Search results

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.

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to debates on the value of indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Recent international policy papers advocate the importance of indigenous knowledge and calls for its recognition. The paper aims to explore these issues in the everyday practices of disaster response by indigenous peoples and surrounding actors.

The paper is based on a total of seven months ethnographic research in indigenous communities in Thailand and the Philippines. The Thai communities had experienced minor disasters, whereas the Philippine communities were recently hit by a major killer typhoon.

In both countries the authors found that indigenous knowledge is neither completely local, nor homogenous, nor shared. The findings caution against a view that indigenous knowledge is grounded in a long tradition of coping with disasters. Coping is embedded in social practice and responsive to change. Positive labelling of indigenous practices can help to render communities more resilient.

The research was exploratory in nature and could be replicated and expanded in other indigenous peoples’ communities.

Rather than understanding indigenous peoples as simultaneously vulnerable and resilient, it calls for a more comprehensive approach to indigenous knowledge and practices around disaster.

The limitations are shown of uncritically ascribing indigenous communities a close relation to nature. It may be unfounded and de-politicises indigenous struggles.

This paper approaches indigenous knowledge issues from the point of view of indigenous communities themselves.

Effective leadership at the grassroots level can make a crucial difference to disaster risk reduction (DRR) at the local level. Guidance, however, is often not provided through the visible structures of local government but through alternative means of articulating power that is no less real and frequently more effective than more formal agencies. The purpose of this paper is to present a biography of one such community leader and his influence in the Philippines and how he is able to foster resilience and reduce risk. These “small men” stand in direct contrast to the more authoritarian, materialistic and reputedly corrupt nature of governance in general.

This paper adopts an historical-sociological approach, utilising archival sources as well as fieldwork to explore the relationship between consensual leadership, social capital and DRR in the Philippines.

Social capital and consensual forms of local leadership have their origin in the challenges posed by daily living in the Philippines. At the grassroots level, Filipino civil society can exhibit a vibrancy, self-reliance and innovation that has not been given proper recognition. In fact, local leadership, social capital and DRR are not unrelated aspects of culture but part of the “mutuality” that exists between people and environment in the archipelago.

This paper employs an innovative historical-sociological approach to explore the much maligned and often neglected nature of local unofficial leadership in the Philippines in the context of DRR.

The purpose of this paper is to look into how people in risky environments define human security by using the framework of the draft human security index of the Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines to study five municipalities. The concept of human security used here is the comprehensive definition that covers “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want” dimensions but using a more local/bottom-up perspective in getting people’s sense of security and threats/risks. As a pilot research, the paper also reveals the shortcomings of the draft index as it does not highlight yet other factors like gender, ethnicity and other sectoral identities.

The pilot municipalities all have a history of violent conflicts or insurgency and they also face other security threats/risks, e.g., natural disasters and effects of climate change, limited sources of livelihood, lack of food, water shortage, etc. Through surveys, focus group discussions and interviews, people were asked about their sense of security and experiences, perceived threats to individuals and the community, understanding of human security and their capacity, as individuals and as a community, to cope with and/or do something about these threats. The focus of the manuscript, however, is the more qualitative responses of informants.

In these conflict areas, poverty and the limited livelihood opportunities are major threats, followed by threats to food, environmental, personal and community security (particularly peace and order). The perceived intensity of certain threats also varies depending on the type of community or group one belongs to. It appears that respondents have a comprehensive view of human security; what they lack are resources and skills to mitigate such threats. Community empowerment and improved local governance are crucial with support from external actors.

It is important to look at the experiences of other areas without histories of armed conflicts to understand possibly different security issues and threats/risks and include perspectives of people based on gender, ethnicity and other identities.

The research shows the value of using local/bottom-up perceptions of people apart from available development and security statistics (which are usually top-down, very general and universalistic) to assess, monitor actual and plan future interventions to address human security threats and vulnerabilities at different levels. The qualitative and quantitative data from the ground are also useful in refining human security-related concepts, hypotheses and theories.