Kelman - Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology

April 22, 2010 13:11 RPS/AJEDM-Journal S1793924009000194
Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

Vol. 1, No. 2 (2009) 119139
c Research Publishing Services
doi:10.3850/S1793924009000194
Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology
Ilan Kelman
and JC Gaillard
Center for International Climate and Environmental ResearchOslo (CICERO), P.O. Box 1129, Blindern,
Oslo, Norway, N-0318. E-mail: ilan kelman@hotmail.com
University of Grenoble, France and University of the Philippines Diliman, 14 bis, Avenue Marie Reynoard
38100 Grenoble, France. E-mail: jean-christophe.gaillard@ujf-grenoble.fr
This paper examines the role played by disaster-related public anthropology in scientists
serving society by accepting the public service which anthropologists and anthropology can
and should provide. Here, the public service is dealing with disasters and the challenges
and opportunities inherent in that role are examined. An illustrative, not comprehensive,
history of disaster-related work relevant to anthropology and anthropologists is provided
as background. This theory and past work are then applied for migration scenarios involv-
ing environmental phenomena, focusing on volcanism and sea-level rise. To conclude, the
concepts, theory, and practice which have been explored are joined to examine the without
borders concept for anthropology and anthropologists. Four cross-cutting themes of public
service with some overlap but with relative independence are proposed and briey exam-
ined: (i) Rights and responsibilities; (ii) Root causes; (iii) Community-based approaches; and
(iv) Lifelong learning and exchange.
Keywords: Migration; Public anthropology; Sea-level rise; Volcanoes; Vulnerability; With-
out borders; Without frontiers.
1. Anthropology and Anthropologists Serving Society
Anthropology, as the study of humankind and human behavior, necessarily yields
results pertinent to governing humankind. These applications can be as diverse
as designing more effective fraud prevention programs in Korea and determin-
ing willingness to move from inland to coastal areas in Thailand for jobs in the
beach tourist industry. Many scientists, including some anthropologists, disdain
usefulness and applicability for their work. Others not only wish to see their sci-
ence linked to policy and practice, but also actively seek such outcomes and feel a
responsibility to ensure that these outcomes occur.
One such approach is public anthropology, referred to by Ref. 1 as anthro-
pology and anthropologists engaging with those outside of the discipline to forge
a deliberate connection between theory and practice. Ref. 2 provides a rejoinder
to Ref. 1, but Ref. 3 defends Ref. 1s original suggestion. Ref. 3 believes that the
119
120 Ilan Kelman and Jc Gaillard
appeal of the term public anthropology is, in part, due to its vagueness, permit-
ting numerous interpretations and denitions. As such, and to bypass the debate
on the phrases denition and usefulness, this paper does not provide its own def-
inition of public anthropology, instead interpreting the notion in the context of
the specic topic of disaster-related activities.
A disaster is dened as A serious disruption of the functioning of a commu-
nity or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmen-
tal losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope
using its own resources.
4
Disaster-related activities occur before a disaster, such
as analyzing a populations vulnerability to possible loss of life or loss of property;
publishing maps showing expected ood inundation zones or volcanic ash fall-
out areas; training community teams to prepare themselves for disasters; moving
houses out of an avalanche zone; and using proper masonry construction tech-
niques in seismic areas. Disaster-related activities also occur after a disaster, with
examples being rescuing people trapped in collapsed or ooded buildings; provid-
ing aid and resettlement support for displaced people; planning the reconstruction
of a ruined town; properly handling dead bodies, encompassing respect for the
bereaved; and addressing the psychological needs of survivors.
Disaster research encompasses all aspects of disaster-related activities and
involves many disciplines, including computer science, engineering, physical and
human geography, law, medicine, physics, political science, and sociology plus,
of course, anthropology and all its subsets. Anthropologists and anthropology
engage in disaster research through, for instance, risk perception and cultural
responses to those perceptions; designing temporary shelters and settlements
which meet the peoples expressed needs and, potentially, their desires beyond
needs; and understanding the relationships between people and their environ-
ments which cause or alleviate the vulnerable conditions that lead to disasters.
Enfolded in such discussion is the earlier allusion to the responsibility
towards society felt by many scientists, including anthropologists
5,6
and disaster
researchers.
7,8
Whether or not the scientists wish this situation, disaster research
inevitably has direct application to society, often affecting decisions which create,
exacerbate, diminish, or avoid disasters. As well, disparate elds inuence disaster
research and application. A chemist interested in the effects of soluble pollutants
on a mortars properties might not connect their results with the collapse of ma-
sonry houses following ooding. A geologist reconstructing a volcanos eruption
history might not realize that their maps can inuence house prices if a buyer sees
that a property is sited on a volcanic debris ow.
Disaster-related public anthropology accepts the responsibility of scientists to
society and accepts the public service which anthropologists and anthropology can
and should provide, which here is dealing with disasters. This paper examines that
role and the challenges and opportunities inherent in it.
The next section provides an illustrative, not comprehensive, history of
disaster-related work relevant to anthropology and anthropologists. This theory
Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology 121
and past work are then applied for migration scenarios involving environmental
phenomena, focusing on volcanism and sea-level rise. Finally, the concepts, theory,
and practice are joined to examine the without borders concept for anthropology
and anthropologists. Four themes of public service are proposed for disaster-
related public anthropology and public anthropologists.
2. A History of Disaster Anthropology and Disaster Anthropologists
Signicant interest of anthropologists in disasters dates back to at least the 1950s
with several studies focusing on the cultural effects of volcanic eruptions and
typhoons among traditional societies.
912
Around the same time, Wallace
13,14
pro-
vided several studies in the context of the United States. These works allowed him
to become one of the rst anthropologists identied as a disaster researcher. Wal-
lace further suggested the rst anthropological denition of disaster: an event
characterized by a series of time stages and spatial dimensions, each associated
with different activities and roles embedded both in the pre-disaster system and
the conditions imposed by the event itself. In 1957, a special issue of the journal
Human Organization
15
conrmed the contribution of anthropologists to disaster
research.
More recently, several compilations of anthropological work on disasters
have been published, mostly by Oliver-Smith and colleagues.
1618
Furthermore,
several review papers
1921
assessed the contribution of anthropological studies to
disaster knowledge. Ref. 21 also updates the anthropological denition of disas-
ter: Recent perspectives in anthropological research dene a disaster as a pro-
cess/event involving a combination of a potentially destructive agent(s) from the
natural and/or technological environment and a population in a socially and tech-
nologically produced condition of environmental vulnerability.
This section is not a comprehensive update or overview of this literature.
Instead, it provides an interpretation of the historical development of the topic
within the larger framework of risk and disaster research, focused on connecting
the initial anthropological work with the more recent studies.
2.1. The Environment as Hazard
In a 1756 letter addressed to Voltaire, Rousseau
22
was an earlier author invok-
ing humanitys responsibility for disaster. After the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and
tsunami that killed around 100,000 people, Rousseau reacted by questioning the
standard view of disaster as being natural or deic. His letter noted that nature did
not build the houses that collapsed and he suggested that Lisbons high population
density contributed to the death toll. He also asserted that unnecessary casualties
resulted from peoples inappropriate behavior following the initial shaking and
that an earthquake occurring in the wilderness would not be important to society.
However, apart from a few other isolated publications,
23
it was not until the
1940s when the human dimension of disasters began to be widely investigated.
White
24
provided the rst in-depth investigations into the human response to
extreme environmental events by examining oods in the Mississippi River basin.
Whites work inspired social scientists and continues to serve as a strong basis
for much disaster research and practice. Yet despite incorporating human aspects,
it still explicitly accepts the responsibility of nature, and specic environmental
events such as oods, in explaining disaster occurrence.
In line with Whites work, many social scientists, especially in more afuent
countries, focused on peoples perceptions of natural hazards and their behav-
ioral adjustment to the perceived threat. Disaster incidence is explained as mainly
the result of poor risk perception by the victims or of their inadequate behavior
in response to perceived risk. A key book
25
proposed a society-based classica-
tion of adaptations and adjustments to natural hazards, depending on peoples
perceptions and behavior. This classication distinguishes unconscious biological
and cultural adaptations from incidental or purposeful adjustments. It contrasts
traditional societies, with an alleged poor capability of facing natural hazards,
with more afuent and more industrialized societies whose adjustment is stated
as being more effective, albeit still not perfect.
A large set of studies fed the discourse which argues that traditional,
environment-dependent societies are fragile and are unable to cope on their
own with large-scale rapid-onset environmental events such as earthquakes and
cyclones. That literature explains that destruction of the environment due to
extreme environmental events deprives these societies of their main resources and
pushes them to rely on external resources in order to recover. Natural hazards
are therefore viewed as a powerful vector of social and cultural change.
2530
This
approachs proponents can then justify the transfer of experience, knowledge, and
technology from industrialized countries to developing countries due to the
poor capacity of traditional societies to deal with disasters.
This view uses the results of several studies involving anthropological tech-
niques. Examples from volcanoes include research conducted following the 1951
eruption of Mt. Lamington in Papua New Guinea,
9,11,31,32
the 1961 eruption of the
volcano on Tristan de Cunha in the South Atlantic,
3336
the 1968 eruption of the
volcano of Nila in Maluku,
37
and the 1994 eruption of Mt. Rabaul in Papua New
Guinea.
38
2.2. Focusing on Vulnerability
Slightly differing from the previous acculturation viewpoint, some authors
argue that environmental events instead act as catalysts for ongoing, hazard-
independent, cultural changes among traditional societies increasingly pressured
by external forces such as industrialization and globalisation.
21,3941
Transitional
societies going through the early stages of Western-modeled industrialization are
thus often rendered more vulnerable because they lose traditional means of cop-
ing with natural hazards and disasters and often become dependent on the rest of
the world. Moreover, they do not have enough resources to engage in efcient
and sustainable measures for countering disasters. This phenomenon has been
observed among indigenous communities following the eruption of Paricutn vol-
cano in Mexico between 1943 and 1952,
4244
among Guatemalan Mayas after the
1976 earthquake,
4547
among Koniag people in the aftermath of the 1964 Alaskan
earthquake,
48,49
and among Yemeni highlanders following the 1982 earthquake.
50
These studies also indicate the challenges, many coming from anthropologists
in the spirit of public anthropology, which were made to Whites ideas, starting
in the 1970s.
5153
Such critiques dispute the argument that people have a range
of individual choices to adjust to a perceived threat. Drawing on cases from less
afuent countries,
8,54,55
an argument developed was that peoples behavior is con-
strained by social forces, including economic and political considerations, which
are frequently beyond their own control. Political neglect, social marginalization,
injustice, inequity, and difculty in accessing resources compel powerless individ-
uals to live in dangerous areas and to live in dangerous ways without appropriate
countermeasures to reduce vulnerability and thereby to avert disaster.
In embracing scientists responsibility to society, disaster-related public anthro-
pology must address these root causes rather than blaming the environment or
focusing on individuals perceptions/misperceptions and behavior/misbehavior
for disasters. In particular, the term natural disaster is viewed as a misnomer
because a disaster by denition.
4
involves society. Disasters are caused by long-
term decisions, actions, and behavior of society that is, social forces and not
just individuals regarding where people live, how they live, and how they deal
with the environment. Nature frequently provides a normal event which could be
an earthquake, a ood, or a wind storm, but society rather than nature created
the vulnerable conditions leading to the earthquake disaster, the ood disaster, or
the wind storm disaster.
7,8,54,55
The theoretical argument that natural disasters do
not exist must be put into practice to prevent policies from blaming extreme natu-
ral conditions or the affected individuals for causing a disaster, irrespective of the
political expediency of doing that.
Reference 56 takes this argument one step further by referring to unnatural
hazards rather than natural hazards. The reasoning is that some normal environ-
mental events are exacerbated by human activity, thereby making those events
hazardous characteristics a societal, not a natural, product. River engineering fre-
quently deepens and narrows channels, leading to oods with faster velocities
and greater depths than would occur if the extra water were permitted to slowly
spread out over the natural oodplain.
57,58
Site preparation for buildings along
with building design can change ground conditions so that earthquake accelera-
tions are locally augmented or diminished.
59
By understanding the societal pres-
sures and decisions that lead to these practices and by providing sound research
on how those pressures could be altered to reduce vulnerability and to tackle dis-
asters, public anthropologists and public anthropology have strong contributions
to make.
This perspective emphasizes peoples vulnerability, not specically to natures
norms or to natures extremes, but instead to societal pressures that make
them susceptible to adverse consequences from natures norms or from natures
extremes. Clear indicators reect vulnerability
60
in that disaster-affected peo-
ple are frequently disproportionally drawn from marginal social groups such
as women, children, elderly, the indigenous, and people with disabilities. Vul-
nerable people are also often those with limited or precarious livelihoods and
incomes, including those with low wages, informal or illegal jobs, and a lack
of savings. Much vulnerability results from inadequate societal services such as
health services including health insurance; poor building codes and land use plan-
ning including monitoring and enforcement; substandard education services; and
lack of support for social networks. Individual and community vulnerabilities,
and the root causes of these vulnerabilities, lie in peoples daily and local social
contexts.
61,62
Natures behavior thus becomes a highlighter or amplier of daily hardship
and everyday emergencies rather than manifesting as extreme or rare phenom-
ena that cause disasters.
55,63
Vulnerability is the normal, prevailing condition
7
which is often exposed when normal environmental events such as earthquakes
and oods manifest. Recommendations on how to reduce vulnerability, irrespec-
tive of natures behavior, are fundamentally social, incorporating poverty reduc-
tion, diverse and adequate livelihoods, fair access to resources and opportunities
including land, and improved investments in the previously listed social services.
Specic measures for specic contexts should be selected and viewed through
community-based participatory processes
64,65
often drawn on from the anthropo-
logical literature.
Among anthropologists, proponents of this view assert that traditional soci-
eties have abilities to deal with environmental phenomena themselves because
they make slight adjustments without modifying the fundamentals of their social
organisation.
20,66,67
Where a disaster nonetheless results, the root cause is often
identied as outside efforts to implement development or relief measures,
sometimes termed maladaptation, that disrupt local social structures and pro-
cesses, rather than the root cause being the intrinsic inability or inexperience of the
affected societies.
6771
Table 1 provides some examples, with all but one from the
Asia-Pacic region.
All the examples in Table 1 are of single case studies being examined, although
Ref. 7 covers and compares several examples from around the world. Another
example of a comparative study involving the Asia-Pacic region is Ref. 90 which
reports on the ability of communities in Indonesia and Peru to deal with ash
oods. Also of importance in Table 1 is the instances of the continuing publication
by the same author of the same case study across decades. That is a testament to the
Table 1 Examples of Studies Supporting the Public Anthropology Approach for Societies Dealing with
Disasters.
Location Situation References
Bangladesh Communities recurrently affected by oods. 72, 73, 74, 75
Cook Islands Regularly affected by tropical storms and 70
cyclones.
Federated States of Regularly affected by tropical storms and 76
Micronesia: Yap cyclones.
Peru: Yungay The total destruction of their town in 1970 by 77, 78, 79, 80, 81
an earthquake-triggered debris avalanche.
Solomon Islands: Two tropical cyclones and a subsequent famine 12, 67, 82
Tikopia between 1952 and 1953.
Tonga Regular tropical cyclones and the eruption of 7, 83, 84, 85, 86
Niuafoou volcano in 1946.
Vanuatu: Ambrym A volcanic eruption from 1950 to 1951. 87, 88, 89
relevance of this material to public anthropologists today in understanding how to
learn from history in order to continue contributing to dealing with disaster.
An increasing number of anthropologists are applying these lessons including
from the Asia-Pacic region to Western societies affected by contemporary disas-
ters, ensuring that public anthropology continues to address current and ongo-
ing concerns without losing sight of what has been learned before. For example,
lessons from Hurricane Katrina that struck the United States Gulf Coast in 2005,
91
from the Red River Valley Flood of 1997 in the northern United States,
92
and from
the 1999 ash oods in Southern France
93
illustrate similar lessons to the earlier
volcano studies.
Specically, disasters are social constructions which cannot be dissociated from
daily life and from the intrinsic characteristics of the affected society. Those char-
acteristics pertain to cultural values, social fabrics, livelihoods and other economic
activities, and political structures. Anthropology and public anthropology should
play a role in contributing to our understanding of the links between everyday
living and catastrophic events. Much of the more recent discourse examines post-
disaster migration and resettlement in the context of historical and current chal-
lenges.
3. Public Disaster Anthropology and Anthropologists
Addressing Migration
Section 2s historical context for work relevant to disaster-related public anthro-
pology can be applied to ongoing problems. The disaster topic considered here is
migration scenarios involving environmental phenomena, focusing on volcanism
and sea-level rise.
3.1. Focus on Volcanism and Sea-Level Rise
As shown in Section 2, volcanoes have been involved in many migrations, espe-
cially from islands. In many cases, the islanders did not know if or when they
would be able to return to their homes because the volcanic activity covered most
of the island (see also Ref. 94). Often including Niua Foou in Tonga in 1946,
83
Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic in 1961,
95
and Vestmannaeyjar in Iceland in
1973 which was evacuated within hours of the eruption starting
61
the islanders
returned to their island to rebuild and resettle, even against the wishes of their
countrys government.
In addition to the continuing possibility of volcanic eruptions, sea level rise
due to human-induced climate change is expected to have a devastating impact
on islands and other coastal areas. During the 21st century, sea level is reported
96
to be expected to rise at least 0.18 m and perhaps as much as 0.59 m, although
the nal maximum rise by 2100 could exceed this upper bound partly because of
inputs from ice sheet break up in Greenland and Antarctica. In the small likeli-
hood that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses raising global mean sea level by
approximately ve meters,
97
at least ten island countries would have to be com-
pletely evacuated along with signicant portions of megacities including London,
Jakarta, Dhaka, and Sydney. Even without such an extreme scenario, many coun-
tries, such as Vietnam and the Solomon Islands, will lose substantial proportions
of their inhabited land due to sea level rise, requiring population migration inland
or elsewhere.
Migrations and migration planning have started. In July 2004, the international
media publicized the worlds rst so-called climate change refugees from the
island village of Shishmaref, Alaska, although the erosion and storm threats are
exacerbated by, rather than created by, climate change. Then, in December 2005,
the international media again reported the worlds rst so-called climate change
refugees, but this time fromthe Lateu settlement in Vanuatu. The islanders moved
inland due to sea-level rise leading to more frequent ooding. In September 2007,
yet again the media reported the worlds rst so-called climate change refugees
when people from Papua New Guineas Carteret Islands moved as rising sea lev-
els encroached on their villages. Aside from the impossibility of having more than
one rst, these situations demonstrate the start of migration that involves climate
change related factors. Further caution is warranted due to numerous conceptual
and legal difculties with the phrase climate change refugee suggesting that this
phrase should be avoided.
98
Such debates demonstrate the strong role for public anthropologists in con-
tributing to societys disaster-related activities by studying peoples past and
current responses to migration that involves volcanic activity or sea level
changes and then applying that knowledge through public anthropology to
ensure that similar disasters do not recur. This ability to apply past experience in
order to improve the future links directly to the earlier discussion that natural
disasters do not exist. The knowledge exists to avert disaster. Anthropologists
along with others have a duty to society to work towards applying that knowl-
edge, rather than permitting disasters to happen through inaction or through
inappropriate action.
This public anthropology aspect has received numerous labels. One example
is the relief-to-development continuum, articulating that post-disaster assistance
should segue directly into longer-term development processes including disaster-
related activities. Another example is the build back better phrase extensively
applied and critiqued
99
after the 26 December 2004 tsunamis around the
Indian Ocean. Applying these approaches and their critiques contributes to avert-
ing a disaster from manifesting.
3.2. Comparing Volcanism and Sea-Level Rise
In 1995, the volcano on Montserrat, which is a U.K. Overseas Territory in the
Caribbean, started rumbling for the rst time since European settlement of the is-
land. Over the next two years, the volcanic activity destroyed most of the islands
infrastructure and caused more than 2/3 of the islands population of 12,000 to
leave, mainly for Antigua and the U.K.
