Faith-based organisations and disaster management in informal urban Accra

ABSTRACT

Disaster risks in African cities are compounding due to the triple convergence of climate change impacts, unplanned urbanisation, and entrenched socio-spatial inequities. Disaster events are, therefore, common with disproportionate impacts on informal residents yet resting within reactive and extremely limited disaster management regime that leaves behind many voids in disaster risk reduction. Drawing on a qualitative approach and situated in a disaster-vulnerable community of Dome, Greater Accra, this paper unpacks the activities of Faith-based Organisations (FBOs) in filling the voids in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. This research is timely because elevating and integrating FBOs activities in disaster management could concretise multi-actor frameworks for disaster risk reduction that are culturally sensitive, locally situated, and socially engaged. The paper documents that experimenting with formal-informal collaborations in community-based risk reduction and leveraging the practices and experiences of FBOs in disaster risk reduction holds the potential for building disaster prevention and resilient capacities in informal urban riskscapes. The study recommends that active collaboration between FBOs and government organisations can assist in bridging crisis management gaps and improving community disaster resilience.

KEYWORDS:

• Faith-based organisations
• multi-actor frameworks
• community-based disaster management
• informal settlements
• Accra

1. Introduction

The complexity of managing multiple disasters has brought to the fore the ineffectiveness of centralised and siloed institutional frameworks (Maghsoudi & Moshtari, 2021) that overtly disengage the knowledge, experience, and practices of non-formal organisations in disaster management (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020; Schoenberg, 2017). Concerning Faith-based Organisations (FBOs), the evidence suggests that such instances of disengagement result in delays and flaws in disaster response that worsen disaster outcomes in terms of casualties and conditions (Bempah & Øyhus, 2017). Generally, FBOs denote religious-affiliated and sponsored organisations such as synagogues, churches, mosques, and charities whose operations and services are predicated on their social or moral obligations or doctrines (CDC, 2010; World Bank, 2024). Across the intensifying and devastating disaster riskscapes of the global south, FBOs continue to be essential and critical locally situated entities for disaster preparation, response, and recovery.

In Ghana, disaster risks such as floods, fire, building collapse, and other health-related risks represent markers of socio-political vulnerability, especially in the capital city of Accra (Amoako, 2015; Boateng, 2020). As in other sub-Saharan African (SSA) cities, the multi-spectrum of disaster risks and their multi-scalar responses have been extensively studied (See Cobbinah, 2023; Amoako, 2016, 2018, Abunyewah et al., 2022a; Gaisie et al., 2022). While useful, the literature on disaster management in Ghana has largely focused on the role of state actors (Asamoah et al., 2018; Kwoyiga & Owusu-Sekyere, 2022; Oteng-Ababio, 2013; Poku-Boansi et al., 2020). This literature assumes a state-centric approach to localised events such as flood disasters and is unsustainable due to structural challenges around formal disaster management in Ghana (See Cobbinah, 2023). The few studies on the role of non-state actors have focused on self-organised initiatives, CBOs and collective action in disaster management (e.g. Amoako, 2016; Atanga, 2020; Grant, 2009). Here, diverse actors across a range of social and cultural sectors are subsumed under CBOs, obfuscating the agency and roles of specific and active locally situated actors. Specifically, the active role of FBOs in disaster responses in disaster-vulnerable informal settlements remains understudied. In view of the foregoing, this paper seeks to highlight and elevate the role of FBOs in disaster management. It seeks to explore the specific activities of FBOs across the disaster management cycle: (i) the responses in disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness (pre-disaster) and (ii) disaster response and recovery (post-disaster).

The paper offers three contributions to scholarship and practice literature. First, given the nuances around ‘disaster cultures’ (Abunyewah et al., 2022b) in Accra, where social and cultural issues at the local level shape and impact perceptions, preparedness, and responses, highlighting the role of FBOs in disaster-vulnerable informal settlements contributes to ongoing discourses around multi-stakeholder and culturally sensitive approaches to disaster management (Abunyewah et al. 2022b; Frimpong et al., 2022). Second, given the deficits in state-led disaster management, elevating the disaster management activities of FBOs in highly vulnerable but often neglected informal settlements could lead to appreciation and integration of their activities in disaster management policy and praxis in informal urban contexts. Third, the results of this study provide an opportunity for collaborative efforts between formal and non-formal actors towards disaster risk reduction and resilience planning in informal settings.

The study is structured in five sections. This next section distils the literature to conceptualise the intersections between informal settlements, disaster management and non-formal organisations. The third and fourth sections of the paper provide a brief overview of the study context and methodology, respectively. The results, discussions, and conclusions then follow.

2. Informal settlements, disaster management and non-formal organisations

2.1. Informal settlements and disaster risks

Informal settlements are generally defined as urban neighbourhoods that develop or function outside the control of state land use planning regulations and building codes (Kita et al., 2020; Okyere & Kita, 2016). In extreme cases, informal settlements share socio-spatial characteristics with squatter, slum, and spontaneous settlements due to overcrowding, land tenure insecurity, poor condition of infrastructure, and limited access to essential services (Kita et al., 2020; Matamanda, 2022). From a disaster perspective, informal settlements tend to be vulnerable to a spectrum of disaster risks due to their location in disaster-prone areas, fragile livelihoods and assets, and lack of proactive interventions in their settlements by planning and disaster management officials (Abunyewah et al., 2018; Ner et al., 2023; Satterthwaite et al., 2020).

Informal settlements tend to be in areas prone to floods, landslides, and fire outbreaks. They are characterised by poor planning, inadequate infrastructure, and inadequate housing, which increases inhabitants’ vulnerability to disasters (Abunyewah et al., 2022a). The lack of proper urban planning and land-use management partly accounts for why informal settlements are prone to disasters (Poku-Boansi et al., 2020). Many of these settlements are built on unsuitable lands, such as floodplains, steep slopes, or erodible areas. As a result, residents are vulnerable to and experience frequent disasters such as flooding, landslides, and erosion (Salami et al., 2017). Additionally, limited infrastructure conditions such as drainage systems, proper roads, and water supply systems render informal settlements more susceptible to disasters, especially during heavy rainfall periods when floodwaters cannot easily drain away (See Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Fatemi et al., 2020; Fatemi et al., 2022).

The use of substandard building materials and the construction of houses near each other increases the risk of fire outbreaks. The lack of fire safety regulations and inadequate fire-fighting equipment further exacerbates the risk of fires (Shokouhi et al., 2019). Yet, it is not uncommon for western-oriented notions of informal systems to be referenced as drivers of disaster risk, including the absence of formal land tenure systems and the prevalence of land disputes are considered to hinder the implementation of disaster risk reduction measures, making it difficult to evacuate settlers during disasters or enforce formal building codes (Satterthwaite et al., 2020). Indeed, research (e.g. FAO, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2014) indicates that where land tenure rights are insecure, disaster victims face the risk of being unable to return due to government land use restrictions or dispossession, thus impeding willingness to relocate and personal protective behaviours. While issues of compliance and land tenure contestations do exist (Payne & Durand-Lasserve, 2012), some scholars argue that overemphasis on formal-informal dualities poses an institutional risk to address structural issues of vulnerability, given that informality is a structural feature of everyday life (Kelling, 2023) and socio-spatial negotiations are situated within and built on the informal cultures (Cobbinah, 2023; Simone, 2004). Either way, what is relevant is not the predominance of informality per se but the capacities of the existing socio-spatial systems to address pervasive risks (Abunyewah et al., 2023). Here, Revi et al. (2014) reasons that informal settlers are often ill-prepared for disasters and face high risks because of poor-quality buildings and a lack of infrastructure to prevent flooding, fire, and disease outbreaks, as well as their inability to endure severe storms and cope with heat waves. In this context of marginality, deprivation, and neglect, non-formal organisations (e.g. FBOs) often support disaster preparation, response, and recovery in multiple ways, including disaster communication, material and psychological support, receptiveness, and temporary shelters (Marlowe et al., 2018; Rivera & Nickels, 2014). The role of FBOs has been very critical in disaster risk reduction in informal settlements, which are normally ignored in state-led disaster response (Ngin et al., 2020).

2.2. Non-formal actors and disaster management

The increase in disaster events, especially in Global South cities and communities, exerts a devastating effect on livelihoods, property, and infrastructure. In recognition, recent literature has emphasised the need for coordinated strategies geared towards prevention, preparation, response, and recovery from disasters (Frimpong et al., 2022; Wolbers et al., 2018; Yoseph-Paulus & Hindmarsh, 2018). Summarily termed the disaster management cycle, it comprises pre-disaster and post-disaster processes and actions. This involves several aspects of vulnerability mapping, understanding of causative factors, mitigation planning, and effective citizen participation and engagement initiatives (Abunyewah et al., 2020; Palanivel et al., 2015). In the disaster literature, the disaster management cycle is often categorised into five phases: disaster prevention, disaster mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response and disaster recovery (Chong & Kamarudin, 2018).

The complexity of disaster events and impacts, structural challenges around formal institutionalised responses, and the prevalence of community-level improvised or self-organised responses are major features of the disaster management realities in Global South cities (Marston et al., 2020). Research (e.g. Gillespie et al., 2016; Gilmore et al., 2020) has revealed the important role of non-formal actors, such as community-based organisations, in disaster management. Some scholars argue that integrating the activities of local community organisations and community input with formalized state-led disaster responses in disaster management is important, and recognising such actors as partners is essential for local disaster risk reduction (Camara et al., 2020; Enria, 2019).

Non-formal actors means non-state actors with knowledge of socio-political dynamics and structures, local issues and sociocultural practices that are relevant for designing disaster and emergency responses (Conteh et al., 2021; Gilmore et al., 2020; Osuteye et al., 2020). Major components of non-formal organisations include FBOs and CBOs. While the activities of these non-formal organisations aim to support disaster management, they are quite distinct in practice. CBOs are defined as community organisations or local non-profit organisations which are constituted, governed and driven by residents to provide social services and advance socioeconomic development in the communities in which they operate (Gilmore et al., 2020; Rezaei et al., 2019). CBOs are not just non-profit social service providers (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010); they might also be branches, chapters or affiliates of international or national organisations, while some are also more grassroot or locally based (California Emergency Management Agency, 2009; Stajura et al., 2012). On the other hand, FBOs denote religious-affiliated and sponsored organisations such as synagogues, churches, mosques, and charities whose operations and services are predicated on their social or moral obligations or doctrines (CDC, 2010; World Bank, 2024). The major distinction between CBOs and FBOs lies in their composition. CBOs are much concerned with making a desired improvement in the development outcomes of a community (Barasa & Nyaga, 2021; Okeke-Ogbuafor et al., 2018). CBOs are present in varying (geographical, psychosocial, cultural, and religious) contexts (Dahan, 2019) and are engaged in community development activities such as community projects, community empowerment and building, and community mobilisation (Barasa & Nyaga, 2021; Okeke-Ogbuafor et al., 2018). CBOs arise out of people's own initiatives to address the challenges confronting their communities, whereas FBOs occur because of people's faith and beliefs (Noor & Nawi, 2023). The values of FBOs are based on faith and beliefs associated with the social values of a particular religious group (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). Most often FBOs depend on the activities of their leaders, volunteers, and staff from a particular faith group to achieve their mission (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). FBOs are present at the grassroot, local and international scales and receive their funding from member donations, state support and international grants (Ferris, 2005; Global Health and Africa, 2014; Olivier & Wodon, 2014).

In Global South cities faced with perennial disaster risks but structurally constrained by weak disaster governance structures, processes, and plans, FBOs are critical anchors in the preparation, response, and recovery from disasters. According to Simo and Bies (2007), this complex and often contentious mix of formal-informal responses warrants multi-actors and multi-sector collaborations with locally embedded entities such as faith-based organisations working with at-risk populations. FBOs play significant roles in disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, as well as in promoting community cohesion and mutuality (Ager et al., 2015; Cheema et al., 2014; Wisner, 2010). During disaster events or crises, FBOs mobilise resources (e.g. financial, logistical, psychological, personnel, etc.) to be of real assistance to communities, social groups, and individuals (Stewart et al., 2009). For example, during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, local Muslim organisations operating from a mosque in Mansehra helped affected community members to recover through the provision of initial contact for emergencies after the disaster (Cheema et al., 2014). Mosques also became a centre for exchanging ideas about livelihoods and coordinating income-generating activities for affected communities as part of disaster recovery efforts after the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in Aceh province of Indonesia (McGregor, 2010).

The activities of FBOs are also prevalent in Global North contexts where perennial disaster risks persist. In the United States, for example, FBOs (e.g. Adventist Community Service, Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Charities, etc.) represent the largest nonprofit sector after education and health. For instance, congregations alone number about 350,000 (Burge, 2023). FBOs act as the primary disaster relief and both short and long-term recovery providers. Indeed, their contributions to disaster response are as wide and varied as their spiritual practices (Sheikhi et al., 2021). Studies (e.g. Joshi, 2010; Phillips & Jenkins, 2010; Alawiyah et al., 2011; Putman et al., 2012) have shown that some FBOs have been engaged in Hurricane Katrina response by providing emergency-related services such as food, shelter, and clothing. They also collaborate with other interest-based organisations to share resources, space, and equipment for disaster response activities (Atkinson, 2014; Joshi, 2010). According to Pant et al. (2008), in Mississippi, FBOs provided relief assistance to evacuees through food, clothing, emergency financial assistance, and reconnecting families. FBOs are also centres for receiving aid from external and private agencies, philanthropists, and congregation donations, which they use to provide disaster management-related activities such as response and recovery (Ager et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2019). Thus, in both Global North and South contexts, FBOs remain critical to building capacity of affected populations to response and recover from disasters.

However, scaling down the literature on actor-centered disaster management to Ghana’s urban riskscapes points to two major strands. First, a great deal of research on disaster and emergency responses has focused on the activities of state institutions (See Asamoah et al., 2018; Kwoyiga & Owusu-Sekyere, 2022; Oteng-Ababio, 2013; Poku-Boansi et al., 2020). Second, a lively stream of studies has also been done on the role of non-state actors (non-formal), such as CBOs, in handling disaster-related activities (See Amoako, 2016; Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Atanga, 2020; Grant, 2009). What is not clear within this broader group of non-formal actors is the role of FBOs. Over 95% of Ghanaians profess some form of religious affiliation, be it Christianity, Islam and African traditional beliefs (GSS, 2021). However, the critical role of FBOs in disaster and emergency responses remains on the blind side of the disaster management literature. It is imperative to understand the role of FBOs in disaster management to better engage them effectively and efficiently as a non-state actor in addressing disaster-related challenges.

Therefore, as conceptualised in Figure 1, perennial disaster risks in informal settlements and persistent challenges in formal disaster management regimes warrant that the activities of FBOs need to be taken seriously in both scholarship and practice. In Figure 1, we position this paper as an attempt to forward the literature on multi-actor frameworks towards new collaborative experimentations that are locally rooted, socially acceptable, and culturally sensitive for disaster management and resilience in urban riskscapes of Global South cities. The next section provides the context and method for this endeavour.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

3. Overview of the study area

3.1. Contextualising disaster risks in Accra

Greater Accra, the capital region of Ghana, stands as a bustling hub of economic, political, and cultural activities. However, this vibrant metropolis faces a myriad of hazards that pose significant challenges to its residents’ safety, well-being, development, and infrastructural integrity. The Greater Accra region remains one of the major urban disaster riskscapes in Ghana (Abunyewah et al, 2022a; Frimpong, Atiemo and Van Etten, 2022; Poku-Boansi et al., 2020). Accra has experienced several types of hazards within the past decades in the form of floods, droughts/famine, fires, earth tremors, coastal erosions, structural collapse, landslides, climate change, epidemics, and insect infestations (which occur regularly, although to a lesser degree, but often with greater impact), which all have severe consequences resulting in the loss of many lives and destruction of property (Amponsah, 2022; Gyimah et al., 2022). Floods, the most common disaster in the region, cause epidemics of water-related diseases like cholera, typhoid, and malaria, with high recorded cases over the years (Ntajal, 2022). Other epidemics like Magburg virus, and Lassa fever are faced by some residents in Accra. Building collapse is a common phenomenon often resulting from institutional, political, and regulatory lags (Asante and Sasu, 2018; Boateng, 2020). Multiple events of building collapse with devastating consequences are recorded each year in Accra.

Major drainage in the capital city are receptacles of sewage from industries and other domestic urban waste. The most common water body, the Odaw-Korle-Chemu catchment, which passes through the middle of the city, has caused heavy contamination as all major drainage channels in the city empty their wastes into the lagoon entering the Gulf of Guinea (Amesimeku, 2019). Large amounts of untreated industrial waste emptied into surface drains have led to severe pollution in the lagoon. Unregulated discharges of industrial and domestic waste into the lagoon can lead to water pollution, affecting the quality of the water and aquatic ecosystems (Gaisie & Cobbinah, 2023). Also, activities such as the recycling of solid and electronic waste contribute to the dumping of waste materials near the Korle Lagoon. This pollution may include chemicals, heavy metals, and organic pollutants (Owusu & Obour, 2021).

As the most industrialised and fastest growing city in Ghana, emissions from industrial power plants and manufacturing companies contribute heavily to air pollution which is hazardous and results in major adverse health effects (e.g. heart diseases, stroke, and lung cancer) (Chasant, 2020). The city is further characterised by dangerous levels of toxic air, mainly from car exhaust, rubbish fires, road dust, and soot from biomass-fueled cook stoves (World Health Organisation, 2023).

3.2. Study site

Given the reality of disasters, hazards and risks outlined above, this study was situated in one of the municipalities of the Greater Accra region, i.e. Ga East Municipal Assembly (GEMA), where disaster events are rampant, and FBOs are also actively present. The municipality has a total population of 283,379, and it is over 90% urbanised (GSS, 2021). Amidst rapid urbanisation and unplanned physical development, the municipality is saddled with numerous hydro-meteorological and other hazards (Ga East Municipal Assembly, 2019). Dome, the study site is the largest community in the GEMA in terms of population. According to estimates from the municipal assembly, it has an estimated population size of 49,790 (Ga East Municipal Assembly, 2019). The community is highly susceptible to storm surges and flooding, with the most record of affected persons (Oteng-Ababio, 2020). Much of the population surge in the municipality is taking place in the Dome township and other secondary dormitory communities that have well-positioned infrastructure networks to Accra, the national capital. The nature and form of this rapid but unplanned urban expansion are essential in creating urban riskscapes such as flash floods and landslides (Frimpong, Atiemo and Van Etten, 2022). It is against this backdrop that the increasing activities of FBOs in disaster management should be recognised, supported, and integrated. Dome serves as a suitable context for this study due to its perennial occurrence of a spectrum of meteorological and health disasters and the active presence of FBOs in supporting residents’ preparation, response, and recovery. In carrying out such critical pre – and post-disaster activities, the FBOs obtain and use funds from various sources (WASCI, 2020). Examples of Christian-based FBOs funding sources are congregational offerings and tithes. Congregants of Christian-based FBOs also donate money during religious services or specific giving campaigns like ‘love offertory.’ Islamic-based FBOs get funds through ‘Zakat’ (one of the Five Pillars of Islam) which involves the giving of a portion of one's wealth to help those in need (Hamza, 2021) and ‘Sadaqah’ referring to voluntary charity or acts of kindness and charitable donations from individuals, businesses, and communities (Awang, 2017). These donations may come in the form of cash, goods, or services and are used to fund and support various activities, including staffing and disaster response and relief efforts Figure 2.

Figure 2. Map showing the location of the study area (Author’s elaboration).

4. Methodology

4.1. Research design

The research adopted a qualitative case study design due to the explorative nature of the study (Yin, 2009). The choice of the method and the design is due to the limited current knowledge of FBOs’ role in disaster management, particularly in an informal settlement setting. In the absence of such knowledge, it is extremely difficult to employ a quantitative method (Clarke & Braun, 2013). The qualitative study design was useful because it helps better understand the sociocultural and religious factors influencing specific disaster management regimes (Tierney, 2019). In the context of this study, the research method and design used helped to account for the role of FBOs across the stages of the disaster management cycle in an informal settlement.

4.2. Instruments

An interview guide was developed and used as a tool for data collection. The interview guide contained a series of open-ended questions together with participants’ general background information. Open-ended interviews were preferred because they are more flexible and allow the interviewees to freely express their opinions on their experiences and problems (See Pedrosa et al., 2021). At the same time, the researcher probes for certain issues and ensures structure in the interview process (see Frimpong et al., 2022). For this study, the flexible approach adopted by the interviewer and the open-ended interview encouraged respondents to elaborate on direct and indirect experiences of FBOs’ contribution before, during and after disaster events.

In preparing the instruments, the research team was organised into two groups to independently vet and assess the sample questions prepared for this study. A consensus was reached where the teams had different views. The research team’s final draft was circulated among seven experts with over ten years of experience in disaster management practice and research to analyse for accuracy (Oslon, 2010). The opinion of experts has been used as a pretesting method to ensure the accuracy and credibility of research questions.

4.3. Data collection

Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used in this study. Before the interview, the researchers contacted community leaders within the study area. As a result of the good relationship established with the social networks, we identified FBOs, local government representatives and community residents who would be most suitable to provide appropriate data to achieve the research objectives. The community residents interviewed for the study were victims of various disaster events and who have also benefitted from disaster-related assistance from FBOs in Dome. The community members were purposively selected through snowballing and information from FBOs and community leaders. This multiple sourcing ensured that selective bias from FBOs and its impact on the results was reduced. Initial study participants referred the research team to their social networks, who have directly or indirectly experienced FBOs’ role in disaster management within the community. Once a participant voluntarily avails to take part in the study, appointments were made. Where possible, the interview guide was provided some days before the interview to enable respondents reflects on the issues to be discussed.

Open-ended interviews were conducted with 52 informants, which included community residents, leaders of churches and mosques and staff of GEMA. The interviews were carried out over three months (January – March 2022), including pre-testing (January 7-14), the actual data collection (February – March) and follow-ups for clarifications (April 1- 5). The final sample size of 52 out of the original sample size of 65 (see Table 1) was due to saturation in responses – the point when the information given by the informants does not yield any new insights in addressing the research objectives (Saunders et al., 2018). Each interview was done in either English or Twi (Ghanaian language) based on the interviewees’ preferences. The interviews lasted 30–45 min, depending on the respondent’s interests and knowledge about the research questions. All the interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the respondents.

Table 1. Overview of study respondents and data sources.

Data types	Sample size	Stakeholder group represented	Use in analysis	Gender of respondents
				Male	Female
Primary Data
Interviews
Open-ended interviews with leaders of FBOs	11	Islamic religious leaders	Activities of FBOs in pre-during and post-disaster events	5	1
		Christian religious leaders		3	2
Open-ended interviews with Institutional and local government representatives	11	Municipal Representatives (GEMA)		2	1
		Community Representatives (Assembly members)		1
		NADMO representative		1	2
		Ghana National Fire Service		3	1
Open-ended interviews with community members	30	Victim/Beneficiaries		17	13
Total	52			32	20
Secondary Data
Reports	9	FBO, GEMA and unit committee	Created a strong narrative of the series of events and provided insights into respondents’ perspectives that were not obtained during the interview.	-	-

Source: Field Data, 2023

4.4. Data processing, preparation, and analysis

Recorded interview data were transcribed and transferred into NVIVO 12 for data analysis. Due to confidentiality and anonymity issues in qualitative research, the respondents were identified using pseudonyms. While community members who participated in the study were coded CM1, CM2, CM3 … CM30, faith-based organisations and institutional interviews were respectively coded as FBO1, FBO2 … FBO11 and GEMA1, GEMA2 and GEMA3. Also, data from the reports were coded as R1, R2, R3 … R9, while the assembly member was coded as AM1. Lastly, institutional representatives from NADMO and GNFS were coded as NADMO1 … NADMO3 and GNFS1, GNFS2 … GNFS4 respectively.

The interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The analytical procedure followed the six-stage process tested by Braun and Clarke (2006), which has become widely accepted and utilised in qualitative research. The first stage involved the generation of the transcripts and repeated readings of the data by all authors to familiarise ourselves with the data. The second stage involved generating initial codes with reference to disaster management activities such as disaster prevention, mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. The third stage involved comparing and contrasting codes to identify themes in relation to the disaster management cycle. The fourth stage involved all authors reviewing and refining the themes in relation to the research questions. In the fifth stage, the themes were defined and finalised. The last stage involved writing and discussing the findings. To do this, we built on the hermeneutic technique in qualitative analysis, often referred to as sense-making, a process that involves a thematic definition of codes and themes in the form of interpretative narratives with quotations (See Frimpong et al., 2022; Pedrosa et al., 2021; Thapa et al., 2017).

4.5. Reliability and validity

The combination of multiple data sources from interviews (FBOs, GEMA and community residents) and reports from FBOs and GEMA, and in some cases, minutes from FBOs and the local assembly members meeting with community members enhanced the reliability and validity of this research (Yin, 2009). The researchers adopted four approaches to ensure the credibility and reliability of the results. First, before the analysis, the researchers cross-checked the data to ensure biases were eliminated and erroneous information rectified with follow-ups where necessary. Second, the data credibility and reliability were also assessed by triangulating the results from both primary and secondary data sources used in the study. Furthermore, we employed Riege’s (2003) reliability and validity frameworks to check for data quality and credibility by estimating construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Finally, a stakeholder reliability and validity workshop were organised to inform them of the overall findings and validation involving participating FBOs, institutional representatives and community members.

5. Results

This study found that FBOs are the most common civic organisation in Dome. As a result of their predominant presence, they contribute significantly towards disaster management by filling the void left by governmental agencies. This section presents the findings of the study into two broad thematic areas; i) pre-disaster: mitigation and preparedness and ii) response and recovery.

5.1. Pre-disaster: mitigation and preparedness

• Organising community clean-up exercises

Waste management is a social and health nuisance in the study community due to the community's exclusion from formal waste collection services. During the two months of stakeholder interviews, we observed that solid wastes were indiscriminately thrown and sometimes piled up in many parts of the community. Also, respondents indicated the growing phenomenon of some unscrupulous community residents throwing solid waste into drainage facilities. The solid waste, coupled with sand trapped in the drainage systems, prevent the flow of rainwater and results in overflow to cause flooding. To avoid flooding, FBO representatives shared, ‘we mobilise volunteers to de-silt drainage facilities and clean up the entire community to prevent choking in gutters and ease rainwater flow into the sea’ (FBO 9). Some of these mobilisation activities were incentivized through a ‘budget of GH¢550 to provide breakfast meals for all volunteers who assist in the clean-up exercise’ (Minutes from FBO 3 meetings).

• Awareness creation and providing disaster warnings.

FBO representatives opined that providing disaster information is key to reducing risk and building community resilience. As a result, some FBOs offer platforms, such as member meetings, to create awareness of community-wide risks and vulnerabilities. In many instances, the FBOs rely on members to share their knowledge and experiences of dealing with prevailing disaster hazards in the community. This reminds members of context-specific actions for risk reduction and disaster prevention. As recounted by a community resident:

… when I relocated to this community, I had no idea about the frequency and severity of floods here … in one of our religious gatherings, a woman who has been resident here for over 25 years narrated a series of devasting floods and lessons learned after the event. Since then, I have followed her suggestions to raise my plinth level and clear my house of materials that clog water flow during heavy rains. [Community member 23].

Given the multiple risks and the associated disaster events, risk awareness and warnings expanded from hydrometeorological to include environmental and public health risks. For example, the outbreak of COVID-19 was particularly challenging due to the spread of misinformation around causes and treatment and the fact that it required professional or technical expertise, which was unavailable in the community. In situations like this, some FBOs secured the services of registered community health nurses and other health professionals to create awareness among members of the causes, symptoms and preventative measures.

… there was a lot of confusion and misinformation in the community about COVID-19 infection risks, and there was limited expertise in the community to help. We used our group social networks to hire medical professionals such as community health nurses to raise disease awareness and prevention approaches … . [FBO 10]

The results indicate that existing communication channels and tools in FBOs religious facilities were leveraged for early warning and to provide point-in-time information about hazards detected, including their location and potential impacts. By doing this, FBOs ‘[we] use the loudspeakers and various WhatsApp groups to inform community members about impending risks and potential sites of impact to advise them to avoid dangerous sites’ (FBO 7). Some community members supported this claim. For example, one resident recalled that:

… thunderstorms or lightning disturbances are common here … . In February 2019, lightning stroke the electrical transmission lines in the southern part of the town … . many community members, including myself, heard it for the first time through the loudspeakers of the mosque behind this house … .- [Community resident 27]

• Influencing disaster perception of members

Religious beliefs and messages delivered in mosques and churches were identified as important contextual factors influencing people's understanding and response to disaster risks. These shape their thoughts about disaster hazards and interpretations of the risks they face. Some of the reports and minutes by the FBOs elicited verses from the Quran and the Bible that reminded community members of divine protection in the face of cataclysmic events and God’s reward for the righteous and punishment of the wicked with devastating disasters. The opening pages of one report read: ‘He [God] has promised never to leave or forsake you’ (R4), and another stated: ‘The Almighty [God] protects the righteous against all storms’ (R5). While there seemed to be an understanding of improving housing and environmental conditions to reduce risk, FBOs and some community members expressed the view that ‘not all disasters are within human control, so we need God and need to intensity prayers and good deeds’ (FBO 16) as one respondent remarked.

Nonetheless, contrary perspectives pointed to the tensions and contradictions of religious belief and disaster perceptions within the community. Within FBOs and among community members, some asserted that ‘disasters have less to do with a divine being [a god] and more with human actions and responsibilities’ (AM 2). Sharing this perspective, a community member sharply remarked that:

… building along watercourses and dumping rubbish in drainage facilities is the cause of increased flooding frequency and severity in this community … God does not come from heaven to construct on floodplains and along watercourses or dump rubbish in the gutters … so if it rains and kills human beings and destroys property, who cause am, gentlemen? [Community member, 28]

5.2. Response and recovery

• FBOs as ‘first responders.’

The most important priority during and after any disaster is searching, rescuing, and providing medical services to disaster victims. Formally, the police, firefighters and health professionals are the mandatory and legally recognised institutions usually at the scene of emergency events to ensure people are safe. First responders are responsible for the evacuation and rescue of victims of disasters. However, our study showed that there were some occasions that FBOs mobilise volunteers within their religious groups and community to evacuate and rescue people before the arrival of the traditional first responders. One FBO leader lamented:

… You cannot count on the Fire services and the Police in an emergency in this community. It takes forever to get them here if their phones would work at all. In a crisis, we cannot wait for them. You need to fill that void else the damage will be catastrophic. Just down the street at the corner, one resident’s house caught fire in the third quarter of last year, and we just got our members to rescue the people, including a child quickly. Sometimes I think we are the first responders, and those formal agencies are the last responders. [FBO 10]

• Provision of social and psychological services to disaster victims

Understanding and appreciating the socio-cultural contexts of disaster events and affected populations is critical to culturally sensitive response and recovery. Our study showed that FBOs possess community-level knowledge and a situated understanding of the culture and needs of the people in their operational communities. The meeting places of the FBOs, such as churches and mosques, are places where people gather to pray, seek support, and sympathise with each other. This provides an opportunity to bring numerous stakeholders together to make their needs known. As a result, GEMA and some of the emergency service providers used these religious facilities as contact points to announce their presence in the community. A representative from GEMA stated that:

… .as part of the implementation of the government's initiative to support community members during the coronavirus pandemic, we first linked up FBOs and community leaders to distribute relief items [GEMA 1]

FBOs in Dome play a crucial role in providing relief assistance immediately after disaster events such as fire, floods, and COVID-19. They provide food, water, sanitation, and health services to community members impacted by disaster events. At the peak of the pandemic, ‘we made cash donations, provided food items, hand sanitisers to some of the vulnerable, and severely impacted by the crises’ (FBO 7). For some community members, ‘the church gave [me] hope to live, as I could not do my street vending business due to the lockdown, but church groups supported our rent payments and encouraged us to persevere’ (Community Member 15). Here, the familiarity of FBOs with the needs, culture, and language of disaster-impacted community members enabled them to provide humanitarian services in a way that maintains human dignity.

Additionally, our engagement with some of the religious leaders of the FBOs revealed that they consider psychological support an important component of supporting victims and their families to recover. Here, both FBOs and affected members perceived disaster events ‘as a test of faith’ that required emotional support through prayers, companionship, and encouragement. The following remarks by an assembly member and community beneficiary are illustrative:

… . I think one thing the FBOs do quite well is their attention to the psychological needs of disaster victims. They pray, encourage and provide a community of support through their members and using promises in their holy books. After all, donations and food are not enough to deal with the psychological effects of disaster events in this community (AM 1).

I do not know what I would have done without the Muslim community and their leaders. I suffered a house fire two years ago, and my husband also died during the pandemic. What could I do, and what could I hope, lockdown and alone? The Muslim community gave me hope and filled the void left in me (Community member, 25).

6. Discussion

Informal settlements have become the habitus of numerous risks and hazards that make them susceptible to disasters (Shokouhi et al., 2019). In Global South cities such as Accra, multi-actor responses to disaster management rendered by both formal governmental agencies and non-formal organisations (see Figure 1) are crucial to the effectiveness of disaster management in informal areas. Here, the attempt to elevate the role of FBOs in disaster management in an informal settlement provides an entry point for developing and strengthening multi-actor community-based disaster planning, especially in disadvantaged communities. This paper aimed to highlight the role of FBOs in disaster management in Dome, a suburb of Accra prone to fire, health, and climate-induced disasters.

Poor environmental and housing conditions, such as clogged drains, heaps of uncollected garbage, and buildings in flood-prone areas along drains in Dome, suggest the precarious nature of the community and give a snapshot of residents’ vulnerability to various hazards. In the pre-disaster phase, the result indicates that FBOs have organised periodic clean-up community exercises, which are targeted at desilting gutters to allow the free flow of rainwater, clearing nearby bushes, and collecting heaps of garbage to enhance environmental cleanliness. These activities cumulatively reduce the risk of disease outbreaks and mitigate the compounding effect of climate-related disasters. Similar findings have been reported in Iran, where Fallah (2018) found that non-formal organisations provide pre- and post-disaster activities to residents before and during earthquake disasters.

Accurate and timely disaster risk communication is essential to the reduction of disasters in vulnerable urban informal settlements. Previous studies have shown that FBOs provide community awareness and education on early warning systems, an essential complementary role in pre-disaster management activities (Ager et al., 2015; Cheema et al., 2014). Studies in southern contexts also emphasise similar social and cultural nuances, such as language and social networks, that could shape risk communication in disaster management (Abunyewah et al., 2022b; Ngin et al., 2020). In our study, FBO representatives showed awareness of these sociocultural underpinnings. Specifically, representatives of FBOs relied on their social networks with community health professionals to provide community education and sensitisation on dangerous environmental and public health risks that inform disaster events, using familiar local languages. For instance, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, their platforms were used to communicate the importance of observing the safety protocols and the need to reduce the horizontal transmission of the coronavirus. From a multi-actor community-based disaster management lens (see Figure 1), these activities were crucial in complementing government efforts to reduce the spread and infection of the coronavirus, as reported by other studies in Accra (See Okyere et al., 2023).

