Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Policy responses to disaster risk199Box 8.4 How participatory is urban disaster assessment?It is possible to assess the extent to which disaster risk assessmentmethodologies are participatory according to the following threefeatures of participatory approaches:ProceduralThis differentiates approaches according to the relative distributionof power and ownership in the assessment process. At oneextreme are approaches that are initiated, planned and conductedby local actors at risk, who might also be the audience for, andowners of, the results. At the other extreme are assessments thatinclude local actors only as subjects of study or as sources of dataor future project inputs.MethodologicalThe chief distinction here is between the application of methods ofdata collection, aggregation and analysis that are quantitative orqualitative. It is often assumed that participatory approaches arepredominantly qualitative; but this is not always the case.Particularly where some aggregation and up-scaling of local surveySource: Pelling, forthcomingresults is desired for national policy, the collection of quantitativedata is included in participatory approaches. Qualitative methodsare useful for collecting information, especially with marginalizedpopulations; but this may, in turn, be aggregated for quantitativeanalysis.IdeologicalThis distinguishes between emancipatory and extractiveapproaches. Emancipatory approaches tend to see participatorywork as a long-term and iterative process, and as a mechanism forparticipants to reflect on the social, political and physical rootcauses of their vulnerability and level of resilience. This scope forreflection is sometimes given higher priority as an output than thegeneration of data for its own sake. Assessments might be initiatedand/or facilitated by non-local actors, but would become owned bythose at risk as empowerment takes hold. Extractive approachesare concerned primarily with the collection of data to be used byexternal actors, and are not intended to contribute to learningamong respondents.No single definitionfor participatory,risk assessmentexists at presentfor Action 2005–2015, 19 which states as a general consideration,that:Both communities and local authorities shouldbe empowered to manage and reduce disasterrisk by having access to the necessary information,resources and authority to implementactions for disaster risk reduction. (Section IIIA, point 13.f)Participatory approaches offer specific entry points for thisagenda.No single definition for participatory risk assessmentexists at present. Approaches are variously termed participatory,community based or local. 20 The lack of a singlenomenclature reflects the diversity of interests and agenciesinvolved with participatory approaches (and also thecontentiousness of meanings attributed to terms such asparticipation and community). However, a lack of commonunderstanding also opens this field of work to misplaced orexaggerated claims of participation, inclusiveness andempowerment.Some generalizations of contemporary participatoryrisk assessment can be made. Mainstream extractiveapproaches (e.g. disaster impact household assessments) tendto be quantitative, owned by the executing or funding agencyand not intended to confront existing power inequalities. Incontrast, participatory approaches claim to utilize qualitativemethods that produce data owned by the subjects of theresearch and contribute to local empowerment through theresearch process. However, the loose attribution of participatorystatus to various assessment methods has meant that thiscategory has also been widely used to describe interventionsthat may use quantitative methods, where the subjects of theresearch rarely own the outputs or set the research agenda,and with scant evidence on the contribution of methodologiesto the processes of empowerment.As shown in Box 8.4, three aspects of so-called participatoryapproaches that allow closer scrutiny of theparticipatory claim of risk assessment have been proposed. 21The procedural, methodological and ideological character ofan assessment tool will depend upon its strategic use (e.g. isit seen as a stand-alone tool or conceptualized as part of alarger suite of tools?), its conceptual orientation (is the aimto identify local vulnerabilities and capacities with respect toa specific hazard type, or to undertake a more generic assessment?)and the position of the observer (a local residentmight perceive the same tool very differently from an externalimplementer).Those who employ participatory methodologies thataim towards empowerment should be careful not to raisefalse expectations among participants. Participatory methodscan be counterproductive if they do not point to ways ofraising resources to reduce risk. Identifying the social, politicaland economic root causes of vulnerability is the first stepin making change; but resources and skills are needed tobuild and apply capacity for risk reduction. It might not bepossible to resolve a hazard in the short term; but the buildingof resilience through social capacity, information and riskawareness through local risk assessments are outcomes inthemselves. Box 8.5 shows an example from Lima (Peru),where a participatory methodology has contributed to thebuilding of resilience through the strengthening of localcapacity to undertake risk assessment.The range of options for strengthening localresilience, in which participatory risk assessments can play avaluable part, are discussed in more detail later in thesection on ‘Strengthening local disaster resilience’.Identifying thesocial, political andeconomic root causeof vulnerability isthe first step in…risk reduction