Fostering Participation of Local Actors in Volcanic Disaster Risk Reduction

Jake Rom Cadag , Carolyn Driedger, Carolina Garcia, Melanie Duncan, J.C. Gaillard, Jan Lindsay and Katharine Haynes

Abstract Studies of recent volcanic crises have revealed that ofﬁcial evacuation and contingency plans are often not followed by communities at risk. This is primarily attributable to a lack of long-term coordination and planning among concerned stakeholders, and in particular, a lack of participation of local populations in disaster risk reduction (DRR). A lack of participation suggests the prevalence of top-down approaches, wherein local people are disengaged or even excluded in the development of DRR plans. It is not surprising, therefore, that existing plans are often non-operational, nor acceptable to the people for whom they are intended. Through an investigation of case studies at Mount Rainier (USA) and Bulusan (Philippines), and references to volcanoes elsewhere, this chapter aims to determine the key principles and important considerations to ensure peoples’ participation in volcanic DRR. The chapter discusses key factors that encourage local empowerment, engagement, inﬂuence, and control in development of plans and actions. It adds information to the existing literature about how participatory approaches can encourage contributions by both local and outside actors, the latter providing knowledge, resources and skills when unavailable at local levels. Such approaches promote dialogue and co-production of knowledge between the community and outside actors. Contributions from multiple and diverse stakeholders

M. Duncan J.R. Cadag (&) UCL/CAFOD, London, UK University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines J.C. Gaillard Á J. Lindsay e-mail: [email protected] The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand C. Driedger U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, USA K. Haynes Risk Frontiers, Macquarie Park, Australia C. Garcia IU Colegio Mayor de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia

Advs in Volcanology 1 DOI: 10.1007/11157_2016_39 © The Author(s) 2017 2 J.R. Cadag et al.

further enable all groups to address the underlying social, economic, political and cultural issues that contribute to the vulnerabilities of local people. Consequently, DRR becomes more sustainable because local actors are not fully dependent upon outside actors and resources, relying instead on local capacities.

1 Introduction Outside actors, unlike local actors, do not exemplify a sense of community and/or identify Volcanoes, especially active ones, are generally themselves as part of a set of relationships within perceived as sources of hazards by outside actors a specific geographical area. Sometimes, outside of disaster risk reduction (DRR), particularly actors unknowingly insist on implementing scientists and government authorities (Cashman actions based on plans and policies that are at and Giordano 2008). For local inhabitants, times contradictory to local actors’ views and however, volcanoes often hold deeper meaning needs. During times of crisis, these plans may because they become emblems of a homeland, fail. Programmes initiated and maintained solely often with long lived and deep cultural signifi- by outside actors can result in an ineffective DRR cance; and are a source of livelihoods and spiri- process, loss of local knowledge and deepening tual strength (Donovan 2010). This duality also mistrust between the different actors of DRR explains, to some extent, the different perceptions (Haynes et al. 2008; Mercer and Kelman 2010). and understanding of DRR between local actors There are, however, stories of success of com- (in particular local authorities and people), and munication between local and outside actors outside actors (e.g., scientists, government despite the great complexity of a volcanic crisis. agencies, and non-government organizations). During the reawakening of Mount Pinatubo in In development and disaster studies, local 1991, local people, unaware that they lived on actors often refers to individuals and groups of the slopes of a volcano noted steaming and people occupying or attached to a specific com- ground cracks. This information was relayed to munity and/or territory which include but are not authorities, who found it necessary to initiate a limited to inhabitants, officials, local organiza- rapid top-down education campaign with the tions, and different social groups including the eventual valuable inclusion of local actors most marginalized (e.g., Gujit and Shah 1998; (Punongbayan et al. 1996). Heijmans 2009). Here, we refer to local actors as Reducing disaster risk requires the participa- a “collection of people in a geographical area” tion of local actors in many aspects and stages of who “share a particular social structure”, “have a volcanic DRR (Wisner et al. 2012). During a crisis, sense of belonging”, and whose “daily activities volcanic activity contingency plans created only take place within the geographical area” (Aber- by outside actors can become non-operational due crombie et al. 2006, p. 71). It is important to to being unacceptable or unfamiliar to local actors. note, however, that a community can also be Some well-recognized examples of disasters that “relational” referring to a “quality characteristic resulted in great human casualties due to lack of of human relationship, without reference to collaboration between outside and local actors location” (Gusfield 1975, p. xvi). This also include the eruptions of Nevado del Ruiz volcano suggests that ‘local actors’ cannot be used to in 1985 (Voight 1990) and Merapi Volcano in refer to a set of homogenous groups in different 2010 (Kusumayudha 2012; Mei et al. 2013). To contexts. foster the participation of local actors in volcanic Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 3

DRR, community-based and participatory of CSOs involved in grassroots activities (Heijmans approaches have been employed by scientists, 2009; Delica-Willison and Gaillard 2012). Propo- government agencies, and NGOs. nents of CBDRR advocate that local actors are This chapter provides a rationale for the better placed than a central government to imple- inclusion of local actors in reducing disaster risk ment DRR actions as, in addition to considerable and reaffirms the importance of integrating local knowledge and cultural understanding, their bottom-up and top-down actions in the entire lives and livelihoods are at stake, therefore pro- DRR process. Some questions that this chapter viding greater incentive to plan and take action. aims to address are how local actors can be Both the scientific and practitioner literature integrated in components of volcanic DRR. What acknowledge the capacities of local actors in are the key principles and important considera- responding to volcanic hazards on their own, as tions for policy and practice to ensure peoples’ long as they are empowered with adequate orga- participation in volcanic DRR? nizational resources (e.g., Quarantelli and Dynes 1972; Delica-Willison and Willison 2004; Bowman and White 2012). 2 Participatory Approaches CBDRR consists of self-developed, culturally to Volcanic DRR and socially acceptable, economically and polit- ically feasible ways of coping with and avoiding Fostering local actors’ participation through disasters (e.g., endogenous resources, skills and bottom-up and community-based initiatives is an local knowledge) (Maskrey 1984). This does not alternative to isolated technocratic, top-down, necessarily exclude external support, but pro- command-and-control approaches to DRR. Par- vides access to external knowledge about hazards ticipation refers to “a voluntary process by which and risk, and educational and preparedness people (…)influence or control the decisions that resources where needed, without perpetuating a affect them” (Saxena 1998, p. 111). It is often cycle of dependency. CBDRR thus requires the defined along a continuum, ranging from total participation of outside actors. In CBDRR, par- lack of control to self-mobilising initiatives ticipatory approaches are frequently adopted for where local actors own and control decision hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis and making (Arnstein 1969; Chambers 2005). Par- the subsequent development of strategies and ticipation therefore refers to a process, rather than actions, for example to assess risk, raise hazard an outcome, and includes sharing and redistri- awareness and develop community-based warn- bution of power among stakeholders of DRR. ing systems. In some localities CBDRR evolves, Since the 1970s, Civil Society Organisations with the occasional guidance of outside actors. (CSOs: non-state actors such as non-governmental Lessons drawn from practice are always consid- organisations (NGOs), non-profitorganizations ered to improve CBDRR, thereby ensuring it is (NPOs), social and religious organizations, among flexible and adaptive to adjust to changing others; Kaldor 2003), have been promoting a shift physical and social environments. It ultimately in power relations to the benefit of local actors who aims to empower people, which requires “trans- face volcanic risk. In a few countries, such as New formation of existing social, political and eco- Zealand, the USA, and recently, Colombia, national nomic structures and relations in ways that and regional governments promote and even man- empower the previously excluded or exploited” date participatory engagement, but the majority of (Hickey and Mohan 2005, p. 238). volcanic regions around the world are still subject to Fostering people’s participation in CBDRR top-down mitigation approaches. The practice of requires innovative and flexible methodologies community-based and participatory DRR was such as those featured in the Participatory widely promoted in the 1980s as Community- Learning and Action (PLA) approach. PLA is Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR), through “a growing family of approaches, methods, atti- the creation of national and international networks tudes and behaviours to enable and empower 4 J.R. Cadag et al. people to share, analyse and enhance their community’s expectations of the process and knowledge of life and conditions and to plan, act, balancing their role as a facilitator and as educator monitor, evaluate and reflect” (Chambers 2002, (e.g., Cronin et al. 2004). CBDRR has also been p. 2). Outside actors do not dominate the process criticised for reinforcing the interests of the but provide support to initiatives of local actors already powerful within communities, as it often who know local issues best. CBDRR is thus a proves difficult to reach the less powerful, more means to flip power relationships and encourage marginalised people that it is meant to empower more meaningful participation through downward (Cooke and Kothari 2001). This concept is bal- accountability towards local actors (Chamber anced with the recognition that there is value in 1983; Cornwall et al. 2000; Breett 2003). working with local actors who possess leadership Unfortunately, as Cornwall (2008, p. 269) qualities and who are opinion leaders within the states, “participation’ can be used to evoke—and community. to signify—almost anything that involves people. The following sections address the issues As such, it can easily be reframed to meet almost mentioned above in the context of volcanic envi- any demand made of it”. In many instances, ronments in two different regions of the world: participation is in fact seen as an outcome, rather Mount Rainier, USA and Bulusan Volcano, than a process (the ‘tyranny of participation’, Philippines. These cases were selected because Cooke and Kothari (2001)). In cases where they respectively provide accounts of long-term CBDRR is driven exclusively by outsider inter- and short-term participatory approaches to ests (White 1996), and that marginalized groups CBDRR in disaster preparedness and crisis man- and “disadvantaged individuals” remain “ex- agement based on first hand in-depth research cluded from participatory decision-making” from some of the chapter authors. The two case (Pelling 1998, p. 484). Projects and activities are studies are not meant to be compared. They are pre-designed by outsiders who make sure that considered examples of good practices of partici- enough local actors take part to report alleged patory volcanic DRR in two different contexts— “participation” upward to funding agencies (see disaster preparedness and crisis management. Bowman and White 2012). This skewed They also serve as a means of exploring the approach to participation is evident in the many strengths and limitations of CBDRR in fostering assessments of vulnerability and capacity that disaster preparedness and crisis management. provide statistics based on standardized frameworks (demographics, gender characteristics, incomes, resources, health, etc.), from which 3 Disaster Preparedness at Mount plans are made and imposed upon local actors Rainier, USA (Twigg 1998; Heijmans 2004). In many instances, although potentially useful on a govern- Mount Rainier is a 3392 m high volcano in the mental level for rapid prioritization of resources, Cascade Range and the highest mountain in these alien frameworks do not make much sense Washington State, USA (Fig. 1). It is recognized to local people in the context of the reality of as one of the nation’s most hazardous volcanoes their everyday life (Bhatt 1998; Delica-Willison (Ewert et al. 2005), with 78,000 people residing and Willison 2004), and thus discourage partic- in the lahar-prone Puyallup River Valley (Wood ipation, especially when concerns for survival and Soulard 2009). In some localities, the next take highest precedence (see the case of volcano lahar could reach communities with only about Cerro Machin, Colombia Chap. 16). one-half hour of warning. Participatory approaches can rely heavily on During the 1990s, a series of new publications the skill of one or more facilitators, who play a key (Scott et al. 1995; Scott and Vallance 1995; Hoblitt role in the process (Duncan 2014). Challenges for et al. 1998) highlighted Mount Rainier’s hazards, the facilitator include ensuring the inclusion of the especially its severe lahar hazard, and it motivated most marginalized people, managing the scientists to inform local officials and the public Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 5

Fig. 1 Mount Rainier dominates the landscape over the the west flank of Mount Rainier and inundated the valley Puyallup River valley and the city of Orting (foreground). floor. Photograph by E. Ruttledge, USGS, January 2014 Around A.D. 1500 a landslide-driven lahar flowed down through multiple presentations. The scientists’ aim consisting of emergency broadcasts, personal was to advise local people about the risks of living electronics notifications, and sirens (Pierce in lahar-hazard zones so that they could visualize County 2014). This effort is augmented by a undesirable outcomes and assume responsibility series of volcano-evacuation route signs, which for CBDRR. They recognized that participatory point to high ground and safety during a lahar. methods might sustain “a long-term conversation” Community-based emergency educators added (Mileti 1999), and that people at risk might pro- volcano hazards to neighbourhood multi-hazard gress from initial hazard awareness to under- emergency preparedness training, including standing of the risk, and belief in their ability to interactions with marginalized populations. In take effective mitigative action. Such progression conjunction with local actors, the county devel- comes from personalizing and then, confirming oped lahar-evacuation routes that are displayed the risk with others, developing intentions for on a new inter-agency website (Pierce County action, and making mitigative actions, as catego- 2014). In the words of one local safety official rized variously in social models (e.g., Sorensen within the lahar-hazard zone, “We will not be 1982; Sorensen and Mileti 1987; Paton 2003). At victims of the next lahar. Our agency will aid the Mount Rainier, the resulting effort is driven by community in the best way possible because we three groups, each contributing to the larger effort have taken the time now to plan and prepare”. according to their organizational mission, resour- (2) A second important group of local actors ces, and needs. consists of enthusiastic community members and (1) The first group of local actors consists of school safety officers who have developed a local emergency managers, at county, city, and series of resident-driven efforts to mitigate fire district level, with professional responsibili- problems associated with potential lahars. After ties for the safety of the local community. During scientists in the mid-1990s informed them of the the mid-1990s, this group, in conjunction with lahar risks, local residents initiated a long-term state officials, called into being the Mount Rainier sequence of lahar evacuation drills for thousands Volcano Work Group, which led first to devel- of students (Fig. 2) in the towns of Puyallup and opment of an emergency response plan (Pierce Sumner (Caffazo 2014), and in Orting (Orting County 1998, updated in 2008). They worked School District 2015). In the community of with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to install Orting, local residents raised funds for initial a lahar-detection system, followed by county and design of a system of efficient but costly walk- state efforts to build a public notification system ways and pedestrian bridges across a highway 6 J.R. Cadag et al.

Fig. 2 Students practice evacuation during a 2002 lahar of the city with approximately 30 min of warning, which drill in downtown Orting. During an actual lahar, the lahar is marginally sufﬁcient for evacuation from some lahars. detection and notiﬁcation system would provide residents Photograph by C. Driedger, USGS, October 2002

Fig. 3 Public meetings concerning the threat of lahars prompted local teachers to outline the scope, messaging, and content of Mount Rainier volcano teaching materials such as this poster with an activity guide on the back side. Photograph by C. Driedger, USGS, 2003

and river that, if built, would shorten evacuation proposed and participated in development of routes by enabling rapid egress to high ground teaching materials (Driedger et al. 1998, 2005, (Bridge4kids 2014; Plog 2014). Local teachers 2014) (Fig. 3). School students developed a Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 7 lighting system to improve night time visibility Emergency Management Division and USGS of some volcano evacuation route signs which assembled a media guidebook (Driedger and are installed in the Puyallup, Carbon and Nis- Scott 2010). Local and outside actors developed qually River valleys (Fig. 4). an outdoor interpretive sign about Mount Rainier (3) As outside actors, state and federal emer- hazards (Schelling et al. 2014). Product devel- gency managers, scientists, and park staff provide opment methodology is based upon the premise as-needed technical, organizational, and occa- that no single agency can know the needs of sional financial assistance as needed (Pierson residents unless representative users are involved et al. 2014). Since the mid-1990s, this has in determination of need, design, development, required almost half-time involvement by one review, and implementation (Perry et al. 2016). outreach specialist at USGS, who attends local Several important observations emerged. meetings, answer inquiries, and aids in product Multi-level participation in CBDRR allows each development. Staff at USGS and Mount Rainier entity to make contributions that strengthen the National Park (MRNP) sponsor an annual tea- entire effort, and promote long-term continuity. cher training. USGS scientists train park staff, Enthusiasm and creative ideas from local actors and aid with development of geohazard-oriented whose lives and livelihoods are at stake provide displays (Driedger et al. 2002). Federal funds long-term motivation for continual mitigation supported development of a “web portal” that plan upgrades. CBDRR efforts are stronger indicates hazards of individual property parcels because of the long-term commitment of scien- (Washington Department of Natural Resources tific, organizational, and occasional financial 2014). USGS produced an assessment of risk support from outside actors. A motivated (Wood and Soulard 2009), and provides volcano hazards-aware citizenry can initiate mitigation trainings for officials and the public. Washington efforts that meet community needs, yet are

Fig. 4 In the Puyallup, Carbon and Nisqually River valleys, volcano evacuation route signs direct drivers towards high ground, and they serve the additional educational purpose of reminding local residents of the hazards and/or of the need for protective action. Students in the Orting School District developed the idea of enhancing some of the signs with placing flashing orange lights powered by solar panel to improve use during darkness. They developed a proposal and submitted it to authorities who funded the project. Photograph by C. Driedger, USGS, October 7, 2014 8 J.R. Cadag et al. beyond the financial means of local govern- are situated at the foot of the volcano. Barangay ments. Community officials are considering a Cogon—the nearest village to the summit of the variety of funding sources and multiple options volcano—has a total population of 1020 people in for rapid lahar evacuation. In the words of one 211 households and is within the probable danger resident activist, “The people have led and zone of the volcano, defined as 4–10 km from the many leaders have truly heard, taken to heart, summit (Municipality of Irosin 2012). However, and acted upon the concerns and solutions pro- agricultural areas especially coconut plantations, posed by its citizenry.” the backbone of the village economy, are within the 4 km permanent danger zone. Between 18 and 20 February 2011, a CBDRR 4 Locally-Led Crisis and Evacuation was implemented in Cogon involving officials Management at Bulusan Volcano, and representatives from multiple sectors of the Philippines community. The activity was initiated by Inte- grated Rural Development Foundation of the Bulusan Volcano is a 1559 m high stratovolcano Philippines (IRDF), a local NGO advocating for formed inside a caldera. It is one of the most active the participation of local actors in DRR. The volcanoes in the Philippines having erupted at objectives of the activity were twofold: risk least 16 times since late 1800s. Recent eruptions, assessment through Participatory 3-Dimensional such as in November 2010 to November 2011, Mapping (P3DM) and development of a volcanic were characterized mainly by ash ejection and activity contingency plan for the village. The 3D volcanic earthquake swarms and resulted in map provides local actors with a bird’s eye view recurrent mass evacuations of nearby towns of their territory, giving them a clear picture of (PHIVOLCS 2014). At least six municipalities important community information in order to and hundreds of barangays (villages) under determine their vulnerabilities, capacities and political jurisdiction of the province of Sorsogon exposure to volcanic hazards (Fig. 5) (Cadag and

Fig. 5 Large-scale participatory 3-dimensional map assets and people and local resources (both depicted with (1:1250) of Cogon, Irosin, Philippines showing push pins), February 2011 (adapted from Cadag et al. hazard-prone areas (shaded with grey paint), vulnerable 2012: 84) Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 9

Gaillard 2012). Local participants traced infor- erupted and ejected volcanic ash for several mation on the 3D map that are useful for risk minutes (Fig. 6). There were no warnings from assessment. The information was then subse- the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and quently confirmed and further improved by out- Seismology (PHIVOLCS) nor municipal offi- side actors (e.g., municipal DRR officer, NGO cials. It took only about 15 min for ash fall to personnel, and local scientists) to ensure precision reach the village of Cogon, reducing visibility to (in terms of location) and compatibility with their zero and rendering lamps and flashlights useless. plans. Likewise, the contingency plan developed Evacuation vehicles from the municipal center during the CBDRR details the roles of local actors were unable to reach the village. Community (e.g., village chief and councillors, health work- members, particularly the local leaders, were thus ers, village police and representatives from dif- the first to facilitate the evacuation. Three hours ferent sectors of the community) in the entire later, with the help of municipal rescue units and evacuation process, particularly in the manage- other volunteers, most of the residents of the ment of the evacuation area. The approach and village were evacuated to a school at the munic- tool (i.e. P3DM) was highly appreciated by the ipal center, situated 10 km away from Cogon. participants because of its effectiveness in At the onset of the crisis, the evacuation engaging actors from the different sectors and in center was managed by the municipal officials combining their plans for DRR. According to the and school coordinators. Yet, despite their best representative of the Disaster Risk Reduction and efforts, observations of participants and informal Management Office of the municipality, interviews revealed that the evacuation center “CBDRR is not new to us… But it is the first time was chaotic and under-prepared but only for the that we assess risk and plan actions (for DRR) first half day. For example, only a few rooms and using a single tool (3D map) that we all toilets were available; food distribution was understand.” delayed; and trashcans were full. This made On 21 February, 2011 at 9:12 a.m., only a day evacuees uneasy; they did not have any idea of after the CBDRR activity, the volcano suddenly the government’s efforts, nor of what was going

Fig. 6 Eruption of Mt. Bulusan, Philippines on February 21, 2011 at 9:12 a.m. Photograph by J. Cadag, 21 Feb 2011 10 J.R. Cadag et al. to happen to them. Lack of coordination and compliance purposes only … But now we know communication among the affected populations we can use it to make our situation better in the and the authorities was quite evident (Cadag evacuation center and to justify our actions.” et al. 2012). In the late afternoon of the same day, Moreover, the 3-dimensional map assisted the village officials of Cogon decided to implement initial assessment of volcanic impacts immedi- their newly conceived contingency plan which ately after the eruption. It aided local officials in was a part of the recent CBDRR activity in the locating the areas most affected by ash fall, and village (Fig. 7). Firstly, local officials coordi- in assessing the damage to shelters and farms. nated with the school coordinators and municipal Damage and needs assessment by the local officials and helped to arrange and organise the people and authorities and delivery of reports to rooms for the evacuees. They reassigned the concerned higher government authorities then rooms so that families from the same hamlets became faster and more efficient. Altogether, the were reunited, making it easier for the village CBDRR program contributed to the success of police and health workers (assigned to particular the management of the evacuation center and hamlets) to monitor the evacuees, for curfews post-disaster damage assessment through the and cleanliness, respectively. Mothers helped the leadership of the local actors and with the sup- government authorities in food preparations, port of the outside actors. which then became easier, faster and more efficient. Pregnant and nursing women, and older and sick people were allocated rooms. The vil- 5 Participation, Inclusion, lage chief and councillors gave regular updates to and Empowerment of Local the evacuees on the situation in the evacuated Actors in Volcanic DRR village, particularly on the damages incurred. The successful management by local actors of This chapter has emphasized that participation of the evacuation center was attributed to the recent local actors offers numerous potential means to CBDRR program in the village. Aware of the improve many aspects of DRR. Dialogue during new village contingency plan, school coordina- participatory activities plays a vital role in the tors and municipal officials decided to entrust the integration of knowledge across the different management of the evacuation center to the actors of DRR. Eventually, this integration leads evacuees. The contingency plan thus under- to combination of top-down and bottom-up pinned the local officials’ and evacuees’ actions actions and is likely to be more efficient, during the evacuation. According to an elected context-appropriate, and sustainable (Wisner official from the village, “When we made the et al. 2012). If properly facilitated, it may result (contingency) plan, we thought it was for in local empowerment that allows local actors to

Fig. 7 Local leaders from the village of Cogon, Irosin, A village health worker conducting the registration of Philippines discussing with a municipal health officer the evacuees for easy health monitoring and distribution of implementation of the village’s evacuation plan (left). relief goods (right). Photograph by J. Cadag, 22 Feb 2011 Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 11 assess disaster risk, enhance their capacities and quiescence. More recently, these specific and reduce underlying vulnerabilities (Pelling 2007; process-oriented applications of terminology are Maskrey 2011; Cadag and Gaillard 2012). applied broadly by officials in other The case study of Mount Rainier reaffirms volcano-hazard work groups within the Cascade four important aspects of participatory approa- Range. In this manner, the expeditious nature of ches that are relevant in volcanic DRR. Firstly, top-down decision-making is traded for authen- collaboration among local and outside actors of ticity and intentional efficiency within the larger DRR is possible when participation is sought. mitigation effort. In the case of Bulusan Volcano, Local actors have been successfully integrated in local leaders and residents were involved in risk DRR through long-term engagement and dia- assessment and contingency planning prior to the logue using a variety of participatory approaches. eruption, and then took on the role as managers While enthusiasm and resources for various during the crisis. The successful management of projects within the CBDRR have waxed and the evacuation center by the local actors (in waned over the years, it is the long-term com- cooperation with outside stakeholders) so early mitment by local and outside actors that has in the crisis is commendable. This positive out- sustained the CBDRR effort. Secondly, partici- come highlights the importance of participation patory approaches should not be evaluated solely by local actors including the marginalized sectors on the basis of immediate results but also on (i.e. homeless, people with disabilities, the eco- long-term positive outcomes. It is therefore nomically disadvantaged, women, children, important to reemphasize that process is equally people of a variety of sexual orientations, etc.) in or, in the long term, even more important than all aspects and stages of volcanic DRR. More- the original desired short-term outcomes. over, volcanic crisis and evacuation management Thirdly, participatory approaches can empower plans were localized yet consistent with the plans local actors and encourage them to become key of outside actors, putting emphasis on the role of actors of DRR. The Rainier case study involved local actors as first responders in times of crisis, local actors who are self-motivated and whilst reinforcing the importance of outside resourceful, who are aware of the hazard, and actors in fulfilling the lack of resources at the who can develop plans and take actions. This local level, particularly in dealing with large example illustrates that participatory approaches, scale crises (Delica-Willison and Willison 2004; accomplished with sufficient intention, vigor, Cadag and Gaillard 2012). resources, and commitment by local and outside Some of the important insights emerging from actors can produce positive outcomes. these two case studies relate specifically to trust, Fourthly, sometimes CBDRR requires outside dialogue, participatory methods, and empower- actors to make shifts in power relation in ment. This study is consistent with the findings unconventional ways. As an example, at Mount of previous work on trust and risk communica- Rainier, local officials and media requested suc- tion (e.g., Haynes et al. 2008). Generally, trust cessfully that scientists modify their usage of means confidence in the reliability of someone or traditional scientific terminology to reduce mis- something. In risk communication, trust is communication in education and during crises. determined by several factors such as general At their request, the term ‘debris flow’ is applied trustworthiness (e.g., competence, care, fairness, only to small seasonal events that can not directly and openness) and scepticism (e.g., credibility, impact communities, while the term ‘lahar’, reliability, and integrity) (Poortinga and Pidgeon similar in structure but vastly larger in scale, 2003, p. 607). The case studies reinforced that refers to events that could create serious impacts, participation builds trust among local and outside principally during eruptions and debris ava- actors of DRR, which eventually results in more lanches. Similarly, the term ‘active’ is applied fruitful collaboration and better DRR. Programs consistently to Mount Rainier to reflect the that involve community participation empower internal volcanic processes present, even during local actors and eventually encourage them to 12 J.R. Cadag et al. trust government authorities and their informa- strong unless we [‘outside actors’] too are partici- “ ” tion (Paton et al. 2008), and vice versa—outside patory. Ownership by them means non-ownership by us. Empowerment for them actors gain respect for local knowledge. means disempowerment for us. In consequence, Achieving trust, however, is difficult. Trust is management cultures, styles of personal interaction only possible when actors of DRR are fully and procedures all have to change. engaged in a process of dialogue, i.e. the con- tinuous exchange of knowledge, ideas, and opinions. Dialogue is a means for DRR actors 6 Considerations for Policy (particularly marginalized sectors) to be heard on and Practice of DRR in Volcanic equal footing with other actors (Heijmans 2009) Environments so as to: “respect the diversity of opinions” (Abarquez and Murshed 2004, p. 81). Dialogue, This chapter highlights a number of lessons for therefore, promotes integration of knowledge and CBDRR policy and practice in volcanic envi- action in DRR (Wisner et al. 2012; Gaillard and ronments. It reaffirms that: Mercer 2013). To sustain trust and dialogue among actors, 1. Participatory approaches in CBDRR initiate participatory methods and tools must also be the personal and community progression sustainable, i.e. maintained and adapted at the from personalizing and then, confirming the local level by local actors who recognise (with- risk with others, developing intentions for out being dependent upon) the contributions of action, that are required to take action dur- outside actors. This is best achieved when local ing a crisis, as noted variously by several actors have active roles in the conceptualization, authors (i.e. Sorensen 1982; Sorensen and conduct, and maintenance of participatory Mileti 1987; and Paton 2003). approaches (Cadag and Gaillard 2012). This is 2. CBDRR can be well suited for volcanically the case of CBDRR in Bulusan Volcano where hazardous areas as some appropriate emer- local actors have indicated greater interest in gency responses such as residents identifying improving their 3D map and local plans to fur- locally understood and recognizable haz- ther strengthen their disaster preparedness. ardousphenomena,developinglocally-based In spite of their successes, in these case neighborhood notification methods, self studies, challenges extend to both local and evacuation, and sheltering often requires the outside actors. As noted in the Mount Rainier individual or community to be self reliant. example, during long-lasting efforts, it is inevi- 3. Dialogue developed through volcanic table that politics play a strong role; volunteers CBDRR can promote trust among all actors, reach fatigue; agency personnel change; and which in turn sustains CBDRR efforts. competing priorities threaten the main objectives 4. Co-development of hazard and response of DRR efforts. Outside actors are often prohib- messages early on, and consistent use of ited by the institutionalized top-down and them by local and outside actors can facil- command-and-control paradigm of DRR, which itate educational processes, and lay a foun- logically contradict the idea of local participation dation for sustainable CBDRR. and empowerment. Meaningful efforts to pro- 5. Participatory approaches can invite inquiry, mote empowerment and participation require that such as the search for information that rein- outsiders recognise the need for change within forces people’s recognition of the hazard, and their institutions, which is emphasised by discussion about DRR. As with any educa- Chambers (1995, p. 197): tional activity, participation is the best teacher Participation “by them” [‘local actors particularly because it provides local actors with the the marginalised sectors] will not be sustainable or knowledge to educate and empower others. Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 13

