Refraining Risk, Hazards, Disasters, and Daily Life: A Report of Research into Local1 Appreciation of Risks and Threats
Refraining Risk, Hazards, Disasters, and Daily Life: A Report of Research into Local1 Appreciation of Risks and Threats
复制标题
抑制风险、危险、灾难和日常生活：当地风险和威胁认识研究报告
DOI：
10.1177/028072700202000303
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Smale
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Buckle;Graham Marsh;S. Smale
本文介绍了一系列研究项目，自 1999 年以来我们一直致力于研究与当代灾害管理相关的一些问题（Marsh、Smale 和 Buckle 1999；Buckle、Marsh 和 Smale 2001a、2001b、2002）。这些研究项目由我们自己的机构和澳大利亚应急管理部支持，其核心是对社区、地方性、风险、危害、脆弱性、复原力和日常生活等概念的审查。3已完成的研究项目的结果可从作者、人类服务部 (DHS) 或澳大利亚应急管理部 (EMA) 处获取。所有文件均可通过电子邮件索取：P.D.Buckle@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk。然而，承认这些概念的中心地位，有两个警告。首先，虽然人们对这些术语的定义达成了一致，但对这些概念的内部结构、机制和动态往往没有很好的理解。例如，人们一致认为社区是灾害管理（DM）的核心概念，但在实践中这是否指社区作为地点、社区作为利益团体或社区作为人口群体（例如性别或年龄）等问题往往并不清楚。其次，这些核心概念之间的联系和相互作用也没有得到很好的理解。社区（无论如何定义）如何定义和处理风险？；风险如何转化为脆弱性（反之亦然）？复原力和脆弱性如何关联或依赖（如果有的话）？在人类服务部的第一个研究项目（Marsh 等人，1999 年）中，我们致力于确定社区中哪些群体特别脆弱。4 在为 EMA 进行的第二个研究项目中，我们与维多利亚州的当地人讨论了机构和社区对灾害、危害、风险和脆弱性的看法和理解。在我们的第三个项目（也是针对 EMA）中，我们向当地机构和市政当局提出了问题，为什么他们经常不使用用于鼓励、支持和指导风险、脆弱性和复原力评估的文件、指南和资源。在我们当前的项目中，也是针对 EMA，我们正在尝试识别和描述在市和地方层面社区能力建设和 DM 能力之间可能存在的任何联系。最后一个项目采用澳大利亚和英国案例研究的比较方法进行管理。
This paper introduces a series of research projects in which we have been engaged examining a number of issues related to contemporary disaster management since 1999 (Marsh, Smale, and Buckle 1999; Buckle, Marsh, and Smale 2001a, 2001b, 2002). These research projects, supported by our own agencies and Emergency Management Australia, have at their core an examination of the concepts of community, localness, risk, hazard, vulnerability, and resilience and everyday life.3 The results of completed research projects are available either from the authors, from the Department of Human Services (DHS) or from Emergency Management Australia (EMA). All documents are available on request by email to P.D.Buckle@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk. However, acknowledging the centrality of these concepts, there are two caveats. First, while there is agreement on how these terms are defined, there is often not a good understanding of the internal structure, mechanisms, and dynamics of these concepts. For example, there is agreement that community is a core disaster management (DM) concept, but whether in practice this refers to issues such as community as locality, community as interest group, or community as demographic group (gender or age, for example) is often not clear. Second, the linkages and interactions between these core concepts are not well understood, either. How do communities (however defined) define and deal with risk?; how does risk translate to vulnerability (or vice versa)?; and, how are resilience and vulnerability linked or dependent (if they are)? In the first research project (Marsh et al. 1999), for the Department of Human Services, we worked to identify which groups in the community were especially vulnerable.4 In our second research project, conducted for EMA, we talked with local people across Victoria about the perception and understanding of disaster, hazard, risk, and vulnerability among agencies and communities. In our third project, also for EMA, we asked the question of local agencies and municipalities, why they frequently did not use the documents, guidelines, and resources used to encourage, support, and direct risk, vulnerability and resilience assessments. In our current project, also for EMA, we are trying to identify and describe any linkages that may exist at municipal and local levels between community capacity building and DM capability. This last project is being managed using a comparative method using case studies in Australia and the United Kingdom.