NEWS: Upload your complete paper before 1 June.

Thank you for being part of NEEDS 2019. The full paper upload is now open and you are expected to submit your full paper (if your panel conveners require the presenters’ full papers), following the below guidelines, before the deadline of 1 June 2019, at 17:00 CET.

Guidelines
The Full paper can be uploaded as a Word document (.docx only!) and will need to follow these guidelines:

  1. paper’s title in font size 14 Times New Romans bold 
  2. authors and affiliation and body of text Times New Romans 12 
  3. space all text 1.5 
  4. use normal margins 
  5. the title(s) uses Sentence capitalisation only (as in this example: The title of the Uppsala paper: The subtitle of the paper on New Orleans
  6. no use of all caps for author’s names, surnames or titles 
  7. in-text citation and referencing follow the author-date system, Chicago or Harvard, no footnote system or numerical system 
  8. a complete final list of references in alphabetical order, referencing follows Chicago or Harvard. 

Upload instructions
Begin by going to the online system where you previously created a personal account to submit your abstract. In the “Edit submission” box, you will be asked to provide the user name and password you previously created for the account. 
Once you have logged in, you should see the information on your abstract, along with a button titled “Upload full paper”. Just click the button, follow the directions on the next page, and upload your paper as Word document (.docx only), correctly formatted according to the guidelines mentioned above.

Questions
If you have any questions, please send an email, including your abstract ID (#13230), to abstracts.needs2019@appinconf.com.

Best regards
Scientific Committee, NEEDS 2019

NEWS: Updated programme and panel slots/times

Check for updates to the programme at the Venue and conference programme page. The schedule of panels with times of sessions is now visible. The line-up of papers will be downloadbale via the printable book of abstracts next week.

We are happy to announce that a number of travel bursaries will be available to PhD students and junior scholars. Information and application link will be accessible at the end of April.

Panel 18 – Health and bodies in emergencies and uncertain times

Conveners: Claudia Merli (Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University) and Mats Målqvist (International Maternal and Child Health (IMCH), Uppsala University Hospital)

Abstract: Clashing definitions of health and perspectives on bodies often meet during times of uncertainty and emergency. In the Anthropocene era the fragility and vulnerability of individuals, groups and environments can be magnified and often extended in conjunction to health and humanitarian interventions that can turn into new forms of governance. Local epistemologies of the relation between individual, community and environment may be silenced or marginalised vis-à-vis hegemonic categorisations that approach ‘nature’ and ‘society’ as domains that are or need to be kept separated. This panel invites contributions that critically assess and debate health and bodies from a wide range of perspectives, including medical anthropology, anthropology of health, global health, public health, medicine, forensic anthropology, science and technology studies, and others. Topics for papers in this panel can address:

  • Epidemics and pandemics
  • Chronic health crises
  • Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • Treatment of human remains in epidemics
  • Disaster Victim Identification and forensic identification
  • Community engagement in times of crisis
  • Psychosocial support among displaced populations
  • Natural hazards and health

Long Abstract: The operative and accepted definition of health by international organisations is the one proposed by the WHO, in which ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (Preamble WHO 1948 and 1978 Alma Ata). It affirms an all-encompassing ideal state of well-being as a stable, positive and whole attainment. Critical approaches to the study of health and health interventions, especially in the global south, privilege the examination of local material and social conditions as well as global political and economic dynamics, problematizing this universal definition of health not only because idealistic, but also as often associated with often short-term action-driven approaches that can lead to unintended or undesirable consequences (see Hanna and Kleinman 2013; Kim et al. 2013). Critical perspectives on health put forward instead a definition that emphasises individuals as well as populations’ control and access to material and non-material resources, including healthcare, in specific socio-cultural contexts (Baer, Singer, and Susser 2003), and take into consideration in the design of health interventions that work long-term those structural barriers that limit or prevent this access (Kim et al. 2013).

