Natural Hazards

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 3–14 | Cite as

Environmental disasters in social context: toward a preventive and precautionary approach

Original Paper


The paper examines relations between natural hazards and social conditions in disaster, and problems of their integration in disaster management. This must be done against a background of ever-increasing numbers of disasters. The initiating roles and impacts of environmental hazards are acknowledged. However, expanding losses are not explained by increased geophysical risks. To the extent that scientific knowledge or engineering and planning skills are involved, the problems seem more one of (in)effective deployment than major deficiencies. Social analyses suggest the scope of today’s disasters follows primarily from greater concentrations of vulnerable people, exposed in dangerous situations, and lacking adequate protections. Firstly, the question of disaster causality is revisited as a problem of damage diagnostics. A basis is developed from the findings of formal disaster inquiries. Despite their limitations, well-conducted inquiries offer unusually comprehensive anatomies of the social and physical conditions of disasters. They demonstrate and trace out the interplay of environmental, societal, technological, and institutional components of emergencies. In the examples described, environmental hazards are investigated in great detail. Nevertheless, societal preconditions are shown to be more critical. Inadequacies in emergency preparedness, performance, and post-disaster response are highlighted, and for those most at risk. The conclusions present major challenges for the agent-specific view of disasters, and for disaster management preoccupied with natural forces, uncertainty, and emergency responses. Rather, a view of disaster causality emerges emphasizing avoidable failures of preventive, protective, and intervention measures. Evidence is cited to show this is increasingly relevant in so-called natural disasters lacking such inquiries. The discussion considers the relevance of a preventive and precautionary approach in this context. The histories of accident, disease, fire, and crime prevention support arguments for greater attention to context-specific environmental and societal aspects of risk. Aligning disaster management more closely with preventive priorities depends upon a much greater focus on people, places, and livelihoods most at risk, reversing the social processes that put them at risk. It requires listening to their voices and concerns, recognizing and bolstering their resilience. Much more can and should be done to disseminate the protections, from building regulations to insurance, that actually do save so many others in the disasters that happen. As such, the case for greater attention to issues of governance and social justice is strengthened.


Disasters Vulnerability Social context Environmental risk 


  1. Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hihorst D (eds) (2003) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London, p 10Google Scholar
  3. Beck U (1999) World risk society. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohle HG (ed) (1993) World’s of pain and hunger: geographical perspectives on disaster vulnerability and food security. Freiburg studies in development geography. Verlag Breitenbach, SaarbruckenGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho JPB (2007) The state, the community, and natural calamities in Rural Mozambique. In: de Santos BS (ed) Another knowledge is possible: beyond northern epistemologies. Verso, London, pp 219–243Google Scholar
  7. Davis I (ed) (1981) Disasters and the small dwelling. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Delica ZG (1998) Balancing vulnerability and capacity: women and children in the Philippines. In: Enarson and Morrow (eds) (1993) ch. 9. Praeger, Westport, pp 109–113Google Scholar
  9. EM-DAT (2012) The International Data Base of OFDA/CRED, Universite Catolique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium,
  10. Enarson E, Morrow BH (1998) The gendered terrain of disaster: through women’s eyes. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  11. Erikson KT (1976) Everything in its path: destruction of community in the Buffalo creek flood. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Etkin D (1999) Risk transference and related trends: driving forces towards more mega-disasters. Environ Hazards I:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans RJ (1987) Death in Hoamburg: society and politics in the cholera years, 1830–1910. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez MA (ed) (1999) Cities at risk: environmental degradation, urban risks and disaster in Latin America. LA RED, The Network for social studies on disaster, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert C (1998) Studying disasters: changes in the main conceptual tools. In: Quarantelli E (ed) Praeger, Westport, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  16. Green J (1997) Risk and misfortune: the social construction of accidents. University College of London Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Haque EC (ed) (2005) Mitigation of natural hazards and disasters: international perspectives. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartley HJ (2001) Exploring sport and leisure disasters: a socio-legal perspective. Cavendish, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hewitt K (ed) (1983) Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt K (1997) Regions of risk: hazards, vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewitt K (2007) Preventable disasters: addressing social vulnerability, Institutional risk and civil ethics. Geographische Rundschau, International Edition, 3/1:43–52Google Scholar
  22. IFRCRCS (2004) World disasters report: focus on community resilience. International federation of red cross and red crescent societies, GenevGoogle Scholar
  23. IRDR/ICSU (2011) The forin project: forensic investigations of disasters, integrated research on disaster risk. International Council for Science, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavell A (ed) (1994) Viviendo en Riesgo: Comunidades Vulnerables y Prevencion de Desastres en America Latina. LA RED/FLACSO, BogotaGoogle Scholar
  25. Maskrey A (1989) Disaster mitigation; a community based approach. Oxfam, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. McClean I, Johnes M (2000) Aberfan: disasters and government. Welsh Academic Press, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  27. Middleton N, O’Keefe P (1998) Disaster and development: the politics of humanitarian aid. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Mileti GS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Josepg Henry, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Connor DR (2002) Part one: a summary report of the walkerton inquiry: the events of May 2000 and related issues. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General Queen’s Printer for Ontario, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliver-Smith AS (1986) The Martyred city: death and rebirth in the Andes, 2nd edn. Waveland Press, Prospect HeightsGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver-Smith AS, Hoffman SM (eds) (2001) The angry earth. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. OPHA (2003) Health in cities: the role for public health. Ontario Public Health Association, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  33. Ozerdem A, Jacoby T (2006) Disaster management and civil society: earthquake relief in Japan, Turkey and India. I.B.Tuaris, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Pelling M (2003a) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Pelling M (ed) (2003) Natural disasters and development in a globalizing world. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Quarantelli EL (ed) (1998) What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Sen A (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Steinberg T (2000) Acts of god: the unnatural history of natural disaster in America. New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner BA (1978) Man-made disasters. Wykeham Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. UN/ISDR (2002) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. International strategy for disaster reduction, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  42. UNDP (2004) A global report: reducing disaster risk; a challenge for development. United Nations Development Programme, Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Management, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Watts MJ (1983) Silent violence: food, famine, and peasantry in northern Nigeria. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. White GF (1969) Choice of adjustments to floods, Department of Geography Research paper No. 93, University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Wijkman A, Timberlake L (1984) Natural disasters: acts of god or acts of man?. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. World Bank (2001) Gujarat earthquake recovery program: assessment report. Joint World Bank and Asian Development Bank, March 14Google Scholar
  47. Yonder A (2005) Women’s participation in disaster relief and recovery. SEEDS Number 22, The Population Council, Inc. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations