Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Policy responses to disaster risk
199
Box 8.4 How participatory is urban disaster assessment?
It is possible to assess the extent to which disaster risk assessment
methodologies are participatory according to the following three
features of participatory approaches:
Procedural
This differentiates approaches according to the relative distribution
of power and ownership in the assessment process. At one
extreme are approaches that are initiated, planned and conducted
by local actors at risk, who might also be the audience for, and
owners of, the results. At the other extreme are assessments that
include local actors only as subjects of study or as sources of data
or future project inputs.
Methodological
The chief distinction here is between the application of methods of
data collection, aggregation and analysis that are quantitative or
qualitative. It is often assumed that participatory approaches are
predominantly qualitative; but this is not always the case.
Particularly where some aggregation and up-scaling of local survey
Source: Pelling, forthcoming
results is desired for national policy, the collection of quantitative
data is included in participatory approaches. Qualitative methods
are useful for collecting information, especially with marginalized
populations; but this may, in turn, be aggregated for quantitative
analysis.
Ideological
This distinguishes between emancipatory and extractive
approaches. Emancipatory approaches tend to see participatory
work as a long-term and iterative process, and as a mechanism for
participants to reflect on the social, political and physical root
causes of their vulnerability and level of resilience. This scope for
reflection is sometimes given higher priority as an output than the
generation of data for its own sake. Assessments might be initiated
and/or facilitated by non-local actors, but would become owned by
those at risk as empowerment takes hold. Extractive approaches
are concerned primarily with the collection of data to be used by
external actors, and are not intended to contribute to learning
among respondents.
No single definition
for participatory,
risk assessment
exists at present
for Action 2005–2015, 19 which states as a general consideration,
that:
Both communities and local authorities should
be empowered to manage and reduce disaster
risk by having access to the necessary information,
resources and authority to implement
actions for disaster risk reduction. (Section III
A, point 13.f)
Participatory approaches offer specific entry points for this
agenda.
No single definition for participatory risk assessment
exists at present. Approaches are variously termed participatory,
community based or local. 20 The lack of a single
nomenclature reflects the diversity of interests and agencies
involved with participatory approaches (and also the
contentiousness of meanings attributed to terms such as
participation and community). However, a lack of common
understanding also opens this field of work to misplaced or
exaggerated claims of participation, inclusiveness and
empowerment.
Some generalizations of contemporary participatory
risk assessment can be made. Mainstream extractive
approaches (e.g. disaster impact household assessments) tend
to be quantitative, owned by the executing or funding agency
and not intended to confront existing power inequalities. In
contrast, participatory approaches claim to utilize qualitative
methods that produce data owned by the subjects of the
research and contribute to local empowerment through the
research process. However, the loose attribution of participatory
status to various assessment methods has meant that this
category has also been widely used to describe interventions
that may use quantitative methods, where the subjects of the
research rarely own the outputs or set the research agenda,
and with scant evidence on the contribution of methodologies
to the processes of empowerment.
As shown in Box 8.4, three aspects of so-called participatory
approaches that allow closer scrutiny of the
participatory claim of risk assessment have been proposed. 21
The procedural, methodological and ideological character of
an assessment tool will depend upon its strategic use (e.g. is
it seen as a stand-alone tool or conceptualized as part of a
larger suite of tools?), its conceptual orientation (is the aim
to identify local vulnerabilities and capacities with respect to
a specific hazard type, or to undertake a more generic assessment?)
and the position of the observer (a local resident
might perceive the same tool very differently from an external
implementer).
Those who employ participatory methodologies that
aim towards empowerment should be careful not to raise
false expectations among participants. Participatory methods
can be counterproductive if they do not point to ways of
raising resources to reduce risk. Identifying the social, political
and economic root causes of vulnerability is the first step
in making change; but resources and skills are needed to
build and apply capacity for risk reduction. It might not be
possible to resolve a hazard in the short term; but the building
of resilience through social capacity, information and risk
awareness through local risk assessments are outcomes in
themselves. Box 8.5 shows an example from Lima (Peru),
where a participatory methodology has contributed to the
building of resilience through the strengthening of local
capacity to undertake risk assessment.
The range of options for strengthening local
resilience, in which participatory risk assessments can play a
valuable part, are discussed in more detail later in the
section on ‘Strengthening local disaster resilience’.
Identifying the
social, political and
economic root cause
of vulnerability is
the first step in
…risk reduction