Tackling Women's Vulnerabilities through Integrating a Gender Perspective into Disaster Risk Reduction in the Built Environment

The majority of human and direct economic losses from natural hazards occur as a result of damage to the built environment due to the vital role that the built environment performs in serving human endeavours. One of the key reasons for people in developing countries to be more vulnerable to natural disasters than their wealthier counterparts is the limited capacities in their construction industries. Among the people in developing countries, women are evidently even more vulnerable to natural disasters. Due to higher disaster vulnerability of women, recognising the different roles, capacities, vulnerabilities and needs of women, and considering them in disaster risk reduction in the built environment is significant to reduce women’s disaster vulnerabilities. Gender mainstreaming as a way of bringing a gender perspective into disaster risk reduction can be applied to recognise the varying needs and capacities of women, and integrate them into disaster risk reduction in the built environment. The paper in this context aims to demonstrate how gender mainstreaming helps to bring a women’s perspective into disaster risk reduction in the built environment. It identifies two main steps which involve in the process, identification of women’s DRR knowledge and needs, and integration of the identified DRR knowledge and needs into DRR in the built environment. The paper provides an account of the process that the study established to incorporate a gender perspective into disaster risk reduction in the built environment based on a case study conducted in Sri Lanka. It further discusses how the social, economic, political and environmental context influences the process of gender mainstreaming in disaster risk reduction in the built environmen

Aid and Poverty

SUMMARY The volume of aid received by the less developed countries, with some exceptions, is small in relation to the existing scale of poverty in those countries. Aid makes a significant but incremental contribution to available national resources. What aid can or cannot do for the poor has to be viewed and assessed within the context of overall national policies and priorities towards poverty elimination. In that context, it can be said that aid has made a smaller impact on poverty than one would expect. The reasons for this are varied and complex, and point to shortcomings in both donor and recipient policies. The aid experience, however, is by no means wholly negative. Particular forms of aid can make a positive contribution to a reduction in poverty, where national policies are directed towards the same objectives. More important for the future, perhaps, are the lessons that can be learnt from the aid experience about the do's and don'ts of aid policy. SOMMAIRE L'aide et la pauvreté Le volume de l'aide reçu par les pays moins développés, avec quelques exceptions, est petit en rapport avec la pauvreté dans ces pays. L'aide contribue substantiellement mais d'une manière incrémentale aux resources nationales disponibles de ces pays. Le potentiel de l'aide doit être évalué dans le contexte globale des politiques nationales et des priorités envers l'élimination de la pauvreté. Dans ce contexte, on peut dire que l'influence de l'aide sur la pauvreté a été plus petite de ce qu'on aurait prévu. Les raisons pour ceci sont diverses et complexes, et soulignent des défauts dans les politiques des donneurs, aussi bien que dans celles des pays recevants. Cependant, l'expérience de l'aide n'est d'aucune manière entièrement négative. Certaines formes d'aide peuvent réduire la pauvreté, lá où les politiques nationales sont formulées dans le même but. Plus important pour l'avenir, peut?être, sont les leçons de l'expérience de l'aide en ce qui concerne ce qu'on peut faire, et ce qu'on ne devrait pas faire en matière de politique de l'aide. RESUMEN Ayuda y Pobreza Con algunas excepciones, el volumen de la ayuda recibida por los países menos desarrollados es pequeño en relación a la escala de pobreza existente en esos países. La ayuda implica una contribución significativa y adicional a los recursos nacionales existentes. Lo que la ayuda puede y no puede hacer en favor de los pobres, debe considerarse y evaluarse en el contexto del conjunto de las políticas y prioridades nacionales de erradicación de la pobreza. En este contexto puede decirse que el impacto de la ayuda sobre la pobreza, es menor del que podría esperarse. Las razones son variadas y complejas y se refieren a deficiencias en las políticas de donantes y receptores. No obstante, la experiencia en ayuda está lejos de ser totalmente negativa. Determinadas formas de ayuda pueden realizar una contribución positiva en la reducción de la pobreza, en los casos en que las políticas nacionales están dirigidas a los mismos objetivos. Probablemente lo más importante para el futuro, son las lecciones que la experiencia en ayuda proporciona acerca de lo que debería y no debería involucrar la política de ayuda

Changing housing policies and housing provision in Jos, Nigeria

Nigeria's housing problems have persisted regardless of changes in policy, strategies, actions and instruments. This study examines housing policy changes and factors that influence housing supply outcomes at the local level. The study reviews the state of housing provision in the national context. The focus is then turned to the city of Jos in north-central Nigeria, where institutional arrangements for the provision of housing are critically examined. Primary data was obtained through interviews with industry role players (government officers and house builders) and the views of people were sampled through a questionnaire survey. This data was then combined with secondary source material to examine financial mechanisms, subsidy provision and local-level organisational frameworks for partnership. The findings suggest that a shift from a state-led to an enabling approach for housing did stimulate the activities of private house-builders and primary mortgage institutions. However, their activities are not spread across the regions of Nigeria. The issue of equitable allocation of public housing across the regions of Nigeria by the federal agencies has not been addressed by the enabling policy framework. Further, the idea of decentralisation of housing provision was introduced but did not result in the formulation of strategies by the local authorities in Jos. The national housing policy itself appears to be ambiguous and difficult to implement by the authorities in Jos. The ambiguities arose because there is a lack of policy enforcement mechanism, political commitment, and a poor local organisation and coordination framework. These failures create uncertainties and risks for private house builders that partnered the government to access finance and subsidies for the provision of low-income housing in Jos. Also, there is limited participation of households due to lack of awareness on public policies. On the basis of the study's findings, some policy recommendations are made

Situating preparedness education within public pedagogy

Both ‘disaster preparedness’ and ‘public pedagogy’ have been broadly defined and diversely utilised. Preparedness has been dealt within the disciplines such as civil engineering, sociology of disasters, public health and psychology, rather than education. Recently, inquiries into the learning and teaching of preparedness is increasing in the field of education, and some of them position preparedness education within the field of public pedagogy. However, conceptual discussion as to how and why the two fields are associated has been limited. The primary aim of this paper is to fill this gap by drawing on public pedagogy literature that conceptualises ‘publics’ and ‘pedagogies’. By doing so, the paper attempts to respond to Burdick et al’s call for Problematizing Public Pedagogy

Unravelling the Wider Benefits of Social Pensions: Secondary Beneficiaries of the Older Persons Cash Transfer Program in the Slums of Nairobi

A growing number of low and middle income countries have introduced social pension programs for older people. Research has highlighted that the impact of such programs can extend beyond the primary recipient when funds are shared. It less clear the extent to which such redistribution persists in the lowest resource settings. Using data from a survey conducted in 2016, this paper examines how recipients of the Kenyan Older Persons Cash Transfer Program (OPCTP) living in two slum communities in Nairobi reallocate their social pension by examining the characteristics of older people who are more likely to share their cash and identifying secondary beneficiaries. Findings suggest that 40% of beneficiaries re-allocate some or all of the cash received. The majority of secondary beneficiaries are either grandchildren or children of the primary beneficiary. Overall, a higher proportion of the total cash is shared with secondary beneficiaries living in rural Kenya, as compared to those living in the same household. This highlights the role played by older people, even the most vulnerable, in providing support to wider kin networks; reinforcing the argument that investing in social pensions has much broader potential societal impact than the intended aims of reducing recipient household poverty. By enhancing economic opportunities and investments in human capital more broadly, societies that invest in social pension programs may improve the overall living conditions and experiences of ageing in their countries at a critical moment of global population ageing

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Boyd, David R.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados UnidosFil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; AlemaniaFil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Singh, Gerald G.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Ngo, Hien T.. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y TobagoFil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D.. Stockholms Universitet; SueciaFil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino UnidoFil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; CanadáFil: Cheung, William W. L.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gregr, Edward J.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; JapónFil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; CubaFil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países BajosFil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países BajosFil: Mohamed, Assem A. A.. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; EgiptoFil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; BotsuanaFil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; EspañaFil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; TurquíaFil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; AlemaniaFil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; AlemaniaFil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; BrasilFil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; ChinaFil: Brondízio, Eduardo S.. Indiana University; Estados Unido

Enhancing public awareness and promoting co-responsibility for marine litter in Europe: The challenge of MARLISCO

Marine litter is a pervasive and complex societal problem but has no simple solution. Inadequate practices at all levels of production–use–disposal contribute to accumulation of waste on land and at sea. Enhanced societal awareness but also co-responsibility across different sectors and improved interactions between stakeholders are necessary. MARLISCO was a European initiative, which developed and implemented activities across 15 countries. It worked towards raising societal awareness and engagement on marine litter, through a combination of approaches: public exhibitions in over 80 locations; a video competition involving 2100 students; and a legacy of educational and decision-supporting tools. 12 national participatory events designed to facilitate dialogue on solutions brought together 1500 stakeholders and revealed support for cross-cutting, preventive measures. Evaluation during implementation shows that these activities are effective in improving individuals' perceptions about the problem but also commitment in being part of the solution. This paper summarises MARLISCO's approach and highlights a selection of outcomes