Disaster Risk Reduction for Children with a Disability. Strengthening the capacities and decreasing the vulnerabilities of a marginalized group in the face of disaster

(1)

Disaster Risk Reduction for Children with a

Disability

Strengthening the capacities and decreasing the vulnerabilities of a

marginalized group in the face of disaster

Master Thesis

Author

Mike van Golberdinge (s1011355)

Supervisor

Bert Bomert

Study

Human Geography

Conflicts, Territories, and Identities Radboud University

(2)

Disaster risk reduction for children with a disability

Strengthening the capacities and decreasing the vulnerabilities of a marginalized group in the face of disaster

Mike van Golberdinge (s4156277) Radboud University

Nijmegen School of Management

Supervisor Radboud University: dr. Bert Bomert

Second reader:

Master thesis Human Geography

Conflicts, Territories and Identities April 2020

(3)

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank all the interviewees who were willing to help me by giving insight into their lives. To the members of local disability organizations who allowed me into their areas and proudly showed me the great works they are realizing, to those who offered me homemade dinners on their days off, and to those who invited me into their houses and favored me with chai, thank you.

I would not have been able to do these visits and conduct my research without the support of Cecilia, Vincent, George, Fred, Godfrey and all the others of the hosting organization. They made me feel welcome and made my visit a success. People with disabilities are stronger because of your work. Thank you so much.

I am also appreciative for the opportunity my internship has given me. Working alongside all my colleagues has changed my view of the world, and I admire the work they have done for people with disabilities. For my research in particular, I would like to thank Maaike, Marja, John, Juultje and Sofka for their help and support.

And last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Bert Bomert. Especially during our last discussion, I have come to realize the impact I have on my research as a researcher. Through your advice, the tangle that has been my research has become untangled. I am also happy that apart from my research, we had the opportunity to discuss other aspects of life, often with a humorous touch.

(4)

Abstract

With the passing of time, the world is confronted more often with disasters and their consequences. These consequences hit the poorest countries and people the hardest, because they are the most vulnerable (Hallegatte et al., 2015). Thus, the social exclusion of marginalized groups manifests itself during disasters, as these groups are characterized by a high number of vulnerabilities combined with low capacities (Van Niekerk, 2011). Through so-called Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), people will become less susceptible to the effects of disasters, as this approach aims to decrease the vulnerabilities of people and to enhance their capacities (UNISDR, 2009).

This research looks into the abilities of local disability organizations and of households that include children with a disability to respond to disasters by implementing DRR and by doing so to protect children with disabilities, specifically in Kenya. This has been done through a narrative case study. In this single embedded-case study the local disability organizations and the households are the two sub-units of analysis. The data for both has been gathered through semi-structured interviews based on topics derived from a literature review. The data has been analyzed through a deductive

paradigmatic approach (Sharp, Bye & Cusick, 2018). Each sub-topic has been coded as either a capacity, a vulnerability or as a neutral remark and was subsequently attached to a main topic. The results show that each of the local disability organizations responds differently to disasters; nevertheless, they all realize DRR on different levels. They are all doing their utmost with the options available to them. The same holds true for the households; they are doing as well as they possibly can. Most of the aforementioned vulnerabilities come from the situations in which they find themselves. Both the local disability organizations and the households see the greater benefit of incorporating additional DRR initiatives, especially those aimed at children with disabilities. However, before this is possible, the general DRR activities need to be successfully in place, which requires all entities to be provided with the necessary resources, tools and knowledge.

As the researcher has chosen the topics, and these topics are used for the data analysis, the choices made have a considerable impact on the research. The same holds true for the fact that the topics are (primarily) formulated from a capacity point of view. This sets the limits of this research. Other constraints were caused by language, for instance the need for interpreters, and the need to conduct this research abroad. Further research should focus on realizing more capacities for children with disabilities. A more in-depth look should be taken into identifying the most successful ways to decrease vulnerabilities and enhance capacities and to realize more low-cost measures and actions.

Keywords: Disaster Risk Reductions, children with disabilities, local disability organizations,

(5)

List of Tables

Table 1 - Context local disability organizations and households...29

Table 2- Main topics of the local disability organizations...33

Table 3 - Capacities of the local disability organizations...34

Table 4 - Vulnerabilities of the local disability organizations...42

Table 5 - Neutral remarks of the local disability organizations...45

Table 6 - Main topics of the households...49

Table 7 - Capacities of the households...49

Table 8 - Vulnerabilities of the households...54

(8)

1. Introduction

As time progresses, the world is more and more confronted with the consequences of climate change. One of the anticipated consequences of climate change is a rise in the number of natural disasters. The poorest countries and their people are hit the hardest by these disasters (Hallegatte et al., 2015). Therefore, knowledge of and insight in preparation protocols, as well as the actual

preparations, for natural disasters are needed. One of the ways to prepare for such calamities is through the process of so-called Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Being resilient to disaster requires financial investments. This is a major obstacle in reaching the desired level of preparedness,

especially in the poorer regions. However, as Back, Cameron and Tanner (2009) argue, DRR programs are cost-effective because, in the end, the benefits outnumber the costs.

For a DRR program to be successful, all groups and every individual should be included. Nevertheless, in DRR programs marginalized groups are often overlooked, just as they are regularly overlooked in their daily lives (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017). Individuals with disabilities as well as children represent marginalized groups; it is therefore no surprise that in particular children with disabilities are even more marginalized in daily life and in research (Peek & Stough, 2010). Nonetheless, the so-called Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 initiated an important launch for the inclusion of people with disabilities in DRR programs (Stough & Kang, 2015). Back, Cameron and Tanner (2009) show how children, generally speaking, can be involved in different ways within DRR programs. This approach slowly gains ground (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). However, the Sendai Framework does not specifically mention children with disabilities, and the research report by Back, Cameron and Tanner (2009) fails to mention children with a disability even once. The research overlooks, even ignores, the fact that children with disabilities have different needs than those of adults with disabilities or those of other children. How can children with mobility limitations be brought to safety before the occurrence of an anticipated natural disaster, such as a tsunami hitting the coast? What is one to do to accommodate children with hearing impairments who cannot understand verbal instructions? Do staff members in shelters know the specific needs of different children with disabilities? What should be done in order to ensure that children with disabilities and their caregivers are kept close together (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b)?

