Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu

Abstract

Ambae Island is the largest of Vanuatu's active volcanoes. It is also one of the nation's potentially most dangerous, with 60 million m 3 of lake-water perched at over 1340 m in the summit caldera and over the active vent. In 1995, small phreatic explosions, earthquake swarms and heightened gas release led to calls for evacuation preparation and community volcanic hazard awareness programs for the~9500 inhabitants. Differences in perspective or world-view between the island dwellers adhering to traditional beliefs (Kastom) and external scientists and emergency managers led to a climate of distrust following this crisis. In an attempt to address these issues, rebuild dialogue and respect between communities, outside scientists and administrators, and move forward in volcanic hazard education and planning for Ambae, we adapted and applied Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approaches. Initial gender-segregated PRA exercises from two representative communities provided a mechanism for cataloguing local traditional viewpoints and hazard perceptions. Ultimately, by combining elements of these viewpoints and perceptions with science-based management structures, we derived volcanic hazard management guidelines, supported by an alert system and map that were more readily accepted by the test communities than the earlier "top-down" plans imposed by outside governmental and scientific agencies. The strength of PRA approaches is that they permit scientists to understand important local perspective issues, including visualisations of volcanic hazards, weaknesses in internal and external communication systems, and gender and hierarchy conflicts, all of which can hinder community emergency management. The approach we describe has much to offer both developing and industrialised communities that wish to improve their awareness programs and mitigative planning. This approach should also enhance communication and understanding between volcanologists and the communities they serve.

Integration of indigenous knowledge and disaster risk reduction: A case study from Baie Martelli, Pentecost Island, Vanuatu

“…In terms of articulating effective responses to disasters like tsunamis, these conclusions emphasize the importance of maintaining and sustaining sources of indigenous knowledge in such communities but also, given its limitations, blending it with nonindigenous (scientific) knowledge in ways that make it palatable to these communities; a similar conclusion was reached from a study of volcanic hazard awareness on Ambae Island in Vanuatu (Cronin et al 2004). As with any messages about disaster risk or, more broadly, environmental management, the goal is to achieve whole-community buy-in, so that the greatest possible number of people can take appropriate action when necessary.…”

Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards

“…The, often tacit, knowledge that groups and individuals use to frame dimensions of uncertainty are fluid products of ongoing decisionmaking, shared experiences and assumptions and broader mental models. Community-based disaster risk management and other participatory approaches provide mechanisms by which to incorporate this plurality of perspectives into the co-production of knowledge (Williams and Dunn 2003;Cronin et al 2004;Gaillard 2006;Cadag and Gaillard 2014). Similarly, joint fact-finding techniques can be employed to help groups work through science-intensive policy and planning disputes to create a shared vision and inform collective decision-making, even in situations with high degrees of uncertainty (Karl, Susskind, and Wallace 2007;Schenk 2016).…”

Recommendations for the user-specific enhancement of flood maps

“…Other risk criteria, such as social and environmental effects, are often neglected, as well as other user-specific contents (Meyer et al, 2009). Thirdly, flood maps are often designed and visualised by those with a technical knowledge of mapping and/or flooding, and thus the maps present information in a way that cannot be easily understood by laypersons and/or that is not suitable for the respective needs of public authorities for risk and flood emergency management (Cronin, 2004;Fuchs et al, 2007;Holub and Fuchs, 2009). Burningham et al (2008) highlight particular problems in understanding the language of a flood map.…”