Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 35, Number 1, 2014, pp21-34

The Reality and Dilemma in Using Community Risk
Assessment as a Disaster Risk Reduction Tool in Ghana
Martin Oteng-Ababio, Ph.D.
Department of Geography and Resource Development University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana(Received November 25, 2013 Accepted March 31, 2014)
ABSTRACTThe purpose of the paper is to introduce qualitative methods as providing uniqueand critical contributions for developing risk reduction strategies at the local level. It
summarises the principles and practices in study design, data collection and analysis
and presents a synthesis of standards for ensuring rigor and enhancing credibility inqualitative research. The methodology involves a comprehensive literature review, whichculled information from risk reduction research-related fields and years of field researchexperience. The findings reveal how the method can be used to understand complex social
processes and capture more nuanced aspects of a phenomenon through the lens of the study
community. Such qualitative studies are often exploratory and seek to generate novel
insights using inductive rather than deductive approaches. They help uncover the beliefs,
values, and motivations that underlie participants’ actions and behaviours, which are
crucial in implementing DRR strategies at the local level. Disaster risk reduction researchseeks to inform the development and evaluation of policy guidelines that foster effective
interventions and these aspects of risks may be most appropriately examined using thequalitative research methods.
Keyword: Urban poverty; Vulnerability; Hazards; Risk reduction

1. INTRODUCTION

developmental targets, including the quest to alleviate
excruciating poverty.
These calls come at a time when most governments tend to take the conventional approach to risk
assessment in a ‘natural disaster’ silo and therefore
concentrate their resources mainly on technical solutions. Governments generally fail to recognise how
local capacities can affect DRR strategies, or how toempower the people to gain control over the determinants of hazards that confront them (GAR, 2009). The
reality is that communities live in a complex multirisk environment where the ‘opportunity cost’ ofstandalone interventions is too high for them to adopt
such options without recourse to external support.

In recent years, there have been several calls on
development practitioners to, as a matter of principle,
include disaster risk reduction (DRR) or emergency
mitigation strategies in their development plans andprocesses (Wisner et al., 2004; Hilhorst and Bankoff,2008). This is due to the increasing recognition of thecomplex multi-risk nature of communities where the‘opportunity cost’ of a stand-alone intervention is toohigh for the community to afford it without recourse
to external funding. More importantly, the recognition
also reflects the fact that the gravity of the impact ofdisasters can prevent governments from attaining their21

M. Oteng-Ababio

This gap in literature defeats the purpose of DRR
strategies, which seek to build resilience, reduce vulnerability and create capacities for adapting to andcoping with natural disasters.
Some unexpected events such as flooding affectnot only the local economy (i.e., taxing local resources), but also the regional, national and sometimes
even the global community. Yet, the dominant risk
profile is one of small-scale recurrent disasters, which
do not normally attract external funding. Such situations evoke pertinent questions that cannot be glossed
over in our bid to develop an efficient DRR framework: How well do people in a community understand the potential risks confronting them? How well
are they prepared in terms of their resources and capacities to handle those emergencies? What resource
does the community lack and what does it alreadyhave? Are there any established modalities for fostering understanding between communities and risk
managers? Understanding these questions holds the
key to our appreciation of the vulnerability level of acommunity, which is also contingent on their perception and knowledge of risk.
According to Hilhorst and Bankoff (2008), people’s ideas about risk and their practices in relation todisasters constitute the sextant and compass withwhich they measure and chart the landscape of vulnerability. They argue that perception is not knowledge, nor does knowledge necessarily translate into
action. Yet, perception is important in understanding
why they exhibit a certain behaviour. Hilhorst (2008)
categorises people’s perception into three social domains of knowledge that correspond to science, governance or local customs, emphasizing that all three
are equally valuable in understanding what makes
people vulnerable and how they can set about ameliorating that condition.
By inference, reducing disaster risk and its adversarial impact demands a comprehensive humancentered risk assessment approach, complete with capability and vulnerability evaluations. This is because
vulnerability is embedded in complex social relations
and processes and should be understood within its local context (i.e., what makes certain people vulnerable). Such an approach minimises not only societal
vulnerabilities by avoiding (prevention) or limiting(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impact ofhazards, but it also aids in prioritizing them (Kulatun-

ga et al., 2010). Such a risk assessment seeks to reduce loss and prevent the escalation of risk in a community through proper distribution and concentrationof resources.
Guided by these dynamics and attributes of vulnerability, this paper evaluates community risk assessment (CRA) as one of the bottom-up, community-led
approaches to DRR. Following these introductory remarks, the next section provides an overview of DRR
as a concept, highlighting the challenges in its conceptualization and implementation. The paper then interrogates the virtues of qualitative research, examining specifically how communities can become
involved in DRR, and provides guidelines for enhanced community participation. The paper concludes
by making recommendations for policy consideration
with the intent of fostering greater consultation, collaboration and partnership among key stakeholders infuture DRR approaches.
2. AN OVERVIEW OF DISASTER RISKREDUCTION (DRR)
A disaster is generally a risk magnified or an extreme event that overwhelms the capacity of the affected community to protect lives and livelihoods, requiring external help in dealing with the losses (Wisner et al., 2004; UNISDR, 2009). It arises fromhazards and typically, it is its impact on human lifethat distinguishes it from hazards. Thus, hazards need
to be managed in order to reduce their impact on human lives and the ways of doing so are varied andevolve over time. The earliest and still predominant
approach in managing hazards is for agencies to provide relief to victims once a disaster occurs. Althoughsuch rescue assistance is vital for saving lives, it
nonetheless makes some level of loss almost inevitable. Apart from undue delays, relying on external support is not desirable for at-risk communities, particularly when the communities themselves have some insitu capacity to deal with the threat.
The need for a fundamental paradigm shift has
become more imperative in recent years as society increasingly pays a higher price for poor development
choices. The introduction of neoliberal policies suchas privatization, trade liberalization and increasing
globalization, to some extent made preventive approaches, which sought to reduce the very founda22

THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

tions of disaster-risks, redundant. This development,
coupled with the threat of future climate change,
makes the call for an altered approach extremely urgent. Rather than waiting to respond to an event(post-hoc reactiveness), disaster managers are being
urged to adopt risk reduction strategies including capacity building for resilience to address not only disaster impacts but also the factors that turn a hazard
into a realised disaster. It is hoped that this will reduce
the need for resources for post-disaster response activities and influence future development agendas(UNISDR, 2009).
Generally, DRR refers to the practice of reducing
disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyseand reduce the causal factors (Blaikie et al., 1994). To
a great extent, reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property, managing
land and the environment wisely, and improving preparedness for adverse events are all different facets ofensuring efficient DRR for sustainable development(White et al., 2004; Gaillard and Maceda, 2009). Yet
in most countries in the developing world in particular, national DRR policies and institutional mechanisms to pursue this agenda remain at various degrees
of completeness (AU/NEPAD, 2004). Thus, their effectiveness in stemming the tide of increasing vulnerability to and impact of disasters is limited. This calls
for a strategic approach to improving and enhancing
the effectiveness and efficiency of DRR since in orderfor development activities to be sustainable, they must
reduce risk; the alternative being that unsound development policies increase disaster risk - and disasterlosses.
Principally, DRR activities involve every part ofsociety, the government, and the private sector. They
continue even after a disaster, increasing resilience for
future disastrous events. This presents the reason why
the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), theUnited Nations’ blueprint for DRR, endorses the importance of mainstreaming DRR measures within urban planning and development, a point reiterated byformer UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan who eloquently noted that “…we must shift from a culture ofreaction to a culture of prevention…it is more humane… also much cheaper…” (1999).
This approach becomes imperative in Ghana,where poverty discrepancy and the skewed provisionof infrastructure services are not uncommon. In Accra(the National capital of Ghana) the median householdincome for the entire city is $ 8.86 per day, while thehighest income areas - Airport Residential, Roman
Ridge, Cantoments and Airport West- have an average
household income of $ 294 per day. The very poor areas have an average household income of $ 3.5 per
day (CHF International, 2010). In such situations, disasters become a symptom of incomplete, inappropriate or inequitable development. Indeed, Joseph Deiss(2011)1 rightly articulates this relationship, suggesting
that, “by wiping out major development gains, suchas school buildings, hospitals and energy grids, disasters perpetuate a cycle of under-development, poverty
and disempowerment”. In this regard, sustainable
DRR initiatives must explicitly identify local associations, unions, NGOs, religious bodies, etc., to participate in the assessment of disaster risks, early warning
systems, enhancement of community resilience capacity, reduction of hazards and risks, and preparedness strategies and activities.
2.1. Interrogating Models for Disaster Risk
Reduction
According to the UN Secretary-General, "themore governments, UN agencies, organizations, businesses and civil society understand risk and vulnerability, the better equipped they will be to mitigate disasters when they strike and save more lives"-- Ban
Ki-moon2. This comment underscores the fact that
DRR is about choices and is “everyone's business”. It
shows that approaches to DRR are varied, as there are
multiplicities of risk factors. It is a conceptual framework intended to systematically avoid (prevent) andlimit (prepare/mitigate) disaster losses in lives and thesocial, economic and environmental assets of communities (InfoResources, 2009). DRR must be undertaken well before disaster can strike, shifting the focus
away from responding to disaster to prevention, preparedness and mitigation activities.
Since 2005, the cornerstone of DRR has been the
Hyogo Declaration with the overarching goal ofbuilding resilient communities by 2015. In this regard, there are two possible approaches. The topdown approach involves decision-making by “experts”. Disregarding community opinion andconsensus-seeking, the decision-makers seek refugein technology-based models, imposing programmes
on people who are expected to benefit from such deci23

M. Oteng-Ababio2012) has challenged the dominance of the top-down
approach to DRR. Allen (2006) for example extols thevirtues of the bottom-up approach, which has as its
objective community empowerment and the transferof ideas from the “bottom to the top”. He believes thatsuch an approach ensures that policies and technologies answer to the needs of the community and createawareness about local risks and self-protection. An
effective approach among vulnerable local communities is to ensure that those vulnerable to disasters are
not seen as passive victims, but key (active) actors indealing with the threat and thus increasing their own
resilience.
This is because a community at risk has inherent
skills, knowledge and experience that can be built on
for DRR. Their indigenous knowledge holds in-depth
understanding, based on their familiarity and engagement with the surrounding geography, natural environment and local affairs. The bottom-up approachprovides an opportunity for the community-at-risk tocontribute and increase their commitment and belongingness to DRR activities. Suffice it to state thatthough a community may be living in a fragile area,
its members’ understanding and familiarity with thelocality, developed through the day-to-day engagement with the surrounding geography, can be a great
asset. The local people, according to UNISDR(2006), must be engaged in all aspects of the DRR
process, including the identification, analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, inorder to reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance theircapacities. This provides them with the opportunity toparticipate in DRR activities, a practice rightly articulated by Hauser (2004): 'We must never merely provide people with programs which have little or nothing to do with their own pre-occupations, doubts,
hopes, and fears... It is not our role to speak to people
about our own view of the world, nor to attempt toimpose that view on them, but rather to dialogue withthe people about their view and ours'.
Potter et al. (1999) also argue that direct community involvement ensures that information about risks
and hazards is communicated in a manner and language that is accessible to all, and that such participation generates community ownership, which is vitalfor sustainable, long-term achievements. They see theprocess as a way of mobilising community resources,
both human and material, to achieve effective risk re-sions. This approach generally leads to dependency
and lethargy among ‘the local people’. It focuses onmonitoring techniques like sophisticated hazard mapping, the implementation of buffer zones and physicalmitigation measures such as flood barriers (Luna,2007).
Such an approach fails to take into consideration
the socio-cultural beliefs and livelihood patterns of
the affected society, generally resulting in inappropriate interventions that are destined to fail. The literature is replete with instances that illustrate how failure
to seek local knowledge and consent has led to thefailure of otherwise well-intended policies. A case inpoint is the failure of the Kwabenya Landfill Projectin Accra, Ghana (see Oteng-Ababio, 2011; Owusu etal., 2011). The project was one of the development assistance programmes implemented by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) in 1991.
Even when the metropolitan assembly failed to meetthe DFID funding conditionalities, the World Bank
granted the assembly $ 96 million support for the proposed engineered landfill in 2011. The feasibility
studies, project design and initial preparatory work
costing over US$ 2 million were completed in 2002.
Although a well-intentioned project which, if successful, would have improved solid waste management in
the city, failure to consult, involve and plan with thecommunity stalled the project.
Another failed government intervention was the
Keta Sea Defense Project. The Keta Lagoon3 is alarge body of fresh water separated from the salt waters of the Gulf of Guinea by a narrow strip of land.
This isthmus experiences severe and continuous erosion and a large portion of residential and public infrastructure in Keta was lost to the sea. Should theisthmus be breached by the sea, drastic changes in salinity levels and flow within the lagoon would occur,with quite catastrophic consequences not only for local agriculture and the fishing industry, but also for
those who live in Keta and the surrounding area. This
informed government decision to build a sea defence
wall to protect and stabilise the shoreline from Keta
to Hlorve. The project failed to consider the possible
down-drift transfer of the problem, thereby consigning communities like Kedzi, Horvi, Vodza, etc., toperpetual tidal waves and continued coastal erosion(Keta Municipality, 2012).
Recent research (Allen, 2006; Oteng-Ababio,
24THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

