reading reviews on disaster management
bobamonster
Week3Lecture2020-Mythofcommunity.pptxWeek 3
Social vulnerability to disaster: myth of community, gender, and ethnicity
Last week what did we discuss?
The theories about disasters
The dominant paradigm and criticisms of it
The alternative model: political ecology
PAR model
This week we will discuss
Disaster justice
Social vulnerability to disasters:
Myth of community
Causes of differences in social vulnerability:
Gender
Race/ethnicity
Others
Culture and vulnerability
Disaster justice
Linkages to Environmental Justice
Hillman (2006, 695) explains that “environment justice as a political movement and research programme originated amidst concerns over the unjust distribution of environmental hazards primarily in, or close to, disadvantaged or marginalised communities.”
Most scholars trace the origin of the environmental justice movement to a protest in 1982 against the dumping of PCB-laden dirt into a waste landfill in Warren County, North Carolina. The county was 65 percent Black.
This protest marked one of the first times when civil rights and environmental groups collaborated. Studies in the 1980s and early 1990s which demonstrated linkages between not only environmental risk, namely the location of toxic waste sites, waste dumps, and power plants, and poverty but also between environmental risk and race in the US further empowered these activists,
Also, only starting in the 1990s, has the environmental justice framework been applied outside of the United States.
It is still not widely used in Asia as a framework academically but there are increasing movements for environmental justice (e.g. in China, Vietnam, and Thailand)
Regardless, of the location, as Schroeder et al. (2008) assert, at the core of environmental justice struggles are universal and part of broader patterns of injustice of a global significance.
Schlosberg’s 3 types of injustices
What are they?
distributive (how environmental goods and harms are unevenly distributed)
procedural (whether different groups have equal access to decision-making)
lack of recognition (whether groups have been discriminated against due to their identity).
2 key questions
1) what patterns of social inequality exist in relation to the environmental good or bad?
This question is a distributional one in which a contextual process claim of injustice is being made.
Such a claim analyses a specific situation, such as the distribution of floodwater in Bangkok in 2011, and historically traces patterns of urban development and decision-making and how these patterns produced injustices.
Questions that also need to be asked are how inequalities are being produced, who is responsible for them, how decisions have been made have, and how are government policies and practices created and enacted
2) The second series of questions are procedural ones, examining how a society operates: how power is distributed, and how uneven environmental outcomes arise as a consequence?
A basic insight of the movement is that “distribution of environmental goods and harms,” e.g. has a tendency to “follow that of economic goods and harms” (MacCallum et. al 2011)
Paavola and Adger (2006) valuably add that a just response to disaster risks must first incorporate the principle of prioritising the most vulnerable. This group is comprised of those most in need in terms of redistribution, but also these people’s rights must be recognised so their voices are included in decision-making processes.
Disaster Justice
Applying the environmental justice framework to disasters emerged in 2006 as Hurricane Katrina revealed that environmental injustices arose largely due to pre-existing structural inequalities
Since then, a small but growing body of literature has framed disaster risks in the US and elsewhere as a question of environmental inequality and injustice.
By emphasising inequalities in vulnerability, one can assess what constitutes justice and fairness for those at risk to disasters, rather than treat them as a ‘given’ or as problems that need to be managed
Group exercise
Please give example of the 3 types of injustices which could arise from the following environmental problems:
1) urban flooding in a) Jakarta and b) Bangkok 2) typhoon in a) Philippines and b) Myanmar 3) earthquake in a) China and b) Indonesia 4) drought in a) India and b) North Korea
To begin
What is social vulnerability to disasters?
How did we define vulnerability last week?
“The characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard”
Though remember there is no such thing as a natural hazard!
What are the key words in this definition?
“person” “group” and “capacity”
So how does society affect vulnerability?
Social and economic attributions/characteristics such as poverty, race, class/caste, ethnicity, gender, age, physical ability, and housing affect vulnerability to disasters in all phases of the disaster cycle (preparation, response, relief, recovery, etc.)
But also cultural beliefs affect vulnerability too
Last week we discussed some about the link between poverty and vulnerability. This week we will discuss other characteristics
Disaster research and projects
Lot of disaster research and projects in Asia to reduce vulnerability focus on the community level
“‘Community’ has become the badge of honour that enables the organizations which receive funds to claim that they are doing the right thing”
The World Bank alone has invested or granted US$ 85 billion in the past ten years to local participatory development activities
NGOs, Red Cross Red Crescent and others dedicating to supporting vulnerable communities
What are some definitions, markers, or examples of communities in your country?
