1 / 21

Using human security concept for analysing impacts of natural disasters

International Conference “World in Change: from Consumption to Sustainability, from Competition to Collaboration, from Hierarchy to Networks, from being Good to Doing Good” Riga, 19 May 2014. Mg.sc.pol. Rihards Bambals PhD student | Department of Political Science | University of Latvia.

grier
Télécharger la présentation

Using human security concept for analysing impacts of natural disasters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Conference “World in Change: from Consumption to Sustainability, from Competition to Collaboration, from Hierarchy to Networks, from being Good to Doing Good” Riga, 19 May 2014 Mg.sc.pol. Rihards Bambals PhD student | Department of Political Science | University of Latvia Using human security concept for analysing impacts of natural disasters Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  2. What is a DISASTER? • “An event concentrated in time and space, in which a society or one of its subdivisions undergoes physical harm and social disruption, such that some essential functions of the society or subdivision are impaired” (Fritz, 1961: 655); • “Events that kill at least 10 or affect at least 100 people” (UNDP, 1994: 29); Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  3. What is a DISASTER? (II) • “(1) disasters are inherently social phenomena, and (2) the source of disasters is rooted in the social structure or social system” (Quarantelli, 2005:339); • “If there are no negative social consequences, there is no disaster” (Quarantelli, 2005:347); • “(Disaster) risk faced by people must be seen as a cross-cutting combination of vulnerability and hazard. Disasters are a result of the interaction between both” (Risk=Hazard x Vulnerability) (Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 2004:49) Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  4. What is a DISASTER? (III) • No one discipline (inter-disciplinary research in both social & natural sciences) • No ultimate definition of disaster • No ‘disaster theory’ • No ultimate research methodology • Common approach – social consequences of disasters more important than physical harm: • Social Sciences research people and societies; • Only social structures can be strengthened to enhance disaster preparedness, mitigation and recovery Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  5. What is Human Security? • People-centric, comprehensive and universal security concept • Development studies & Security Studies • UNDP Human Development Report 1994: • ‘Freedom from want’ & ‘Freedom from fear’ • ‘Safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression’ & ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, jobs or in communities’ (UNDP, 1994:23) • 7 security dimensions: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, political security Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  6. Shortcomings of Human Security (HS): • No commonly accepted definition • Too vague as a concept (more efforts on widening than deepening) • No one particular scientific discipline • Poor efforts to operationalize & measure Human Security (“How much (in)security?”) • The comprehensive nature of HS has been constantly ignored (mostly used ONLY in LDCs) • Only few attempts to use for disaster research Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  7. ‘Perfect marriage’=Disasters+Human security • Outcasts (no discipline) → interdisciplinary research • Common interests → human, society • Unfinished→ room for improvements/new scientific approaches & models • Society’s resilience (HS) is hard to test without external impact (e.g. natural disasters) • Objectives: • Create new analytical tool/approach for disaster research • Deepen Human Security concept, prove its holistic nature and possibilities to apply to any society in the world • Longterm: research which (and why) societies are more resilient to natural disasters than other Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  8. Measuring Human Security Objective HS: • HOWEVER • all suffer from various shortfalls: • Only objective HS is measured; • Too big reliance on data availability; • Only some (not all) of 7 HS dimensions are analysed; • Only LDCs are usually researched Previous attempts: • UNDP Reports (Human Security Unit, 2009); • GeneralizedPoverty Index (King & Murray, 2002); • Human Security Audit (Bajpai, 2000); • GECHS (Lonergan, Gustavson & Carter, 2009); • Human Security Report Index; • Human Security Mapping (Owen, 2004). • Statistics & indexes • Several indicators for each of 7 HS dimensions, compared before & after disaster • Values assigned based on comparisons (0-1) & Subjective HS: • Social surveys & interviews • Socially constructed sense of security; • Precise, quantifiable and inter-comparable results • Fast & representable Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  9. Human Security Analytical Tool 1. UNDP Report 1994: definition of HS & 7 dimensions of HS threats 2. UNDP Latvia Report 2003: Subjective & Objective HS; ‘securitabilities’; personal security strategies; security constellations 3. Comprehensive HS model (Ozolina, 2012): interaction between state & individual, role of intermediaries, area of HS Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  10. Objective HS: Case of Japan after 3/11

  11. Subjective Human Security :Case of Latvia (Ogre, April 2013) • Timeframe of the floods: 15 to 19 April 2013 • People and households affected (officially): 1 deceased and 23 people evacuated, 39 indemnification applications and 120 households affected/damaged • The scale of damages: ~2 000 000 Lats (3 million Euro) • Main providers of security: • State-provided – VUGD, police, emergency medical aid and National Guard (armed forces) • Non-conventional - local religious community, Red Cross, local NGOs, private entrepreneurs, enterprises & individuals

  12. Subjective Human Security :Case of Latvia (Ogre, April 2013) Population size: 28 151 (Ogre town + Ogresgals = affected regions) Initial target: 1% of the population (281). Samples (~50 each) from 6 different districts: 3 (50%) from directly affected (close proximity to the river); 3 (50%) from indirectly affected Surveying time: 4 to 19 May, 2013 (2-4 weeks after the floods) Results: N=270 (0.96% of population; 38.52% men and 61.11% woman), Margin of error = 5.9% (with 95% level of confidence) Questionnaire with 8 questions (all close ended multiple choice): • Self evaluation of HS changes (each of 7 dimensions) after floods; • Evaluation of the assistance provided, • Trust to different security providers, • Intensity of HS threat perception, • Demographics, proximity to the river, filtering question. Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  13. Results: Changes in 7 HS dimensions Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  14. Results: Changes in 7 HS dimensions (ranked) Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  15. Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  16. Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  17. Trust to security providers

  18. Human security threat perception intensity Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  19. Conclusions & way-forward • Human Security has potential to become a new approach for disaster research. It allows: • Identify & measure, which security dimension (and how much) is affected; • Measure changes in public perception of different threats; • Measure society’s trust/confidence to state & non-state security providers. • Disasters & Human Security apply to any country → HS analytical tool is holistic & universal • Disasters ≠ homogenous. They can (and do) affect each of 7 HS dimensions • HS changes after disaster → quality of ‘securitabilities’ before it (knowledge and skills for not losing sense of security, or its fast recovery) • States investing in HS have more resilient societies (Japan) • People around & networking matter more than state provided security constellations (good or dangerous?) Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  20. Conclusions & way-forward (II) Human Security analytical tool could be used in: • Academic – improve knowledge on disasters and Human Security concept; • Policy – better disaster preparedness, risk mitigation and recovery; • Insurances - risk evaluation; • Finances - foreign investment (risk) analysis • Development – medium/long-term state development strategies (Latvian NAP, 2014-2020) • Foreign policy/international relations – smarter development aid programmes (Japan, Canada, Norway) Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

  21. Conclusions & way-forward (II) What I do for my PhD thesis research? • “Changes of Human Security after disasters in Japan, Phillippines, Australia and Poland”; • Comparative analysis of Objective HS = done. Searching options for researching Subjective HS (nation-wide surveying, incl. Japan); • Results will allow to identify, which states are more resilient to disasters, and which factors (and ‘securitabilities’) influence it. Can they be adapted in other states? Formula for sustainable development? Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

More Related