Search results

From a Latin American decolonial and transdisciplinary perspective, this article expands the increasingly relevant conversation about disaster ethics, not only in depth and scope but also both interdisciplinarily and interculturally. By reviewing key points of development ethics that are closely related but underexplored, it makes the case for focusing on disaster recovery as a relevant distributive phase for improving future prevention and mitigation, while remedying long-standing injustices.

To do so, against the backdrop of recently emerging postcolonial, decolonial and structural approaches to disaster and vulnerability studies, the article presents a theoretical conversation between decolonial studies, development ethics, intercultural practice and philosophy, and disaster ethics beyond utilitarian approaches.

So far, development and disaster ethics remain worlds apart, despite their relevant convergence around the key notion of “recovery” and its underlying normative determination. This article identifies that prevailing utilitarian ethics in emergency response, in addition to their problematic universalization, have prevented further engagement with deontological and process-based principles, including a nuanced distributive sensitivity. As a result of such cross-fertilization, methodological individualism in an intercultural encounter is suggested, as well as continued engagement with pluriversal deliberation about key ethical values and notions regarding disaster risk and response.

Calling for distributive bottom-up engagement beyond professional and academic boundaries, this article presents a new direction for decolonising disaster ethics, so far unexplored, seeking to bridge the value gap between development and disaster efforts, planning and prevention.

This paper aims to argue that traditional ethical theories used in disaster response may be inadequate and particularly strained by the emergence of new technologies and social media, particularly with regard to privacy. The paper suggests incorporation of care ethics into the disaster ethics nexus to better include the perspectives of disaster affected communities.

This paper presents a theoretical examination of privacy and care ethics in the context of social media/digitally enhanced disaster response.

The paper proposes an ethics of care can fruitfully by used by public and private agents in disaster management. Its relational ontology restores the priority of fostering good relationships between stakeholders, thus giving central importance to values such as transparency and trust and the situated knowledge of disaster-affected communities.

This paper presents theoretical research and is limited by the availability of empirical data. There is opportunity for future research to evaluate the impact of a conscious adoption of an ethics of care by disaster management agents.

An ethos of care ethics needs to be mainstreamed into disaster management organisations and digital initiatives.

This paper argues that power asymmetry in disaster response renders the public vulnerable to abuse, and that the adoption of care ethics can support disaster management agents in recognising this power imbalance and wielding power responsibly.

This paper examines the applicability of an alternative ethical framework to novel circumstances.

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.

Ethics is the foundation on which societies and cultures are based and are fundamental to political, social and economic decision making. Ethical dilemmas have created controversy and heated debate over the years. Disasters have been defined in public health terms as destructive events that result in the need for a wide range of emergency resources to assist and ensure the survival of the stricken population. Lack of medical resources, in conjunction with a mass casualty situation, can present specific ethical challenges. The purpose of this paper is to explore the ethics of disaster management.

In and after a disaster, ethical questions arise regarding appropriate and fair allocation of relief funds to help with recovery. Research in disaster settings poses unique ethical dilemmas. The researcher must determine how to balance the critical need for research with the ethical obligation of respect for, and protection of, the interests of research participants. Ethics as part of an educational program made available to health care providers may assist disaster responders to make the difficult ethical decisions involved in disasters. This literature review discusses these issues in conjunction with disaster response and recovery.

The cardinal virtues of disaster response are prudence, courage, justice, stewardship, vigilance, resilience, self‐effacing charity and communication. These eight virtues are not considered all inclusive, no more than Aristotle considered that his morals or virtues were all inclusive. Ongoing work in disaster management will help to ensure that such situations are managed in an ethical manner that respects the rights and privileges of all those involved.

The literature reviewed for this paper was based on peer reviewed scholarly writings. Concepts of ethics and justice are important issues in disaster situations. This paper offers ideas to prompt further discussion among disaster managers and students of disaster studies.

Social changes are reliant on an understanding of ethics and how it affects society. This paper puts forward ethical concepts to prompt discussion by disaster responders and managers with the hope of improving disaster management.

The paper is an original document that may be useful to students of disaster management and those who teach disaster management

This conversation presents the reflections from five prominent disaster scholars and practitioners on the opportunities and challenges associated with research following disasters and explores the importance of ethics in disaster research.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 11th of June 2021.

The prominent themes in this conversation include ethical approaches to research, how we–as disaster researchers and practitioners–collaborate, engage, and cooperate, and whose voices are centred in a post-disaster research context.

The conversation contributes to ongoing discussions around the conduct and practice of disaster research.

Disaster inquiries regularly contain a sad litany of what went wrong, procedures bypassed and ignored, and undue risks taken. It is clear in many of these cases that there were individuals in the know, who may have spoken up, but been over‐ruled or silenced. Some more persistent individuals decide to speak up external to the organisation, and hence become whistleblowers. Their efforts, although virtually by definition in the public interest, have not always been well received, certainly by their employers, and the agencies to whom they resorted, while pleased to have received their information, have invariably not reciprocated by offering employment protection, or even upholding confidentiality. Disaster case studies are presented involving a variety of industries from the nuclear power to the petroleum, aircraft, space and oil industries. The stresses on the whistleblower are indicated, one being the controversy remaining over their role, with opposition from some business leaders. The law offers first line protection, although experience in the USA suggests that this is insufficient in itself. In the more unified and compact jurisdiction of the UK, new legislation, coupled with political will, seems likely to produce a more effective regime. Organisations need to internalise whistleblowing as part of their natural systems and procedures, and codes of practice assist in this regard, as long as they are more than window‐dressing. Countries less advanced in their thinking and legislation are more at risk and, given the global consequences of the likes of an environmental disaster, need to be regarded as international pariahs.

There are many pragmatic challenges and complex interactions in the reduction of systemic disaster risk. No single agency has the mandate, authority, legitimacy or resources to fully address the deeper socio-economic, cultural, regulatory or political forces that often drive the creation and transfer of risk. National leadership and co-ordination are key enablers. This paper shares Australia's progress in building an enabling environment for systemic disaster risk reduction, and specifically how a change in thinking and resolve to work differently is beginning to shape nation-wide reforms and national programs of work.

The project and program of work adopted an inclusive, collaborative, co-design and co-production approach, working with diverse groups to create new knowledge, build trust, ongoing learning and collective ownership and action. Values- and systems-based approaches, and ethical leadership were core aspects of the approach.

Co-creating a more comprehensive and shared understanding of systemic disaster risk, particularly the values at risk and tensions and trade-offs associated with the choices about how people prevent or respond, has contributed to a growing shift in the way disasters are conceptualised. New narratives about disasters as “unnatural” and the need for shared responsibilities are shaping dialogue spaces and policy frameworks. The authors’ experience and ongoing learning acknowledge pragmatic challenges while also providing evidence-based ideas and guidance for more systems and transformative styles and competencies of leadership that are needed for convening in contested and complex environments.

This work built networks, competencies and generated ongoing momentum and learning. The lessons, evidence and reports from the work continue to be accessed and influential in research, emergency management and disaster mitigation practices (e.g. engagement, communications, training) and policy. Most significantly, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework provides the basis, justification and guidance for the nation's policy reform agenda around disaster risk reduction and is catalysing national efforts in developing a national action plan and systemic measurement, evaluation and learning to ensure the realisation of disaster risk reduction priorities.

A practical example is offered of a nation actively learning to navigate the governance challenges and implement strategies to address the reduction of complex, systemic risks.

Current centralized humanitarian aid deployment practices may encourage urbanization thereby weakening short- and long-term resiliency of lower-income countries receiving aid. The purpose of this paper is first, to explore these shortcomings within the peer-reviewed literature and, second, propose a starting point for a solution with a decentralized humanitarian aid deployment (DHAD) framework.

The authors conducted a focused, qualitative review of available and relevant literature.

The literature reviewed demonstrates that current centralized humanitarian aid deployment models lack meaningful engagement of local assets while indicating a plausible connection between these same models and disaster urbanization. Next, the literature shows introducing a new decentralized model could represent a sustainable aid deployment standard for that country’s specific response, recovery, mitigation and planning opportunities and constraints.

The next step is to develop a working DHAD model for a lower-income country using a multi-layered, GIS analysis that incorporates some or all of the socioeconomic and environmental variables suggested herein.

The practical potential of the DHAD framework includes establishing the impacted country in the lead role of their own recovery at the moment of deployment, no longer relying on foreign logistics models to sort it out once aid has arrived.

This paper discusses a topic that much of the literature agrees requires more research while suggesting a new conceptual framework for aid deployment best practices which is also largely absent from the literature.

Despite decades of social science research into disasters, practice in the field continues to be informed largely from a technical perspective. The outcome is often a perpetuation of vulnerability, as narrowly defined technical interventions fail to address or recognize the ethical, historical, political and structural complexities of real-world community vulnerability and its causes. The authors propose that addressing this does not require a rejection of technical practice, but its evolution into a critical technical practice – one which foregrounds interdisciplinarity, inclusion, creativity and reflexivity, as means to question the assumptions, ideologies and delimited solutions built into the technical tools for understanding risks.

The authors present findings from three events they designed and facilitated, aimed at rethinking the engineering pedagogy and technical practice of disaster risk management. The first was a 2-day “artathon” that brought together engineers, artists and scientists to collaborate on new works of art based on disaster and climate data. The second was the Understanding Risk Field Lab, a 1-month long arts and technology un-conference exploring critical design practices, collaborative technology production, hacking and art to address complex issues of urban flooding. The third was a 4-month long virtual workshop on responsible engineering, science and technology for disaster risk management.

Each of these events uncovered and highlighted the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and reflexivity in disaster risk modeling, communication and management. The authors conclude with a discussion of the key design elements that help promote the principles of a critical technical practice.

The authors propose “critical technical practice” which foregrounds principles of interdisciplinarity, inclusion, creativity and reflexivity, as a means to question the assumptions, ideologies and delimited solutions built into the technical tools for understanding climate and disaster risk.

The purpose of this paper is to detect causes of potential vulnerability via indicators of non-resilience among marginalized groups. These causes could become a catalyst for a major deprivation of resilience and further victimization of a group, either while disaster is occurring or in its aftermath.

Exploration of resilience was based on social and economic research conducted in Serbia 2012-2013 with one of the most vulnerable communities, with the goal of mapping local understandings of resilience in contrast to issues of risk and vulnerability. A specific two layer methodology, i.e. phenomenology of desperateness was based on sociological imagination and social action.

The author detected and labeled the most relevant socio-economic causes of miserable life conditions among the given marginal group. Such analytical dimensions become marked as the indicators of vulnerabilities. Mapping these vulnerabilities, especially among the marginal communities, is the first step in preventing their victimization.

The responsible social agents are compatible with the creation of the relevant map and profile of the most vulnerable actors with the goal of preventing a possible eugenics selection during DRR and response.

In addition to preventing victimization during a disaster, this study provides preventives of the sentiment-driven actions induced by paternalistically organised everyday life (established by way of the same indicators) within the framework of a new totalitarian ideology, such as a para-military organization of daily activities.

This paper provides a specific methodology for detecting desperateness as an inner process in vulnerability and new insights into the comprehension of the relation between social structure of marginal groups, their resilience and their members’ vulnerability.