International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

The double bind of poverty and community disaster risk reduction: A case study from the Caribbean
Idelia Ferdinand n, Geoff OBrien, Phil OKeefe, Janaka Jayawickrama
School of Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

a r t i c l e in f o
Article history: Received 24 July 2012 Received in revised form 20 September 2012 Accepted 21 September 2012 Available online 28 September 2012 Keywords: Community Disaster risk reduction Vulnerability Resilience Caribbean

abstract
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) at the community level is usually addressed by forming community based disaster organisations and training persons in disaster management courses. The focus is mainly on the response phase of a disaster, but understanding the overall impact of disasters requires a more comprehensive approach. This paper assesses the level of vulnerability and Community DRR capacity in four Windward Island communities. This assessment is based on a questionnaire survey, of some 400 householders across four island states, and 24 semi-structured interviews with key informants involved in community development and disaster management. The ndings show that, in general, there is a sense of community in the Windward Islands but a general lack of coordination and collaboration on issues related to disaster management. Where community organisations exist they tend to work in isolation, this exacerbates vulnerability. Poor communities have strong mechanisms to manage disasters but these strong internal ties militate against broader community efforts to address DRR. Essentially poverty acts as a double bind. The double bind of poverty is the bind that ties poor people together in coping while simultaneously the coping mechanisms make a barrier for engaging with other organisations. The conclusion is that there is need for multistakeholder partnerships to reduce vulnerability and build resilience in communities. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Caribbean as a region is considered one of the most hazard prone areas in the world because of its geology and other local geographical factors [1]. While the region is generally vulnerable, some states are more vulnerable because of a combination of factors. They may have more people exposed in coastal areas, on unstable hill slopes and on ood plains [2]. Socio-economic characteristics such as health status, educational attainment, security and governance, as well as access to resources

Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 7580387615. E-mail address: Idelia.ferdinand@northumbria.ac.uk (I. Ferdinand).

and communications, make some people more vulnerable than others [3]. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) places considerable emphasis on building the resilience of communities as a necessary component of DRR [4]. The implication is that the Command and Control approach of many disaster management platforms is not a suitable vehicle for work at the community and household level, making it clear that other actors need to be involved in enhancing DRR. Usually this is expressed as civil society. In Latin America and the Caribbean, civil society is mainly represented by a few NGOs but a large number of social organisations representing sports and recreation, service, culture, health and faith based organisations [5]. Denhardt et al. [6:1276] note that A healthy civil society

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.09.003

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

85

provides arenas for community deliberation on matters relevant to the public interest, and familiarizes individuals with additional key democratic values such as pluralism, due process, and fairness. The civil society concept, though very sketchy, can be dened as That sphere intermediate between family and state in which social actors pursue neither prot within the market nor power within the state [5:196]. The role of civil society will differ considerably between states with factors such as size, level of economic development and functionality and attitude of government inuencing the way civil society organisations operate. Firmin and Brown [7] argue that the vulnerability of small states is responsible for shaping the functions of their civil society organisations. This is particularly the case for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as the Caribbean, which experiences regular annual losses due to natural hazards in the order of US$ 3 billion[8:7]. Civil society organisations in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have greater responsibility for decisionmaking and management than larger nation states. Firmin and Brown [7:11] point out that the devolution of development planning to outer island communities in South Pacic SIDS and for resource management in Caribbean Islands, such as St Lucia and Jamaica, has created space for civil society organisations to play a more direct role in local institutional arrangements. Civil society organisations do not always operate in the best interest of the wider community and can be perceived negatively. A critique of civil society organisations in small states suggest that some lacked transparency, professional ethics, accountability, a clear mandate and, in some instances, displayed a political agenda [9]. A lack of trust in civil society organisations can be counterproductive to efforts aimed at developing communities and reducing disaster risk. Several researchers have highlighted instances of civil society and social capital providing mutual benets to a community [1012,7]. Social capital has a central role to play in both preparedness and response in the context of a community [13]. Social capital does not have a clear, undisputed meaning, for substantive and ideological reasons [14,15]. For the purposes of this article, we use a denition of social capital put forward by Putnam [16]: Features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benet [16]. There is a basic understanding, in the disaster management literature, that communities with higher levels of social capital are able to fare better when faced with an emergency event, as well as during planning and reconstruction [17]. Pelling [18], however, warns that this is not always the case as social capital can be used to gain power over others. Strong internal links can also lead to a group failing to network with those who are different from them. The real strength of resilience is in the level of inter-community links between various groups [17]. Resilience is dened by UN/ISDR as The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efcient

manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions [19:24]. Social capital is a key factor for promoting resilience in the context of a community, whether that is preparing for events or during an emergency event [20].

