Insights on social learning and collaborative action plan development for disaster risk reduction: practicing Yonmenkaigi System Method (YSM) in flood-prone Mumbai

Abstract

Recent decades have seen an increasing recognition and consensus among researchers and planners in disaster management in the need to foster social learning through public participation, to promote deliberative interaction among stakeholders in order to work together build a relationship to attain a collective action. However, the current participatory methods in disaster management are limited to awareness building, when actual plan preparation is the prime concept yet to be looked at. Additionally, in most of the cases, the local government authorities initiate their disaster management program to community by inviting them to voice their opinions and concerns. The major impediments of such participatory programs are the community's over-dependence on donors and governments (stakeholders) thus will consequently fail to give the community the sense of ownership of the problem. The challenge therefore is, putting the community in the driver's seat instead of only inviting them for consultation on an existing plan about a predetermined issue. In this paper, a participatory workshop method called Yonmenkaigi System Method (YSM) has been employed as a method to integrate the community's concerns and perspectives in the disaster management processes and to develop a collaborative action plan. The method was tested in a flood-prone slum community in Mumbai, India. In the first phase of the workshop, a SWOT analysis was executed to provide an opportunity for the participants to acknowledge each other's prior concerns, perspectives, and views. In the succeeding phases, the method then provided a platform to carry out this awareness in order to create visions through the identification of critical elements of the plan called Yonmenkaigi Chart. Finally, the sharing and debating of each other's visions and perspectives to prepare an executable plan for improved disaster preparedness. This entire process helps the participant develop an action plan based on their prior abilities, strengths and capacities instead of depending heavily on supports from external sources.

Where do Individuals Seek Opinions for Evacuation?A Case Study from Landslide-prone Slum Communities in Mumbai

“…A great number of those migrants are poor farmers or landless laborers from rural areas, who cannot afford formal housing in Mumbai. High rents force them to choose abandoned, fragile, and hazardous housing, which constitutes 65% of the population of the city (Samaddar et al, 2015). A large number of such urban poor have illegally constructed houses on the slopes of abandoned and vulnerable hills in sub-urban areas including Ghatkopar, Sakinaka, Vikhroli, Bhandup, Chembur, which are hilly terrains, i.e.…”

“…mostly small hillocks. These houses do not have proper foundations and are constructed without consideration of any engineering parameters; in fact, most of such houses are made from temporary materials (called semi-pucca or kuchcha houses) (Emmel and Soussan, 2001;Samaddar et al, 2015). Kale (2009) posits that most of the risk-prone areas are at the foot and edge of hills.…”

Evaluating Effective Public Participation in Disaster Management and Climate Change Adaptation: Insights From Northern Ghana Through a User-Based Approach

“…At the higher level, it has also been suggested that the local communities could be involved in defining their own vulnerabilities and capacities. In a similar vein, some researchers in recent times are advocating for the involvement of communities in the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of their development plan (Chen et al, ; Na, Okada, & Fang, ; Okada et al, ; Samaddar, Choi, Misra, & Tatano, ). Second, apart from the theoretical challenges, there are also issues relating to the practicality of the local community understanding, adopting, and applying the various participatory tools and techniques, including workshop methods, disaster games, transect walk, and participatory mapping (See Cronin et al, ; Na et al, ; Yamori, ).…”

“…In principle, there have been several claims in favor of adopting community participation in disaster risk management and climate change adaptation planning, not least including increasing awareness, better accepted decision, conflict resolution, improved preparedness, empowerment, and self‐reliance of the community (Chen et al, ; Pearce, ; Shaw, ;). Nevertheless, these claims remain anecdotal without empirical substance (Pelling, ; Samaddar et al, ). Previous studies (Pelling, ; Shaw, ) allude to situations where even the few apparently successful participatory‐induced projects are seldom successfully scaled up or replicated.…”

“…Previous studies (Pelling, ; Shaw, ) allude to situations where even the few apparently successful participatory‐induced projects are seldom successfully scaled up or replicated. The paradigm of participatory disaster management becomes more convoluted and manifested as it remains bereft of single nomenclature (Pelling, ), thus complicating attempts to isolate its possible benefits (Oteng‐Ababio, ; Pelling, ; Samaddar et al, ).…”