Participatory Research and Planning Proposal:
The earthquake as an opportunity to build capacities and develop a community in the central southern region of Chile
On February 27, 2010, an earthquake registering 8.8 on the Richter scale struck the central southern regions of Chile. The earthquake triggered a tsunami, which devastated several coastal towns and severely damaged two major cities.
After two months of the catastrophe, the future of many towns and costal villages is still uncertain. Many of them are poor communities inhabited by people with low educational and income levels, and it is estimated that the reconstruction process will take many years and financial resources.
According to Quarantelli (1998), there are four main post disaster stages for recovery. First, the mitigation and preparedness activities to reduce the level of risk that population might be exposed to because of their socio economic, political and physical vulnerabilities; second the immediate aftermath of disasters, which often focuses on impact, losses and relief assistance; third the rehabilitation of infrastructure and services to return to some sort of normality; and finally, long term reconstruction activities.
Considering this context and aware that the emergency activities are already in place and running, I think that the fourth stage of the reconstruction process will be crucial to develop not just a better planning and infrastructure for the houses and towns, but to also build social capital and capacities within the population, and that is the reason why I think that using a participatory planning approach could be a good opportunity to improve the quality of life of these communities.
Therefore I want to focus my proposal research on the last stage of post disaster recovery process, to design a community participatory research and planning program using ecological and sustainable development principles for one of these rural communities in Chile. Specifically I want to develop a theoretical framework capable to empower the community and establish the bases to rebuild some of these towns in a more sustainable, safe and resilient way. Ultimately, my aim is to develop a model that could be applied on a similar context or/and in other communities affected by catastrophic events.
I I want to design project that could be used to help build a sustainable community, and to engage and prepare the stakeholders to assume leadership and responsibility for revitalizing their own economies and improving their quality of life.
Design and structure of the research and planning program
Firstly, to clarify, this is a proposal to undertake a project. In the case that the community stakeholders accept this proposal, the actual fieldwork has to be carried out by the people from the affected community with the assistance of a multidisciplinary team of professionals (including myself) and/or NGO. Thus, in this report I will try to provide a guidance document to explain what, why, when and how, in my opinion, this process should be implemented. We also have to acknowledge that this is a post-emergency situation and so we need to act as quickly as possible, taking into consideration all the parts involved in the process. The idea of this proposal is to complement the current government emergency plan and to combine the participatory research and planning processes in order to achieve tangible results in a relatively short time frame (1- 2 years) in a given area.
Consequently I will divide my project in two main stages: Research and Planning.
The research process or stage 1, will include a rationale statement of what, why, when and how I suggest to research a given community. Following, the planning stage, or stage 2, will include a proposal of tools and techniques to use by the community and/or NGO to carry out the implementation process.
In this specific assignment (Task 2) I will focus in stage 1, to justify my research proposal and answer the why and how questions of the project. Next, I will enounce the principles and components of stage 2, to give a clear idea of the project structure.
· To propose a theoretical model of participatory planning program based on ecological and sustainable principles.
· To explore educational programs to create jobs, considering the community background, needs and skills.
· To explore city development strategies (cooperative businesses solutions)
Why do we need to research first?
A disaster, such an earthquake, often leaves in its wake a number of tangible loses as a result of the often, massive destruction that it has wrought. Broadly, such loses include:
· Loss of lives. Death tolls may vary depending on the magnitude of the disaster in each town.
· Loss or damages to buildings. Houses, hospitals, schools, markets, offices, etc.
· Loss of or damage to infrastructure: electricity, telecommunications, roads, water supply and sewerage systems, ports, airports, etc.
· Economic losses: Crops, land livestock, fisheries, factories, workshops, warehouses, storage facilities, etc.
· Cultural losses: Cultural and historic buildings and sites, places of worship.
· Psychological losses: i.e. trauma and other emotional or mental stress, physical injuries, etc.
· Social losses: Disruptions in social services, law and order issues, adverse effects on family, and /or community moral, etc.
