Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard
Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13698570802381162
复制
发表时间：
2008-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Harries
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Harries
本文介绍了定性研究在英格兰的洪水风险地区，这表明，希望感到安全有时可以阻止人们采取行动，将减少实际的物理损害的危险的自然事件。也就是说，它认为，人们有时把吉登斯所谓的本体论安全置于他们的身体安全之上。他们更愿意把自己的家看作是天生安全的地方，拒绝保护他们的想法;他们更愿意把自然看作是一种积极的道德力量，他们犹豫着把它看作是真实的危险的来源;他们更愿意把社会看作是最后的保护者，他们不愿意接受保护自己的需要。作为本体论安全的核心，这种社会表征（"家"、"自然"、"社会"等）通过避免可能挑战他们的感知转变和行为来保护他们。本文讨论了如何以及为什么他们辩护，发生了什么，当他们变得站不住脚，为什么一些户主和户主群体比其他人更愿意采取自我保护行动，如洪水的风险。
This article presents qualitative research in flood risk areas of England that suggests that the desire to feel secure can sometimes deter people from taking actions that would reduce the actual physical damage of a hazardous natural event. That is, it argues that people sometimes put what Giddens calls their ontological security above their physical security. Preferring to think of their homes as places that are innately safe, they reject the idea of defending them; preferring to think of nature as a positive moral force, they hesitate to view it as a source of real danger; and preferring to think of society as a competent protector of last resort, they are reluctant to accept the need to protect themselves. Being central to ontological security, such social representations (of ‘home,’ ‘nature,’ ‘society’ etc.) are defended by avoiding perceptual shifts and behaviours that might challenge them. This paper discusses how and why they are defended, what happens when they become indefensible and why some householders and groups of householders are more willing than others to take self-protective actions against risks such as flooding.