This summer, we participated in a Service-Learning course titled “Breaking the Cycle of Disaster, Response, Recover, and Repeat”. The course was developed by Solmaz Mohadjer and offered as part of the Transdisciplinary Course Program at the University of Tübingen, Germany. We were brought together from different disciplines to explore key factors that contribute to effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) approaches. We did this by examining case studies from around the world and through direct interactions with non-profit organisations engaged in DRR. In this insightful interview, we spoke with two members of GeoHazards International (GHI), a non-profit organisation that works closely with at-risk communities worldwide to build resilience ahead of disasters and climate impacts.
As students from three different disciplines (anthropology, economics, and computer science), we were united by a single issue: Why do disasters keep repeating, and what can be done to change this? In this interview, we discussed with Janise Rodgers, GHI Chief Operating Officer and Mary Antonette Beroya-Eitner, GHI Project Manager, about their approach to effective disaster risk reduction work and how understanding and engaging people can bring about lasting solutions. Given our diverse academic backgrounds, we also chatted about the role of social sciences in reducing disaster risk, the long-term economic sustainability of disaster work, and the validation process for disaster risk communication tools.
In this blog, we share our findings with the wider natural hazard science community to provoke discussion about how researchers and practitioners can strengthen their engagement in DRR.
Janise Rodgers, GHI’s Chief Operating Officer (left); Mary Antonette Beroya-Eitner, GHI’s Project Manager (right) (Image source: GHI)
Hi Janise and Tonette, we are excited to have the opportunity to chat with you today. You draw on your engineering and science backgrounds, respectively, to help make communities safer from multiple natural hazards. Could you tell us how you engage with cultural norms and practices that might conflict with the technical safety recommendations you make?
Janise: Hello! It is a great pleasure to be here with you. Here at GeoHazards International, we begin by recognising the human tendency to downplay low-probability, high-impact events such as earthquakes, a psychological and cultural hurdle common across many contexts. This common human response has been more of a barrier than any specific cultural norm or practice we encounter in the communities where we work. So, we rely on several approaches, including scenario-based storytelling, often drawing from recent regional events, to help people picture what is at risk and imagine the consequences of inaction.
Tonette: Another crucial strategy of GeoHazards International is that we embed local staff into every project. These individuals serve as cultural mediators who understand local norms on a deeper level and can guide the engagement process from within the community. So, rather than imposing top-down technical advice, we embrace participatory strategies like community conversations and co-producing disaster scenarios, to translate abstract hazards into tangible concerns.
Aminata: As an anthropology student, I’m curious if (and how) you involve local social scientists like anthropologists, sociologists, or cultural mediators in your teams?
Tonette: Anthropologists, sociologists, or other social scientists are not always part of every team, but we work with people who bring expertise and help bridge cultural gaps. Our local staff and resource persons act as cultural mediators. They are typically recruited from the communities directly or are regional experts who are very familiar with the given circumstances.
We also integrate social scientists where relevant. For example, psychologists can provide support for mental health, and sociologists can carry out surveys or interviews to ensure methodological rigour and ethical standards. Our goal is a multidisciplinary approach that combines natural and social sciences to address both technical and contextual realities.
Youth-focused disaster preparedness training in Bhutan, as part of GHIs’ efforts to support the Department of Education in Bhutan since 2010. (Image source: GeoHazards International)
Your website mentions scenario-based planning. How do you adapt these scenarios to specific local contexts? Are there elements of your approach that stay consistent across regions or change depending on the cultural or regulatory context?
Janise: Scenario-based planning is one of our core methods for disaster preparedness and risk mitigation. While the overarching structure is consistent, every scenario is co-produced with local professionals. We do this to reflect both the technical risks and the social dynamics of the region we work in. Our initial site visits and risk and stakeholder assessments are followed by consultations with local and national stakeholders. This gives us a good understanding of local resilience challenges, but also capacities. Rather than simply presenting the developed models, we collaborate with local professionals to build scenarios that reflect both the technical realities and the social dynamics.
This participatory approach reflects our broader philosophy. Long-term success in Disaster Risk Reduction relies on strong local ownership. Their involvement not only ensures technical accuracy but also community resonance and stakeholder trust. Let me give you an example. We had a UK-funded collaborative project in Weinan, China, where local professionals requested a story instead of the usual technical report. In response, we worked with social scientists to co-create a written narrative about a damaging earthquake, which the team’s local book designer then turned into a graphic novel. This approach made the technical content both accessible and memorable.
How do you gain the trust of key stakeholders in a new project? What does meaningful participation look like to you?
Tonette: Trust-building is never one-size-fits-all. Our experience shows that local norms profoundly shape what trust looks like. This often means finding culturally appropriate ways to recognise and respect community and local authority structures. In the Philippines, for instance, it is essential for senior project representatives to attend initial project meetings. This is a sign of respect and commitment.
Unlike ceremonial gestures, meaningful participation means giving stakeholders the power to shape and continue the project themselves. This power encourages a sense of ownership and shared responsibility. For example, the schools we trained in Bhutan in disaster preparedness took the initiative to buy fire extinguishers and run drills. This was done independently, with no involvement from us.
Measuring elevation using a water hose method, Calatagan, Philippines (Image credit: GeoHazards International)
Manolo: I’m a student studying economics, so this question is related to what I study: how do you ensure the long-term economic sustainability of your disaster risk reduction projects, especially when depending on foreign aid and faced with limited local resources?
Tonette: As donor continuity is never guaranteed, we focus on long-term impact through institutionalisation. This means we embed DRR initiatives into the systems, structures, and routines of our local partners.
Janise: For example, in Aizawl in northeast India, we worked to address landslide hazard through a lengthy collaborative process that began with a scenario and action plan and culminated in site development regulations and hiring of city geologists. This way, even after a project formally ends, the activities can continue independently.
Tonette: Affordability is another guiding principle. We design our interventions with local resource availability in mind and prioritise cost-effective and locally available methods and tools to reduce dependency on external expertise and funding. For example, we trained community members in Calatagan, Philippines, to measure elevation using water hose method in participatory assessments of mangrove health and environmental conditions.
So, our model of sustainability is not about indefinite support, but about strengthening capacity and ownership, so that disaster risk reduction measures can evolve from external initiative to local practice.
Yvette: As a computer science student, I’d like to know if and how you validate your disaster risk communication tools? How do you know if they’re understood and used correctly by different cultural groups?
Janise: We tailor our communication to the media habits and cultural languages of each community. In Haiti, for example, our team brought together a diverse local committee, including local officials, fishermen, teachers and other community members, to co-develop earthquake safety messages that would resonate across different social groups.
One of our most important outreach tools in Haiti is the local radio. To measure the impact of messaging using such communication tools, we implemented pre- and post-project evaluation surveys in two Haitian communities. We did this to track the changes in knowledge and understanding of the safety messages.
Tonette: For us, one key sign of success is when communities begin to adopt ways of speaking about a topic introduced in the project. This signals that the ideas have been internalised, leading to deeper and lasting engagement.
Gefthé Dévilmé (right) answering listeners’ questions on community radio, Anse-à-Veau.
(Image source: GeoHazards International)
What are the key takeaways
Disaster Risk Reduction is sometimes imagined as a technical endeavour consisting of hazard models and technical tools. But disasters are deeply social events and are significantly influenced by social inequalities, power dynamics and cultural nuances. These factors can either magnify or mitigate the impact of hazards. While scientific approaches are essential, they can only be effective if there is trust and community engagement.
Here are our three key takeaways from our conversation with GeoHazards International:
1. Culture and Trust come first
- DRR must begin with cultural understanding, through local staff members as cultural mediators.
- Trust-building is context-specific and must align with local expectations.
- Storytelling, visual media, and familiar formats are powerful ways to enhance disaster communication with diverse audiences.
2. DRR is most effective when led by locals
- Effective DRR work creates space for locals to voice concerns, give feedback, and take initiative.
- Local participation becomes meaningful when communities take ownership.
- GHI integrates social scientists when needed to utilise, among other things, their understanding of the local context and maintain ethical standards when conducting DRR research with people.
3. Disaster work SHOULD be sustainable
- Sustainable DRR means building systems, not dependencies.
- DRR should be embedded into institutions and training to ensure long-term resilience.
- Projects should be designed to be affordable and context-sensitive, aiming to reduce the dependence on outside expertise and resources.
Taken together, disaster resilience cannot be downloaded or delivered from afar. It needs to be co-created and woven into local culture. The message needs to be delivered in a way that it becomes ingrained and can be sustained long after the project team leaves. That is what GeoHazards International models. Disaster risk reduction is rooted in dialogue, trust, and local ownership; it is not a top-down process; on the contrary, it needs to be and is everyone’s business.
“True sustainability comes when our partners continue the work after we’re gone.”
Post edited by Asimina Voskaki
