bindura university of science education geography …
TRANSCRIPT
i
BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
GEOGRAPHY DEPARTMENT
AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION.
THE CASE OF WARD 13 (ZVIMBA DISSTRICT), ZIMBABWE
MUJURU JONAH A.
B1231864
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE BACHELOR OF SCINCE HONORS DEGREE IN DISATER MANAGEMENT.
DATE:
ii
Approval form
The undersigned certify that have read and recommended to Bindura University of Science
Education for acceptance, a research project entitled ―An analysis of community participation in
disaster risk reduction. The case of Ward 13 (Zvimba District), Zimbabwe‖.
Supervisor.........................................Signature................................. Date..............................
iii
Declaration
I declare that this research project is my own work and has not been copied from any source
without acknowledgement of the source or publisher.
Name...........................................................................................................
Signature......................................................................................................
Date.............................................................................................................
iv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to Mujuru family for the support they gave me during my studies.
May God bless them in abundance.
v
Acknowledgements
This work could not have been a success without the co-operation of households in Ward 13 of
Zvimba District. Special thanks and credit goes to Mr Chitombo (Assistant District
Administrator), Mr Tendaupenyu (Environmental Management Agency officer) and Kenias
Mundinga (Social Welfare) for the assistance they gave to me during the research.
I am indebted to my supervisor Mrs Mudavanhu for her inspiring leadership and having the
patience to drive me in the right lane. May you continue the good work.
I extend my gratitude to my family for their support during my academic life. I thank parents Mr
and Mrs Mujuru for helping me financially and my elder brother F.J Mujuru for your sense of
guidance and inspiration.
vi
ABSTRACT
Community participation is regarded as the cornerstone of disaster risk reduction (DRR) but
many of the threatened communities are being overlooked when coordinating DRR activities
hence skipping some of their needs. Although DRR authorities are urged to involve the
community at risk in undertaking DRR activities, up to date there is no research to find out if
people in Ward 13 of Zvimba District are participating. Using both qualitative and quantitative
research methods, the study seeks to analyse participation of the community in DRR. The study
established that most of DRR activities in the community are mainstreamed to reduced effects of
veld fires and drought. These activities include constructing fire breaks, awareness campaigns,
cooperative farming and community gardens. However, the study revealed that women are the
ones dominating in activities as compared to men. Results from the research also also revealed
that corruption, lack of incentives, lack of information and transparency about DRR programs
are the barriers to participation for many. Therefore, there is need of capacitating DRR
authorities on the importance of community participation and transferring ownership of
programs to the community they are designed for.
vii
List of Abbreviations
CPA Civil Protection Act
DA District Administrator
DCP Department of Civil Protection
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EMA Environmental Management Agency
NGOs Non-Governmental organisations
SF Sendai Framework
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk
viii
Content
Approval form ......................................................................................................................... ii
Declaration .............................................................................................................................. iii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background to the study ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Statement of problem ............................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Aim of the study .................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Objectives of the study .......................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Research questions ................................................................................................................ 3
1.7 Justification of the study ....................................................................................................... 3
1.8 Delimitation ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.9 Limitations of the study......................................................................................................... 4
1.10 Definition of key terms ....................................................................................................... 4
1.11 Organization of the study .................................................................................................... 5
1.12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Community participation ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Characteristics of participation........................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Background of community participation in disaster risk reduction ................................... 9
2.2 Merits of community participation ...................................................................................... 11
2.3 Limitations of community participation .............................................................................. 12
2.4 Barriers to community participation in disaster risk reduction ........................................... 13
2.5 Models of participation ....................................................................................................... 14
ix
2.6 Community activities in disaster risk reduction .............................................................. 17
2.7 Disaster management system in Zimbabwe .................................................................... 20
2.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 22
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 22
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Description of the study area ............................................................................................... 22
3.3 Research design ................................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Data collection..................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Questionnaires .............................................................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Interviews guide ........................................................................................................... 25
3.4.3 Observation guide ......................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Respondents ........................................................................................................................ 26
3.6 Sampling.............................................................................................................................. 26
3.6.1. Sampling procedure......................................................................................................... 26
3.7 Reliability and Validity ....................................................................................................... 27
3.8 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................... 27
3.9 Data Presentation and Analysis ........................................................................................... 27
3.10 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 29
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 29
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Distribution of respondents by sex ............................................................................... 29
4.2.2 Age of respondents ....................................................................................................... 30
4.2.3 Level of education of respondents ................................................................................ 31
4.2.4 Period of stay in the area .............................................................................................. 32
4.2.5 Understanding the concept of participation in disaster risk reduction programs ......... 33
4.2.6 DRR activities in the district ........................................................................................ 34
4.2.7 Training in disaster risk reduction activities................................................................. 36
4.2.8 Type of participation practised by disaster risk reduction authorities .......................... 39
x
4.9 Initiation of disaster risk reduction programs .................................................................. 40
4.2.10 Attendance of meetings by community members ...................................................... 40
4.2.11 Contributions during meetings ................................................................................... 41
4.2.12 Ideas incorporated in decision making ....................................................................... 41
4.2.13 Empowerment of the community in disaster risk reduction activities ....................... 42
4.14 Who normally participate in DRR programs ................................................................. 42
4.2.15 Knowledge about laws that encourages participation in community activities.......... 43
4.2.16 Challenges to community participation ...................................................................... 43
4.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 45
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 45
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 45
5.2 Summary of key findings ................................................................................................ 45
5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 47
References ............................................................................................................................. 49
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Introduction
The chapter is going to introduce the research topic citing the background to the study, problem
statement, research aim, objectives and questions of the study. A justification of the study,
delimitations and limitations will also be provided in this chapter. Definition of key terms will be
covered as the chapter unfolds.
Community participation has become a cross cutting issue in different sectors of the society
including that of disaster risk reduction (DRR). Community participation is regarded as the
cornerstone of DRR but many of the threatened communities are being overlooked when
coordinating DRR activities hence skipping some of their needs. The research thus seeks to
analyse local participation in DRR activities in Zvimba District. This study is going to cover
subtopics which include background to the study, research objectives, significance of the study,
review of literature, methodology, research format, research design and data analysis,
presentation and interpretation.
1.2 Background to the study
Global concerns in DRR have risen for the past decades and have influenced many reforms for
many countries including Zimbabwe. The new approaches to DRR have emphasized community
participation as a cornerstone to reduce risk in societies. Community participation has been
considered as a cornerstone in DRR at a global level. Community participation, generally, refers
to the involvement of people in any project to solve their own problems or to develop their socio-
economic conditions (Kumar, 2011). The recently adopted Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction guiding principle 3 states that DRR requires an all-of-society engagement and
partnership. It also requires empowerment and inclusive, accessible and non-discriminatory
participation, paying special attention to people disproportionately affected by disasters,
especially the poorest (UNISDR, 2015).
Zimbabwe has been facing effects from but not limited to drought, flooding, veldt fires,
cyclones, HIV/AIDS and road traffic accidents. These disasters have increased in their frequency
and magnitude for the past decade (DCP, 2012). The Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) has
2
embraced the concept of participation as evidenced by Chapter 5.3 of the constitution which give
powers of self-governance to the people and enhance their participation in the exercise of the
powers of the State and in making decisions affecting them; and to recognize the right of
communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development. The Civil Protection
Act which oversees disaster management in the country stipulates that every citizen has the
responsibility to avoid (where possible), limit of reduce disaster occurrence (CPA, 2010). This
suggests that even the community at risk has a special role to play in reducing disaster risk thus
promoting participation.
Zvimba District is of no exception in the occurrence of disasters. The district has been affected
by meteorological droughts, storms, flooding and most significantly veldt fires (DCP, 2014).
Whilst other disasters have posed low to moderate impacts, veldt fires have had greater impact in
the district (EMA, 2015). In 2013, the district recorded the highest number of land destroyed by
fire (EMA, 2013). However, for the past two years there is a decrease in the effects of fire
suggesting that DRR measures have been incorporated in fighting veldt fires. Recurrent drought
has also affected the area thereby underpinning food security.
The government through the district administrators‘ office, EMA and a number of NGOs which
include Red Cross, US AID and Save the Children have embarked on a number of different DRR
activities in a bid to minimize vulnerability and disaster risk throughout the district and to avoid
or limit the adverse impacts of hazards threatening the community. Hazard or risk identification,
vulnerability and capacity analysis, environmental management, land use planning, knowledge
development and enhancing early warning systems are some of the DRR activities carried out by
the local government and various N.G.Os in Zvimba District.
According to UNISDR (2006), disaster risk reduction is most effective at community level where
specific local needs can be met. Bearing that in mind, the researcher got interesting in finding out
whether the people in Zvimba District (drawing from ward 13) are participating in DRR
activities that are undertaken in their community so as to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster
risks throughout their society.
3
1.3 Statement of problem
Although key players in DRR are the community members at risk, they are often rarely included
in DRR activities, neither are they consulted in programs and policies to do with their well-
being. Whether their isolation is by omission or commission, one thing is certain that their role is
often not recognised. Community participation is regarded as the cornerstone of DRR but many
of the threatened communities are being overlooked or withdraw themselves when coordinating
DRR activities hence skipping some of their needs. However, in as far as the researcher is aware
there is no study so far to assess community participation in DRR activities in Ward 13 of
Zvimba District.
1.4 Aim of the study
To analyse on community participation in DRR activities in Zvimba South District
1.5 Objectives of the study
To identify DRR activities in the district
To assess the level of community participation in DRR activities
To identify challenges in community participation
1.6 Research questions
What are the DRR activities undertaken in the district
What is the level of community participation in DRR activities
What are the challenges encountered in community participation
1.7 Justification of the study
This is an empirical study, that is, one backed by evidence. Previous studies related to the study
in the country have been mainly theoretical. The study attempts to fill this gap. The findings and
recommendations offer wider options in initiating DRR efforts for the best of the community in
the district and the country as a whole.
Great opportunity was provided to the researcher because the knowledge of community
participation in disaster risk reduction has been broadened. This help in educating others in
issues concerning community participation mainly at the local scale.
4
1.8 Delimitation
The study was carried out in Zvimba District of Mashonaland West Province Zimbabwe. The
main ward that will be under study is ward 13 since it is one of the areas mostly affected by veldt
fires throughout the district hence DRR activities are carried out giving the researcher an
opportunity to find whether the community is involved.
1.9 Limitations of the study
The coverage is not the ideal. Precisely, a small sample of one district (Zvimba) out of more than
60 districts in Zimbabwe was covered. Thus, only views of primary respondents from Zvimba
district shape the findings of the study. Additionally, the research, especially data collection was
conducted in a relatively short period of time whereas DRR is a long-term developmental issue
which may need tracking over longer periods. The topic and some concepts of the study are also
technical and more time was needed for clarity and understanding of the concepts.
1.10 Definition of key terms
Disaster refers to a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the
affected community to cope using their own resources, (UNISDR 2015). It results from a
combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to
reduce the potential negative consequences of being at risk.
Risk is the expected loss to a community when a hazard event occurs. This normally includes
lives lost, people injured, property damaged and the livelihoods disrupted. Risk is also articulated
as the probability of harmful consequences or expected loss resulting from the interaction
between hazards and vulnerable conditions.
Risk is therefore the likelihood of a disaster happening as illustrated by the equation below:
R = H x V/C x M
Where R=Risk, H=Hazard, V=Vulnerability, C=Capability and M=Manageability
(Sphere, 2004; Kesten, 2006).
5
Hazard refers to a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon and or human activity
which may cause the loss of lives or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption
and environmental degradation (UNISDR, 2015).
Vulnerability refers to the extent to which an individual, household, community or area may be
adversely affected by a disaster. In other words, it is a set of conditions and processes resulting
from physical, social, economic and environmental conditions that increase the susceptibility of
communities to impacts of hazards (UNISDR, 2015).
Community is defined as ―people living in one geographical area, who are exposed to common
hazards due to their location‖, (ADPC, 2004).
Participation is process through which stakeholders influence and shares control over
development initiatives and decisions and resources which affect them (Bagumhe, 2007).
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is the conceptual framework of elements considered with the
possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid
(prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the
broad context of sustainable development
1.11 Organization of the study
To facilitate a logical debate, the research is arranged in a systematic form of chapters.
Chapter 1 identifies the research problem, giving the background and introductory framework to
the study. The chapter also defines various theoretical concepts underlying the study,
delimitation and challenges encountered during the data gathering, analysis and dissemination
processes. Chapter 2 is based on literature review whereby key terms in the study will be
discussed so as to give the reader a clear picture of what the research is all about. Chapter 3
discusses the research methodology. Chapter 4 gives a detailed analysis of the findings of the
situation in Zvimba District. Chapter 5 focuses on summarizing the findings, recommendations
and offering general conclusion.
6
1.12 Conclusion
This chapter has provided the reader with background information to the study; the problem
statement and the research objectives. The contribution of the study to the body of knowledge
has also been mentioned. The final section of this chapter provided the reader with a clear
indication as to the chapter outline of this thesis. The following chapter provides the reader with
sound theoretical knowledge of disaster risk reduction and community participation in DRR that
is literature review.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews literature concerning community participation in disaster risk reduction.
The chapter will begin with a detailed definition of community participation. The chapter also
review merits and challenges to community participation and also models of participation. A
review will also be made concerning disaster management systems and approaches in Zimbabwe
and the possible gap in relation to community participation in DRR.
2.1 Community participation
The word community is a multi-dimensional and complex concept that is defined by different
scholars. In disaster management it is defined as ―people living in one geographical area, who
are exposed to common hazards due to their location‖, (ADPC, 2004). The features and
behaviour of communities differs from one community to another depending on the historical
background. The main point is that community must share the same characteristics (Green and
Mercer, 2001)
For the past two decades, community participation has become an important aspect in
development processes (Marsland, 2006). Both international and local communities are
encouraging government and NGOs to involve the local people in decision making that directly
affect their life. Community participation is the process of giving people more opportunities to
participate effectively in development activities, empowering people to mobilize their own
capacities, be social actors rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions
and control the activities that affect their lives (Bagumhe, 2007). Myers and Hirsch (2009) view
community participation as an active process by which client groups or beneficiaries influence
the direction and execution of the development program with a view of enhancing their well-
being in terms of income, person growth, self-reliance, spiritual development and values they
cherish. Theron (2005) views community participation as a process to give communities an
opportunity to determine their own destination. This means that provision of grassroots level
with abilities, which could enable them to negotiate development delivery systems and be able to
take informed decisions, in terms of their development needs and priorities
8
What gives a clear portrait of participation is the collective efforts by the people concerned
together as they pool their efforts and resources in order to attain objectives they set for
themselves. Kumar (2002) argue that participation in this regard deals with encouraging
participants to take initiatives and actions which are stimulated by their own thinking and
deliberation and over which they can exert effective control
Community participation is the creation of opportunities so that all members in the community
will be able to actively contribute to and influence the development process and to share
equitably the fruits of development. It is a means to empower people by developing their skills
and abilities so that they can negotiate with systems thereby making their own decisions in terms
of their development needs and priorities (Theron, 2005). In the case of Zvimba settlement, the
community should exercise freedom to decide on the hazards affecting them and should also
realise that it is their constitutional right to participate. For example, the community can decide
on who they want to represent them in DRR activities. They should have the authority to make
decisions with regard to their expertise because they are the ones directly affected by hazards.
2.1.1 Characteristics of participation
Decision making- the community at risk should have a say in decisions about actions that affect
their living. They need to be involved in decision making process such as in initiation,
implementation and evaluation of DRR programs (Driskell and Neema, 2009).
Implementation- One of the vital aspects of community involvement at the implementation stage
is to develop the sense of ownership of the implemented activity for long term sustainability
(Guimaraes, 2009). Community participation in the implementation stage of a project can also
reduce costs and provide training and employment.
Empowerment- empowerment increases the capabilities of the public and holds accountable the
institutions that provide them. Empowerment attempts to give power and knowledge to rural
communities to assist in creating a better quality of life, so that in future they will have skills to
rely less on external forces (Narayan, 2002). Participation in programs is a strong form of
empowerment. It involves capacity building of the community so that they can make informed
decisions and undertake (Meshack, 2004)
9
Mobilisation- participation involves self-mobilisation, self-reliance and empowerment of the
development process (Pholongane, 2014). It is a sequence of interferences intended to increase
level of involvement of a community in the decision that affect its own development.
Mobilisation promotes community participation in control and all actions affecting the whole
community (Pholongane, 2014)
2.1.2 Background of community participation in disaster risk reduction
In recent years there has been a shift in the approach to DRR, with an introduction of the
vulnerability approach, a focus on pre-disaster activities and an inclusion of the affected
community in the process with Community-based Disaster Management (CBDM). These three
changes support the inclusion of knowledge held by local affected people in preparedness and
mitigation strategies to help reduce the vulnerability of disaster-prone communities (Allen,
2006). Many indigenous communities understand their local environment and care for it,
maintain lessons from past disasters, and are invested in the place where they live.
CBDM is a new approach to DRR. Allen (2006), a DRR researcher and practitioner working in
the Philippines, explains the evolution of CBDM and the shifting emphases: Historically, top-
down, interventionist approaches have dominated the disaster management field. Initiatives have
been characteristically technology-centred and driven by outside ‗experts‘. However, over the
past two decades, increasing emphasis has been placed on, on the one hand, community-based
approach, and on the other, pre-emptive approaches that focus on the root causes of vulnerability
rather than isolated disaster events.
The concept of CBDM was pioneered as early as the 1980s by the Peruvian NGO Centro de
Estudios y Prevencio‘on de Desastres (or Disaster Prevention and Study Center, known as
PREDES) and the Network for Social Studies on Disaster Prevention in Latin America (La Red)
Andrew Maskrey, disaster management specialist working in Latin America at the time, offered
a critique of conventional mitigation programs in the 1980s (Schilperoort, 2012). He described
them, as Allen does, consisting of a top-down approach with ―large centralized agencies without
participation in decision-making by stakeholders‖. He outlines three specific critiques of this
approach: First, it reduces the risk but not vulnerability, that is, it attacks the symptoms but not
the underlying causes; Second, it does not take into account the needs or demands of the
10
stakeholders, specifically the community members; Third, it favours the rich and powerful and is
a very political model (Schilperoort, 2012).
In response, after comparing the effectiveness of the two methods for mitigation programs, Allen
(2006) encourages the creation of community based organizations (CBOs) and concludes that
community based programs offer a vehicle for development, effectively reduce vulnerability, and
build self-confidence within the community so that people are more likely to take control of the
situation. Throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, countless other NGOs and
international organizations have done further work using the CBDM model. It has been accepted
by the UN as a valuable approach to DRR, shown in a new publication which compiles good
practices in Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2010).
Although top-bottom approaches have been dominating disaster management, Allen (2006)
asserted that nowadays much emphasis is placed on bottom-up approach which is driven by the
communities. Allen (2006) understands community based approaches to disaster management as
a way of empowering participants and a driver that transfers ideas from bottom to the top. The
bottom up approach consists of development of policies and techniques by considering cultural
dimensions and livelihood patterns of the affected community. They certify that policies and
technologies are providing the desires of a community, provide awareness to the community
about the risk they could encounter and how to protect them for the future. Further, the
community based disaster risk reduction approaches provide an opportunity for the affected
people to provide their contributions thus increasing their commitment and belongingness for the
disaster management activities that they are involved in.