In the Anthropocene we witness the progressive ecological fragility of different ecological and urban contexts (cities, mountains, etc.) and vulnerability of individuals, households, and populations (Baer and Singer 2009). At the same time we are called to challenge the vulnerability paradigm that has informed much of contemporary response to disasters (Gaillard 2018). A critical approach to global warming and climate change takes into account also the health consequences produced in fragile environments, which can rapidly transform from a locally delimited health crisis into a global health scare.

Epidemics are increasingly framed as humanitarian emergencies or catastrophes, opening up to new forms of intervention and domination in sudden calamities and chronic states of uncertainty, by NGOs and other humanitarian organisations operating from different moral frameworks (for example utilitarianism, liberal cosmopolitanism, capabilities approach, etc.) (see Nguyen 2009; Redfield 2010; Suri et al. 2013). We want to explore how these interventions operate from an uncritical definition of the body developed within the Western biomedical epistemology, which does not take into consideration the theoretical articulation between the individual body, the social body, and the body politic (cf. Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987).

One of the aspects characterising the aftermath of environmental crises as well as health epidemics concerns the treatment and potential dehumanization of dead bodies and human remains. A biomedical approach to death as a state detached from human life may cause severe conflict to contextual nursing practices and cultural perceptions of life and afterlife (Richards 2016). This approach often gains prerogative in crisis situations, e.g. Ebola outbreaks or in the aftermath of environmental disasters.

We invite colleagues to critically reflect on how an uncritical biomedical approach reproduces a perspective on ‘nature’ and ‘society’ as untroubled versus troubling separate domains in the context of health interventions during uncertain times.

References:

Baer, Hans, and Merrill Singer. 2016. Global warming and the political ecology of health: Emerging crises and systemic solutions. London: Routledge.

Baer, Hans A., Merrill Singer, and Ida Susser. 2003. Medical anthropology and the world system. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Gaillard, J.C. 2018. Disaster studies inside out. Disasters doi:10.1111/disa.12323

Hanna, Bridget, and Arthur Kleinman. 2013. “Unpacking Global Health: Theory and critique.” In P. Famer, J. Y. Kim, A. Kleinman and M. Basilico (eds), Reimagining Global Health, pp. 15-32. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kim, Jim Yong, Michael Porter, Joseph Rhatigan, Rebecca Weintraub, Matthew Basilico, and Paul Farmer. 2013. “Scaling up effective delivery models worldwide.” In P. Famer, J. Y. Kim, A. Kleinman and M. Basilico (eds), Reimagining Global Health, pp. 184-211. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nguyen, Vinh-Kim. 2009. Government-by-exception: Enrolment and experimentality in mass HIV treatment programmes in Africa.Social Theory & Health, 7(3): 196–217.

Redfield, Peter. 2010. “The verge of crisis: Doctors without Borders in Uganda.” In. D. Fassin and M. Pandolfi (eds), Contemporary states of emergency: The politics of military and humanitarian interventions, pp. 173–195. New York: Zone Books.

Richards, Paul. 2016. Ebola: How a people’s science helped end an epidemic. Chicago: ZED Books.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Margaret Lock. 1987. The mindful body: A prolegomenon to future work in Medical Anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly(1): 6–41.

Suri, Arjun, Jonathan Weigel, Luke Messac, Marguerite T. Basilico, Matthew Basilico, Bridget Hanna, Salmaan Keshavjee, and Arthur Kleinman. 2013. “Values and Global Health.” In P. Famer, J. Y Kim, A. Kleinman and M. Basilico (eds), Reimagining Global Health, pp. 245-286. Berkeley: University of California Press.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1948. Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June­─22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of WHO, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.

