Search

Drawing on a local study on Nepal’s Terai, this paper explores the nature of livelihood exposure to shocks and stresses among rural households in two Village Development Committees in Sunsari District. The primary data are derived from a 117 household survey supplemented by 19 purposefully sampled follow-up interviews. The paper opens with a discussion of the changing nature of exposure in the global South, distinguishing between inherited vulnerability and produced precarity. We then provide background to the research site and the research methods. In the core empirical part of the paper we unravel and distinguish between the livelihood threats and opportunities faced by households in the area and use these to reflect on the nature of ’exposure’, its historical origins and contemporary (re)production. The final part of the paper uses the Nepal case to build a more general argument, proposing that if we are to understand the puzzle of continued livelihood exposure and uncertainty in the context of aggregate economic expansion we need to identify and interrogate the processes that may, at the same time, produce wealth and reduce vulnerability, while also generating precarity.

Quantitative risk assessment and risk management processes are critically examined in the context of their applicability to the statistically infrequent and sometimes unforeseen events that trigger major disasters. While of value when applied at regional or larger scales by governments and insurance companies, these processes do not provide a rational basis for reducing the impacts of major disasters at the local (community) level because in any given locality disaster events occur too infrequently for their future occurrence in a realistic timeframe to be accurately predicted by statistics. Given that regional and national strategies for disaster reduction cannot be effective without effective local disaster reduction measures, this is a significant problem. Instead, we suggest that communities, local government officials, civil society organisations and scientists could usefully form teams to co-develop local hazard event and effects scenarios, around which the teams can then develop realistic long-term plans for building local resilience. These plans may also be of value in reducing the impacts of other disasters, and are likely to have the additional benefits of improving science development, relevance and uptake, and of enhancing communication between scientists and the public.

‘Resilience’ is the catchword of the moment. For many of the mainstream institutions of international development, building resilience is embedded in a wider commitment to market liberalism. Taking three entry points, the sectoral, spatial and socio-governmental, this paper critically explores the connections, interdependencies and tensions between social resilience and the market imperative. The paper argues that ‘liberal resilience’ plays into a growth-development-resilience ‘trap’ wherein economic growth has become a de facto synonym for development and, often, development a synonym for resilience. Drawing on empirical cases from across rural Asia we highlight the incongruities and inconsistencies in this line of logic. The paper suggests that there is a need to critically judge the market mechanism and the complex and sometimes contradictory ways in which the processes that have been set in train by market integration impinge on resilience.

Drawing on research on landslide risk reduction in Nepal and the impacts of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 in southern Thailand, this paper considers how risk, in the context of natural hazards, is produced by processes of social and economic transformation; understood and experienced by vulnerable groups; and framed by governments and experts. In so doing, we propose an agenda for more effective disaster risk management. We open the discussion by exploring the spatiality of risk, vulnerability and opportunity in the two research contexts, in particular, why people live in hazardous places and the processes that explain the intersection of human settlement and livelihoods on the one hand, and risk on the other. The paper then turns to consider the way that “risk”—and the framing and prioritisation of risk(s) by governments, experts and by vulnerable groups themselves—plays a role in setting the disaster risk management agenda. Underpinning this is the hidden question of what evidence is used—and valued—in the identification and delineation of risk. In order to understand disaster vulnerability, we argue that it is necessary to look beyond the immediate “hazardscape” to understand the wider risk context both spatially and structurally. Effective disaster risk management requires not only an appreciation of the different framings and understandings of risk, but a true integration of knowledge and expertise.

Health and social care systems (including the care needs of the population and infrastructures providing health and social care) are likely to be influenced by climate change, in particular by the increasing frequency and severity of weather-related hazards such as floods and heatwaves. Coldwaves will also continue to be challenging in the foreseeable future. Protecting people’s health and wellbeing from the impacts of climate change is especially important for older people, as they are particularly vulnerable to climate-related hazards. In addition, the proportion of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase significantly. This paper addresses these issues through a discussion of our work to map variations across England in future hazards, vulnerability and risk. We explain how this mapping has been used to identify areas of the country where the built infrastructure serving the older age group might be most severely impacted by climate-related events over the next 20–30 years and where planning for adaptation and resilience is most urgently required. Based on a review of research on the links between extreme weather events and their impacts on older people’s health and the care services on which they depend, we developed operational definitions of extreme weather-related hazards likely to place particular pressure on health and social care systems that are essential for older people’s health and wellbeing. We consider ways to relate these to the latest climate projections for the 2030s from the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCP09); river and coastal flooding projections for the 2050s from the 2004 UK Government’s Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project (Environment Agency, 2004); and demographic projections for 2031 produced by the Office for National Statistics, UK. The research highlights the complexity of undertaking future hazard and vulnerability assessments. Key challenges include: how to define future hazards associated with climate change; how to predict and interpret future socio-demographic conditions contributing to vulnerability; and how geographical variability in hazards and vulnerabilities may combine to produce risks at the local level. In contrast to a number of more local studies which have focused on the vulnerability of urban populations to the impact of climate change (particularly heatwaves), the findings highlight the potential vulnerability of older populations in more rural regions (often in coastal areas) to a range of extreme weather-related hazards in both the North and South of England.