Socio-cultural factors, such as religious beliefs, influence residents’ perceptions of the causes of a disaster. Religious beliefs and practices comprise key aspects of community life, which serves as a conduit for effective disaster risk communication, especially in Ghana, where about 95% of the population profess some form of religious affiliations (GSS, 2021; Abunyewah et al., 2022b). Here, our results indicate that FBOs worked to demystify residents’ perceptions that disasters are caused by a god or are the wages of peoples’ sins against a divine being. This evidence points to the potential of FBOs to be cultural change agents imperative for working within disaster cultures of vulnerable communities to shape risk perceptions and preparedness.

Furthermore, the role of FBOs in Dome included providing first-hand emergency response services such as evacuation and rescue missions in case of disaster occurrences such as fire outbreaks. This is a troubling reality that showcases voids and ineffectiveness in formal disaster management, especially emergency services in Ghana’s urban riskscapes, reflecting what some scholars have framed to be the structural, institutional challenges around disaster management, planning, and development (Amoako et al., 2021). On a positive note, even in the so-called structural challenges, response activities demonstrate how FBOs have been helpful in reducing the number of casualties as they act as the ‘first responders’ to disaster victims before ‘official’ responses. Additionally, during disaster occurrences such as fire, floods, and recently the COVID-19 pandemic, the study findings show that FBOs provided relief items such as cash, food, and water to disaster victims, helping them to recover some of their losses. This finding corresponds to a recent study by Kotani et al. (2022), who found that Mosques in Japan provided significant support to foreign Muslims and Japanese people in the form of mask donations, counselling, and food provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Post-disaster trauma and stress counselling for disaster victims in many African cities are extremely rare. This is another major void that FBOs have acted to fill by providing social and psychological support to such victims. The study findings show that FBOs provide regular psychosocial support to disaster victims through prayers, social bonds, and encouragement to enable disaster victims to cope with post-disaster shocks. While this support is commendable in the context of extreme need, this finding also reinforces the urgent need for multi-actor framing of disaster management, where community health, social welfare, and other psychosocial services are integrated to create holistic and people-centred disaster management programmes at the local level. Here, effective coordination between formal and non-formal organisations in disaster management in vulnerable communities can open access to critical services, facilities, and tools. Also, bi-directional exchanges: sharing expertise, resources, knowledge, and experimentation of initiatives through co-design frameworks is essential (see Abunyewah et al., 2022b).

Summarily, the findings have complemented existing literature (see Frimpong et al., 2022; Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2022) and advanced emerging scholarship on multi-actor frameworks in disaster management in global south urban riskscapes by recognising the crucial but often neglected role of FBOs in the disaster management regime. At its core, our findings reveal that FBOs are not merely positioned as partners providing complementary assistance but, more critically, as filling the void in efforts towards community-based disaster management in disaster-prone but neglected informal areas.

7. Conclusion

This study has explored the role of faith-based organisations (FBOs) in disaster management in the Dome community in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Findings indicated that FBOs play a crucial role in disaster preparation, response, and recovery by providing social support, disseminating information, and facilitating participation in disaster risk reduction activities through community-driven and religiously motivated activities that fill the void left by weaknesses in formal disaster management regimes. FBOs are strongly connected to the local communities and have a wealth of knowledge and practices that help shape disaster management practices. However, it is important to highlight that, unlike in the Global North, FBOs in the context of our study are often limited in radical forms of political participation, given that many religious adherents often frame this as partisanship and against religious principles of neutrality. There is a tendency for such religious organisations to stay clear of political or controversial topics. Thus, FBOs generally practice self-censorship by refraining from openly denouncing government disaster management malpractices, engaging in divisive advocacies, or even self-limiting by focusing on their core disaster management activities (Koehrsen & Heuser, 2020).

Taken together, our study exerts two ramifications for policy and practice. First, we suggest embedding community-based multi-actor disaster risk reduction in the disaster management programmes of governmental institutions such as the NADMO, GNFS, and GNAS. This must go beyond the usual tokenism via consultations to recognise and integrate FBOs’ knowledge, practices, and resources (See Sheikhi et al., 2021), especially those in informal urban riskscapes. Experiences from disaster situations in the Global South show that the long-term sustainability of non-formal organisations in disaster management activities is often limited without building effective coalitions with formal agencies through co-learning and co-creation practices (Srikandini et al., 2018; Abunyewah et al., 2022b). Fundamentally, the scope of institutional actors must be multi-dimensional and diverse, including those offering psychological and social welfare services. Second, layered on the multi-actor framework is the need for a new platform for the experimentation of initiatives involving resources from governmental agencies and FBOs. Here, governmental organisations, especially disaster management and municipal authorities, must leverage the crucial roles of existing FBOs and community initiatives with technical support and collaboration to reduce disaster risks in informal settlements (Osuteye et al., 2020). Such collaborative efforts should be underpinned by co-designed disaster response strategies developed within an inclusive, participatory, and mutually enriching community-based disaster resilience planning process.

This study is limited by reliance on a small sample size of FBO representatives and community members, local disaster management representatives, and a single community. This limits its generalizability to other situations and may not be applicable in a wider context. We suggest that future studies consider a much larger sample size with mixed methods and adopt the comparative analysis of formal and informal urban riskscpapes with varied disaster cultures. Future studies should also examine the role of non-formal organisations on a larger scale in a regional context. Nonetheless, a forward view building on the current study could fill existing voids in disaster management practices and support FBOs’ activities towards community-based disaster-resilient futures.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).