kelman - challenges and opportunities of disaster-related public anthropology

8/11/2019 Kelman - Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-related Public Anthropology

1/22

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

Vol. 1, No. 2 (2009) 119139c Research Publishing Services

doi:10.3850/S1793924009000194

Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology

Ilan Kelman and JC Gaillard

Center for International Climate and Environmental ResearchOslo (CICERO), P.O. Box 1129, Blindern,

Oslo, Norway, N-0318. E-mail: ilan [email protected] of Grenoble, France and University of the Philippines Diliman, 14 bis, Avenue Marie Reynoard

38100 Grenoble, France. E-mail: [email protected]

This paper examines the role played by disaster-related public anthropology in scientistsserving society by accepting the public service which anthropologists and anthropology canand should provide. Here, the public service is dealing with disasters and the challengesand opportunities inherent in that role are examined. An illustrative, not comprehensive,history of disaster-related work relevant to anthropology and anthropologists is providedas background. This theory and past work are then applied for migration scenarios involv-ing environmental phenomena, focusing on volcanism and sea-level rise. To conclude, the

concepts, theory, and practice which have been explored are joined to examine the withoutborders concept for anthropology and anthropologists. Four cross-cutting themes of publicservice with some overlap but with relative independence are proposed and briefly exam-ined: (i) Rights and responsibilities; (ii) Root causes; (iii) Community-based approaches; and(iv) Lifelong learning and exchange.

Keywords: Migration; Public anthropology; Sea-level rise; Volcanoes; Vulnerability; With-

out borders; Without frontiers.

1. Anthropology and Anthropologists Serving Society

Anthropology, as the study of humankind and human behavior, necessarily yields

results pertinent to governing humankind. These applications can be as diverse

as designing more effective fraud prevention programs in Korea and determin-

ing willingness to move from inland to coastal areas in Thailand for jobs in the

beach tourist industry. Many scientists, including some anthropologists, disdain

usefulness and applicability for their work. Others not only wish to see their sci-

ence linked to policy and practice, but also actively seek such outcomes and feel a

responsibility to ensure that these outcomes occur.

One such approach is public anthropology, referred to by Ref. 1 as anthro-pology and anthropologists engaging with those outside of the discipline to forge

d lib i b h d i R f 2 id j i d


2/22

120 Ilan Kelman and Jc Gaillard

appeal of the term public anthropology is, in part, due to its vagueness, permit-

ting numerous interpretations and definitions. As such, and to bypass the debate

on the phrases definition and usefulness, this paper does not provide its own def-inition of public anthropology, instead interpreting the notion in the context of

the specific topic of disaster-related activities.

A disaster is defined as A serious disruption of the functioning of a commu-

nity or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmen-

tal losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope

using its own resources.4 Disaster-related activities occur before a disaster, such

as analyzing a populations vulnerability to possible loss of life or loss of property;

publishing maps showing expected flood inundation zones or volcanic ash fall-

out areas; training community teams to prepare themselves for disasters; moving

houses out of an avalanche zone; and using proper masonry construction tech-

niques in seismic areas. Disaster-related activities also occur after a disaster, with

examples being rescuing people trapped in collapsed or flooded buildings; provid-

ing aid and resettlement support for displaced people; planning the reconstruction

of a ruined town; properly handling dead bodies, encompassing respect for the

bereaved; and addressing the psychological needs of survivors.

Disaster research encompasses all aspects of disaster-related activities and

involves many disciplines, including computer science, engineering, physical and

human geography, law, medicine, physics, political science, and sociology plus,

of course, anthropology and all its subsets. Anthropologists and anthropology

engage in disaster research through, for instance, risk perception and cultural

responses to those perceptions; designing temporary shelters and settlements

which meet the peoples expressed needs and, potentially, their desires beyond

needs; and understanding the relationships between people and their environ-

ments which cause or alleviate the vulnerable conditions that lead to disasters.

Enfolded in such discussion is the earlier allusion to the responsibility

towards society felt by many scientists, including anthropologists5,6 and disaster

researchers.7,8 Whether or not the scientists wish this situation, disaster research

inevitably has direct application to society, often affecting decisions which create,exacerbate, diminish, or avoid disasters. As well, disparate fields influence disaster

research and application. A chemist interested in the effects of soluble pollutants

on a mortars properties might not connect their results with the collapse of ma-

sonry houses following flooding. A geologist reconstructing a volcanos eruption

history might not realize that their maps can influence house prices if a buyer sees

that a property is sited on a volcanic debris flow.

Disaster-related public anthropology accepts the responsibility of scientists to

society and accepts the public service which anthropologists and anthropology can

and should provide, which here is dealing with disasters. This paper examines thatrole and the challenges and opportunities inherent in it.

Th i id ill i h i hi f


3/22

Challenges and Opportunities of Disaster-Related Public Anthropology 121

and past work are then applied for migration scenarios involving environmental

phenomena, focusing on volcanism and sea-level rise. Finally, the concepts, theory,

and practice are joined to examine the without borders concept for anthropologyand anthropologists. Four themes of public service are proposed for disaster-

related public anthropology and public anthropologists.

2. A History of Disaster Anthropology and Disaster Anthropologists

Significant interest of anthropologists in disasters dates back to at least the 1950s

with several studies focusing on the cultural effects of volcanic eruptions and

typhoons among traditional societies.912 Around the same time, Wallace13,14 pro-

vided several studies in the context of the United States. These works allowed him

to become one of the first anthropologists identified as a disaster researcher. Wal-

lace further suggested the first anthropological definition of disaster: an event

characterized by a series of time stages and spatial dimensions, each associated

with different activities and roles embedded both in the pre-disaster system and

the conditions imposed by the event itself. In 1957, a special issue of the journal

Human Organization15 confirmed the contribution of anthropologists to disaster

research.

More recently, several compilations of anthropological work on disasters

have been published, mostly by Oliver-Smith and colleagues.1618 Furthermore,

several review papers1921 assessed the contribution of anthropological studies to

disaster knowledge. Ref. 21 also updates the anthropological definition of disas-

ter: Recent perspectives in anthropological research define a disaster as a pro-

cess/event involving a combination of a potentially destructive agent(s) from the

natural and/or technological environment and a population in a socially and tech-

nologically produced condition of environmental vulnerability.

This section is not a comprehensive update or overview of this literature.

Instead, it provides an interpretation of the historical development of the topic

within the larger framework of risk and disaster research, focused on connectingthe initial anthropological work with the more recent studies.

2.1. The Environment as Hazard

In a 1756 letter addressed to Voltaire, Rousseau22 was an earlier author invok-

ing humanitys responsibility for disaster. After the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and

tsunami that killed around 100,000 people, Rousseau reacted by questioning the

standard view of disaster as being natural or deific. His letter noted that nature did

not build the houses that collapsed and he suggested that Lisbons high populationdensity contributed to the death toll. He also asserted that unnecessary casualties

l d f l i i b h i f ll i h i i i l h ki d


4/22


However, apart from a few other isolated publications,23 it was not until the

1940s when the human dimension of disasters began to be widely investigated.

White24

provided the first in-depth investigations into the human response toextreme environmental events by examining floods in the Mississippi River basin.

Whites work inspired social scientists and continues to serve as a strong basis

for much disaster research and practice. Yet despite incorporating human aspects,

it still explicitly accepts the responsibility of nature, and specific environmental

events such as floods, in explaining disaster occurrence.

In line with Whites work, many social scientists, especially in more affluent

countries, focused on peoples perceptions of natural hazards and their behav-

ioral adjustment to the perceived threat. Disaster incidence is explained as mainly

the result of poor risk perception by the victims or of their inadequate behaviorin response to perceived risk. A key book25 proposed a society-based classifica-

tion of adaptations and adjustments to natural hazards, depending on peoples

perceptions and behavior. This classification distinguishes unconscious biological

and cultural adaptations from incidental or purposeful adjustments. It contrasts

traditional societies, with an alleged poor capability of facing natural hazards,

with more affluent and more industrialized societies whose adjustment is stated

as being more effective, albeit still not perfect.

A large set of studies fed the discourse which argues that traditional,

environment-dependent societies are fragile and are unable to cope on their

own with large-scale rapid-onset environmental events such as earthquakes and

cyclones. That literature explains that destruction of the environment due to

extreme environmental events deprives these societies of their main resources and

pushes them to rely on external resources in order to recover. Natural hazards

are therefore viewed as a powerful vector of social and cultural change.2530 This

approachs proponents can then justify the transfer of experience, knowledge, and

technology from industrialized countries to developing countries due to the

poor capacity of traditional societies to deal with disasters.

This view uses the results of several studies involving anthropological tech-

niques. Examples from volcanoes include research conducted following the 1951eruption of Mt. Lamington in Papua New Guinea,9,11,31,32 the 1961 eruption of the

volcano on Tristan de Cunha in the South Atlantic,3336 the 1968 eruption of the

volcano of Nila in Maluku,37 and the 1994 eruption of Mt. Rabaul in Papua New

Guinea.38

2.2. Focusing on Vulnerability

Slightly differing from the previous acculturation viewpoint, some authors

argue that environmental events instead act as catalysts for ongoing, hazard-independent, cultural changes among traditional societies increasingly pressured

b l f h i d i li i d l b li i 21 39 41 T i i l


5/22


thus often rendered more vulnerable because they lose traditional means of cop-

ing with natural hazards and disasters and often become dependent on the rest of

the world. Moreover, they do not have enough resources to engage in efficientand sustainable measures for countering disasters. This phenomenon has been

observed among indigenous communities following the eruption of Paricutn vol-

cano in Mexico between 1943 and 1952,4244 among Guatemalan Mayas after the

1976 earthquake,4547 among Koniag people in the aftermath of the 1964 Alaskan

earthquake,48,49 and among Yemeni highlanders following the 1982 earthquake.50

These studies also indicate the challenges, many coming from anthropologists

in the spirit of public anthropology, which were made to Whites ideas, starting

in the 1970s.5153 Such critiques dispute the argument that people have a range

of individual choices to adjust to a perceived threat. Drawing on cases from less

affluent countries,8,54,55 an argument developed was that peoples behavior is con-

strained by social forces, including economic and political considerations, which

are frequently beyond their own control. Political neglect, social marginalization,

injustice, inequity, and difficulty in accessing resources compel powerless individ-

uals to live in dangerous areas and to live in dangerous ways without appropriate

countermeasures to reduce vulnerability and thereby to avert disaster.

In embracing scientists responsibility to society, disaster-related public anthro-

pology must address these root causes rather than blaming the environment or

focusing on individuals perceptions/misperceptions and behavior/misbehavior

for disasters. In particular, the term natural disaster is viewed as a misnomer

because a disaster by definition.4 involves society. Disasters are caused by long-

term decisions, actions, and behavior of society that is, social forces and not

just individuals regarding where people live, how they live, and how they deal

with the environment. Nature frequently provides a normal event which could be

an earthquake, a flood, or a wind storm, but society rather than nature created

the vulnerable conditions leading to the earthquake disaster, the flood disaster, or

the wind storm disaster.7,8,54,55 The theoretical argument that natural disasters do

not exist must be put into practice to prevent policies from blaming extreme natu-

ral conditions or the affected individuals for causing a disaster, irrespective of thepolitical expediency of doing that.

Reference 56 takes this argument one step further by referring to unnatural

hazards rather than natural hazards. The reasoning is that some normal environ-

mental events are exacerbated by human activity, thereby making those events

hazardous characteristics a societal, not a natural, product. River engineering fre-

quently deepens and narrows channels, leading to floods with faster velocities

and greater depths than would occur if the extra water were permitted to slowly

spread out over the natural floodplain.57,58 Site preparation for buildings along

with building design can change ground conditions so that earthquake accelera-tions are locally augmented or diminished.59 By understanding the societal pres-

d d i i h l d h i d b idi d h


6/22


on how those pressures could be altered to reduce vulnerability and to tackle dis-

asters, public anthropologists and public anthropology have strong contributions

to make.This perspective emphasizes peoples vulnerability, not specifically to natures

norms or to natures extremes, but instead to societal pressures that make

them susceptible to adverse consequences from natures norms or from natures

extremes. Clear indicators reflect vulnerability60 in that disaster-affected peo-

ple are frequently disproportionally drawn from marginal social groups such

as women, children, elderly, the indigenous, and people with disabilities. Vul-

nerable people are also often those with limited or precarious livelihoods and

incomes, including those with low wages, informal or illegal jobs, and a lack

of savings. Much vulnerability results from inadequate societal services such as

health services including health insurance; poor building codes and land use plan-

ning including monitoring and enforcement; substandard education services; and

lack of support for social networks. Individual and community vulnerabilities,

and the root causes of these vulnerabilities, lie in peoples daily and local social

contexts.61,62

Natures behavior thus becomes a highlighter or amplifier of daily hardship

and everyday emergencies rather than manifesting as extreme or rare phenom-

ena that cause disasters.55,63 Vulnerability is the normal, prevailing condition7

which is often exposed when normal environmental events such as earthquakes

and floods manifest. Recommendations on how to reduce vulnerability, irrespec-

tive of natures behavior, are fundamentally social, incorporating poverty reduc-

tion, diverse and adequate livelihoods, fair access to resources and opportunities

including land, and improved investments in the previously listed social services.

Specific measures for specific contexts should be selected and viewed through

community-based participatory processes64,65 often drawn on from the anthropo-

logical literature.

Among anthropologists, proponents of this view assert that traditional soci-

eties have abilities to deal with environmental phenomena themselves because

they make slight adjustments without modifying the fundamentals of their socialorganisation.20,66,67 Where a disaster nonetheless results, the root cause is often

identified as outside efforts to implement development or relief measures,

sometimes termed maladaptation, that disrupt local social structures and pro-

cesses, rather than the root cause being the intrinsic inability or inexperience of the

affected societies.6771 Table 1 provides some examples, with all but one from the

Asia-Pacific region.

All the examples in Table 1 are of single case studies being examined, although

Ref. 7 covers and compares several examples from around the world. Another

example of a comparative study involving the Asia-Pacific region is Ref. 90 whichreports on the ability of communities in Indonesia and Peru to deal with flash

fl d Al f i i T bl 1 i h i f h i i bli i


7/22


Table 1 Examples of Studies Supporting the Public Anthropology Approach for Societies Dealing withDisasters.

Location Situation References

Bangladesh Communities recurrently affected by floods. 72, 73, 74, 75

Cook Islands Regularly affected by tropical storms and 70cyclones.

Federated States of Regularly affected by tropical storms and 76Micronesia: Yap cyclones.

Peru: Yungay The total destruction of their town in 1970 by 77, 78, 79, 80, 81an earthquake-triggered debris avalanche.

Solomon Islands: Two tropical cyclones and a subsequent famine 12, 67, 82Tikopia between 1952 and 1953.

Tonga Regular tropical cyclones and the eruption of 7, 83, 84, 85, 86Niuafoou volcano in 1946.

Vanuatu: Ambrym A volcanic eruption from 1950 to 1951. 87, 88, 89

relevance of this material to public anthropologists today in understanding how to

learn from history in order to continue contributing to dealing with disaster.

An increasing number of anthropologists are applying these lessons including

from the Asia-Pacific region to Western societies affected by contemporary disas-

ters, ensuring that public anthropology continues to address current and ongo-

ing concerns without losing sight of what has been learned before. For example,lessons from Hurricane Katrina that struck the United States Gulf Coast in 2005,91

from the Red River Valley Flood of 1997 in the northern United States,92 and from

the 1999 flash floods in Southern France93 illustrate similar lessons to the earlier

volcano studies.

Specifically, disasters are social constructions which cannot be dissociated from

daily life and from the intrinsic characteristics of the affected society. Those char-

acteristics pertain to cultural values, social fabrics, livelihoods and other economic

activities, and political structures. Anthropology and public anthropology should

play a role in contributing to our understanding of the links between everydayliving and catastrophic events. Much of the more recent discourse examines post-

disaster migration and resettlement in the context of historical and current chal-

lenges.

3. Public Disaster Anthropology and Anthropologists

Addressing Migration

Section 2s historical context for work relevant to disaster-related public anthro-pology can be applied to ongoing problems. The disaster topic considered here is

i i i i l i i l h f i l i


8/22


3.1. Focus on Volcanism and Sea-Level Rise

As shown in Section 2, volcanoes have been involved in many migrations, espe-

cially from islands. In many cases, the islanders did not know if or when they

would be able to return to their homes because the volcanic activity covered most

of the island (see also Ref. 94). Often including Niua Foou in Tonga in 1946, 83

Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic in 1961,95 and Vestmannaeyjar in Iceland in

1973 which was evacuated within hours of the eruption starting61 the islanders

returned to their island to rebuild and resettle, even against the wishes of their

countrys government.

In addition to the continuing possibility of volcanic eruptions, sea level rise

due to human-induced climate change is expected to have a devastating impact

on islands and other coastal areas. During the 21st century, sea level is reported96

to be expected to rise at least 0.18 m and perhaps as much as 0.59 m, although

the final maximum rise by 2100 could exceed this upper bound partly because of

inputs from ice sheet break up in Greenland and Antarctica. In the small likeli-

hood that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses raising global mean sea level by

approximately five meters,97 at least ten island countries would have to be com-

pletely evacuated along with significant portions of megacities including London,

Jakarta, Dhaka, and Sydney. Even without such an extreme scenario, many coun-

tries, such as Vietnam and the Solomon Islands, will lose substantial proportions

of their inhabited land due to sea level rise, requiring population migration inlandor elsewhere.

Migrations and migration planning have started. In July 2004, the international

media publicized the worlds first so-called climate change refugees from the

island village of Shishmaref, Alaska, although the erosion and storm threats are

exacerbated by, rather than created by, climate change. Then, in December 2005,

the international media again reported the worlds first so-called climate change

refugees, but this time from the Lateu settlement in Vanuatu. The islanders moved

inland due to sea-level rise leading to more frequent flooding. In September 2007,

yet again the media reported the worlds first so-called climate change refugeeswhen people from Papua New Guineas Carteret Islands moved as rising sea lev-

els encroached on their villages. Aside from the impossibility of having more than

one first, these situations demonstrate the start of migration that involves climate

change related factors. Further caution is warranted due to numerous conceptual

and legal difficulties with the phrase climate change refugee suggesting that this

phrase should be avoided.98

Such debates demonstrate the strong role for public anthropologists in con-

tributing to societys disaster-related activities by studying peoples past and

current responses to migration that involves volcanic activity or sea levelchanges and then applying that knowledge through public anthropology to

ensure that similar disasters do not recur This ability to apply past experience in


9/22


disasters do not exist. The knowledge exists to avert disaster. Anthropologists

along with others have a duty to society to work towards applying that knowl-

edge, rather than permitting disasters to happen through inaction or throughinappropriate action.

This public anthropology aspect has received numerous labels. One example

is the relief-to-development continuum, articulating that post-disaster assistance

should segue directly into longer-term development processes including disaster-

related activities. Another example is the build back better phrase extensively

applied and critiqued99 after the 26 December 2004 tsunamis around the

Indian Ocean. Applying these approaches and their critiques contributes to avert-

ing a disaster from manifesting.

3.2. Comparing Volcanism and Sea-Level Rise

In 1995, the volcano on Montserrat, which is a U.K. Overseas Territory in the

Caribbean, started rumbling for the first time since European settlement of the is-

land. Over the next two years, the volcanic activity destroyed most of the islands

infrastructure and caused more than 2/3 of the islands population of 12,000 to

leave, mainly for Antigua and the U.K.100102 While many Montserratians saw the

island as their home and wished to create new communities in the parts of the is-

land out of the main danger zone from the volcano, a dissenting Caribbean voice

was heard from Howe:103

Caribbean peoples have also long been known for their migratory instincts. Sentiment hashabitually been transcended by economic necessity. Montserratians are no exception. I canonly imagine that staying on the island is a tactic to strengthen their bargaining hand for afull and final settlement.

The legitimacy or error of this view for the specific case of Montserrat is not the

issue here. Instead, this comment raises the potential for a planned and acceptable

evacuation which is properly funded and which accords proper dignity, opportu-

nity, and choice to the affected people. That approach is in contrast to fleeing in thewake of an event with limited planning and foresight.

The same debate occurs for expected sea level rise. Back to the Asia-Pacific

region, sea-level fall and regional climate changes around the Pacific approxi-

mately seven centuries ago altered the environment and culture of Pacific island

communities.104106 Many communities disappeared, likely because the inhabi-

tants moved inland or moved to other islands, but they might also have died.

They might or might not have had much warning, which could have led to a

situation of continual response to the environmental changes experienced rather

than taking proactive measures. The contemporary situation is different, withat least a few decades of warning before most sea-level rise migration would

b i l L f P ifi i l d i i i h l i h


10/22


by contemporary sea level changes and might help in retaining communities and

cultures despite moves.107

Anthropological techniques can and should be used to understand the peo-ples decision-making regarding when they might wish to move or decide not

to move. Should the migration occur within the next few years, before much dam-

age from sea-level rise is expected to be witnessed? Or should decades be used to

plan, moving only when forced by the sea and hoping that an extreme event does

not cause devastation in the meantime? Neither approach is inherently better or

worse than the other. Different individuals, communities, and cultures will have

different preferences. Disaster anthropologists would conduct innovative research

by studying these differences while public disaster anthropologists would work

with communities to ensure that the communitys needs are understood, accepted,

and met.

This public anthropology approach to understanding and implementing af-

fected peoples needs regarding such migration situations will further demonstrate

the need for public anthropology because these situations differ. The contrast be-

tween sea-level rise and a volcanic eruption is poignant, as summarized in Table 2While an option exists to migrate away from a dormant volcano, in case it

erupts in the future, no necessity exists to leave until the volcano displays activity.

That activity could be precursors such as seismic swarms, ground deformation, or

a change in the emitted gas composition. Planning for different volcanic scenarios

would be prudent, but moving immediately is not essential.In contrast, migration involving sea-level rise seems almost certain to occur be-

tween 2050 and 2100. That leaves decades to plan and to consider options for sea-

level rise. Volcanoes as in the cases of Niua Foou, Tristan da Cunha, and Vest-

mannaeyjar sometimes demand an evacuation immediately after the volcano

starts erupting or as in the case of Montserrat could be a slower migration

Table 2 Characteristics of Migration involving Volcanism and Sea-level Rise.

Volcanism and migration Sea-level rise andmigration

Necessity of migration in Not essential to migrate until Likely to be essential toaffected locations. volcano shows activity. migrate before 2100.

Lead time Hours to months, potentially years Decades.on occasion.

Possibility of return The expectation is often yes, The assumption is no.even where that expectationis unfounded.

Understanding of Sometimes yes, but volcanic The mechanisms of seaenvironmental situation phenomena can sometimes be level rise are well

diverse and uncertain. understood and lowerbounds are reasonablywell established Upper


11/22


over months and years. Even in slow migration cases, the timeframe for migra-

tion involving volcanism tends to be much shorter than for migration involving

sea-level rise.The possibility of return also presents a major difference. In all volcano cases,

the evacuation was initially assumed to be temporary. Even where long-term reset-

tlement was enacted, as for Tristan da Cunha and Montserrat, few evacuees aban-

doned hope of returning to their island even when the U.K., as the governing state

for both territories, actively discouraged return. The expectation of return, how-

ever, is sometimes unfounded, for instance when lava flows cover land because

lava can be challenging to build on for decades afterwards. Migration involving

sea-level rise is expected to be permanent. The communities affected need to as-

sume that return to their original locations and communities will not be possible,

leading to planning efforts and psychological preparation that are different from

the expectation and actuality of temporary relocation.

Volcanoes also tend to provide more challenges than sea-level rise in under-

standing the environmental situation. Potential knock-on effects from sea-level

rise are poorly understood, including coral reef damage and geomorphological

changes to low-lying islands. But the physical science of sea-level rise itself is rel-

atively well understood and predictable, with reasonably robust calculations for

even low probability scenarios having been completed.97

In contrast, volcanoes produce a variety of destructive phenomena in various

combinations of gases, liquids, and solids. Examples are pyroclastic flows (scorch-

ing avalanches of dust and gas), lahars (volcanic debris flows), lava (molten rock),

tephra (any airborne rock-related material, from large rocks to tiny ash particles),

and sudden releases of suffocating gases. It is usually possible to differentiate in

advance between explosive and non-explosive volcanoes, but the timing, magni-

tude, intensity, and type of phenomena manifesting in a particular eruption are

subject to large uncertainties. Additionally, the physical modeling of some of the

phenomena to a desirable degree of accuracy and precision, such as pyroclastic

flow formation during a vertical explosive eruption, is beyond the ability of cur-

rent supercomputing power (see Ref. 108, the discussion of which still applies evenin the context of computing advances since then).

Overall, these different migration forms show the challenges in ensuring that

people, families, and communities are resettled and supported with as few difficul-

ties for them as feasible rather than making an already disastrous situation even

worse through poor disaster response. Public anthropology can contribute to this

work and hence to society, especially regarding understanding, communicating,

and adhering to the needs of those affected.

In engaging with those outside of the discipline, public anthropology can con-

nect the different sciences contributing to migration-related decisions. Given itsdeliberate connection between theory and practice, public anthropology grasps the

i l h i f i i i d i i d i


12/22


especially in providing appropriate aid and support beyond the emergency sit-

uation. For these how to approaches, public anthropology necessarily involves

local consultation and participation balanced with wider perspectives. Other sec-tors and disciplines do not always adopt such a community-based approach. Per-

ceptions of place, and of risk in a place, changes, especially following an event.

That is part of public anthropologys purview.

With respect to case studies of migration involving volcanism and sea-level

rise, the concepts and history of public anthropology for disaster-related activities,

as explored in the first two sections, have now been put into practice in this section.

What comes next for the challenges and opportunities of disaster-related public

anthropology?

4. Anthropology and Anthropologists Without Borders

4.1. Without Borders (and Without Frontiers)

In 1967, three states in eastern Nigeria declared themselves to be the independent

state of Biafra which led to a war with Nigeria that Biafra lost in 1970. The next

year, a group of French doctors appalled at the suffering they had witnessed

and the humanitarian relief communitys impotence at publicizing it founded

Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders). Unlike many other humani-tarian groups at the time, the without borders concept meant intervening on the

basis of their own decision, rather than at the invitation of a government or another

group, while publicizing the plight of the populations whom they assisted.