100102
While many Montserratians saw the
island as their home and wished to create new communities in the parts of the is-
land out of the main danger zone from the volcano, a dissenting Caribbean voice
was heard from Howe:
103
Caribbean peoples have also long been known for their migratory instincts. Sentiment has
habitually been transcended by economic necessity. Montserratians are no exception. I can
only imagine that staying on the island is a tactic to strengthen their bargaining hand for a
full and nal settlement.
The legitimacy or error of this view for the specic case of Montserrat is not the
issue here. Instead, this comment raises the potential for a planned and acceptable
evacuation which is properly funded and which accords proper dignity, opportu-
nity, and choice to the affected people. That approach is in contrast to eeing in the
wake of an event with limited planning and foresight.
The same debate occurs for expected sea level rise. Back to the Asia-Pacic
region, sea-level fall and regional climate changes around the Pacic approxi-
mately seven centuries ago altered the environment and culture of Pacic island
communities.
104106
Many communities disappeared, likely because the inhabi-
tants moved inland or moved to other islands, but they might also have died.
They might or might not have had much warning, which could have led to a
situation of continual response to the environmental changes experienced rather
than taking proactive measures. The contemporary situation is different, with
at least a few decades of warning before most sea-level rise migration would
become essential. Lessons from Pacic islander migration in the past, along with
the more recent cases, assist in understanding the options and challenges brought
by contemporary sea level changes and might help in retaining communities and
cultures despite moves.
107
Anthropological techniques can and should be used to understand the peo-
ples decision-making regarding when they might wish to move or decide not
to move. Should the migration occur within the next few years, before much dam-
age from sea-level rise is expected to be witnessed? Or should decades be used to
plan, moving only when forced by the sea and hoping that an extreme event does
not cause devastation in the meantime? Neither approach is inherently better or
worse than the other. Different individuals, communities, and cultures will have
different preferences. Disaster anthropologists would conduct innovative research
by studying these differences while public disaster anthropologists would work
with communities to ensure that the communitys needs are understood, accepted,
and met.
This public anthropology approach to understanding and implementing af-
fected peoples needs regarding such migration situations will further demonstrate
the need for public anthropology because these situations differ. The contrast be-
tween sea-level rise and a volcanic eruption is poignant, as summarized in Table 2
While an option exists to migrate away from a dormant volcano, in case it
erupts in the future, no necessity exists to leave until the volcano displays activity.
That activity could be precursors such as seismic swarms, ground deformation, or
a change in the emitted gas composition. Planning for different volcanic scenarios
would be prudent, but moving immediately is not essential.
In contrast, migration involving sea-level rise seems almost certain to occur be-
tween 2050 and 2100. That leaves decades to plan and to consider options for sea-
level rise. Volcanoes as in the cases of Niua Foou, Tristan da Cunha, and Vest-
mannaeyjar sometimes demand an evacuation immediately after the volcano
starts erupting or as in the case of Montserrat could be a slower migration
Table 2 Characteristics of Migration involving Volcanism and Sea-level Rise.
Volcanism and migration Sea-level rise and
migration
Necessity of migration in Not essential to migrate until Likely to be essential to
affected locations. volcano shows activity. migrate before 2100.
Lead time Hours to months, potentially years Decades.
on occasion.
Possibility of return The expectation is often yes, The assumption is no.
even where that expectation
is unfounded.
Understanding of Sometimes yes, but volcanic The mechanisms of sea
environmental situation phenomena can sometimes be level rise are well
diverse and uncertain. understood and lower
bounds are reasonably
well established. Upper
bounds are less certain.
over months and years. Even in slow migration cases, the timeframe for migra-
tion involving volcanism tends to be much shorter than for migration involving
sea-level rise.
The possibility of return also presents a major difference. In all volcano cases,
the evacuation was initially assumed to be temporary. Even where long-term reset-
tlement was enacted, as for Tristan da Cunha and Montserrat, few evacuees aban-
doned hope of returning to their island even when the U.K., as the governing state
for both territories, actively discouraged return. The expectation of return, how-
ever, is sometimes unfounded, for instance when lava ows cover land because
lava can be challenging to build on for decades afterwards. Migration involving
sea-level rise is expected to be permanent. The communities affected need to as-
sume that return to their original locations and communities will not be possible,
leading to planning efforts and psychological preparation that are different from
the expectation and actuality of temporary relocation.
Volcanoes also tend to provide more challenges than sea-level rise in under-
standing the environmental situation. Potential knock-on effects from sea-level
rise are poorly understood, including coral reef damage and geomorphological
changes to low-lying islands. But the physical science of sea-level rise itself is rel-
atively well understood and predictable, with reasonably robust calculations for
even low probability scenarios having been completed.
97
In contrast, volcanoes produce a variety of destructive phenomena in various
combinations of gases, liquids, and solids. Examples are pyroclastic ows (scorch-
ing avalanches of dust and gas), lahars (volcanic debris ows), lava (molten rock),
tephra (any airborne rock-related material, from large rocks to tiny ash particles),
and sudden releases of suffocating gases. It is usually possible to differentiate in
advance between explosive and non-explosive volcanoes, but the timing, magni-
tude, intensity, and type of phenomena manifesting in a particular eruption are
subject to large uncertainties. Additionally, the physical modeling of some of the
phenomena to a desirable degree of accuracy and precision, such as pyroclastic
ow formation during a vertical explosive eruption, is beyond the ability of cur-
rent supercomputing power (see Ref. 108, the discussion of which still applies even
in the context of computing advances since then).
Overall, these different migration forms show the challenges in ensuring that
people, families, and communities are resettled and supported with as fewdifcul-
ties for them as feasible rather than making an already disastrous situation even
worse through poor disaster response. Public anthropology can contribute to this
work and hence to society, especially regarding understanding, communicating,
and adhering to the needs of those affected.
In engaging with those outside of the discipline, public anthropology can con-
nect the different sciences contributing to migration-related decisions. Given its
deliberate connection between theory and practice, public anthropology grasps the
opportunity to apply theory to practice for easing migration decisions and actions.
Topics include how identity is linked to place and how to resettle and rebuild,
especially in providing appropriate aid and support beyond the emergency sit-
uation. For these how to approaches, public anthropology necessarily involves
local consultation and participation balanced with wider perspectives. Other sec-
tors and disciplines do not always adopt such a community-based approach. Per-
ceptions of place, and of risk in a place, changes, especially following an event.
That is part of public anthropologys purview.
With respect to case studies of migration involving volcanism and sea-level
rise, the concepts and history of public anthropology for disaster-related activities,
as explored in the rst two sections, have now been put into practice in this section.
What comes next for the challenges and opportunities of disaster-related public
anthropology?
4. Anthropology and Anthropologists Without Borders
4.1. Without Borders (and Without Frontiers)
In 1967, three states in eastern Nigeria declared themselves to be the independent
state of Biafra which led to a war with Nigeria that Biafra lost in 1970. The next
year, a group of French doctors appalled at the suffering they had witnessed
and the humanitarian relief communitys impotence at publicizing it founded
M edecins Sans Fronti` eres (Doctors Without Borders). Unlike many other humani-
tarian groups at the time, the without borders concept meant intervening on the
basis of their own decision, rather than at the invitation of a government or another
group, while publicizing the plight of the populations whom they assisted.
Since then, without borders and without frontiers groups have ourished.
Teachers Without Borders works mainly in less afuent countries to enhance teach-
ing and education especially by working with teacher leaders. Reporters Without
Borders works to protect and improve the safety of journalists, including ghting
censorship and helping jailed journalists. Clowns Without Borders presents com-
edy theatre in refugee camps and conict zones. Few of these groups explicitly
dene their without borders concept, so it varies substantially amongst them.
The without borders/frontiers notion applies directly to anthropology and
anthropologists by encapsulating the meanings of public and serving society
as discussed in section 1. In this context, without borders/frontiers (differences
between borders and frontiers are not discussed here) means willing to work
anywhere under any circumstances with people from all disciplinary and cultural
backgrounds. For this paper, that focuses on implementing disaster-related activi-
ties through serving society.
That statement is idealistic and it is often impractical,
109
with one fundamen-
tal practicality being that passports and visas are necessary to work in many
countries. Yet the concept represents a powerful principle along with exciting
opportunities, to ensure that public anthropologists contribute to solving the
immense challenges faced.
110
Without borders/frontiers ought to be followed as
much as possible meaning when it is pragmatic to do so without causing or
exacerbating other problems. World anthropologies
111
could be one example, but
others articulate cautions.
112
In particular, disciplinary passports and visas are not necessary to work across
topics, yet articial boundaries are frequently created, stiing interdisciplinar-
ism. Without borders/frontiers can be invoked to avoid disciplinary connes
exactly the purpose of coining the term public anthropology.
1
At the very least,
the without borders/frontiers ideal can be promoted and discussed to generate
debate, enthusiasm, and lateral thinking to bring anthropologists and anthropol-
ogy to other elds while bringing other elds to anthropologists and anthropology.
This discussion also reveals a question implied throughout this paper: in
social responsibility, should the focus be on the profession (anthropology), the
professionals (anthropologists), or both? The label chosen inuences the views
and interests of those participating and observing with anthropologists or in the
anthropological process. Considering professionals focuses on only those who
have been formally trained and received an ofcial qualication. Borders and fron-
tiers are automatically constructed by separating people who have the proper doc-
ument, so they can be labelled as anthropologists, from those without a formal
background in the topic. Focusing on the professional and the label as a profes-
sional mark might promote the view of oneself and ones colleagues within the
box of the qualication rather than as individuals and groups with skills, interests,
and experiences for application, improvement, adjustment, and exchange.
In contrast, focusing on the profession accepts that not all anthropology or
anthropology-related tasks are completed by professional or qualied anthropol-
ogists. Whether that situation is supported or disliked, it is the reality. Yet it also
beckons anyone with an interest in the area, whether or not a qualication has been
earned or is desired. Barriers are dismantled leading to a basis for the dialogue and
action which the public label implies in public anthropology.
Another approach to the same idea which focuses on a topic rather than on
a discipline has been termed Affairs, as in Climate Affairs.
113
Affairs refers to
matters or concerns. Affairs does not pigeonhole or separate elds that must in-
teract and cross over to solve problems, such as climate problems. Instead, Affairs
creates opportunities for connection and interaction through a template with six
subdivisions: Science, Impacts, Policy and Law, Politics, Economics, and Ethics
and Equity. Based on that template, Climate Affairs is a book
113
and workshops
whilst Desert Affairs is an environmental education programand an international
research, education, and application centre.
Anyone with interests in climate or deserts irrespective of their training,
professional background, or job nds a forum to interact with others. Mete-
orologists can talk to anthropologists investigating climate-society interactions.
Anthropologists can work with water lawyers to collaborate with farmers tackling
droughts. Water Affairs, El Ni no Affairs, and Island Affairs
114
have also been
developed, all breaking down the borders that have inhibited tackling disaster-
related concerns comprehensively and thoroughly.
4.2. Themes of Public Service
Within these labels and frameworks, how can anthropologists and those interested
in anthropology create and pursue opportunities in which to implement their pub-
lic service and social responsibility? Four cross-cutting themes with some overlap
but with relative independence are proposed here and are briey addressed to
summarize the threads throughout this paper and to suggest areas for focus in
terms of moving forward with disaster-related public anthropology:
(i) Rights and responsibilities.
(ii) Root causes.
(iii) Community-based approaches.
(iv) Lifelong learning and exchange.
The rst theme is the rights and responsibilities of anthropologists in their
work as well as the rights and responsibilities of people being affected by
anthropologists and anthropology. A rights-based approach is becoming promi-
nent in many aspects of disaster-related activities.
115117
That tends to refer to a
conceptual framework or paradigm using international human rights standards
as the basis for disaster-related activities, starting with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
118
Critiques exist of the rights-based approach, with some cul-
tures preferring to consider duties, but for many purposes, codifying rights and
responsibilities ensures that those involved in a certain task begin from the same
basis and have a common grounding which, in theory, directs their interests and
actions.
The second theme is identifying root causes of disaster and addressing those
root causes through anthropology as much as feasible. Root causes
7,8
refer to the
vulnerability conditions existing day-to-day, long before an extreme event strikes
to yield a disaster. Examples are inequity, gender and ethnic discrimination, poor
opportunities for livelihoods, and corrupt and inefcient governance. These condi-
tions are all noted in disaster-relatedanthropological work
18,51,67
as the root causes
which must be tackled to avert the devastation that is termed a disaster.
The argument from the rst and second themes is not that anthropologists
and anthropology should dominate all others and is not that anthropologists
and anthropology should replace other approaches, such as public health, struc-
ture and community design, pedagogy, diplomacy, and entrepreneurship. Instead,
anthropologists have the right, the responsibility, and the skills to contribute
to disaster-related activities by encouraging and participating in a long-term
approach which changes the prevailing conditions that set the stage for a disas-
ter to occur. Those changes should help to avoid disasters.
The third theme is that lessons should be applied from past experiences such
as those in Table 1 in order to learn from affected communities and to ensure that
the communities are involved in identifying and addressing their own disaster-
related concerns. That can be achieved by adopting community-based participa-
tory approaches, as is regularly done in anthropology.
71,78,79
In fact, by denition,
the public anthropology approach involves the community in research and in
applying research results.
As shown by the cases of islanders returning to their volcano-affected island
against the wishes of the authorities, consulting with the community and facili-
tating their own decision-making process can avoid confrontation and can reduce
the likelihood of decisions costing lives and livelihoods. Community-based partic-
ipatory processes are well established in the literature for disaster-related research
and practice,
64,65
so those engaged in public anthropology should ensure that these
approaches are applied.
The fourth theme is lifelong learning and exchange, including informing
anthropologists of the rst three themes throughout their training and career.
