Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There is increasing recognition within disaster research and practice that Indigenous cultural technologies may be drawn on to strengthen disaster risk reduction. This rapid review presents an emic and discursive analysis of Indigenous emergency management noted in disaster research literature between January 2000 and July 2022. There is a limited body of peer-reviewed research literature that specifically discussed Indigenous Peoples’ engagement with emergency management. Review findings indicate that Indigenous knowledges and practices are shaping emergency management initiatives locally, regionally and nationally. Yet epistemological tensions between Western European science and Indigenous understandings of emergency management have impacted effective uptake of Indigenous knowledges within disaster science and emergency management sectors. Despite challenges due to deeply embedded colonial practices worldwide, there are opportunities for the advancement of Indigenous Peoples to have greater autonomy in emergency management research, policy and practice.

Keywords

disasters emergency management emic Indigenous Māori traditional knowledge

Introduction

There is growing international recognition as well as research evidence that highlights the need to draw on traditional bodies of knowledge to shape disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies and practices (Kelman et al., 2012; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR], 2022). The current impacts and predicted global consequences of climate change have equally contributed to an awareness that community-led emergency management and recovery initiatives are relevant to integrated DRR research and governance (Paton & So-Kum Tang, 2008). Further to the ratification of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015, the UNDRR, formerly known as the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has recommended that inclusive approaches that encompass the engagement of culturally diverse and Indigenous collectives in disaster management planning and implementation, be widely introduced (UNISDR, 2015). Although limited, there is an emerging body of research literature (Kenney & Phibbs, 2015; Kenney & Solomon, 2014), which showcases that Indigenous community-led emergency management responses are effective and thus, valuable as a complement to formal Coordinated Incident Management System procedures, which are commonly operationalised in acute disaster settings. Yet, a detailed examination of the peer-reviewed evidence documenting effective Indigenous engagement in emergency management has not been conducted. This article contributes to addressing that knowledge gap. The article is based on findings from a rapid review of peer-reviewed research literature on Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives regarding emergency management, and immediate responses to catastrophic natural hazard events.

Background

Emergency management is a multi-disciplinary field encompassing an organised and coordinated approach to preparing for, responding to, recovering from and mitigating the impact of disasters. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the emergency management sector uses an integrated approach, based on four areas of activity, known as the 4 Rs: Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery (National Emergency Management Agency [NEMA], n.d.). Emergency management is a component of what is more widely referred to as disaster risk reduction. DRR is defined by the UNDRR as actions that aim to “prevent new and reduc[e] existing disaster risk and manag[e] residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development” (UNDRR, n.d., para. 1) DRR is considered to have a broader scope than emergency management, incorporating systematic efforts to analyse and reduce the causal factors of disasters as well as enhancing the resilience of communities. Traditionally, preparedness and response have been the central focus of emergency management, in a reactive sense. However, the number and scale of disasters happening globally, the associated costs and greater awareness of inequities in disasters, has resulted in a paradigm shift over the last decade (UNDRR, 2015).

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), adopted by UN member states in 2015 is a global agreement that outlines how nations should approach their wider societal risk from disasters. The Framework states that “it is necessary [for states] to empower local authorities and local communities to reduce disaster risk, including through resources, incentives and decision-making responsibilities, as appropriate” (UNDRR, 2015, p. 13). Many emergency management agencies globally have adopted principles from this document into their own approaches (Faivre et al., 2018; Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2019), The Framework highlights the need for greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in DRR and emergency management.

Indigenous knowledge systems facilitate risk identification and communication, underpin cultural values linked to ancestral, social and cultural relationships, and shape disaster management assets, tools and collective governance. While there is no single definition of Indigenous emergency management, there are several commonalities relating to how Indigenous emergency management operates across the 4 Rs. Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices can effectively inform risk reduction activities, by providing intergenerational and empirical information about long-term risks to human life and property. Principles of collectivism and stewardship mean that some Indigenous Peoples are well-positioned to engage in readiness and response activities in the event of a disaster. In addition, many Indigenous groups have existing social, cultural and health initiatives supporting their communities that can contribute to recovery following an event. This rapid literature review identifies some of the knowledge and activities that Indigenous Peoples are operationalising for emergency management.

Research design and method

A rapid literature review is a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic literature review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time (Khangura et al., 2012). We chose to conduct a rapid review as it is a time effective approach for gathering, analysing and synthesising key research findings (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Popay et al., 2005). The review enabled mapping of a representative set of studies on Indigenous Peoples and emergency management in acute settings, including information about the extent of, and emerging trends within, Indigenous approaches to management. To ensure the literature analysed was contemporary in nature, the body of literature subjected to review was restricted to recent publications within the last 20 years, specifically articles and other documents published from January 2000 to July 2022. An initial review was conducted from April 2019 through to June 2020 with an additional review conducted in August 2022 to identify literature published between June 2020 and July 2022. Search terms were selected based on their relevance to the topic and likelihood of capturing published research, representative of Indigenous Peoples’ emergency management knowledge and practices. Bibliographic reference lists and electronic databases were searched to identify English language research and policy literature that examined Indigenous emergency management concepts and approaches. Databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Dissertation Abstracts, Best Evidence, Psych Info, and Sociological Abstracts, were searched using the key search terms: Indigenous and disaster management, emergency management, disaster risk reduction, volunteering. The search was also expanded to identify relevant policy-related literature and reports that could provide both context and inform sets of understanding about the ways in which Indigenous approaches might shape government and local authority initiatives. A limited number of documents were identified.

In total, 242 relevant articles were identified that addressed Indigenous emergency management. Further to an initial screening of documents, 60 abstracts from the most relevant articles were selected. The search also generated a diverse set of relevant grey literature, including seven key texts, which were included in the review. These additional documents comprised government reports, media articles and policy tools that commented on the ways Indigenous knowledges and approaches to emergency management shaped the policies of frontline response agencies and emergency management infrastructures.

There are limitations of the rapid review format due to the simplified format and restrictions to English language. Further search using terms such as “aboriginal,” “first nation,” “tribal” and specific Indigenous community names could have netted more results. This is also the case for the terms “disaster risk reduction,” “disaster resilience” and “crisis management.” A retroactive search using these terms did not generate significantly different results than our original search, however.

The literature was analysed using a form of critical discourse analysis, providing “an examination of institutions and structures that inform the production and interpretation of language and identification of power imbalances within a socio-cultural context” (McCartan et al., 2022, p. 2). The authors of this article are wāhine Māori (Māori (Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) women) researchers working in the disaster risk reduction and emergency management space. As such, this review has been conducted using an Indigenous “emic” lens to analyse the literature (Markee, 2013, p. 1). Emic, and its corresponding antonym, etic are rooted in linguistic research conducted by Pike (1967), but have commonly been utilised in the field of Indigenous psychologies (Markee, 2013). “Emic” refers to culturally and locationally-bound “insider” perspectives whereas “etic” viewpoints use an external or universal “outsider” framing (St. Hilaire, 2023, p. 259). There are complexities with taking an emic approach, as there is no universal form of indigeneity that creates a singular worldview, in fact indigeneity is a plurality of many Indigenous communities, each with their own challenges, worldviews and actions. In a global and political sense however, shared traits of Indigenous Peoples are identified by the United Nations as “having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them” (United Nations, 2004, p. 2).

In conducting this research, it is not our intention to flatten indigeneity into a singular experience. Instead, we are using an Indigenous lens as a form of tūrangawaewae (a place where we can stand and speak from). The authors are located in Aotearoa New Zealand, therefore our analysis is strongly rooted in our iwi (tribal) identities of Kāi Tahu (a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Ngāi Tahu), Kāti Māmoe (a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Ngāti Māmoe), Waitaha (a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand), Ngāti Toarangatira (a Māori tribe of the lower North Island of New Zealand), Ngāti Mutunga (a Māori tribe of the western North Island of New Zealand) and Te Ātiawa (a Māori tribe of the western and lower North Island and the upper South Island of New Zealand). As such, our analysis and recommendations are informed by our cultural and locational contexts. This review calls into focus how contemporary research and policy is flattening Indigenous communities, their knowledge and experiences and excluding them from research and policy spaces.

Findings

In contrast to the considerable body of research literature pertaining to adaptive Indigenous approaches to the impacts of climate change (Kenney & Phibbs, 2021; Petzold et al., 2020; Shaffril et al., 2020), it was evident that the body of quality-assured research articles exploring Indigenous emergency management was relatively small. The majority of the materials analysed was locationally-based, featuring a case study or multiple case studies of a particular Indigenous community. There were a total of 84 case study locations identified in the literature. The largest group of location-based case studies were from the Asia regions (n = 37), followed by the Pacific (n = 27), North America (n = 13) and Africa (n = 7). There was only a single case study from South America and none from Europe.

Most of the reviewed disaster literature documented research conducted from an etic perspective, and the ways in which research findings were presented were primarily informed by a Western European episteme. There is an inherent tension in bringing a Western gaze to analyse knowledges created by and within another episteme, to advance science. Misinterpretations of Indigenous bodies of knowledge contribute to the misrepresentation of research findings in emergency management literature and other fora. Bruno Latour (1991) suggests that representation is not simply the act of researchers producing a likeness of the subject of their research, they control the narrative through what is bracketed in and bracketed out of the representation. Researchers, in effect, speak for their subjects and in the process of translating data into findings, determine what is of value. In the articles that were analysed, for example, Indigenous case studies were categorised by authors in terms of usefulness. This judgement was, for the most part, based on a Western European emergency management canon and positioned regarding their level of relevance to international DRR policy.

An argument can be advanced that the ways in which Indigenous knowledges and practices are situated, misrecognised and or bracketed out of initiatives by emergency management infrastructures constitute forms of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1996), whereby power is exercised upon Indigenous agents with emergency management or organisational complicity (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). As an alternative, the Indigenous authors of this article have re-evaluated the selected literature and the themes that have emerged using an Indigenous lens, which has enabled contextualised discussion of topics that have not been fully addressed in the literature.

Discussion

The following sections of this article discuss evidence of Indigenous Peoples’ emergency management knowledge and practices. They have been purposefully organised to provide the key themes that emerged across the global case studies of Indigenous emergency management to be followed by a meta-discussion of the colonial context of emergency management and the challenges this creates. Key themes that emerged in our analysis of Indigenous emergency management were risk identification and communication; emergency management assets and tools; underpinning value systems; and Indigenous governance and leadership in emergency management.

Risk identification and communication

A theme that emerged within Indigenous disaster emergency management was the surveillance of natural phenomena including changes in animal behaviours, flora and weather patterns as effective forms of risk identification. Observation of animal behaviour as a warning for an impending disaster included phenomena such as birds flocking or livestock escaping before an earthquake (Halvorson & Hamilton, 2007) and ants shifting their shelters to higher ground as forewarning a flood (Bordoloi & Muzaddadi, 2015). Pareek and Trivedi (2011) reported that an Indigenous community in the Marwar region of Rajasthan, India had identified the flowering of Ficus plants, an abundance of both butterflies and termites, as well as frogs making an unusual amount of noise, as predictors of increased rainfall. Paul and Routray (2011) surveyed a community in Bangladesh and found that 34% of households predicted impending cyclones by Indigenous means such as observing flies attaching themselves to cattle and sea birds flying inland in groups, as signs that a cyclone would soon break ground (Paul & Routray, 2011). The majority of the respondents in this particular survey learnt these methods through experience or from older people and neighbours. A further example is a Māori community’s observations of phenomena such as unusual whale strandings, which combined with an increase in the amount of tangihanga (funerals), is understood as a tohu (sign or premonition) of disruptions to the environment (K. Smith et al., 2016).

Indigenous communities’ methods of predicting natural hazard disasters by inspecting weather patterns were also explored in the literature. Veland et al. (2010) identified that Warruwi (Indigenous people of south coastal Tasmania, Australia) Elders in an Australian Northern Territory community recognised that cyclones often followed the same path due to the topographical location of coral reefs. Equally, Huy and Shaw’s (2008) case study documented the Cham (Indigenous peoples of central Vietnam and Coastal Cambodia) that held collective knowledge of the rainy season and the ability to forecast exact drought years helped Indigenous farmers plan and manage crop cultivation. Pareek and Trivedi (2011) have documented a series of traditional sayings of Elders in the Marwar region of Rajasthan, Inda, that use changes in wind direction or outside temperature, to indicate climatic variations. As one local Indigenous saying notes, “Nada tankan, balad bikavan met baje tu, adhe saawan . . . . It means in mid monsoon if the South east wind blow then the farmers of marwar region cries because it indicates famine in the particular region” (Pareek and Trivedi, 2011, p. 185). In the aforementioned exemplars, all the communities had faith in the robustness of these Indigenous mechanisms for predicting disasters and perceived this knowledge to be a precious resource for their communities. Collective ownership and mobilisation of these knowledges are key to ensuring the effectiveness of Indigenous hazard risk assessments and communication of risks at the local community level.

Through intergenerational knowledge, risk reduction has become part of the social and cultural fabric of Indigenous Peoples. The risk communication examples presented above were generally effective early warning emergency management mechanisms. They were based on the enduring relationships between Indigenous communities and the environment, as well as collective and common understandings. Indigenous communities maintain cultural lexicons and intergenerational knowledges that inform emergency management practice (Baumwoll, 2008; Paul & Routray, 2011; Veland et al., 2010) as seen in Indigenous-specific emergency management assets and tools.

Emergency management assets and tools

Within the literature, case studies of Indigenous building, engineering and environmental resource management tools as preparedness practices were analysed. Indigenous engineering and building practices, as well as disaster management systems, relied on local materials and historical knowledge of the environment (Irfanullah et al., 2011; Khan, 2008). The ongoing effectiveness of these practices is due to Indigenous Peoples’ long history of empirical observation and connection to the environment (Iloka, 2016), as evidenced in the following case study exemplars.

Shaw et al. (2008) brought together several case studies that explore Indigenous engineering and building techniques. The Karez (well) systems implemented as a form of drought management by the Uyghur (Indigenous people of northwest China), was identified as “an efficient drought reduction technology” (Fang et al., 2008, p. 4). Traditional mud hut building techniques in the Rajasthan region of India demonstrated “a high level of performance for generations” and that the intergenerational translation of building technologies and inclusion of all members of the family, created a sense of ownership and enduring skillsets (Sharma & Joshi, 2008, p. 9). Likewise, using Indigenous and locally relevant knowledge is a cost-effective mechanism for participatory emergency management in Mongolia (Borkhuu, 2008) and Nepal (Rautela, 2005; Thapa et al., 2008). The innovative potential of Indigenous practices is also highlighted. These include examples of culture-based fishing practices for flood management in the Assam region of northeastern India (Bordoloi & Muzaddadi, 2015), the creation of integrated tsunami warning systems in the Solomon Islands (McAdoo et al., 2009) and geographic information system (GIS) flood risk mapping in Vietnam (Tran et al., 2009). Aboriginal traditional burning practices applied in bushfire and wildfire management in Australia, have been recognised as more effective than normative emergency management practices (UNDRR, 2022), despite being marginalised by government and the formal emergency management infrastructure (Archibald-Binge & Wyman, 2020; Bowman et al., 2004; Trauernicht et al., 2015). McGee et al. (2019) present a Canadian example in which it is argued that, in comparison with non-Indigenous People, the “desire to stay home in Mishkeegogamang, desire to retain control, and desire to fight the fire may be stronger for Indigenous peoples” (p. 272). McGee et al.’s (2019) research findings suggest that emergency management practices are strongly embedded in the cultural fabric of the community.

The preceding examples of Indigenous emergency management practices are respectively efficient, low cost, effective and innovative. Diverse research projects have indicated that Indigenous knowledges need to be synergised with scientific knowledge, which require high level government support. Yet, Indigenous communities usually have limited agency in research for setting appropriate parameters for the wider application of Indigenous disaster preparedness tools and practices (Mercer et al., 2009). In addition, advocacy for expanding Indigenous preparedness tools and practices so that they can be applied globally, frequently ignore the premise that their successful use in emergency management is linked to the locally-bound nature of the knowledge and practices (Lauer, 2012).

Underpinning value systems

Within the literature, cultural attributes and worldviews that value collectivism and guardianship are evidenced in Indigenous approaches to emergency management. They are also the foundation of Indigenous responses to disasters. For example, “the kaupapa [principles] of kaitiakitanga [cultural guardianship and responsibility]” to the people and land of Canterbury or “arohanui ki te tangata [love to all people”] (Carter & Kenney, 2018, pp. 4–5) grounded the Māori response to the 2010-2011 earthquakes. This collectivism is operationalised in multiple ways. Kenney (2015) summarised for a 2015 UNISDR report the actions of a collective of Māori women who instituted a Kaumātua Day, a targeted well-being initiative for Elders in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes in Aotearoa New Zealand. She stated “the women adopted a culturally accepted collectivised approach to leadership which sets aside hierarchical power relations, agendas and egos to focus on serving the needs of the community” (Kenney 2015, p. 68). In a discussion of climate change strategies in Fiji, Neef et al. (2018) highlight the importance of collectivism in the form of communal pooling of resources to secure new land and build resilient housing during flood periods, contributing, in turn, to enhanced community preparedness. Collective notions of responsibility and guardianship for Indigenous Peoples illustrate approaches to emergency management practices safeguarding communities and the environment.

Environmental guardianship, or stewardship, is another underpinning value that was identified as central in the literature. Māori observation of tohu (environmental signs) and weather are discussed in several texts as signals from atua (Māori deities), that careful stewardship is needed to appropriately look after the environment, exemplified in the following comment referring to a large oil spill off the eastern coast of Aotearoa New Zealand:

I was just thinking, I hope this doesn’t, because we haven’t looked after Tangaroa [manifestation of the sea] . . . that he takes it out on us. You’ve just got to do things so right, otherwise we’re adding to the disrespect that’s been done. So I was really careful about those things, I just didn’t want more harm to happen. (K. Smith et al., 2016, p. 5)

Environmental guardianship encourages the intergenerational passing down and maintenance of responsible social and environmental relations (Veland et al., 2010). Environmental guardianship and the practices associated with it, are prioritised by Indigenous Peoples and inextricably tied to the cultural fabric of Indigenous communities (Watson, 2017b). The close relationship with the environment is also noted as key for food security in emergency management contexts. Guardianship of the land in this regard, is exemplified in a case study of an Indigenous platform in Honduras in which local women-led sustainable food cultivation and harvesting practices, are detailed (Plataforma Comunitaria Comité y Redes de Honduras & Huairou Commission, 2015). Incorporating Indigenous sustainable land use planning in urban design constitutes a prime example of effective stewardship as showcased in Khailani and Perera’s (2013) Malaysian case study.

More generally, values of collectivism and guardianship are threaded through Indigenous emergency management frameworks. Actions such as volunteering, collectivising resources, organising shelters, feeding communities and caring for the natural environment are regarded as natural, and explained by research participants as “it’s just what we do” (Carter & Kenney, 2018, p. 4). It is the implicit and genealogical nature of these values that allow Indigenous communities to rapidly and effectively mobilise in response to disasters. These values also inform Indigenous emergency management frameworks for leadership and governance (Jayasinghe et al., 2020).

Indigenous governance and leadership in emergency management

A final theme that emerged during the literature review was Indigenous emergency management leadership and governance; (Carter & Kenney, 2018; UNISDR, 2015; Veland et al., 2010). The adoption of Indigenous leadership and governance by mainstream emergency management (Mercer et al., 2009; Morgan & Fa’aui, 2018; UNISDR, 2015; Vermaak & Van Niekerk, 2004) and, vice versa, the incorporation of mainstream approaches into Indigenous emergency management governance (Ford et al., 2016; Saini, 2018) were also addressed. Indigenous and mainstream emergency management leadership were often treated as distinct bodies of knowledge and practice. In some cases, this distinction resulted in tensions between Indigenous collective responsibility and identity and the eurocentric conceptualisation and privileging of a hierarchical leadership and governance structure (Carter & Kenney, 2018; Jayasinghe et al., 2020). Asfaw et al. (2019) draws attention to mainstream approaches that are “reactive and top-down” in terms of leadership, creating limitations for building local emergency management capacity (p. 61). Veland et al. (2010) highlight the issue of “difference blindness” in mainstream emergency management leadership which “mistakes the universal need for emergency services with the assumption that this requires provision of uniform emergency services regardless of culture, place and local capacity” (p. 98). To support their argument, the authors provide an example of highly effective Northern Territory First Nations tribal governance systems that were activated in a cyclone event. Success hinged on non-hierarchal organisation and leadership, good knowledge of the local community and cultural nuance and established trust with Aboriginal community members.