There is much at stake and much to take into consideration when looking at children with disabilities and DRR. Thus far, existing DRR programs and research have not taken this into account. Moreover, children with disabilities and their households are more likely to be poor, which causes them to be even more vulnerable. Other characteristics, including race and gender, might also (negatively) influence the vulnerability of children with a disability. For instance, when a tsunami hit Indonesia in

(9)

2004, none of the pupils of a school for children with disabilities survived (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b).

Realizing successful DRR for children with disabilities is a complex process, considering these children have various ages, as well as different forms and levels of impairment. This complexity makes it challenging to ensure the safety of children with disabilities, whether by their households or local disability organizations that support these households. There are many measures and actions that households and local disability organizations execute, depending upon the options available. In order to be able to better support the households and local disability organizations, insight into their levels of preparedness is needed. To gain such insight, this research has been executed.

The research also appeals to me personally, as it is obvious to me that every life is valuable. Care for marginalized groups should not be neglected. Adequate care for every human being is a practical implementation of that notion.

1.1 Societal relevance

As stated before, children with disabilities are a very vulnerable group when it comes to (the

aftermath of a) disaster. The implementation of successful DRR programs is therefore crucial for those children; without it, they will be affected disproportionately when disaster strikes. But since most persons with a disability do not have a personal preparedness plan (UNDRR, 2013), not everybody is fully prepared.

The societal relevance of this research is to gain a better insight into the preparedness for a disaster by people on a micro-level (households with children with a disability) and meso-level (local disability organizations), concerning children with disabilities in the case of Kenya. At the moment, it is not clear how prepared children are, nor how prepared those caring for them are. By sketching a better picture of what has been done and what is yet to be done, it is possible to help the community in a more targeted way with its preparations for a disaster. If more insight into the level of preparedness of a community is available, it becomes easier for relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this field to decide what is (not) needed. NGOs develop programs to protect individuals against disasters by limiting their vulnerabilities and increasing their capacities. With this research, NGOs gain information that might be useful for their programs. Without more precise data from the field, programs and interventions will be mainly based on academic literature. However, day-to-day practice often differs from theory. Since little field research has been done regarding children with disabilities in the context of DRR, especially in the so-called global South, this research can provide pertinent information for future field research. Also, through this research, children with

(10)

disabilities, their families, their communities, and local disability organizations can benefit greatly. They can raise their own awareness of the risks associated with disasters and how they can mitigate those.

1.2 Scientific relevance

The debate on DRR for children with disabilities is still at its early stages, and not much research has been done yet with regard to this particular intersection of identities. When one combines DRR with each of the two separate marginalized groups – children and people with disabilities, respectively – the number of relevant research articles increases. Although the various reports offer some insight into the debate on DRR for children with disabilities, there is still a clear need for additional research directed specifically at DRR for children with disabilities. Various authors have contributed to the debate (e.g. Boon et al., 2011; Peek & Stough, 2010; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b) and all agree that research specifically focused on children with disabilities during disasters is scarce. In other words, there is arguably a ‘knowledge gap’. According to Ronoh, Gaillard and Marlowe (2015b, p. 45), “no field research specific to the experiences of children with disabilities in response to disaster has been undertaken”. Since then, some research has been conducted (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015a), but much more needs to be done. For instance, the study by Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe (2015a) looks at Christchurch in New Zealand, a developed nation. Research in a less developed, poorer context is important. In particular, different locations have different contexts to consider. The cultural norms of how society treats those with disabilities differ from country to country. The (possible) stigmata often influence how the public views persons with disabilities. The obvious knowledge gap combined with the little field research that has been done regarding the experiences of children with disabilities in response to a disaster, shows that more research is needed. This research might contribute in filling the existing gap.

This research is carried out in the context of conflict studies. The conflict aspect of this research can quite clearly be found in the fact that social conflict and the displacement of a population can be one of the disasters that affect a child with a disability as well as others. Special consideration is put on the neglect of marginalized groups and how this can lead to social conflict. For instance, when certain people do not receive sufficient care in the aftermath of a disaster, the conflict aspect is quite apparent.

1.3 Research objective

The main research objective is to discern if and to what extent the topics, as formulated and debated in the academic literature, are feasible in day-to-day practice. Academic literature often sketches an ideal image of what should be done, but less is known about DRR for children with disabilities in

(11)

practice. If the topics are feasible in some way, to what extent are they feasible for households with children with disabilities or to the local disability organizations that support those households? Collecting insight into their level of preparedness and the struggles they come across will enlighten the topics on which the households and local disability organizations need additional support. Moreover, not much research has been done on DRR for children (if research is done, it is on people with disabilities or children separately). Research on a specific target group, in tandem with fieldwork, might offer a more nuanced picture.

1.4 Research question

The following research questions are formulated to guide the research:

Main question

Based on the above considerations, the main question guiding this research is:

To what extent are local disability organizations and the households with a child with a disability able to respond to disasters by implementing Disaster Risk Reduction measures and therewith protecting children with disabilities in Kenya?

Sub-questions

To answer this main research question, various sub-questions have to be addressed as well: - How can, according to the literature, households with a child with a disability and local

disability organizations respond to disasters by implementing Disaster Risk Reduction measures and therewith protecting children with disabilities?

- To what extent are local disability organizations able to respond to disasters by implementing Disaster Risk Reduction measures and therewith protecting children with disabilities in Kenya?

- To what extent are households with a child with a disability able to respond to disasters by implementing Disaster Risk Reduction measures and therewith protecting children with disabilities in Kenya?

1.5 Overview

Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the problem and Chapter 2 discusses the relevant literature. In Chapter 3 the methods used in the study are described, then in Chapter 4 the results are presented and discussed. Finally, Chapter 5 shows the main conclusions and points out both the limitations to the research and recommendations for follow-up study.

(12)

2. Framework

2.1 Theoretical framework

Disability

About 10% of the world population is living with a disability, which is around 650 million people (Disabled World, 2019). The World Health Organization (WHO) adds ‘some form of’ to its definition, and based on that estimates that around 15% of the world population is living with some kind of disability. This WHO estimate differs from that of the Global Burden of Disease (a specific WHO project): the estimates regarding people over 15 years of age that are living with a disability are according to the WHO survey, 15.6% (785 million people), and according to the Global Burden of Disease, 19.4% (975 million). The Global Burden of Disease is the only survey with specific numbers relating to children with a disability: 95 million, 5.1% of all children (World Health Organization, 2011).

