Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu
Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu
复制标题
瓦努阿图安巴岛火山灾害管理中科学与传统知识相结合的参与式方法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Esau
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Cronin;D. Gaylord;D. Charley;B. Alloway;S. Wallez;J. Esau
阿穆尔岛是瓦努阿图最大的活火山。它也是美国潜在的最危险的湖泊之一，有6000万立方米的湖水栖息在超过1340米的山顶破火山口和活跃的喷口上。1995年，小潜水爆炸，地震群和气体释放加剧导致疏散准备和社区火山危险意识计划的约9500居民的呼吁。坚持传统信仰（Kastom）的岛上居民与外部科学家和应急管理人员之间的观点或世界观差异导致危机后的不信任气氛。为了解决这些问题，重建社区，外部科学家和管理人员之间的对话和尊重，并在火山灾害教育和Ambassador规划方面取得进展，我们调整并应用了农村评估（PRA）方法。两个有代表性的社区初步开展了按性别分列的风险评估活动，为将当地传统观点和对危害的认识编入目录提供了一种机制。最终，通过将这些观点和看法的要素与以科学为基础的管理结构相结合，我们得出了火山灾害管理准则，并得到了警报系统和地图的支持，这些准则比外部政府和科学机构强加的早期“自上而下”计划更容易被测试社区接受。PRA方法的优势在于，它们使科学家能够了解重要的地方视角问题，包括火山灾害的可视化、内部和外部通信系统的弱点以及性别和等级冲突，所有这些都可能阻碍社区应急管理。我们所描述的方法有很多提供发展中国家和工业化社区，希望提高他们的认识方案和缓解规划。这种方法还应加强火山学家与他们所服务的社区之间的沟通和理解。
Ambae Island is the largest of Vanuatu’s active volcanoes. It is also one of the nation’s potentially most dangerous, with 60 million m3 of lake-water perched at over 1340 m in the summit caldera and over the active vent. In 1995, small phreatic explosions, earthquake swarms and heightened gas release led to calls for evacuation preparation and community volcanic hazard awareness programs for the ~9500 inhabitants. Differences in perspective or world-view between the island dwellers adhering to traditional beliefs (Kastom) and external scientists and emergency managers led to a climate of distrust following this crisis. In an attempt to address these issues, rebuild dialogue and respect between communities, outside scientists and administrators, and move forward in volcanic hazard education and planning for Ambae, we adapted and applied Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approaches. Initial gender-segregated PRA exercises from two representative communities provided a mechanism for cataloguing local traditional viewpoints and hazard perceptions. Ultimately, by combining elements of these viewpoints and perceptions with science-based management structures, we derived volcanic hazard management guidelines, supported by an alert system and map that were more readily accepted by the test communities than the earlier “top-down” plans imposed by outside governmental and scientific agencies. The strength of PRA approaches is that they permit scientists to understand important local perspective issues, including visualisations of volcanic hazards, weaknesses in internal and external communication systems, and gender and hierarchy conflicts, all of which can hinder community emergency management. The approach we describe has much to offer both developing and industrialised communities that wish to improve their awareness programs and mitigative planning. This approach should also enhance communication and understanding between volcanologists and the communities they serve.