by Tarek Rashed,John Weeks,Helen Couclelis, and Martin Herold
At a glance, it appears impracticable in such a diverse and multidisciplinary area as urban vulnerability to environmental hazards to do what the Buddha did in philosophy – express the essence of the field in a single word. After all, six decades of considerable progress and outstanding achievements by hazards scholars have not succeeded in reconciling discrepancies surrounding fundamental concepts within the field (White and Haas, 1975; Mileti, 1999). The meaning of such basic terms as ‘disaster’, ‘hazard’, ‘risk’ and ‘vulnerability’ continues to be a matter of controversy (Dow, 1992; Cutter, 1996; Cardona, 2004). A review of the literature reveals considerable variation and fundamental conceptual differences among the numerous approaches and models developed to tackle vulnerability, risk and other hazard-related issues (Liverman, 1990; Dow, 1992; Cutter 1996; Rashed and Weeks, 2003; Cardona, 2004).
Despite all the controversies that exist in the field, we start this chapter with a proposition that urban vulnerability may indeed be summed up in one word – ‘particularity’. As the literature suggests, the study of vulnerability is ecological in nature (Kates, 1971; Burton et al., 1978; Andrews, 1985; Hewitt, 1997; Bolin and Stanford, 1999; Fitzpatrick and LaGory, 2000; Wisner et al., 2004). As a result, an uneven and highly changeable complex web of dynamics and ecological factors, encompassing social, economic, cultural, political and physical variables, shape the patterns of urban vulnerability and determine the course in which these patterns evolve across space and through time. We refer to such context-dependent characteristics of vulnerability as ‘particularity’ to emphasize the notion that urban vulnerability can only be assessed in relation to a specific spatiotemporal context and its underlying dynamics, which interact together to produce particular forms of vulnerability.
We recognize that our attempt to describe the essence of vulnerability studies in one word is a bold step, especially when the reader is reminded that the word we use, ‘particularity’, has been central to philosophical tensions between various accounts of risks in hazards research (Mustafa, 2005). Accordingly, we do not expect the reader to accept our thesis as final. Rather, we invite the reader of this chapter to explore the plausibility of our thesis and its implications for the ongoing dialogue about the science of vulnerability (Cutter, 2001, 2003b) and the role of geographic information science and technology in risk and vulnerability analysis (Rejeski, 1993; Cova, 1999; Radke et al., 2000; Cutter, 2003a).
Despite all the controversies that exist in the field, we start this chapter with a proposition that urban vulnerability may indeed be summed up in one word – ‘particularity’. As the literature suggests, the study of vulnerability is ecological in nature (Kates, 1971; Burton et al., 1978; Andrews, 1985; Hewitt, 1997; Bolin and Stanford, 1999; Fitzpatrick and LaGory, 2000; Wisner et al., 2004). As a result, an uneven and highly changeable complex web of dynamics and ecological factors, encompassing social, economic, cultural, political and physical variables, shape the patterns of urban vulnerability and determine the course in which these patterns evolve across space and through time. We refer to such context-dependent characteristics of vulnerability as ‘particularity’ to emphasize the notion that urban vulnerability can only be assessed in relation to a specific spatiotemporal context and its underlying dynamics, which interact together to produce particular forms of vulnerability.
We recognize that our attempt to describe the essence of vulnerability studies in one word is a bold step, especially when the reader is reminded that the word we use, ‘particularity’, has been central to philosophical tensions between various accounts of risks in hazards research (Mustafa, 2005). Accordingly, we do not expect the reader to accept our thesis as final. Rather, we invite the reader of this chapter to explore the plausibility of our thesis and its implications for the ongoing dialogue about the science of vulnerability (Cutter, 2001, 2003b) and the role of geographic information science and technology in risk and vulnerability analysis (Rejeski, 1993; Cova, 1999; Radke et al., 2000; Cutter, 2003a).
more about GIS applications in urban planning:
No comments:
Post a Comment