Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 29, Number 2, 2007, pp41-51

41Promotion of Community-based Disaster Reduction Activity throughHands-on Training in Sri Lanka
Tetsushi KURITA1, Makoto IKEDA2, Koji SUZUKI2 and Sisira R. N. COLOMBAGE3
1
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.
(formerly of the Asian Disaster Reduction Center)2
Asian Disaster Reduction Center
3
Monash University, Australia(Received for 25 May., 2007 and in revised from 14 Jan, 2008)

ABSTRACTThe number of natural disasters in Sri Lanka has increased over the last two decades. In particular, the Indian
Ocean Tsunami had a disastrous impact on communities in Sri Lanka, with 4,330 deaths and 564 persons reported
missing (as of 05 April 2005) in Galle District. In order to raise public awareness of various categories of citizens
on disaster reduction, the capacity building project at all community levels starting from the grass-roots level was
carried out in Galle District. The initial process started from the process of trainer’s training, the so-called District
Workshop, and the outcome made the participants trainers in their localities and they repeated the same exercise to
educate their communities in Community Workshops. The progress of the project was followed up by Japaneseexperts. A total of 102 Community Workshops were held in the immediate phase after the District Workshop. The
practical session consists of a Community-based Hazard Mapping program of which the results were used to identify disaster vulnerable areas in community neighborhood by the participants.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Issues
The amount of damage caused by natural disasters in Sri
Lanka has been increasing over the last 20 years (e.g. National
Disaster Management Centre, 2004). Deforestation of watersheds,
massive wastewater volumes caused by haphazard land use, andintense monsoon rains are all contributing to the greater incidenceof floods and landslides. The massive flooding that occurred in
May 2003 in Galle District (a regional city of about 910,000 located 100 km south of Colombo) caused 16 fatalities and affected
more than 22,000 people. A UN Disaster Assessment andCoordination Team (UNDAC) was dispatched to the disasterstricken area (UNOCHA, 2003) following this disaster. Later, theIndian Ocean Tsunami of December 2004 decimated the coastal
communities of Sri Lanka. In Galle District, 4,330 people perished, and 564 were missing. More than 7,032 homes sustained
major damage (according to figures published by Galle District on
April 5, 2005). Galle District was one of the most heavily damaged regions in Sri Lanka.
The enormity of the damage caused by the Indian Ocean
Tsunami is attributed to external forces, that is, the massive size ofthe tsunami, as well as internal forces, that is, a lack of disaster
reduction capacity in the affected countries. Several careful studiesof the region have been conducted since the disaster, and this article presents an overview of the results and a summary of the issues
that need to be addressed.

Given the severity of the damage caused by the Indian Ocean
Tsunami, UNESCO-IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission) sent international expert teams to the 16 affectednations to conduct assessments of local tsunami warnings and natural disaster management systems (UNESCO, 2005 a & b). The
results of this study were compiled into a highly detailed report.
The findings show that the Sri Lankan authorities and the international expert team are currently aware of the following issues.
First, they confirm that what is needed to strengthen the disaster
reduction capacity in the affected countries is a comprehensive risk
management strategy, as well as community-based efforts to raise
disaster awareness and provide disaster reduction education to
local residents. They also point out the need for modules to educate people regarding the hazards of tsunamis and other natural disasters in general as well as their long-term impacts. The Sri
Lankan national government recognizes the need to promote activities (including community workshops) aimed at raising disasterawareness at all levels, from the government to the local community.
The expert teams made the following suggestions. To raise
the awareness of local residents, it is important to involve people at
all levels, including the government (central and regional), civicorganizations, and other important relevant institutions. To raise
the level of awareness at the local level, particularly of the residents of remote areas, training needs to be provided to people who
can serve as teachers in citizen education programs. Because of
the lack of disaster reduction education materials in the affected
countries, technologies and materials already in use in nations and

KEY WORDS: Community-based disaster reduction, hazard mapping, capacity building, grass-roots activity, Sri Lanka

42

T. KURITA, M. IKEDA, K. SUZUKI AND S R. N. COLOMBAGE

international institutions with advanced disaster reduction capabilities need to be transferred to these countries.
A questionnaire-format attitude survey conducted among residents, children, and government officials in the tsunami-stricken
regions of Galle District in March 2005 by Kurita et al. (Kurita etal., 2005 & Kurita et al., 2006) confirmed the lack of knowledge ofnatural disasters among local residents and the need to raise disaster awareness. A survey of government officials revealed the needfor community-based disaster reduction education.
From its position as an institution involved in providing support for disaster management systems in developing nations, JICA
(2006) also showed that there are technical and funding limits towhat can be achieved by hard infrastructural efforts, such as theconstruction of dams and embankments, in the area of disaster
reduction in developing countries. It showed that efforts need to bemade to strengthen the disaster reduction capacity of communities
through the introduction of soft policy measures, including outreach among residents and disaster reduction education in schools.
After the 2004 tsunami, JICA conducted a community uplift project in northeastern Sri Lanka. JICA takes an approach thatemphasizes this kind of support from the perspective of humansecurity.
In Japan, several local governments, including Kobe City
(Inaba, 2007), Wakayama Prefecture (Tabata, 2007), Kochi
Prefecture (Nakagawa, 2007), Kagawa Prefecture (Miyamoto,2007) and Tokushima Prefecture (Otsubo, 2007), have been conducting programs promoting community workshops on disaster
reduction. Community-based hazard mapping is a main component of these workshops. These programs have produced positive
results. For example, workshops conducted in Marikina City,
Metro-Manila, Philippines (Maki et al., 2004) enabled municipal
government officials to work with Japanese experts to develop acomprehensive earthquake disaster reduction program for the city.
In Sri Lanka, however, the kinds of projects mentioned above were
not carried out prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami because it
had not been considered a disaster prone country.
Because strong community ties are characteristic of Sri
Lankan society, conducting disaster reduction education at thegrass-roots level is an extremely useful step in increasing the disaster reduction capacity of the entire country.
1.2 Objectives
To tackle the challenges described above, we conducted activities to raise the community disaster reduction capacity in thetsunami-affected Galle District of Sri Lanka. The objective of
these activities is to raise the citizens natural disaster awareness atvarious levels. We are striving to help ensure that comprehensive
and continuous disaster reduction activities become firmly established in Sri Lanka by providing personnel training to citizens at
the grass-roots level.
1.3 Activity Outline
Under this project, we conducted activities to promote community disaster reduction education through community-based hazard mapping. This method is one in which residents, government
officials, and experts walk around the city together identifying
problem areas for disaster reduction, and then develop policies foraddressing those problems through in-depth discussions. The pro-

ject is comprised of two stages: (1) the District Workshop(trainers training) and (2) the Community Workshop (residents
education).
Minimizing damage requires sustained efforts and can only beachieved when the government, experts, and citizens work together
based on a strong awareness of the issues. Thus, disaster reduction
education is not a one-time isolated event, but requires the construction of a system under which the authorities can take the initiative to continue conducting disaster reduction education evenafter externally supported projects end. This project helps support
the creation of such a system by transferring technical methods toGalle District and developing support systems for the necessary
activities.
1.4 Anticipated Results
This project is intended to contribute to the creation of anenvironment in which people will gain a deeper and more accurate
understanding of natural disasters, and in which disaster awarenesswill be improved from the grass-roots level. This will then likely
lead to reductions in fatalities and property losses caused by futurenatural disasters. The workshops will teach people how to handle
disasters both before and after they strike. Thus, advance measures
will help eliminate the vulnerabilities of communities, and disaster
preparations will help increase their disaster response capacity.
This project will help residents, government officials, and experts
become accustomed to discussing issues of disaster reduction andwill promote greater risk communication.
In terms of international support for the disaster reduction
field, this project will allow Japan to transfer the know-how it has
gained from its vast disaster reduction experience to Sri Lanka andwill allow Sri Lanka to share technologies based on Japan s experience.
2. CURRENT ANALYSIS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
2.1 Government Level
Because of the massive damage caused by the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami, the government of Sri Lanka passed the Sri Lanka
Disaster Management Act (No. 13, May 2005) to establish a government framework for disaster reduction. Based on this law, thegovernment also established the National Council for Disaster
Management (NCDM), to be headed by the president, to serve as avenue for the comprehensive discussion of disaster reduction policies at the national level. The Ministry of Disaster Managementand Human Rights was established in November 2005 to serve as
the body that will implement the policies formulated by the
NCDM. The institution at the core of the Ministry of Disaster
Management and Human Rights is called the Disaster Management
Centre and it manages the district disaster management coordinators assigned to each district.
In 2005, the Disaster Management Centre created a roadmap
for the short-term, mid-term, and long-term periods covering thenext 10 years, which lays out a comprehensive strategy for building
a safe Sri Lanka (Disaster Management Centre, 2005). This
roadmap is comprised of the following seven key points: (1)Policy, institutional mandates and institutional development, (2)PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH HANDS-ON TRAINING IN SRI LANKA

hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment, (3) multi-hazard early
warning systems, (4) preparedness and response plans, (5) mitigation and integration of disaster risk reduction into development
planning, (6) community-based disaster risk management, and (7)public awareness, education, and training. The overall content of
the roadmap is appropriate, but some cost estimations of the programs it contains remain unclear. Also, because difficulties can be
expected to arise in securing budget allocations, there are still
doubts as to whether the disaster policies will actually be promoted
as planned.
Since little thought has been given to disaster reduction in Sri
Lanka thus far, there are virtually no personnel who specialize innatural disaster reduction. The military or police generally handle
emergency situations, including natural disasters, after they occur.
For this reason, military personnel have been assigned to serve as
the director general and district disaster management coordinatorsof the newly established Disaster Management Centre. However,the secretary serving as the top administrator of the Ministry ofDisaster Management and Human Rights is a civilian bureaucrat.
2.2 Community Level
Because the government s disaster reduction systems were
inadequate, it is easy to imagine the lack of community-level disaster response organizations and activities. However, Sri Lankan
communities are characterized by strong interpersonal ties, and certainly have the key ingredients for developing community-wide
approaches to disaster reduction.
On the other hand, Sri Lankan society is comprised of threecommunities (Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim) with various ethnic,
religious, and historical backgrounds. The Sinhala are the majority
ethnic group throughout the country, while the Tamil and Muslims
are minority groups. Southern Sri Lanka, which includes Galle
District where this project was conducted, has an overwhelming
majority of Sinahala, and thus has virtually no conflict between
communities. The northern and northeastern regions, however, arehome to Tamil militants, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam(LTTE), who repeatedly clash with government forces over their
desire for independence. Such ethnic conflicts present obstacles toemergency response activities, and exacerbate disaster-related

43

problems. On October 18, 2006, while this project was underway,
LTTE cadres used five boats to conduct suicide bombings at
Dakshina Naval Base in the city of Galle. They were repulsed bynaval troops (The Island newspaper, 2006). A curfew was imposed
throughout Galle District for about one week after this terrorist
attack, and conditions prevented us from holding Community
Workshops during that time. Later, the situation improved andthings returned pretty much to normal.
3. PROJECT DESIGNIn designing this project, we could not simply take the methods used in Japan and transplant them directly into the Sri Lankan
environment. Instead, we took the specific conditions of Sri Lanka
into account and devised methods that would work best in that context. For example, in Japan, evacuations are carried out based on
detailed forecasting or early warnings issued by the Japan
Meteorological Agency (JMA) and/or municipalities. In Sri
Lanka, however, it is unlikely that residents would receive suchinformation from any institutions. We therefore selected an evacuation process that would require residents to make their own decision regarding the need to evacuate.
The project was conducted for one year, from April 2006 to
March 2007. We were careful to create a system that would allow
local residents to learn the methods of disaster reduction duringthat period, and then to continue their own activities beyond the
project s end. The following is a detailed description of the project.
3.1 Structure
Fig. 1 shows the overall flow of the project. The primary
theme of the project was to conduct community disaster reduction
education using community-based hazard mapping by groups that
include local residents. This is a method in which residents, government officials, and experts walk around the city together identifying problem areas, and then work together to develop policies foraddressing those problems through in-depth discussions. The project was implemented in two stages: (1) the District Workshop, in
which local government officials were trained to be trainers (train-

Fig. 1 Project Flow and Overview

44

T. KURITA, M. IKEDA, K. SUZUKI AND S R. N. COLOMBAGE

ers training), and (2) Community Workshops held in the areas ofjurisdiction of those trainers, who then taught what they hadlearned to members of their local communities.
About 100 people, including local government officials andNGO staff members, were trained at the district-level workshop.
Over the course of three days, participants learned methods of disaster reduction education from lectures and hands-on training provided by Japanese experts. Sri Lankan experts also gave lectures
on natural disasters in Sri Lanka. The training was held at theManagement Development Training Institute in Galle District. The
final step of the workshop was to create an action plan for theworkshops that would be conducted during the second stage of the
project, at the community level. We prepared manuals in
Sinhalese, the official language of Sri Lanka, regarding community-based hazard mapping, the primary theme of this project, anddistributed them to all participants.
During the second stage, the participants in the District
Workshop became trainers who taught one-day courses on community-based hazard mapping for community leaders and the generalpublic. The outputs of these workshops are (1) a community-based
hazard map, (2) a summary identifying the problems found, proposed countermeasures, and the authority responsible for implementing the solution, and (3) an action plan for the future. An
average of five workshops were held in all 19 DS-divisions ofGalle District (more workshops were held in more densely populated areas), for a total of 100 workshops. During the project period,
we used a system in which locally hired staff provided full-time
support for our activities. Japanese experts visited Sri Lanka several times over the course of the project to monitor progress and offer
guidance. We attended the first two Community Workshops alongwith all of the District Workshop attendees. We conducted thepilot lessons in a manner consistent with the District Workshop,
identified and corrected problems in the implementation of theCommunity Workshop, and took steps to prevent problems fromarising in future activities. Each Community Workshop produced
a hazard map that was created by the participants of each community, and these maps can be used in various disaster reduction
activities in the future.
3.2 Community-Based Hazard Mapping
The procedures for creating a community-based hazard map,the primary theme of this project, are as follows.
(1) Participants are divided into groups by residential neighborhood. Roles are assigned to the members of eachgroup, such as leader, note-taker, photographer, cartographer, and presenter. When this activity is conducted inJapan, participants use blank neighborhood maps as theirbase map, but such detailed maps are not available forsome regions of Sri Lanka. Thus, the participants in thisproject had to draw their own maps. Hence the need for a
cartographer who could sketch a map of the target area.
(2) The group walks around the target area and identifies dangers, evacuation areas, and evacuation routes based on
local hazards (tsunamis, floods, landslides, etc.). They
identify both the positive disaster reduction efforts and the
problems in the area. They take pictures of such positive
and negative points and important landmarks.
(3) After returning to the workshop venue, the group discuss-

es the information they collected and decide what information to include on their hazard map. They draw their
map on Simili paper, and then add the components theypreviously deemed to be important. They also attach
some of the photos that were taken.
(4) They create a list of the problems they identified during
their city walk, identify means of addressing those problems, and clarify who is responsible for implementing
solutions.
(5) Based on these activities, they then create an action plan
indicating what measures to take to reduce damage in thetarget area the next time a disaster occurs.
(6) Finally, all the participants gather together to listen toeach group give a report on its outputs (a communitybased hazard map, summary identifying the problems
found, proposed countermeasures, and the authority
responsible for implementing the solution, and an action
plan for the future). All of the workshop participants,
including citizens, government officials, and experts discuss the results presented by each group.
3.3 Project Implementation System
This project was primarily implemented by the Galle District
Secretariat, with technical support provided by the Asian Disaster
Reduction Center. Thus, under the instruction of the district secretary, each DS-divisional secretary held Community Workshops invarious regions. Fig. 2 shows the project implementation structurefor Galle District. District disaster management coordinators andNGOs support projects managed by the district government.
3.4 Project Evaluation Methods
The following two methods were used to evaluate this project.
First, trainee feedback about the workshop was quantitatively
examined by conducting a questionnaire survey among the participants of the District and Community Workshops. Second, a final
evaluation session was conducted in March 2007, after the project
had ended, where we listened to input from officials of the Galle
District government, which had implemented the project. We performed an overall evaluation of the project by combining these two
methods.
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 District Workshop
The District Workshop, which served as the session to train
the trainers, was held over three days, from April 18-20 2006, at
the training center in Wakwella in Galle District. Of the 100 people from the Galle District government and NGOs who were invited to attend, a total of 87 people participated in the workshop. On
the first day, participants listened to lectures about disaster reduction by experts from both Japan and Sri Lanka. On the second andthird days, they identified community problems by participating in
the community-based hazard mapping process, and learned how tofacilitate discussions among government officials, experts, and citizens and how to develop countermeasures. The 87 participants
were divided into 10 groups, and they surveyed the central areas ofGalle that were affected by the tsunami (Pettigala Watta, China

PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH HANDS-ON TRAINING IN SRI LANKA

45

Fig. 2 Project Implementation Structure for Galle District.

Fig. 3 District Workshop Participants Create Hazard Maps.

Fig. 4 Presentations by District Workshop Participants.

Garden, Kaluwella, and Fort). Each of the groups included aJapanese specialist. As a result of the participants active engagement, they were able to create well-designed community-based
hazard maps (Fig. 3). When the groups gave their presentations,they did an excellent job of summarizing their findings and giving
complete reports on their activities and maps (Fig. 4). In theiraction plans for the future, they were told to identify (1) the participants that should attend Community Workshops, (2) the locus of
responsibility for community activities, (3) a general time schedule, (4) ultimate goals, and (5) requests for the district government
or supporting organizations.
A questionnaire survey conducted at the end of the District
Workshop yielded a total of 71 valid responses. Of these, 50 werefrom male respondents and 21 were from females. The averageage of the respondents was 46.6 years. Fig. 5 shows the aggregated results of the survey on the content of the workshop program. It
shows that 80% to 90% of participants strongly agreed or agreed
with all of the statements on the questionnaire. This indicates thatmost participants were satisfied with the workshop content. On
two of the statements ( This training solved problems that I had

been facing and I acquired new knowledge as a result of the session ), however, about 10% of the participants selected neutral
responses, suggesting that there is still room to improve in thisarea. On a question regarding the distributed materials, as shownin Fig. 6, more than 95% of the participants indicated agreementwith all of the statements, confirming that the materials were effective and useful in helping to improve the participants understanding. Fig. 7 shows the results of the survey regarding future activities. This suggests that 90% or more of participants have a strong
intent to promote these activities in Galle District. On the other
hand, there appears to be some uncertainty regarding the development of activities inside and outside the district. This conclusion isdrawn from the fact that respondents feel it will be difficult forthem to develop the program outside the district on their own due
the limited authority of local government officials.
At the same time the multiple-choice surveys shown in Figs.
5-7 were conducted, a free-response format survey was also conducted. The responses in the free-response section show that many
participants had positive opinions of the workshop. The community-based hazard mapping exercise was especially highly rated. The

46

T. KURITA, M. IKEDA, K. SUZUKI AND S R. N. COLOMBAGE

Fig. 5 Results of Survey about the Program Content Conducted among District Workshop Participants.

Fig. 6 Results of Survey about the Materials Distributed to District Workshop Participants.

Fig. 7 Results of Survey about Future Activities Conducted among District Workshop Participants.

comments and suggestions provided by participants included (1) adesire for workshops on other topics in disaster management, (2)the need for disaster exercises in schools, and (3) the need for partnerships with relevant institutions. Several of the participants also
indicated that because of Sri Lanka s inexperience with large-scaledisasters, they would like to learn about the disaster management
experiences of other countries through similar kinds of workshop.

4.2 Pilot Community Workshop
In the week following the District Workshop (the trainers
training), pilot Community Workshops were held in the two DSdivisions of Niyagama and Baddegama. The trainers in theseworks shops had participated in the previous District Workshop,
and the attendees were community leaders and other local residents. There were 21 participants in the Niyagama Workshop on
April 24 and 20 participants in the Baddegama Workshop on April
26. Fig. 8 shows the participants surveying their target areas. Fig.

PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH HANDS-ON TRAINING IN SRI LANKA

Fig. 8 Residents Take a Walking Survey of the Community During theCommunity Workshop.

47

Fig. 9 Sample Hazard Map Created by Participating Residents.

Table 1 Numbers of Community Workshops Participants.

9 shows a sample of one of the hazard maps created by local citizens. In this area, flooding from the river, which flows north tosouth as shown along the left side of Fig. 9, is the most serious
hazard for the village located to the east. In both Community
Workshops, the residents accurately identified the problem areasand produced well-designed outputs (community-based hazard
map, summary of problems, and an action plan).
These two pilot Community Workshops confirmed that theparticipants in the District Workshop were able to effectively serveas Community Workshop instructors and to guide residents on thecreation of their community-based hazard maps.
4.3 Community Workshops
Systematic implementation of the Community Workshops inthe various DS-divisions started in May. As shown in Table 1, a
total of 102 Community Workshops (including the two pilot
Community Workshops) were held over the course of a year,
attracting 3,390 participants. This is the number of people thatreceived direct benefit during the project implementation period,
but continuation of these activities in the future is expected toextend these benefits to many more. To prevent all the workshops
from being held in the same location in any given DS-division,
they were held not only at government facilities, but at varying
locations throughout the community, including temples. The tableshows that only four workshops were held in October, fewer thanin any other month. This is due to the rescheduling of all the workshops that had been planned for October because of the curfew thatwas imposed following the terrorist attacks mentioned above.

48

T. KURITA, M. IKEDA, K. SUZUKI AND S R. N. COLOMBAGE

Table 2 Basic Information about Community Workshop Participants (N=2,940).

Also, only two workshops were held during the year in bothThawalama and Neluwa, fewer than the number held in any of theother areas. Since the goal was to hold five workshops in each DSdivision, the workshops were clearly not adequately implemented
in these locations. Since both of these regions are located in inland
areas on high plateaus, with relatively little danger of being affected by tsunamis, floods, or landslides, there was little interest in disaster reduction among residents. The government officials therefore took a passive approach to holding workshops in these areas.
Because it is difficult to spark interest in the topics addressed bythis project in these kinds of low risk areas, other methods of conducting disaster reduction education need to be developed for suchregions. In addition, personnel changes in the DS-divisional secretary in both DS-divisions led to the replacement of those personnel
while the project was underway. The appointment of new personnel who had not participated in the District Workshop also contributed to the reduced number of Community Workshops.
Basic information about the participants in each DS-division isprovided in Table 2. A breakdown by gender shows that female
participants slightly outnumbered male participants. This trend
was especially noticeable in the four areas of Niyagama, Neluwa,
Welivitiya-Divithura, and Imaduwa. The age breakdown of participants in all regions shows that the distribution of generations iswell balanced. A further breakdown within each DS-divisionshows that Thawalama and Habaraduwa had higher percentages ofyoung participants under the age of 20 than participants of otherages, and few participants over the age of 30. The average age ofall participants was 41.8 years.
When viewing the relationship between employment and participation rates, we found that in coastal areas with high employment rates, participation rates were low. However, participation
rates were higher in inland areas with high unemployment.
Because the workshops were held during the day on weekdays, it

was difficult for employed people to participate. This has also
been a problem for workshops conducted in Japan.
In each Community Workshop, challenges specific to that particular area were discussed. Table 3 shows the results compiled by
the participants of a workshop held at a temple in Hikkaduwa. The
primary risk for the area examined by this group is tsunamis. The
participants identified countermeasures and assigned responsibility
for the wide range of problems they found.
At the end of each Community Workshop, participants weresurveyed about the workshop content. Valid responses werereceived from 2,940 participants. Fig. 10 shows the survey results.
Basic information about the respondents is shown in Table 2. The
survey results confirmed that the participants found the workshop
interesting and acquired new knowledge about disaster reduction.
These results show that the workshops are useful for raising awareness and educating people. However, more than 10% of respondents took a neutral position with regard to the confirmation ofevacuation routes and the benefit of discussions with neighborhood residents. Only about 30% of respondents indicated thatthey strongly agreed on these two items, a lower level of agreement than was indicated on the other survey items. A regional
breakdown of these two items reveals that positive opinions wereindicated by about 70% of respondents in both Neluwa andWelivitiya-Divithura (regarding the former) and in WelivitiyaDivithura and Ambalangoda (regarding the latter), lower than in
the other DS-divisions. We reexamined the content of the instruction provided in these areas, but did not find any particular problems. We will need to pay attention to this finding in our followup activities. On questions regarding future activities, most
respondents indicated that they would like to see them continue,
giving us hope that they will be sustained in the future. The overall
reactions about these community-level workshops were positive.
It bears mentioning that the participation of the district disaster

PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH HANDS-ON TRAINING IN SRI LANKA

49

Table 3 Sample Workshop Summary.

Fig. 10 Community Workshop Participant Survey Results.

management coordinator for Galle District in the Community
Workshops and in providing guidance to residents promoted thecreation of a structure for increasing the involvement of theDisaster Management Centre in community-based disaster reduction activities.

4.4 Final Evaluation Session
On March 30, 2007, 40 government officials from Galle
District, which conducted the Community Workshops, gathered tohold a final evaluation session after the project had ended. The
participants provided the following feedback. (1) This was the firsttime for local residents to participate in this kind of workshop. (2)50

T. KURITA, M. IKEDA, K. SUZUKI AND S R. N. COLOMBAGE

It was useful to have many community leaders participate in theworkshops. (3) Thus far, attention had only been paid to post-disaster response, but no efforts had been made to encourage residents
think in advance about the kinds of disaster risks their communities
face. (4) This program was very useful in terms of raising awareness and educating people about disaster reduction. (5) It was
helpful in this case to have such activities launched from an external organization. Otherwise, the members of this community
would never have come up with these kinds of disaster reduction
activities on their own.
During the final evaluation session, discussions with the Galle
District government regarding the future of disaster reduction education led to an agreement to hold at least one workshop in all 19
DS-divisions during the year after the project ends. These activities will be conducted entirely by the district government, without
any involvement from outside organizations, including ours.
Locally hired staff can observe these workshops and confirm thecontent that they cover. We hope that through this period, a shift
will be made toward locally autonomous implementation of community-based disaster reduction activities.

5.3 Future Challenges
The residents of communities with relatively low disaster risk
have little motivation to think about damage countermeasures.
Thus, workshops on hazard mapping are limited in their ability toraise disaster awareness in these areas. However, it is nonethelesspossible that residents of such areas will encounter a disaster atsome point when visiting a high-risk area. Thus, different methods
from those used in this project need to be developed for educating
those people about disaster reduction. For example, it may beeffective in these areas to promote disaster education in schools.
Large-scale disasters of the magnitude of the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami occur infrequently in Sri Lanka. Even in a country
like Japan, which is subject to frequent disasters of various kinds,
there are regional differences in the frequency with which disasters
occur, and the kinds of disasters that occur in some regions occur
only at very long intervals. It is therefore more difficult to sustain
awareness of disaster reduction in some communities. Given this,our next challenge in preparing for major disasters is to develop
measures to ensure that awareness-raising efforts and disaster
reduction education will be continuously implemented over the
long-term, to the next generation and beyond.

5. RESULTS OF ACTIVITIES AND DISCUSSIONS
6. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 District Level
By conducting instructor training for district government officials, we were able to cultivate disaster reduction education leaders
in local communities. These trainers then held as many as 102
workshops in their communities and gained a great deal of experience in educating and guiding residents. We hope that the continuation of such activities in the future will significantly improve thedisaster reduction capacity of these communities. Also, the hazard
maps that were created by local residents in each community canbe used for a variety of disaster reduction efforts in the future.
As was seen in Thawalama and Neluwa, however, when government officials in positions of responsibility are transferred to
new positions, there is not enough effort being made to ensure theadequate training of their successors. This is a major problem forprograms such as this where continuity is of the utmost importance.
Measures must therefore be developed to address this challenge.
5.2 Community Level
Under this project, we held workshops throughout Galle
District, which were intended to raise the disaster awareness of
local residents. We received positive feedback from workshop participants, with most residents having found the workshops to beinteresting and having been satisfied with their content. Although
this was the residents first experience with the creation of hazard
maps, all of the workshops were able to produce well-designed
maps. We are pleased that participants expressed a desire for these
activities to be continued in the future, but we know how difficult it
is to sustain disaster reduction activities. The active involvementof relevant institutions is essential to the continuity of such activities.
When this kind of workshop is held in a community, many ofthe participants tend to be somewhat older. This project was
unique in that it featured a good balance of participants from different age groups.

This study analyzed and evaluated a community disaster
reduction capacity improvement project that was conducted overthe course of one year in Galle District in southern Sri Lanka, acommunity that was devastated by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
and which has faced problems resulting from its vulnerability tonatural disasters. The results of this study can be summarized asfollows.
We conducted this project to raise awareness of natural disasters and promote disaster reduction education among the general
populace using a community-based hazard mapping exercise.
This project provided a means of transferring methods of conducting community-based disaster reduction activities to Galle
District. By conducting an instructor training program among district government officials, it also helped cultivate personnel who
are capable of educating local residents. Through these efforts, wewere able to establish a system of community-based disaster reduction activities.
A total of 102 Community Workshops (including the two pilot
Community Workshops) were held, and these were attended bymore than 3,000 local residents. The participants were highlyinterested in disaster reduction awareness activities using community-based hazard maps, and actively participated in the mapping
process. We were able to confirm that the workshop participants
understood the community-based disaster reduction lessons they
were taught by conducting questionnaire surveys and listening to
feedback at the end of the workshops.
We have taken measures to ensure that local residents will
voluntarily continue these kinds of activities even beyond the endof this project, thereby ensuring the continuity of disaster reduction
activities in this region.
Based on the results of this project, two important proposals
can be made: (1) the workshop content should be interesting for theparticipants, and (2) attention should be paid to the independenceof local people and supporters and our involvement should be min-

PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH HANDS-ON TRAINING IN SRI LANKA

imized. It would also be helpful to introduce elements aimed at
improving community disaster reduction. Community workshops
and school disaster education are most effective when used in parallel with one another, so efforts to implement them in tandem
should be promoted.
Sri Lanka s disaster reduction structures were only first developed following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, and thus stilllargely consist of only general frameworks. We hope that themethods introduced in this project will be further modified by local
residents so that the most suitable methods for the Sri Lankan context will become firmly established in that country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was made possible by Grant Assistance forJapanese NGO Projects established by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The Japanese Embassy in Sri Lanka provided a great dealof useful advice and cooperation at every stage of project development, from planning to implementation. Cooperation on theDistrict Workshop was provided by UNCRD-Kobe and UNV.
Support was also provided by local expert instructors Prof. Kapila
Dahanayake of Peradeniya University and Dr. Nimal Wijayaratnaof Ruhuna University, and Japanese expert instructor FumihikoTaniwa of the City of Kobe Fire Bureau. We are deeply grateful toall of those who were involved in this project.
REFERENCES
Disaster Management Centre, Ministry of Disaster Management andHuman Rights, Government of Sri Lanka, 2005. Towards a safer Sri
Lanka -A road map for disaster risk management.
Inaba, E., 2007. Promotion of safer urban area development and community
leaders on disaster reduction, Journal of Japan Society for Natural
Disaster Science, Vol.26, No.2, pp.108-113, (in Japanese).
JICA, 2006. Social development under the preparation against disaster,monthly JICA, November, pp.8-19, (in Japanese).
Kurita, T. Nakamura, A., Kodama, M. and Colombage, S., 2005.
Examination of tsunami risk awareness in Sri Lanka, Journal of Social

51

Safety Science, Institute of Social Safety Science, , No.7, pp.315-323,(in Japanese).
Kurita, T., Nakamura, A. Kodama, M. and Colombage, S., 2006. Tsunami
public awareness and the disaster management system of Sri Lanka,
Disaster Reduction and Management, Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 92-110.
Maki, N., Kondo, T., Tamura, K., Hayashi, H., Topping, K., Tatsuki, S.,
Hasegawa, K., Horie, K., Bamba, M., Tanaka, S., Fukasawa, Y. andYoshitomi, N., 2004. A comprehensive earthquake disaster reduction
planning with stakeholders; Development of Marikina comprehensive
earthquake disaster reduction program (CEDR) and action plan,
Journal of Social Safety Science, Institute of Social Safety Science,
No.6, pp.111-120, (in Japanese).
Miyamoto, H., 2007. Trainning of community leaders on disaster reductionin Kagawa Prefecture, Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster
Science, Vol.26, No.2, pp.121-125, (in Japanese).
Nakagawa, K., 2007. Trainning program of community leaders on disaster
reduction in Kochi Prefecture, Journal of Japan Society for Natural
Disaster Science, Vol.26, No.2, pp.118-121, (in Japanese).
National Disaster Management Centre, Ministry of Resettlements andDisaster Relief Services, Government of Sri Lanka, 2004.Variation of
main disasters for 1974 to 2004, http://www.ndmc.gov.lk/index.htm.
Otsubo, H., 2007. Training of community leaders on disaster reduction in
Tokushima Prefecture, Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster
Science, Vol.26, No.2, pp.138-144, (in Japanese).
Tabata, H., 2007. Promotion of community leaders on disaster reduction,
Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, Vol.26, No.2,
pp.113-117, (in Japanese).
The Island newspaper, October 19, 2006, http://www.island.lk.
UNESCO, 2005 a. Assessment of capacity building requirements for aneffective and durable tsunami warning and mitigation system in the
Indian Ocean, Consolidated report for countries affected by the 26
December 2004 tsunami, IOC/INF-1219.
UNESCO, 2005 b. Expert missions to Indian Ocean countries to assess
requirements and capacity for an effective and durable national tsunami warning and mitigation system, Mission Report No.25.
UNOCHA, 2003. Sri Lanka - Floods OCHA situation report No.1,
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf.