Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 105–136 | Cite as

Maximising Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Government and Community Volcanic Hazard Management Programs; A Case Study from Savo, Solomon Islands

  • Shane J. Cronin
  • Mike G. Petterson
  • Paul W. Taylor
  • Randall Biliki
Article

Abstract

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods and philosophies were trialed in a volcanic risk management planning and awareness activity for Savo Island, a historically highly destructive volcano in the Solomon Islands. Through a combination of methods we tried to combine the roles of facilitators and educators, and to involve the input of all stakeholders (from community to national government) in the process of volcanic risk management. The PRA approach was an ideal way to address the fundamental differences in outlook, education, needs, and roles of individuals and groups involved or affected. It was also an important catalyst to Savo island- or community-based planning initiatives, which are arguably the most important step toward the preparedness of the 2500 inhabitants of the island for any future destructive volcanic activity. We adapted almost every tenet of the PRA philosophy through inexperience, self-perceived importance and desire to combine both scientific and traditional views for Savo volcanic risk management planning. Nevertheless, what emerged from our experiences was an idea of how fundamentally well suited many PRA approaches are to initiating dialogue within diverse stakeholder groups, and deriving combined scientific/geologic and local/community risk assessments and mitigation action plans. The main challenge remaining includes increasing the involvement or voice of less powerful community members (women, youth, non-landowners) in risk management decision-making in such male-dominated hierarchical societies.

Volcanic hazards volcanic risk community education participatory rural appraisal PRA Savo Solomon Islands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amherst, W. A. T. A. and Thomson, B.: 1901, The discovery of the Solomon Islands by Alvaro del Mandaña in 1568. Translated from the original Spanish manuscripts, (Vol. 1), Hakluyt Society, London, 191 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bar-On, A. A. and Prinsen, G.: 1999, Planning, communities and empowerment. An introduction to participatory rural appraisal, International Social Work 42, 277–294.Google Scholar
  3. Bascom, W. R.: 1965, Folklore and anthropology, In: A. Dundes (ed.), The Study of Folklore, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 25–33.Google Scholar
  4. Bevan, P.: 2000, Who's a goody? Demythologizing the PRA agenda, Journal of International Development 12, 751–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, R.: 1992, Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory. IDS Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 68 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, R.: 1994a, Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm, World Development 22, 1437–1454.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, R.: 1994b, Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience, World Development 22, 1253–1268.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, R.: 1994c, The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal (PRA), World Development 22, 953–969.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, R.: 1997, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, IT Publications, London.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, R.: 2002, Relaxed and Participatory Appraisal: notes on participatory approaches and methods for participants in PRA/PLA-related familiarisation workshops. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.Google Scholar
  11. Cornwall, A.: 2000, Making a difference? Gender and participatory development. IDS Discussion Paper 378. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 39 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Crook, K. A. W. and Taylor, B.: 1994, Structural and quaternary tectonic history of the Woodlark Triple Junction region, Solomon Islands, Marine Geophys. Res. 16, 65–89.Google Scholar
  13. Cronin, S. J. and Kaloumaira, A.: 2000, Taveuni volcanic hazards workshops. SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 372. SOPAC, Suva, Fiji, 42 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Cronin, S. J., Taylor, P.W., and Malele, F.: 2000, Final report on the Savaii volcanic hazards project, Samoa. SOPAC Technical Report 343. SOPAC, Suva, Fiji, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Grimes, F. B. (ed.): 1996, Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Summer Inst. of Linguistics Inc., Texas.Google Scholar
  16. Grover, J. C.: 1958, Savo volcano — a potential danger to its inhabitants, In: The Solomon Islands — geological exploration and research, 1953–56, Geol. Survey of the British Solomon Islands Mem. 2, 108–111.Google Scholar
  17. Gujit, I.: 1994, Making a difference: integrating gender analysis into PRA, RRA Notes 19, 49–55.Google Scholar
  18. Guppy, H. B.: 1887, The Solomon Islands — Their Geology, General Features, and Suitability for Colonization, Swan Sonnenschein & Co. London, 152 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Humble, M.: 1998, Assessing PRA for implementing gender and development, In, I. Guijt and M. Kaul Shah (eds.), The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 35–45.Google Scholar
  20. Kapoor, I.: 2002, The devil's in the theory: a critical assessment of Robert Chambers' work on participatory development, Third World Quarterly 23, 101–117.Google Scholar
  21. Loader, R. and Amartya, L.: 1999, Participatory rural appraisal: extending the research methods base, Agricultural Systems 62, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maguire, P.: 1987, Doing participatory research: a feminist approach. Centre for International Education, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, A. and Sherington, J.: 1997, Participatory research methods — implementation, effectiveness and institutional context, Agricultural Systems 55, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J.: 1987, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Shambhala Publications Inc. MA.Google Scholar
  25. Nelkin, D.: 1985, The political impact of technical expertise, Social Studies of Science 5, 35–54.Google Scholar
  26. Otsyina, J. A. and Rosenberg, D.: 1999, Rural development and women: what are the best approaches to communicating information, Gender and Development 7, 45–55.Google Scholar
  27. Percy, R.: 1999, Gender analysis and participatory rural appraisal: assessing the current debate through an Ethiopian case study involving agricultural extension work, International Journal of Educational Development 19, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petterson, M. G., Tolia, D., Qopoto, C. A, Papabatu, A., and Toba, T.: 1997, Towards a volcanic Hazard Assessment of Savo Volcano, Solomon Islands. Abstract in: K. A. Crook and R. Howorth (eds.), SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 263, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  29. Petterson, M. G., Cronin, S. J., Taylor, P.W., Tolia, D., Papabatu, A., Toba, T., and Qopoto, C.: 2003: The eruptive history and volcanic hazards of Savo, Solomon Islands, Bulletin of Volcanology 65, 165–181.Google Scholar
  30. RDD (Rural Development Division): 2001, Central Province Development Profile. Ministry of Provincial Government and Rural Development, Solomon Islands, 3 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Rietbergen-McCracken, J. and Narayan, D. (compilers): 1998, Participation and social assessment: tools and techniques, The World Bank, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, D. B. and Ison, R. L.: 1993, The research-development relationship in rangelands: an opportunity for contextual science. Proceedings IV International Rangeland Congress, 1991, vol. 3., 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  33. Toba, T.: 1993, Analysis of Savo custom stories on the eruption of Savo volcano. Tech. Rep. TR4/93, Seismol. Unit, Water and Mineral Resources Division, Ministry of Energy Water and Mineral Resources, Honiara, Solomon Islands.Google Scholar
  34. Turnbull, J.: 2002, Solomon Islands: blending traditional power and modern structures in the state, Public Administration and Development 22, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. von Kotze, A.: 1998, Monologues or dialogues? Missed learning opportunities in participatory rural appraisal, Convergence 31, 47–56.Google Scholar
  36. Ware, M.: 2001, Broken Nation. Time South Pacific, 20–27 August2001, v. 33: 40–45.Google Scholar
  37. Webber, L. M. and Ison, R. L.: 1995, Participatory rural appraisal design: conceptual and process issues. Agricultural Systems 47, 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wetmore, S. B. and Theron, F.: 1998, Community development and research: participatory learning and action — a development strategy in itself, Development Southern Africa 15, 29–54.Google Scholar
  39. White, L. and Taket, A.: 1997, Beyond appraisal: participatory appraisal of needs and the development of action (PANDA), Omega, International Journal of Management Science 25, 523–534.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane J. Cronin
    • 1
  • Mike G. Petterson
    • 2
  • Paul W. Taylor
    • 3
  • Randall Biliki
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Natural ResourcesMassey UniversityNew Zealand
  2. 2.British Geological SurveyKeyworth, NottinghamUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Australian Volcanological InvestigationsPymbleAustralia
  4. 4.National Disaster Management OfficeHoniaraSolomon Islands

Personalised recommendations