Reflections: Advancing development-based interpretations and interventions in disaster risk: Some conceptual and contextual stumbling blocks
Reflections: Advancing development-based interpretations and interventions in disaster risk: Some conceptual and contextual stumbling blocks
复制标题
反思：推进基于发展的灾害风险解释和干预措施：一些概念和背景障碍
DOI：
10.1080/17477891.2012.698845
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Lavell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Lavell
自从大约25年前加入灾害和灾害风险研究界以来，由于我早期在城市和区域以及一般发展问题方面的专业经验，我和许多其他人一样，相信灾害风险和灾害基本上是，但不完全是，不平衡或倾斜的发展进程的结果（Hagman，1984年; Wijkman和Timberlake，1988年; Blaikie等人，1994年;联合国减灾战略，2011年）。这一原则显然适用于发展中国家，也适用于发达国家的许多灾害情况。这一原则的一个必然结果是，必须在社会、发展和发展规划框架内处理风险和灾害的可管理方面（维斯纳等人，2011年，第51章）。研究、写作和辩论越来越重视发展与灾害风险之间的不平衡关系，这激发并促进了“灾害风险的社会建构”这一中心思想的发展（Lavell，2003年;维斯纳等人，2004年;减灾战略，2009年和2011年）。这就扩大了对所谓的“物理主义”和技术官僚对灾难的解释的批评，休伊特在他1983年的经典著作《技术官僚时代对灾难的解释》（休伊特，1983年，第1章）中令人信服地驳斥了这种解释。它还进一步促进了对风险和灾害的更具批判性的社会解释。这种方法是由Ball（1975）、Baird等人（1975）、O 'Keefe等人（1976）、维斯纳等人等发展研究人员和作者的工作开始的。（1976年，1977年）和戴维斯（1978年），从20世纪70年代早期到后期写作，随后由Cuny（1983年）等作者跟进，Hagman（1984）、Maskrey和Romero（1985）、Maskrey（1989）、Wijkman和Timberlake（1988）、安德森和Woodrow（1989）以及Wilches-Chaux（1989）。1970年代和1980年代开展的出版物和社会科学、以发展为基础的研究数量有限，导致1990年后联合国推动国际减少自然灾害十年（减灾十年）时，对这一专题的思考和写作的闸门打开。减灾十年的灵感主要来自自然科学和应用科学方面，它使许多社会研究人员担心，硬科学和技术官僚的方法将主宰未来。虽然这一关切导致在“北方”已经建立的大学系或学院中增加了社会科学研究和辩论，但在“南方”大陆，研究和研究中心很少，它导致建立了迄今为止分散和数量有限的具有社会动机的研究人员和从业人员的网络，以促进讨论和推进风险的社会建设方法。1992年建立了拉丁美洲防灾社会研究网络，
Since joining the disaster and disaster risk research community some 25 years ago, coloured and tinged by the experience of my earlier specialization in urban and regional, and development problems in general, I, as many others, have been convinced that disaster risk and disaster are essentially, but not exclusively, the result of unbalanced or skewed development processes (Hagman, 1984; Wijkman and Timberlake, 1988; Blaikie et al., 1994; UNISDR, 2011). This is obviously applicable as a tenet in developing countries and also in many cases of disaster in developed countries. A corollary of this tenet is that the manageable aspects of risk and disaster must be dealt with in a social, development and development planning framework (Wisner et al., 2011, Chapter 51). The increased emphasis in research, writing and debate to the skewed development-disaster risk nexus has inspired and paralleled the development of notions that converge in the central idea of the ‘social construction of disaster risk’ (Lavell, 2003; Wisner et al., 2004; UNISDR, 2009 and 2011). This has amplified the critique of the so-called ‘physicalist’ and technocratic interpretations of disaster which Hewitt so convincingly debunked in his classic 1983 writing on ‘Interpretations of Calamity in a Technocratic Age’ (Hewitt, 1983, Chapter 1). It also further promoted a more critical, social interpretation of risk and disaster. Such an approach had been kick started with the work of development researchers and authors such as Ball (1975), Baird et al. (1975), O’Keefe et al. (1976), Wisner et al. (1976, 1977) and Davis (1978), writing from the early to late 1970s, work that was subsequently followed up on by authors such as Cuny (1983), Hagman (1984), Maskrey and Romero (1985), Maskrey (1989), Wijkman and Timberlake (1988), Anderson and Woodrow (1989) and Wilches-Chaux (1989) in the 1980s. The limited number of publications and social science, development-based research undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s led to an opening of the sluice gates of reflection and writing on the topic post 1990, when the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was promoted by the UN. The IDNDR, whose inspiration can be found predominantly in natural and applied science concerns, gave rise to fears among many social researchers that hard science and technocratic approaches would dominate the future. While this concern led to an increase in social science research and debate in already established university departments or faculties in the ‘North’, in ‘Southern’ continents, where little research and fewer research centres existed, it led to the creation of networks of the as yet dispersed and limited number of socially motivated researchers and practitioners, in order to promote discussion and the advance of a social construction of risk approach. The creation of the Latin American Network for the Social Study of Disaster Prevention – LA RED – in 1992, and
灾害与发展
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Collins Andrew E.
通讯作者：
Collins Andrew E.