Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal Approaching disaster management through social learning Geoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Zaina Gadema Jon Swords Article information: To cite this document: Geoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Zaina Gadema Jon Swords, (2010),"Approaching disaster management through social learning", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 498 - 508 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653561011070402 Downloaded on: 24 February 2015, At: 04:27 (PT) References: this document contains references to 33 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected]The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1638 times since 2010* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Douglas Paton, David Johnston, (2001),"Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 270-277 Juergen Weichselgartner, (2001),"Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 2 pp. 85-95 Sara Kathleen Geale, (2012),"The ethics of disaster management", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 445-462 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 462515 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by Northumbria University At 04:27 24 February 2015 (PT)
Transcript
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International JournalApproaching disaster management through social learningGeoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Zaina Gadema Jon Swords
Article information:To cite this document:Geoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Zaina Gadema Jon Swords, (2010),"Approaching disaster management throughsocial learning", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 498 - 508Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653561011070402
Downloaded on: 24 February 2015, At: 04:27 (PT)References: this document contains references to 33 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1638 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Douglas Paton, David Johnston, (2001),"Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience andpreparedness", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 270-277Juergen Weichselgartner, (2001),"Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited", DisasterPrevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 2 pp. 85-95Sara Kathleen Geale, (2012),"The ethics of disaster management", Disaster Prevention and Management:An International Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 445-462
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 462515 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
social learningGeoff O’Brien, Phil O’Keefe, Zaina Gadema and Jon Swords
Geography and Environment, School of Applied Sciences,Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Coping with and adjusting to disruptive challenges has always been a characteristic ofhuman development. Formalisation of this has led to the emergence of a number approachesaddressing disruptive challenges. Often formalised practice has a narrow focus. Increasingly complexchallenges require a refocus of formalised approaches. Drawing from these approaches, the purpose ofthis paper is to posit that a greater focus on preparedness through pre-disaster planning is needed for amore holistic approach to disaster management.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the evolution of disaster managementthinking and practice and proposes that changes are needed to the dominant disaster managementmodel. These changes are drawn from a number of alternative perspectives. Based on the uncertaintiessurrounding complex or “wicked” problems, for example, climate change and variability, this paperdevelops a more holistic approach.
Findings – Responding to “wicked problems” requires a greater focus on preparedness. In terms ofdisaster risk reduction a greater emphasis on pre-disaster planning is needed driven by social learningprocesses.
Originality/value – Faced with an increasingly uncertain and complex future, current approaches toconceptualising disaster management are inadequate. This paper develops an approach that is likelyto be more effective.
Keywords Disasters, Risk analysis, Social processes, Learning, Sustainable development
Paper type Conceptual paper
IntroductionAlexander (1993) identifies six approaches to disaster research (geographical,anthropological, sociological, developmental, medical and technical) but the mostdominant disciplines, particularly post Second World War, are geography and sociology(Alexander, 1993). The geographical approach focuses on human-environmentinteractions, whereas the sociological approach has as its premise that disasters aresocial events that reflect the ways, we live and structure our societies and communities.
The sociological research led by Dynes and Quarantelli has largely been developedworld focused and addresses essentially the problem of response to an analysis ofcollective organisational behaviour. It usefully criticised natural hazards work, whichwe will address later, as having too much of an emphasis on the individual cause ofdisaster, e.g. fire, earthquake and flood (Quarantelli, 1992). Critics of the sociologicalschool note that its focus on organisation is primarily to improve the commandand control system in response mode. Most acutely, Hewitt (1998, p. 77) notes thatsuch an authoritarian outcome is really addressing social problems without socialcontent.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm
DPM19,4
498
Disaster Prevention and ManagementVol. 19 No. 4, 2010pp. 498-508q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0965-3562DOI 10.1108/09653561011070402
In many instances, particularly in the developed world, practice is formalised andinstitutionalised. Practice is often aimed at building institutional capacity andresilience (O’Brien, 2006, 2008a, b). Disaster management is often described as a cycle,shown in Figure 1.
This figure suggests equal emphasis on the different phases of the cycle but, inreality, the emphasis is on response. Certainly, in terms of media coverage, it is theevent and the response stages that generate most interest with longer term recovery,mitigation and preparedness generating considerably less, if any.
Lessons learned are often not incorporated into wider governance processes.Learning is often characterised as only “doing it better” as opposed to “doing itdifferently”. Quite simply, the drive is to respond better rather than rethink the problem.Advice about flood, for example, is often subordinated to land development pressuresdespite the known risk of flooding on the assumption that responses will be improved inthe future. Even where there is evidence of social learning driving community-basedplanning for disasters, this has arisen in the main because of a lack of resources(the term disaster implies an overwhelming of coping capacity).
Global disasters have a tendency to drive changes in the conceptualisation of disasterpreparedness and response. Following the 1970s cyclone in Bangladesh, the drive wasfor improved warning and communication systems at the community level. Followingthe Kobe earthquake of 1995, the drive has been for community preparedness, includingsignificant efforts to raise awareness including the formal education through the schoolsystem. A similar range of change has been ushered in by the impact of the tsunami,2004, most notably, a rethink of coastal land use. The question is does it have to be abig event to learn better disaster planning?
A critical issue in building social learning is what kind of disaster planning are wetrying to address? To date, the model of social learning has been one that builds onexperience in emergency planning which can be viewed as a preventive and responselearning to routine events such as traffic accidents. This is a necessary but notsufficient as a base for disaster management of known unknowns. To address this, it isnecessary to go back to arguments about academic understanding of risk rather thanvocational knowledge of risk.
Locating disaster management in context of natural hazard researchWe no longer think of disasters as having a divine origin or intent (“acts of God”) butrecognise that the source of disaster is rooted in the relationship between peoples and
their environments. Much of this change in viewpoint is established in the naturalhazard tradition of geography but it requires a wider understanding of environmentalgeography to locate the critical debates.
Smith (1984) brought together the physical and social worlds through his commentaryon uneven nature development that linked modes of production to the production of natureand, thus, space. This construction of space builds on Zimmerman’s (1933) view ofresources, where resources do not exist but become. That form of becoming varies frommode of production to mode of production, for example, steel, not flint under capitalism fortool-making, buildings, not caves for dwellings. However, the construction of space andthe consequent becoming of resources produce new risks.
We can explore this further. Communities moving to the new urban areas generatedby the industrial revolution, or those in the developing world experiencing similarurbanisation today, moved from an environment where risk was broadly related to the“vagaries of nature”, e.g. crop failure, to an environment where new and additional riskswere produced, e.g. chemical explosion. By additional, we mean that there is a differentrelationship with risk generated by the “vagaries of nature”, not the elimination of risk.In that sense risk chains are created in a context of increasing material development.This is shown in Figure 2.
In geography, the natural hazard paradigm was initially centred around the leadershipof Gilbert White at the University of Chicago in the late 1950s and early 1960s with a focuson water resources, particularly flooding and other natural hazards. He found himselfworking on a new geography of perception, the world inside people’s minds (Johnston andSidaway, 2004). A major exponent of this geography with a behaviourist approach wasKates (1962, p. 1) who in the introduction to his study on flood plain management wrote:
The way men[sic] view the risks and opportunities of their uncertain environments plays asignificant role in their decisions as to resource management.
Kates himself built his understanding on the work of Simon (1957) whose approach todecision making in economics was to reject optimum economic behaviour of profit
maximisation in favour of a bounded rationality, where people satisficed making“bounded rational decisions” in pursuing economic strategies. A simple example wouldbe of people who choose to live in a coastal earthquake zone, such as San Francisco orKobe because the fault lines offer deep silt free harbours for the economic developmentof marine transport while simultaneously harbouring levels of earthquake risk.