2. Hazards in the Caribbean The Caribbean is at risk to a variety of hazards including hurricanes, oods, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, droughts, oil spills and res [2123]. These hazards have resulted in major disasters in the region. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan damaged about 90% of the housing stock in Grenada and affected every sector of the economy. In 2010, an earthquake devastated Haiti and Hurricane Tomas severely affected St. Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia. In April 2011, St Vincent and the Grenadines were affected by serious ooding to communities still trying to recover from Hurricane Tomas. Disasters are detrimental to the economies of the affected countries to the extent that at times can result in a total loss of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [24,25]. There is a long list of countries in the Caribbean that experienced great economic losses including those caused by Hurricanes Gilbert 1988, Hugo 1989, Debbie 1994, Luis 1995, Marilyn 1995, Georges 1998, Lenny 1999, Ivan 2004, Tomas 2010 and the Haiti earthquake 2010. The impact of disasters on Caribbean SIDS include the immediate direct impact on the population and resources but also the long-term indirect impact, which can last for years and impede growth [25]. The impact is reected in increasing indebtedness, retarded economic and social development [26]. It is often the case that governments nance the cost of these disasters by diverting already committed resources to deal with disaster consequences [26]. The Caribbean Islands share the vulnerabilities of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which includes small size, insularity, remoteness and proneness to natural disasters [27,28]. These vulnerabilities are compounded by densely populated areas and population growth in the region, concentrated in congested urban areas and coastal locations [29]. It is where people live and how they live, which can be either a matter of choice or a lack of choice, which determines livelihoods. Factors such as educational achievement, employment opportunities, wealth, market conditions and disaster recovery options are important determinants in the selection of livelihood and house location [3032]. Amad, [21:18] notes that Development in high-risk areas, lack of adherence to building codes and use of substandard materials, high levels of poverty, socio-economic exclusion and environmental degradation increases the vulnerability of Caribbean people. While poverty and vulnerability are not synonymous, the poor often construct homes in unsafe areas and below the required standards [33]. In addition to making them more vulnerable, it adds to and creates other problems in terms of disaster planning, evacuation and long-term risk reduction.

86

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

Building community resilience is a global concern, expressed through the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 20052015 Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters [4:136]. Regionally, a review of the Caribbean Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) framework after the rst 5-year period highlighted the need for more investment in community risk reduction. The improved framework reinforced the call for enhanced community resilience [34]. Over the last 20 years, the Caribbean as a region has worked collaboratively to address the factors that contribute to disaster risk but success has been mixed. This long-term goal requires the involvement of stakeholders who understand their roles and responsibility in the process and are willing to act and have access to the required resources. The community, as a key stakeholder, should be more involved in risk assessment and risk reduction. National government disaster ofces, particularly in the smaller states of the Eastern Caribbean, are often constrained by limited human and nancial resources to sustain community risk reduction programmes. Although the focus of building community resilience is high on national disaster programmes, there are still gaps between National DRR and Community DRR. Civil society organisations, especially those within the community, often possess knowledge of community needs. They are more likely than external agencies to understand local cultures and help ensure that risk reduction strategies meet the community needs. To do so they must be aware of national risk reduction goals and how they can support it either through their regular mandate or through willingness to expand their mandate. The lack of communication, limited nancial resources, poor collaboration and other issues hinder the effectiveness of community organisations. The result is some organisations become dysfunctional, inactive or just not proactive. They function when the need arises; that is they may make plans just for the hurricane season, but are otherwise inactive. 3. Addressing vulnerability and building resilience The vulnerability debate is long running and spans a wide range of disciplines and issues, but there are commonalities when referring to people and places in relation to hazards. Vulnerability can be broadly dened in terms of susceptibility or the potential for loss or harm [3537]. Some research refers specically to human vulnerability as it relates to peoples exposure to natural hazards and their ability to cope and recover from the impact of hazards [38,39]. OKeefe et al. [40] proposes that socio-economic conditions are the main causes of disaster and not natural phenomena, hence making it difcult for people to deal with the impact of such events. Blaike et al. [41] identify some of these socio-economic characteristics as class, occupation, caste, ethnicity, gender, disability, health status, age, immigration status and social networks. Some groups of persons have been identied as likely to be more vulnerable such as the very young, very old, ethnic or religious groups and settlements [36].

It is argued that vulnerability is as much a factor of its physical exposure as it is the result of peoples socioeconomic conditions [30,42]. Cutter et al. [43] recommends that an integrated approach to determine the hazards of a place can be achieved by assessing both biophysical and social vulnerability of that place. There is a clearly a need to objectively assess and reduce conditions that increases disaster risk. As Cannon [44:2] points out Vulnerability analysis begins with the crucial acceptance that vulnerability is often part of the normal, becoming apparent and obvious to some only with the impact of a hazard. While people generally have no control over the occurrence of hazards, their capacity to withstand, cope and recover depends on their level of vulnerability. Earlier vulnerability assessments focused on choosing safer locations, proper design and construction techniques in addition to positive development [45]. They addressed the physical aspects of hazards but there is need to direct attention towards improving people social and economic conditions. As Lewis and Kelman [46] points out failure to address the underlying causes of vulnerability and other social issues such as poverty will only lead to a re creation of disaster risk. The concept of building resilience has been considered as key to reducing risk to disasters. This concept similar to vulnerability has been used in a number of disciplines. It is increasingly used in disaster management [47]. Within the dominant disaster management paradigm, it is expressed as a return to the Status Quo [48]. In reality, resilience is about responding to disruptions and moving forward [49]. Resilience is a function of adaptive capacity. Communities that are vulnerable to hazards often have little or no adaptive capacity to help in their response to disruptive events. Evidence suggests that many people with high adaptive capacity in post disaster situations get on with re-building their lives. However, poor people may not be able to do so and often require assistance [50]. In areas such as the Caribbean, where disaster frequency is high, the more vulnerable communities can be struck by another disaster before they have fully recovered. Lewis and Kelman, [51] suggest that, for resilience programmes to be effective, they should encompass a wide range of training and capacity developments that enable vulnerable communities to be knowledgeable of their risk and how to reduce them. Social capital which is enhanced through strong social networks such as family, friends and community networks contribute to resilience [52]. This social capital is often visible in critical times such as disasters and contributes to community coping capacity. Social capital in small communities can be eroded by partisan politics and poorly designed projects that benet some and make others angry. Building community resilience has to take into consideration the issues that affect individuals, families and the communities as a whole and requires a multifaceted approach by all stakeholders at the local, national and regional levels [53]. Civil society organisations in the Caribbean are usually embedded in the community with support from a few that are external to the community, but work closely with the community.

