Suchergebnisse

Abstract. In this paper, we present the results of an NHESS
(Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences) 20th anniversary survey, in which 350 natural hazard community members
responded to two questions: (Q1) "what are the top three scientific
challenges you believe are currently facing our understanding of natural
hazards" and (Q2) "what three broad step changes should or could be done
by the natural hazard community to address natural hazards in achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals"? We have analysed the data quantitatively
and qualitatively. According to the 350 respondents, the most significant
challenges (Q1) are the following (within brackets % of 350 respondents
who identified a given theme): (i) shortcomings in the knowledge of risk and
risk components (64 %), (ii) deficiencies of hazard and risk reduction
approaches (37 %), (iii) influence of global change, especially climate
change (35 %), (iv) integration of social factors (18%), (v)
inadequate translation of science to policy and practice (17 %), and (vi)
lack of interdisciplinary approaches (6 %). In order for the natural
hazard community to support the implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals (Q2), respondents called for (i) enhanced stakeholder
engagement, communication and knowledge transfer (39 %), (ii) increased
management and reduction of disaster risks (34 %), (iii) enhanced
interdisciplinary research and its translation to policy and practice (29 %), (iv) a better understanding of natural hazards (23 %), (v) better
data, enhanced access to data and data sharing (9 %), and (vi) increased
attention to developing countries (6 %). We note that while the most
common knowledge gaps are felt to be around components of knowledge about
risk drivers, the step changes that the community felt were necessary
related more to issues of wider stakeholder engagement, increased risk
management and interdisciplinary working.

In the research and policy environment, local knowledge (LK) is increasingly seen as an important component of building the resilience of communities and delivering sustainable disaster risk reduction (DRR) approaches tailored to local contexts. Many studies focus on documenting LK in different contexts; however, far less emphasis has been given to understanding how external stakeholders (i.e. government, NGOs, consultants) engage with and perceive the value of LK for DRR. Through an intepretivist epistemology and a case study research design, this paper sets out to fill in this gap by engaging with external stakeholders involved with community-based flood risk management in Malawi. It bases its findings on a thematic analysis of qualitative data collected through focus group discussions (n = 7) and key informant interviews (n = 69) conducted in 2016 and 2017. The findings show that although there is an appreciation of the importance of LK in rhetoric, its inclusion in DRR practice remains limited. The strong dichotomy between local and scientific knowledge persists and it has led to the further marginalisation of LK. The international policy and research push for LK in DRR is therefore not translated to realities on the ground. To the best of our knowledge, this presents one of the first studies of external stakeholders' attitudes of LK and how these influence its overall position in DRR. The paper calls for further development of knowledge co-production processes that will be based on giving equal weight, recognition and importance to LK.

People possess a creative set of strategies based on their local knowledge (LK) that allow them to stay in flood-prone areas. Stakeholders involved with local level flood risk management (FRM) often overlook and underutilise this LK. There is thus an increasing need for its identification, documentation and assessment. Based on qualitative research, this paper critically explores the notion of LK in Malawi. Data was collected through 15 focus group discussions, 36 interviews and field observation, and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that local communities have a complex knowledge system that cuts across different stages of the FRM cycle and forms a component of community resilience. LK is not homogenous within a community, and is highly dependent on the social and political contexts. Access to LK is not equally available to everyone, conditioned by the access to resources and underlying causes of vulnerability that are outside communities' influence. There are also limits to LK; it is impacted by exogenous processes (e.g., environmental degradation, climate change) that are changing the nature of flooding at local levels, rendering LK, which is based on historical observations, less relevant. It is dynamic and informally triangulated with scientific knowledge brought about by development partners. This paper offers valuable insights for FRM stakeholders as to how to consider LK in their approaches