Huchzermeyer (2008) posited that eradicating or eliminating informal settlements in South Africa is unattainable, given the projected high rate of new informal settlements estimated by the UN. Instead, they advocated for a proactive approach by the South African government to upgrade existing informal settlements. Huchzermeyer suggested that local authorities develop strategies and plans to transition informal settlements from a vulnerable status quo to a resilient and improved social environment.

Sibiya, Aigbavboa and Thwala (2013) identified various barriers to upgrading informal settlements in Gauteng Province, South Africa, including delays in decision-making by the DoHS management, legal challenges such as litigation and court orders, limited participation of informal settlement communities because of the top-down approach of the DoHS and inconsistencies in government processes. On 21 August 2008, the South African Constitutional Court ruled that the Gauteng government must upgrade the informal settlement Joe Slovo instead of evicting its residents (Huchzermeyer 2008). This Constitutional Court judgement was deemed a victory for informal settlement communities nationwide.

Given the persistent growth of informal settlements and the significance of the Constitutional Court ruling, this research aims to explore ways to develop adaptive capacity for disaster risk reduction as a means to upgrade the eLM informal settlements from hazardous environments to safer ones.

Satterthwaite (2017) found that most of the measures to reduce disaster risks within a particular jurisdiction are the sole responsibility of the local government and rely on its competence to address issues of concern within its jurisdiction.

In 2004, the PAR model gained international recognition as a pivotal framework for understanding vulnerability dynamics and advancing disaster risk reduction efforts (Wisner et al. 2014). Renowned in academia and community-based organisations, the PAR model empowers communities to identify their vulnerabilities and strengths, rather than relying solely on external interventions for disaster risk management solutions (Wisner et al. 2014). This study utilises the PAR model to delve into the vulnerability factors impacting residents of informal settlements, proposing adaptive capacity measures to bolster resilience against disaster risks. Van Niekerk (2005) and Anderskov (2004) affirmed the PAR model’s efficacy in analysing disaster scenarios, while Gohl’s (2008) study in Mozambique and Awal’s (2015) research in Bangladesh demonstrated its utility in assessing vulnerability and guiding risk reduction strategies. Notably, Awal’s study shed light on the PAR model’s aptness in understanding vulnerability progression amidst climate-related disasters. Furthermore, Mabaso (2019) highlighted the PAR model’s significance for disaster management practitioners, underlining its role in quantifying vulnerability and devising effective interventions. Central to the PAR model are the concepts of Progression of Safety for Vulnerable Communities, which addresses root causes and reduces pressure, and Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR), focusing on hazard mitigation and achieving safe conditions. The following paragraph will explore these key aspects to underscore the model’s value in enhancing adaptive capacity within informal settlements.

The progression of safety for vulnerable communities involves deliberate actions to identify and mitigate hazards to transition from vulnerability to safety. This process encompasses various activities, including hazard mitigation and management, achieving safe conditions, reducing pressure, addressing root causes for disaster risk reduction, building adaptive capacity and creating adaptation strategies for disaster risks (Figure 2). These activities necessitate collaboration among stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. As highlighted by Twigg (2015), effective disaster risk reduction requires multidisciplinary partnerships that facilitate sharing resources, ideas and budgets for optimal outcomes. This collaborative approach signifies a shift from viewing disaster risk reduction as solely a government problem to acknowledging it as a shared responsibility within public administration, as emphasised by Clark-Ginsberg (2020) and Twigg (2015). This collaborative effort involves community members, ward councillors, disaster management practitioners, research institutions (universities and the private sector), government departments and local authorities (Phiri, Van Nikerk & Van Eeden 2016). Engaging communities in disaster risk reduction activities is crucial as it enables them to take ownership of their environment’s safety measures, as Nahayo et al. (2017) noted.

In addition, community involvement enhances awareness of hazards and strengthens coping capacities (Nahayo et al. 2017). Stakeholders need to listen to and integrate indigenous knowledge into disaster risk reduction strategies during their interactions with communities, as highlighted by Iloka (2016). A successful progression of safety requires incorporating indigenous knowledge and scientific information to ensure comprehensive and effective risk-reduction efforts (Iloka 2016). Through this collaborative and inclusive approach, stakeholders can work together to achieve meaningful progress in enhancing the safety and resilience of vulnerable communities.

According to Wisner et al. (2014), the progression of safety within the PAR model emphasises public safety through risk mapping, preparedness and insurance as essential components of effective disaster risk reduction. Gaillard and Maceda (eds. 2009) highlight the pivotal role of community involvement as a prerequisite for achieving sustainable disaster risk reduction and ensuring ownership of government interventions in the progression of safety. This community involvement is encapsulated in the CBDRR approach (eds. Gaillard & Maceda 2009). Risk mapping, a crucial aspect of CBDRR, entails the analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities and coping capacities using scientific methodology (Daddoust et al. 2018). Given the complexity of risk mapping involving scientific methods and advanced technology, it is incumbent upon local authorities and other stakeholders to simplify the process to facilitate full community participation. Liu et al. (2018) underscore the significance of community participation in risk mapping, considering it as the most effective approach for gathering accurate disaster risk information and devising tailored risk reduction strategies for vulnerable communities. The CBDRR approach offers benefits by enhancing understanding of hazards and fostering preparedness for response during disaster events.

In our study framework, these insights align closely with our focus on understanding the progression of safety within informal settlements. By emphasising public safety through risk mapping and community involvement, our research seeks to explore the role of stakeholders, including local authorities and community members, in simplifying risk mapping processes and promoting full community participation. Moreover, our study aims to leverage the CBDRR approach to enhance understanding of hazards within informal settlements and foster a sense of preparedness among residents. Through this framework, we aim to contribute to the discourse on effective disaster risk reduction strategies tailored to the unique needs of vulnerable communities within informal settlements.

The study was conducted in the eLM. This local municipality is located in the Nkangala District Municipality, Mpumalanga province 25.8891° S, 29.2320° E. The study area derives its name from the Nguni word eMalahleni, which translates to ‘place of coal’. The eLM is on the boundary of the City of Tshwane, the City of Ekurhuleni and the City of Johannesburg of the Gauteng province.

eMalahleni Local Municipality has experienced a high influx of people seeking employment in the power generation stations and business establishments. This influx of people has increased the number of informal settlements in the study area. The eLM currently consists of 71 informal settlements and some of these informal settlements are located in hazardous environments with no plans for relocation despite a 10–15 year project approved in the municipality’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (eLM 2019). Some of these informal settlements are located in areas with the following hazards: below the flood line, underground fires, water and air pollution, built above the servitude of gas pipes and built on abandoned mining areas (eLM 2019). The study was conducted in the following informal settlements: Old Coronation, Thabo Mbeki, Kamgewana, Spring Valley, Sizanani, Emgodini and Emsagweni (KwaGuqa Ext.1).

This study employed a non-probability sampling approach to select participants, specifically utilising a purposive sampling method. The choice of this sampling method was deliberate and aligned with the research objectives (Daniel 2012). Purposive sampling allowed the researcher to select participants based on specific criteria relevant to the study’s focus. In this case, the participants were purposefully selected from the eLM in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa. The selected sample comprised seven community members; one eMalahleni Informal Settlement Cluster worker, seven community development workers; three ward councillors; one eLM: Disaster Management Centre worker; one eLM: Safety, Security and Law Enforcement worker; one eLM: Spatial Planning, Land Use Management and Urban Renewal Unit worker; one eLM: Human Settlement Unit worker; one eLM: Environmental and Waste Management worker; one Provincial DoHS worker and one Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (DCoGTA): Disaster Management Centre worker. These participants were chosen as they were directly involved in issues related to informal settlements, ensuring that they could provide relevant data aligned with the study’s objectives. The purposive selection of participants enabled the research to capture a comprehensive range of perspectives and insights pertinent to the study’s focus on informal settlement issues within the eLM.

The qualitative research approach offers flexibility in utilising multiple data collection tools within a single study (Aurini, Heath & Howells 2016; Olsen 2012). These tools encompass various methods such as in-depth interviews, participatory observation, focus groups, questionnaires and accessing secondary data sources, including hard-copy and online documents such as journals, books, organisational strategic plans, frameworks, theses, conference papers and even corpus analysis (Aurini et al. 2016; De Vos et al. 2011; Olsen 2012; Rose, McKinley & Baffoe-Djan 2019). In this study, the researcher opted to employ in-depth interviews and secondary data as primary sources of information. These choices were made deliberately based on their suitability for capturing rich, contextual insights into the phenomenon under investigation. The use of in-depth interviews facilitated a nuanced exploration of participants’ perspectives and experiences, while secondary data sources provided additional context and background information. By employing these specific data collection methods, the researcher aimed to gather comprehensive data that would contribute to a deeper understanding of the research topic.

The participants were categorised into government officials, community members and ward councillors. The following subsections briefly describe these two groups: government community participants and ward councillors.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the (University of KwaZulu-Natal Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee) (No. HSSREC/00001939/2020).

The researcher attempted to discover how the informal settlement communities participate in policy development and implementation for disaster risk reduction in the informal settlements in the eLM. The participants shared their experiences regarding public participation and consultation in policy development and implementation to prioritise disaster risk reduction in the informal settlements.

The participants had different feelings and experiences concerning public participation and consultation, particularly for disaster risk reduction. The sentiment of all community members was that there is no public participation and consultation concerning policy development and implementation for disaster risk reduction, especially for vulnerable communities living within informal settlements. One community member stated that ‘eLM conduct community outreach for Integrated Development Plan [IDP] but not for policy development and implementation to reduce disaster risks in the informal settlements’ (Participant 12). Most community members were frustrated that community outreach programmes for IDP meetings only took place within formalised settlements and that the communities from the informal settlements are asked to join in those formalised settlements’ meetings. The community members were further frustrated because during community outreach IDP meetings, the voices of the informal settlement communities are silenced when they are told that the municipality will begin an informal settlement upgrade when there is land available.

All government participants conceded that the government has not done much to involve vulnerable communities during the development of policies to reduce disaster risks within informal settlements. An eLM response official stated that ‘consulting the communities during the policy development is time-consuming, but it has great benefits to inform policy direction and incorporate indigenous knowledge’ (Participant 1). All participants confirmed that there are no public participation and consultation to develop policies meant to reduce disaster risks and create adaptive capacity within the informal settlements of the eLM.

The literature of Vidrikova et al. (2017) indicated that the government is responsible for ensuring that there are hard engineering measures to eliminate disruption to community infrastructure and economy. The literature further suggested that communities must play a major role in public participation and consultation concerning the hard engineering measures for the mitigation of vulnerability and they must be involved (Hemingway & Gunaway 2018; ed. Paleo 2009). Furthermore, the literature suggests that involvement of communities during in the hard engineering measures prioritisation and implementation because it helps communities take ownership of any hard engineering measures for disaster risk reduction.