duction. The inclusion of local government officials
from the early planning stages bestows some authority
to the final plan and ensures sustainability. The approach ensures the co-production of knowledge rather
than the primarily extractive research approach often
employed in knowledge gathering (Cargo and Mercer,2008).
It ensures that the community is not only a beneficiary but also one of the main actors employing datacollection methods designed for people of different
educational backgrounds, which encourages community participation and acceptability. Community-levelparticipation also develops local capacity, building
self-esteem and confidence, knowledge, and teamwork of the entire community, helping “outsiders”(experts, consultants, government officials, etc.) tobetter understand the community’s development activities. In this way programmes will achieve practicaland more effective results, while community life will
become more stable and hopefully, sustainable..
The foregoing is not intended to downplay orpretend to be oblivious to the challenges in the bottom-up approaches. In some cases, certain culturalbeliefs and livelihood patterns tend to increase thevulnerability of some communities towards disasters.
The fishing community of Faana near Accra for example has been subjected to persistent sea erosion, yet
the residents have refused to re-locate due to their traditional beliefs (Oteng-Ababio et al., 2011). In someinstances, poor economic conditions can also compromise technological improvements, even with community participation. This requires striking a balance between DRR activities and community-based measuresthrough a proactive and systematic engagement withaffected communities, broadening community understanding of DRR measures rather than blindly accepting them. Ultimately, any community-based risk assessment that integrates community knowledge andscientific knowledge is most appropriate in DRR.

to understand complex social processes, capture essential aspects of a phenomenon from the perspectiveof study participants and uncover beliefs, values, andmotivations that underlie individual actions (Denzin
and Lincoln, 2000). The methodology, which is normally exploratory in nature, seeks to generate novel
insights using inductive (starting with observations
and developing hypotheses) rather than deductive(starting with extant hypotheses and testing them withobservations) approaches.
In other words, qualitative research, which describes the complexity, breadth, or range of occurrences, stands in contrast to quantitative methods,
which count occurrences (e.g. estimates prevalence,
frequency, magnitude, incidence). Qualitative research seeks to hypothesise about a phenomenon, its
precursors and consequences, while quantitative research seeks to test hypotheses statistically. Moreover,quantitative research is performed in randomised or
nonrandomised experimental and natural settings andgenerates numeric data through standardised processes and instruments with predetermined response categories, unlike the former, which occurs in a natural(rather than experimental) setting and produces textbased data through open-ended discussions and observations.
Engaging with both types of methods is increasingly recognised as valuable, as capitalizing on therespective strengths of each approach ensures verification of findings and helps to generate more comprehensive, complementary and robust data (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000). Significantly, the two can be usedconcurrently or sequentially, and emphasis may beplaced on either component or equal weight given toboth. In using CRA in a DRR study, preliminary
quantitative ‘surprising or inconsistent’ data are generated that are later examined into greater depth witha follow-up qualitative component.
3.1. The Tenets of Community Risk
Assessment in DRR Research
The term community in this paper is understoodas a group of people with common needs or sharing
common interests and living within a geographicallydefined area (i.e., a community has both social andgeographical dimensions) (Rifkin et al., 1988). It isalso understood that these individuals may have varying perceptions of disaster risk depending on their so-

3. EXPLORING THE VIRTUES OFQUALITATIVE METHODS FOR DRRRESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Generally, qualitative research is a form of scientific inquiry that spans different disciplines, fields,
and subject matter and comprises many varied approaches (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). It can be used25

M. Oteng-Ababio

cial class, education, age, gender, etc. Yet, the adoption of CRA enables the community to unite andanalyse its eminent threats, particularly in urban spaces where residents are often not only environmentallychallenged, but also economically overstretched(Smith and Petley, 2009).
Community risk assessment is a communication
between the researcher[s] and participants, driven by
the participants to profile a community and collectgeneral background information about the community
and its hazards. Through the process, a community isable to identify, assess, analyse and rank its disasterrisks and hazards, investigate its vulnerability levels
and its capacity, as well as determine those who aremost vulnerable. The community will have a better
understanding of local development circumstances
and the likely impact of disaster impact. Community
members will also understand their capacity in copingwith and potentially reducing disaster risks, and foster
better relationships between the community and related stakeholders.
The approach is one of the methods that have
evolved over the last few years that engage communities developmentally and use highly participatory approaches (Holloway and Roomaney, 2008). Terminologically, the approach may have different names andacronyms, yet they all use many of the same tools, including the ability of the local community to appreciate climate change and other global issues. In practice, the approach involves hazards, vulnerability,
capacity assessment and interrogation of people’s perceptions of risk (CISC, undated). Hazard assessment
is the process through which community members
identify and analyse the hazards or threats that may
potentially affect them, while vulnerability assessment enables them to analyse the factors of risks (rootcauses) that underlie their vulnerability. Capacity assessment involves the identification of community
coping strategies for disaster preparedness, mitigation
and/or emergency response. An important componentof DRR is improving the community’s perception ofrisk. This will bring to the fore their various conceptions with respect to the risks related to different factors (social, economic, demographic, and cultural)that affect their lives.
A range of tools can be adopted to increase
stakeholder participation or engage the community inrisk assessment; these include informing the commu-