There was, however, a significant critique of this approach. Notably, Smith andO’Keefe (1980, 1985) argued that geography displayed three major ways in dealingwith people-nature relations in hazard research, which were the consequences of apositivist approach to the hazard question. McManus (2000) describes the critique aswithering and lists the three major ways which Smith and O’Keefe (1980) illustrate thepoverty of the hazards research school, namely where:
(1) nature is separated from human activity;
(2) nature is seen as natural and only hazardous when it intersects with humanactivity (Burton et al., 1993); and
(3) humans are assumed to be absorbed by nature.
McManus (2000, p. 217) further notes:
The first approach focuses attention on “natural causes” of disasters, rather than humanvulnerability; the second is presented as a technocratic agenda to control nature, while thethird is seen as Malthusian because it blames the victims.
The reasons for this strong critique rest in earlier work by O’Keefe et al. (1976)highlighting the importance of understanding social vulnerability which impliedchanging levels of risk in changing conditions of political economy. A parallel critiqueof the hazards paradigm emerged in the 1980s sensitive to the globalising tendency ofthe hazards paradigm and demanding a more progressive people focused approach todisaster planning (Hewitt, 1983). Taken together, this people focus suggested thereshould be new ways of learning about disaster management but little work has beenattempted on learning about known unknowns.
Wicked problemsRecently sources of risk have multiplied with increasing technological developmentand geopolitical instability where the vagaries of nature are essentially produced. Thisis shown in Figure 3 where the generation of new risks such as the generation ofgreenhouse gases, is beginning to modify or alter environmental conditions.
The dominant model for disaster management is the “all-hazards” approach(Quarantelli, 1992; Sikich, 1993; Alexander, 2005). This should be sufficiently robust todeal with rapid and slow onset disruptions. Climate change and variability provides auseful perspective from which to consider approaches to disaster management.The anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases by, primarily, the industrialisedcountries, is generating a new family of produced unknowns. Though known ingeneral terms, the “what” and the “when” cannot be predicted with any accuracy. It isgenerally accepted that anthropogenic activities are driving changes in the climatesystem (IPCC, 2007). This can be described as a “wicked problem” as there is littleopportunity to learn by trial and error or any exit point from the problem (Richey, 2007).Stehr and von Storch (2005) characterise the risk reduction strategies (adaptation andmitigation) articulated in the climate convention as adaptation protecting us from nature
and mitigation as protecting nature from us. Given the multi-faceted nature of thoseapproaches needed to respond to such problems, it is clear that Figure 3 only shows howto do things the same in an unchanged manner and does not rise to the challenge oflearning and doing things differently.
This does not mean that the disaster cycle as shown in Figure 3 has no validity.This approach can be regarded as effective for routine events that do not exceed socialexpectations, such as accidents and emergencies. There is considerable experience andexpertise in what is an increasingly professionalised sector. However, responding toproduced unknowns will require a much broader focus than just institutional.It requires a focus on doing things differently.
Re-thinking disaster managementEarlier we discussed the notion of risk chains. Risk is a social construct and the notion ofchains does not refer to the spatial distribution but the interconnectedness of actors inthe chain. Distancing an actor in the chain lessens the effectiveness of risk management( Jasanoff, 1997). Failing to communicate information effectively about a hazard can posea threat to actors in the risk chain. Distorting information or being dishonest canundermine confidence that could lead to schisms between actors in the chain as was seenin the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the UK (de Marchi andRavetz, 1999). This is shown in Figure 4. The arrow labelled “ideal” illustrates thatinvolving all actors in the chain acts to lower risk. It is possible (and desirable) to move toa position where involvement is maximised as shown by the arrow labelled “possible”.The arrow labelled “current?” illustrates the evolution of the risk chain in the UK.The starting point is the BSE episode and efforts by the UK Government to restorepublic confidence. Arguably, some level of success was achieved by the response to theYear 2000 issue and the commitment to reform the existing emergency planning andresponse system. However, the reforms were overshadowed by 9/11 with a greateremphasis on the risk of terrorism (O’Brien and Read, 2005). Attempts by the UKGovernment (2004) to communicate through the chain were not effective, demonstrated
by the publication of a poorly designed and informed booklet, “Preparing foremergencies, what you need to know”, distributed to all UK households.
Events post 9/11 have impacted the relationship between two major actors in the UKchain; government and the public. For example, the Iraq Dossier undermined publicconfidence in the honesty of government. However, the speed at which people returned tousing the underground transport system in London following the terrorist attack in 2005illustrates growing public confidence in the response and security services as well as theLondon authorities. The recent credit crunch has further undermined public confidencein the integrity and capability of the financial services sector and the Parliamentaryexpense scandal has also gone some way to undermine trust in elected representatives.The gap between the government and the public appears to be growing. Renewing thepartnership between government and the public requires good governance that exhibitscharacteristics as participation, transparency, equity, efficiency and accountability(Bermann and Redlener, 2006). Risk management similarly requires good governance tobe effective, essentially confidence in the rule makers by those to whom the rules apply.Re-building public confidence can be a slow and challenging process. Effective riskmanagement requires engagement at all levels in identifying, prioritising, warning andinforming; essentially this is building capacity about potential risk. For routine hazards,that are those hazards where a level of judgement based on empirical data, analysis,testing or experience exists, produces objective information on the potential for danger.It is at this point that current systems can be regarded as effective. Where there is greatuncertainty, for example events that may occur at a future time, then currentapproaches to risk and subsequently response, are less effective.
In reality, this will require a new connection between people and the world we live in andproduce. Disaster management cannot be isolated, should be broadly based and recognisethat we are all first responders. The main aim of disaster management should be focusedon preparedness. In some senses, this implies a return to the development of local copingstrategies to make communities more resilient in the face of change, as a resilientcommunity is better able to cope with change and adjust to new realities.
Figure 4.Risk mapping
High
Com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t
Low
Low High
Risk
Low involvementincreases risk
Current?
Possible
Ideal
High involvementlowers risk
DM throughsocial learning
503
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
orth
umbr
ia U
nive
rsity
At 0
4:27
24
Febr
uary
201
5 (P
T)
Wicked problems and disaster managementClimate change and variability is a wicked problem. There are huge uncertainties thateffectively nullify attempts to plan an effective response. In terms of mitigation orfuture risk reduction, there is uncertainty on whether or not a global agreement can bereached. If agreement is reached, there is uncertainty over what stabilisation level andtimetable to reach that will be agreed. Even if targets are established there will still bemany uncertainties about them being reached. One further series of unknowns is theprevailing environmental conditions that will exist after an agreed stabilisation targethas been met and reached. In terms of adaptation, there is uncertainty on theavailability of funding for developing countries and the costs of adaptation. The Stern(2007) review showed that it was more cost effective to act now than to delay. However,more recently, Stern has stated that he believes his initial assessment of 1 per cent ofglobal gross domestic product (GDP) spend to tackle climate change and preventpotential damages of between 5 to 20 per cent of global GDP may be too little andsuggests that the figure may have to be revised upwards by 50 per cent (McCarthy,2009). In short, there are a host of unknowns being produced by anthropogenicinterference with the climate system.
Problems will occur at all scales. As such, responses are needed from the global tothe local. Globally, dialogue has started between the climate (UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) and disaster communities UNFCCC and UNInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), respectively (UN/ISDR,2006). This is welcome. UNN/ISDR, through the Hyogo framework, advocates thatdealing with the multiplicity of problems we face requires of focus on building theresilience of communities to cope and responds to disruptive challenges (HFA, 2005).Resilience building from the community level is the pathway to greater communityinvolvement as shown in Figure 4, but will require a re-think by all organisationsinvolved in disaster management. Instead of an event focus, disaster management willneed to have a resilience building focus.
Building resilience recognises that human-environment interactions are both thecause of increased risk, but also the space where interventions can refocus efforts onpreparedness, built on local knowledge, informed by predictions of likely climateimpacts. It also requires a shift in the behaviour of response agencies with a greater focuson preparedness achieved through resilience building that enhances coping capacity.The conventional disaster management cycle tends to be locked into a process ofsingle-loop learning where the emphasis is on institutional resilience and improvedperformance within given parameters. This lacks the richness of local knowledge andexperience necessary to build effective preparedness in responding to producedunknowns. We argue that a paradigm shift is needed. The new paradigm needs to focuson people and their environment and use learning methods to develop preparedness.This does not exclude response bodies, they are essential for resilience building,but argues that there are two distinct roles for these bodies. This is shown in Figure 5.
The double-loop approach set out in Figure 5 recognises the importance ofconventional disaster management approaches to routine emergencies. We cannoteliminate risk. However, the second loop (“new learning modes”) is where resiliencebuilding is approached by doing things differently. The key shift is in the “transitionand learning zone”. Learning from events, we argue, should be a catalyst for thinkingabout how we do things. In the UK for example, in the fire and rescue service the shift
DPM19,4
504
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
orth
umbr
ia U
nive
rsity
At 0
4:27
24
Febr
uary
201
5 (P
T)
from “fire fighting” to “fire prevention” exhibits the shift in emphasis of institutionalthinking; from reactive (putting out fires) to proactive (preventing fires). This has beenremarkably successful. However, the scale and intensity of climate driven events willrequire further institutional innovation. In the 2007 floods in the UK the emergencyservices were stretched to breaking point. This was not due to a lack of competence.Rather, it was more about the dearth of personnel and resources available within thoseservices. This brings us to the distinction between disasters and emergencies.An emergency is usually described as a threatening condition that requires urgentaction, where effective emergency action can avoid the escalation of an event into adisaster. A disaster is usually regarded as an event that overwhelms coping capacityand can require external assistance. UN/ISDR (2009) defines a disaster as:
A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespreadhuman, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability ofthe affected community or society to cope using its own resources.
The Pitt (2007) review of the UK floods points out that new thinking is needed to dealwith future episodes. It is likely that increasing violent and frequent climate drivenevents will lead to disasters. We know that they will occur but the timing, location,scale and intensity cannot be predicted with precision. The most effective approach isto focus on the preparedness of communities by building resilience. This implies a shiftin thinking at the community level and a shift in thinking at the institutional level. Weargue that the starting point for building this new paradigm lies in the principles ofpre-disaster planning set out in Table I.
Figure 5.Re-conceptualising
disaster management
Producedunknowns increasing
Range ofevents
Continue routineemergency events
Mitigation
Routine single-looplearning
Preparedness
Responseand recovery
Transition andlearning zone
Emergent paradigmchanging world view
Increasingcoping capacity
Resiliencebuilding
New learningmodes
Institutionalreview
Conventional disastermanagement cycle
Emerging approach to disastermanagement with focus on
pre-disaster planning
DM throughsocial learning
505
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
orth
umbr
ia U
nive
rsity
At 0
4:27
24
Febr
uary
201
5 (P
T)
These principles can be used in the resilience building as envisaged as in the“new learning modes” of Figure 5. Resilience building is needed in pre-disaster planningwithin a context of sustainable development to develop the social and institutionalcapacity to respond to produced unknowns. Resilience is argued as process that aims toreduce harm, both now and in the future. The focus of resilience is on wellbeing.Resilience building is a learning process at all levels. Institutional learning empowers atthe local level and strengthens governance. This is negotiation not imposition.Responding to the threat of produced unknowns require both current and futurestrategies. Strategies are needed to respond to and cope with disruptive challengesgenerated by a changing climate. Resilience recognises that there is no steady-state orend result. It is process without end that has, at its core, the notions of entitlements andgovernance.
References
Alexander, D. (1993), Natural Disasters, UCL Press, London.
Alexander, D. (2005), “Towards the development of a standard in emergency planning”,Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 158-75.
Bermann, D.A. and Redlener, I. (2006), “National preparedness planning: the historical contextand current state of the US public’s readiness”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 59No. 2, pp. 87-103.
Burton, I., Kates, R.W. and White, G.F. (1993), Environment as Hazard, Guildford Press, London.
de Marchi, B. and Ravetz, J.R. (1999), “Risk management and governance: a post-normal scienceapproach”, Futures, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 743-57.
Hewitt, K. (1983), Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology,Unwin Hyman, London.
Hewitt, K. (1998), “Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster”,in Quarantelli, E. (Ed.), What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, Routledge,New York, NY, pp. 75-91.
Pre-disaster planning principles Comment
Sustainable development An approach that focuses on reducing risk both nowand in the future
Risk avoidance Developments should be evaluated from a riskreduction perspective
Embedded in policy and practices Change should be normalisedDistributed to the appropriate level It is both top down and bottom upShared responsibility The basis for renewing the preparedness partnership
between government and peopleLearning from scientific evidence, indigenousknowledge and experience
All knowledge is important but of equal importance,is effective communication and dissemination
Adjusting to changes A recognition that the future may be very differentOrganisational and social learning Thinking differently and learning about how we
approach problems related to change should be thenorm
HFA (2005), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters, UN/ISDR, Nairobi, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
IPCC (2007), “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, in Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds),Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, p. 104.
Jasanoff, S. (1997), “Civilisation and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996”, Public Understandingof Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 221-32.
Johnston, R.J. and Sidaway, J.D. (2004), Geography & Geographers: Anglo-American HumanGeography Since 1945, Arnold, London.
Kates, R.W. (1962), “Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management”, Research PaperNo. 78, Department of Geography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
McCarthy, M. (2009), “Lord Stern on global warming: it’s even worse than I thought”,The Independent, 13 March, available at: www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-stern-on-global-warming-its-even-worse-than-i-thought-1643957.html
McManus, P. (2000), “Environmental hazard”, in Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. andWatts, M. (Eds), The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th ed., Blackwell, London,pp. 216-17.
O’Brien, G. (2006), “UK emergency preparedness – a step in the right direction?”, Journal ofInternational Affairs, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 63-85.
O’Brien, G. (2008a), “Disaster management, climate change and variability and social resilience”,PhD thesis, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne.
O’Brien, G. (2008b), “UK emergency preparedness – a holistic local response?”, DisasterPrevention and Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 232-43.
O’Brien, G. and Read, P. (2005), “Future UK emergency management: new wine, old skin?”,Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 353-61.
O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. and Wisner, B. (1976), “Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters”,Nature, Vol. 260, pp. 566-7.
Pitt, M. (2007), Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods, Cabinet Office, London,available at: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf
Quarantelli, E.L. (1992), “The case for a generic rather than agent-specific approach to disasters”,Disaster Management, Vol. 2, pp. 191-6.
Richey, T. (2007), “Wicked problems: structuring social messes with morphological analysis”,Swedish Morphological Society, available at: www.swemorph.com/pdf/wp.pdf
Sikich, G.W. (1993), It Can’t Happen Here: All Hazards Crisis Management Planning,PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK.
Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of Man – Social and Rational, Wiley, New York, NY.
Smith, N. (1984), Uneven Development, Nature, Capital and the Production of Space,Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Smith, N. and O’Keefe, P. (1980), “Geography, Marx and the concept of nature”, Antipode, Vol. 12,pp. 30-9.
Smith, N. and O’Keefe, P. (1985), “Geography, Marx and the concept of nature”, Antipode, Vol. 17Nos 2-3, pp. 79-88.
Stehr, N. and von Storch, H. (2005), “Introduction to papers on mitigation and adaptationstrategies for climate change: protecting nature from society or protecting society fromnature?”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 537-40.
Stern, N. (2007), The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.
UK Government (2004), “Preparing for emergencies, what you need to know”,available at: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Dealingwithemergencies/Preparingforemergencies/DG_176035
UN/ISDR (2006), Statement to the Twenty-fifth Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SBSTA 25), UN/ISDR, Nairobi, available at: http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/sbsta_agenda_item_adaptation/application/pdf/isdr_statement.pdf
UN/ISDR (2009), “UN/ISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction”, UN/ISDR Library ondisaster risk reduction, UN/ISDR, Nairobi, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm
Zimmerman, E. (1933), World Resources and Industries: A Functional Appraisal of the Availabilityof Agricultural and Industrial Resources, Harper & Bros, New York, NY.
About the authorsGeoff O’Brien is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management and Sustainable Development(undergraduate) and Disaster Management and Sustainable Development (postgraduate) atNorthumbria University. He is a member of the Disaster and Development Centre within theuniversity. The centre undertakes a range of research into disaster management. O’Brien’s currentresearch interests are in resilient approaches to disaster management. Geoff O’Brien is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Phil O’Keefe is a Professor of Economic Development and Environmental Management atNorthumbria University. O’Keefe’s research interests focus on the political economy ofenvironmental issues with particular reference to Eastern and Southern Africa. He has writtenextensively on environmental risk and hazard which, over the last 15 years, has increasinglyfocused on the delivery of humanitarian assistance after natural disaster and in complexemergencies. He is actively involved in broader debates about the production of nature,sustainability, vulnerability and poverty alleviation, contributing to major global policydocuments as well as polemically challenging what this policy means in practice.
Zaina Gadema is a PhD research student at Northumbria University who is looking at carbonfootprinting and sustainability issues surrounding food supply chains within the context ofeconomic and food geographies. Gadema’s research interests lie within the geographical andenvironmental management-science domains, particularly the multi-faceted nature of the climatechange debate, risk and resilience issues and different perspectives that shape such debates, such asthe political economy lense. Other interests relate to subjects including, but not limited to, energy,climate change, sustainability, social justice, gender, international development and biodiversity.
Jon Swords is a Lecturer in Economic Geography at Northumbria University. Swords’sresearch interests are in critical understandings of local and regional development, specificallyemerging debates about how, and for whom development policy is constructed. In addition tothis, Swords is concerned with the role of meso-level governance institutions and their role in therelationship between the “global” and the “local”. Swords has particular interests in the role ofnational parks in this process, and the potential they possess for development that goes beyondthe economic. Related to this, he is interested in how heritage is conceptualised and catalysed ineconomic, environment and community development trajectories.
DPM19,4
508
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
1. Andrew E. Collins, Bernard Manyena, Janaka Jayawickrama, Samantha JonesIntroduction 1-15.[CrossRef]
2. Paulina Aldunce, Ruth Beilin, Mark Howden, John Handmer. 2015. Resilience for disaster riskmanagement in a changing climate: Practitioners’ frames and practices. Global Environmental Change 30,1-11. [CrossRef]
3. Ljubica Mamula-Seadon, Ian McLean. 2015. Response and early recovery following 4 September 2010and 22 February 2011 canterbury earthquakes: Societal resilience and the role of governance. InternationalJournal of Disaster Risk Reduction . [CrossRef]
4. Saima Mian. 2014. Pakistan's Flood Challenges: An assessment through the lens of learning and adaptivegovernance. Environmental Policy and Governance 24:10.1002/eet.v24.6, 423-438. [CrossRef]
5. Paulina Aldunce, Ruth Beilin, John Handmer, Mark Howden. 2014. Framing disaster resilience. DisasterPrevention and Management: An International Journal 23:3, 252-270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Martina K. Linnenluecke, Andrew Griffiths, Monika I. Winn. 2013. Firm and industry adaptation toclimate change: a review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field. WileyInterdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4:5, 397-416. [CrossRef]
8. Emma Yuen, Samantha Stone Jovicich, Benjamin L. Preston. 2013. Climate change vulnerabilityassessments as catalysts for social learning: four case studies in south-eastern Australia. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 18:5, 567-590. [CrossRef]
9. Elina Amadhila, Loide Shaamhula, Gert Van Rooy, Nguza Siyambango. 2013. Disaster risk reduction inthe Omusati and Oshana regions of Namibia. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 5:1. . [CrossRef]
10. Magnus Johansson, Lars Nyberg, Mariele Evers, Max Hansson. 2013. Using education and social learningin capacity building – the IntECR concept. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal22:1, 17-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Craig A. Stephenson, Dana C. Thomsen, Gayle Mayes, Timothy F. SmithShock Treatment: AdaptiveLearning in Response to the South-East Queensland Oil Spill 887-898. [CrossRef]