It is now well recognized that disasters are the result of human actions, not simply natural
processes (Helmer and Hilhorst, 2006), and affect the social, political, environmental and
economic context (Mercer, 2010). DRR is ―the systematic development and application of
policies, strategies and practices to minimize vulnerabilities, hazards and the unfolding of
disaster impacts throughout a society, in the broad context of sustainable development‖ (United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2004:3). DRR reduces the
underlying factors that contribute to human vulnerability. DRR activities are well established at
the grassroots or community level as a method to reduce vulnerability to all hazards (Mercer,
2010) and can involve ―hard solutions‖ such as building infrastructure to certain standards, or
11
―soft solutions‖, for example education and awareness raising. Within the DRR field, community
based approaches to reducing vulnerability have become increasingly popular over the past 20
years (Allen, 2006).
2.2 Merits of community participation
Community participation empowers the primary beneficiaries of programmes or projects by
helping them escaping form the mentality of dependency (Nekwaya, 2007). Community
participation can also promote self-confidence and self-awareness to the community involved.
Nampila (2005) agrees that this heightened consciousness makes people continuously aware of
the reality about them and of their own capacity to transform it. When people have the freedom
to participate in activities, it gives them dignity and self-respect
Another advantage to consider in community participation is that of sustainability (Kumar,
2011). Generally, DRR interventions are funded by either government or by donor agencies.
Research has shown that most of DRR interventions from external assistance projects usually fail
to sustain to the required level once support or inputs are diminished or withdrawn by funding
agencies. People‘s participation is regarded as a cornerstone for the continuity of activities. A
sense of ownership over projects can be developed through involvement of local people and
utilisation of local resources. This sense of ownership is of great importance for the continuity of
interventions even after external funds cease to flow (Kumar, 2011). Community participation
ensures that projects are developed according to the needs of the people (Raniga and Simpson,
2002). This can improve the outcomes of projects through cost sharing, increased efficiency and
effectiveness. Through community participation, resources available for DRR projects will be
used more efficiently and fewer costs will be incurred if the people themselves are responsible
for the project (Kumar, 2011).
Community participation encourages community self-reliance. Many development interventions
have been seen to create a kind of dependence syndrome. For instance, in India, there is a
widespread government development programmes, people have started looking to the
government for solutions to every problem that they face (Kumar, 2011).The ultimate objective
embraces all the positive effects of genuine participation by rural people. Self-reliance
demolishes their over-dependency attitudes, enhances awareness, confidence and self-initiative.
12
It also increases people's control over resources and development efforts, enables them to plan
and implement and also to participate in development efforts at levels beyond their community.
Community participation is one of the domains of capacity building in the community. Aref and
Redzuan (2009) suggest that it is one of the instruments to empower people to take part in
community development. Community participation is an essential part of community
development and one of the factors in the community capacity building process, which allows
involvement of people in the different stages of decision making
2.3 Limitations of community participation
Community participation is time-consuming. Community participation may lead to delay and
slow progress in initial stages of the field work thereby delaying the achievement of physical as
well as financial targets (Kumar, 2011). However, it should be remembered that obstacles to
community participation are directly related to one‘s perspective of community participation.
Community participation can bring latent conflicts to the surface and it can delay project start-
up, while increasing the demands on project personnel and managers. The interface between
politicians and civil servants has also exhibited conflicts of roles and interest, factionalism,
confrontation, intimidation and power struggle (Williams, 2009).
Illiteracy is an inhibiting factor in community participation. This is because illiterate people may
be marginalised by professional and technical communication during the community-
participation process (Theron, 2002). Nekwaya (2007) pointed that stakeholders may use
community participation as a platform to further their own agendas. It is not clear what
constitutes a ―good‖ decision when it comes to community participation.
Laverack (2001) argues that participation without a formal leader who takes full responsibility
for getting things done, dealing with conflicts and providing a general guide of direction for the
group often results in disorganisation. He also argued that power relations are an important
aspect to consider in the success or failure of programs. If the leader does not buy into the
process then there is a strong possibility that programs will fail.
13
2.4 Barriers to community participation in disaster risk reduction
Research shows that people in disaster-prone areas worldwide, in many cases, response to
disaster in effective manner if they participate in DRR activities. Different studies show that
because of traditional thinking of communities, bureaucratic attitude of government officials,
scarcity of resources and prevalent socio-cultural norms and values, community participation in
DRR is not possible to achieve at desired level (Rahman, 2008). This section will discuss some
of the barriers to effective community participation in DRR.
The entrenched hierarchical administrative set-up is not eager to accept the opinion of illiterate
but wise and experienced local people in policy cycle (Rahman, 2008). The reluctance of most of
the officials of local level administration to take into consideration of people‘s perception about
disaster, leave little scope for inputs to decision-making for participatory approach to disaster
management. An example in point is that of policies and acts contributing to DRR in Zimbabwe
such as Environmental Management Act (EMA) and Zimbabwe National Climate Change
Response Strategy (ZNCCRS) deliberate on the integration of the scientific body of study giving
little room for the communities to take part.
Availability of financial resources is a vital component of disaster management program
(UNISDR, 2009). Although many governments like Zimbabwe set aside few millions of dollars,
it is far from adequate demand in the highly populated country with multiple hazards.
Furthermore, the national and local voluntary agencies have lack of adequate financial resources
to operate community-based program. Due to scarcity of resources it is often difficult to engage
the community into DRR activities.
Old-aged thinking of distributing relief materials during disaster is existed among the people
worldwide. Many of them think that it is the responsibility of government and/or voluntary
agencies to provide all the facilities to the disaster victims. Therefore, to introduce the risk
reduction culture and practices takes time to replace the longstanding relief culture (Rahman,
2008).
Relationship between men and women is institutionalized in the rural society of many countries
including Zimbabwe. At the heart of this system of social arrangement is the institution of female
seclusion. Practice of female seclusion inhibits the mobility of women (Kabeer, 2000). Even
during disaster women do not want to leave their residence and take shelter in the public
14
buildings. Therefore, prevalent norms and values remain a challenge to community participation
in disaster management.
2.5 Models of participation
Lilja and Ashby (1999) argued that up to five types of community participation exists depending
on who makes decisions.
Fig 2.5 Types of Community Participation Based on Locus of Decision-making. Adapted
from Lilja and Ashby (1999)
Type A (on-community research): DRR practitioners make the decision alone without
organized communication with community members.
Type B (consultative): DRR practitioners make the decision alone but with organized
communication with community members. DRR practitioners know about community‘s
At the decision-making point in each step decisions are made
by:
DRR practitioners DRR practitioners and community
members jointly
Community members
Without
organized
communication
with
community
With organized
communication
with community
With organized
communication
with each other
With organized
communication with
DRR practitioners
Without organized
communication
with DRR
practitioners
Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E
15
opinions, preferences and priorities through organized one-way communication with
community members. DRR practitioners may or may not let this information affect their
decision. The decision is not made with community members nor is it delegated to them.
Type C (collaborative): The decision is a shared decision between community members
and DRR practitioners involving organized communication with each other. DRR
practitioners and community members know about each other‘s opinions, preferences and
priorities through organized two-way communication. The decisions are made jointly;
they are not made by DRR practitioners‘ on their own or community members alone. No
party has a right to revoke the shared decision.
Type D (collegial): The decision is made by community members collectively in a group
process or by individuals who are involved in organized communication with DRR
practitioners. Community members know about DRR practitioners‘ opinions,
preferences, proposals and priorities through organized two-way communication. They
may or may not let this information affect their decision. When this type of participatory
research is initiated, DRR practitioners may be facilitating the collective or individual
decision-making of community members or may have already built their ability to make
the decision without outsider involvement. Community members have a right to revoke
the decision.
Type E (community experimentation): community members make the decision
individually or in a group without organized communication with DRR practitioners.
Research suggests that increasing equal relations between organizations in DRR and the
community is optimal for healthy risk reduction; however, the empirical assessment of shared
control in organizations in DRR and community partnership is emerging (Wong et al, 2011).
Wong et al (2011) developed a model to offer a conceptual framework that identifies degrees of
organizations-community participation while considering the development potential within each
type.
Based on evidence and findings, the model identifies five types of community participation: (1)
Vessel, (2) Symbolic, (3) Pluralistic, (4) Independent and (5) Autonomous.
16
Shared control
Fig 2.6 Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment for Child and Adolescent
Health Promotion. Adapted from Wong et al. (2011)
The pyramid as shown above identifies five distinct types of community participation. Previous
researchers suggested that community driven participation is ideal for positive community
development and empowerment (Wong et al, 2011). Communities, however, cannot be expected
to carry the full burden of empowering themselves in reducing disaster risk. Organizations in
DRR ought to share in this responsibility.
SYMBOLIC
Community has
voices
Organizations
have control
PLURALISTIC
Community has
voices and active
participant role
Organizations
and community
share control
INDEPENDENT
Community has
voices and active
participant role
Organizations give
the community most
of the control
AUTONOMOUS
Community has
voices and active
participant role
Community has
total control
VESSEL
Lack of community
voice and
participation
Organizations has
total control
ORGANISATION
CONTROL COMMUNITY
CONTROL
17
In co-learning with communities, organizations can serve as resources and collaborators—versus
being the experts— by facilitating critical dialogue, awareness, and building skills towards
critical consciousness in partnership with people (Wong et al, 2011). Community participants
can be encouraged to be active collaborators and the sharing of their views contributes to critical
dialogue. It is through this co-learning process with organizations that communities can both
become empowered and reap developmental benefits (Wong et al, 2011).
