Advancing disaster and climate resilience through people-centred approaches in rural Zimbabwe: an Afrocentric perspective

1 Introduction

In developing countries, building disaster- and climate-resilient communities remains a priority in realising sustainable development and addressing other challenges triggered by hazards, disasters and climate change (Manyena, 2016; Twigg, 2021; Sono et al., 2021). Resilience, as a risk reduction and management mechanism, is believed to provide systems and communities facing risks and hazards with an enhanced ability to anticipate and resist the effects of disruptive events (Manyena, 2016; Mavhura, 2020). While the concept of resilience has become prominent in diverse fields in Africa’s discourses on hazards, disasters and climate change, much of the discourse remains grounded in Eurocentric, modernist, and neoliberal paradigms, which prioritise technocratic, top-down approaches to disaster, hazard, and climate risk management (Amo-Agyemang, 2021; Gaillard and Chmutina, 2026; Nyahunda et al., 2026). These approaches frequently disregard the value of local knowledge systems and alternative perspectives, leading to African strategies that replicate Western models and sideline indigenous knowledge, practices, and insights (Chandler and Reid, 2020; Nyahunda et al., 2025). Through Eurocentric/Westernised, modernist, and neoliberal paradigms, resilience strategies in most African countries emphasise the essentiality of rational and technocratic management to anticipate and control risks and hazards (Chandler and Reid, 2020; Amo-Agyemang, 2021).

This being the case, there is a growing concern within the scholarship space that building resilience against hazards, disasters and climate change is mainly defined, assessed and measured by outsiders from government, research institutes, non-governmental organisations, and scholars rather than those primarily concerned (Oxley, 2013; Gaillard and Jigyasu, 2016; Le Dé et al., 2021; Nyahunda et al., 2024). A great deal of literature on resilience studies in Zimbabwe converges in asserting that bottom-up/people centred approaches are yet to be acknowledged in resilience-building initiatives followed by the government and non-governmental actors (Mavhura, 2020; Chirisa and Mhlanga, 2025). It is worth mentioning that resilience policies and actions are still scaffolded by colonial imaginaries embedded in coping, adaptation and mitigation while disregarding alternative resilience epistemologies that for many years have been used in some [African] places to ward off and resist the vagaries of natural hazards, other hazards and disasters. This is against the clarion calls in climate change, hazards, and disaster studies that assert the importance of people-centred/bottom-up, and community-based resilience building strategies (Slayi et al., 2024; Awazi, 2025; Millogo et al., 2025).

Whereas these studies suggested the merits of people-centred approaches, they are passive on challenging the predominant construction of resilience based on its context-boundness and cultural specificities, thereby valorising neoliberal and Western resilience categories which may not work outside their cradle (Gaillard and Chmutina, 2026). Despite efforts to deconstruct resilience in Ghana by Amo-Agyemang (2021), there are yet to be studies that dissect the importance of people-centred approaches in disaster and climate resilience building as a way of deconstructing the resilience concept to accommodate alternative epistemologies and ontologies in Zimbabwe. By deconstructing resilience through people-centred and Afrocentric lenses, this study refers to the dehegemonisation of knowing, democratisation of knowledge and de-westernisation of resilience knowledge that pose a misplaced awareness of contextual experiences with natural hazards, climate and disaster risks through valorisation of capacities such as adaptation, endurance, and transformation (Amo-Agyemang, 2021). This is against the backdrop that African communities have been practising resilience even without subjecting it to definitional, conceptual contestations, and measurement metrics championed through predominant technocratic neoliberal resilience categories (Nyahunda et al., 2026).

This study acknowledges substantial efforts by Jere et al. (2026), who surfaced the importance of context-specific and participatory resilience building that challenges top-down approaches’ failure to meet the situations and demands of at-risk communities in Malawi. However, the shortfall of this study is that it relied on resilience theory, which has a Western and neoliberal heritage, with which its proponents fail to capture the diversity of ontologies and epistemologies in communities where resilience needs to be democratised and deconstructed through people-centred approaches. As the quest to reimagine and appreciate the plurality of resilience is gaining traction in academic and policy landscapes, Afrocentricity is a voice among many voices that is well-positioned to foster epistemic justice in the growing and dynamic space of resilience research and practice, which has been understood and reported through alien and therefore out-of-context epistemological lenses (Shai, 2020; Mugambiwa, 2023).

