Dear all,
A number of people have raised issues of trust and distrust as regards
relations between the public and emergency management institutions.
Douglas Paton has gathered experimental data which shows that in
situations where the public has little knowledge of a particular hazard,
trust (along with degrees of community participation and empowerment in
the articulation of social problem-solving issues) becomes a strong
predictor of lay people's intentions to prepare for hazard. (Paton 2008:
Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its
effectiveness. Int J Global Env. Issues 8:1-2). To quote from his
conclusion: "Currently, risk
communication programmes in the areas studied do not address themselves to
the creation of social contexts conducive to encourage discourse about
natural hazards in ways that will facilitate citizens’ active involvement
in developing strategies to mitigate their natural hazard risk."
Of course, trust and distrust is a two-way street. If, as many have
pointed out, officials and DRR managers do not trust the public with this
information, simple psychological rules of reciprocity predict that this
situation is likely to further the socially endemic mistrust of
politicians, planners and bureaucrats evident in the UK. And right there
is a tremendously vicious cycle spinning.
Regards,
Christian Solberg
UCL Earthquake and People Interaction Centre
> John:
>
> As I have come to understand, emergency management in the UK is
> centred on Civil Defence, or a civil defence ethic, which has a
> history since WW2 of military based policies applied to "civil
> emergencies", all exclusive of public participation and knowledge.
> The era of stated risk of nuclear attack in the 1970s was a civil
> defence peace-time hey-day. See some of the literature of that time
> and also some of the chapters in "Hazard Management and Emergency
> Planning" (Dennis Parker & John Handmer; James & James. 1992). More
> recently and forwarded to me by Ilan Kelman, S B Manyena (2006) in
> "The concept of resilience revisited" (Disasters 30 (4) pp433-450)
> refers to community involvement not being a part of the UK's
> resilience strategy, except in the event of "overstretched services".
> How would public response be effective without knowledge of the
> strategy ? Hogan and Marandola (2005) in "Towards an
> Interdisciplinary Conceptualisation of Vulnerability" (Population,
> Place and Space 11: 455-471) write of "vulnerabilised citizenship"
> and a new layer of vulnerability" from disadvantaged asylum seekers
> excluded from most forms of social security - and most of all of
> awareness of hazards and of civil defence strategies, one might say.
>
> Such "them and us" issues have been and remain a least exposed hot
> potato long overdue for popping.
>
> Best Wishes -
>
> James
>
>
>
> At 11:06 23/07/2008, you wrote:
>>I thought it would be interesting to start a debate on this issue.
>>
>>Under the UK's Freedom of Information Act, which came into force in 2005,
>>reasons for exempting official information from the act's
>>requirements include
>>safeguarding national security, but it is not clear how far this extends
>> to
>>emergency planning in general. In the London Borough of Camden, though,
>>disaster response plans are kept secret 'as the release of these could
>>endanger public safety'.
>>
>>There are lots of ethical, legal and institutional questions to be
>>debated about
>>transparency and secrecy in emergency planning - it's not a simple issue.
>> It
>>would be interesting to hear the views and experiences of other members
>> of
>>the group.
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1568 - Release Date:
>>7/23/2008 6:55 AM
>
|