nity, soliciting their inputs and organizing participatory planning. Informing members of the community
can be done through the use of flyers, news articles
and published meeting notes, while soliciting their inputs can be done through the use of mail-in-surveys
or meeting with key community representatives. Participatory planning involves organizing public meetings, charrettes and visioning workshops. Most ofthese tools involve group work, preferably withtrained facilitators. This affords the community an opportunity to appreciate the nature and scale of therisks it faces, to determine what is needed to reduce
the risk, including new local initiatives, outside resources and technical expertise. Significantly, proper
procedural planning is imperative for any CRA; it minimises risk and substantially reduces loss. It helps in
implementing appropriate mitigation strategies, which
distinguish disaster preparedness from pure relief
work, and also allows bodies like the Town Development Committees to integrate these strategies into
their development plans.
CRA gathers information related to the livelihoods of the community, their coping capacity, local
risk and hazards. Studies by Blaikie et al (1994) andPelling and Wisner (2008) indicate that in recent years
the modus operandi of most practitioners in DRR has
shifted to identifying and evaluating root causes ofvulnerability rather than analysing disasters in isolation. Ultimately, CRA aids in the identification of scientific knowledge that could be lacking within a community and places the would-be victims in the leadrole in actively planning, designing, implementing
and evaluating activities. This is important since coping capacity, level of vulnerability and requirements
vary from one community to another and according togender, livelihood patterns, age, etc. (UN, 2009).
3.1.1. Increasing Stakeholder Participation
Theoretically, CRA is a tool that facilitates theidentification of vulnerable groups in a communityand evaluates the available local capacities that might
help increase their resilience. It particularly ensuresthat traditional societies and cultures are not marginalised but rather made an integral part of the development process. The critical issue is how to achieve an
acceptable framework and guidelines on how to engage the community.

26

THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

3.1.2. Preparatory Work and Community
Education StageThe operationalization of CRA can be divided
into three main stages (see Table 1): a preparatory (information) stage, the actual assessment (solicit input)
stage and the collation of assessment results (participatory planning) stage. The assessment is premisedon the fact that risk is not just concerned with thepresent or the future but is intimately also a productof the past as articulated by Oliver-Smith (1979; p96): “a disaster is a historical event – and the aftermath of disaster is the process of coming to termswith history”. Hilhorst and Bankoff (2008) suggest,‘Why disasters happen is a political question, yet understanding how it occurs is a social and historicalone’. By inference, it can be argued that the present
condition has historical contexts that may transform ahazard into a calamity and determine whether people
have the resilience to withstand its effect or are rendered vulnerable to its consequences.
The preparatory stage involves the identificationand profiling of the community at risk. The activities
may include public meetings, which are scheduled attimes that are convenient for community participants,
and may also mean holding meetings during the eve-nings or other times outside of typical business hours.
This can be done at the request of a vulnerable community, or by agencies in disaster management that
can identify vulnerable communities using set criteria(e.g., most disaster prone area; most vulnerable to aparticular hazard; least served by the government;
possibility of replication or spread effects to othercommunities).
Agbogbloshie, the biggest informal settlement in
Ghana with a population of about 89,000 (Housing
the Masses, 2010) has, for example, attracted muchacademic attention, not only because of its criticalrole in the urban economy (Grant and Oteng-Ababio,2012), but also because of its lack of basic infrastructural services due to its “so-called” informal status(Melara et al., 2013). From Table 1, the potential
ways to inform the community include notices displayed in stores and in churches, as well as door-todoor personal invitations.
The objective at this stage is to become familiar
with the community in order to understand their livelihood patterns and the nature of local hazards (Kulatunga et al., 2010). This also involves establishingcontact with key stakeholders, an important preliminary step in any planning process, and includes intro-

Table 1. Methodological Approach to Community Risk Assessment (CRA)
Phase 1
Preparatory
workandcommunity
education

M ain activities
Scoping the risk context andthe feasibility of risk
reduction initiatives.
Establishing enabling local
stakeholder and institutionalarrangements
Do background research on
the settlement’s risk anddevelopment profile.
Making clear administrativeand logistics arrangementswith key stakeholders

Phase 2
Participatory
risk
assessment(soliciting
community
input)

Conduct a risk assessment
thatisparticipatory,
inclusive and robust

Phase 3
Visioning andparticipatory
planning

Write up the report andcommunicate the findings to
the community.

Com m unity involvem ent tools
Informing (educating) the community- Through the newspaper, television, radio, community
website/newsletter, libraries, stores, churches, andother public locations- Depository in public place-Flyers/meetingannouncement,
insertedinwater/electricity bill
- Telephone calls/direct mailing to NGOs, CBOs
- Door-to-door personal invitation
Provide community fact sheets/citizen briefs- Should be clear, concise (in lay-man’s terms)- Provide basic information- Provide contact information and additional resources
Community meeting- Open participation- Adequate meeting facility (size, handicapped,
accessible, audio/visual)- Well-chosen meeting time and duration- Sensitivity towards minorities (translation)- Facilitation if necessary- Understand dynamics within community- Build trust among facilitators and community
Workshops/training sessions- Tailored to the information needs of community- Keep audience awake and engaged- Relaxed atmosphere and time for networking- Hands-on segments- Strategic planning process- Design charrettes, community meetings- Involve all stakeholders- Provide sense of ownership/pride- Potential to unite community and provide fullcommunity support for a project

Source: Adapted from Holloway and Roomaney (2008),
27

Expected outcom e
Clarity and agreement on settlement(s) to besupported.
Identification and engagement of key
stakeholders from the settlement and local
government.
Consolidated information on the settlement’s
development (including maps, aerial photos
and reports)

A useful and robust CRA
Shared understanding and agreement on thesettlements risk profile

Commitment by key stakeholders to jointly
reduce identified risks.
A written and disseminated report for key
stakeholders.
Results will be inputs for risk reduction
planning and provides indicators formonitoring and evaluation of changes invulnerability and capacity of the community.

