Sustainable livelihoods and people’s vulnerability in the face of coastal hazards

The present study investigates into the link between people’s vulnerability in the face of coastal hazards and sustainable livelihoods. It focuses on the town of Borongan in the Philippines and draws on questionnaire-based surveys and focus group discussions. This research shows that local fishermen are often compelled to go out fishing despite pending typhoon or storm surge to sustain the daily needs of their family. Its also demonstrates that the capacity of these people to protect themselves from the threat is constrained by poor and fragile livelihoods. In the event of a crisis, the study argues that people resort to a range of adjustments on their daily life which is rooted in the strength and diversity of their livelihoods. To reduce people’s vulnerability and enhance capacities to face coastal hazards, the study fosters Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction with special emphasis to sustainable livelihoods.     

因果链分析与根本原因:全球国际水域评估(GIWA)方法

"全球国际水域评估"(GIWA)建立的目标是为了建立一种国际水域行动中的优先确定机制.除了评定生态系统中的环境问题的严重性外,GIWA的任务之一是分析可能解决这些问题或减轻其危害性的各种政策行动.由于这些问题本身具有的复杂性,了解其根本原因是找到有效解决途径的根本需要.GIWA提供了一个分析问题的根本原因的基本框架,这个框架是建立在对人类(直接或间接地)利用水资源时,构成人类行为的各种因素的辨识之上.本文中分析了两类因素.第一类包括社会协调机制(制度),这些机制中的错误会直接导致资源的浪费;第二类因素本身并不造成资源的浪费(如贫困、贸易、人口增长、技术),但是会暴露、加剧第一类因素造成的危害.事实表明,对于特定的事件,如果没有对造成环境恶化的各种成因作用和相互作用的具体方式进行分析,而只对其一般原因(如贫困或贸易)做简单的判断将有可能忽视一些重要的联系,而这些联系有可能影响政策的有效实施.以下以科罗拉多河三角洲为例对因果链式分析法进行阐述.     

Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: past,present, and future

Nowadays there are approximately 80 Anglophone journals that deal primarily with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and allied fields. This large array signals a sustained, if uneven, growth in DRR scholarship but also competition between the offerings of different publishers and institutions. The purpose of this article is first to summarise the development of academic publishing on DRR from its early beginnings to the present day. The paper then evaluates the current state of publishing in this field and discusses possible future trends. Next, it identifies some possible opportunities, challenges, expectations, and commitments for journal editors both within DRR and academia more broadly, including those that refer to changes in the use of terminology, the relentless increase in the number of papers submitted, the expansion and dangers of predatory journals, different peer review models, open access versus paywalls, citations and bibliography metrics, academic social networks, and copyright and distribution issues.     

Causal chain analysis and root causes: the GIWA approach

The Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) was created to help develop a priority setting mechanism for actions in international waters. Apart from assessing the severity of environmental problems in ecosystems, the GIWA's task is to analyze potential policy actions that could solve or mitigate these problems. Given the complex nature of the problems, understanding their root causes is essential to develop effective solutions. The GIWA provides a framework to analyze these causes, which is based on identifying the factors that shape human behavior in relation to the use (direct or indirect) of aquatic resources. Two sets of factors are analyzed. The first one consists of social coordination mechanisms (institutions). Faults in these mechanisms lead to wasteful use of resources. The second consists of factors that do not cause wasteful use of resources per se (poverty, trade, demographic growth, technology), but expose and magnify the faults of the first group of factors. The picture that comes out is that diagnosing simple generic causes, e.g. poverty or trade, without analyzing the case specific ways in which the root causes act and interact to degrade the environment, will likely ignore important links that may put the effectiveness of the recommended policies at risk. A summary of the causal chain analysis for the Colorado River Delta is provided as an example.     

Disaster studies inside out

Disaster studies is faced with a fascinating anomaly: frequently it claims to be critical and innovative, as suggested by the so‐called vulnerability paradigm that emerged more than 40 years ago, yet often it is perpetuating some of the core and problematic tenets of the hazard paradigm that we were asked to challenge initially. This paper interrogates why such an anomaly persists. In so doing, it employs Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony to unpack why disaster studies is still dominated by Western epistemologies and scholars that perpetuate an orientalist view of disasters. Ultimately, it suggests a research agenda for the 40 years to come, which builds on the importance of local researchers analysing local disasters using local epistemologies, especially in the non‐Western world. Such subaltern disaster studies are to be fuelled by increasing consciousness of the need to resist the hegemony of Western scholarship and to relocate disaster studies within the realm of its original political agenda.