Children with a disability are far from a homogenous group, however. First, the term children refers to those under the age of 18 (United Nations General Assembly, 1989), so this means a child can range from a small infant to an adolescent of 17 years old. Each is labeled as a child, but they have different needs in their lives. Disabilities obviously also differ, there are different categories of disability types for various physical and mental impairments: mobility and physical impairments, spinal cord

disabilities, head injuries (TBI) – brain disabilities, vision disabilities, hearing disabilities, cognitive or learning disabilities, psychological disorders, and invisible disabilities. Within those categories, there are sub-categories (e.g. upper limb(s) disability, lower limb(s) disability) and different severities (e.g. partially or completely deaf) (Disabled World, 2019).

There are many models regarding how to deal with disabilities, each defining disability differently. Each model has its own consequences and implications for persons with disabilities (Retief & Letšosa, 2018). Most international NGOs involved in this field initially based their activities on the charity model or medical model, two models that place the burden of the disability on the individual (Yeo, 2001). These were followed by the social model (Coe & Wapling, 2010), which solely looks into social barriers (Yeo, 2001); this eventually evolved into the human rights model, which is the model most often used today. This model centers around the notion that people with disabilities have rights and that governments have a direct responsibility to protect these rights and ensure that they are implemented (Quinn et al., 2014).

The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) framework brings the social and medical models together. The World Health Organization (2002) refers to this as the

(13)

ICF disability and functioning are viewed as outcomes of interactions between health conditions (diseases, disorders, and injuries) and contextual factors” (WHO, 2002, p. 10). In this research, the definition of the biopsychosocial model is used: disability as impairments experienced by persons on a personal and/or environment level. Although this ICF framework has been criticized, Shakespeare (2006) praises that the ICF acknowledges that disability requires different angles and perspectives and that it is an issue for all of us, not only for those directly affected.

Even though the (exact) numbers differ, it is quite clear that most of the people with disabilities live in poorer conditions, as “88% live in the world’s poorest countries and 90% of those in rural areas” (Goodley, 2011, p. 1). These figures should not come as a surprise when taking the vicious cycle of poverty into account, as shown by Yeo & Moore (2003). It is a circle fueled by the exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream opportunities (Yeo & Moore, 2003). Since then, according to Trani & Loeb (2012), various authors have illustrated the correlation between poverty and disability: poverty increases the prevalence of disability, while disability can lead people (and their families) into poverty. Therefore, most people with a disability can be found in developing countries.

Disability and social exclusion

It has already been mentioned that the exclusion of people with disabilities has a correlation with the vicious cycle of poverty. However, social exclusion is a concept that is difficult to capture in a single definition. The vagueness of the term is mentioned by Peace (2001), who looked at the differences among the various descriptions of social exclusion used in the European Union and New Zealand, respectively. It is important to note, however, that the concept of social exclusion used in this thesis is clear from the beginning. The definition used here is: “the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society within which they live” (European Foundation, 1995 as cited in: De Haan, 2000, pp. 25-26). That is to say, “it refers to a process of marginalization of certain groups from the mainstream society” (Tobias & Mukhopadhyay, 2017, p. 25). According to De Haan (2000), the concept includes two important and distinctive features. The first is that the concept of social exclusion is dimensional, and this multi-dimensionality should be strongly considered. Groups are marginalized socially, economically,

politically, ecologically and spatially, all simultaneously (Wisner, Gaillard & Kelman, 2012). The second is that “social exclusion implies a focus on the relations and processes that cause deprivation” (De Haan, 2000, p. 26), as people can be excluded from multiple different groups concurrently. Groups can be “discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, caste, descent, gender, age, disability, HIV status, migrant status or where they live” (DFID, 2005, p. 3). Exclusion can also take place on different levels. For instance, on a personal level (being excluded from their own family), a national level (particular communities that face discrimination) and a global

(14)

level (women that are excluded from participation in society) (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017). However, at the same time, people can also be included in other areas (De Haan, 2000).

Disability and space

The exclusion of (disabled) people by society is not solely marked by history and time, but also shaped by space. Space constitutes social relations and – vice versa – social relations shape space (Kitchin, 1998). Geographies of space enable the exclusion of a social group, for instance, people with disabilities. The consequence of exclusion is often an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, or, stated

otherwise, it creates the Other. The Other is defined by boundaries that can be found in the human mind and/or are constituted in space (Sibley, 1995). Those boundaries “separate the “good” from the “bad” and the “self” from the “other”” (Cresswell, 1997, p. 566). In such landscapes – geographies of exclusion – lies the establishment of places where the exclusion of social groups, such as people with disabilities, is made possible. This is possible “because power is expressed in the monopolization of space and the relegation of weaker groups in society to less desirable environments” (Sibley, 1995, p. ix). The ascription of power to space is central in the work of Lefebvre (2014) and his concept of the ‘lived space’. Space holds power; when we want “to change life … we first must change space” (Lefebvre, 1974, as cited in: Kitchin, 1998, p. 352).

Looking at the power of space from the perspective of a disability, there is more than just physical barriers; there are political, institutional and social processes at play as well (Imrie & Edwards, 2007). Kitchin (1998, p. 346) argues that “to understand disability and the experiences of disabled people we must deconstruct the landscapes of power and exclusion, and the geographies of domination and resistance.”

Social exclusion and crisis situations

One of the spaces wherein persons with disabilities are marginalized and excluded from mainstream society is the space of the preparation for, the immediate response to, and the aftermath of a disaster. Along with other groups, persons with disabilities are more vulnerable to possible disasters, which can also be described as crisis situations following hazards. A hazard is “a dangerous

phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage” (UNISDR, 2009). There are natural hazards, for instance those of a

hydrological, geophysical, biological or climatological nature (IFRC, n.d.). There are man-made hazards as well, those being events caused by humans (IFRC, n.d.). These include biological, environmental and technological hazards and risks (UNDRR, 2015), such as transport and industrial accidents, conflicts and displaced populations (IFRC, n.d.).

(15)

According to Bolin & Kurtz (2018), the so-called vulnerability approach in disaster studies was initiated by Hewitt (1983) and his critique on, as he referred to it, the dominant view in hazard studies. This view focuses on the natural aspect of hazards and argues that the level to which people are affected depends on chance. It is just (bad) luck (Füssel, 2007). This perspective omits the influence of social order, as it does not include all the social relations between society and its habitat nor the values of society as such (Hewitt, 1983). Since the critique of Hewitt (1983), many scholars (e.g. Collins, 2009; Oliver-Smith, 1990; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 2003) have followed him in the so-called vulnerability approach, wherein the consequences of a hazard are not simply seen as natural but in line with “already existing social, political, environmental, and economic conditions” (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018, p. 183). Wisner et al. (2003, p. 11) describe vulnerability in light of hazards as: “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard”. Various social and biophysical factors shape the vulnerability of people; in addition to disability, many other social factors such as poverty, gender, ethnicity, race, and class play a role, and these factors differ per scale (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018).

The notion of ‘capacity’ emerged as part of the recognition of the ability of people to cope with natural hazards, as the concept of vulnerability as such was not sufficient enough. Vulnerability shines a more negative light on people, portraying them as solely being the victims; however, they also have resources and assets to deal with natural hazards (Gaillard, 2010). “Capacities refer to the set of knowledge, skills, and resources people resort to in dealing with natural hazards and disasters” (Cadag & Gaillard, 2014, p. 269). Although the concept of capacity is a reaction to the idea of vulnerability, it is important to note that the concepts of vulnerability and capacity are not

diametrically opposed (Wisner, Gaillard & Kelman, 2012). Capacity is not only about the availability of resources, but it also deals with the accessibility of these resources. An interesting observation regarding capacity and vulnerability is that for a community, capacities are more endogenous in nature, while the structures that are often the instigator of the vulnerability of people are of an exogenous nature (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b).

Hazard, vulnerability and capacity all come together in the notion of ‘disaster’. According to Van Niekerk (2011), a broadly accepted definition is “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources” (UNISDR, 2009). A hazard becomes a disaster when a community is affected by it. To what extent a community is affected, and what the consequences of a particular hazard are, depends on the vulnerabilities of the community and its capacities to cope with the hazard (Twigg, 2001). The disaster risk can, according to Van Niekerk (2011), be illustrated by the following notation: Disaster

(16)

risk = Vulnerability x Hazard: Capacity. The disaster risk does not solely depend on the hazard; the social order is also brought into play. In other words, by reducing their vulnerability and/or increasing their capacity, individuals, as well as communities, will become less susceptible to the effects of a disaster.

The marginalization of groups in their daily lives also manifests itself during disasters. This is because those who are marginalized before a disaster also struggle more during and in the recovery after a disaster. They themselves have more difficulties in the aftermath of a disaster, and authorities often neglect them (Wisner et al., 2012). Each marginalized group has its own consequences and

implications in the light of a disaster. Therefore, scholars have looked into disaster and the

marginalized groups separated as well. For instance, academics have looked at race, class, ethnicity (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018), gender (e.g. Enarson, Fothergill & Peek, 2018), age (e.g. Peek et al., 2018) and disability status (Stough & Kelman, 2018). One individual can belong to multiple marginalized groups at the same time. A young girl with a disability is simultaneously a child, a woman and a person with a disability. These three groups are all marginalized during disasters (Enarson, Fothergill & Peek, 2018; Peek et al., 2018; Stough & Kelman, 2018).

Disaster Risk Reduction and marginalized groups

Becoming less disaster-prone can be attained with the help of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), since it aims at decreasing the vulnerabilities of people and increasing their coping capacities in times of disaster (UNISDR, 2009). When executed successfully, it reduces “the damage caused by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, droughts, and cyclones, through an ethic of prevention” (UNDRR, n.d.) and the damage caused by man-made hazards (IFRC, n.d.). According to the United Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), DRR is:

“The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events” (UNISDR, 2009, pp. 10-11).

There are various approaches to DRR, of which the more traditional approach is the disaster

continuum model. This traditional approach divides DRR into two phases. The first phase focuses on measures before a disaster, while the second phase is directed at actions in the post-disaster phase. A more recent approach, the so-called expand-contract model (Figure 1), does not make this strict division, but rather sees DRR as a continuous process. This model is based on four different dimensions – Prevention & Mitigation, Preparedness, Relief & Response, and Recovery &

(17)

Rehabilitation – which can (and do) occur simultaneously before, during and after a disaster. The various phases of DRR run parallel to each other, while the expansion or contraction of each dimension depends on the current situation (pre-, intra- or post-disaster) (Asghar, Alahakoon & Chruilov, 2006; Dube, 2015). In this research, the terms for the various dimensions as described by Phillips (2015) are used: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Both studies use four phases/dimensions, but those described by Phillips (2015) are more concise and thus easier to present in a clear way. To clarify, the expand-contract model is used, albeit with a change of names.

Figure 1 - Expand-contract model (source: Dube (2015))

In addition, this research focuses on the mitigation and preparedness phase of DRR, the two phases which are the most relevant during a pre-disaster period. As Cyganik (2003) argues, mitigation and preparedness both are “the driving forces behind a successful response” (p. 81). Twigg (2004) also mentions that those two phases are commonly considered as the main phases. According to Twigg (2004, p. 2) “‘Mitigation’ is any action to minimize the impact of a potential disaster;

‘preparedness’ refers to specific measures taken before a disaster strikes, usually to issue warnings, take precautions and facilitate a rapid response”.

Although DRR is primarily centered around reducing the vulnerabilities and/or increasing the

capacities of people, the marginalized groups—those who are the most vulnerable—are left out from decision-making and planning processes, although these are the groups who need DRR the most. There is a need for DRR to be more inclusive, rather than perpetuating social exclusion (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017). It is important to keep in mind that the exclusion of groups from DRR “is a reflection of their wider marginalization” (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017, p. 256) in their daily lives. The inclusion of marginalized people and groups within the space of DRR cannot be seen separate from the efforts of inclusion in their daily lives (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017). Based on lessons learned from development efforts for social inclusion, Le Masson and Lovell (2017, p. 257) highlight for topics for promoting social inclusion:

(18)

“(i) excluded people’s lack of access to, and control of, resources and rights; (ii) the need for

supportive governance and social services; (iii) excluded people’s high vulnerability to human rights abuse at all levels; and (iv) cultural differences between places and contexts that influence how risks are perceived by different people.”

To make DRR inclusive for marginalized people and groups, it is crucial to involve them in the planning and decision-making processes. They also need equal access to opportunities and rights, and they need to feel worthy. The importance of involving local knowledge, practices and skills in DRR is obvious, and this may be achieved through a participatory approach – turning the capacities of local communities and people to good account (Le Masson & Lovell, 2017).

Disaster Risk Reduction for children with disabilities

The considerations described above are relevant for and applicable to all marginalized groups and individuals. The next section focuses specifically on the combination of children with disabilities in light of disaster (risk reduction). It is important to note here again that given the fact there is a knowledge gap about children with disabilities and disaster (Boon et al., 2011; Peek & Stough, 2010; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b), considerations regarding children with disabilities are chiefly based on the combination of literature regarding children and disaster and persons with disabilities and disaster.

Peek & Stough (2010) make distinctions between physical, psychological and educational vulnerabilities for children with a disability. They describe six risk factors that “increase the probability that they will experience negative physically impacts during and following disaster” (p. 1262), impacts shared by children and people with disabilities alike. First, people with disabilities and children are more likely to live in poverty. People living in poverty are less likely to be fully prepared. They have fewer chances to be warned properly or do not understand messages (Peek & Stough, 2010). They live in housing that is more disaster-prone, and they do not have the resources to evacuate in the event of a disaster (Murray, 2011; Peek & Stough, 2010). “Children with disabilities in high-poverty areas are thus among those most exposed and most vulnerable to extreme events” (Peek & Stough, 2010, p. 1262).

Additionally, when there is only a short warning time (e.g. with an earthquake), it might be difficult for children with disabilities to take all the necessary protective measurements. It might also become harder or impossible for them to escape the disaster or to withstand the forces of nature. Because of mobility limitations, evacuation points at higher elevations cannot be reached. In the case of

(19)

reality of these risks; numerous examples of persons with disabilities could not evacuate (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b).

A third factor refers to evacuation. Children with disabilities are less likely to leave the endangered area, although households with children are more likely to evacuate. Adults with disabilities belong to the groups which are least likely to evacuate (Peek & Stough, 2010).

Fourth, separation from parents/caregivers may also create negative implications for children with disabilities. Without their parents/caregivers, they are more prone to sickness, abuse and

malnutrition, and they might have more trouble finding appropriate shelter (Peek & Stough, 2010; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b; Boon et al., 2011).

Institutional exclusion, social distancing and stigma can have negative consequences for children with disabilities as well. Inadequate care for children with disabilities in shelters is an example of

institutional exclusion. Social distancing and stigma can lead to social discrimination and further stigmatization (Peek & Stough, 2010).

The final factor is that children with disabilities, just as other marginalized groups, are overlooked in DRR planning (Peek & Stough, 2010; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). This is due to the lack of knowledge about disabilities and the view of children as vulnerable and incompetent. In DRR planning, decisions are being made for children, but the ones with disabilities are simply forgotten. Incorrect assumptions about children with disabilities, such as regarding them as helpless, excludes them from DRR planning (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b).

This vulnerability can, on paper, quickly become a capacity: the involvement of children with disabilities in DRR planning. As Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe (2015b, p. 43) argue

“almost everyone, including children with disabilities, usually has some capacity for self-protection and group action. Children possess the capacity to resist, avoid and adapt to the processes of disaster preparation and response, and to use their abilities for creating security, either before a disaster occurs or during its aftermath.”

Children (with disabilities) are creative, innovative and knowledgeable, which leads to solutions that may differ from solutions provided by adults (Peek 2008). Peek (2008) describes three ways in which children, and thus children with disabilities, can be involved in DRR activities: in the preparedness, response and recovery phases of a disaster. Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe (2015b) describe this as preparing for a disaster through education programs about hazards, then subsequently allowing children share this knowledge with family and community. Also, the involvement of children during the response phase should be promoted. Thirdly, children should have an involvement in the

(20)

recovery phase and the recovery of others. They can, for instance, “be role models, motivators, and resource persons for those newly injured in a disaster” (p. 43). Children with disabilities often have heightened complementary senses which can be a capacity as well. For instance, some people with a disability have a psychological advantage as they can navigate easily in the dark due to enhanced tactile sense. But at the same time, they can be more vulnerable as they are more sensitive to stress in unfamiliar situations. The exact capacities of children with disabilities during disasters still needs further consideration in research (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b).

Schools play a vital role in discovering, acknowledging and developing capacities of children (with disabilities), as this is the place where children convene. At school, children can be involved in DRR through mapping and locating evacuation routes (Back, Cameron & Tanner, 2009; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). Unfortunately, children with disabilities often cannot attend school. Generally speaking, only half of the children with disabilities in developing countries are regularly in school. However, in some countries, school attendance is as low as just 1 to 3% (Liliane Foundation, 2017). In these cases, the community could be the facilitator of DRR knowledge. Ideally, the school and community complement one another, as they are both important for the inclusion of children with disabilities (Back, Cameron & Tanner, 2009; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). Schools also come with educational vulnerabilities (Peek & Stough, 2010).

Foremost, school-going children spend a significant part of their day at school. Therefore, disaster often strikes when the children are at school (Peek & Stough, 2010; Boon et al., 2011; Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015). Finding a new and adequate school is important for the continuation of their education, as childhood is the time of rapid intellectual development. However, this search can be complicated for children with disabilities, as they already have additional barriers in accessing education prior to a disaster. When schools are being rebuilt, building more inclusive schools might not be a priority at all. Other challenges include the loss of personnel (due to displacement, fleeing, injury, budget cuts), which can harm the academic progress of children. This is especially true for children with disabilities, because they often have complex support networks. Vital school records might be destroyed, and there is the possibility of displacement of children with disabilities. This displacement might harm their academic performance as they are more vulnerable to dislocating events (Peek & Stough, 2010). Being at school also means separation from their parents/caregivers (which is also the case when they are at the day-care or with their friends) (Peek & Stough, 2010; Murray, 2011). In addition to physical vulnerabilities, being separated from parents/ caregivers brings psychological vulnerabilities.

According to Peek & Stough (2010), the separation of children with disabilities from their parents/caregivers is exceptionally troubling, as they are required for additional emotional and functional support. Separation might also be distressing for the parents. Together with other possible

(21)

distress and trauma, sufficient care might be in danger. However, “children can and do effectively adapt to disruptive shocks caused by disaster, especially when they receive appropriate support from a parent or other close adult and live in a safe and nurturing environment” (p. 1264). But this

adapting is difficult when parents/caregivers are missing, when children with disabilities do not have the necessary facilities in shelters, when processing the events cognitively falters (higher change of PTSS), when they experience social distancing and when their environment is disrupted for a longer period (which is more likely for a household with a person with a disability) (Peek & Stough, 2010). As evacuating might be more stressful for families with a child with a disability, this could influence their level of understanding of the procedure and instructions. More often than not, sufficient psychosocial treatment is lacking. Some accounts suggest that disaster can degrade the mental health of persons with disabilities. A study on the impact of the ‘9/11’ attacks, shows that persons with work disabilities, as well as children with activity limitations, were more vulnerable to mental and physical health problems, reported six months after the attack (Peek & Stough, 2010).

Measures and actions

The above-described vulnerabilities and capacities of children should be taken into consideration with DRR, as DRR has the mission of reducing vulnerabilities and increasing the capacities. The following measures and actions are on a micro- (children with disabilities and their families/ households) and meso-level (local disability organizations and the community they operate in). The functional-needs approach proposed by Kailes & Enders (2007), which defines disability in the context of disaster, “is particularly useful in the vulnerability and capacity assessment in the face of disaster” (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b, p. 42) and looks at the needs associated with communication, medical assistance, functional independence, supervision and transportation (Kailes & Enders, 2007). This approach is proposed, as no single DRR strategy is suitable due to the different types of disability (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). Each child with a disability needs his or her own measures and actions. The approach is intended for DRR planners, but in this case, used as an assessment tool for households and organizations.

Although there is no single DRR strategy, there are general measures and actions for both the mitigation and preparedness phase, which can realize DRR. These often refer to enhancing capacities, as this is easier than reducing vulnerabilities, which are mostly determined by external factors (Wisner, Gaillard & Kelman, 2012). On a household level, this means preparations in and around the house for a safer environment (securing furniture for example), making hazard assessments with the family, discussing best measures to take and having a preparedness plan which includes an

emergency kit. In this preparedness plan and emergency kit, the needs of the individual, at the levels proposed by Kailes & Enders (2007), should be considered. Needs in communication can be assistive

(22)

tools used to be able to communicate or to understand messages. If possible, a surplus medicine is necessary (if the household can afford it) (Phillips, 2015). Alternatively, a list of the necessary medication would be needed. To maintain functional independence, households should be aware of what assistance a child with a disability needs (crutches, for instance). Supervision is crucial for children with disabilities, and losing their parents or caregivers can have fatal consequences. Therefore, parents should have a plan on how to stay together and what to do when separated; for example, a multiple-buddy system (Phillips, 2015). Transportation needs include knowing what is needed in order to be able to evacuate. Does the individual need the assistance of others, or can they evacuate on their own? The functional-needs approach is also useful for disability or for other organizations that want to assess the capacities and vulnerabilities of children with a disability and their households. In that way, it is possible to ensure the needs on each of the different levels are met as well as possible.

On the household and organization/community levels, the preparation for and mitigation of a hazard/disaster often go hand in hand, as they include “agreeing on warning signals, infrastructure, and livestock protection, meeting points, planning evacuation routes, vehicles, and shelters, and preparing resources to cope with the disruption of daily life” (Wisner, Gaillard & Kelman, 2012, p. 26). Meso-level actors can subsequently review these meeting points, evacuation routes and shelters for accessibility. Developing assistive devices and hardening facilities of all kinds are also effective measures. Such measures and actions as mentioned on the meso-level require collaboration between organizations linked those who need assistance (Phillips, 2015). Concerning children with disabilities, this would be organizations such as the local disability organization, the community (which includes a DRR committee), the local health organization and other organizations possibly involved. This

collaboration is essential for optimal disaster preparedness (Levac, Toal-Sullivan & O’Sullivan, 2012). Together, they can provide the households with resources to be prepared for a disaster (sharing information, assessing preparedness and giving advice, developing a registry, etc.), and disability organizations in particular can promote the involvement of persons with disabilities in DRR. However, those organizations should also be ready internally, operating in a prepared environment and

developing a plan and actions to be operating as quickly as possible after a disaster (Phillips, 2015). Informing and advising households with a child with a disability is an important task, as households receiving support are more likely to have a disaster preparedness plan (Eisenman et al., 2009). Research by Levac, Toal-Sullivan & O’Sullivan (2012) suggests that when households or one member of the home receives support, they are more likely to be prepared for a disaster. This includes, for instance, making households aware of the different needs according to the functional-needs approach. Support can also increase the understanding of a hazard and the belief that they can successfully respond to a disaster; both will lead to better preparedness. As people tend to be more

(23)

prepared when others around them believe in the benefits of it, one family member can influence other family members, and one household can influence other households (Levac, Toal-Sullivan & O’Sullivan, 2012).

2.2 Context

As mentioned, disasters can be the result of natural hazards as well as man-made hazards; both are present in Kenya. The natural disasters in Kenya that affect most people are drought and floods. According to World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2019), in their disaster risk profile of Kenya, there are 5.5 million people affected annually and 9 million affected each decade. Annually, 150,000 people face impacts of flooding, and 750,000 people are affected each decade. Other natural disasters that also occur in Kenya, according to this disaster risk profile, are landslides (350 people at risk annually), earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In its own disaster risk profile, UNISDR (2019) solely focuses on floods and drought and provides different numbers of people affected (floods: 75,000 people every year, droughts: an average of 6.5 million people every year). Despite the differences in exact numbers, both disaster risk profiles refer to considerably large numbers. Recent hazards included in this list are epidemics and diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cholera and malaria (Owuor, 2015).

Man-made disasters in Kenya include traffic accidents, human conflicts, fires, terrorism, structural collapses and industrial incidents (Huho, Mashara & Musyimi, 2016; Mutugi & Maingi, 2011; Owuor, 2015). Official numbers show that each year 3,000 Kenyans die because of road traffic accidents (Manyara, 2016). Some alternative figures range as high as 13,000 per year (World Health Organization, 2010). In Kenya, the risk of dying in road traffic is among the highest in the world (Manyara, 2016), and the number of road traffic accidents continues to increase (Bachani et al., 2012). Fires can have various causes, such as kitchen-based incidents, fires due to electrical faults or as a result of arson. Wildfires are also a possibility, which can be caused by either men or nature. (Huho, Mashara & Musyimi, 2016). In some areas of Kenya, human conflicts and insecurities arise as a result of pastoralists and the tension they experience with their surroundings, including other people who are living in the area (Berger, 2003).

(24)

Figure 2 - Conceptual framework

Marginalized groups regularly face social exclusion (De Haan, 2000) in all different areas of life (Kitchin, 1998). One of those areas is that of hazards and disasters, where vulnerabilities and capacities of marginalized groups and individuals, combined with the hazard itself, comprise the disaster risk one has to live with (Van Niekerk, 2011). The marginalization in their daily lives manifests itself also during disasters, this struggle becomes also apparent during and in the recovery of a disaster (Wisner et al., 2012). The capacity of each group is not only about the availability of resources, but it also deals with the accessibility of these resources (Ronoh, Gaillard & Marlowe, 2015b). Marginalized groups are often neglected by authorities in the aftermath of a disaster (Wisner et al., 2012), for instance through not receiving relief goods. Children with disabilities are part of at least two different marginalized groups during disasters (children and persons with disabilities). Children and persons with disabilities do have different characteristics, such as when children go to school there is the educational vulnerability while persons with disabilities could have physical limitations. But both groups also have corresponding characteristics, such as they are both more likely to live in poverty (Peek & Stough, 2010). Other characteristics have their impact as well, all

characteristics together influence the vulnerabilities and capacities of the children with disabilities (Peek et al., 2018; Stough & Kelman, 2018; Wisner, Gaillard & Kelman, 2012). Through DRR, which aims to increase the capacity and limit the vulnerabilities of children with disabilities (UNISDR, 2009), the disaster risk of this marginalized group can be reduced. DRR can be realized on different levels. At the micro-level, you have households with a child with a disability. Through different measures and actions, such as cooperation with the community, they try to increase their capacities. At the meso-level, you have the local disability organizations which are supporting those households with a child with a disability, for instance through sharing information about disasters. At the same time, those local disability organizations have to be internally prepared as well in order to successfully support those families (Phillips, 2015). Together they influence the disaster risk of children with disabilities.

(25)

(26)

1. Methodology

In order to answer the primary research question – To what extent are households with a child with a disability and local disability organizations able to respond to disasters by implementing Disaster Risk Reduction measures and therewith protecting children with disabilities in Kenya? – qualitative research has been done. The data was collected through field research.

3.1 Research design

This research starts from an interpretive position, meaning the world as we know it is not an

objective truth, but rather a man-made construct based on the ideas to which we adhere (Kim, 2010). An interpretive position “denotes that the methods of the research […] adopt the position that people’s knowledge of reality is a social construction by human actors” (Chowdhury, 2014, p. 433). In the interviews for this research, the interviewees were invited to reflect on their perspectives regarding disasters; anything they considered as a disaster could be discussed. Being the researcher (and interviewer), I interpreted the stories they told by asking follow-up questions when the moment felt appropriate. Translators that were present during the interviews with the household members (referring to households with a child with a disability) gave their meaning to the stories as well. Particularly during the phase of analysis, the meaning of the stories was steered in the direction of the interpretation of the researcher; for instance, the researcher decided what is seen as a capacity, vulnerability or a neutral remark. The researcher also concluded which remarks were more important than others (Grant & Giddings, 2002).

Furthermore, the research design is based on the principles of a narrative case study. In the words of Yin (2014, p. 16), a case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context”. In this research, the phenomenon is made up of the DRR activities initiated by local disability organizations and households, while the real-world context was discussed in the interviews. These interviews also contained insightful “contextual conditions”, which were relevant to the case, as was to be expected (Yin, 2014). This research is a single embedded-case study; one case with local disability organizations and households as the two sub-units of analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2016). The reflectivity of the researcher in this case study is also important, as it is “a main instrument for gathering, interpreting and representing the ‘data’ (i.e. stories of lived experience)” (Etherington & Bridges, 2011, p. 12).

Secondly, the narrative part of the research is given by the fact that the interviews were based on the experiences of the interviewees. They guided the interviews through their stories and experiences with disaster risk management in their work and/or their daily lives (Creswell & Poth, 2016). By

(27)

listening to the stories of the families and employees of the local disability organizations, a better understanding of their DRR activities could be reached (Sharp, Bye & Cusick, 2018). Since the researcher did not know beforehand to what extent local disability organizations and households were prepared, ‘a curious, not knowing’ attitude (Etherington & Bridges, 2011) was present. As previously mentioned, data for this study was collected through field research in the form of interviews. These interviews were conducted with local disability organizations and households that are supported by those local disability organizations. Both types of interviews were semi-structured and referred to topics about DRR derived from academic literature. The respective interview schemes were included in a document with an uncluttered representation of these topics. The interviews started with an open question, so as to invite the interviewees to reflect on their experiences with disasters and DRR. Next, follow-up questions were asked based on the topics that were relevant in the context of the conversation.

The relevant topics and examples of (successful) DRR were based on a literature review. These topics are necessary to operationalize the experiences of the interviewees. This literature review, on the one hand, focused on all vulnerabilities and capacities for children with disabilities with regards to

disaster risk (reduction) and, on the other hand, focused on the question of what can be done to limit these vulnerabilities and/or increase the capacities. DRR measures and activities – both general measures and activities and disability/child-specific measures and activities – are listed as well. In doing so, the focus remains on the preparedness and mitigation phases of DRR. Although the interview schemes were based on topics derived from the literature, not all the literature dealt with children with disabilities. More often than not (a combination of) literature was used on either DRR for children in general or DRR for persons of all ages with disabilities. Regardless, the literature presented clear-cut topics and occasionally mentioned various vulnerabilities and/or capacities children with disabilities have prior to, during or after a disaster. Therefore, the topics are also based on how the vulnerabilities might be limited and the capacities might be enhanced. In addition, measures and actions suitable for general DRR are addressed as well. Worth noting is that the topics included are (mostly) formulated as capacities. This has obviously influenced the outcome of the interviews, as the respondents were (primarily) asked about their capacities, not about their vulnerabilities.

3.2 Sample

Initially, it was decided to have interviews with ten to fifteen households that included child with a disability, as well as with three to five local disability organizations. This starting point was sent, along with the research questions, to the various partner organizations of my internship organization, all being disability organizations operating throughout various countries. Two partner organizations

(28)

responded positively; the organization in Kenya was deemed to be the ‘best fit’, given the size of the country and the experience of the local staff with DRR. The local staff has, in turn, their own partner organizations who work with children with disabilities; the local disability organizations that have been interviewed are part of this network. The choice of which local disability organizations to interview was based on the financial costs and the available timeframe. That is, the local disability organizations were not chosen on theoretical grounds, nor are they are as such representative of the whole of Kenya.

Communication with the local disability organizations was facilitated by the partner organization of the internship organization. The partner organization arranged the visits, the interviews with the local disability organization on DRR and the home visits. It was decided to visit five local disability

organizations and ten households. However, it came to pass that two of the five local disability organizations had only one home visit arranged, so the total number of respondents includes five local disability organizations and eight households. Not every local disability organization solely focuses on disability, but rather have people with disabilities as a group they focus on amongst other groups.

The five interviews with the local disability organizations were held with various employees of the organizations, depending on the persons with whom the arrangements were made and on their availability. Interviews ranged from one to three employees being interviewed; their functions ranged from those directly responsible for the disability or disaster risk management program to the director of the organization. As agreed upon before every interview, the names of the interviewees and their organizations have been anonymized.

Seven of the eight households included one child with a disability, the remaining household had three children with disabilities. Six of the children had physical limitations, while four had mental

disabilities. The ages of the children ranged from three to twenty-five years. The participants in the household interviews depended upon who was the caregiver and on who was present. For five households, this meant that the mother was being interviewed; in one home, the child with a disability and their sibling were interviewed. In another, both parents were interviewed. In the last household, the grandparents acted as the interviewees. In the last two interviews, two volunteers of the local disability organization were also present. As the interviewees did not speak any English (or just a little, at best), there was always at least one interpreter present during the interviews. These interpreters were either staff members of the local disability organization or staff members of the partner organization that hosted me. Occasionally, the staff members of the partner organization participated in the interviews with the local disability organizations, even when translations were not necessary.

(29)

The duration of the interviews with the local disability organizations varied between 15:49 and 50:26 minutes. Important to note is that the interview which lasted only 15:49 minutes was the one with the only organization that had not received any DRR training; the other organizations did receive training. The duration of the interviews with the households varied between 08:07 and 33:15 minutes. All the interviews have been audio-recorded and fully transcribed.

As far as type of disaster is concerned, road traffic accidents, cooking fire accidents and diseases were all brought up in the discussion by the various organizations. Diseases were specifically mentioned by LO4, because this organization is located in a slum where diseases are wide-spread. Cooking fire accidents was specifically mentioned by LO5, as this organization is active in a region where the cooking takes place in the middle of only a small, traditional house; due to this, children in the area more frequently have burns.

Finally, the field work in Kenya lasted for one month. The first three local disability organizations and the various homes were visited within a span of seven days. The main focus of these visits was not only the interaction concerning DRR, but also activities by the hosting organization. Therefore, the factor of time constraints came into consideration. With the visits to the other two local disability organizations and the remaining home visits, the interaction concerning DRR was the only reason for the visit; therefore, those visits were less affected by time constraints. The context of the local disability organization (LO) and its households (H) can been seen in Table 1.

Table 1 - Context local disability organizations and households

LO + interview with Disaster s: Operate s in:

Supports: Disasters Child(ren) with: Interview with Interprete rs Extra information LO1 Two employees Landslid es, drought and fires. Local town and rural area H1 Droughts, fires Physical limitation Child with a physical limitation and sibling LO1 employee Child is older than 18 years old and goes to school. H2 Landslides, drought and fires Mental limitation Mother of the child with a mental limitation Three LO1 employee s Child is older than 18 years old.

(30)

LO2 Two employees Drought and conflict. Local town and rural area H3 Drought and conflict. Physical limitation Mother and volunteer Two LO2 employee s Child goes to school. Father was also present. H4 Conflict Mental limitation Grandmothe r and volunteer One LO2 employee Two grandmothers and a grandfather are the caregivers LO3 One employee Drought , conflict and flash floods. Local town and rural area

H5 Drought Two with

physical limitations, one with a mental limitation

Mother One LO3 employee

One other child had died from falling into a fire. LO4 One Employee Fire outbrea ks and diseases Slum H6 Fire outbreaks and diseases Mental limitation Mother Employee hosting organizati on Mother is in a wheelchair and is on her own. H7 Fire outbreaks and diseases Physical limitation Mother Employee hosting organizati on Mother is on her own. LO5 Three employees Drought and fire accident s Local town and rural area H8 Drought and cooking fire accidents Physical limitation (due to falling in cooking fire)

Mother One LO5 employee

Local tribal culture, cooking fire in the middle of a small house and burning cow dunk outside.

(31)

3.3. Data analysis

The data, as gathered in the various interviews, has been analyzed based on a so-called deductive paradigmatic analysis (Sharp, Bye & Cusick, 2018). The analysis is deductive, as the categorization of the concepts, the main topic and sub-topics is based upon the theoretical framework instead of the data itself (Polkinghorne, 1995). The transcripts of the interviews have been used to do the analysis with Atlas.ti. The interviews with the local disability organizations were analyzed separately from those with households. In the next chapter, which delineates the results, the local disability organizations are presented first, followed by the results of the households.

For the local disability organizations, there were a total of 53 pre-determined sub-topics, while there were 26 sub-topics pre-determined for the households. The pre-determined sub-topics were used as tools for coding the quotes from the interviews. Each sub-topic could be coded as a capacity (+), a vulnerability (-) or simply a neutral remark about the sub-topic. Remarks which were not evidently a capacity or vulnerability but still gave (insightful) information were coded as neutral. The same applied to remarks which gave information that was not directly related to DRR, but was still important information. First was decided to which sub-topic the quote belongs, followed by a distinction on the basis of whether it was considered as a capacity, a vulnerability, or represented a neutral remark. When quotes from the interviews included two or more topics, multiple codes were attached to that specific quote. This course of action was taken, as the sub-topics were defined beforehand and thus the hierarchy of the sub-topics was clear from the beginning.

To maintain an overview, all sub-topics are distributed across 11 main topics for the local disability organizations and six main topics for the households. The categorization of these main topics was based on the sub-topics, attempting to bring as many similar sub-topics together under one main topic. Therefore, some main topics contain more sub-topics than others. The main topics are described in the results section, while an overview of the main topics and the appointed sub-topics can be found in Appendix B.

After coupling the various sub-topics and quotes in Atlas.ti, the sub-topics were then divided across the main topics. With the help of Atlas.ti, tables were designed to display the number of remarks made by each local disability organization or household per main topic. Thus, the remarks are bound to the sub-topics appointed to a particular main topic. The remarks are subsequently discussed, illustrated by relevant quotes. For the local disability organizations and the households alike, the conclusion is based on the findings of the capacities, vulnerabilities and the neutral remarks taken together. Finally, the conclusions for the local disability organizations and the households in total are based on those two sub-conclusions; combined, they answer the main research question.

In order to be able to arrive to these conclusions, the standards must be set. Expecting local disability organizations and households to include every sub-topic in their DRR activities is not very realistic.

(32)

The conclusions have therefore been made while taking the contexts in which the local disability organizations have to operate and in which the households have to live into account; analyzing the separate results from local disability organization and household perspectives.