SOCIAL WORK AND DISASTERS

Disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity across the world, causing
significant destruction to individuals and communities. Yet many social workers
are ill-prepared for the demands of this field of practice. This book discusses the
role of social workers in disaster work, including in disaster-preparedness, during
the disaster and in post-disaster practice.
It addresses the complexities of social work disaster practice, noting the need for
social workers to understand the language of trauma and to respond effectively. The
authors discuss disaster theory and practice, drawing out elements of practice at
macro-, meso- and micro-levels and at various stages of the disaster. They examine
the factors that shape vulnerability in disasters and draw out the possibility of post-
traumatic growth. The final section discusses strategies for self-care in disaster practice,
noting the organisational and personal strategies that can be adopted to facilitate the
wellbeing of workers in the field.
With real-life case studies from top scholars in the field, this book is essential
reading for social work practitioners working in the field of disaster practice, as
well as social work students and academics. It will also be useful to other health
professionals who wish to understand this field of practice.

Margaret Alston is Professor of Social Work at the University of Newcastle,

Australia, and Emeritus Professor at Monash University, Australia. Previously, she
was Professor and head of Social Work at Monash University for ten years and
prior to that Professor of Social Work at Charles Sturt University, Australia. She
has headed up the Gender, Leadership and Social Sustainability (GLASS) research
unit for several years. She has undertaken multiple studies with people affected by
disasters in Australia, the Pacific and South Asia. Her particular focus has been on
the gender impacts of disasters. She has published widely in the field of gender and
disasters, social work and rural social issues. She has been an invited keynote speaker
at a number of national and international conferences.
Tricia Hazeleger is an Australian rural social worker with a professional practice
background in generic case work, community development, tertiary social work
education, project management, community action research and public service
policy development. Tricia was a member of the Victorian Gender and Disaster
Taskforce (2014–2017) and the Municipal Association of Victoria’s Gender in
Emergency Management Advisory Group (2012–2014), co-ordinator of the
Gender Edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (2013) and a
team member in the international Rebuilding Lives Post Disaster research and
subsequent publications (2013–2018).

Desley Hargreaves, PSM, is a Consultant Social Work Practitioner with particular

interests in disasters and professional leadership. Prior to her retirement from the
Australian Public Service in 2013, Desley headed up the National Social Work
Service in Centrelink. Desley has had extensive experience in disaster recovery
within Australia, and offshore, including establishing with her team an offshore
service to Australians impacted by terrorism or natural disasters in other countries.
Desley has published in this field and has been an invited speaker to a number of
national and international conferences.
SOCIAL WORK AND
DISASTERS
A Handbook for Practice

Margaret Alston, Tricia Hazeleger

and Desley Hargreaves
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
 2019 Margaret Alston, Tricia Hazeleger and Desley Hargreaves
The right of Margaret Alston, Tricia Hazeleger and Desley
Hargreaves to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted
by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-138-08952-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-08954-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-10913-8 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
CONTENTS

List of case study authors vii

Introduction 1

PART I
Theories for practice in disaster social work 11

1 Social work and the environment: an historical overview 13

2 Global policy contexts 23

3 Providing conceptual clarity 41

4 Theories of social work and the environment:

incorporating disasters 59

PART II
Practice theories 79

5 Disaster social work practice 81

6 Community-based practice: working at the meso-level 103

7 Trauma, grief and loss: meso- and micro-levels of

disaster practice 119

8 Social workers and disasters: organisational contexts 140

vi Contents

PART III
Vulnerability, resilience and intersectionality 163

9 Factors shaping vulnerability 165

10 Gender and disasters 181

11 Vulnerable populations 198

PART IV
Social workers engaged in disaster practice 215

12 Social work and self-care 217

13 Shaping social work disaster practice 226

References 234
Index 251
CASE STUDY AUTHORS

Margaret Alston is Professor of Social Work at the University of Newcastle,

Australia, and Emeritus Professor at Monash University, Australia. Previously, she
was Professor and head of Social Work at Monash University for ten years and
prior to that Professor of Social Work at Charles Sturt University, Australia. She
has headed up the Gender, Leadership and Social Sustainability (GLASS) research
unit for several years. She has undertaken multiple studies with people affected by
disasters in Australia, the Pacific and South Asia. Her particular focus has been on
the gender impacts of disasters. She has published widely in the field of gender
and disasters, social work and rural social issues. She has been an invited keynote
speaker at a number of national and international conferences.

Julie Drolet is Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary,
Canada. In 2009 she was awarded a prestigious Canadian Foundation for Innovation
(CFI) Leaders Opportunity Fund grant in recognition of research excellence in the
field of disasters, climate change and sustainable development. Julie led the Rebuilding
Lives Post Disaster research and has published extensively around her research themes.

Robin Ersing, PhD, MSW, is Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs
at the University of South Florida, USA. She is the co-author of an edited book
titled, Surviving Disaster: The Role of Social Networks, and conducts research in the
areas of disasters and social vulnerability.

Amy Fulton, MSW, PhD, RSW, is a postdoctoral scholar with the ARC project and
sessional instructor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Social Work, Canada.
Her doctoral research focused on the professional adaptation experiences of interna-
tionally educated social workers in Alberta, Canada, from a comparative perspective.
viii Case study authors

Desley Hargreaves, PSM, is a Consultant Social Work Practitioner with particular

interests in disasters and professional leadership. Prior to her retirement from the
Australian Public Service in 2013, Desley headed up the National Social Work
Service in Centrelink. Desley has had extensive experience in disaster recovery
within Australia, and offshore, including establishing with her team an offshore
service to Australians impacted by terrorism or natural disasters in other countries.
Desley has published in this field and has been an invited speaker to a number of
national and international conferences.

Louise Harms is Professor and Deputy Head in the Department of Social Work
at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She coordinates the Trauma Recovery
and Resilience Research Program, and teaches, supervises and conducts research
in these areas of interest. Her focus is particularly on post-disaster recovery, and
adaptation in health contexts.

Kathryn Hay is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Field Education in the School
of Social Work at Massey University, New Zealand. Her current research interests
are focused on the positioning of social work in disaster management, enhancing
the quality and sustainability of social work field education and the readiness to
practice of newly qualified social workers.

Tricia Hazeleger is an Australian rural social worker with a professional practice

background in generic case work, community development, tertiary social work
education, project management, community action research and public service
policy development. Tricia was a member of the Victorian Gender and Disaster
Taskforce (2014–2017) and the Municipal Association of Victoria’s Gender in
Emergency Management Advisory Group (2012–2014), co-ordinator of the
Gender Edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (2013) and a
team member in the international Rebuilding Lives Post Disaster research and
subsequent publications (2013–2018).

Chao-Hsing Huang is Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Philosophy,

Chang Jung Christian University, Taiwan. He has a particular interest in disasters
and empowering service users. He was a partner in the Canadian-led research on
Rebuilding Lives Post Disaster (921) Earthquake.

Yen-Yi Huang is Professor of Social Policy and Social Work, National Chi Nan
International University, in Puli, Taiwan. She has majored in Community Work.
She has lengthy experience working with women in community groups to
address issues of gender. Yenyi has been a partner in the Canadian-led research on
Rebuilding Lives Post Disaster (921 Earthquake) as well as further research on the
effects of Typhoon Morakot.
Case study authors ix

Jane Maidment is Professor in the Department of Human Services and Social

Work, and Chair of the Human Ethics Committee at the University of Canterbury,
New Zealand. She has worked in tertiary education in Australia and New Zealand.
Her research has focused on practice research; ageing; craft and wellbeing; and
field education.

Golam Mathbor is Professor in the School of Social Work at Monmouth University,

New Jersey, USA. Currently, he is serving as President of the American Institute
of Bangladesh Studies, and as a Member, Board of Directors of the Council of
American Overseas Research Centers, USA. Dr Mathbor has published exten-
sively especially in the field of social development. He is the author of Effective
Community Participation in Coastal Development.

Vaughan Milner is a member of ANZASW, a Registered Social Worker, and Chief

Executive of Presbyterian Support Upper South Island. Vaughan has a particular
interest in the coherence or chaos of social work agencies, their staff, and client
communities, and how change occurs in the thin space between hope and despair.

Katrin Oliver, BA, BSW(Hons), MHSc, PhD, is a practising social worker who
worked intensively in the post disaster space after the Black Saturday bushfires
before broadening her recovery interests to work in the substance use field. Her
research interests lie in the connections between Place and experiences of change.

Allison Rowlands was previously Director Disaster Welfare Services in the New
South Wales (NSW) Government. Allison was responsible for strategy and opera-
tions of the NSW Disaster Relief and psychosocial recovery programs. With
extensive experience in natural and no-natural disaster events, her background
includes consultation to psychosocial recovery programs in Singapore, Indonesia
and Timor-Leste, as well as social work education and research.
INTRODUCTION

Disasters will increase in number, frequency, intensity, scale and complexity across
the globe in the twenty-first century. These will come with major losses of human
lives, destruction of property, homes and livelihoods and significant disruption
to communities in major cities and isolated villages, in both the developed and
developing world. From earthquakes in South America, Indonesia and China, to
hurricanes in the United States, to droughts and fires in Australia, floods across
Asia, and rising sea levels in the Pacific, disaster events already provide regular
reminders that our planet is in crisis and that environmental certainties and the
taken-for-granted places we call home can change in a very short period of time.
While there are a number of causative factors shaping environmental disasters,
there is overwhelming evidence that human-induced climate changes have had a
major destructive impact. Yet, this is not the only factor shaping disasters. Across
the world we have seen a rise in conflict and war zones and a significant increase
in terrorist acts. These disaster events also cause major losses and changes to the
environment and to the lives of the people affected.
The ongoing impacts of disasters will continue to be significant. The World
Health Organization (WHO 2017) notes that natural disasters kill approximately
90,000 people each year and affect 160 million worldwide and 2.3 billion are
impacted globally each year with economic losses of over $500 billion (International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS) 2016). The
numbers of people displaced by disasters continues to grow, with the Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC 2015) noting that over 26 million peo-
ple a year are displaced by disasters. Tens of millions of people are predicted to
become climate refugees over the coming decades (Taylor 2017), and this displace-
ment is exacerbated by rapid urbanisation and population growth in hazard-prone
areas. Other disaster impacts include a rise in homelessness, poverty, disrupted live-
lihoods, ongoing grief and trauma, family breakdown, mental and physical health
impacts and social dislocation.
2 Introduction

It is little wonder that working in disaster zones has become one of the most
rapidly developing fields of social work practice. Social workers are often part of
the initial response teams, moving into devastated areas, with teams functioning
under an unfamiliar command and control regime. While operating in a gov-
ernance structure that may feel alien, workers may find themselves immediately
working with people coming to terms with unimaginable losses. Not surprisingly,
social workers may feel ill-prepared for the scale of the disaster, for the sights they
are witness to, and for the grief and losses being experienced. On a practical level,
workers entering a disaster zone may also be unprepared for the lack of electricity,
safe water, secure telecommunications infrastructure, or regular accommodation.
Within hours, social workers may find that their predictable, ordered lives are
completely disrupted, that they have flown into a different time zone and that they
have had little time to pack essentials. As one worker told us, she had received a call
while at a dinner party and quickly found herself flying to the disaster with other
first responders. Unfortunately, she had forgotten to pack sensible shoes and spent
the next week in high-heeled sandals, walking on uneven ground and negotiating
a devastated environment. This trivial issue nonetheless provides a good example
of the complete changes experienced by workers going into disaster sites in a very
short space of time.
Many social workers may feel compelled to take action if the disaster occurs
in their own communities and this can lead to workers over-extending them-
selves trying to assist as many people as possible and suffering burnout some
months into the post-disaster period. These experiences can be confronting and
challenging to those inexperienced with disaster work and it is for this reason
that we have developed this book. We hope to provide guidance on practice as
well as on self-care and to assist workers to become proficient in this field.
Social work theorising about appropriate disaster interventions is increasing.
Social work publications focusing on disasters are appearing across the globe and
these include a strong focus on environmental and eco-social work. Presenting
recent environmental social work theorising and practice insights is a core feature of
this book. We provide a synthesis of current social work and disaster theorising and
practice insights from an environmental and ecological social work perspective to
assist social workers to build knowledge and skills in this field. This work is based on
our experiences in disaster recovery case work and community work, emergency
management policy and social work management, disaster recovery research with
affected communities, international gender and climate change advocacy, social
work education and as members of multi-disciplinary teams.
As we will demonstrate through the case studies dotted throughout this book,
social workers step into disasters as individuals facing, perhaps for the first time,
varying degrees of devastation, grief and loss. Yet, they are also professionals and
thus are critical agents in post-disaster work, bringing a commitment to social jus-
tice, and an increased focus on people and communities that is so utterly necessary.
Governments, non-government organisations and frontline emergency workers are
often focused in the immediate post-disaster phase on restoring infrastructure and
Introduction 3

securing damaged areas. This work is fundamental to post-disaster restoration and

yet social workers can act to cut through bureaucratic processes, bringing the voice
of the people to the leadership table. They can urge that opportunities be taken
to ‘build back better’ (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) 2017),
and, in the process, ensure that social inequalities are made visible and not simply
reproduced. Social workers can facilitate the building of resilience amongst individ-
uals and communities. In bringing a social work perspective, workers can question
‘command and control’ power constructions when necessary and avoid being com-
plicit with an approach that may undercut the rights of those affected. This book is
designed to address this field and to provide critical knowledge necessary to prepare
for and enter disaster zones with a level of confidence. Before we discuss social
work’s traditional engagement with the physical environment, we provide some
background to disasters.

Disasters
There are a number of ways that disasters have been defined in recent years and
this tends to relate to whether the main focus of the definition related to the causal
environmental factors or on the impacts on people and communities. Definitions that
focus on the environment are more commonly used by transnational organisa-
tions, governments and NGOs. For example, definitions of disasters that focus on
the environmental causes differentiate between ‘natural’ disasters – earthquakes or
storms, for example – as opposed to those caused in some way by human inter-
vention. Many argue that the increase in climate change-related disasters have
ultimately resulted from human intervention because of the increase in greenhouse
gas emissions caused by an overreliance on the burning of fossil fuels. Disasters such
as sea and air temperature rises resulting from increasing emissions are ultimately
caused by climate changes resulting from emissions.
More transparent examples of human interventions causing disasters concern
events such as droughts resulting from the overgrazing of land – for example, in
large areas of Africa – or mudslides caused by excessive land clearing as has occurred
in many parts of the world. The 2018 mudslides in Southern California (Karimi,
Hanna and Almasy 2018) were caused by the lack of vegetation in the mountains
resulting from previous bushfires. Thus, one disaster has caused another in the
valleys below. More evident examples of disasters caused by human intervention
include events such as the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in
2010 or the nuclear reactor meltdown following the earthquake in Japan in 2011,
a natural disaster that also facilitated a larger human-induced disaster.
More extreme examples of human-induced disasters include terrorist acts and
conflicts. These events cause major destruction but are not necessarily dependent
on an environmental event. Nonetheless, they have a significant impact on the lives
and circumstances of the people who are unwittingly caught in the drama, and on
the environment in which they live. The National Consortium for the Study of
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) (2017: 2) defines a terrorist act as
4 Introduction

The threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor
to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or
intimidation and meeting the following criteria:

1. the violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social
goal;
2. the violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or
convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the
immediate victims; and
3. the violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law
insofar as it targeted non-combatant.

FORMS OF DISASTERS – CAUSAL FACTORS

Natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, floods, fires

Environmental disasters originating from some form of human intervention –

mudslides resulting from land-clearing, droughts resulting from overgraz-
ing, sea level rises resulting from climate changes caused by increase in
carbon emissions

Environmental disasters resulting from direct human intervention – oil

spills, water contamination caused by industrial waste

Disasters directly related to human actions – terrorist acts, conflicts

Many define disasters by focusing on the impacts of the event on communities

and individuals regardless of the level of human intervention or the underlying
environmental cause. For example, the United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines a multi-hazard ‘disaster’ as

A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving

widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts,
which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using
its own resources.
(UNISDR 2009)

Social workers Bauwen and Naturele (2017: 99) draw on the National Centre for
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder definition in defining a disaster as ‘a sudden event that
has the potential to terrify, horrify or engender substantial losses for many people
simultaneously’. They add that these events include natural or weather related events,
those accidently caused by humans and those intentionally caused by humans.
Introduction 5

DEFINITION OF DISASTER

We define a disaster as ‘an event that causes major losses to people and
destruction of place. It can result from a natural or human-induced event or
from intentional human actions’.

Social work and environment

While many social workers engage in environmental activism in their own lives,
the social work profession has had a somewhat uneasy appreciation of the physical
environment as a feature of professional practice (McKinnon 2008). Nineteenth-
century social work pioneers such as Jane Addams were very much attuned to the
impact of the environment on health and wellbeing, however the profession as a
whole has tended to ignore the fundamental centrality of our physical environ-
ment in practice. During much of the twentieth century, when we referenced
the environment at all, our focus tended to be on the ‘social environment’, or the
family and community circumstances that became the focus of our ‘environmental’
actions. With the wisdom of hindsight, we overlooked increasing urbanisation and
neoliberal policies that fostered extraction industries; we did not absorb the full
implications of degraded waterways and declining air quality. We came late to an
appreciation of the significance of climate changes for people in vulnerable areas.
In recent times, and inspired by social work activists across the world, we began
to notice the significance of the physical environment and the damage being caused
by climate changes, environmental degradation and the neoliberal policy environ-
ment that fostered environmental destruction. We became aware of the critical
imbalance between those who were most vulnerable following disasters and those
who had the resources to adapt. We began to hear the pleas of vulnerable regions
such as the island nations in the Pacific that are plagued by sea level rises not of
their making; and those with less resources who appear to suffer most. Examples
include the uneven impacts following Hurricane Katrina in the United States and
the impacts of monsoonal flooding on the rural people of Bangladesh. We began
to notice the links between poverty, displacement and homelessness, following
disasters. What became clear is that, while everyone is vulnerable in disasters, some
are more vulnerable than others. For example, people, countries and regions with
resources can better adapt than those without – therefore disadvantaged regions are
bearing a disproportionate burden of the outcomes.
We stress the need for social workers to be very conscious of the environment,
and of the vulnerability of people and place in the context of disasters. The
following case study provides insights from a social worker personally and profes-
sionally involved in the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Australia. It highlights a
number of issues that we grapple with in this book, including personal suffering
and environmental degradation, and the link between both.
6 Introduction

CASE STUDY – BLACK SATURDAY BUSHFIRES, VICTORIA,

AUSTRALIA 2009

Katrin Oliver

I am a social worker who has lived and worked in the bushfire affected regions
of Victoria since Black Saturday. I live in a town whose fringes were flame
affected. I stood at my own kitchen window on that suffocatingly hot after-
noon and watched a stream of cars speeding away from the approaching beast
that sneaked up from the southwest, taking everyone by surprise because it
was always believed that the threat would come from the north. How arro-
gant. And how disconnected from nature we were.
There were warnings and the weather, if we cared to pay attention, told
us what was going to unfold. History was repeating itself. Yes, the death
toll was unprecedented, but the weather conditions were all too familiar to
South-Eastern Victoria. But we, collectively, had forgotten. Just as we, with
our competitive, individualistic and rational world-view, had forgotten that
humans are part of nature, deeply connected and embedded in the creative
forces of the earth.
After almost four years of working in disaster recovery I have recog-
nised that the theories and practice models generally available to me as a
social worker offer some relief to survivors, particularly in a practical sense,
but as time has passed, life remains very difficult for some and the main-
stream approaches, although important, seem to be lacking. Working from a
strengths-based, solution-focussed theoretical approach, my practice to date
has been necessarily focussed on micro change: case plans are developed
that set individual goals for recovery – temporary accommodation, document
retrieval, financial assistance, material aide, property clean-up, insurance and
legal assistance, rebuilding support, small business, counselling, psychiatric
care and medical support.
At a mezzo level, community development work focuses on building capac-
ity and resilience by establishing and encouraging attendance at support
groups, men’s sheds, women’s beach get-a-ways, community dinners and bar-
beques, music programs, mountain biking, craft and cooking groups and trips
to the zoo. These social gatherings aim to reduce personal isolation, create
meaning in people’s lives and heal the many social fractures that became the
second wave of trauma that ripped through these communities long after the
fire had gone. . . .
What I have witnessed after the initial trauma of the fire are layers of loss
and grief. Grief not only for the loss of loved ones and loved places that are
gone forever, but also grief for the self who was left behind in the rubble
and ash. Survivors talk about their ‘bushfire brain’, referring to their inability
to cope with life’s ‘normal’ stressors, their failure to retain information and
Introduction 7

make decisions, a thick pea-soup brain fog, chronic avoidance, low self-
esteem and a distrust of self. I wondered how people could possibly know
themselves after their world changed its course on that fateful day. How
could they when it is human nature to define ourselves by who we are in
relation to others and the environment around us? Everything was different –
the landscape, the streetscape, the environment, ideas of safety, responsi-
bility and accountability. People have changed – hardened up or softened
down, gone mad or gone sad or just gone. Possessions were gone, as were
hobbies, habits, favourite places, secret treasures, old style country ways
and ‘she’ll be right’ attitudes. This loss of self through displacement is per-
haps most evident in people who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder. Their bodies and minds hold the memory of that day, the
trauma trapped in their cells. . . .
Pathways Bushfire Recovery Program was funded until mid-June 2014 and
had, at its completion, provided recovery services for five years. Within this
scope, our case management assistance was not time-limited as are many
social work services. Goal setting for recovery can be tailored to people’s vary-
ing capacities and includes both short- and long-term objectives. Despite this
flexibility and the plethora of different community groups available, I felt the
need to look beyond this somewhat standard approach.
I realized there was very little conversation regarding how people really
felt about their environment and 4 years later with the likelihood that the
recent reprieve from scorching heat has brought back thick virulent growth
that now chokes the forests, people talk of their fear but a real dialogue
about the relationship between the fire-affected communities and nature
is scarce.
In order to begin such a conversation, I developed a community writing
project called ‘Restoring Sense of Place’, which aimed to provide people with
a way to explore their feelings and thoughts of home, community, belong-
ing and identity and how these intersect with nature. I felt that this was an
important aspect to explore because, despite the enormous range of formal
and informal recovery responses, there was something getting lost amongst
the busyness of ‘recovering’.
The project gathered stories from people who lost their homes on Black
Saturday.
Some described an intimate connection to the natural world and a
search for a relationship with Mother Earth. They described how, despite
great loss and trauma, people are trying to fall in love again with their
surroundings. These authors shared an innate knowing that all things are
interdependent, and that fostering a strong connection will provide a
blossoming of life and self once again. Other stories focused on people,
community and compassion and illustrated the relationality that anchors

(continued)
8 Introduction

(continued)

self to place through personal connections. And then there are the stories
of those who continue to struggle with their health, their minds and the
daily grind of life. Their disconnection and displacement from place and
self is as great today as it has ever been.
As an environmental social worker it is connection . . . that I seek to nurture
in others who are finding it difficult to restore a sense of who they are in their
new world.

(Oliver, K. (2012). Home, hope, heart: restoring sense of place after Black Saturday. New
Community Quarterly, 10(4), 15–20.)

This connection to nature described so vividly by Oliver and our collective

loss of the intimate relationship between people and the environment revealed so
clearly by disasters such as the Black Saturday fires is a central theme of this book.
As disasters increase in number and magnitude, we must become attuned not only
to the social–environmental links but also to the factors that destroy those links
including neoliberal policies that prioritise productivity over human wellbeing,
and profit over social good. Social workers will have a critical role to play in disas-
ter work, but also in championing the care of our precious planet and of the people
so critically devastated by disasters. We take seriously the words of VonMeding
(2018) when he argues that

Disasters aren’t actually all that natural. The reality is that social structures
harm and disadvantage individuals, putting them at risk of harm when
exposed to hazard. Poverty and inequality are much more entrenched causes
of disaster than any hazard (or climate change) is. There is a danger that by
focusing on the ‘grand narrative’ of global change – and flashy technological
solutions – we obscure the reality of everyday risk experienced by the most
marginalised people in our world.

Structure of the book

We address these issues in the following chapters. Part I deals with theories for
practice in disaster social work. Drawing on a number of social work academics
across the world, we outline differing conceptualisations of disaster and environ-
mental practice. We also outline and define critical concepts that shape this field
including vulnerability, resilience, adaptive capacity, social sustainability, social cap-
ital and empowerment. We outline our understanding of ecological social work – a
theoretical approach to disaster practice.
Part II outlines practice theories and we present an understanding of the types of
strategies that might guide social work practice at macro-, meso- and micro-levels.
Introduction 9

We discuss the various stages of practice from disaster preparedness, to the immediate
post-disaster period, medium and long-term engagement in disaster sites. We inves-
tigate the type of organisational arrangements within which social work practice
occurs in the field.
Part III introduces the notion of intersectionality and we discuss the various
factors that might shape vulnerability including gender, stage of life, and level of
resources.
Part IV focuses on workers in the field. We discuss the various roles that social
workers might hold in disaster sites and explore factors such as self-care to assist
workers to be better able to fulfil their professional role.
In some chapters we include case studies written by social work colleagues from
across the world. These case studies are introduced to illustrate the points being
made with practical and insightful examples. Our colleagues were asked to address
the following questions in their case studies. These questions are:

What was the disaster (brief description)?

How were people affected and who were particularly vulnerable?
What did you (and others) do as social workers?
What social work skills and knowledge were used?
What worked and did not work?
Lessons learned for social work practice.

We thank our colleagues for their contributions and note that their valuable
work in disaster sites is assisting to build a global social work knowledge base on
disaster practice.
PART I

Theories for practice in

disaster social work
1
SOCIAL WORK AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
An historical overview

Social work’s historical journey to environmental consciousness has been a complex

one marred by our link to modernity, our focus on individualism, the limited defi-
nition of environment in the discipline’s key concept – ‘person-in-environment’ –
and a dominant and pervasive neoliberal paradigm. Zapf (2008: 171) argues that
‘social work’s long-standing dual focus on person and environment has been heav-
ily weighted toward an emphasis on the person as subject with the environment in
the background as modifier or context’. Thus it is only in the last 30–40 years that
social workers, drawn irresistibly by the impacts of industrial growth on human
wellbeing, have turned their attention to the ‘environment’ as a physical reality that
not only shapes people’s lives but is also an entity in and of itself deserving justice.
In this chapter we provide an historical overview of social work’s engagement
with the physical environment as a critical factor in professional practice. This his-
torical perspective, while necessarily limited in scope, provides significant insights
into the factors that have shaped, or restricted, the profession’s growing awareness
of the physical environment and its significance to human health and wellbeing.
Understanding the profession’s commitment to the environment provides a use-
ful background for disaster social work, a field that is sharpening attention on
the impacts on people when a disaster occurs. The places where people live and
that frame their life circumstances are largely ‘invisible’ until they are damaged or
destroyed. The growing frequency and intensity of recent climate changes and
other catastrophic environmental events, and their impacts on people and places,
have reinforced for social workers across the world that an understanding of the
physical environment is central to social work practice. The increasing presence of
social workers in disaster sites, is reinforcing this need for professional knowledge.
This historical review reveals a developing awareness over time of the critical
link between environmental and human health and wellbeing. This has been shaped
14 Theories for disaster social work

by environmental circumstances at various historical points that have had a signifi-

cant impact on people whose lives and health are disrupted. Yet, this awareness has
not been without its challenges as the profession has moved to develop and hone
professional social work practice. For example, nineteenth-century activists such as
Jane Addams recognised that rapid industrialisation and consequent environmental
pollution had a significant negative impact on people. Yet, twentieth-century social
workers, at least initially, were more circumspect about moving beyond work with
the individual. In the early years of the twentieth century, practitioners commit-
ted to environmental activism in their personal lives found little space in their
professional practice to act on their views (McKinnon 2008). There was a certain
reluctance on the part of the profession resulting from a strong but somewhat erro-
neous desire by social workers to be viewed as a legitimate, modernist ‘profession’
(Dominelli 2012; Boetto 2017; Coates and Gray 2012) and it was felt that adopting
environmental advocacy as part of practice would undermine this legitimacy. The
end result was that the profession’s more recent engagement with environmental
activism developed slowly and emerged in fits and starts, metamorphosing over
time into a solid commitment to ‘environmental sustainability’ as one of the four
pillars in the international global agenda (IFSW, IASSW, ICSW 2012).
To give some shape to this discussion we outline five stages. We term these
historical engagement (late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries); early
re-engagement (1970s), awakening awareness (1980s–2000), environmental deg-
radation (2000–2010) and environment central (2011–current). While these
categories are somewhat artificial, they do assist to explain how an awareness of
the physical environment has moved from the margins to being a core component
of social work practice.

Historical engagement
We begin by focusing on the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when
the rapid development of industrialisation and urbanisation in the developed world
created significant environmental problems. The growth of industry brought with
it an insatiable demand for labour, a need that was matched by poor working con-
ditions for those with work, the widespread and unmonitored use of child labour,
devastating illnesses, high unemployment and extreme poverty (Hansan 2013),
none of which were matched by welfare provisions. At the same time, burgeoning
and over-crowded cities with limited infrastructure were mushrooming, and slums
housed families living in extreme poverty, with little access to sanitation and
safe water. What had been lost in this rapid industrialisation and urban develop-
ment was the traditional community support systems evident in small communities
(Hansan 2013) and thus the social impacts were unsupported by community cohe-
siveness. One result in developed world countries was the growth in the numbers
of people, often middle-class Christian women, who undertook various forms of
welfare service provision. Untrained, but with, what they viewed to be, good
intentions limited only by their Christian beliefs, these women operated under a
Social work and the environment 15

charitable model, a model that differentiated the ‘deserving’ and undeserving’ poor
for widely different forms of assistance.
In large industrial cities these efforts were consolidated through the nineteenth
century into the Charitable Organisation Societies (COS) movement, a movement
designed to put some structure into the previously haphazard welfare support sys-
tems. The COS movement developed first in the United Kingdom and spread to
the United States and beyond. It provided a framework to support those in need and
was designed to address the increasingly evident urban poverty. However, the COS
movement leaders held the view that welfare support could exacerbate poverty and
hence over time as the COS movement was strengthened and consolidated, recipi-
ents of aid were monitored, evaluated and ultimately policed. ‘Friendly visitors’
were recruited to oversee the progress of welfare recipients in their efforts to move
beyond poverty (Hansan 2013). What the COS movement did not do was to assess,
critique and advocate against the deeply embedded inequalities in the new capitalist
order and it did not necessarily evaluate the significance of the environment –
in this case city slums, pollution and unhealthy living conditions – for human health
and wellbeing. Nonetheless, in this movement we can see the forerunner of con-
temporary casework and the initial development of trained and professional social
workers. One of social work’s leading historical figures – Mary Richmond –
was a key leader in the COS movement, having initially been employed as a
‘friendly visitor’. As she moved into a leadership role, she advocated particularly
for laws against child labour and for support for deserted wives.
Meanwhile a second, perhaps more critically reflective, movement was the
Settlement movement made famous by social worker Jane Addams. Addams chose
to look beyond the manifestations of the inequalities created by unfettered capitalist
growth. Determined to address the structural elements that shaped poverty during
the period of rapid industrialisation in the United States, Addams established Hull
House in 1889 in an impoverished area of Chicago. Hull House was modelled on
Toynbee Hall in the United Kingdom, a facility that had captivated her interest
during a visit. By contrast with the COS movement, Hull House was designed
to empower those living in poverty through the provision of services, educa-
tion and opportunities, and Addams continued to question structural inequalities
throughout her life. She was very aware of the impact of rapid urbanisation and
industrialisation and of the consequences for the inflow of migrants brought in to
work in the burgeoning industrial developments of nineteenth-century America.
She became acutely aware of the link between poverty and public policy (Allen
2008) and hence advocated for legislation to address poverty and to assist those
rendered vulnerable by the new industrial order.
Addams understood the critical impact of environmental degradation and poor
living conditions on human health and wellbeing, particularly when those affected
were powerless to change their circumstances. Among other things, she advocated
for improved labour laws and drew attention to civil liberties and issues affecting
women. She also lobbied for garbage removal, sewerage systems, street lighting,
safe water, food inspections, and an end to child labour and attention to other
16 Theories for disaster social work

urban environmental issues (Kovarik 2010). Her contribution to the fight for
peace during World War I and her efforts to improve women’s lives resulted in
the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1931. Of significance to environ-
mental social work is that Addams and many of her contemporaries are recognised
as leaders in the environmental movement, a movement that faded until its resur-
rection in the 1960s (Kovarik 2010). Nonetheless, in the COS and Settlement
movements we see the beginnings of two social work elements – casework and
community work – practices that continue to shape social work development in
the twenty-first century. Yet, neither Addams nor Richmond, or their various
movements, focused on the environment as a fragile factor in its own right requiring
attention and care.

Early re-engagement with the environment

Acknowledgment of the physical environment was limited for much of the twen-
tieth century. In fact, the post-World War II period saw social workers such as
Perlman (1957) focused on individualised treatment designed to assist clients to
adapt to their circumstances. People were required to adapt to, and cope with, the
factors that shaped their immediate social circumstances. Thus during this period,
the environment came to be associated with the social environment – the family
and community factors that shaped the lives of individuals. The concept of the
‘person-in-the-environment’ became widely acknowledged as a significant theo-
retical construct and yet the definition of ‘environment’ did not incorporate factors
associated with the physical environment.
Meanwhile, the release of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 reshaped global
attention to the environmental degradation being caused by humans. It also reen-
ergised the environmental movement, and social workers were not immune to
these identified global environmental challenges. This led to a resurgence of atten-
tion to the notion of the ‘environment’ in social work theorising during the 1970s.
For example, Grinnel (1973: 208) noted

The dynamic interaction between individual and environment constitutes

an issue that should be of fundamental value and relevance to contemporary
social work practitioners.

Complex theories were developed by leading social work academics, theories

that formed the bedrock of social work teachings for much of the late twentieth
century. As Besthorn and McMillen (2002: 221) note in their summary of this
period, these early ‘environmental’ theories included the goodness-of-fit model
(Gordon 1969; Bartlett 1970), the system’s perspectives (Hartman 1970); the
situational approach (Siporin 1972), the systems/ecosystems approach (Meyer
1970 and 1976), the ecological/life models (Germain 1973 and 1976) and the
structural approach (Middleman and Goldberg-Wood 1974). Influences on a
person’s behaviour and their capacity to access the services they might require
Social work and the environment 17

were seen to be hampered, or facilitated, by environmental factors including

social, cultural and physical factors. However, closer inspection of the writings
emerging during this early re-engagement period shows that the ‘environment’
in these theories remained very much focused on the individual – and the
‘person-in-the-environment’ concept continued to be shaped largely around the
social environment in which the individual operated. For example, Germain and
Gitterman’s (1980) ‘ecological perspective’ was squarely focused on the individ-
ual and viewed social problems as resulting from a lack of fit between people and
their environments. Thus, it was felt that factors in a person’s social environment
could affect the capacity of an individual to cope.
While we might dismiss these theories by arguing that their limited focus on
the ‘person-in-the-environment’ restricts their usefulness, nevertheless this is an
important historical period for the profession. It represents a move away from a
total focus on the individual – the classic, early casework approach – to a broader
understanding of social problems. During this period, theorists were bringing to
the attention of the profession the idea that individuals can be constrained by the
complex factors that shape their world – factors that are often beyond their control.
Hence, there was a move to extend social work practice beyond the individual to a
more rounded focus on the systems in which people operated – the social, physical
and cultural realities that shape people’s lives.
Consequently, this phase moved social workers to a more extensive understand-
ing of social problems. At the same time, it increased the profession’s understanding
of the need for socially just interventions that moved beyond the perceived
‘failings’ of the individual.
As Besthorn and McMillen (2002: 222) note in assessing this period

Conventional ecological/system models have made a significant contribution

to social work by drawing the profession’s attention to environmental inter-
vention as a core social work function, by focusing the profession’s attention
on the complex nature of interaction between individuals and environments
and by offering a unifying perspective that can help social workers address all
levels of systemic performance.

Nonetheless, there continued to be extensive critique of the narrow focus of

‘person-in-the-environment’ and it is viewed by contemporary scholars as very
limiting (Besthorn 1997; Coates 2003).

Awakening awareness
The 1980s and early 1990s saw more prominence being given to the physical
environment on the part of social workers, not necessarily because of concerns
for ecological health – although this was a significant factor – but because of the
burgeoning number of catastrophic incidents of human-induced environmental
disasters. Social work writers of this period became aware of the increasing discord
18 Theories for disaster social work

between human existence and the environment (Gray and Coates 2013) and began
questioning the relationship between humans and the physical environment. The
rapid development of industry, the increasing depletion of non-renewable resources
and the pollution caused by the impact of unfettered capitalist growth caused sig-
nificant concern across the world. The environmental movement strengthened,
civil disobedience escalated and resistance to developments that damaged fragile
ecosystems grew.
Across the globe, social workers joined in. Their work made them criti-
cally aware of the evident increase in industry expansion and the consequent
environmental hazards and their impact on humans – particularly in areas of socio-
economic disadvantage where people were most vulnerable. Besthorn (2012) was
later to refer to this as a period of ‘environmental racism’ – that is a disproportion-
ate amount of environmental degradation occurred in areas where racial and ethnic
minorities lived. A wide range of critical incidents in very diverse locations support
this contention and these incidents led to widespread international concern about
human-induced environmental disasters.
One such example relates to ‘Cancer Alley’ (Adeola 1998) in the United States –
a corridor along the Mississippi River where several petrochemical companies were
located. The hazardous waste emanating in this area was said to be responsible for
a significant number of people with cancer in several streets and communities close
to the river. The area was a low socio-economic one, and people were reluctant to
jeopardise their jobs by complaining – jobs that may well have been killing them.
The ‘Bhopal’ tragedy was another such occurrence. During the night of 2–3
December, 1984, a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, spilled noxious gases into the
atmosphere. Nearly 4000 people died immediately, and up to 20,000 over time.
In addition, over half a million people were injured (Taylor 2014; Banerjee 2013).
This terrible tragedy appeared to be the result of insufficient attention to main-
tenance and plant safety standards and ultimately a breathtaking disregard for the
environment and the thousands of people who lived near the plant. In 2008 survi-
vors and second-generation activists marched over 500 miles to the capital to stage
a demonstration demanding attention to their plight leading finally to government
action for compensation (Banerjee 2013).
These incidents and many more like them led to social workers such as Soine
(1987) noting the impact of toxic chemicals and other environmental hazards on
the health and wellbeing of those in the affected communities. Soine points out
that social workers were at the interface between people and their communities,
but that they needed to be more aware of environmental issues in the areas in
which they worked. She urged that social workers be educated to bring the voice
of marginalised people affected by human-induced environmental disasters to the
notice of the global community. This was also taken up by Rogge (1993) who sug-
gested that low socio-economic areas and minority groups were far more likely to
be threatened by environmental disasters caused by toxic waste. Rogge argued for
social workers to be educated about environmental health and for the profession to
bring a justice and equity perspective to environmental debates.
Social work and the environment 19

During this period Hoff and McNutt’s (1994) book The Global Environmental
Crisis was a significant addition to published social work literature, spelling out
potential social work interventions. They discuss the link between environmental
degradation, health and wellbeing and potential social work involvement. Besthorn
(2012) was later to reflect that this was the first well-developed social work theo-
retical work that extended the concept of person-in-environment sufficiently to
consider planet health alongside human health.
In a further work, Hoff and Polack (1993) also critiqued the economic par-
adigm that fostered the view that the environment was there to be mined for
economic gain. Social workers began to realise that their positioning in relation to
modernity had unwittingly facilitated a neoliberal paradigm that prioritised markets
over people and ultimately led to environmental, cultural and community destruc-
tion. Arguably in this period of awakening awareness, social workers mirrored the
public perception that the environment had always been a given, a factor of living
that did not require attention. Yet, the many issues created by industrial develop-
ment disturbed this notion. Critical environmental challenges such as air pollution
and chemical contamination, as well as industrial accidents and poor living con-
ditions refocused social work attention to the environment. Perhaps for the first
time, Hoff and Polack’s work introduces the notion of the need for a paradigm
shift drawing on such traditions as Indigenous culture and ecofeminism to refocus
human attention to the environment.

Environmental degradation (early 2000s)

The early 2000s saw a significant increase in the numbers of social workers ques-
tioning the relationship between people, their environments and an economic
paradigm that fostered unlimited growth. This was challenging for the profession
as it laid bare many of the assumptions on which social work had relied, its link to
modernity and hence its complicit sanctioning of environmental destruction, and
its unquestioned reliance on western ideas for its foundational truths.
Ulrich Beck (1999) noted that modernity has left the world exposed to unin-
tended consequences such as pollution and environmental problems and that
global societies and their foundations are shaken by the anticipation of global
catastrophes (Beck 2009 in Pennisi di Floristella 2016: 285). Thus as Pennisi di
Floristella (2016: 285) notes

In the contemporary world, in fact, natural disasters cannot be considered as

truly natural, because the ways in which populations, governments and eco-
nomic actors have manipulated the environment all inform the intersection
between natural hazardous events and human-related activities.

These views have inspired social work theorists to prioritise attention to environmental
destruction. Clearly John Coates’ (2003) book Ecology and Social Work: Towards a New
Paradigm represented another turning point in the historical development of social
20 Theories for disaster social work

work engagement with the environment. A worthy successor to Hoff and McNutt,
this book laid bare social work’s problematic position in relation to the environment.
As he notes in the preface (2):

a serious environmental crisis exists . . . this crisis is of such magnitude that

the human community can no longer rest solely on a faith that science
and technology will discover new materials to replace exhausted resources,
uncover methods to deal with toxic waste, and provide all the food and
means for an adequate standard of living for the billions of people who
are poor and underemployed. Humans must seek a new relation with our
planet earth.

Coates called on social workers to view the environment as an entity separate

from humans and deserving of its own protection – and yet fundamental to this
call is his acknowledgement of the link between humans and environment. If one
is threatened so is the other. Coates took up Besthorn’s (1997) critique of social
work’s positioning in relation to modernity and, by default, social work’s support
for the pursuit of individualism and market priorities. His critique of the reification
of individualism, for example, led him to question the prioritisation of individual
rights. He argued that such a position leads inevitably to limited or no attention to
the connection between people and nature. Coates urged social workers to focus
more critically on environmental health and his call for sustainability, environmen-
tal justice and global awareness was timely and urgent.

Environment central
What followed Coates’s call to arms was a global intensification of theorising and
action on the part of social work. A special edition of the Journal of International
Social Welfare (2013) was devoted to environmental social work. Social workers
across the world took up the environmental cause noting not only the need for
environmental sustainability, but also the view that environmental health is an
end in itself. The escalating global concern about climate changes, and increasing
catastrophic environmental disasters, make the physical environment impossible to
ignore. This is reflected in social work publications emerging in the 2000s. Gray,
Coates and Hetherington’s (2012) edited book, Environmental Social Work, discusses
what environmental social work might look like both theoretically and practically.
Lena Dominelli’s, Green Social Work (2012), brings a renewed focus to the role
of social workers in environmental disasters, and Alston and McKinnon’s edited
book, Ecological Social Work: Towards Sustainability (2016), introduces environmen-
tal justice as a critical social work concept as important as social justice.
At the same time, various social work movements/theories are extending
social work understanding of environmental practice. Besthorn (2012) and others
have introduced the notion of Deep Ecology to social work theorising. Concepts
such as spirituality (see, for example, Zapf 2005 and 2008; Besthorn, Wulff and
Social work and the environment 21

St George 2010; Gray and Coates 2013); empowerment (Peeters 2016); ecosocial
transition (Matthies and Narhi 2017); vulnerability (Alston 2017a); environmental
ethics (Gray and Coates 2012); Indigenous knowledge (Coates, Gray and
Hetherington 2006); ecofeminism (Besthorn and McMillen 2002); ‘professional
imperialism’ (Coates, Gray and Hetherington 2006: 382); and environmental jus-
tice are being explored and extended by social work writers. Social workers are
indeed responding to the call for environmental sustainability and planetary health
as an end in itself.
Social workers continue to raise awareness of the disproportionate suffering
experienced by those living in poverty (Findley, Pottick and Giordano 2017). As
Gray and Coates (2012: 239) note

it is becoming increasingly clear that realities such as climate change, soil ero-
sion, pollution and deforestation are affecting human health and wellbeing
and, [that] the consequences of environmental devastation, social injustices
fall disproportionately upon the most disadvantaged.

Zapf (2008: 174) notes that when social workers have focused on both people and
the environment, ‘In reality, professional practice and education have placed much
more emphasis on the personal side of this duality, at the expense of environmental
issues’.
Yet, as Matthies and Narhi (2017) argue, we must do more than acknowledge
the environment, we must understand that practice is fundamentally about the
environment. There is still a long way to go before environmental sustainability as
an end in itself becomes a common feature of social work practice.

Summary
Taking an historical overview reveals that social work theorists have been led into
this field by their growing awareness of the impacts of environmental degradation
on people – and the over-representation of those already marginalised by poverty
and circumstances amongst those most affected. At various historical points, and
reflective of issues arising at the time, individual social workers have had an acute
awareness of the relationship between the environment and human health and
wellbeing, an awareness that was very much shaped by contemporary circum-
stances and events to which they were exposed. Arguably, for much of the latter
part of the twentieth century the push to embrace the environment as a field of
practice has been driven by evidence of the social impacts of the increasingly fre-
quent and intense environmental disasters.
Thus, environmental challenges have raised a central issue regarding the pro-
fession’s reawakened commitment to the environment. That is, that social work
advocacy initially tended to focus on the environment only in the context of its
impacts on humans. This has gradually moved to a pursuit of environmental sus-
tainability as an end in itself borne out of concerns for damaged ecosystems and
22 Theories for disaster social work

threatened species. While theorists acknowledge the need for a healthy environment
not solely for the benefit it can provide for people, and the Global Agenda includes
environmental sustainability as a core principle of practice, there is still some way
to go before social work is recognised for this commitment. We return to this
central issue throughout this book.
The next two chapters take this discussion further. Chapter 2 focuses on the
global context of attention to disasters. This provides a framework to understand
the mounting global concern about disasters. Chapter 3 moves on to discuss criti-
cal concepts that assist our understanding of disaster theory and Chapter 4 discusses
dominant social work environmental theories. This section is designed to give the
reader significant background to understand social work and disaster practice.

Questions
Discuss the environmental activism of Jane Addams and Mary Richmond. How
do their methods differ?

Why do social workers view the physical environment as significant?

Using the stages outlined in this chapter, discuss the changing views on the
significance of the physical environment. How and why do they differ?
What are your views of the physical environment and how do they affect your
role as a social worker?
How are these historical changes in social work’s understanding of the envi-
ronment in our practice reflected in your work?
How might an understanding of environment as central to social work prac-
tice change your practice?
2
GLOBAL POLICY CONTEXTS

In Chapter 1 we outlined an historical overview of social work’s engagement

with the environment. This work contributes to foundational knowledge for
social work and disasters. Disaster practice requires a complex understanding of
the links between people and their ‘place’ – the environment in which they live.
Without this understanding we are responding ineffectually to human crisis. By
acknowledging ‘place’ we form a deeper awareness of the link between social
and environmental factors – and consequently of the indivisibility of people and
environment. Thus, when disasters occur, we can understand more critically the
need for environmental justice alongside social justice, and for a critical appraisal
of the policies and processes that lead to and exacerbate disasters. In this appraisal
we include the global fascination with neoliberal, market-based policies at the
expense of an harmonious relationship with the environment. Thus, we move
in this chapter to build a further understanding of disasters by examining global
disaster policies, addressing the question – what global institutional actions are
being taken to address climate change and disasters?
In order to answer this, we outline a number of global bodies that have been
established in recent years, the frameworks under which they operate and the
actions they have taken to address climate change and environmental disasters.
By outlining these institutional structures and frameworks we note the depth of
global concerns about environmental degradation, current theoretical approaches
that are driving interventions and social work’s actual and potential contributions
at international levels.
We begin by discussing the more widespread global responses to climate change
and disasters in order to understand the rationale guiding disaster responses. Social
workers are not operating in isolation in disaster sites and nor are our goals neces-
sarily unique. While policy and practice initiatives at global, national, state and
local levels guide disaster practice – this is a relatively new area for governments
24 Theories for disaster social work

and transnational bodies and it is important that social workers both understand
the principles underpinning cooperation and contribute their expert knowledge to
global understanding of appropriate responses.

Global developments in the 1980s and beyond

Why address disasters at a global level?

The World Bank (2013) reports that between 2000 and 2012 an estimated
1.1 million lives were lost and 2.7 billion people were directly affected by
natural hazards, and that disaster losses during the period 1980–2012 amounted to
$3800 billion. Further, 74% of these (and 61% of lives lost) occurred because of
weather extremes. The World Bank notes that population growth and infrastruc-
ture development in at-risk areas, such as coastal regions of both developing and
highly developed cities, risks significantly increasing social and economic losses.
While they note that disasters trap people in poverty, it is ironic that the global
community was initially mobilised to address disasters by the real and potential
economic losses rather than concern for the people and environment.
Beck notes that disasters have created ‘a new necessity to reinvent political insti-
tutions and invent new ways of conducting politics at social sites that we previously
considered un-political’ (Beck 1999: 93). It is therefore not surprising that political
institutions are being ‘reinvented’ to address climate and environmental disasters
and that these have become highly politically charged.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Global attention to changing climates grew in the latter part of the twentieth cen-
tury as concern built about the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and
extreme weather events and environmental disasters. This attention was focused
through various bodies of the United Nations allowing the concerns of mem-
ber nations to be heard. There was growing awareness that climatic changes and
catastrophic events were leading to sea and temperature rises, more frequent and
intense catastrophic environmental disasters, and were impacting cropping cycles,
as well as food and water security. Particular concerns were raised about the like-
lihood that human, or anthropogenic, actions were to blame and that therefore
human actions were needed to address the issue.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the information was anecdotal and that United
Nations member nations had no clear scientific data on which to base these con-
cerns. As a consequence, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
was established in 1988 by two UN organisations – the World Meteorological
Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
The IPCC was tasked with providing global scientific data on climate change for
policy makers and has since released regular global reports drawing on the cred-
ible published work of scientists. Its reports are viewed as the leading authoritative
Global policy contexts 25

source on climate changes and the scientific data provided in each report is the
most current at the time of publication. In recognition of their work and their
global standing, the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 ‘for their efforts
to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,
and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such
change’ (Nobel Prize 2007).
The IPCC casts widely for the scientific data that infuse each report, and these
reports are further broken down by regions and environmental factors (for exam-
ple, ocean temperature rises and the impact on cities). Increasingly, these reports
are responding to earlier criticism that there was limited social science in the ini-
tial reports and that there has been a dearth of gender analysis – a factor that has
received more attention in the fifth assessment report released in 2014. While data
from the physical sciences still dominates these reports, there are now a number of
social scientists and gender experts contributing to IPCC reports. The reports are
available on the IPCC website and provide advice on the various ways that social
scientists, including social workers, might contribute to future reports.

The Earth Summit 1992

The establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and growing global concerns led to a
number of global events. The most influential during this period was the United
Nations Conference in Environment and Development, commonly known as the
Earth Summit, which was held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. In total, 172 coun-
tries participated and while this number surprised many, the size of the gathering
demonstrated the concern of countries across the globe about environmental chal-
lenges. The message that emerged from the conference was clear – there needed to
be wholesale changes in the attitudes and behavior of humans towards the planet.
As a result, several significant documents emerged and these included Agenda 21
and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Both of these documents are readily available on the Internet and scholars inter-
ested in the historical development of global environmental consciousness can
freely access them. Arguably, the messages emerging at this time, from these global
developments and the environmental movement in general, were still viewed
as the voice of resistance operating on the fringes of society. Nonetheless, the
UNFCCC provided an authoritative document for member countries.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) 1992
The UNFCCC is a covenant that bound those member nations who had participated
in the Earth Summit (and others that subsequently came on board), to act in the inter-
ests of the planet even if the science surrounding climate changes remained unclear
(UNFCCC 2018). Nonetheless, because the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions
was viewed as responsible for global warming and climate changes, the UNFCCC
26 Theories for disaster social work

placed pressure on countries to reduce their emissions to levels that would not cause
permanent climate change. This convention illustrates the significant concerns of
participating countries (UNFCCC 2018).
What was needed, however, were guidelines and goals for participating countries
that allowed them a clearer understanding of greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets and actions. This gap in global knowledge led to the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto Protocol 2005

The Kyoto Protocol was designed to strengthen the UNFCCC by outlining
achievable, and binding, targets for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emis-
sions. It was ratified by UN member countries in 1997 and actioned in 2005.
Demonstrating that environmental actions were still viewed with suspicion, it is
significant that Australia did not ratify Kyoto until 2007 when the election of a
Labor government superseded the ultra-conservative Howard government.
The Protocol recognised that 150 years of industrial growth and the extensive
greenhouse gas emissions that have accompanied this growth are responsible for
global warming. It also recognised that developed countries were more responsi-
ble for this build-up and were therefore required to make a greater contribution
to reducing global warming. The initial target for reduction was set at 5% against
1990 levels. Countries were required to carefully record their reductions and these
were monitored by the UN Climate Change Secretariat. The ongoing impetus for
global cooperation and attention to reduction targets is maintained by the annual
Conference of the Parties meetings.

Conference of the Parties (COP)

COP is the decision-making body for the UNFCCC and is the most public face
of global climate actions. The first COP was held in Berlin in 1995. All signatories
to the convention are represented at the annual COP meetings and it is here that
countries emissions records are discussed, and further measures agreed upon to
address greenhouse gas emissions targets. With its establishment, COP represented
a milestone in international cooperation relating to climate change and environ-
mental disasters.
COP meetings have two ‘streams’ running side by side. The first involves the
intense negotiations between the official country delegates and is open only to
official delegates who have received prior vetting and approval. The International
Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) has delegate status at these events. The second,
and perhaps more exciting space visually, occurs in the non-government space.
Here, minority group representatives from areas threatened by climate change,
often wearing traditional costumes, mingle with activists and community group
representatives, hold events including intense discussions, present research and
demonstrate exciting new inventions designed to reduce energy consumption.
For example, in the NGO space in Paris in 2015, delegates purchasing a freshly
Global policy contexts 27

squeezed juice, or using computers, were required to pedal a stationary bike to

produce the energy to activate the power necessary.
In this space social workers have held events, or contributed to others designed
to raise awareness of the actions and activities of social workers in post-disaster
work and to advocate for greater attention to those most impacted by climate
changes. In 2015, at the Paris COP, authors Alston and Hargreaves were invited
to give individual presentations on the social work day of action organised by the
French Association of Social Workers and the IFSW. This event represented a
remarkable collaboration sponsored by our international bodies.
While held annually, there are particular COPs where expectations of strength-
ened international agreements were anticipated. For example, COP 15 in
Copenhagen was expected to produce a framework for climate change mitiga-
tion that would keep temperature rises below 2 degrees centigrade. However,
the final day of the conference saw this agreement abandoned amid discord and
disruption by countries resisting the implied slowdown in industrial growth. These
countries included the United States and powerhouse developing countries such
as India, China and Brazil. This loss of a united stance against climate change miti-
gation caused intense disharmony within the global community and particularly
amongst countries that are low emitters of greenhouse gases, but are amongst the
most affected. For example, the Tuvalu prime minister, Apisai Ielemia, argued in a
speech to the UN General Assembly in 2009:

We strongly believe that it is the political and moral responsibility of the

world . . . to save small islands and countries like Tuvalu from climate
change, and ensure we continue to live in our home islands with long-term
security, cultural identity, and fundamental human dignity.
(Oxfam 2009: 34)

Pacific Island nations have been highly critical of developed countries including
Australia. For example, Fiji’s prime minister, Voreqe Bainimarama, publicly
describes Australia as amongst ‘the coalition of the selfish’ for its carbon-polluting
coal industry and inadequate climate policy (Morgan 2017: 1). The failure so far to
achieve a binding agreement has caused intense frustration to those nations that are
most vulnerable to climate changes.
Much was also expected from COP 21, held in Paris in 2015, where it was
anticipated that the Paris Agreement would be ratified. This agreement was
designed to commit countries to no more than a two-degree rise with hopes
that this would be reduced to a 1.5-degree rise. Hopes were high that there was
general agreement on these targets given a pre-conference commitment from
China and the United States and highly publicised interventions by prominent
global leaders including the Pope. In the lead up to the Paris meeting, Tuvalu
prime minister, Enele Sopoaga, warned that a failure to reach an agreement
was ‘not an option’ and that climate change was now ‘the number one enemy’.
Without action, Tuvalu and Kiribati could well go underwater in coming decades
28 Theories for disaster social work

(ABC News 2015). However, the final signed agreement was watered down in its
language with phrases such as ‘as soon as possible’ and stated that countries would
‘do their best’ to achieve targets. The withdrawal of the United States from the
agreement under President Trump in 2017 was a devastating blow for activists,
world leaders and threatened countries.
This lack of a binding commitment was heavily criticised by nations such as
those in the Pacific and the Philippines, countries that are already experiencing
dangerous sea level rises and increasingly frequent catastrophic events. The signifi-
cant tensions between high-emitting countries and those low-emitting countries
that are the most affected are palpable in the ongoing COP meetings.
Commentators such as Naomi Klein are entering the debate to express their
intense frustration with the process and the unseemly politics. Klein (2014: 6)
notes that

Climate change has never received the crisis treatment from our leaders
despite the fact that it carries the risk of destroying lives on a vastly greater
scale than collapsed banks or collapsed buildings. The cuts to our green-
house gas emissions that scientists tell us are necessary in order to greatly
reduce the risk of catastrophe are treated as nothing more than gentle sug-
gestions, actions that can be put off pretty much indefinitely. Clearly what
gets declared a crisis is an expression of power and priorities.

Raising gender awareness at COP

Meanwhile, gendered impacts that were largely ignored in earlier COP meetings
have received greater attention more recently. This has resulted from a dedicated
push by gender advocates to have a greater focus on gender impacts in reports and
actions emerging from COP and to have a greater representation of women on
national delegations. Gender groups that have been committed to climate activ-
ism on women’s behalf include non-government organisations such as Women’s
Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) and GenderCC and many
others. These organisations have noted the differential impacts of climate changes
on women and have advocated strongly on their behalf. This has resulted in several
initiatives to improve gender outcomes including:

• a decision at COP 7 (2001) urging member nations to improve women’s

representation on delegations;
• intense lobbying by the Network of Women Ministers at COP 9 in 2003;
• the establishment of GenderCC at COP 13 in 2007;
• a decision at COP 18 (2012) urging greater gender balance on delegations
including those bodies working on UNFCCC and Kyoto business. This
meeting also added gender as a standing item on COP agendas going forward;
• a decision at COP 20 (2014) that adopted a work program on gender and called
for gender responsiveness in climate policies, gender training for delegates,
Global policy contexts 29

capacity building for women delegates and the appointment of a senior gender
expert at the UNFCCC secretariat;
• a decision at COP 22 (2016) to enhance gender-responsive climate policies;
to incorporate women’s local knowledge in climate policy development; to
appoint a gender focal point for climate negotiations; and to develop a gender
action plan (ECBI 2017; Equal Climate n.d.).

These actions have evolved through concerted, undiminished and well-organised

activism on the part of women’s organisations across the world, many of them repre-
sented through the UN Women’s Major Group. The following case study describes
an action taken by the World Bank to ensure that the land rights of women affected
by the 2004 tsunami were not overlooked.

CASE STUDY – THE WORLD BANK PROJECT SEEKING

JUSTICE FOR WOMEN FOLLOWING THE 2004 TSUNAMI
The 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean took nearly 250,000 lives, impacted
2.5 million people and caused destruction estimated at US$11.4 billion.
Because of the impact on the land, the loss of physical markers such as
fences and land marks, and the loss of land title documents, land rights were
hard to prove. The World Bank funded the Reconstruction of the Aceh Land
Administration System. The project incorporated an official land-mapping
process and the development of computerised land records. For various rea-
sons including significant outmigration of men and the reduction in social
cohesion and trust, women’s proof of land tenure and claims to inheritance
were under significant threat.
The World Bank project team operated at macro-, meso- and micro- levels
to build trust and to achieve consensus on land ownership. The project team
noted that there were several lessons to be learnt about women’s rights fol-
lowing disasters including that haste was not in the best interest of women;
that local traditions must be understood; that the protection of women’s land
rights required dedicated advocacy and policy dissemination; that the sharing
of information with women and empowering them through knowledge was
essential to protecting their land rights; that the community must be part of
the process at every stage; and that committed leadership is crucial to securing
the rights of women (Bell 2011).
This case study provides a significant example of the way women’s rights
can be undermined following disasters, and their land ownership claims over-
turned if careful attention is not given to their claims. The actions of the World
Bank in funding such a significant project are to be applauded.
30 Theories for disaster social work

Green Climate Fund

Meanwhile, and in response to concerns by developing, low-emitting nations, to
the unequal burden of climate impacts they experience, the Green Climate Fund
was established after COP 16 in 2010 by the countries that are signatories to the
UNFCCC. The Green Climate Fund is designed to support developing countries
to take mitigation and adaptation actions. It represents a global attempt to encour-
age high-emitting countries to fund mitigation projects in threatened low-emitting
countries that are bearing the brunt of global warming. The Green Climate Fund
is viewed by participating countries as an important mechanism to assist in keeping
global warming below 2 degrees (GCF 2017).

MDGs and SDGs

At the same time as these global initiatives to address climate changes have been
developing, additional efforts have been underway to address global poverty. These
movements have intersected around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and the subsequent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both of which have
encouraged greater environmental stewardship. The MDGs were commissioned
by the Secretary General of the United Nations and subsequently adopted in 2005.
The eight goals had a time frame of 2005–2015 and committed world leaders to
taking action to address issues such as poverty and gender inequality. Critically for
our purposes, Millennium Goal 7 was to ‘ensure environmental sustainability’, a
goal that linked environmental degradation with poverty outcomes. The MDGs
were significant in focusing global attention on fundamental issues of inequality
and were successful in facilitating actions that did assist to reduce extreme poverty
over the period of their operation.
In 2015, these goals were superseded by the 17 SDGs, goals that were devel-
oped amidst intense lobbying on the part of activists and governments and hence
they are sometimes awkward in their phrasing. For our purposes, several are of
relevance – goal 6 – clean water and sanitation; goal 7 – affordable and clean
energy; goal 11 – sustainable cities and communities; goal 12 – responsible pro-
duction and consumption; goal 13 – climate action; goal 14 – life below water;
goal 15 – life on land; and goal 17 – partnerships for the goals. In fact, goals
1, 11, 13, 15 and 17 specifically mention the need to address disasters. While
many of these reflect concern for environmental assets, a notable omission is
‘environmental sustainability’. Nonetheless, these goals are of significance in
understanding the global communities’ further commitment to sustainable com-
munities, ecosystems, habitats and living conditions. Yet, there is significant
concern that the debate surrounding the development and introduction of the
SDGs lacked a commitment to human rights (Healy 2017) and as Ife (2013)
warned, these appear to have been sacrificed human rights in the interests of
political expediency.
Global policy contexts 31

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–15

While the actions outlined above detail intense lobbying and concern, and some
obstruction, on the part of global nations concerning climate and environmental
issues, we turn now to global actions designed to address disasters. In 2005, follow-
ing the World Disaster Reduction Conference, the Hyogo Framework for Action
2005–15: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA)
was developed under United Nations auspices to assist people to be more resilient
in the face of disasters and to reduce the losses incurred by disasters. This was
the first global attempt to address disasters and importantly included reference to
the need to acknowledge gender and cultural diversity as significant cross-cutting
issues. It was developed with the cooperation of governments, NGOs and disaster
experts and details the types of cooperation required of all those involved in disas-
ters. The goal of the HFA was to build resilience among communities and to reduce
losses incurred by disasters.
The five priority goals identified are to:

• ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation;
• identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning systems;
• use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and
resilience at all levels;
• reduce the underlying risk factors; and
• strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.
(UNISDR 2017a)

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30

Following the completion of the HFA ten-year period in 2015, a new protocol
was developed – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30.
This has been signed by over a hundred countries. The seven target goals
are to:

• reduce mortality from global disasters;

• reduce the numbers of people affected by disasters by 2030;
• reduce disaster economic losses;
• reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and basic services;
• increase the numbers of countries with national and local disaster risk reduc-
tion strategies;
• enhance international cooperation to developing countries to support their
national strategies;
• increase early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments.
(UNISDR 2017b)
32 Theories for disaster social work

Of critical importance to social work is that the Sendai framework notes the
need to recognise the needs of vulnerable groups and to actively build resilience.

Disaster risk reduction requires an all-of-society engagement and partnership.

It also requires empowerment and inclusive, accessible and non-discriminatory
participation, paying special attention to people disproportionately affected by
disasters, especially the poorest. A gender, age, disability and cultural perspec-
tive should be integrated in all policies and practices, and women and youth
leadership should be promoted. In this context, special attention should be
paid to the improvement of organized voluntary work of citizens.
(UNISDR 2017b, Sendai Framework,
2015–2025; Para 19 (d))

Recent scholarship in the disaster space is also focusing on assessing tangible and
intangible loss and damage incurred by climate events. For social workers, the particular
focus on the intangible losses incurred by people affected by disasters (Tschakert et al.
2017) brings an attempt to give value to such intangible losses as the loss of place, iden-
tity, and community (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2018). This is a challenging but
significant area of research, and one where social workers can add significant insights.

Global Agenda for Social Work

The Global Agenda for Social Work (IFSW, IASSW and ICSW 2012) was devel-
oped during this period of significant global attention to sustainability. It was not
surprising to see the document contain synergies between the Global Agenda and
the SDGs, for example. The four pillars of the Global Agenda are:

• social and economic equalities;

• ensure the dignity and worth of the persons;
• promote sustainable communities and environmentally sensitive development;
• promote wellbeing through sustainable human relationships.

The Global Agenda provides a forthright statement of social work’s commitment

and commits social work to:

• support the MDGs, work on the post-2015 Agenda (SDGs);

• work towards implementation of all major human rights treaties;
• strengthen social work practice in areas of conflict management, human
trafficking and migration; and
• promote environmentally sustainable development and work on disaster
prevention, mitigation and response.

Australia’s position
Australia has been involved in global negotiations, most obviously during the
period of a Labor government from 2007–2013 and is a signatory to Kyoto, Hyogo
Global policy contexts 33

and Sendai. However, Australia has not been at the forefront of developments
to address climate change and has not actively attempted to extend its emissions
reduction targets. This is no doubt because the more conservative governments
elected since 2013 have included a large and vocal number of climate change
deniers. For example, in 2015 in the lead up to the Paris COP meeting, Australia
was the only developed country that did not give clear targets for emissions reduc-
tion. At the time, former prime minister, Tony Abbott, described those countries
with clear emissions targets as ‘airy-fairy’. In another example of Australia’s recalci-
trance, the former deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, in 2012 described global
discussions of climate change as ‘an indulgent and irrelevant debate because, even if
climate change turns out to exist one day, we will have absolutely no impact on it
whatsoever’ (SMH 2016). If climate denial dominates governments, countries like
Australia have a significant problem addressing disasters.
Nonetheless, the conundrum facing climate deniers is that Australia appears to be
one of the countries most affected by climate changes. We have experienced signifi-
cant temperature rises, an increase in heat waves, longer and more frequent periods
of drought and intense catastrophic events – events that have had major social,
environmental and economic costs. For example, the 2009 February bushfires in
Victoria, now known as Black Saturday, caused the loss of 173 people, resulted in
over 400 injured, led to the displacement of over 7000, destroyed 2029 houses,
several schools, and caused major losses of livestock and infrastructure. A Royal
Commission following the fires called for increased preparation and actions – a call
that has not obviously been recognised by the national government.
Under the Coalition of Australian governments (COAG) Australia has developed
a National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Attorney-General’s Department 2011).
The goal of this strategy is to build disaster-resilient communities. A disaster-resilient
community is defined as ‘one that works together to understand and manage the
risks that it confronts’. The statement goes on to note that ‘disaster resilience is
the collective responsibility of all sectors of society, including all levels of govern-
ment, business, the non-government sector and individuals’ (Attorney-General’s
Department 2011: v).

Linking social work to global actions

Summing up global initiatives over the last 30 years, we can see widespread con-
cerns about climate change and environmental disasters leading to a number of
global agreements and the establishment of infrastructure to support those actions.
This has subsequently resulted in high levels of cooperation demonstrated most
obviously through the acceptance of the UNFCCC and other conventions and
through the numbers of countries represented at COP and other meetings. It has
also led to tensions between countries about possible actions and resistance by
many about how to proceed in a cooperative spirit in the interests of the planet.
Representatives of low-emitting countries that are most affected by climate changes
express anger at the recalcitrance and foot-dragging of developed countries. At
the same time, in those countries benefiting most from industrial developments,
34 Theories for disaster social work

perhaps unsurprisingly, there are a significant number of climate change deniers who
argue that climate changes are natural and not the fault of industry. In this debate
too often we see developed countries prioritising economic development over
socially and environmentally just outcomes.
Of concern is that these tensions and differences have led to procrastination on
the part of the global community as to how to proceed. This has had devastating
consequences, not only because of the increasing numbers of catastrophic weather
events but also because we are rapidly moving to a point where temperature rises
will be unstoppable. The consequences of the delays, and the major blow result-
ing from the United States under President Trump withdrawing from the Paris
Agreement in 2017, have undermined potential actions. Meanwhile, there are
increasing numbers of people affected by climate and environmental disasters and
an increasing number of climate refugees.
This is the political background to global developments. If we take the agree-
ments, conventions and protocols at face value, we can examine the underlying
rationale of global actions. The regular IPCC reports ensure that the latest scientific
data continues to be available and countries continue, if somewhat recalcitrantly in
some instances, to measure their emissions reductions against target goals. At the same
time there is growing evidence and global awareness of the social costs and a strong
move to assess the loss and damage caused by climate events. These losses include tan-
gible infrastructure costs but also increasingly there are attempts to measure intangible
losses – the loss of communities, identity, social cohesion and social capital – factors
with which social workers are immediately familiar with in their work. Meanwhile,
there is an increasing focus on disaster risk reduction, disaster planning and post-
disaster actions. These actions are framed around such concepts as building resilience,
assisting people to adapt to changed environments and restoring communities.
Where does social work fit amongst these major global initiatives? It would
appear that the increasing engagement of social workers in post-disasters makes
them potential expert contributors to global dialogues regarding the social impacts
of disasters and the building of resilient communities. We provide a case study
indicating the importance of social work engagement at high-level policy institu-
tions and actions. We will address the ‘how to’ later in this book. For now, we take
the time in Chapter 3 to introduce concepts that assist social workers to understand
the rationale for their work in damaged communities.

Summary
Increasing global concern about climate changes and other human-induced envi-
ronmental disasters has led to concerted transnational actions. These actions are
based on increasing scientific evidence that indicates global warming is increasing,
and increasing rapidly. The conventions and protocols that have been developed are
designed to commit countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to address
the impacts on vulnerable communities. Among several themes underpinning these
actions are concerns for ongoing and intergenerational sustainability and attention to
Global policy contexts 35

building resilience amongst those affected. However, the global actions are depend-
ent on commitment and follow through from individual countries. Unfortunately,
this is not always forthcoming and a change in national government, as witnessed
in Australia and the United States in recent times, can fundamentally reduce that
commitment. Further, the dominance of industry interests and the prioritisation of
economics over social and environmental interests has undermined actions. This
has left vulnerable countries, and vulnerable regions within countries, struggling.
Nonetheless, the commitment at transnational levels remains undiminished and, as
the world warms, efforts on the part of activists and concerned groups continue.

CASE STUDY – SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH – CONTRIBUTING

TO GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE
Margaret Alston

The disaster
Since the early 2000s my colleagues and I have been researching various
climate-related disasters across the global south. Initially, this related to the ten-
year Millennium Drought that occurred in Australia from the late 1990s until
early 2000s. This drought covered much of the Australian continent, affecting
agricultural production and devastating rural communities. Farm families bore
the brunt of the devastating impacts on their local environments and their
‘place’. Much research at the time was addressed to the economic cost to the
country and the environmental effects of the drought. Our research focused
on the forgotten social impacts of this devastating environmental disaster, the
links between people and place and the stories of people living through the
nightmare of a very lengthy drought.
One of the outcomes of this disaster was the recognition that climate
change was having an impact on our continent and, because of the chang-
ing climate, that this would continue. Not only was this evident in the slow
onset events such as the drought, but also in the catastrophic events such as
hurricanes, floods, storm surges and bushfires that increased in frequency and
intensity across the country. Thus, it became clear that Australia had to prepare
for environmental disasters and that part of that preparation included a focus
on sustainable communities and on major environmental issues such as water
security. Over several years, particularly following the drought, attention has
focused on the Murray-Darling Basin – the food bowl of Australia – and particu-
larly on irrigated agriculture and its use of precious water resources. This led to
policy changes that included a reduction in water for irrigation. This has led us
to further research on the impacts on family farms affected by the withdrawal
of irrigation water (Alston, Clarke and Whittenbury 2018).
(continued)
36 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

Following the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, we also under-

took research on the social impacts of this disaster as part of the Rebuilding
Lives Post-Disaster (RLPD) research project run out of Calgary University under
Professor Julie Drolet (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014). This research
brought us face-to-face with a catastrophic environmental disaster as opposed
to the slow-onset drought and gave a significant understanding of the similari-
ties and differences for people affected by disasters.
In further research we explored the impacts of climate change related events
in India (FAO project), Bangladesh (Oxfam-Monash project) and Laos (ACIAR
project). These projects have had different foci, however the central theme has
been an investigation of the social and gendered impacts of climate changes
and the links between people and place in these diverse countries of South Asia.

How were people affected? Who was particularly

vulnerable?
The Australian drought studies revealed the significant vulnerabilities experienced
by farm family members who are dealing daily with environmental changes
brought on by climate-related events. Within these families, all members are
vulnerable in diverse ways. Men experience significant health and mental health
issues when their livelihoods are critically impacted; women are often working
on and off the farm to produce income and suffer their own health issues; elderly
farm family members are vulnerable to anxiety and depression; and children
may be quite fearful when they see their parents suffering.
During droughts and other events that impact the agricultural sector, rural com-
munities are vulnerable because of their heavy reliance on agricultural industries.
The flow-on effects to small businesses and to services are evident. Farm workers,
families and particularly young people may migrate away from the community in
search of work or education. This can leave communities with declining service
infrastructure, empty houses and boarded up shops. It also flows on to services
such as schools where lower numbers of students means less teachers. Social issues
include a rise in poverty, an increase in violence against women, declining access
to employment and education, health impacts and the outmigration of people.
Our research on the aftermath of the Black Saturday fires revealed similar
social issues together with the complexities of losing loved ones, neighbours
and friends as well as homes and infrastructure and the consequent devas-
tating impacts on communities and neighbourhoods. For example, the fires
destroyed or partially destroyed 43 schools and this impacts on the capacity
of families to re-establish their lives. The devastation of the fires brought us
face-to-face with the extraordinary challenges of a major catastrophic disaster.
In our work in South Asia we found that out-migration contributed to
declining communities following disasters. Particularly vulnerable during
Global policy contexts 37

and after disasters in these areas are girls, women, children, the elderly, day
labourers, female-headed households and those (usually women) with small-
scale home-based industries. Significant social impacts emerge following
catastrophic disasters including forced child marriage (Alston et al. 2015), an
increase in violence, girls dropping out of school, increasing poverty, a signifi-
cant increase in out-migration, and wide-spread health impacts (Alston 2015).
In most rural areas where we have conducted research we have also seen
a rise in the labour contribution undertaken by women – in Australia this usu-
ally involves women working off the farm for income to support the family. In
South Asia it is usually men who out-migrate to secure income and women who
maintain agricultural plots as well as taking day labouring work where they can.
In all areas we have witnessed the way individuals, families and communi-
ties have built resilience following disasters. However, this is often dependent
on access to resources from governments and other supportive INGOs and
NGOs. When this is not forthcoming, the impacts are significantly increased.

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

Our role has been to document the stories of people affected by disasters and
to bring this information to the world via our publications, presentations, high-
level think tanks, meetings with government and other policy influencers and
input to policies. Critically, our work has focused on the social impacts of dis-
asters and the link between people, communities and their ‘place’. Previously,
research on environmental disasters appeared to be dominated by physical sci-
ences as the scientific community grappled with the physical reality of climate
change and environmental disasters. We view our work as bringing not only a
focus on social issues and the importance of place, but a critical focus on the
impacts on women and girls who are revealed to be particularly vulnerable
during and after disasters.
Our gender research work (and that of others) has exposed the previous
lack of gender sensitivity in emergency responses and disaster policies and has
highlighted the need for gender mainstreaming of policies and practices in the
field of disasters. This information has been transmitted to the wider commu-
nity via publications, keynote papers, interviews and meetings with influencers.
Our research has also been very focused on building a qualitative understand-
ing of people’s experiences of disasters. Thus our work has been very much about
undertaking individual interviews and focus groups in many parts of the world to
allow disaster survivors to tell their stories in their own words. These experiences,
their transcription and analysis have meant that we have a significant body of
data on people’s experiences of disasters in the twenty-first century. Much of
this work emerges from countries outside Australia, painstakingly recorded,
transcribed and translated.

(continued)
38 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

My own personal experience of working with various UN instrumen-

talities including the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), the
UN Environmental Program (UNEP) and UN-Habitat, and being part of the
Australian delegation to the UN Commission for the Status of Women (CSW)
in 2008 has given a broad understanding of global politics and allowed a con-
tribution to the work of major international bodies working to effect a better
world. These appointments have also given significant insight into the activism
of women across the world for greater attention to gender. At the 2008 CSW
meeting, women from many countries signalled their concerns that women
and girls were disproportionately affected by climate changes and that atten-
tion to gender in the context of disasters is urgently needed.
In 2015, during the Paris COP meeting, the writers (Margaret Alston and
Desley Hargreaves) were two of four speakers at the International Social Work
day in Paris to mark the concerns of the profession about the social impacts of
disasters. We were part of a process by our international bodies to bring forth
social work understandings of the impacts of climate changes and disasters
and for the need for socially just attention to these events.

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

My social work contribution to this field has been through research and
advocacy. My research has consistently explored the impacts on people and
communities of challenging climate and environmental disasters and this
knowledge has been focused on three desired outcomes. The first is to bring
a greater understanding of the social issues, the links between people and
place, the gendered impacts of disaster events and the need for a human
rights based response. The second has been to advocate for changes in the
way we respond to disasters based on the findings of our research. The third
has been to build social work knowledge and understanding because of the
critical importance of social workers to disaster planning, preparedness and
post-disaster responses.
We are very aware that social workers have the skills and knowledge to assist
people and communities to build resilience to disasters before, during and after
a major disaster event. We are also aware that social work academics have been
grappling with the ‘person-in-environment’ concept and that this has led to a
fruitful debate on the interlinking of social and environmental systems. It is no sur-
prise that this academic debate has taken place when the environment is under
significant threat and when neoliberal responses fall short of adequate. Arguably,
social workers are at the foreground of attention to the social–environmental
nexus and that our skills and knowledge are critical to the future.
Our research is designed to build social work knowledge – knowledge that
has added to the profession’s significant academic debate about the environment
Global policy contexts 39

and knowledge that social workers can use to understand how best to operate
in this emerging area of crisis. There is much more to be done to ensure that
social work takes its place in the international arena as a dominant voice for those
whose voices are marginalised in disasters. There is much more to be done also
to ensure that social issues and outcomes of disasters are given the same promi-
nence as economic and environmental aspects. There is much more to be done
to ensure that social justice and human rights are at the heart of international
collaborations around climate and environmental disasters. And there is much
more to be done to bring a deeper understanding of the critical and indivisible
links between people and their environments.

What worked and did not work?

What worked for us was the ability to source funds from a wide variety of
sources to conduct research in our own and other countries of the global
South. The research was made possible by the receipt of funding from bodies
such as the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Oxfam, UNESCO
and various Australian national and state government grant schemes. In par-
ticular, the trans-national grants allowed us as researchers to respond to the
call for research in countries beyond our own borders.
Our preference for qualitative research in order to understand people’s
experiences meant that we committed to lengthy periods of time in the field
and this allowed us to observe and absorb the local environment and place
making. Qualitative interviews and focus groups meant that people gave us
directly the benefits of their experiences. It also allowed us to work closely with
in-country colleagues.
What made our research complex was that interviews and focus groups
were, of course, conducted in the local language. Thus, in many circumstances
where we attended these data-gathering exercises, we were reliant on inter-
preters and local researchers. This provided us with a rich experience and an
extra layer of local engagement. For example, in Bangladesh we employed
four Masters students from the University of Dhaka to be researchers and inter-
preters. In Laos we worked with graduate students and agricultural research
staff. These relationships provided an extra layer of local experience as well as
long-term friendships.
In-country research provided challenges, particularly in terms of travel and
accommodation, telecommunications and access to safe water, sanitation and
food. All of these issues were made easier by the significant support provided
by our in-country colleagues. Additional challenges included only being able
to undertake research at certain times of the year because of the challenges
of the wet season, for example. There were times when we had to change
our schedule at the last minute because of inclement weather. As the leader

(continued)
40 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

of often large teams, the safety of our team was a constant source of tension
particularly when we were employing young local people.
Ethics provided interesting challenges. Our developed world university eth-
ics committee insisted we use consent protocols including having participants
sign paper based consent forms. While we did not object to this, there were
often times when this posed issues. However, in our experience, our in-country
support team assisted and facilitated ethical practice.

Lessons learned for social work practice?

A number of lessons emerge from our research into disasters in a number of
countries including our own. These include the fact that research is critical to
understanding the social complexity of disasters. Further, in all of our projects we
found that people were willing participants, eager to tell their stories. This sug-
gests that we must make greater efforts to understand the disaster experience,
that it is only through these stories that the complete history of environmental
disasters can be understood, and that the link between people and place and
the complex interrelationships between people and their communities in the
wake of disasters can be addressed. There is no doubt that research is critical to
building knowledge of disasters in all their complexity. There is no doubt also
that social workers have a unique position from which to view disaster research,
and that the messages they bring are critical to informing disaster policy.

Questions

Why are international protocols, frameworks, policies and meetings so impor-

tant to addressing disasters?
What are the central elements of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction?
What role and input have social workers and social work international bodies
had in the global arena?
Why is social work research so important to our understanding of disasters?
How does your social work practice align with the global context of climate
change and disaster risk reduction?
Which global agreements, reports and agendas can be used by social workers
to support local, state and national efforts to prepare for disasters?
3
PROVIDING CONCEPTUAL CLARITY

In this chapter, and drawing on a wide range of interdisciplinary knowledge, we

examine the critical concepts that must inform our approach to disaster practice.
We outline a number of theoretical concepts that can provide the building blocks
to good social work practice in the disaster space. Essentially, we are speculating
about what the rationale for our involvement might be, what we hope to achieve
by being there and what is the basis for our interventions. By understanding
these factors, and in the preparation for and response to the immediate chaos of
devastating events, we can bring a clear-sighted rationale and framework to our
interventions that allows us with some degree of confidence to set short, medium
and long-term goals that may vary from community to community depending
on the scale and nature of the disaster. Chapter 4 expands on these concepts to
outline theories of the environment being developed by social workers to shape
social work knowledge and practice.
Given the background relating to environmental disasters at global level
described above, it is not surprising that many of the concepts used in climate
change and post-disaster literature originate from the physical sciences. The IPCC
reports are good examples of this, in their descriptions of damaged ecosystems
and vulnerable species. It took some time for the global scientific community to
reflect in any systematic way on social factors such as damaged communities and
vulnerable groups. Consequently, this development of scientific knowledge relat-
ing to climate change initially at least led scientists to reflect on climate change as
a scientific problem requiring scientific, economic, managerial and technological
solutions. Expert knowledge has been prioritised at the expense of Indigenous and
local knowledge and little attempt was made, at least initially, to incorporate local
circumstances, cultures and situations.
Yet, as social scientists note, climate measures formulated on the basis of hard
sciences alone are unlikely to be successful if an environmental event is ‘treated
42 Theories for disaster social work

only as a technical problem’ (O’Brien and Selboe 2015: 311 quoted in Schlosberg
et al. 2017: 2). Rather as Schlosberg et al. (2017: 2) note, if we are to have an
impact on the overwhelming issue of climate change, we must develop socially
just measures to address ‘the drivers and risks of vulnerability’. What this academic
debate is highlighting is that ecological and social systems are inextricably linked
(Folke et al. 2002) and that we cannot deal with one is isolation from the other.
This crucial point highlights the growing awareness within the global community
that attention to climate change mitigation and adaptation will be futile if the
vulnerability and strengths of people and communities are overlooked. Thus, we
argue that social work knowledge and expertise will be crucial to the building of
knowledge in this area.
Social scientists have co-opted and adapted concepts emerging from the phys-
ical sciences to reflect the impact of disasters on social systems. This commonality
of terms makes it easier to link ecosystems and social systems and for physical
and social scientists to work effectively across disciplines. The danger is that in
this process of disciplinary cooperation, social justice issues will be neglected.
Chapter 1 alerted us to social work’s own historical journey linking environmen-
tal degradation to the impacts on groups that were most critically affected – those
living with poverty, and those with limited options. In the current parlance,
this demonstrates that social workers have historically linked ‘ecological’ and
‘social’ systems, without necessarily adopting scientific terminology. We turn
now to a discussion of critical concepts that have been adapted to reflect social
circumstances. In Chapter 3 we will discuss how these are linked into a coherent
framework to underpin social work in post-disaster sites.

Critical concepts

Vulnerability
Vulnerability is one of the key terms in climate change literature used extensively
across disciplinary boundaries. There are many definitions of vulnerability. The
IPCC version reflects its base in the physical sciences and ‘the system’ referred to
in this early definition is basically the ecosystem.

Vulnerability is – the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable

to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability
and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and
rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its
adaptive capacity.
(IPCC 2001: 995)

This definition ignores the potential human-based causes of weather events and
implies disasters are random natural occurrences. As Fordham et al. (2013) note,
this approach casts nature as problematic, reduces attention to human actions and
Providing conceptual clarity 43

focuses disaster responses on technological and engineering responses – bigger

levee banks rather than coastal re-vegetation, for example.
By tagging climate and environment as stand-alone factors, these early defini-
tions of vulnerability in the context of climate changes ignored human-induced
causes. More recent analyses are addressing the interaction between humans
and the environment. It is not surprising that the concept of vulnerability has
been extended and developed by social scientists, with many using the term
social vulnerability to more clearly distinguish between vulnerable physical and
social systems and the interactions between them (Alston 2017a; Downing and
Patwardhan 2004). Thus, social vulnerability refers to the exposure of people to
disasters and their capacity to cope given their particular circumstances including
poverty, inequality and marginalisation (Alston 2017a; Brooks 2003). Bankoff
(2006) adds that social vulnerability results from unequal risk magnified by power
relations, class, gender and ethnicity. Fordham et al. (2013) note that we must
include social analyses and solutions.

Vulnerability is embedded in complex social relations and processes and is

situated squarely at the human-environment intersection requiring social
solutions if successful risk reduction is to occur.
(Fordham et al. 2013: 12)

The World Bank (2013) points out that the factors shaping social vulnerability
can lead to larger disasters if vulnerable people are not assisted to adapt in the
immediate post-disaster phase.
Many factors have been identified as significant in increasing social vulner-
ability. For example, large-scale causes include the growth of slum dwellings on
the fringes of rapidly expanding cities in developing countries leading to increased
exposure to disasters and therefore greater social vulnerability. So too will the
construction of housing in areas vulnerable to disasters in developed countries –
for example, in fragile, high-amenity coastal regions. Fordham et al. (2013) cor-
roborate this point when noting that the way social systems operate – for example,
the way housing is constructed and where these are located – can significantly
increase vulnerability to disaster.
This link between fragile regions and social vulnerability was demonstrated
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. Following the
hurricane disaster, levees were breached, houses were inundated, and hundreds
of thousands of people were displaced. It is therefore not surprising that social
scientists are calling for vulnerability assessments that are done to assess ecosystem
vulnerability to climate-related events, to include analyses of social conditions
and the social realities that may exacerbate disaster outcomes.
Social workers who are working, or have worked, in post-disaster sites recognise
immediately that some individuals and groups are more vulnerable than others when
disaster strikes – for example, children and older people. When entering a disaster
situation, it is critical to understand ‘vulnerability’, or who is most vulnerable in the
44 Theories for disaster social work

post-disaster circumstances. Good social work practice in disaster work requires a

complex analysis of the social system one is entering. Of critical importance is the
recognition that as Gray, Yellow Bird and Coates (2008) note, in the context of
environmental disasters, ‘vulnerability’ may have a different meaning for Indigenous
people, given a history of stolen lands, dignity and culture.

Adaptation
Adaptation is another term emerging from the physical sciences to refer to the
ability of an ecosystem to adjust to environmental pressures. However, because of
the more recent acknowledgement of the interlinked nature of social and ecosys-
tems (Folke 2006), scientists of all persuasions are recognising that attention to the
environment without attention to social systems is flawed.
Critically, it is important to distinguish between coping and adaptation in the
context of post-disasters. Coping strategies are formed under stress and are unsus-
tainable in the long-term. These may include such actions as taking loans to buy
food (a phenomenon we observed in research undertaken in post-disaster sites in
Bangladesh (Alston 2015)). By contrast, adaptation strategies are sustainable, oriented
to genuine transformation, focused on livelihood options, efficient resource use and
gender-sensitive planning (Pelling 2011; O’Brien 2012).
Social scientists use the term, adaptation, to describe the ability of social systems –
the affected people and communities – to adapt to the effects of a disaster. Thus, they might
ask, what is the scale of the disaster and therefore what interventions are required
to assist a community (and all the various groups within that community) to move
forward (adapt)? However, social workers should be aware that the successful
adoption of adaptive practices that are sustainable is dependent on how resilient
people feel, how risky change appears, how safe traditional practices may seem,
and the institutional supports provided to assist people to move through uncertain
change processes (Tschakert et al. 2011).
Significantly, the barriers to adaptation may be:

•• physical (such as the disaster event);

•• financial (levels of poverty and costs of adaptation);
•• cognitive (assessment of risk and trust in institutions);
•• normative behaviour patterns (safety in doing what one has always done and
unwillingness to deviate); and
•• institutional governance and structure (institutional inequities, social inequalities,
lack of information sharing and mainstreaming, and institutional inflexibility).
(Jones 2010; Koelle and Shackleton 2011; Pelling 2011;
Adger et al. 2007; Tschakert et al. 2011)

Social workers must understand what may appear to be recalcitrance on the part
of people in post-disaster sites is much more complex and may include a combination
of these factors. Time is a crucial factor allowing people to move towards positive
adaptation at their own pace.
Providing conceptual clarity 45

Adaptive capacity is another term used to describe the potential of a system to

adapt. In the context of social systems, adaptive capacity refers to the potential capacity
of people and communities to move forward given the factors described above.
Social workers might ask whether people have the capacity to move forward
without assistance to address the issues raised above. For example, in an area where
a disaster has led to significant loss of life and critically damaged infrastructure,
workers might ask

•• What is the potential of that community to adapt to these circumstances?

•• If this is limited, what physical, financial and institutional factors might restrict
that adaptation?
•• Therefore, what interventions are required to build adaptive capacity?
•• Does this require lobbying and advocacy?

An important factor that may reduce people’s capacity to adapt relates to resource
distribution in post-disaster sites (Schlosberg, Collins and Niemeyer 2017: 3). The
way resources are distributed and people assisted to adapt following a disaster can
overtly or unwittingly cement existing inequalities and increase the marginalisation
of various groups. Therefore, measures taken to assist adaptation following a disas-
ter can become an issue of social justice.
Because of the inherent danger of socially unjust actions being taken in a post-
disaster situation, social scientists, including social workers (see, for example,
Matthies and Narhi 2017), have introduced the notion of transformative adaptation.
Pelling (2011: 86) describes transformative adaptation as ‘concerned with the wider
and less easily visible root causes of vulnerability . . . [that] lie in social, cultural,
economic and political spheres’. Unless addressed, these factors will hinder the
ability of individuals, groups and communities to adapt. Transformative adaptation
requires strong governance practices, and this can be problematic when national
governments are not committed.

Resilience
Resilience is a term used to describe how well systems can absorb the shocks of a
devastating event. It is often viewed as the reverse of vulnerability, although this is too
simplistic. Within social systems, it refers to the capacity of people and communities to
adapt and transform following an event that causes social, political and environmental
change (Alston 2017a; Gallopin 2006; Handmer and Dovers 2009; Adger 2000).
The Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) 2011) defines a disaster resilient community as:

one that works together to understand and manage the risks that it confronts.
Disaster resilience is the collective responsibility of all sectors of society,
including all levels of government, business, the non-government sector and
individuals.
(COAG 2011: 5)
46 Theories for disaster social work

The National Strategy acknowledges diversity within communities and the

vulnerabilities of particular groups, stating that the common characteristics of
disaster resilient communities, individuals and organisations include:

•• functioning well while under stress;

•• successful adaptation;
•• self-reliance; and
•• social capacity.
(COAG 2011: 4)

Social workers have a critical capacity to assist people and communities to develop
resilience in response to disasters or threatened disasters. Resilience also aligns with
social work ethical principles of self-determination, empowerment and transforma-
tion and provides a foundation for capacity building and strength-based practice.

Social sustainability
Sustainable development has been a common global goal since the World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED 1987: 43) published the Bruntland
Report in 1987.
The Bruntland Report defines sustainable development as

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
(WCED 1987: 43)

Ensuring sustainable development was included as Goal 7 of the Millennium

Development Goals, and the new goals adopted in 2015 bore the name Sustainable
Development Goals suggesting sustainability is a critical global principle. Since the
Bruntland Report was published, and the subsequent adoption of sustainability
as a critical UN goal, there has been extensive debate about what sustainability
means and whether it captures the nuances of environmental, economic and
social sustainability.
For our purposes, we will focus on the social elements, noting that social sustain-
ability has become a highly contested term in its own right, not so much because
academics don’t agree that it is important, but more because we struggle with how
to encompass all the elements of social life. Academic writers tend to agree that social
sustainability must recognise justice and equity, local livelihood factors, the health
and wellbeing of citizens and their participation in decision-making (Cocklin and
Alston 2003). It must also alert us to the importance of community values and social
norms in the context of environmental and economic sustainability.
In early work (Cocklin and Alston 2003) we defined the elements of social sus-
tainability (and this has been extended by organisations such as the Hawke Research
Institute) as a positive condition created by particular social institutions and policies.
Providing conceptual clarity 47

The following features define the condition:

•• equity of access to key services (including health, education, transport, housing

and recreation);
•• equity between generations, meaning that future generations will not be dis-
advantaged by the activities of the current generation;
•• equity within generations, so that all sections of the community have access to
the services described;
•• a system of cultural relations in which the positive aspects of disparate cultures
are valued and protected, and in which cultural integration is supported and
promoted when it is desired by individuals and groups; and
•• the widespread participation of citizens not only in electoral procedures but
also in other areas of political activity, particularly at a local level.
(McKenzie 2004, drawing on Cocklin and Alston 2003)

A succinct definition of social sustainability might be

the extent to which people across the globe can be free from poverty and live
in security with adequate access to clean water and food whilst maintaining
social identities, social relationships and social institutions.
(Alston and Besthorn 2012: 61)

Social sustainability is a critical concept as it challenges excessive neoliberal policies

of exploitation to address social justice factors. Thus, if part of our mission in pre-
and post-disaster sites is to work towards sustainability, this must encompass social
sustainability. Within that notion we need to ensure equality and justice across and
between generations, cultural integration, participatory democratic processes and
fair and reasonable access to services are experienced by all. We must guard against
pre- and post-disaster actions becoming captive to a vocal, non-representative but
influential minority.

Social capital
Social capital is another enduring concept that adds useful insights to our work. In her
1995 Boyer Lectures, Eva Cox argued strongly for social capital as a building block
for a ‘truly, civil society’ (the title of her lecture series). She noted that social capital

refers to the processes between people, which establish networks, norms,

social trust and facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit.
These processes are also known as social fabric or glue, but I am deliberately
using the term ‘capital’ because it invests the concept with the reflected status
from other forms of capital. Social capital is also appropriate because it can be
measured and quantified so we can distribute its benefits and avoid its losses.
(Cox 1995: 2)
48 Theories for disaster social work

Social capital is about building a sense of community that allows all to participate.
Peeters (2016: 208–209) writing in the contemporary context of environmental
social work, refers to social capital as ‘a cooperative process of building and
maintaining social connections at various levels of society’ and

social capital is the process of building trusting relationships, mutual under-

standing and shared actions that bring together individuals, communities
and institutions. Adequate social capital at those various levels is a condition
for resilience.

Building communities before and after disasters, requires the reestablishment of

social connections and trusting relationships. Therefore, we view attention to
social capital as a significant element of pre- and post-disaster social work and one
aimed at empowering communities.

Empowerment
Empowerment is a concept with which social workers are readily familiar. Turner
and Maschi (2015: 152) define empowerment as seeking ‘to increase the personal,
interpersonal and political power of oppressed and marginalised populations for
individual and collective transformation’. Empowerment practice readily translates
into post-disaster situations where there is a significant possibility that political
and personal power will be captured by those with influence. This is often, but
not exclusively, male community members with influence and resources whose
actions to secure attention to their own needs will undermine and silence other
groups, including particularly women and minorities. In post-disaster situations
social workers must be conscious of those who dominate and influence resource
distribution and power positions and work to ensure entrenched inequality is not
compounded. Disaster resilience and recovery interventions must ensure equality
and the fair and just distribution of resources and create opportunities to transform
power dynamics and reduce further vulnerability.

Social justice/environmental justice

The final concepts we wish to discuss are social and environmental justice. As
noted elsewhere (Alston, Whittenbury and Western 2016),

social workers are committed to working within a framework of social justice

and human rights, to facilitate people’s empowerment, challenge policies and
practices that are oppressive and unjust, and advocate for change to systems and
structures that maintain inequalities and injustices.
(AASW 2013: 9)
Providing conceptual clarity 49

In this context social justice has been variously defined as ‘the view that everyone deserves
equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities’ (NASW n.d.: 1).
By contrast, environmental justice is defined as ‘the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations, and policies’ (US EPA 2014: 1). Dominelli
(2012) adds that environmental justice involves caring for the environment at
the same time as structural inequalities and power imbalances are analysed and
challenged. She notes that ‘Environmental justice relies on the equitable sharing
of both benefits and the burdens involved in maintaining the healthy and sustain-
able environments that all living things can enjoy’ (Dominelli 2013: 431). Peeters
(2016: 184) adds that ‘environmental justice is a condition where ecological risks
and burdens and the access to natural resources and environmental advantages are
equally distributed’ and ‘Environmental Injustice is where minority groups have to
disproportionately deal with the negative impacts of environmental degradation’.
The environmental justice movement recognises indigenous considerations of
the environment and the connections between humans and nature (Schlosberg
2013). Environmental justice brings together the fight against poverty and racism,
with care for the environment and attempts to change social institutions away from
class distinctions and environmental depletions. As we have noted

If every person deserves equal opportunities and rights, and if environmen-

tal measures impact more on communities dependent on environmentally
damaging industries for their livelihood, where does commitment to socially
just solutions lie? In the context of environmental crises, is there a conflict
between social justice and environmental justice and does gender justice
disappear under the crushing uncertainty of crisis?
(Alston, Whittenbury and Western 2016: 96)

Summary
There continues to be a lively debate in published literature about how best to
conceptualise the way forward. In this discussion, concepts such as adaptation,
vulnerability, resilience and sustainability have become critical to how we attend
to climate change. In the disaster literature the discussion draws on concepts
such as resilient communities, social capital, social and environmental justice and
transformative adaptation. Underpinning these discussions is an increasing aware-
ness of gender inequalities inherent in all phases of disasters. The mandate for
social workers in disasters is to reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience and
to expose gender and other inequalities. In Chapter 4 we discuss current theories
and social work and the environment, before extending this discussion to further
develop our disaster theory.
50 Theories for disaster social work

CASE STUDY – THE 2013 FLOOD IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA

Dr Julie Drolet and Dr Amy Fulton

What was the disaster (brief description)?

Canada has experienced an alarming increase in the number and severity of
environmental and human-made disasters in recent years. Several disasters
have occurred in the province of Alberta in Western Canada. On 20 June 2013
the province of Alberta experienced record-breaking rainfall causing rivers
in the southern region to overflow their banks. This resulted in catastrophic
and unprecedented flooding, in which 32 states of local emergency were
declared, and the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed (Government of
Alberta 2013). Over 100,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes,
resulting in one of the largest evacuations in Canadian history (Weinman
2016). At the time, the Insurance Bureau of Canada reported the flood as
the costliest disaster in Canadian history (Insurance Bureau of Canada 2017).
Many structures were lost or severely damaged and residents were not
allowed to return to their homes for long periods of time due to the flood
water, mud, debris, and sewage that submerged communities. The severe
social, economic and environmental impacts of the 2013 Alberta flood have
resulted in a long-term recovery period.

How were people affected and who were particularly

vulnerable?
Tens of thousands of individuals were directly affected by the floods in the
City of Calgary, the Foothills Municipal District, and the surrounding region.
In the Town of High River, all residents were evacuated following the decla-
ration of a state of emergency (Okotoks Online 2013). Individuals, families,
community members and local businesses were directly affected. School
children were evacuated during the day from school, to be later reunited
with parents, guardians and family members. Following evacuation, many
individuals were displaced due to the loss of homes that were damaged
beyond repair, were unfit for habitation, or were so severely damaged that
they had to undergo major repair and reconstruction. Home owners faced
challenges in accessing insurance for rebuilding, and renters were at risk
of homelessness due to the lack of rental accommodations. The provin-
cial government provided temporary housing for 1200 evacuees in trailers
forming a temporary ‘makeshift neighbourhood’ known as Saddlebrook
that remained open for over a year after the flood (CBC News 2014). In
addition to these physical housing difficulties, many individuals faced job
loss and unemployment due to the damage and closure of local businesses;
Providing conceptual clarity 51

families were without childcare due to damage sustained by local childcare

facilities and a lack of available staff; and school-aged children and youth
were forced to attend classes in makeshift locations such as recreation cen-
tres and temporary portables. The provision of social services was disrupted
for weeks and/or months post-flood.
Because the disaster exceeded the community’s ability to cope, external
service providers were parachuted into flood-affected communities. Tensions
developed between community service providers and external service pro-
viders who did not consult with the community as to how they could work
together to best meet the needs. There was confusion and chaos in the midst
of increasing unmet needs. In 2018, as we approach five years post-flood,
many individuals continue to be impacted by the flood due to financial, social,
emotional and mental challenges that follow in the aftermath of disaster.
Vulnerable populations in disaster contexts include women, infants, chil-
dren, youth, people with disabilities, people with animals or pets, and older
adults (Baker and Cormier 2015). Ethnic and economic diversity is also an
important factor to be considered in understanding who is potentially vulner-
able and at risk in a post-disaster contexts (Baker and Cormier 2015; Miller
2012). Following the 2013 flood in southern Alberta, children and youth were
recognised as being particularly vulnerable to experiencing adverse post-
flood outcomes due to their dependence on adults to have their needs met,
coupled with cognitive, emotional, psychological and social factors related to
their developmental stages and structural factors, such as their socioeconomic
status (Drolet, Cox and McDonald-Harker 2018). In addition, older adults
were identified as a higher-risk group post-flood. As the floodwaters rose in
the downtown core of the city of Calgary, isolated seniors living in high-rises
became trapped inside of their apartments leaving people unable access food
and medication, and without electricity until a mandatory evacuation order
was made facilitating their rescue by emergency personnel (National Post
2013). Officials were also challenged to safely and efficiently evacuate resi-
dents of long-term care facilities that were impacted by the flooding (National
Post 2013). During the post-flood recovery period additional vulnerable pop-
ulations identified included Indigenous people coming into towns and cities
from flood-damaged reserves, people who were newly financially vulnerable
due to having lost their homes, vehicles, and/or businesses or schools in the
flood, migrant workers and renters (United Way of Calgary and Area 2013).

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

Due to their knowledge base and skill set, social workers are ideally suited to
provide both immediate and long-term practical and psychosocial interventions

(continued)
52 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

that address emotional, psychological and social needs associated with disaster
exposure and recovery (Fulton and Drolet 2018). In order to meet the diverse
needs of evacuees in the wake of the 2013 flood, and during the ongoing
recovery efforts, social workers and other human service professionals from a
variety of community-based and governmental organisations were mobilised to
deliver key disaster response services including temporary housing, food, cloth-
ing, psychosocial supports and interventions (Fulton and Drolet 2018). Social
workers were engaged in two door-to-door outreach campaigns with other
services providers, organisations and volunteers. Meaningful conversations with
flood-affected residents served to get a sense of residents’ emotional wellness,
to learn what was working and supporting them, as well as to identify some of
the gaps and needs from their perspectives. Social workers collaborated with
other service providers to re-establish social services and implement disaster
response plans. Social workers were engaged in flood response efforts, short-
and long-term recovery processes, and disaster preparedness efforts through
training and capacity building initiatives in order to build community resilience
and to reduce risks in anticipation of other hazards and disasters in the future
(United Way of Calgary and Area 2013).
A multidisciplinary research team, including researchers in the fields of
social work, sociology and emergency management, came together to inves-
tigate the impact of the 2013 flood on children, youth and the community in
order to better understand the social, economic, health, cultural, spiritual and
personal factors that contribute to recovery and resiliency among children and
youth. The Alberta Resilient Communities Project brought together academic
researchers, government stakeholders, community service providers, and a
steering committee made up of local representatives serving in an advisory
role (Drolet, Cox and McDonald-Harker 2018). Diverse research methods have
been used to learn about the experiences of children and youth in the post-
flood environment (Drolet, McDonald-Harker, Fulton and Iliscupidez, in press).

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

Social workers bring a unique perspective to disaster response and recovery
because they consider the person within their environmental context from a
psychosocial lens, and adopt a more holistic approach to identifying strengths,
resources and challenges, than other helping professions (Fulton and Drolet
2018). Social workers advocate for social justice, and specifically, the inclu-
sion and participation of vulnerable or marginalised populations in all aspects
of decision-making and social life (Canadian Association of Social Workers
2005). This approach becomes important in a disaster context when social
workers need to identify resources and build capacity with vulnerable indi-
viduals and families (Fulton and Drolet 2018). The roles of social workers can
Providing conceptual clarity 53

range from brokering, advocating, planning, collaborating, assisting families

through rehabilitation, providing information and helping with navigating
public policies (Tan and Yuen 2013). A social work perspective on loss and
grief acknowledges that the role of social workers and human service profes-
sionals to ‘bear witness’ to the loss and grief experienced by disaster survivors
(Malone, Pomeroy and Jones 2011: 259). Given the multiple losses and stresses
associated with disasters, social workers acknowledge and normalise grief reac-
tions and support individuals, families and communities in their recovery and
capacity-building efforts (Fulton and Drolet 2018).
Within the field of disaster response, there has been a debate between
those who conceptualise post-disaster needs in terms of trauma and mental
health morbidity (Davidson and McFarlane 2006), and those who focus more
on resiliency, social capital, and rebuilding social networks under the umbrella
term of psychosocial capacity building (Inter-Agency Standing Committee
2007; Miller 2012). The first approach focuses on the many psychological
consequences of disasters, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
and adopts a therapeutic model of working with individuals and small groups,
offering psychological first aid and other forms of crisis intervention, that is
delivered and facilitated by trained professionals. This model assumes that
there are universal, biophysical reactions; that it is important to focus on psy-
chological consequences; and, that trained professionals are needed to offer
direct services (Miller 2012). Psychosocial capacity building, a more common
approach in response to disasters outside of Western Europe and the United
States, was partly a reaction against the perceived ‘traumatisation’ and pathol-
ogising of disaster survivors, as well as the overemphasis on the individual at
the expense of the collectivity and community (Miller 2012). The focus on psy-
chosocial capacity building is equally on the social as well as the psychological,
and includes an emphasis on families, groups and communities; focusing on
strengths, capacities and resilience; a wariness of the medicalisation of social
reactions to abnormal situations; centralising culture and its impact on mean-
ing making after a disaster; using local, Indigenous, often nonprofessional
people as the designers and implementers of projects; supporting and recon-
structing mutual aid and self-help groups; taking into account sociocultural
variables such as race, class, and gender when considering the impact of a
disaster and how to respond to it (Miller 2012). Miller (2012) advises that a
mental health approach and psychosocial capacity-building approach are not
mutually exclusive and can be combined for effective, multi-systemic interven-
tions to respond to disasters.
Social workers also play a role in determining what psychosocial service assets
are available or needed in a community during disaster recovery (Tan and Yuen
2013). Social workers and other social service providers play important roles in
enhancing community disaster preparedness by contributing to building social

(continued)
54 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

capital, strengthening the capacities of existing social institutions, and engaging

in public awareness campaigns about disaster preparedness (Mathbor 2007; Tan
and Yuen 2013).

What worked and did not work?

Wellness and self-care in the context of the workplace emerged as an important
consideration for social workers and other practitioners providing services and
programs in the post-flood environment (Drolet and Fulton in press). Social
workers and other human service providers described personal and profes-
sional challenges associated with fulfilling their professional roles as they
experienced personal losses associated with the flood (Fulton and Drolet
2018). Being personally impacted by a disaster while also serving the public in
a professional role as a responder is referred to as being a ‘survivor-responder’
(Chan et al. 2016).
Following the flood, the government provided temporary funding aimed
at delivering psychosocial supports, services and programs in flood-affected
communities. However, the funding was generally viewed as being inade-
quate in order to meet the psychosocial needs of flood survivors, particularly
those needs related to loss and grief (Fulton and Drolet 2018). In disaster
contexts families may experience a sense of ‘shared loss’ (Rosenblatt 2017)
and experience challenges with providing necessary levels of supportive care
to one another at a time when it is needed most (Fulton and Drolet 2018).
The secondary loss of family support in the face of a trauma, such as a disas-
ter, can result in ‘systemic trouble’ for families (Rosenblatt 2017). This loss of
supportive care within the family can be particularly traumatic for children
and youth as they require strong parental or caretaker support during disaster
recovery in order to mediate their experiences and the cognitive and emo-
tional impacts of an accumulation of multiple losses and corresponding grief
reactions (Hooyman and Kramer 2006). In the case of the 2013 flood, social
workers and other human service professionals reported that some parents
were unable to provide necessary support and care to their children during the
post-disaster recovery period (Fulton and Drolet 2018).

‘Lessons learned’ for social work practice

Two main lessons for social work practice were learned from the 2013 flood
in southern Alberta. The first lesson has to do with the importance of recog-
nising the need for long-term psychosocial recovery efforts to be fully funded
in order to support survivors experiencing loss and grief reactions, the full-
ness of which may be immediately felt, or may not become fully apparent
for months or even years after the disaster. A loss and grief perspective can
Providing conceptual clarity 55

assist social workers and human service professionals to understand a phe-

nomenon called regrief, which is a process of re-grieving earlier losses and
traumas that is initiated by experiencing a more recent loss and attempting to
make meaning of the totality of such experiences within one’s self-narrative
(Hooyman and Kramer 2006). One of the reasons that extensive psycho-
social supports were required during the post-flood period in southern
Alberta, was that for some community members, experiences of loss and
trauma associated with the flood, initiated regrief (Fulton and Drolet 2018).
Coupled with this is the imperative to ensure that diversity in the population
is foregrounded in social service planning and delivery. Lessons from south-
ern Albertan flood survivors teach social workers that their frameworks and
practice models for responding to disasters must consider the diversity of
the population and avoid imposing rigid templates and timelines for recov-
ery rooted in Western perspectives (Fulton and Drolet 2018). Universalising
theoretical understandings and clinical interventions associated with disaster
recovery in general, and disaster-related loss and grief in particular, should
be avoided (Ekanayake et al. 2013; Fulton and Drolet, 2018). Furthermore,
social workers and human service professionals can be impacted by disaster-
related loss and grief, both personally and professionally, contributing to the
complexity of disaster social work and human service practice (Fulton and
Drolet 2018; Drolet and Fulton in press).
The second main lesson learned has to do with the importance of communica-
tion and collaboration among all stakeholders in disaster response and recovery.
The experiences of social workers and allied service providers in southern Alberta
post-flood are consistent with findings from prior research that indicate that dis-
aster response and recovery in communities is enhanced through means such as
educational outreach, sharing resources, identifying at-risk community members
and bringing together collectives of agencies and organisations to increase com-
munity social capital (Cutter et al. 2008). Existing community resources need to
be mobilised to connect people and to build community resiliency. A key les-
son learned from the experiences of social workers in regard to the 2013 floods
involves issues that emerged from a lack of clear and collaborative communi-
cation, especially vertical community, among governmental responders and
various community-based stakeholders. There was a perceived ‘taking over’ of
short-term disaster response in rural areas by a larger emergency response centre,
based in an urban location translated into feelings of resentment and mistrust by
rural community members and service providers. The underlying assumption of
the centralised emergency management centre is that smaller communities do
not have the means nor experience to adequately respond to a disaster.
A key recommendation stemming from the experience of the 2013 flood in
southern Alberta is for governments and policymakers to prioritise leadership
and participation of the social service providers, responders and residents in

(continued)
56 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

rural communities during post-disaster recovery, particularly in making decisions

affecting the most vulnerable community members. The literature supports the
notion that working together in a participatory and collaborative manner facili-
tates building buy-in and trust among stakeholders over the long-term recovery
period (Cretney 2015; Nakagawa and Shaw 2004; Sadiqi, Trigunarsyah and
Coffey 2017). This sentiment was echoed in the case of the 2013 flood in south-
ern Alberta. The lesson for social workers is to adopt a collaborative model in
working together with existing community resources and service providers in
planning post-disaster interventions in the short and long-term and to use their
voices to advocate for such a way of working if it is not in place.

References
Baker, T. and L. Cormier (2015). Disasters and vulnerable populations: evidence-based prac-
tice for the helping professions. New York: Springer.
Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Code of ethics. Retrieved from www.
casw-acts.ca/sites/casw-acts.ca/files/attachements/casw_code_of_ethics.pdf
CBC News. (2014, 14 August). High River’s flood evacuee complex Saddlebrook to close.
Retrieved from www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/high-river-s-flood-evacuee-com-
plex-saddlebrook-to-close-1.2736468
Chan, C.S., K.N.S. Tang, B.J. Hall, S.Y.T. Yip and Maggay, M. (2016). Psychological
sequelae of the 2013 super typhoon Haiyan among survivor-responders. Psychiatry,
79(3), 282–296. doi: 10.1080/00332747.2015.1129874
Cretney, R. (2015). Local responses to disaster: The value of community led post disas-
ter response action in a resilience framework. Disaster Prevention and Management,
25(1), 27–40. doi: 10.1108/dpm-02-2015-0043
Cutter, S., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate and J. Webb (2008). A place-
based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
Environmental Change, 8(2008), 598–606. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
Davidson, J.R.T. and A.C. McFarlane (2006). The extent and impact of mental
health problems after disaster. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(suppl 2), 9–14.
Retrieved from www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2006/v67s02/v67s0202.
aspx?sclick=1
Drolet, J., R. Cox and C. McDonald-Harker (2018). Project – The Alberta resilience com-
munities project. Retrieved from www.arcproject.ca
Drolet, J. and A.E. Fulton (In press). Integrating wellness and self-care in the curriculum
and workplace: Perspectives of community influencers engaged in post-flood recov-
ery in Alberta, Canada. The Learner.
Drolet, J., C. McDonald-Harker, A.E. Fulton and A. Iliscupidez (In press). Art-informed
research with children and youth in a post-flood community. The International Journal
of Social, Political and Community Agendas in the Arts.
Ekanayake, S., M. Prince, A. Sumathipala, S. Siribaddana and Morgan, C. (2013). ‘We
lost all we had in a second’: coping with grief and loss after a natural disaster. World
Psychiatry, 12(1), 69–75. doi: 10.1002/wps.20018
Providing conceptual clarity 57

Fulton, A.E. and J. Drolet, (2018). Responding to disaster-related loss and grief: recover-
ing from the 2013 flood in southern Alberta, Canada. Journal of Loss and Trauma.
doi: 10.1080/15325024.2018.1423873
Government of Alberta (2013, June 21). Update 1: government responds to flooding in
southern Alberta. Retrieved from www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=3438767D13C33-
EECC-4A6E-C0D845881BD99576
Hooyman, N.R. and Kramer, B.J. (2006). Living through loss: interventions across the life
span. New York: Columbia University Press.
Insurance Bureau of Canada. (2017). Weather story. Retrieved from www.ibc.ca/nb/
resources/studies/weather-story
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (2007). IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial
support in emergency settings. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from www.
who.int/mental_health/emergencies/guidelines_iasc_mental_health_psychosocial_
june_2007.pdf
Malone, P.A., E.C. Pomeroy and B.L. Jones, (2011). Disoriented grief: a lens through
which to view the experience of Katrina evacuees. Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life
& Palliative Care, 7(2–3), 241–262. doi: 10.1080/15524256.2011.593159
Mathbor, G.M. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters: The
role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and manage-
ment. International Social Work, 50(3), 357–369. doi: 10.1177/0020872807076049
Miller, J. (2012). Psychosocial capacity building in response to disasters. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Nakagawa, Y. and Shaw, R. (2004). Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 5–34.
National Post (2013, 23 June). Senior citizens sat flood-ravaged Calgary ‘not prepared’ to
help city’s most vulnerable residents. Retrieved from http://nationalpost.com/news/
canada/senior-citizens-say-flood-ravaged-calgary-not-prepared-to-help-citys-most-
vulnerable-residents
Okotoks Online. (2013, June 20). Flood warning and evacuations in High River. Retrieved
from https://okotoksonline.com/local/flood-warning-and-evacuations-in-high-river
Rosenblatt, P.C. (2017). Family response to traumatic loss. In N. Thompson, G.R. Cox
and R.G. Stevenson (eds), Handbook of traumatic loss: a guide to theory and practice.
New York: Routledge.
Sadiqi, Z., B. Trigunarsyah and V. Coffey (2017). A framework for community participation
in post-disaster housing reconstruction projects: a case of Afghanistan. International
Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 900–912. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.008
Tan, N.T. and F. Yuen (2013). Social work, strengths perspective, and disaster manage-
ment: roles of social workers and models for intervention. Journal of Social Work in
Disability & Rehabilitation, 12(1–2), 1–7. doi: 10.1080/1536710X.2013.784170
United Way of Calgary and Area. (2013, August 29). From crisis to resiliency: A guide for
partners in flood recovery. Retrieved from www.calgaryunitedway.org/images/uwca/
our-work/communities/public-policy-research/flood-report/from-crisis-to-resiliency-
flood-report-full-report.pdf
Weinman, J. (2016, May 4). What were Canada’s biggest mass evacuations? MacLean’s.
Retrieved from www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-were-canadas-biggest-mass-
evacuations/
58 Theories for disaster social work

Questions

Why is vulnerability a critical concept in disasters? Who do Drolet and Fulton

describe as being particularly vulnerable in the Canadian floods?
Define resilience in the context of disasters. Why is this a critical social work
concept in disasters?
What do we mean by social sustainability and social capital and how do
they differ?
Describe social justice and environmental justice. Are these two concepts of
equal importance to social work? Why/why not?
4
THEORIES OF SOCIAL WORK
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Incorporating disasters

Whatungarongaro te tangata toitü te whenua

‘As people disappear from sight, the land remains’

This chapter provides an outline of dominant social work theories of the environ-
ment developed over the last 30 years. These include ecofeminist social work,
ecological social work, deep ecology, green social work and social transforma-
tion theories. These theories have emerged from different parts of the world in
response to growing concerns about environmental disasters, the vulnerability of
people living in poverty and the growing awareness that social work is largely
absent from global negotiations and actions. These theoretical developments are
building on each other and being refined and developed by social workers from
various parts of the world working together. Increasingly, there are environ-
mental themes at international social work conferences and these have provided
the space for social workers from across the world to interact and build concep-
tual clarity. Thus, theorists are producing collaborative works and undertaking
research projects that are developing the empirical base of this emerging field
of practice. We present these environmental theories before moving to dis-
cuss social work and disaster theory, drawing on the environmental social work
knowledge base and with the conceptual clarity provided by concepts outlined
in Chapter 2. But first we note that this has not been an easy or smooth transi-
tion from a growing environmental awareness amongst the profession to robust
theories and thoughtful actions.
Coates’ (2003: 38) stinging criticism of social work as a ‘domesticated profession’
was a wake-up call alerting us to our links to modernity, and, therefore, to our tacit
support for unlimited progress, development at any cost and the flawed idea that
humans control nature. This has threatened to leave the profession as a ‘handmaiden
of the dominant (economic) order’ and social workers cast as ‘expert mechanics’
60 Theories for disaster social work

tasked where necessary with repairing the ‘malfunctioning machine’ – that is, the
productivist system and its impact on people (Alston and Besthorn 2012: 59). This
anthropocentric positioning adopted by the profession until recently had cast us as
separate from nature, able not only to control its vicissitudes but also to exploit it
(Besthorn and Canda 2002). Social work theories of the environment have devel-
oped over the last 30 years to challenge this position. Yet, as Boetto (2017) argues,
we must do more than add the environment to existing practice strategies as this
simply reinforces the dominance of humans over nature and provides tacit approval
for its exploitation.
Chapter 1 highlighted a number of watershed social work publications that have
shaped our thinking on the environment. In more recent times the work of an
increasing number of social work luminaries has led theoretical and practice devel-
opments in the area of environmental social work. In this chapter we address these
emerging social work theories, and the influences that have shaped them, drawing
out their similarities and differences. We draw on these theoretical developments
to build our own theory of social work and disaster practice. But first, we draw
attention to critical factors that nuance and shape these approaches.

Culturally appropriate, gender-sensitive practice

Critically, we note that there are various ways of viewing the environment, the
events that impact physical landscapes, and the differential impacts on various vul-
nerable groups. In particular, we acknowledge Indigenous traditional knowledge
of land and country as critical to our developing understanding of the interdepend-
ency between humans and nature. In areas where there has been uninterrupted
possession of land, Indigenous knowledge has been passed on through oral tradi-
tion and adapted over centuries (Lauer 2012). Yet, the more recent history of
Indigenous connection to land is one of dispossession and colonisation. Laitinen
and Väyrynen (2016) in discussing the Sami people note that their history is one of
forced assimilation, loss of language and of traditional ways of living. This scenario
holds true for First Nations people across the world (Gray, Coates and Yellow
Bird 2008) and environmental disasters add to this history of dispossession, loss and
marginalisation. The cultural significance of place for First Nations people must be
central to social work’s developing knowledge base.
The danger for the social work profession – described by Gray, Coates and
Yellow Bird (2008: 6) as a ‘Western cultural creation’ and by Dominelli (2010: 39)
as a ‘politicised profession’ – is that workers crossing borders to enter disasters zones
will be blind to Indigenous and local knowledge and the multiple voices that shape
our sense of ‘place’ and ‘belonging’ and will operate in a crisis situation to restore
and reinforce pre-existing inequalities. Gray and Coates (2008: 13) note that social
work’s ‘colonizing past’ may undermine our ‘concern for people in local culture
and contexts’. Essentially, the social work profession must acknowledge its his-
torical connection to colonisation and our profession’s involvement in facilitating
dispossession. These are important points as they alert us to the danger of sweeping
Theories of social work and the environment 61

into disaster sites in cross-border situations with little acknowledgement of our

positioning and little understanding of the local environment and the connections
of people to their ‘place’.
Further, in developing environmental awareness, the importance of gender-
sensitivity is critical to understanding and addressing the impacts of disasters,
vulnerability, and ongoing social work interventions. Theories that rely on ‘nor-
mative’ expectations may exacerbate and cement structural inequalities including
particularly gender inequalities. Parkinson and Zara (2011), in their research
following the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia, found that violence against
women escalated after the fires, a phenomenon noted by researchers in a number
of disaster sites (see, for example, Alston 2015; Emmanuel and Enarson 2012). We
return to this critical point in Chapter 7.
Social work’s environmental theories seek to address the link between all peo-
ple and their place and to facilitate not only a greater awareness of the significance
of the natural environment, but an acknowledgement of the interconnections
between people and nature in a local cultural context. Environmental social work
theorists stress that we must reject notions that humans are in some way supe-
rior to nature. Additionally, several researchers suggest that the absence of social
work from environmental discourse is a serious problem for the profession (see, for
example, Kemp 2011; Besthorn 2012; Ramsay and Boddy 2017) and Ramsay and
Boddy (2017: 68) note that this absence of social workers facilitates their ‘lack of
environmental literacy’. Kemp (2011: 1205–1206) reiterates:

When the profession remains on the margins of environmental efforts, it

both neglects its ethical responsibilities to vulnerable populations and loses
vital opportunities to participate in shaping contemporary responses to envi-
ronmental challenges, particularly around the interconnections between
environmental and social issues.

Social work theories must link local social work actions to global efforts to address
environmental degradation. The absence of a social work voice at global lev-
els bringing the voices of people affected by environmental disasters leaves the
language of climate changes and disasters focused on economic, scientific and tech-
nological language and solutions. There is an urgent need to develop social work
‘environmental literacy’ not only in the benefit this will give to social work, but
also to facilitate greater understanding of social consequences amongst the wider
community of disaster scholars. We turn now to a discussion of ecofeminism as we
view this as a significant body of theoretical knowledge of critical significance to
social work developments in this area.

Ecofeminism
Ecofeminist theory, developed within the broader global feminist movement of the
1970s, brings a particular focus to gender issues in the context of the environment.
62 Theories for disaster social work

This theory provides particular insights for social workers as it incorporates overt
acknowledgement of the link between gender and environmental inequality.
Ecofeminists such as Mies and Shiva in their seminal book, Ecofeminism (1993 (1st
edition) and 2014 (2nd edition)), linked two of the major movements of the twenti-
eth century – feminism and environmentalism – noting that the oppression of women
mirrored the oppression of nature. Ecofeminists, and social-work theorists drawing on
this theoretical orientation, argue that attention to both is essential to saving the planet
(Mies and Shiva 2014; Merchant 1990; Besthorn and McMillen 2002). Addressing
environmental degradation, social work theorists Gray and Coates (2012: 242–243)
note that ‘it is not possible to address women’s oppression without addressing envi-
ronmental degradation’. Further, ecofeminists note that the impacts of neoliberal
economics and market-based development politics are not only socially unjust but
are also responsible for devastating damage to the environment. They note that the
burden of environmental damage is borne by the poorest, a majority of whom are
women (Nhanenge 2010; Shiva 2010; Datar 2011).
Ecofeminism as a movement has been criticised for essentialising women (that
is, presenting ‘women’ as one category, all of whom are somehow closer to nature)
and for suggesting that it is women’s responsibility to save the planet. Nonetheless,
ecofeminism is experiencing something of a latter-day revival (see, for example,
Vakoch and Mickey’s 2017 edited text, Ecofeminism in Dialogue, and Phillips and
Rumens’ 2016 edited book, Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism).
Sandilands (1991; quoted in Besthorn and McMillen 2002) describes ecofemi-
nism as both a theory and a movement because it not only links ecology and
feminism but also provides both with a rationale to end oppression. In their wide-
ranging analysis of ecofeminism and social work, Besthorn and McMillen note
that all forms of domination and unequal power, including of nature, as well as the
interconnectedness between humans and nature are feminist concerns. In summing
up, they note that

Ecofeminism thus rejects the dominance, competition, materialism, and

technoscientific exploitation inherent in modernist, competition-based
social systems. . . .Compassion and caring for nature are part of ecofeminist
processes because all of nature is seen as intimately connected with humans
and as having inherent value. Nature has an existence and voice worth hearing
and experiencing.
(226)

Mies and Shiva (2014: 320) argue for new relationships between people and
nature, for feminist participatory action research and for a new scientific paradigm
that is both ‘ecologically sound and feminist’. What ecofeminism offers to social
work is an important reframing of our understanding of humans and nature and
as Besthorn and McMillen (2002: 227) note, it allows for an expansion of social
work theory that is more relevant to social work values of social justice and anti-
discrimination. Thus they argue, by understanding the human/nature nexus, and
Theories of social work and the environment 63

the non-hierarchical interconnectedness between both, social workers are then

able to critique the social, political and economic inequalities that might threaten
human/nature health. They note that:

A new ecological social work establishes the foundation of a new sociopolitical

mandate. It suggests the profession has an obligation to examine all oppressive
political, social, and economic structures of modern society and the policies
that extend them.
(Besthorn and McMillen 2002: 228)

This then opens the way not only for social work critique of political, economic
and other elements that impact the environment but also for a reimagining of
social, environmental and gender justice. Social workers can draw much from
ecofeminist discussions of oppression and of the need to link the oppression of
women with the oppression of nature. This theoretical focus is a critical addition
to our understanding of oppression and environmental degradation in the context
of a disaster and post-disaster outcomes.

Environmental social work theories

Environmental social work theories share a common concern for the environ-
ment and expose the interlinking between social and ecological systems. In reality,
acknowledgement of the link between environmental degradation and social injus-
tice, and therefore in social work practice, has only emerged in a significant way
since the 1970s (Molyneux 2010; Ungar 2002). There are variations in the way
social work academics theorised this link, with some viewing the environment
only in relation to its relationship to human wellbeing. While these discussions
have been ground-breaking in raising awareness amongst social workers about the
physical environment as a field of practice, many early theorists stopped short of
noting the environment as significant of and for itself.
In more recent times, theorists such as Besthorn (2012: 13) have extended envi-
ronmental social theorising to a rich debate that notes that humans and nature are
equal, with neither taking priority – this notion is described by Molyneux (2010) as the
‘human-with-environment’ rather than the ‘human-in-environment’ perspective –
and therefore, that each must be considered as separate but linked systems deserving
of actions to preserve and protect. This view recognises the intrinsic value of the
environment. Thus, while social justice has been a key concept for social workers in
framing practice with people, it is only in recent times that an ecocentric view has
emerged and therefore that environmental justice has been discussed as a priority
for practice, a concept that brings out environmental preservation and protection
as a frame of reference for social work.
Environmental social work theorists note that key concepts in any understand-
ing of environmental actions include social, environmental and gender justice,
as well as human rights, social and environmental sustainability and spirituality
64 Theories for disaster social work

(McKinnon and Alston 2016; Alston, Whittenbury and Western 2016; Alston
2013). Besthorn (2013) and Boetto (2017) argue that ecological justice is a more
radical term than environmental justice as it challenges environmental exploitation.
Boetto (2017) takes this further. Drawing on Plumwood (2002), she argues that
the more we try and justify our separation from nature for economic purposes, the
less we are able to challenge and respond to environmental crises. She argues that
a commitment to ecological justice is essential if we are to facilitate transformative
change within social work.
Yet, as Molyneux (2010) notes, while environmental social work and envi-
ronmental justice are increasingly noted in social work writings, there is far less
discussion on how this might apply in practice. We address this issue in later chap-
ters. This chapter presents various manifestations of environmental theories, each
tends to challenge contemporary capitalist societies as being guilty of exploiting the
natural environment. Each also notes that modern developed economies tend to
alienate humans from nature at the same time as those living in poverty experience
the most significant hardship (Molyneux 2010). Besthorn and McMillen (2002)
note the exploitative nature of human interaction with the environment, casting
this as an inadequate fit between people and their environment. Alston (2013:
226–227) suggests environmental theories that ignore this exploitation

support current, and environmentally unjust, climate change adaptation

strategies being developed by many planners, climate scientists, and pol-
icy makers. Implicit in these developments is an uncritical acceptance of
the exploitation of the natural environment, of the often punitive political
systems that foster uncompromising positions in relation to women, or disad-
vantaged groups, and of individual shortcomings rather than environmental
challenges. Social work ecological approaches must incorporate more atten-
tion to the fluidity of the environmental space and the complex interactions
between people and place, moving beyond a structural, immutable notion
of the environment and the sociopolitical context in which it is embedded.

In the following sections we examine variations of environmental theories developed

by social workers. The huge growth in publications in this area over the last 20 years
in particular means that we have not been able to do justice to all that has been writ-
ten. We present a brief overview of a number of theoretical approaches, drawing on
a selection of writers in the field.

Ecological approach
The ecological approach emerged from systems theories that dominated social
work thinking during the 1960s and 1970s. These were an attempt to push
back psychotherapeutic models that were popular amongst social workers in the
post-World War II period. Systems theories, and ecological systems theories,
acknowledged the importance of social systems and other impacts on people.
Theories of social work and the environment 65

The life model approach developed by Germain and Gitterman (1996) gained
particular traction. According to Payne (2005), this approach is the foundation
of later ecological systems approaches. The life model outlines the interdepend-
ence of people and their environment – the ‘people-in-environment’ concept
that focused on reciprocity. The life model outlined how transitions and stressors
can interrupt this relational concept, leading people to be unable to cope with the
stress. Germain and Gitterman noted that practice drawing on this model would
focus on assisting people to ‘fit’ with their environment and, therefore to cope
more successfully.
There is no doubt that the 2000s has seen the rapid development of social
work’s embrace of the physical environment and, consequently, the ecological
approach has been fostered by a number of theorists across the world (Gitterman
and Germain 2008; Kemp 2011; Coates 2003). This approach addresses the person–
environment interaction and places emphasis on the importance of ‘place’ to
human wellbeing. Besthorn and McMillen (2002: 221) suggest that ‘ecological/
systems models of social work practice conceive of problems in living as result-
ing from stresses associated with inadequate fit between people and their
environments’. In critiquing the individual focus of ‘person-in-environment’,
and the difficulty social workers have had with integrating ‘person’ and ‘envi-
ronment’, ecological theory brings forth a collaborative, community-oriented
approach that fosters social and environmental justice and sustainability. In so
doing it seeks to redirect social work from its complicity with capitalist practices
of environmental degradation. As Besthorn and Saleebey (2003: 20) noted, the
‘dominant social paradigm in the west regards humanity and nature as separate
entities. Humans are viewed as not only separate from nature, but [as] . . . above
and superior to nature’. Ecological approaches in social work hold promise for
social work theorising in the environmental space. However, this approach
must move beyond an uncritical acceptance of existing sociopolitical inequi-
ties and an uninterrogated assumption that people can and will adapt to their
changed environment.

Ecosocial approach
The ecosocial approach focuses greater attention on the mutuality of humans and
environment. Unlike the ecological approach, and according to Payne (2005: 154),
‘the ecosocial approach uses ecological ideas politically to combat social exclusion’.
Ecosocial work emphasises the connections between people and nature, while rec-
ognising the disconnections, and advocates for greater harmony between people
and nature. Ecosocial work focuses on the development and wellbeing of people
by fostering a deeper connection to the natural world. It holds that the wellbeing
of the planet is a legitimate consideration and indeed, as Norton (2012) suggests, if
we ignore environmental sustainability, we place our own survival at risk.
Coates has been very instrumental in sharpening the focus of ecosocial work –
alerting social workers to the connectedness between humans and nature and the
66 Theories for disaster social work

responsibility of humans for the planet. Ecosocial work prioritises environmental

sustainability – raising this as a core social work concern. Thus person-in-environment
is extended to prioritise the wellbeing of people and nature and to call for social,
environmental and economic justice (Norton 2012), and therefore sharpens the social
work focus on policy, reminding us to work towards policy changes. It fosters grass-
roots advocacy and environmental activism addressing pollution, clean air and water,
food and water security, alternative energy and climate change. Närhi and Matthies
(2001) emphasised that the relationship between people and their environments is an
integrated wholeness.

Ecospiritual
Several theorists have sought to develop an ecospiritual approach, with Coates,
Gray and Hetherington (2006; and Gray 2008) noting that the ecological approach
is too narrowly focused on anthropocentric centrality. By contrast, the ecospir-
itual approach moves away from the individualist perspective to a much broader
understanding of the interlinked nature of social and ecological systems. Gray
and Coates (2013) argue that the ecospiritual approach, long recognised in east-
ern traditions, has not been prominent in Western social work, which has been
anchored in the Judeo-Christian perspective. Zapf (2005), in recognising the link
between the wellbeing of humans and nature, challenges unfettered economic
growth, critiques individualism and addresses social and environmental justice. He
notes that spirituality adds a further dimension to the connections between people
and place, and, in a further work (Zapf 2008: 171) urges social workers to move
beyond prioritising interpersonal relationships and to embrace the idea of humans
as ‘elements of a living environment’. Thus, ecospiritual theory sees people as part
of a much larger interlinked system with a deeply spiritual connection between
people and the planet.
Coates, Gray and Hetherington (2006) argue that dominant Western social
work paradigms have been excluding paradigms. They argue for an ecospirit-
ual approach that opens space for Indigenous voices and is more receptive to
Indigenous ways of knowing, helping and healing (Gray, Coates and Hetherington
2007). They note that ‘the social work profession has failed consistently to be
inclusive of local contexts, indigenous knowledge, and traditional helping and
healing’ (395).

Deep Ecology
These themes are pursued by the Deep Ecology movement in social work. This
movement draws on the work of Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and has
been brought to the attention of social workers largely by US social work theorist
Fred Besthorn and others in the Deep Ecology movement. As Besthorn (2012)
notes, Naess distinguishes between ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ approaches to environ-
mental issues. Shallow approaches address environmental problems solely from the
Theories of social work and the environment 67

perspective of the impact of these on humans. Deep ecology, on the other hand,
addresses environmental justice as an end in itself, or as Norton (2012) notes, desta-
bilises any idea that humans have control over nature. Deep Ecology is primarily
focused on a ‘reversal of the ecological crisis’ (Besthorn 2012: 50), represents a
deeply spiritual connection between humans and nature, and has a ‘reverence for
and harmony with Nature rather than the utility and domination of Nature solely
for humankind’ (Jung 1990: 95; quoted in Besthorn 2012: 50). As such it is deeply
sceptical of neoliberal notions of continuing economic growth.
Besthorn (2012) notes that human rights-based social justice is ‘shallow justice’
as it is focused on humans only, and therefore that deep ecologists prefer ‘deep
justice’, a concept that equally incorporates both human and ecological wellbeing.
Thus, Besthorn (2012) notes that social workers should adopt deep justice in the
face of environmental and economic crises.
Gray and Coates (2015) and Ife (2013) reinforce the notion of a more complex
relationship with environmental justice, both arguing for a much deeper and trans-
formational approach to the environment. Ife distinguishes the environmental
perspective – the focus on the environment only in relation to its impacts on
people – from the ‘Green perspective’ – one that seeks to transform society and
the link between humans and nature.

A transformative ecosocial model

Social work theorists, particularly across Europe (Matthies and Narhi 2017; Peeters
2016, 2012a and 2012b) have been increasingly active in developing the idea of
‘ecosocial transformation’. This movement is what Matthies (2017: 17) describes
as activists, policy makers and researchers working together to create sustainable
changes in the way we live. It is about sustaining ‘the planet as a value per se with
an inherent worth and as a place for future human generations to live.’ Matthies
and Narhi (2017) reinforce the link between social work and sustainability, argu-
ing that the current environmental crisis demands a socially just, transformative
response. Like Coates (2003), they note that social workers have a significant role
in visioning the kind of society and societal structures that are sustainable and in
moving away from individualism and neoliberal economics. Thus, they argue that,
in order to stay relevant, it is critical that the profession remains engaged in this
debate. Matthies (2017: 31) argues that

‘Real social work’ as ecosocial work takes place with the people themselves
in their own environment, including all the issues concerned with material
and cultural wellbeing.

Therefore

society, including its institutions of social work and social policy need a deep
transformative process to enable sustainable future perspectives.
68 Theories for disaster social work

It seems obvious that social work and social policy are needed in ecosocial transition
and even more so in a larger spectrum of activities. These might include engagement
with environmental issues and conflicts, human rights, food policy, agriculture and
gardening, urban planning and rural development, cooperation with civil society,
citizens’ movements, renewable energy, food policies, housing, mobility, health,
and climate change (Narhi and Matthies 2017: 325–326). Elsen (2017) notes that
transformative change enables people to act as a collective and can facilitate new
community development ideas such as community economies that move away from
capitalist economies.
Boetto (2017) has developed a ‘transformative eco-social model’ to address
the global environmental crisis, the exploitative nature of capitalism and social
work’s tacit support for environmental degradation. Her model brings together
ideas that can assist the profession to move beyond its current fixation with
modernism and to be a critical part of the movement towards a more sus-
tainable future. It incorporates expanding spheres linking personal growth in
understanding ecosocial transformation with a holistic approach to practice
and organisational change, to facilitate culturally sensitive, community-based
approaches and social action.
Nonetheless, as Ife (2013) notes, there is a distinction between ‘environmental’
social work theories that uncritically accept current systems without critiquing
dominant and unfair systems. By contrast, the more radical ‘Green perspective’
seek to fundamentally transform society.

Green social work

Green social work, and particularly the work of Lena Dominelli (2012, 2014) has
arguably gone furthest in linking theory with practice. Dominelli makes the transi-
tion from theorising about the environment to urging social workers to incorporate
environmental activism in their practice along with attention to, and advocacy for
those impacted by environmental disasters. Dominelli (2014: 436) suggests ‘a form
of practice rooted in enhancing the well-being of people and their environments
becomes relevant to the realisation of environmental justice’. Green social workers
advocate for the right of people to live in a healthy environment, to address struc-
tural inequalities, and to work for environmental justice.
Dominelli (2012: 25) defines green social work as a

form of holistic social work practice that focuses on: the interdependencies
among people; the social organisation of relationships between flora and
fauna in their physical habitats; and the interactions between socio-economic
and physical environmental crises and interpersonal behaviours that under-
mine the wellbeing of human beings and planet earth. It proposes to address
these issues by arguing for a profound transformation in how people con-
ceptualise the social basis of their society, their relationships with each other,
living things and the inanimate world.
Theories of social work and the environment 69

And green social work is

That part of practice that intervenes to protect the environment and enhance
people’s well-being by integrating the interdependencies between people
and their socio-cultural, economic and physical environments, and among
peoples within an egalitarian framework that addresses prevailing structural
inequalities and unequal distribution of power and resources.
(8)

Dominelli’s (2012) definition provides a useful development in ecological

social work, extending the theorising of environmental social work into radi-
cal actions. She (2012: 26) criticises ecological or environmental social work,
referring to them as systems-based approaches, because they ignore geopolitical
social structures ‘even though these define identity issues, power relations and
resource distribution’ and because they don’t criticise structural inequalities or
‘neoliberal capitalist globalisation’. Green social work theorists combine a focus
on environmental justice with attention to human wellbeing (Dominelli 2013)
and advocate for attention to environmental issues and to the impact of environ-
mental degradation on marginalised and dispossessed peoples. Dominelli (2012)
argues that green social workers are concerned about human rights and the envi-
ronment; about an economic system that facilitates inequalities; about the lack
of corporate responsibility for environmental care; about cultural diversity; and
about sustainable communities.

Social work disaster theory

Drawing all this together, we begin to see a clear pathway for social work in
post-disaster work that links our new understanding of environmental synergies
and the interlinking of social and environmental systems with radical actions to
expose and address inequalities. Our disaster theory incorporates a need to address
vulnerability and adaptation, and to build resilience, social sustainability, social
capital, social and environmental justice and empowerment. Post-disaster theory
incorporates ideas emerging from environmental social work theories, together
with the rapid development of knowledge emerging from other disciplines and
with the radical action orientated models described by Dominelli and others. By
building a framework for action, based on sound ideas we can not only build a
strong practice base but also an authoritative voice. Bauwens and Naturale (2017)
note that social workers need to be in the conversation when disaster preparation
strategies and post-disaster interventions are being developed – and we would
add that this needs to be at various levels from local and global. We must bring
our research, and unique knowledge to the development of policies in this area as
we know that social workers will increasingly be called upon to be key players in
post-disaster situations.
70 Theories for disaster social work

Our theoretical approach is underpinned by:

• an acknowledgement of the indivisibility of people and environment and a

rejection of anthropocentrism;
• a commitment to sustainability including, social, environmental, economic
and cultural sustainability;
• attention to vulnerability and resilience that incorporates social and environ-
mental vulnerability;
• a rejection of neoliberal policies that lionise extraction industries and environ-
mental degradation;
• an understanding of ‘place’ and its critical importance to people’s health and
wellbeing;
• attention to opportunities for transformational change;
• a commitment to building social capital in the context of disasters;
• a commitment to social justice, environmental justice and gender justice;
• a commitment to human rights and anti-oppressive practice in the context of disasters;
• the incorporation of a clear focus on First Nations knowledge; and
• the incorporation of existing social work skills underpinned by these princi-
ples, at macro-, meso- and micro- levels.

Developing social work theory and practice for environmental disaster situ-
ations requires that we reflect on the reason for practice, on the types of social
justice policies and actions that will facilitate people’s ability to move through and
beyond the disaster experience. But it is more than that. It allows us to focus also
on environmental justice, to facilitate actions to address damaged landscapes, and to
assist vulnerable people to reimagine and regrow their ‘place’. In these actions we
can work across disciplinary boundaries and with social movements to bring about
greater ecological and social harmony and increased resilience and empowerment
amongst those affected. As Alston (2013: 226) notes

Drawing on Payne (2000), we must ask are we working in post-disaster

spaces to reestablish the preexisting (potentially inequitable) social order;
are we working to assist and empower people to take control of their own
lives (with limited resources); or are we working to facilitate transformative
social change? I suspect we are doing all three, but it is useful to reflect that
the latter may be our ultimate goal in this exercise as it allows us to incorpo-
rate challenge to existing inequities such as gender and wealth inequalities
and includes empowerment strategies. Kemp’s (2011) exhortation to build
multilayered and complex theories and interventions is a useful reminder
that we can play a significant role in the immediate crisis situation, but
also in long- term planning for a different, more equitable future, and as
Enarson (2009) noted, we can use the crisis situation as a space for making
inequities visible and challenging the assumptions on which they are based.
Theories of social work and the environment 71

Disaster social work brings social workers face-to-face with the desperate situa-
tions created by environmental challenges. This forces workers to see first-hand the
despair and anguish caused by the erosion of one’s place. Lauer (2012: 176–177)
notes that

disasters and the associated human suffering result from a complex mix of
geophysical and biological processes and social, ideological, and economic
systems. The amount of suffering endured by a particular group or individual
is a function of their vulnerability.

Yet, while social workers are evident in post-disaster practice, and respond to
environmental stressors, they are less visible in disaster planning, disaster risk reduc-
tion, policy development and research. Kemp (2011: 1198) notes that there is a
huge ‘need for creative, effective and justice-oriented approaches to the human
dimensions of global environmental challenges’ and that social work’s lack of
involvement is ‘increasingly untenable’.
Our disaster theory acknowledges the interlinking of social and ecological sys-
tems, and the value of each. It encompasses acknowledgement of the significant
trauma experienced by those affected and the damage to ‘place’. It rests on an
understanding of disaster practices that will address vulnerability and resilience,
and build social and environmental sustainability as well as transformative change.

Summary
For over four decades, social work theorists have been grappling with the place of
the ‘environment’ in social work practice. Since the 1970s, a number of theories
have emerged that focus attention on the environment as a critical missing link
in practice. Early variations focused uncritically on the environment as a second-
ary backdrop to human actions and, therefore, did not attend to the environment
as unique and deserving of its own justice. More recent theoretical develop-
ments have focused attention on the concept of environmental justice, and on the
uniqueness and fragility of the environment. This has led to a greater focus also
on neoliberal economic paradigms that have allowed the wholesale degrading of
environments. Recent theories have provided a deeper understanding of the inter-
twining of people and place, of gender justice in the context of place and of the
cultural significance of the land. Theoretical developments in the area of disaster
practice must incorporate all of these elements and build on concepts drawn from
other disciplines. We must become environmentally literate and sensitive to local
knowledge, the cultural significance of place, and gender justice in the context of
disasters and we must build practice strategies that are based on attention not only
to the vulnerability and resilience of the people affected, but also to the places in
which they live. In doing this we must challenge the economic orthodoxy that
enables environmental destruction.
72 Theories for disaster social work

CASE STUDY – RETHINKING SOCIAL WORK IN

COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION – TYPHOON MORAKOT,
BAOLAI, KAOHSIUNG TAIWAN
Chao-Hsing Huang and Yen-Yi Huang

The Disaster – Typhoon Morakot and its impact on the

Baolai community
Typhoon Morakot was the deadliest typhoon to impact Taiwan in recorded
history. It hit Taiwan in August 2009 and wrought catastrophic damage, leav-
ing 673 people dead and 26 missing, and roughly NT$110 billion ($3.3 billion
USD) in damages. The storm produced copious amounts of rainfall, peaking at
2777 mm (109.3 in) (Typhoon Morokot 2017).
Baolai is a community in the Liouguei district of Kaohsiung City. It has a
population 1083 and is known for its hot springs. It is located at the entrance
of Southern Cross-Island Highway. Although quite distant from the downtown
regions of Tainan and Kaohsiung, its economy has prospered because of its
advantageous location for tourism and recreation and its natural resources.
However, the assault of Typhoon Morakot in 2009 severely impacted Baolai.
Typhoon Morakot brought about 1700.5 mm of rainfall at the time the typhoon
hit and caused large-scale landslides in many places. The landslide area was
estimated at around 60 hectares and it destroyed 12 houses, buried a family
of 5 alive, damaged roads in mountain regions for about 2000 metres. It also
caused the silt on the riverbed of Laonong River near Baolia Village to reach 4–5
million cubic metres and the riverbed was covered by mud 20 metres higher.
Bridges were destroyed and transport, electricity and telecommunica-
tion were all cut off. Baolai had become an island. The source of the famous
hot springs was lost, and reconstruction of the broken Southern Cross-Island
Highway was unlikely to happen quickly, meaning that Baolai faced serious
challenges.
On 9 August, as the dammed lake drained, residents were evacuated to
safe emergency shelters. On 12 August, community volunteers were mobilised
and some people gathered the food that had originally been prepared for
Father’s Day by the hotel in the community. Volunteers then took turns cook-
ing meals and offering them to those in need. On 13 August, the community
patrol team and rescue team were divided into groups to conduct exploration
of the damaged sites and to dispatch construction equipment to undertake
urgent repairs on external roads. Tourism officials also cooperated with vol-
unteers to relocate residents and maintain an orderly evacuation. Some of
these people also stayed to patrol the community and, on 17 August, soldiers
came and assisted with relief work. Volunteers as well as residents joined up to
distribute goods and materials, to assist foreign aid organisations to clean the
environment and to help with medical and mental health work.
Theories of social work and the environment 73

How were people affected?

Survivors were busy with rebuilding their own homes. At the initial post-disaster
stage people were fully occupied with disaster relief work, cleaning their homes
and land and cooperating with local government to list items for which they
could apply for subsidies. People did not have much time and space to plan
for the future. As the post-disaster period extended, the uncertainty and pre-
cariousness of their lives and future impacted people’s willingness to undertake
voluntary service. Concerns about their lives and safety, caused many residents
to relocate out of the area for temporary or permanent relocation. Out-migration
increased significantly. Those who remained were more vulnerable and tended
to be the elderly or residents who didn’t have the ability to leave.

What did social workers and other workers do?

Post-disaster reconstruction cannot be handled by a single organisation. In
Baolai, the Community Development Association collaborated with heads
of neighbourhoods/local government and business owners to undertake
reconstruction work. At the initial post-disaster stage, they formed the Baolai
Morakot Flood Disaster Reconstruction Committee. Initially, this committee
held a resident meeting once a week and determined the reconstruction needs.
Later, as the work became complicated, residents agreed to divide the work
between the three organisations – the Community Development Association,
the Tourism and Leisure Association and the Baolai Construction Association
(renamed from Baolai Morakot Flood Disaster Reconstruction Committee).
These three committees responded to the post-disaster reconstruction and
living needs of the village.
Ideally, the three local associations would address the reconstruction
needs cooperatively. However, the reconstruction work in the community
relied almost totally on voluntary labour initially. As the volunteer members
became more involved in addressing their own housing and business needs,
the volunteer workforce decreased over time. It was unrealistic to rely on the
enthusiasm and benevolence of the volunteers. It became obvious that com-
munity reconstruction needed full time workers. The Association therefore
applied to Kaohsiung County Government for a Community Reconstruction
Workforce Support Program for Local Organizations (2010)1 to provide a sta-
ble labour force for post-disaster reconstruction.
With the aim of buffering the impact on residents’ lives after Typhoon Morakot,
the central and local governments threw themselves into promoting sustainable
employment. Not only did the program assist with post-disaster reconstruction,
but it also addressed the unemployment problems. When the Ministry of Labor
(2009) released the Typhoon Morakot Temporary Labor Project,2 and the Soil
and Water Conservation Bureau’s (2009) post-disaster reconstruction short-term

(continued)
74 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

promotion of sustainable employment,3 the Council of Agriculture in Kaohsiung

County Government and Council for Cultural Affairs (2010) also proposed related
support programs.4 These were for local organisations to rebuild their workforce,
and offered manpower aid based on different reconstruction issues.
Under these programs, the application of human resources often hinged on
management units. The temporary labour force following Typhoon Morakot
for example, were mainly under the control of the Township Office who would
designate the workforce tasks based on local needs. Most of the work related
to environmental cleanup. In the early stages, most people threw themselves
into environmental recovery. The Soil and Water Conservation Bureau also had
similar workforce programs, but the manpower demands were identified by local
organisations who were in charge of employment and management. Moreover,
the Kaohsiung County Government and the Council for Cultural Affairs placed
more emphasis on tapping into local resources, training and assisting people.
They also involved residents in reconstruction indicating that local organisations
were part of the reconstruction process and not just the governments, enter-
prises, charities and professional organisations. Local organisations wanted their
efforts and capabilities to be acknowledged.
One of the outcomes of these schemes was the Workforce Support Program
and the Social Worker Training Program. The Social Affairs Bureau of
Kaohsiung County determined to build local capacity and empower commu-
nity through the Local Organizations Community Reconstruction Workforce
Support Program for Typhoon Morakot (abbr. Workforce Support Program).
Community development methods and principles were used in post-disaster
reconstruction. Because of the local personal network’s understanding of the
region, the Bureau wanted to cultivate local capacity for local community
development and post-disaster reconstruction by having local organisations
autonomously involved in reconstruction works.
Meanwhile, the Social Affairs Bureau of Kaohsiung County assigned a local
organisation – the Chimei Community College – to conduct coaching and
mentoring. Through a series of courses, including community development,
students wrote and executed reconstruction projects, and, through their train-
ing, built a community workforce.
While the Workforce Support Program aimed to support community recon-
struction, workers did not require higher education qualifications. The Bureau
planned a Social Worker Training Program for Typhoon Morakot Post-disaster
Grassroots Organizations (abbr. Social Worker Training Program). They con-
tracted with a local university to provide college credit hours of education,
enabling the students to be eligible to take the exam to become certified social
workers at no cost. The program was intended to build up a professional social
work workforce in the typhoon affected area.
During the chaos of the initial post-disaster stage, inexperienced volunteers
faced the same problem: when the community organisations they belonged
Theories of social work and the environment 75

to were facing various reconstruction issues, what could they do to help?

The Workforce Support Program was developed with a series of training sessions
and new community reconstruction personnel were brought in for orientation
training. They had various courses on different issues and undertook visits to
other associations, and even did internships in different agencies or organisa-
tions. This program applied a wide array of methods, enabling personnel to
learn how to analyse and see the advantages and disadvantages of organisa-
tions, and to understand and position their own roles within the organisation.

Skills and knowledge

Wan-Ling Li is a resident of Baolai. and Yue-Ru Lu and Li-Chuan Wang are her
friends. They were all enrolled in the Social Worker Training Program, and
were once supported by the Workforce Support Program. At the very begin-
ning of reconstruction, they just wanted to gather people together in order to
distract them from their panic and to ease their minds.
They were aware of some people who were partners in a ceramics industry
and others who understood vegetable dyes. They invited these people to teach
community residents how to make ceramics by hand and how to dye clothes. This
group work activity enabled people to do things together and be with each other,
easing people’s panic, and distracting them from their sadness if only temporarily.
Community organisations continued using resources from the public sector
to reestablish the basic elements of lives including restoring a sense of place, and
attending to the environment and livelihoods thereby linking with local commu-
nity resources. The ceramics and vegetable dyes spurred the idea of a Community
workshop. The Mango Tree Sharing Space became a place where the local work-
force was nurtured and provided the basis of community reconstruction.
As a result, the Mango Tree Sharing Space now remains actively operating,
providing more than ten job opportunities for community people. These are
mostly women who would not have a chance to find job in the area with their
limited educational background, age, and the declining businesses in the area.
The Sharing Space also became one of the information centres and contact
points for visitors.
Wan-Ling and Yue-Ru, trained to become social workers through the Social
Work Training Program, and have been able to communicate confidently with
the government and scholars from outside. They remain in Baolai to run the
business of the Mango Tree Sharing Space.
Through their experience of Baolai, they understand the importance of
being supported when working in a community. The Workforce Support
Program and Social Worker Training Program nurtured a group of commu-
nity work practitioners and their partner organisations. To keep the network
of mutual help and support in the region alive, they organised a registered
association, The Alliance of Small Communities Kaohsiung (TASCK).
(continued)
76 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

Lessons learned
This case shows how the experience of a typhoon disaster enabled local organ-
isations in the Baolai community to rethink the importance of “people” in
community work. Voluntary teams of community development associations,
commercial practitioners and residents formed a self-relief team, accompany-
ing and supporting each other at the early stage of the disaster.
From previous experiences of community development to the reconstruc-
tion issues Baolai Humanity Association is still facing, it is clear that local teams
are critical in post-disaster spaces. As local organisations provided significant
efforts in caring for the area for such a long time, the relationships between
neighbourhoods has become closer. As a result, problems in the community can
be more adequately addressed; residents are more involved in reconstruction
work and they are able to act more quickly and efficiently when a disaster hits.
While it appeared that there were no social workers involved at the
beginning, the government’s programs of workforce support and social
worker training provided stable staff for the reconstruction phase. They
also provided the knowledge and skills of community work and this proved
essential for longer term reconstruction and contributed to the establish-
ment of the Mango Tree Sharing Space. The following are some reflections
from Baolai’s experiences.
Public sectors rely more on large organisations, making their services hard
to infuse into local areas. When disasters happen, current governments have
consigned most bidding/tendering projects to large social welfare organisa-
tions. This may be because accountability, workforce and financial resources
may be more transparent in large social welfare organisations. However,
large social welfare organisations have their own fixed modes of working and
their own procedures. Sometimes this kind of institution cannot be generally
effective in remote areas or grassroots communities. Only by getting close to
local areas can people’s needs be understood and realised. Large social wel-
fare organisations usually work by bidding for contracts and oftentimes are
disconnected from the reality of post-disaster situations. The execution and
design of work should be more flexible and localised in order to deepen and
sustain local community work and achieve efficiency of service.
As social workers are hard to find in remote areas, local workforce cul-
tivation becomes important. In Taiwan, it’s not easy to find social workers
to undertake community work or to work in remote areas. The reasons
relate to isolation and distance, and the complex and multiple working
challenges. This work is much more difficult than working in metropolitan
areas and there is a greater loss of workforce. For these reasons, providing a
social work training program locally can be beneficial to sustainable service
delivery in remote areas. Human resources could therefore be localised and
Theories of social work and the environment 77

hence could put greater strength into local teams and organisations in the
long term.
Social work should be an overarching profession and not just a courier
of resources. When a huge natural disaster hits a community, the damage
has generally changed people’s environments and lives. Social workers should
not focus solely on an individual or family’s single issue such as job seeking,
care taking, etc. Changes in environments, industries, lives and other different
aspects complicate the issues considerably. Social workers should deliberate
on reconstruction plans that fit the locality so as not to become just the courier
and connector of resources.
In Taiwan, community work, once considered central to the social work-
er’s role, has gradually given way to the hegemony of clinical social work.
Experiences in Typhoon Morakot demonstrate the need for social workers to
acknowledge long-overlooked issues, like community work, and to take a more
proactive role in grassroots activities to address problems in both the social and
physical environments. Collaborative capabilities for social workers are central
to effective disaster management. Social workers in Taiwan have played a signif-
icant role in psychosocial interventions; but long-term reduction of the effects
of natural disaster sometimes takes several decades, and needs to incorporate a
holistic development plan addressing issues of environmental protection, local
infrastructure, employment and livelihood, community development, and dis-
aster prevention. Appropriate long-term disaster reduction may require that
social workers primarily act as community workers rather than clinicians.