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

87

They include both formal and informal associations which are important in shaping community development [54,6]. Kage [10:164] advocates that A strong civil society helps to identify the areas of most acute need, facilitate implementation and provide effective monitoring. Where civil society is weak, they need to be strengthened. 4. Empowering civil society to enhance community DRR Several researchers have highlighted the various roles played by civil society [55,10,56]. Some of these roles include identifying and drawing attention to issues of public interest that can inuence public policy. Grajzl and Murrell [57] concluded that Greater involvement of civil society is frequently viewed as crucial in attaining development goals. Disaster risk reduction is one such goal that can benet from the empowerment of civil society. UN/ISDR afrmed that Communities are always the true rst responders in emergencies, so it is critical to build their capacity at the local level in addition to supporting DRR networks at the national level [58:14]. The National Red Cross Society in Grenada along with its partners were very instrumental in providing shelter and rebuilding livelihoods after the island wide destruction of Hurricane Ivan in 2004 [59]. The scale of the damage was overwhelming for islanders and required multistakeholder response, locally, regionally and internationally. The Grenada National Red Cross provided seeds, tools and fertilisers to 400 vegetable farmers with much success and satisfaction expressed by the farmers [59]. In relation to housing, they assisted with repair or reconstruction of over 750 homes and the provision of hurricane straps to another 2000 houses. In addition, they provided building materials for reconstruction, introduced innovative reconstruction measures and trained persons in hurricane resistant construction techniques. They were also able to mobilise nancial and material support from fellow Red Cross Societies as well as other agencies to assist with the recovery process [59]. Communities can become inaccessible in times of disasters and their ability to organise and assist prior to the arrival of outside assistance will help to alleviate human suffering. Hurricane Tomas 2010 prevented access to the community of Soufriere, St Lucia for days due to landslides [60]. A low-level trough in April 2011 resulted in torrential rain in the Southern Caribbean that undermined a number of bridges in St Vincent and the Grenadines leaving several communities inaccessible [61]. The disaster committee in Fancy reported that they did not wait for outside help but went about and compiled a damage assessment report and forward to the National Emergency Management Ofce. The availability of these skills within the community reduces the burden on national agencies and provides quick information to inform decision-making. 5. Methodology Data was collected from the Anglophone Windward Islands of Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines between July 2011 and January 2012

using household questionnaires and semi structured interviews with key informants. One community in each Island State was selected using the following criteria; hazard exposure, vulnerability of settlements, disaster history and socio-economic status (See Appendix 1 for further details). Historical data, information from various sources [6165], poverty assessment reports [6669] and recommendations from the disaster ofces for each island also guided the selection process. The household survey consisted of structured questionnaires, which included a series of open and closed questions. One respondent from the selected households was asked to complete a questionnaire. This depended on whether the head of the household or another responsible adult was available and was willing to participate. Participants were required to give signed consent. The survey gathered responses on hazards, vulnerability, capacity and community social capital (feeling, relationships and organisations). The data was collected over 3 weeks in each community, between 7am and 7pm everyday day of the week to ensure wide participation of persons from various occupational elds. Those surveyed consist of a total of 393 residents, 157 males and 236 females (104 Grenada, 98 Dominica, 98 St Lucia and 93 St Vincent). Additional information was obtained through key informant interviews with representatives of the national disaster ofces (ofcer responsible for community where there was one), district or community disaster group, National Red Cross Societies, Community Disaster Response Team, several government department and services (Fire, housing, community development) other community organisations, NGOs and church groups. There were a total of six key informants from each island, a total of 24. The key informants common to each island were the National Red Cross Societies and the national disaster ofce representatives. The key informants provided information on community programmes, partnerships, challenges and some suggest future efforts. 6. Results 6.1. Socio-economic characteristics of household participants Data collected on the socio-economic characteristics of households is shown in Table 1. The data shows that there are differences between the study areas. This reects the differences in the socio-economic mix between the study areas, for example, Fancy, which is located on the north of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) is highly dependent on banana production. Like the other study sites, efforts have been made to diversify their economies, but Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are heavily dependent on banana production, as can be seen from the data where some 27% are involved in the primary sector which consists principally of banana and other agricultural crops and shing. It should be noted that just over 34% are unemployed. The relatively low number of college attendees suggests that many in this area are in low paid employment.

88

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

Table 1 Socio-economic characteristics of household participants. Dominica: St. Joseph and Layou (%) Grenada: Soubise and Marquis (%) Saint Lucia: Soufriere (%) SVG: Fancy (%)

Table 3 Number of vulnerable people per household (5 years old and younger, 60 years old and older, sick, pregnant women, people with mental health problems and disabled people). Number of vulnerable people Dominica: St. Joseph and Layou (%) Grenada: Soubise and Marquis (%) Saint Lucia: Soufriere (%) 30.6 36.7 24.5 8.2 SVG: Fancy (%)

Gender Male Female Age Under 20 2029 3039 4049 5059 60 Employment Unemployed Self employed Primary sector Government service Construction Retired Other

40.8 59.2 3.1 14.3 19.4 22.4 20.4 20.4 26.5 22.4 12.2 3.1 6.1 14.3 15.3

47.1 52.9 5.8 26.9 17.3 13.5 11.5 25.0 30.8 17.3 10.6 4.8 11.5 7.7 17.3

35.7 64.3 3.1 20.4 19.4 21.4 18.4 17.3 22.4 12.2 5.1 22.4 6.1 18.4 13.3 0.0 40.8 35.7 23.5

35.5 64.5 4.3 16.1 20.4 26.9 19.4 12.9 34.4 9.7 26.9 12.9 1.1 7.5 7.5 2.2 60.2 28.0 9.7

