Mitigating Natural Disasters: The Role Of Eco-Ethics

Article

Abstract

Natural disasters are complex phenomena, the causes of which lie to a large extent in human behavior that creates vulnerable communities. In order to reduce vulnerability and thereby mitigate the risk of disasters, it is important to consider underlying values, particularly with respect to how people view and interact with the natural world. Advancing an interdisciplinary, ecological paradigm, this paper argues that disaster mitigation needs to be addressed through a process that results in a greater emphasis on our interactions with and reliance upon the natural world, and the development of community resilience.

Keywords

ecology ethics mitigation natural disaster 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, M.B.: 2000, Vulnerability to Disaster and Sustainable Development: A General Framework for Assessing Vulnerability, in Piekle and Piekle (eds.), Storms, Vol. 1, New York, Routledge, pp. 10–25.Google Scholar
  2. Benoît, R., Simon, F. and Rousselle, J.: 2003, The Effectiveness of Flood Damage Reduction Measures in the Montreal Region, Natural Hazards.Google Scholar
  3. Berkes, F.: 1999, ‘Sacred ecology’, Traditional Knowledge and Resource Management, Philadelphia and London, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B.: 1994, At Risk – Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disaster, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, A.L. and Jacobs, H.M.: 1993, ‘Ties that Bind: Native American Beliefs as a Foundation for Environmental Consciousness’, in S.J. Armstrong and R.G. Botzler (eds.), Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence, New York, McGraw-Hill, pp. 519–526.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D.W., Moin, S.M.A. and Nicolson, M.L.: 1997, ‘A comparison of flooding in Michigan and Ontario: ‘Soft’ data to support ‘soft’ water management approaches’, Canadian Water Resources Journal 22(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
  7. Brunk, C.: 1993, ‘Technological risk and the nuclear safety debate’, Proceedings from a Workshop, Ottawa, Ontario, Institute for Research on Environmental and Economy, October 1–2, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. Burby, R.J.: 2001, ‘Flood insurance and flood plain management: The US experience’, Environmental Hazards 3, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, I., Kates, R. and White, G.: 1993, Environment as Hazard, 2nd edition, New York, The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Callicott, J.B.: 1994, Earth's Insights: A Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Devall, B. and Sessions, G.: 1985, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, Salt Lake City, Peregrine Smith Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dore, M.H.I.: 2003, ‘Forecasting the conditional probabilities of natural disasters in Canada as a guide for disaster preparedness’, Natural Hazards 29(2–3), 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doxiadis, C.A.: 1968, Ekistics: An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Environment Canada: 2003, http://www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/whp/ramsar/df02s06.en.html, accessed July 7, 2003.
  15. Environment Canada: 2002, Science and Environment Bulletin, Issue No. 32, September/October 2002. Also available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/science.
  16. Etkin, D.A.: 1999, ‘Risk transference and related trends: Driving forces towards more mega-disasters’, Environmental Hazards 1, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, O. and Santiago, M.: 1984, ‘Toward a conceptual framework for interdisciplinary disaster research’, in Ekistics 309, 507–510.Google Scholar
  18. Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds.): 2001, Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington, DC, Island Press, pp. 507.Google Scholar
  19. Hardin, G.: 1968, ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, Science 162,1243–1248.Google Scholar
  20. Havlick, S.W.: 1984, ‘The urgency of accelerated application of natural hazards research findings in human Settlements’, Ekistics 308, 398–405.Google Scholar
  21. Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force: 1992, Words that Come Before All Else: Environmental Philosophies of the Haudenosaunee, Haudenosanunee Task Force.Google Scholar
  22. Hewitt, K.: 1997, Regions of Risk – A Geographical Introduction to Disasters, England, Longman, p. 389.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, S.: 1998, ‘Eve and adam among the embers: Gendered patterns after the oakland berkeley firestorm’, in Enarson and Morrow, The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women's Eyes, Florida, Florida International University, pp. 55–62.Google Scholar
  24. Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, L.H.: 2002, ‘Resilience and adaptive cycles’, in L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, pp. 25–62.Google Scholar
  25. IFRC: 2001, World Disasters Report: Focus on Recovery, Bloomfield, CT, Kumarian Press Inc.Google Scholar
  26. IMF: 2003, The IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/prgf.htm, accessed July 10, 2003.
  27. Klein, J.T.: 1990, Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice, Detroit, Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Larson, L. and Plasencia, D.: 2001, ‘No adverse impact: New direction in floodplain management policy’, Natural Hazards Review 2(4), 157–181.Google Scholar
  29. Leman, A.B.: 1980, ‘Human settlements: Framework for disaster assessment’, Housing Science 4(6).Google Scholar
  30. Leopold, A.: 1949, A Sand County Almanac with Other Essays on Conservation from Round River, Reprinted in 1981, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mileti, D.: 1999, Disasters by Design – A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Washington, Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, J.K.: 1999, ‘Natural disasters in the context of mega-cities’, in J.K. Mitchell (ed.), Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disasters in Transition, New York, United Nations University.Google Scholar
  33. Molles, M.C., Jr.: 1999, Ecology: Concepts and Applications, New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration: 2003, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA web site, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/modification.html, accessed Jan 23, 2003.
  35. O'Brien, M.: 2000, Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, in association with the Environmental Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S. and Wever, E.U. (eds.): 2002, ‘The Drama of the Commons’, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, pp. 521.Google Scholar
  37. Stefanovic, I.L.: 2000, Safeguarding Our Common Future: Rethinking Sustainable Development, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stefanovic, I.L.: 2003, ‘The contribution of philosophy to hazards assessment and decision making’, Natural Hazards 28(2–3), 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White, G.: 1999, ‘A conversation with Gilbert F. White’, Environmental Hazards 1, 53–56.Google Scholar
  40. White, G., Kates, R.W. and Burton, I.: 2001, ‘Knowing better and losing even more: The use of knowledge in hazards management’, Environmental Hazards 3, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Worster, D.: 1985, Nature's Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. WMO: 1995, ‘Meeting of experts to review the present status of hail suppression’, World Meteorological Organization, WMP Report No. 26, Golden Gate Highlands National Park, South Africa, WMO/TD No. 764.Google Scholar
  43. World Bank: 2002, Leadership Capacity Building for Post Conflict Reconstruction, http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_leadership_postconflict.htm, accessed July 10, 2003.
  44. Wynne, B.: 1992, ‘Uncertainty and environmental learing: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm’, Global Environmental Change 2(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Applied StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Director, Centre of the EnvironmentUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations