Dynamics of configuring and interpreting the disaster risk script: Experiences from Zimbabwe

Abstract

People in Zimbabwe have been faced with disasters in different forms and at various levels. When people experience hazard events and disasters, they perceive these phenomena through lenses that are largely shaped by their local day-to-day experiences and some external influence. As they do this, they develop their own local conception of hazards and disasters, and they tend to model their response or preparedness through this. This article argues that on the basis of this premise, each society therefore develops its own unique and localised way of interpreting the disaster, which comes in the form of a ‘script’, that needs to be deciphered, read, analysed and understood within local priorities and knowledge systems. The hazard may be the same, say, fire, but as it occurs in different communities, they configure and read the fire script differently, hence spawning different response and prevention strategies. The way people anticipate, prepare for, and respond to a particular disaster stems from their perception of it, based on their own local conceptions of reality. The article argues that effective disaster risk reduction must focus on people’s holistic understanding of the unfolding scenario, thereby feeding into disaster risk early warning systems. For effective understanding of the utility of early warning systems, the socio-cultural processes involved in the ideation of the disaster cannot be ignored. It is also critical to examine people’s past experiences with external early warning systems, and how much faith they put in them

Philosophical Underpinnings of Disaster Risk Reduction Research: The Case for Social Constructivism

“…For example, the 2010 earthquake in Chile was 500 times stronger than the one in Haiti the same year, but the death toll of the latter was 200 times more than that of the former because of Haiti's widespread poverty, ineffective and uncoordinated national government, uncontrolled urbanization, and poor construction (Rahman, Barua, Khatun, Islam, & Rafiq, 2018). Thus, some DRR researchers (e.g., (Bongo, Chipangura, Sithole, & Moyo, 2013;Quarantelli, 2005) assert that disasters must be seen as systematic failures of economic, cultural, social, and political protections and that risk and vulnerability differ within and across communities.…”

An exploration of objectivism and social constructivism within the context of disaster risk

“…With support at United Nations level, the emphasis on managing "natural" disasters have become conventional wisdom and is locked into policies, governance arrangements and instrumental systems (Lavell and Maskrey, 2013). For example, in Zimbabwe, the Civil Protection Act of 1989 still place emphasis on "natural" disasters (Bongo et al, 2013). The key driver of disasters is still considered to be large-scale physical events (extreme events), which are often taken to be synonymous with the disaster itself (Lavell and Maskrey, 2013).…”

“…The article contents with Adam and Thompson's (2002) argument that managing risks should abandon objectivism and embrace constructivismthe idea that risk is inherently subjective: something that we project onto whatever it is that is "out there". This is because as Bongo et al (2013) argues, when people experience hazard events and disasters, they perceive these phenomena through lenses that are largely shaped by their local day-to-day experiences and some external influence. There are at least two major arguments that can be advanced in support of 267 Objectivism and social constructivism constructivism: first, increasing evidence of disasters as a social construction; and second, the policy intuitive appeal of constructivism.…”

The Need of Linking Local Community and National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies for Effective Disaster Mitigation: Lessons from Zimbabwe

“…DRR strategies ought to move the nation from reactive approaches to disasters to a proactive stance where communities actively engage in enhancing their own resilience (Carter, 2011). Governments should harness the expertise of rural communities in addressing the locals' vulnerabilities .This could enhance resilience at all levels, especially where local communities actively participate in identifying their challenges as well as formulating strategies for intervention (Bongo et al, 2013). To withstand the effects of natural hazards and to recover, it is crucial that communities and nations should work together (Ndlovu, 2011).…”