0 1 2 3 or more

41.8 37.8 13.3 7.1

36.6 34.6 14.4 14.4

43.0 35.5 16.1 5.4

Table 4 Preparedness measures, family emergency plans and insurance. Island Preparedness Family emergency plan Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) Insurance

No (%)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Do not know (%)

Highest education achievement None 2.0 0.0 Primary 59.2 56.7 Secondary 25.5 30.8 College and 12.2 12.5 above

Dominica Grenada St. Lucia St. Vincent

41.8 48.1 58.2 66.7

58.2 51.9 41.8 33.3

17.3 17.3 22.4 22.6

82.7 10.2 82.2 7.7 82.7 4.8 89.4 5.8 76.6 16.3 80.6 3.1 77.4 11.8 82.8 5.4

Table 2 Household size. Size of Dominica: St. households Joseph and Layou (%) Grenada: Soubise and Marquis (%) Saint Lucia: Soufriere (%) 53.1 39.8 7. 71 SVG: Fancy (%)

14 58 9

65.3 29.6 5.1

51.9 37.5 10.6

63.4 34.4 2.2

6.2. Household size The data collected for household size is shown in Table 2. Household size varies between 1 and 4 for more than half the respondents. On average for about one third of respondents household size is between 5 and 8. There are some households that are large, that is above 9 and over, and one household in Marquis, Grenada had 23 members. 6.3. Vulnerable groups Data collected on vulnerable groups is shown in Table 3. Vulnerable groups were measured by the number of people per household aged ve and under and 60 and over as well as pregnant women, the sick people with mental health problems and disabled people. As part of

the survey, respondents were asked about plans they had for vulnerable people in their households. Though the data shows that the Grenada study area has the highest proportion of households with three or more vulnerable people, just over a third of the households have at least one vulnerable household member. In terms of plans for vulnerable people during hazardous events, almost half of the participants had no plans. Those who claimed that they had plans actually meant that they had ad-hoc measures such as having assistance from family members, neighbours or community members. There are those who indicated that they always ensure medication is in place or they will go to a shelter if necessary. One participant indicated, My son is disabled and my house not good, if anything I will have to run and leave him. This part of the study suggests that there is little systematic effort aimed at preparing to take care of vulnerable groups during hazardous events. 6.4. Household preparedness The data collected on household preparedness is shown in Table 4. The research found that on average some 53% of households undertook preparedness activities. This question was open-ended and participants were asked to detail the preparations they make for any hazard. The answers given suggest preparations were generally focused on hurricanes. These measures included the storage of food and water and in a few instances, medication. Many of the respondents stated that they would secure important documents, trim branches to prevent damage to property during a storm and

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

89

move to shelters, family or friends. There was little evidence of systematic or coordinated activities. There was little indication that households took any long-term mitigation measures, such as, using building codes. In the experience of the lead author, a native of the Windward Islands, this is not unusual. Some 20% of respondents claimed to have a family emergency plan. Only 11% of the participants had property insurance. Carby et al. [1:41] notes that The lack of risk transfer mechanism is particularly burdensome for the poor and for small farmers as repeated hazards impacts deplete resources and increase the level of their vulnerabilities. The main reasons cited for not having insurance was insufcient nancial resources and a lack of knowledge of insurance products. St Vincent and the Grenadines has the highest level of preparedness and households with an emergency plan, but only the second highest level of insurance. One key informant stated that People are usually prepared for hurricanes but other hazards are a different story. 6.5. Community social capital Community social capital is an important aspect of DRR as the people in those communities with good social cohesion are willing to help others during disruptive events. The research used a Likert Scale to establish the views of participants on community social capital. The results are shown in Table 5. The data suggests that there is a strong sense of community cohesion in all the study areas. However, it is clear that in Fancy, the poorest area,
Table 5 Rating of six statements about social capital in the community. DominicaSt. Joseph and Layou (%) 1.People in the community are helpful in times of disasters Disagreement 8.1 Neither agree/disagree 0.0 Agreement 91.9 2.There is a close relationship between people in the community Disagreement 20.4 Neither agree/disagree 20.4 Agreement 59.1 3.People willing to assist in developing community Disagreement 25.5 Neither agree/disagree 25.5 Agreement 49 4.People generally feel accepted in the community Disagreement 12.2 Neither agree/disagree 15.3 Agreement 72.5 5.Feeling that the community is divided Disagreement 40.8 Neither agree/disagree 17.3 Agreement 41.8 6.People keep to themselves in disasters Disagreement 82.7 Neither agree/disagree 1.0 Agreement 16.4

community cohesion is strong. The response to the rst four questions suggests that while community bonds are strong, that is people will rally together to help each other in the event of a disaster, they are the strongest in the study area of Fancy questions 1 through 4. The answers to questions 5 and 6 suggest a strong community bond in Fancy with little suggestion of division or isolation.

6.6. Civil society involvement in community and disaster management The results presented in this section were drawn from both the organisations themselves as well as members of the community. The organisations interviewed represented youths, small cooperatives, disaster committees faith based organisations and NGOs and government departments. Some organisations did not possess an overall policy or guidance documentation, while other that existed was outdated. Many of the key informants were not willing to share copies of development plans and guidance documents. One key informant mentioned; There is a strategic plan but there have been no regular operations since 2007; we do what we can to keep up in terms of community development, while another key informant stated that; We have not yet developed a plan of operation. Larger and experienced organisations with regional and international partners tend to be more organised and more effective. However, there were indications from a key informant that there was a shortage of volunteers and that volunteerism is dying.

GrenadaSoubise and Marquis (%)

Saint Lucia Soufriere (%)

SVG Fancy (%)

14.4 2.9 82.7 29.8 9.6 60.3 36.5 14.4 49.1 10.6 17.3 72.1 52 10.6 37.6 81.7 4.8 13.5

9.2 5.1 85.7 19.3 11.2 69.3 14.3 19.4 66.3 8.1 21.4 70.4 60.2 16.3 23.2 82.7 4.1 13.3

2.2 3.2 94.7 5.4 6.5 88.2 8.6 16.1 75.3 3.2 11.8 84.9 68.8 15.1 16.1 94.6 2.2 3.2

90

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

Almost 60% of the organisations interviewed were well embedded within the community and a number of household participants were members of some community organisations and held key positions on several committees. Most organisations were found to be exible in their activities and some are involved in tasks related to disaster management. However, some activities were found to be ad-hoc, irregular, poorly organised and with little support from the community. One key informant stated; We try to get people to learn skills to build their capacity but most do not want that, they nd progress is slow. However, a community member from Fancy claimed that they received little support from any community organisation and they just learned to get on with it ourselves. The lead author, who has experience of community development in the Windward Islands, nds that such responses are typical. During the research, it was clear that many community programmes try to prepare people to become selfemployed but often people would prefer to nd a job, as they did not have to the resources to start their own business or collateral to access loans. Another key informant stated; Assessment is based on districts, which are constituency based, and this can be inuenced by politics. Collaboration between organisations was found to be minimal, an issue that was highlighted by several of the key informants. Poor information sharing meant there were cases of duplication of activities leading to community division and conict of interests. The main challenge highlighted by key informants was the lack of nancial resources for programmes. In the past, nancial constraints have led to some organisations disbanding and abandoning a number of activities. One key informant mentioned that; Money is a major problem which limits the ability to operate normally. Our capacity is greatly reduced and we are not able to contribute, as we should. There is no committed budget. A number of organisations have turned to both fund raising and bidding for projects from international NGOs. This constraint has meant that often staff and volunteers are recruited on a project by project basis. A number of participants voiced their dissatisfaction with the operation of some organisations, often mentioning political biases and leadership struggles as factors that have contributed to the collapse of some organisations. In most cases, training materials were focused on prevention and response to the hazardous event with little or no focus on vulnerability. 7. Discussion and concluding thoughts The results show that in general there is a high level of social cohesion in the Windward Island study areas with the highest levels in Fancy. It is clear the lack of nancial resources hampers the development of community organisations that can focus on DRR, despite the high levels of hazards, especially hurricanes, which affect the area. The hurricane threat is likely to increase as research by Hansen et al. [70] suggests that climate change will mean that, globally, storms will increase in frequency and severity [71]. Conventional thinking tells us that without a strong institutional framework aimed at supporting communities,

then building the resilience of communities to respond to and cope with disastrous events will be undermined. However, this research has found that one community, Fancy, which lacks the kind of institutional support needed for building resilience, has done so of its own accord. This is evidenced by its post hurricane damage reporting and the strong social ties shown from the survey. It is also very vulnerable as livelihoods are dominated by the primary sector and there is a high level of unemployment. There appears to be an inverse relation with the promotion of good DRR and poverty. This suggests that poor communities that cannot afford to lose the little they have are more focused on protecting what they have. This does not mean that a strong partnership working is not needed, but does mean that partnership working could learn the lessons from the Fancy community on what factors are needed for effective resilience building. From a review of the literature, it is possible to provide a summary on issues of raising social capital, decreasing vulnerability and improving resilience. Marsh and Buckle [71] note that there may be people in some communities who do not know or talk to each other and may not wish to take part in community activities or join groups. People do not usually think of hazards as a main priority because there are other immediate needs to occupy their attention. These include making mortgage payments, cost of health care and education and providing for their family [72]. Their rst thought is not preparing for hazards that may never occur, but instead they prefer to make decisions when they know that a threat, such as a hurricane, is imminent [73]. In some cases preparatory activities are too little and too late. The community could mean belonging to and contributing to a social system in a particular place or the community as institutions or structures, which has specic roles [74]. Community in the context of this research refers to A group of individuals and households living in the same location and having the same hazard exposure, who can share the same objectives and goals in disaster risk reduction [75:271]. Communities are complex and not generally united, as differences exist in terms of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, religion, social groups, work, traditions, politics, gender and age from which a discriminatory negative hierarchy may emerge. Developing the collective capacities of communities with the necessary skills and resources puts them in a better position to provide support in times of disasters. This is even more effective if assessments are made to identify and meet the needs of vulnerable groups. The Samoa Red Cross was proactive in their approach to identify the vulnerability of the local community using the Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (VCA) and developed programmes to educate and sensitise the community about the risks they face [76]. They engaged the community and other stakeholders including the church, gender organisations and NGOs as well as the government. As Wisner and Walker point out Disaster affected communities are well placed to understand the hazards they face but on their own they are often powerless to affect many of the institutions and policies that turn hazards into disaster [77:13]. This reinforces the need