Since then, without borders and without frontiers groups have flourished.

Teachers Without Borders works mainly in less affluent countries to enhance teach-

ing and education especially by working with teacher leaders. Reporters Without

Borders works to protect and improve the safety of journalists, including fighting

censorship and helping jailed journalists. Clowns Without Borders presents com-

edy theatre in refugee camps and conflict zones. Few of these groups explicitlydefine their without borders concept, so it varies substantially amongst them.

The without borders/frontiers notion applies directly to anthropology and

anthropologists by encapsulating the meanings of public and serving society

as discussed in section 1. In this context, without borders/frontiers (differences

between borders and frontiers are not discussed here) means willing to work

anywhere under any circumstances with people from all disciplinary and cultural

backgrounds. For this paper, that focuses on implementing disaster-related activi-

ties through serving society.

That statement is idealistic and it is often impractical,109

with one fundamen-tal practicality being that passports and visas are necessary to work in many

countries Yet the concept represents a powerful principle along with exciting


13/22


much as possible meaning when it is pragmatic to do so without causing or

exacerbating other problems. World anthropologies111 could be one example, but

others articulate cautions.112

In particular, disciplinary passports and visas are not necessary to work across

topics, yet artificial boundaries are frequently created, stifling interdisciplinar-

ism. Without borders/frontiers can be invoked to avoid disciplinary confines

exactly the purpose of coining the term public anthropology.1 At the very least,

the without borders/frontiers ideal can be promoted and discussed to generate

debate, enthusiasm, and lateral thinking to bring anthropologists and anthropol-

ogy to other fields while bringing other fields to anthropologists and anthropology.

This discussion also reveals a question implied throughout this paper: in

social responsibility, should the focus be on the profession (anthropology), the

professionals (anthropologists), or both? The label chosen influences the views

and interests of those participating and observing with anthropologists or in the

anthropological process. Considering professionals focuses on only those who

have been formally trained and received an official qualification. Borders and fron-

tiers are automatically constructed by separating people who have the proper doc-

ument, so they can be labelled as anthropologists, from those without a formal

background in the topic. Focusing on the professional and the label as a profes-

sional mark might promote the view of oneself and ones colleagues within the

box of the qualification rather than as individuals and groups with skills, interests,

and experiences for application, improvement, adjustment, and exchange.

In contrast, focusing on the profession accepts that not all anthropology or

anthropology-related tasks are completed by professional or qualified anthropol-

ogists. Whether that situation is supported or disliked, it is the reality. Yet it also

beckons anyone with an interest in the area, whether or not a qualification has been

earned or is desired. Barriers are dismantled leading to a basis for the dialogue and

action which the public label implies in public anthropology.

Another approach to the same idea which focuses on a topic rather than on

a discipline has been termed Affairs, as in Climate Affairs.113 Affairs refers to

matters or concerns. Affairs does not pigeonhole or separate fields that must in-teract and cross over to solve problems, such as climate problems. Instead, Affairs

creates opportunities for connection and interaction through a template with six

subdivisions: Science, Impacts, Policy and Law, Politics, Economics, and Ethics

and Equity. Based on that template, Climate Affairs is a book113 and workshops

whilst Desert Affairs is an environmental education program and an international

research, education, and application centre.

Anyone with interests in climate or deserts irrespective of their training,

professional background, or job finds a forum to interact with others. Mete-

orologists can talk to anthropologists investigating climate-society interactions.Anthropologists can work with water lawyers to collaborate with farmers tackling

d h W Aff i El Ni Aff i d I l d Aff i 114 h l b


14/22


4.2. Themes of Public Service

Within these labels and frameworks, how can anthropologists and those interested

in anthropology create and pursue opportunities in which to implement their pub-lic service and social responsibility? Four cross-cutting themes with some overlap

but with relative independence are proposed here and are briefly addressed to

summarize the threads throughout this paper and to suggest areas for focus in

terms of moving forward with disaster-related public anthropology:

(i) Rights and responsibilities.

(ii) Root causes.

(iii) Community-based approaches.

(iv) Lifelong learning and exchange.

The first theme is the rights and responsibilities of anthropologists in their

work as well as the rights and responsibilities of people being affected by

anthropologists and anthropology. A rights-based approach is becoming promi-

nent in many aspects of disaster-related activities.115117 That tends to refer to a

conceptual framework or paradigm using international human rights standards

as the basis for disaster-related activities, starting with the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights.118 Critiques exist of the rights-based approach, with some cul-

tures preferring to consider duties, but for many purposes, codifying rights and

responsibilities ensures that those involved in a certain task begin from the same

basis and have a common grounding which, in theory, directs their interests and

actions.

The second theme is identifying root causes of disaster and addressing those

root causes through anthropology as much as feasible. Root causes7,8 refer to the

vulnerability conditions existing day-to-day, long before an extreme event strikes

to yield a disaster. Examples are inequity, gender and ethnic discrimination, poor

opportunities for livelihoods, and corrupt and inefficient governance. These condi-

tions are all noted in disaster-related anthropological work18,51,67 as the root causes

which must be tackled to avert the devastation that is termed a disaster.The argument from the first and second themes is not that anthropologists

and anthropology should dominate all others and is not that anthropologists

and anthropology should replace other approaches, such as public health, struc-

ture and community design, pedagogy, diplomacy, and entrepreneurship. Instead,

anthropologists have the right, the responsibility, and the skills to contribute

to disaster-related activities by encouraging and participating in a long-term

approach which changes the prevailing conditions that set the stage for a disas-

ter to occur. Those changes should help to avoid disasters.

The third theme is that lessons should be applied from past experiences suchas those in Table 1 in order to learn from affected communities and to ensure that

h i i i l d i id if i d dd i h i di


15/22


tory approaches, as is regularly done in anthropology.71,78,79 In fact, by definition,

the public anthropology approach involves the community in research and in

applying research results.As shown by the cases of islanders returning to their volcano-affected island

against the wishes of the authorities, consulting with the community and facili-

tating their own decision-making process can avoid confrontation and can reduce

the likelihood of decisions costing lives and livelihoods. Community-based partic-

ipatory processes are well established in the literature for disaster-related research

and practice,64,65 so those engaged in public anthropology should ensure that these

approaches are applied.

The fourth theme is lifelong learning and exchange, including informing

anthropologists of the first three themes throughout their training and career.Learning, of course, does not stop after school; it continually happens formally and

informally. Any form of public anthropology is an opportunity to learn, to teach,

and to exchange, especially with disaster-related activities being most successful

as an ongoing process with relevance to peoples day-to-day lives.

In learning and exchange, anthropological topics must be placed alongside

wider non-anthropological contexts. That way, anyone boxed in by their training

or profession will need to think beyond their own outlook; that is, across borders.

A balance must be maintained between the expanded role of anthropology and

anthropologists and the reality that this field and the professionals cannot and

should not do everything. Collaboration is essential across disciplines, across cul-

tures, across locations, and across ideas.

Yet few paradigms are panaceas. Without borders/frontiers is no exception,

because challenges are evident overlapping with the concepts opportunities. A

major challenge in disaster-related activities around the world is the lack of for-

mally trained professionals who understand people and governance and who are

willing to provide that expertise for public service. The last generation has seen a

significant shift away from purely structural or technocratic approaches for dealing

with disasters. Nevertheless, the assumption that engineering approaches always

protect and always reduce risk is still prevalent, so that structural or technocraticapproaches are frequently the main, or only, approach selected. Having public

anthropologists with formal qualifications who take responsibility, and who accept

accountability, for their advocacy and actions would be a powerful force for seek-

ing a better balance of disaster-related approaches.

Anthropologists have expertise, their training is worthwhile, and their qual-

ifications are important. There is no need to hide that. Anthropologists should

be engaged in public anthropology for disaster-related activities with the pride,

but not haughtiness, that their background and service deserves along with the

humility, but not shame, that their background and service generates.The shift between the professional and the profession can be ephemeral, with


16/22


and as long as borders and frontiers are deliberately blurred without forgetting

their existence, anthropologists and others will be able to develop opportunities

and to defeat challenges in disaster-related activities through public anthropology.

References

1. R. Borofsky, Public Anthropology. Where To? What Next?, Anthropology News 41(5),910 (2000).

2. M. Singer, Why I Am Not a Public Anthropologist,Anthropology News41(6), 67 (2000).3. R. Borofsky, Public Anthropology: A Personal Perspective, http://www.publican-

thropology.org/Defining/publicanth-07Oct10.htm accessed on 13 May 2008, (2007).4. UNISDR, Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction, (UNISDR (United

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Geneva, 2008).5. B. Rylko-Bauer, M. Singer and J. van Willigen, Reclaiming Applied Anthropology: Its

Past, Present, and Future,Am. Anthropologist 108(1), 178-190 (2006).6. R. Sanjek, Going Public: Responsibilities and Strategies in the Aftermath of Ethnogra-

phy,Hum. Org. 63(4), 444456 (2004).7. J. Lewis,Development in Disaster-prone Places: Studies of Vulnerability (London: Interme-

diate Technology Publications, 1999).8. B. Wisner, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis,At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulner-

ability and Disasters, 2nd edn. (Routledge, London, 2004). First published as P. Blaikie,

T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner, At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability andDisasters, 2nd edn. (Routledge, London, 1994).

9. C. Belshaw, Social Consequences of the Mount Lamington Eruption, Oceania 21(4),241253 (1951).

10. R. Firth,Social Change in Tikopia(MacMillan, New York, 1959).11. F. M. Keesing, The Papuan Orokaiva vs. Mt Lamington: Cultural Shock and its After-

math,Hum. Org. 11(1), 2622 (1952).12. J. Spillius, Natural Disaster and Political Crisis in a Polynesian Society: An Exploration

of Operational Research,Hum. Rel. 10(1), 327 (1957).13. A. F. C. Wallace,Tornado in Worcester: An Exploratory Study of Individual and Commu-

nity Behavior in an Extreme Situation(National Academy of Sciences-National Research

Council, Washington D.C., 1956).14. A. F. C. Wallace, Mazeway Disintegration: The Individuals Perception of Socio-

Cultural Disorganization,Hum. Org. 16(2), 2327 (1957).15. Hum. Org. 16(2) (1957).16. S. M. Hoffman and A. Oliver-Smith (eds.),Catastrophe & Culture. The Anthropology of

Disaster(School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, 2002).17. A. Oliver-Smith (ed.),Natural Disasters and Cultural Responses (Department of Anthro-

pology College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 1986).18. A. Oliver-Smith and S. M. Hoffman (eds.),The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological

Perspective(Routledge, London, 1999).19. W. I. Torry, Anthropology and Disaster Research,Disasters 3, 4352 (1979a).

20. W. I. Torry, Anthropological Studies in Hazardous Environments: Past Trends andNew Horizons,Current Anthropology 20(3), 517540 (1979b).

21 Oli S i h A A h l i l R h H d d Di A l R i


17/22


22. J.-J. Rousseau, Rousseau a Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (Lettre 424, le 18 aout1756), in R. A. Leigh (ed.), Correspondance complete de Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tome IV1756-1757, (Institut et muse Voltaire, Les Delices, Geneva, 1967), pp. 3750.

23. S. H. Prince, Catastrophe and Social Change (PhD dissertation, Columbia University,New York, 1920).

24. G. F. White, Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Prob-lem in the United-States(PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1942) republished asResearch Paper No. 29 (Department of Geography - University of Chicago, Chicago,1945).

25. I. Burton with R. W. Kates and G. F. White,The Environment as Hazard(Oxford Univer-sity Press/The Guilford Press, New York, 1978 and 1993).

26. I. Burton, Culture and Personality Variables in the Perception of Natural Hazards,inEnvironment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications, J. F. Wohlwill andD. H. Carson (ed.), (American Psychological Association Inc., Washington, 1972),pp. 184195.

27. R. R. Dynes, The Comparative Study of Disaster: A Social Organizational Approach,Mass Emergencies 1(1), 2132 (1976).

28. R. W. Kates, Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Mod-els,Economic Geography 47(3), 438451 (1971).

29. R. W. Kates, D. J. Amaral, J. E. Haas, R. A. Olson, R. Ramos and R. Olson, HumanImpact of the Managua Earthquake,Science 182(4116), 981990 (1973).

30. D. S. Mileti with T. E. Drabek and J. E. Haas,Human Systems in Extreme Environments:A Sociological Perspective, (Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado,Boulder, 1975).

31. I. Ingleby, Mt Lamington Fifteen Years After,Australian Territories6

, 2834 (1966).32. E. G. Schwimmer, What did the Eruption Mean?, in Exiles and Migrants in Oceania,M. D. Leiber (Ed.) (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1977), pp. 296341.

33. J. P. Blair, Return to Lonely Tristan da Cunha,Nat. Geog. 125(1), 6081 (1964).34. H. E. Lewis, with D. F. Roberts and A. W. F. Edwards, Biological Problems, and Oppor-

tunities, of Isolation among the Islanders of Tristan da Cunha, in Population and socialchange, D. V. Glass and R. Revelle (ed.) (Edward Arnold, London, 1972), 383417.

