Samantha Jones

Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire

Abstract Despite some excellent academic writings on the subject, confusion around the definition, application and value of social constructionism with respect to the environment is rife. The purpose of this short piece is to clarify some misunderstandings by referring to literature that engages with ontology (what exists, or the nature of nature) and epistemology (what we can know or the status of knowledge of reality). I argue that some areas of social constructionism are perfectly capable of dealing with environmental change and can lead to highly fruitful analyses. Following this, I address a point made by Blaikie (Global Environmental Change 6 (1996) 83) that “there remains a political and practical vacuum because few of this genre have suggested how diverse accounts of the world can be negotiated or reconciled to provide feasible paths for action”. I argue that this does not necessarily need to be the case and present a philosophical perspective from which negotiation and reconciliation are feasible within the social constructionist paradigm.

From meta-narratives to flexible frameworks: an actor level analysis of land degradation in Highland Tanzania

Abstract This paper first highlights some of the problems that exist with studies that try to explain the causes environmental degradation, in particular land degradation. Based on this critique it provides a framework, set in the context of an actor-oriented approach, that helps to attain a clearer understanding of the social causes of the physical changes that are interpreted as degradation. The framework is illustrated with reference to a case study from a mountainous area of central-eastern Tanzania.

Disaster Risk Governance: Evolution and Influences

Disaster risk reduction represents a shift in the paradigm of disaster management from ‘response and recovery’ to ‘prevention and preparedness’. International organisations have been key players in advancing this agenda. This chapter seeks to explore the challenging nature of contemporary disaster risk governance endeavours, which are intricately linked to the neoliberal agenda of ‘hollowing out’ state functions. Under this agenda there has become a reduced role for the state and an opening of the governing arena to a wider multitude of non-state actors. This chapter discusses three dimensions to the changing distribution of influence and responsibility in disaster risk governance. First, is the ‘upwards’ dimension, wherein governments are becoming more accountable to global institutions. Second, the ‘outward’ or mainstreaming disaster risk reduction agenda requires sectors to integrate disaster and development into their activities to develop better prevention and preparedness. Third, the ‘downward’ or decentralisation of disaster risk governance arguably, enables local communities to formulate realistic and implementable prevention, preparedness, response and recovery plans. In this complex and changing governance landscape of disaster risk reduction, as the neo-liberal state is hollowed out and responsibilities are reoriented upwards, outwards and downwards, the question arises: ‘who really governs DRR?’.

Introduction: Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society

This introductory chapter outlines why it is important to explore in more depth the relationships between environmental hazards, risks, and disasters in society. It presents an introduction to the challenges presented by mainstream approaches to the human side of disaster studies, whereby perspectives on environmental hazards and human development meet policy and practice. This is informed by analyzing the influences of extreme environmental events on society, exposure factors, and the nature of emergent systems of response. In this field, people are considered as vulnerable and resilient to disaster impacts, suffering, or prospering in times of climate change, development, societal instability, and governance scenarios that can be unpredictable and out of control. This is in part balanced by hope in the emergence of new-found awareness and capacity, to be able to live with hazards and risks, cope with disaster, and prosper socially and economically. A challenge presented by hazards, risks, and disasters is to achieve the capacity to both anticipate the unexpected and act on the known. A wealth of well-grounded emergent knowledge and experience exists to facilitate this, some of the most enlightening and innovative of which is revealed in the selection of contributions to this volume.

Compliance with the building byelaws and earthquake safety in urban areas of Bihar: progress, constraints and challenges

ABSTRACT The adoption and enforcement of building codes is considered the most effective tool in safeguarding lives and property against earthquakes. There would appear to be a vital regulatory role for government in the enforcement of building codes, but this is somewhat at odds with the neoliberal agenda of ‘rolling back the state’. This paper explores constraints to the implementation of building codes in the context of changing roles and responsibilities of local authorities in Bihar in India. In-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders across major urban centres in north Bihar. Some factors, such as: code complexity; competition between the public and private sectors for qualified personnel; and low public risk perception were found to be less significant in Bihar than has been noted elsewhere, while other factors such as: the cost of earthquake-resistant measures; political interests; corrupt practices; and lack of government capacity were important. Additional factors were also revealed by the research, some of which are exacerbated by the neoliberal climate of urban governance. While the recent 2014 byelaws represent an improvement in the system and a degree of re-regulation, ambiguities create opportunities for failures arising from ‘normalised irresponsibility’.

Conclusion: Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society

This closing chapter draws together overall emerging points from the volume, having resonance with societal aspects of the wider series of which this is a part. It offers reflection and guidance for an expanding field of study built from the rationale outlined in the Introduction with summative comments influenced by the three chapter sections. It is concluded that dealing with hazards, risks, and disasters in society requires an understanding of cognition and behavior and would require a cultural shift for much of humankind. Although a definitive checklist of actions to be taken is beyond the realms of any one volume, previous learning and the insights that are on the whole empirically presented within this volume indicate processes that are required to progress for the better.