In Thailand, urban communities are recognised as legal entities and receive a small monthly budget from the municipality, or, in the case of Bangkok, the district office.
In each community, a community leader and committee members are elected every two years.
Why focus on the community?
Over the past 40 years or so, there has been a major shift in much development work from ‘top-down’ policies towards a much greater focus on ‘grass-roots’ and participatory activities.
This change has given rise to a greatly increased role for NGOs (local, national and international) – including those engaged in DRR and CCA – as major agents for development.
Community is mostly seen as a location or geographical space, often a village or an urban neighbourhood, because this is how the organizations involved give a clearly defined boundary.
Within this boundary goals are set, recipients of aid defined, activities carried out and budget spent
the definition of ‘community’ that organizations end up with is that it is merely ‘where we work’
Some value in this approach?
Includes diverse groups who may or may not have a common interest
Working at the local scale can help to identify local problems and come up with local solutions
Positive intervention which doesn’t challenge existing social relations within the community
But what’s wrong with this approach?
The Myth of Community: Four major problems
Communities are NOT a uniform, homogenous entity lacking internal conflicts and divisions
Power systems at the local level
The problem of participation as a method of engagement with communities
Differences within households (gender, age, disability, etc.)
1. Divisions and conflicts within communities
Communities are “a romantic idea”
Notion of community falsely implies unity, collaboration, cooperation and sharing
Uniformity is rare in terms of class, ethnicity, livelihood, or wealth
But in reality, the ‘community’ in most cases is a collection of different class groups arranged in a structure of power relations linked to which group has more or less ownership of land.
“Communities are complex and often not united. There will be differences in wealth, social status and labour activity between people living in the same area and there may be more serious divisions within the community” - Twigg (2009)
In many cases, no social cohesion and collaboration but conflict, friction, and intra-community exploitation
E.g., in ‘community’ in a city in India: rich had created boundary walls which pushed water to poorer households
Class/caste
Social discrimination: don’t feel same part of community
E.g., in project in India, volunteer from higher caste said there was no point talking to people from lower castes as they are unable to grasp key concepts being discussed and provide meaningful input
Another example: those from higher caste, don’t want to work together with those from other castes because didn’t want to participate as ‘equals’
Urban communities
Often in developing Asia, many migrants -> lack of social cohesion/trust
Second, in rural areas: villagers work together (e.g., farming together) which lead to shared values and more social cohesion. In contrast, wage laborers or work informally – but not together. So also less cohesion
Third, in poor urban communities, evicted or some forced to move -> new groupings of people -> less social cohesion
2. Power relations within communities
Some groups and individuals within groups have more power
Internal divisions are related to power systems
Power systems create unequal vulnerabilities to disasters
For example, land tenure: the ways that land (especially rural land) is owned and controlled by different classes.
Most landless and land-poor households have to labour on other people’s land. Landowners have a lot of power
E.g., following disaster, commons for land owners to give credit/loans to landless people.
This can lead to the poor being effectively tied to the landlord for many years, in a form of debt bondage.
Highly unequal access to land debunks simplistic ideas about community.
Land and the power it gives or takes away create diverse patterns of vulnerability
Elite Capture
Local elites within communities: community leaders, landowners, etc.
Those who have power are able to use it (either during the project or after it is finished, or both) to acquire the assets or other benefits of the project activities
E.g., in Pakistan, poor and landless peasant households lost crops and homes, while their absentee landlords were able to claim large sums of compensation from the government for damage.
Threatens pre-existing patronage systems
In India, project would popularize water-harvesting in four neighbourhoods (or ‘communities’) that were facing water scarcity.
Would bring substantial benefit to people in these neighbourhoods
Their elected representative had a very negative attitude towards the project
he allegedly provided water tankers in the summer for political allegiance and electoral funds in local elections
Another example from India
Project organized volunteers to collect and dispose garbage to protect drains from blockage and to help get rid of storm water to prevent flooding.
This change threatened the existing, malfunctioning system of waste management that was allegedly a source of kickbacks for the local politician
So local elites could either benefit from project, sabotage it, or stop it from continuing afterwards
So overall, DRR projects may disturb (or worsen) the existing power relations
Examples from my research in Bangkok
North vs South: 1) northern community leader used money from government to develop the north while south remained a slum but still same community
He and others in north opposed project to upgrade housing in community and move community away from canal because he would lose his ‘land’ from it from which he encroached
Southern side wanted to split into two communities but district office in Bangkok opposed it saying there were too many communities
Mayor in Bang Bua Thong, a town on outskirts of Bangkok, gave more relief packages and boats to households who voted for him. But also compensation
Problems with participation
Any ideas?
Participatory exercises are often public events that are open ended regarding target groups and programme activities. Thus, such events are inherently political and the resulting project design is often shaped by local power and gender relations.
Outside agendas are often expressed as local knowledge. Project facilitators shape and direct participatory exercises, and the ‘needs’ of local people are often shaped by perceptions of what the project can deliver.
Participants may concur in the process of problem definition and planning in order to manipulate the programme to serve their own interests. Although their concurrence can benefit both project staff and local people, it places consensus and action above detailed planning.
Participatory processes can be used to legitimize a project that has previously established priorities and little real support from the community.
Have to work with oppressive local leaders
Need to contact (and get the approval of) the local government officials and local ‘leaders’
In village in India, DRR researcher found that ‘head of the village’ had murdered 2 field laborer union leaders because they asked for higher wages from him
After that, unlikely poor people and others would express own views if different than his
4. Differences within households
What are some differences?
Differences within households: gender, age, disability,
Need to take into account these differences in terms of vulnerability to disasters
Group exercise #1
Please discuss differences in vulnerability to disasters of these groups and the reasons why
Think about the different phases of the disaster cycle: preparedness, impacts, emergency response/relief, and recovery
1) Women 2) Minority race/ethnicity
3) Children 4) Elderly
5) Disabled (blind, deaf, etc.)
Women
Cannot be understood outside of patriarchy and global capitalism
E.g., men migrate to find work and leave women behind in rural environment or risky urban settlements
Primary resource users, many depend on natural resource based livelihoods
Responsible for dependents in households
Gender inequality due to unfair barriers to education and achievement, cultural devaluation of women, gender division of labor, and gender violence
Gendered vulnerability to disasters
The “digital divide” in cyberspace (unequal access to computers and the Internet) is a limiting factor in many cultures – constrains access to warnings
studies of major destructive events in the developing world, girls and women are highly vulnerable to the effects of environmental disasters and are the majority of those killed
Reasons: family care, physical health, and reproductive status
But also gendered division of labor is a powerful explanation - puts adult women and men in physically different locations.
E.g., when 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami wave came ashore in many Sri Lankan villages, men out fishing survived more often than women waiting on the beach to prepare and market the day’s catch
Women’s access to health care before disasters can deteriorate further in the aftermath, as was reported of low-income Katrina survivors who depended upon diabetes clinics
Women have lower caloric intake than men, partially due to social inequalities, especially impoverished ones, makes them physically weaker and more prone to injury/death
But also difficult for pregnant women
women at greater risk of post-disaster stress
Higher risk of emotional abuse and violence in aftermath of diseases
Caregiving responsibilities – must take of children – puts them more at risk
Gender bias in recovery programs may also deter women’s recovery -> e.g., Women more likely to denied small-business loans and access to disaster-relief programs
Securing relief falls largely to women
Women’s group actively involved in crisis period
However, women are less involved in decision-making and planning processes -> often excluded
E.g., small minority of emergency managers in Australia
But also women have disproportionate burden to care for victims
Women’s economic status and family roles are formidable barriers in the race for affordable housing, making women more dependent on temporary accommodations
More positively
Women organize at grassroots levels to manage risk and respond to disasters
Following Hurricane Katrina, many women who were community activists prior to the storm stepped into advocacy roles for equity in disaster relief and recovery
A network of women’s organizations, called Rise Together for Women in East Japan Disaster, united to promote the rights of women and other vulnerable populations who were affected by the “triple disaster” of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in 2011.
Racial/ethnic minorities and disaster
Language barrier (warnings, talking to emergency agencies, filling out forms afterwards, etc.)
Less trust in authorities
Different degree of social networks (e.g., some minorities would have fewer)
Often higher fatalities: rate of blacks injured from hurricanes much higher in the US
Higher degree of emotional stress/injury
Racism in response – e.g., response workers in US restored power first to white communities
Media bias: media focuses on majority communities -> contributes to their recovering quicker
Racism in relief/compensation: government gave less relief and/or compensation money to minorities
In Thailand: government agencies only gave relief to Thai citizens not overseas workers, such as Cambodians Burmese, even though millions work there
Cultural differences/misunderstanding: don’t take into account native culture and lifestyle
E.g., American government rebuilt houses for Inuits in Alaska with small kitchens and large living rooms but their family life centered on kitchens
Similar to women, less access to finance
More positively
Racial groups have formed community groups, political coalitions and pushed for change after discrimination experience during and after disasters
Some coalitions were successful in improving living conditions of minorities in the US
Also can open political dialogues about racism/discrimination
Elderly
Researchers have found that the elderly, which are people aged 65 and over, constitute a group especially at risk to disasters.
This intensified risk is due to their lower likelihood to receive warnings, higher reluctance to evacuate, and higher probability to become physical casualties as a result of disaster
In comparison to those who are younger, elderly are more susceptible to injury, economic losses, employment interruptions, and accruement of large debts
Number of characteristics of the elderly, such as living alone, smaller social circles, and fewer resources, causes them to be more vulnerable, psychologically and physically, to disasters
There is differential vulnerability within this group: the old-old (75 years and older) are more vulnerable than the young-old (65-74 years old) because on average, the old-old are less affluent, active, and independent
Post-Katrina demographic analyses found that rather than race, old age was the most accurate predictor of the likelihood of death from the hurricane
Richard Blewitt, the head of HelpAge International, an NGO focusing on assisting older people, stated, "In an emergency, older people's lives are affected by many factors. These include inaccessible food distribution points, rations that are too heavy to carry or too difficult to digest and a tendency to share their rations with family members. Also, relief agencies often fail to recognise the needs of older people, even when they are caring for children”
Thailand 2011 Floods
The elderly were highly vulnerable to the floods for a number of reasons
First, many elderly decided not to evacuate because they never thought the water level would rise as high as it did. Such high-level flooding had never occurred during their lifetimes.
Second, many were worried about having their property stolen if they left their houses
Third, it was physically more difficult for the elderly to venture out into flooded areas to receive relief supplies
Those who didn’t evacuate had trouble accessing sufficient healthcare – roads blocked, had to use boats -> some died as a result
Higher rate of illness: flood-related stress was either a trigger for their illnesses or they became sick because of the dirty stale water and difficult living conditions
Limited incomes -> government doesn’t give much pension
Any other groups with vulnerabilities?
Disabled: both mentally and physically
Sexual minorities: gay, lesbian, transsexual
Group exercise #2
Develop a disaster risk reduction plan in a community (which doesn’t have elite capture) for these groups in an Asian country:
A. Women B. Ethnic minority C. Elderly/children – you pick D. Disabled (blind/deaf/mentally disabled)
1) Pick the type of disaster
2) Pick the country
How could community-based DRR work?
The interventions being proposed can take place for the benefit of the poor and vulnerable without needing to change existing power relations.
Powerful people and institutions are incorporated into the DRR and CCA process, and have a common interest in supporting the measures being taken.
Because they recognize the common dangers of worse disasters and climate change, the powerful realize they need to transfer resources or raise poor people’s income so that vulnerability and poverty are reduced.
The DRR and CCA interventions challenge the status quo in a way that is unacceptable to the powerful, who may pretend to cooperate while subverting the process or capturing its benefits (during or after the project).
Culture and disasters
What is culture?
Culture is the pattern of ideas, values, and beliefs common to a different group of people.
So includes religion, traditional values/customs, folklore, superstitions, folklore, etc.
How does it affect vulnerability/risk to disaster?
Cultural factors play a large part in determining perspectives, influencing whether people decide to make changes that will minimize current and future vulnerability
But little attention has been paid to how cultural systems influence society’s perceptions of and responses to natural hazards, even though these influence choices about livelihoods, priorities, and values
Reviews of DRR and adaptation activities show that cultural issues continue to be poorly addressed in policy and science.
Examples
Can you think of any?
In 1963 at Mount Agung in Bali, Indonesia, more than 1,000 people were killed in a procession heading towards lava flows, believing the flows were their gods descending to greet them
In Central America, the more fatalistic and individualistic Evangelical Protestants were less likely to be involved in DRR projects, because their religious doctrine dictated that humans have no power over such divine forces
Most Pacific island people consider that their devotion to God is sufficient to protect them from harm
In Kenya, traditional ceremonies are forms of coping strategies. The community response to drought includes prayer. Praying often involves other actions, which bring together the community. This makes them better prepared mentally, and sometimes physically, to deal with hazard.
Many Filipinos believed that disasters are acts of God
How does this affect vulnerability to disasters?
Therefore must take account of people’s own beliefs and attitudes to the hazards that are embedded in their lives
Studies have shown that strongly held sociocultural values, such as those embedded in caste systems, do shift as the need arises
Acknowledgment that culture is not stationary in time, but, rather, that it is dynamic and can adapt to changes in environment and society