35. P. A. Munch, Culture and Superculture in a Displaced Community: Tristan da Cunha,Ethnology 3(4), 369376 (1964).

36. P. A. Munch, Economic Development and Conflicting Values: A Social Experiment inTristan da Cunha,Am. Anthropologist 72(6), 13001318 (1970).

37. S. Panell, Did the Earth Move for You? The Social Seismology of a Natural Disaster inMaluku, Eastern Indonesia,Aus. J. of Anthropology 10(2), 129143 (1999).38. C. G. To Waninara, The 1994 Rabaul Volcanic Eruption: Human Sector Impacts on the

Tolai Displaced Communities, (Melanesian Research Institute, Goroka, 2000).39. F. L. Bates and W. G. Peacock, Disaster and Social Change, inSociology of Disasters:

Contribution of Sociology to Disaster Research, R. R. Dynes, B. de Marchi, and C. Pelanda(eds.), (Franco Angeli Libri, Milan, 1987), pp. 291330.

40. R. J. Blong,Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook on the Effects of Eruptions (Academic Press,Sydney, 1984).

41. J. Mercer, D. Dominey-Howes, I. Kelman and K. Lloyd, The Potential for Combin-ing Indigenous and Western Knowledge in Reducing Vulnerability to Environmental

Hazards in Small Island Developing States,Environmental Hazards 7, 245256 (2007).42. J. D. Rees, Paricutin Revisited: A Review of Mans Attempts to Adapt to Ecological

Changes Resulting from Volcanic Catastrophe Geoforum 4 725 (1970)


18/22


43. M. L. Nolan, Impact of Parcutin on Five Communities, in Volcanic Activity and Hu-man Ecology, P. D. Sheets and D. K. Grayson (Ed.) (Academic Press, New York, 1979),293335.

44. M. L. Nolan and S. Nolan, Human Communities and their Responses, inParcutin: TheVolcano Born in a Mexican Cornfield, J. F. Luhr and T. Simkin (Ed.), (Geoscience Press,Phoenix, 1993), pp. 189214.

45. F. L. Bates, Recovery, Change and Development: A Longitudinal Study of the 1976Guatemalan Earthquake(University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1982).

46. F. C. Cuny,Disasters and Development, (Oxfam / Oxford University Press, New York,1983).

47. G. A. Hoover and F. L. Bates, The Impact of a Natural Disaster on the Division ofLabor in Twelve Guatemalan Communities: A Study of Social Change in a DevelopingCountry,Int. J. Mass Emergencies and Disasters 3(3), 726 (1985).

48. N. Y. Davis, The Effects of the 1964 Alaska Earthquake, Tsunami, and Resettlementon Two Koniag Eskimo Villages (PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle,1971).

49. N. Y. Davis, Earthquake, Tsunami, Resettlement and Survival in Two North PacificAlaskan Native Villages, in Natural Disasters and Cultural Responses, A. Oliver-Smith(ed.) (Department of Anthropology College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,1986), pp. 123154.

50. J. Leslie, Think Before You Build, Experiences After the Yemen Earthquake, Open HouseInternational 12(3), 4349 (1987).

51. J. Copans (ed.),Secheresses et Famines du Sahel(Francois Maspero, Paris, 1975).52. W. I. Torry, Hazards, Hazes and Holes: A Critique of The Environment as Hazard and

General Reflections on Disaster Research,Canadian Geographer23

(4), 368383 (1979c).53. E. Waddell, The Hazards of Scientism: A Review Article,Human Ecology 5(1), 6976(1977).

54. P. OKeefe, K. Westgate and B. Wisner, Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters,Nature260, 566567 (1976).

55. K. Hewitt (ed.),Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology(Allen &Unwin, London, 1983).

56. K. Hewitt, Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters (Addison WesleyLongman, Essex, 1997).

57. R. E. Criss and E.L. Shock, Flood Enhancement Through Flood Control, Geology29(10),875878 (2001).

58. G. A. Tobin, The Levee Love Affair: A Stormy Relationship,Water Resources Bulletin31

(3), 359367 (1995).59. NEES,Preventing Earthquake Disasters: The Grand Challenge in Earthquake Engineering:

A Research Agenda for the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)(National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003).

60. T. Cannon, Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of Natural Disasters, inDis-asters, Development and Environment, A. Varley (ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,1994), pp. 1330.

61. D. K. Chester,Volcanoes and Society(Edward Arnold, London, 1993).62. B. Wisner, Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power, and Daily Life, Geojournal 30(2),

127140 (1993).

63. A. Maskrey,Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach(Oxfam, Oxford, 1989).64. M. B. Anderson and P. J. Woodrow, Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times

of Disasters (Westview Press Boulder 1989)


19/22


65. G. Bankoff with G. Frerks and T. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,Development and People(Earthscan, London, 2004).

66. G. Sjoberg, Disasters and Social Change, inMan and Society in Disaster, G. W. Baker

and D. W. Chapman (Ed.) (Basic Books, New York, 1962), pp. 356384.67. W. I. Torry, Natural Disasters, Social Structure and Change in Traditional Societies,

J. Asian and African Studies 13(3-4), 167183 (1978).68. E. Waddell, How the Enga Cope with Frost: Responses to Climatic Perturbations in

the Central Highlands of New Guinea,Human Ecology 3, 249273 (1975).69. E. Waddell, Coping with Frosts, Governments and Disaster Experts: Some Reflections

Based on a New Guinean Experience and a Perusal of the Relevant Literature, inInterpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, K. Hewitt (ed.) (Allen& Unwin, London, 1983), pp. 3343.

70. K. M. Cijffers, Disaster Relief: Doing Things Badly, Pacific Viewpoint 28 (2), 95117,(1987).

71. L. Ali, Symbolic Planning and Disaster Preparedness in Developing Countries: ThePresbyterian Church in Vanuatu, Int. J. Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10(2), 293314(1992).

72. M. Q. Zaman, The Social and Political Context of Adjustment to Riverbank ErosionHazard and Population Resettlement in Bangladesh,Hum. Org. 48(3), 196205 (1989).

73. M. Q. Zaman, Ethnography of Disasters: Making Sense of Flood and Erosion inBangladesh,The Eastern Anthropologist 47(2), 129155 (1994).

74. M. Q. Zaman, Vulnerability, Disaster, and Survival in Bangladesh: Three Case Stud-ies, in The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, A. Oliver-Smith andS. M. Hoffman (Eds.) (Routledge, London, 1999), pp. 192212.