(Environmental Planning Collaborative, Ahmedabad, India and TGC International, LLC Washington, DC, 2005)
Therefore research is necessary in order to understand the type and scale of losses and damages brought about by the disaster, and is critical to determining the kind and level of inputs required for reconstruction. It is also important to understand the culture and the politics behind the community and encourage focus on specific local conditions (specific threats and risks, most vulnerable groups, sources of vulnerability, local perceptions of risks, and local resources and capacities). A research will also help to assess what resources, skills and capacities are already available in the community, which would be helpful to delegate responsibilities in the reconstruction process.
Stage 1: The Research
Research Goals
· Identification of the felt needs of the people
· Bringing forth consensus
· Empowerment of local disadvantaged groups
· Integration of local knowledge systems and sustainable principles into project design
· Establish a two‐way learning process between the project and local people
The argument: What sort of research method should be used?
The conventional approach to research has been characterized by control by outside experts, scientists and development specialists who have set project agendas and carried out research without any or only minor input from local community members (Chambers, 1994). The process is relatively static. The information is gathered from a community and then processed and analysed by experts with little or no feedback to the community. Consequently, many projects have failed due to inappropriate project goals, community apathy and a lack of understanding of local social and ecological systems (Landon and Langill, 1998). In recent years, new approaches to research have been developed which involve community members in gathering information in a participatory manner. Participatory Research (PR) represents a family of methodological approaches increasingly accepted and utilized to involve local people in research projects taking place in their own communities. These methodologies include Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Reflection and Action Research (PRA), Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Farming System Research (FSR), among others. The Common theme to all these approaches is the full participation of people in the process of learning about their needs and opportunities, and in the action required to address them. PR is characterized by a cyclical, ongoing process of research, reflection, learning and action, which seeks to include local people in designing the research, gathering information, analysing data and taking action. A key objective of PR is to empower community members by utilizing local knowledge and practices and by giving local people the opportunity to learn skills and share in the research process. It is meant to move away from dependence on scientific information provided by outside professionals to local knowledge and skills. It is also intended to contribute directly to positive changes in the specific circumstances of the participants, as well as increase the chances that the co-management program will succeed through local involvement (Landon and Langill, 1998). There are a variety of ways that people can 'participate', depending upon the particular context of the research, the capacities of those involved and the willingness to let community people participate. Participation can range from consultation or information sharing (where local people are kept informed about research activities but do not influence the research process) to self-mobilization (where the researcher acts only in a guidance capacity and local people take the initiative in project design and implementation). Participatory approaches can also bring together different disciplines, such as agriculture, health and community development, to enable an integrated vision of livelihoods and welfare. They offer opportunities for mobilising local people for joint action. The ultimate goal of this research method is that the research outcomes will contribute to the sustainable, positive change towards the equality of people in disadvantage. (Chambers, 2007) Accordingly with the type of project I want to develop which needs to combine research and planning to create solutions in a relatively short period of time due the emergency context, I will suggest using a participatory reflection (learning) and action research method (PRA/ PLA). This type of research aims at participation of the researched people to the research process, thereby filling some of the power gaps between the researchers and the researched people. In this method, therefore, the researched people are active research participants rather than passive object of the research. It is a collaborative method to test new ideas and implement action for change. It involves direct participation in a dynamic research process, while monitoring and evaluating the effects of the researcher's actions with the aim of improving practice (Dick, 2002; Checkland & Holwell, 1998; Hult & Lennung, 1980). At its core, action research is a way to increase understanding of how change in one's actions or practices can mutually benefit a community of practitioners (McNiff, 2002). "Essentially participatory reflection and action research (PRA) is research which involves all relevant parties in actively examining together current action (which they experience as problematic) in order to change and improve it. They do this by critically reflecting on the historical, political, cultural, economic, geographic and other contexts, which make sense of it. Participatory action research is not just research, which is hoped that will be followed by action. It is action, which is researched, changed and re-researched, within the research process by participants. Nor is it simply an exotic variant of consultation. Instead, it aims to be active co-research, by and for those to be helped. Nor can it be used by one group of people to get another group of people to do what is thought best for them - whether that is to implement a central policy or an organisational or service change. Instead it tries to be a genuinely democratic or non-coercive process whereby those to be helped, determine the purposes and outcomes of their own inquiry." Wadsworth, Y. (1998) What is participatory Action Research? PRA is effective, according to its practitioners, because of some fundamental reversals involving shifts of orientation, activity and relationships away from past professional practices. These include: from closed to open; from measuring to comparing; from individual to group; from verbal to visual; from higher to lower; from reserve and frustration to rapport and fun. In an attempt to summarise the key points from a compilation of over ten in-depth case studies from four continents on PRA-type approaches to participation, James Blackburn, said:
“Participation is more a set of principles than an ideology, an ethic more than a model... deep down, participation is about learning to respect and listen to the opinions, feelings, and knowledge of those we have in the past ‘targeted’; being transparent regarding our intentions to intervene in their lives...being careful to decentralise and delegate, allowing the less powerful to manage greater resources and assume more responsibility; sharing our knowledge and expertise... in short, it is about opening up, taking risks and showing trust. Such changes do not come easy to those weighted down with the baggage of long years of formal education and hierarchical cultures”.
