LIVING WITH RISK: The Unnatural Geography of Environmental Crises Book 2 Chapter 4 Presentation: Dr. Faisal Al-Qahtani

Introduction Theme: Issues: The aim of this chapter: environmental risk Issues: natural hazards and food scares. The aim of this chapter: investigate environmental risk by highlighting the way in which nature and society become entangled.

The Unnatural Geography of Natural Hazards Looking for scapegoats or non-caused causes: e.g., El Niño : Is El Niño a non-caused cause? Do humans induce climate changes? Are human-induced climate changes contributing to the increased frequency and intensity of the El Niño?

The Unnatural Geography of Natural Hazards Who or what gets the blame for natural hazards? Nature and society: Who is to be blamed? Who is to be exonerated? Are nature and society seen as separate categories?

The Unnatural Geography of Natural Hazards Flood: causes: heavily rainfall? planning regulations? urbanization process? All these could speed up the movement of water into the rivers and so can lead to rapid and intense build-up of river discharge. The flood hazard has emerged from the “interactions between people and environment.” p.124. Social science: Tries to spot inappropriate explanations (the scapegoat:: natural explanation) does not always look for simple causes: evidence points to a more complex picture.

Who benefits from Conventional Explanations of Natural Hazards? Some groups benefit, other groups lose. Social Science: Alternative explanations of natural hazards look beyond the event itself: events have histories: vulnerable human: why? Vulnerable land: why? Mismanagement of resources events have geographies: vulnerability of place uneven geographies of risk.

Who benefits from Conventional Explanations of Natural Hazards? Natural explanation disasters are inevitable and unchangeable. Culpable agents: organizations, governments, etc., are exonerated and probably benefit from the event. Social science: looks for the geographies and histories of an event to highlight the interaction of nature and society so that natural hazards can be argued as not always inevitable.

Living Risky Lives Cultural changes have led to a society where risk has become an issue in people’s live. Characteristics of a risk society: A change in public awareness Growth in uncertainty A growth in dependency on experts A reduction in trust in expertise BSE crisis: beef product has a more complex history and geography. It led to a high level of uncertainty, and increased dependency on expert system and institution. (also: titanium dioxide problem in some food in our markets)

Living Risky Lives What experts said: Different opinions between scientists representing the government and those representing science: Government: zero risk Scientists expressed uncertainty Scientists and government argued that risk can be controlled. Government: much faith on natural science.

Living Risky Lives The reliance on science and the failure to generate trust: Nature of evidence is questionable. Social factors have been ignored. Evidence based on experiment: two forms of uncertainty Knowledge could be wrong: not everything can be controlled. Generalizabilty of results: study is based on simplified set of natural and social interactions. This can lead to mistrust in experts.

Conclusion Environmental hazards are a result of SOCIAL and NATURAL interrelationships. Depending on the natural side can lead to mistrust and uncertainty and increased feelings of risk. What do we gain and what do we lose by holding nature and society apart? Certain people win, and certain people lose. Separation causes more problems than it solves. New forms of decision-making and new institutional frameworks are needed to deal properly with natural disasters and hazards.