75. C. E. Haque and M. Q. Zaman, Vulnerability and Responses to Riverine Hazards inBangladesh: A Critique of Flood Control and Mitigation Approaches, in Disasters,Development and Environment, A. Varley (Ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1994),pp. 6579.

76. D. Schneider, Typhoon on Yap,Hum. Org. 16(2), 1015 (1957).77. A. Oliver-Smith, Traditional Agriculture, Central Places, and Post-Disaster Urban

Relocation in Peru,Am. Ethnologist 4, 102116 (1977).78. A. Oliver-Smith, Post Disaster Consensus and Conflict in a Traditional Society: The

1970 Avalanche of Yungay, Peru,Mass Emergencies 4, 4345 (1979a).79. A. Oliver-Smith, Disaster Rehabilitation and Social Change in Yungay, Peru,Hum. Org.

36(1), 513 (1979b).

80. A. Oliver-Smith, The Yungay Avalanche of 1970: Anthropological Perspective on Dis-aster and Social Change,Disasters 3(1), 95101 (1979c).81. A. Oliver-Smith, The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes (Waveland Press,

Prospect Park, 1986 and 1992).82. C. Boehm, Emergency Decisions, Cultural-Selection Mechanics, and Group Selection,

Current Anthropology 37(5), 763793 (1996).83. J. Lewis, Volcano in Tonga,J. Administration Overseas XVIII(2), 116121 (1979).84. J. Lewis, Some Perspectives on Natural Disaster Vulnerability in Tonga,Pacific View-

point 22 (2), 145162 (1981).85. J. Hurrell, Mitigation through Rehabilitation, inProc. Int. Conf. on Disaster Mitigation

Program Implementation (Vol. 2), Ocho Rios, 12-16 November 1984 (Center for Interna-

tional Development Planning and Building, College of Architecture and Urban Stud-ies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, 1984), pp. 198211.

86 G Rogers The Evacuation of Niuafoou An Outlier in the Kingdom of Tonga The


20/22


87. R. Tonkinson,Maat Village, Efate: A Relocated Community in the New Hebrides, (Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1968).

88. R. Tonkinson, The Exploitation of Ambiguity: A New Hebrides Case, in Exiles and

Migrants in Oceania, M. D. Leiber (Ed.) (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1977),pp. 269295.

89. R. Tonkinson, Forever Ambrymese? Identity in a Relocated Community, Vanuatu,Pacific Viewpoint 26(1), 269295 (1985).

90. C. J. Holland and P. W. VanArsdale, Responses to Disasters: A Comparative Study ofIndigenous Coping Mechanisms in Two Marginal Third World Communities, Int. J.Mass Emergencies and Disasters 4(3), 5170 (1986).

91. A. Oliver-Smith, Disasters and Forced Migration in the 21st Centuryhttp://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith accessed on 5 June 2008, (2006).

92. L. Jencson, Disastrous Rites: Liminality and Communitas in a Flood Crisis,Anthropol-ogy and Humanism 26(1), 4658 (2001).

93. J. Langumier, Survivre a la Catastrophe: Paroles et Recits dun Territoire Inonde Contribution a une Ethnologie de lEvenement a Partir de la Crue de lAude de 1999(PhD dissertation,Ecole des HautesEtudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 2006).

94. J.-C. Gaillard, Resilience of Traditional Societies in Facing Natural Hazards,DisasterPrevention and Management 16(4), 522544 (2007).

95. J. Z. de Boer, and D.T. Sanders, Volcanoes in Human History(Princeton University Press:Princeton, 2002).

96. IPCC, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange), Geneva, 2007).

97. D. G. Vaughan and J. R. Spouge, Risk Estimation of Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice

Sheet,Climatic Change52

, 6591 (2002).98. NRC,Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration(NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council), Oslo, 2008).

99. J. Kennedy, J. Ashmore, E. Babister, I. and Kelman, The Meaning of Build Back Bet-ter: Evidence from Post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka, J. Contingencies and Crisis Man-agement 16(1), 2436 (2008).

100. E. Clay, An Evaluation of HMGs Response to the Montserrat Volcanic Emergency, DFIDEvaluation Report EV635(Department for International Development, London, 1999).

101. P. Davison,Volcano in Paradise(Methuen, London, 2003).102. P. Pattullo,Fire from the Mountain: The Tragedy of Montserrat and the Betrayal of its People ,

(Constable and Robinson, London, 2000).

103. D. Howe, Perhaps Clare Short was right about golden elephants,New Statesman,26

(September) 34, 1997.104. P. D. Nunn, Environmental Catastrophe in the Pacific Islands Around A.D. 1300,Geoar-

chaeology15(7), 715740 (2000).105. P. D. Nunn and J. M. R. Britton, Human-Environment Relationships in the Pacific

Islands around AD 1300,Environment and History 7, 322 (2001).106. P. D. Nunn, R. Hunter-Anderson, M. T. Carson, F. Thomas, S. Ulm and M. J. Rowland,

Times of Plenty, Times of Less: Last-Millennium Societal Disruption in the PacificBasin,Human Ecology 35, 385401 (2007).

107. I. Kelman, Island Security and Disaster Diplomacy in the Context of Climate Change,Les Cahiers de la Securite 63, 6194 (2006).

108. A. Neri, A. Di Muro and M. Rosi, Mass partition during collapsing and transitionalcolumns by using numerical simulations, J. Volcanology and Geothermal Research 115,118 (2002)


21/22


109. N. Scheper-Hughes, The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropol-ogy,Current Anthropology 36(3), 409440 (1995).

110. R. A. Hackenberg, Advancing Applied Anthropology: Toward Anthropology With-

out Borders: Working in the Brave New Postnational World, Hum. Org. 59(4), 465470(2000).

111. E. Restrepo and A. Escobar, Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise:Steps to a World Anthropologies Framework, Critique of Anthropology 25(2), 99129(2005).

112. Responses to Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise: Steps to a WorldAnthropologies Framework by Eduardo Restrepo and Arturo Escobar (June, 2005),Critique of Anthropology 26(4), 463488 (2006).

113. M. H. Glantz,Climate Affairs: A Primer(Island Press, Covelo, California, 2003).114. Island Affairs http://www.islandvulnerability.org/affairs.html accessed 26 March

2009, (2009).115. T. Corsellis and A. Vitale,Transitional Settlement: Displaced Populations(Oxfam, Oxford,

2005).116. G. Kent, The human right to disaster mitigation and relief,Environmental Hazards 3,

137138 (2001).117. Radix: Radical Interpretations of Disasters and Radical Solutions http:

//www.radixonline.org accessed on 13 February 2009, (2009).118. UN,Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UN (United Nations), New York, 1948).


22/22

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

kelman - challenges and opportunities of disaster-related public anthropology

Documents