Panel 17 – Matters of scale in the making, understanding​ and analysing water-related disasters and crises

Conveners: Susann Baez Ullberg (Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University) and Maria Rusca (Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University), Giuliano Di Baldassarre (Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University)

Abstract: Scholars are often confronted with diverse modes and practices of scale making in studying water-related disasters and crises, no matter if these are conceptualised as events, processes or both. Social actors rely upon different scales to organize, interpret, orient, and act in their worlds: these are not given but made in multiple modes. In analysing such practices, scholars also employ scale as an organising methodological concept. We want to consider how these scaling practices are enacted in at least three dimensions of application: spatial, temporal, and demographic. We invite papers that engage with scale conceptually, empirically and methodologically.

Long Abstract:  This session aims at exploring the ways in which water-related disasters and crises are discursively and materially produced via different scaling practices. By bringing together different scientific perspectives we want to examine the differences and similarities in how we engage with and analyse these enactments and what the ontological, epistemological and methodological premises are. Scholars are often confronted with diverse modes and practices of scale making in studying disasters and crises, no matter if they are conceptualised as events, processes or both. Social actors rely upon different scales to organize, interpret, orient, and act in their worlds: these are not given but made in multiple modes (Carr & Lempert, 2016; Colligne, 1999). In analysing such practices, scholars also employ scale as an organising methodological concept. We want to consider how these scaling practices are enacted in at least three dimensions of application: spatial, temporal and demographic. As a geographical construction, water related disaster and the politics of scale are evidenced when questions of risk, vulnerability, and resilience are framed by local and global experts according to a normative division into ‘local’, ‘regional’, ‘national’, ‘transnational’ and ‘global’, or scales are contested and renegotiated in the production of uneven disaster waterscapes (Colligne, 1999; Marston, 2014; Swyngendouw, 2003).

The temporal dimensions account for both tempo and timing, from anticipating future risks and mitigating slow onset water-related disaster, to operating during emergencies and engaging in the often-ignored long-term temporal aspects of the production of vulnerabilities and hazards and post-disaster recovery. Finally, the demographic dimension, which relates to both time and space, plays out the tension between individual and collective needs in addressing floods and dorughts. Even when operating on a relatively local scale, international emergency operations tend to focus on ‘population’ overlooking local political and social dynamics that create social differentiation of aid and ignoring individual coping capacities. By avoiding taking for granted global forces and local places; short-term events and long-term processes; or collective needs and individual capacities, this session questions the stability of the concept of scale and scaling practices. It focuses on scaling itself as the object of discussing disasters and crises as to avoid ‘scale blindness’ (Bird-David, 2017).

We invite panellists who can, through their theoretical and empirical work, contribute to the above debates, by examining topics that may include, but are not limited to, the following questions: How are scales of water-related disaster and crises management set and by whom? Through what scaling practices are floods and droughts materially and discursively produced and managed? What does it mean and to whom to say that a crisis is transnational, national, regional or local? What are the scalar factors driving disaster risk accumulation and uneven exposure to hydrological risks? In which ways do different actors change and navigate their contexts of action and endow their concerns with different levels of significance? What are the material and political channels that enable or hinder scaling processes? What methodologies are productive to investigate the role of scaling practices in the production and uneven distribution of water-related disasters? How do scholars themselves engage in processes of scaling while assembling and navigating their fields of research? How do we ‘scale-up’ disaster and crises studies to influence scaling practices?

References

Bird-David, 2017. “Before nation: Scale-blind anthropology and foragers’ worlds of relatives.” Current Anthropology 58(2): 209–226.

Carr, E. Summerson, and Michael Lempert. 2016. Scale: discourse and dimensions of social life. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

Collinge, C.J., 1999. ‘Self-organization of society by scale’, Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, 17 (5), 557-574.

Leitner, H. 2004. The politics of scale and networks of spatial connectivity: Transnational interurban networks and the rescaling of political governance in Europe. In Sheppard, E. and McMaster, R.B. (Eds), Scale and geographic inquiry, pp. 236-255. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Marston, A.J. 2014. The scale of informality: Community-run water systems in peri-urban Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water Alternatives 7(1): 72-88

Swyngedouw, E. and Heynen, N.C., 2003. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode, 35(5), pp.898-918.

