Search

This paper outlines why a move towards a complex adaptive systems model of behaviour is required if the goal is to generate better understanding of how individuals and groups interact with their environment in a disaster setting. To accomplish this objective, a bridge must be built between the broader social sciences and behavioural economics to incorporate discipline‐specific insights that are needed to move towards complexity. This is only possible through a deeper understanding of behaviour and how the environment in which they occur can influence actions. It is then that one can counteract the poor behavioural predictions, flawed policies based on myth, inefficient design, and suboptimal outcomes that have flourished in the absence of a complex adaptive systems model. This paper provides a conceptual framework that draws on concepts from across the natural and social sciences, such as behavioural economics, endocrinology, psychology, sociobiology, and sociology in order to build an interactive theory of disaster behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The city is a growing centre of humanitarian concern. Yet, aid agencies, governments and donors are only beginning to comprehend the scale and, importantly, the complexity of the humanitarian challenge in urban areas. Using the case study of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, this paper examines the analytical utility of recent research on complex urban systems in strengthening scholarly understanding of urban disaster risk management, and outlines its operational relevance to disaster preparedness. Drawing on a literature review and 26 interviews with actors from across the Government of Nepal, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, non-governmental organisations, United Nations agencies, and at-risk communities, the study argues that complexity can be seen as a defining feature of urban systems and the risks that confront them. To manage risk in these systems effectively, preparedness efforts must be based on adaptive and agile approaches, incorporating the use of network analysis, partnerships, and new technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The atomised nature of the humanitarian system has led to frequent and repeated attempts to coordinate humanitarian activity. Since 2005, some of the best resourced, and arguably most successful, coordination mechanisms have been the humanitarian Clusters, groups of UN (United Nations) and non‐UN actors that engage in sectoral coordination of humanitarian response (such as the provision of healthcare and water) at the global and country level. Nevertheless, it is not clear exactly what ‘coordination’ means in the context of a Cluster. Formal guidance suggests that they should be aiming to create a single, joint strategy to guide the activities of members. Actual experience of the Clusters, however, indicates that looser forms of coordination are more effective. This finding resonates with organisational theory, and with the experience of emergency management professionals beyond the international humanitarian sector. To capitalise fully on the success of the Clusters, policymakers may need to rethink their attitudes to, and expectations of, coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]