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

91

for communities, NGOs and government to work together for sustainable community development. Communities based organisations are not always effective in getting communities to work together. This can lead to community fragmentation and failure of well intentioned programmes as, often, they only reach selected communities and consequently isolate others [33]. The highly vulnerable groups such as the old, disabled, sick, mentally and physically challenged and ethnic minorities, especially those who do not speak the main language, are at the greatest risk. Firmin and Brown [7] pointed out that civil societies in small states were often expected to perform multiple roles in the face of limited personnel and institutions. They can be further empowered to promote DRR in vulnerable communities, since what is required might already overlap with other roles and responsibilities they perform. While there are useful criticisms around the delivery of effective DRR perhaps, another look is needed at DRR itself against the challenge of poverty alleviation. There have been improvements in national legislation, capacity building, training, nancial and political support but there is little evidence that this has ltered down to the community level. UN/ISDR denes DRR as Reducing disaster risk though systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability people and property, wise management of land and the environment and preparedness for adverse events [4:11]. This wide ranging denition is perhaps too unfocused to facilitate improved DRR at community level. Natural hazards are linked with property and land, with people thrown into encompass everything. Starting from people

is essential if community DRR is to ourish. From the quantitative survey the high level of poverty, driven by many factors, was exhibited throughout the population; most notable the lack of commercial insurance speaks of income ow problems in communities that, compared to similar populations in Asia and Africa, would seem to be relatively well-off in global terms. Reaching the poor is difcult. The difculties are compounded when the DRR agencies themselves start interventions from the perspective of the hazard itself e.g. hurricane warnings or ood mitigation; the qualitative information from key stakeholders plus a reading of the content of training courses suggests that people are not rst, but last, in conventional DRR training. People in poverty are likely to have higher risk to life and livelihood. Poverty itself is a double bind as it binds poor people together while simultaneously providing a barrier to engage with other organisations. The assumption in the natural hazards literature is that positive coping mechanisms can lead to improved adaptation. One such example from Bangladesh is the adaptation of shing boats by strengthening their hulls to cope with the increased number of sand bank collisions during storm surges [78]. There are of course negative coping mechanisms such as cutting down the larger trees on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to compensate for declining agricultural income, where such activity accelerates environmental damage including, perhaps, accelerated climate change [79]. In the case of the Windward Islands it appears that the double bind of poverty gives coping strategies that simultaneously allow management of disaster while prohibiting effective DRR to build a stronger resilient community. Quite simply existing coping mechanisms resist better DRR as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 suggests that the double bind of poverty produces an actual pathway, which is far from the desired. In managing their poverty, people are aware of their vulnerabilities and the coping mechanisms they have allow them to continue to manage their poverty. These coping mechanisms themselves create a barrier to a broader community interface with governmental and non-governmental actors because in the condition of poverty people have no expectation or anticipation of any resource except themselves. Breaking this barrier of low expectation and anticipation is the central starting point for effective DRR.

Appendix 1
Fig. 1. Double bind of poverty. Table A1 Showing reasons for selecting the various communities Source: [6169] and eld notes. Islands and communities Main economic activity Hazard/Disaster experience Social conditions/Poverty assessments St. Joseph Parishhighest incidence of poverty 47.14%. High unemployment among the poor. No formal disaster committee, village council is responsible for matters Households and sample St. Joseph Village735, Layou village 142, total 877.

See Table A1.

Main national exports; bananas, Dominica Layou bay oil, vegetables, grapefruit, village and St. Joseph village in St. oranges. Joseph, Parish

Island main hazards; hurricanes and tropical storms, oods, landslides, earthquake swarms due to multiple volcanoes.

92

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

Table A1 (continued ) Islands and communities Main economic activity Hazard/Disaster experience Social conditions/Poverty assessments Households and sample

St. Joseph mainly shing, farming, The Layou River in the Parish poses vending. various threats ooding, landslides, and dam burst river ood 1997, ecological disaster 2011.

related to disasters. Very few community organisationsmainly faith based. Many old wooden houses in a state HH Sample: 98 of disrepair. Settlements close to the sea and rivers. Parish second highest in national poverty 26.6%, very large families in some areas. Very few community organisations. Informal settlements along the coast in high-risk areas and lack use of proper building standards. Sections of the community can become isolated from hazards. No secure emergency shelters in some areas. 42.4% of Soufriere population considered poor, within top 4 districts, 26.9% poor unemployed. About 60% dwellings built before 1996. Soufriere is the least densely populated district434, average household size 3.0. Soufriere can be cut off from neighbouring areas in disasters. Several active community based organisations including a disaster committee and community disaster response teams. Soubise303, Marquis161. Total 464

Grenada, Marquis, Soubise in St. Andrew Parish

Main income in the communities are from sea moss harvesting, farming, shing, craft making, trafcking fruits and ground food, hair braiding

Island main hazards; hurricanes and tropical storms, oods, landslides. Recent hurricanesIvan 2004 and Emily 2005. St. Andrew Parish (Soubise and Marquis) 60% of total damage from Hurricanes Ivan 2004. Active underwater volcano.

HH Sample: 104

Saint Lucia, Soufriere Parish (mainly Fond St. Jacques, Palmiste and New Development)

Main economic activities are agriculturemainly bananas. Tourism is growing. In relation to Soufriere, declining agriculture and growing tourism.

Island main hazards; hurricanes and tropical storms, oods, landslides. Island wide drought 20092010. Low volcanic activity but Soufriere volcano is likely to erupt in the future. A re in Soufriere, 1955 EC $ 1.25 M, 3 killed, 2000 homeless, 7 blocks, and 478 houses lost. Soufriere impacted by Hurricane Janet 1955, Allen 1980, Lenny 1999; tropical storm Debby 1994; 1996oods; 1960, 6 killed in landslide Fond St. Jacques, Soufriere. Hurricane H. Tomas 2010 (7 deaths, 6 killed in landslide at Fond St Jacques, Soufriere (Disaster Ofce). Island main hazards; hurricanes and tropical storms, oods, landslides. Volcano last erupted in 1979 is likely to erupt again Fancy is close to La Soufriere Volcano, can be completely cut off from the rest of the island in an eruption. Frequent hurricane impact including by Hurricane Dean 2007, Tomas, 2010. Frequent landslides and oods in the community.