2.6 Community activities in disaster risk reduction
A disaster results when a hazard occurs and impacts on a community, overwhelming its capacity
to cope (UNISDR, 2012). The magnitude of impact is directly related to the intensity and scale
of a hazard and the vulnerability of individuals and communities. It is the vulnerability of a
community that when combined by a hazard will result in disaster events. Rather than blaming
hazards as a cause of disasters, Wisner et al (2004) indicates that there is a progression of
different factors in the community leaving it vulnerable to hazards. These factors are within the
community and only the community at risk is in a better position to identify and rectify them.
The community thus has a special role to play in addressing its vulnerability so as to reduce the
chances of disasters (Twigg, 2004). DRR is not sorely the work of experts, government and
N.G.Os but rather calls for the participation of the local people since they are the ones affected
when a disaster strikes. Involvement from the most vulnerable groups is considered vital for
successful and sustainable long-term achievements.
Generally, many can agree that no one can have a better understanding of hazards threatening a
community than the one at risk. The community at risk possesses knowledge such that if
considered DRR activities will be a success. A case to note is that of December 26, 2004, an
earthquake measuring 9.3 on the Richter scale erupted under the Indian Ocean just northwest of
Sumatra, Indonesia (McAdoo et al, 2005). The earthquake produced one of the most devastating
tsunamis in recent history, reaching thirteen surrounding countries and producing overwhelming
destruction by killing over 173,000 people and leaving another 108,000 missing (McAdoo et al,
2005). One story of survival emerged from the wreckage of that December day. It centred on a
community living on Simeulue Island off the coast of Sumatra, only 40 kilometres southeast of
the epicentre of the earthquake. Just ten minutes after the earthquake‘s tremors ceased, a wave
18
ten meters high struck the northern part of the island. The island inhabitants fully understood the
signs of the approaching tsunami because of specific knowledge their ancestors had passed down
to them through stories and songs. They responded quickly and successfully. Out of a
population of over 78,000 people, only seven people died (McAdoo et al, 2005).
This story is just one out of hundreds of examples of communities that have successfully used
indigenous knowledge to survive natural disasters. This is indigenous knowledge which refers to
approaches and practices of a culture which develop from an advanced understanding of its
specific environment which has formed over numerous generations of habitation. Research has
concluded that indigenous knowledge is valuable to DRR in both a narrow sense (specific DRR
strategies which translate to similar communities), and in a general sense (empowering the
community, improving project implementation, and successfully using non-formal methods of
information dissemination) (McAdoo et al, 2005). . Therefore involving the community in DRR
can bring out local knowledge that can be used in providing solutions to local solutions.
Another example to note is that of Hurricane Mitch which swept through Central America in
1998, causing severe impacts in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala (UNISDR,
2009). The death toll from the high winds, flooding and landslides generated by this storm was
about 27,000. Mitch destroyed or damaged about 80,000 homes, 2,000 drinking water systems
and hundreds of bridges, and heavily impacted on the region‘s agriculture – causing damage to
subsistence crops to the value of US$ 155 billion in Honduras alone (UNISDR, 2009).
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) claims that the disaster
put economic development in Honduras back by 20 years. The impacts of Mitch fell most
heavily on the poorest, especially on those living and working in marginal lands on steep slopes
and floodplains. But a few examples emerged from the region to illustrate how simple DRR
rooted within communities in hazard-prone locations can play a major role in reducing local
deaths. In contrast with neighbouring sites, there were no deaths among the residents of La
Masica on the coast of Honduras, where external agencies had supported a local capacity-
building programme for risk reduction featuring a community-based flood EWS linked to
preparedness training (UNISDDR, 2009). Similarly, the impact of the hurricane was
substantially reduced and there was no loss of life along the Coyolate River in Guatemala, where
19
communities had jointly worked to map flood hazard, establish a high-rainfall alarm system,
monitor river levels and constructed evacuation shelters.
UNISDR (2006) asserts that if a local community is involved in the risk assessment process
(participatory disaster risk assessment) there is an opportunity for raising awareness about
potential hazards. Some of the hazards may be already known by the community while others are
not. DRR as a conceptual framework focuses on reducing threats and potential losses and not on
managing disasters and their consequences. DRR contributes to ISDR‘s aim of developing a
―culture of safety‖ and creating ―disaster resilient communities‖ (ISDR, 2002). Participatory
Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA) is both a dialogue and a negotiated process involving those at
risk, authorities and other stakeholders. It is a process whereby all parties concerned collect and
analyse disaster risks information, in order to make appropriate plans and implement concrete
actions to reduce and/or eliminate disaster risks that will adversely affect their lives (UNISDR,
2006). Changes in attitude must be seen as a process, and when this particular process is
completed, hazards are recognized or accepted. When this happens, it is possible to bring about a
change some practices that contribute to DRR.
While considering risks and inherent systems leading to vulnerability with in a community, it is
also essential to consider modes of resilience. Resilience is ―the ability of a system, community,
or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the efforts of
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its
essential basic structures and functions‖ (Burton, 2011). Where vulnerability is broadly defined
as the probability of loss, resilience refers to the probability of resistance to loss. The community
possesses resources and assets such that when effectively and efficiently used much can be done
in resisting hazards. It is thus of vital importance to involving the community to map out
resources and assets that can foster resilience.
The common process for most communities involves situation analysis, risk mapping, mitigation
activities, community training, and risk monitoring and evaluation. To make DRR sustainable in
communities, a large number of diverse actors must be involved in the process and committed to
follow up further actions. Involvement from the most vulnerable groups is considered vital for
successful and sustainable long-term achievements.
20
2.7 Disaster management system in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe gained independence from being a British colony in 1980.The country continued
using some of the British laws including those for disaster management. However, the DRR
approach in Zimbabwe has evolved from civil defence to civil protection, leading to the
enactment of the Civil Protection Act (Chapter 10:06) in 1989 (Government of Zimbabwe 1989).
The Act was later revised in 1992 and 2001 (Government of Zimbabwe 1989). It establishes a
civil protection organization (CPO) and provides for the operation of civil protection services in
times of disasters. The CPO is a national platform made up of line ministries/departments, state
enterprises, private sector and NGOs whose regular activities are related to DRR and community
development (Ministry of Local Government 2009). The structure of the Civil Protection system
is shown by the figure below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MLG, NH&PW Sister Ministry Departments
Fig 2.7 The Structure of Zimbabwe Civil Protection System (DCP, 2012)
The Act directs every province and district to have responsibility for the protection and
preservation of the lives and property for their citizens. According to Mavhura (2015), the Act
Parliament (Legislative)
President (Head of State)
Cabinet (policy formulation)
NGOs
representatives
21
covers mainly emergence and disaster response, and recovery programmes. Community
participation in DRR programs is limited, if not excluded in the piece of legislation. In addition,
there are no guidelines for stakeholder involvement at grassroots level, especially the multi
sectorial interventions. Although local authorities are important DRR players in their
jurisdictional areas (Bang 2014), this Act is silent about their role in performing this function.
Furthermore, the Act does not give room for the involvement of traditional leaderships in the
prevention and mitigation of disasters. Yet these institutions are important players in these
respects (Manyena 2014; Marashe 2014).Moreover, Mavhura (2015) noted there is nowhere in
the Act where community participation in DRR is facilitated, yet DRR requires considerable
decentralisation of both powers and resources (human, financial and material) to local levels. In
practice, DRR in Zimbabwe has remained a preserve for the technocrats at national level, with
little, if any, involvement of local communities. As such, disaster management has been poor and
non-existent in some instances. Though ISDR is advocating for community participation, some
communities in Zimbabwe are still legging behind due to some of the above reasons.
2.8 Conclusion
Chapter two has presented the literature review by highlighting the phenomenon and philosophy
of community participation. This includes the definition of community participation, the merits
and limitations of community participation, ways to encourage community participation as well
as the various levels and modes of community participation. The next chapter brings out the
method that was applied in carrying out the research.
22
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter serves to outline how information and data of the research were gathered. This
chapter also explains the methodological approach that was taken into consideration in
answering the research questions. It further goes on to illustrate how the research was designed,
the population of the study and the subjects used. Sampling procedures and research instruments
that were used in soliciting data are also highlighted in this chapter.
3.2 Description of the study area
Zvimba District is one of the six districts that make up Mashonaland West Province. The district
is generally divided into two, north and south. Prior to the land reform program, the northern part
was characterized by white large scale commercial farming whilst the south was predominantly
communal farming. The district shares boundaries with Chegutu, Makonde and Chinhoyi.
Agriculture is the main source of livelihoods for the inhabitants of this area. The main crops
grown in this area are maize, cotton and groundnuts. This area is receives very much rainfall
characterized by high and reliable rainfall patterns of 700 to 1050mm per annum (Agritex, 2013).
The region has fertile valleys and warm climate, which is ideal for agricultural productivity and
thus significant for the country‘s economy and the people‘s livelihood. Zvimba District falls
within agro ecological Natural Region II and is characterized by high rainfall patterns ranging
from 750 – 1000ml per annum, lush vegetation and rich soils suitable for intensive agricultural
production (Agritex, 2013). Zvimba District has a population of 220 763 people representative of
18.03 of the total provincial population. The population in Zvimba has 50.28 per cent male and
49.72 per cent female (ZIMSTAT, 2012).
The district has been affected by meteorological droughts, storms, flooding and most
significantly veldt fires (DCP, 2014). Whilst other disasters have posed low to moderate impacts,
veldt fires have had greater impact in the district (EMA, 2015). In 2013, the district recorded the
highest number of land destroyed by fire (EMA, 2013). However, for the past two years there is
23
a decrease in the effects of fire suggesting that DRR measures have been incorporated in fighting
veldt fires. Recurrent drought has also affected the area thereby underpinning food security.
