Student: AnaCapri Mauro
Graduation date: May 2017
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2014
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
There is a certain amount of inherent risk that accompanies living in areas prone to acute geophysical hazards. These events are often referred to as disasters, which has a definition that varies slightly across disciplines. This definition, however, generally includes destruction, disruption to normalcy, a connection to time, and is linked to “dysfunction or overstrain” in society (Vacano et al. 2014). Disasters can be further categorized into natural, technological, social, and socio-natural, but I am choosing to focus primarily on the natural and socio-natural classifications. This includes (but is not limited to) volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and coastal storms. I am intrigued by human interactions with these disasters, especially how people perceive risk, take action to prepare, maintain relationships with authorities, and cope after the disaster occurs.
Risk perception is defined as the “process of collecting, selecting, and interpreting signals about uncertain impacts of events, activities, or technologies,” but having a high risk perception does not necessarily denote strong mitigation behavior (Wachinger, et al. 2012). Due to factors including perceived benefits of living in a certain area, lack of resources or knowledge to affect a situation, and trust, this so-called “risk perception paradox” illustrates a weakening relationship between risk perception and personal proactive behavior. The Wachinger et al. review revealed that personal disaster experience and trust in preventative measures and authorities (or lack thereof) were two of the most important factors when determining risk perception in communities (2012). These are not, however, the only aspects influencing risk mitigating behavior.
In the region around the Katla volcano in southern Iceland, approximately 1200 people live within the jokulhlaup hazard zone, yet many still stated that they would not evacuate if an order was given (Bird et al. 2009). This community, comprised largely of farmers, was not comfortable leaving their livestock, nor did they feel they could successfully complete all evacuation procedures in the allotted time. Rather than risk driving on the road through the valley susceptible to jokulhlaups, they felt safest and healthiest staying put, despite the recommendations of local officials (Bird et al. 2009). Collaboration between the officials creating these plans and the locals could potentially result in higher rates of evacuation. Similarly, at Mt. Merapi in Indonesia, local communities believe that the mountain is “home to a powerful spirit kingdom” and hold a strong spiritual attachment to the volcano (Donovan 2009). They, too, are very reluctant to move in the case of eruption. Geomythology, studying oral histories and local knowledge, is much more prevalent in this area than current scientific knowledge. As of 2010, there still was no official risk map for the volcano and “local people were not prepared to respond to scientific-based warnings,” (Donovan 2009). These examples illustrate the importance of understanding each community’s preoccupations, whether similar to the economic and safety concerns in Iceland or the deeply rooted spiritual and historical connections in Indonesia, when creating and implementing risk-reduction measures. I am interested in further investigating how local officials and scientists interact with cultural norms and how this influences community preparedness and response to disaster.
In Baños de Agua Santa, a small tourist town in the Ecuadorian Andes, the relationship between scientists and the community has proven incredibly important. Mt. Tungurahua, a stratovolcano just 8 km north of this city has been in an active period since 1999 and “dominates the physical and cultural landscape of the area,” (Tobin and Whiteford 2002). When the area was evacuated due to seemingly imminent danger but this disaster did not transpire, citizens overran the militia presence and took back their city. The government and media perpetuated the idea of the dangerous state of Baños, and the tourism industry and therefore livelihoods of the residents suffered. This led to a severed relationship between the citizens and the scientists and later subsequent efforts to fix this through citizen-science groups (Tobin and Whiteford 2002). Baños serves as an example as to the effects that the relationship between citizens and governmental/scientific officials can have on mitigative action.
Aid becomes an important response to disaster. In 2012 alone, upwards of 32 million people were displaced by rapid onset natural disasters (Thomas 2014). In response to this forced relocation, some countries provide internally displaced person camps (IDP), but these areas often expose victims to an entirely different set of adverse conditions. Some IDPs are rife with disease and violent outbreaks, and often the fear of being relocated to one of these areas is enough to convince people to ignore evacuation orders, which directly exposes them to the initial physical impact of the disaster (Rosewell et al. 2013)(Wachinger et al. 2015). IDPs are just one form of aid and I am interested in exploring additional methods and qualities of support used as well as how they impact the resilience of the community.
Coping is dependent on many factors including, political, economic, and religious influences, but is ultimately a testament to a community’s resilience. Resilience refers to a society’s ability to navigate through a crisis while holding onto its fundamental structure (Vacano et. al 2014). It offers a more positive tone to coping and highlights growth opportunities that can stem from devastating events. However, in multi-risk circumstances such as the Fukushima disaster in Japan, coping extends past the individuals of the immediate community to international levels. After the Tohoku earthquake, subsequent tsunami, and nuclear meltdown, the resulting radioactive debris made land uninhabitable and then settled in the ocean, which exposed more than just Japan to this dangerous event (Beech et al. 2014). This greatly expanded the scale of this incident. Additionally, there were severe mental health consequences that stemmed from this disaster that are still being uncovered as time progresses (Yokoyama et al. 2014). Because it is so difficult to prepare for multi-risk events, high degrees of uncertainty can lead to helplessness which decreases willingness to act and ultimately creates vulnerable societies (Wachinger et al. 2015). I am interested in the relationship between willingness to act and ability to cope in these situations.
I am choosing to focus on regions prone to acute geophysical hazards because of the unique and complicated relationships that form between humans and their changing physical environment. Additionally, I would like to investigate the relationships between citizens, scientists, and officials and how these connections promote risk understanding and mitigation. In creating this concentration I am looking to delve deeper into how risk perception influences disaster preparation and ultimately how individuals and society are able to cope after a disaster occurs. I will examine various aspects within the cultural realm of communities and how they contribute to health and healing in larger society.
Questions
- Descriptive: What factors influence risk perception? How are the consequences of disaster explained to residents? How is risk communicated in different areas?
- Explanatory: Why does the risk perception paradox influence disaster preparation? How do inhabitants interact with tectonically active regions? How do people receive and later implement suggestions from different forms of communications?
- Evaluative: How do cultural differences affect community and individual responses to disaster? How have the preparedness measures implemented been successful? To what extent has the communication of hazards in tectonically active regions been unsuccessful?
- Instrumental: How can people live in hazardous areas and mitigate risk? How can studying past disasters allow for better preparedness and response in the future? What can be done to improve culturally-sensitive communication and acceptance of risk?
Concentration courses
- SOAN 255 (Medicine, Healing, and Culture, 4 credits), fall 2016. This course presents the cultural aspect of how people define and cope with sickness and health as well as healing techniques that stem from both Western and Non-Western traditions.
- PSY 375 (Health Psychology, 4 credits), fall 2016. This course looks at health on a more individual level including how thoughts, behavior, and emotions influence health, coping, and recovering.
- GEOL 150 (Environmental Geology, 5 credits), fall 2015. This course directly applies to my proposed concentration area as it focuses on plate tectonics, seismic and volcanic activity, and anthropogenic activity regarding these areas.
- ENVS 499 (Independent Study, 4 credits), fall 2015/fall 2016. This course would be taken in two parts bookending my anticipated abroad program in spring 2016. This would help me prepare and debrief my independent research while aboard.
Arts and humanities courses
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- HIST 298 (History of the Nuclear Age, 4 credits). This course presents a historical perspective of many disasters and their consequences that can provide valuable insight as to how we approach disaster response today.