This study categorically believes that the Afrocentric paradigm should anchor the conceptualisation and practice of resilience by Africans to re-assert and re-affirm African agency in thought and practice within their social institutions, social realities, worldviews, and processes (Shai, 2020). This study acknowledges the substantial work by Tirivangasi (2018, 2024, 2025) and Tirivangasi and Kontinen (2025) that examined climate change adaptation practices through the Afrocentric lens. Despite this, a lot remains unknown about how the Afrocentric lens can serve as a vehicle for reimagining resilience amidst the predominance of top-down neoliberal categories. Against this backdrop, this study grappled with two research questions: (i) How people-centred are the strategies prescribed by government and development agencies in rural Zimbabwe? and (ii) What is the perceived importance of building disaster and climate resilience through people-centred approaches? By relying on the Afrocentricity paradigm, this study contends that there may be culturally resonant narratives, practices and expressions of resilience that are approximate, alternative and equivalent to Western and neoliberal practices that can be established through people-centred approaches instead of top-down approaches. As such, the study incrementally contributes to the growing clarion call for epistemic justice and co-existence of epistemologies between Western, neoliberal and African-centred resilience practices. The study further constitutes efforts to challenge technocratic or expert-based practices in reinforcing existing knowledge in communities and not to obliterate them into oblivion through normative resilience, top-down templates, and actions. This study positions the Afrocentric paradigm as an invaluable analytic tool for theoretical reorientation and epistemic repositioning in disaster and climate change studies. Put together, the study substantially contributes to the pluralisation of resilience knowledge.

2 Locating the Afrocentric framework within people-centred approaches

The Afrocentric/Afrocentricity framework was adopted as the theoretical scaffold of the study. Shai (2020) propounds that Afrocentricity is a paradigm and theory which is premised on re-asserting African agency through recognition of their history, identity, social reality and culture. It is an intellectual perspective that privileges African traditions, concepts and historical reality (Asante, 2017; Amo-Agyemang, 2021; Tirivangasi, 2025). The Afrocentricity discourse provides African agency scaffolded by indigenous epistemic identity, social reality, ways of being, social thought and alternative ways of life (Amo-Agyemang, 2021; Tirivangasi, 2024). Furthermore, the Afrocentricity paradigm offers an epistemology that traces and leverages African knowledge, production, worldview and practices (Amponsah, 2025). It focuses on historicity, which is fundamental in providing a nuanced understanding of deconstructing existing narratives that some African communities may be less resilient when gauged against the top-down and neoliberal metrics (Amo-Agyemang, 2021; Amponsah, 2025). The framework resonates with the aspirations of people-centred approaches, which Mabon et al. (2021) describe as strategies that prioritise and empower local individuals and communities to actively participate in and influence the decision-making process in addressing shared challenges. Based on this, the Afrocentric framework advocates for the need to reimagine alternative resilience discoveries where Africans are situated as agents rather than spectators of development (Mugambiwa, 2023; Tirivangasi, 2025).

Significantly, Afrocentric approaches assert bottom-up decision-making and ways of knowing and further advocate for context-specific resilience for at-risk communities to interpret and manage their own risks, thereby shying away from one-size-fits-all solutions (Lin, 2019; Aldunce et al., 2021; Amponsah, 2025). Ordinarily, Afrocentric epistemologies represent the emergence of emancipatory interventions that break away from top-down categories (Amo-Agyemang, 2021). It is also worth noting that the Afrocentric framework is participatory in the sense that they pay homage to bottom-up rather than top-down approaches, where individuals are primary stakeholders and the veneration that decision-making should reside with the affected communities (Tirivangasi and Kontinen, 2025; Tirivangasi and Nyahunda, 2025). As such, Afrocentric lenses assert that resilience is located within indigenous people’s spiritual, cultural and social frames (Mawere and Mubaya, 2016). In the climate and disaster resilience discourse, people-centred approaches are posited as pivotal for building and sustaining resilience (Oxley, 2013; Jones and Tanner, 2017; Jamshed et al., 2019). In showcasing the importance of people-centred approaches in disaster and climate resilience building, Lin (2019) infers that there are practical and theoretical discourses about the reality that vulnerability and resilience capacities differ from community to community, rendering the design of a “one size fits all” model undesirable, if not impossible. Through the Afrocentric lens, resilience strategies that are foregrounded in the social reality, worldviews, identity, history and culture of people are a step forward in attaining the autonomy that liberates at-risk communities from the jaws of marginalisation to the centre of development and equitable resilience. By locating the Afrocentricity framework within people-centred approaches, the aspiration is to affirm that resilience building that appreciates the plurality of knowledge as a form of epistemic repair that cures the perpetual marginalisation of communities whose knowledge, voices, spiritual, and cultural worldviews should count in “dealing with hardship or adversity”, which is called “resilience” in Western and top-down terminology.

