2.1. Discussion Themes

In fact, when we talk about the GADRI, first of all this has become a platform for all the academic institutes who are doing the research and disaster recovery and disaster related research, so it is a platform for all these institutes to come together and share the knowledge and inform the policy practice and also the theory. So, in that way this is one of the important platform.

The Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (GADRI) serves as a collaborative platform for academic institutions focused on disaster recovery and risk management research. It facilitates knowledge sharing among institutes, helping to inform policy and shape research practices in the field. This creates a rich environment for researchers to exchange valuable insights and best practices, fostering advancements in disaster risk reduction (DRR).

Imagine a community garden where different people bring their own plants and gardening techniques. Each gardener shares their knowledge about what grows well in their area, and in return, they learn from each other. Similarly, GADRI allows institutions to cultivate their understanding of disaster management by sharing diverse research and practices.

The purpose and objectives of this session were to identify how research on social construction of risks can be used for effective DRR. To consider how the understanding of risk can be better circulated and discussed among stakeholders to reach a shared recognition of the social dimension of risk. To work out how the understanding risk can help to design the countermeasures of DRR. To reflect and report on future research directions relating to the social dimension of disaster risk.

The discussion on the social dimension of risk aimed to explore how social perspectives on risk influence disaster recovery strategies. The goals included examining how risks are socially constructed and how these constructions can inform effective DRR practices. Participants sought to enhance communication about risks among various stakeholders, fostering a better mutual understanding. Additionally, discussions aimed at determining future research trajectories to deepen the understanding of social factors in disaster risk.

Consider a community forum where residents discuss local flooding issues. By sharing their personal experiences and perspectives, they identify that certain factors—like poor infrastructure or economic disparity—play substantial roles in the risks they face. Such discussions can lead to targeted community action plans that address these social dimensions, similar to how this session aims to address social aspects in disaster risk.

So, when we say context of risk itself has a different meaning especially the people living on the edge. Edge here I am not responding that people living on the mountainous edge but I am talking about the more vulnerable conditions who are prone to these disaster risk. Disaster is not just a natural context, but it is the social vulnerability, how it puts them into the risk.

The 'context of risk' refers to the various vulnerabilities faced by people, particularly those in disadvantaged situations. Rather than viewing disasters solely as natural events, this perspective emphasizes the socio-economic factors that increase a community's susceptibility. For instance, populations living in poverty may lack access to resources that would help them prepare for or recover from disasters, therefore, their social vulnerabilities significantly shape their risk experience.

Imagine two villages in a flood-prone area: one is affluent with strong infrastructure and emergency services, while the other is impoverished with limited support. Both villages face the same flood threat, but the outcomes differ widely because of their social contexts. This highlights how socio-economic factors critically influence disaster risk, just like the different circumstances of people living on the 'edge' of society.

When we talk about knowledge, how local knowledge understand risk because the scientific knowledge understands in a different way but how the local knowledge have perceived the risk, how they understand the risk. You know this is very important because the scientific community always undermines the local knowledge.

This section highlights the significance of both scientific and local knowledge in understanding disaster risks. While scientific data provides critical insights, local knowledge—rooted in community experiences—offers practical understanding that often reflects cultural sensitivities and lived experiences. The challenge lies in integrating these two types of knowledge, as scientific communities frequently underestimate the value of local wisdom.

Think of a small coastal town that has weathered storms for generations. The locals have developed their own strategies to prepare for hurricanes based on their experiences, such as knowing which trees to remove or the best evacuation routes. If emergency management merely relies on scientific models without considering these local practices, they may overlook effective strategies for risk reduction.

--