Fearing the knock on the door: critical security studies insights into limited cooperation with disaster management regimes

Abstract

In seeking to provide for the safety of local communities in the global south, there has been an apparent policy focus on making early warning systems more robust, and improving the operation of disaster management programmes. However, the critical security studies literature has highlighted the ways in which security practices, including those nominally implemented on behalf of local communities can have negative impacts on peoples. Human security literature, in particular, highlights the ways in which the state security apparatus, which is often relied upon to notify and enforce evacuations, may often be perceived as a serious risk to communities. At the same time individuals live within complex security situations where daily threats to peoples' lives may outweigh geological hazards. Grounded within critical literature on the social construction of risk (Lupton; Beck, Douglas), the ways in which volcanic risk is calculated, communicated, and enacted upon, will be assessed in relation to the local communities' security dilemmas. Drawing on field work in communities at risk from lahars generated from Cotopaxi in Sangolqui, Ecuador, explores the ways in which competing claims of what constitutes security challenge the operating assumptions in emergency preparedness. In June 2012, 158 primary interviews were undertaken as a part of the EU funded VUELCO project in Ecuador. The findings were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methodologies, drawing most heavily on interpretive methodologies to argue that the scientific representation of volcanic hazards, and the resultant disaster management strategies, do not account for local context. Indeed, the majority of interviewees indicated a lack of trust in either scientific expertise or government representatives, on questions of security. By incorporating a broader narrative of security beyond a narrow focus on natural hazards, disaster preparedness and communication plans can be more effective.

Geophysical Footprints of Cotopaxi’s Unrest and Minor Eruptions in 2015: An Opportunity to Test Scientific and Community Preparedness

“…Cotopaxi hazard maps have been published in several versions since 1976, with the newest version published in late 2016 (Mothes et al 2016a). The IGEPN has carried out a long-term program of community education for areas that are at highest risk, although as noted by Christie et al (2015), the attention over such a vast area (%2000 km 2 ), was uneven. Cotopaxi was a VUELCO target volcano from 2013 to 2015.…”

“…Work by Christie et al (2015) (an earlier VUELCO contribution) had shown that residents of the Chillos valley, to the east of Quito, were particularly ill-prepared to confront lahar hazards due to their recency of living in that valley. On the other hand, residents of the Latacunga valley had a clearer memory of lahar hazards, since many of their distant relatives had lived through Cotopaxi eruptions and their collective memory is better preserved.…”

Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

“…Furthermore, the stakes for at-risk communities are high, given that communications of scientific knowledge, when poorly handled, can cause social, economic and political problems, even if the identified hazards do not lead imminently to physical consequences such as an eruption (Johnston et al 2002). There is thus a constant risk that community confidence in disaster management regimes could be undermined (Christie et al 2015).…”

Volcanic Unrest and Pre-eruptive Processes: A Hazard and Risk Perspective

“…Christie et al 2015), and encourage citizens at risk to act on advice. In particular more systematic studies that analyse the effectiveness of different techniques and strategies in achieving these goals would be very useful (see Fearnley et al 2017 for a recent compilation).…”

“…Uncertainties in the decision-making process may give rise to "false alerts" (i.e., false positives; see Table 2) and actions by civil protection with adverse impacts on the compliance of affected communities in future unrest events. (3) Lack of globally accepted and standardised approach for the terminology, methodology, (Johnson 1987;Haynes et al 2008;Christie et al 2015;Komorowski et al 2017). …”