M. Oteng-Ababio

ductory meetings and contacts with government organizations (including those in disaster management
fields), and with related stakeholders such as the Red
Cross members of the local community, including
community-based and vulnerable groups.
This initial stage involves providing secondary(quantitative), site-specific data that will provide thecommunity with adequate background information,
help in the identification of the relevant issues and facilitate their participation or provide input to decisionmaking. The basic elements of such a community
profile include the socio-economic information, livelihood activities and spatial characteristics, and where
possible, the area historical data, disaster history, development and research reports as well as census data.
Such information can be obtained from libraries, government sources, research centres and other secondary
data sources (reports, maps), and should be presented
in a format that community representatives can understand.
At this stage, the requisite human resources andstructures as well as logistics planning for the assessment are organised and developed. An assessment
team is established with the participation of the local
people who are subsequently trained in the skills towork with the community (how to organise a community meeting, facilitate group discussions, facilitation)and knowledge of participatory risk assessment tools.
For the initial community familiarization interactions,
it is generally helpful to use more than one format –using verbal presentation accompanied by written
handouts, and if necessary, the services of a translator.
This educational component may be accomplished byusing several of a variety of activities, including informational meetings, community day or ‘fair’ tobring together different age groups and/or the adoption of visual aids – maps, pictures or conceptual
drawings.

provides information to the community and vice versa. The main objective of the community dialogue isto gather data that will facilitate planning to reducethe magnitude of hazards, exposure and sensitivity tohazards and increase the community’s coping capacity
and assets. Table 2 presents the different participatory
mapping tools used for community-based disaster risk
reduction (Twigg, 2004; Benson et al., 2007).
Data is collected by employing appropriate assessment tools with the active participation of the local residents and other key stakeholders. For example,
conducting a familiarization tour, or a ‘Transect Walk’
to possibly locate, confirm and acquaint oneself withthe geography of a community; its natural resources
and hazards; and its land use patterns, and to understand its problems, is a particularly essential exercise.
It helps identify the coping strategies of community
members, which in most cases, they themselves may
take for granted and fail to acknowledge. The serviceof a trained facilitator is paramount in this process,which also enables the identification of ‘hidden’ community assets.
It is important to carry out additional FGDs withresidents and opinion leaders to gather the information on the locality, the people, common hazards andthe community’s livelihoods, as well as gain insight
into their existing preparedness, coping strategies andinstitutional arrangements. The goal of such focus
group discussions (FGDs) is to encourage frank, open
and spontaneous discussions, and this is one of the
cardinal features of qualitative methods: the researchteam moves back and forth between the data collection and data analysis process to allow new avenuesof inquiry to develop as additional data is/are collected.
Generally, the goal of such community interactions is to encourage frank, open and spontaneous
discussions. In some cases, the information from bothsecondary (quantitative) sources and community-profiling sessions (qualitative) may be ordered into categories and placed in a matrix (see Table 3). It is possible to complete a separate matrix for each identified
hazard, and this can be used to test the impact of a development initiative on community vulnerability andcapacity and for monitoring during implementation.
Suffice it to re-echo that, “informed consent of communities can pave the way for fruitful discussions sothat a well-conducted CRA builds a shared under-

3.1.3. Participatory Risk Assessment Stage
The second phase in a CRA process is a fieldbased assessment of hazards, local vulnerability, community capacity and people’s perceptions of risks.
This information is collected in community workshops employing participatory methods as well as interviews and focus group discussions with community
members. As already noted, such communication is a
two-way process where the researcher or facilitator
28

THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

Table 2. Main characteristics of the different forms of participatory mapping used for disaster risk reduction

Source: Cadag, and Gaillard (2012)

Table 3. An Example of Vulnerability and Capacity Matrix

standing of local risks and coping strategies. It canstrengthen cooperation and trust among participants,
which is as important as generating reliable assessment results, especially in settlements where residents
do not know each other well or where there has been

limited cooperation between residents and local authorities” (Holloway and Roomaney, 2008: 44).
3.1.4. Visioning and Planning Stage
The last phase of the CRA methodological ap29

M. Oteng-Ababio

proach involves the collation of assessment results
and sharing with the community through public meetings and visioning workshops. In other words, the report is shared among communities, local government
agencies and other stakeholders. Community meetings are organised to keep stakeholders informed of
the results and to get feedback to aid policy planningand implementation. Although desirable, it is impractical for all community members to attend a CRA
workshop or report back meeting because of sociocultural practices. For example, in a male-dominated
Muslim society in northern Ghana, it is socially unacceptable for married women to openly engage theirhusbands in public discourse. Thus, the timing, choiceof venue and composition of feedback sessions areimportant.
Findings of a risk assessment can inform appropriate and acceptable risk reduction planning, providing indicators for monitoring and evaluation ofchanges in community vulnerability and capacity. The
information collected is also used to prepare hazard
maps showing common hazards, their magnitude andlikelihood of occurrence. Such maps are generally
powerful instruments that give visual expression torealities that are perceived, desired or considered useful (Chambers, 2008). However, some participatory
mapping, normally conducted under the guidance of‘experts’, tends to be unduly influenced by the ‘experts’ views’, therefore overshadowing and even replacing indigenous conceptions or local knowledge(Crooke and Kothari, 2001). Ultimately, one of thebenefits in the CRA process, apart from involving local emergency services (an invaluable source ofknowledge), is in obliging planners to consider natural and human-made hazards and infrequent threatsthat are all too often ignored.

