IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v88y2019ics0264837718302618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory approaches for disaster risk governance? Exploring participatory mechanisms and mapping to close the communication gap between population living in flood risk areas and authorities in Nova Friburgo Municipality, RJ, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Bustillos Ardaya, A.
  • Evers, M.
  • Ribbe, L.

Abstract

Participatory approaches evaluating and changing risk appraisal and management are crucial aspects determining disaster risk governance. Due to the wide gap in governance structures in Brazil, the complexity of the institutional arrangements in the State of Rio de Janeiro, and the dynamics of the local and municipal context, more complete information on the existing participatory processes of local authorities and improvement possibilities is required. This study evaluated the influence of participatory mapping and other participatory approaches in the governance of institutions working in flood disaster risk reduction in one of the most affected areas during the 2011 flood and landslide disaster; the Nova Friburgo Municipality in Rio de Janeiro State. Semi-structured expert interviews in institutions related to disaster risk reduction revealed 12 institutions in the state implementing 36 participatory approaches or schemes at different levels (in term of authority and power, communication and decision mode, and participants). As a geographical approach encouraging participation, a method for participatory mapping was implemented, and the outcomes gathered were compared to one state and one municipal government participatory process outcome in the same region. Through the implemented participatory mapping, perceived risk areas, evacuation routes, and suggested shelters were identified and compared to official risk maps and information. The comparison between regional (mostly state) and local (mostly municipal) institutions showed the advantages of local institutions in the inclusion of the local population and better levels of communication. On the other hand, authority and power in policies and regional decisions was very low. This was confirmed in the specific case of the outcomes of the participatory flood risk maps; while spatial differences between the three compared maps were small, details on the evacuation points and routes adds value to maps co-created by the local population. The paper shows that the use of participatory mapping not only promotes participation, eases communication and social learning processes among stakeholders, but most importantly, it may create reliable, quantitative, and easy-to-use material useful for comparison and collaborative decision making. This understanding is crucial to identify and implement methods for participatory approaches at all levels that actually promote decision mode and helps institutions to improve work on disaster risk reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Bustillos Ardaya, A. & Evers, M. & Ribbe, L., 2019. "Participatory approaches for disaster risk governance? Exploring participatory mechanisms and mapping to close the communication gap between population living in flood risk areas and authorities in No," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837718302618
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718302618
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A. & Fra.Paleo, Urbano, 2016. "Lost in participation: How local knowledge was overlooked in land use planning and risk governance in Tōhoku, Japan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 543-551.
    2. Milena Andrade & Claudio Szlafsztein, 2015. "Community participation in flood mapping in the Amazon through interdisciplinary methods," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(3), pages 1491-1500, September.
    3. Gera, Weena, 2016. "Public participation in environmental governance in the Philippines: The challenge of consolidation in engaging the state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 501-510.
    4. Usón, Tomás J. & Klonner, Carolin & Höfle, Bernhard, 2016. "Using participatory geographic approaches for urban flood risk in Santiago de Chile: Insights from a governance analysis," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 62-72.
    5. Merino, Roger, 2018. "Re-politicizing participation or reframing environmental governance? Beyond indigenous’ prior consultation and citizen participation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 75-83.
    6. Alexander, Meghan & Priest, Sally & Mees, Hannelore, 2016. "A framework for evaluating flood risk governance," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 38-47.
    7. Wehn, Uta & Evers, Jaap, 2015. "The social innovation potential of ICT-enabled citizen observatories to increase eParticipation in local flood risk management," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 187-198.
    8. Evers, Mariele & Jonoski, Andreja & Almoradie, Adrian & Lange, Leonie, 2016. "Collaborative decision making in sustainable flood risk management: A socio-technical approach and tools for participatory governance," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 335-344.
    9. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quintana, Diana C. & Díaz-Puente, José M. & Gallego-Moreno, Francisco, 2022. "Architectural and cultural heritage as a driver of social change in rural areas: 10 years (2009–2019) of management and recovery in Huete, a town of Cuenca, Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Brielle Lillywhite & Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Risk Narrative of Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP): The Importance of the ‘Social’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-36, December.
    3. Delgado, Alina & Scheers, Joris, 2021. "Participatory process for land readjustment as a strategy to gain the right to territory: The case of San José–Samborondón–Guayaquil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Francesco Faccini & Fabio Luino & Guido Paliaga & Anna Roccati & Laura Turconi, 2021. "Flash Flood Events along the West Mediterranean Coasts: Inundations of Urbanized Areas Conditioned by Anthropic Impacts," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-32, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kerim Koc & Zeynep Işık, 2020. "A multi-agent-based model for sustainable governance of urban flood risk mitigation measures," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 1079-1110, October.
    2. Delgado, Alina & Scheers, Joris, 2021. "Participatory process for land readjustment as a strategy to gain the right to territory: The case of San José–Samborondón–Guayaquil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Marzieh Ronaghi & Michael Reed & Sayed Saghaian, 2020. "The impact of economic factors and governance on greenhouse gas emission," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 153-172, April.
    4. Lei Liu & Yue Xu & Zhaotian Yang & Ying Li, 2023. "The interrelationship between environmental NGO development and environmental condition in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8487-8516, August.
    5. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Israel Solorio & Jorge Guzmán & Ixchel Guzmán, 2023. "Participatory decision-making in the policy integration process: indigenous consultation and sustainable development in Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 115-140, March.
    7. Haslam, Paul Alexander, 2021. "The micro-politics of corporate responsibility: How companies shape protest in communities affected by mining," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Maria Pettersson & Marleen van Rijswick & Cathy Suykens & Meghan Alexander & Kristina Ek & Sally Priest, 2017. "Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 929-944, November.
    9. Orihuela, José Carlos & Mendieta, Arturo & Pérez, Carlos & Ramírez, Tania, 2021. "From paper institutions to bureaucratic autonomy: Institutional change as a resource curse remedy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. Maurizio Prosperi & Roberta Sisto & Antonio Lopolito & Valentina C. Materia, 2020. "Local Entrepreneurs’ Involvement in Strategy Building to Facilitate Agro-Food Waste Valorisation within an Agro-Food Technological District: A SWOT-SOR Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    12. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    13. Donghyun Kim & Jung Eun Kang, 2020. "Building Consensus with Local Residents in Community-Based Adaptation Planning: The Case of Bansong Pilbongoreum Community in Busan, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    14. Benites-Lazaro, L.L. & Mello-Théry, N.A., 2019. "Empowering communities? Local stakeholders’ participation in the Clean Development Mechanism in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-266.
    15. Ossi Ylijoki & Jari Porras, 2016. "Conceptualizing Big Data: Analysis of Case Studies," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 295-310, October.
    16. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2022. "Adoption of Responsible Research and Innovation in Citizen Observatories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Adam Choryński & Iwona Pińskwar & Dariusz Graczyk & Michał Krzyżaniak, 2022. "The Emergence of Different Local Resilience Arrangements Regarding Extreme Weather Events in Small Municipalities—A Case Study from the Wielkopolska Region, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.
    18. Josephine Marion Zimba & Brian Simbeye & Stanley Chilunga Chirwa, 2021. "Towards Intergenerational Equity: Analysis of Youth Engagement Strategies in Climate Action Planning in Mzuzu, Malawi," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 309-320.
    19. Emily Prehoda & Richelle Winkler & Chelsea Schelly, 2019. "Putting Research to Action: Integrating Collaborative Governance and Community-Engaged Research for Community Solar," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Ioannis Kougkoulos & Myriam Merad & Simon J. Cook & Ioannis Andredakis, 2021. "Floods in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and lessons for French flood risk governance," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(2), pages 1959-1980, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837718302618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.