Knowledge Co-production Processes for Building Disaster Resilience of Communities in Coastal Areas: A Case Study of Baler, Aurora, Philippines

  • Pedcris Miralles OrencioEmail author


One of the cornerstones of disaster risk reduction (DRR) is to build the resilience of communities against the negative effects of hazards. Part of this process may entail communities’ participation in knowledge co-production and decision making, which can be done through participatory grassroots approaches. To illustrate how strategies for building disaster-resilient communities would benefit from the use of grassroots assessments methods, a real-world application of a participatory approach was undertaken in the five coastal communities of Baler in the province of Aurora in the Philippines. The approach is two-pronged consisting of a survey of communities’ perception of disaster resilience, and a participatory workshop for understanding the gaps in the current DRR system. The former was based on a six-level scoring system modified and referenced from the Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART). The latter, on the other hand, evaluated the four components of disaster-resilient communities using the four resilience dimensions – people, community processes, organizations, and resources. The results revealed that coastal communities were generally not disaster-resilient as reflected by the issues in organizational, financial, infrastructure development, and institutional coordination within the municipality. This attempt to induce a transdisciplinary process has presented useful information sources and provided mechanisms for instilling collaboration among different DRR stakeholders. More importantly, it paved a way for understanding how to use and put value to local knowledge as a source of information in developing strategies for building disaster-resilient communities.


Disaster resilience Transdisciplinary Decision-making process Grassroots approach 


  1. Amason AC (1996) Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad Manag J 39(1):123–148Google Scholar
  2. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bammer G (2005) Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization. Ecol Soc 10(2):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 1st edn. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, von Winterfeldt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19(4):733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):953–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chilvers J (2007) Towards analytic deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflecting on learning in radioactive waste. J Risk Res 10(2):197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centre for Community Enterprise, Lewis M, Rowcliffe P (2000) The community resilience manual: a resource for rural recovery and renewal. Centre for Community Enterprise, Port AlberniGoogle Scholar
  9. Coyle SJ (2011) Sustainable and resilient communities: a comprehensive action plan for towns, cities, and regions, vol 15. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  10. Davenport TH, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (First published in German, 1935)Google Scholar
  12. Hardon GH, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainable research. Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jahn Hansen C (2006) Urban transport, the environment and deliberative governance: the role of interdependence and trust. J Environ Policy Plan 8(2):159–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein JT (2001) The discourse of transdisciplinarity: an expanding global field. In: Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flueler TM, Scholz RW (2006) Public involvement in repository site selection for nuclear waste: towards a more dynamic view in the decision-making process. In: Conference proceedings. VALDOR 2006—VALues in decisions on risk. Stockholm, May 14–18, 2006. SKI, SEPA, SGI, SRCE, OECD/NEA, UK Nirex, pp 96–105Google Scholar
  16. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional – dynamic public participation in technological decision – making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar S (2002) Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners. ITDG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Mercer J, Kelman I, Lloyd K, Suchet-Pearson S (2008) Reflections on use of participatory research for disaster risk reduction. Area 40(2):172–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAdam R, Mason B, McCrory J (2007) Exploring the dichotomies within the tacit knowledge literature: towards a process of tacit knowing in organizations. J Knowl Manag 11(2):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McEntire DA (2001) Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the current shift in paradigms. Aust J Emerg Manag 15:1 58–1 61Google Scholar
  21. Nonaka I (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harv Bus Rev 69(6):96–104Google Scholar
  22. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), UNDP and ECHO (2008) Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in sub-national development and land use/physical planning in the Philippines, ISBN 978-971-8535-23-3Google Scholar
  23. Olwig M (2012) Multi-sited resilience: the mutual construction of “local” and “global” understandings and practices of adaptation and innovation. Appl Geogr 33:112–118. Scholar
  24. Orencio PM, Fujii M (2013a) An index to determine vulnerability of communities in a coastal zone: a case study of Baler, Aurora, Philippines. AMBIO J Hum Environ 42(1):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orencio PM, Fujii M (2013b) A localized disaster-resilience index to assess coastal communities based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 3:62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orencio PM, Fujii M (2014) A spatiotemporal approach for determining disaster-risk potential based on damage consequences of multiple hazard events. J Risk Res 17(7):815–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orencio PM, Endo A, Taniguchi M, Fujii M (2016) Using thresholds of severity to threats to and the resilience of human Systems in Measuring Human Security. Soc Indic Res 129(3):979–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Republic Act No. 10121. An act strengthening the Philippine disaster risk reduction and management system, providing for the national disaster risk reduction and management framework and institutionalizing the national disaster risk reduction and management plan. Accessed on 29 May 2013 from
  29. Ravn JE (2004) Cross-system knowledge chains: the team dynamics of knowledge development. Syst Pract Action Res 17(3):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Renn O (2005) Risk governance towards an integrative approach. White paper no. 1, Sep. 2005. IRGC. Geneva. Accessed on 27 Aug 2015 from
  31. Rist S, Dahdouh-Guebas F (2006) Ethnosciences – a step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environ Dev Sustain 8(4):467–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfefferbaum RL, Pfefferbaum B, Van Horn RL (2011) Communities advancing resilience toolkit (CART): the CART integrated system. Terrorism and Disaster Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma CityGoogle Scholar
  33. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polanyi M (1983) The tacit dimension. Peter Smith, GloucesterGoogle Scholar
  35. Petts J (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res 7(2):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pretty JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin futures project. Sci Public Policy 33(2):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider F, Fry P, Ledermann T, Rist S (2009) Social learning processes in Swiss soil protection – the ‘from farmer-to farmer’project. Hum Ecol 37(4):475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Twigg J (2007) Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: a guidance note, Version 1. UK Department for International Development’s Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group, London. Accessed on 22 Nov 2012 from
  40. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2004) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction activities, 2004. 429 p. ISBN/ISSN: 9211010640Google Scholar
  41. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2007) Building disaster resilient communities good practices and lessons learned, a publication of the “global network of NGOs” for disaster risk reduction Geneva, 67 p. Accessed on 22 Nov 2012 from
  42. Webler T (1999) The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. J Risk Res 2(1):55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weichselgartner J (2002) About the capacity to be wounded: the need to link disaster mitigation and sustainable development. Extreme Naturereignisse–Folgen, Vorsorge, Werkzeuge, DKKV, Bonn, pp 150–158Google Scholar
  44. White GF (1945) Human adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the flood problem in the United States. Research Paper Number 29 Department of Geography, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. White GF, Kates RW, Burton I (2001) Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management. Global Environ Change B Environ Hazard 3:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zingerli C, Michel C, Salmi A (2009) On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network. Knowl Manag Dev J 5(2):185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations