Individual and Collective Life and Livelihood Strategies Essay

Today, people are still vulnerable to the negative impact of natural disasters, such as earthquakes. In spite of the scientific and technological progress, the mankind still fails to prevent natural disasters, whereas the main goal of disaster management strategies is the minimization of casualties and destructions caused by natural disasters. In this regard, earthquakes are probably one of the most destructive natural disasters, which often provoke numerous casualties and may affect the life of the society consistently. On the other hand, the contemporary science and technology provide professionals working in the field of disaster forecasting and prevention with large opportunities to forecast the risk of earthquakes and inform the public about the upcoming threat. However, in spite of the existing knowledge and awareness of existing risks, the society often fails to prevent negative effects of such natural disasters as earthquakes. At this point, policy makers should be aware of the fact that the risk perceptions may vary depending on the context, in which they are applied and in which the risk of a disaster exists. To put it more precisely, the risk perceptions are contextual. They are constrained by both social factors and embedded in an individual and collective life and livelihood strategies. Therefore, policy makers should be aware of the close interaction between individuals and society and develop effective strategies to reach both an individual and society to make them aware of existing risks of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, and develop effective strategies of disaster management. At the same time, the risk perception is probably the crucial factor contributing to success or failure of disaster management strategies because the level of awareness of individuals and society of existing risks defines the extent, to which disaster management is effective and successful.
On analyzing the problem of the prevention of risks and casualties provoked by natural disasters like earthquakes, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the risk perception is the primary factor contributing to the effectiveness of natural disaster prevention. In fact, the prevention and minimization of casualties and negative effects of disasters are primary concern in the construction of modern facilities because modern technologies allow decreasing the risk of injuries and save many lives if the disaster prevention and disaster planning are properly developed. In this regard, the disaster planning should focus on the observation of existing standards of the facility construction. On the other hand, disaster planning and management involves a number of stakeholders who have different needs. As a result, it is quite difficult to meet needs of all stakeholders but the extent, to which their interests are met, define the overall effectiveness of the disaster planning and management. Therefore, disaster management programs should meet local, state and federal regulations and standards, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders during the time of disaster.
In actuality, the disaster planning and management involve a number of issues which refer to the prevention and management of disasters. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that some disasters, such as earthquakes, are inevitable. Therefore, the development of facilities should incorporate the disaster planning and management to minimize the risk of casualties among the population. In this regard, the disaster planning and management should focus on standards which ensure the high level of the facility’s safety.
In such a context, it is worth mentioning the fact that the risk perception is extremely important for the prevention of natural disasters, such as earthquakes. In this regard, scientists (Bryan, 2004) have already developed effective methods of forecasting earthquakes and often they can predict the emergence of an earthquake beforehand. At the same time, the risk perception of such disasters as earthquakes may vary consistently depending on individual and collective perception of these risks. What is meant here is the fact that the perception of risks by individuals is vulnerable to the impact of communities they live in. For instance, if the community has a high awareness of the risk of earthquakes, individuals will be aware of this risk too. In addition, communities have historical memory that means the past experience of communities, which they communicate from one generation to another. Therefore, the past experience of communities influences the perception of risks of earthquake consistently. For instance, communities living in seismic active areas are more aware of risks of earthquakes than communities, where seismic activities are low. As a result, individuals living in the latter communities will be less aware of the risk of earthquakes than individuals living in the former communities. At the same time, each individual may have different level of risk perception and they may influence their community as well as the community influences them. In other words, in the course of the mutual impact, individuals may convey their vision of the risk of natural disasters, such as earthquakes on the rest of the community. The influence of individuals is particularly strong in relation to their family members, friends, relatives and other individuals they are well-acquainted with. Remarkably the impact of an individual on the community and its risk perception increases proportionally to the social standing of an individual in the community. What is meant here is the fact that individuals holding the high social standing and influencing policy making or having certain authority within the community, either formal or informal authority, can influence consistently the public opinion. As a result, their individual risk perception of natural disasters like earthquake will influence the collective perception as well because average people will perceive their opinion as the opinion of the authority, which lead they have accustomed to follows. Hence, they often take the side of the individual holding the high social standing or having reputation in the community. For instance, a renowned scientist may present his or her position concerning the risk of earthquake in certain area and the local community is likely to take into consideration the position of the scientist living in their community, even if other scientists deny the high risk of earthquake in the community. The point is that, if a person has a good reputation and authority within the community, if people follow his or her lead, his or her risk perception will influence the risk perception of a considerable part of the community.
At the same time, theoretical views on risk perception may vary consistently. At this point, it is possible to refer to epistemic and frequentist conceptions of probability in the context of the risk perception. To put it more precisely, epistemic and frequentist conceptions of probability suggest different views on the natural disaster risk perception, because they use different theoretical approaches to its probability. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning the fact that both conceptions should be taken into consideration, while assessing the risk perception in communities. The diverse theoretical approach to the assessment of the risk perception allows making objective conclusions concerning the risk perception in certain communities but it is still important to remember about the close interaction between individuals and communities and their mutual impact.
The epistemic conception stands on the ground that the prior knowledge is of the utmost importance for the risk perception. To put it more precisely, the past experience of the community and individuals play the determinant role in the risk perception of natural disasters such as earthquakes. If the community has suffered from earthquakes in the past and is well-informed about the risk of earthquakes, then the community will be aware of the repetition of the disaster and related risks and consequences. Also, individuals, who have once witnessed an earthquake, will be more conscious of risks and negative effects of earthquakes and they will take warnings of the risk of earthquake more seriously than individuals, who have never witnessed earthquakes. Therefore, the experience of individuals and communities and their knowledge of earthquakes are crucial in terms of the epistemic concept.
In addition, it is worth mentioning the fact that the epistemic concept places emphasis on the fact that the natural disaster like earthquake should be studied thoroughly. As the matter of fact, supporters of this concept (Haddow & Bullock, 2004) stand on the ground that individuals and communities should accumulate knowledge of natural disasters. The more information they collect on earthquake the more prepared they will come, if the disaster strikes. In such a way, the epistemic concept stresses the priority of knowledge as the key factor for the risk perception. Individuals should extend their knowledge on earthquakes to know how to act in case of the disaster to save their life and secure their health. At the same time, they should accumulate knowledge of earthquakes to develop effective strategies of the prevention of negative effects of earthquakes. For instance, they can introduce new technologies in construction of buildings, develop disaster management, and introduce other essential changes. In addition, individuals should share knowledge and information concerning earthquakes within their community. In such a way, through sharing knowledge within communities, individuals can increase the awareness of people of existing risks and prepare them to face earthquakes.
The frequentist conception stands on quite a different ground. Even though the frequentist concept also refers to the past experience of communities, but this concept holds the premise that natural disasters, such as earthquakes occur with certain frequency. This means that, in terms of the frequentist concept, individuals should not be afraid of earthquake, if it has recently struck the area, where they live. At the same time, the frequentist approach takes into consideration multiple factors, including the frequency at which earthquakes occur in certain area, the power of each earthquake and other statistical information. On the ground of the detailed statistical analysis, they can elaborate effective measures of forecasting disasters, such as earthquakes and increase the risk perception in individuals and communities. In such a way, the frequentist concept stresses the detailed analysis of statistics concerning natural disasters such as earthquakes to inform the public about the risk of the disaster. At the same time, it is worth mentioning the fact that individuals can perceive such warnings, if they are deep-rooted in the community consciousness. What is meant here is the fact that the risk perception will increase if the community admits the risk of earthquake. If the community remains indifferent to warnings of specialists, individuals will hardly develop a different view on the risk of earthquakes than the mainstream position of the community. On the other hand, if specialists working on the increase of the risk perception starts working with each individual, they may increase their awareness of the risk of earthquake and if they reach the target audience, they can shape the public opinion and increase the public risk perception. The frequentist concept stresses the significance of the detailed analysis and delivering of information concerning risks to the public. In such a way, it is possible to increase the risk perception and make communities prepared to such natural disasters as earthquakes.