A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Can poor rural communities exposed to flooding effectively participate in DRM policy making and priority-setting if they are provided with accurate and comprehensive information about the hazard?
- If they can effectively participate, what FRM policy options do people living in flood prone areas support and what do these policy choices tell us about absorptive and adaptive capacities required for community flood resilience strengthening?
- What is the level of trust of the flood affected people in government and community governance structures adopting and implementing FRM policy priorities they set through community consultation processes?
2. Community Consultation for Flood Risk Management
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Case Studies
3.3. Data Collection
3.3.1. Desk Review to Identify Previously Implemented DRM Interventions
3.3.2. Deliberative Polling Advisory Group and Specialist Panel
3.3.3. Sampling
- n = sample size,
- p = proportion of population containing the major interest,
- z = Z-statistic corresponding with confidence level,
- e = confidence interval,
- N = population size.
3.3.4. Selection and Training of Moderators and Research Assistants
3.3.5. Pre-DP Survey (Baseline Cross-Sectional Survey)
3.3.6. Deliberation
At the Deliberative Event: Briefing Materials
At the Deliberative Poll: Small Group and Plenary Sessions
3.4. After the Deliberative Event: Post-DP Survey
3.5. Data Analysis
4. Results
“I agree with what he said because this is what is happening. Do you know that most people from Ndamera are in Nyachikadza? As we speak, people are in the lowlands cultivating the crops. The river doesn’t flood every day. It’s only the first 3 month, in January, February and March. After that we go back to our land to continue farming”.(Group 9 Participant)
“The exchange of land is already in progress, some people in Ndamera have been given land to cultivate in Nyachikadza. To be honest, a lot of people from Nyachikadza have houses here in the upland. This is what we already do”.(Group 19 Participant)
4.1. Shift in the Level of Community Support for Various Flood Mitigation Policy Options
4.1.1. Relocation and Resettlement Proposals
“We cannot move from Nyachikadza because we were born there and our parents have died there. Furthermore, when we see the water levels rising, we are able to know that those waters are harmful, we then run. People from Ndamera also come to settle in our land for cultivation. We cannot relocate because Nyachikadza is very fertile and we produce a lot of crops. We cannot relocate”.(Participant Group 9)
4.1.2. Reducing Vulnerabilities in the Existing Communities
“This is what we do, when floods occur, we move to the uplands, when the levels have lowered, we go back and work on our fields. This is a good policy option. Complete relocation is what we don’t want”.(Participant Group 11)
“The government should just construct a dyke because we have everything we need in Nyachikadza. Nothing comes from the upland and goes to the lowland. We don’t buy anything there because we produce all we need. A dyke should be constructed”.(Participant Group 1)
“A dyke will not be the best solution because heavy rains and water come with a lot of pressure that may even damage the dyke. They should settle here and go back to just cultivate. Otherwise, lives will be lost”.(Participant Group 1)
4.1.3. Population Pressure, Gender and Social Services
“It is important to ensure that women do not lose their family land because they need to use that land to take care of their children and to send their children to school. But if the woman is still young and if she gets married to another man then it is better that she loses the land”.(Participant Group 5)
“Chuma chili mu nthaka (Wealth is in the ground (in agriculture)), therefore women should not lose the land. But if there are no children between this widow and the late husband the woman needs to lose the land”.(Participant Group 7)
“We cannot agree with that; same way the government cannot establish a Malawian collective food storage in Zambia”.(Participant Group 6)
“This is what we have been looking for because in the past we had a health centre. We lose a lot of people through diseases than floods, for example, per last year 7 people died due to Cholera while only 2 died due to floods, so we need this”.(Participant Group 1)
4.1.4. Top Five Policy Options Supported by the Communities
“This is an important law … this is what should be done. Am asking you my friends that in this room to please let your children go to school first. As much as we all want an in-law who can help us out at our homes, but our children’s school needs must come first. Our children should be independent in the future”.(Participant Group 4)
“Village Savings and Loans must really be promoted to increase our sources of income. We are enjoying being in these groups because whenever you run out of money for food, you explain to the group, and they willingly provide a loan. In that way you reduce the burden on yourself and on your husband. You are also able to pay school fees using that money”.(Participant Group 8)
“I would like to agree with my fellow women, family planning is very important. You may die young if you can be bearing children every year. We need to take heed of the advice from the hospital. Other men are abusive, they do not accept this issue of family planning, but others are good they provide enough support to a woman on these issues”.(Participant Group 11)
“It is very true some women are victimised during this period, so the government should really increase the security, this will help prevent women to live in fear”.(Participant Group 17)
“I believe we had security in 2015 in the camps that were made. But an issue that was there was that the security personnel started having affairs with women in the camps and women were submissive because they wanted to have favours in receiving food. Government should put in place suggestion boxes where we can be submitting complaints”.(Participant Group 10)
“This would be very good because if parents are not motivated to send their children to school but they notice that their neighbour is sending all their children to school, and is even receiving a cash transfer on top of that, they will be motivated to send their children to school as well”.(Participant Group 4)
4.1.5. Participants’ Trust in the Use of Results by Government and Community
5. Discussion
5.1. Reciprocal Adaptation to Flooding and Limited Participation in DRM Activities
5.2. Potential of Poor Rural Communities to Participate in Policy Priority Setting
5.3. The Topmost Rated Flood Risk Management Policy Priorities
5.4. Trust in Government and Community Systems
6. Conclusions
7. Study Limitations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Meteorological Organization. WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate, and Water Extremes (1970–2019); WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Public Health Risk Assessment and Interventions Flooding Disaster: Nigeria 1 November 2012; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Trogrlić, R.S.; Wright, G.B.; Adeloye, A.J.; Duncan, M.J.; Mwale, F. Taking stock of community-based flood risk management in Malawi: Different stakeholders, different perspectives. Environ. Hazards 2018, 17, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
- Cernea, M.M. Public Policy Responses to Development-Induced Population Displacement. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 1996, 31, 1515–1523. [Google Scholar]
- Ferris, E. Planned relocations, disasters and climate change. In Proceedings of the Conference on Climate Change and Migration in the Asia-Pacific: Legal and Policy Responses, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 10–11 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver-Smith, A. Successes and failures in post-disaster resettlement. Disasters 1991, 15, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McAdam, J. Historical Cross-Border Relocations in the Pacific: Lessons for Planned Relocations in the Context of Climate Change. J. Pac. Hist. 2014, 49, 301–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Collins, M. Carteret islanders at the atolls resettlement scheme: A response to land loss and population growth. In Implications of Expected Climate Changes in the South Pacific Region: An Overview; UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 128; Pernetta, J.C., Hughes, P.J., Eds.; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 1989; Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/13341/retrieve (accessed on 1 September 2021).
- World Bank. Involuntary Resettlement Sourcebook: Planning and Implementation in Development Projects; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tanwattana, P. Systematizing Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM): Case of Urban Flood-Prone Community in Thailand Upstream Area. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 28, 798–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trogrlić, R.Š.; Wright, G.; Adeloye, A.; Duncan, M.J. Community Based-Flood Risk Management: Experiences and Challenges in Malawi. In Proceedings of the XVI World Water Congress, Cancun, Mexico, 29 May–3 June 2017; pp. 1–13. Available online: http://wwc2017.iwra.org/congress/resource/ABSID173_ABSID173_SakicTrogrlicetal.2017.FinalApprovedVersion.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
- Shiwaku, K.; Shaw, R. Proactive Co-Learning: A New Paradigm in Disaster Education. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2008, 17, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, T.N. Flood Events in Gangapur Village, Banke District: An Example of Climate Change-Induced Disaster in Nepal. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2018, 19, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woodward, M.; Gouldby, B.; Kapelan, Z.; Khu, S.-T.; Townend, I. Real options in flood risk management decision making. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2011, 4, 339–349. [Google Scholar]
- Tyler, J.; Sadiq, A.A.; Noonan, D.S. A review of the community flood risk management literature in the USA: Lessons for improving community resilience to floods. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 1223–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyler, J.; Sadiq, A.A.; Noonan, D.S. Decision Making for Managing Community Flood Risks: Perspectives of United States Floodplain Managers. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2021, 12, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, A.; Wright, E. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance; The Real Utopia Project: Madison, WI, USA, 2003; Volume IV. [Google Scholar]
- Lovan, W.R.; Murray, M.; Shaffer, R. Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Rowe, G.; Frewer, L. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2005, 30, 251–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, S.; McDonald, R. The Politics of Healthcare in Britain; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kathlene, L.; Martin, J. Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives and Policy Formation. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 1991, 10, 46–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, L.; Gelber, K. Ideas for Community Consultation: A Discussion on Principles and Procedures for Making Consultation Work; A report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning; Department of Urban Affairs and Planning: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2001.
- Fishkin, J.; Luskin, R. Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Polit. 2005, 40, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, R.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, K. Conducting Group Interviews in Developing Countries (AID Program Design and Evaluation Methodology Report No. 8); USAID Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
- Sternberg, P. Who’s in Your Shoes? Praeger: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Florin, D.; Dixon, J. Public involvement in health care. Br. Med. J. 2004, 328, 159–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meier, B.M.; Pardue, C.; London, L. Implementing community participation through legislative reform: A study of the policy framework for community participation in the Western Cape province of South Africa. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights 2012, 12, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neema, S.; Bua, G.M.; Tuhebwe, D.; Ssentongo, J.; Tumuhamye, N.; Mayega, R.W.; Fishkin, J.; Atuyambe, L.M.; Bazeyo, W. Community Perspective on Policy Options for Resettlement Management: A Case Study of Risk Reduction in Bududa, Eastern Uganda. PLoS Curr. 2018, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Adm. Rev. 2004, 64, 55–65. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3542626 (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Chinsinga, B. Exploring the Politics of Land Reforms in Malawi: A Case Study of the Community Based Rural Land Development Programme (CBRLDP); Discussion Paper Series Number Twenty; Chancellor College, University of Malawi: Zomba, Malawi, 2008. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08baced915d622c000e15/IPPGDP20.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2021).
- Chiweza, A.L. Participation: Reality or rhetoric in rural communities of Malawi. Tanzanet J. 2005, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, S.; Barnett, J.; Fincher, R.; Mortreux, C.; Hurlimann, A. Towards fair local outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise. Clim. Change 2014, 130, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D.S.G.; Twyman, C. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource dependent societies. Glob. Env. Chang. 2005, 15, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullen, B. Philosophical theories of justice. In Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Scherer, K.R., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Fullana, M.A.; Tortella-Feliu, M.; De La Cruz, L.F.; Chamorro, J.; Pérez-Vigil, A.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Solanes, A.; Guardiola, M. Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychol. Med. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagliaro, S.; Sacchi, S.; Pacilli, M.G.; Brambilla, M.; Lionetti, F.; Bettache, K. Trust predicts COVID-19 prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions in 23 countries. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verger, P.; Bocquier, A.; Vergelys, C.; Ward, J.; Peretti-Watel, P. Flu vaccination among patients with diabetes: Motives, perceptions, trust, and risk culture—A qualitative survey. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- O’Malley, P.; Rainford, J.; Thompson, A. Transparency during public health emergencies: From rhetoric to reality. Bull. World Health Organ. 2009, 87, 614–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meredith, L.S.; Eisenman, D.P.; Rhodes, H.; Ryan, G.; Long, A. Trust influences response to public health messages during a bioterrorist event. J. Health Commun. 2007, 12, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Q.; Zheng, B.; Cristea, M.; Agostini, M.; Belanger, J.; Gutzkow, B. Trust in Government and Its Associations with Health Behaviour and Prosocial Behaviour During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychol Med. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Munroe-Clarke, M. Citizen Participation in Government; Hale and Iromonger: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Bellamy, J.; Johnson, A. ICM and Sustainable Agriculture: Moving from Rhetoric to Practice. Presented at the Second National Workshop on Integrated Catchment Management, Canberra, ACT, Australlia, 29 September–1 October 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Holland, I. Consultation, Constraints and Norms: The Case of Nuclear Waste. AJPA 2002, 61, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crase, L.; Dollery, B.; Wallis, J. Conceptualising Community Consultation in Public Policy Formulation: The Case of the Living Murray Debate in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia; Working Paper Series in Economics; University of New England: Armidale, NSW, Australlia, 2004; Available online: https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/67942/econ-2004-12.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2022).
- Barber, B.R. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age; Berkeley: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Dryzek, J.S. Discursive Democracy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Geertz, C. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Shahidullah, S.M. Useful sociology: Can sociological knowledge be valuable in policy-making? Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 1998, 18, 86–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oluseyi, O.; Fabiyi, G.; Akinbola, J.; Oloukoi, F.; Thonteh, G.; Enaruvbe, E.; Adagbasa, B.O. Integrative Approach of Indigenous Knowledge and Scientific Methods for Flood Risk Analyses, Responses and Adaptation in Rural Coastal Communities in Nigeria; Final project report for 2011 START grants for Global Change Research in Africa; Climate and Development Knowledge Network: Cape Town, South Africa, 2011; Available online: http://www.start.org/download/gec11/fabiyi-final-report.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
- Graham, S.; Barnett, J.; Fincher, R.; Hurlimann, A.; Morteux, C.; Waters, E. The social values at risk from sea-level rise. Environ. Impac. Assess. Rev. 2013, 41, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barber, B.B. Opinion Polls: Public Judgment or Private Prejudice? Responsive Community 1992, 2, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
- Walton, D. Appeal to Popular Opinion; Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Lumbroso, D. Flood risk management in Africa. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2020, 13, e12612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahangiri, K.; Izadkhah, Y.; Tabibi, S. A comparative study on community-based disaster management in selected countries and designing a model for Iran. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2011, 20, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R. Community Based Flood Risk Management: Local Knowledge and Actor’s Involvement Approach from Lower Karnali River Basin of Nepal. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2021, 9, 35–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, L. Innovative consultation processes and the changing role of activism. Third Sect. Rev. 2001, 7, 7–22. Available online: http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles/08_activism.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
- Emery, M.; Purser, R.E. The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and Community Action; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Fishkin, J. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy; Yale University Press: New Haven, NH, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Coote, N.; Lenaghan, J. Citizen’s Juries: Theory into Practice; Institute for Public Policy Research: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Renouf, C. Rebirthing Democracy: The Experience of the First Australian Consensus Conference. Consum. Interest 1999, 79, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
- Smischney, N.J.; Pannu, J.; Hinds, R.F.; McCormick, J.B. Community Consultation for Planned Emergent Use Research: Experiences from an Academic Medical Center. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2018, 7, e10062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forseyth, M. The Charrette—Is it an effective consultation tool? In Proceedings of the 1996 Open Government, Community Consultation and Participation Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 23–24 October 1996. Reprinted in: Open Government Network. Reaching Common Ground Conference 1996 Proceedings: Open Government Community Consultation and Public Participation 23–24 October 1996; Open Government Network: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Mann, C.; Vob, J.P.; Amelung, N.; Simons, A.; Runge, T.; Grabner, L. Challenging Futures of Citizen Panels: Critical Issues for Robust Forms of Public Participation; Technische Universität: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Available online: www.innovation-in-governance.org (accessed on 16 February 2022).
- Carson, L.; Martin, B. Random Selection in Politics; Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Dewa, O.; Makoka, D.; Ayo-Yusuf, O.A. Assessing Capacity and Implementation Status of the Disaster Risk Management Strategy for Health and Community Disaster Resilience in Malawi. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2021, 12, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadeyo, E.; Chen, D.; Ayugi, B.; Yao, C. Characterization of Spatio-Temporal Trends and Periodicity of Precipitation over Malawi during 1979–2015. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GOM. Malawi 2019 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report; Government of Malawi: Lilongwe, Malawi, 2019.
- Resilient Africa Network. Gauging Citizens’ Voice: Strengthening Resilience in Nsanje District, Southern Malawi; Southern Africa Resilience Innovation Lab: Lilongwe, Malawi, 2017; Available online: https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2017/10/malawi-dp-final-report.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2021).
- World Bank. Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment: Poverty and Equity Global Practice Africa Region; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- GOM. Independent Environmental Impact Assessment for the Upgraded Kamuzu Barrage: Final Resettlement Action Plan; Volume 2—Record of Consultation; Government of Malawi: Lilongwe, Malawi, 2013.
- Kish, L. Survey Sampling; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Israel, D. Determining Sample Size; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Yamane, T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed.; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Siu, A.; Fishkin, J.; He, B.; Wang, R. Deliberative Democracy in China: Connecting a Deliberative Poll with the Local People’s Congress. In Proceedings of the 2009 APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3–6 September 2009; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1468086 (accessed on 16 February 2022).
- Castleberry, A.; Nolen, A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Curr. Pharm. Teach. Kearning 2018, 10, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakotobe, Z.L.; Harvey, C.A.; Rao, N.S.; Dave, R.; Rakotondravelo, J.C.; Randrianarisoa, J.; Ramanahadray, S.; Andriambolantsoa, R.; Razafimahatratra, H.; Rabarijohn, R.H.; et al. Strategies of smallholder farmers for coping with the impacts of cyclones: A case study from Madagascar. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 17, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nguyen, K.V.; James, H. Measuring Household Resilience to Floods: A Case Study in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liao, K.H. From Flood Control to Flood Adaptation: A Case Study on the Lower Green River Valley and the City of Kent in King County, Washington. Nat. Hazards 2014, 71, 723–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuang, D.; Liao, K.H. Learning from Floods: Linking flood experience and flood resilience. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 111025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lolig, V.; Donkoh, S.A.; Obeng, F.K.; Ansah, K.G.I.; Jasaw, G.S.; Kusakari, Y.; Asubonteng, K.O. Households’ Coping Strategies in Drought-and Flood-Prone Communities in Northern Ghana. J. Disaster Res. 2014, 9, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Breen, P.; Anderies, J.M. Resilience: A Literature Review; Institute of Development Studies, Bellagio Initiative: Brighton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chawawa, N. Why Do Smallholder Farmers Insist on Living in Flood Prone Areas? Understanding Self-Perceived Vulnerability and Dynamics of Local Adaptation in Malawi; University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Trogrlić, R.W.G.; Duncan, M.; van den Homberg, M.A.; Adebayo, M.; Faidess, M.J. Characterising Local Knowledge across the Flood Risk Management Cycle: A Case Study of Southern Malawi. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shariff, N.N.M.; Hamidi, Z.S. Community-based approach for a flood preparedness plan in Malaysia. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2019, 11, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tugendhaft, A.; Hofman, K.; Danis, M.; Kahn, K.; Erzse, A.; Twine, R.; Marthe Gold, M.; Christofides, N. Deliberative engagement methods on health care priority-setting in a rural South African community. Health Policy Plan. 2021, 36, 1279–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, R.; Mason, H.; McHugh, N.; Donaldson, C. Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices. Soc. Sci. 2021, 277, 113892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturgis, P.; Roberts, C.; Allum, N. A Different Take on the Deliberative Poll Information, Deliberation, and Attitude Constraint. Public Opin. Q 2005, 69, 30–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mavhura, E.; Collins, A.; Bongo, P. Flood vulnerability and relocation readiness in Zimbabwe. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2017, 26, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puertas, D.G.-L.; van Steenbergen, F.; Haile, A.M.; Kool, M.; Embaye, T.G. Flood Based Farming Systems in Africa; Overview paper; Flood-Based Livelihood Network: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011; Available online: http://spate-irrigation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/OP5_Flood-based-farming-in-Africa_SF.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2022).
- Rey-Valette, H.; Robert, S.; Rulleau, B. Resistance to relocation in flood-vulnerable coastal areas: A proposed composite index. Clim. Policy 2019, 19, 206–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chisty, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Khan, N.A.; Dola, S.E.A. Assessing Community Disaster Resilience in Flood-Prone Areas of Bangladesh: From a Gender Lens. Water 2022, 14, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, J. Justice and adaptation to climate change. In Climate Change and Social Justice; Moss, J., Ed.; Melbourne University Press: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2009; pp. 131–143. [Google Scholar]
- Emmanuel, S.; Mbaya, S.; Codispoti, B.; Atananga, J.; Moseti, B.; Mugehera, L. Women’s Land Rights in Africa: Does Implementation Match Policy? In Proceedings of the Conference on Land Policy in Africa, 2019: Winning the Fight against Corruption in the Land Sector: Sustainable Pathway for Africa’s Transformation, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 25–29 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Tanner, T.; Zaman, R.; Acharya, S.; Gogoi, E.; Bahadur, A. Influencing resilience: The role of policy entrepreneurs in mainstreaming climate adaptation. Disasters 2019, 43, S388–S411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ge, Y.; Yang, G.; Wang, X. Understanding risk perception from floods: A case study from China. Nat. Hazards 2021, 105, 3119–3140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dube, E.; Mtapuri, O.; Matunhu, J. Managing flood disasters on the built environment in the rural communities of Zimbabwe: Lessons learnt. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2018, 10, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Variables | Category | TA Ndamera Upland n = 222 | TA Nyachikadza Lowland n = 246 | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |||
Gender | Male | 116 | 52.3% | 181 | 73.6% | |
Female | 106 | 47.7% | 65 | 26.4% | ||
0.000 *** | ||||||
Current occupation | Farmer | 199 | 89.6% | 239 | 97.2% | |
Non-Farmer | 23 | 10.4% | 7 | 2.8% | ||
0.001 ** | ||||||
Marital status | Married | 182 | 82% | 203 | 82.5% | |
Single | 7 | 3% | 13 | 5.3% | ||
Divorced | 4 | 2% | 8 | 3.3% | ||
Widowed | 29 | 13% | 22 | 8.9% | ||
0.259 | ||||||
Highest level of education | None | 55 | 24.8% | 55 | 22.4% | |
Primary | 101 | 45.5% | 157 | 63.8% | ||
Secondary | 66 | 29.7% | 34 | 13.8% | ||
0.000 *** | ||||||
Have a member of the family chronically ill | Yes | 30 | 13.5% | 34 | 13.8% | |
No | 192 | 86.5% | 212 | 86.2% | ||
0.923 | ||||||
Ownership of land in both communities | Yes | 135 | 60.8% | 36 | 14.6% | |
No | 87 | 39.2% | 210 | 85.4% | ||
0.000 *** | ||||||
Membership to the Village or Area Civil Protection Committees | Yes | 77 | 34.7% | 35 | 14.2% | |
No | 145 | 65.3% | 211 | 85.8% | ||
0.000 *** | ||||||
Having an alternative place to go to during times of a flood | Yes | 61 | 27.5% | 161 | 65.4% | |
No | 161 | 72.5% | 85 | 34.6% | ||
0.000 *** | ||||||
Having any training or education on disasters or flooding | Yes | 63 | 28.4% | 64 | 26% | |
No | 159 | 71.6% | 182 | 74% | ||
0.566 | ||||||
Age [Years] | n/a | 43.3 | 44.1 | 0.613 † | ||
Household size [children] | n/a | 6.2 | 6.4 | 0.335 † | ||
Perception of economic value of the Shire River [Mean score] | n/a | 8.41 | 8.36 | 0.836 † | ||
Perception of risk posed by the Shire River [Mean score] | n/a | 6.33 | 6.85 | 0.074 † |
Variable | TA Ndamera | TA Nyachikadza | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | |
1. Facilitate relocation of TA Nyachikadza community to suitable land in high land area within same district | 7.11 | 6.64 | −0.47 | 1.35 | 2.32 | 0.97 ** | 4.06 | 4.35 | 0.29 |
2. Facilitate relocation of TA Nyachikadza community to best suitable land anywhere in Malawi | 3.84 | 4.77 | 0.93 ** | 0.35 | 0.79 | 0.44 ** | 2.00 | 2.68 | 0.68 *** |
3. Should only proceed with resettlement after it has developed plan that is approved by TA Nyachikadza community | 6.97 | 6.93 | −0.04 | 2.54 | 3.11 | 0.57 * | 4.64 | 4.92 | 0.28 |
4. Provide legal title to land for TA Nyachikadza community members before relocation | 7.02 | 6.31 | −0.71 ** | 1.83 | 3.06 | 1.23 * | 4.29 | 4.60 | 0.31 |
5. Facilitate complete relocation but allow communities to continue using land for crop cultivation | 8.01 | 7.71 | −0.30 | 2.36 | 3.93 | 1.57 * | 5.04 | 5.72 | 0.68 *** |
6. Prohibit provision of any social service in TA Nyachikadza as way of ‘forcing’ people to relocate | 4.43 | 4.61 | 0.18 | 0.86 | 1.2 | 0.34 | 2.55 | 2.82 | 0.27 |
7. Provide increased social services in TA Ndamera if people are relocated there | 7.99 | 7.43 | −0.56 * | 1.6 | 2.02 | 0.42 | 4.63 | 4.59 | −0.04 |
8. Facilitate TA Ndamera’s access to low land for crop cultivation in exchange for hosting TA Nyachikadza’s residence in upland (TA Ndamera) | 6.12 | 6.08 | −0.04 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 0.1 | 3.40 | 3.44 | 0.04 |
9. Facilitate increased agricultural production in TA Ndamera | 6.92 | 7.32 | 0.4 | 1.24 | 1.82 | 0.58 * | 3.93 | 4.42 | 0.49 ** |
Variable | TA Ndamera | TA Nyachikadza | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | |
1. Construct a dyke along the Shire River from Nsanje District Centre to TA Nyachikadza | 6.38 | 5.21 | −1.17 *** | 7.87 | 9.12 | 1.25 ** | 7.16 | 7.27 | 0.11 |
2. Construct a dyke along the Shire River from Nsanje District Centre to TA Nyachikadza with labour from communities coordinated by District Council as part of the Public Works Programme | 6.67 | 5.09 | −1.58 *** | 7.90 | 8.82 | 0.92 ** | 7.32 | 7.05 | −0.27 |
3. Allow TA Nyachikadza communities to ‘access’ land upland to temporarily relocate during floods and return afterwards | 5.77 | 7.38 | 1.61 *** | 6.51 | 7.64 | 1.13 ** | 6.16 | 7.52 | 1.36 *** |
4. Allow communities to remain but develop an effective flood-early warning system | 5.79 | 7.14 | 1.35 *** | 8.40 | 8.78 | 0.38 * | 7.16 | 8.00 | 0.84 *** |
5. Sensitize TA Nyachikadza communities on flood early warning | 7.49 | 8.15 | 0.66 ** | 8.51 | 9.07 | 0.56 ** | 8.03 | 8.64 | 0.61 *** |
6. Develop places of safety for children and vulnerable groups (elderly, sick) when flood warnings are administered | 8.42 | 8.65 | 0.23 | 7.97 | 7.79 | −0.18 | 8.18 | 8.20 | 0.02 |
7. Put in place effective life-saving measures (such as petrol boats, life jackets, etc.) in all strategic places to be used to rescue people during floods | 7.93 | 8.37 | 0.44 | 8.33 | 8.84 | 0.51 ** | 8.14 | 8.61 | 0.47 *** |
8. Have the VCPC, ACPC and DCPC consider indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in flood early warning | 7.49 | 7.09 | −0.40 | 7.61 | 7.16 | −0.45 * | 7.56 | 7.13 | −0.43 *** |
9. Have all the Area Civil Protection Committees (ACPCs) and Village Civil Protection Committees (VCPCs) along the Shire River form an alliance to share information about flood early warning | 8.23 | 8.50 | 0.27 | 8.27 | 8.31 | 0.04 | 8.25 | 8.40 | 0.15 |
Variable | TA Ndamera | TA Nyachikadza | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | |
1. Provide wide access to free family planning services | 8.52 | 9.35 | 0.83 *** | 8.45 | 9.00 | 0.55 *** | 8.48 | 9.17 | 0.69 *** |
2. Construct a health centre in TA Nyachikadza so long as people live there | 5.07 | 6.59 | 1.52 *** | 9.34 | 9.58 | 0.24 * | 7.32 | 8.16 | 0.84 *** |
3. Have families consider their land resources in deciding how many children to have | 6.99 | 7.68 | 0.69 ** | 6.97 | 7.59 | 0.62 ** | 6.98 | 7.64 | 0.66 *** |
4. Increase the use of temporary shelters for evacuation instead of classrooms | 8.88 | 8.89 | 0.01 | 8.80 | 8.50 | −0.30 | 8.78 | 8.68 | −0.10 |
5. Use community by-laws to restrict child marriages | 8.70 | 9.35 | 0.65 *** | 8.76 | 9.24 | 0.48 *** | 8.73 | 9.29 | 0.56 *** |
6. Poor families with children of school-going age should only receive a cash transfer if they enroll their children to school | 8.82 | 9.16 | 0.34 ** | 8.84 | 9.02 | 0.18 | 8.83 | 9.08 | 0.25 ** |
7. Adults with children of school-going age should only participate in the Public Works Program if they enroll their children in school | 7.99 | 8.67 | 0.68 *** | 8.14 | 8.45 | 0.31 | 8.07 | 8.56 | 0.49 *** |
8. Establish collective storage facilities for food in the uplands (by the people from the lowlands) | 6.78 | 6.28 | −0.50 | 5.19 | 3.87 | −1.32 *** | 5.94 | 5.01 | −0.93 *** |
9. Provide adequate security in evacuation centres to ensure women and girls are protected from abuse | 9.16 | 9.21 | 0.05 | 9.01 | 8.99 | −0.02 | 9.08 | 9.10 | 0.02 |
10. Allow families to be able to stay together during flood evacuations | 7.14 | 8.20 | 1.06 *** | 7.65 | 7.62 | −0.03 | 7.41 | 7.89 | 0.48 ** |
11. Allow households with persons who are vulnerable, and sick be prioritized during flood evacuations | 8.30 | 8.88 | 0.58 *** | 8.57 | 8.69 | 0.12 | 8.44 | 8.78 | 0.34 ** |
12. Promote the capacity building of the VCPCs to know how to respond to emergencies | 8.54 | 8.53 | −0.01 | 8.80 | 8.68 | −0.12 | 8.68 | 8.61 | −0.07 |
13. Promote village savings and loans to provide alternative income sources for women | 8.76 | 9.33 | 0.57 *** | 9.08 | 9.03 | −0.05 | 8.93 | 9.18 | 0.25 ** |
14. Ensure a woman should not lose the family land if her husband dies | 9.32 | 9.16 | −0.16 | 9.31 | 8.61 | −0.70 *** | 9.31 | 8.87 | −0.44 *** |
Male | Female | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Pre | Post | Post-Pre | p-Value | Pre | Post | Post-Pre | p-Value |
Provide wide access to free family planning services | 8.43 | 9.17 | 0.74 | 0.000 *** | 8.57 | 9.16 | 0.59 | 0.003 ** |
Use community by-laws to restrict child marriages | 9.03 | 9.25 | 0.22 | 0.508 | 9.29 | 9.36 | 0.07 | 0.892 |
Provide adequate security in evacuation centres to ensure women and girls are protected from abuse | 9.12 | 9.06 | −0.06 | 0.658 | 9.54 | 9.17 | −0.37 | 0.504 |
Promote village savings and loans to provide alternative income sources for women | 9.25 | 9.12 | −0.13 | 0.694 | 8.91 | 9.81 | 0.90 | 0.103 |
Ensure a woman should not lose the family land if her husband dies | 9.26 | 8.71 | −0.55 | 0.001 ** | 9.40 | 9.15 | −0.25 | 0.138 |
Variable | All | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Margin (Δ) Post-Pre | p-Value | |
Will the government take seriously the suggestions and views provided? | 7.54 | 7.53 | −0.01 | 0.982 |
How confident are you the government will use the results from this event? | 7.08 | 7.48 | 0.40 | 0.237 |
How confident are you the community will use the results from this event? | 7.32 | 8.53 | 1.21 | 0.018 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dewa, O.; Makoka, D.; Ayo-Yusuf, O. A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi. Water 2022, 14, 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060874
Dewa O, Makoka D, Ayo-Yusuf O. A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi. Water. 2022; 14(6):874. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060874
Chicago/Turabian StyleDewa, Ozius, Donald Makoka, and Olalekan Ayo-Yusuf. 2022. "A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi" Water 14, no. 6: 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060874
APA StyleDewa, O., Makoka, D., & Ayo-Yusuf, O. (2022). A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi. Water, 14(6), 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060874