Valérie November

Being close to risk. From Proximity to connexity

The relationship between urban spaces, associated risk, and the notion of proximity has until now been subject to very little critical examination. It is, however, crucial to conduct a discussion on the subject, especially in view of the latest disasters that have made the headlines (notably in New York and Toulouse in September 2001, in Madrid in March 2004). On the one hand, it is widely understood that the consequences of risk tend to be more severe in urban environments; on the other, the categorisation of different risks (industrial, social, environmental risks, etc.) within a space reinforces the probability of all kinds of disaster occurring. This line of reasoning will be questioned through a case study. By observing the practices amongst the different parties involved in identifying and managing the risk of fire in Geneva (Switzerland), we will propose the notion of connexity as a complement to that of proximity, as it is more closely related to the practices in action in this field.

Explaining Rapid Transitions in the Practice of Flood Risk Management

This article draws on empirical material to reflect on what drives rapid change in flood risk management practice, reflecting wider interest in the way that scientific practices make risk landscapes and a specific focus on extreme events as drivers of rapid change. Such events are commonly referred to as a form of creative destruction, ones that reveal both the composition of socioenvironmental assemblages and provide a creative opportunity to remake those assemblages in alternate ways, therefore rapidly changing policy and practice. Drawing on wider thinking in complexity theory, we argue that what happens between events might be as, if not more, important than the events themselves. We use two empirical examples concerned with flood risk management practice: a rapid shift in the dominant technologies used to map flood risk in the United Kingdom and an experimental approach to public participation tested in two different locations, with dramatically different consequences. Both show that the state of the socioenvironmental assemblage in which the events take place matters as much as the magnitude of the events themselves. The periods between rapid changes are not simply periods of discursive consolidation but involve the ongoing mutation of such assemblages, which could either sensitize or desensitize them to rapid change. Understanding these intervening periods matters as much as the events themselves. If events matter, it is because of the ways in which they might bring into sharp focus the coding or framing of a socioenvironmental assemblage in policy or scientific practice irrespective of whether or not those events evolve the assemblage in subtle or more radical ways.