Search results

The transcript provides an overview of the development of the field and changing paradigms in this regard.

The transcript was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the history of disaster risk reduction (DRR).

The transcript traces the initial discussions of how the At Risk book was conceived and presents new dimensions and challenges within the field.

The interview highlights the importance of the need to document the transitions, developments and paradigm changes in the field over time.

This conversation presents the reflections from five prominent disaster scholars and practitioners on the purpose of Radix – the Radical Disaster Interpretations network – as the authors celebrate its 20th anniversary.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 13th October 2021.

The conversation reflects on personal and professional journeys in disaster studies over the past 20 years and on what needs changing in order to make disaster interpretations more radical.

The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around explorations of radical pathways for understanding and preventing disasters.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the creation of innovative methods for engaging in conversations about everyday risk.

A range of methods from conventional survey research to open-ended, semi-structured conversations and focus groups were used in the series of studies that serve as the subject of this meta-study. The meta-study uses participant observation, key informant interviews and project reports to narrate and evaluate the evolution of Frontline as an action planning, monitoring, advocacy and research tool.

The Views from the Frontline (VFL) methods began as the bottom-up mirror of a top-down monitoring approach used by the United Nations (Hyogo Framework for Action Monitor). Limitations of such bottom up monitoring led to creation of guidelines for formalising local knowledge resulting from actions – Action at the Frontline (AFL) and, later, Frontline, a flexible tool for eliciting experiences of everyday risk. The earlier VFL monitoring approach had shared outsiders’ assumptions about the nature of the “problem” and limited the degree to which local residents could express their own experiences and priorities.

Extensive use of this suite of methods has shown that civil society organisations are fully capable of conducting credible research when properly supported and motivated. Use of these methods has so far provided strong support for policy advocacy at the global scale, has had moderate success in liaison with national policy makers and slow but promising results as a learning/action tool at the local scale. Frontline has as yet untapped potential as a resource for academic research.

The massive human and economic impact of the Asian tsunami in later 2004 is mirrored in the aftershocks felt among humanitarian organisations, development agencies, and policy makers. This paper raises a number of these troubling, fundamental issues. Firstly, the call for an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system raises fundamental issues about what warning systems can, and cannot, do. Secondly, one is also forced to consider why in the first place so many people live on exposed coasts today, vulnerable not only to tsunamis but tropical storms and rainy season flooding among other hazards. Thirdly, one is challenged to question the very meaning of “recovery”. Such massive damage has been done and so many people and their livelihoods have been dislocated, is it actually possible to imagine a return to the status quo ante? Fourthly, reconstruction of the magnitude now underway in the affected areas raises many difficult questions about accountability, transparency, and the unevenness with which the international community responds to crises. The paper finishes with some recommendations.

The importance of education in disaster risk reduction has been emphasized in several international agendas, frameworks, conferences, as well as UN programs. Chapter 36 of Agenda 21, on “Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training” stated, “Education, including formal education, public awareness and training, should be recognized as a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullest potential” (UNEP, 1992). Furthermore, the UN/ISDR System Thematic Cluster/Platform on Knowledge and Education argued that “Education for disaster risk reduction is an interactive process of mutual learning among people and institutions. It encompasses far more than formal education at schools and universities, and involves the recognition and use of traditional wisdom and local knowledge for protection from natural hazard” (UN/ISDR, 2005). In the 2006 Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction, Professor Ben Wisner commented, “Education, knowledge and awareness are critical to building the ability to reduce losses from natural hazards, as well as the capacity to respond to and recover effectively from extreme natural events when they do, inevitably, occur” (Wisner, 2006). The Second Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (2007, India) urged governments to make school safety and the integration of disaster risk reduction into school curricula a priority on the national agenda (UN/ISDR, 2007a). The Third Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (2008, Malaysia) recognized education as an essential contribution to effective implementation of disaster risk reduction and concrete impact in terms of shifts in behaviors at the local level, where communities are most vulnerable to disasters (UN/ISDR, 2008). Last but not least, the UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) program emphasized that “Education is the primary agent of transformation toward sustainable development, increasing people's capacities to transform their visions for society into reality” (UNESCO, 2005a).

The purpose of this paper is to challenge the idea that poor people are generally risk averse and that risks are predominately created by structural conditions and outside forces (Wisner et al., 2004, p. 11; Cardona, 2004, p. 39). It aims to show that some categories of poor people regularly take risks and that they can have good reasons for that. For people living at the edge of Indonesian society, taking risks on a regular basis has become something normal. The possibility that people can actively involve themselves in risky practices needs to be taken into account in risk assessments by government and civil society.

The material presented in this paper has been collected during long, intermittent periods of ethnographic fieldwork in East Java and East Kalimantan between 1999 and 2014. The data were mostly collected “at the side” of research on poverty, social security, social welfare and livelihood security. It also makes use of a case study on oplosan in Pati, Central Java, written by Frans Hüsken, of newspaper reports, online sources, talks with police officers and online news items.

In many of the current day risk studies, livelihood risks of the poor are perceived as “externally induced” resulting from outside influences such as disasters, living at dangerous places or as resulting from structural factors such as social and economic inequality. Little attention has been paid to poor and vulnerable people who actively take risks themselves and the reasons to do this. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in Java and East Kalimantan, Indonesia, in this paper some risky practices of poor (young) people are explored. Examples are several forms of extreme risk-taking such as drinking parties with potent or even poisonous mixtures (oplosan), gambling and competition (often referred to as trek-trekan).

So far, little attention has been paid to the fact that people often actively involve in risks and deliberately may opt for risky lifestyles and opt to live in risky environments as this offers opportunities for poor people to gain money, prestige and jobs otherwise not accessible.

Using Anthropological methodology to achieve an understanding from a “local point of view” the purpose of this paper is to explore how safety is established in what clearly is, at least from the outside, a risky everyday. Floods are a recurring problem for people in Jakarta. However, for poor families living on river banks in the city center the floods also constitute a necessary condition to create a viable livelihood. The floods keep land grabbers and urban developers at bay and keep costs for living low. For the families living in these areas there is a constant “trade off” between safety and risk taking with the purpose to create a living.

The methodology applied in the paper is conventional Anthropological field work. The material is collected through participant observation and formal interviews. The data produced are of an experience near quality which is analyzed in terms of how it addresses and relate to the infrastructural policies of Jakarta and the specific project of normalizing the river Ciliwung.

The fact that people perceive floods as normal part of everyday life does not mean that they are unproblematic. Furthermore, the flood mitigation programs that authorities claim are “normalizing” the river system actually increase riverbank settler’s problems.

Additional long-term field work on conditions for political mobilization inside and outside the formal political system in urban Jakarta is needed to better understand why organized resistance seldom materializes and how to strengthen the bargaining capacity of local communities in urban planning processes.

As flood mitigation programs demand relocation of people, the argument forwarded in the paper is that general social and economic security systems have to be strengthened, enhancing capacity for mobility, before instigating flood mitigation programs.

Studies of disasters and risk often portray local subjects as either victims or losers. In this paper a more nuanced picture is presented. Vulnerability as well as livelihood is related to floods. The paradoxical situation is that people’s vulnerability as well as safety is related to their embeddedness in local socio-economic networks. People are dependent on specific networks and a specific space to produce a livelihood. However, the same embeddedness makes their livelihood vulnerable to the demands of being relocated. If relocated their networks are scattered. Just offering alternative living space and economical remuneration for lost property is not sufficient to replace a lost livelihood. Relocation without a new form for subsistence economy creates new forms of vulnerability. Hence, relocation rather than flood is perceived as the main danger by people living on river banks in Jakarta.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce an analytical framework to define and interpret heterogenous risk behaviour within communities facing natural hazard. By employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, the paper presents a categorization of “risk-styles” that are commonly used by Jakartan riverbank settlers facing recurrent risk. Unlike the more common concept of “flood-coping strategies”, the notion of risk-styles extends the analysis of responses directly related to floods and involves a broader set of risk and poverty practices. The proposed analytical framework is likely to be useful for future research on the topic of understanding heterogenous risk behaviour, particularly for systemic comparisons of human responses to natural hazard in other parts of the world.

The data underlying this paper were obtained during a year of extensive anthropological fieldwork in 2010 and 2011, in one of the most flood-prone riverbank settlements in Jakarta, Indonesia. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to obtain data in the field, while the analyses of risk-styles was based on quantitative and qualitative analyses of the survey results and narratives of the respondents of the study.

This paper defines and analyses four risk-handling styles that are commonly used by inhabitants of a flood-prone riverbank settlement in Jakarta (called Bantaran Kali in this paper) to handle recurrent flood risk. These risk-styles are not completely fixed over time; in particular circumstances, people may and do change their risk-style. However, they should not be considered random or ad hoc. Instead, the study shows how these risk-styles reflect practices that gradually develop during people’s lives in a highly uncertain living environment (characterized by flood risk and poverty-related risks), and are more or less consistently used over longer periods of time and in relation to different types of risk and uncertainty. The paper argues that the four risk-styles described are influenced by factors that may seem unrelated to flood risk at first sight, such as trust in other actors and the government, networks and socializing skills, and the opportunities and limitations that are shaped by the economic and political structures in which riverbank settlers live.

This paper takes a bottom-up perspective and sheds light on the perceptions of a group of marginalized riverbank settlers on the risk of floods. By introducing the notion of risk-styles, it adds nuanced and empirical data that were obtained during extensive fieldwork to the debate on understanding heterogeneous risk behaviour. The originality of the paper lies in the combined use of qualitative and quantitative tools that were used to categorize common risk-styles as well as in the proposed analyses for defining and understanding heterogeneous risk behaviour.