Rehak, Slivkova and Brabcova (2017) suggested that functional hard engineering measures in communities are a basic right to safety and prosperity of communities at large. Furthermore, Pescaroli and Alexander (2016) suggested that any community without hard engineering measures is physically and economically vulnerable. Various studies by Abubakari and Twum (2019); Gupta and Barman (2017); Pescaroli and Alexander (2016) revealed that the majority of human deaths are caused by the absence of hard engineering measures that expose communities to disaster risks. The feedback from the participants suggested that there is no consultation regarding the implementation of hard engineering measures to eliminate and mitigate disaster risks in the informal settlements of the eLM. Furthermore, their feedback suggested that the absence of hard engineering measures in the informal settlements exposes the communities to physical and economical vulnerability to any type of disaster risk. One of the participants indicated that it is impossible to receive any hard engineering measure from the government as there is no proper consultation with communities to raise possible hard engineering measures to address the specific needs of the informal settlements. The community participants indicated that the communities have suggestions for possible hard engineering measures projects that will not cost millions of rand but these suggestions cannot be communicated to the administration because there is no health consultation platform for disaster risk reduction purposes. Some of the hard engineering measures suggested by the participants include flood defence lines, lightning conductors and fly and mice traps. The literature revealed that the absence of hard engineering measures in communities affects their livelihood and adaptive capacity to transit from progression of vulnerability to safety (Pescaroli & Alexander 2016).

The failure of the government to promote and reinforce public participation in disaster risk reduction programmes leaves the vulnerable communities defenceless. The feedback from the participants suggested that the administration of the eLM fails to facilitate healthy consultation on possible hard engineering measures, eliminating the opportunity for the community to raise possible hard engineering measures suitable to the informal settlements’ needs and informed by indigenous knowledge systems.

The literature revealed that hard engineering measures alone are not sufficient for effective disaster risk reduction and that soft engineering measures are critical to complement hard engineering (Mechler 2016; ed. Paleo 2009). The literature further suggested that education, training, public awareness, hazard mapping, early-warning systems and land use planning are critical to create resilience and adaptive capacity in vulnerable communities (Mechler 2016; ed. Paleo 2009). Furthermore, Nahayo et al. (2017) revealed that communities should be involved through consultation to create ownership and partnership with the government in the effort to create adaptive capacity in the vulnerable communities. Public participation and consultation in disaster risk reduction matters involving soft engineering measures must ensure cooperative governance between the government and communities. The feedback from the participants suggested that there is no healthy cooperative governance between the government and communities in relation to consultation about soft engineering measures for vulnerable communities. The feedback from the participants indicated a gap that the eLM administration should improve by consulting communities concerning soft engineering measures.

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has been championing for the prioritisation of soft engineering measures through public participation and consultation for effective disaster risk reduction interventions, and Priority 3 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (2015–2030) (South Africa 2002) encourages governments and NGOs to invest in disaster risk reduction for resilience programmes based on both soft and hard engineering measures. The Disaster Management Act, no. 57 of 2002 (South Africa 2002) and NDMF encourage the local sphere of government to increase local capacity in order to minimise disaster risks through public participation in vulnerable communities. The participants suggested that the administration of the eLM is contravening the Disaster Management Act and the NDMF. Public participation is critical for vulnerable communities living in informal settlements to build trust and adaptive capacity to reduce disaster risks. The participants revealed that there is an indication of hazard mapping by the government, but there has been no consultation with the communities to propose soft engineering measures to mitigate the hazards identified during the mapping. This means the government is failing to inform the communities and allow them to be part of the solution to mitigate risks. The government participants indicated that the absence of hard engineering measures is because of the nature of informal settlements, which are unplanned and informal. Therefore, there is no hard infrastructure to enable the implementation of soft engineering measures for disaster risk reduction and the creation of adaptive capacity for the progression of safety. The government participants’ comments showed a lack of willingness to build adaptive capacity to reduce disaster risks in the informal settlements.

The feedback from participants suggested that with proper consultation, possible soft engineering measures can be proposed despite the fact that there is no hard infrastructure in the informal settlements. The feedback from the participants suggested that possible soft engineering measures can be proposed through the indigenous knowledge systems because the most effective measure is cooperative governance between government and communities. The participants suggested that parallel ideas can only be merged through healthy consultation and public participation on matters concerning creating adaptive capacity in the informal settlements of the eLM. The feedback from the participants outlined the serious gap that the eLM administration should consider rectifying to improve consultation with communities.