Posts

Panel 9 – The politics and performance of civil preparations for crisis and war

Conveners: Oscar Larsson (SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and Christine Agius (Swinburne University)

Abstract: There is a current trend in Sweden and other welfare states to promote individual preparations as a way to build societal resilience. The ongoing shift of transferring responsibility for security and wellbeing in extraordinary circumstances stand in need of critical analyses of why, when and how politics of responsibility emerge. Thus, understanding and explaining how states prepare for war and crisis management and how they engage and involve their citizens in the overall preparation requires critical attention and analysis. Military exercises and recruitment, civil contingency plans and simulated performances becomes intimately interrelated in policy. In addition, discursive configurations and metaphors play an important role in the communication and powerful images provided by the state that advances feelings of insecurity and self-reliance rather than collective responses. Obviously, individualizing security requires a specific logic or rationality and the panel explores different routes and trajectories to how such a specific reading of security have come to emerge. The overall purpose of the panel would thus be to initiate a critical discussions on the content, logics and arguments for increased preparedness among the population and not least the implications of preparations that seem to reinforce militarized notions of sovereignty, implicate gender roles, identities that operates on capability or vulnerability and not least opens up questions for state-citizen relationship in the face of crises, disasters and wars.

Long Abstract:There is a current trend in Sweden and other welfare states to promote individual preparations as a way to build societal resilience. The ongoing shift of transferring responsibility for security and wellbeing in extraordinary circumstances stand in need of critical analyses of why, when and how politics of responsibility emerge. Thus, understanding and explaining how states prepare for war and crisis management and how they engage and involve their citizens in the overall preparation requires critical attention and analysis. Military exercises and recruitment, civil contingency plans and simulated performances becomes intimately interrelated in policy.

In addition, discursive configurations and metaphors play an important role in the communication and powerful images provided by the state that advances feelings of insecurity and self-reliance rather than collective responses. Obviously, individualizing security requires a specific logic or rationality and the panel explores different routes and trajectories to how such a specific reading of security have come to emerge. The overall purpose of the panel would thus be to initiate a critical discussions on the content, logics and arguments for increased preparedness among the population and not least the implications of preparations that seem to reinforce militarized notions of sovereignty, implicate gender roles, identities that operates on capability or vulnerability and not least opens up questions for state-citizen relationship in the face of crises, disasters and wars.

This panel aims to explore the multiple and varied ways in which “preparedness” operates and speaks to dominant discourses of security provision. The individual papers together either comprise or adopts an interdisciplinary approach, examining various kinds of materials, including texts (such as pamphlets issued to the public on threat and preparedness), informational movies and podcasts produced by public authorities, as well as other images and performances of preparedness in both civil and military frameworks of meaning. This shows that fear, uncertainty and war preparedness enters the everyday experience of citizens and is further advanced in the form of popular culture and consumption. From these cases, the panel aims to critically explore what civil and war preparedness means and how it operates in the spaces between war and peace.

Panel 4 ROUNDTABLE Author meets critics: Learning from Hurricane Katrina

Conveners: Arjen Boin (Leiden University) and Fredrik Bynander (Swedish Defence University)

Abstract: Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters in US history. The assessments have been harsh: Katrina has become a byword for failure. The president failed, the federal government failed (FEMA/DHS), the state of Louisiana failed, the city administration of New Orleans failed. Or so the assessments tell us.

In the book Managing Hurricane Katrina: Lessons from a Megacrisis (published by Louisiana State University Press, published in 2019), the authors Arjen Boin, Christer Brown and Jim Richardson draw lessons that other national systems may exploit to improve their response system in the face of mega disasters.

Many reports have been written on the Katrina response. Most of these lack a clear discussion of the underlying assessment framework. This book seeks to remedy this fallacy. It offers a clear framework that can be used to fairly assess how the various actors reacted to this disaster. The book then applies this framework to provide a fresh assessment of the Katrina response. The authors argue that these popular assessments somehow missed (or de-emphasized) all the things that went really and surprisingly well in the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Building on an extensive review of the many reports and inquiries, and drawing on insights from crisis and disaster management studies, this book identifies the critical factors that determine the success and failures of a societal response to super disasters. It explains how federal, state and local actors can learn from Hurricane Katrina and start designing the building blocks for an effective and legitimate response.

The proposed panel brings together three seasoned academic practitioners who will critically assess the relevance of these findings for European nations: Prof. Bengt Sundelius (long-time advisor to the Swedish Emergency Management Agency), Dr. Annika Brandstrom (head of the Swedish crisis response organization) and Dr. Sanneke Kuipers (consultant at Crisisplan and director of the Leiden University Crisis Research Center). The panel is convened by Dr Fredrik Bynander (director of the Center for Societal Security, Swedish National Defence University) and one of the authors of the book, Prof. Arjen Boin (Leiden University).

Long Abstract:Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters in US history. The assessments have been harsh: Katrina has become a byword for failure. The president failed, the federal government failed (FEMA/DHS), the state of Louisiana failed, the city administration of New Orleans failed. Or so the assessments tell us.

In the book Managing Hurricane Katrina: Lessons from a Megacrisis (published by Louisiana State University Press, published in the spring of 2019), the authors Arjen Boin, Christer Brown and Jim Richardson investigate this popular assessment. They not only arrive at a different and much more subtle verdict, they also draw lessons that other national systems may exploit to improve their response system in the face of mega disasters.

The authors argue that these popular assessments somehow missed (or de-emphasized) all the things that went really and surprisingly well in the response to Hurricane Katrina. They then formulate an important question: what is the underlying framework that evaluators use to assess the response to a super disaster? How do they determine that “government failed” in circumstances that are hard to prepare for and often nearly impossible to do well?

Many reports have been written on the Katrina response and most of these lack a clear discussion of the underlying assessment framework. This book seeks to remedy this fallacy. It offers a clear framework that can be used to fairly assess how the various actors reacted to this disaster. The book then applies this framework to provide a fresh assessment of the Katrina response.

The results of the assessment provide a more nuanced perspective on the Katrina response. It was not all perfect, but the response certainly was not as bad as official and media reports made it out to be. This book invites the reader to reconsider the role of government in the face of disaster.

The book also draws lessons for those who have to prepare for and handle future disasters. Many lessons were learned by a host of academics and inquiries (Hurricane Katrina may well be the most extensively studied disaster in history). But these lessons are quite contradictory when viewed in concert; more importantly, some of these lessons are plain wrong.

Building on an extensive review of the many reports and inquiries, and drawing on insights from crisis and disaster management studies, this book identifies the critical factors that determine the success and failures of a societal response to super disasters. It explains how federal, state and local actors can learn from Hurricane Katrina and start designing the building blocks for an effective and legitimate response.

Panel 8 – Disruptive elements: Recurring disasters and gendered lives in Asia

Conveners: Helle Rydstrom (Department of Gender Studies, Lund University) and Claudia Merli (Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University)

Abstract: While the Anthropocene is overall encompassing, it is also uneven. Some places are more predisposed to disasters than others and some people’s lifeworlds and livelihoods are more precarious in relation to climate hazards than others. The extent to which the Global South is confronted with climate-related disasters compared to the Global North is conspicuous, as is the extent to which various groups are negatively impacted by a climate disaster (Fordham et al. 2013; Wisner et al. 2012). People across Asia live with recurring disruptions to their lives due to extreme weather such as monsoon rains, typhoons, floods, fires, and landslides as well as volcanic eruptions (ESCAP 2015). Rather than being exceptional upheavals, and a bracketing of ordinary life, these damaging events are increasingly characterized by their recurrence and the prolonged impact they inflict upon people, property, and societies. Informed by ethnographic accounts, this panel explores from an interdisciplinary methodologically investigative perspective how various groups are rendered precarious and affected by disasters in differentiated ways due to their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age, class, and bodyableness (Bradshaw 2013; Enarson and Chakrabarti 2009).

Long Abstract:Human interventions in nature is said to have propelled us into the era of the Anthropocene, into the Geological Age of Man (Crutzen and Stormer 2000; UNEP 2018). Founded on an a priori division between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, the notion of the Anthropocene might be like a ‘poisonous gift’ (Latour 2014) for the social sciences in paradoxically both embracing and eschewing a differentiation of matter and meaning (Haraway et al. 2015; MacGregor 2017). While the Anthropocene is overall encompassing, it is also uneven. Some places are more predisposed to disasters than others and some people’s lifeworlds and livelihoods are more precarious in relation to climate hazards than others. The extent to which the Global South is confronted with climate-related disasters compared to the Global North is conspicuous, as is the extent to which various groups are negatively impacted by a climate disaster (Fordham et al. 2013; Wisner et al. 2012). People across Asia live with recurring disruptions to their lives due to extreme weather such as monsoon rains, typhoons, floods, fires, and landslides as well as volcanic eruptions (ESCAP 2015). Rather than being exceptional upheavals, and a bracketing of ordinary life, these damaging events are increasingly characterized by their recurrence and the prolonged impact they inflict upon people, property, and societies. Informed by ethnographic accounts, this panel explores from an interdisciplinary methodologically investigative perspective how various groups are rendered precarious and affected by disasters in differentiated ways due to their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age, class, and bodyableness (Bradshaw 2013; Enarson and Chakrabarti 2009). In doing so, the panel unfolds the differing ways in which various groups in particular Asian contexts are exposed to, cope with, and resist climate change and how various types of crises’ antecedents exacerbate the consequences and ramifications of a catastrophic event. The papers included in the panel thus critically consider experience of labor in dealing with the effects of disasters; pain as experience in disaster; disruption in livelihood and work activities; caring for others in times of crisis; disability and embodiment in disasters; gendered protections and risk perceptions; displacement and forced migration; and violence, death, and mourning.

Panel 7 – Governance, law, and policy

Conveners: Christy Shucksmith-Wesley (University of Nottingham) and Marie Aronsson-Storrier (University of Reading)

Abstract: The governance and reduction of disaster risk requires a myriad of agreements and promises between States and other actors that, should the worst scenario come to pass, they will support one another and enable the people of the affected area to recover. We know that international agreements are not always upheld or perhaps fully realised when earthquakes, floods, etc occur. Although well intentioned, or perhaps at times merely politically motivated, States are sometimes unwilling or unable to provide the resources or finances that they promised at an international conference to the communities in need.

The emerging concept of ‘international disaster law’ (IDL) is in a period of significant development, illustrated by the 2016 adoption of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, as well as the adoption of the UN Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 the previous year.

In this panel we would like to ‘take stock’ of current progress and look ahead at future possibilities and challenges. Four years on from Sendai FDRR and three years on from the ILC Draft Articles, where are we? Have states and other actors made progress in their commitments, both internationally and domestically, to prevent and mitigate disaster losses in the short, medium and long term?

This panel seeks papers addressing the methods by which the implementation of IDL, DRR and DRM are being governed: which entities (State or non-State) are taking the lead? What legislative developments have been enacted within States, and regionally, to implement the promises made in Sendai, for example? Are such laws workable and enforceable? Can we see policy outputs that reflect the objectives of Sendai, or IDL/DRR/DRM more broadly?

In answering these questions, this panel welcomes papers from all disciplines.

Long Abstract:The governance and reduction of disaster risk requires a myriad of agreements and promises between States and other actors that, should the worst scenario come to pass, they will support one another and enable the people of the affected area to recover. We know that international agreements are not always upheld or perhaps fully realised when earthquakes, floods, etc occur. Although well intentioned, or perhaps at times merely politically motivated, States are sometimes unwilling or unable to provide the resources or finances that they promised at an international conference to the communities in need.

The emerging concept of ‘international disaster law’ (IDL) is in a period of significant development, illustrated by the 2016 adoption of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, as well as the adoption of the UN Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 the previous year. Disaster risk reduction and management involves numerous legal regimes, and in addition to the core frameworks just mentioned, law and policy regulating disasters also include other areas, including around environmental protection, human rights, climate change law, and water governance. Activities of DRR/M actors are further regulated through a number of guidelines and standards, at the same time as specific agreements regulate activities relating to certain hazards or aspects of disaster prevention and management. One of the core challenges currently facing the field is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the patchwork created by this vast number of relevant laws and regulations in order to identify significant overlaps, tensions and gaps. Further to this, it is also important to strengthen communication between address the implementation of existing laws and policies in ways that benefits affected people on the ground.

In this panel we would like to ‘take stock’ of current progress and look ahead at future possibilities and challenges. Four years on from Sendai FDRR and three years on from the ILC Draft Articles, where are we? Have states and other actors made progress in their commitments, both internationally and domestically, to prevent and mitigate disaster losses in the short, medium and long term?

This panel seeks papers addressing the methods by which the implementation of IDL, DRR and DRM are being governed: which entities (State or non-State) are taking the lead? What legislative developments have been enacted within States, and regionally, to implement the promises made in Sendai, for example? Are such laws workable and enforceable? Can we see policy outputs that reflect the objectives of Sendai, or IDL/DRR/DRM more broadly?

In answering these questions, this panel welcomes papers from all disciplines.

Panel 6 – Adapting to climate risk, developing citizen preparedness structures

Conveners: Laurits Rauer Nielsen (Emergency and Risk Management, University College Copenhagen), Kerstin Eriksson (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden), and Marco Krüger (International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, University of Tübingen)

Abstract: This panel aims to discuss the emerging and extending volunteerism and its potential for emergency management in extreme weather events and other incidents. Presentations about emerging and extending volunteerism and its interaction or lack of interaction with formal emergency management are welcome, as well as presentations looking at the potential and challenges of citizen involvement in emergency management and the question of whether this development implies a societal shift in responsibility from government to individual citizens.

Today there is an argued need for developing emerging preparedness structures as a way of coping with “climate related incidents” as extreme weather events are becoming known in popular terminology. Whether these events are in fact induced by climate change or by changes in human settlement and society or simply by a contemporary attention to hitherto unregistered events and thereby following surprisingly short return periods for extreme weather, citizen activity in preparation or response to them have been reported in many countries.

The citizen activities among others include structural mitigation initiatives such as dyking and drainage as well as collective preparedness, response and recovery activities. These activities are often connected with the contemporary concern for climate change induced increases in extreme weather events. The activities can be understood as a way of reducing the population’s vulnerability to the stressful extremes of its environment.

However, the involvement of citizens in emergency management work, particularly in the impact-related activities such as preparation and response is a controversial issue, raising concerns regarding operational priorities, command and control, situational awareness, safety and insurance etc. which are issues that need to be addressed by professionals and citizens alike. Furthermore, it is relevant to discuss whether these developing citizen preparedness structures are part of building a resilient society or a sign of a shift of responsibility for emergency preparedness from being a government responsibility as a common good to an individual responsibility maintained by civil society actors.

Long Abstract:This panel aims to discuss this emerging and extending volunteerism and its potential for emergency management in extreme weather events and other incidents. Presentations about emerging and extending volunteerism and its interaction or lack of interaction with formal and official emergency management are welcome, as well as presentations looking at the potential and challenges of citizen involvement in emergency management and the question of whether this development implies a societal shift in responsibility from government to individual citizens.

Today emerging preparedness structures are developing as a way of coping with “climate related incidents” as extreme weather events are becoming known in popular terminology. In Sweden for example, the large forest fires from this summer have affected a discussion around those issues, as is the case for storm surges and flooding in Denmark and Germany. Whether these events are in fact induced by climate change or by changes in human settlement and society or simply by a contemporary attention to hitherto unregistered events and thereby following surprisingly short return periods for extreme weather, citizen activity in preparation or response to them have been reported in many countries. These activities among others include structural mitigation initiatives such as dyking and drainage as well as collective preparedness, response and recovery activities (Carlton & Mills, 2017; Nicklas Guldåker, Kerstin Eriksson, & Tuija Nieminen Kristofersson, 2015).

These activities are often connected with the contemporary concern for climate change induced increases in extreme weather events. The activities can be understood as a way of reducing the population’s vulnerability to the stressful extremes of its environment. However, the involvement of citizens in emergency management work, particularly in the impact-related activities such as preparation and response is a debated and controversial issue which raises concerns regarding operational priorities, command and control, boundary practices, situational awareness, safety and insurance etc. (Alexander, D., 2010; Harris, Shaw, Scully, Smith, & Hieke, 2017; Johansson, Danielsson, Kvarnlöf, Eriksson, & Karlsson, 2018). At the same time research have shown that citizens gather at the scene of the incident (Fritz & Mathewson, 1957).

These are all relevant issues and considerations that need to be addressed by professionals and citizens alike, and of course also by the intermediary organisations such as NGO’s that exist, emerge or extend their activities in order to facilitate the integration and empowerment of citizens in relation to disaster preparedness and response (Whittaker, McLennan, & Handmer, 2015).

Furthermore, it is relevant to discuss whether these developing citizen preparedness structures are part of building a resilient society or a sign of a shift of responsibility for emergency preparedness from being a government responsibility as a common good to an individual responsibility maintained by civil society actors.

Panel 3 – Overcoming challenges in inter-organisational disaster response

Conveners: Claudia Berchtold and Philip Sendrowski (Fraunhofer Institute for Technological Trend Analysis (INT))

Abstract: A broad range of technologies addressing inter-organisational collaboration challenges in disaster response has been developed in recent years, for example under European and national funding lines. However, inter-organisational collaboration remains one of the main challenges in crisis management, and it remains unclear what role technology can play in facilitating it. One of the reasons frequently mentioned is the gap between civil protection related research results and market uptake of technologies. Consequently, actual end-user capability gaps and technology needs have been put at the centre of attention and networks have been created to bring providers and customers together. These efforts have started to make a difference, but will take time to fully unlock their potential.

At the same time, inter-organisational collaboration poses significant organisational and process –related challenges, for example in terms of information sharing and decision-making. These aspects are on the one hand determined by the governance context and thus relate for example to domestic legislation and policy making, procedures and hierarchies. On the other hand, differences in (organisational) culture between but also within countries, including attitudes towards change and cooperation, are factors impacting inter-organisational collaboration.

Together both aspects create a nexus of non-technological (soft) barriers which need to be levelled in order to facilitate successful inter-organisational collaboration including the development of supporting technologies.

Against this background, the panel wants to elaborate on the interplay between the development of technologies and organisational challenges in responding to crisis. How, for example, can technologies help to overcome organisational challenges? What are technological limits? And how need organisational development and technological support to be aligned to contribute to successful crisis management?

Long Abstract:Increasing digitalisation and the development and availability of web-based services has also created new opportunities for crisis response. Geo-information systems (GIS) including open-mapping solutions, global positioning systems (GPS) and drones are just some examples that can be used in facilitating response operations. Since inter-organisational collaboration remains nevertheless one of the main challenges in disaster response, funding is allocated at national and European level for the development of supporting technological solutions. In order to overcome a mismatch between responder needs and solutions and to facilitate the market uptake of results, actual end-user capability gaps and technology needs have been put at the centre of attention and networks have been created to bring providers and customers together . These efforts have started to make a difference, but will take time to fully unlock their potential.

At the same time, inter-organisational collaboration poses significant organisational and process related challenges, for example in terms of information sharing and decision-making. These aspects are on the one hand side determined by the (external) governance context and thus relate for example to domestic legislation and policy making, procedures and hierarchies. In terms of the introduction of innovation, political mandates and internal actors (initiatives both from management level and from other staff) (Bloch, Bugge 2013) as well as new laws and regulations have been identified as drivers for innovation in the public sector (Blind et al. 2012). On the other hand side, organisation internal aspects such as culture, including attitudes towards change and cooperation are factors impacting inter-organisational collaboration. In this respect, innovation can be responses to specific problems or challenges but may as well be part of the organisational strategy (Bloch, Bugge 2013). Similarly, the application of innovations usually requires change, for example in terms of processes and organizational structures. Consequently, external and internal aspects create a nexus of non-technological (soft) barriers which need to be levelled in order to facilitate successful inter-organisational collaboration including the development and introduction of supporting technologies.

Against this background, the panel wants to elaborate on the interplay between the development of technologies and organisational challenges in responding to crisis from two perspectives. On the one hand side, it wants to discuss the opportunities and limits of technologies in overcoming collaboration challenges. On the other hand side, it wants to address the organisational determinants and changes required as a prerequisite for or effect of the introduction of innovative technologies in the disaster risk management context. Overall, the panel aims to derive insights on current shortfalls in effectively using technologies for collaborative response action.

References

Blind, Knut; Gauch, Stephan; Weber, Mike; Ziesing, Jan Henrik; Hecht, Stefanie (2012): Public Innovation. Innovationen und Innovationsmanagement in der öffentlichen Verwaltung in Deutschland und Europa.Berlin: Fraunhofer FOKUS.

Bloch, Carter; Bugge, Markus M. (2013): Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement. In Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 27, pp. 133–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.008.

Panel 1 Slow-onset disasters

Conveners: Reidar Staupe-Delgado (UiT The Arctic University of Norway) and Olivier Rubin (Roskilde University)

Abstract: Disasters differ markedly in their speed and pattern of manifestation, which in turn greatly affects how researchers as well as authorities interpret and respond to them. While theoretical innovations made by disaster researchers over the last century have almost exclusively been developed for the study of large rapid-onset disasters, disaster assessments reveal that elusive and slow-onset disasters affect more people on aggregate. Slow-onset disasters have primarily been addressed as something ‘other’ than conventional disasters, and have largely fallen outside of the scope of disaster studies. We therefore lack theoretical frameworks capable of describing the policy dynamics of slow-onset disasters, largely because existing studies focus on individual slow-onset hazards (e.g. climate change, pandemics or droughts), without aiming for comparative analysis so as to develop better policies for more proactive response.

This panel invites contributions from a wide range of perspectives, ranging from empirical case studies to conceptual debates and theoretical reflections around the topic of slow-onset disaster. The panel is in this way an opportunity to come together to discuss the concept itself, its unique management challenges and the way forward towards bringing the study of slow-onset disasters into mainstream disaster research.

Long Abstract:In principle, disasters with a gradual and creeping onset are easier to manage than are sudden and unexpected ones (Matthewman, 2015; Glantz, 1994). Not only do slow-onset disasters provide a more extended period of forewarning, but also a larger potential for proactive response, which in turn could minimize their adverse impacts. In practice, however, timely response to slow-onset disasters is often hampered by a perceived lack of urgency, causing them to be left smouldering in the background as their impacts gradually build up and strengthen over time – sometimes irreversibly so – until eventually becoming critical emergencies (OCHA, 2011).

Disasters differ markedly in their speed and pattern of manifestation, which in turn greatly affects how researchers as well as authorities interpret and respond to them (McConnell, 2003. They also constitute a significant part of the global disaster burden (UN, 2015). Still, theoretical innovations made by disaster researchers over the last century have almost exclusively been developed for the study of large rapid-onset disasters. The unique management challenges posed by slow-onset disasters therefore remain poorly understood.

Many studies exist on particular slow-onset disasters – such as pandemics, environmental degradation, droughts or climate change – although these phenomena have generally received a separate treatment and have in this way not been subject to combined analysis. What commonalities can be identified between various slow-onset disasters and which implications can such work have for disaster risk research and practice?

The concept of slow-onset disaster is also a contested one. From a vulnerability perspective, James Lewis (1988: 4) famously argue that ‘all disasters are slow onset when realistically and locally related to conditions of susceptibility’. What should we then call disastrous impacts that are triggered by a hazard that occurs gradually? How can this conceptual dilemma be overcome?

This panel invites contributions from a wide range of perspectives, ranging from empirical case studies to conceptual debates and theoretical reflections around the topic of slow-onset disaster. The panel is in this way an opportunity to come together to discuss the concept itself, its unique management challenges and the way forward towards bringing the study of slow-onset disasters into mainstream disaster research.

Potential panel topics include but are not limited to:

• The unique disaster management demands posed by slow-onset disasters

• The science-policy nexus as it relates to slow-onset disaster response

• How slow-onset disasters may cascade into or otherwise trigger sudden-onset disasters

• Political analyses of slow-onset disasters

• Conceptual discussions surrounding the concept of slow-onset or creeping disasters

• Methodological reflections of slow-onset disasters

• The role of early warning in securing proactive response to slow-onset disasters

• Findings from field studies involving slow-onset disasters such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, protracted geological hazards and so on.

• Macro-level perspectives, including new perspectives on the economic burden and human toll of slow-onset disasters

References

Glantz MH (1994) Creeping Environmental Problems, The World & I, June issue.

Lewis J (1988) On the line: An open letter in response to ‘Confronting Natural Disasters, An International Decade for Natural Hazard Reduction’, Natural Hazards Observer, 12(4)

Matthewman S (2015) Disasters, Risks and Revelation, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

McConnell A (2003) Overview: Crisis Management, Influences, Responses and Evaluation, Parlament Aff, 16(1)

OCHA (2011) OCHA and Slow-Onset Emergencies

UN (2015) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015