Fig. 3 shows the location of the study area in Zimbabwe that is Zvimba District.
Fig 3 Zvimba District ward 13 map
3.3 Research design
DRR is a multi-and interdisciplinary social mechanism, and therefore should be researched with
multi-and interdisciplinary methods that take into account reality and are most apt to generate
solutions for complicated challenge (McEntire, 2006).
The researcher used both qualitative and quantitative research method, thus a mixed research
approach. Mixed research is a research in which qualitative and quantitative techniques are
24
mixed in a study (Johnson, 2007). Qualitative methods are most effectively used when trying to
obtain information on nature, affect, or meaning. Quantitative methods complement this type of
knowledge by measuring structural, contextual, and institutional features, (Ragin 2004).Mixed
research does not only expand the research base, they also provide the opportunity for synthesis
of the research traditions and give the investor additional perspectives and insights that are
beyond any scope of a single technique (Johnson, 2007). Qualitative data was collected through
interviewing people in ward 13.
3.4 Data collection
Questionnaire, interview guide and observations guide were the instruments employed in this
study for data collection. The questionnaire which was the main instrument was used to collect
quantitative data and qualitative data from community members. Informant interview guides
were used to collect data from the key informants that are community leaders. Triangulation of
data collection tools will reduce the biasness of the study by ensuring that the research tools
complement each other.
3.4.1 Questionnaires
A total of 50 questionnaires were self-administered to 50 households that were randomly
sampled to obtain adequate on community members concerning DRR activities undertaken by
the community, level of participation and challenges faced in participation. Questionnaires
eliminated bias and error arising from different personal characteristics of the interviewer and
respondent. Written data was also easy to analyse and interpret than oral data. Sensitive
information was transmitted easily on paper than on interviews. The responses were more
objective and valid when accurate interpretation of the questions was high. The questionnaire
was self-administered to the participants by the researcher in case they needed interpretation and
translation. The face to face questionnaire were used basing on the assumption that the best way
to learn from local people is to sit down, ask questions, listen and record the answers rather than
asking the respondents to fill in the questionnaire themselves (Cohen, Manion and Morrison,
2000). This solved the problem of illiteracy of the respondents because questionnaires had the
disadvantage that data can only be collected from literate respondents. Illiterate respondents
therefore had a chance to give their responses which were then recorded.
25
The questionnaire consisted of both open ended and closed questions. It was divided into three
categories which are socio-economic information of respondents, technical roles in DRR played
by community members participation and decision making role. Some of the questions which
were asked include understanding of the concept of participation, level of participation in
decision making and challenges faced in participation.
3.4.2 Interviews guide
In-depth interviews were used in order to gather DRR activities involving community
participation. An in-depth interview is described as a conversation with an individual conducted
by an interviewer that usually collects specific information about a phenomenon or a person
(Gavin, 2008). Interviews were conducted with officers from EMA; ward Councillor, ministry of
local governance and NGO representatives. In-depth interviews allowed for greater flexibility in
questioning the respondent, the researcher was able to examine issues in greater detail during the
interview. The structured interviews allowed the researcher to get specific data through asking
questions that gave the researcher room to probe the ideas and perceptions of the respondents
about the phenomenon of interest.
The interview guide sought to collect information to provide an understanding of how key
informant perceive the concept of participation, level of participation by the locals and also how
they participated. Each interview was conducted at a meeting place identified by the interviewee
to be convenient, usually home, public areas and at workplaces. On average, individual
interviews were 20 minutes long in duration.
3.4.3 Observation guide
This is a non-verbal way of collecting data used by researchers. It allowed the researcher to look
at people‘s actions and situations noting what will be going on without asking questions. In the
case of the research under study, observations assisted the researcher to view day to day disaster
management activities that were undertaken by community groups and residents in ward 13.
26
3.5 Respondents
Respondents interacted with were from four sub-groups of the district‘s population, which are:
1. Community members – the ordinary members of the community.
2. Government representatives – local government from the District Administrator and EMA‘s
office
3. Other key informants – businesspeople, extension workers, Councillors, leading farmers,
research institutes and any other groups or people knowledgeable in the field under study.
4. Civic society – representatives of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), UN and other civic society players
3.6 Sampling
In this study the sample consisted of group of 50 participants in ward 13. Purposive sampling
method was used to choose the 7 key informants for interviews. The informants included
representative from ministry local government, NGO representatives, EMA officer and ward
councillor.
3.6.1. Sampling procedure
There were 12 villages in ward 13 of Zvimba district. A purposive sampling method was applied
which is used in special situations where the sampling is done with specific purpose in mind
(Maree, 2007) so as to select a total of 5 villages for study. These 5 villages were selected
because they are most punctuated with veldt fires than other villages. Household names were
provided to the researcher by the 5 village heads of those which were selected. A random
sampling method was applied in selecting 10 households from each and every village thus
resulting in 50 participants. All households therefore had an equal chance of being selected.
Head of households that were sampled were interviewed and in the absence of household head
anyone above 18 years was interviewed.
27
3.7 Reliability and Validity
Chism, Douglas and Hilson (2008) define reliability as the concern with consistency of the
methods and findings and validity as the concern with capturing what is really present in a
research. According to Babbie and Mouton (2008), triangulation is generally considered to be
one of the best ways to enhance validity and reliability in qualitative research. Triangulation
refers to the integration of various data sources, differentiated by time, place, and person
(Denzin, 1989 cited in SAGE, 2010). The multiple data collection methods used in this research
included semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and direct observations.
3.8 Ethical considerations
Neuman (2006) prints out that ethics in research is a set of principles that reveal what is or is not
legitimate to do in research practice. One of the concerns in the collection of primary data is that
of ethical considerations. In order to prevent harm to the subjects and to prevent bias, the
researcher abided by the ethical guidelines that seek to avoid harm to the respondents or to the
organization. The researcher asked for permission to undertake this study from the local ward
Councillor and the DA. The overall aims of the study were explained to the target population and
their consent was sought for participation in the research project. All participants were assured
that any sensitive data would be kept confidential and their identity would remain anonymous
since this study was for academic purposes only.
3.9 Data Presentation and Analysis
Qualitative data presentation was done through the transcribing of interview conversations, field
notes and sections of prose from documentary sources of data. Some of the data obtained in the
research was also analysed scientifically using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
and presented in the form of tables and graphs.
According to Calvani (2002, p. 77) ―the data collection techniques such as unstructured
observations, open-ended interviews, analysis of written documents, and focus groups transcripts
require the use of qualitative data analysis techniques‖. Bearing in mind that qualitative data
analysis starts in the field e.g. through attaching people‘s actions in tandem to their words, the
techniques employed included thematic content, narrative and ethnographic data analysis. These
allowed the researcher to understand social reality in a subjective but scientific manner. During
interviews, due to the open nature of many of the questions, respondents frequently provided
28
responses to questions that had not yet been asked. In such cases, the miscellaneous responses
were assigned to the question that they seemed to answer.
3.10 Conclusion
Research methodology was covered in this chapter. The study site was defined; research design
was also clearly specified. Sampling design, research instruments and how the data was collected
were covered in this chapter. This chapter describes how the data was collected, analysed and
presented. Advantages and disadvantages of each method used were also discussed. The tools
and methods used in data collection have been examined. The next chapter focuses on the
analysis, presentation and discussion of the results.
29
CHAPTER 4
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents results of the data collected from the field. It presents demographic
characteristic data, DRR activities undertaken in the district, the level of community participation
in DRR programs and challenges faced by the community in participation basing on the data
from questionnaires administered and respondents from key informants. The data collected was
compiled into tables, bar graphs and pie charts using SPSS method version 17 and Microsoft
excel.
4.2.1 Distribution of respondents by sex
The questionnaires were administered to the head of the household or anyone above the age of
eighteen present of the randomly sampled households. Out of a randomly selected sample of 50
respondents, 58% were males whilst 42% were women. Sex of respondents is an important
aspect in a research as it affects gender roles. Sex refers to the biological make up of respondents
that is either they are male or female by birth. Good practices in disaster risk reduction available
from donor organizations, UN country-based offices and non-governmental organisations
highlight the important contributions of a gender-sensitive approach in reducing community
vulnerability to disasters (Pinch, 2010). Due to differences in socially constructed set of roles,
responsibilities and stereotypes between males and females in a community, it is thus of great
importance to wear a gender lens in disaster risk management policies, plans and decision
making process. Views of both men and women were important as they gave the perception of
men and women towards participating in disaster risk reduction activities. However, from the
research men constitutes a larger percentage since most of them are household heads in the area
under study which is one of the resettled areas under the land reform program.
30
4.2.2 Age of respondents
Fig 4.2 Age of respondents (Primary data source)
Figure 4.2 above shows that 42% of the respondents are between 36 and 45 years old, 40%
above 46byears old, 14% between 26 and 35 years old and 4% between 18 and 25 years old. This
shows that the majority of respondents are older and do not fall into the official age of youth (18-
25 years). If older people participate in the development of their area, more skills, experience and
knowledge will be gained and will be easily transferred to the new and youthful generation.
Actively involving youth in the community programs, projects and activities can indirectly
recognize youth as viable and effective members of the community and has the potential to result
in deeper rooted and more sustainable community change (Robinson & Green, 2010). Therefore,
there is a need for young people to actively take part in the programs, projects and activities.
4% 14%
42%
40%
Age of respondents
18-25
26-35
36-45
45+
31
4.2.3 Level of education of respondents
Fig 4.3 Level of education of respondents (primary data source)
Figure 4.3 shows that up to 84% of the respondents have attended secondary school. 6% of the
total respondents have attended tertiary education. A total of 4% have only attended up to
primary education. Up to 6% of the respondents are illiterate. Having a number of up to 6%
illiterate, gives a general outlook about what they perceive as ―community participation‖ as well
as the issues they see as obstacles to participate in DRR activities. As a result this had an impact
on their participation. This finding corresponds with Theron‘s (2005) view that illiteracy is a
hindering factor in community participation.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
illiterate primary education secondary education tertiary education
6.0 4.0
84.0
6.0
32
4.2.4 Period of stay in the area
Fig 4.4 Period of stay in the area of respondents (Primary data source)
From the research a total of 54% have been living in the area for up to years. Up to 34% have
been in the area between 5 and 9 years and 12% presenting those with 1 to 4 years living in the
area. Time of stay in an area affects participation of an individual at different dimensions. For
newcomers in a community, in this case represented by those living in the period between 1 to 4
years, some may actively participate in community activities so as to build rapport with fellow
members whilst others may face isolation due to their newness. As for those living in the area for
a long time (10 years and above) have an understanding of activities in their community thus will
be at the forefront in their involvement. However, some may end up reluctant such that they end
up not giving time to participate in community activities since they will be used to them. This
concurs with what Kumar (2002) postulates suggesting that length of stay in an area shapes
behavior, attitude and perception towards community activities thereby affecting their
participation.
12.0
34.0
54.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs
Period of stay in the area
33
4.2.5 Understanding the concept of participation in disaster risk reduction programs
Fig 4.5 Understanding community participation (Primary data source)
Fig 4.5 above shows how members of the community understand what is to participate in DRR
programs. The understanding and definition of community participation is often confusing and
complex for many. Each individual can have his or her own view towards the concept. All
respondents gave differing views in as far community participation definition is concerned.
Majority of the respondents cited the features of participation as ―involvement‖, ―engagement‖
and ―taking part‖ showing that community members to some extent do understand what is meant
by community participation given that participation means different things to different people.
Some respondents cited cases where they had use their own poles and fence so as to barricade a
community garden. This may be seen as participation ―as a means‖, to get certain activities
accomplished using cheap labor and materials from community members.
46.0
30.0
24.0
Understanding participation in DRR
taking part
engagement
involvement
34
Key informants responses concerning community participation were as follows:
Allowing the community to play an active role through elimination of top to down
approach
The promotion of people centered approach
Engaging the community into decision making concerning DRR programs
People given a chance to prioritize projects and programs
The community/people taking part in all stages and activities of the project
The above explanation of community participation by key informants concurs with those of
Theron (2005) and Kumar (2005) as mentioned in Chapter 2. In summary, these authors
described community participation as an active involvement of community members in all stages
of projects and programs giving them opportunities to determine their own destination.
Based on the above findings and explanation of community participation by respondents, the
study shows that key informants understand the meaning of community participation and its
importance.
4.2.6 DRR activities in the district
Table 4.6 DRR activities in the community
DRR activities
Fire Hazards Drought
1. Awareness campaigns 1. Community gardens
2. Construction of fire breaks 2. Establishing irrigation schemes
3. Early burning 3. Construction of retention dams
4. Fire fighting 4. Cooperative farming (nhimbe)
5. Risk mapping 5. Deepening of water sources
35
The table above shows DRR activities which are undertaken in the community. In response to
fire hazards which presents the main threat in the community, respondents suggested that
awareness campaigns are conducted by organisations such as EMA before the fire season starts.
Awareness campaigns are done through road shows, school visits and posters. Respondents said
that these awareness campaigns are done so as to continue enlightening the community about the
need to conserve the environment. The community also construct fire breaks around their yards
and fields so as to contain fire spreading should it occur. Another activity done so as to contain
veldt fires is that of early burning so as to reduce fuel load in the forests before commencement
of fire season. Respondents suggested that this measure makes it easier for the community to
control fire should it occur. Fire fighting committees have been established in the villages so as
to lead other members in fire fighting should the hazard occur. According to the respondents it is
everyone‘s responsibility to fight fire should it occur so as to protect their lives, livelihoods and
property. Respondents also claimed that the community is involved in risk mapping as they seek
to identify areas which are most vulnerable to fire hazards that need special attention. EMA was
cited by respondents to be the facilitator of these activities.
According to EMA officials who were interviewed, Zvimba District is ranked second in as far as
fire outbreaks in concerned at a national scale. In 2013, the district recorded the highest number
of land destroyed by fire (EMA, 2016). Most of the incidents take place in the northern part of
the district of which contains the area under study. The area is populated by resettled farmers as a
result of the land reform program. Therefore DRR activities are mainstreamed in those areas so
as to reduce the effects of veldt fires.
Although the district lies in the Natural Region 2, the effect of climate change has also affected
the district. This is evidenced by reduction in rainfall in the past decades leaving the area
vulnerable to drought. Deforestation is also at its peak in the district according to EMA officials
contributing to desertification and consequently drought. With the assistance of NGOs such as
Red Cross and USAID respondents stated that the community has been assisted in initiating
garden projects. The researcher was privileged to visit one of the gardens in the ward and
witnessed the community‘s role in the activity. The participants grew a number of crops mainly
vegetables for sale hence securing money to buy food. The researcher also observed irrigation
equipment in some of the farms which is used so as to supplement rainfall. Respondents
36
suggested that through the courtesy of Oxfam they have received irrigation equipment so as to
supplement the deficit of rainfall. According to Oxfam official the move also necessitated
cooperative farming as farmers engage in farming groups so as to work together. Respondents
also said that the community mobilize itself so as to deepen water sources and upgrading dams
so as to increase water retention.
4.2.7 Training in disaster risk reduction activities
Fig 4.7 Training in fire hazard management (primary data source)
Fig 4.7 dipicts how the community is trained in fire hazard management according to
respondents. Up to 56% of respondents said that training in fire fire fighting is done by both
community members and DRR authorities. EMA officials and fire fighting committees in the
ward cascade their knowledge concerning fire fighting to the rest of the community. This shows
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
training in fire fightingtraining in early burning
training in risk mapping
training in constructing fire break
16.0
0 20.0
0
30.0 28.0
28.0
0
26.0
0
26.0
0
18.0
56.0
0
54.0
0
44.0
0
54.0
Who trains the community in fire hazard management
both community members and
DRR authorities
DRR authorities
community members
37
that the community is participating since they are given leadership roles in training their
collegues. Moreover, 28% of the respondents were of the view that DRR authorities are the only
ones training the community in fire fighting. A total of 16% claimed that the community
members independently train themselves on how to fight fire should it occur.
In as far as early burning is concerned as an activity in the community, 54% of respondents said
that both DRR authorities and community members conduct training so as to safely execute the
activity. A total of 26% of respondents alleged that DRR authorities were the ones sorely
conducting the training and 20% suggested that community members only conduct these
trainings.
Before the fire season starts, respondents said that they design risk maps which indicate areas
most vulnerable to fire during that season. Forty four per cent (44%) indicated that they are
taught by DRR authorities in conjunction with some of the community members. This suggests
that the community is recognised in executing activities that affect them. Up to 26% of
respondents claimed DRR authorities were the ones training the community in designing risk
maps. A total of 30% suggested community members were responsible in training others in
designing risk maps.
From the study 54% indicated that the community in collaboration with DRR authorities train
community members on how to construct fire breaks. A total of 18% indicated that DRR
authorities only are responsible for training the community on how to construct fire breaks. A
sum 28% of the respondents were of the view that it is the community members who sorely train
others in the construction of fire breaks.
Fig 4.8 below shows respondents‘ suggestion concerning training in activities that seek to reduce
the effects posed by drought. A total of 80% of the respondents said that DRR authorities were
responsible for training them on how to run community gardens. Up to 20% of the respondents
were of the view that it was a combination of both DRR officials and community members who
trained the locals on how to run community gardens.
The study revealed that DRR authorities are the one training the community in using irrigation
facilities with a total of 84% of respondents subscribing to the view. A total of 16% of
38
respondents claimed it was both DRR authorities and community members who offered training
on how to make use of irrigation facilities.
A total of 98% of the respondents asserted DRR authorities were training the community on how
to safely deepen their water sources in times of water deficit. The other 2% of respondents
suggested that it was both DRR authorities and community members that offered training on how
to deepen water sources.
The study also revealed a mixed view concerning training the community in cooperative farming
as an activity to reduce effects of drought. A total of 54% of respondents said that DRR
authorities are training the community on cooperative farming. Another view was that both DRR
authorities and community members are responsible for training people in cooperative farming
as a means to reduce the effects of drought
.
Fig 4.8 Training in activities that seek to reduce effects of drought (primary data source)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
training in community gardenstraining community in irrigation
training in deepening water sourcestraining in cooperative farming
80.0
0
84.0
0
98.0
0
54.0
20.0
0 16.0
0 2.0 0
46.0
Training in activities to reduce drought effects
DRR authorities
both community members and DRRauthorities
39
4.2.8 Type of participation practised by disaster risk reduction authorities
Fig 4.9 Type of participation practiced by DRR authorities (Primary data source)
Basing on the participation model by Wong (2011), the researcher found out that 43% of the
respondents were of the view that DRR authorities use the pluralistic approach to participation in
executing their programs. A pluralistic approach according to Wong et al (2011) is when
organizations in DRR share control with the community. Respondents suggested that they have a
voice and active participate role in DRR programs. A total of 19% of the respondents claimed
that authorities used an autonomous approach whereby the community has a voice and active
participation role in programs and they have total control of the programs. A total of 15% of the
respondents suggested that a symbolic approach was used by authorities. They claimed that
although the community has a voice, DRR authorities have most of the control. A sum of 10%
of respondents registered their disappointment to the approach used by authorities in executing
DRR programs. They said authorities see them as vessels since they lack voice and participation
and programs controlled by outsiders. Another 10% of the respondents cited that an independent
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
vesselsymbolic
pluralisticindependent
autonomous
10.0 16.0
44.0
10.0
20.0
Type of participation in DRR activities
40
approach was used by authorities since they have a voice and active participation role and also
have most of control in programs. The researcher noted that the reason for differing answers was
because of different organizations that operate in the area using different approaches in executing
their programs.
4.9 Initiation of disaster risk reduction programs
The study shows that up to 80% of respondents participate in the initiation of DRR activities
mentioned. This shows that a large percentage of the community members do involve in
initiating of DRR activities. The majority of those who did not attend said they were not aware
and not informed of the in the community. Non-attendance means that objectives which were set
in the beginning excluded up to 20% of the community. This may create problems where
communities feel that they have been excluded from the design of the project (Everatt, 2001). As
a result, people tend to reject or accept only half-heartedly plans made for themselves and
therefore will be more committed to support their own planning.
4.2.10 Attendance of meetings by community members
12.0
16.0
44.0
28.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
never rarely most of the times everytime
Attending DRR meetings
41
Fig 4.10 Attending DRR meetings (primary data source)
Figure 4.10 above shows that 12% of the respondents have never attended DRR meetings and up
to 16% rarely attend the meetings. Up to 44% of the respondents said that they attend meetings
most of the times and a total 28% claim that they attend every time. Clearly (2005) asserted that
meetings involve a group of people sharing information, solving a prevailing problem or
reaching a decision through discussion. Meetings provide community members with the
opportunity to identify their problems and decide on what need to be addressed first.
To those who rarely attend meetings or have never attended any meeting suggest that they do see
the reason of attending one since they have representatives who express their views on their
behalf. Some suggested that the lack of benefits hinders some from attending meetings.
4.2.11 Contributions during meetings
Of those respondents who attended meetings on DRR, 76% said that are given the room to make
meaningful contribution during the platform. This gives the community a chance to share their
views concerning risk reduction. Bagumhe (2007) reiterated that community participation
liberates people from being passive subjects and give them the opportunity to make decisions
and control the activities that affect their lives. A total of 24% of respondents claimed that they
do not make any meaningful contribution during meetings. They cited various reasons which
included that those members who have a long time living in the community dominate in
community dialogues leaving little room for newcomers to contribute. This limits injection of
new ideas that could be brought by new members of the community (Theron, 2005).
4.2.12 Ideas incorporated in decision making
The study also revealed that 58% of respondents acknowledged that the ideas they contribute
during meetings are incorporated into decision making. In contrast to that, up to 42% are of the
view that their ideas are not incorporated into decision making. Such a large number indicates
that many of those who attend meetings are ―vessels‖ as suggested by Wong et al (2011). Wong
et al (2011) labeled community members as ―vessels‖ if they participate in programmes but
control that includes decision making. Decision making is one of the key characteristics of
42
participation and with 42% suggesting that decisions are not incorporated it means a large gap of
concerns is left unaddressed.
4.2.13 Empowerment of the community in disaster risk reduction activities
A total of 62% of respondents said DRR programs have empowered whilst 38% are of the view
that they were not empowered in any way. Respondents stated that DRR programs have
benefited them with skills, knowledge and income. Some respondents were of the view that
through participating in projects, meetings and training they have been empowered in decision
making in issues affecting their area. According to Robert (2006), empowerment is defined as
having a real say in decision making that affect the project development. To those respondents
who hold leadership positions leadership positions have been equipped with organizational and
leadership skills.
4.14 Who normally participate in DRR programs
Fig 4.14 Rate of participation by different groups in DRR programs (Primary data source)
34.0 52.0
10.0 4.0
Participation by group
community leaders
women
men
everyone
43
From the figure above, 52% of respondents are of the view that women constitutes a large
proportion of those who participate in DRR programmes. Up to 34% of the respondents said that
community leaders normally participate in DRR programmes and a total of 10% claiming that
men do normally participate in DRR programmes. A total of 4% of the respondents cited that
everyone normally participates in DRR programmes.
Women normally have a high perception towards risk as compared to men and that could be the
reason why they normally participate in DRR activities (Pincha, 2008). Due to gender
indifferences, roles and stereotypes, men are usually expected to be associated with taking risk
and this affects their perception and ultimately participation in DRR programmes (UNISDR,
2010).
4.2.15 Knowledge about laws that encourages participation in community activities
A sum of 88% of the respondents said they do not know of any law or piece of legislation that
promotes public participation in programs and activities affecting their day to day lives. Only
12% of respondents said that they have knowledge of laws or pieces of legislation that seek to
promote public participation. Some of the laws that were mentioned by respondents include
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the African Charter on Human and
People‘s Rights (ACHPR).
4.2.16 Challenges to community participation
Table 2 Barriers to community participation in DRR
Barriers to community
participation in DRR
Number of
participants
who agree
Number of
participants who
disagree
Total number of
participants
Poor communication 47 3 50
Lack of benefits 50 0 50
44
Top-down approach 35 15 50
Corruption 30 20 50
Choice of participants 23 27 50
Manipulation of processes 38 12 50
Primary data source
The barriers to community participation in disaster risk reduction have been as a result of
problems listed in the table above. Lack of benefits in some of the DRR activities was
acknowledged by all respondents as the main cause for some members to withdraw from
participation. Up to 94% of respondents suggested that poor communication between community
members themselves and with organisations in DRR is a barrier to participation. Top to down
approach also presents a barrier to participation as suggested by 70% or respondents. The issue
of corruption received 60% from respondents regarding it as an obstacle to community
participation. The other barrier which got a nod is that of manipulation processes where
participants act as vessels in decision making process led by organisations in DRR. However
most of respondents argued that choice of participants is not a barrier to participation with 54%
subscribing to that view.
4.3 Conclusion
In summary, the chapter covered findings and analysis of data collected from community
members in Zvimba District Ward 13 (as main respondents) and from key informant
interviewees from different organisations. The chapter also covered the profile of respondents
who participated in the study. The next chapter summarizes the findings and suggests answers to
the research questions posed in chapter 1. It also addresses the main challenges of participation
and offers recommendations for future research.
45
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes key findings and presents the conclusion and recommendations of the
study. The researcher was keen to know on DRR activities carried out in the district, the level of
community participation in DRR activities and challenges the community face to participation.
5.2 Summary of key findings
The study showed that the respondents have differing understanding of the concept of
community participation. They defined participation as ―taking part‖, ―engagement‖ and
―encouragement‖. Officials on the other hand showed a theoretical understanding of the concept
citing that it involves taking action or taking part in decision making processes in DRR activities.
However only 12% or respondents said are aware of laws or pieces of legislation that encourage
participation.
The research revealed that there are a number of activities that are carried out in the ward in a bid
to prevent or reduce the effects caused by hazards. Veldt fires and drought are the main hazards
threatening the community thus DRR activities are centred mainly to reduce effects of these two.
In an effort to reduce effects caused by fire, respondents claimed that they are involved in
conducting awareness campaigns so as to continue educate the public on the need to conserve the
environment. Fire breaks are also constructed by the community to as to reduce the intensity of
fire should it occur. The study also revealed that the community practice early burning so as to
reduce fuel load prior to fire season so that when fire occurs it will be easy to contain. In an
effort to reduce effects caused by drought, respondents said that the community uses irrigation
facilities to supplement rainfall shortage. The community according to respondents also practice
cooperative farming so as to share knowledge and equipment so as to counter drought. They also
deepen water sources in times of drought so as to secure enough water for different uses in the
community.
46
In as much as people need to participate in disaster risk reduction activities, a number of barriers
were noted during the study. All respondents acknowledged that one of the driving factors which
limit public participation is lack of monetary benefits in disaster risk reduction related activities.
Lack of communication between responsible authorities and the community also provide a
hindrance to community participation. The use of top to down approach was also cited by 70%
of respondents as a barrier to participate in DRR activities.
Due to the above barriers amongst others, the study shows that only 30% of the respondents fully
participate in DRR activities whilst 70% partially participate. Furthermore, women constitute a
larger proportion of those who participate in DRR activities as suggested by 52% of the
respondents. Although 78% of respondents claimed to make meaningful contributions during
meetings, only 52% of those acknowledged that their contributions are incorporated into decision
making thereby demotivating others in terms of participation.
The research also yielded the approaches to participation that are used by authorities in executing
their programs. A large proportion claimed that they all share control in programs and are given
the platform to raise their voice and actively participate. Therefore the community according to
the research participate in DRR.
5.3 Conclusion
Community participation plays a vital role in disaster risk reduction. The involvement of the
community should start during the initiation of programs and activities and continue throughout
their course. The basic argument concerning community participation is that involvement of
people in decision making lets them exercise their choice and voice more broadly in their lives.
DRR authorities should not their ideas in communities they are dealing with. DRR authorities
should therefore be in a position to assess the strength and needs in their own work with the
communities at risk. The general supposition is that when authorities come closer to the
community more people will participate and will have an active role in programs that affect them
(Blair, 2000).
If community fully participate in DRR activities, participation will cease to be just a mere
question of ―who speak‖ but honest involvement of people in deciding and affecting their own
risk reduction concerns. There is need for motivation and civic education in order for people to
47
participate intelligently in local DRR issues (Hussein, 2003). For well-informed participation to
take place there is need for transparency. It has been argued that those most affected by a
decision should have most of the saying whilst those least affected should have the least say.
Involving community members in their own programs and activities empowers them to control
processes especially in decision making process.
The challenges interfering with risk reduction is as a result of poor communication between DRR
authorities and the community. This is the main challenge that has led to the lack of
understanding of goals of DRR programs and activities. The following is a summary of the
suggestions made by respondents (key informants or DRR authorities and the community) so as
to overcome barriers to participation. DRR authorities suggested that there is need to establish
proper communication channels so as to understand the community needs and intended plans to
address these plans; and giving the community a chance to prioritise DRR programs. The
community highlighted the need to be provided with proper training, good leadership and
resources. They also requested to be consulted and provided feedback on the progress of the
programs.