Soufriere Parish2617, study areas about 750 HH Sample: 98

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Fancy (sometimes grouped with the wider Sandy Bay area)

Main national income agriculture from bananas, tourism growing. In Fancy mainly farming and shing. Decline of bananas a threat to livelihood.

Low development and employment Fancy opportunities. Village135 Most northern and most geographically remote village. HH Sample: 93 In Sandy Bay census district, which includes fancy over 50% of the population in poverty, second highest nationally. Smallest population on the island and negative population growth; out migration to look for better opportunities. Active disaster group, Red Cross group and recently formed community disaster response team. Active farmers cooperative.

References
[1] Carby B, et al. The Caribbean implementation of the Hyogo framework for action HFA: midterm review. Barbados: University of West Indies, United Nations Development Programme; 2011. [2] Abramovitz J. Unnatural disasters, World Watch, 1999 July/August. Washington, DC: World Watch Institute; 1999. [3] Bernard G. St. Towards the construction of a social vulnerability index: theoretical and methodological considerations. Social and Economic Studies 2004;53(2):129.

[4] UNISDR, Disaster risk reduction in the United Nations: roles, mandates and areas of work of key area of United Nations entities. Geneva: UNISDR; 2009. [5] Schwartz F. Civil society in Japan reconsidered. Japanese Journal of Political Science 2002;3:195215. [6] Denhardt J, Terry L, Delacruz ER, Andonoska L. Barriers to citizen engagement in developing countries. International Journal of Public Administration 2009;32:126888. [7] Firmin A, Brown N. In: The commonwealth foundation and small island developing states 20012004. London: Commonwealth Foundation; 2004.

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

93

[8] Collymore J. Disaster management in the Caribbean: Perspectives on Institutional capacity reform and development. Environmental Hazards 2011;10(1):622. [9] Commonwealth Secretariat. Commonwealth workshop on democracy and small states held in Valetta, Malta, 1012 May 2000; London: Commonwealth Secretariat; 2000. [10] Kage R. Making reconstruction work: civil society and information after wars end. Comparative Political Studies 2010;43:16387. [11] Teets JC. Post-earthquake relief and reconstruction efforts: the emergence of civil society in China? The China Quarterly 2009;198: 33047. [12] Aldrich DP. The crucial role of civil society in disaster recovery and Japans: preparedness for emergencies. Japan Aktuell 2008;3:116. [13] Brien F. Building social capital. Government Executive 2005;37(18):82. [14] Dolfsma W, Dannreuther C. Globalization, social capital and inequality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2003. [15] Edwards B, Foley MW. Social capital and the political economy of our discontent. American Behavioral Scientist 1997;40(5):669601. [16] Putnam RD. Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 1995;6(1):6578. [17] Murphy BL. Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Natural Hazards 2007;41:297315. [18] Pelling M. Participation, social capital and vulnerability in urban ooding in Guyana. Journal of International Development 1998;10: 46986. [19] UN/ISDR. Terminology for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2009; Geneva. Available from: /http://www.preventionweb.net/les/7817_UNI SDRTerminologyEnglish.pdfS. [20] Wallis J, Killerby P, Dollery B. Social economics and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics 2004;31(3):23958. [21] Amad R. Risk management, vulnerability and natural disasters in the Caribbeanreport for the International Federation of Red Cross. Kingston: Department of Geography and Geology, Unit for Disaster Studies, UWI; 2007. [22] Collymore J. Disaster mitigation and cost-benet analysis: conceptual perspectives. Conference on environment and development in Small Island States. St Michael, Barbados: CDERA; 2000. [23] Poncelet JL. Disaster management in the Caribbean. Disasters 1997;21:26779. [24] Bisek PA, Jones E, Ornstein CA. Strategy and results framework for comprehensive disaster management in the Caribbean. St Michael, Barbados: CDERA, USAID, UNDP; 2001. [25] Lewis J. Tropical cyclones and Island states. In: Skinner R, editor. Shelter, settlements, policy and the poor. London: ITDG; 1991. [26] OAS. The economics of disaster mitigation in the Caribbean: quantifying the benets and cost of mitigating natural hazard losses. Washington, DC: OAS;2005. [27] Lewis J. Island characteristics and vulnerabilities: some perspectives Datum International 2001: 2126. /http://www.islandvulner ability.org/LewisIslandCharacteristicsVulnerability.rtfS. [accessed 30.10.10]. [28] Briguglio L. Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development 1995;23(9):161532. [29] Pulwarty RS, Nurse LA, Trotz UO. Caribbean Islands in changing climate. Environmental Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 2010;52(6):1627 accessed 22.03.11. [30] Cutter S. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 1996;20(4):52939. [31] Anderson J. Vulnerability to disaster and sustainable development: a general framework for assessing vulnerability. In: Munasinge M, Clarke CC, editors. Disaster prevention for sustainable development: economic and policy issues. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1995. p. 4151. [32] Jeffery SE. The creation of vulnerability to natural disaster: case studies from the Dominican Republic. Disasters 1982;6(1):3843. [33] Twigg J. Disaster risk reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming. London: Humanitarian Practice Network, Ofce Development Institute; 2004. [34] CDEMA. Comprehensive disaster management: strategy and programme framework 20072012. /http://www.cdema.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393&Itemid=228S; 2007 [accessed 06.06.12]. [35] Boruff B, Cutter S. The environmental vulnerability of Caribbean Island nations. Geographical Review 2007;1:2445. [36] Lewis J. Development in disaster-prone places: studies of vulnerability. London: Intermediate Technology Publications; 1999. [37] Mitchell James K. Hazards research. In: Gary Gaile, Willmott Cort, editors. Geography in America. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company; 1989. p. 41024.

[38] Pelling M, Uitto JI. Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Environmental Hazards 2001;3: 4962. [39] Dow K. Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change. Geoforum 1992;23(3):41736. [40] OKeefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 1976;260:5667. [41] Blakie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. At risk: natural hazards, peoples vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge; 2004. [42] Hewitt K, Burton I. The hazardousness of a place: a regional ecology of damaging events. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1971. [43] Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2000;90:71337. [44] Cannon T. Vulnerability analysis and disasters. In: Parker DJ, editor. Floods. London: Routledge; 2000. [45] PAHO. A world safe from natural disasters: the journey of Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: PAHO; 1994. [46] Lewis J, Kelman I. The good, the bad and the ugly: disaster risk reduction (DRR) versus disaster risk creation (DRC). PLOS Currents Disasters 2012;4:122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/4f8d4eaec6af8. [47] Manyena SB. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 2006;30: 43450. [48] Manyena SB, OBrien G, OKeefe P, Rose J. Disaster resilience: a bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment 2011;16(5):41724. [49] OBrien G. UK emergency preparedness: a step in the right direction? Journal of International Affairs 2006;59:6385. [50] World Bank, United Nations. Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. Washington, DC: World Bank, United Nations; 2010. [51] Lewis J, Kelman I. Places, people and perpetuity: community capacities in ecologies of catastrophe. ACME:An international E-Journal for Critical Geographies 2010;9(2):191220 accessed 12.09.11]. [52] Morrow BH. Community resilience: a social justice perspectives. Florida: International University; 2008. [53] United Nations/ESCAP. Building community resilience to natural disasters through partnership: sharing experience and expertise in the Region. New York: United Nations/ESCAP; 2008. [54] Howell J, Lind J. Securing the world and challenging civil society: before and after the War on Terror. Development and Change 2010;41(2):27991. [55] CIVICUS. CIVICUS: world alliance for citizen participation, /http:// www.civicus.org/S; 2011 [accessed 10.12.11]. [56] Ozerdem A, Jacoby T. Disaster management and civil society: earthquake relief in Japan, Turkey and India. London: I.B. Tauris; 2005. [57] Grajzl P, Murrell P. Fostering civil society to build institutions: why and when. Economics of Transition 2009;17:141. [58] UN/ISDR. Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and poverty reduction: good practices and lessons learned. Geneva: UN/IDSDR; 2008. [59] IFRC. Rebuilding homes and livelihoods in Grenada after Hurricane Ivan. Geneva: IFRC; 2008. [60] CDEMA. Summary of the impacts of Hurricane Tomas on CDEMA participating states of Saint Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines: damage, response, immediate recovery and rehabilitation needs. Bridgetown, Barbados; 2010. [61] CDEMA. Situation report one: ood event in Barbados, Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. St. Michael, Barbados: CDEMA; 2011. [62] CDEMA. Situation Report (SITREP) #2, Ecological Disaster declared for Layou River Valley, Dominica. St. Michael, Barbados: CDEMA; 2011. [63] Global facility for disaster risk reduction: world bank. disaster risk management in Latin American and the Caribbean Region Washington, DC: GFDRR, World Bank; 2010. [64] OECS. Grenada macro-economic assessment of the damages caused by hurricane Ivan September 7th 2004. Castries, St Lucia: OECS; 2004. [65] Government of St Lucia. Population and housing census. Castries, St Lucia; 2010. [66] Caribbean Development Bank. Country poverty assessment: Dominica. Final Report, vol. 3. Trinidad and Tobago: KAIRA Consultants; 2010. [67] Ministry of nance and planning. St Vincent and the Grenadines poverty assessment 2007/2008: living conditions in a small island developing state, Final Report. Trinidad and Tobago: KAIRA Consultants; 2008.

94

I. Ferdinand et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 8494

[68] Caribbean Development Bank. Country poverty assessment: Grenada, Carriacou, and Petit Martinique. Main Report. Trinidad and Tobago: KAIRA Consultants; 2008. [69] Caribbean development Bank. Country poverty assessment: St. Lucia 2006/2007, vol. 1. Main Report. Trinidad and Tobago: KAIRA Consultants; 2007. [70] Hansen, J, Sato M, Ruedy R. (2012). Perception of climate change. Proceedings of National Academy of Science. Available from: /http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2012/2012_Hansen_etal_1.pdfS. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205276109. [71] Marsh G, Buckle P. Community: the concept of community in the risk and emergency management context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 2001;16:57. [72] Buckle P, Marsh G, Smale S. Community capacity building and local disaster preparedness. Australian Disaster Conference. Canberra, Australia: Emergency Management Australia; 2003. [73] Hellsloot I, Ruitenberg A. A citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical implications. Contingencies and Crisis Management 2004;12(3):98111.

[74] Quarantelli EL, Dynes RA. Community response to disasters. In: Sowder BT, editor. Disaster and mental health: selected contemporary perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce; 1985. p. 15868. [75] Victoria LP. Community-based approaches to disaster mitigation. Bangkok, Thailand: Asian Disaster Preparedness; 2003. [76] Gero A, Meheux K, Dominey-Howes D. Integrating community based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: examples from the Pacic. Natural Hazards Earth Systems Science 2011;11:10113. [77] Wisner B, Walker P, Beyond Kobe: a proactive look at the world conference on disaster reduction. MA, USA: Swiss Department of Humanitarian Aid, Feinstein International Famine Centre; 2005. [78] OBrien G, OKeefe P, Devisscher T, editors. The adaptation continuum: groundwork for the future. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing; 2011. [79] OKeefe P, OBrien G, Meena H, Rose J, Wilson L. Climate adaptation from a poverty perspective. Climate Policy 2008;8:194201.