Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The fluidity of risk

The fluidity of risk Considered alone, risk is static; the purpose of this paper is to illustrate risk not as static but as a fluid condition dependent, for example, upon circumstances of its context in changeable vulnerability and behavioural responses of people facing risk.Design/methodology/approachPsychology provides strong evidence of behavioural response when facing hazards; technological disasters providing more evidence of behavioural responses to hazards and risk than response to disasters assumed to be “natural”. Initial and subsequent behavioural responses may critically affect ultimate outcomes. Post-event inquiries into technological disasters have revealed actions and inactions which created or aggravated subsequent consequences and their aftermath.FindingsDecisions taken at a Japanese school between the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and details of the 2017 fire at a tower-block in London, UK, indicate, in spite of training, that rigidity, uncertainty, hesitation or waver may affect critical decisions and their consequences. Pre- and post-disaster behaviour may not follow preferred patterns. Fear of imagined or real events may induce unanticipated denial of the reality of risk. Physical changes made after assessments of risk may not be recognised as affecting risk.Research limitations/implicationsFew published examples exist of public inquiries following disasters assumed to be from natural causes.Practical implicationsReports of inquiries into technological disasters provide significant examples of behavioural responses which, if replicated, may influence outcomes of disasters labelled as “natural”.Social implicationsAwareness of risk as a fluid condition will facilitate realisation of effects upon risk of uncompleted or ongoing works, inappropriate behavioural responses, undeveloped resilience and of the need for regular reassessments of risk.Originality/valueThis study encourages comprehension of risk as an evolving and fluid condition. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Disaster Prevention and Management Emerald Publishing

The fluidity of risk

Lewis, James
Disaster Prevention and Management , Volume 28 (5): 13 – Sep 11, 2019
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-fluidity-of-risk-5joS3VFwoq
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
0965-3562
DOI
10.1108/dpm-01-2019-0014
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Considered alone, risk is static; the purpose of this paper is to illustrate risk not as static but as a fluid condition dependent, for example, upon circumstances of its context in changeable vulnerability and behavioural responses of people facing risk.Design/methodology/approachPsychology provides strong evidence of behavioural response when facing hazards; technological disasters providing more evidence of behavioural responses to hazards and risk than response to disasters assumed to be “natural”. Initial and subsequent behavioural responses may critically affect ultimate outcomes. Post-event inquiries into technological disasters have revealed actions and inactions which created or aggravated subsequent consequences and their aftermath.FindingsDecisions taken at a Japanese school between the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and details of the 2017 fire at a tower-block in London, UK, indicate, in spite of training, that rigidity, uncertainty, hesitation or waver may affect critical decisions and their consequences. Pre- and post-disaster behaviour may not follow preferred patterns. Fear of imagined or real events may induce unanticipated denial of the reality of risk. Physical changes made after assessments of risk may not be recognised as affecting risk.Research limitations/implicationsFew published examples exist of public inquiries following disasters assumed to be from natural causes.Practical implicationsReports of inquiries into technological disasters provide significant examples of behavioural responses which, if replicated, may influence outcomes of disasters labelled as “natural”.Social implicationsAwareness of risk as a fluid condition will facilitate realisation of effects upon risk of uncompleted or ongoing works, inappropriate behavioural responses, undeveloped resilience and of the need for regular reassessments of risk.Originality/valueThis study encourages comprehension of risk as an evolving and fluid condition.

Journal

Disaster Prevention and Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Sep 11, 2019

Keywords: Tsunami; Risk management; Risk assessment; Fire; Risk perception; Risk and vulnerability

References

  • Fire Safety: Approved Document B – Building regulation in England covering fire safety matters within and around buildings
  • The fires that foretold Grenfell
  • Grenfell survivor tells of panic as fire engulfed flat through window
    Booth, R.
  • Grenfell cladding firm denies responsibility for fire spread
    Booth, R.
  • Economic losses, poverty & disasters: 1998-2017
  • Grenfell survivors tell how they ignored advice to ‘stay put’
    Gayle, D.
  • Types of disasters: definition of hazard
  • Global warming of 1.5°C
  • Flood risk in deltas may be higher
    Jarman, S.
  • Lost for words amongst disaster risk science vocabulary?
    Kelman, I.
  • Lakanal House Coroner Inquest: Verdicts and Coroner’s Recommendations
  • Grenfell Tower: Dr Barbara Lane’s Expert Report
    Lane, B.
  • What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements
    Lechowska, E.
  • Corruption: the hidden perpetrator of underdevelopment and vulnerability to natural hazards and disasters
    Lewis, J.
  • Some realities of resilience: a case study of Wittenberge
    Lewis, J.
  • Grenfell Tower Fire: is absolute risk beyond comprehension?
    Lewis, J.
  • Places, people and perpetuity: community capacities in ecologies of catastrophe
    Lewis, J.; Kelman, I.
  • The good, the bad and the ugly: disaster risk reduction (DRR) versus disaster risk creation (DRC)
    Lewis, J.; Kelman, I.
  • Is ‘fear itself’ the only thing we have to fear? Explorations of psychology in perceptions of the vulnerability of others
    Lewis, J.; Kelman, I.; Lewis, S.A.V.
  • The social construction of disaster risk: seeking root causes
    Oliver-Smith, A.; Alcantara-Ayala, I.; Burton, I.; Lavell, A.
  • Flammable windows, the forgotten threat
    Peter Apps
  • Man-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail
    Pidgeon, N.; O’Leary, M.
  • Psychological defense mechanisms explained
  • Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: the role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness
    Shapira, S.; Aharonson-Daniela, L.; Bar-Dayana, Y.
  • Evacuation decision-making: how people make choices in disasters
    Silver, R.
  • Disasters and the disabled
  • Terminology
  • Terminology: underlying disaster risk drivers
  • Fighting failures
    Wynne, A.; Parker, D.; McIntyre, F.; Pitcher, G.
  • Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective
    Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Wan, J.; Jia, H.
  • Risk, vulnerability and survival: some post-Chernobyl implications for people, planning and civil defence
    Lewis, J.
  • The creation of cultures of risk: political and commercial decisions as causes of vulnerability for others
    Lewis, J.
  • Uncovering ‘community’: challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work
    Titz, A.; Cannon, T.; Krüger, F.