Dwf k4 drr mapping presentation for unisavoie workshop v3
1 like490 views
This document maps the flow of information and knowledge between stakeholder groups in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation as part of the KNOW4DRR project. It summarizes the mapping process conducted in Year 1 of the project across 11 case studies of different disasters. The mapping examined information transfer over time stages of the disaster management cycle and between public sector, scientists, private sector, and civil society stakeholders. It aimed to identify strengths and weaknesses in how information is communicated and whether it reaches its intended targets and influences decision making.
![«
They
[the
local
authoriAes]
all
knew
our
lives
were
at
risk
from
drowning»
17
September
2014
1st
day
of
the
trial
of
local
authority
representaAves,
charged
with
the
involuntary
manslaughter
of
29
people.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dwfk4drrmappingpresentationforunisavoieworkshopv3-150608095747-lva1-app6892/85/Dwf-k4-drr-mapping-presentation-for-unisavoie-workshop-v3-11-320.jpg)
Dwf k4 drr mapping presentation for unisavoie workshop v3
- 1. Mappi ng t he flow of i nforma1on and k no wl edge betwe en s t a keh o l d er g ro u p s : w ea kn es s es and s treng ths i n know l edge man agemen t an d co mmu n i ca1o n John Norton, DWF Final conference: knowledge management for improving DRR & CCA 26 – 27 May 2015 Université de Savoie-‐Mont Blanc, Chambéry EC FP7 Project N° 603807
- 2. Mapping informa1on flow in the KNOW4DRR programme Mapping knowledge and informa1on flow between different stakeholders concerned with disaster risk reduc1on and climate change adapta1on has been an important part of the project process
- 3. In Year 1 of the project, we mapped the results of case studies to show informa1on and knowledge flows between different social stakeholder groups, intended to support disaster risk reduc1on and climate change adapta1on: did it get there? Does it work? The aim: Get a snapshot of where informa1on transfer and the knowledge it should contribute to decision making either does or does not work: • what can we do be_er? • what can we learn?
- 4. 11 cases covered different disasters • ADELPHI (& POLIMI)/ Severe floods along the ELBE river, Germany, August 2002 • CIESAS/ Reloca1on of landslide survivors in Chiapas State, Mexico, 2005 and later • CSIC Group / Case study of the Lorca earthquake, Spain, 11th May 2011 • DWF/ typhoon events, 2006 & 2009, Vietnam • HUA/ Ilia forest fires, August 2007, Greece • HUA/ Kalamata earthquake, Greece, 1986 • HUA/ sea level rise & Climate Change AdaptaAon, Greece • U SALZBERG – PLUS / flood event in Salzach catchment, Austria, June 2013 • POLIMI/Umbria flood event, Italy, November 2012 • UNISAVOIE/ La Faute-‐sur-‐Mer storm disaster, Atlan1c Coast, France, February 2010 • UNU-‐EHS/ People-‐centred tsunami early warning, Padang, West Sumatra
- 5. A data/informa1on/knowledge/wisdom pyramid An early stage the KNOW4DRR project modelled the stages of exchange of knowledge for DRR using a Data – Informa1on – Knowledge -‐Wisdom (DIKW) pyramid, lots of data at its base, li_le wisdom at the top. We sued this a basis for the mapping process: This reflected an issue: much data, but far less knowledge and even less wisdom generated for decision making on DRR/CCA.
- 6. The mapping process considered informa1on transfer over « 1me » -‐ using the disaster management cycle; informa1on flow between four principle stakeholder groups Disaster management cycle phases Stakeholders Before last event Early warning During the event/ Response Recovery & reconstruc1on Period aper recovery Public Sector ScienAsts Private Sector Civil society Which Stakeholders ? Public Sector ScienAsts Private Sector Civil society Hazard specialists Risk experts Scientists Other Insurers Business Media Other Lifelines managing co. Citizens associations NGO Households/ individuals Other
- 7. A focus on informa1on & knowledge flow & their impact What? What informa1on was sent by each stakeholder (who) about the iden1fied risk or hazard (or event) in your case study? How? How was this informa1on sent? How open? Was the informa1on fragmented in this process and did this hinder its use? How? To whom? Who was it sent to (to which ini1al target stakeholders)? Was there an indica1on that message/ informa1on was received? Onward transfer? Did informa1on get passed on by a receiving stakeholder to addi1onal stakeholders (e.g. from local authority to households)? Was informa1on shared/networked? What acAon? By whom? How was the informa1on used? Did it influence or not any decision making? How and who by? Why not? If informa1on was not or only par1ally used by this stakeholder to influence decision making or ac1on, why? e.g. were there other priori1es or constraints: finance, etc. ? Feedback? Was there feedback from this stakeholder (recipient) to the sender of informa1on? Did feedback/evalua1on influence subsequent policy/ac1ons? Uncertainty? Did the informa1on help reduce risk or uncertainty? How and why? Wisdom? Did informa1on become knowledge/wisdom? To explore what happens to informaAon “sent” -‐ how it was used or not used by the different stakeholders with different priori1es and capaci1es -‐ DWF asked partners 9 ques1ons:
- 8. Mapping the cases The cases were analysed & the results mapped graphically. • On the ver1cal axis, the stakeholders groups, • On the horizontal axis, the Disaster Management Cycle stages. The inten1on: to see quickly where blockage occurs or ac1on is taken on the basis of informa1on transmi_ed, using symbols.
- 9. Typhoons in Vietnam, 2006 & 2009
- 10. « La Faute sur Mer » storm surge disaster, France
- 11. « They [the local authoriAes] all knew our lives were at risk from drowning» 17 September 2014 1st day of the trial of local authority representaAves, charged with the involuntary manslaughter of 29 people.
- 12. Analysis The mapping tables have been reviewed to answer the ques1on: “Did communica1on & informa1on help decision making and a be_er DRR outcome or not?” A mixed result! 8 8 5
- 13. A first view • Since almost all cases reported disaster generated examples where things went wrong, there is an impression of poor communica1on & knowledge sharing • Secondly, aper the events, there has been more learning & progress.
- 14. The nega1ve or low impact issues • Too many organiza1ons and agencies dealing with aspects of the disaster management cycle creates confusion. • Top down strategy too theore1cal and difficult to implement. • Informa1on too li_le or late, some1mes incorrect or not understood by target stakeholder. • Lack of stakeholder capacity building and awareness raising. • One way informaAon flow / insufficient feedback. • Absence and loss of knowledge: the value of local or indigenous knowledge about risks and responses is under-‐valued. • Media can do be^er as an important but uncertain communica1on interface. • Other prioriAes influence decisions -‐ and prime sufferers lose out.
- 15. The posi1ve impact issues • RaAonal disaster risk management structures and prac1ce • Promote interdisciplinary work • More stakeholder involvement • Educa1on and capacity building, including for media and civil society • Improving informaAon quality
- 16. Uneven spread of informa1on There are gaps, failures and some abuse in the transfer of knowledge. Most of all, there is an uneven spread of informa1on and knowledge exchange for decision making on DRR and CCA across stakeholder groups.
- 17. Maintaining knowledge, awareness; Climate change issues highlights the challenge of maintaining interest & knowledge for DRR and Climate change over 1me. Ac1on needs to happen before the event. For many people warning comes too late. Achieving sustained civil society & private sector miAgaAon acAon is hard. Turnbull et al 2013 think in advance to be prepared
- 18. The other stakeholder pyramid There is a second knowledge flow pyramid for “stakeholder communica1on”. It is upside down! Much data at the top: public sector and scien1sts. Lower down -‐ Private Sector and Civil Society: the delivery of what higher level stakeholders consider useful informa1on to these more vulnerable stakeholders gets less and less.
- 19. Civil society the loser, and an opportunity Informa1on flow and knowledge development has the least impact on those who need it most: the most vulnerable and cri1cal sectors that needing preven1ve ac1on, (life-‐line services, industry, for example). There is insufficient communica1on to, and insufficient considera1on of the household and the community, their individual engagement. This translates into an undervalued apprecia1on that community and households have capacity, poten1al, local knowledge, social structures, and responsibili1es. Insufficient listening to civil society and learning about local prac1ce. Civil society is the loser in the informaAon exchange process. Exchange and capacity building should be more holisAc.
- 20. More inter-‐disciplinary and holisi1c effort • The exchange of knowledge cannot be considered in isola1on, just as DRR and CCA must not be compartmentalised. • The idea of dis1nct specialist disciplines is outmoded. • There are signs of more inter-‐disciplinary work about DRR and CCA, and this is a necessity. • To be opera1ve, knowledge must be linked to an enabling environment, that combines informa1on, ins1tu1onal capacity, financial systems and capacity building including technical knowledge. To consider knowledge transfer for disaster risk reduc1on without doing this is a route to failure.
- 21. More knowledge or more uncertainty? • Changes in context, such as urbanisa1on, and change in weather and climate reduce faith in old & local knowledge • Lack of knowledge on what to do about DRR and CCA ac1ons generates uncertainty. • Uncertainty leads to lack of ac1on before and at cri1cal 1mes in the disaster management cycle. The mapping process has highlighted the need to improve the transforma1on of informa1on into contemporary and applicable knowledge that leads to ac1on Thank you