorities and the public: to what extent government agencies have handed over real responsibility? Does this match the desire and the capacity of citizens to take responsibility? Our analysis shows that changing responsibility allocation and expectations between the authorities and the public involves a long process, which must be supported by adequate resources, but also political will, legislative frameworks, knowledge, and willingness to collaborate in new and different ways.
Section snippets
Traditional models and changing circumstances
While the history of risk management is a long and convoluted one, only by the late 1970s had governments begun to truly institutionalise disaster risk management processes and practices [15], [16]. This new organisation of DRM came on the back of real and perceived progress related to how well risks could be known: risk measurement, analyses, and management processes and practices were developed and systematised. It was also influenced by the accurate belief that dedicating intellectual,
People-centred approaches
A people-centred approach, where the public is a central element and resource in disaster risk management (e.g. [8], [9], [12]), represents a paradigmatic shift from the top-down, traditional models of disaster risk management described in section two. This shift has manifested over the last 20 years in response to increasing calls from international organisations, civil society, and more recently from academia. The historical roots of the approach in DRM can be traced back to intergovernmental
Illustrating the hurdles of people-centred approaches
In this section, we report on recent instructive examples that illustrate the challenges, or ‘hurdles’, related to implementing the people-centred approach in practical situations. We present three case studies from the natural hazard sector that are not necessarily people-centred approaches, but from which insights can be drawn to understand why undertaking people-centred approaches in DRM may be difficult. Two criteria were drawn on in selecting the case studies: first, while they may not be
Discussion and conclusions
In this paper we have explored the key characteristics of, and the differences between, top-down and people-centred approaches. We present three case studies in an attempt to understand some of the practical reasons why local involvement in DRM has not progressed in the kind of trajectory envisioned in international DRR frameworks. Our cases suggest that changing interactions between stakeholders are at the forefront of the ‘hurdles’ to achieving people-centred outcomes. These challenges can be
Acknowledgements
This article draws on results of two different projects: the Integrated Project Floodsite (http://www.floodsite.net), Integrated flood risk analysis and management methodologies (EC Sixth Framework Programme) and Safeland (http://www.safeland-fp7.eu/Pages/SafeLand.aspx) Living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies (EC Seventh Framework Programme). The paper reflects the authors' views and not those of the European Community. Neither
References (60)
- et al.
Emerging approaches to hydrological risk management in a changing world, in: Climate Vulnerability: Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources
(2013)Pielke R. et al. book url... - et al.
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
Summary for policymakers
Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process 1
Risk Anal.
(1995)- et al.
Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions
(2007) Disaster preparedness: a social cognitive perspective
Disaster Prev. Manag.
(2003)- et al.
Understanding the context: the value of community engagement in bushfire risk communication and education
Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud.
(2008) Emergency command systems and major earthquake disasters
JSEE—J. Seismol. Earthq. Eng.
(2008)Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation
- World Bank, World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity – Managing Risk for Development,...