Panel 16 – Multiple hazards and compound/cascading effects

Conveners: Maurizio Mazzoleni and Johanna Mård (Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University)

Abstract: Different natural hazards (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfire, etc.), caused by the interaction of multiple hazard drivers in space or time, have a multiplier effect on the risk to society, infrastructure, and the environment, leading to a significant impact is referred to as a ‘compound event’. Recently, they were identified as an important challenge by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) ‘Grand Challenge’ on Extremes. For this reason, this panel aims at providing a platform for first understanding current state-of-the-art and recent research findings on compound, cascading, and concurrent events and then discussing reduction and management of compound disaster risks depending on our improved understanding of these causal connections and mechanisms.

Long Abstract: This session focuses on the compound and cascading events, and their impacts on natural hazard risk. Traditionally, risk assessment methods only consider one driver and/or hazard at a time, potentially leading to uncertainty risk evaluation as the processes that cause extreme events often interact and are spatially and/or temporally dependent. However, different natural hazards (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfire, etc.), caused by the interaction of multiple hazard drivers in space or time, have a multiplier effect on the risk to society, infrastructure, and the environment, leading to a significant impact is referred to as a ‘compound event’. For example, recent studies indicate that when river and coastal floods occur at the same time or in quick succession, their impacts could be more devastating than when either occurs separately (Kew et al., 2013; Klerk et al., 2015; Wahl et al., 2015). The need to proper understand compound hazards has been recognized by different studies (e.g., Leonard et al., 2014). Recently, they were identified as an important challenge by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) ‘Grand Challenge’ on Extremes. For this reason, this panel aims at providing a platform for first understanding current state-of-the-art and recent research findings on compound, cascading, and concurrent events an then discussing reduction and management of compound disaster risks depending on our improved understanding of these causal connections and mechanisms (Ikeuchi et al., 2017).

We encourage contributions related to all aspects of compound, cascading, and concurrent events, including those that: improve understanding of physical processes; showcase new methodologies, techniques and statistical approaches; and illustrate how including multiple interacting hazards improves risk assessments (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Moreover, we invite panellists which work (both theoretical and empirical) contributes to addressing the following questions: What are the most appropriate theoretical frameworks and supporting tools for risk assessment and attribution that explicitly account for compound events? Which tools and data can be use to better risk management of climate-related impacts? How can we identify the combinations of climate drivers and hazards that collectively lead to changes in risk? Which analysis are required to resolving compound events in climate projections? How can we investigate the changing nature of human activities (such as urbanization, infrastructure, anthropogenic emissions) and their interactions with compound events?

References

Ikeuchi, H., Y. Hirabayashi, D. Yamazaki, S. Muis, P. J. Ward, H. C. Winsemius, M. Verlaan, and S. Kanae (2017), Compound simulation of fluvial floods and storm surges in a global coupled river-coast flood model: Model development and its application to 2007 Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 9, 1847–1862, doi:10.1002/2017MS000943.

Kew, S. F., F. M. Selten, G. Lenderink, and W. Hazeleger (2013), The simultaneous occurrence of surge and discharge extremes for the Rhine delta, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13(8), 2017–2029, doi:10.5194/nhess-13-2017-2013.

Klerk, W. J., H. C. Winsemius, W. J. van Verseveld, A. M. R. Bakker, and F. L. M. Diermanse (2015), The co-incidence of storm surges and extreme discharges within the Rhine–Meuse Delta, Environ. Res. Lett., 10(3), 035005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/035005.

Leonard, M., S. Westra, A. Phatak, M. Lambert, B. Van den Hurk, K. McInnes, J. Risbey, S. Schuster, D. Jakob, and M. Stafford-Smith (2014), A compound event framework for understanding extreme impacts, WIREs Clim. Change, 5, 113–128, doi:10.1002/wcc.252.

Wahl, T., S. Jain, J. Bender, S. D. Meyers, and M. E. Luther (2015), Increasing risk of compound flooding from storm surge and rainfall for major US cities, Nat. Clim. Change, 5(12), 1093–1097, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2736.

Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., van den Hurk, B.J.J.M., Seneviratne, S.I., Ward, P.J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D.N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., Zhang, X.Z. (2018), Future climate risk from compound events, Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 469-477.

Panel 2 – Displacement: Examining the complexities of an escalating and vexing social dilemma

Conveners: Susanna Hoffman (Chief, Commission on Risk and Disaster, International Union of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences), Andrew Littlejohn (Leiden University), and Irena L. I. Connon (Dundee University), Alex Greer (State University of New York at Albany) and Sherri Brokopp Binder (BrokoppBinder Research & Consulting)

Abstract: The scale of people displaced by calamity, climate, and development around the world in recent years has grown exponentially. In 2017 alone the number was 44,000 people every day, or one person every two seconds, with a total of 68.5 million, the largest number for the fifth year in a row. Forty percent of them were displaced internally within their own country; sixty to other lands. Forty percent came from developing countries; a surprising sixty percent from the first world. The phenomena has caused great stress not only to the people themselves but to the societies to which they have migrated. Considering the increasingly dismaying “nature” of global circumstances, the numbers and scale will only grow. This panel aims to explore the intricacies of loss and displacement as experienced by those displaced and why resettlement often proves so difficult.

The first part of the panel focuses on understanding the complexity of displacement through an anthropological lens. While a great deal has been written about the privations and dispossession of people exiled by various causes from their homes and prior lives and why their resettlement often proves difficult, generally the bereavement and intransigence suffered by those displaced has been treated as if singular in constitution. In actuality, a number of distinct facets make up its disposition. Incorporated are at least three vectors of enduring pain and bewilderment: past, home, and place. All of them combine to make adaptation, or lack of it, to new circumstance vexing. While all the threads that make up the despair are personally endured, they also take shape from the aura and structures set by the culture and society of origin. Covered will be loss of cultural and physical surroundings, quotidian habit and sphere, legacy and expectation, and perceptual ambiance. While a people’s past is implicated, so are the present and the future.

Understanding the complexities of displacement is also fundamental for development of equitable relocation and resettlement processes. The latter part of this panel expands on the discussion of displacement by examining organized retreat as a strategy for reducing disaster exposure and losses. Organized retreat presents an opportunity for governments to permanently eliminate hazard exposure in an equitable, mutually beneficial way. However, relocations have historically been associated with a suite of negative consequences for affected households, communities, governments, and lands. To ensure that future relocation projects minimize harm and maximize potential benefits to communities, it important to develop new research-informed policies and practice that reliably reduce hazard vulnerability and deliver timely and equitable assistance to communities and governments.

Long Abstract: The scale of people displaced by calamity, climate, and development around the world in recent years has grown exponentially. In 2017 alone the number was 44,000 people every day, or one person every two seconds, with a total of 68.5 million, the largest number for the fifth year in a row. Forty percent of them were displaced internally within their own country; sixty to other lands. Forty percent came from developing countries; a surprising sixty percent from the first world. The phenomena has caused great stress not only to the people themselves but to the societies to which they have migrated. Considering the increasingly dismaying “nature” of global circumstances, the numbers and scale will only grow.

This panel aims to explore the intricacies of loss and displacement as experienced by those displaced and why resettlement often proves so difficult. While a great deal has been written about the privations and dispossession of people exiled by various causes from their homes and prior lives and why their resettlement often proves difficult, generally the bereavement and intransigence suffered by those displaced has been treated as if singular in constitution. In actuality, a number of distinct facets make up its disposition. Incorporated are at least three vectors of enduring pain and bewilderment: past, home, and place. All of them combine to make adaptation, or lack of it, to new circumstance vexing. Examined will be the fact that while all the threads that make up the despair are personally endured, they also take shape from the aura and structures set by the culture and society of origin. Covered will be loss of cultural and physical surroundings, quotidian habit and sphere, legacy and expectation, and perceptual ambience. Also possibly discussed will be the ramifications of “landless” resettlement in the upheaval of once rural peoples, the duel or more temporalities the displaced live in, the costs of entire communities relocating, and weighs the notion of risk and risk reduction in light of the pain of displacement. While a people’s past is implicated, so are the present and the future. Pertinent to the issue are coping, adaptation, and sustainability, and the strategies and obstacles to them. In order to examine the impacts of displacement and increasing resettlement, the panel crosses over and is open to a number of what are usually treated as diverse concerns: disaster survivors, the increasing number of climate exiles, conflict refugees, and groups forcibly extracted from their milieus for other reasons. It is further open to both theoretical approaches and particular or ethnographic case studies and also to social science, physical or natural science, and practitioner concerns.

In addition, the panel also welcomes papers examining the issues, challenges, and opportunities of post-disaster relocation and resettlement processes. While organized retreat and related relocation efforts may seem like a straightforward method of reducing disaster exposure and losses, empirical research in this area remains limited. The relocation of residents out of hazardous areas has historically been plagued with challenges for affected households, communities, and governments. Households and communities affected by relocation efforts have been found to experience a suite of losses, including disruptions to social networks, negative health impacts, and economic losses. Further, such relocations raise complex questions related to the management and use of newly created open space. To ensure that future relocation projects benefit communities, it important to develop new research-informed policies and practice that reliably reduce hazard vulnerability and deliver timely and equitable assistance to communities and governments.

Panel 5 – Governing ethics, accountability, and data in disasters

Conveners:  Nathan Clark (University of Copenhagen), Kristoffer Albris (University of Copenhagen), Paolo Cavaliere (University of Delaware) and Femke Mulder (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract: Disasters are becoming digital. More and more, professional disaster management systems and bottom-up, volunteer initiatives processes rely on (big) data, digital technologies, social media platforms and geospatial information to assess risks, organize recovery efforts, and perform early warnings. There is indeed a sense that the digital revolution in its various guises and expressions has already had profound effects on the conduct and theory of disaster governance, while holding even greater potentials for the future (Palen and Anderson 2016). Yet the use of digital technologies and data for disaster governance also brings with it a number of unaddressed and unanswered challenges and issues (Alexander 2014). For instance, how are citizens’ rights of anonymity, privacy, security and data ownership guaranteed when they contribute – knowingly or unknowingly – to disaster management efforts through social media and other digital platforms? How do the uses – and potential misuses – of digital technologies and data in disaster management affect questions of liability and responsibility? How do authorities and communities react to misinformation and “fake news” in disaster situations? What sorts of questions does the issue of data sensitivity for aid relief in complex emergencies present us with? How do rules, norms and practices shape disaster technologies and vice versa? These are just some of the questions at stake in the politics and ethics of the use of data and digital technologies in disasters and emergencies. They also give rise to broader lines of enquiry. Under the ethics and accountability lens, practitioners and scholars should ask whether a certain action can bring any benefit or can undermine both response and the integrity of either an agency, organization or the state. How can we address complex ethics and accountability issues that relate to the overall disaster governance? Crucially, the plethora of new digital innovations in disasters and emergencies occur at different scales, from the local to the global levels, and in different tempi, from immediate to long-term implications, which often makes it hard to comparatively discuss their ethical and political implications. For this panel, we invite papers that analyse disaster governance and deal critically with how (big) data, social media platforms, GIS and remote sensing technologies, and other emerging digital technologies, are being used throughout all phases of the disaster management cycle, as well as in humanitarian emergencies. We especially encourage papers that simultaneously address theoretical questions and practice-oriented problems.