Living with floods and coping with vulnerability

Abstract

Purpose – Using Anthropological methodology to achieve an understanding from a “local point of view” the purpose of this paper is to explore how safety is established in what clearly is, at least from the outside, a risky everyday. Floods are a recurring problem for people in Jakarta. However, for poor families living on river banks in the city center the floods also constitute a necessary condition to create a viable livelihood. The floods keep land grabbers and urban developers at bay and keep costs for living low. For the families living in these areas there is a constant “trade off” between safety and risk taking with the purpose to create a living. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology applied in the paper is conventional Anthropological field work. The material is collected through participant observation and formal interviews. The data produced are of an experience near quality which is analyzed in terms of how it addresses and relate to the infrastructural policies of Jakarta and the specific project of normalizing the river Ciliwung. Findings – The fact that people perceive floods as normal part of everyday life does not mean that they are unproblematic. Furthermore, the flood mitigation programs that authorities claim are “normalizing” the river system actually increase riverbank settler’s problems. Research limitations/implications – Additional long-term field work on conditions for political mobilization inside and outside the formal political system in urban Jakarta is needed to better understand why organized resistance seldom materializes and how to strengthen the bargaining capacity of local communities in urban planning processes. Social implications – As flood mitigation programs demand relocation of people, the argument forwarded in the paper is that general social and economic security systems have to be strengthened, enhancing capacity for mobility, before instigating flood mitigation programs. Originality/value – Studies of disasters and risk often portray local subjects as either victims or losers. In this paper a more nuanced picture is presented. Vulnerability as well as livelihood is related to floods. The paradoxical situation is that people’s vulnerability as well as safety is related to their embeddedness in local socio-economic networks. People are dependent on specific networks and a specific space to produce a livelihood. However, the same embeddedness makes their livelihood vulnerable to the demands of being relocated. If relocated their networks are scattered. Just offering alternative living space and economical remuneration for lost property is not sufficient to replace a lost livelihood. Relocation without a new form for subsistence economy creates new forms of vulnerability. Hence, relocation rather than flood is perceived as the main danger by people living on river banks in Jakarta.

Living in uncertainty due to floods and pollution: the health status and quality of life of people living on an unhealthy riverbank

“…As a close community, they developed physical (e.g. raising house levels) and non-physical (a communal work system to minimize the effect of a flood, the re-use of surviving material after a flood) responses to floods, in other words, they became resilient [ 12 , 47 – 49 ]. Second, the Ciliwung respondents might have been comparing their life situations with those of their nearest neighbors, with similar low levels of income and life conditions, which might have prevented them from becoming envious, whilst the comparison group respondents might have had a broader range of incomes in their neighborhoods.…”

“…Notwithstanding these circumstances, at the time of this study, many people still lived next to the Ciliwung. Living in such a place with high health risks, inadequate infrastructure, unreliable water and electricity supplies, and regular floods, was often perceived by the inhabitants as an acceptably safe and normal part of everyday life [ 12 , 13 ]. People used the river water for washing and defecating.…”

Key Factors Influencing Wider Adoption of Blue–Green Infrastructure in Developing Cities

“…Jarvie et al [40] argue that the greatest challenge of climate change adaptation in Semarang is related to "clumsy" governance, lack of transparency, and the dominance of technical solutions, failing to recognise governance gaps that prevent mainstreaming resilience into policies. Further, Hellman [41] suggests that disconnection between government policies and the socio-economic and cultural context has adversely affected communities, including failure of resilience building.…”

“Garbage in, Garbage Out” Does Not Hold True for Indigenous Community Flood Extent Modeling in the Prairie Pothole Region

“…Floods are considered to be natural processes [1]; however, in recent years, the global increase in flooding incidents has been associated with climate change [2,3]. Higher number and frequencies of floods increase the risk of damaging properties, destroying infrastructures, and reducing the overall well-being of people.…”

“…Higher number and frequencies of floods increase the risk of damaging properties, destroying infrastructures, and reducing the overall well-being of people. Many communities who are perhaps 'accustomed' to flooding and once felt that occasional flooding was part of their lives are at greater risk [1,4]. This narrative stands true for many small and rural communities living in the Canadian Prairies.…”