Social Vulnerability, Discrimination, and Resilience-building in Disaster Risk Reduction

Spring, Úrsula Oswald

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17776-7_72

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The above research illustrates the detrimental impact that state actions can have for survivors of disasters and indicates that certain communities will be made vulnerable to the risk of experiencing disaster (Olson, 2000;Spring, 2011). Critical scholars have defined the role of social inequality in a disaster context as the "socialization of disaster", as they predict that particular groups will be over-represented in experiencing disaster, and also in suffering disproportionately in the aftermath (Verchick, 2012: 29;Green, 2008;Hartley, 2002;Spring, 2011). There is a "political economy of risk", where vulnerable populations can experience discrimination via official disaster responses that act to undermine their survival (Hartley, 2002: 30;Faust and Kauzlarich, 2008;Green, 2005).…”

Section: Government Responses To Disastermentioning

confidence: 96%

“…All states have the discretionary power to dictate pre-and post-disaster initiatives and this significantly affects the outcomes of disasters for the rest of society (Green, 2005;Hartley, 2002;Olson, 2000;Verchick, 2012). In this way, decisions made from a 'top-down' approach can exacerbate and reinforce pre-existing social inequalities and maintain existing power structures (Green, 2005;Spring, 2011;Urbatsch, 2016).…”

Section: Government Responses To Disastermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The decisions made in the aftermath of disasters, by government agencies and institutions, can create further victimisation. In these circumstances, victims of the initial disaster have to survive the disaster as well as the way the state handles and responds to the disaster (Faust and Kauzlarich, 2008;Olson, 2000;Spring, 2011). In this context, authors like Penny Green (2005: 529; have framed disasters as "state crimes", due to the systemic corruption which can generate precursors for disaster and post-disaster cover-ups (see also Faust and Kauzlarich, 2008).…”

Section: Government Responses To Disastermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors who oppose this stance argue that an over-emphasis on self-help and selfresponsibility detracts from issues at a societal level that affect wellbeing and quality of life at a personal level (Alatartseva and Barysheva, 2015;Taylor, 2011). That is, the preoccupations with individual actions de-contextualise social conditions, which can significantly affect the outcome of individual efforts (Spring, 2011). In a post-disaster context, the individualised focus suggests that individuals, regardless of contextual circumstances, are able to achieve and maintain a positive quality of life from their own initiatives (Alatartseva and Barysheva, 2015).…”

Section: Survival In a Disaster Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resiliency is framed as the major indicator of positive survival and regaining a positive quality of life post-disaster (Prilleltensky and Prilleltensky, 2005). In this context resiliency can act as a mechanism of regulation, encouraging conformity to this officially sanctioned response to disaster, which can be used to return society to the status quo (Prilleltensky, 2008;Spring, 2011).…”

Section: Survival In a Disaster Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Surviving Hillsborough

Day¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis explores trajectories of survival in the long-term aftermath of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. Despite the vast amount of literature on Hillsborough, there is little knowledge regarding the subjective experiences of survival in the political climate of denial, collusion and cover-up. Therefore, this thesis identifies how ‘survivors’ have understood and experienced their ‘survival’ from a major disaster and the subsequent injustices, and in this context considers what is required to ‘survive’. Together with informal conversations with key informants, the researcher conducted nine qualitative semi-structured interviews with individuals who experienced the disaster in various capacities, in order to critically examine the factors that have assisted or inhibited individual attempts at survival. The findings determined that there are various pathways to survival however all are impacted by the wider official and collective response to ‘survivors’. The findings demonstrate that the official expectation is that ‘survivors’ can and will navigate their own personal survival but the lived experience of survival determines that, in reality, ‘survivors’ need a continuous multi-faceted institutional and social response. Contextual factors unique to continuing a life after ‘Hillsborough’ are discussed. The concluding argument interprets that ‘survival’ is a continual process, and responses towards ‘survivors’ can either support quality of life or cause re-victimisation.</p>

show abstract