THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE IN NATURAL DISASTER …



THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE IN NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT– Who and How?

Melanie Griffin

University of Massachusetts – Boston

Improving the scientific basis of disaster management policy has long focused on improving the underlying science as well as the formal connections between science/scientists and policy/policymakers. The democratic framework of government in the United States clouds this simple dichotomous boundary between science and policy by emphasizing social components. Individuals contextualize scientific “truth” and ensuing policies through their own experience and understanding making local knowledge, thereby becomes as important a component of improving disaster management as expert (scientific) knowledge.

To fully assess the contributions that local knowledge could make to improving disaster management the current paradigm that bases decisions primarily on expert knowledge is explored. Differences between local and expert knowledge are then identified with respect to their potential contributions to disaster management. Processes for incorporating local knowledge are then discussed with an eye to areas ripe for further research.

Knowledge & Disaster Management

In order to improve disaster management one must first understand the components of a disaster and how they interact with knowledge systems (both expert and local). Disasters arise out of the interaction between a natural hazard and human vulnerability (Figure 1). In other words, natural disasters cannot arise simply out of natural forces, but must interact with social organizations to result in disaster, a normative concept.

[pic]

Figure 1. Components of a natural disaster.

Clearly, the natural, physical and social sciences provide valuable knowledge regarding hazards and vulnerability, but disasters have a social component comprised of norms, values and perceptions (Rodriguez, Diaz, & Aguiree 2004). As a society then, and especially as policymakers attempting to mitigate natural disasters, we must gain a comprehension of the social context of natural disasters that goes beyond the empirical, beyond technological fixes and predictive capacity. Scientific expertise is one tool by which we may understand these components, but what other knowledge systems may prove useful?

Local versus Expert Knowledge

One manner in which we may improve our ability to explore the social context of natural disasters is to incorporate greater local knowledge. Much literature has focused on the ability of local actors to improve the legitimacy, credibility and saliency of science-based policies (Cash, Clark, Alcock, Dickson, Eckley, & Jager 2002; Rodriguez, Diaz, & Aguirre 2004; Wynne 1992). People’s own experiences and understandings of previous disasters will influence their uptake of expert knowledge and may lead to issues of trust with the scientific and policy communities (Parker & Handmer 1998). Integrating technical information with real-world perceptions will surely add to the useful capacity of knowledge in disaster management for all of society.

But local knowledge can also play a leading role in the contribution of knowledge to disaster management. A fragmented approach dominates the established paradigm of expert scientific knowledge. Although science does attempt a systematic view of disaster through a reductionist exploration of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, science tends to focus on human vulnerability (Rodriguez, Diaz, & Aguirre 2004). Local knowledge that may lead some individuals to ignore evacuation orders opposes scientific knowledge precisely because it presents a more dynamic and holistic picture that continuously integrates human resilience and adaptability with vulnerability (Heijmans 2001). Local knowledge influences range from personal experience, knowledge, personality, culture, access to resources, social status, and future expectations (Jessamy & Turner 2003, Vari 2002).

Processes for Incorporating Local Knowledge into Disaster Management

Non-experts undertake a constant computation of their perception of risk. Tapping into this knowledge base may provide a valuable indicator of the social component of natural disaster. Improving disaster management is clearly not just about improving the capability of science to predict disasters and communicate potential impacts to society (Tompkins & Hurlston 2005). How then do we incorporate local knowledge into a policy system based on scientific expertise?

Yes, we need to amend the current institutional structures of science and policy to better the uptake of science by the public (i.e., better public representation) (Godschalk, Brody, & Burby 2003; Wynne 1992. But, improvement involves the other direction as well: incorporating more local knowledge as its own discipline with its own processes, methods, and meanings into disaster management. A plurality of knowledge systems contributing to our understanding of natural disasters can only improve disaster management to the benefit of all society.

Areas for Further Research

A review of the literature on scientific and local knowledge reveals a wealth of areas ripe for further research. Specific factors such as ethnicity have yet to be explored fully for their influence on “citizen disaster behavior” (Gersen 2003). The loss of local communities and social networks as a consequence of a more modern and global society, raises questions about the propensity for local knowledge among transient citizens like the homeless and temporary residents. How is local knowledge transferred beyond the local social networks, is it? Linkages between knowledge systems along horizontal and vertical gradients of power between formal and informal institutions may be suitable arenas for establishment of boundary organizations.

Literature Cited

Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., & Jager, J. 2002. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP02-046. (cited on September 23, 2005).

Gersen, J. 2003. Disasters, Delegation, and institutional Design. (cited on September 24, 2005).

Godschalk, D., Brody, S., & Burby, R. 2003. Public Participation in natural hazard Mitigation policy Formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 46(5):733-754.

Heijmans, A. 2001. “Vulnerability”: A matter of perception. Accessed on web at on September 25, 2005.

Jessamy, V. & Turner, K. 2003. Modelling Community Response and Perception to Natural Hazards: Lessons learnt from Hurricane Lenny 1999. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment CSERGE Working Paper EDM 03-06.

Parker, D., & Handmer, J. 1998. The Role of Unofficial Flood Warning Systems. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 6(1):45-60.

Rodriguez, H., Diaz, W., & Aquirre, B. 2004. Communicating Risk and Warnings: An integrated and interdisciplinary research approach. Accessed on the web on September 23, 2005.

Tompkins, E., & Hurlston, L. 2005. Natural Hazards and Climate Change: What knowledge is transferable? Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 69.

Vari, A. 2002. Public Involvement in Flood Risk Management in Hungary. Journal of Risk Research. 5(3):211-224.

Wynne, B. 1992. Public understanding of science research: new horizons or

hall of mirrors? Public Understand. Sci. 1 37-43.

-----------------------

=

+

Natural Disaster

Human Vulnerability

Natural Hazard

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download