Acknowledgment
We would like to express our thanks to Wan-Ling Li, Yue-Ru Lu, Li-Chuan Wang
and Shu-Yuan Hsiao for their contributions to the content of this case report.

Notes
1 ‘Regulations for Subsidies to Kaohsiung County Typhoon Morakot Commu­
nity Reconstruction Workforce Support Program for Local Organizations’
passed the review by Kaohsiung County Typhoon Morakot Private Donation
Account Management Committee on 31 December 2009 and was approved
and was implemented on 8 January 2010.
2 In response to Typhoon Morakot, the Ministry of Labor launched “Typhoon
Morakot Post-disaster Temporary Worker Project” on 7 August 2009 to
assist reconstruction of the disaster area. Because of the urgency of recon-
struction work and job service, the ‘Typhoon Morakot Temporary Labor
Project’ was implemented on the same day, dispensing allowances to vic-
tims as temporary workers who offered to help in cleaning their homelands.
(continued)
78 Theories for disaster social work

(continued)

3 According to No. 0980094836 of Typhoon Morakot Disaster Area annou­

nced by Executive Yuan on 17 September 2009, applications shall be filed
by rural community organisations or groups in non-urban planning areas.
The proposal required that a number of people shall be reviewed and
approved by Soil and Water Conservation Bureau. Organisations under-
take implementation by themselves and apply for subsidies in accordance
to monthly invoices.
4 Council for Cultural Affairs of Executive Yuan set up Guidelines for Typhoon
Morakot Post-disaster Community Organization Reconstruction Subsidy by
the order of No. 0992003308 on 26 February 2010. The subsidised objects
are community organisations and non-government organisations put on
records by local governments in disaster areas. There are two major subsi-
dised items: ‘community reconstruction’ and ‘community developers’.

References
Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan (2010). Guidelines for Typhoon Morakot Post-
disaster Community Organization reconstruction subsidy. No.0992003308.
Executive Yuan (2009). Typhoon Morakot Disaster Area. No. 0980094836.
Kaohsiung County Government (2010). Regulations for subsidies to Kaohsiung County
Typhoon Morakot Community Reconstruction Workforce Support Program for Local
Organizations. Approved by Kaohsiung County Government on 8 January 2010.
Ministry of Labor (2009). Typhoon Morakot Post-Disaster Temporary Worker Project.
(2010). Empowerment Plan. No. 0990510053.
Typhoon Morakot (25 December 2017). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Retrieved
28 January 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Morakot

Questions
Describe two of the main social work environmental theories. How do they differ?
Why is ecofeminism so important to social work theorising of the environment?
Describe the critical elements of a social work disaster theory outlined in
this chapter.
Are there elements that you would add?
Why is theory so important to disaster practice?
Discuss the innovative community social work training undertaken with local
people affected by Typhoon Morakot.
Do you view this as a useful strategy for other rural and remote areas affected
by disasters? Why/why not?
How does an ecological social work approach add value to the work of the
social workers affected by Typhoon Morakot?
PART II

Practice theories
5
DISASTER SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

In this chapter and the following two chapters we move into an examination of
social work practice in the context of disasters. We introduce the need for social
workers to be actively engaged not only in the emergency response to a disaster but
also in disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction. This requires social workers
to become aware of the factors within their communities that make them vulner-
able to disasters – for example, poorly constructed buildings that will not withstand
earthquakes or floods if these are a potential risk, vulnerability to heat waves, the
danger of sea level rises and flooding, the likelihood of chemical spills and much
more. Given our future increasing susceptibility to disasters, social work practice
must expand to include attention to disaster preparedness, disaster risk reduction
and disaster response across macro-, meso- and micro- levels of practice.
We begin our examination of disaster social work practice by discussing various
layers of practice from macro-, to meso- and micro- levels, noting how these levels
of intervention are crucial to disaster practice. We then examine the stages of disas-
ters from preparation to post-disaster and introduce the types of interventions – at
various layers of practice – in which social workers might engage.

Macro-, meso- and micro-levels of practice

In discussing the impact of a disaster, Miljenović and Žganec (2012: 646) distinguish
between the various layers of practice in terms of their relationship to community.
Macro- they describe as the collective capacity of the community; meso- the
reciprocity between its members and micro- the individuals that make up the
community. They argue that when there is a major event like a disaster, all facets
of community will suffer – at the macro-level this is represented by the collapse of
infrastructure and institutions, at the meso-level the exposure of vulnerable groups
and at the micro-level, the erosion of living standards. While there is an evident
82 Practice theories

tendency to focus on the critical impact of disasters on an individual, it is critical that

social workers address all layers of practice.

Macro-level
Macro-level practice is located at the structural or societal level and focuses on
policy, management, education and research (Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves
2018). Some social work academics separate macro-level into macro- and meta-
levels, to distinguish actions at global levels from actions within the country that
might impact on a community. Grise-Owens, Miller and Owens (2014: 47) define
meta-level practice as the ‘global social aspects that both overarch and interact
with macro-, meso- and micro- practice’. They argue that meta-level issues such
as the global economy, transnational political ideologies and a dominant commer-
cial culture transcending national and state boundaries, have a significant impact
on disaster responses at all levels – reducing attention to human rights and social
and environmental justice actions at local levels. At macro- (or meta-) level, social
workers must understand that higher level factors such as transnational and national
collaborations, policies, practices and ideologies frame responses to disasters and the
potential impacts on communities. They must be prepared not only to advocate for
changes, but also where possible to participate in shaping disaster policies through
advocacy and engagement.

CASE STUDY – WOMEN’S RESILIENCE INDEX

In 2014, ActionAid, in conjunction with the Australian Government Depart‑

ment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Intelligence Unit and the Economist,
published a South Asia Women’s Resilience Index (WRI). This project was a
useful attempt to develop a tool to assess factors that shape South Asia wom-
en’s resilience and their preparedness for disasters. Margaret Alston was on the
expert panel commissioned to oversee the project and her graduate student,
Gerlie Tatlonghari, worked in the indicator project. The tool is designed to be
used by other countries in assessing preparedness. This project provides a very
useful example of social workers engaged in global efforts to assess and build
resilience (ActionAid, DFAT, the Economist and the Intelligence Unit 2014).

Institutional responses such as these frame the community’s capacity to adapt

to the significant challenges that disasters bring. Social work actions at this level
are about improving the community’s capacity to address the sustainability of
their community in the context of the disaster and the policies and practices that
shape responses. They are also about strengthening the community to rebuild,
or as the UNISDR (2017d) suggests to ‘build back better’; fostering greater
Disaster social work practice 83

equality, environmental restoration and economic development and addressing

the institutional structures that might assist. Macro-level social work actions focus
on incident/national (state) level policy, advocacy, management, research, educa-
tion and actions to improve disaster planning and social work practice in this field.

Meso-level
The meso-level focuses on the link between people and broader groups and com-
munity including the relationships between the individual and institutions such as
governments, kinship groups, neighbourhoods and social groups (Hazeleger, Alston
and Hargreaves 2018; Faist 2010). Critically, it involves linking individuals to wider
social supports; assisting vulnerable groups and individuals; addressing structural
inequalities; and advancing equality (Raineri and Calcaterra 2018; Miljenović and
Žganec 2012). Social work actions at this level are about improving the commu-
nity’s capacity to address the sustainability of their community in the context of the
disaster and the policies and practices that shape responses and about strengthening
social ties, addressing the capacity to self-organise, building service infrastructure
and assisting vulnerable groups.

Micro-level
The micro-level focuses on the inter-relationships between people and usually
involves social casework, interpersonal communication, negotiation and advocacy
(Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves 2018). It involves addressing the impacts on
individuals and assisting to meet the immediate needs of people exposed to the dis-
aster experience – safety, shelter, food and water, for example. Social work actions
at this level involve increasing the individual’s capacity to adapt and assisting to
enhance the living standards of survivors.

Disaster preparedness, the disaster and post-disaster actions

Preparing for disasters

Disaster preparedness refers to the increasingly common process of preparing com-
munities to deal with potential threats. It involves all layers of practice – from
working with communities to prepare for potential disasters; to working with
groups within the community to address known environmental hazards; to assist-
ing people to prepare individual plans. Disaster resilience efforts are aimed at
assisting people, communities and disaster workers to understand and manage the
risks it confronts.
Disaster preparedness is a phenomenon that is widely recognised as a critical
and evolving area of disaster planning, and, following the profession’s growing
recognition of the link between the wellbeing of people and planet, one in which
social workers are increasingly engaged with communities. With the increase in
84 Practice theories

disasters and the consequent global impacts on people and environment, disas-
ter preparedness (DP) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have become significant
global or national initiatives. With the increased risks of disasters, attention to their
prevention is a critical emerging area for social workers. DRR concerns the devel-
opment of policies, strategies and practices intended to manage risk arising from
the interactions between people, their environment and potential or existing haz-
ards. Led largely by the United Nations, and more particularly the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and drawing on the
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), nations
across the world are working together on ways to reduce, or mitigate, the impacts
of disasters. In the process they are assisting to build knowledge and skills to reduce
the risks of disasters.
UNISDR has a particular focus on education, gender responsiveness and sustain-
able development, and acts as a focal point for global DRR activities. In particular,
UNISDR monitors global and national progress against the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30 (UNISDR 2017b) (see Chapter 2) and works
not only on climate-based events but also to assist to build disaster-resilient cities,
schools and hospitals.
According to its website (UNISDR 2017b)

UNISDR’s vision is anchored on the four priorities for action set out in the
Sendai Framework: understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk
governance to manage disaster risk, investing in disaster risk reduction for
resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to
‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

DRR follows the principles expressed under the Hyogo Framework for Action,
and particularly article five, which highlights how being adequately prepared can
actually save lives and reduce risks. Thus, if communities are prepared and ready
to act in an emergency, they are more responsive and resilient when a disaster does
occur and the loss of lives may be minimised.
These points relating to global organising around disaster preparedness are
worth making as it is these overarching frameworks that motivate and guide
national governments’ attempts across the world to address risk reduction and
disaster preparedness. From transnational movements, these principles have led
to national level guidelines and plans, and these processes subsequently filter
down to state, regional and local plans and governance structures that further
frame and support community levels actions to reduce hazardous risks and to
build disaster preparedness.

We would urge readers to check their local government website to see

what disaster preparedness actions, if any, are being undertaken at their
local level.
Disaster social work practice 85

While not necessarily prominent in global sustainability planning and global

governance structures, social workers can be found across the various layers of
organising, at national, state and community levels assisting in building new
knowledge, plans and actions to prepare for, to mitigate, and to manage dis-
asters. Through this work, communities are made aware of potential disaster
risks and are encouraged and supported to undertake risk reduction strategies
in their communities – such as reducing environmental hazards, ensuring early
warning strategies are in place and assisting people to develop disaster plans
and emergency kits. In the area of disaster risk reduction, building knowledge
is critical.

Government and NGO disaster preparedness strategies

Like many countries, Australia has an overarching National Emergency
Management committee (Emergency Management Australia) located in the
Department of Home Affairs and responsible for emergency planning, manage-
ment and policies. It has developed disaster response plans for both in-country
and off-shore emergencies. These became particularly relevant after the 9/11 dis-
aster in the US and the 2002 Bali bombing disaster that resulted in the deaths of
202 people, including 88 Australians (National Museum of Australia 2018; Smith
2006). The Australia–New Zealand Emergency Management Committee has also
been established to provide leadership in the region, to build capacity, to address
policies and to assist in implementing the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.
Each state has an emergency management committee and disaster plans, and under
these are both regional and local community emergency management committees.
Thus, as with most countries committed to the UN principles, there is significant
action and energy at government levels to build and strengthen preparedness, resil-
ience and capacity to address disasters.

Take the time to assess your country’s National Disaster Strategy and
governance structures that are in place to deal with disasters.

The PPRR approach to disasters is widely used amongst emergency services

in Australia and elsewhere. This model – prevention, preparedness, response and
recovery (PPRR) – captures the stages of risk management adopted by governments
and emergency workers in response to a potential or actual event. Prevention
is about taking steps to reduce or avert a disaster. Preparedness is about tak-
ing steps beforehand to reduce the impacts and to ensure effective responses.
Response is about containing and controlling the event to minimise its impacts.
Recovery is about minimising disruption and recovery times (Queensland
Government 2018).
86 Practice theories

Non-government organisations also pay significant attention to sustainability

and to disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Organisations such as Oxfam,
ActionAid and the Red Cross work with communities to build preparedness
and resilience. The Australian Red Cross, for example, has developed a web-
site that allows people to complete disaster preparedness plans in the event of
an emergency. The first such plan is a RediPlan that facilitates the prepara-
tion of a personal plan to be enacted should a disaster occur (Australian Red
Cross 2018). It is well recognised that when a disaster strikes and people’s lives
are at risk, their emotional capacity to systematically collect items of critical
importance is hampered. The RediPlan, if properly prepared, helps people to
collect in advance the things they might need to have at hand in the event of a
disaster – the phone numbers of family members, special medical needs, house
and car documents, insurance and other critical information, and, of course,
photos and heirlooms.
The second Red Cross on-line planning document (Australian Red Cross
2018) allows people to develop an emergency kit including ‘items that you need
to survive’ and ‘items that will help you recover’. Survival items might include food,
water and medicines. Recovery items might include photos, important docu-
ments, a child’s favourite toy and other things that will be critical to the building
of resilience in the immediate days following a disaster (Australian Red Cross
2018). The development of these types of planning supports is occurring across
the world and this active engagement in disaster preparedness planning is assisting
people not only to think through the reality of a potential crisis, but also to take
steps to increase their own resilience in the face of a disaster. These strategies rec-
ognise that once a disaster is imminent, it is too late to think critically about the
types of things one might need to take before evacuating. Having a RediPlan or a
pre-prepared box of ‘items needed to survive’ will significantly facilitate rapid exit
from a threatening situation.
Similar plans have been developed in other countries. New Zealand’s Get Ready,
Get Thru program is one example. It provides information for homes, schools,
child care centres and other organisations to prepare for disasters. It includes a rec-
ommended getaway survival kit. http://getthru.govt.nz.
In Canada, the city of Calgary Emergency Management Agency (CEMA) has
developed a Household Emergency Action Plan booklet; a checklist for the first 72 hours;
an Important Documents Bag with checklist and an Emergency Contact List proforma
(www.calgary.ca/CSPS/cema).
As disasters increase in frequency, and disaster preparedness becomes more
common, some local areas are establishing vulnerability registers. Such a
register allows the recording of the home addresses of people who may be vul-
nerable in an emergency – people living with a disability; older people living
alone; and others who might need assistance. These registers allow emergency
services to act quickly in an emergency to support people who may need
additional assistance. Registers are a useful strategy in the development of risk
reduction strategies.
Disaster social work practice 87

CASE STUDY – DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Canberra bushfires 2003

This forward planning was particularly relevant when major bushfires hit
Canberra, the national capital of Australia, in 2003. Social workers from both
government and non-government organisations had been members of a
community disaster team and, prior to the fire emergency, had undertaken
training sessions and mapping exercises covering a variety of disasters. This
pre-planning and preparedness assisted and enabled a timely social work
emergency response when a catastrophic event did actually occur. In unprec-
edented hot and windy weather, fires advanced on the national capital from
surrounding grasslands causing significant damage to pastures and pine
plantations on the edges of the city. During this tense period, social workers
were among a number of workers who worked in the emergency response
team taking phone calls on a specially established disaster hotline and giving
advice to people whose homes were under very real threat.
On 18 January 2003, the fires moved into outer suburbs of the city
resulting in the deaths of four people, injuries to 490 more and the loss of
470 homes. During the afternoon of 18 January, social workers and other
human services workers set up four community evacuation centres in local
halls and schools where people escaping the fires could go until the danger
passed. These centres provided food, shelter, bedding and basic essen-
tials. This was the first time that evacuation centres had been established
in Canberra, a city once thought to be impregnable to environmental dis-
asters. Over the course of the following week, a more long-term recovery
centre was established where people could seek advice and support on a
range of issues including shelter, emergency payments, insurance and a
myriad of other critical factors. This example highlights the type of work
social workers now undertake as part of disaster preparedness and response
teams and the importance of training and planning for disasters even in
areas that seem impregnable.
(Personal account from a human services worker engaged in the disaster planning team)

As Caye (2011: 21) notes, it is critically important to undertake training and

to develop skills and community planning capabilities in disaster preparedness
when there is no disaster – that is, to work with individuals, families and com-
munities prior to a disaster so that people are prepared. The city dwellers of
Canberra never expected to be victims of raging bushfires in the heart of one
of Australia’s major cities. The advanced planning of social workers assisted
somewhat in helping people before and during this disaster. However, the
development of advanced planning and skills training in the event of disasters
88 Practice theories

requires the lobbying of governments and of social work agencies who may
have more pressing priorities and lack the political will to act. Disaster planning
might seem obscure when all is well, and it is even more difficult to generate
actions and planning for a potential terrorist disaster. Yet when people have the
time and space to plan is the very time when disaster risks can be considered and
when mitigation strategies can be undertaken.
Other more long-term factors that will assist people to prepare for and cope
with disasters include strong local governance structures, community services that
address community capacity building and the development of strong social capital
at local levels (Mathbor 2007). Community social capital cannot be underesti-
mated (Peeters 2016) and the effective utilisation of existing community social
capital and community capacity building are crucial in disaster preparedness and
management (Mathbor 2007). Others have noted that levels of trust and the per-
ceptions of fairness amongst community members are associated with higher levels
of social capital and therefore greater capacity to plan for, and address, disasters,
whether they be terrorist attacks, health epidemics or natural disasters (Reininger
et al. 2013). Disaster preparedness is an area where social workers can help build
strong, resilient communities and well-prepared individuals to address and cope
with potential major disasters.

Disaster preparedness – layers of practice

Macro-level
Macro-level actions for the profession and individual social workers may include –

• advocating for agreements and policies to have a central focus on human

rights, environmental and social justice;
• assisting and advising on policy development including a focus on the inter-
connectedness between people and their environment;
• evaluating agreements affecting sustainability and human rights that have a
profound impact on the wellbeing of people and the planet and that ultimately
shape social work disaster practice;
• providing feedback on gaps in policies and services;
• understanding critical disaster risks at community level, and actions that will
facilitate disaster preparedness and resilience with an environmental and social
focus in the face of significant disaster threats;
• undertaking disaster preparedness training;
• building community social capital and community capacity to prepare both
physically, for example, through the introduction of disaster resilient build-
ing codes for home owners and landlords/renters, and socially, for example,
through inter-agency community resilience planning;
• establishing a vulnerability register;
Disaster social work practice 89

• assisting to strengthen local governance structures and trust in local institutions;

• undertaking community based and interdisciplinary research and education;
• advocating for early warning systems to be in place and functional;
• advocating for disaster training, planning and preparedness;
• advocating for the development of inclusive emergency management guide-
lines and processes including gender and cultural sensitivity;
• undertaking research to give voice to disaster affected communities and influ-
ence future disaster resilience and planning;
• incorporating environmental and eco-social work theories in social work courses
and ensuring disaster related examples are used in case work and community
work skill development;
• participating in inter-disciplinary conferences with emergency management
services;
• bringing a social justice and inclusive/vulnerability lens to the development of
community disaster information and community engagement planning;
• working with emergency services agencies and communities to produce
disaster preparation information, for example, plain English, translated into
relevant languages;
• increasing community resilience by ensuring an inclusive approach to disaster
preparedness activities, for example, accessible venues and child care for emer-
gency planning or education meetings.

Meso-level
Meso-level disaster preparedness actions might include:

• assessing whether preparedness policies include attention to vulnerable groups

such as women and girls, older people, people from diverse minority groups
and First Nations peoples;
• identified gaps being fed back to policy makers;
• working with vulnerable groups to prepare disaster plans that reflect their
strengths and ability to shape their own environment and social supports;
• establishing and supporting existing groups to foster social capital;
• working with local communities to establish a local disaster preparedness
group if one has not been established;
• building a disaster vulnerability register;
• working with local government to prepare a community vulnerability register;
• working with groups to address environmental sustainability within the
community;
• participating in environmental awareness campaigns;
• supporting community resilience education, for example, mental health first
aid, and training in the use of water pumps and chainsaws; and
• facilitating community capacity building programs.
90 Practice theories

Micro-level
Micro-level disaster preparedness actions might include:

• assisting people to prepare individual and family disaster plans that take into
consideration their physical and social environment;
• assisting people to register for the vulnerability register where relevant;
• assisting people to plan family strategies in the event of a disaster.

Assisting during a disaster

In some cases, such as the Canberra fires, social workers will be in situ or close by
during a disaster event. This might be the case, as it was in Canberra, if there is
some warning of the approaching disaster and the need to set up shelters is evident.
The social workers in this disaster had ample warning that the fires were coming
and would reach the homes on the outskirts of the city. Their actions in setting up
an emergency hotline before the fires hit allowed people to seek advice on evacu-
ation, shelters and other relevant information. The work of the social workers in
answering calls, and their establishment of shelters before the fire reached homes,
are examples of social work practice immediately prior and during a disaster. This
warning of impending disaster can also occur with cyclones or hurricanes, and usu-
ally with floods, which gives some time to prepare for the onset. Earthquakes on
the other hand give no warning.
Actions to assist during a disaster may also occur during slow onset events when
conditions continue to worsen over time. A good example of this occurred during
the long-running drought in Australia at the turn of the century. This event, which
continued for a decade, led to widespread poverty and despair. As a result, social
work services were set up in many rural communities to assist with poverty allevia-
tion payments and the distribution of other goods as well as mental health services.
There is further evidence from across the world of social work actions taken during
a disaster that have helped to build the resilience of those affected. We will provide
a more in-depth analysis of social work practice immediately following disasters in
Chapter 5 and the case studies give significant insights into social work actions on
the ground.

Macro-level
Macro-level strategies during a disaster might include:

• advocating for early warning systems and ensuring they are functioning and
that the community is mobilised;
• setting up safe and inclusive shelters and assisting with information distribution
to all groups in the affected communities;
Disaster social work practice 91

• managing post-disaster case management programs;

• ensuring community information meetings are inclusive, for example, that
they are located in accessible venues, with child care provided, and ensur-
ing that people are invited by way of trusted leaders such as footy coaches or
CALD community councils;
• freeing up social workers from your agency to provide short-term immediate
assistance in relief centres;
• participating in emergency management coordinating committees;
• reviewing/familiarising oneself with community profiles, social vulnerability
registers and other sources of information;
• providing feedback to the leadership team from staff on the ground about
needs, gaps in services, policy impacts, community responses etc.;
• gaining an appreciation of the connection between livelihood impacts and
environmental impacts in both the short and long term;
• gaining an understanding of the cultural context of the affected community –
including cultural complexity, rural/remote/urban status, and critical factors
that are unique to that community.

Meso-level
Meso-level actions might include:

• organising and staffing emergency phone lines;

• acknowledging and incorporating local knowledge and skills in managing the
response;
• participating in emergency service agency update meetings;
• bringing an ecosocial work and social justice perspective whenever possi-
ble, for example, through awareness of the increased risk of violence against
women and abuse of children in relief centres;
• identifying opportunities for affected people to assist in the response effort;
• supporting ‘self-organising’ community groups to be integrated into response
efforts;
• assisting in shelters;
• supporting payment agency staff who may be challenged by the level of dis-
tress of those seeking assistance;
• coordinating social work staff availability, including rosters and staff support;
• undertaking assessments of needs as they are dynamic and change over time;
• feeding back this information and the policy impacts to decision makers;
• coordinating with other service providers to ensure a seamless experience for
those seeking assistance; and
• identifying local networks and community arrangements and working with
these.
92 Practice theories

Micro-level
Micro-level actions might include:

• checking the wellbeing of people on the vulnerability register;

• ensuring support for people still in their homes;
• assisting and supporting people in shelters – for example, by registering people/
families and assessing shock and trauma impacts;
• providing crisis intervention support in relief centres

Post-disaster practice – assessing the immediate situation

There are recognisable phases in post-disaster scenarios. Kaufman et al. (2011: ix)
describe these as the emergency or rescue phase, the recovery or restoration phase and
the reconstruction phase. During the emergency or rescue phase, various activities
are undertaken by emergency workers including search and rescue, medical aid,
establishing access to safe water, the provision of shelter and food, disposal of the
dead and the establishment of communication (Bliss 2010). Social workers are
highly visible in the immediate aftermath of a disaster – the response phase. There
are a number of tasks in which they are actively engaged. However, assessing
the immediate threats is a critical element in the post-disaster phase. Initially, on
entering a disaster zone, social workers must assess the ongoing dangers including
any potential threats – for example, of aftershocks following an earthquake. This
information can be sourced from the Incident Coordinator and social workers can
ensure this reaches the community. It is critical to know whether power poles and
electricity wires are laying on the ground, whether roads are passable (particularly
relevant in flooded areas), whether other infrastructure is intact and buildings are
safe to enter, and whether there is telecommunications access to assist in managing
emergency situations.
Emergency Service Response workers arriving in the first post-disaster wave
must assess mortality and morbidity factors, assist people to safety, and determine
what are the governance structures and collaborations in the overall response team.
Social workers arriving in the community should seek to understand:

• what personnel are on the ground;

• what the leadership structure of the local community and of the emergency
response team consists of:
• what actions have already been taken within the community to ensure safety
and to assist local people;
• what the terrain difficulties might be;
• whether there are immediate safety issues or ongoing threats;
• whether there is a power and telecommunications infrastructure;
• how one travels around the area;
Disaster social work practice 93

• where people are sheltering and what supports are needed in these facilities;
• what social work and other health provider personnel are in the field and
where social work fit within this health and emergency services organisational
structure;
• whether local community and local knowledge is being adequately incorporated
into the disaster response.

These and many other issues will confront workers when they move from their
calm ordered lives to the chaos of a disaster zone. This is also relevant for social
workers living in the disaster zone who are witness to the destruction of their com-
munity. The following tasks are the types of actions undertaken by social workers
in post-disasters.
As Dominelli (2013: 63–64) notes

Each social worker’s tasks will depend upon their designated role within
the overall disaster recovery plan. Keeping up to date with changes in
disaster recovery plans is one of the main challenges for social workers
who are not only managing their own wellbeing and tasks but are also
focused on being an effective conduit for information to individuals try-
ing to get recovery aid and communities trying to influence the often life
changing decisions being made on their behalf by government agencies
and committees.

Macro-level
Macro-level strategies might include:

• working with governments, other organisations, local governments and com-

munity organisations to build capacity within the community;
• checking telecommunications and other services are functional;
• setting up shelters and community centres;
• checking measures to ensure safety;
• distributing resources; and
• liaising with support services.

Social work managers may also be:

• managing and developing social work services;

• assessing how policies and actions impact on the personal lives and wellbeing
of people most critically affected by climate and environmental disasters;
• finding available staff and supporting safe work practices;
• managing and supporting personnel and other resources;
• developing policy and procedure frameworks;
94 Practice theories

• determining how to distribute resources;

• collaborating with other disaster services to coordinate the disaster response;
• supervising staff; and
• managing the eventual closure of the disaster response service.

Social workers on the ground may also be involved in:

• advocacy;
• building policy;
• managing the politics of the disaster space;
• advising government on how to best address the crisis;
• helping to establish community hubs;
• assisting in organising community hubs;
• assisting with and advising on national emergency guidelines; and
• helping to shape international policies.

Research activities might include:

• conducting needs assessments;

• undertaking consultations with community leaders;
• actively focusing on information dissemination including through regular
newsletters;
• assisting communities to be part of the policy development process
(Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves 2018)

Meso-level
Meso-level actions might include:

• identifying and working with vulnerable groups;

• in conjunction with Emergency Management Committees, assessing ongoing
threats;
• participating in the development of strategies should threats persist;
• assisting people to shelters;
• working as members of outreach teams;
• liaising with institutions and organisations to support vulnerable members;
• assisting with shelters, food and water distribution;
• facilitating community meetings and local actions to address climate change
and disaster vulnerability;
• providing gender and emergency management information;
• facilitating community recovery meetings;
• bringing together representatives of service agencies at the community hubs;
• conducting focus groups on disaster research; and
• in the longer term, building support networks and groups such as craft groups.
Disaster social work practice 95

Micro-level
Micro-level actions might include:

• working with people affected, and generally assist people to re-establish con-
trol over their lives;
• assisting with practical tasks;
• sourcing and providing information on available assistance;
• crisis intervention;
• bearing witness;
• active listening;
• needs and situational assessments;
• negotiating and problem-solving;
• identifying the most vulnerable and those without social connections and
responding effectively;
• supporting people as they seek to make meaning from their experience (for
some this will involve spirituality);
• identifying service gaps and alerting decision-makers;
• watching for the most vulnerable;
• being present with people in their traumatic experience;
• providing an initial capacity until social workers with longer-term roles are
brought into the site.

Summary
In this chapter we have noted the various layers of practice from macro- to meso-
to micro- that will shape social work practice in disaster sites. We have noted
the stages of a disaster experience from disaster preparedness to the disaster itself
and to the post-disaster period. We have outlined the types of actions at macro-,
meso- and micro- levels that social workers might engage in at these various stages
of practice. In the following two chapters we will extend this by examining com-
munity development, group work and casework practice in disaster sites.
Understanding the importance of meta-level policies and practices provides sig-
nificant support for community actions. Social workers draw significant insights
from their work in the disaster field. Critically, these insights provide a strong basis
for social workers to engage in meta-level actions and in shaping policies. Meta-
level policies shape national and ultimately local level responses to disasters and can
provide significant support for advocacy on behalf of communities. Meso-level
actions provide a link between people and their broader community. A critical
element of meso-level practice is the building of social capital and community
capacity. Micro-level actions are more personal and provide the support for people
to build resilience in the context of a disaster. In all of these layers of practice social
workers are critical players.
96 Practice theories

CASE STUDY – SOCIAL WORK AND DISASTERS

Tricia Hazeleger

What was the disaster situation (brief description)?

There is so much to learn and contribute as a social worker supporting individuals,
communities and agencies before, during and after disasters. I share my experi-
ences of working in this field of practice to encourage social workers to put our
knowledge and skills to good use in disaster resilience and recovery efforts.
Rural living has been a large part of my life and work. I grew up in the
Dandenong Ranges outside Melbourne and regularly experienced bushfires
during the 1960s with our home being partially destroyed during one bushfire
and my family’s future changed forever by the impact of the fires.
As a social worker I focused on community development, policy and
research in rural Victoria (Australia), and have been involved in disaster recovery
and emergency management planning since 2006. The ten-year ‘slow onset’
drought at the beginning of the twenty-first century in south-eastern Australia
was a significant precursor to the devastating Black Saturday bushfires in 2009.
My involvement in drought and bushfire recovery led to me working in emer-
gency management policy and research with a particular focus on gender.

How were people affected and who were

particularly vulnerable?
Australia experienced a major drought, one that devastated the landscape and
people for the first ten years of the millennium. This major disaster accelerated
ongoing rural restructuring and created changes in the way farm family mem-
bers ordered and lived their lives. An analysis of emergency support to poverty
stricken farm families (Alston 2009) showed how agricultural departments that
attend to a notional norm of family farming as a unitary male pursuit actively
discriminated against women in their efforts to preserve the farm and support
their families. As a Regional Development Victoria community development
worker in 2006, I was involved in community work and advocacy efforts in the
hard hit farming areas of the City of Greater Shepparton.
Fire is also an integral component in many Australian ecosystems. From mid-
December 2006 to mid-March 2007 fire agencies responded to more than 1000
fires across Victoria. The total area burned exceeded 1,200,000 hectares. The two
most serious fires occurred in the north-east (the Great Divide North fire) and
Gippsland (the Great Divide South fire). These fires were eventually contained
in mid-February after burning for 59 days. The Great Divide North and South
fires burned a total of 1,048,238 hectares, almost entirely on public land. Other
significant fires burning at the same time were the Tawonga Gap fire (33,590
hectares) and the Tatong-Watchbox Creek Track fire (31,810 hectares). There was
Disaster social work practice 97

one death, 51 houses destroyed and 1741 stock lost (Forest Fire Management
Victoria 2018).
My second major bushfire recovery experience as a social worker was in
2009 with the Victorian bushfires –the worst in Australia’s history wherein
173 people lost their lives and many others were seriously injured. Across the
State, 109 towns and 33 communities were devastated, over 4600 proper-
ties destroyed or damaged, and more than 430,000 hectares of land burnt
(Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority 2011).
My social work practice in drought and fire recovery led me to also focus
on gender as important factor when dealing with disasters.

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

During the drought and the 2006/7 bushfires of north-east Victoria I worked
as a regional community development worker for the Victorian Department of
Regional Development (Hume Region). During the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires
I worked in Melbourne as manager of the Victorian government’s Rural Women’s
Network. During the drought we support self-organising groups to run ‘pamper
days’ and family camps as well as organising Mental Health First aid training for
grain retailers, dairy tanker drivers and hairdressers who were often first to hear
the stories of the impacts of this disaster. Advocacy with all levels of government
agencies to address gaps in support to drought affected families was also a major
role. Bushfire recovery work at the time was mainly about community informa-
tion sessions, facilitating government relief payments and ensuring the voices of
rural communities was heard in government planning and reports.
In 2009 the Rural Women’s Network (RWN) provided an established resource
to influence funding aimed at supporting women specific activities through
the Victorian Bushfire Recovery and Reconstruction Authority (VBRRA), organise
opportunities for the Minister for Women’s Affairs to meet with and directly
hear from bushfire affected women about the needs of families and commu-
nities and produce a special bushfire edition of the RWN magazine to share
women’s experiences of the fires. It became clear that the gendered impacts
and issues of bushfire recovery were largely invisible and therefore largely unad-
dressed as people found their way through the challenges of grief and the
devastation to their homes, environment, health and family relationships.
In 2011 I returned to north-east Victoria for family reasons and worked with
Women’s Health Goulburn North East (WHGNE) as a researcher and project
worker. In response to the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 the women at
WHGNE received funding through VBRRA to deliver the ‘Women Gathering
After Fires’ program (www.whealth.com.au) and undertake qualitative
research (Parkinson and Zara 2011) aimed at giving women’s experiences
voice – particularly as it related to violence against women.

(continued)
98 Practice theories

(continued)

Building on these activities we worked with Alpine Shire – one of the bush-
fire-affected areas. We successfully applied for funds through the Foundation
for Rural and Regional Renewal to undertake the Through Women’s Eyes pro-
ject to increase disaster resilience and community resilience skills by exploring
experiences and issues with women in the Alpine Shire.
The outcomes arising from the project included:

• 31 rural women increased their resilience knowledge and confidence.

• Women’s experiences and suggestions for change were shared with
Emergency Services (Country Fire Authority, State Emergency Service,
Department of Human Services) to influence policy and practice.
• Six posters and one to three video-clips of women’s disaster resilience
insights and stories were produced for display locally and publishing on
relevant websites.
• 50 per cent of project participants indicated they plan to update/create
an individual/family fire plan and contribute to a community fire plan or
disaster resilience and recovery activities.
• Alpine Shire Council used project findings to shape the Community
Resilience committee Resilience Plan and Resilience Week activities.
• Women’s Health Goulburn North East strengthened local agency capacity
to understand women’s needs, strengths and gender equity by working
with Alpine Shire council and the regional Country Fire Authority on a
women-centred project.
(Alpine Shire 2013)

Alongside the Through Women’s Eyes project I organised and coordinated

the ‘Improving Women’s Health Before, During and After Bushfires’ (March
2012) series of events with the WHGNE staff and who had been involved in the
WGAF and ‘The Way He Tells It’ research with support from Women’s Health in
the North and the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse. The
events were aimed at improving responses to women’s issues and strengths
in relation to bushfires, family violence and disasters and included reporting
back to the women and communities who had participated in the bushfire
research (Yea, Kancoona), ‘focusing on women in emergency management’
sessions with Hume region emergency management workers (Benalla), an
International Women’s Day forum in Melbourne auspiced by the Department
of Human Services – Emergency Management Branch, a seminar with Monash
University Gender Leadership and Social Sustainability research centre focused
on ‘The future of feminism in an uncertain world’ and the ‘Identifying the
Hidden Disaster’ conference. The events were given an international focus
and credibility through the participation of Dr Elaine Enarson (Independent
Scholar) (2012) in the field of Gender and Disasters. The research fact sheets
Disaster social work practice 99

such as ‘Gender in Disaster’, the conference proceedings and videos of various

presentations are available at www.whealth.com.au.
During this time I presented information about gender and the impor-
tance of community development in emergency management at the Monash
Disaster Resilience Initiative forums (www.monash.edu/news/events/monash-
university-disaster-resilience-forum). These forums aimed to bring together
emergency services first responders and community representatives and
workers. The MUDRI forums provide a unique opportunity to encourage cross-
sectoral understandings of disaster recovery and resilience.
This work led me to policy work with the Victorian Government (Department
of Health and Human Services – Emergency Management Branch) developing
a case for national gender in emergency management guidelines (www.gen-
deranddisaster.com.au/info-hub/national-gem-guidelines/) and research into
the longer term impacts of bushfires (www.rlpd.ca/).
In 2013 I had the opportunity as part of doctoral studies with Monash University –
Gender leadership and Social sustainability centre to be part of the Rebuilding
Lives Post Disaster (Alston, McCurdy and McKinnon 2018: 295; McKinnon and
Alston 2016: 158). The research, undertaken in the Kinglake Ranges five years after
the catastrophic 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires, was part of an interna-
tional research program across Canada, USA, Australia, India, Pakistan and Taiwan
(www.rlpd.ca) and involved interviews conducted with key personnel at national,
state and local levels and focus groups with the affected community members.
The Gender and Disaster Taskforce (Gender and Disaster Pod) was estab-
lished in Victoria in 2014 for three years. Co-Chaired by the Emergency
Management Commissioner and the Executive Officer of Women’s Health
Goulburn North East (WHGNE), the Taskforce included representatives
from women’s health services and all major Victorian Emergency Services
Organisations, plus bushfire-affected communities and academic sectors. My
previous work brought me a seat at the Gender & Disaster Taskforce table and
an opportunity to shape future government policy and procedures.
The purpose of the taskforce was to ‘provide state-wide strategic direc-
tion and leadership to reduce the compounding effects of gender on disaster
impacts’ and had seven specific objectives. The work of the taskforce brought
a gender-focus to disaster policy, planning, training and practice in order to
improve the support that men and women receive before and after disaster,
mitigate risks to men and women’s health and wellbeing post-disaster, and
build awareness of the critical need for attention to gender in disaster planning
and community recovery.
Most recently as a social worker I have been contributing to publications
about social work practice in relation to disasters with a focus on gender and
community development (Hazeleger 2013; Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves
2016; Hazeleger 2018) and participating in steering committees (2017–2018)
to support Gender and Disaster Pod research into long-term disaster recovery

(continued)
100 Practice theories

(continued)

and an inter-disciplinary Disaster and Diversity conference (www.diversityindis-

aster.com/) organised by the Victorian Council of Social Services.
There are a wide variety of social work roles in field of disaster resilience and
recovery where our commitment to social justice along with our skills to work
across individual, group, community, policy and research dimensions is invaluable.

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

The core social justice knowledge and skills social work brings to all aspects of
our work provides a crucial element to any disaster resilience or recovery efforts.
Consider the ramifications of providing support to disaster-affected individuals,
families and communities if there were no consideration of factors such as poverty,
age, gender, cultural background or different abilities. We know that vulnerabili-
ties are exacerbated at times of disaster and any support that doesn’t recognise
this will reinforce and entrench vulnerabilities (Hazeleger 2013). Making gender
visible in disaster and emergency management work has been central to my
social work. It is worth social workers reflecting on examples of transformative
disaster recovery work such as the World Bank (2011) gender-informed approach
to land and property rights after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia.
Arising from social work’s social justice commitment, particularly from
a feminist practice lens, is the knowledge that ‘the personal is political’ and
that knowledge arising from work with individual people at the micro level
is crucial to macro level practice such as the development of effective policy,
programs and systems. For example, my work with people from the drought
and bushfire-affected communities of north-east Victoria was used to shape
local government recovery processes; and the voices of the people who spoke
to us in RLPD research interviews and focus groups were taken to the Gender
and Disaster Taskforce to shape emergency management planning.
A relatively recent development in emergency management is an under-
standing of the effectiveness of working with communities in disaster recovery
and resilience efforts rather than taking a ‘command and control’ or top down
approach (Emergency Management Victoria 2016). Social work mantras such
as ‘the person is the expert on their own life’ and ‘nothing about us without us’
are based on the profession’s core principles (International Federation of Social
Work 2018). The knowledge and skills I brought as a social worker to empow-
ering individuals and communities, advocating for disadvantaged people and
building on the strengths of the people being assisted were all useful in contrib-
uting to the development of community-based approaches to disaster resilience
and recovery. Increasing the contribution of social workers at all levels of disaster
recovery and resilience practice, bringing a social justice and multi-layered skill
set for working with individual, families, communities, policy and research has
the potential to be transformative for disaster-affected people around the globe.
Disaster social work practice 101

What worked and did not work?

The Rebuilding Lives Post Disaster research (www.rlpd.ca) provided the following
insights into what disaster affected people found useful or not:

• Recognise and work with the strengths of the individual people and the
community – they are the first responders and know their community –
advocate for ‘power with’ not ‘power over’ approaches to disaster resilience
and recovery activities.
• Involving people in their community recovery provides opportunities for
post traumatic growth, e.g. clean-up of disaster site, community dinners,
self-organising groups, buy local and support community economy, peer
support and mental health first aid programs, administrative support to
enable local community and sporting groups to take the lead in responding
to community needs.
• Understand that people’s feelings of safety, belonging and loss are
inherently affected by their physical as well as social environment and
incorporate that awareness into practice.
• After disasters provide practical support as a priority – this meets immedi-
ate needs and builds a constructive relationship for psycho social support
at a later time.
• Rebuild ‘better’ – disasters are times of change for the environment and com-
munities, look for transformational opportunities re: sustainability and equity.

‘Lessons learned’ for social work practice

• Social work knowledge and skills are of critical value in shaping effec-
tive disaster resilience and recovery through practice in casework, group
work, community work, policy development, advocacy, program man-
agement, research and education.
• Social work’s commitment to self-determination and participation and
working ‘with’ people is crucial amidst the ‘command and control’
response to the chaos of disasters.
• A strengths-based approach to social work is critical for effective prepar-
edness for disaster and for finding a new normal post disaster.

References
Alpine Shire (2013). Through Women’s Eyes – disaster resilience project www.alpinesh
ire.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1702#BM4057
Alston, M. (2009). Drought policy in Australia: gender mainstreaming or gender blind-
ness? Journal of Feminist Geography, 16(2): 139–154.
Alston, M., Hazeleger, T. and Hargreaves, D. (2016). Social work in post disaster sites’ in
Jennifer McKinnon and Margaret Alston (eds), Ecological social work: towards sustain-
ability. Boulder, CO: Palgrave.

(continued)
102 Practice theories

(continued)

Alston, M., S. McCurdy and J. McKinnon (eds) (2018). Social work fields of practice (3rd ed.).
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Emergency Management Victoria (2016). Community based emergency management –
working together – before, during and after. Retrieved from www.emv.vic.gov.au/
how-we-help/community/community-based-emergency-management
Enarson, Elaine (2012). Women confronting natural disaster: from vulnerability to resilience.
South Melbourne: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Forest Fire Management Victoria (2018). Past bushfires: history and incidents. Accessed 5
August 2018 www.ffm.vic.gov.au/history-and-incidents/past-bushfires
Gender and Disaster Pod (2014). www.genderanddisaster.com.au/info-hub/gender-
disaster-taskforce/
Hazeleger, T. (2013). Gender and disaster recovery: strategic issues and action in Australia.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management (Gender Edition), 28(2): 40–46.
Hazeleger, T. (2018). Social work in post natural disaster sites. In M. Alston, S. McCurdy
and J. McKinnon (eds), Social work fields of practice (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford
University Press, pp. 293–310.
International Federation of Social Workers (2018). Statement of ethical principles –
promoting the right to self determination and participation. www.ifsw.org/state-
ment-of-ethical-principles/?hub=main
Parkinson, D. and C. Zara (2011). The way he tells it. www.whealth.com.au
Victorian Bushfire Recovery and Reconstruction Authority (2011). Legacy report – summary.
Melbourne: VBBRA.
World Bank (2011). Lessons from the reconstruction of post-tsunami Aceh: build back bet-
ter through ensuring women are at the center of reconstruction of land and property
#64871. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10442

Questions
Describe the various stages in disaster work.
What is disaster preparedness and how are social workers involved?
What actions might social workers take at macro-level in the post-disaster
period?
Discuss meso-level actions at various stages of preparedness to post-disaster.
What does Hazeleger describe as the critical skills that social workers bring to
disasters?
What value does the ecological social work theory add to the practice outlined
by Hazeleger?
6
COMMUNITY-BASED PRACTICE
Working at the meso-level

In this chapter we consider practice strategies with a particular focus on community

development practice and research in post-disaster sites. We outline factors includ-
ing community responsiveness to disasters and community dynamics that are critical
to how effectively communities can respond to disasters and we note community
development actions that social workers can adopt to increase community capacity.
The impact of disasters on communities exposes the interdependency of humans
and their community. The intrinsic connections through collective economic, emo-
tional, physical, spiritual, environmental and cultural activities are both accentuated
and fractured during times of disaster.
Communities are defined in a number of ways – on the basis of location (for
example, a particular town or village), common identity (adhering to a particular
religion, for example) or shared interests (having a particular project or activity in
common). Disasters make visible the idea of ‘community’, often bringing together
people on the basis of all three of these notions of community. Disasters are often
specific to a location making visible the community as a place-based entity and may
be specific to particular population groups, for example farmers in drought – thus
making visible a common identity or activity. Social workers must consider all
types of communities in their efforts to build disaster resilience, facilitate disaster
preparedness, and support immediate and long-term disaster recovery or renewal.
It is essential in post-disaster work that the affected community is identified
with consideration given to all types of communities so that the needs, strengths
and aspirations of diverse groups of people can begin to be identified and addressed.
Disaster affected communities may consist of:

•• groups of people directly affected by the disaster in terms of injury,

death, and loss of people, possessions or accommodation;
•• groups with additional or complex needs – for example, Indigenous
populations, people with particular cultural, language or spiritual
104 Practice theories

needs, people with physical or intellectual disabilities, the aged and

infirm, and people with little or no family support;
•• particular suburbs or areas;
•• particular communities such as retirement villages or employees of a
particular business closed by the disaster;
•• geographically dispersed populations linked only by a tourist destination
or by a particular sub-group such as horse owners;
•• repatriated persons or groups from overseas;
•• individuals, groups and organisations that suffer secondary effects of
disaster including friends, relatives and neighbours of those directly
affected, or linked through business.
(Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2018)

Community cohesion and social capital

Disasters intensify the powerful elements of community, bringing out significant
feelings of the critical importance of ‘place’ and identity and the significance of
community relationships attached to ‘place’. In post-disaster situations it is not
unusual for people to actively engage with neighbours and other community
members with whom they may previously have barely spoken as they went
about their ordered lives. It is also not uncommon for people to ‘see’ their envi-
ronment, perhaps for the first time as more than a backdrop to their lives. In its
devastation it reveals its significance. Thus, following a disaster, local people’s
common focus becomes the shared experience of the disaster and of their dam-
aged ‘place’ and their common purpose is to assist each other to rebuild their
lives and community.
Local people may view those who come into the community to help as out-
siders who lack this critical local knowledge of the link between people and their
environment or ‘place’. For example, Avgar and Kaufman (2011) note that fol-
lowing a disaster the significant influx of outsiders with their own agendas and
potential community development strategies is challenging for local people. Local
community organising can be hampered by these outside agendas, which usually
relate to getting into the community quickly, building the community just as it
was and leaving as quickly as possible. Often what is lost in this process of external
intrusion is the need to work at the pace of the community – a pace that is set by
the evolving community dynamics.
For local people, disasters can very quickly reshape ‘community’ in all its mani-
festations and can result in the building of strong bonds, social capital and mutual
goals. There can be an extraordinary amount of cohesion and cooperation imme-
diately following a disaster as neighbours assist each other. In the process, as people
work together, they are building and reinforcing social capital and developing new
organisations and groups, built on participation. Pyles (2017: 639) notes that this is
often lost in media representations of disasters:
Community-based practice 105

Citizens rescue total strangers trapped in buildings, neighbours help

neighbours clean up rubble, displaced people create new temporary com-
munities and community members come together to hold their leaders
accountable. All of this transpires at the same time as media may portray
citizens as looters and rioters and governments send in military troops to
maintain social control.

Nonetheless, disasters can also reveal divisions that have previously existed below
the surface of civility emerging as very divisive battles around resource distribu-
tion, or challenges to those assuming unelected leadership roles. In this context
of reshaped and collaborative or divided ‘community’, social workers can assist
community members to address their immediate issues and to coalesce in commu-
nity organisational structures that can advocate for assistance and support. There
is ample room in the post-disaster space for sensitive community development to
gently direct people to positive, collaborative endeavours. Besthorn and McMillen
(2002: 229) understand this role for social workers, noting that they should become
‘community and neighbourhood organisers’ in the wake of disasters and environ-
mental events. They urge workers to develop

mechanisms that promote participation . . . and to act as advocates who

apply pressure and call attention to the need for local, state and national
intervention . . . and [to become] facilitators of skills development to allow
residents to act on behalf of themselves and their neighbourhood.

Community dynamics
It is important to recognise that the way a community responds to disasters
is very much shaped by factors that may not be visible to outsiders. Elements
of community dynamics that will shape the way community members work
together include:

•• historical factors that have shaped (and potentially divided) the community;
•• the community’s dominant culture;
•• the power dynamics within and across groups (including particularly gender
relations between women and men);
•• local governance structures and political responses (both current and historical);
•• local policy responses but also regional, state and national responses; and
•• intractable religious divides.

These factors will shape the social, economic, environmental, cultural and
personal/spiritual impacts of the disasters (Ife 2013) and are critical elements
that social workers should understand in order to work effectively with their
communities.
106 Practice theories

Assessing the disaster impact – a community development

approach
Upon entering a community, it is important to assess not only the disaster and its
impact on the physical landscape, but also the factors that have shaped and will
continue to affect the community’s capacity to respond and to organise; its level
of vulnerability to further disasters; the vulnerability of various groups within the
community; and the capacity of individuals and groups to work together.
Following a disaster, when social networks and communications systems may
have been damaged and politics and media spin crowd the airways, those impacted
by the disaster are likely to be disconnected from their usual support systems and
information sources. In these circumstances, accurate and trustworthy information
is invaluable in enabling people to make informed decisions. Community disaster
recovery activities are often crucial to both the provision of accessible information
and to enabling affected people to share this information.
Often in the rush to assist, local knowledge can be overlooked. For example,
local peer support people in bushfire affected Kinglake Ranges after the 2009 Black
Saturday disaster were the people who ‘knew whether someone in the community
was behaving in a different way’ or would ‘hear on the community grapevine that
a particular family was coming apart’ (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).
Community development activities that recognise and work with local and trusted
networks will reach deeper into the needs of the community and have more sus-
tainable outcomes.
The International Association for Public Participation (2014) note that effective
engagement with communities in a post-disaster scenario will involve five stages:

1. assessing the context

2. understanding the scope of the disaster and the required response
3. knowing who is affected
4. being quite clear on the purpose of the intervention
5. assessing who has influence – that is, who are the local leaders and influencers.

These elements will enable workers to quickly come to terms with the nature of
the disaster, its extent, the reasons the worker is there and the need to reach out
to local influencers to assist in the process of building the community’s resilience.
Local champions are significant people who can be called on to assist and mobilise
the community – and these may not necessarily be elected leaders, but are often
people who emerge as leaders/influencers in the context of the disaster. Workers
should also monitor what the community has already been able to achieve in the
short time since the disaster, what skills and strengths they have drawn on and how
these efforts might be supported. The UNISDR (2017b) notion of Building Back
Better must take account of the community’s capacity to build a new, potentially
more egalitarian, vision for their community.
Community-based practice 107

Sometimes this is at odds with the intent of governments and NGOs in post-
disaster planning. In the context of disasters, the underlying rationale adopted
by governments and NGOs tends to be focused on economic recovery, physical
infrastructure and access to safe water and sustainable livelihoods. Social workers
entering the field may well note that these efforts overshadow the uneven impacts
of disasters and the social issues that may be exacerbated by disasters. For example,
in countries such as Bangladesh, affected by significant weather events including
floods, cyclones, droughts and salination, the increase in forced child marriages
as an economic transaction that results from the destruction of livelihoods is one
example of the human rights of girls being dispensed with in the context of envi-
ronmental disasters (Alston et al. 2015). This example demonstrates how a lack
of attention to the rights of people in the context of disasters can have significant
consequences.

Community development practice

Social work academic, Jim Ife’s (2011) book, Human Rights from Below, provides
a significant community development framework for disaster practice. Ife argues
that human rights activism is best accomplished from local level actions rather than
from top down and (usually) economically focused efforts by people far removed
from the situation. Ife spells out how community development practice and rights-
based actions in the cultural context of a community are the most effective ways to
address damaged communities and that key features of community development
must include inclusiveness and belonging, mutual rights and responsibilities. We
would add it must include attention to ‘place’ and to environmental restoration
and harness the desire of locals to restore and nurture their ‘place’.
Community-based disaster management (CBDM) is a recognised method for
including the community and one that ‘corrects the top-down approach that has
failed to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and has ignored the potential of
local capacity and resources’ (Pyles 2017: 325). Pyles notes that CBDM includes
actions such as

•• Participatory processes that include the most vulnerable

•• Strengthening the capacity of local communities
•• Linking disaster and development issues and
•• Outsiders having a supportive, facilitative and catalytic role.
(Pyles 2017: 325)

This supports the ideas of Ife (2011) who argues that community develop-
ment needs to originate at local levels, that local knowledge and wisdom must be
harnessed and that human rights are constantly reconstructed at community level.
He argues that community development from the bottom-up should focus on
categories of rights – including civil, political, social, cultural, economic, survival,
108 Practice theories

environmental and spiritual rights and that this entails the fostering of participatory
democracy, dialogue, and an understanding of globalisation and localism.
These ideas are echoed in a disaster context by Avgar and Kaufman (2011) who
note that community leadership came from local women in Bangladesh following
floods and in Sri Lanka following the tsunami. This was also evident following the
Australian Black Saturday bushfires where community women led the efforts to
develop community support networks (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2016).
Building on, and supporting the initiatives of local people is good community
work practice – and these local initiatives may surprise.
The small resource base underlying many local support structures are often sig-
nificantly overwhelmed following a disaster and their staff or volunteers may have
been impacted by the disaster. This can result in local networks struggling to meet
their ordinary business let alone the escalation of needs arising from a disaster
(Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2018).
Following a disaster people require assistance with reestablishing their lives and
communities. Disaster recovery community development empasises the need to:

•• provide opportunities for disaster affected people to have their say and enable
people to have power to influence;
•• work ‘with’ people rather than doing things ‘to’ or ‘for’ them;
•• support people to come to terms with their different life circumstances and to
move forward into a new, changed reality, which may provide new adaptive
socioeconomic and disaster preparedness opportunities.
(Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2018)

Thus, there are a number of community development actions required of social

workers including, as we have discussed:

•• helping people to mobilise following a disaster;

•• supporting economic initiatives;
•• addressing environmental revitalisation projects;
•• addressing power imbalances;
•• incorporating vulnerable people;
•• building social capital and community cohesion; and
•• working with local people, groups and organisations to facilitate links to insti-
tutional systems and the political process.

Additional community development actions following a disaster will include:

•• providing information;
•• assisting with the coordination of services;
•• undertaking community assessments; and
•• mobilising community input to disaster management.
Community-based practice 109

Harms (2015) notes that community social workers create strategic alliances,
foster collaborations, and build community capacity and can foster social move-
ments and develop programs. Yet she cautions ‘there is an inherent tension in
exerting control and reestablishing order and enabling people to be autonomous
and self-determining, ensuring survivors have a strong voice’ (Harms 2015: 142).
Despite the very evident need for social workers to be engaged in community
development following disasters, they may be less evident in rebuilding and com-
munity development than they are in trauma counselling and that this can be
problematic for communities that have been devastated by disasters (Pyles 2017).
Community development should be viewed as a critical part of social work practice
in post-disaster sites and funded accordingly.
A worker interviewed after the Black Saturday bushfire explained community
development practice in disaster sites (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014)

it’s all about politics and people and community and religion and gender
and power – and recovery is exactly the same and it’s like working in
these awesome type of community development stuff except that it’s a
different group than you would normally work with in community devel-
opment . . . it has a reason to start and finish. It’s not like you’re assisting
people in poverty or chronic homelessness or child protection or some-
thing that is never going to be fixed, this is a lot more hopeful, and it is a
lot more contained.

Black Saturday bushfire affected research participants described a ‘good commu-

nity worker’ as a person who ‘engages well with the community, is proactive,
always refers back to the people in the community, builds community capacity and
has mental health training’ (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).

Research
An important and often overlooked element of community-based practice follow-
ing disasters is research. Research can occur as soon as a worker enters the disaster
area or be a long-term strategy to map the evolving development of the commu-
nity. In the first instance a community-based rapid appraisal (Alston and Bowles
2018) can be an important strategy for understanding what has and is occurring.
Sources of data can include secondary data, maps, photographs, key informant inter-
views, focus groups, quick questionnaires and field diaries. These rapid appraisals
can provide immediate data in the crisis period following a disaster.
Participatory action research (PAR) is another research method that can be
used in the medium-term phase to assist local communities to develop an action
plan. PAR can include secondary data, observation, key informant interviews,
focus groups and questionnaires. These appraisals can identify individual and
community strategies in the post-disaster situation, and can provide information
110 Practice theories

on services, organisations involved in the post-disaster process, information about

policies and practices and their limitations (Alston and Bowles 2018: 311). These
relatively quick research processes can provide significant insights and support for
lobbying. More long-term research projects are useful for detailing the outcomes
of disasters and for developing critical theoretical insights into practice.

Summary
We have argued the importance of community level actions for social workers
in disaster sites. We have noted how community cohesion and social capital may
increase in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and, conversely, how deep his-
torically rooted divisions can emerge. It is critical that social workers understand
community dynamics when they enter a disaster site and are prepared to work
with local people to understand the nuances of community. Workers should be
mindful of why they are there, and build participatory processes to achieve their
original goals and those of the community. Working at the pace of the community
allows a richer, more comprehensive and locally invested restoration of commu-
nity and place. Community development strategies are significant factors that can
assist local communities to ‘build back better’ harnessing community cohesion and
social capital and incorporating equality and justice.

CASE STUDY – 2010–2011 EARTHQUAKES IN

NEW ZEALAND

Dr Kathryn Hay, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Professor Jane Maidment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Vaughan Milner, Presbyterian Support, Christchurch, New Zealand

What was the disaster?

In 2010 and 2011, two major earthquakes struck the Canterbury region of
New Zealand. These quakes are commonly referred to as ‘the Christchurch
earthquakes’, so named due to the devastation that the earthquakes
incurred on the third largest city of New Zealand. The September 2010
quake was of magnitude 7.1 and struck at 4.35 a.m. when most of the
city’s inhabitants were asleep. Widespread damage was reported, and
power outages disrupted activity across the city. There was no loss of life
and few injuries. The earthquake on 22 February 2011 struck at 12.51 p.m.,
with a magnitude of 6.3. This quake killed more than 180 people, seriously
injured many others, and caused significant devastation of property, par-
ticularly in the centre and eastern areas of Christchurch. The timing of this
Community-based practice 111

earthquake meant that many people were at work, in school, or away from
their homes. The severe impact on the city’s infrastructure, including roads
and telecommunications, meant that thousands of people were unable to
connect with their loved ones, often for several hours after the earthquake.
Since these two major earthquakes the region has endured thousands of
aftershocks including several more above magnitude 5. Seven years on
from this natural disaster, individuals, families and communities continue
to live with the impacts of the earthquakes.

A brief case study

The following case study is based on real-life examples of the situations that
social workers encountered in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The
case study is indicative of some of the roles and tasks undertaken by social
workers at the time of the earthquakes and during the subsequent recovery
phase. It highlights the complexity of the immediate response and ongoing
recovery efforts that social workers have been engaged in and the intergenera-
tional impacts of the disaster. Elements of the case study are discussed further
in the sections below.

At the time of the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes in

Christchurch, Miri and Tom and their two children, Mark (aged 11) and
Tui (aged 7), lived in the east Christchurch suburb of Bexley close to the
Avon River. Miri’s 73-year-old mother, Anahera, lived in nearby New
Brighton. On 22 February Miri and Tom were at work and the children at
school when the earthquake struck. It took them all several anxious hours
to get home with Tom being the last after having taken four hours to get
out of the central city and another three hours from there to get home.
Many roads were closed as they had cracked open and there was consider-
able flooding from burst water mains, liquefaction (when the soil becomes
like liquid) and the subsided riverbank. Their house was badly damaged
and so the following morning they made their way to the Emergency
Welfare Centre that was established at Windsor School in the suburb of
Burwood. They spent two nights there. One of the social workers at the
centre helped the family locate temporary accommodation and financial
support to cover rent and essential items. The social worker also helped
access supplies of food, water, clothing, a gas cooker and light. She also
organised for a portable toilet for Anahera who was determined to stay in
her own home.
Twelve months later Miri and Tom were experiencing severe stress.
Miri’s part time job at a bakery had ended immediately after the earth-
quake due to irreparable damage to the property. She had been unable

(continued)
112 Practice theories

(continued)

to find other work that fitted within school hours. Miri and Tom were at
loggerheads with CERA (the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority)
over the Red Zone offer regarding their house and had shifted temporary
rentals three times. With rental properties being in very short supply,
rents were expensive. Tui continued to be highly anxious and worried
about further quakes and she was still sleeping fitfully in her parents’
bedroom at night.
The social worker in schools (SWIS) was providing support and had
included Tui in a friends group programme at the school that aimed to
help children cope with anxiety. The SWIS also referred Miri and Tom to
the earthquake support coordination service (ESCS) so they could get some
help in resolving their housing issues.
Anahera was also struggling with getting her house repaired and with
loneliness. While the local marae (Māori community centre) were offering
a lot of practical support to people in the area, they were largely focused
on families with young children. Anahera’s long-time neighbour had left
the area due to housing damage, and her two closest friends had suffered
significant health issues and had subsequently moved into residential care
facilities out of Christchurch. An earthquake support co-ordination service
worker referred Anahera to a social worker who arranged for her to go
to an Enliven (Presbyterian Support service for older people) day activ-
ity programme. The social worker also introduced Anahera to a walking
and housie [game] group that had started in the area when the social
worker had been on secondment from Presbyterian Support to the Aranui
Community Trust (ACTIS). This work was funded by the Christchurch
Earthquake Appeal Trust.
In October 2013 Miri and Tom purchased a home in a new housing
estate in Rolleston (a town to the south of Christchurch) having finally set-
tled their claim with CERA. Both Mark and Tui were unsettled by the move
with school changes and loss of contact with friends. They also missed the
weekly after school time they had with their tūpuna wahine (Grandma)
who was now an hour’s journey away.
Miri and Tom’s relationship had become volatile and in early 2014 Miri
recontacted Tui’s former SWIS worker. She was worried about how the
arguments between herself and Tom were impacting the children, Tui
in particular. The SWIS cross-referred Miri to a colleague from her own
agency who worked in Rolleston three days a week. This social worker did
a mix of school-based and home-visiting work. Her work in the agency was
funded by grants from the Red Cross and the Tindall foundation (a phil-
anthropic trust) and enabled social workers and psychologists employed
by Presbyterian Support to provide assistance to families experiencing the
ongoing effects from the quakes.
Community-based practice 113

The social worker developed a multi-faceted plan with the whole fam-
ily. The plan included agreement about whole-of-family activities including
regular visits to Anahera; some individual work on anger management with
Tom; and an introduction for Miri to a local craft group. After some months,
Tom and Miri participated in an Incredible Years Parenting programme run
by the social worker in the local school hall.

Note
www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ci-earthquakesupport-2012.pdf

How were people affected and who were particularly

vulnerable?
The effects of the earthquakes in Christchurch have been widespread, and
continuous. In the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes many people
were dislocated from their families and other loved ones and encountered
destroyed homes, workplaces, historic buildings and other infrastructure. Loss
of income was significant with many businesses and other workplaces needing
to immediately close due to the physical damage that occurred. Emergency
welfare centres were established so that affected people had a safe place to
gather, receive food, shelter and other necessities, and access information.
Relative centres set up in hospitals supported people who had been injured,
and assisted with the identification and linking people who had been injured
or deceased (Maher and Maidment 2013). There was also a pattern of peo-
ple staying with extended family or friends immediately after the quakes, but
those situations led to other stressors and were generally short term.
The effects of the earthquakes have continued as the city and the wider
region moved into a recovery phase. These effects remain for many people,
especially those who are still waiting for their housing claims to be settled with
the government crown entity, EQC (the Earthquake Commission). The disloca-
tion from known networks caused ongoing grief and anxiety. Loss of income
due to job losses or changes has led to subsequent financial pressure, causing
discord within families. There is stress from the continuing aftershocks (in the
1000s) as well as the stress of unresolved issues in respect of damage to houses
and the temporary nature of accommodation. Many tenants have had to relo-
cate from repaired short-term rentals, thus creating more family disruption.
Many schools closed for several weeks following the February earth-
quake and some never reopened. Some schools were amalgamated or had
to accommodate other school populations, leading to changes in school
hours as students were catered for in either morning or afternoons sessions.
Amalgamation of schools was part of the government agenda for rationalising

(continued)
114 Practice theories

(continued)

the number and size of schools within the Canterbury region and the earth-
quake hastened this process. These changes created further stress and anxiety
for many children and families. A wide range of people were vulnerable in
the aftermath of the earthquakes, particularly those who had pre-existing
issues with mental health, poverty or relationship difficulties. The East side of
Christchurch, which was worst affected by the earthquake, included inner city
boarding house accommodation that was immediately red zoned (deemed
not suitable for habitation). There was limited available and affordable accom-
modation for the tenants of the boarding houses to use. Older people who lost
support networks were also vulnerable, especially those who had lived in the
same street or suburb for decades.

What did social workers do?

Social workers were, and continue to be, engaged in a multitude of ways fol-
lowing the earthquakes. In the immediate response phase some assisted at
emergency welfare centres, offering food, clothing, shelter and a listening ear.
These centres were only open for two to three weeks after the earthquakes
and focused on addressing immediate basic concerns for people. In hospitals,
social workers were engaged in trauma response work, working in the rela-
tives’ centre, fielding calls, managing media and calming patients and visitors
(Maher and Maidment 2013). Other social workers were involved in provid-
ing counselling and debriefing to people who had lost family members and
sought support from social services. At times social workers also provided these
services to emergency workers. Following up with their own clients was also
important and often led to increased engagement for some time. Social work-
ers also assisted on emergency 0800 phone lines, although this was frequently
in a voluntary capacity. Referrals to appropriate agencies was a common task.
Colleagues who had travelled from other parts of New Zealand to engage in
specific work, for example, mental health assessment and therapy, sometimes
supported the local social workers.
Social workers have been particularly active in the recovery phase of
the disaster. To support their clients, both existing and new, they have
needed to work with earthquake coordination services as well as established
social service providers. In addition, they have developed new relationships
with informal and formal organisations that spontaneously and organically
formed after the quakes including neighbourhood volunteer groups, church
groups and the student volunteer army. Focusing on meeting the needs
of clients and capacity building in communities, social workers suddenly
found themselves talking to people such as quantity surveyors and organi-
sations such as insurance companies. During the recovery phase, one to
four years after the quakes, there was an emphasis on support for families
Community-based practice 115

and children who were experiencing stress, depression, anxiety, grief and
addressing anger and violence. New initiatives, including increased social
work in schools, emerged. Social workers involved with families helped to
develop new networks for people as they relocated to new subdivisions and
neighbourhoods.
Now, seven years after the first major quake, the region is in the longer-
term recovery phase. The focus for social workers on psycho-social support
continues although there are some challenges as to what work may be deemed
to be ‘earthquake-related’.

What social work skills and knowledge were used

Social workers are trained in a myriad of transferable skills that emerge from
diverse theoretical frameworks. These informed the work of practitioners
following the earthquakes. Although not an exhaustive list these included:
ecological systems theory; theories related to post traumatic stress; cog-
nitive behavioural therapy (used in the Friends group above); and crisis
intervention. Although the impact of the earthquakes was devastating
for many, some social workers also focused on a model of post-traumatic
growth, wherein positive change can be an outcome of traumatic events
(Maidment et al. 2015). As is expected in social work practice, the type of
work the social worker was engaged in was guided by different theories
and models.
Practitioners have employed a wide range of skills both in the immedi-
ate response and recovery phases of the disaster. These skills are often very
practical, creative and task focused and include: problem solving; liaison and
networking; brokerage; coordination; facilitation; counselling; attending;
listening; reflective questioning; addressing loss and grief; community devel-
opment and group work. Often centred on accessing services and advocating
for resources, these skills ideally assist social workers to support people to
begin to take more responsibility for themselves. Social workers are comfort-
able with working in a range of contexts and within different systems. Their
ability to be flexible and adaptable was essential following the quakes with
many social service buildings being uninhabitable. After the February earth-
quake, social workers frequently worked from cars, cafes, homes, garages or
shared office spaces
The principles of social justice and empowerment underpin social work
practice, and many social workers supported people who had been disem-
powered, demonstrating empathy, compassion, and a commitment to a
removal of barriers. Importantly, skills in self-care and maintaining boundaries
were essential so that social workers could take responsibility for monitoring
themselves and taking time away from work if necessary.
(continued)
116 Practice theories

(continued)

What worked and did not work?

Reflecting on social worker practice following the earthquakes we can identify
several positive elements: for agencies, social workers, clients and the community.

•• Base-line services were quickly re-established, which enabled support to

continue to be offered to many existing clients.
•• The pre-existing formal collaborative agency network called Right Services
Right Time (RSRT), enabled the rapid establishment of a co-ordinated
response between government and non-government organisation so
as to address psychosocial needs. The multi-agency Earthquake Support
Coordination Service was more easily established out of this existing
framework.
•• The government designated the Ministry for Social Development as the
co-ordinating agency for psycho-social response and this further sup-
ported the pre-existing agency collaboration.
•• Social service organisations often became more flexible and widened their
service delivery, for example, moving from solely case management to
including community development. This assisted communities to mobi-
lise their own resources.
•• Some social service organisations, especially those that were nationwide,
brought in skilled staff from other parts of the country to assist local staff
to have regular time out to attend to their own situations (for exam-
ple, housing, insurance problems, stress and relocating children to new
schools).
•• Many organisations gave workers ‘earthquake leave’ to use for practical
and psychological reasons.
•• The quakes galvanised people into a ‘can do’ attitude and social workers
were prepared to go ‘above and beyond’. Many engaged in voluntary
work as well as their own paid work to help people affected.
•• Social workers were more prepared to develop new skill bases, for exam-
ple, group facilitation, outside their usual tasks.

Understandably, some aspects of government, agency and individual social

worker response following the earthquakes may be considered less satisfactory.

•• Because of the pressure on everyone living in the region and experienc-

ing not only the large earthquakes but multitudes of aftershocks over a
prolonged period of time, there were sometimes breakdowns in commu-
nication between agencies and between workers.
•• Over time, the increased workload on agencies, and in particular those
agencies associated with mental health, has resulted in a huge increase of
pressure on practitioners.
Community-based practice 117

•• Some social workers were significantly affected by the earthquakes and

needed to leave the city or region. A small number of social workers were
unable to manage the stress of the work but did not recognise or address
this appropriately.
•• The requirement by government and some philanthropic trusts for fund-
ing to be targeted to earthquake needs was often, at the operational level,
an artificial distinction. Psychosocial need is now pervasive, and many
organisations are facing funding crises as earthquake-related funding
diminishes while demand continues. Waiting lists for counselling or other
therapeutic support has risen dramatically.
•• Red zoning of the whole of central Christchurch immediately following
the 2011 earthquake was a crude instrument that displaced many agen-
cies who then had to find alternative accommodation. For small agencies,
such as those in central city Community House, this meant operating from
garages and private homes for two to four years before a new Community
House was established.

‘Lessons learned’ for social work practice

Reflexive practice is a cornerstone of social work practice that allows us to con-
sider the learnings from previous situations as well as offering an opportunity
to be future focused.

•• Flexibility, cooperation and collaboration with others is essential in every

day practice and enables a strong foundation for cross-agency practice
during and after a disaster.
•• Good supervision and peer support systems are essential to maintain well-
being and effective social work practice.
•• There is utility in being comfortable with being mobile and knowledge-
able about community resources rather than relying on an office base
location.
•• Social workers can recognise and encourage the everyday support and
help that ordinary people can provide to one another. The social worker’s
role should be to facilitate this process and offer practical support so com-
munities can mobilise in a sustainable way.
•• While much of the post-disaster practice may be seen to be ‘bread and but-
ter’ social work, practitioners also need to have the skills, knowledge and
courage to work with a wider demographic following an emergency event.
•• Relocations of whole neighbourhoods creates a need for the redevelop-
ment of social infrastructure in new subdivisions or redeveloped areas.
Social workers can identify the gaps in social support and encourage a
community development focus within these locations.

(continued)
118 Practice theories

(continued)

•• Social workers require a heightened awareness of their own needs and

resources following a disaster, so they can recognise and address their
exhaustion, emotional responses, strengths and limitations. Looking after
themselves and understanding the boundaries of their role enables them
to continue to work effectively with others.
•• Initial funding was generous from government and philanthropic organi-
sations to aid the recovery. However, longer-term resourcing for a
sustainable response is needed for at least a decade after a disaster of the
magnitude experienced in Christchurch.

References
Maher, P. and J. Maidment (2013). Social work disaster emergency response within a
hospital setting. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(2), 69–76.
Maidment, J., R. Tudor, A. Campbell and K. Whittaker (2015). Use of domestic craft for
meaning-making post-disaster. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online,
10(2), 144–152. doi:10.1080/1177083X.2015.1047457

Questions
What types of community development actions do social workers adopt in
disaster practice?
What were the consequences for people following the Christchurch earth-
quakes?
What role did social workers play and continue to play in Christchurch?
Discuss the various skills used by social workers in the various stages of disasters.
How were these illustrated in the Christchurch disaster?
How do the elements of disaster practice outlined in this book add to our
understanding of disaster practice in the Christchurch example?
7
TRAUMA, GRIEF AND LOSS
Meso- and micro-levels of disaster practice

This chapter builds an understanding of the challenges of social work practice

with individuals, families and groups in post-disaster sites – the meso- and micro-
areas of practice. Because these levels of practice bring us face-to-face with
people’s experiences of trauma, we frame these levels of practice with a discus-
sion of trauma and grief and loss. Social workers who move into post-disaster
sites, often with very little notice, are ill-prepared for the scale of disasters and
may be unfamiliar with the extent of trauma, grief and losses experienced by
individuals following a disaster. Further, the overwhelming intensity of major
trauma may be new for people and communities in the disaster site who have
never experienced the significant impacts of a sudden, unexpected, intense and
often life-threatening event. For others, the disaster may resurrect old trau-
mas, including the experience of colonisation and the taking of land. This may
reawaken for First Nations people the significant trauma of loss. Older people
may also relive the trauma of wartime experiences or of previous dislocations
such as forced or challenging migrations. These memories intensify the trauma
of the disaster experience.
Understanding the language of trauma, grief and loss is a significant element
of effective practice at all levels of practice in disaster sites. Harms and Boddy (in
press) note that social workers stress there is a critical need for psychosocial care
with people following disasters as well as community work to build social capital
and a bottom-up approach to resource distribution. This chapter provides an anal-
ysis of these factors that underpin social work practice in damaged landscapes with
people who are experiencing intense emotional responses. We discuss trauma, grief
and loss, the impacts of these powerful emotions on people’s capacity to move
beyond the devastation of disaster, and modes of practice designed to assist people
and communities to do so.
120 Practice theories

Trauma
Trauma is a complex outcome of an unexpected event or of complex experiences.
Harms (2015: 4) defines trauma as both an experience and a response as it results from

single events [or] chronic and complex post-traumatic stress experiences. In

addition to referring to a particular triggering event, [trauma] can refer to the
impact and aftermath experiences . . . [thus confusing] trauma as experience
and trauma as response.

Harms, one of the critical social work writers in this field, notes that the extent of
trauma as experience and trauma as response is linked to pre-existing social and
economic vulnerabilities as well as the individual’s experiences during the disaster
event. Pre-existing vulnerabilities will inevitably shape the way people experience
disasters and their capacity to respond in the post-disaster period. For example, an
older person may have trouble escaping danger during the disaster significantly
exacerbating the trauma of the event and potentially awakening memories of old
trauma experiences. They may not have the resources to adapt effectively and this
may exacerbate these elements of trauma as experience and trauma as response.
Thus a person’s pre-existing vulnerabilities, their own individualised experiences
during the event, as well as the impacts on their family, neighbours, friends and
community frame the experience of the trauma event. It is further shaped in the
post-disaster period by the impacts on homes and livelihoods, on the damage to
the physical landscape and infrastructure of familiar places, on the erosion of social
capital, on the effectiveness of post-disaster resource distribution and on the adap-
tive capacity of the individual and community. Disaster trauma is complex and
multi-faceted.
Exposure to traumatic events such as disasters can lead to trauma reactions such
as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Benson et al. 2016; Chae et al. 2005) as
well as heightened anxiety and depression. Therefore, the need for mental health
support services following disasters is evident. Those who might be at greater risk
include people who have previously experienced trauma, those suffering from a
mental illness, those who thought they were going to die, those who have experi-
enced the traumatic loss of a loved one and those with serious loss of property and
livelihoods (Australian Psychological Society and Australian Red Cross 2010: 9).

Grief and loss

In a further work, Harms et al. (2015) note that grief and loss are also dominant expe-
riences following disasters, but are not given as much attention as trauma and PTSD.
However, with disasters come profound losses, including both tangible elements
(loss of homes, livelihoods, infrastructure and landscape amenity) and intangible
elements (the loss of life, health, culture, identity, place, neighbourhood, health,
self-determination, influence, opportunities, safety, sense of belonging, self-esteem,
Trauma, grief and loss 121

social cohesion and dignity (Tschakert et al. 2017)), all of which are so critical to
one’s sense of place in the world (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2018). As we
have previously argued

it is critical for social workers to understand the profound sense of loss that
people may feel following disasters and often their inability to articulate their
feelings of loss and grief relating to both tangible and intangible (or non-
economic) losses. Yet it is these factors that shape people’s capacity to cope
and ultimately to adapt, or to maladapt; to experience post-traumatic stress or
post-traumatic growth; and to reinforce or transform inequalities within their
communities. Further, this experience of loss is profoundly affected by the level
of vulnerability of individuals and how this affects people’s capacity to adapt.
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2018: 406)

It is understandable, then, that grief following disasters for many is prolonged and
complex. Harms et al. (2015) note that the World Health Organisation’s definition
of prolonged grief disorder (WHO 2010) can be applied to people’s experiences
following disasters. Grief following disasters can be profound and extend for weeks,
months and years as people struggle to come to terms not only with the loss of
someone close but also with the loss of their previous notion of their place and
sense of certainty. Hazeleger (2013a) in her action research with women affected
by bushfires in the Alpine Shire of Victoria in 2003, 2006 and 2009, noted that
when asked to think about ‘who else has experienced and survived loss on this
scale? who can we learn from about resilience?’ female participants suggested it
would be good to reach out to refugee women to understand better how to deal
with the profound grief that accompanies a loss of one’s place.
Experiences of disasters also pose the likelihood of re-grief – or the stirring
up of old memories of previous traumas. Drolet (this volume) refers to re-grief
in her case study on the Canadian floods. Re-grief is a recognised phenomenon
describing how disasters may cause people to remember previous losses and unre-
solved experiences that they may have thought were behind them. For Indigenous
people, disasters affecting the land and significant cultural sites add to complex
experiences of grief and compound previous experiences of loss.

Anger
Anger is another critical emotion experienced by survivors of disasters and is a
significant indicator of whether people will go on to develop PTSD (Brown
2016; Jayasinghe et al. 2008). Anger is often directed at emergency response teams
and government institutions and may be related to inadequate resource distribu-
tion and/or delayed financial and other support. Anger can also be an emotion
experienced by response workers who may be frustrated by delays in support and
resources. Workers who demonstrate anger are also more likely to experience
PTSD (Jayasinghe et al. 2008).
122 Practice theories

Loss of place
Drawing on our socio-ecological lens, we note that the collective and individual
trauma experienced by people in the wake of disasters extends to their reaction to
the loss of ‘place’ and the undermining of the safety ‘home’ provides. When dis-
aster strikes, environmental damage may be widespread and, in fact, familiar areas
may continue to be dangerous.
Solastagia is a term coined by Albrecht et al. (2007) to address the distress and
mental health impacts caused by changes in one’s environment. Adopted particu-
larly to describe the slow impacts of climate change, it has been used to describe
diverse experiences of loss such as the loss of land, rising sea levels and the impacts
of melting sea ice. This has led to the erosion of traditional activities such as hunt-
ing experienced by the Inuit in Canada (Cunsolo and Ellis 2018); and of farming
life and livelihoods in drought stricken areas (Ellis and Albrecht 2017). Cunsolo
and Ellis (2018: 276) refer to ‘ecological grief’ as ‘the grief felt in relation to experi-
enced or anticipated ecological losses, including the loss of species, ecosystems and
meaningful landscapes due to acute or chronic environmental change’. Solastagia is
affecting people across the world as the steady destruction of lands that are so inte-
gral to cultural identity and sense of self continues unabated. Research from across
the world suggests that solastagia, or ecological grief, causes significant mental health
issues including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol
problems, suicides and loss of cultural identity amongst those who are witnessing
the loss of their traditional way of life (Alston 2012a; Cunsolo and Ellis 2018).

Renewal, resilience and post-traumatic growth

Harms (2015) notes that ‘recovery’ from trauma can be defined as the absence of
post-traumatic stress symptoms and/or a return to functioning and Harms et al.
(2015) view recovery as a process of adjusting or adapting to the destabilising event
over an extended period of time. Recovery can be ‘an outcome, a process, a base-
line we return to or an improved state of living after trauma’ (Harms 2015: 10).
Following research conducted in Victoria after the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2016), and guided by our participants we prefer
the term ‘renewal’ to describe this gradual improved state of living and the measure
of some degree of stability to be the development of a ‘new normal’. Recovery
implies that things have gone back to where they were, when in fact, as our
respondents noted, this can never happen. For them, the measure of some degree
of adaptation was the capacity to operate capably in their new social, economic
and physical environment. This has implications for social workers who can assist
people and communities to re-vision their future, to adapt to a new reality and to
build resilience.
As we noted in Chapter 2, resilience is the capacity of people and communities to
adapt and transform following an event that causes social, political and environmental change.
In keeping with the notion of a ‘new normal’, Harms (2015) notes that resilience
Trauma, grief and loss 123

can be viewed as the capacity to ‘bounce forward’ rather than ‘bouncing back’.
This process implies the building of the capacity to positively adapt to the new
reality of community and place in the face of trauma. Achieving resilience is very
much dependent on feeling safe and on having access to the resources and knowl-
edge that can assist people to adapt in a positive way.
‘Post-traumatic growth’ differs from resilience in that it implies not only that
people can find the capacity to adapt, but can experience growth in the process
(Harms 2015). Calhoun and Tedeschi (1999: 11) define post-traumatic growth as
‘positive change that the individual experiences as a result of the struggle with a
traumatic event’. Drawing on Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995), Harms (2015: 13)
notes that those experiencing post-traumatic growth report ‘appreciation of life,
an enhanced self-concept, enhanced relationships with others, a sense of new pos-
sibilities and spiritual change’. In a later work, Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) note
that the sharing of a traumatic event can provide a shared strength to a community.
Harms (2015) also notes that ‘transilience’ is a term that could be used to describe
the experience of trauma and positive growth following a sudden, very dramatic
change of circumstances – this she describes as the development of resilience through
transformative experiences.

Theories for practice

In Chapter 3 we outlined theoretical developments in our social work discipline
concerning the indivisible links between people and their physical environment.
We reiterated the profession’s developing awareness of the need for environmental
justice and societal transformation to build a more cohesive and indivisible link
between people and the landscapes that frame their lives. Drawing from these
we outlined the elements of a post-disaster theory. These elements provide a
framework for our understanding of environmentally aware practice. However,
workers should understand the practice theories that guide the way we work in
the immediate post-disaster space but also the medium-term and long-term phases
of a post-disaster crisis.
When a disaster occurs, and emergency responses are enacted, social work-
ers respond to the needs of disaster survivors and are critically focused on trauma
as individualised experience as one would in therapeutic work in any other cir-
cumstance. In a disaster situation, both during and immediately after the event,
people are hyper-vigilant, fearing the impending scale of the disaster and that it will
continue. Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the immediate needs of the
individual are for food, water, rest, shelter, warmth and safety.
The scale of destruction may make it difficult for people to feel safe even if
they’ve planned and prepared for the event. Thus, ensuring people feel safe –
whether it be in a shelter or their homes – is critical to helping people to move
forward and beyond the crisis to the new realities shaping their lives.
In a development of the hierarchy of needs in the context of disaster survivors,
Jordan (2015) notes six areas that must be addressed to support those affected, with
124 Practice theories

earlier, or higher order, needs requiring attention before the later areas can be
attempted. These are:

1. food, water, and shelter

2. safety
3. family and friends’ support
4. stress reaction
5. grief and loss
6. assimilation and accommodation.

Similarly, Miller (2012: 26) notes essential elements of the immediate response
to mass trauma include:

• promoting a sense of safety;

• encouraging a sense of calm;
• inspiring a sense of self and collective efficacy;
• promoting connectedness;
• instilling a sense of hope;
• allowing for grieving and mourning;
• establishing a sense of place; and
• re-establishing a link to the past.

Meso-level practice

Group work
Group work has been found to be a more long-term and critical tool for survi-
vors of disasters. It builds social capital and connectedness by giving people the
chance to discuss their experiences, to validate them, to hear how others coped,
and to exchange useful information. Lang’s (2016) theory of nondeliberative
practice is framed around drawing on people’s strengths, resilience and mutual
supports to rebuild community (Abbas and Sulman 2016). Non-deliberative prac-
tice introduces verbal and non-verbal activities including games, craft and music
creating ‘a pattern of playing out a process followed by feedback from the experi-
ence . . . problem-solving [that] takes place in an experiential dimension, engaging
parts of the person not activated in deliberative problem-solving’ (Lang 2016: 109).
Abbas and Shulman (2016) used this model to good effect with children in a
refugee shelter and Tudor et al. (2015) with women following the Christchurch
earthquake in New Zealand.
Tudor et al. (2015) noted the importance of women’s craft groups following
the Christchurch earthquake. Through these activities, they argue, women are able
to make sense of their experiences, or simply step outside them for a short period,
through shared crafting activity. Participants in their study noted the significant
benefits gained from crafting in terms of individual and community healing, and
Trauma, grief and loss 125

indeed, improved cognitive capacity, social connections and distraction from the
reality of their experiences (Tudor et al. 2015). These findings reflect how craft has
assisted women to build community in other disaster areas including conflict zones.
The Northern Ireland Women’s Peace Quilt project is one such example where
women from both Protestant and Catholic backgrounds came together at the
height of the Irish ‘Troubles’ to work together on a peace quilt (Carr 2014). The
‘Troubles’ as it became known saw intense lethal sectarian violence over a num-
ber of years from 1970 and beyond. Women witnessed the deaths of family and
friends and the destruction of their communities. The Northern Ireland women’s
group, called Women Together, evolved into an activist group where women
from both Protestant and Catholic backgrounds came together in the interests of
finding peace and a solution to the ‘troubles’. The Peace Quilt is a remarkable
outcome of their efforts.
In a similar fashion, although in less violent circumstances, a group of women in
the Black Saturday bushfire areas of Victoria developed their own support group.
They evolved from a small group coming together in the wake of the fires to sup-
port each other to an activist group that became known as the ‘Firefoxes’, whose
aim was to nurture and assist women through shared activities. The Firefoxes have
received many awards including Community Group of the Year (2013), national
winner of the Resilient Australia award, and the Pride of Australia medal.
While craft groups and activities tend to be dominated by women, there are
other group activities that have assisted men through a similar process of mak-
ing sense of trauma through joint creative activities. Research undertaken after
the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2016)
included a focus group with men in a ‘Men’s Shed’. The Men’s Shed movement,
developed in Australia in the 1980s, provides space where men can come together
and work on creative projects such as restoring furniture or making children’s play
items. Because men have been enculturated to be stoic and to keep their feelings
to themselves, the Men’s Sheds movement is designed to facilitate the emotional
wellbeing of men. Our focus group with men in a Men’s Shed in a community
that had been devastated by fire gave us a unique insight into the value of the facil-
ity. Men could come in and work on a project, talk to others or simply be silent in
company. Our participants were quick to point out to us the huge benefit gained
from having somewhere to go where they could be active or simply sit and reflect
on the disaster in a safe environment.
Facilitating group activities in post-disaster sites, where the focus is on an activ-
ity rather than the disaster event or its aftermath is a critical community-building
activity. In the aftermath of disaster, after the immediate crisis point has passed,
social workers can assist to build community healing through the organisation
of groups designed around an activity. This strengths-based practice builds on
the resilience and adaptive capacity of participants and can empower vulnerable
groups. Although economic benefit is not an aim of the shared activities, Larson
et al. (2015) note that groups can provide both emotional support and economic
opportunity when the goods they produce can be sold.
126 Practice theories

Special one-off activities are also important. One social worker who worked
with communities affected by Black Saturday fires noted:

The first thing I ran was just in response to the [the fact that] we were seeing
all these people, and all these people with little kids, and for all these people
with little kids it was hot, Christmas was coming, they had no decorations,
they were turning up with screaming toddlers because they’re locked in a
caravan all day because the site is still too unsafe for them to run around on
their property. So we did a couple of gingerbread house-making days, and it
was great. People just came to the office and we made gingerbread houses.
It was quite bizarre because usually you couldn’t get the focus from two-
and three-year-olds just to sit, but they were fine and they loved it, but that
group of parents became quite instrumental to me in the different activities
that were rolled out to help the community.

The importance of rituals

Rituals and ceremonies are also an important factor in the healing process for
people who have suffered significant losses in a disaster (Benson et al. 2016).
These can assist with ‘meaning-making’ as people cope with grief and come
to terms with their trauma. Rituals such as religious ceremonies or events to
mark the passing of time since the event can assist with healing. Ibrion et al.
(2003) note that rituals after disasters assist communities to make sense of their
new reality – and this is particularly relevant when people were killed in the
disaster. They argue that rituals and ceremonies assist to restore a sense of com-
munity and that funerary rituals allow a public expression of grief, assisting the
grieving process.
A good example of a ceremony of remembrance occurred ten years after
the Bali bombing incident that resulted in the deaths of 202 people includ-
ing 88 Australians. Desley Hargreaves was one of the social workers involved
in organising the ritual ceremony to honour those who had died. The former
Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, and the Indonesian Foreign Minister,
Marty Natalegawa, laid flowers in honour of the dead and spoke of their shared
grief. Survivors of the bombing were supported to attend the ceremony held at
the site, while at the same time back in Australia 88 peace doves were released
in the location where a large number of the victims had lived (Wall Street
Journal 2012).

Micro-level practice
Social workers undertake a range of tasks at the micro-level of practice in post-
disaster sites. According to Cooper et al. (2018), these include counselling,
assisting people with social assistance, crisis intervention, solution-based therapeutic
Trauma, grief and loss 127

approaches, advocacy, mediation, problem-solving, and cross sector collaboration.

The interventions we outline here assume a strengths based approach, and are
focused on empowerment and self-help.
In our research undertaken following the Black Saturday bushfires, people
noted that the best caseworkers are those who:

are motivated to connect with other case managers . . ., are able to coor-
dinate . . ., have an understanding of the length and breadth of services
available . . . have an ability to understand the effects of trauma and how this
affects people’s ability to make decisions and in some way be able to suggest
things that will help people to make decisions . . . with a common-sense
approach . . . [and are prepared to] set foot inside the danger zone.
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014)

Below we outline the types of strategies that will assist workers who are prepared
to step ‘inside the danger zone’.

Psychological first aid

In the immediate period following a disaster, two interventions methods have
been widely used – debriefing and psychological first aid (PFA) (Harms 2015).
Debriefing involves getting people to recount their experience and their emotional
reactions, normalising the events as much as possible and assisting to build a plan
for the future. However, debriefing is now considered to have negative impacts
and is widely criticised (see, for example, Bisson and Lewis 2009).
PFA has become a significant tool to assist people in the immediacy of a dis-
aster and has been adapted for first responders in disaster areas but also for use in
disaster preparedness and long-term renewal activities (see, for example, Australian
Psychological Society and Australian Red Cross 2010). PFA focuses on practical
needs and is most effective when delivered in the immediate hours after a disaster.
The model adopted in Australia rests on core principles of promoting safety, calm,
connectedness, efficacy, hope and help, and each of these principles has a subset
of actions that workers can use to assist people (Australian Psychological Society
and Australian Red Cross 2010: 12–13). In Australia the Red Cross is contracted
to provide PFA in the aftermath of disasters. Similar models of PFA can be found
across the world, adopted and adapted for work in post-disaster sites (see, for exam-
ple, the national Child Traumatic Stress Network and National Centre for PTSD
2016 quoted in Harms 2015: 80–81).

Crisis intervention
Crisis intervention is critical to post-disaster practice and is a familiar form of
intervention by social workers. It involves reacting quickly to a threatening
128 Practice theories

situation that requires immediate intervention. Crisis intervention is very much

focused on current circumstances and on the immediate issues facing an indi-
vidual, family, group or community. As Payne (2014) notes, crisis intervention
assumes that people live in a ‘steady state’ that can be disrupted by a crisis. The
aim of the intervention then is to restore as much as possible this steady state.
Payne (2005: 98) describes crises as

turning points in people’s lives when precipitating hazardous events lead to

rising distress, upsetting the steady state in which previous coping mecha-
nisms dealt with problems. This process leads to a state of active crisis.

Cacciatore et al. (2011: 81–82) further describe crisis situations as critical incidents in
which the intensity of suffering is so severe that the person experiences helplessness
and an inability to cope. They describe the impacts of such crises as being an inten-
sity of fear amongst those affected, an ongoing sense of threat, and an inability to
respond effectively, leading to an ‘ongoing state of disequilibrium’. Social workers
using crisis intervention focus very much on assisting people to adjust to crisis in
the immediacy of the destabilising event. Because a crisis is usually followed by
a period of acute disequilibrium, this cannot be addressed by the person’s usual
coping strategies. In order to avoid people being stuck in a situation where the
strategies they’ve adopted through their lives no longer work, crisis intervention
strategies help to build strengths-based coping and resilience ‘before maladaptive
reactions become embedded in behaviour’ (Abbas and Sulman 2016: 119).

Stages in crisis intervention

In discussing crisis intervention in disasters, Roberts (2005) notes that people expe-
riencing a crisis that destabilises them will at first attempt to use their usual coping
mechanisms. When these fail, the person might experience significant vulnerability
and remain in a state of crisis. Social work interventions undertaken during the
state of active crisis can lead to a higher level of functioning (Roberts 2005; Payne
2005). Roberts (2005) is recognised as a leading authority for his work on crisis
intervention in disasters (Payne 2005). He notes that there are seven stages in crisis
intervention. These include:

1. Assessing lethality. That is, asking the following questions and respond-
ing appropriately. Is someone contemplating suicide? Do they need medical
attention? If they have been a victim of violence, is their attacker nearby? Are
there violent people nearby? Is a child in danger? Do people require transport
to safety?
2. Establishing rapport and engaging the person. Payne (2005) notes that
this stage can be achieved by accepting the person and validating their response
to the crisis.
Trauma, grief and loss 129

3. Identifying major problems. That is, is there an ongoing threat? Has the
person experienced loss? And are people’s rights being violated?
4. Dealing with feelings. This stage involves allowing the person to express
and discuss their feelings.
5. Exploring alternative coping methods and partial solutions. This
might involve adopting solution-based and strengths-based approaches.
6. Developing an action plan. This stage includes assessing the disaster and
working out how to deal with the current and future scenarios.
7. Developing a termination plan and follow-up protocol. In this phase
people are assisted to leave the social work relationship with a plan for going
forward and permission to come back if necessary.

We would add an overarching ‘stage’ that involves bearing witness to, and vali-
dating, people’s stories as a critical factor in assisting people to make sense of their
experiences. Harms (2015: 166) also notes the ‘importance of forming a trauma nar-
rative and of re-establishing a sense of safety and of considering context’. In a crisis,
people will continually want to tell their story in an attempt to make sense of it for
themselves. This is an important factor in assisting people to move beyond the crisis.
Critically, it is important to note that in the acute period following a disaster,
people may suffer extreme anxiety, helplessness, confusion and anger. Roberts
(2005: 7) suggests that

The person in crisis may appear to be incoherent, disorganized, agitated, and

volatile or calm, subdued, withdrawn and apathetic.

It is not unusual for people in this acute stage to have difficulty formulating thoughts
or making decisions. In our experience this can continue well beyond the immedi-
ate disaster period. Following the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria in 2009, for
many months after the event, people spoke of having ‘bushfire brain’ – a condition
they described as having no ability to forward plan. Women spoke of not being
able to plan meals, let alone shopping trips or anything that involved conscious and
thoughtful planning.
During the crisis phase social workers might also:

• set up services;
• assist with the establishment of shelters that are warm and safe and where peo-
ple can rest without fear;
• organise a community centre and regular meals provision;
• establish information points; and
• assist people to find their family members and many other tasks.

Payne (2005) cautions us not to simply adopt practical solutions to immediate

problems but also to focus on social change including raising awareness of vulnerable
130 Practice theories

groups, addressing issues such as increased violence – particularly as it is experienced

by women and girls in post-disaster situations – and addressing inequalities.
However, crisis intervention as a practice method on its own has been criticised
as it does not focus on social change, and certainly does not address environmental
justice elements of a disaster. It is mainly a ‘technical response to an immediate
problem’ (Payne 2005: 101) and involves a practical focus on the immediate needs
of people affected.

Psychosocial assessments
While strategies such as PFA are critical for people who are have just experienced a
life-shattering disaster, in the days and weeks following the disaster there are other
tools available to assist people to feel safe and secure. In a comprehensive systematic
review of social work practice in disasters, Miller (2012) notes that ‘disaster mental
health’ has emerged as an area of identifiable practice.
Psychosocial assessments are widely used by social workers in a range of situ-
ations and are becoming more common as a form of brief assessment following
disasters. Psychosocial assessments focus on physical, social and psychological
aspects, and are now widely used in working with individuals in the days and
weeks following disasters. The Australian Association of Social Workers (2015: 3)
notes that psychosocial assessments rest on the following activities:

• establishing an empathic relationship;

• exploring difficulties and strengths;
• gathering information from a range of sources;
• working from a culturally informed framework;
• identifying relevant indicators to minimise risk;
• applying assessment schedules;
• applying knowledge and theory to the information gathered;
• reviewing the assessment statement with the client;
• regularly reviewing the assessment; and
• maintaining records.

Resisting the urge to ‘welfarise’

Social workers should be aware of, and resist, their immediate impulse to ‘welfarise’
those affected – that is, to treat all community members as passive welfare recipients.
While everyone in a community may be impacted by a disaster, not everyone will
necessarily welcome attention to their circumstances. In our experience, we are
aware of people impacted by disasters who may have never before sought assistance.
There is often a mixture of pride, shame and, in fact, ignorance about the types of
supports offered by social workers. This can have outcomes not expected by work-
ers. For example, we are aware of social workers in one community devastated by
Trauma, grief and loss 131

a major disaster who were treated as administrative assistants by some people in the
affected community. Remember, it is the crisis that brings people for help – but
they may have never attended welfare services before and therefore may view the
social work services as a technical process that restores their sense of control over the
situation. Social workers should be aware that being in a vulnerable position may be
a new experience for some.
Staying with the client and moving at their pace are indicators of good prac-
tice. What social workers may not necessarily recognise is that the pace may be
extremely slow, with one step forward and several steps back being characteristic of
the post-disaster experience. An effective way of dealing with this is by empower-
ing people and building resilience.

Empowerment
Empowerment theory describes a framework designed to assist communities and
clients to re-establish control and is particularly relevant to disaster situations. It is
very much about building resilience. Payne (2005: 295) describes empowerment
practice as

seeking to help clients to gain power over their own lives by reducing the
effect of social or personal blocks to exercising power, increasing capacity
and self-confidence to use power and transferring power from the groups
and individuals.

After a disaster people are often robbed of their agency to make decisions, to care
for themselves or even to have privacy if they are in a shelter or public place.
People impacted by disasters will find themselves in situations where they feel
completely disempowered – the structures and certainties that framed their lives
dismantled and their ability to shape their own futures undermined. In the imme-
diate aftermath of disaster social workers can build resilience by both seeking to
empower people to take some control of their lives and advocating on their behalf
for support and resources.
Nonetheless, both Payne (2005) and Gray and Webb (2013) criticise empower-
ment theory because it has arisen in the context of neoliberal market economies
and therefore fosters the expectation that individuals are responsible for their own
futures. Gray and Webb (2013) suggest that ‘empowerment’ can be read as being
limited to neoliberal concepts of individualism and market approaches to social
care and that empowerment practice assists people to overcome barriers but only
within the strictures of existing social, economic and political mores and con-
straints. Further, Payne (2005) notes that this means that empowerment theory
rejects radicalism and transformational approaches. There are also limits to empow-
erment practice given that social workers themselves have limited capacity arising
from constraints in their own organisations. Nonetheless, Jones and Mattingly
132 Practice theories

(2016: 263) term empowerment in the context of social work practice ‘the libera-
tion of the systematically disempowered’ and, in the context of disasters, and in the
immediate aftermath of a major incident, empowerment practice can assist people
to overcome major barriers. Turner and Maschi (2015: 152) argue that empow-
erment is a process rather than a theory and is about recognising oppression and
‘helping people to take control over their lives’.

Advocacy
Advocacy is another element of social work practice that is critical following dis-
asters. Advocacy ‘seeks to represent the interests of powerless clients to powerful
individuals and social structures’ (Payne, 2005: 295). The aim of advocacy is to act
on behalf of clients to address barriers to social functioning.
Freddolino et al. (2004 quoted in Payne 2005: 298) note four types of advocacy:

• protecting vulnerable people;

• creating supports that enhance functioning;
• protecting and enhancing claims and appeals; and
• fostering identity and control.

In disaster situations, advocacy is an important element of practice as workers

can seek resources and supports, and link across agencies to help those affected.
They can also advocate on behalf of vulnerable and marginalised groups that may
be sidelined in resource distribution and policy developments. As we have noted
elsewhere (Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves 2018), social workers with their
commitment to empowerment and self-determination can play an important role
in recognising natural nurturers and self-organising groups within disaster affected
communities and advocate to support their efforts and challenge the status quo
activities of hierarchical decision making.

Summary
In this chapter we have discussed the trauma and grief that follows sudden, unex-
pected and life-changing disasters and the types of interventions that social workers
might engage in at meso- and micro-levels to assist people to build resilience. As
this is an emerging area of practice, there is much still to learn about the way we
intervene. Nonetheless, there is an increasing body of knowledge on the types of
strategies and actions social workers can undertake in the immediate aftermath of
a disaster. We have discussed short-term methods such as psychological first aid
and crisis intervention and noted the importance of psychosocial assessments and
various forms of group work. We argue that these methods should be informed by
a strengths based perspective and an empowerment framework as these foster the
building of resilience. We note the need always to work at the pace of the client
and to resist the urge to welfarise people and their situations.
Trauma, grief and loss 133

CASE STUDY – UNDERSTANDING TRAUMA, GRIEF AND

LOSS IN THE CONTEXT OF POST-DISASTERS
Louise Harms

What was the disaster situation (brief description)?

In late January and early February 2009, many bushfires were already burn-
ing in the State of Victoria, Australia. On Saturday 7 February, a day of high
winds and extreme heat, the fires became catastrophic, causing the disaster
known as ‘Black Saturday’. While it is often referred to as a ‘natural disaster’,
it is important to highlight that only some of the Black Saturday fires had a
natural cause (lightning strikes). Others, such as the Kilmore East fire, were
caused by electrical faults, and, tragically, others were deliberately lit – with
one man later found guilty of arson, causing ten of the Black Saturday deaths
in the Churchill fire, for example.

How were people affected and who was particularly

vulnerable?
The scale of impact across Victoria and beyond was enormous (Teague,
McLeod and Pascoe 2010). The fires led to 173 deaths, and injuries requiring
hospitalisation for several hundred people. There was the loss of 2100 homes,
an estimated 350,000 hectares of bushland, and more than a million animals.
These losses, in turn, led to the loss of businesses and livelihoods, as well as loss
and change in many communities.
Given these outcomes, people have been affected in many ways. On the
day itself, the catastrophic scale of the fires and sudden wind changes meant
many could not escape. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission report
noted the particular vulnerabilities of those who died:

44 per cent of people who died as a result of the 7 February bushfires were
vulnerable by one measure or a combination of measures: 29 per cent had
chronic or acute clinical health conditions that would have been likely to
affect their mobility, judgment or stamina; 16 per cent were aged 70 or
more; and 9 per cent were aged less than 12 years.
(Teague, McLeod and Pascoe 2010: 338)

Those who managed to survive the fires in situ, or to escape in time, have
described terrifying ordeals, affecting them in life-changing ways.
Over the following days, the scale of the fires became more widely known,
as the emergency response from state and federal services moved in to support

(continued)
134 Practice theories

(continued)

the fire-affected communities, as families and friends were reunited, or as deaths

were confirmed. Response services were mobilised to provide practical relief,
and in turn, recovery services to assist with rebuilding and restoring the com-
munities, both practically and psychosocially.
In the subsequent days and weeks after the fires, access to some areas was
highly restricted as investigations (safety and criminal) were underway. While
necessary, this restricted access frustrated many, who wanted to reconnect
with their homes, even if devastated by the fires.
In the longer term, many survivors and their relatives have been affected
in complex ways – in relation to the extensive rebuilding or relocation
processes required, the psychosocial impacts, and the necessary inquiry,
litigation and compensation processes, some of which have continued for
many years after. According to the Victorian Government’s report, a survey
showed that ‘up to 170,000 adults living in bushfire affected local govern-
ment areas in 2011–12 and up to 150,000 adults living in other areas of
the state were affected by the bushfires’ (Department of Health 2014: xvi).
With the tenth anniversary in 2019, many people continue to experience
the impacts daily.

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

Many social workers played an important direct practice role in the response
to Black Saturday, working with other health and emergency service profes-
sionals to provide a comprehensive disaster response and the longer-term
recovery support (Rowlands 2013). For example, case management services
(Hargreaves and Clark 2009) and hospital social workers (Du Plooy et al. 2014)
were immediately involved, and many non-government agencies provided
psychosocial support (Hickson and Lehmann 2014).
My social work role has been as a researcher – joining with colleagues from
public health and psychology to form a multidisciplinary research team at The
University of Melbourne. We partnered with the then Victorian Department
of Health, Centrelink, Red Cross and six primary care partnerships in the fire-
affected communities and successfully applied for an Australian Research
Council linkage grant, ‘Beyond Bushfires: Community, Resilience, Recovery’
(www.beyondbushfires.org.au).
Through this research, we have examined how individuals and commu-
nities have been affected. We used a mixed method (survey and interview)
approach (Gibbs et al. 2013), and have involved more than 1000 people living
in high, medium and low impacted areas over two time-periods – three to four
years after the fires, and again at five years.
In particular, we have studied the trauma, grief and loss impacts of this
disaster in the medium-term phases of recovery. We focused on a group of
health and mental health experiences that would be expected following a
Trauma, grief and loss 135

disaster – including serious mental illness, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),

grief and depression (Bryant et al. 2014; Harms et al. 2015), as well as posttrau-
matic growth (PTG) and resilience. We looked at how people have connected
with others in their communities – informally and formally through groups –
and in their close relationships (Gallagher et al. 2017). We asked people about
their sense of belonging, and their sense of connection with the environment
around them. We asked people about what was helpful for them in their recov-
ery, and what was problematic. We maintained a focus on the interrelationship
between people and their environments.
In the figure below, some of our key findings to date are presented.

Mental health Grief Social

outcomes experiences networks

The majority of people were Social ties = better mental

Most people in our study had
resilient health
lost friends and community
members not immediate
family members
Mental health problems were
higher than the general
Community group connections
community - Posttraumatic
= more positive outcomes
Stress Disorder, depression and
serious mental illness
Loss arising from the deaths of
Mental health problems were friends and community
highest in the high impact members led to more mental
But depression was
communities, although they health problems
'contagious' in relationships
reduced from 26% at 3-4 years
to 21.9% at 5 years

FIGURE 7.1 Key findings from the Beyond Bushfires study

Social work doctoral students have also examined the use of online tech-
nologies after disaster (Lok 2015), parenting after a disaster (Kosta 2016) and
experiences of anger amongst community members and service providers
(Kellett in progress).
In my social work research role, I also co-facilitated a consumer-initiated study
of PTG (posttraumagrowth.net.au) with Rhonda Abotomey, a woman who had
lost three family members in the Black Saturday fires. As a result of her experiences
she became a strong advocate for those who did not live in the communities that
were fire impacted, yet were profoundly affected as a result of losing loved ones
in the fires. Her advocacy and creativity added to our PTG work, and we collabo-
rated with four other academics to study people’s lived experiences of PTG. In
this study, 20 people affected either personally or professionally were interviewed

(continued)
136 Practice theories

(continued)

about their PTG experiences, and we also used a quantitative measure of PTG,
the PTGI-Short Form (Cann et al. 2010). In this study, we found people spoke
about many different expressions of PTG (Harms et al. in press). They described
their growth experiences as embedded in their connections with others, their
acquisition of new skills and in creative engagement.
So, my role as a social worker has been to contribute to the knowledge-base,
specifically of Black Saturday’s aftermath on people’s lives, working with multidis-
ciplinary teams of academics and key stakeholders. In meeting with other social
work researchers over this time, we have formed the Social Work Disaster Network
in Australia and New Zealand, to draw our research and practice ideas together.

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

In conducting research in a disaster context, I drew on key social work knowl-
edge and skills from my practice and research background.
From the outset, both research projects have required significant attention
to the ethical considerations involved in researching in a post-disaster context,
consistent with the Australian Association of Social Workers’ (2010) Code of
Ethics. Weighing up the risks and benefits – for example, the perceived vulner-
abilities of people in a disaster context compared with the right to give voice
to experience – has occurred throughout the life of all these projects. In each,
key community engagement roles and feedback loops have been in place, for
example, and attention has been paid to the sensitivities of the timing of our
research and appropriate support processes.
From a theoretical perspective, the person:environment or multidimensional
approach underpinning social work has been core to my research approach.
A multidimensional approach, which integrates inner world experiences (bio-
logical, psychological and spiritual) with outer world experiences (relational,
social, structural and cultural), provides a critical map for the complexities of
disaster recovery in a particular time and place. It informs how we think about
the inseparability of individual, family and community level coping and adap-
tation, and the navigation and negotiation of recovery resources. In designing
post-disaster research projects, my aim has been to address all these layers of
experience where possible, so that our research findings inform the intersec-
tions and complexities where social work intervenes, and where disaster strikes.
Embedding a multidimensional approach has meant that trauma, stress
and loss have been understood multidimensionally also – not just as inner
world experiences of individuals (and particularly psychological ones), but
as outer world experiences (Harms 2015). People’s stories of trauma, loss
and growth are embedded in and influenced by their relationships, their
communities and the wider structural and cultural responses to the disaster.
And an important aspect of social work knowledge that has been applied as
Trauma, grief and loss 137

part of this multidimensional approach is that of resilience. That is, focusing

on the capacities that people and communities have and can mobilise for
recovery and wellbeing after a disaster. Michael Ungar, the Canadian social
worker, has been particularly influential in our research approach, with his
definition of resilience as follows:

In the context of exposure to significant adversity, whether psychological,

environmental, or both, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to nav-
igate their way to health-sustaining resources, including opportunities to
experience feelings of well-being, and a condition of the individual’s family,
community and culture to provide these health resources and experiences
in culturally meaningful ways.
(Ungar 2008: 225)

This approach has led to my particular interest in the concept of PTG – enabling
us to learn more about not only the devastation of disaster experiences but of
the human capacity to experience positive transformations.

What worked and did not work?

What worked with this research intervention is that we have found out
more about the medium-term experiences and needs of individuals and
communities in the aftermath of Black Saturday. This research has enabled
engagement with people affected by Black Saturday, with service providers,
and with government, giving voice to experience and engage people who
are very differently impacted in non-pathologising ways. The partnership
approach has ensured this engagement has underpinned each step of the
research process.
What did not work as well as hoped was the recruitment of more research
participants, given how many people were affected. It was not surprising that
research was a very low priority in people’s lives in the post-disaster context,
and despite many efforts to engage sensitively, the reality is that it will always
be challenging to recruit to research under these circumstances. Therefore,
our findings provide a glimpse into some people’s lives after Black Saturday,
but are by no means comprehensive of all experiences.

‘Lessons learned’ for social work practice

Our research does provide immediate insights for social work practice in future
disaster experiences. Alongside the very specific findings that are documented
in our publications, the broader lessons for social work are at least threefold:

(continued)
138 Practice theories

(continued)

1. How unique and particular each disaster situation is, and how its long-
term trauma, loss and recovery impacts are inextricably linked with this
uniqueness.
2. How important interdisciplinary partnerships in the post-disaster practice
and research context, to ensure a breadth and diversity of knowledge.
3. How important it is to engage in research in this context – we need much
more understanding of the post-disaster social work role and its potential
to support optimal recoveries for individuals, families and communities.

References
Australian Association of Social Workers (2010). Code of ethics. Canberra: AASW.
Bryant, R.A., E. Waters, L. Gibbs, H.C. Gallagher, P. Pattison, D. Lusher, C. Macdougall,
L. Harms, K. Block, E. Snowdon, V. Sinnott, G. Ireton, J. Richardson and D. Forbes
(2014). Psychological outcomes following the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), 634–643.
Cann, A., L. Calhoun, R. Tedeschi, K. Takub, T. Vishnevskya, K. Tripletta and S. Danhauer
(2010). A short form of the posttraumatic growth inventory. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping,
23(2), 127–137.
Department of Health. (2014). The health and wellbeing of adult Victorians affected by the
bushfires in 2009: Victorian Population Health Survey 2011–12 supplementary report.
Melbourne: Victorian Government.
Du Plooy, L., L. Harms, K. Muir, B. Martin and S. Ingliss (2014). ‘Black Saturday’ and its
aftermath: reflecting on post-disaster social work interventions in an Australian trauma
hospital. Australian Social Work, 67(2), 274–284. doi:10.1080/0312407.2013.862558
Gallagher, H.C., D. Lusher, L. Gibbs, P. Pattison, D. Forbes, K. Block, L. Harms, C.
MacDougall, C. Kellett, G. Ireton and R.A. Bryant (2017). Dyadic effects of attach-
ment on mental health: couples in a postdisaster context. Journal of Family Psychology.
Advance online publication.
Gibbs, L., E. Waters, R.A. Bryant, P. Pattison, D. Lusher, L. Harms, J. Richardson, C.
Macdougall, K. Block, E. Snowdon, H. Gallagher, V. Sinnott, G. Ireton and D. Forbes
(2013). Beyond bushfires: community, resilience and recovery – a longitudinal mixed
method study of the medium to long term impacts of bushfires on mental health and
social connectedness. BMC Public Health, 13(1036), 1–10.
Hargreaves, D. and C. Clark (2009). Working collaboratively in establishing a case manage-
ment service after the recent Victorian bushfires. Paper presented at the AASW 2009
Conference, Sunshine Coast. www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sour
ce=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjgq7DimN7ZAhXMjLwKHbTbC34QFghBMAQ&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aasw.asn.au%2Fdocument%2Fitem%2F605&usg=AOvVaw1
OZMpv4hJRI5yx4cc3K8RT
Harms, L. (2015). Understanding trauma and resilience: a multidimensional approach.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harms, L., R. Abotomey, D. Rose, R. Woodward Kron, B. Bolt, J. Waycott and M. Alexander
(In press). Post-disaster posttraumatic growth: positive transformations following the
Black Saturday bushfires. Australian Social Work.
Trauma, grief and loss 139

Harms, L., K. Block, H.C. Gallagher, L. Gibbs, R.A. Bryant, D. Lusher, J. Richardson, C.
Macdougall, E. Baker, V. Sinnott, G. Ireton, D. Forbes, C. Kellett and E. Waters (2015).
Conceptualising post-disaster recovery: incorporating grief experiences. British
Journal of Social Work, 45, i170–i187. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv122
Hickson, H. and J. Lehmann (2014). Exploring social workers’ experiences of working with
bushfire-affected families. Australian Social Work, 67(2), 256–273.
Kellett, C. (in progress). PhD study: Anger, and anger support, for individuals and com-
munities affected by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, in Department of Social Work,
University of Melbourne.
Kosta, L., L. Harms, L. Gibbs and D. Rose (2016). Post-disaster parenting: experiences fol-
lowing the 2009 Australian bushfires. The 8th International Conference on Social Work
in Health and Mental Health. Singapore.
Lok, M. (2015). Taking matters into their own hands: an exploration of being online and
disaster-affected. PhD thesis in Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne.
Rowlands, A. (2013). Disaster recovery management in Australia and the contribution of
social work. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 12(1–2), 19–38. doi:
10.1080/1536710X.2013.784173
Teague, B., R. McLeod and S. Pascoe (2010). 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission:
final report. Retrieved from Melbourne: www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-
Reports/Final-Report.html
Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2),
218–235.
8
SOCIAL WORKERS AND DISASTERS
Organisational contexts

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.

And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.
(Edward Everett Hale)

Social workers arrive in disaster sites by way of a number of different entry points.
Once the scale of a disaster is realised and emergency plans are activated, inter-
national non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and organisations in-country,
tasked with oversighting an emergency response, move into action. Social workers
are located across the INGO, NGO, government and not-for-profit sectors and
thus can arrive via different pathways and with different organisational expecta-
tions. As emergency responders, and organisational representatives arrive, the scale
of disasters and lack of experience in dealing with a real-time emergency can some-
times lead to confusion and delays in implementing plans. Response mechanisms
and protocols tested in planning situations may be untried in a real emergency. This
can lead to complexities in the governance structures and chain of command – at
least in the initial stages – and can result in uncertainty for workers and ultimately
for community members. In this chapter we examine the structures through which
social workers might work in a post-disaster situation – the multi-disciplinary,
multi-agency, multidimensional teams, governance structures and chains of com-
mand that guide the response, and the factors that therefore shape practice options
in the immediacy of a catastrophic disaster.
Often, social workers are involved while the disaster is still underway (for
example, following an earthquake that has a number of ongoing aftershocks,
or, as in the example used in Chapter 7, while a bushfire continues to rage and
becomes more threatening). Whatever the type of disaster, social workers, along
with other emergency personnel, enter a chaotic, confusing space where com-
munities and the people who live there have been shattered, where there may
Social workers and disasters 141

still be bodies uncollected, where many are injured and where access to medical
assistance, services, telecommunications, secure transport and to fundamental fac-
tors such as clean water and food may be uncertain. People will be traumatised
by their experience and require safety, food, water and shelter and assistance in
finding relatives. Once social workers enter a disaster site, they will be straight
to work.

Social work and disasters – professional context

Social workers have multiple pathways to disaster work. Each of these brings its
own issues and challenges and ensures a diverse range of professional contexts
through which social workers come in contact with disasters. Often, the imme-
diate response teams are called ‘first responders’ – however, we do well to note
Pyles’ (2017) point that local people are the ‘first responders’ and that they will
have established processes and safe zones before outside teams arrive. It is therefore
critical to recognise the efforts of local people in disaster recovery and avoid the
mistake of ‘taking over’ and ignoring local knowledge.
Briggs, Hargreaves and Fronek (2018) noted that during and after the floods
in the city of Brisbane in 2010/11, social workers were prominent in key
Commonwealth, State and local government response units, provided crisis sup-
port through various organisations and operated as contact points across agencies to
assist bereaved families. They were also on the front line providing crisis interven-
tion, supporting staff who were assessing eligibility for disaster relief payments and
were working in hospitals and community health centres, giving updated assess-
ments of the community needs. They were members of outreach teams working in
the affected communities and were active in longer-term community development
projects and policy. Social workers can arrive at a disaster via a number of different
pathways and take on a diversity of roles.

Multidisciplinary teams
Social workers are increasingly viewed as critical members of multidisciplinary
teams trained and ready to move into disaster sites. They may be government
employees who are trained and on standby for disaster work or be temporar-
ily reassigned from other departments and organisations to disaster emergency
response teams.
Multidisciplinary responses to disasters are becoming more evident as disasters
increase in frequency and complexity. In these teams, social workers work alongside
other health and mental health professionals trained to respond to emergency situ-
ations (Adams, Smith and Weeks 2013). A multidisciplinary team response model
emerged in the United States after bombing disasters including the 9/11 attacks on
the twin towers in New York (Adams et al. 2013). These incidents revealed the
need for a more coordinated response. Typically, teams include doctors, nurses,
social workers, psychologists and various other disciplines including sometimes
142 Practice theories

spiritual advisers. Adams et al. (2013) note that multidisciplinary response teams
are effective in addressing health needs, preventing poor psychological outcomes,
normalising the reactions of survivors, increasing coping skills and reducing the
stigma of help-seeking. Increasingly, social workers are critical members of multi-
disciplinary response teams, and will be sent with the team to disaster sites – often
in the first 24 hours.
Social workers may also be part of cross-agency social work disaster teams
trained and on-standby for disasters or be part of multidisciplinary teams in their
usual place of work – for example, in hospitals where health professionals will
normally work in teams. Existing multidisciplinary teams provide a useful structure
when disaster survivors are evacuated for treatment. For example, hospital health
care teams will come into direct contact with survivors and the existing multi-
disciplinary team approach is very effective in addressing the complexity of cases
presenting to emergency departments following a disaster.
Depending on the extent of the disaster, social workers may also be members of
hastily developed case management teams. These usually comprise social workers
and other welfare professionals drawn from both government and non-government
agencies temporarily supervised through organisational leadership structures that are
not their usual avenues of accountability. These case management teams are often
constructed following the disaster to deal with the significant numbers of people
requiring assistance and may lack the training of multi-disciplinary response teams.
Case management team members may be sent to disaster sites where their lack of
experience and training suggests areas for improvement.

INGOs and NGOs

Social workers may enter disaster sites as workers from INGOs and NGOs organi-
sations tasked with providing certain services such as the establishment of shelters
and/or delivery of psychological first aid and other support services. In many
countries INGOs such as Save the Children, the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), Oxfam and others will move into disaster sites in the early
stages of disasters. These organisations have significant experience with both dis-
aster preparedness and response and with working with governments. Thus, they
can usually activate resources, including personnel, quickly. By contrast, in devel-
oped countries post-disaster responses are more usually addressed by local NGOs
working in collaboration with governments.

Business-as-usual workers
There are also social workers who will come into contact with disaster survivors
through their normal roles. A significant number of social workers are employed in
organisations that are critically involved in the aftermath of the disaster such as hos-
pital social workers (Pockett 2006; du Plooy et al. 2013) or those working in areas
such as health, housing and employment services, in community development
Social workers and disasters 143

organisations and in income support agencies (Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves

2018). These workers will find their usual workloads expand significantly and
some may be taken off their usual work to focus on disaster survivors.

Volunteers
Social workers might also be residents of the local area, know the area well, under-
stand its issues and challenges and choose to give their time as volunteers. Drolet
(this volume) refers to these social workers as ‘survivor-responders’. These workers
have less formal structures, and being residents, may be experiencing their own
trauma (Cooper, Briggs and Bagshaw 2018). This can have significant impacts on
workers who may be struggling with their own losses. Workers might also be vol-
unteers from beyond the local area including from interstate, moved by the stories
emerging from the site and motivated by their desire to help. Volunteer workers
operate under loose avenues of accountability and may be most evident in the
initial stages of the post-disaster period.

Research and policy

Social workers are becoming more visible in policy positions advising on emer-
gency management processes and organising welfare service delivery when disasters
occur. However, the increase in the numbers of social workers in emergency man-
agement policy positions is an encouraging development, indicating that social
justice is an increasingly key factor in policy responses (Rowlands 2018). There is
also a growing body of research knowledge emerging from social workers across
the world on the roles of social workers in disasters and the impacts on disaster
survivors and their communities. These researchers bring a different perspective to
their work, entering disaster zones to conduct research focusing on social impacts
and outcomes and assisting to shape socially just interventions.
Whatever their route to the disaster site, social workers will be prominent in
the emergency response and be part of the ongoing process of assisting people to
rebuild their lives after the disaster. Thus, social workers will often be part of teams
acting under direction from people who are not normally their immediate supervi-
sors and will be expected to be creative and innovative in their practice.

Emergency response
Immediate emergency disaster responses are initially in the hands of emergency
services first responders – firefighters, police and emergency service workers, for
example – and are usually based on local responder structures. Initially, this might
involve a local organisation – for example, the local fire department fighting a bush-
fire. This critical response operates under an ideology often referred to as ‘command
and control’ (Tyler and Fairbrother 2013a) – an hierarchically governed response
with clear lines of authority. However, if the scale of the disaster escalates beyond
144 Practice theories

the capacity of local authorities, then leadership is diverted upwards to emergency

services and potentially to government heads of departments. Ultimately, this chain
of command might then be controlled by a particular government department – for
example, Emergency Management Australia (Department of Home Affairs), the
lead agency in Australia, or Homeland Security in the United States. Prior planning
and protocols within these agencies will determine how, where and when addi-
tional emergency personnel are deployed. While command and control has been
effective in providing an immediate response and having clear lines of authority in
life-threatening situations, it has also been criticised for being authoritarian, organ-
ised along military lines and being ultimately quite gendered (Tyler and Fairbrother
2013a). This has significant impacts on both those delivering the response and those
receiving assistance. We will discuss this further in Chapters 9 and 10.
Nevertheless, as disasters increase in frequency and intensity, and lessons are learnt
from the experiences of major disasters, social work researchers working in disaster
sites are noticing a ‘paradigm shift’ occurring in the previously militarised ‘command
and control’ response. This shift is incorporating, in Australia at least, a more criti-
cal focus on community resilience as a basis for rebuilding efforts, with a particular
emphasis on ‘community-led recoveries and co-designed programmatic responses’
(Harms and Alston 2018: 386). This paradigm shift, to a more multidimensional
approach (Harms 2010), is moving the response away from an ongoing focus on
‘command and control’ at least in the post-disaster response stages to a multidiscipli-
nary approach – one that focuses more on people and one where social workers have
a prominent role to play both in the field and in policy.

Governance structures and systems failures

Nonetheless, because of the haste of the initial response to the disaster, lines of
leadership can become confused and complex, leading to problems in setting
up support services on the ground and to a lack of clear guidelines for workers.
There may also be some systems failures in disaster response such as the lack of
early warning systems – an issue that will add to the loss of lives and the capacity
of people to leave a threatening situation early. The following example outlines
a successful strategy adopted in a vulnerable country to address previous early
warning systems failures.

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE – EARLY WARNING

SYSTEMS

Bangladesh is a country very vulnerable to disasters including cyclones along

the Bay of Bengal. Following devastating cyclones in 2007 and 2009, the
national government, as part of their Disaster Preparedness program, and
in keeping with UNISDR commitments, instituted early warning systems. In
2011–2014 we conducted research in the country examining the impacts of
Social workers and disasters 145

disasters (Alston, Whittenbury and Haynes 2014). This explanation of early

warning systems was given by an official.

The Disaster Management Council for National Disaster Management

is headed by our Honorable Prime Minister . . . We can calculate the
movement [of the cyclone] and when it may hit. Then accordingly we
start informing people that it’s a storm; it may hit in such and such a
place, it is moving at such and such a speed in this direction, there’s a
possibility it will hit in Bangladesh. Every five minutes we phone into the
interconnect meeting.

At the same time, we have volunteers in coastal areas – 47,000 in number.

And the . . . volunteers, 30 to 40 per cent are women. These volunteers,
they help people to go to shelters, they help inform people about the
cyclone. We [contact them by] wireless, and the internet. We inform them
where it may hit. Those volunteers, are in the union [local government
structure] . . . [Volunteers] have to take the old people and women to the
shelter, have to take children to the shelter, they help to take all to the shel-
ter. They are very dedicated, we don’t pay anything to them. They feel it’s
an honour to be a volunteer.
(Key informant, Dhaka quoted in Alston 2015)

There is little dispute that this strategy adopted by the Bangladeshi govern-
ment has saved many thousands of lives.

EXAMPLE 2 – EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS FAILURE

By contrast, with the example above, the lack of early warning systems leading
into the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, Australia in 2009 illustrates how
lack of experience and systems failures caused confusion and tragically added
to the loss of lives. Evidence was presented to the Royal Commission following
the fires that early warning systems failed to alert people to the imminent threat
(Teague, McLeod and Pascoe 2010). Survivors noted that this lack of warning
led to people continuing with their daily activities including attending regular
Saturday sporting activities (Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves 2018). When the
danger became evident, emergency responses were enacted, firstly through
the fire services and emergency services department. Altogether, 109 towns
were impacted across 25 local government areas, but the warnings came very
late, if they were received at all, and 173 people lost their lives.

(continued)
146 Practice theories

(continued)

Following the fires, it quickly became evident that the Victorian state govern-
ment (and particularly the lead agency, the Department of Human Services) did
not have the resources to cope with the scale of the disaster. The Commonwealth
Government National Emergency Management Plan was enacted. As a result,
an entire new authority – the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery
Authority (VBRRA) was established for a two-year period. This was a collabora-
tion between the national and the state governments and VBRRA also worked
with the 25 affected local governments. Workers reported that within a week of
the realisation of the scale of the disaster, and the Prime Minister’s announce-
ment of casework assistance for all who requested it, a large office building
was rented, computer technology installed and staff seconded or employed
into the authority. The authority was charged with organising the clean-up,
distributing aid, developing communication channels, organising housing and
undertaking community engagement. While this physical reality was achieved
in a relatively short time, it was some days before clear lines of authority and
accountability were established. This example demonstrates both the conse-
quences of a lack of early warnings and the potential lack of capacity in existing
government structures in a major emergency and the need to act quickly to
ensure governance structures are adequate to the task.

Confusion in governance structures

These two examples give some understanding of the confusion that can surround
leadership in post-disaster recovery scenarios and the complexities associated with
implementing established policies in real-life and real-time circumstances. Bangladesh
with its long experience of disasters has responded by implementing early warning
systems across the country, staffed by local volunteers trained to respond effectively.
By contrast, the Australian early warning systems were not adequate as there had
been little previous experience of a disaster on the scale of the Black Saturday fires.
These examples highlight how existing governance structures and plans must be
adequate when a major disaster strikes. Yet government authorities charged with
leadership in disasters may be ill-equipped for the reality of a major disaster and
unable to address the complexities of needs. As the experiences of disasters become
more frequent, governments are learning from the UNISDR and the actions of
others and are becoming more knowledgeable about the types of interventions
required in their own countries.

Understanding the challenges of disaster responsiveness

In a detailed systematic review of disaster responsiveness, Harms and Boddy
(in press) note that disasters necessarily bring layers of government and NGOs
Social workers and disasters 147

together quickly, but that the chain of command is often blurry, and it is difficult
to know who is doing what and when. However, they also note that these lines
of authority and responsibility are becoming clearer as plans and strategies and
national responses to the UNISDR are developed. It is important for workers to
know that the scale of disasters may overwhelm existing governance structures and
that there is a well-defined need to be responsive and innovative, and not neces-
sarily to expect detailed communication of strategies, particularly in the immediate
post-disaster period.
The examples offered above give some understanding of the complexity associ-
ated with organising a major disaster response. In research conducted with critical
key informants associated with the emergency response to the Black Saturday
bushfires some five years after the event (Alston, Hargreaves and Hazeleger 2014),
we learnt of the issues experienced by government employees and community
people during this chaotic period. These included interdepartmental rivalries,
departments protecting their ‘territory’, problematic communication across sectors
and across layers of government and problems with workers themselves knowing
who is doing what and when. Workers reported they had been unclear as to who
was organising the food and shelter, where the service hubs and temporary housing
villages might be located and when services would be wound up. In retrospect, and
with the virtue of hindsight, workers noted that services were stopped too early
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).
Social workers who are brought in as part of emergency response teams must
be aware of the initial challenges associated with overwhelmed bureaucracies and
know who is leading the response, both from a government and from an agency
perspective, and from a broader national and local area perspective. The initial few
days while these issues are being sorted add to the problems associated with work-
ing across government instrumentalities at local, state and national levels. At the
same time, NGOs who have significant experience in disaster settings from a global
perspective may be more prominent in the initial period establishing shelters, pro-
viding food, and psychological first aid and being visible. In the Black Saturday
example, hubs were established by the Department of Human Services in local
communities where on-the-ground welfare services and insurance advice were
collectively offered by government and non-government agencies, where meals
were served and information and goods were available.

Community – governance challenges

The issues relating to establishing lines of authority are very confusing for those
living in the affected communities who need critical and immediate action. The
initial chaotic period is challenging at best and potentially life-threatening at worst.
Community members tell of being confused by the layers of governance infrastruc-
ture and feeling overwhelmed not only by their own experiences and grief, but
also by the inability to access clear and accurate information, all of which can lead
to stress and evoke anger (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).
148 Practice theories

Because of their own circumstances, and often this can include the loss of loved
ones and neighbours, community members need very clear answers to issues such as:

• who is in charge;
• how the lines of governance between emergency services and local govern-
ment operate;
• where the state and national government authorities fit in the governance
structure;
• where they need to go for information;
• how they can find out if their family members and neighbours are safe;
• whether there is a register of names of survivors to which they can add their
names;
• whether they can access their home site;
• what dangers are inherent in the ongoing situation;
• where basic services are available;
• who is providing them;
• who is responsible for cleaning up the site; and
• when they will be allowed back into their neighbourhood.

There are many more issues that people require answers to in the immediate
few days and this need for information from institutions still sorting their govern-
ance arrangements can be frustrating in the extreme.
Critically community members have a strong desire to be actively engaged in
the clean-up of their communities and often this desire is over-ruled by safety
concerns. For farming people, being shut out from their properties can heighten
stress because of concerns about livestock, loss of pastures and destruction of fences.
Following disasters, people can be shut out of their house blocks and even
their communities and of the planning and clean-up phase because of the inherent
dangers such as fallen power-lines, unstable structures and fears that the disaster
may reoccur. This has a profoundly disempowering impact on people. Following
bushfires in Victoria, the government contracted a major company to come in and
do the clean-up. People were not allowed to enter the site to search for mementos
until the contractors were finished. Women spoke of the impact this had on their
own and their men’s mental health, causing them to withdraw and watch from afar
as their communities were cleaned up by others. Being aware of safety concerns
while also being sensitive to issues of place, identity and belonging, are perplexing
factors for response teams. However, these factors should be considered and acted
upon during post-disaster reconstruction phases.
The stress associated with the destruction caused by a disaster is compounded
for First Nations people to whom the land has immense cultural and spiritual sig-
nificance (see, for example, Hunt et al. 2014; Adamson, 2014). Demonstrating a
widespread view that First Nations people are particularly vulnerable, Hunt et al.
(2014) note that following the 2011 Rena oil spill in New Zealand, Maoris were
especially vulnerable because of their history of marginalisation.
Social workers and disasters 149

Immediate response phase of disasters

While social workers are critical to the effectiveness of the disaster response in the
immediacy of disasters, the tasks they will undertake on arrival in a disaster zone
cannot necessarily be predicted. It is useful to adopt a simple technique developed
after 9/11. First responders should ask:

What do we know?
What don’t we know?
What are we doing?
What do we need the community to do? (IAPPA 2014, 13)
We can also ask:
Where can we source the required information?
Who is in charge? And
Where do we fit?

This will assist workers to know where to begin their work, with whom to
engage, and what they need to find out.
There are other tasks that will occupy significant amounts of time. For example,
they will find themselves dealing with an outpouring of donations from the general
public – donations that may require a number of warehouses to house. Among
these donations will be very generous gifts as well as significantly inappropriate
offerings. Sorting and distribution takes a significant amount of time for workers.
Yet this is just one of the unforeseen tasks taken on by social workers follow-
ing disasters in addition to their hands-on practice. Their tasks may also involve
significant complexity and be required to be completed in a matter of days. The
following example gives an insight into the complexity of tasks that social work
managers may be required to attend to in the immediacy of a disaster.

BLACK SATURDAY – ESTABLISHING CASE

MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Following a promise from the Australian Prime Minister that all those who had
been affected by the fires would have access to a case manager, social workers
from national and state departments of Human Services were asked to estab-
lish a case management service and to do it quickly. The enormity of the task
required the secondment of workers from across the country who were work-
ing in government and non-government agencies. This required negotiations

(continued)
150 Practice theories

(continued)

with agency managers for the release of staff, the development of employment
protocols and the identification of funding sources. It also required attention
to such things as how these workers would be housed, where they would work
and who would supervise them. Many workers were also to be allocated cars,
computers and phones. This required administrative and technical support.
There were ongoing requirements for support and supervision of the workers.
This example illustrates the types of very complex requests that might flow in
the initial period when services and processes are being established.

As we have noted in previous chapters, social workers’ contributions during this

immediate response phase of a disaster cover a range of tasks including:

• input to policy development;

• case work;
• bearing witness;
• psychological first aid;
• crisis intervention;
• community engagement;
• community work with local governments and local organisations;
• information and service coordination;
• housing assessments;
• the provision of emergency relief;
• community liaison;
• advocacy for service reform to manage increases in family violence; and
• research including the collection of community stories and analysis of government
and other data collection.
(Hazeleger, Alston and Hargreaves 2018)

In discussing social work responses to major floods in Brisbane in 2010/11,

Briggs, Hargreaves and Fronek (2018) note that the most effective strategies in the
initial stages of the flood disaster were:

• good collaborations across agencies;

• role clarity;
• social casework;
• being able to get social workers on the ground quickly;
• flexibility;
• using local networks and knowledge;
• a coordinated response across jurisdictions; and
• good supervision.
Social workers and disasters 151

They note that the problems workers encountered included poor communications
systems, tensions between first responders and recovery workers, challenges in having
community voices heard in planning and recovery and ensuring social workers had
adequate down-time.
Across the world social workers are active in responding to disasters. Following the
1999 Taiwan earthquake, social workers were employed in casework roles through
Life Reconstruction Service Centres and in Community Empowerment Projects
sponsored by the government to undertake environmental works and greenbelt res-
toration planning projects (Drolet et al. 2017). Following the super floods in Pakistan
in 2010/2011, social workers worked through INGOs such as UNDP and Save
the Children and through local NGOs to provide essential crisis relief (Drolet et al.
2017). Disaster social work is a field of practice emerging across the world providing
critical early support to survivors and their families and communities.

Social workers in organisations involved with

disaster survivors
The impact on social workers tangentially engaged in post-disaster service delivery
is an area that has not received much exposure. However, this area of practice is
well articulated by du Plooy et al. (2013) who discuss at length their experience as
social workers in a major hospital, and, in particular, in the burns unit after the 2009
Victorian Black Saturday bushfires. Following the fires, 110 people were admitted
to the hospital including 55 children. Twenty of these were admitted to the burns
unit – the highest number of patients ever admitted to this unit in one day. The writ-
ers note that workers focused on both ‘inner and outer world issues . . . focusing on
psychological first aid, equally emphasising psychological, familial, social and com-
munity recovery’ (du Plooy et al. 2013: 275). They note that three key challenges
shaped their work including managing the privacy of patients from media intru-
sion, negotiating the boundaries of professional practice, and managing the vicarious
trauma that resulted from their day-to-day work with those affected by the fires. The
huge media demand for stories resulted in an identified need for intense supervision of
workers. This helped workers to cope with the vicarious trauma and the enormous
burden of ‘bearing witness’ to the stories of the survivors (du Plooy et al. 2013: 280).
In their insightful article they note the following interventions were adopted in
the immediate aftermath of the disaster:

• a 24-hour on-call response;

• initial crisis management;
• provision of psychosocial first aid; and
• discharge planning, including relocation of patients, accommodation, adjust-
ment issues, linking into community supports and case management, and
ongoing follow-up and counselling.
(du Plooy 2013: 276)
152 Practice theories

The need for attention to workers’ own psychological health was recognised by
the team and by hospital management and a number of strategies were developed
including regular team communications, weekly meetings with a psycholo-
gist, increased supervision, limited exposure to media and attention to self-care
(du Plooy et al. 2013: 281).

Summary
Whatever the circumstances, social workers will move into disaster sites and pro-
vide support to those who have been impacted. They will arrive to work within
various organisational structures and operate through new layers of leadership and
accountability and will be expected to undertake a range of tasks. They may be part
of multidisciplinary teams, case management teams, NGOs or volunteers. They
may also come into contact with disasters through their existing agency – such as
the local hospital. They may face anger and despair, they may experience vicarious
trauma and their own grief, and they may have great difficulty knowing when to
end the worker–client relationship.
Social workers who have worked in disaster sites note the need for ongoing
training in disaster work, including in areas such as leadership, teamwork and com-
munication across sectors (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014). It is evident
that we also need to continually build our understanding of the types of responses
that are most appropriate for disaster survivors, be aware of the complexities of
people’s lives and needs and always be conscious that the people we are dealing
with have had their lives completely derailed. In all of this it is critical that the
needs of workers are addressed, and that they are provided with the types of sup-
port necessary to ensure that they remain valued emergency response workers.

CASE STUDY – STEP BY STEP BLUE MOUNTAINS BUSHFIRE

SUPPORT SERVICE, OCTOBER 2013–AUGUST 2014
Allison Rowlands

What was the disaster situation?

The Blue Mountains area of New South Wales, Australia, comprises a densely
forested landscape with 27 townships spread along a mountainous ridge of
approximately 100 kilometres and a population of 78,000 (Blue Mountains
City Council 2017). As most of the area is World Heritage National Park it is
vulnerable to bushfire.
Three separate bushfires in the Blue Mountains and Lithgow local govern-
ment areas burned for ten days in October 2013. By 25 October the fires
had burned over 65,000 hectares. Many people evacuated and experienced
isolation, separation from people they love, fear and trauma, and dislocation
Social workers and disasters 153

from their communities and services. Over 200 homes were destroyed and 100
damaged (Rich et al. 2014). During the week of the fires, there were 189,000
downloads of the Rural Fire Service app, Fires Near Me, an indication of the pro-
active stance of residents in maintaining situational awareness (Crestani 2014).

How were people affected and who were particularly

vulnerable?
The fires left the majority of these 300 households literally homeless in the
short term, with those completely burnt-out needing to navigate insurance
and disaster relief grants processes, as well as deciding if, or how, to rebuild.
As it was late October, households with children faced a very uncertain
Christmas and school holiday season. Interim accommodation arrangements
were often very short term and not conducive to families needing to process
their grief and make sense of what they had lost. Local temporary housing
options were very limited, with families in many cases needing to re-locate
out of the area at least in the interim period. Some households decided not
to rebuild and left the area permanently, an additional major transition in
their recovery.
Vulnerability is a complex concept especially in the context of disaster
impacts and recovery. It is influenced by the resources people have access
to, including financial resources and insurance, access to recovery supports
and services including grants, and their social support network, including fam-
ily, friends and neighbours. Individual strengths, problem-solving skills and
personal resilience will also play into the equation, as well as any previous
experience of loss or trauma and how the person recovered and adapted to
that experience. Life cycle factors are also important considerations; for exam-
ple, children have specific needs, and in this event, Higher School Certificate
students had additional stress to manage.
In the case of the Blue Mountains bushfires, those assessed as likely
to be most vulnerable were the un- and under-insured, those without
close social supports for example single-parent households, those with
pre-existing medical conditions including mental illness, and the most
marginalised such as isolated single elderly people living in more remote
locations. A feature of this disaster was the concentration of loss in some
discrete, almost suburban streets, such as the Yellow Rock area, where
rows of houses were destroyed.
To illustrate the pervasiveness and anxiety provoked by the demands of
decision-making, the Step by Step (SBS) Final Report noted that at the time
the service closed, a significant percentage of clients (with total loss) were
still undecided about their long term housing plans. While for many their
preference was to rebuild on their block, the additional costs associated with

(continued)
154 Practice theories

(continued)

complying with current building regulations, combined with the amount of

insurance payout, impacted on their capacity to rebuild. Some of the married/
partnered clients reported a level of disagreement occurring between them
regarding their long-term housing plans (Crestani 2014).

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

Due to the major loss and damage to homes, psychological distress and deci-
sion-making demands over the immediate, medium and longer-term recovery
period, I developed a time-limited Recovery Support Service proposal. This was
based on the model I implemented for bushfire recovery in the Warrumbungle
Shire in January 2013. As a social planning process, I conducted a needs
assessment, accessing the damage and impact assessment data of the emer-
gency services. In parallel, an assets assessment was conducted (Kretzmann
and McKnight 1996), of local community resources and capacity to manage
the anticipated long-term demand for support, information, counselling and
case management. Negotiations with government agencies, NGOs and the
community bushfire recovery committee, concluded with engaging the local
family support service to deliver the program.
The Commonwealth and NSW governments under the Natural Disaster
Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA – Australian Government
Attorney-General’s Department, 2017) jointly funded the service through my
agency, with SBS reporting to me. The Uniting Church provided an addi-
tional three months of funding, to extend the service beyond the period
funded by the NDRRA.
A range of theories, perspectives and practice in broad psychosocial
recovery informed the support service model. I drew on grief and loss, crisis
intervention, and community development theories, and strengths-based and
solution-focused models of brief intervention. The approach combined support-
ive interventions at the individual and family level. Community development
and psycho-education inputs provided knowledge and skills to residents, to
assist grieving, decision-making and resource acquisition, whether through
government, non-government or informal support systems (Rich et al. 2014).
I also drew on learnings from the Black Saturday Bushfires in Victoria and the
Canterbury Earthquakes in New Zealand.
In early November 2013, SBS commenced service delivery. SBS was
established within Gateway Family Services, a non-government family sup-
port service funded largely through state government and church-based
grants. Available to all community members affected, SBS provided assis-
tance to individuals, families and communities by supplementing the
existing local human services system. The project’s title, Step by Step, was
Social workers and disasters 155

purposefully chosen to illustrate that the recovery process, for individuals

and communities, is a gradual, stepped process, often incurring backward
steps throughout the journey.
The case management model used an explicitly solution-focused and
strengths-based approach, with the aim of strengthening individual and
household capabilities, assisting in decision-making and promoting psychoso-
cial wellbeing. Six local workers with social work, psychology or social sciences
qualifications were employed as support workers to deliver the recovery sup-
port casework. The SBS manager was a psychologist seconded from Gateway
Family Services, who reported to me.

Brief snapshot of service provision

Client needs in the early post impact phase were focused around practical issues
such as accommodation, financial/ income support, essential material goods,
support with insurance and rebuilding processes, clearing blocks and debris,
and replacing lost documents. After a few months, referral issues included
managing strong emotions, and severe stress arising from financial difficulties
and insurance and rebuilding problems. Six months into the recovery period,
new clients presented who had not yet accessed this or other recovery ser-
vices, because they believed they could recover without assistance. Financial
hardship, increased sense of sadness and awareness of losses, increased anger
and frustration with rebuilding and financial setbacks, were reported. By the
time the service closed and transitioned current clients to ongoing local ser-
vices, clients were still grappling with working through the diverse emotional
responses to the fires, and solving problems that continued to be thrown up
by the complexities of rebuilding.
At the conclusion of the service at the end of August 2014, SBS had
worked with 528 households, made 1333 referrals and recorded 11,800 cli-
ent contacts. Workers used email and phone as modes of communication;
a significant intervention was psycho-education, including mail-outs, articles
in the local newspaper and use of Facebook for therapeutic messages and
encouragement. A vignette of client experience produced by Gateway Family
Services as a YouTube video, can still found on the Gateway Family Services
website (Crestani 2014; Gateway Family Services 2014).
At the time of closure the majority of clients who could still be contacted
did not require further services. The needs for referral to ongoing local services
related to broad material assistance measures and financial support needs,
links to Council’s Recovery Team, and referrals to generalist counselling ser-
vices. A smaller proportion of clients were referred to specialist mental health
services (Crestani 2014).

(continued)
156 Practice theories

(continued)

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

Diverse skills and knowledge were used throughout the project. From incep-
tion, needs assessment, at the individual and community levels of analysis,
was required. Interpersonal skills in the casework relationship were integral,
whether the specific intervention was support, crisis intervention, brief coun-
selling or deeper assessment and referral. The explicit solution-focused model
informed ways of asking questions and responding to clients’ responses, to
highlight strengths and magnify achievements.
Key elements of the model included a non-clinical setting (often meeting
in homes or cafes); emotion regulation through a consistent worker presence;
identifying existing client strengths and resources; breaking down complex
information; providing safety and security; and support through unconditional
positive regard and the use of empathy (Crestani 2014: 17).
Also critical to the project achieving its aims was the use of community devel-
opment strategies, to maximise the availability of recovery information within
the community, reach out to the dispersed population, and collaborate with a
wide range of service providers in delivering services in group sessions and com-
munity meetings. Some of these included psycho-education sessions with early
childhood service providers, consultation and information sessions for school
staff and students, sessions at workplaces, and information and drop-in sessions
at a range of local neighbourhood centres. It was also important to reach the
ageing population in smaller villages that were impacted, given that houses
were destroyed as far west as Mount Victoria.
Workers actively promoted SBS through interagency and community networks
and provided education to the sector on the impact of the fires and identified
needs. This was a strategic intervention to build coalitions across the interagency
network so that agencies could collaborate and share resources and inputs when
these were scarce. SBS workers also participated actively in the Wellbeing Sub
Committee established by the broader Recovery Committee, to monitor and
report on emerging needs and to present updates and develop proposals for
needed additional recovery services, throughout the period that SBS operated.
The SBS manager implemented a rigorous supervision strategy for all team
members, including external case consultation with a private supervisor with
great depth of expertise in applying solution-focused frameworks to trauma
contexts. I teleconferenced with the SBS manager weekly and met face-to-face
bi-monthly in review and supervision sessions. This provided the needed space
for reflection and support for the manager. Although workers came from a
range of disciplines, an overt ethical framework consonant with social work’s
code of ethics, informed practice.
Finally, program reporting, monitoring and evaluation were carried out
to acquit the funding responsibilities and share learnings from the project as
widely as possible.
Social workers and disasters 157

What worked?

The collaborative efforts of the broader local bushfire recovery services net-
work contributed significantly to the effectiveness of SBS’s interventions. SBS
worked closely with the local health, education, emergency services and wel-
fare sectors to ensure that people have had access to the full range of high
quality practical, financial and emotional supports that are available in the Blue
Mountains. This replicates the approach used in Victorian communities such as
Strathewen after the Black Saturday Bushfires, as well as in the Warrumbungle
support service implemented previously. The mayor of the Blue Mountains
noted that the community was better able to deal with disaster recovery needs
in the future as a result of the intervention of the SBS support workers, in part
due to this cooperative approach (Crestani 2014).
The SBS service was evaluated externally in 2014 and this study found it to be
an effective and supportive service for those affected by the bushfires. Data from
service management, stakeholders, staff and importantly, clients, illustrated the
achievements of the service. Clients highlighted the importance of well-trained
staff who understood trauma, expressing appreciation of the solution-focused
and strengths-based approaches. The findings underscored the importance of
psychosocial support in promoting individual and community resilience, which
has become more widely recognised (Rich et al. 2014). The researchers found
that SBS interventions genuinely focused on enhancing existing strengths of the
individual, family and community on building resilience, a principle of disaster
recovery articulated in the Victorian Psychosocial Recovery Framework, devel-
oped after the 2009 Bushfires (Department of Human Services 2009).
Participants in the SBS evaluation study valued the way the SBS team viewed
them as capable participants in their own recovery. Supported by findings
from an evaluation of the 2003 Canberra Bushfire recovery, the research-
ers found that the SBS model promoted hope and optimism and a sense of
empowerment, which fostered resilience and supported recovery (Camilleri
et al. 2007; Rich et al. 2016).
While clients’ immediate needs focused around practical issues, their needs
changed to psychological support over time. Clients did not speak about SBS
as a formal counselling service, though they rated the relationship with their
support worker very highly.

Counselling, it’s different to what SBS did. I’m aware it sort of was counsel-
ling but it was different to making an appointment and sitting down and
talking to somebody . . . So pretty much they looked after us physically,
practically, emotionally and medically; they intervened on different levels to
relieve some of the pressures that we had prior to the bushfires.
(Rich et al. 2014: 24–25)

(continued)
158 Practice theories

(continued)

From the support workers’ perspective, the clients were viewed as capable
individuals who were able to be in control of their lives, amidst the disaster,
and their role was to be available to support them through their recovery.

Our philosophy was that people are all capable and resilient and able to make
their own decisions . . . and (being) on the lookout for where strength-based
conversations come in . . . It was astounding seeing people’s resilience and
strength, and I found so many of them just incredibly inspiring, and just see-
ing the love really that exists, and the hope that exists.

(Rich et al. 2014: 34–35)

Also highlighted was the critical role of local inter-agency relationships and
connectedness to the broader community services sector. This then enabled
SBS to leverage off other services, refer clients accurately, and collaborate
with other services in community development initiatives to build resilience.
‘We had to maintain and strengthen those connections and those partner-
ships. I would say SBS worked very, very collaboratively with the service
system. We just knew that we couldn’t achieve what we’ve achieved without
that’ (Rich et al. 2014: 42).

What did not work and ’lessons learned’ for social

work practice
Key lessons learned focused around communication and information, com-
munity development, closure planning and transition, and refining the model.
Getting information into the community about recovery services including
SBS itself was pivotal. It was difficult in the earliest days to trace all impacted
households, despite the referral material received from my Disaster Welfare Team
within the Recovery Centre. This was a facet of service delivery that did not work
well in the early phase. A chronic issue is the mobility of families after a disaster
due to the short-term nature of temporary housing. Therefore the development
of a detailed database in conjunction with my agency was an essential step.
Householders also suffered cognitive overload, trying to absorb all the
information at a time of peak stress. Therefore strategies for ‘dosing’ the infor-
mation, or scaffolding their executive functioning, were found to be helpful.
SBS communications were consistently framed around key themes of hope and
resilience, and normalising the responses of people impacted by the bushfires.
There was also need for a variety of communication channels and technol-
ogy, due to loss of internet, computers and phones. Mobile phones became
the primary means for receiving and sending information, especially via
Facebook, SMS text and email. Many clients preferred to use such media as a
prime means of maintaining contact with their support worker. Simply provid-
ing a phone number or an update about recovery services was very helpful
Social workers and disasters 159

for many clients. Face-time was a useful mode of talking with clients. Other
households were experiencing issues that were multi-layered and complex and
required more intensive intervention and support.
A related learning was that, while intended to be informative and support-
ive, some therapeutically oriented messages posted on Facebook or by text
could be misread without additional context, and for some clients would be
better delivered in person. It is important to balance the timeliness of accurate
information with the way messages are crafted, especially in an atmosphere
of heightened emotions and inaccurate myths about recovery services. SBS
Facebook messages could also be linked to other social media channels,
broadening the audience accessing this information.
The branding used by SBS was carefully considered, as most clients had
not used social services of any type previously, and were loath to ask for
help. A further learning was that some clients whose properties had been
untouched by the fires or who had sustained relatively minor damage,

SUMMARY – STEP BY STEP CLIENT SUPPORT MODEL FOR (psycho-social) DISASTER RECOVERY

Step by Step
Client Support Model

• Information & resources

• Links to goods & services • Housing
• Achievable solutions • Information & resources
(client preferences) • Healthy Food
• Scaling tools • Clothing & Essentials
• Evaluation (what works?) Taking Safety &
steps Wellbeing

SF
BT

Cognitive Emotion
• Information & resources ‘Scaffolding’ Regulation
• “being with”
• ‘breaking it down’
• Emotion-regulation
• ‘Loaning out’ functions of
(client & worker)
pre-frontal cortex
• Client-Centered
• Repetition of key data &
• “its ok to not be ok”
recovery messages

*Devised & created by Anne Crestani (for Gateway Family Services – July 2014)

FIGURE 8.1 Crestani, A. (2014). Step by Step Blue Mountains Bushfire Support
Service final report, October 2014, p. 18.

presented as extremely distressed. Other clients who had lost everything

presented as relatively calm and accepting of their situation. ‘there are often
multiple (and linked up) pathways that can lead people to the right support
and assistance’ (Crestani 2014: 15).

(continued)
160 Practice theories

(continued)

The importance of community development initiatives complementing

counselling and casework services played a role in strengthening the com-
munity’s capacity to support bushfire-affected residents. It is now recognised
within both NSW and nationally that community development strategies are
essential to the recovery process and help strengthen community resilience for
future disasters. As a result, funding through the NDRRA for community devel-
opment workers no longer requires a detailed funding proposal.
While SBS was able to second or directly recruit to all but one of the SBS
positions, attempts to negotiate secondments of local practitioners from other
agencies were unsuccessful, due to their own funding requirements and key
performance indicators. Establishing discrete recovery services swiftly in the after-
math of disaster is complex. Greater integration of the local interagency network
with emergency services and local emergency planning processes will assist this.
Any recovery service needs to plan its withdrawal from the community at
the outset. Strategies to manage this included multiple and early advice to the
community of the closure date, review with each current client and attempts
to reach all former clients, warm referrals to two ongoing local counselling
services after detailed negotiation regarding acceptance of referrals and addi-
tional resourcing, and close collaboration with the local council recovery team,
regarding rebuilding processes.
The SBS model itself was crystallised through the period of service provi-
sion. The manager summarised the model into four inter-related elements of
activity, based on SBS’s experience. The four quadrants: taking steps, safety
and wellbeing, emotion regulation, and cognitive scaffolding, comprised the
way the support workers related to clients in delivering the psycho-social
relationship-based model of disaster recovery and renewal, informed by
a strengths approach. Solution focused brief therapy provided the frame-
work for engaging clients in conversations focused on their preferred futures
(Crestani 2017).

References
Blue Mountains City Council (2017). www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/index.cfm. Accessed 26
September 2017.
Camilleri, P.J., C. Healy, E. Macdonald, J. Sykes, G. Winkworth and M. Woodward (2007).
Recovering from the 2003 Canberra bushfire: a work in progress. Canberra: Institute of
Child Protection Studies, ACU.
Crestani, A. (2014). Step by Step Blue Mountains Bushfire Support Service final report October
2014. www.emergency.nsw.gov.au/media/280/972/_/r04siimaedg0aoo00c/Report-
BlueMountainsBushfire-StepByStep-Final-20141001.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2017.
Crestani, A. (2017). Step by Step 4 quadrant model for disaster recovery. Paper presented
to NSW Department of Justice Disaster Welfare Alumni Forum, September 2017,
unpublished.
Social workers and disasters 161

Department of Human Services (2009). After the bushfires: Victoria’s psychosocial recovery
framework. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. www.dhs.vic.gov.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/905575/web_Psychosocial-support-a-framework-for-
emergencies.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2017.
Gateway Family Services (2014). Step by Step: it takes a village to rebuild a village. www.
gatewayfamilyservices.org.au/other-services/step-by-step-bushfire-support-service.
Accessed 29 September 2017.
Kretzmann, J. and J.P. McKnight (1996). Assets-based community development. Nat Civic
Rev, 85: 23–29. doi:10.1002/ncr.4100850405. New South Wales Rural Fire Service,
2017. www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-me. Accessed 11 October 2017.
Rich, J.L., A. Booth, P. Reddy and A. Rowlands (2014). The Step by Step Bushfire Support
Service qualitative evaluation report. Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health,
University of Newcastle.
Rich, J.L., A. Booth, A. Rowlands and P. Reddy (2016). Bushfire support services and
the need for evaluation: the 2013 Blue Mountains experience. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, 31(1): 8–12.

Questions

What are the various organisational and other pathways through which social
workers come to a disaster zone?
Describe how these pathways shape different roles for social workers.
What do we mean by systems failures in disasters? