The concept of local leaders or gatekeepers can be traced back to ethnographic methods where it is understood as an individual who directly or indirectly provides access to key resources, be those resources logistical, human, institutional, or informational (Campbell et al., 2006). Engaging with gatekeepers entails the establishment of an ever-evolving relationship which has deep implications for how a researcher or practitioner understands a particular context and interacts with stakeholders. The opposite is also true. If gatekeepers are key individuals to access people or resources, they can also be obstacles, particularly in contexts where power relationships are reversed, but also in communities where traditional authority structures are in place (Campbell et al., 2006).
The concept of gatekeepers is used in a wide range of disciplines including geography, anthropology, management, urban planning, medicine, but also in disaster studies. In DRR, the concept of gatekeepers is sometimes understood as people who are in positions of power and possess large amounts of information on certain matters in a group. Gatekeepers in this context are deemed important individuals who maintain interactions with other group members in order to transfer information.
The definition of gatekeepers is not static. They act as mediators between culturally or linguistically diverse communities, and between communities and managing institutions. Their role is crucial because people with culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds often prioritize social networks and informal sources of information, particularly in cases where language barriers exist or when communities mistrust the government (Shepherd and van Vuuren, 2014). The role of gatekeeping has not been adequately investigated in the context of disasters and emergency risk communication. However, some studies (Shepherd and van Vuuren, 2014) suggest that incorporating gatekeepers in DRR activities could contribute towards better emergency management preparation, but this requires an understanding of the cultural constructions of risk.
Stakeholders from L’Aquila highlighted the importance of gatekeepers as “cultural mediators” especially in marginal communities and refugee and immigrant populations: “The differences in social networks and groups could be better taken into account in plans and emergency activities through a better inclusion of gatekeepers in planning activities.” In contrast, the group from Lorca discussed the importance of gatekeepers in rural versus urban areas, arguing that gatekeepers are particularly important in rural areas as they can act as bridges and canalize information to the population and report back to the authorities. For instance, “farm owners can help evaluating damages, risks and canalizing the information and local needs to the authorities”, explained a participant.
In both Lorca and L’Aquila, gatekeepers were only made visible following a disaster event. The role of gatekeepers did not exist until the disasters occurred and there was a need to know about the others and inform neighbourhood associations without the traditional communication channels, which were destroyed or seriously disturbed after the disaster. Both groups agreed that the challenge now is to explore how to include gatekeepers in formal DRR plans and prevention work. They both spoke about the importance of developing and maintaining databases or applications that facilitate communication with gatekeepers. At the same time they argued that the cost of such action would be too high and that local authorities would not see the importance of investing on this action.
All cases agreed that it is important to plan in advance on how to identify gatekeepers. The challenge is how to do this. Crises are different and happen in different ways. For instance, in Lorca leaders during the floods were farmers, but farmers had no responsibility or leadership role during the earthquake. Different disasters gave rise to different leaders, because people were affected in different ways. Lastly, the role of leaders can change over time, and the process of identification needs to be continuous. A leader today might not be a leader tomorrow. Moreover, a positive leader able to unify individuals from a particular group, mediate between them and authorities, and communicate with other groups, could also turn into a negative one. This dynamic role of gatekeepers highlights the need for maintaining close contact with cultural leaders (e.g. persons officially or unofficially representing an ethnic or occupational group), religious leaders, and key actors within age groups (e.g. elderly or young); while at the same time remaining flexible for possible new actors.
Participants from the cities in Spain and Italy highlighted how following a series of disastrous events, there has been an increased recognition on the role of key individuals in civil society to act as mediators or information nodes between some social groups and managing institutions. In these two countries, DRR approaches are starting to change towards more inclusive management structures due to the realization that civil society participation could fill the vacuum that state agencies have failed to fill. For instance, in cities like L’Aquila, where trust might be greater for key members of civil society than for some governmental institutions, having a mediating actor that enjoys support from both society and the government might be necessary to communicate and mobilize groups; or in Lorca where there are large minority groups with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. For some of these minority groups, a gatekeeper or leader might play an important role for giving the group visibility and voice. This is important in order to communicate the group’s particular needs as may be the case with refugee groups or certain ethnic groups.
In Spain for instance, the history of integrated risk management is more recent than in Italy, with the failure of the Tous dam in 1982 which triggered a more inclusive approach. Despite this, effective civil society participation remains a challenge, and interest to reach society varies greatly within and across managing institutions. In Lorca, for instance, some of the managing institutions have increased and improved their contact with local leaders through the EDUCEN project. This in turn gave institutions a better understanding of the problems, needs and wants of citizens in the area, but also an overview of available capacity amongst individuals which could be crucial for preventing fatalities during risk situations. However, the process driving this change has been met with lack of interest and resistance from some of the institutions, and scepticism from some of the members of civil society in Lorca.
In contrast to the Italian and Spanish experiences, the Swedish and Dutch cases admitted there is very little contact with social groups. In fact, participants were not aware of whether there are local leaders, who these might be, and whether they have a role to play in DRR. The role of local leaders or gatekeepers to build community resilience seems to be a concept often associated with the poorer corners of the world. In an international context, this is reflected in two ways: first, there is far less academic literature on the role of leaders and gatekeepers in countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, than in countries like Bangladesh or Nepal. Studies assessing cooperation across sectors in emergency management typically focus on the role of formal state and non-state institutions, but leave out “informal” leaders like gatekeepers (see for instance Nohrstedt, 2016; Nohrstedt and Bodin, 2014). In fact the only instance where civil society is represented in these studies is through “formal” voluntary associations, which play a minor role in Swedish disaster management, as explained in the section above. Second, donor countries, like Sweden and the Netherlands, have a strong focus in building resilience through local participation in recipient countries but not at home. Despite this, participants from both cities admitted seeing the value of connecting with gatekeepers, but like participants from Spain and Italy, thought it was difficult to identify and contact them.
go to index