This document maps the flow of information and knowledge between stakeholder groups in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation as part of the KNOW4DRR project. It summarizes the mapping process conducted in Year 1 of the project across 11 case studies of different disasters. The mapping examined information transfer over time stages of the disaster management cycle and between public sector, scientists, private sector, and civil society stakeholders. It aimed to identify strengths and weaknesses in how information is communicated and whether it reaches its intended targets and influences decision making.

1.
Mappi ng
t he
flow
of
i nforma1on
and
k no wl edge
betwe en
s t a keh o l d er
g ro u p s :
w ea kn es s es
and
s treng ths
i n
know l edge
man agemen t
an d
co mmu n i ca1o n
John
Norton,
DWF
Final
conference:
knowledge
management
for
improving
DRR
&
CCA
26
–
27
May
2015
Université
de
Savoie-­‐Mont
Blanc,
Chambéry
EC
FP7
Project
N°
603807

2. Mapping
informa1on
flow
in
the
KNOW4DRR
programme
Mapping
knowledge
and
informa1on
flow
between
different
stakeholders
concerned
with
disaster
risk
reduc1on
and
climate
change
adapta1on
has
been
an
important
part
of
the
project
process

3. In
Year
1
of
the
project,
we
mapped
the
results
of
case
studies
to
show
informa1on
and
knowledge
flows
between
different
social
stakeholder
groups,
intended
to
support
disaster
risk
reduc1on
and
climate
change
adapta1on:
did
it
get
there?
Does
it
work?
The
aim:
Get
a
snapshot
of
where
informa1on
transfer
and
the
knowledge
it
should
contribute
to
decision
making
either
does
or
does
not
work:
• what
can
we
do
be_er?
• what
can
we
learn?

4. 11
cases
covered
different
disasters
• ADELPHI
(&
POLIMI)/
Severe
floods
along
the
ELBE
river,
Germany,
August
2002
• CIESAS/
Reloca1on
of
landslide
survivors
in
Chiapas
State,
Mexico,
2005
and
later
• CSIC
Group
/
Case
study
of
the
Lorca
earthquake,
Spain,
11th
May
2011
• DWF/
typhoon
events,
2006
&
2009,
Vietnam
• HUA/
Ilia
forest
fires,
August
2007,
Greece
• HUA/
Kalamata
earthquake,
Greece,
1986
• HUA/
sea
level
rise
&
Climate
Change
AdaptaAon,
Greece
• U
SALZBERG
–
PLUS
/
flood
event
in
Salzach
catchment,
Austria,
June
2013
• POLIMI/Umbria
flood
event,
Italy,
November
2012
• UNISAVOIE/
La
Faute-­‐sur-­‐Mer
storm
disaster,
Atlan1c
Coast,
France,
February
2010
• UNU-­‐EHS/
People-­‐centred
tsunami
early
warning,
Padang,
West
Sumatra

5. A
data/informa1on/knowledge/wisdom
pyramid
An
early
stage
the
KNOW4DRR
project
modelled
the
stages
of
exchange
of
knowledge
for
DRR
using
a
Data
–
Informa1on
–
Knowledge
-­‐Wisdom
(DIKW)
pyramid,
lots
of
data
at
its
base,
li_le
wisdom
at
the
top.
We
sued
this
a
basis
for
the
mapping
process:
This
reflected
an
issue:
much
data,
but
far
less
knowledge
and
even
less
wisdom
generated
for
decision
making
on
DRR/CCA.

6. The
mapping
process
considered
informa1on
transfer
over
«
1me
»
-­‐
using
the
disaster
management
cycle;
informa1on
flow
between
four
principle
stakeholder
groups
Disaster
management
cycle
phases
Stakeholders
Before
last
event
Early
warning
During
the
event/
Response
Recovery
&
reconstruc1on
Period
aper
recovery
Public
Sector
ScienAsts
Private
Sector
Civil
society
Which
Stakeholders
?
Public
Sector
ScienAsts
Private
Sector
Civil
society
Hazard specialists
Risk experts
Scientists
Other
Insurers
Business
Media
Other
Lifelines managing co.
Citizens associations
NGO
Households/
individuals
Other

7. A
focus
on
informa1on
&
knowledge
flow
&
their
impact
What?
What
informa1on
was
sent
by
each
stakeholder
(who)
about
the
iden1fied
risk
or
hazard
(or
event)
in
your
case
study?
How?
How
was
this
informa1on
sent?
How
open?
Was
the
informa1on
fragmented
in
this
process
and
did
this
hinder
its
use?
How?
To
whom?
Who
was
it
sent
to
(to
which
ini1al
target
stakeholders)?
Was
there
an
indica1on
that
message/
informa1on
was
received?
Onward
transfer?
Did
informa1on
get
passed
on
by
a
receiving
stakeholder
to
addi1onal
stakeholders
(e.g.
from
local
authority
to
households)?
Was
informa1on
shared/networked?
What
acAon?
By
whom?
How
was
the
informa1on
used?
Did
it
influence
or
not
any
decision
making?
How
and
who
by?
Why
not?
If
informa1on
was
not
or
only
par1ally
used
by
this
stakeholder
to
influence
decision
making
or
ac1on,
why?
e.g.
were
there
other
priori1es
or
constraints:
finance,
etc.
?
Feedback?
Was
there
feedback
from
this
stakeholder
(recipient)
to
the
sender
of
informa1on?
Did
feedback/evalua1on
influence
subsequent
policy/ac1ons?
Uncertainty?
Did
the
informa1on
help
reduce
risk
or
uncertainty?
How
and
why?
Wisdom?
Did
informa1on
become
knowledge/wisdom?
To
explore
what
happens
to
informaAon
“sent”
-­‐
how
it
was
used
or
not
used
by
the
different
stakeholders
with
different
priori1es
and
capaci1es
-­‐
DWF
asked
partners
9
ques1ons:

8. Mapping
the
cases
The
cases
were
analysed
&
the
results
mapped
graphically.
• On
the
ver1cal
axis,
the
stakeholders
groups,
• On
the
horizontal
axis,
the
Disaster
Management
Cycle
stages.
The
inten1on:
to
see
quickly
where
blockage
occurs
or
ac1on
is
taken
on
the
basis
of
informa1on
transmi_ed,
using
symbols.

9. Typhoons
in
Vietnam,
2006
&
2009

10. «
La
Faute
sur
Mer
»
storm
surge
disaster,
France

11. «
They
[the
local
authoriAes]
all
knew
our
lives
were
at
risk
from
drowning»
17
September
2014
1st
day
of
the
trial
of
local
authority
representaAves,
charged
with
the
involuntary
manslaughter
of
29
people.

12.
Analysis
The
mapping
tables
have
been
reviewed
to
answer
the
ques1on:
“Did
communica1on
&
informa1on
help
decision
making
and
a
be_er
DRR
outcome
or
not?”
A
mixed
result!
8
8
5

13. A
first
view
• Since
almost
all
cases
reported
disaster
generated
examples
where
things
went
wrong,
there
is
an
impression
of
poor
communica1on
&
knowledge
sharing
• Secondly,
aper
the
events,
there
has
been
more
learning
&
progress.

14. The
nega1ve
or
low
impact
issues
• Too
many
organiza1ons
and
agencies
dealing
with
aspects
of
the
disaster
management
cycle
creates
confusion.
• Top
down
strategy
too
theore1cal
and
difficult
to
implement.
• Informa1on
too
li_le
or
late,
some1mes
incorrect
or
not
understood
by
target
stakeholder.
• Lack
of
stakeholder
capacity
building
and
awareness
raising.
• One
way
informaAon
flow
/
insufficient
feedback.
• Absence
and
loss
of
knowledge:
the
value
of
local
or
indigenous
knowledge
about
risks
and
responses
is
under-­‐valued.
• Media
can
do
be^er
as
an
important
but
uncertain
communica1on
interface.
• Other
prioriAes
influence
decisions
-­‐
and
prime
sufferers
lose
out.

15. The
posi1ve
impact
issues
• RaAonal
disaster
risk
management
structures
and
prac1ce
• Promote
interdisciplinary
work
• More
stakeholder
involvement
• Educa1on
and
capacity
building,
including
for
media
and
civil
society
• Improving
informaAon
quality

16. Uneven
spread
of
informa1on
There
are
gaps,
failures
and
some
abuse
in
the
transfer
of
knowledge.
Most
of
all,
there
is
an
uneven
spread
of
informa1on
and
knowledge
exchange
for
decision
making
on
DRR
and
CCA
across
stakeholder
groups.

17. Maintaining
knowledge,
awareness;
Climate
change
issues
highlights
the
challenge
of
maintaining
interest
&
knowledge
for
DRR
and
Climate
change
over
1me.
Ac1on
needs
to
happen
before
the
event.
For
many
people
warning
comes
too
late.
Achieving
sustained
civil
society
&
private
sector
miAgaAon
acAon
is
hard.
Turnbull
et
al
2013
think
in
advance
to
be
prepared

18. The
other
stakeholder
pyramid
There
is
a
second
knowledge
flow
pyramid
for
“stakeholder
communica1on”.
It
is
upside
down!
Much
data
at
the
top:
public
sector
and
scien1sts.
Lower
down
-­‐
Private
Sector
and
Civil
Society:
the
delivery
of
what
higher
level
stakeholders
consider
useful
informa1on
to
these
more
vulnerable
stakeholders
gets
less
and
less.

19. Civil
society
the
loser,
and
an
opportunity
Informa1on
flow
and
knowledge
development
has
the
least
impact
on
those
who
need
it
most:
the
most
vulnerable
and
cri1cal
sectors
that
needing
preven1ve
ac1on,
(life-­‐line
services,
industry,
for
example).
There
is
insufficient
communica1on
to,
and
insufficient
considera1on
of
the
household
and
the
community,
their
individual
engagement.
This
translates
into
an
undervalued
apprecia1on
that
community
and
households
have
capacity,
poten1al,
local
knowledge,
social
structures,
and
responsibili1es.
Insufficient
listening
to
civil
society
and
learning
about
local
prac1ce.
Civil
society
is
the
loser
in
the
informaAon
exchange
process.
Exchange
and
capacity
building
should
be
more
holisAc.

20. More
inter-­‐disciplinary
and
holisi1c
effort
• The
exchange
of
knowledge
cannot
be
considered
in
isola1on,
just
as
DRR
and
CCA
must
not
be
compartmentalised.
• The
idea
of
dis1nct
specialist
disciplines
is
outmoded.
• There
are
signs
of
more
inter-­‐disciplinary
work
about
DRR
and
CCA,
and
this
is
a
necessity.
• To
be
opera1ve,
knowledge
must
be
linked
to
an
enabling
environment,
that
combines
informa1on,
ins1tu1onal
capacity,
financial
systems
and
capacity
building
including
technical
knowledge.
To
consider
knowledge
transfer
for
disaster
risk
reduc1on
without
doing
this
is
a
route
to
failure.

21. More
knowledge
or
more
uncertainty?
• Changes
in
context,
such
as
urbanisa1on,
and
change
in
weather
and
climate
reduce
faith
in
old
&
local
knowledge
• Lack
of
knowledge
on
what
to
do
about
DRR
and
CCA
ac1ons
generates
uncertainty.
• Uncertainty
leads
to
lack
of
ac1on
before
and
at
cri1cal
1mes
in
the
disaster
management
cycle.
The
mapping
process
has
highlighted
the
need
to
improve
the
transforma1on
of
informa1on
into
contemporary
and
applicable
knowledge
that
leads
to
ac1on
Thank
you