| 008 |
|
130507n^^^^^^^^xx^||||^o^^^^^|||^0^eng^d |
| 245 |
00 |
|a Challenges to disaster risk reduction |h [electronic resource] |b a study of stakeholders’ perspectives in Imizamo Yethu, South Africa |y English. |
| 260 |
|
|a Potchefstroom : |b African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, |c 2011. |
| 506 |
|
|a Refer to main document/publisher for use rights. |
| 510 |
|
|a Roth, A., Becker, P. (2011). Challenges to disaster risk reduction: a study of stakeholders’ perspectives in Imizamo Yethu, South Africa. JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 3 (2): 443-452. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a This case study of the Imizamo Yethu settlement in South Africa outlines major challenges facing disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies in informal communities within rapidly growing urban centers of developing countries. The authors believe that in order for DRR to be successful, the theories that guide implementation must be grounded in empirical realities. Despite rapid economic growth over the past few decades, there has been little overall improvement in human development within South Africa. This has had serious implications for the country’s rather sophisticated National Disaster Management Act of 2002, which makes DRR one of its main pillars. The authors use an inductive approach to determine the various barriers to its effective implementation. They conduct qualitative interviews with stakeholders within Imizamo Yethu, including local chairmen, development workers, health centers, the fire department, town planners, and the City of Cape Town Disaster Risk Management Centre. From these interviews five categories concerning challenges to DRR in settlements like Imizamo Yethu were gleaned. Rapid unplanned growth of informal urban settlements was one. Originally designed to house 3,000 people, the number living there today is anywhere from 16,000 to 36,000, all growth without proper land-use management, multiplying risks. A second challenge is a lack of land. This has meant accessibility problems, making responses to emergency situations particularly difficult. The third barrier to effective implementation of DRR is politics, such as competing agendas, bureaucratic red tape, and unclear accountability frameworks. Fourthly, the absence of institutional capacity, human resources, or financial wherewithal to meet basic daily needs, means that more sophisticated policies have little chance of success. And lastly, the ubiquity of risky behavior across the community, whether out of desperation or lack of education, is another significant barrier imbedded within the local cultural milieu. The authors conclude that DRR is fundamentally a development problem. When communities struggle with day-to-day survival, disaster risks become viewed as insignificant. Thus focus should be on sustainable development through long-term strategies that facilitate viable livelihoods and decent living conditions. DRR also requires community ownership. Risk reduction efforts thus need to have an educational component that makes people aware of their responsibility for their community’s safety and the development of a culture of safety. |
| 520 |
0 |
|a Disaster Risk Reduction |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Florida International University, |d 2013. |f (dpSobek) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 710 |
2 |
|a Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Florida International University (DRR/FIU), |e summary contributor. |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13042148/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/13/04/21/48/00001/FI13042148_thm.jpg |
