BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Columba Systems Ltd//NONSGML CPNG/SpringViewer/ICal Output/3.3-
 M3//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20160121T131027Z
DTSTART:20160215T160000Z
DTEND:20160215T180000Z
SUMMARY:Disaster Dialogue: Three myths in our dealings with disasters\, c
 limate change and development
UID:{http://www.columbasystems.com/customers/uom/gpp/eventid/}gp6-ii7ddgf
 h-47jvii
DESCRIPTION:The Disaster Dialogue series\, hosted by HCRI\, is a regular 
 multi-disciplinary forum that responds to the urgent challenges posed by
  disaster events\, including their interface with climate change and sus
 tainable development. It provides an opportunity for the disaster schola
 rs\, practitioners and students to dialogue and exchange ideas about the
  state-of-the-art research on disaster risk reduction and resilience cap
 acity development.\n\nIn this presentation\, Terry Cannon discusses key 
 areas of work that overlap between development\, climate change and disa
 ster preparedness\, in relation to three myths. The first is that people
  share the same priority for severe natural hazards with outsider "disas
 ter managers". Most people do not\, because they have other priorities (
 of everyday life). Many people interpret risk through culture and religi
 ous beliefs\, which are also ignored in DRR. The second is the myth of "
 community". Does it actually exist\, or do we pretend it is there in ord
 er to enable us to do our work? From this I explore the problems that ar
 ise when we do use the notion of community in what we do\, or what other
 s do. This is linked to the assumption that people are "rational" in the
  way we assume\, and that evidence is collected and acted on. Instead\, 
 we need to take account of different rationalities (rather than irration
 ality) and the significance of emotions and experiences in determining b
 ehaviour in relation to "evidence". The last myth relates to whether gov
 ernments actually care about their people. When we do research to provid
 e evidence for policy ("policy uptake") we are making an assumption that
  there will be a rational\, logical process that links our research to p
 olicy design and implementation. But what if the responsible organisatio
 ns (national governments and international organisations) don't actually
  care\, or are constrained by factors that make evidence-based policy ir
 relevant? In all this the missing element is any consideration of power 
 relations as the major determinant of what does and does not happen.\n\n
 Suggested reading:\n\nIFRC\, 2014\, World Disasters Report 2014 focus on
  Culture and Risk\, Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Re
 d Crescent Societies\, http://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-and-reports/w
 orld-disasters-report/world-disasters-report-2014/ (free download) – esp
 ecially chapters 3 and 4.\n\nCannon\, Terry & Detlef Mueller-Mahn\, ‘Res
 ilience\, vulnerability and disasters’ Natural Hazards\, 2010\, 55:621-3
 5.
STATUS:TENTATIVE
TRANSP:TRANSPARENT
CLASS:PUBLIC
LOCATION:C1.18\, Ellen Wilkinson Building\, Manchester
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR