116 / 156
time, leading to the creation, reception and accumulation of new
knowledge. There may also be hidden capacities and vulnerabil-
ities that are not linked to a specific risk, but nevertheless
characterize the society’s strengths and weaknesses in general.
Moreover, in many situations, vulnerabilities and capacities may
complement each other. The disaster vulnerabilities and capaci-
ties of rural communities in India and Nepal can be viewed in a
time continuum as processes, which are themselves the products
of social, cultural and economic transformation processes within
communities. Three major factors affect the vulnerability and
capacity of rural and urban societies, and also affect each other:
• The normal (under)development process
• Immediate disaster response
• Long-term disaster response.
Social, cultural and economic transformation processes
within societies
Turkey’s rural and urban societies have traditionally been coher-
ent entities with a distinct social hierarchy but well-defined roles
and relationships. However, ongoing changes to these societies
include those to the traditional patterns and relationships that
determine their mutual support systems. These changes can help
to reduce vulnerability, but some of the patterns and relation-
ships are exploitative, and increase the vulnerability of certain
groups. Moreover, these inherent transformation processes extend
to changing perceptions and thought processes that favour
anything which is ‘modern’.
These structural changes are mainly due to the predominant
forces of globalization and the changing political and economic
environment, which erode the traditional systems and relation-
ships that have defined these communities for generations. Social
vulnerability in South Asian rural communities is very much
linked to widening social and economic segregation, which is
reinforced by the local political power structure. This has weak-
ened collective coping and response mechanisms, leading to
increased social and economic inequity, which has in turn
increased the vulnerability of certain marginalized groups. The
present generations of these communities are ‘lost’ generations
– neither able to use their traditional systems, nor to adjust and
benefit from modernization.
The vulnerability of Turkey’s urban and rural societies is certainly
a direct or indirect result of the dominant paradigm of develop-
ment. In some form or other, development has implied
modernization, the transformation of ‘traditional’ society (char-
acterized by dependence on particular social forms and cultures,
and on nature) towards ‘modern’ society (characterized by control
over nature, individual free choice, and independence as freedom
from a given social and natural reality). This paradigm also
assumes that development can be created or engineered, and
brought to some people by others who are more developed.
Moreover, it is assumed that development is linear and predictable,
with a direct line between cause and effect, input and output.
Such predominant notions of externally driven development
have negative implications for rural communities. First, the agen-
cies in charge of development perceive modernization as a
panacea for developing ‘backward’ urban and rural societies,
without comprehending local frames of reference – their world-
views, needs and priorities. The result is cultural incompatibility
and non-sustainability of interventions – rural development
approaches in Turkey have failed to some extent to meet basic
needs or enhance capabilities. Rural communities are increas-
ingly losing access to local resources, especially land.
The question of choice and access to resources is fundamental
in any discussion on rural poverty. Increasing poverty drives rural
people to urban areas, leaving behind their skills and knowledge.
However, most of them are also marginalized in urban areas.
Vulnerability is a product of immediate and long-term disaster
response, of external human interventions and the perceptions of
decision-makers, undertaken as post-disaster decisions or actions
intended to reduce vulnerability against such natural events. This
is either because of erroneous official policies for relief and reha-
bilitation or, in many instances, emergency, relief and rehabilitation
models by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The long-term
negative consequences are evident in the case of Marmara, where
it is also assumed that the provision of reconstructed houses is an
end product for the development of villagers and urban dwellers.
Ineffective disaster management may also be due to the overall
social, economic and political context within which it takes place,
and which it helps to shape. Poor policy approaches can rein-
force and even increase existing resource dependencies and social
inequity while overlooking local knowledge and capacities.
Moreover, social participation in disaster management depends
largely on the local power structure which is, ironically, reinforced
by existing social segregation.
Turkey’s disaster management has become a highly specialized
discipline, with professionals and decision makers identifying
various approaches within their own disciplinary field. For example,
policy-makers perceive relocation as a safe option based on the tech-
nical criteria of seismic safety, without considering relationships to
land, culture and livelihoods. Similarly, housing reconstruction is
seen as a physical end product, heedless of its relation to ways of
life and economic conditions. Similar issues emerge on the ques-
tions of transferring technology, which can make the structures
highly earthquake-resistant but raises questions about affordability,
cultural compatibility and sustainability in rural communities.
Redefining risk and disaster
Conventionally, we tend to categorize disaster in terms of phases
(pre-, emergency and post-disaster) for the sake of management.
[
] 116
Comprehensive Plan
• Hazard Element
Emergency
Operations Plan
Capital
Improvements Plan
Mitigation
Plan
Post-Disaster Recovery/
Reconstruction Plan
• operations
• long-term recovery
• mitigation
DISASTER
Damage Assessment
Evaluate field data with
respect to:
• physical constraints
• economic constraints
• resource constraints
• political constraints
Apply disaster specifics
to Post-Disaster Plan,
• hazard mitigation
• policies and goals
State interagency Hazard Mitigation
Team (If major disaster develops)
Early Implementation Strategy
Revisit Plan(s)
(including
comprehensive
plan)
Damage assessment
Source: Cecelia Rosenberg, FEMA; designed by Lisa Barton, APA