PRA principles
The principles of PRA, as summarised by Chambers, are:
· Handing over the stick (or pen or chalk): facilitating investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by local people themselves, so they generate and own the outcomes and also learn.
· Self-critical awareness: facilitators continuously and critically examine their own behaviour.
· Personal responsibility: taking responsibility for what is done rather than relying, for instance, on the authority of manuals or on rigid rules.
· Sharing: which involves the wide range of techniques now available, from chatting across the fence to photocopies and e-mail.
Critical Analysis on Participatory research
The function of Participatory research is to generate new knowledge, which can be used, in the context of the development process, to achieve a desirable outcome. Broadly speaking this specific proposal aims to increase people’s wellbeing and in doing so to eradicate poverty. But we have to recognize that the groundwork research face a range of opportunities and constraints and be aware that this kind of research is not always successful. According to Neiland, Bennet and Townsley et al (2005), they are as follows:
Opportunities:
· Rural people often have in depth knowledge about the production systems and the circumstances in which they operate which might be used as a basis to identify researchable constraints to development.
· Involving local people in the research process itself might also increase the relevance applicability and delivery of research findings to address development problems.
· Involving local people would change the nature of research in terms of developing relatively simple, rapid and widely generalisable field techniques, which did not rely on high levels of capacity or expertise or funding, and which might help to communicate and share relevant information between stakeholders and researchers, and facilitate the research and development process.
Constraints:
· Not all circumstances or situations allow rural people to participate effectively in research (and related development) processes, for example some communities are heterogeneous or highly mobile or disjointed.
· Sometimes the governance context may severely limit the extent to which 'participation' can be translated into meaningful outcomes, for example, rural communities may have very little voice in decision-making concerning natural resource exploitation and management, despite having helped to contribute to new knowledge in particular areas;
· It is difficult and problematic to design and implement effective participatory research projects; they require new ways of working which are often at odds with research practices pursued by conventional research institutions and funding organizations
· Often the process of engaging rural communities in the research process is perceived, particularly by researchers and specialists, to compromise the scientific rigour of the research process; depending on what is being researched this perception may be more or less justified
Stage 2: Participatory Planning
Participatory Planning goals:
· To design a model of participatory planning program based on ecological and sustainable principles.
· Explore educational programs to create jobs, considering the community background, needs and skills.
· Explore city development strategies (cooperative businesses solutions)
Why Participatory Planning?
Participation can lead to increased social cohesion and in the quality of life. According to the UN Habitat “participation in planning can empower communities and build social capital, lead to better design of urban projects and allow for participants’ concerns to be incorporated within planning strategies.” (UN Habitat, Global report on Human Settlements, 2009)
The purpose of participatory planning is to create a platform for learning rather than plunging directly into problem solving. The process is expected to enhance
· The empowerment of local disadvantaged groups
· Integration of local knowledge systems into project design
· Two‐way learning process between the project and local people
· Political commitment and support
· Accountability in local governance
Planning Guide Principles
1- Build Back Better
Catastrophe can be a catalyst for positive change. History has demonstrated that catastrophes have given some cities a blank slate to rebuild according to a more sustainable plan.
Natural disasters can offer this kind of opportunity. However, in the panic and desperation following a natural disaster, there is pressure to act rather than to reflect. Following a major natural disaster, timing is a big issue. The affected communities may well feel they cannot take time for planning, because the pressure for housing and restarting local businesses is so great. In these situations, creating easy access to sustainable building strategies, concepts and tools can enable disaster-affected communities to “build back better” without serious delay.
2- Engage and Train Local Communities
This is probably the most important principle for reconstruction teams to keep in mind. Engaging the local community as well as the implementation phase of reconstruction is the best way to ensure that all restoration and revitalization activities are led by and embraced by members of the local population in the long-term. And using local technologies and employing the local labor force is the most practical and cost-effective strategy for rebuilding. It helps to restart the local economy and creates jobs, education and training opportunities for disaster victims (particularly women and children) seeking to restart their lives. One of the important goals of international reconstruction teams focused on sustainable solutions is to “design themselves out of the process”.
3- Focus on Permanent, not Temporary Solutions
Unless a plan for transitional and permanent community restoration is developed at the outset, it can be difficult to mobilize resources for sustainable solutions later on. There are many recent examples of disaster survivors forced to live indefinitely in hastily erected relief camps, trailer parks and shantytowns. Such temporary shelters are a poor investment; and these sites are natural breeding grounds for crime and infectious diseases. Architects Alliance and other members of the working group provided specific examples of the dangers of temporary housing. Based on their own work, they suggested strategies for developing transitional or permanent housing and other sustainable facilities that respond practically and sensitively to the long-term needs of local communities.
4- Respect Local Sustainability Practices (Permaculture)
In developing countries, local communities have developed their own, very basic energy and resource conservation practices because they have no choice. Such practices as building “healthy houses” out of yellow soil or keeping food cool in a hole in the ground are part of the culture and collective knowledge of specific regions. Local sustainability practices should be respected in reconstruction planning.
5- Address Ecosystem, Socio/cultural and Infrastructure Needs (Permaculture)
A sustainable approach to post-disaster reconstruction must address not only the needs of the built environment, but also ecosystem, socio/cultural and infrastructure requirements. Adopting this holistic framework ensures that the restoration along one dimension does not have a negative impact on other aspects of the long-term health and well being of the region. Maintaining the delicate balance between natural and socio/economic goals will also ensure that communities co-ordinate available resources and maintain fair and equitable opportunities for all stakeholders in the reconstruction process.
6- Use an Integrated Design Process
Many different kinds of expertise are required to develop and implement a sustainable reconstruction plan. An Integrated Design Process (IDP) brings together experts in a variety of disciplines (including engineering, design, construction and finance) with future users. These stakeholders form a collaborative team to identify issues and objectives for the process. It is essential that all members of the team are involved through- out the process to agree on goals, provide input into concept design and development, oversee implementation and evaluate results. This closed loop process examines every stage in the life of the facility or community environment to be developed in other words, the complete lifecycle of the project.
Key steps in this cycle are:
· Assess the damage (PRA)
· Determine the scope and scale of work to be done (PRA)
· Prioritize the needs Identify key players (PRA)
· Develop opportunities for local community involvement (PP)
· Assess and enumerating available resources (PP)
· Conduct a feasibility study on what can be done (PP)
· Decide on the best plan (PP)
· Conceptualize the plan (PP)
· Implement the plan (PP)
· Monitor the process and evaluate results (PP)
Adopting an Integrated Design Process is particularly critical to post-disaster reconstruction because the challenges are monumental, the interests of the stakeholders are extremely varied and the resources are very limited. The primary goals of the process are to:
a) Build a sustainable community that improves upon the infrastructure and built environment that were destroyed and mitigates the impact of future disasters.
b) Engage the local community in the process, so that they assume ownership and leadership for all phases of the reconstruction initiative and can replicate the Integrated Design Process for themselves on subsequent reconstruction projects.
7- Aim to Restore Local Economies Quickly
A top priority for a reconstruction teams is get disaster survivors back to work and to restore the normal rhythm of daily life. “Get the local hospital and the local bakery up and running as quickly as possible...seek to regenerate local craft industries”. To do this, it is critical to understand the basic infrastructure and economics of food and shelter in the disaster-stricken area. Often, the local population has lost their tools or means of production, so supplies of simple tools and equipment could help people to retrain and to restart their lives.
8- Facilitate a Local Response to the Disaster
It is important to facilitate a local response to a natural disaster, rather than importing sophisticated solutions that are not sustainable by the local population in the long term. “Local technology usually evolves to deal with local issues”. The best way to support local reconstruction initiatives is to:
a) Study the architecture and materials used historically in the region.
b) Propose solutions that integrate advanced technology, or micro infrastructure with local materials.
c) Train local teams to implement the plan, to take ownership for local reconstruction projects and to maintain systems and equipment in the long-term.
9- Keep the Implementation Plan Simple
“Think local and low cost”. A simple plan involving the local community and local resources, and a design concept that honours culture and sustainability practices of the region has a better chance of success. Establishing micro infrastructure, contributing “deskilled”, high-performance equipment and training local community members to maintain that equipment are ways of ensuring that the solutions can be maintained without continuous involvement of the international post-disaster team. This principle also creates jobs and supports the reestablishment of local economies.
10- Communicate best practices and ensure access to clear information for all stakeholders
Clear and open communications enable all stakeholders to become engaged with the reconstruction process in a fair and equitable way. Making sure that disaster-affected communities have timely access to sustainable reconstruction principles and best practices will increase their chances of building sustainable communities and contribute to community engagement and the quality of life for the local population as it works towards restoration and revitalization.
References:
Fisher, Fred. 2007 ,“Building Bridges through Participatory Planning”, UN Habitat
Alpaslan Ozerdem and Richard Bowd. 2010, “Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post Disaster/ Conflict Reconstruction”. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Accessed from RMIT on line library books.
Indo- US Financial Institutions reform and Expansion Project- debt Market Component FIRE (D), note 29, May 2002, “Initiative fro Planned and Participatory Reconstruction”.
R
Chambers, Robert 2007 From PRA to PLA and Pluralism: Practice and Theory. Institute of Development Studies, Working paper 286.
Chambers, Robert. 2005. Ideas for Development. Earthscan: UK. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari (eds.) 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.
Rambaldi, Giacomo, Robert Chambers, Mike McCall and Jefferson Fox. 2006. Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. Participatory Learning and Action 54, 106-13.
Nakagawa Yuko and Rajib Shaw, 2004. “Social Capital: A Missing Link to Disaster Recovery”, United Nations Center for Regional Development (UNCRD), International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 5-34
Sheng Ying, 2009, Post Earthquake reconstruction: Towards a Much more Participatory Planning, Theoretical and empirical researches in Urban Management.
Douglas Ahlers and Rebecca Hummel. Lessons from Katrina, December 2007. The Broadmoor Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, “How a community can spearhead successful disaster recovery”
Environmental Planning Collaborative, Ahmedabad, India and TCG International, LLC Washington, DC, 2004, “Participatory planning guide for post disaster reconstruction”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, 2005, “Long Term Community recovery Planning Process ( A self help Guide)”
Natural resources Systems Programme. NRSP, Neiland, Bennet & Townsley, 2005,“Participatory research approaches - What have we learned?” The experience of the DFID Renewable Natural resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) Programme 1995 – 2005 http://www.nrsp.org/index.aspx
Links and websites:
· International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Participatory learning and Action: “Community - Based adaptation to Climate Change”, http://www.planotes.org
· International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD). Participatory Action and Learning Research: “Community Based adaptation to climate change” www.iisd.org/communities
· Governance and Social Development Resource Centre
· Urban Habitat. “A New Model: Participatory Planning for Sustainable Community Development” http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/920
· Yoland Wadsworth (1998), What is Participatory Action research?,
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html
· A Guide for Field Projects on adaptive strategies: participatory Approach to research. http://www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/participatoryapproach.htm
· The International Development Research Centre: Research and Participatory research: http://www.idrc.ca/es/ev-93172-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
· Overview of the Methodology of Action research http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
· Developing And Sustaining Community Based Participatory Research
http://www.cbprcurriculum.info/
No comments:
Post a Comment