Advertisement

The Role of Landscape Experience in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Is It a Strategy for Democratizing Resilience?

  • Sara Bonati
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Hazards book series (ENHA)

Abstract

According to Beck’s “risk society” theory, local and global dynamics are interconnected, each contributing to frame new social, environmental and political risks in future scenarios. In this context, actors on the local scale have an active role in the production of changes and they are also extremely sensitive to the consequences of global phenomena (Wilbanks and Kates, Clim Change 43(3):601–628, 1999). Thus, as Wilbanks and Kates state (Clim Change 43(3):601–628, 1999), the study of global dynamics would present relevant benefits from giving more emphasis to the bottom-up perspectives and to the scale analysis. A bottom-up approach of place interpretation is here presented as a potential inclusive and democratizing approach. In particular, this chapter argues for a democratization of resilience policies, adopting landscape experience.

Keywords

Landscape Resilience Institutions Governance 

References

  1. Aalst van, M. K., Cannon, T., & Burton, I. (2006). Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change, 18, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agyeman, J., & Evans, B. (2004). ‘Just sustainability’: The emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. B., & Woodrow, P. J. (1989). Rising from the ashes: Development strategies in times of disaster (2nd ed.). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1999. London: IT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Antrop, M. (2000). Geography and landscape science, Belgian Journal of Geography. Belgeo special issue. 29th International Geographical Congress (1/4), pp. 9–35.Google Scholar
  6. Antrop, M. (2005). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
  7. Ara Begum, R., Kabir Sarkar, S., Hamid Jaafar, A., & Pereira, J. J. (2014). Toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk (p. 269). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Birkmann, et al. (2015). Scenarios for vulnerability: Opportunities and constraints in the context of climate change and disaster risk. Climatic Change, 133, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonati, S. (2014). “Resilientscapes: perception and resilience to reduce vulnerability in the island of Madeira”, Procedia Economics and Finance. In D. Amaratunga & R. Haigh (Eds.), 4th international conference on building resilience, incorporating the 3rd annual conference of the ANDROID disaster resilience network, 8th – 11th September 2014, Salford Quays, United Kingdom, vol. 18, pp. 513–520.Google Scholar
  13. Bonati, S., & Mendes, M. P. (2014). “Building participation to reduce vulnerability: how can local educational strategies promote global resilience? A case study in Funchal – Madeira island”, Procedia Economics and Finance. In D. Amaratunga & R. Haigh (Eds.), 4th international conference on building resilience, incorporating the 3rd annual conference of the ANDROID disaster resilience network, 8th – 11th September 2014, Salford Quays, United Kingdom, vol. 18, pp. 165–172, Pages 1–976.Google Scholar
  14. Bucek, J., & Smith, B. (2000). New approaches to local democracy: Direct democracy, participation and the “third sector”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, S., & Currie, G. (2006). Against Beck. In defence of risk analysis. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castiglioni, B. (2009). Education on landscape for children, Secretariat document, cultural heritage, landscape and spatial planning division. Strasburg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  17. Castiglioni, B. (2012). Landscape facets. Reflections and proposals for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. Strasburg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  18. Castiglioni, B., & De Marchi, M. (2007). Paesaggio, sostenibilità, valutazione. Quaderni di dipartimento di geografia (24). Padova: Università degli studi di Padova.Google Scholar
  19. Chambers, R. (1994). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. Working paper 2. Institute of development studies, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  20. Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2017). Participatory risk network analysis: A tool for disaster reduction practitioners. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collins, T. W. (2008). The political ecology of hazard vulnerability: Marginalization, facilitation and the production of differential risk to urban wildfires in Arizona’s White Mountains. Journal of Political Ecology, 15(1), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corson, M. W. (1999). Hazardscapes in reunified Germany. Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  23. Cosgrove, D., & Daniels, S. (1988). The iconography of landscape: Essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments, Cambridge studies in historical geography 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cumming, G. S. (2011). Spatial resilience: Integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 26, 899–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin, F. S., & Holling, C. S. (2012). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1139–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cutter, S. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18, 598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dekens, J. (2007). Local knowledge for disaster preparedness: A literature review. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.Google Scholar
  29. Dryzek, J. S., & List, C. (2003). Theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Egoz, S., Makhzoumi, J., & Pungetti, F. (Eds.). (2011). The right to landscape: Contesting landscape and human rights. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Faber, D. (Ed.). (1998). The struggles for ecological democracy: Environmental justice movements in the United States. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7, 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Forino, G., von Meding, J., Brewer, G., & van Niekerk, D. (2017). Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction integration: Strategies, policies, and plans in three Australian Local Governments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gaillard, J. C., et al. (2013). Participatory 3-dimension mapping: A tool for encouraging multi-caste collaboration to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Applied Geography, 45, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godshalk, D. R., Brody, S., & Burby, R. (2003). Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5), 733–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henly-Shepard, S., Gray, S. A., & Cox, L. J. (2015). The use of participatory modeling to promote social learning and facilitate community disaster planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 45, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters (1st ed.). Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  38. IISD, IUCN, SEI, SDC, & Intercooperation. (2003). Livelihoods and climate change: Combining disaster risk reduction, natural resource management and climate change adaptation in a new approach to the reduction of vulnerability and poverty. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  39. Kelman, I., Mercer, J., & Gaillard, J. C. (2012). Indigenous knowledge and disaster risk reduction. Geography, 97(1), 12–21.Google Scholar
  40. Khan, S. (2012). Disasters: Contributions of hazardscape and gaps in response practices. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 12, 3775–3787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mason, M. (1999). Environmental democracy. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  43. Mercer, J. (2010). Policy Arena. Disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation: Are we reinventing the wheel? Journal of International Development, 22, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2003). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  45. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell, E. R. (2006). Building an empirical case for ecological democracy. Nature and Culture, 1(2), 249–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morrison, R. (1995). Ecological democracy. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mustafa, D. (2005). The production of urban hazardscape in Pakistan: Modernity, vulnerability and the range of choice. Annals of Association of American Geographers, 95(3), 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ODESC. (2007). National hazardscape report (p. 140). Wellington: Official’s Committee for Domestic & External Security.Google Scholar
  50. Oliver-Smith, A., & Hoffman, S. (Eds.). (1999). The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Olwig. (2011). The right rights to the right landscape? In S. Egoz, J. Makhzoumi, & G. Pungetti (Eds.), The right to landscape: Contesting landscape and human rights (pp. 39–50). Ashgate: Farnham.Google Scholar
  52. Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: The scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 4(31), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pickett, S. T. A., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M. L., & Felson, A. J. (2014). Ecological resilience and resilient cities. Building Research and Information, 42, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rivera, C., & Wamsler, C. (2014). Integrating climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and urban planning: A review of Nicaraguan policies and regulations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 7, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shutkin, W. A. (2000). The land that could be: Environmentalism and democracy in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tononi, M., Pietta, A., & Bonati, S. (2017). Alternative spaces of urban sustainability: Results of a first integrative approach in the Italian city of Brescia. The Geographical Journal, 183, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turco, A. (2002). Paesaggio: pratiche, linguaggi, mondi (p. 280). Reggio Emilia: Diabasis.Google Scholar
  59. UN Sendai Framework for Disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. (2015). 43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdfGoogle Scholar
  60. UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations.Google Scholar
  61. Ungaro, D. (2005). Ecological democracy: The environment and the crisis of the liberal institutions. International Review of Sociology, 15(2), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Unisdr terminology on disaster risk reduction: UNISDR (United Nations Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction). (2007). Geneva.Google Scholar
  63. van den Hove, S. (2000). Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: The European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study. Ecological Economics. Saint Quentin en Yvelines: Elsevier Science B.V, 33, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vidal de la Blache, P., & Martonne, E. (1922). Principes de géographie humain publiés d’après les manuscrits de l’auteur par Emmanuel de Martonne. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
  65. Watts, M. (1983). On the poverty of theory: Natural hazards research in context. In K. Hewitt (Ed.), Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology (1st ed., pp. 231–262). Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  66. Watts, M. (2000). Political ecology. In E. Sheppard & T. J. Barnes (Eds.), A companion to economic geography (pp. 257–274). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  67. Wilbanks, T. J., & Kates, R. W. (1999). Global change in local places: How scale matters. Climatic Change, 43(3), 601–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Bonati
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SAGAS – Università degli studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.CIERL – Universidade Da MadeiraFunchalPortugal

Personalised recommendations