Human, Gender and Environmental Security at Risk from Climate Change

Chapter
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 23)

Abstract

This chapter analyses the risks of extreme hydrometeorological events with the concept of dual vulnerability: environmental and social vulnerability, which focuses on people affected by global environmental change and climate change. The understanding of dual vulnerability orientates the policy to promote resilience that may mitigate impacts of extreme events, since it is only recently that the factors that create, increase or limit risks have been analysed. Improving adaptation and mitigation may reduce the impact of disasters and the loss of life and livelihood. This chapter explores an integrated human, gender and environmental—a HUGE—security approach. The gender perspective allows the differential susceptibility between men and women during an extreme event to be understood, which reflects gender relations consolidated during thousands of years by the patriarchal system characterized by violence, authoritarianism, exclusion and discrimination. This integrated security opens analytical perspectives for policy reflections that could enhance resilience and facilitate the empowerment of men and women before, during, and after a disaster. Governments will achieve greater success in disaster management when they promote participatory governance where authoritarian arenas, agendas, activities and actors are replaced, the dual vulnerability addressed, and adaptation and resilience embraced.

Keywords

HUGE-security Dual vulnerability: social and environmental Disaster risk reduction Gender security Environmental security Resilience Participative governance 

References

  1. Ahmed, S.A., Diffenbaugh, N.S., Hertel, T.W. (2009). ‘Climate volatility deepens poverty vulnerability in developing countries’. Environmental Research Letters 4(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Annan, K. (2005). In Larger Freedom, New York: Report form the Secretary General, UN.Google Scholar
  3. Anttila-Huge, J. K., Hsiang, S. M. (2013). Destruction, Disinvestment, and Death: Economic and Human Losses Following Environmental Disaster http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220501.
  4. Ariyabandu, M., Fonseka, D. (2009). ‘Do Disasters Discriminate? A Human Security Analysis of the Tsunami Impacts in India, Sri Lanka and Kashmir Earthquake’, in Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, John Grin et al. (eds.), Facing Global Environmental Change. Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts, 1223–1236. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bächler, G. (1999). Environmental Degradation and Violent Conflict: Hypotheses, Research Agendas and Theory-Building, in Mohamed Suliman (ed.), Ecology, Politics and Violent Conflict. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (2001). Políticas ecológicas en la edad del riesgo. Barcelona: El Roure.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (2007). Weltrisikogesellschaft auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a. M: Surkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, Ulrich (2011). ‘Living in and Coping with the World Risk Society’, in Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz et al. (ed.), Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security – Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Bogardi, J., Brauch, H. G. (2005). ‘Global Environmental Change: A Challenge for Human Security – Defining and Conceptualising the Environmental Dimension of Human Security’, in Rechkemmer, A. (ed.), UNEO-Towards and International Environmental Organization-Approaches to a sustainable reform of global environmental governance. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  10. Bohle, H. G. (2002). ‘Land Degradation and Human Security’, Paper presented to the UNU/RTC Workshop on ‘Environment and Human Security’, Bonn, 23–25 October 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Bordo, S. (1990). ‘Feminism, Postmodernism and Gender-Scepticism’, in L. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Brauch, H. G. (2005a). Threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks of environmental and human security, UNU-EHS, Source 1. Bonn: UNU-EHS.Google Scholar
  13. Brauch, H. G. (2005b). “Environment and Human Security. Towards Freedom from Hazard Impacts”, Intersection, Bonn, UNU-EHS.Google Scholar
  14. Brauch, H. G., Oswald Spring, Ú., Grin, J., et al. (2009). Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 4, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Brauch, H. G., Oswald Spring, Ú., Mesjasz, C. et al. (2008). Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 3, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Brauch, H. G., Oswald Spring, Ú., Grin, J., Scheffran, J. (Eds.) (2016). Transition to Sustainability and Sustainable Peace Handbook, Cham, Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., de Wilde, J. (1998). On Security. A Framework of Analysis, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  18. Cardona, O. D. (2007). Indicadores de Riesgo de Desastre y Gestión de Riesgos. Programa para América Latina y El Caribe, Informe Resumido, Washington: BID.Google Scholar
  19. CHS [Commission on Human Security] (2003). Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People, Human Security Unit, New York: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).Google Scholar
  20. Coneval [National Council of Evaluation of the Social Development Policy] (2015). Medición de la pobreza, Mexico, Coneval.Google Scholar
  21. Dalby, S., Brauch, H.G., Oswald Spring, Ú. (2009). ‘Towards a Fourth Phase of Environmental Security’, in H. G. Brauch, Ú. Oswald Spring, J. Grin, et al., Facing Global Environmental Change. Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concept. Berlin: Springer: 781–790.Google Scholar
  22. D’Eaubonne, F. (1974). Le Féminisme ou la Mort, Paris, Pierre Horay.Google Scholar
  23. GECHS [Global Environmental Change and Human Security] (1999). GECHS Science Plan. Bonn: IHDP.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right – the Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long-term Transformative Change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Guha-Sapir, D., Santos, I., Borde A. (2013). Reported Natural Disasters 1950–2011. Leuven: EMDAT CRED.Google Scholar
  27. Haraway, D. (1988). ‘Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and the privileged of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, No. 14, Fall: 575–599.Google Scholar
  28. Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question on Feminism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (1988). Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies, Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hartsock, N. (1983). ‘The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for an especially feminist historical materialism’, in S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka (eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub.: 283–310.Google Scholar
  31. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1991). ‘On the Threshold. Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict’, International Security, 16(2), Fall: 76–116.Google Scholar
  32. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994). ‘Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict. Evidence from Cases’, International Security, 19 (1), Summer: 5–40.Google Scholar
  33. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1999). Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. IMDM (2014). “2nd International Workshop on In-Memory Data Management and Analytic”, http://imdm.ws/2014/.
  35. In’t Veld, R. J. (2011). Transgovernance. The Quest for Governance of Sustainable Development, Potsdam: IASS Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies.Google Scholar
  36. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2012). Report on Extreme Events. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  37. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2013). The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)-The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  38. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2014b). Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jung, K., Sharon, S., Viswanathan, M., Hilbe, J. M. (2014). “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes”, PNS, Vol. 111, No. 24, June 17, pp. 8782–8787.Google Scholar
  41. Lagarde y de los Ríos, M. (1990). Los cautiverios de las mujeres. Madresposas, monjas, putas, presas y locas, México, D.F., PUEG/UNAM.Google Scholar
  42. Lamas, M. (1996) (Ed.). El género. La construcción cultural de la diferencia sexual, Mexico, D.F., PUEG-Porrúa.Google Scholar
  43. Lenton, T., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Ramstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS, Vol. 105, No. 6, 12 February, pp. 1786–1793.Google Scholar
  44. MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Desertification Synthesis, Washington, D.C., Island Press.Google Scholar
  45. McBean, G., Ajibade, I. (2009). “Climate change, related hazards and human settlements”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 1, No. 2, December, pp. 179–186.Google Scholar
  46. Bostenaru, M., D. Aldea Mendes, Thomas Panagopoulos (2013). “Assessing the costs of hazards mitigation”, JBU, Vol. 3, No.122, pp. 51–68.Google Scholar
  47. Mies, M. (1985). Patriarchy & Accumulation on a World Scale. Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books.Google Scholar
  48. MunichRe (2017). Quarterly Statement 3, Munich, MunichRe.Google Scholar
  49. MunichRe (2012). MunichRe Annual Report 2012, Munich, MunichRe.Google Scholar
  50. Oswald Spring, Ú. (2008). Gender and Disasters. Human, Gender and Environmental Security: A HUGE Challenge, Source, No. 8, Bonn, UNU-EHS.Google Scholar
  51. Oswald Spring, Ú. (2009). “A HUGE Gender Security Approach). Towards Human, Gender and Environmental Security”, in Hans Günter Brauch et al. (Eds.), Facing Global Environmental Change). Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts, Berlin-Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 1165–1190.Google Scholar
  52. Oswald Spring, Ú. (2012). “Environmentally-Forced Migration in Rural Areas. Security Risks and Threats in Mexico”, in Jürgen Scheffran et al. (Eds.), Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict. Challenges for Societal Stability, Berlin-Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 315–350.Google Scholar
  53. Oswald Spring, Ú. (2013a). “Dual vulnerability among female household heads”, Acta Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  54. Oswald Spring, Ú. (2013b). “Seguridad de género”, in Fátima Flores (Ed.), Representaciones Social y contexto de investigación con perspectiva de género, Cuernavaca, CRIM-UNAM, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar
  55. Oswald Spring, Ú., Brauch, H. G., S. Dably (2009). “Linking Anthropocene, HUGE and HESP: Fourth Phase of Environmental Security Research”, in Hans Günter Brauch et al. (Eds.), Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1277–1294.Google Scholar
  56. Oswald Spring, Ú., A. Flores (1985). Gran Visión y Avance de Investigación del Proyecto Integrado del Golfo, México, D.F., UAM-X, UNRISD, CONACYT, CINVESTAV, IFIAS, COPLADET, PEMEX.Google Scholar
  57. Oswald Spring, Ú., Brauch, H. G. (2011). ‘Coping with Global Environmental Change – Sustainability Revolution and Sustainable Peace’ in: Brauch, H.G., Oswald Spring, U. et al., Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security – Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 5, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer: 1487–1504.Google Scholar
  58. Oswald Spring, Ú., Serrano Oswald, S.E., Estrada-Álvarez, A., Flores-Palacios, F., Ríos M., Brauch, H. G., Ruíz, T., Lemus, et al. (2014). Vulnerabilidad Social y Género entre MigrantesAmbientales. Cuernavaca: CRIM-DGAPA-UNAM.Google Scholar
  59. Oxfam (2017). ‘Una economía para el 99% Es hora de construir una economía más humana y justa al servicio de las personas’ https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-economy-for-99-percent-160117-es.pdf.
  60. Paul, B. K. (2005). Evidence against disaster-induced migration: the 2004 tornado in north-central Bangladesh, Disasters, 29(4), 370–385.Google Scholar
  61. Rowhani, P., Degomme, O., Guha-Sapir, D., Lambin, E. (2011). ‘Malnutrition and conflict in East Africa: the impacts of resource variability on human security’, Climatic Change, 105, 207–222.Google Scholar
  62. Sánchez-Cohen, I., Oswald-Spring, Ú., Díaz-Padilla, G., Cerano-Paredes, J., Inzunza-Ibarra, M., López, R., Villanueva-Díaz, J. (2013). ‘Forced migration, climate change, mitigation and adaptive policies in Mexico: some functional relationships’, International Migration, 51, 53–72.Google Scholar
  63. Scheffran, J., Brzoska, M. Brauch, H. G., Link, P., Schilling, J. (2012). Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict: Challenges for Societal Stability. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Serrano Oswald, S. E. (2009). ‘The impossibility of Securitizing Gender vis a vis Engendering Security’, in Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, John Grin et al. (eds.), Facing Global Environmental Change. Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts. Berlin: Springer: 1151–1164.Google Scholar
  65. Serrano Oswald, S. E. (2010). La Construcción Social y Cultural de la Maternidad en San Martín Tilcajete, Oaxaca, Tesis Doctoral, México D.F.: Instituto de Antropología de la UNAM.Google Scholar
  66. Serrano Oswald, S. E. (2013). ‘Migration, woodcarving and engendered identities in San Martín Tilcajete, Oaxaca’, in Thanh-Dam Truong, Des Gasper, Jeff Handmaker, Sylvia Bergh (eds.), Migration, Gender and Social Justice. Perspectives on Human Insecurity. Berlin: Springer: 173–192.Google Scholar
  67. Sousa Santos, B. (2010). Decolonizar el saber; reinventar el poder. Montevideo: Trilce.Google Scholar
  68. Stiglitz, J., E. (2003). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  69. Sunga, L.S. (2011). ‘Does climate change kill people in Darfur?’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 2(1), 64–85.Google Scholar
  70. SwissRe (2014). Global Risks Report 2014: finding a path for ‘Generation Lost’. http://www.swissre.com/media/news_releases/Insured_losses_from_disasters_below_average_in_2014.html.
  71. UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. UNISDR (2009). UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, UNISDR.Google Scholar
  73. United Nations Secretary General (2008). The Republic of Serbia: Positions on the Effects of the Use of Armaments and Ammunitions Containing Depleted Uranium. http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/united-nations.
  74. Verhoeven, H. (2011). ‘Climate change, conflict and development in Sudan: global Neo-Malthusian narratives and local power struggles’, Development and Change, 42(3): 679–707.Google Scholar
  75. Wæver, O. (1997). Concepts of Security, Copenhagen, Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
  76. Wendt, A. (1992). ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Politics, 42(2), 391–425.Google Scholar
  77. Westing, A. H. (2013). Arthur H. Westing: Pioneer on the Environmental Impact of War. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Wolfers, A. (1962). ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, in: Arnold Wolfers (ed.) Discord and Collaboration. Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Centre for Multidisciplinary ResearchNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations