用户名: 密码:
   搜索:
首页
四川概况
机构职能
政府领导
政务信息
办事服务
互动交流
投资四川
旅游四川
网站导航  
安东尼·奥利弗·史密斯:灾后社区重建:挑战、困难、资源
 2010年09月22日
来源:省政府办公厅
【字体:
发邮件推荐给朋友 
 

  Post-Disaster Community Reconstruction: Challenges, Pitfalls and Resources

  Anthony Oliver-Smith (University of Florida)

  Abstract:  This paper explores the relevance of the concepts of vulnerability and resilience to the process of post-disaster reconstruction, focusing on specific challenges of livelihoods and location, social versus material needs, and continuity and change. The pitfalls encountered in reconstruction include local-state articulation, framing reconstruction as a material process and seeing local culture as an obstacle rather than as a resource.  Both challenges and pitfalls must be met or taken into account to deal with the complex problems that post-disaster reconstruction presents. 

  摘要:该文探讨脆弱性和恢复力的概念与灾后重建过程的相关性,主要研究民生和安置点所面临的挑战、社会需求和物质需求的对比、以及连续性和变化性。重建中所面临的困难包括地方方言、将重建构建为物质过程、当地文化成为阻碍而非资源等问题。我们都必须同时面对挑战和困难,考虑到处理灾后重建所呈现的复杂问题。  

  Introduction

  When geographers and anthropologists in the 1970s and 80s began establishing through their research the empirical findings that led to the concept of vulnerability, they created the bases for a powerful model of causation for disaster research and practice.  Vulnerability has become an orienting principle for the entire field of disaster studies and management, but it is not without its problems.  In situating causality in disasters in society or in societal-environment relations both the study and practice of disasters become particularly challenging from both a practical and a political standpoint. And the practical and the political are hardly separate.  

  The concept of vulnerability challenges us to address those identifiable social features that lead to damages and deaths from specific hazards, but it also brings us up against the dilemma of the fundamental contradictions of our entire system of human-environment relations, the most salient aspect of which is the economic system.  That challenge and that dilemma can be expressed in a single question: How do we move from a political ecology of disasters that locates causality in the systemic features of society to meaningful action in those entrenched systems?  Or what are the implications of the vulnerability model for practice?

  In order to grasp the challenges that contemporary disasters present, the complex sources of pre disaster vulnerability that pre-figure and in many ways cause the catastrophe must be addressed in order to avoid reproducing those conditions and preparing the ground for the next disaster. That is one of the principle tasks of reconstruction.  In that sense, we need to recognize that disasters involve far more than catastrophic events.  They are processes that unfold through time and their beginnings are deeply embedded in societal history. As such, disasters have historical roots, unfolding presents and potential futures according to the forms of reconstruction that are implemented.  The general focus of disaster research on specific events and conditions surrounding them of disaster has led to a general lack of attention to the longer term processes of reconstruction

  Therefore there is a significant need for a more processual political ecological perspective on the multidimensional processes of  reconstruction.

  When disaster strikes, very few places are now left to reconstruct themselves. Disasters commonly call for rapid local, state, national or international aid.  This convergence of people and goods, often foreign or strange to the local population, may ultimately be as great a source of stress and change as the disaster agent and destruction themselves.  In large scale devastation the reconstruction process may last almost indefinitely, often evolving into development programs, and the experts and their work become permanent fixtures in the social landscape. Core concept in reconstruction is vulnerability reduction. If vulnerability is not reduced, any reconstruction is  just setting the stage for the next disaster.

  Vulnerability and Resilience in Reconstruction

  The core ideas underlying this approach are the concepts of vulnerability and resilience. In political ecological terms vulnerability refers to the relationships between people, the environment and the political economic structures that frame the conditions in which people live.  From the perspective of disasters, vulnerability is the conceptual nexus that links the relationship that people have with their environment and its hazards to social forces and institutions and the cultural values that sustain or contest them.  Through the concept of vulnerability a political ecology of disaster links political economic conditions at multiple levels to particular environmental forces to understand how conditions such as poverty or racism can produce susceptibilities to specific environmental hazards. The concept of vulnerability thus integrates political economic, and environmental forces in terms of both biophysical and socially constructed risk.  Reconstruction, if it is not simply to reproduce the conditions that caused the disaster, must address how the social, cultural, political, and economic forms and conditions that characterize vulnerability are inscribed in an environment.

  Resilience should be the goal of reconstruction. Resilience of a society is the capacity to absorb the impacts of hazards that exist in its surroundings without major disruption of basic functions.  Such strategies, essentially adaptations that mitigate hazards and reduce vulnerability are extremely diverse. Some measures can be technological, such as building defensive structures including levees, sea walls, and dikes.  Enforced anti-seismic building codes that produce or retrofit housing stock also add to the resilience of a society. However, resilience building in reconstruction is about more than material strengthening of building stock and infrastructure, although those are important goals. 

  Resilience also includes social organizational or economic strategies, such as organizing community alert or information distribution systems or diversifying production or income strategies, as well as purely social strategies such as strengthening social support networks.  In other words, resilience actually begins with a community's social relations and is fundamentally a social organizational concept.  It is a community's social relations that drive the installation of risk and vulnerability reducing material changes in reconstruction. Post disaster resilience building in reconstruction aims to increase the self-reliance of people in hazard prone environments to demonstrate that they have the resources and organization to withstand the worst effects of the hazards to which they are vulnerable  (Wisner et al 2004).  The trying circumstances of disaster and its aftermath reveal that vulnerability, test the resilience of real communities, challenge the validity of fundamental social scientific constructions about nature-society relationships, and question our policies and methods employed in mitigation and recovery. 

  However resilience is not simply the opposite of vulnerability, the other side of the coin. Actually, resilience and vulnerability are dialectically related to each other. That is, our adaptations to our environment, both natural and built, are always incomplete and imperfect. In addressing one vulnerable dimension, thus perhaps increasing societal resilience we frequently create other vulnerabilities.  For example, in adapting to wintertime cold temperatures, we have created an electrical power system to warm our houses. The electrical power system bestows a certain amount of resilience in its capacity to allow us to survive frigid temperatures. However, the electrical power system may itself be vulnerable to ice storms, and when it fails, as it did in the area encompassing eastern Quebec and northern New York in 1998, a week long calamity occurred (Murphy 2002)

  

  Top 3 challenges: Balancing Acts

  1. Balance between Livelihoods and location Employment in the aftermath of disaster will be essential.  From both a material and a psychological standpoint, economics drives the process of reconstruction.  Employment provides needed income to replace or improve upon those personal and household needs not provided by aid, but it is also a form of action that enables people to return to being actors rather than being acted upon as disaster victims, which can become an essentially passive rather than active role.  Disaster and displacement cause many people to lose the means of production, whether it be land, tools, or access to other resources and they will be unable to resume normal activities until such resources are obtained. Also important will be the strategy of establishing the new livelihoods on the basis of traditional products, skills and technology, allowing the people to continue with known practices particularly for the initial period of adjustment. There may be difficult trade offs between employment, the social and cultural benefits gained by staying together, and reconstituting economic resources, particularly those implicated in the construction of vulnerability. Tensions can become acute when the displaced seek to relocate in existing communities and may compete with a dense host population for scarce social and economic resources.   However, until people resume employment, they remain dependent on external resources and reconstruction remains incomplete (Oliver-Smith 2005).   How will the tensions between the need for jobs available locally and in the broader region and elsewhere and the goal of staying together be negotiated in the process of reconstruction and vulnerability reduction?

  2. Balance between material and social There is an inextricable tie between material and social reconstruction, but it is much more than being materially sustained while reconstituting the community. To be sure, prolonged severe material deprivation in certain circumstances has been shown to erode the basic identities and interactions upon which community is based (Dirks 1980). To what extent is some basic level of materiality a necessary pre-condition for social reconstitution? And conversely, to what extent does social reconstitution in some form of cooperative action undergird and enable material reconstruction. No community can survive without a material base, but once these basic elements are re-established, they must be continually reproduced through cooperation, which is not always based on material interest, if the community is not to sink into prolonged dependency.  However, I would add that they also test our methods and policies in dealing with such conditions.  In effect, the material and social rebuilding processes must be mutually reinforcing.  Indeed, they must in some sense be mutually constitutive.  The built environment in which we live is a material instantiation of our social relations (Harvey 1996).  It is both expressive of and shapes our social relations.  Nowhere does this relationship become more crucial than in the process of community reconstruction.    Material reconstruction can both support and express social reconstitution. Material reconstruction can be a confirmation of social reconstitution.  It can also undermine the process severely and very frequently has.

  It is well known that the built environment cannot create community, or even recreate community where one has existed before.  On the other hand, we know from the experience of many millions of disaster victims, refugees, and those resettled by development projects as well as the failed designs of architects and urban planners that the built environment can seriously undermine or even prevent community from emerging.  The long even rows of barracks like structures that are built for the uprooted and resettled not only prevent community from forming, but exaggerate the social tensions and conflict that often plague such displaced populations.  Such plans and structures are generally elaborated with the donor needs of efficiency and cost in mind rather than the needs of the displaced to reconstitute community.  Indeed, the design, materials and construction of such settlements are often more expressive of elite constructions of the poor and the minority group than any informed desire to assist.   In the long run they actually cost more because the settlements and houses are abandoned or destroyed and the social disarticulation they foster undermines the productivity and self-sufficiency of the group. For the built environment to permit the formation of community it must take a form that is both recognizable and appropriable in both organization and substance in local cultural terms.  If planned settlements do not take a form and substance that people can appropriate as their own, adding to and embellishing them, community recovery will be impeded and the settlement will fail.

  3. Balance between continuity and change.  Recovery and reconstruction take place in human settlements with histories, for some, long and contentious ones.  The process of disaster reconstruction is fraught with ambivalence. On the one hand, people whose lives have been disrupted need to re-establish some form of stability, some form of continuity with the past, in order to take up the process of living again.  Furthermore, for some individuals and groups the status quo ante was extremely favorable and count on its reconstruction.  On the other hand, the disaster may have revealed areas where change is much needed.  Consequently, reconstruction entails significant contention over means and goals pertaining to persistence or change..  Past social arrangements, cultural practices, and important events, perhaps even disasters may support or collide with the planning and execution of reconstruction.  Internal perception of difference that may be submerged in crisis-induced forms of solidarity may be heightened.

  Top  3 Common Mistakes

  1.  Lack of understanding of articulation of local system with larger power structure.

  The reconstruction process may become an arena of contestation that can affect pre-disaster power structures and relations (Button and Oliver-Smith 2008). Reconstruction will require strong ties between local communities and remote centers of power and resources. Who will shape the contours of recovery and how? Whose vision of recovery is at stake in the process of reconstruction? Disasters and reconstruction often create opportunities for the entrance of new groups into the political or economic process, promoting change and simultaneously evoking or mobilizing resistance in sectors supporting status quo arrangements. Disasters create contexts in which power relations and arrangements can be more clearly perceived and confronted, transforming political consciousness, shaping individual actions, and strengthening or dissolving institutional power arrangements. Disaster may be both opportunity and cause for local political socialization and mobilization; and may provide opportunity for alterations in state-local relations (Button 1995).  Examining how disasters shape, maintain, destabalize or destroy both political organizations and relations is central.   Disasters are seen as contexts for creation of political solidarity, activism, new agendas, the mobilization of minority groups and developing new power relations.  Groups and organizations formed out of the disaster may subsequently broaden their agendas to embrace issues external to the disaster is central to such research. On the other hand, disasters may also have inhibiting effects on local political processes.  Disaster impact may combine with other political change to compound the severity of effects on community integration and recovery by subverting "normal" political processes, particularly in the acquisition of aid, reinforcing the political and economic interests of dominant parties.   How will local political relations and processes adapt to, negotiate with, and/or subvert the requirements of larger structures in the reconstruction process?

  Consequently, reconstruction entails significant contention over means and goals involving persistence or change. Past social arrangements, cultural practices, and important events, perhaps even disasters, may support or collide with the planning and execution of reconstruction.   Internal perception of difference that may be submerged in crisis-induced forms of solidarity may be heightened (Oliver-Smith 1999). These experiences are often characterized by social disarticulation of varying degrees as well as conflict with host populations (Cernea 1997).  Self-esteem and a sense of personal and community integrity may be endangered, and unless reconstruction aid and efforts are organized in such a way as to enable people to demonstrate renewed capabilities, they may be further eroded.   Communities may be fractured by contending interests and allegiances over the distribution of aid, reparations, and differential perceptions of loss that often deepen original societal tensions into outright conflict (Button 1995).  The fragmentation of social groups that may occur in disaster, resulting in the disintegration of networks of mutual assistance, has frequently produced serious social disarticulation and undermined the reconstitution of community (Cernea 1997).  Individuals traumatized by loss and suffering, often of hideous description, may be unable to reconnect, to re-enter the weave of the torn social fabric that was their community (Maynard 1997; Cernea 1997; Cernea and McDowell 2000).   Such diasporas rob culture of its ontological grounding and people must struggle to construct a life world that can clearly articulate their continuity and identity as a people again.   How will the disarticulation in social relations caused by the evacuation process as well as the stresses associated with the extended period of time reconstruction will take affect the ability of communities to reconstruct?  Will community identity provide the social cohesion necessary for fully participatory and successful forms of reconstruction? What actions might weaken this identity and impede reconstruction?

  2.  See reconstruction as a material transfer process   However, the process of reconstruction has been approached largely as a material problem, expressed generally in terms of replacement in the form of housing and infrastructure.   There is no denying that the often excruciating material needs of the displaced must be addressed, but material aid is often donor designed as largely a transfer process and frequently is delivered in ways that compound the social and psychological effects of destruction and loss by undermining self-esteem, compromising community integrity and identity and creating patterns of dependency.  Moreover, the urgency and the focus on restoration and replacement frequently lead to a failure to address the reduction of vulnerability that ensures the long-term sustainability of the community.

  There is an inextricable tie between material and social reconstruction, but it is much more than being materially sustained while reconstituting the community. Prolonged severe material deprivation in certain circumstances has been shown to erode the basic identities and interactions upon which community is based (Dirks 1980). To what extent is some basic level of materiality a necessary pre-condition for social recovery? And conversely, to what extent does social recovery in some form of cooperative action undergird and enable material reconstruction. No community can survive without a material base, but once these basic elements are re-established, they must be continually reproduced through cooperation, which is not always based on material interest, if the community is not to sink into prolonged dependency.   The material and social rebuilding processes must be mutually reinforcing.   Material reconstruction can both support and express social recovery, but it can also undermine the process severely and very frequently has.

  3. Seeing local culture as obstacle rather than resource.  For my purposes, the word "community" is used to designate a group of interacting people who have something in common with each other, sharing similar understandings, values, life practices, histories and identities within a certain framework of variation.  Communities also possess an identity and are capable of acting on its behalf or on behalf of those who have a claim on that identity.  Social reconstitution, thus, is the regaining of that capacity at the minimum.  The word community does not connote homogeneity and certainly does admit difference both among and between the community members and others not so defined.  More than anything else, community is an outcome, a result of a shared past of varying lengths.

  Such projects are really about reconstructing communities after they have been materially destroyed and socially traumatized to varying degrees. Reconstructing and reconstituting community is an idea that needs to be approached with a certain humility and realism about the limits of our capacities.  Such humility and realism have not always characterized the planners and administrators of projects dealing with uprooted peoples to any major extent to date. Indeed, the goals of such undertakings frequently stress efficiency and cost containment over restoration of community. As Chrisman notes elsewhere in this volume, top down initiatives have a poor record of success because of a lack of regard for local community resources.  Planners often perceive the culture of uprooted people as an obstacle to success, rather than as a resource.

  Reconstructing/ reconstituting a community means attempting to replace through administrative routine an evolutionary process in which social, cultural, economic and environmental interactions arrived at through trial and error and deep experiential knowledge develop, enabling a population to achieve a mutually sustaining social coherence and material sustenance over time.  The systems that develop are not perfect, are often far from egalitarian, and do not conform to some imagined standard of efficiency.  The kind of community that sustains individual and group life, never perfectly, is not a finely tuned mechanism or a well-balanced organism, but rather a complex interactive, on-going process composed of innumerable variables that are subject to the conscious and unconscious motives of its members.  The idea that such a process could be the outcome of planning is ambitious to say the least.

  Notwithstanding these challenges, there are many resources people can call upon to reconstitute community, a fact that has been recognized for quite a long time, but which has only begun to influence policy and practice in the last decade.  Moreover, these resources of an essentially cultural nature not only aid in the reconstitution of community, but assist in the process of individual healing as well (Maynard 1997: 209; Oliver-Smith 1992).  Community reconstitution and individual recuperation can become mutually supportive processes in which the survival of community helps to restore meaning to individual lives that have been battered by circumstance.  Where those who would assist uprooted peoples understand the importance of these cultural resources, the process of community reconstruction/reconstitution can be supported.  I would like to focus on the cultural or symbolic assets that enable communities to engage the process of social reconstitution.  In particular, I would like to suggest that such resources are mined from the history of the community.

  The idea of a shared past becomes a key element when communities are faced with the task of social reconstitution..   One of the first tasks that the displaced must master for successful reconstitution of self and community is that of grief over losses experienced.  Loss, whether it be of material possessions or personal or social relationships presents people with the difficult problem of how to hold on to what was significant in the lost past and invest it in the present and future without living in the past.  Grief thus involves a negotiation between allegiance to the past and commitment to the present (Marris 1975).  Rituals of mourning permit the bereaved to integrate the loss into their lives, to come to terms with it and through the grieving process, resolve the conflicts inherent in loss between allegiance to the past and healthy reconstitution of life.  People also must grieve for their communities, for lost homes, social contexts and culturally significant places and structures.  Over the last fifty years Wallace (1956), Fried (1965), Gans (1962) and others have showed us that people grieve for a community in ways very similar to grief for the loss of a valued person. 

  Community can be recovered through the commemoration of its loss.    The evocation of symbols, whether they are objects, places, or rituals that provided anchors to community identity in the past will be key to recovery, though they will most likely be reinterpreted and perhaps reformulated in different ways to fit present circumstances.  Re-establishing or restoring those physical features symbolic of community identity, churches, chapels, shrines, images, plazas, town squares, burial grounds, community and religious shrines and centers, markets and fairs, informal gathering places, forests, rivers, springs, waterfalls, mountains and a host of other physical features will be central to recovery.    The re-enactment of rituals, both secular and sacred, can help to reconstitute the social existence of the community.  Many people criticized the holding of Mardi Gras in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina without realizing that negating that symbol of community identity would have been the ultimate defeat for the city.  As a show of community recovery, a large sign on the wall of a building on Canal Street proclaimed defiantly, “Nothing Stops Mardi Gras! Nothing!”  Not even death. 

  Cultural resources will be central in the reconstruction of community. Events such as Hurricane Katrina that leave massive death, destruction and displacement in their wake challenge people to return from despair, to recapture a sense of meaning, and to re-engage with life. Resources of an essentially cultural nature not only aid in the reconstitution of community, but assist in the process of individual healing as well (Maynard 1997: 209; Oliver-Smith 1992; Button 1995).  Community reconstitution and individual recuperation can become mutually supportive processes in which the survival of community helps to restore meaning to individual lives that have been battered by circumstance.  The idea of a shared past becomes a key element when communities are faced with the task of social reconstitution. Loss, whether it be of material possessions or personal or social relationships presents people with the difficult problem of how to hold on to what was significant in the lost past and invest it in the present and future without living in the past.  Grief thus involves a negotiation between allegiance to the past and commitment to the present (Marris 1975). People also must grieve for their communities, for lost homes, social contexts and culturally significant places and structures.  Over the last fifty years Wallace (1956), Fried (1965), Gans (1962) and others have showed us that people grieve for a community in ways very similar to grief for the loss of a valued person.  Community can be recovered through the commemoration of its loss. The re-enactment of rituals, the evocation of symbols of community identity before the disaster, features of the built and physical environment, common property that serve as social resources, tangible evidence of a group identity such things as burial grounds, community and religious shrines and centers, etc. all may prove central to the reconstruction process. 

  Conclusion

  The complexity of disasters is refracted into the process of disaster reconstruction.  Disaster management is, according to Hilhorst, a form of complex adaptive system (2004). Complex adaptive systems can learn from experience, processing information and adapting according to local principles or intentions. In other words, complex adaptive systems do not merely react, they also attempt to gain some advantage out of circumstances.  This capacity renders disaster management, for example, substantially more unpredictable than planners and policy makers would like (Hilhorst 2004: 55).  Following this line of thinking,  complexity in disaster reconstruction is inherent in “the interrelatedness of a range of factors of different orders: cultural, social, environmental, economic, institutional and political-all of which are taking place in the context of imposed space change and of local level responses and initiatives”(de Wet 2005).  Moreover, these changes are taking place simultaneously in an interlinked and mutually influencing process of transformation. And further, these internal changes from the displacement process are also influenced by and respond to the imposition from external sources of power as well as the initiatives of local actors.  Therefore, the post-disaster reconstruction process emerges out of the complex interaction of all these factors in ways that are not predictable and that do not seem amenable to a rational planning approach.

  Those of us involved in both research and practice in post-disaster reconstruction should recognize that our policies and practices should not result in the rebuilding of structures which reflect, sustain and reproduce patterns of inequality, domination and exploitation.  We need to be attentive to issues of social stratification in the communities we seek to aid.  We cannot assume homogeneity even in the smallest of peasant villages. When houses and settlements are reconstructed in the aftermath of disaster, we need to recognize that materials and social space have profound meanings for people, meanings that divide and separate as well as unify communities.  Reconstruction must be based on research which explores and discovers those meanings.  And the criteria upon which the success or failure of a project is assessed must include impacts on the social fabric of the community in terms of increased integration or differentiation.  Ultimately, engineers, architects, planners and social scientists, in assuming their responsibilities, are faced with walking a very fine line between a stricken population’s need for continuity and the design of a community which will sustain the further development of social institutions of greater equity and justice.

  

  A more comprehensive and open-ended approach than the predominately economic and operational perspective is necessary to understand, adapt to, and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the inherent complexity of the reconstruction process.  While some might see this perspective as unduly pessimistic, the fact that authorities are limited in the degree of control they can exercise over the process of reconstruction can create a space for affected peoples to take a greater measure of control.  The challenge thus becomes the development of policy that supports a genuine participatory and open-ended approach to reconstruction as well as resettlement (De Wet 2005).  

  

  

  References Cited

  

  Button, Gregory V and Anthony Oliver-Smith 2008 “Disaster, Displacement and Employment: Distortion in Labor Markets in Post-Katrina Reconstruction,” in Nandini Gunewardena and Mark Schuller (co-eds.) Capitalizing on Catastrophe: The Globalization of Disaster Assistance Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

  Button, Gregory V. 1995  What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You”: The Right to Know and the Shetland Islands Oil Spill. Human Ecology 23: 224-258.

  Cernea, Michael 1997  "The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations," World Development 25:10: 1569-1588.

  

  Cernea, Michael and Christopher McDowell 2000 Risk and Reconstruction: Experiences of Settlers and Refugees, Washington DC: The World Bank

  de Wet, Chris  2006  Risk, complexity and local initiative in involuntary resettlement outcomes. In Towards improving outcomes in development induced involuntary resettlement projects, edited by Chris de Wet. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books

  Dirks, Robert

  1980   "Social Responses During Severe Food Shortages and Famine," Current Anthropology 21(1): 21-44

  Fried, Marc

  1963   "Grieving for a Lost Home," in Duhl, Leonard (ed.) The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis, New York: Basic Books. Pp 151-171.

  Gans, Herbert J.1962  The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian Americans, Glencoe,ILL: The Free Press.

  Harvey, D 1996 Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Blackwell, Oxford

  Hilhorst, Dorothea 2004  “Complexity and Diversity: Unlocking Social Domains of Disaster Response,” in Greg Bankoff, Georg Frerks and Dorothea Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, London: Earthscan. Pp. 52-66.

  

  Marris, Peter

  1975   Loss and Change, New York: Anchor Books

  Maynard, Kimberly A. 1997   "Rebuilding Community: Psychosocial Healing, Reintegration, and Reconciliation at the Grassroots Level," in Rebuilding Societies after Civil War Kumar, Krishna (ed.) Pp 203-226. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

  

  Murphy, Raymond 2001 “The internalization of autonomous nature into society,” The Sociological Review 50:3: 313-333.

  Oliver-Smith, Anthony 2005 “Communities after Catastrophe: Reconstructing the Material, Reconstituting the Social,” in Stanley Hyland (ed) Community Building in the 21st Century, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press

  Oliver-Smith, Anthony 1999 "Peru’s Five Hundred Year Earthquake: Vulnerability in Historical

  Perspective,” in Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna M. Hoffman, eds. The Angry Earth:

  Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, New York: Routledge.  Pp 74-88.

  Oliver-Smith,Anthony 1992   The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes, (2nd edition-new preface) Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

  Wallace, Anthony F. C.

  1957  "Mazeway Disintegration: The Individual's Perception of Sociocultural Disorganization," Human Organization 16(2): 23-27

  Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon and Ian Davis 2004  At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd Edition) New York: Routledge

 
相关链接  >>
 
·灾后恢复重建中的政府和民间角色分工——中国和其他国家的经验
·泰迪波恩:2004年12月26日海啸亚齐地区灾后重建工作不足之总结
·田谷聪:灾后重建以及急救运送——关于减灾的机能及平时的应用
·伯特·格莱夫斯坦:自然与人类危机:政府的作用
·藤原雅人:在四川应对巨灾国际研讨会的发言概要
 
Copyright 2011 www.sc.gov.cn All Rights Reserved
四川省人民政府网站 网站声明 | 网站地图 | 联系我们 | 主编信箱
版权所有:四川省人民政府办公厅
技术支持:四川电信 网站维护:四川省电子政务外网运营中心 联系电话: (028)86190174 蜀 ICP 备05030899号
如果您在本页面发现错误,请先用鼠标选择出错的内容片断,然后同时按下"CTRL"与"ENTER"键,以便将错误及时通知我们,
谢谢您对网站的大力支持。