Sustainability Studies Methods Field Journal
Mary Kate Rigney
Annotation 18
12 November 2012
1. Strengthening Livelihood Capacities to Disaster Risk Reduction [Nepal Updates].
2. Again there were no cited specific researchers but this was another project put on by
Practical Action. Practical Action is an international organization that specifically works
with poor communities to help them better use technology and their natural resources to
improve their livelihoods.
3. Topics Include:
a. An overview of the project that was enacted in Peru, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Nepal which was aimed at strengthening the local communities
responses to disasters.
b. Addressed and identified the hazards and how they are exacerbated or repressed
during different times of the year.
c. How an integrative approach to addressing hazards and disasters is needed.
d. Combination of structural and non-structural approaches to reduce impacts from
hazards—this includes both short and long term activities and interaction with
local institutions.
e. How extensive community participation and development of community led
programs can result in positive change.
f. The importance of policy makers and stakeholders understanding disaster in
different terms so that they can effect wider change through policy initiatives.
4. Main Point
a. This article provided a description of a particular case study implemented in 5
geographic locations and how the disaster risk reduction approach involving
extensive community involvement resulted in positive feedback and livelihood
outcomes.
5. Supported by:
a. Outlining the topics of the project that they used to strengthen resilience in the
community i.e. “seasonality of stresses” and “sensitivity”.
b. Acknowledging that a multi-faceted approach was needed and addressing the
variety of socio-economic factors they would take into consideration.
c. Listing the extensive remedies and community initiatives they installed and how
they were so successful.
6. Quotes:
a. “While different hazards have specific effects, the ultimate impact of each hazard
on livelihood outcomes is similar: each reduces livelihood assets, the access to the
remaining assets, peoples’ capacities and their rights. Indigenous knowledge and
coping mechanisms have not been sufficient to deal with the compounded impacts
of multiple hazards.”
b. “Different contributing factors are interlinked to geophysical setting, socioeconomic activities in the catchments, governance and weather pattern. Therefore,
integrated approaches are only viable for sustainable coping of multiple stresses.
That needed linking different sectors and stakeholders addressing development
priorities and DRR together.”
c. “However, a range of discussions, trainings, workshops and exposures between
vulnerable communities, government line agencies, development organizations
and political party representatives helped to establish common understanding on
hazards, vulnerabilities and their consequences. This has helped to create synergy
to integrated and cooperative actions from different stakeholders in DRR though
slow in pace.”
7. Research Methods Questions:
a. When the community members participated in training programs were the
researchers selective in who could participate—i.e. were only men taught the
farming techniques?
b. Who funded the project and how did the government agencies afford to install
that?
c. How do programs like this cease—do they fade out and slowly leave the
communities or do they just all at once stop?
8. Further Research
a. What types of criteria are used to determine which communities will be selected
for these programs to be installed in, considering that there are so many areas
around the world in need of these unique applications of disaster management?
b. Do researchers ever face any adversity from the local community members who
are reluctant to participate? Or any issues with local governments?
c. What was there success rates in the other geographic locations where this project
was installed i.e. Peru, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Bangledesh?