capacity limitations. Disaster managers are encouraged to guard against adopting a simplistic notion ofvulnerability but rather to appreciate its dynamism
and fluidity. DRR must be prioritised on both national
and local level, and must make conscious efforts to
produce and implement DRR planning that treats
problems holistically.
This article has highlighted the fact that, if usedeffectively and purposefully, CRA can effectively reduce the losses associated with disasters. It is evident
that the challenge for disaster practitioners and development organisations is to ensure that institutions andpolicies benefit communities - the most often forgotten in disaster and development plans – responding tosituations, vulnerabilities and capacities at the local
scale. Kulatunga et al. (2010) suggest that a CRA requires the active participation of all local stakeholders
in order to reach consensus on/about risk reduction
strategies that are owned by the communities themselves. Community participation in risk reduction reduces the gap between the local authority and those atrisk. As a result of its participatory nature, CRA provides a platform for the socially deprived to share
their knowledge on specific hazards and to recommend options to reduce vulnerabilities.
This discussion has stressed the relationship between poverty and disasters that should inform national level planning for both risk reduction and development objectives. Governments need to develop
policies, institutions and mechanisms to address theneeds of the poorest to effectively reduce disasterrisk. For example, with regard to Agbogbloshie, a settlement in Accra (Ghana), due to its “illegal” status,
residents are denied urban sanitation services, compelling them to discharge their waste (solid and liquid) into the nearby Korle Lagoon. Described as themost polluted water body in West Africa (Boadi andKuitunen, 2003), the lagoon has been dammed inparts/places by urban farmers who harvest water to irrigate their vegetable farms (Oteng-Ababio, 2013b).
This poses the risk of a future public health disaster.
The approach has been experimented several
times in Asia and the Pacific where poverty andchronic hunger persist, with around 635 million people living on less than one dollar a day. Examples include setting priorities for the development of a research agenda for water management in Khon Kaen
Province, Thailand (Caldwell et al., 2002), sustainable

4. MANIFESTING CRA IN PRACTICE - THE
REALITIES AND THE DILEMMA
In recent years, the Ghanaian economy has been
impacted by numerous natural and man-made disasters, differing in scale, magnitude and prevalence (seeOteng-Ababio, 2012; 2013a,b). With many local communities struggling in conditions of poverty, the government and its development partners are challenged
to address widespread vulnerability and investigate
specific hazards, constrained by locational, financial
30

THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

agriculture development in the uplands of West Sumatra, Indonesia (Dendi and Shivakoti, 2003), or theapplication of participatory technology development
to improving crop-based pig production systems in
Vietnam (Peters et al., 2005). These approaches recognise that the poor themselves are the key agents fortheir transformation.
National strategies that address environmental
hazards and livelihood practices should consider the
implications of future developments, such as infrastructure construction, population settlement and natural resource use for the likelihood of disasters. By
identifying and prioritizing hazards, thereby developing risk reduction strategies, a CRA helps to provide
critical information for the local community, its leaders and authorities to optimise existing capacity tosuccessfully reduce disaster risk and identify the needfor support. A successful CRA can also facilitate community development and capacity enhancement activities.
Although the main objective of CRA is to identify local hazards and the vulnerability of the people,
evidence suggests that these are not generally the priorities of most communities at risk (Hossain, 2009).
Rather, most communities are concerned with maintenance of their day-to-day livelihoods, considering
natural hazards and vulnerabilities as inevitable factors that they must adapt to. The low economic status
of some communities can be a barrier in getting theircommitment and participation in CRA activities, particularly with participants engaged in daily income
activities (Hossain, 2009).
Another challenge to conducting CRA is the human resource or capacity constraint. For example,
trained facilitators are needed to coordinate and facilitate the activities in a true participatory manner and toensure maximum outcome. Garnering the support of,and representation from different groups is important
for the success of any CRA project, but poses sociocultural challenges among different social and ethnic
groups. Adequate representation across these different
groups challenges the CRA process.
Some socio-cultural attitudes also hamper the
success of CRA activities, especially where communities are divided in terms of their income status, religion or race. Elite classes do not normally and easily
accept the joint participation of the ‘under privileged’(Hossain, 2009), while Islam, for example, discourag-es the dominance of women within the household.
Women are therefore reluctant to participate in workshops with their husbands. Such tendencies create biases and impact negatively on research outcomes.
Van Aalst et al. (2008) assert that a CRA cannot
adequately assess all aspects of hazards or vulnerabilities of the community, especially when it involves
some technicalities. The hazard risk from buildings
prone to an earthquake, for example, requires specialised knowledge about the structural stability of thebuilding, which in all probability, cannot be evaluatedby the community alone. A CRA must therefore often
include the opinions of experts external to the community. The outcomes of CRA are empirical descriptions of mainly human actions, which are subject toambivalences, and preferences that are not necessarilyordered and heuristic to guarantee the universal applicability of conclusions. Some communities, as in thecase of Faana, for example, believe that natural hazards and vulnerabilities cannot be avoided and accept
them as fatalism (see Oteng-Ababio et al., 2011). It isthus important to understand the dynamic nature ofdisaster risks, drawing on local knowledge gleaned
through CRA activities.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS“Disaster risk reduction is everybody’s business”
requiring everybody’s effort to deal effectively with
it remain proactive and prevent the occurrence of disaster (Holloway and Roomoney, 2008). This paper
has shown that one way of achieving the overarching
objective of DRR is to involve all stakeholders
through CRA in identifying community needs, ‘enhancing risk reduction and coping skills’ and building
the resilience of residents at risk, rather than trying to
implement and enforce exogenous policies and practices. This paper has offered a pathway to understanding what makes people vulnerable and how that condition is related to disasters, and by extension,development. With empirically based communitygenerated information, the resultant policy interventions can be tailored to specific disaster hazards andrisks applicable to specific vulnerable communities.
CRA is a pragmatic attempt not only to empower
the community to take a leading role in risk reduction
processes but also to provide officials and the key
stakeholders with a tool that will enable them under31

M. Oteng-Ababio

stand and address the factors contributing to their vulnerability. Meaningful community involvement is also
beneficial in improving information flow, facilitating
community understanding of local government, allowing for community advocacy for collaboration,
minimizing conflicts and promoting environmental
justice. The paper however acknowledges some of theshortcomings of CRA – extensive use of human resources, the need for trained facilitators, and cultural
attitudes of socially deprived communities (Kulatunga
et al., 2010). It is hoped that integrating appropriatescientific knowledge and principles will invariably
generate local knowledge that will inspire and better
equip the communities to alleviate the negative impact of disasters.
The paper does not dispute the virtues of quantitative methods, which until recently had been the preferred option for disaster risk research. It perhaps reinforces the statement attributed to Albert Einstein
that; ‘not everything that can be counted counts, andnot everything that counts can be counted'. To ensure
better planning and the implementation of appropriate
DRR strategies in the future, top-down (which is ofrecent history in DRR) and bottom-up approaches
should be mutually reinforcing (Stallings, 2006).
Significantly, in adopting CRA, stakeholders
must be open and honest from the beginning with regard to what issues they will or will not be able to address. If the limits are not very clear, the community
may experience disappointment and disillusionment
when the process identifies issues that cannot be addressed. It is also important to develop a common understanding of “community risk assessment” among
all those involved. If community members understandtheir participation to mean one thing while city managers, for example, hold different views, effective
participation may be seriously compromised. Above
all, city authorities, planners and policy makers needto repeatedly recognise and acknowledge the need tobuild capacity for all stakeholders for informed decision-making.
A significant challenge posed by the CRA approach to DRR, which perhaps demands further research, is how lessons learned from diverse community-based adaptation initiatives may be shared acrossdifferent regions, contexts and local realities of scale.
How can highly contextual local change processes inform generic national or sub-national policies andprocesses that can be implemented in all localities?
While local knowledge is increasingly acknowledged
to be critical to development, the difference between
formal and informal knowledge systems remains asource of conflict. CRA planning will predominantly
take place at the local level. Yet, in order for scalingup to happen, there is a need to develop the appropriate institutional mechanism (scaffoldings), to facilitate dialogue between practice and policy, without
increasing bureaucratic processes. The process ofscaling up will require significant investments in institution building and staff capacity development, requiring significant time and resources.
NOTE
1

Sixty-fifth General Assembly Informal Thematic Debate (General Assembly First Debate on Reducing Disaster Risk; 9th February, 2011.

2

General Assembly first debate on reducing disaster risk
held on 9th February 2011.

3

The stretch of land between Keta and Kedzi was eroding at a rate of from 4 to 8 m/year, and by the end of
1998, was less than 50 m wide in some places (Appeaning Addo, 2011).

REFERENCES
Allen, K. M., 2006. Community based disaster preparedness
and climate change adaptation: Local capacity buildingin the Philippines. Disaster, 30(1), 81-101.
Annan, K., 1999. Preventing War and Disaster: A Growing
Global Challenge - 1999 Annual Report on the Workof the Organization. United Nations.
Appeaning-Addo, K., Jayson-Quashigah, P. N. and Kufogbe, K. S., 2011. Quantitative analysis of shorelinechange using medium resolution satellite imagery in
Keta. Ghana Marine Science, 1(1), 1-9.
Benson, C., Twigg, J. and Rossetto, T., 2007. Tools for
Mainstreaming Disaster Reduction Guidance Notes forDevelopment Organizations. Pro-vention Consortium,
Geneva.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis I. and Wisner, B., 1994. At
Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London.
Boadi, K. O. and Kuitunen, M., 2003. Municipal solid
waste management in the Accra Metropolitan Area,
Ghana. The Environmentalist, 23 (3), 211-218.

32

THE REALITY AND DILEMMA IN USING COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AS A DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOL IN GHANA

bility, Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan,

Cadag, R. D. and Gaillard, J. C., 2012. Integrating knowl-

London, UK.

edge and actions in disaster risk reduction: The contribution of participatory mapping. Area, 44 (1), 100-109.

Hilhorst, D. and Bankoff, G., 2008. Mapping vulnerability.

Caldwell, J. S., Sukchan, S., On-Ok, W., Kabaki, N., Ogura,

In Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D., (Eds.),
Mapping Vulnerability, Disasters, Development andC., Prabpan, M., andPeople. Earthscan, London, UK.

Rattanarpom, P., 2002. A farmer participatory approach todevelopment of a research agenda for water manage-

Holloway, A. and Roomoney, R., 2008. Weathering thement priorities in Nong Saeng Village, Khon Kaen

Storm: Participatory Risk Assessment for Informal

Province, Thailand. JIRCAS Working Report No. 30,

Settlements. Periperi Publications, University of Cape

33-41.

Town.

Cargo, M. and Mercer, S. L., 2008. The value and challeng-

Hossain, A., 2009. Project Report 2009, Internal lessons

es of participatory research: Strengthening its practice.

learnt exercise, Comprehensive Disaster Management

Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325-350.

Program (CDMP), Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://
www.bangladeshstudies.org/files/CC_bibliography_

Chambers, R., 2008. Revolutions in Development Inquiry.

annotated.pdf on March 12, 2010.

Earthscan, London.

Housing the Masses, 2010. People’s dialogue on human set-

CHF International. 2010. Accra Poverty map: A guide to ur-tlements: Final report on community-led enumeration

ban poverty reduction in Accra.

of Old Fadama community, Accra-Ghana. Retrieved

CISC (Center for International Studies and Cooperation).
Undated. Framework for community based risk man-fromagement in Vietnam. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sdinet.org/media/upload/documents/2009.

http://www.ceci.ca/assets/Asia/Asia-Publications/CB-

May3.2010.Old_Fadama_Enumeration-1_1.pdf on Au-

DRM-Framework.pdf on May 20, 2013.

gust 21, 2011.
InfoResources, 2009. Disaster risk reduction: a gender andCrabtree, B. and Miller, W., 1999. Doing Qualitative Re-

livelihood perspective.

search (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, California.

InfoResources Focus, No. 2/09.

Crooke, B. and Kothari, K., (Eds.), 2001. Participation: The

Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, R. D. G., Zaman, M., Biswan,

New Tyranny?. Zed Books, London.

A. and Parvez, A., 2010.

Dendi, S. and Shivakoti, G. P., 2003. Assessment of participatory extension approaches for sustainable agriculture

Community risk assessment for disaster risk reduction:

development in uplands of west Sumatra, Indonesia.

challenges and future. Paper presented at the Construc-

Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, XIII (2),tion, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of

19-42.

the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (CO-Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y., 2000. Handbook of Qualitative

BRA), 2-3 September 2010, Dauphine Université, Par-

Research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

is. Retrieved from

Gaillard, J. C. and Maceda, E. A., 2009. Participatory three-

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/9743/1/Community_risk_as-

dimensional mapping for disaster risk reduction. Par-

sessment_for_disaster_risk_reduction_-_challenges_

ticipatory Learning and Action, 60, 109-118.

and_future.pdf on May 23, 2011.

GAR (Global Assessment Report). 2009. Global Assess-

Luna, E. M., 2007. Mainstreaming community-based disas-

ment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Na-

ter risk management in local development planning.

tions International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Paper presented at the Forum on Framework-Building

Secretariat, UNISDR.

for Investigation of Local Government Settlement

Grant, R. and Oteng-Ababio, M., 2012. Mapping the invisi-

Planning Responses to Disaster Mitigation, 17 January,

ble and real African economy: Urban e-waste circuitry.

Alternative Planning Initiative (ALTERPLAN), Que-

Urban Geography, 33 (1), 1-21.

zon City. Retrieved from

Hauser, D., 2004. Community participation: Partnering with

http://www.alterplan.org.ph/documents/EmmanuelM-

youth. Transition,14 (3), 1.

Luna_MainstreamingCommunity-asedDisasterRisk-

Hilhorst, D., 2008. Complexity and diversity: Unlocking

ManagementInLocalDevelopmentPlanning.pdf onsocial domains of disaster response. In Bankoff, G.,

November 21, 2010).

Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D., (Eds.), Mapping Vulnera-

Melara, J. E. Grant, R. Oteng-Ababio, M. and Ayele, B.,

33

M. Oteng-Ababio

2013. Downgrading - an overlooked reality in African

H., Quarantelli, E. L. and Dynes, R. R., (Eds.), Hand-

cities: Reflections from an indigenous neighborhood ofbook of Disaster Research. New York, Springer, pp.
55-82.

Accra, Ghana. Applied Geography, 36, 23-30.
Oliver-Smith, A., 1979. The Yungay avalanche of 1970: An-

Twigg, J., 2004. Disaster risk reduction: Mitigation and pre-thropological perspectives on disaster and social. Di-

paredness in development and emergency programming. Good Practice Review, 9, Humanitarian Practicesaster, 3 (1), 95–101.

Network, London.

Oteng-Ababio, M., Owusu, K. and Appeaning-Addo, K.,
2011. The vulnerable state of the Ghana coast: The

United Nations, 2009. Making Disaster Risk Reduction

case of Faana-Bortianor. Journal of Disaster Risk Stud-

Gender Sensitive, UN/ISDR, UNDP and IUCD, Gene-ies, 3 (2), 429-442.

va.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disas-

Oteng-Ababio, M., 2011. Beyond technical details: The
stalled Kwabenya engineered sanitary landfill projectter Reduction), 2009.

in Accra, Ghana. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal

Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva,of Geography, 111 (2), 169-179.

ISDR.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disas-

Oteng-Ababio, M., 2012. Neglected vulnerabilities in a rapidly urbanizing city: Reflections on earthquake risks in

ter Reduction), 2006.

Accra. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,

Lessons for a Safe Future: Drawing on the Experienceof the Indian Ocean Tsunami Disaster. Geneva, ISDR.

27 (2), 187-205.
Oteng-Ababio, M., 2013a. Prevention is better than cure:

Van Aalst, M. K., Cannon, T. and Burton, I., 2008. Commu-

Assessing Ghana’s preparedness (capacity) for disasternity level adaptation to climate change: The potential

management. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies,role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob-

5 (2), 1-11.

al Environmental Change, 18, 165-179.

Oteng-Ababio, M., 2013b. Unscripted (in) justice: Exposure

White, P., Pelling, M., Sen, K., Seddon, D., Russell, S. andto ecological hazards in Metropolitan Accra. Environ-Few, R., 2004. Disaster Risk Reduction: A Develop-

ment and Planning A, 45 (5), 1199-1218.

ment Concern. Norwich, Overseas Development

Owusu, G., Oteng-Ababio, M. and Afutu-Kotey, R. L.,

Group, University of East Anglia.

2011. Conflicts and governance of landfills in develop-

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I., 2004. At

ing country city, Accra. Landscape and Urban Plan-

Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Di-

ning, 104, 105-113.

saster. London, Routledge.

Pelling, M. and Wisner, B., (Eds.), 2008. Disaster Risk Re-

AU/NEPAD, 2004. Medium to long term framework studies

duction: Cases from Urban Africa. Earthscan Publica-

for Africa’s Infrastructure; Accra, Ghana.

tion, London.

Keta Municipality, 2012. Coastal Erosion at Keta Lagoon,Peters, D., Tinh, N. T., Hoan, M. T., Yen, N. T., Thach, P. N.

Ghana’ Ministry of Works and Housing, Unpublishedand Fuglie, K., 2005. Rural income generation throughReport, Accra, Ghana

improving crop-based pig production systems in Vietnam: Diagnostics, interventions, and dissemination.
Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 73–85.
Potter, C. S., Klooster, S. and Brooks, V., 1999. Interannual
variability in terrestrial net primary production: Exploration of trends and controls on regional to global
scales. Ecosystems, 2, 36−38.
Rifkin, S. B., Muller, F. and Bichmenn, W., 1988. Primary
health care: On measuring participation. Social Scienceand Medicine, 26, 931-940.
Smith, K. and Petley, D. N., 2009. Environmental hazards:
Assessing risk and reducing disasters. GeographicalResearch, 47 (4), 454–455.
Stalling, R. A., 2006. Methodological issues. In Rodriguez,

34