Assessing Community-Based Pathways for Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in South-East Nigeria under the Sendai Framework

Despite these challenges, South East Nigeria possesses robust community structures such as traditional institutions, town unions, and local associations that play key roles in grassroots mobilization. However, disaster governance remains weak due to limited government capacity, poor coordination, and low integration of community knowledge in formal disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies. This study location is highly relevant under the Sendai Framework, providing a critical setting to assess how community-based mechanisms can strengthen DRR and resilience. It enables the exploration of localized responses and the potential for aligning indigenous strategies with global priorities to reduce risk and enhance community preparedness and adaptive capacity.

Research Design and Data Collection

A descriptive survey design was employed to explore prevailing perspectives on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and resilience-building in South Eastern Nigeria. Structured questionnaires were distributed to 22 purposively selected respondents, including policymakers, local government officials, and community leaders across various jurisdictions. These participants were chosen for their strategic roles in the planning and implementation of DRR initiatives at different administrative levels. The questionnaire captured key elements of the Sendai Framework, including institutional effectiveness, risk awareness, and community-based preparedness.

Data Analysis

Data collected were processed and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26.0. The primary statistical model applied was the univariate descriptive analysis model, which focuses on summarizing individual variables. Descriptive statistical techniques specifically frequencies and percentages were used to interpret the data, providing insights into dominant views, levels of awareness, and institutional capacities. This approach enabled the identification of commonalities and differences in stakeholder responses, offering a reliable overview of local priorities and challenges. The use of SPSS ensured systematic data management and allowed for the accurate presentation of trends and patterns relevant to disaster resilience in the region.

Results and Discussion

Socio-Economics Characteristics of Respondents

The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. The results show that males constituted the majority of respondents (54.5%), while females accounted for 45.5%. Regarding age, most respondents (63.6%) were aged 41–60 years, followed by those aged 20–40 years (27.3%), while 9.1% were aged 61 years and above. None of the respondents were below 20 years. All respondents (100.0%) had attained tertiary education, indicating a highly educated study population. Occupationally, civil servants predominated (77.3%), followed by respondents in other occupations (18.2%) and farmers (4.5%). No respondents were traders, artisans, fishermen, unemployed, or without occupation. In terms of household size, the majority (72.7%) belonged to households comprising 1–5 persons, while 27.3% had household sizes of 6–10 persons. No household had more than 10 members. Regarding duration of stay in the study area, 27.3% had stayed for 1–5 years, another 27.3% for 6–10 years, 18.2% for 11–15 years, and 27.3% for more than 15 years.

Table 1: Demographic Information of Respondents

Strategies to Accelerate Disaster Risk Reduction by 2030

Table 2 analyses respondents’ preferences for disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies among a sample of 22 individuals. A notable 22.7% favoured funding programs aligned with community needs, highlighting the importance of directing resources to address local vulnerabilities effectively. Only 9.1% prioritized viewing DRR beyond disaster management through multi-sector partnerships, and another 9.1% emphasized capacity building for local governments and communities suggesting limited focus on systemic collaboration and empowerment. Meanwhile, 13.6% selected the development of mechanisms to measure DRR locally, reflecting a moderate recognition of the need for localized monitoring and accountability tools. Significantly, 45.5% of respondents opted for “all of the above,” indicating a strong inclination toward a comprehensive, integrated approach. This dominant view suggests that many stakeholders recognize the interdependence of funding, partnerships, local capacity, and monitoring in achieving effective DRR. The results point to a growing awareness of the need for holistic interventions that align with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, emphasizing that successful DRR requires synergy across multiple strategic fronts rather than reliance on a single intervention.

Table 2: Strategies to Accelerate Disaster Risk Reduction by 2030

Table 3 presents data on the perceived needs for effective disaster risk reduction at the local level. Among the 22 respondents surveyed, 27.3% (6 respondents) identified the National Emergency Risk Management Framework as the most crucial need, while 9.1% (2 respondents) emphasized the Nigerian Strategy for Disaster Resilience. Additionally, 18.2% (4 respondents) highlighted the importance of Flood Warning Infrastructure. Notably, 45.5% (10 respondents) selected all of the above options, indicating a strong preference for a comprehensive and integrated approach to disaster risk reduction. This suggests that stakeholders recognize the need for combining policy frameworks, strategic planning, and early warning infrastructure to effectively empower local action in mitigating disaster risks.

Table 3: Empowering Local Action for DRR

Table 4 presents the distribution of responses regarding pathways to infrastructure resilience. The data show that 13.6% of respondents identified strategic resilience outcomes, particularly related to governance, as a key pathway. An equal proportion (13.6%) emphasized the importance of place-based risk data. Meanwhile, 13.5% of responses collectively highlighted scenario planning, land use, and investment guidance as relevant pathways. Notably, a majority 59.1% recognized all of the listed approaches as important for achieving infrastructure resilience. In total, the responses summed up to 22, accounting for 100% of the data set.

The preference for comprehensive, integrated approaches to DRR and infrastructure resilience revealed in Tables 2, 3, and 4 aligns closely with prevailing themes in the existing literature. Scholars and practitioners increasingly emphasize that effective disaster management must transcend single-sector interventions to embrace multi-dimensional and collaborative strategies (Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2016; Birkmann et al., 2016). The dominant selection of “all of the above” options in your findings mirrors this consensus, reinforcing calls for holistic frameworks integrating funding, governance, capacity building, and local monitoring. Your findings on the importance of community-aligned funding and capacity building resonate with prior studies highlighting the centrality of local context and empowerment in DRR (Shaw & Okazaki, 2004; Mercer et al., 2009). This reflects the growing recognition that disaster resilience depends on bottom-up approaches where local knowledge, capacities, and vulnerabilities are prioritized (Paton & Johnston, 2006). However, the relatively low emphasis on multi-sector partnerships and systemic collaboration in your data contrasts somewhat with literature advocating for broad stakeholder engagement and institutional coordination as critical success factors (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011; Comfort, 2007).

Table 4: Pathways to Infrastructure Resilience

Regarding local policy frameworks and infrastructure (Table 2 and 3), the respondents’ preference for integrated strategies echoes the literature’s focus on linking national policies with local implementation and technology-based early warning systems (Wisner et al., 2004; Kelman, 2018). Such integration is vital for translating policy into effective local action, consistent with the Sendai Framework’s emphasis on local-level DRR empowerment (UNDRR, 2015). Finally, the emphasis on governance, data-driven planning, and investment guidance as pathways to infrastructure resilience (Table 4) supports findings from studies on resilient infrastructure that advocate for governance reforms, evidence-based risk assessments, and scenario planning to reduce vulnerabilities (Cutter et al., 2014; Linkov et al., 201). The strong preference for integrated approaches also aligns with the "systems thinking" approach increasingly promoted in disaster resilience research (Folke, 2006).