Search results

The topic of the paper is a description of basic elements of the philosophy of un/natural disasters generally, and specifically basic elements of multiple simultaneous un/natural disasters which is motivated by a series of disasters that hit Croatia all over 2020. The topic is presented in the following way: in the first part, case of Croatia 2020 is described in short; in the second part, elements of the philosophy of un/natural disasters are described; and based on the first and second part in the third part, the possibility of the philosophy of multiple simultaneous un/natural disasters which seem to be applicable to the case of Croatia 2020 is described. Elements of philosophy that are described are ontology, epistemology, a theory of action, and ethics. The purpose of the paper is to research the possibility of clarification of basic philosophical concepts in the context of disasters, namely existence-in, appearance/reality-in, knowledge-of, certainty-in, human action-in, habits-in, and morality and ethics of disasters. Research limitations relate mostly to conceptual-morphological research that hugely relies on facts of the case and on statistical and scientific data on disasters.

Debates on the ethics of disaster and humanitarian studies concern unequal relations in research (among research institutes/researchers/stakeholders); the physical and psychological well-being of research participants and researchers; and the imposition of western methods, frameworks and epistemologies to the study of disasters. This paper focuses on everyday ethics: how they need to be translated throughout the everyday practices of research and how researchers can deal with the ethical dilemmas that inevitably occur.

This paper analyses the process of addressing ethics-related dilemmas from the first author's experiences researching disaster governance in high-intensity conflict settings, in particular drawing from 4 to 6 months of fieldwork in South Sudan and Afghanistan. In addition, ethical issues around remote research are discussed, drawing on the example of research conducted in Yemen. It is based on the personal notes taken by the first author and on the experience of both authors translating guidelines for research in remote and hazardous areas into research practices.

The paper concerns translating ethics into the everyday practices of research planning, implementation and communication. It argues for the importance of adaptive research processes with space for continuous reflection in order to advance disaster studies based on (1) equitable collaboration; (2) participatory methodologies wherever possible; (3) safety and security for all involved; (4) ethical approaches of remote research and (5) responsible and inclusive research communication and research-uptake. Openness about gaps and limitations of ethical standards, discussions with peers about dilemmas and reporting on these in research outcomes should be embedded in everyday ethics.

The paper contributes to discussions on everyday ethics, where ethics are integral to the epistemologies and everyday practices of research.

This article examines how farmers' assignment of responsibility for the disaster in late 2015 – early 2016 connects with reflexivity, habitus and local vulnerability.

This article uses semi-structured interviews with 28 disaster-affected households in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta to answer the question.

This article finds out that Vietnamese farmers actively accepted their responsibility for the disaster. In their explanation, they link their action with the root causes of vulnerability embedded in their socio-cultural traditions and collective identity.

This article makes a case for the importance of local culture and epistemologies in understanding disaster vulnerability and responsibility attribution.

This article is original in researching Vietnamese farmers' responsibility attribution, their aesthetic reflexivity, collective habitus and the socio-cultural root causes of disaster.

Mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are widely used in disaster research and practice. While, in some cases, these practices incorporate methods inspired by critical cartography and critical GIS, they rarely engage with the theoretical discussions that animate those fields.

In this commentary, the author considers three such discussions, and draws out their relevance for disaster studies: the turn towards processual cartographies, political economy analysis of datafication and calls for theorising computing of and from the South.

The review highlights how these discussions can contribute to the work of scholars engaged in mapping for disaster risk management and research. First, it can counter the taken-for-granted nature of disaster-related maps, and encourage debate about how such maps are produced, used and circulated. Second, it can foster a reflexive attitude towards the urge to quantify and map disasters. Third, it can help to rethink the role of digital technologies with respect to ongoing conversations on the need to decolonise disaster studies.

The paper aims to familiarise disaster studies scholars with literature that has received relatively little attention in this field and, by doing so, contribute to a repoliticisation of disaster-related maps.

Research in critical disaster studies stresses the urgency to explore alternative ontological framings (Gaillard and Raju, 2022) that encourages researchers and practitioners, especially Indigenous communities, to nurture spaces where Indigenous voices are well represented. It is imperative that research in the Pacific should be guided by Pacific research methodologies to maximize positive outcomes (Ponton, 2018) and break free from limited Eurocentric ideologies that are often ill-suited in Pacific contexts. Hazards in the South Pacific region have become more frequent and volatile. This has created a growing interest in the study of disasters in the region. However, current disaster studies in the Pacific are often problematic as they often fail to challenge the implicit coloniality of the discipline.

This paper will expand on these arguments, suggesting ways to overcome the limits of common Eurocentric research frameworks in disaster studies and to illustrate the significance and relevance of Pacific methodologies.

It is pertinent that critical disaster studies encapsulate Pacific worldviews and knowledge as valued and valid to reconstruct Pacific research. Decolonizing disaster research will ultimately liberate the discipline from limitations of its colonial past and allow for truly engaging and critical research practices.

This paper will illustrate and articulate how Talanoa, a pan-Pacific concept, could offer a more culturally appropriate research methodology to disasters, seen through a Samoan lens. Talanoa is an informal conversation that is widely shared among Pacific communities based on pure, authentic and real conversations which are crucial elements in building relationships with Pacific communities (Vaioleti, 2006).

This study aims to yield significant insight into decentralized Disaster Governance (DG), explaining the passage from selecting actors and defining actions to determining outcomes in a decentralized process.

We adopt the systems thinking approach to investigate the reconstruction program after the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran. In-depth interviews are our main source of data that are carefully triangulated with findings from the review of documents and our direct observations.

We detected many shortcomings in this program, among which incomplete decentralization is highly prominent. In the Bam recovery program, tasks were delegated to varied actors based on their capacities without considering potential conflicts of interests and their unbalanced authority to serve their benefits. Meanwhile, the impact of the country's unstable political climate on restricting or liberating actors' influence on the recovery program was overlooked. These split relationships between DG components finally obstructed decentralization by intensifying conflicts of interest, which eventually compromised recovery objectives.

The results reveal the importance of adopting mechanisms to ensure monitoring systems' and governments' neutrality and limit any political influence over the outcomes.

DG concept is relatively new in disaster literature and despite its advancement in the last two decades, many studies still contribute to the epistemology of DG and its assessment methodology. However, the relationship between DG's components remains still obscure. This study tries to bridge this gap and make the concept more practical.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze disaster exceptionalism in India, focusing on the case of Kosi river floods in the State of Bihar and their impact on Dalit communities. Data were gathered through document analysis and a qualitative approach based on interviews with national and local leaders and activists of NGOs and Dalit organizations. The main finding is that there are no second-generation social movements related to disasters in India, mainly in what concerns Dalit discrimination. The Disaster Management Act of 2005 reinforced the centralized and top-down nature of the Indian state concerning disasters. On the other hand, national Dalit organizations like National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations (NACDAOR) and National Dalit Watch do not possess the expertise to alter the approach to disasters from a contingent and exceptional one to a more structured and long-term perspective.

The chapter shows how extreme events and permanent hazardous situations tend to increase the legitimacy of state intervention, often involving the suspension of social and economic norms, creating a state of exception, which indicates the inevitable presence of the state. The abyssal line that separates those individuals and groups that are integrated from those defined as disposable and invisible crosses through both the Global South and the little colonies of the North, reinforcing the logic of states that want to be bigger and stronger than their own citizens.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk from which disaster risk policy can be analysed. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the implications of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk which is essential in explaining why disaster risk has different nuances and consequently policy responses.

A literature survey was used to explore social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk. The survey involved documentary searches from academic books, journal articles and disaster risk reports to serve as primary research data.

The analysis revealed that viewing and managing disasters through the lens of objectivism might not yield the desired results of minimising risk as it conceals the vulnerabilities to disaster risk. The objectivist perspective is therefore in itself considered inadequate for the study of disaster risk and that social constructivist assumptions are required in order to analyse disaster risk. Towards this end, social constructivism offers a discursive approach to disaster risk policy science; one that more optimally illuminates competing local perspectives.

An epistemological and ontological assessment of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk can assist greatly in understanding the discursive dimension of disaster risk through explanations of how and why disasters are framed the way they are framed and the implications of this on policy formulation and implementation.