Posts

Deadline extended one extra week to 23:59 GMT+1 on 7 March.

Following requests from colleagues in different time zones and those who discovered the CfP too close to original submission, we are extending the CfP for one extra week, until 7 March at 23:59 GMT+1. Note, that some panels are completely full and will not accept further proposals. Other panels can accept 1 to 3 papers to fill a session. More details on submission page #DisasterStudies#MedAnth#Emergency#DRR#NEEDS2019

Keynote presentations

The abstracts of keynote speakers’ presentations are available and they look stunning. In the diversity of perspectives, they engage the Nature, Society and Scale theme as well as collaboration across disciplines in ways that surely will spark interesting discussions during the conference. Concisely, they address the role of affect in policy and climate change (Manderson), the challenges of carrying out interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research in disaster health (Horwell), emergencies and disasters as key to understanding wider social phenomena and political logics (Nguyen), and human activities and changes in compound extremes (AghaKouchak). Read their abstracts here https://needs2019.com/keynote-presentations/ 

20180718_201634.jpg

CfP and Registration open

Call for Papers is open and with deadline 22 February, Registration point is activated and the Early Bird registration fee is available until 31 March. The snow is covering us today with its beautiful softness and light, but we also look forward to summer days in Uppsala. Welcome you all 10-12 June.

20181218_201540 carolina rediviva

Panel 21 – 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 20 – 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 19 – 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 18 – Post-disaster resiliency: Planning to meet community needs during the short-term recovery phase

Conveners: Claire Connolly Knox (School of Public Administration and National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida) and Lauren A. Clay (Health Services Administration Department, D’Youville College; Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware)

Abstract: Billion-dollar disasters have steadily increased in the U.S. and abroad, which has focused our attention to community resiliency. In the U.S., 2017 and 2018 were two of the most costly years for natural disasters thus far. Specifically, the 2017 Hurricane Season – markedly Harvey, Irma, and Maria – caused an estimated $265 to $306 billion in damages and greatly tested the level of disaster resilience in the affected communities (NOAA 2018). Disaster resilience, often mistaken as the opposite of vulnerability, is the ability for individuals, communities, or society to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. All disasters are local and communities continue to struggle to meet their needs during the short-term recovery phase.

Post-disaster resilience is multi-faceted. While scholars have studied various aspects of community resiliency in the growing literature, there remain gaps in the scientific literature related to emergency management. Most notably (1) meeting community needs during short-term recovery phase following a disaster as evidenced by the prolonged processes and stress associated with disaster recovery; (2) reported health and well-being outcomes by families, communities, and institutions affected by disaster; and (3) translating lessons learned during the short-term recovery phase into long-term recovery and resiliency planning efforts (Kendra, Clay, and Gill 2018; Knox 2017).

This panel will examine approaches to bolstering resilience at the individual, community, institutional, and policy levels. Papers focused on approaches to resilience from different country settings, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives as well as interdisciplinary approaches; studies of resilience at multiple levels such as individual, community, institutional, and policy levels; examples or exemplars of resilience building interventions; studies that have been translated into action; and practical, empirical, or theoretical work are encouraged.

Long Abstract:Billion-dollar disasters have steadily increased in the U.S. and abroad, which has focused our attention to community resiliency. In the U.S., 2017 and 2018 were two of the most costly years for natural disasters thus far. Specifically, the 2017 Hurricane Season, most notably Harvey, Irma, and Maria, caused an estimated $265 to $306 billion in damages and tested affected communities level of disaster resilience (NOAA 2018). Disaster resilience, often mistaken as the opposite of vulnerability, is the ability for individuals, communities, or society to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. All disasters are local and communities continue to struggle to meet their needs during the short-term recovery phase.

Post-disaster resilience is multi-faceted. While scholars have studied various aspects of community resiliency in the growing literature, there remain gaps in the scientific literature related to emergency management. Most notably (1) meeting community needs during short-term recovery phase following a disaster as evidenced by the prolonged processes and stress associated with disaster recovery, (2) reported health and well-being outcomes by families, communities, and institutions affected by disaster, and (3) translating lessons learned during the short-term recovery phase into long-term recovery and resiliency planning efforts (Kendra et al. 2018; Knox 2017).

Measuring community resilience is challenging; however, it is imperative especially if “communities want to track their progress towards resiliency and target efforts where they most need to improve.” (National Research Council 2012:12). The strategic goals and targets for resiliency and long-term planning often stem from recommendations and lessons learned during the response and short-term recovery phases (Knox 2013). While long-term recovery planning is a critical element of a community’s resiliency, it is often underutilized because of a lack of capacity at the local government level. Multiple types of capacities are needed for resiliency, including community, economic, infrastructure, institutional, and social (Ross 2016; Cutter et al. 2010). Lacking one or more of these capacities can lead to repeated failures, repeated policy and organizational recommendations, and an unequal distribution of goods and services during and after natural or man-made disasters (Knox 2013; Hu et al. 2014; Kim & Marcouiller 2016).

There are disparities in the distribution of disaster risk in a community and disparities in the adverse consequences following disaster exposure. Racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged are recognized as health disparity populations and experience a disproportionate burden of adverse consequences following disasters due to lack of English proficiency, culturally appropriate risk communication, systemic poverty, segregation, substandard education, and social and political marginalization (Fothergill & Peek 2004; Purtle 2012). Before an event, individuals with inadequate access to health services, high prevalence of chronic illness, and limited capital are less likely to be in a position to prepare for a disaster (Honore 2008). When a disruption or disaster occurs, these are the same populations that require additional resources such as transportation assistance and health services for the treatment of chronic health conditions. Compounding the problem, following disasters, we often see changes in the health care landscape from temporary closures to relocation and permanent closure of facilities resulting in disruptions to continuity of care and access issues in low-income and minority communities (Ford et al. 2006; Guglielmo 2006; Krol et al. 2007). While disparities are exacerbated during disasters, the public attention on inequity presents an opportunity to leverage the attention and influx of resources to improve health equity and bolster resilience for those most vulnerable.

This panel will examine approaches to bolstering resilience at the individual, community, institutional, and policy levels. Papers focused on approaches to resilience from different country settings, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives as well as interdisciplinary approaches; studies of resilience at multiple levels such as individual, community, institutional, and policy levels; examples or exemplars of resilience building interventions; studies that have been translated into action; and practical, empirical, or theoretical work are encouraged.

References

 

Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1).

Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. H., Link, M. W., Garvin, W. S., McGuire, L. C., Jiles, R. B., & Balluz, L. S. (2006). Chronic disease in health emergencies: In the eye of the hurricane. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(2), A46. doi:A46 [pii]

Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the united states: A review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32(1), 89-110.

Guglielmo, W. J. (2006). New orleans’ doctors: Still MIA. Medical Economics, 83(6), 17.

Honore, R. L. (2008). Health disparities: Barriers to a culture of preparedness. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice : JPHMP, 14 Suppl, S5-7. doi:10.1097/01.PHH.0000338381.29071.d6 [doi]

Hu, Q., Knox, C. C., & Kapucu, N. (2014). What Have We Learned Since September 11, 2001? A Network Study of the Boston Marathon Bombings Response. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 698-712.

Kendra, J. M., Clay, L. A., & Gill, K. B. (2018). Resilience and disasters. Handbook of disaster research (pp. 87-107) Springer.

Kim, H. & Marcouiller, D.W. (2016). Natural Disaster Response, Community Resilience, and Economic Capacity: A Case Study of Coastal Florida, Society & Natural Resources, 29:8, 981-997.

Knox, C. C. (2013). Analyzing After Action Reports from Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina: Repeated, Modified, and Newly Created Recommendations. Journal of Emergency Management, 11(2), 160-168.

Knox, C. C. (2017). A Football Field Lost Every 45 Minutes: Evaluating Local Capacity to Implement Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan. Coastal Management Journal, 45(3), 233-252.

Krol, D. M., Redlener, M., Shapiro, A., & Wajnberg, A. (2007). A mobile medical care approach targeting underserved populations in post-hurricane katrina mississippi. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 331-340.

National Research Council. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2018). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

Purtle, J. (2012). Racial and ethnic disparities in post-disaster mental health: Examining the evidence through a lens of social justice. Wash.& Lee J.Civil Rts.& Soc.just., 19, 31.Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. H., Link, M. W., Garvin, W. S., McGuire, L. C., Jiles, R. B., & Balluz, L. S. (2006). Chronic disease in health emergencies: In the eye of the hurricane. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(2), A46. doi:A46 [pii]

Ross, A. D. (2016). Perceptions of Resilience Among Coastal Emergency Managers. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 7(1), 4-24.