Testing Interscience in Understanding and Tackling Disaster Risk
Testing Interscience in Understanding and Tackling Disaster Risk
复制标题
测试跨科学理解和应对灾害风险的能力
DOI：
10.3389/feart.2021.783264
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Kervyn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Bwambale;M. Kervyn
在减少灾害风险方面的努力广泛面向整合土著知识和科学。因此，一些概念框架已经朝着从风险社区的角度共同创造知识和共同设计减少灾害风险措施的方向发展。据称，这将促进措施的优化和可持续性。本研究测试的有效性，这一观点的论点的基础上的情况下，在乌干达西部的鲁文佐里，在研究，政策和行动之间的不匹配。制定了一项协议，以鼓励来自三个利益攸关方群体（科学家、决策者和风险社区）的参与者就知识共同创造和共同设计减灾措施进行对话。除了与会者在一些措施上意见一致外，还注意到不同利益攸关方之间进行了公平的审议。这促成了三个过程：合并一些拟议的措施，出现混合世界观，以及共同设计替代方案。共同设计的选项属于当代基于自然的解决方案和可持续性的概念。这意味着，随着时间的推移，它们可以被处于风险中的社区采用和优化。这种建设性的知识整合和DRR选项的共同设计受到三个属性的青睐：合并过程理论化的重叠，拥抱本体论价值的多样性，以及决策者之间的自我批评。在这些属性如何促进减少灾害风险的科学，政策和行动之间的差距的经验教训。
Efforts in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) are widely geared towards integrating indigenous knowledge and science. Several conceptual frameworks have thus evolved towards co-creating knowledge and co-designing DRR measures from the standpoint of the communities-at-risk. This is claimed to foster optimization and sustainability of measures. This study tests the effectiveness of this standpoint argument based on the case of floods in the Rwenzori, western Uganda, where a mismatch is noted between research, policy, and action. A protocol was developed to stimulate dialogue on knowledge co-creation and co-designing of DRR measures among participants from three stakeholder groups: scientists, policymakers, and communities-at-risk. Beyond convergence on some measures among participants, equitable deliberations were observed among the different stakeholders. This enabled three processes: coalescing some of the proposed measures, the emergence of hybrid worldviews, and co-design of alternative options. The co-designed options fall within the contemporary conceptualization of nature-based solutions and sustainability. This meant that they are adoptable and optimizable over time by communities-at-risk. This constructive knowledge integration and co-design of DRR options were favored by three attributes: coalescing overlaps in theorizations of processes, embracing diversity in ontological values, and self-critiques among policymakers. Lessons are drawn on how these attributes facilitate bridging gaps between science, policy, and action in DRR.