The research concludes that the community participate in DRR activities though at a moderate
level. Should barriers addressed, the community has the potential to surpass their average
participation in DRR activities.
5.4 Recommendations
From the research findings, a number of recommendations can be made which seek to contribute
towards the success of community participation in DRR and also the understanding of the
concept of community participation and its importance. This may be applicable not only in
Zvimba District ward 13 but to all other areas where DRR programs are taking place.
The government should support the community to ensure commitment to participation in
DRR. Hussein (2003) postulates that it is government‘s role to preach the idea of bottom-
up approach to DRR, educate its personnel concerning participatory approach and to
practically involve the public in decision making throughout the course of their programs.
48
Another crucial element to consider for the success of programs is the degree to which
the community has been trained and empowered to take charge of the programs. The
community need to be trained, educated and have awareness on the significance of
participation for their wellbeing. Thus, proper training is recommended.
The community and not DRR authorities shown own programs so that they can take
responsibility in terms of sustaining the program and ensuring participation. Information
regarding the program should be transparent to the community.
Incentives should be introduced for members who participate in programs so that they
can be motivated to continue participating, improve their standard of living and level of
participation.
There is a need to build the capacity of the people at all levels; promote and encourage
community participation in DRR programs; reduce long working hours and consider the
issue of no income and low-income.
This research has been based on a case study which looked at analysing community participation
in DRR. The researcher hopes the study will contribute to the on-going debate of community
participation in DRR and should in one way or the other inform policies and strategies which
promote a climate favourable to community participation in DRR.
49
References
ADPC (2004). Course Material: Course on Disaster Risk Communication at Community Level,
PDRSEA 2, Bangkok.
Allen K.M, (2006), “Community-based preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity-
building in the Philippines.” Disasters 30, no. 1 (2006): 82-83.
Aref, F. and Redzuan, M. (2009). Assessing the Level of Community Participation as a
Component of Community Capacity Building for Tourism Development. Journal scientific
researcher.
Bang, H. (2013). Governance of disaster risk reduction in Cameroon: the need to empower local
government.Ja`mba´: J Disaster Risk Stud, 5(2),
Blair, H. (2000). Participatory and accountability at the periphery: democratic local government
in six countries. World Development, Vol 28, No.1 :21-39.
Chaman, P. (2008). Gender Sensitive Disaster Management : A Toolkit for Practitioners, Oxfam
America & NANBAN Trust
Gavin, H. (2008). Understanding Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Sage
Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore
Green, L.W. and Mercer, S.L. (2001). Can Public Health Researchers and Agencies Reconcile
the Push from Funding Bodies and Pull from Communities? American Journal of Public Health.
(91) 12: 1926-1943 December.
Guimaraes, J.P.C. (2009). Participatory approaches to rural development and rural poverty
alleviation. ISS working paper commissioned by ESCAP. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.
50
Hussein, M.K. (2003). The role of Malawian local government in community development:
Development Southern Africa, 20(2): 271-282.
Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation. A Complete Guide for Practitioners.
London: ITDG Publishers.
Laverack, G. (2001). An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of
community empowerment. Community Development Journal, 36 (1: 134-145.
Department of Civil Protection (2012). Zimbabwe national contigency plan: 2012–2013, Harare
Driskell, D. and Neema, K. (2009). Creating Space for Participation: The Role of
Organizational Practice in Structuring Youth Participation. In: Community Development, Vol.
40.
Government of Zimbabwe (1989). Civil Protection Act Chapter 10:06, Government of
Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
Manyena, S.B. (2006). Rural local authorities and disaster resilience in Zimbabwe. Disaster
Prev Manag,15(5), pp. 810–820
Maree, K (2007). First step in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Marsland, R. (2006). Community participation: The Tanzanian Way, Conceptual contiguity or
power, Oxford Development Studies, Vol.34, No.1, March, 2006
McEntire, D. (2006). The Importance of Multi-and Inter-disciplinary Research on Disasters and
for Emergency Management, University of North Texas, Denton.
Marashe, J. (2014). The African traditional religious landscape: an examination of the role of
traditionalleaders in the fight against HIV and AIDS in Chipinge, Zimbabwe. Verbum Eccles
51
Myers, B.L. and Hirsch, J. (1999). Walking with the poor. New York: Orbis.
McAdoo, Brian, G., Dengler L., Prasetya, G., and Titov, V. (2005).“Smong: How an Oral
History Saved Thousands on Indonesia’s Simeulue Island during the December 2004 and March
2005 Tsunamis.” Earthquake Spectra 22, no. S3 (2006): S661-S669.
Meshack, M. (2004). Potential limitations of stakeholder’s participation of Community Based
Projects. The case of Hanna Nassif roads and drains construction. In Dar es Salaam: Tanzania.
International Development Review. Volume 26, Issue 11. P 61-82.
Nampila, T. (2005). Assessing community participation: The Huidare informal settlement.
Master of Arts Thesis: Department of Social Work: University of Stellenbosch.
Narayan, D. (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. The World Bank.
Washington DC.
Nekwaya, J. H. (2007). Assessing Community Participation in Development Planning and
Service Delivery. A case study of the Omusati Regional Council. Master of Sustainable
Development and management: University of Stellenbosch.
Pholongane, S.L. (2014). Evaluating community participation in rural development projects: the
case of Mokgalwaneng village,University of South Africa
Ragin, C. (2004). Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research.
National Science Foundation, Arlington.
Rahman, A.M.D. (2003). People’s Self-Development. Perspectives on Participatory Action Rese
arch, London: University Press.
52
Raniga, T. and Simpson, B. (2002). Community Participation: Rhetoric or Reality. Social Work:
A Professional Journal for the Social Worker
Robert, M. (2006). Opinions and perspectives: A real-life-A real community: The empowerment
and full participation of people with an intellectual disability in the community. Journal of
intellectual and development disability, June 2006: 31 (2): 125-127.
Shamano, N. (2010). An investigation into the disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts in Gutu
district (Zimbabwe): a focus on drought early warning systems, University of Free States
Schilperoot, L.M. (2012). How community institutions in Turkey engage in
disaster risk reduction: a case study of Istanbul and Antakya, Fort Collins, USA
Theron, F. (2005). Integrated Development Planning as a Micro-level Development Strategy, in
I. Davids, F. Theron & K. J. Maphunye. Participatory Development in South Africa. A
Development Management Perspective, Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Twigg, J. (2004). Good Practice Review: Disaster risk reduction, Mitigation and preparedness
in development and emergency programming. Humanitarian Policy Network, London.
UNISDR (2004). Living with Risk, Geneva, United Nations
UNISDR (2006). On Better Terms: A Glance at Key Climate Change and Disaster Risk
Reduction Concepts. Geneva, United Nations
UNISDR (2007). Report on Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Asia, Geneva,
United Nations, 2007.
UNISDR (2009a). Reducing disaster risks through science: issues and actions, the full report of
the ISDR scientific and technical committee, Geneva
53
UNISDR (2009b). UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction, Geneva
UN-ISDR (2010). UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2008-2011, UNDP, New York.
54
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire
My name is Jonah Anesu Mujuru, a student at Bindura University of Science Education. I am
doing an Honours Degree in Disaster Management Studies. I am carrying out a research on the
topic ―An analysis of community participation in disaster risk reduction, a case Zvimba District
ward 13. The information I am gathering is purely for academic purposes. I therefore kindly ask
for your co-operation towards the success of this research by answering these questions
Date of interview………………………………………………………….
SECTION A
Biological information of participants
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
18-24 25-30
31-35 35+
3. Marital status
Single Divorced
Married Widowed
4. Education level
55
Illiterate Primary
Secondary Tertiary
5. Length of living period in the area
1-4yrs
5-9yrs
10+yrs
SECTION B
6. DRR activities undertaken in the community
To reduce drought effects To reduce effects of fire
SECTION C
Participation and decision making roles
7 What do you understand by community participation in DRR projects?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
8 Do you initiate DRR programmes?
56
Yes [ ] No [ ]
9 Do you attend DRR meetings?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
10 Do you make meaningful contribution at meetings?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
11 Are your decisions accepted and incorporated into decision making?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
12 What is your level of participation in DRR programs?
Partially [ ] Fully [ ]
13 What is the type of participation practised by DRR authorities?
Vessel [ ] Symbolic [ ]
Pluralistic [ ] Independent [ ]
Autonomous [ ]
14 Do you belong to any one of the DRR projects (if yes
specify)…………………………………………………………………………………………
15 Who are the people who normally participate in DRR activities in your area?
57
Community leaders [ ] Politicians [ ]
Women [ ] Men [ ]
Everyone [ ]
16 What are the challenges directly affecting community participation in DRR
activities?...........................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
17. Do you know any law or convention that encourage community
participation.......................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
58
APPENDIX 2
Interview guide for DRR authorities
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. How long have you been employed at your organisation
.......................................................................................................................................
3. Which DRR activities have you facilitated or are you facilitating
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
4. Do have qualifications or experience in activities that you are leading
Yes
No
5. What do you understand by community participation in DRR activities
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
6. To what extent does the community participate in your activities
59
............................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
7. How was the community members selected to participate in DRR activities
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
8. Does the community have a steering committee
............................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
9. How often do you visit the community to check on progress of activities
Once a week
Once in two weeks
Once a month
Once in two months
Others
10. How is the community benefiting from DRR activities
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
11. Was there training provided to the community before initiation of programs
60
Yes No
If yes, what training and if no why not
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………