Also discussed in the literature were examples of pan-tribal Indigenous emergency management governance, including an exemplar following the 2010 earthquake in Canterbury—a region in the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand. The Māori Recovery Network was established which was led by local Māori stakeholders, and included other Māori actors. The network focused on supporting and addressing the needs of Christchurch residents following the earthquake (Carter & Kenney, 2018; Jayasinghe et al., 2020; Kenney, 2015). Māori situated throughout Aotearoa New Zealand mobilised a range of resources including personnel, food, shelter, financial support, clothing and access to government services, through this network. Significantly, Māori health professionals and Māori wardens took leave from regular employment to travel to Christchurch—the largest city in the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand, and assist in the response (Kenney & Phibbs, 2015).

Indigenous-centred models of emergency management leadership and governance have been adopted into mainstream policies and decision-making processes on occasion. Morgan and Fa’aui (2018) discuss the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework and accompanying recovery indicators that were included in the Rena Long-Term Environmental Recovery Plan by the Ministry for the Environment (2011). This marked the “first instance in Aotearoa New Zealand that an Indigenous concept was given as a goal of a government-led strategy” (Morgan & Fa’aui, 2018, p. 985). The UNISDR (2015) report discusses the grassroots platform organised by Indigenous women in Honduras to encourage more sustainable agricultural practices following Hurricane Mitch in 1998. The initiative would make such an impact that partnerships were then established with the Honduran Ministry of Agriculture and Husbandry, Ministry of Planning, National Emergency Authority and even with a regional Central American body, the Coordination Centre for Disaster Prevention in Central America. The successful “initiative is being expanded to other communities” (Plataforma Comunitaria Comité y Redes de Honduras & Huairou Commission, 2015, p. 31). These two case studies represent effective Indigenous leadership and decision-making for emergency management processes that were successfully adopted by mainstream organisations and “a shift from a reactive to a more proactive and comprehensive approach including supporting local initiatives in building capacities on mitigation, preparedness and response” (Asfaw et al., 2019, p. 61).

Less successful examples have also been discussed in the literature and encompass the insertion of mainstream emergency management practices and policies into Indigenous emergency management leadership and governance frameworks (Ford et al., 2016; Saini, 2018). Watson (2017b) highlights the serious consequences of imposing emergency management interventions on Indigenous communities. Emergency management laws have been used for policing First Nation Australian communities (Watson, 2017b) and to the displace communities from their traditional lands (Hsu et al., 2019; Saini, 2018). The Nicobarese (an Indigenous tribe in Southern Nicobar, part of an island chain in the eastern Indian Ocean, India), were devastated by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami when they were moved off their tribal land and mainstreamed into a different community. This had a strong negative impact on the cultural and social fabric of the Nicobarese (Saini, 2018). According to Saini (2018)

the destruction of traditional livelihoods, lack of alternative livelihoods, and their limited role in the planning and execution of the post-tsunami interventions made the Nicobarese dependent on the Government of Indonesia. Sitting idle for years, they became sedentary, consumerist, and alcoholic. (p. 322)

Hsu (2016) notes that Indigenous Peoples residing in the central highlands of Taiwan were similarly displaced from their lands in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot. Communities were placed in new residential and cultural settings, which were so completely alien to the displaced collectives, that the social fabric of the displaced communities was severely undermined (Hsu et al., 2019).

The literature in the preceding sections has traversed a range of successful activities and challenges in the Indigenous emergency management space. Underpinning the above examples of Indigenous emergency management, is a wider meta-context. A research, policy and practice arena that has been exclusionary and marginalising towards Indigenous voices.

Meeta themes: colonisation as a context

An overarching meta-theme is the impact of colonisation and the minimal presence of Indigenous perspectives in emergency management research. There is a lack of acknowledgement and reciprocity of Indigenous voices, knowledges and practices. Indigenous knowledge is often dichotomised detrimentally against Western science, viewed as un-scientific or simply an add-on. The following discussion includes a hybrid of literature analysed in the rapid review as well as supporting literature to critically reflect on the implications for Indigenous and mainstream emergency management.

Colonisation and marginalisation in emergency management research

Colonisation is an inherent part of the lives and experiences of Indigenous Peoples. A small number of the reviewed research articles mentioned colonisation as a factor that influenced emergency. However, this theme was entirely absent from discussions in government reports (Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2019) and other grey literature included in the review. Moreover, the review identified limited evidence of researchers applying decolonising research methodologies (L. Smith, 1999). Where colonisation was included, a range of themes were identified including exclusion (Morgan & Fa’aui, 2018; Pasternak & Dafnos, 2018); marginalisation (Phibbs et al., 2015; Veland et al., 2013), representation (Veland et al., 2010) and Western scientific hegemony (Lauer, 2012).

Pasternak and Dafnos (2018) argue that the open-ended and ambiguous paradigm of emergency management itself is a colonial modality of governance that obscures assertions of Indigenous sovereign powers. The language used to position Indigenous Peoples within research can de-colonise or reinforce cultural hegemonies (L. Smith, 1999). Terms such as vulnerability, empowerment or adaptation are problematic when they are used in an uncritical manner (Howitt et al., 2012). As Pettenger (2007) reflects, vulnerability can be used alongside resilience to justify “standardised action upon climate change that may fail to recognise nuanced values, needs and desires within and between communities” (p. 6). While colonisation was not discussed as a root cause of inequity, many authors provided an implicit discussion of the effects of colonisation. Indigenous communities who live on hazard-prone land for example, do so due to past community displacement (Neef et al., 2018; Rumbach & Foley, 2014) or lack of access to education, information and resources (Alcántara-Ayala, 2004). There is a material reality to disaster vulnerability that is underscored by historical, socio-political forces and power dynamics (Ellemor, 2005; Lambert, 2014; Phibbs et al., 2018). Public narratives of Indigenous communities as having a culture of handouts rather than aspiring to assist themselves has contributed to United Nations agencies often situating Indigenous communities as disempowered victims within the global aid system (Mercer et al., 2009; Saini, 2018).

Research conducted by non-Indigenous research teams on disaster-affected Indigenous communities has the potential to further reinforce colonising practices (Kelman et al., 2012). This is particularly salient when research is being conducted through mainstream emergency management practices and paradigms (Kelman et al., 2012), that apply command and control top-down approaches. The global nature of emergency management policy means that national and local strategies are usually derived from overarching international policy frameworks. Thus, opportunities for including the voices and practices of Indigenous communities in these mainstream documents are limited. This is exemplified in a vague call within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015) to “empower local authorities . . . . to work and coordinate with civil society, communities and Indigenous peoples and migrants in disaster risk management” (p. 18). Little to no information on how authorities can effectively implement this model is provided. Progress is hindered by a lack of attention to Indigenous concerns and exclusion from international and national emergency management structures (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d.). As a result, few Indigenous stakeholders have the requisite influence to shape the development of emergency management policy.

Acknowledgements: reciprocity of Indigenous voices

Throughout the literature, Indigenous practitioners, knowledge holders, local governance leaders or policymakers are primarily spoken for by non-Indigenous researchers and policy writers. Although some researchers (Mercer et al., 2009; Zander et al., 2013) have acknowledged the support of Indigenous community members as workshop facilitators and navigators of language and cultural barriers, these Indigenous contributors to research were rarely credited by name. There is equally scant evidence of Indigenous stakeholders as authors in emergency management publications. An additional concern, as Veland et al. (2010) argue, is that authors and spokespeople can be selected opportunistically by researchers as follows:

Generally seeking out members of the community as if they are interchangeable, representative or reducible to a singular identity of “community” would misrepresent the Indigenous community structure. (p. 200)

Lauer (2012) and Kelman et al. (2012) advocate for a democratisation of emergency management. This approach would theoretically enable emergency management policy designers and practitioners to access, combine and apply “the best wisdom that communities can provide” (Kelman et al., 2012, p. 12). Yet, this aspiration still faces challenges. As Giddens (1984) concept of best wisdom when applied to emergency management would suggest, knowledge is determined by whichever stakeholders have been accorded agency. Their level of authority to make decisions is conferred and or constrained by government, local authorities and legislative structures (Foucault, 1979, 1991). Advancing Indigenous agency in the field of emergency management is further undermined by the under-representation of Indigenous communities within the sector.

Watson (2017a) points to global disaster policymakers, such as the UNISDR (2015), who developed the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, suggesting that “the notion of ‘being Indigenous’ becomes a segregated cultural site that the state (with international support) aims to ‘preserve and use’” (p. 498). These approaches whereby Indigenous emergency management is othered while contemporaneously being lauded for its inherent wisdom, could be seen as reinstating colonial narratives of the “local-guide” (Watson, 2017a, p. 498).

Dichotomisation of “sciences”

International policy documents have acknowledged the necessity for governments at local and national levels to “ensure the use of traditional, Indigenous and local knowledge and practices, as appropriate, to complement scientific knowledge in disaster risk assessment” (UNISDR, 2015, p, 15). The call for including Indigenous knowledge as complementary to scientific knowledge however, positions Indigenous knowledge as a dichotomy to science, as something to be added on. In contrast, the Eurocentric term scientific framework is constructed and accepted as normative. It regulates which forms of knowledge and processes may be classified as science or scientific. Strategies of inclusion can further reinforce dominant norms and populations continue to determine “what can be said and how” (Ahenakew, 2016, p. 324).

Despite advocacy for inclusivity in international policies and the explicit endorsement of Indigenous knowledge as a valuable resource, some emergency management practitioners remain doubtful of its relevance and effectiveness. Indigenous knowledge has been referred to as “closed, parochial, unintellectual, primitive and emotional” (Dube & Munsaka, 2018, p. 2). Lauer (2012) also discusses the asymmetrical relationship of Indigenous knowledge and Western scientific knowledge in emergency management, stating that

Indigenous knowledge is thought to be locally relevant, orally transmitted between generations, and encoded into cosmologies and worldview. In contrast, scientific knowledge is understood as open, transportable, global in reach, and codified into concrete, abstract theories or models. (p. 183)

Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) argue that misrecognition of regimes of truth result in failure to interrogate social divisions and relations of power. Thus, Western scientific hegemony perpetuates a misreading of Indigenous science as simply local knowledge, ignoring its unique attributes such as a sustained long history with an environment pre-dating colonisation (Hadlos et al., 2022). The dichotomisation of sciences has expanded into the research arena, with Indigenous cosmogenic knowledge of the world positioned as illogical compared to rational scientific knowledge. The positioning of Indigenous knowledges in the margins of the emergency management field, extends to oral story-telling traditions. One case study on Indigenous “legends” in the Pacific ring of fire, indicated emergency managers recognised the value of intergenerational stories about past disasters because story content had been shown to “save hundreds of lives,” while contemporaneously dismissing the knowledge provided as a “bedtime story” (Meyers & Watson, 2008, p. 21).

Within the literature, a range of themes demonstrating challenges and successes within Indigenous emergency management has been explored. Examples of Indigenous emergency management knowledge and practice have been underscored by issues of exclusion, marginalisation, representation and Western scientific hegemony. Misappropriation and misrepresentation of Indigenous knowledge in emergency management research marginalises Indigenous Peoples. There are, however, opportunities to de-colonise emergency management and allow for greater representation and autonomy for Indigenous Peoples. The following section synthesises the learnings from this review into a series of recommendations for emergency management.

Recommendations

Indigenous engagement in emergency management requires an all of government approach that addresses research, funding and Indigenous stakeholder engagement at local, regional and national emergency management levels. This may require legislated government recognition of Indigenous rights in the field of emergency management as well as the establishment of collaborative governance frameworks for emergency management planning and implementation. Further work is needed in both the emergency management policy and practice spheres in to ensure Indigenous Peoples have a voice in key governance and decision-making fora. Mediums for facilitating this process, could encompass embedding Indigenous stakeholders’ recommendations in key policy documents and engaging Indigenous actors in co-authoring emergency management strategies and related initiatives. Indigenous views and cultural values should be embedded in local, regional and national emergency management policies and strategies. Indigenous representatives within emergency management structures need to have a mandate from the local Indigenous community as well as the authority to operationalised Indigenous emergency response networks (Phibbs et al., 2015).

While governments may have formal agreements with Indigenous Peoples at a national level, this is not always the case at regional and local levels where there may be significant disparity for quality of relationships. Emergency management agencies should support staff development to effectively work with Indigenous communities. Often, strong relationships rely on individuals who have built these over time. If these individuals leave the organisation, relationships will likely be eroded.

There is a need to improve relationships, communication and understanding between mainstream and Indigenous emergency management structures and processes. Emergency management should respect Indigenous emergency management autonomy and facilitate Indigenous understanding of mainstream emergency response processes. This could be by providing emergency response training for Indigenous Peoples, allowing for greater access to appropriate emergency management resources. In Canada, the Emergency Management Assistance Programme (EMAP), in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, has reimbursed more than CAD $1.35 billion between 2012 and 2023 to First Nations for response and recovery costs. In addition to financial support, EMAP has also begun transferring services directly to First Nations through emergency management capacity positions and the development of multilateral emergency management service agreements. The arrangement is still very top-down however, and we recommend that thought be given on how funding models could be re-conceptualised to provide autonomy and empowerment to Indigenous communities for the appropriation and use of resources.

In the area of research, measures need to be developed to facilitate respectful knowledge exchange and to mitigate the misuse of Indigenous knowledge. It is heartening that the number of Indigenous journals as well as Indigenous-authored books is increasing, providing safer spaces for Indigenous authors to engage in peer-review and publish work. Journals publishing emergency management research should develop strong relationships with Indigenous authors and reviewers to evaluate relevant contributions. Particularly for social science work, authors should consider promoting positionality statements to allow readers greater transparency for who is conducting Indigenous research.

Globally, research collectives are emerging in the Indigenous disaster resilience, DRR and emergency management spaces to provide more connections and shared learnings between Indigenous Peoples working in the sector. Some of these include the Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction Network in the Americas, the National Indigenous Disaster Resilience programme in Australia, and Te Toi Whakaruruhau o Aotearoa (The Natural Hazard Commission Matāuranga Māori Disaster Risk Reduction Centre) in Aotearoa New Zealand. We recommend pursuing more inter-group international collaboration to achieve stronger visibility, advocacy and potentially opportunity in the sector for Indigenous Peoples.

Funding for research often includes Indigenous Peoples as a tickbox measure, with only limited funding in larger projects. Research funders should take a careful look at finding applications to determine whether the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and issues are tokenistic or genuine. In addition to better funding support for Indigenous researchers, more funding needs to be set aside for effective and genuine engagement with Indigenous communities. Publications by Phibbs et al. (2015) and McGee et al. (2019) appropriately attribute authorship to Indigenous emergency management stakeholders, however, clearer attribution and citation of Indigenous authors’ work in mainstream policy is needed. Aotearoa New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy (Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2019) constitutes an example of how Indigenous concepts and intellectual contributions can be referenced directly in policy (p. 21). The equitable inclusion of Indigenous stakeholders in developing research is essential. Respectful engagement of Indigenous research partners as cultural overseers can foster the co-creation of research that is culturally responsive and conducted in ethically appropriate ways. McGee et al. (2019) provide a relevant exemplar, a transparent process of cultural authorisation from Indigenous knowledge holders that prevents policy misunderstandings and issues in practice as well as active reciprocity for the Indigenous community participating in the research:

initial findings were sent to the Chief for her review, and she provided positive feedback. The Chief has also reviewed and approved all outputs from this research including conference presentations and manuscripts. Once the research was completed, a community booklet which presents the wildfire evacuation story of Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation was prepared and copies were given to the First Nation for distribution to community members. (p. 269)

Finally, the lack of reference to colonisation in the literature and policy reviewed is concerning. More work needs to be done in emergency management to self-reflect on how existing structures and practices are complicit in entrenching colonial practices that disempower Indigenous Peoples. This work needs to be achieved at both local and international levels if Indigenous emergency management is to flourish.

Conclusion

This rapid review explored a number of case studies regarding Indigenous emergency management from across the world. The findings of this review demonstrate a breadth of effective Indigenous mechanisms for predicting, mitigating and responding to natural hazards through observation, intergenerational knowledge and collective action. While Indigenous emergency management practices are often efficient, low cost, effective and innovative, Indigenous communities have limited agency in setting research agendas and in developing appropriate parameters for the wider application of Indigenous disaster preparedness tools and practices. The under-representation of Indigenous communities in emergency management research has important implications for emergency service provision.

We have provided insights into a selection of literature and case studies, and through an emic, tūrangawaewae approach, have advanced a wider critique of emergency management, calling for greater equity and inclusion in the sector. More work needs to be done in both research and policy sectors globally to further de-colonise the emergency management sector, listen more effectively to the voices of Indigenous Peoples and respond to their challenges and to provide more autonomy to Indigenous communities to manage their own risks, as many have been doing for centuries.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Indigenous peoples of the world, their lands, mountains, rivers, oceans ancestors and sacred sites. Ma te kotahitanga e whai kaha ai tātau. In unity, we have strength—Maori proverb.

Authors’ note

Lucy H. Kaiser (Kāi Tahu, Kāti Māmoe, Waitaha) is a Senior Māori Hazard and Risk Social Scientist at GNS Science and Massey University. Her research explores disaster preparedness and resilience, particularly within Māori, Indigenous and rural communities, with a particular focus on Indigenous perspectives on climate change.

Christine M. Kenney (Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Toarangatira, Ngāi Tahu) is the Distinguished Professor of Disaster Risk Reduction at the School of Psychology at Massey University and the Director of Te Toi Whakaruruhau o Aotearoa (the Natural Hazards Commission Disaster Risk Reduction Research Centre). She is a Māori sociologist and social science researcher in disasters. Christine has global expertise in implementing community-centred research with Indigenous peoples as well as policy projects with governments and local authorities in Canada, China, Australia and New Zealand.

Suzanne R. Phibbs (Kāi Tahu, Kāti Māmoe, Waitaha) is a Māori health sociologist and senior lecturer in public health in the School of Health Sciences at Massey University. She has published extensively in the field of disasters and is an expert on Sociological and Kaupapa Māori (Māori principles) research methodologies, Māori community resilience, disaster risk reduction, response and recovery.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Strategic Science Investment Fund, Contract C0517, National Science Challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Fund.

ORCID iD

Lucy H Kaiser (Kāi Tahu, Kāti Māmoe, Waitaha)

Glossary

arohanui ki te tangata love to all people

atua Māori deities

Cham Indigenous peoples of central Vietnam and Coastal Cambodia

iwi tribal

Kāi Tahu a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Ngāi Tahu

kaitiakitanga cultural guardianship and responsibility

karez well

Kāti Māmoe a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Ngāti Māmoe

kaupapa principles

kaupapa Māori Māori principles

Māori Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand

Ngāi Tahu a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Kāi Tahu

Ngāti Māmoe a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand; also known as Kāti Māmoe

Ngāti Mutunga a Māori tribe of the western North of Aotearoa New Zealand

Ngāti Toarangatira a Māori tribe of the lower North Island of New Zealand

Nicobarese an Indigenous tribe in Southern Nicobar, part of an island chain in the eastern Indian Ocean, India

Tangaroa manifestation of the sea

tangihanga funerals

Te Ātiawa a Māori tribe of the western and lower North Island and the upper South Island of New Zealand

Te Toi Whakaruruhau o Aotearoa The Natural Hazard Commission Matāuranga Māori Disaster Risk Reduction Centre

tohu sign or premonition; environmental signs

tūrangawaewae a place where we can stand and speak from

Uyghur Indigenous people of northwest China

wāhine Māori Māori women

Waitaha a Māori tribe of the South Island of New Zealand

Warruwi Indigenous people of south coastal Tasmania, Australia

References

Ahenakew

(2016). Grafting Indigenous ways of knowing onto non-Indigenous ways of being: The (underestimated) challenges of a decolonial imagination. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(3), 323–340.

Alcántara-Ayala

(2004). Flowing mountains in Mexico. Mountain Research and Development, 24(1), 10–13.

Archibald-Binge

Wyman

(2020, January 6). “It’s miraculous”: Owners say cultural burning saved their property. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/it-s-miraculous-owners-say-cultural-burning-saved-their-property-20200103-p53okc.html

Asfaw

H. W.

McGee

T. K.

Christianson

A. C.

(2019). The role of social support and place attachment during hazard evacuation: The case of Sandy Lake First Nation, Canada. Environmental Hazards, 18(4), 361–338.

Baumwoll

(2008). Introduction. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. vii–viii). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

Bordoloi

Muzaddadi

A. U.

(2015). Indigenous technical knowledge associated with disaster management and fisheries related activities in the highest flood affected district (Dhemaji) of Assam, India. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 14(3), 407–415.

Borkhuu

(2008). Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction of the Shiver Herder community. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 27–29). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

Bourdieu

(1996). Sur la télévision, Paris: Liber Raisons d’agir [On television, Paris: Liber-Raisons d’agi]. Pluto Press, 1998.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992). Invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press.

10.

Bowman

Walsh

Prior

(2004). Landscape analysis of Aboriginal fire management in Central Arnhem Land, North Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 31(2), 207–223.

11.

Carter

Kenney

(2018). A tale of two communities: B-racing-ing disaster responses in the media following the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 731–738.

12.

Dube

Munsaka

(2018). The contribution of Indigenous knowledge to disaster risk reduction activities in Zimbabwe: A big call to practitioners. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 10(1), 493.

13.

Ellemor

(2005). Reconsidering emergency management and Indigenous communities in Australia. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2004.08.001

14.

Faivre

Sgobbi

Happaerts

Raynal

Schmidt

(2018). Translating the Sendai Framework into action: The EU approach to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 32, 4–10.

15.

Fang

Cai

Shi

(2008). Karez technology for drought disaster reduction in China. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 1–4). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

16.

Ford

Cameron

Rubis

Maillet

Nakashima

Willox

Pearce

(2016). Including Indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6, 349–353.

17.

Foucault

(1979). Governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness, 6(3), 5–21.

18.

Foucault

(1991). On governmentality. In Burchell

Gordon

Miller

(Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–105). The University of Chicago Press.

19.

Giddens

(1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press.

20.

Greenhalgh

Robert

Bate

Kyriakidou

Macfarlane

Peacock

(2004). How to spread good ideas. A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation.

21.

Hadlos

Opdyke

Hadigheh

S. A.

(2022). Where does local and Indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 79, Article 103160.

22.

Halvorson

S. J.

Hamilton

J. P.

(2007). Vulnerability and the erosion of seismic culture in mountainous Central Asia. Mountain Research and Development, 27(4), 322–330.

23.

Howitt

Havnen

Veland

(2012). Natural and unnatural disasters: Responding with respect for Indigenous rights and knowledges. Geographical Research, 50(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00709.x

24.

Hsu

(2016). Lost, found and troubled in translation: Reconsidering imagined Indigenous “communities” in post-disaster Taiwan settings. Alternative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 12(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.20507/AlterNative.2016.12.1.6

25.

Hsu

Okada

Mori

Howitt

(2019). Resettling, disconnecting or displacing? Attending to local sociality, culture and history in disaster settings. The Pacific Viewpoint, 60(2), 163–174.

26.

Huy

Shaw

(2008). Weather forecasting through Indigenous Knowledge for Crop Cultivation in the Drought Prone Area of Vietnam. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 79–82). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

27.

Iloka

N. G.

(2016). Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: An African perspective. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 8(1), 1–7.

28.

Irfanullah

H. M.

Azad

M. A. K.

Kamruzzaman

Wahed

M. A.

(2011). Floating gardening in Bangladesh: A means to rebuild lives after devastating flood. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 10(1), 31–38.

29.

Jayasinghe

Kenney

C. M.

Prasanna

Velasquez

. (2020). Enacting “accountability in collaborative governance”: Lessons in emergency management and earthquake recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquakes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(3), 439–459.

30.

Kelman

Mercer

Gaillard

J. C.

(2012). Indigenous knowledge and disaster risk reduction. Geography, 97(1), 12–21.

31.

Kenney

(2015). Five Māori women community leaders volunteer to reduce earthquake impact on elderly residents in Eastern Christchurch. In Rakotondrandria

A. V.

(Ed.), Women’s leadership in risk-resilient development: Good practices and lessons learned (pp. 65–70). UNISDR. https://www.unisdr.org/files/42882_42882womensleadershipinriskresilien.pdf

32.

Kenney

Phibbs

(2015). A Māori love story: Community-led disaster management in response to the Ōtautahi (Christchurch) earthquakes as a framework for action. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 46–55.

33.

Kenney

Phibbs

(2021). Indigenous peoples and climate change: Situating culture, identity, and place in climate change risk mitigation and resilience. In Filho

W. L.

Luetz

J. M.

Ayal

(Eds.), Handbook of climate change management: Research, leadership, transformation (pp. 2201–2227). Springer International Publishing.

34.

Kenney

Solomon

M. W.

(2014). UNISDR Scientific and Technical Advisory Group Case Studies—2014: Māori community-led disaster risk management: An effective response to the 2010–2011 Christchurch Earthquakes. UNISDR. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/workspace/7935_kenneyandsolomon.pdf

35.

Khailani

D. K.

Perera

(2013). Mainstreaming disaster resilience attributes in local development plans for the adaptation to climate change induced flooding: A study based on the local plan of Shah Alam City, Malaysia. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 615–627.

36.

Khan

A. A.

(2008). Earthquake safe traditional house construction practices in Kashmir. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 5–8). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

37.

Khangura

Konnyu

Cushman

Grimshaw

Moher

(2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1, 1–9.

38.

Lambert

S. J.

(2014). Indigenous Peoples and urban disaster: Māori responses to the 2010-12 Christchurch earthquakes. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 18(1), 39–48.

39.

Latour

(1991). Technology is society made durable. In Law

(Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). Routledge.

40.

Lauer

(2012). Oral traditions or situated practices? Understanding how Indigenous communities respond to environmental disasters. Human Organization, 71(2), 176–187.

41.

Markee

(2013). Emic and etic in qualitative research. In Chapelle

C. A.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–4). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

42.

McAdoo

B. G.

Moore

Baumwoll

(2009). Indigenous knowledge and the near field population response during the 2007 Solomon Islands tsunami. Natural Hazards, 48(1), 73–82.

43.

McCartan

Brimblecombe

Adams

(2022). Methodological tensions for non-Indigenous people in Indigenous research: A critique of critical discourse analysis in the Australian context. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1), Article 100282.

44.

McGee

T. K.

, Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation, Christianson

A. C.

(2019). Residents’ wildfire evacuation actions in Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation, Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33, 266–274.

45.

Mercer

Kelman

Suchet-Pearson

Lloyd

(2009). Integrating Indigenous and scientific knowledge bases for disaster risk reduction in Papua New Guinea. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 91(2), 157–183.

46.

Meyers

Watson

(2008). Legend, ritual and architecture on the ring of fire. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 17–22). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

47.

Ministry for the Environment. (2011). Rena long term recovery plan. https://environment.govt.nz/publications/rena-long-term-environmental-recovery-plan/

48.

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. (2019). National disaster resilience strategy: Rautaki ā-motu manawaroa aituā. https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/publications/ndrs/National-Disaster-Resilience-Strategy-10-April-2019.pdf

49.

Morgan

Fa’aui

(2018). Empowering Indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand’s worst environmental maritime disaster. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 984–995.

50.

National Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.). The 4 Rs. https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/the-4rs

51.

Neef

Benge

Boruff

Pauli

Weber

Varea

(2018). Climate adaptation strategies in Fiji: The role of social norms and cultural values. World Development, 107, 125–137.

52.

Pareek

Trivedi

P. C.

(2011). Cultural values and Indigenous knowledge of climate change and disaster prediction in Rajasthan, India. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 10(1), 183–189.

53.

Pasternak

Dafnos

(2018). How does a settler state secure the circuitry of capital? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(4), 739–757.

54.

Paton

So-Kum Tang

(2008). Resilience, adaptive capacity and posttraumatic growth in Thai communities following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. In Gow

Paton

(Eds.), The phoenix of natural disasters: Community resilience (pp. 235–250). Nova Science Publishers Inc.

55.

Paul

S. K.

Routray

J. K.

(2011). Household response to cyclone and induced surge in coastal Bangladesh: Coping strategies and explanatory variables. Natural Hazards, 57(2), 477–499.

56.

Pettenger

M. E.

(Ed.). (2007). The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

57.

Petzold

Andrews

Ford

J. D.

Hedemann

Postigo

J. C.

(2020). Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: A global evidence map of academic literature. Environmental Research Letters, 15(11), Article 113007.

58.

Phibbs

Kenney

Rivera-Munoz

Huggins

T. J.

Severinsen

Curtis

(2018). The inverse response law: Theory and relevance to the aftermath of disasters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 916.

59.

Phibbs

Kenney

Solomon

(2015). Ngā mōwaho: An analysis of Māori responses to the Christchurch earthquakes. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 72–82.

60.

Pike

K. L.

(1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structures of human behavior (2nd ed.). Mouton.

61.

Plataforma Comunitaria Comité y Redes de Honduras & Huairou Commission. (2015). Honduras: Indigenous women diversify livelihoods, reduce community vulnerability. In Rakotondrandria

A. V.

(Ed.), Women’s leadership in risk-resilient development (pp. 31–38). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

62.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

Petticrew

Arai

Rodgers

Britten

Roen

Baldwin

Duffy

(2005). Developing guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(Suppl. 1), S1.

63.

Rautela

(2005). Indigenous technical knowledge inputs for effective disaster management in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 233–241.

64.

Rumbach

Foley

. (2014). Indigenous institutions and their role in disaster risk reduction and resilience: Evidence from the 2009 tsunami in American Samoa. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 1–9.

65.

Saini

(2018). Disciplining the other: The politics of post-tsunami humanitarian government in southern Nicobar. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 52(3), 308–335.

66.

Shaffril

H. A. M.

Ahmad

Samsuddin

S. F.

Samah

A. A.

Hamdan

M. E.

(2020). Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among Indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, Article 120595.

67.

Sharma

Joshi

(2008). Indigenous knowledge and modern science give environmentally shelter solution in flood affected desert region of India. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 9–13). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

68.

Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.). (2008). Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region. United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

69.

Smith

Hamerton

Hunt

Sargisson

R. J.

(2016). Local volunteers respond to the Rena oil spill in Maketū, New Zealand. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 11(1), 1–10.

70.

Smith

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). University of Otago Press.

71.

St. Hilaire

. (2023). Framing Indigenous perspectives through emic and etic approaches. In Barnabas

S. G.

(Ed.), Indigenous and minority populations: Perspectives from scholars and writers across the world (pp. 259–276). IntechOpen.

72.

Thapa

M. B.

Luintel

Y. R.

Gauchan

Amatya

(2008). Indigenous knowledge on disaster mitigation: Towards creating complementarity between communities and scientist’s knowledge. In Shaw

Baumwoll

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 30–34). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Kyōto University; European Union.

73.

Tran

Takeuchi

Shaw

(2009). Indigenous knowledge in river basin management. In Shaw

Sharma

Takeuchi

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledge and disaster risk reduction: From practice to policy (pp. 45–58). Nova Science Publishers.

74.

Trauernicht

Brook

B. W.

Murphy

B. P.

Williamson

G. J.

Bowman

D. M.

(2015). Local and global pyrogeographic evidence that Indigenous fire management creates pyrodiversity. Ecology and Evolution, 5(9), 1908–1918.

75.

United Nations. (2004). The concept of Indigenous peoples. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

76.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). 2030 Agenda and Indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/focus-areas/post-2015-agenda/the-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-and-indigenous.html

77.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030.

78.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future.

79.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (n.d.). Definition: Disaster risk reduction. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-reduction

80.

Veland

Howitt

Dominey-Howes

(2010). Invisible institutions in emergencies: Evacuating the remote Indigenous community of Warruwi, Northern Territory Australia, from Cyclone Monica. Environmental Hazards, 9(2), 197–214.

81.

Veland

Howitt

Dominey-Howes

Thomalla

Houston

(2013). Procedural vulnerability: Understanding environmental change in a remote Indigenous community. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 314–326.

82.

Vermaak

Van Niekerk

(2004). Disaster risk reduction initiatives in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 21(3), 555–574.

83.

Watson

(2017a). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: Reclassifying diversity and national identity in post-earthquake Nepal. Third World Quarterly, 38(2), 483–504.

84.

Watson

(2017b). Aboriginal laws and colonial foundation. Griffith Law Review, 26(4), 469–479.

85.

Zander

K. K.

Petheram

Garnett

S. T.

(2013). Stay or leave? Potential climate change adaptation strategies among Aboriginal people in coastal communities in northern Australia. Natural Hazards, 67(2), 591–609.

Indigeneity and emergency management: an emic “gaze” on the role of traditional knowledges and cultural practices in emergency management contexts

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Research design and method

Findings

Discussion

Risk identification and communication

Emergency management assets and tools

Underpinning value systems

Indigenous governance and leadership in emergency management

Meeta themes: colonisation as a context

Colonisation and marginalisation in emergency management research

Acknowledgements: reciprocity of Indigenous voices

Dichotomisation of “sciences”

Recommendations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors’ note

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Glossary

References