Promoting Community for Disaster Risk Reduction

International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences ISSN 0973-6077 Volume 10, Number 4 (2015), pp. 1181-1194 © Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com

Promoting Community for Disaster Risk Reduction: Case of a Malaysian University Community Sumaiya Sadeka1*, Mohammad Imam Hasan Reza2, Joy Jacqueline Pereira2 Mohd Suhaimi Mohamad1 and Md. Sujahangir Kabir Sarkar2 1

School of Psychology and Human Development, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia 2 Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative (SEADPRI), Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia *Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract This article attempts to explore the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and their knowledge and experiences of disasters and participation to disaster risk reduction (DRR) programs. Using a multi stage sampling technique, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) is selected purposively among the Malaysian universities and 130 respondents are selected conveniently from this university. The study was conducted by direct interview through a set of structured questionnaires. Result shows that about 77 percent of the surveyed respondent belongs to the student category. This study finds that though most of the respondents are aware of disaster risk but their participation regarding the different DRR programs have found to be low. Only 16 percent respondents have participated in the rescue program while 32 percent participated in awareness program. Thus, the study derives negative correlation coefficient between the participation in awareness program with education, age, income and sex. Therefore, arrangement of DRR programs such as campaign, workshop, seminar etc. at a higher frequency and intensity in the university are essential to increase respondent awareness and participation, which would promote DRR programs in the university and locality as well. Key Words: Community, Disaster risk reduction, Awareness programs, University, Malaysia

1182

Sumaiya Sadeka et al

1. Introduction Occurrences of disasters are increasing worldwide over time. Disaster not only damages resources and infrastructures but also affects livelihood mostly in the developing countries and regions. In 2011, 332 natural disasters were recorded worldwide where casualties and economic losses were enormous. The death of more than 30,770 people, victims 244.7 million and a record amount of US$ 366.1 billion of damages are resulted due to these disasters (CRED, 2012). Nearly 300,000 people were killed and over 300 million people were affected in 2010 (CRED, 2011). On an yearly average, 339 disasters took place which affected 240 million people from 1990 to 2012. (CRED, 2012). The impacts of disasters induced by climate change and extreme events are likely to enhance the vulnerabilities of many of the societies and communities as well as to hamper many development investments and efforts (HDR, 2008). Malaysia is thought to be a less disaster prone country but it is not out of disaster. The impacts of climate related disasters have already observed in Malaysia through floods, landslides and haze which causes enormous property losses, livelihood vulnerability and health risk to the people and nation as well. Fifty eight (58) disasters took place in Malaysia from 1980 to 2010, which killed 1239 people and affected more than 0.6 million people with an enormous economic damage of US$ 1867 million (CRED, 2014). Thus, disasters are affecting the country in terms of loss of livelihood, property damage, disruption and destruction of infrastructures and so on. For the past few decades, climate change has been observed in Malaysia through increasing temperature, changing rainfall patterns and extreme weather conditions that lead to reported increasing incidences of climate related disasters, such as floods, droughts and landslides (Sarkar et at. 2013).However, Malaysia is indeed committed to disaster risk reduction and continues its efforts towards implementing the priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) to build resilience of nations and communities and cope better with the disasters that threaten development goals. This Framework supports a stronger recognition of climate change concerns in disaster risk reduction strategies and seeks to establish multi-disciplinary, forward-looking approach (Few et al. 2006). To reduce the disaster risk, it is important to focus disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures at the national and local level as well (DFID, 2005; GAR, 2011). Community is one of the key drivers or stakeholders for implementing successful disaster risk reduction measures especially at the local level (UNISDR, 2005; GAR, 2009 and GNCSO, 2009). Capacities of the community and level of effective participation on awareness raising programs are useful tools to reduce vulnerability and accelerating risk reduction strategies. Therefore, this article explores the university community’s knowledge and participation towards disaster risk reduction with their selected socioeconomic characteristics.

2. Disaster Risk Reduction: Concepts and Issues Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a part of disaster risk management (DRM). DRR describes the development and application of policies, strategies and practices that minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention)

Promoting Community for Disaster Risk Reduction

1183

or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development (UNISDR, 2004; Davies et al. 2008 and Baas et al. 2008). According to the UNISDR, DRR is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (UNISDR, 2009). DRR uses a wide range of options including legal, institutional and policy frameworks, administrative mechanisms and procedures related to risk reduction of current and future disasters (Begum et al. 2014). Disaster risk management (DRM)is the systematic process of using administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters (Few et al. 2006).. This comprises all forms of activities, including structural and non-structural measures to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse effects of hazards (Few et al. 2006). Butdisaster management follows four phases of an emergency event such as mitigation (preplanning), preparedness, response, and recovery (Tingsanchali, 2012). So DRM includes and goes beyond DRR by adding a management perspective that combines prevention, mitigation and preparedness with response (Baas et al. 2008). However, DRR initiatives and measures such as prevention, mitigation, preparedness, networking, local level insurance, shelter protection and water provision contribute to poverty reduction, while poverty reduction efforts such as job and livelihoods creation and protection could also help to reduce disaster risks (UNISDR, 2009). The Hyogo Framework for Actions (HFA) has outlined the roadmap for DRR, encompassing governance, risk assessment and early warning, knowledge and education, reduction of underlying risk factors in the context of development and disaster preparedness and response (UNISDR, UNDP 2012). The HFA has set five priorities for promoting DRR which are as follows:  Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.  Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.  Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.  Reduce the underlying risk factors.  Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. The approaches of disaster risk reduction (DRR) tackle the impacts of shocks and stresses, and seek to make individuals, communities and societies more resilient and less vulnerable to them (Davies et al. 2008). UNISDR defines resilience 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 efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions” while vulnerability is “the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a

1184


hazard” (UNISDR, 2009). Cannon (2010) emphasised that vulnerability must be understood as a set of socioeconomic conditions that are identifiable in relation to particular hazard risks, and therefore perform a predictive role that can assist in risk reduction whereas resilience is often confused as a concept as it is relevant in the context of policy for disaster risk reduction at the scale of community (Cannon, 2010). DRR approaches are useful in reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to the potential adverse impacts of climate-related extremes and disasters, even though a portion of risks cannot be fully eliminated (IPCC, 2012). In managing risks posed by climate change and climate-related disasters, DRR need to mainstream into all aspects of economic and social development policy at the national and local level (Begum et al. 2014). It is evident that there are multiple measures for DRR where multiple stakeholders are involved. Therefore, there is need for integration for better performance of DRR at all level. There is a growing importance of public awareness and community-based activities for disaster risk reduction. It has proved that after providing the necessary training and preparing disaster maps, communities found novel ways to improve their capabilities for reducing the impacts of potential earthquakes and responding to their effects. It is also crucial to understand the physical and technical shortages of community-based organizations in the field of disaster preparedness and management (Hossein, et al. 2014). But a crucial aspect of DRR is to identify the risk proneness of the community such as spatial scale. Assessing the physical, social and economic resilience of individuals through a Climate-related Disaster Community Resilience Framework (CDCRF), reveal that people living in the vicinity of rivers and canals are at higher risk from impacts (damages on house, diseases) of floods compared to others (Joerin, et al. 2012). Communities with limited adaptive capacity can not able to enhance their coping capacity towards disasters events. Community-driven participatory solutions are advocated for the beneficial effect in enhancing the resilience of communities to climate-related disasters (Joerin, et al. 2012).Disaster risk reduction (DRR) at the community level is usually addressed by forming community based disaster organisations and training personnel in disaster management (Ferdinand, et al. 2012). Disaster risk reduction needs to be sustainable and match with the general sustainability agenda (Alexander and Davis, 2012). Resilience is also one of the attributes of sustainable development and it provides a more systemic and crosscutting approach to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation (SudmeierRieux, 2014). The community plays a crucial role in disaster risk reduction (DRR). The community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) has been evolving in recent years which aims to strengthen the capacity of the communities to become more aware and responsive to their short-and long-term needs through participatory risk assessment and identification, prioritization, and implementation of risk reduction measures (Thi et al. 2012). The Hyogo Declaration adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Kobe in 2005 stresses that strengthening community-level capacities to reduce disaster risk at the local level is especially needed (UNISDR, 2005; Ishiwatari, 2012). In this respect, it asserted the importance of community participation, capacity building for community-level institutions, devolution of authority and resources, and


1185

the role of community-based institutions as “vital stakeholders” (UNISDR, 2005). The 2009 global assessment report (GAR) reflected a generally optimistic assessment by states of their achievements in community participation and decentralization of decision-making on disaster risk reduction (GAR, 2009). In June 2009, the Global Network of Civil Society Organisations published preliminary results of a survey of representatives of local governments, civil society organisations and community representatives in 48 countries about the implementation of risk reduction at the community level (GNCSO, 2009). These results pointed to a significant gap between national and local level that is the poor community engagement for disaster risk reduction. The lowest scores were attributed to the level of attainment of effective community participation in decision-making. Similarly, the IFRC‟s internal survey found that “national prioritisation and profiling is not translating into community level actions, with very limited community participation in national decision-making” (IFRC, 2010). Community organization can increase DRR capacity but lack of coordination and collaboration may increase vulnerability. Poor communities have strong mechanisms to manage disasters and the strong internal ties largely influence community efforts to address DRR. There is need for multi-stakeholder partnerships to reduce vulnerability and build resilience in communities (Ferdinand, et al. 2012). As an important institution, university can play a vital role to promote DRR at the community level.

3. Materials and Methods A survey has been conducted through direct interview for collecting data from the respondents. It adopted qualitative techniques of data collection using a structured questionnaire. Multi stage sampling technique has been applied for sample selection. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) is being selected purposively as the project under that university which aims to examine the perception of an enlightened community. Total 130 respondents who must be associated with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) were interviewed. The respondents are mostly student and staff of the university. Data were collected during 15 February to 15 April 2014 where a self-constructed questionnaire was used to collect primary data considering the objective of the study. A set of factors associated with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and related knowledge and experiences of DRR of the respondent have been selected in the questionnaire. These included socio-economic status, household assets, disaster related experiences and losses, knowledge regarding DRR and so on. The study area was the UKM main campus in Bangi and the samples are collected through convenient sampling techniques. The major areas of collected sample are student hall, library and residential area. The collected data was analysed by simple statistical technique like frequency distribution, percentage of frequency etc. Several correlation coefficients have measured to explore the relationship between the variables.

1186


4. Result and Discussion 4.1 Socio-economic background of the respondents Table 1 shows the selected socio-economic characteristics of the respondent. Most of the respondents are very young. The result shows that average age of the respondents is 25.44 years. Table 1 Distribution of respondents according to the selected characteristics Characteristics

Categories

Respondent Mean No. Percent Age group (years) 50 02 01.50 Education level Primary 06 04.62 Secondary 22 16.92 Bachelor degree 75 57.69 Masters 25 19.23 Ph.D. 02 01.54 Occupation Student 97 76.60 Service provider 09 06.90 Self-employed 01 00.80 Private 01 00.80 Others 22 16.90 Sex Male 31 23.80 Female 99 76.20 Race Malay 120 92.30 Chinese 05 03.80 Indian 01 00.80 Others 04 03.10 Residence College hostel 94 72.30 Condominium 01 00.80 Flat 03 02.30 Others 32 24.60 Household size 2-4 37 28.50 4-6 58 44.60 7-9 34 26.10 5.31 >9 01 00.80 Household head status Household head 26 20.00 Not household head 104 80.00 Household income (in RM) 5000 10 07.69


1187

The survey found that 76.20 percent of the respondents are aged between 21-30 years (Table 1). In case of the education level, the study shows that about 58 percent respondent received bachelor degree while primary, secondary and master degree are about 5, 17 and 19 percent respectively. It is noted that about 77 percent of the surveyed population belong to the student category while 7 percent are the service provider. Women are the dominating number, which consists of 76 percent of the total surveyed population, which reflects the ratio of 2011/12 academic year as of 70:30 (New Straits Times, 2011). Women are now increasingly entering into the education and job market in Malaysia. The survey found that almost 92 percent of the respondents are Malay where Chinese, Indian and others are 4, 1 and 3 percent respectively. This is because Malaysia is a Malay majority country and 55 percent of the total populations are Malay. Table 1 also shows that about 71 percent of the respondents are residing in the college hostel, which reflects that most of the surveyed population lives inside the university. The estimated average household size of the respondent family is 5.31 where about 45 percent, 28.50 percent and 26.10 percent respondent belongs to the household size of 4-6, 2-4 and 7-9 respectively. Only 20 percent respondents are household head while 80.00 percent are non-household head. This is because of the most of the student are dependent on their parents. The study also explores the respondent’s household income. About 44 percent respondent replied their household income range from RM1000-3000 while 39 percent, 09 percent and 8 percent responded about their household income RM5000 respectively).

4.2 Experience and impact of disasters Table 2 shows the disaster experience of the respondents and its impact on them. The study asked to the respondent about their experience of disaster. More than 40 percent of them opined that they have direct experience of disaster while rest of them does not have that experience. About 30 percent of the experienced respondents observed landslide while flood and earthquake constituted 6 and 2 percent respectively. A significant number of respondents (About 27 percent) were stayed at hostel during disaster. Only one respondent has lossed family member during disaster while 10 percent respondent faced economic loss due to disaster. Respondent did not face physical loss except one while other loss due to disaster have found in case of 2 respondent (Table 2).

1188

Sumaiya Sadeka et al Table 2 Experience and impact of disasters Experience and impacts

Category

Respondent Number Percent Experience of disaster Yes 53 40.80 No 77 59.20 Disaster type Flood 08 06.20 Landslide 35 29.90 Earthquake 03 02.30 Building collapse 01 00.80 Others 06 04.60 Presence during disaster Hostel 35 26.90 House 07 05.40 Office 07 05.40 Others 04 03.10 Loosed family members Yes 01 00.80 No 129 99.20 Anyone loosed family members Yes 01 00.80 No 129 99.20 Financial loss Yes 13 10.00 No 117 90.00 Physical loss Yes 01 00.80 No 129 99.20 Other loss Yes 02 01.50 No 128 98.50

Knowledge and participation are very important element for the successful disaster risk reduction. Table 3 provides the results of the knowledge and participation of the respondent to disaster risk reduction and related issues. UKM is a disaster risk prone area due to its hilly surroundings. It has proved by the respondent opinion as well. About 89 percent of the respondent said yes about the disaster risk existence in UKM. However, the participation regarding the different DRR programs have found to be low. Only 16 percent respondents have participated in the rescue program while 32 percent participated in awareness program, which is shown in Table 3. The awareness programs were campaign and workshop/seminar where 17 percent and 12 percent of respondent joined respectively. Community member involvement is one of the key to reduce disaster risk but the respondent opinion is quite opposite where only 33 percent replied that community involvement is needed for DRR. About 80 percent of the respondents have expressed their opinion that the role of government agency is important to DRR.


1189

Table 3Knowledge and participation of disaster risk reduction and related issues Knowledge and participation

Category

Respondent Number Percent Disaster risk in UKM Yes 115 88.50 No 15 11.50 Rescue program Yes 21 16.20 No 109 83.80 Awareness program Yes 42 32.30 No 88 67.70 Type of awareness program Campaign 22 16.90 Workshop/seminar 15 11.50 Early warning 00 00.00 Others 05 03.80 Community member involvement Yes 43 33.10 No 87 66.90 Measure taken by the authority Early warning 74 56.90 Rescue 32 24.60 Preparedness 20 15.40 Others 04 03.10 Satisfaction of the measurement Yes 89 68.50 No 41 31.50 Dept./institute in UKM Yes 50 38.50 No 80 61.50 Drill program Yes 77 59.20 No 53 40.80 Importance of disaster preparedness Yes 122 93.80 No 08 06.20 Willingness to attend in the preparedness Yes 110 84.60 program No 20 15.40 Individual responsibility to DRR Strongly agree 54 41.50 Somewhat agree 34 26.20 Agree 40 30.80 Disagree 02 01.50 Strongly disagree 00 00.00 Need of disaster brigade/committee Yes 66 50.80 No 64 49.20 Disaster brigade in UKM Yes 105 80.80 No 25 19.20 Willingness to be a member of such brigade Yes 40 30.80 No 90 69.20 Role of govt agency to DRR Yes 105 80.80 No 25 19.20

1190


4.3 Correlation between DRR and socio-economic component There is a relationship between the socio-economic components and DRR measures especially at community level. Altin et al. (2014) shows that students have high level of environmental awareness and participations while female students have a higher level of environmental awareness and active participation. They also signify that when family income and family education level increases, environmental awareness and active participation level of students also increases. The result of this study provides similar proofs for education but dissimilar for income. Table 4 Correlation coefficient of between DRR measures and socio-economic components Pearson’s correlation coefficient Education and -0.08 participation in awareness program Relationship variable

Education and -0.166 participation in rescue program Sex and participation -0.154 in rescue program Income and -0.115 participation in awareness program

Education and 0.006 willingness to attend awareness program Age and willingness 0.087 to attend awareness program Sex and willingness 0.062 to attend awareness program

Comments

Participation in awareness program differs in the level of education where 63% of the respondent having masters and PhD level education participated in awareness program while it was 25% for primary and secondary and 25%, bachelor level education Participation in rescue program for all level education was found to be very low which was only 16.20% of the total respondent In this study, male participation (39%) is higher than female participation (30%) in awareness program Participation in awareness program differs in the level of income where only 9% of high income respondent (more than RM3000) participated in awareness program while it was 37% for low income (