Context Counts: cultivating community disaster preparedness amid complexity
Our evaluation partners Integrated Risk Management Associates (IRMA) and EnCompass conducted a study to explore how contextual factors influence disaster preparedness at the community level.
This research was done in partnership with Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies (MACP)’s Disaster Relief & Recovery domain, focused on the international portion of the program.
The objectives were to:
- Map contextual elements: identify factors that affect disaster readiness in communities engaged in MACP-funded programs.
- Examine contextual influence: understand the nature and degree of these factors’ impact on community preparedness.
The research was guided by three main questions:
- What contextual elements most influence community disaster readiness?
- What trends emerge on influences that enable or disable preparedness?
- How can Disaster Relief & Recovery programming use context-consciousness to achieve more sustainable results?
Authors of the report: Lezlie Moriniere, Marilise Turnbull, Randi Rumbold, Michael Moses.
Partners that participated in the research: American Red Cross, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, Mercy Corps, Oxfam.
Photo by Claudia Zaldaña
“A community that does not suffer multiple, frequently repeated, or extensive hazards is unlikely to be the best focus for targeted preparedness efforts.”
Key Findings
1. Influential contextual elements can enable or disable readiness. Those with the strongest influence on preparedness are:
-
- Enabling factors: community awareness and learning, disaster risk governance, vibrant economies, and effective communication systems.
- Disabling factors: poverty, constrained natural resources, weak market dynamics, and political instability.
2. Interconnectedness of contexts: contextual elements often interact dynamically. For example, income levels affect preparedness through links to economic stability and access to resources. Geographic and political nuances also shape how contexts enable or disable preparedness.
3. Role of governance: disaster risk governance emerged as a critical enabler of both immediate preparedness outcomes and long-term sustainability.
“When people and households have insufficient income to feed their families, there is insufficient room or resources in their lives to prioritize preparedness.”
Conclusions
1. Hazard prominence drives preparedness: communities experiencing frequent or extensive hazards prioritize preparedness more effectively.
2. Economic stability matters: vibrant local economies enable communities to invest in preparedness; poverty alleviation is foundational for disaster readiness.
3. Governance is crucial: effective disaster risk governance at local, municipal, and national levels is essential for sustaining community preparedness outcomes.
4. Context-conscious approaches are key: tailoring interventions iteratively to specific contexts enhances effectiveness and sustainability.
Recommendations
For funders and implementers of disaster preparedness work
1. Promote context analysis: ensure preparedness efforts include robust context analysis and monitoring.
2. Target high-risk communities: focus disaster preparedness efforts on areas with frequent hazards and promising governance structures for maximum impact. Other communities might need different support before they focus on disaster preparedness.
3. Integrate livelihood support: combine preparedness programs with income-generating initiatives to address poverty-related barriers before or during disaster preparedness.
4. Adopt adaptive management: use inclusive monitoring systems to adjust programs dynamically based on evolving contexts.