6. CBDRR can operate over short and long facilitation and negotiation is required of durations. The key components are that the scientists, policymakers and the public. This process is collaborative and emphasises is especially necessary during long term local actors in the processes of organization crises characterized by shifting political, and planning for future necessary actions. cultural and scientific landscapes (Donovan While the resources of outside actors can and Oppenheimer 2014). Scientific knowl- strengthen CBDRR, planning should be edge can be enhanced by the participation accomplished, communicated, and practiced of local actors as citizen scientists (see Irwin principally by local actors. 1995) and observers of volcanic activity 7. The value may be limited by vested inter- (e.g., Stone et al. 2014). ests within the community, fatigue of all 11. In order to be effective, legislative instru- actors, changing personnel, as well as other ments for DRR should be created and cultural and political or hazard issues that applied well in advance of a crisis and compete for focus. The actors may not should involve all stakeholders, including understand each other’s culture and local people and others exposed to the resources, leading to unrealistic goals and prevailing hazards. expectations. Local actors can become insular and exclude new ideas and/or the needs of marginalized people, thus becom- ing, for all practical purposes, another group 7 Conclusion of ‘outside actors.’ 8. While governments and organizations may Although limited to two case studies, this study profess support for CBDRR, there is always provides examples and discussions which sup- a threat that, on a more personal level, port the supposition that volcanic DRR is more outside actors will withdraw from CBDRR effective when local actors participate, regardless precepts for the sake of immediate effi- of volcanic environments or contexts. CBDRR ciency, such that they damage outside/local exists in varying forms across volcanic regions actor relationships and the CBDRR that around the world, as exemplified by the long they seek to engender. CBDRR ongoing at Mount Rainier and the 9. In addition to participatory approaches to short-term initiative at Bulusan volcano. Given CBDDR, in volcanic environments it is that each volcano and surrounding communities important to consider the value of legisla- have their own specific context, it is difficult and tive instruments and the legal responsibili- against best practice to determine a rigid and ties of government to protect the life of their standardized procedure for conducting CBDRR. citizens, thus directly affecting governmen- Rather than seeing this as an obstacle, it should tal decision-making. However, in some be embraced as an opportunity to develop cus- countries, legislation to manage volcanic tomized means to fulfil community needs. DRR focuses mainly on crisis management Whilst it is not possible to standardise often detached from larger risk reduction CBDRR, a number of guiding principles for efforts such as land-use policy, protection of fostering the participation of local actors in DRR infrastructure and overcoming unequal have been identified. Firstly, participation is a power relations within society. Further- process, not an outcome, and it should empower more, crisis management planning is often local people and build dialogues. This reduces restricted to government authorities with dependence upon outside actors and resources, little or no community consultation and and encourages reliance on local capacities. participation. Participation must be flexible and is only as good 10. To achieve effective DRR in volcanic as the knowledge, intentions and resources environments, an intense process of available to local actors. At their best, 14 J.R. Cadag et al. participatory approaches encourage collaborative (Ilamatepec) Volcano, El Salvador. Environ Hazards – contributions by both local and outside actors, 11:138 154 Cadag JRD, Gaillard JC (2012) Integrating knowledge the latter providing knowledge, resources and and actions in disaster risk reduction: the contribution skills to complement the strengths of the former. of participatory mapping. Area 44(1):100–109 Such approaches promote dialogue and Cadag JRD, Gaillard JC, Francisco A, Glipo A (2012) co-production of knowledge between the com- Reducing the risk of disaster through participatory mapping in Irosin, Philippines. In: Garcia-Acosta V, munity and outside actors. CBDRR should work Briones F (eds) Social strategies of prevention and in tandem with top-down, legislative processes, adaptation. Ciesas, Mexico City, pp 81–87 with local and outsider actors holding each other Caffazo D (2014) Puyallup students earn praise during accountable. The personal and professional massive school lahar drill. The News Tribune Septem- ber 30 2014. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/ relationships developed with local actors can 09/30/3408050_puyallup-students-earn-praise.html? spur outside actors to continue to support efforts, rh=1. Accessed 11 Nov 2014 whilst the attention from outside actors can Cashman KV, Giordano G (2008) Volcanoes and human – motivate local actors to maintain CBDRR. The history. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 176(3):325 329 fi Chamber R (1983) Rural development: putting the last process should, therefore, be mutually bene cial. first. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow Finally, whilst it can be challenging to engage Chambers R (1995) Poverty and livelihoods: whose and maintain the participation of both local and reality counts? Environ Urban 7(1):173–204 outside actors, CBDRR has been demonstrated Chamber R (2002) Relaxed and participatory appraisal: notes on practical approaches and methods for partic- as an essential component in sustaining owner- ipants in PRA/PLA related familiarisation workshops. ship and communication between key actors in Institute of Development Studies, Brighton volcanic settings. Indeed, the true value of Chambers R (2005) Ideas for development. Earthscan, CBDRR is not only measured in products or London Chambers R (2007) Who counts? The quiet revolution of documents, but also in creating a conducive participation and numbers. Institute of Development environment for collaboration where the hearts, Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton minds and trust of the people are devoted. It is an Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new environment where local actors are empowered tyranny?. Zed Books, London Cornwall A, Lucas H, Pasteur K (2000) Accountability to implement DRR plans and actions and where through participation: developing workable partner- policies that institutionalize peoples’ participa- ship models in the health sector. IDS Bull 31(1):1–13 tion and multi-actor collaboration are in place. Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Dev J 43(3):269– 283 Cronin S, Gaylord D, Charley D, Alloway B, Wallez S, References Esau J (2004) Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic Abarquez I, Murshed Z (2004) Community-based disaster hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bull risk management: field practitioners’ handbook. Asian Volcanol 66:652–668 Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Klong Luang Delica-Willison Z, Willison R (2004) Vulnerability Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner BS (2006) Community. reduction: a task for the vulnerable people themselves. The Penguin dictionary of sociology. Penguin, In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping London, pp 71–72 vulnerability: disasters, development and people. Arnstein SR (1969) A Ladder of citizen participation. Earthscan, London, pp 145–158 J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216–224 Delica-Willison Z, Gaillard JC (2012) Community action Bhatt MR (1998) Can vulnerability be understood? In: and disaster. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I Twigg J, Bhatt MR (eds) Understanding vulnerability: (eds) Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction. South Asian perspectives. Intermediate Technology Routledge, London, pp 711–722 Publications, Colombo, pp 68–77 Donovan K (2010) Doing social volcanology: exploring Breett EA (2003) Participation and accountability in volcanic culture in Indonesia. Area 42(1):117–126 development management. J Dev Stud 40(2):1–29 Donovan A, Oppenheimer C (2014) Science, policy and Bridge4Kids (2014) http://www.bridge4kids.org. place in volcanic disasters: insights from Montserrat. Accessed 14 Oct 2014 Environ Sci Policy 39:150–161 Bowman L, White P (2012) Community’ perceptions of a Driedger CL, Faust L, Lane L, Smith M, Smith R (1998) disaster risk reduction intervention at Santa Ana Mount Rainier—the volcano in your back yard, poster Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 15

and activity guide for educators. U.S. Geological from Mount Rainier, Washington, revised 1998. U.S. Survey Miscellaneous Publication, p 2 Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-428 Driedger CL, Stout T, Hawk J (2002) The Mountain is a Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise Volcano!—addressing geohazards at Mount Rainier. and sustainable development. Routledge, London J Assoc Natl Park Rangers 18:14–15 Johnston D, Becker J, Coomer M, Ronan K, Davis M, Driedger CL, Scott WE (2010) Volcano hazards. In: Gregg C (2006) Children’s risk perceptions and Schelling J, Nelson D (eds) Media guidebook for preparedness: Mt. Rainier 2006 hazard education natural hazards in Washington—addressing the threats assessment tabulated results. GNS science report of tsunamis and volcanoes. Military Department 2006/16, p 30 Emergency Management Division, Washington, Kaldor M (2003) Civil society and accountability. J Hum 44 p. http://www.emd.wa.gov/about/documents/haz_ Dev 4(1):5–27. doi:10.1080/1464988032000051469 Volcano_MediaGuide_2013.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov Kusumayudha SB (2012) Analysis on the capacity 2014 building for mitigating volcanic hazards versus the Driedger CL, Doherty A, Dixon C, Faust L (2005) Living 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi, Central Java, with a volcano in your backyard—an educator’s guide Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 34th international with emphasis on Mount Rainier. U.S. Geological geological congress, 5–10 Aug 2012, pp 1–11 Survey and National Park Service, General Informa- Maskrey A (1984) Community based hazard mitigation. tion Product. p 19 In: Proceedings of the international conference on Duncan M (2014) Multi-hazard assessments for disaster disaster mitigation program implementation. Ocho risk reduction: lessons from the Philippines and Rios, Jamaica, 12–16 Nov 1984, pp 25–39 applications for non-governmental organisations. Dis- Maskrey A (2011) Revisiting community-based disaster sertation, University College, London risk management. Environ Hazards 10(1):42–52 Ewert JW, Guffanti M, Murray TL (2005) An assessment Mei ETW, Lavigne F, Picquout A, de Bélizal E, of volcanic threat and monitoring capabilities in the Brunstein D, Grancher, D, Sartohadi J, Cholik N, United States: framework for a national volcano early Vidal C (2013) Lessons learned from the 2010 warning system. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File evacuations at Merapi volcano. J Volcanol Geotherm Report 2005–1164. 62 p Res 261:348–365 Gaillard JC, Mercer J (2013) From knowledge to action: Mercer J, Kelman I, Lloyd K, Suchet-Pearson S (2008) bridging gaps in disaster risk education. Prog Hum Reflections on use of participatory research for Geogr 37(1):93–114 disaster risk reduction. Area 40(2):172–183 Gaillard JC, Dibben CJL (2008) Volcanic risk perception Mercer J, Kelman I (2010) Living alongside a volcano in and beyond. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):163– Baliau, Papua New Guinea. Disaster Prev Manag 19 169 (4):412–422 García C, Mendez-Fajuri R (Chapter 16 in this edition) Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of Experiences about volcanic risk socialization in natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Colombia. In: Fearnley C, Bird C, Haynes K, Press, Washington, DC Jolly G, McGuire B (eds) Volcanic crisis communi- Municipality of Irosin (2012) 2010 Population and cation: observing the volcano world demography. Municipal profile of Irosin. Sorsogon, Gujit I, Shah MK (1998) The myth of community: gender Philippines issues in participatory development. ITDG Publishing, Orting school district emergency response plan, OSD London Disaster Awareness Response Team (DART). http:// Gusfield JR (1975) The community: a critical response. www.ortingschools.org/Page/101, p 17. Accessed 10 Harper Colophon, New York Jan 2015 Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) The issue of trust Paton D (2003) Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive and its influence on risk communication during a perspective. Disaster Prev Manag 12:210–216 volcanic crisis. Bull Volcanol 70(5):605–621 Paton D, Smith L, Daly M, Johnston D (2008) Risk Heijmans A (2004) From vulnerability to empowerment. perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping and social perspectives. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172 vulnerability: disasters, development and people. (3–4):179–188 Earthscan, London, pp 115–127 Pelling M (2007) Learning from others: the scope and Heijmans A (2009) The social life of community-based challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. disaster risk management: origins, politics and fram- Disasters 31(4):373–385 ing policies. Working paper No. 20, Aon Ben- Pelling M (1998) Participation, social capital and vulner- field UCL Hazard Research Centre, London ability to urban flooding in Guyana. J Int Dev 10 Hickey S, Mohan G (2005) Relocating participation (4):469–486 within a radical politics of development. Dev Change Perry SC, Blanpied ML, Burkett ER, Campbell NM, 36(2):237–262 Carlson A, Cox DA, Driedger CL, Eisenman DP, Hoblitt RP, Walder JS, Driedger CL, Scott KM, Fox-Glassman KT, Hoffman S, Hoffman SM, Pringle PT, Vallance JW (1998) Volcano hazards Jaiswal KS, Jones LM, Luco N, Marx SM, 16 J.R. Cadag et al.

McGowan SM, Mileti DS, Moschetti MP, Ozman D, Mount Rainier is an active volcano—are you ready for Pastor E, Petersen MD, Porter KA, Ramsey DW, an eruption? Washington Emergency Management Ritchie LA, Fitzpatrick JK, Rukstales KS, Sellnow TS, Division (exhibit) Vaughon WL, Wald DJ, Wald LA, Wein A, Zar- Scott KM, Vallance JW (1995) Debris flow, debris cadoolas C (2016) Get your science used—six guide- avalanche and flood hazards at and downstream from lines to improve your products: U.S. Geological Mount Rainier, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Survey Circular 1419, p 37. http://dx.doi.org/10. Hydrologic Atlas: 729, 2 maps, pamphlet 9 p 3133/cir1419 Scott KM, Vallance JW, Pringle PT (1995) Sedimentol- PHIVOLCS (Philippine Institute of Volcanology and ogy, behavior, and hazards of debris flows at Mount Seismology) (2014) Bulusan volcano. http://www. Rainier, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Profes- phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/html/update_VMEPD/Volcano/ sional Paper 1547, p 56 VolcanoList/bulusan.htm. Accessed 12 Oct 2014 Sorensen JH (1982) Evaluation of emergency warning Pierce County (2008) Mount Rainier volcanic hazards systems at Ft. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, St. plan DEM. Pierce County (Washington). Department Vrain Nuclear Power Plant, Oak Ridge TN of Emergency Management (working draft). http://www. Sorensen JH, Mileti DS (1987) Decision-making uncer- co.pierce.wa.us/documentcenter/view/3499. Accessed tainties in emergency warning system organizations. 13 Oct 2014 Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 5:33–61 Pierce County (2014) Mount Rainier active volcano. Stone J, Barclay J, Simmons P, Cole PD, Loughlin SC, Pierce County (Washington). Department of Emer- Ramón P, Mothes P (2014) Risk reduction through gency Management. http://www.piercecountywa.org/ community-based monitoring: the vigías of Tungu- activevolcano. Accessed 13 Oct 2014 rahua, Ecuador. J Appl Volcanol 2014(3):11 Pierson, TC, Wood NJ, Driedger CL. (2014). Reducing Twigg J (1998) Understanding vulnerability: an introduc- risk from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and tion. In: Twigg J, Bhatt MR (eds) Understanding roles for scientists. J Appl Volcanol 3:16. doi:10.1186/ vulnerability: South Asian perspectives. Intermediate s13617-014-0016-4 Technology Publications, Colombo, pp 1–11 Plog K (2014) Politicians, scientists, local leaders revisit Voight B (1990) The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcano Orting’s Bridge for kids at summit. The News Tribune, catastrophe: anatomy and retrospection. J Volcanol October 25, 2014. http://www.thenewstribune.com/ Geotherm Res 44:349–386 2014/10/25/3450135_politicians-scientists-local-leaders. Washington Department of Natural Resources (2014) html?sp=/99/296/331/&rh=1. Accessed 11 Nov 2014 Natural hazards web portal. http://www.dnr.wa. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Exploring the dimen- gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeosciencesData/Pages/ sionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23: geology_portal.aspx. Accessed 11 Nov 2014 961–972 White SC (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses Punongbayan R, Newhall C, Bautista L, Garcia D, and abuses of participation. Dev Pract 6(1):6–15 Harlow D, Hoblitt R, Sabit J, Solidum R (1996) Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I (2012) Framing disaster: Eruption hazard assessments and warnings in Fire and theories and stories seeking to understand hazards, Mud. University of Washington Press, Seattle, vulnerability and risk. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, pp 67–85 Kelman I (eds) Handbook of hazards and disaster risk Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR (1972) When disaster strikes: it reduction. Routledge, London, pp 18–33 isn’t much like what you’ve heard and read about. Wood NJ, Soulard CE (2009) Community exposure to Psychol Today 5(9):66–70 lahar hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. U.S. Saxena NC (1998) What is meant by people’s participa- Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, tion? J Rural Dev 17(1):111–113 2009–5211 Schelling J, Prado L, Driedger CL, Faust L, Lovellford P, Norman D, Schroedel R, Walsh T, Westby L (2014) Fostering Participation of Local Actors … 17

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms The images or other third party material in this chapter of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you Commons license and your intended use is not permitted give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright and indicate if changes were made. holder.