Why human security approach

Human security approach is considered as a starting point to study a crisis like a meteorological hazard. When human security approach is viewed from policy perspective, it is considered not as a policy ‘process for development’ but as ‘policy challenges that arise in times of crisis and threaten security in an immediate way’ (Suhrke 1999, p.271). From individual level perspective, someone who is making adjustment for long term socio-economic change is also different from another being hit by a sudden life-threatening disaster, Suhrke (1999) argues. By quoting Scott (1977) who referred to situation in rural China in 1931 as ‘there are districts in which the position of the rural population is that of a man standing permanently up to the neck in water, so that even a ripple is sufficient to drown him’, Suhrke (1999) analyzes that human security approach has been a proper method for situation that resembles a person standing in the neck-deep water. Human security can save that man, ‘either by taking immediate preventive measures to flatten the ripple before it reaches him, or by throwing out a life buoy’ (p.271).

In this study, the safety aspects of in the villages from the margin of the Delta are examined in the light of human security. As the situation in the Delta is found resembled to a man standing in neck-deep water, attempts are made to enhance local understanding of how the ripples can be immediately flatten from an almost drowning person. While this study does not sway away from discussing potentials for long term policy process to get the man out of the river while making the structural adjustment to lower the water level, its emphasis is on overcoming human insecurity if any hazard happens to this disaster-prone region. Moreover, human security approach is also wide enough to cover several dimensions of security including environmental security which is fully linked to Eco-DRR and other dimensions of human security closely associated with life-safety of the villagers from vulnerable areas.

In response to disaster risk, Nature-based Solution (NbS) has been recommended by International Union for Conservation of Nature as a new trend for its presumably cost-

65

effectiveness and advantage of better livelihood and sustainability (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). IUCN defines Nature-based Solutions as ‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits’ (Renaud et al. 2016). Ecosystem-based DRR is increasingly considered by low-income countries that cannot afford high-cost disaster risk reduction infrastructure. Applying the lens of Eco-DRR approach in disaster policy research have a lot of potential because of its applicability in addressing Myanmar’s challenges against environmental degradation and urgent needs of disaster risk reduction plans. While the adverse impact of climate change is visibly signifying the need of effective disaster risk management and climate adaptation, some efforts are also underway to understand the linkages between the environment and disaster in Myanmar (JIAC 2015). In the context of the most rural villages of Ayeyarwaddy Delta, these linkages are strongly related to the other political, socioeconomic and cultural factors that make the poor people living in this area trapped in fragile and marginal spaces without much capacity to tackle disaster risk. Despite Eco-DRR concept will be able to explain the story of resilience and vulnerability to disaster in research areas as part of the whole story, some key aspects of rural life in the context of disaster will be left out of the community narratives (for instance, the role of agencies and structure during emergency and recovery phases and politics of disaster).

Again, sustainable livelihood approach (is also commonly used as a conceptual framework to study the long-term process of a disaster recovery and in some cases, to evaluate the effectiveness of aid in reconstruction (Cannon 2003; Carney 2003; Birkmann 2006). The sustainable livelihoods approach was first introduced by the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development (Krantz 2001). Later many forms of livelihoods approaches were expanded with disaster risk reduction. One of the modified version is the sustainable livelihoods framework from the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom (Good Practice Review 2017). Chambers and Conway (1991) defines livelihoods as:

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its

66

capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term. (p.6)

Overlapping with the Eco-DRR in some degree, Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) helps identifying ways community members respond to shocks at household and community level. Possession of assets (or capital) offer a wider range of options for survival and speed up recovery if an event of hazard hits the community. With a focus on reducing vulnerability of the people in the long term, SLF offered choices for policy planning, prioritizing and impact monitoring. Livelihood options involve a vast arrays of coping strategies for recovery rather than safety risk at emergency. This study does apply the core value of capital embedded in the community as highlighted by the SLF but forms of capitals are viewed in the light of response strategy of the village communities in the context of a life-threatening hazard.

To sum up, this chapter has discussed human security issues in existing studies on Cyclone Nargis, and has highlighted many gaps yet to be filled regarding Cyclone Nargis. The discussion moved to vulnerability and discussed several frameworks in vulnerability studies emphasizing relevance to the Ayeyarwady Delta of Myanmar. The crucial area of the resilience concept was outlined in relation to human security and vulnerability. Finally, this research’s implications for domains of human security were discussed with a brief profile on each domain for the post-Nargis period.

Long-term disaster recovery is assumed to be ongoing and the human security dimensions of recovery are explored in later parts of this study. If disaster recovery is not properly managed, future disaster prevention will be compromised (Hobson et al. 2014). Moreover, Soroos (2010) has confirmed that an anticipatory strategy is required toward reducing vulnerability in advance before threats come to fruition. Soroos (2010) argues that ‘anticipatory efforts may be directed either toward preventing or limiting threats to human security or to reducing the vulnerabilities of societies to these threats’ (p.179). Anticipatory responses for human security or reducing vulnerability include emergency preparedness planning, such as early warning systems, evacuation procedures, and assembling relief supplies that could minimize the number of casualties at the time of exposure to a disaster.

67

Chapter 3

Research methodology

3 The qualitative approach of the research

In disaster research, qualitative research design is not a stranger (Phillips 2014). This study utilizes a case study approach while the arguments in each chapter are backed up by facts and figures that indicate measurable dimensions of community vulnerability and resilience. The case study method usually involves data collection tools for a field study and analysis methods to extract textual data which is useful for in-depth analysis of the socio-economic and political dimensions of the field:

Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution or system in a ‘real-life’ context. It is research based, inclusive of different methods and is evidence-led. (Simons 2009, p.21)

This research is designed as a ‘multiple-cases study’. By studying more than one case or one region, my purpose is to enable replication of a theoretical proposition about human security in linking it with disaster risk vulnerability and resilience in the Ayeyarwady Delta. Yin (2004) argues that:

Focusing on a single case will force you to devote careful attention to that case. However, having multiple cases might help you to strengthen the findings from your entire study—because the multiple cases might have been chosen as: replications of each other, deliberate and contrasting comparisons, or hypothesized variations. (p.5)

To strengthen replicability, the study uses more than one technique of data collection and data analysis. This multi-case study required me to travel extensively to Nargis- affected sites stretching from the western end of the Ayeyarwady Delta to the eastern side and then to the upper Delta near Yangon. Stallings (2006) noted that field research is a critical component of disaster research as it strikes a balance between theoretical and practical significance. A positive side of the qualitative approach is that the researcher can still be reflexive in interactions with respondents. Most of the

68

respondents who participated in this research from the different zones of the Delta went through post-disaster stress to a high degree; the nature of reflexivity in the qualitative approach allowed interactive dialogue between researcher and respondents, enhancing deeper understanding of the issues without compromising the local ‘voice’. Ungar (2003) said, ‘Giving voice to those who are otherwise silenced in the production of knowledge contributes to a deeper understanding of the localized discourses of resistance that permeate disadvantaged communities’ (p.94). Schubert (1995, cited in Payne 2000) pointed out that reflexivity ‘helps us identify the socially and rhetorically constructed boundaries that delimit our view of the social field, to transgress those limits, and provide a basis for creative, ethical alternatives’ (p.10).

Moreover, for an inquiry that also relates to vulnerability and resilience of a society, the qualitive method is helpful to identify ‘the social and cultural factors that play a deciding role in determining what are good and bad outcomes, make the notion of contextually specific and culturally biased construct’ (Ungar 2004, p.18). Ungar (2003) also explains why qualitative research is well suited for the following types of disaster-related situation:

(1) It can lead to the discovery of the unnamed protective processes relevant to the lived experience of research participants

(2) It provides thick description of phenomenon in very specific contexts (3) It elicits and adds power to minority ‘voices’ which account for unique localized definitions of positive outcomes

(4) It promotes tolerance for these localized constructions by avoiding generalization but facilitating transferability of results

(5) It requires researchers to account for their biased standpoints (Ungar 2003, p.85).

Phillips (2014), citing Goffman (1959), suggests that the qualitative approach is appropriate for cases of disasters that ‘represent a location in which to observe the human condition at a most sincere level of performance’ (p.5). Phillips argued that, ‘social problems along with the resiliency found in social networks and social structures’ can be studied with the help of the holistic value of the qualitative approach.

69

By saying ‘holistic’, the qualitative approach looks for ‘meanings produced by social actors through social interactions’ and helps the researcher understand ‘the broader context rather than specific acts’ (p.4) without him or her being necessarily pre- deterministic on the facts he or she will find.

In other aspects, there is heated debate among researchers and disaster-related agencies over what should be the best way to study disaster recovery: should it be based on ‘process’ or ‘an outcome’? (Constas et al. 2014; Nigg 1995; Winkworth 2007). The findings in this study suggest that the notions of ‘outcome’ and ‘process’ are not mutually exclusive in the cases of the disaster-prone and poverty stricken coastal areas of Myanmar. This study attempts to analyze the variables of the vulnerability and resilience that are embedded in the ‘process’ the community experiences and the assets they can apply in three temporal dimensions: the ‘pre-impact, impact and post-impact’ phases of Cyclone Nargis.

Given the context of a changing political climate in the decade after Cyclone Nargis and the multidimensional changes in the national disaster risk reduction framework, a ‘process-based approach’ is complementary to studying ‘the outcomes’ that are embodied in the long-term consequences of relief and reconstruction aid in the safety aspect of the community. Human security in each part of a disaster cycle is measured by using a ‘trace-back technique’, which Phillips (2014) referred as to ‘the long standing and deeply embedded political, economic and social problems that lead up to the event’ (p.127).

This study traces back to the points of disaster, to resilience structures in pre-existing vulnerability. Moreover, this study is also based on the two theoretical principles which Ferreira et al. (2015) suggests for disaster research dealing with vulnerable populations: ‘utilitarianism and social justice’ (p.32). Delivering policy-oriented recommendations to help vulnerable people as much as possible and to contribute to the greater good is the goal, by adhering to the lens of social justice when dealing with disaster-affected people.

70

3.1 Research design for studying disaster resilience in temporal