1.4. The Gap Between Policy and Practice

But in reality, there is a huge gap we are asking that okay we need to involve community into disaster risk management. But actually it is not happening.

This chunk highlights a significant issue in disaster risk management: the gap between what is ideal (community involvement) and what actually occurs. While policies advocate for involving communities in decision-making, the implementation of these policies often fails to achieve true participation. This discrepancy indicates a disconnect between intentions and actual practices that can hinder effective disaster management.

Imagine a school where teachers want to involve students in shaping the curriculum. They send out surveys asking for feedback, but then they create the curriculum without considering the students' responses. This is similar to how some disaster management policies are formed without genuinely integrating community voices.

There is a huge gap between policy and practice, theory and implementation why? Why after spending so much of time, energy and money, we fail to incorporate communities local communities into the decision making process. Why participatory disaster risk management programs they failed it could be in rehabilitations it could be for the preparedness whatever. So participation the one reason that participation is understood and practised in different manners there is no unique there is one universal definition of participations okay.

This chunk discusses the confusion around the concept of participation in disaster risk management. There is no single, universally accepted definition of what it means to engage communities, which can lead to inconsistencies in practice. As a result, programs intended to be participative may end up being ineffective because stakeholders have varying interpretations of participation, ranging from token involvement to genuine collaboration.

Consider a cooking show where the host asks for audience participation. If some viewers think they are just there to cheer while others believe they can share recipes, the actual show might not satisfy everyone. This disagreement on what participation means can lead to disappointment and lack of engagement.

This is one of the classical models developed by Sherry Arnstein. If you look into the left-hand side you can see there is starting from manipulations then informations, consultations, partnership, and citizen control.

This chunk introduces Arnstein's Ladder of Participation, which categorizes levels of community engagement in decision-making processes. The ladder illustrates a spectrum from low engagement (manipulation and information) to higher forms (partnership and citizen control). Understanding this model helps to identify where a particular initiative falls on the spectrum and how it can evolve to allow for greater community involvement.

Think of a ladder with different rungs. The bottom rung might represent situations where community members are simply given information without the chance to respond, like a teacher lecturing students. As you climb higher to the top rungs, you reach situations where students lead discussions and even make decisions about what to learn, representing a more engaged and empowered partnership.

When we are talking about manipulation kind of thing or only informations kind of thing okay it leads to that community is a passive recipient of informations. We only provide information to the people telling them you do this you evacuate you raise your plinth level okay.

This chunk emphasizes that when communities are treated merely as recipients of information—receiving orders about what actions to take without input on decision-making—they become disengaged. This passive role can lead to resentment and distrust, as communities feel they lack control over their own safety and risk management.

Imagine being part of a team project where the leader makes all the decisions and only gives orders about what tasks to do without asking for input. Over time, the team members may feel their ideas are not valued, reducing their motivation and ownership of the project's success.

Some more radical people in participations, they are saying this is not even enough what we need, we need collaborative knowledge and action plan development collaborative, collaborative knowledge.

This chunk points out that merely consulting the community is insufficient for true participation. Genuine participation involves collaboration where both the community and experts contribute to knowledge-sharing and action planning. This level of engagement fosters ownership and ensures that the solutions developed are more relevant and practical for the affected communities.

Imagine a group of friends planning a trip together. If one person makes all the decisions and simply informs the others about flights and destinations, the group might not enjoy the trip as much as if everyone discussed ideas, preferences, and shared the planning responsibilities, leading to a more enjoyable experience for all.

--