No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the findings from the body of case studies offered in the issue, combined with three external perspectives on local voices and action. Design/methodology/approach Using as its basis the eight key case studies and three external contributions to the special issue, the paper offers a theoretical framework as a basis for discussion of this material. Through this, it identifies possible modes of action understood through the theoretical framework and elaborated through the specific cases. It concludes with proposals for further work. Findings The discussion finds that from a local perspective, the ambitions of local populations and local NGOs to achieve emancipatory change depend on the scope for local collaboration and partnerships to exercise influence on underlying risk factors. It resolves the suggested tension between operating within, and outside the system through the concept of “legitimate subversion”. Originality/value It is felt that the original recording of case studies of local level action combined with the process of iterative critical reflection on the part of the contributors offers a novel approach to knowledge creation from practice, and offers insights bridging theoretical and practitioner perspectives into means of addressing underlying risk factors affecting local populations.

Les politiques et les pratiques concernant la réduction des risques de catastrophe dépendent largement des spécificités socio-culturelles et des connaissances qu’en ont les individus. Bien que la culture et le savoir soient des facteurs essentiels pour réduire ces risques, ils sont rarement traités ensemble de façon systématique et approfondie, que ce soit dans les études ou les programmes d’actions. Nous soutenons qu’une exploitation plus approfondie des résultats de la recherche sur les systèmes de la culture et de la connaissance est de nature à améliorer considérablement l’efficacité des mesures décidées pour l’atténuation des catastrophes. Cet article aborde comment la culture et la connaissance contribuent à la réduction des risques de catastrophe et en décrit des défis majeurs. Il présente également une approche conceptuelle qui permet de saisir les différents niveaux qualitatifs de la compréhension : les faits, les données, l’information, la connaissance et la sagesse. Tout au long de l’article, nous mobilisons des exemples empruntés au Viet Nam afin d’illustrer des cas courants de pratiques culturelles, économiques et populaires qui prévalent sur les logiques institutionnelles en matière de réduction des risques de catastrophe. Ces pratiques révèlent les éléments qui provoquent la fragmentation du savoir. Orienter les objets de recherche vers des questions de connaissance culturelle et sociale conduirait à mieux saisir les processus structuraux qui favorisent la vulnérabilité face aux catastrophes, ainsi que les processus socio-culturels qui construisent notre compréhension des risques de catastrophe.

Vietnam's economic reforms have helped many poor families to replace fragile shelters with houses built using materials regarded as "solid". This substantial family investment remains at risk of damage or destruction by annual disaster events - storms, floods and typhoons - because basic principles of safe building are not applied, nor is preventive action taken by communities and individual families to safeguard the home and public buildings against unnecessary damage. Failure to do so puts people at much greater risk of loss and injury. Over two decades, Development Workshop France (DWF) has worked in Viet Nam to promote a culture of preventive action to reduce risk of damage. Based on ten key principles of storm-resistant construction, some of which have been drawn from traditional techniques, DWF trains local builders and technicians and undertakes a wide range of awareness raising actions in and with communities to promote hands on preventive safety in poor villages. Once sceptical, local governments now actively support the programme, which also strengthens local organizational and financial capacity. This paper reviews the approach and the lessons that can be learnt from the DWF Viet Nam experience and that of similar DWF preventive actions in other disaster contexts. It considers the opportunities and constraints to enable family and community preventive action to become a core and ongoing feature of disaster management practice at community and national level.

Purpose Vietnam is historically hit by extensive disasters. However, the most vulnerable populations are far from being backed by national/local programmes to reduce disaster impacts on their well-being. In practice, political and socio-economic top-down organisation, channels efforts and limited resources into wealthier parts of the country. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Learning from 30 years work in Vietnam, this paper presents how “horizontal” solidarity and networking should be promoted and reinforced to really target the needs of vulnerable poor communities. Findings on conditions and challenges are based on practical experience, from family/village level to provincial/national administration, in promoting safe housing and safer communities and in evaluating the barriers for extending and sharing such practices. Findings Political environments in South East Asian countries become similar to Vietnamese systems, and share a common attitude towards DRR (and CCA): official statements reaffirm the need for DRR at all levels, and the CC threats for local development. But year after year, the situation of marginalised or low-income poor facing disasters does not really see progress. Originality/value New data collecting methods and technologies are proposed, resilience is quoted as criteria for development, but the major issue remains: how could communities be “at the frontline” when receiving so little “backline” support and resources, compared to benefits from capitalist development shared by only richer parts of society – not concerned in the same way by disasters? The SFDRR in encouraging non-compulsory Civil Society involvement will remain inadequate faced with the increased vulnerability by Vietnam and South East Asian inhabitants.