3 Methodology

3.1 Study setting

In exploring the perceived importance of people-centred approaches in disaster and climate resilience building, this article used Chimanimani District in Zimbabwe as its case study. The district is in Manicaland Province in eastern Zimbabwe. Chimanimani District is home to the Shona indigenes of Ndau and Manyika origin (Musarandega et al., 2020). The district has 23 wards categorised as commercial (3), communal (18), resettlement area (1) and peri-urban (1). Furthermore, Chimanimani District has a large rural population that practises rainfed agricultural-based livelihoods (Mavhura, 2021). In other words, the predominant land use activity is agricultural production for commercial and subsistence purposes (Tirivangasi et al., 2023). Notably, Chimanimani District was used as a case study because of its high disaster and climate risk profile, as well as other compounding vulnerabilities that necessitate resilience building (Saurombe and Shava, 2021). As Nyahunda (2025) posits, Chimanimani District has been grappling with climate change manifestations, where some climate change-related hazards have triggered disasters. Furthermore, the district faces overlapping threats, many of which interact to threaten the communities’ basic functioning. The threats include climate change, tropical cyclones, epidemics, gullies, floods, drought, wildfires, strong winds and heat waves (Chanza et al., 2020; Figure 1).

The study participants were drawn from Ward 4 (Nhedziwa), Ward 10 (Chikukwa), Ward 12 (Charleshood), Ward 16 (Tiya), Ward 18 (Nechirinda) and Ward 21 (Ngorima). The selection of these wards was intentional. This is because the wards share similar structural constraints, including socio-economic dynamics, which allowed a nuanced exploration of how their experiences influence participation and marginalisation in resilience building. NGO, government officials responsible for resilience interventions, and community members were study participants.

3.2 Research approach and recruitment of study participants

The study was guided by a qualitative approach. The approach was elected because it produces data about human perspectives on any matter of interest, which may include relationships, emotions, behaviours and opinions (Charmaz, 2020). Qualitative research is inductive, and it brings contextual descriptions of people’s experiences to the fore (Denny and Weckesser, 2022). The utilisation of a qualitative research approach resonates with the principles of Afrocentricity by situating the study phenomena within psychological spaces and times. By so doing, Afrocentric researchers recognise the dynamism of any phenomenon and stress the essentiality of documenting their diverse contexts even as they change (Asante, 2023). Thus, there is a concordance between the general features of qualitative research and the Afrocentricity paradigm (Tirivangasi and Nyahunda, 2025). This is so because both approaches pay homage to context and meaning, thereby challenging detached objectivity by repositioning African subjects as agents of inquiry (Tirivangasi, 2025). The participants’ recruitment process involved word of mouth conveyed by two research assistants and physical visits to the offices of developmental and government agencies. This process started after acquainting the gatekeepers (traditional leaders) with the purpose of the study, through which they granted access to the communities. Participants were drawn from NGOs (TSURO TRUST, Welt Hunger Hilfe, World Vision, UNOPS, and Action Aid and Government Ministries (Ministry of Local Government and Public Works and Ministry of Youth Empowerment and Vocational Training). All these organisations were approached and the researcher managed to draw some participants. None of these organisations declined to share their views into the study.

3.3 Sampling and data collection

The study adopted a purposive sampling approach to select participants. Purposive sampling relies on the researcher’s judgement in selecting participants deemed fit to address the study’s objectives (Campbell et al., 2020). This study requires participants (practitioners) involved in resilience-building in Chimanimani District and community members to give an account of their involvement or marginalisation in disaster and climate resilience-building initiatives. The study had a clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This being the case, the inclusion criteria was determined as follows: Community members who were 18 years or older were eligible to participate in the study. These were also expected to have resided in the selected ward for at least 10 years and demonstrated adequate lived experience of climate change and disaster-related hazards affecting their communities, including locally driven strategies for responding to these hazards. The exclusion criteria were outlined as follows; Community members below 18 years of age were excluded as they were deemed less adequately acquainted with the longitudinal account of the disaster and climate change impacts in their communities. Thus, individuals without sufficient lived experiences of the hazards and the locally driven response strategies were also excluded. Again, temporary residents and those who were not ordinarily from the selected wards were not included in the study. NGOs and government officials were selected based on their involvement in climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and resilience building strategies in Chimanimani. As such, their selection was meant to interrogate the people-centredness of their resilience building programmes. 36 participants distributed as 28 community members and 12 NGO and government officials shared their views in the study.

Data were collected through talking circles and semi-structured interviews. Talking circles are an indigenous practice similar to focus group discussions, commonly used in African contexts in social gatherings, community meetings and celebrations (Tirivangasi, 2025). Talking circles are grounded in indigenous epistemologies as practices that transmit teachings, values, and collective memory (Wilson, 2020). Tirivangasi (2025) regards talking circles as an epistemological practice and not just a methodology. By engaging in this practice, researchers were grounded in cultural ways of making meaning through familiar spaces for participants to engage with the subject matter (Kovach, 2021; Nyahunda et al., 2026). Talking circles were employed with community members and traditional leaders, where participants were able to expand, share, affirm or challenge each other’s views. Each talking circle had six participants, and one talking circle was conducted per ward, making a total of five talking circle sessions in five wards. Semi-structured interviews with NGO and government officials responsible for resilience interventions in Chimanimani were also utilised as data acquisition methods. Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with these officials. The interviews were conducted in local languages (Ndau and Manyika) and were translated into English so that the cultural and linguistic nuances were not lost. The researcher relied on his familiarity with the study context and proficiency in Manyika, Ndau and English and translated the original transcripts into English. The researcher retained the original audio recordings and consulted where further clarity on expressions and phrases was required. Although the services of an independent translator were vital to eliminate bias, the researcher embarked on a cross-checking process where translated transcripts were checked against audio recordings to eliminate mistranslations and loss of original meanings. The researcher also gave particular attention to culturally specific expressions, idioms, and concepts for which a direct English equivalent was not available.

3.4 Data analysis and ethical considerations

The Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) was utilised to analyse the data from which the findings were drawn. This data analysis method is the brainchild of Braun and Clarke (2019) and hinges on identifying and analysing themes or patterns in the given data. This involved familiarisation with the data, generating initial codes, reviewing potential themes, defining and naming themes and writing a report (Braun and Clarke, 2019). The researchers also invoked the ethical principles involved in analysing data from indigenous methods such as talking circles, suggested by Archibald (2008). These involved interrelatedness, reciprocity, respect, reverence, responsibility, and synergy. By so doing, the researchers paid attention to the context and symbolism of the data beyond spoken words, thereby establishing meaning in the context of available knowledge systems (Kovach, 2021). Through this, the researchers ensured that the coded data represented the meaning conveyed by the participants, representing accountability to the community (Wilson, 2020). This research study was approved by the University of Venda’s Higher Degrees Committee (Ethics Number: DRI/25/DRI/01/2008). In Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works, the Manicaland Secretary for Provincial Affairs and Devolution, and the District Development Coordinator for Chimanimani Rural District Council granted clearance to conduct the research. The researchers adhered to the ethical principles of informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and avoidance of harm.

4 Findings

4.1 Rhetoric versus reality on people-centred approaches

The study found that what is deemed a people-centred approach by government and development agencies is a mere rhetoric on paper, while they remain technocratic and top-down with limited input from local communities, thereby sustaining certain hegemonies of resilience. What is regarded as participatory approaches remains embedded in technocratic practices with unequal representation from and among community members. Information from community members pointed to the need for clarity between consultation and community participation or people-centred approaches in the context of the approaches followed by agencies operating in the district. Both governmental and non-governmental organisations advancing the resilience agenda in the district primarily consult with the local leadership, for instance, chiefs, village heads, and ward councillors. These consultations are deemed sufficient even without the input and recommendations from general community members. The common thread from the findings converges in asserting that the agencies operating in the district failed to draw the line between consulting the local leadership and the people-centredness of their approaches that goes beyond consulting a few individuals. The following excerpts represent some of the views raised by community members.

“…We are being left out of the planning of community initiatives and are only required on issues requiring manpower or labour…” (Talking circle).

“…Our involvement is infrequent. After consulting the ward councillors or headmen, everything is fine…” (Talking circle).

“…Sometimes, they just use the existing lists from the village heads and chairpersons and make interventions. These people fail to appreciate that our needs differ occasionally and that this even creates room for corruption…” (Talking circle).

Our involvement will turn around many things because we understand the dynamics of our problems. This issue of consulting the leadership only is now problematic because some are corrupt and do not represent our interests…” (Talking circle).

From the above statements, it can be underscored that consultations with the leadership or a mere needs assessment do not equate to the participation required in the resilience-building process. This is because communities are not capacitated to monitor the effectiveness of the interventions or initiatives that they were not initially involved in during their formulation. The researchers also probed the perspectives of government and development agencies’ officials on this aspect. The views of some of the respondents somewhat corroborated why people-centred approaches were not pursued as they should. In this regard, these agencies believe that people-centred approaches are riddled with drawbacks and tend to slow things down due to unrealistic community demands.

“…I admit that sometimes, we follow half-baked approaches regarding community participation. This is because communities put certain requirements on the table that the organisations cannot meet; for example, communities may request that we build them two-story buildings. When we fail to meet these demands, it appears as if our programmes cease to meet the needs of the people…” (Interview, NGO official)

“…There is a proposal that we follow, which is our guideline, and we cannot go against that proposal that was written and approved. So, following this is good because we are saying that before writing up that proposal, an assessment is done, and that assessment is used to write the proposal, so their concerns are also there in the proposal…” (Interview, government official).

From this, it can be underscored that government and development agencies bring premeditated plans of action that are devoid of the insights of the local people. Furthermore, these statements represent defensiveness and valorisation of expert knowledge in resilience building, where contextual community needs are deemed irregular or impediments.

4.2 Importance of people-centred approaches

The following findings emerged on why people-centred approaches matter in building resilience to disasters and climate change.

4.2.1 Recognition of indigenous knowledge systems as a source of resilience

In highlighting the importance of people-centred approaches in resilience building, the findings established that the involvement of local communities in the design and implementation of resilience initiatives creates room for sustainable solutions informed by indigenous knowledge and practices. It was acknowledged that communities are endowed with unique traditional knowledge and practices, which include community knowledge in agriculture, hazard management, weather forecasting, farming techniques, food security, and disaster recovery. In as much as some agencies acknowledged the role of indigenous knowledge systems in resilience, they regard it as an auxiliary to scientific knowledge. As such, diverse organisations operating in the district mainstream the role of indigenous knowledge systems to complement their premeditated resilience strategies. However, community members challenged this exposition by asserting that indigenous knowledge is central to resilience and needs to be recognised as an independent, reliable, legitimate and accessible practice of dealing with adversity. This can only be recognised through non-rhetorical, people-centred approaches. However, proxy or rhetorical people-centred approaches somewhat overlook the essentiality of indispensable indigenous knowledge in enhancing sustainable initiatives in communities.

“…When fully involved in all processes, we bring our expertise to the table. The problem with most stakeholders who come to our communities is that they want to prescribe what resilience means to us, whereas we understand what it means even without them telling us. I am saying give us the role to take the lead…” (Talking circle).

“…Yes, their participation is important because local skills can be used for planning and scenario mapping and complement available scientific knowledge…” (Interview, NGO official).

The above statements give converging and contrasting views about the importance of people-centred approaches where indigenous knowledge systems are recognised. The statement from the NGO official affirms that participatory approaches are important as they serve as avenues for local knowledge to complement scientific knowledge. Contrastingly, a statement from talking circles is a call for epistemic repositioning where indigenous knowledge represents alternative epistemologies of resilience independent from the neoliberal hegemonies.

4.2.2 Appreciation of alternative expressions, practices, and narratives of resilience

This study established that the construction of resilience in Chimanimani differs from the dominant neoliberal, top-down and technocratic concept hinged on measurable capacities. The communities held different expressions of resilience, where it is constructed as Kutsungirira (to persevere or perseverance). As the community members highlighted the downside of top-down approaches, they asserted that it is only through real people-centred approaches that alternative expressions, practices and narratives can be appreciated and appropriated. For these communities, Kutsungirira embodies adaptive unity, endurance, and community restoration through locally and culturally grounded practices. These practices include Doro remakoto (rain-making beer ceremonies), where they appeal to God through the ancestors for good rains, harvests, and protection from adversities. Community members propounded that top-down approaches scaffolded by neoliberal and modernist hegemonies regard these practices as backward and non-scientific, thereby obscuring their relevance. Put together, people-centred approaches serve as an avenue for the recognition of alternative or equivalent expressions and practices of resilience not commonly documented in the templates used by outsiders or external experts.

“…What you call resilience in your academic and sophisticated languages is Kutsungirira to us. No external person taught us that you are experiencing problems, and you need to address them. We observe and experience diverse problems, and we act and endure so that we are not destroyed…” (Talking circle).

“… If the support from external agencies involves us, it gives us room for expressing what we understand, which may be different from what they intend to foist on us…” (Talking circle).

These findings underscore the importance of people-centred approaches in advancing the pluriversality and cultural boundedness of resilience instead of one-size-fits-all approaches. The discovery of alternative expressions of resilience contrary to the dominant neoliberal framings represents the need for epistemic repair and interpretive power for communities that come to the fore when their agency is appreciated in the resilience discourse. This also affirms that resilience is linked to unique local realities, and so, it should not be distant from the contextual reality and culture to which it is directed and practised.

4.2.3 Avenues for collective action and inclusivity

The findings revealed that top-down approaches were tools for systematic exclusion and continuation of neoliberal subjectification. Put clearly, the polarised political dynamics and top-down-oriented approaches were widening inequalities and injustices, consequently derailing the progress in fostering collective resilience to disaster and climate change-related challenges. In reacting to this, community members asserted that people-driven approaches can address marginalisation because communities understand their shared concerns and how inclusivity can assist in realising their resilience goals. Thus, the involvement of communities in mapping mechanisms to address community challenges was lauded as a way of addressing inequalities and social exclusion. The common thread from the discussions with the community members converged in asserting that they rely on social capital, networks, collective efficacy, resources, and knowledge sharing to address and overcome diverse challenges. This can only be reinforced through people-centred approaches, thereby contrasting the marginalisation advanced through rhetoric about people-centred approaches. The following responses exemplify some of the sentiments shared.

“…Kwatiri, chara chimwe hachitswanyi inda, (For us, one finger can’t crush lies). We understand the power of unity, solidarity in rebuilding and restoring what has been lost. External people fail to understand how we cooperatively adapt to situations. When given a chance, we know what is best for us…” (Talking circle).

“…We know who is vulnerable and who needs support. If we take the lead in defining how we respond to adversity, it ensures equal representation of the elderly, women, youth and people living with disabilities. These organisations sometimes rush things and marginalise other people because they want to report to their donors…” (Talking circle).

These findings underscore that resilience is understood as a collective and shared responsibility in local and cultural contexts, thereby contrasting the dominance of top-down approaches hinged on governmentality, subjectification and quantifiable metrics (Jere et al., 2026).

4.2.4 Fosters co-production, dialogue and ownership of resilience knowledge and practices

In highlighting the significance of people-centred approaches, the participants posited that bottom-up approaches enable communities to build their resilience, which they can define. Based on this, people-centred approaches were lauded as an enabling ground for communities to develop ways of monitoring the progress of their tailor-made resilience strategies. Some community members posited that bottom-up approaches enable communities to build their resilience, which they can define in their own contexts. In light of the need to create avenues for co-existence between local resilience knowledge and the one prescribed by externals, the participants expressed that people-centred approaches may cure the inadequacies of top-down hegemonies by creating pathways for equal decision-making and trust.

“…Zvanza zvinogezana (Palms wash each other). We are not saying we can deal with our problems singlehandedly. We need the support of these actors. What is important is to co-design and work hand in hand…” (Talking circle).

“…Bottom-up approaches are critical in ensuring that our voices are considered. The more we participate in shaping our destiny as communities, the more we own our practices instead of receiving external templates as parcels…” (Talking circle).

“…We must understand that the relevance of resilience-building strategies hinges on the extent to which community members locally own them. Therefore, we need to find common ground with them. I admit that our approaches have been half-baked in terms of being people-centred…” (Interview, government official).

These findings underscore the need to shift from one-size-fits-all to pluralistic diversity hinged on dialogue and co-production. This produces equitable resilience that appreciates alternative framings, practices, and local agency.

5 Discussion

The impetus for this study was to dissect how disaster and climate resilience can be achieved through people-centred approaches using the Afrocentric lens. The first research question of the study sought to explore the people-centredness of the strategies or interventions championed by government and non-governmental organisations operating in Chimanimani district. From the findings, it emerged that what is deemed a people-centred approach by government and development agencies is a mere rhetoric on paper, while they remain technocratic and top-down with limited input from local communities. In view of this, practitioners misconstrue consultations with local leadership and community participation, whereby the recommendations, needs, and insights of the rest of the community members are not considered when formulating resilience initiatives. The disjuncture between proxy participation and practice means resilience building is externally defined and elite-driven. This exposes the valorisation of epistemic hegemonies that cast local communities into torpor instead of active agents of resilience. This gives credence to Chandler and Reid (2020), who propound that people-centred approaches followed by these agencies are mere rhetoric while they sustain technocratic and top- down hegemonies. Some practitioners were defensive that real people-centred approaches slow down the progress of the programme of action because communities may come up with unrealistic demands. This study argues that there is no unrealistic demand from the point of view of people experiencing risks and have been experiencing impoverishment risks for too long. The exposition that people-centred approaches slow down progress for these agencies demonstrates that top-down resilience doctrines that are attractive and appealing to their donors, while in other instances, perpetuate the vulnerabilities they seek to address (Jiri et al., 2026).

The preceding assertions are at variance with the principles of Afrocentricity that represent the emergence of emancipatory interventions that do not sustain certain hegemonies, and in this instance, top-down and neoliberal ones (Amponsah, 2025). In highlighting the importance of people-centred approaches as per the second research question of the study, the findings revealed that people-centred approaches recognise indigenous knowledge systems as a credible, reliable and independent source of resilience, thereby contrasting the predominant views of (IKS) as supplementary to scientific resilience categories. Local communities in Chimanimani possess functional, coherent, and historically grounded epistemologies ideal for navigating hardships. The reliance on the Afrocentricity framework enabled this study to provide a reorientation of resilience hinged on social reality, agency, and ways of knowing, which serves as a breakaway from universality entrenched in common resilience standpoints. The recognition of IKS as a source of resilience means communities have repositories of knowledge to withstand and recover from adversities emanating from natural phenomena, even without subjecting their knowledge and practices to the common resilience metrics and capacities. Through people-centred approaches and Afrocentric epistemologies, indigenous knowledge systems are repositioned from the peripheries to the centre of resilience. This is a call for epistemic repositioning where indigenous knowledge represents alternative epistemologies of resilience, independent from the neoliberal hegemonies. This resonates with the principles of the Afrocentric paradigm on resetting epistemic injustices, the important role of IKS and recognition of African community agency (Asante, 2017). Afrocentricity legitimises African knowledge systems (Tirivangasi and Nyahunda, 2025). As such, the recognition of IKS as a source of resilience signals epistemic repositioning and an affirmation that it is a parallel and equal way of knowing that can be attained through people-centred approaches.

The study further established that people-centred approaches appreciate alternative expressions, practices and narratives of resilience, as the case in Chimanimani, where Kutsungirira (perseverance) is an alternative expression of resilience embodying adaptive unity, endurance, and community restoration through locally and culturally grounded practices such as Doro remakoto (rain-making beer ceremonies) where they appeal to God through the ancestors for good rains, harvests, and protection from adversities. This finding affirmed the exposition outlined in the introduction that there is a need to deconstruct the resilience concept to accommodate alternative epistemologies and ontologies that continue to be obscured by Western and neoliberal hegemonies (Gaillard and Chmutina, 2026; Nyahunda et al., 2026). In as much as these local expressions affirm the cultural embeddedness of resilience, they bring empirical insights on the practical meaning of the cultural boundness of resilience, contrasting Ungar (2011) and Hammood et al. (2025), who simply highlighted that resilience is culturally embedded without demonstrating how it is expressed in diverse cultures. The expressions, practices and narratives of resilience can only come to the fore through people-centred approaches, which recentre people as agents and not objects of inquiry in the resilience discourse, which is in tandem with the Afrocentric paradigm (Tirivangasi, 2026). The emergence of local resilience expressions and practices that contrast the dominant framings of resilience hinged on adaptive, absorptive and transformative metrics affirms that community members in Chimanimani are not passive beneficiaries of resilience parcels from external agencies, but they actively define and practice it through alternative ways. This justifies the need for people-centred approaches where people’s self-determination and agency are restored and recognised in line with the aspirations of the Afrocentric paradigm (Tirivangasi, 2024; Mugambiwa, 2023). This means that the resilience concept needs reconsideration in different ways, where it is open to new spaces of knowledge outside traditional disciplinary formulations, which are utopian and Eurocentric in thought and operation. Tanner et al. (2017) posit that disaster and climate resilience concepts mean something different across cultures, emphasising the importance of involving local people in resilience strategies.

In further highlighting the importance of people-centred approaches, the study found that they are avenues for collective action and inclusivity. It emerged that rural communities in Chimanimani rely on repositories of social capital, collective efficacy, resource and knowledge sharing in dealing with real and perceived challenges. This cures the marginalisations which strategies prescribed by outsiders may overlook. The importance of collective action and inclusivity that come through people-centred approaches was captured in local expressions such as Chara chimwe hachitswanyi inda (one finger cannot crush lies), demonstrating the importance of mutual aid, relationality, and collective efficacy, which resonate with the principles of Afrocentricity hinged on shared responsibility and reciprocity (Shai, 2020; Amo-Agyemang, 2021). This also signals that resilience is understood as a collective configuration instead of individual traits predominant in neoliberal, Western, and modernist resilience epistemologies (Leys et al., 2020; Jere et al., 2026). Tirivangasi (2024) posits that Afrocentricity emphasises shared cultural traits and practices, which make people agents of knowledge. It should be underscored that the subjectification and governmentality that characterise top-down approaches tend to overlook the power that lies in local collective efficacy and agency in dealing with disaster and climate change impacts.

It emerged in the findings that people-centred approaches foster co-production, dialogue and ownership of resilience knowledge and practices. This emerged as a clarion call to create avenues for co-existence between local resilience knowledge and the one prescribed by externals. Co-production recognises a sense of belonging, local expertise and mutual respect, thereby dismantling the hierarchies of knowledge (Amponsah, 2025). Furthermore, co-production has a transformative potential where people-centred approaches foster avenues for trust-building, mutual learning and shared decision-making, which creates epistemic co-existence. This resonates with the principles of the Afrocentric paradigm on positionality, whose knowledge counts and who benefits (Asante, 2017; Tirivangasi, 2018). In addressing the inadequacies of top-down approaches that fail to meet the situations and demands of at-risk communities, co- production, dialogue, and ownership that come through people-centred approaches produce equitable resilience that respects local agency. The findings of this study affirm that without a shift toward resilience centred on the experiences, voices and knowledge systems of the affected communities, resilience interventions run a risk of perpetuating the vulnerabilities, exclusions and inequalities they seek to address. The findings further exposed the limitations of rhetorical people-centred approaches in resilience, thereby underscoring the need for genuine people-centred approaches hinged on inclusivity, local ownership of resilience and co-production of knowledge.

6 Conclusion

The main thrust of this study was to explore the extent to which resilience strategies executed by government and non-governmental organisations are people-centred and their importance using the Afrocentric lens. The findings demonstrate that resilience interventions pursued by these agencies remain top-down, with limited participation and involvement of local people. Consultations with local leadership are confused with participation, thereby excluding broader community voices and insights. The reliance on the Afrocentricity paradigm provides a transformation toward genuine people-centred approaches. This serves as a breakaway from sustaining certain resilience hegemonies in the climate change disaster discourses. In highlighting the importance of people-centred approaches, the study underscored that they reposition communities as active and capable of dealing with any adversity, which may be equivalent to or alternative to the common resilience capacities such as absorption, adaptation, recovery and transformation. People-centred approaches recognise indigenous knowledge systems as an autonomous, credible and legitimate epistemology instead of an auxiliary to scientific knowledge. Through the Afrocentricity framework, the study demonstrated that the knowledge possessed by local communities constitutes a full-fledged framework for interpreting, understanding, and responding to adversity. The study further bears theoretical contributions through conceptualising resilience as a culturally grounded concept (Kutsungirira), which signposts a locally and culturally grounded understanding of endurance and well-being. This study is fundamental for reimagining and rethinking resilience in Africa. It clamours for a move beyond neoliberal, modernist, and Eurocentric frameworks toward epistemic justice that appreciates and recognises the co-existence of diverse knowledge systems. It concludes that Afrocentric principles are pivotal to resilience building for cultural relevance and effective and equitable interventions.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Ayyoob Sharifi, Hiroshima University, Japan

Reviewed by: Vuyisile Precious Moyo, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Thebeth Masunda, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe