CBDRM in Nepal: A matter of risk perceptions

Laursen, M R (2015) CBDRM in Nepal: A matter of risk perceptions. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(1), pp. 73-85. ISSN 1759-5916

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to explore how different risk perceptions of experts, institutions and laymen have to be taken into consideration if non-governmental organizations and donors want to include the community in disaster risk reduction. Otherwise, community-based disaster risk management will not be community-based. Design/methodology/approach – This research is based on an intensive literature review, as well as a four-month felt study in Kathmandu (November 2011-February 2012). This study explores, from a social constructive point of view, the relationship among international, national and local actors in the effort to conduct disaster risk reduction in Nepal through a community-based approach. Findings – The Kathmandu Valley is at risk of being hit by an earthquake at anytime. If an earthquake hits, it will cause total devastation. Although the Nepalese are aware of the risks of a potential earthquake, very few have begun preparations. The author finds that the lack of preparation is partly caused by different risk perceptions among experts, institutions and laymen. Originality/value – Involving the community in disaster risk reduction today is widely accepted as the right way to work with disaster risk reduction. But, rarely the question is made: are we really involving the community by taking their risk perception serious, and not just accepting the risk perceptions from experts and institutions of science as being the right way to perceive disaster risk. The author finds that there is a tendency to ignore the community in community-based earthquake preparedness in Nepal.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: communication; disaster prevention; earthquakes; natural disasters; risk reduction; vulnerability
Index terms: earthquake, Nepal, non-governmental organization, disaster risk, Kathmandu valley, natural disaster, risk reduction, risk perception, vulnerability, community-based, disaster prevention, literature review, science, methodology, disaster risk reduction, donor
Subjects: specialized education, research methods, sociology, Geography, data analysis and analytics, physical geography and landforms, financial risk, communities and social development, political science, environmental hazards
Topics: Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Research Practice, Education, Geographical Context, Governance, Cost Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here