The document presents an analysis of questionnaires and interviews with various stakeholders regarding disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) from a conference held in 2015. It highlights issues in the communication and dissemination of DRR information, cooperation gaps, and implementation challenges, noting that decision-making is often hindered by fragmented information and a lack of coordination among entities. The findings indicate a need for improved knowledge sharing and tailored outreach to enhance public awareness and effective DRR strategies.

1. Results of the questionnaires and interviews with
representatives of civil protection authorities, private
companies, academicians and NGOs
Final Conference:
Knowledge Management for Improving DRR & CCA
26 – 27 May 2015
Université de Savoie-Mont Blanc, Chambéry
Funda Atun, POLIMI; Maria Jose Jimenez, CSIC; John Norton, DWF

2. A focus on information &
knowledge flow & their impact
To
explore
what
happens
to
informa/on
“sent”
-­‐
how
it
was
used
or
not
used
by
the
different
stakeholders
with
different
priori7es
and
capaci7es
-­‐
DWF
asked
partners
9
ques7ons:
What?
What
informa7on
was
sent
by
each
stakeholder
(who)
about
the
iden7fied
risk
or
hazard
(or
event)
in
your
case
study?
How?
How
was
this
informa7on
sent?
How
oHen?
Was
the
informa7on
fragmented
in
this
process
and
did
this
hinder
its
use?
How?
To
whom?
Who
was
it
sent
to
(to
which
ini7al
target
stakeholders)?
Was
there
an
indica7on
that
message/
informa7on
was
received?
Onward
transfer?
Did
informa7on
get
passed
on
by
a
receiving
stakeholder
to
addi7onal
stakeholders
(e.g.
from
local
authority
to
households)?
Was
informa7on
shared/networked?
What
ac/on?
By
whom?
How
was
the
informa7on
used?
Did
it
influence
or
not
any
decision
making?
How
and
who
by?
Why
not?
If
informa7on
was
not
or
only
par7ally
used
by
this
stakeholder
to
influence
decision
making
or
ac7on,
why?
e.g.
were
there
other
priori7es
or
constraints:
finance,
etc.
?
Feedback?
Was
there
feedback
from
this
stakeholder
(recipient)
to
the
sender
of
informa7on?
Did
feedback/evalua7on
influence
subsequent
policy/ac7ons?
Uncertainty?
Did
the
informa7on
help
reduce
risk
or
uncertainty?
How
and
why?
Wisdom?
Did
informa7on
become
knowledge/wisdom?

3. • The
mapping
tables
have
been
reviewed
to
answer
the
ques7on:
• “Did
communica7on
&
informa7on
help
decision
making
and
a
beQer
DRR
outcome
or
not?”
A
mixed
result!
Analysis
8
5

4. COOPERATION
Whether
knowledge
is
shared
among
stakeholders?
IMPLEMENTATION
Whether
knowledge
is
enacted
and
decisions
are
implemented?
DISSEMINATION:
Whether
informa7on
is
proac7vely
disseminated,
or
not?
Whether
there
are
established
mechanisms
for
dissemina7on?

5. LORCA
Face
to
face
ques/onnaires:
106
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s
1) Dissemina7on
Weaknesses
in
communica7on
to
general
public.
Risk
of
inaccurate
DRR
informa7on
when
passed
on
by
intermediary
communicators
(e.g.,
media)

6. LORCA
Face
to
face
ques/onnaires:
106
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s
2)
Coopera7on
Having
difficul7es
to
recognize
DRR
problems
by
stakeholders
Informa7on
on
DRR
is
poorly
understood
by
targeted
stakeholders
Lack
of
shared
objec7ves
among
stakeholders
prevents
effec7ve
DRR

7. LORCA
Face
to
face
ques/onnaires:
106
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s
3)
Implementa7on
Other
priori7es/constrains
influence
DRR
decisions
Long
delays
on
implementa7on
of
results
from
DRR
studies
Local
knowledge
not
considered
in
DRR
planning
Lack
of
systems
for
real-­‐7me
knowledge
sharing
for
prompt
decisions
during
response.

8. 1)
Outreach
of
the
informa7on
to
public,
can
it
really
help
to
increase
the
public
awareness?
Pilot
studies
conducted
by
the
experts
about
the
involvement
of
public
can
set
an
example
for
the
other
studies.
Anonymous,
from
a
public
organiza4on
2)
Lack
of
coordina7on:
We
are
experiencing
a
general
lack
of
coordina7on
between
organiza7ons.
Anonymous,
from
a
state
university
ISTANBUL
Explatory
interviews:
17
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s

9. ISTANBUL
3)
IMPLEMENTATION
The
purpose
of
the
disaster
risk
reduc7on
related
projects
is
to
establish
disaster
resilient
modern
living
areas.
There
should
be
society
centric
disaster
risk
reduc7on
approach.
Anonymous,
from
a
private
organiza4on
Explatory
interviews:
17
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s
SOCIAL
PHYSICAL
X

10. 1) Dissemina7on
Using
social
media
more
effec7vely
Providing
informa7on
tailored
to
specific
audience
Providing
informa7on
in
na7ve
languages
2)
Collabora7on
-­‐Needs
assessment
Not
having
a
common
understanding
what
we
are
dealing
with..
Doing
research
by
inspira7on
not
because
somebody
needs
that
knowledge.
LATIN AMERICA
Focus
group:
13
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s

11. LATIN AMERICA
Focus
group:
13
subjects
from
private
and
public
sectors,
scien/sts
&
NGO’s
3)
Implementa7on
–
Power
rela7ons
There
is
poli7cal
influence
on
how
we
produce
and
use
knowledge.
Obstacles
at
the
policy
level
Alloca7on
of
resources
is
problema7c
SOCIAL
POLITICAL
X

12. The
most
agreed
statement:
Interdisciplinary
collabora7on
is
necessary
No
agreement
:
I
personally
receive/received
the
informa7on
that
I
need
to
accomplish
my
task
too
late.
I
personally
receive/received
incorrect
informa7on
Conclusion! Commonali6es!

13. Conclusion! Commonali6es!
• The
mul/plicity
of
organiza/ons
involved
does
create
difficulty
for
the
implementa7on
of
disaster
risk
reduc7on
policies.
• Most
of
the
7me
disaster
risk
reduc7on
policies
are
top-­‐down
• Decisions
regarding
disaster
risk
reduc7on
policies
are
too
theore/cal/
not
grounded
on
true
needs
• Informa/on
flow
is
one
way
(the
big
difference
between
NGO
and
Private
sector)
• There
has
been
an
improvement
in
the
quality
of
data
and
informa/on
in
recent
years.
• Knowledge
oden
lost
because
of
lack
of
sharing
and
implementa7on
• Awareness
on
DRR
importance
is
rising
amongst
stakeholders