Learning, of course, does not stop after school; it continually happens formally and
informally. Any form of public anthropology is an opportunity to learn, to teach,
and to exchange, especially with disaster-related activities being most successful
as an ongoing process with relevance to peoples day-to-day lives.
In learning and exchange, anthropological topics must be placed alongside
wider non-anthropological contexts. That way, anyone boxed in by their training
or profession will need to think beyond their own outlook; that is, across borders.
A balance must be maintained between the expanded role of anthropology and
anthropologists and the reality that this eld and the professionals cannot and
should not do everything. Collaboration is essential across disciplines, across cul-
tures, across locations, and across ideas.
Yet few paradigms are panaceas. Without borders/frontiers is no exception,
because challenges are evident overlapping with the concepts opportunities. A
major challenge in disaster-related activities around the world is the lack of for-
mally trained professionals who understand people and governance and who are
willing to provide that expertise for public service. The last generation has seen a
signicant shift away frompurely structural or technocratic approaches for dealing
with disasters. Nevertheless, the assumption that engineering approaches always
protect and always reduce risk is still prevalent, so that structural or technocratic
approaches are frequently the main, or only, approach selected. Having public
anthropologists with formal qualications who take responsibility, and who accept
accountability, for their advocacy and actions would be a powerful force for seek-
ing a better balance of disaster-related approaches.
Anthropologists have expertise, their training is worthwhile, and their qual-
ications are important. There is no need to hide that. Anthropologists should
be engaged in public anthropology for disaster-related activities with the pride,
but not haughtiness, that their background and service deserves along with the
humility, but not shame, that their background and service generates.
The shift between the professional and the profession can be ephemeral, with
different circumstances highlighting either anthropologists or anthropology or
both. As long as the four themes mentioned above are retained and connected,
and as long as borders and frontiers are deliberately blurred without forgetting
their existence, anthropologists and others will be able to develop opportunities
and to defeat challenges in disaster-related activities through public anthropology.
References
1. R. Borofsky, Public Anthropology. Where To? What Next?, Anthropology News 41(5),
910 (2000).
2. M. Singer, Why I Am Not a Public Anthropologist, Anthropology News 41(6), 67 (2000).
3. R. Borofsky, Public Anthropology: A Personal Perspective, http://www.publican-
thropology.org/Dening/publicanth-07Oct10.htm accessed on 13 May 2008, (2007).
4. UNISDR, Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction, (UNISDR (United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Geneva, 2008).
5. B. Rylko-Bauer, M. Singer and J. van Willigen, Reclaiming Applied Anthropology: Its
Past, Present, and Future, Am. Anthropologist 108(1), 178-190 (2006).
6. R. Sanjek, Going Public: Responsibilities and Strategies in the Aftermath of Ethnogra-
phy, Hum. Org. 63(4), 444456 (2004).
7. J. Lewis, Development in Disaster-prone Places: Studies of Vulnerability (London: Interme-
diate Technology Publications, 1999).
8. B. Wisner, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis, At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulner-
ability and Disasters, 2nd edn. (Routledge, London, 2004). First published as P. Blaikie,
T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner, At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and
Disasters, 2nd edn. (Routledge, London, 1994).
9. C. Belshaw, Social Consequences of the Mount Lamington Eruption, Oceania 21(4),
241253 (1951).
10. R. Firth, Social Change in Tikopia (MacMillan, New York, 1959).
11. F. M. Keesing, The Papuan Orokaiva vs. Mt Lamington: Cultural Shock and its After-
math, Hum. Org. 11(1), 2622 (1952).
12. J. Spillius, Natural Disaster and Political Crisis in a Polynesian Society: An Exploration
of Operational Research, Hum. Rel. 10(1), 327 (1957).
13. A. F. C. Wallace, Tornado in Worcester: An Exploratory Study of Individual and Commu-
nity Behavior in an Extreme Situation (National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 1956).
14. A. F. C. Wallace, Mazeway Disintegration: The Individuals Perception of Socio-
Cultural Disorganization, Hum. Org. 16(2), 2327 (1957).
15. Hum. Org. 16(2) (1957).
16. S. M. Hoffman and A. Oliver-Smith (eds.), Catastrophe & Culture. The Anthropology of
Disaster (School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, 2002).
17. A. Oliver-Smith (ed.), Natural Disasters and Cultural Responses (Department of Anthro-
pology College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 1986).
18. A. Oliver-Smith and S. M. Hoffman (eds.), The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological
Perspective (Routledge, London, 1999).
19. W. I. Torry, Anthropology and Disaster Research, Disasters 3, 4352 (1979a).
20. W. I. Torry, Anthropological Studies in Hazardous Environments: Past Trends and
New Horizons, Current Anthropology 20(3), 517540 (1979b).
21. Oliver-Smith, A., Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters, Annual Review
of Anthropology 25, 303328 (1996).
22. J.-J. Rousseau, Rousseau ` a Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (Lettre 424, le 18 ao ut
1756), in R. A. Leigh (ed.), Correspondance compl` ete de Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tome IV
1756-1757, (Institut et muse Voltaire, Les D elices, Geneva, 1967), pp. 3750.
23. S. H. Prince, Catastrophe and Social Change (PhD dissertation, Columbia University,
New York, 1920).
24. G. F. White, Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Prob-
lem in the United-States (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1942) republished as
Research Paper No. 29 (Department of Geography - University of Chicago, Chicago,
1945).
25. I. Burton with R. W. Kates and G. F. White, The Environment as Hazard (Oxford Univer-
sity Press/The Guilford Press, New York, 1978 and 1993).
26. I. Burton, Culture and Personality Variables in the Perception of Natural Hazards,
in Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications, J. F. Wohlwill and
D. H. Carson (ed.), (American Psychological Association Inc., Washington, 1972),
pp. 184195.
27. R. R. Dynes, The Comparative Study of Disaster: A Social Organizational Approach,
Mass Emergencies 1(1), 2132 (1976).
28. R. W. Kates, Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Mod-
els, Economic Geography 47(3), 438451 (1971).
29. R. W. Kates, D. J. Amaral, J. E. Haas, R. A. Olson, R. Ramos and R. Olson, Human
Impact of the Managua Earthquake, Science 182(4116), 981990 (1973).
30. D. S. Mileti with T. E. Drabek and J. E. Haas, Human Systems in Extreme Environments:
A Sociological Perspective, (Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado,
Boulder, 1975).
31. I. Ingleby, Mt Lamington Fifteen Years After, Australian Territories 6, 2834 (1966).
32. E. G. Schwimmer, What did the Eruption Mean?, in Exiles and Migrants in Oceania,
M. D. Leiber (Ed.) (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1977), pp. 296341.
33. J. P. Blair, Return to Lonely Tristan da Cunha, Nat. Geog. 125(1), 6081 (1964).
34. H. E. Lewis, with D. F. Roberts and A. W. F. Edwards, Biological Problems, and Oppor-
tunities, of Isolation among the Islanders of Tristan da Cunha, in Population and social
change, D. V. Glass and R. Revelle (ed.) (Edward Arnold, London, 1972), 383417.
35. P. A. Munch, Culture and Superculture in a Displaced Community: Tristan da Cunha,
Ethnology 3(4), 369376 (1964).
36. P. A. Munch, Economic Development and Conicting Values: A Social Experiment in
Tristan da Cunha, Am. Anthropologist 72(6), 13001318 (1970).
37. S. Panell, Did the Earth Move for You? The Social Seismology of a Natural Disaster in
Maluku, Eastern Indonesia, Aus. J. of Anthropology 10(2), 129143 (1999).
38. C. G. To Waninara, The 1994 Rabaul Volcanic Eruption: Human Sector Impacts on the
Tolai Displaced Communities, (Melanesian Research Institute, Goroka, 2000).
39. F. L. Bates and W. G. Peacock, Disaster and Social Change, in Sociology of Disasters:
Contribution of Sociology to Disaster Research, R. R. Dynes, B. de Marchi, and C. Pelanda
(eds.), (Franco Angeli Libri, Milan, 1987), pp. 291330.
40. R. J. Blong, Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook on the Effects of Eruptions (Academic Press,
Sydney, 1984).
41. J. Mercer, D. Dominey-Howes, I. Kelman and K. Lloyd, The Potential for Combin-
ing Indigenous and Western Knowledge in Reducing Vulnerability to Environmental
Hazards in Small Island Developing States, Environmental Hazards 7, 245256 (2007).
42. J. D. Rees, Paricutin Revisited: A Review of Mans Attempts to Adapt to Ecological
Changes Resulting from Volcanic Catastrophe, Geoforum 4, 725 (1970).
43. M. L. Nolan, Impact of Parcutin on Five Communities, in Volcanic Activity and Hu-
man Ecology, P. D. Sheets and D. K. Grayson (Ed.) (Academic Press, New York, 1979),
293335.
44. M. L. Nolan and S. Nolan, Human Communities and their Responses, in Parcutin: The
Volcano Born in a Mexican Corneld, J. F. Luhr and T. Simkin (Ed.), (Geoscience Press,
Phoenix, 1993), pp. 189214.
45. F. L. Bates, Recovery, Change and Development: A Longitudinal Study of the 1976
Guatemalan Earthquake (University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1982).
46. F. C. Cuny, Disasters and Development, (Oxfam / Oxford University Press, New York,
1983).
47. G. A. Hoover and F. L. Bates, The Impact of a Natural Disaster on the Division of
Labor in Twelve Guatemalan Communities: A Study of Social Change in a Developing
Country, Int. J. Mass Emergencies and Disasters 3(3), 726 (1985).
48. N. Y. Davis, The Effects of the 1964 Alaska Earthquake, Tsunami, and Resettlement
on Two Koniag Eskimo Villages (PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle,
1971).
49. N. Y. Davis, Earthquake, Tsunami, Resettlement and Survival in Two North Pacic
Alaskan Native Villages, in Natural Disasters and Cultural Responses, A. Oliver-Smith
(ed.) (Department of Anthropology College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
1986), pp. 123154.
50. J. Leslie, Think Before You Build, Experiences After the Yemen Earthquake, Open House
International 12(3), 4349 (1987).
51. J. Copans (ed.), S echeresses et Famines du Sahel (Francois Maspero, Paris, 1975).
52. W. I. Torry, Hazards, Hazes and Holes: A Critique of The Environment as Hazard and
General Reections on Disaster Research, Canadian Geographer 23(4), 368383 (1979c).
53. E. Waddell, The Hazards of Scientism: A Review Article, Human Ecology 5(1), 6976
(1977).
54. P. OKeefe, K. Westgate and B. Wisner, Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters,
Nature 260, 566567 (1976).
55. K. Hewitt (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology (Allen &
Unwin, London, 1983).
56. K. Hewitt, Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters (Addison Wesley
Longman, Essex, 1997).
57. R. E. Criss and E.L. Shock, Flood Enhancement Through Flood Control, Geology 29(10),
875878 (2001).
58. G. A. Tobin, The Levee Love Affair: A Stormy Relationship, Water Resources Bulletin 31
(3), 359367 (1995).
59. NEES, Preventing Earthquake Disasters: The Grand Challenge in Earthquake Engineering:
A Research Agenda for the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
(National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003).
60. T. Cannon, Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of Natural Disasters, in Dis-
asters, Development and Environment, A. Varley (ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
1994), pp. 1330.
61. D. K. Chester, Volcanoes and Society (Edward Arnold, London, 1993).
62. B. Wisner, Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power, and Daily Life, Geojournal 30(2),
127140 (1993).
63. A. Maskrey, Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach (Oxfam, Oxford, 1989).
64. M. B. Anderson and P. J. Woodrow, Rising fromthe Ashes: Development Strategies in Times
of Disasters (Westview Press, Boulder, 1989).
65. G. Bankoff with G. Frerks and T. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development and People (Earthscan, London, 2004).
66. G. Sjoberg, Disasters and Social Change, in Man and Society in Disaster, G. W. Baker
and D. W. Chapman (Ed.) (Basic Books, New York, 1962), pp. 356384.
67. W. I. Torry, Natural Disasters, Social Structure and Change in Traditional Societies,
J. Asian and African Studies 13(3-4), 167183 (1978).
68. E. Waddell, How the Enga Cope with Frost: Responses to Climatic Perturbations in
the Central Highlands of New Guinea, Human Ecology 3, 249273 (1975).
69. E. Waddell, Coping with Frosts, Governments and Disaster Experts: Some Reections
Based on a New Guinean Experience and a Perusal of the Relevant Literature, in
Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, K. Hewitt (ed.) (Allen
& Unwin, London, 1983), pp. 3343.
70. K. M. Cijffers, Disaster Relief: Doing Things Badly, Pacic Viewpoint 28 (2), 95117,
(1987).
71. L. Ali, Symbolic Planning and Disaster Preparedness in Developing Countries: The
Presbyterian Church in Vanuatu, Int. J. Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10(2), 293314
(1992).
72. M. Q. Zaman, The Social and Political Context of Adjustment to Riverbank Erosion
Hazard and Population Resettlement in Bangladesh, Hum. Org. 48(3), 196205 (1989).
73. M. Q. Zaman, Ethnography of Disasters: Making Sense of Flood and Erosion in
Bangladesh, The Eastern Anthropologist 47(2), 129155 (1994).
74. M. Q. Zaman, Vulnerability, Disaster, and Survival in Bangladesh: Three Case Stud-
ies, in The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, A. Oliver-Smith and
S. M. Hoffman (Eds.) (Routledge, London, 1999), pp. 192212.
75. C. E. Haque and M. Q. Zaman, Vulnerability and Responses to Riverine Hazards in
Bangladesh: A Critique of Flood Control and Mitigation Approaches, in Disasters,
Development and Environment, A. Varley (Ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1994),
pp. 6579.
76. D. Schneider, Typhoon on Yap, Hum. Org. 16(2), 1015 (1957).
77. A. Oliver-Smith, Traditional Agriculture, Central Places, and Post-Disaster Urban
Relocation in Peru, Am. Ethnologist 4, 102116 (1977).
78. A. Oliver-Smith, Post Disaster Consensus and Conict in a Traditional Society: The
1970 Avalanche of Yungay, Peru, Mass Emergencies 4, 4345 (1979a).
79. A. Oliver-Smith, Disaster Rehabilitation and Social Change in Yungay, Peru, Hum. Org.
36(1), 513 (1979b).
80. A. Oliver-Smith, The Yungay Avalanche of 1970: Anthropological Perspective on Dis-
aster and Social Change, Disasters 3(1), 95101 (1979c).
81. A. Oliver-Smith, The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes (Waveland Press,
Prospect Park, 1986 and 1992).
82. C. Boehm, Emergency Decisions, Cultural-Selection Mechanics, and Group Selection,
Current Anthropology 37(5), 763793 (1996).
83. J. Lewis, Volcano in Tonga, J. Administration Overseas XVIII (2), 116121 (1979).
84. J. Lewis, Some Perspectives on Natural Disaster Vulnerability in Tonga, Pacic View-
point 22 (2), 145162 (1981).
85. J. Hurrell, Mitigation through Rehabilitation, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Disaster Mitigation
Program Implementation (Vol. 2), Ocho Rios, 12-16 November 1984 (Center for Interna-
tional Development Planning and Building, College of Architecture and Urban Stud-
ies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, 1984), pp. 198211.
86. G. Rogers, The Evacuation of Niuafoou, An Outlier in the Kingdom of Tonga, The
Journal of Pacic History 16(3), 149163 (1981).
87. R. Tonkinson, Maat Village, Efate: A Relocated Community in the New Hebrides, (Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1968).
88. R. Tonkinson, The Exploitation of Ambiguity: A New Hebrides Case, in Exiles and
Migrants in Oceania, M. D. Leiber (Ed.) (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1977),
pp. 269295.
89. R. Tonkinson, Forever Ambrymese? Identity in a Relocated Community, Vanuatu,
Pacic Viewpoint 26(1), 269295 (1985).
90. C. J. Holland and P. W. VanArsdale, Responses to Disasters: A Comparative Study of
Indigenous Coping Mechanisms in Two Marginal Third World Communities, Int. J.
Mass Emergencies and Disasters 4(3), 5170 (1986).
91. A. Oliver-Smith, Disasters and Forced Migration in the 21st Century
http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith accessed on 5 June 2008, (2006).
92. L. Jencson, Disastrous Rites: Liminality and Communitas in a Flood Crisis, Anthropol-
ogy and Humanism 26(1), 4658 (2001).
93. J. Langumier, Survivre ` a la Catastrophe: Paroles et R ecits dun Territoire Inond e
Contribution ` a une Ethnologie de lEv enement ` a Partir de la Crue de lAude de 1999
(PhD dissertation,

Ecole des Hautes

Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 2006).
94. J.-C. Gaillard, Resilience of Traditional Societies in Facing Natural Hazards, Disaster
Prevention and Management 16(4), 522544 (2007).
95. J. Z. de Boer, and D.T. Sanders, Volcanoes in Human History (Princeton University Press:
Princeton, 2002).
96. IPCC, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), Geneva, 2007).
97. D. G. Vaughan and J. R. Spouge, Risk Estimation of Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice
Sheet, Climatic Change 52, 6591 (2002).
98. NRC, Future oods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conict and forced migration
(NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council), Oslo, 2008).
99. J. Kennedy, J. Ashmore, E. Babister, I. and Kelman, The Meaning of Build Back Bet-
ter: Evidence from Post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka, J. Contingencies and Crisis Man-
agement 16(1), 2436 (2008).
100. E. Clay, An Evaluation of HMGs Response to the Montserrat Volcanic Emergency, DFID
Evaluation Report EV635 (Department for International Development, London, 1999).
101. P. Davison, Volcano in Paradise (Methuen, London, 2003).
102. P. Pattullo, Fire from the Mountain: The Tragedy of Montserrat and the Betrayal of its People,
(Constable and Robinson, London, 2000).
103. D. Howe, Perhaps Clare Short was right about golden elephants, New Statesman, 26
(September) 34, 1997.
104. P. D. Nunn, Environmental Catastrophe in the Pacic Islands AroundA.D. 1300, Geoar-
chaeology 15(7), 715740 (2000).
105. P. D. Nunn and J. M. R. Britton, Human-Environment Relationships in the Pacic
Islands around AD 1300, Environment and History 7, 322 (2001).
106. P. D. Nunn, R. Hunter-Anderson, M. T. Carson, F. Thomas, S. Ulm and M. J. Rowland,
Times of Plenty, Times of Less: Last-Millennium Societal Disruption in the Pacic
Basin, Human Ecology 35, 385401 (2007).
107. I. Kelman, Island Security and Disaster Diplomacy in the Context of Climate Change,
Les Cahiers de la S ecurit e 63, 6194 (2006).
108. A. Neri, A. Di Muro and M. Rosi, Mass partition during collapsing and transitional
columns by using numerical simulations, J. Volcanology and Geothermal Research 115,
118 (2002).
109. N. Scheper-Hughes, The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropol-
ogy, Current Anthropology 36(3), 409440 (1995).
110. R. A. Hackenberg, Advancing Applied Anthropology: Toward Anthropology With-
out Borders: Working in the Brave New Postnational World, Hum. Org. 59(4), 465470
(2000).
111. E. Restrepo and A. Escobar, Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise:
Steps to a World Anthropologies Framework, Critique of Anthropology 25(2), 99129
(2005).
112. Responses to Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise: Steps to a World
Anthropologies Framework by Eduardo Restrepo and Arturo Escobar (June, 2005),
Critique of Anthropology 26(4), 463488 (2006).
113. M. H. Glantz, Climate Affairs: A Primer (Island Press, Covelo, California, 2003).
114. Island Affairs http://www.islandvulnerability.org/affairs.html accessed 26 March
2009, (2009).
115. T. Corsellis and A. Vitale, Transitional Settlement: Displaced Populations (Oxfam, Oxford,
2005).
116. G. Kent, The human right to disaster mitigation and relief, Environmental Hazards 3,
137138 (2001).
117. Radix: Radical Interpretations of Disasters and Radical Solutions http:
//www.radixonline.org accessed on 13 February 2009, (2009).
118. UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UN (United Nations), New York, 1948).
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.

Kelman - Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kelman - Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

April 22, 2010 13:11 RPS/AJEDM-Journal S1793924009000194

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen