1.5. Control in the Facilitation Process

So, therefore, people have different understanding; there is no universal definition of participations. Given that it is a really challenging to incorporate community into the planning process, not only that, we have different participatory tools. In case of disaster risk management, we have risk mapping, we have Yonnmenkaigi system method or Foursquare table method or maybe disaster games or maybe some scenario development or some interactive workshops. So these all are considered to be participatory tools, that means a tool to involve local community into the participatory process.

People have different interpretations of what 'participation' means, and there isn't a single definition that everyone agrees on. This makes it challenging to involve communities in decision-making. In disaster risk management, various tools are designed to engage the community, including risk mapping and interactive workshops. These diverse tools highlight the complexity and variety available for community involvement.

Imagine a group of friends planning a trip. Each friend has a different idea of what constitutes a 'fun trip.' Some want adventure, while others prefer relaxation. Just like these friends need to agree on what 'fun' means, communities must also agree on what participation entails for it to be effective.

We have so many tools now these tools they vary from each other. In terms of their structure, in terms of their method, in terms of their time, resources, skill, they vary from each other great extent the way you conduct Yonnmenkaigi you cannot conduct the game. But all of them, all participatory tools, they have one common objective that is they wanted to involve community into the disaster risk management process.

The tools for community participation vary significantly. Each tool has its own structure and methodologies, and they require different amounts of time, resources, and skills to implement. However, regardless of their differences, all participatory tools aim to achieve the same goal: to involve the community in managing disaster risks.

Think of cooking a meal. There are various recipes, each requiring different ingredients, cooking methods, and times. However, the common goal is to prepare food. Similarly, different tools in disaster risk management have unique characteristics but all aim to effectively engage communities.

When I am a practitioner, I am very confused which tool to take which tool to adopt in order to effectively involve community into the decision-making process, I do not know! Then which one I should try on what basis that is a real dilemma being a practitioner I would like to ask this question to the expert.

Practitioners face a dilemma when choosing which participatory tool to use. With so many options available, it can be overwhelming to decide which one will best engage the community in decision-making. They often seek advice from experts to help guide their choices.

Imagine being at a large electronics store with numerous options for smartphones. Each phone has different features and suits different needs. It's challenging to decide which one to buy without expert advice or thorough research. Practitioners feel similarly confused when selecting participatory tools.

Some studies showing that most of the cases disaster risk management participatory tools their focus is on understanding the risk awareness. But they have less focus on how to manage the risk. So if people do not know what to do it makes them fatalist, it makes them frustrated. That if I do not know only knowing the risk is not easy, so they prefer not to participate.

Research indicates that many participatory tools prioritize raising awareness about risks rather than teaching communities how to manage those risks. This can lead to frustration and a sense of hopelessness among community members, who may feel that knowing the risks does not help them take action.

Consider a fire safety training session. If the session only explains the risks of fire but doesn't provide actionable steps to take in case of a fire, participants may feel anxious without knowing how to protect themselves or respond. This parallels community members who understand risks but feel ill-equipped to act.

When we conduct participatory exercises, it is a kind of art and a kind of skill, it depends on what language you are using during the exercise, are you using local knowledge, local language or the foreign language. What is the experience of the facilitator what extent he is knowledgeable skilful his experience or her experience that matter.

The effectiveness of participatory exercises greatly depends on the skills and experience of the facilitator. The facilitator must choose the appropriate language and incorporate local knowledge to connect with the community. This skillfulness is vital for fostering an engaging environment conducive to participation.

Think of a tour guide leading a group through a historical site. A knowledgeable and engaging guide will use local stories and language to enhance the experience, while a less skilled guide may fail to connect with the audience. Similarly, a facilitator's expertise can shape the participation success.

In many extents, some people argued that the facilitator he controls everything who will participate, when will participate, What should be discussed, the number of participants?. So with these though is the kind of participation questions but everything is decided by the facilitator, so he has the power to control everything.

Facilitators have significant control over the participatory process. They make decisions about who can participate, the timing of discussions, and the topics to be covered. This control can sometimes limit genuine participation by overshadowing the voices and contributions of community members.

Consider a classroom where a teacher dictates every topic of discussion without allowing students to contribute their ideas. This might lead to a lack of engagement, as students may feel their thoughts are unvalued. A facilitator in participatory exercises can similarly affect engagement through their level of control.

These are outcomes that we often consider that comes from participatory projects like if we involve community that will actually increase peoples awareness. It will give better accepted decisions. It can also resolve conflict among stakeholders; it can improve preparedness, and it could empower the people.

Community participation in disaster management can lead to various positive outcomes, including increased awareness among community members, better decision-making, conflict resolution among stakeholders, improved preparedness, and greater empowerment and self-reliance among individuals.

Think about a community coming together to address flood risks. When everyone participates, they acknowledge the threat, generate solutions, and create plans. This collective effort increases their readiness and confidence in handling potential disasters.

However, the problem is that these outcomes, these claims by different organizations both government and non-governmental organisations, the problem is that we do not have enough empirical evidence that these claims are really true that through involving community into the decision-making process we can really achieve that one.

While many organizations claim that community participation leads to beneficial outcomes, there is a significant lack of empirical evidence supporting these assertions. This absence of data makes it challenging to verify the actual effectiveness of participatory efforts in disaster management.

Imagine a new medicine on the market praised for its effectiveness without robust clinical trials to back the claims. Patients might be cautious; they want evidence that the treatment works before relying on it. Similarly, communities need evidence regarding the effectiveness of participatory processes.

Another problem is that when we are talking about various kind of participatory exercises. They also vary in great extent that how they are what is the purpose of that exercise is it just focusing on understanding the risk or peoples perceptions or is it also that how to manage the risk.

Participatory exercises differ in their objectives, with some focusing on understanding risk and perceptions while others focus on teaching risk management. This variation can be confusing for practitioners trying to navigate the landscape of participatory methods.

Consider different sports activities. Some players practice to understand the game, while others focus on skills to win matches. Similarly, participatory exercises can have different focuses, which might confuse those looking for a specific type of engagement.

Some people are saying that we can solve this problem by developing a framework we need to kind of evaluation, evaluation that what works and why not so for that we need evaluation, and for that evaluation we need some framework.

To address the complexities of participatory processes in disaster risk management, developing an evaluation framework is crucial. Such a framework would help identify what methods work effectively, under what circumstances, and why. This framework would provide the basis for improving participatory methods.

Think about a research project that aims to determine the best teaching methods in schools. By creating a structured evaluation framework, educators can assess which methods yield the best student outcomes, improving the quality of education over time.

What we found is that the most of the arguments are coming in two pillars or kind of two components two major components. One component is the process-based criteria that there is a process that a participation should follow and there is an outcome that we can get from participations.

Effective participation consists of two main components: a defined process and desired outcomes. The process encompasses the steps and mechanisms by which participation occurs, while the outcomes refer to the results achieved through participatory efforts.

Consider baking a cake. The recipe provides a clear process (steps to follow), and the cake is the desired outcome. If you follow the recipe correctly, you'll likely get a tasty result; this mirrors effective participation where the right process leads to positive outcomes.

--