Volcanic risk management practice evolution between vulnerability and resilience: The case of Arequipa in Peru

Abstract

This paper proposes a new way of understanding the debate between vulnerability and resilience. We mobilize on the theoretical level the notion of “paradigm” in the sense of Kuhn and, on the methodological level, Foucault’s notion of “apparatus” to understand volcanic risk management practices. Through an interdisciplinary approach, combining management, geography and Earth sciences, we study the evolution of volcanic risk management practice in Arequipa (Peru) from the 1990s to the present. To do this, we look at the history of volcanic risk management in Arequipa, using a qualitative interview methodology based on six in-depth centered interviews from the main actors of this history, supported by a 2-month ethnography which allowed access to large institutional documentation (reports, studies, archives, maps, pictures...). Management practices in Arequipa appear to be centered on the paradigm of vulnerability since the 1990s. Some operations since 2015 named as resilient emerge but they are still inscribed in the vulnerability paradigm. The results show the relevance of the theoretical and methodological framework chosen for Arequipa but also the possibility of using it in a more general way.

The multiple values of urban geosites: El Arenal and Viaje a la Naturaleza parks in Mexico City

“…Those studies have identified main geosites that have great scientific and cultural significance and provide numerous ecosystem services (Palacio and Guilbaud 2015;Guilbaud et al 2021;Nieto-Torres et al 2022). Nevertheless, many other public parks within the city also contain remains of this geoheritage, and the development of research projects in these parks could allow to advance the scientific knowledge while at the same time allow scientists to engage with citizens and stakeholders, with the aim to contribute to environmental conservation, increase people´s resilience to volcanic hazards, and reduce the science-society gap (Topp et al 2018(Topp et al , 2020Sarkki et al 2020;Lièvre et al 2022).…”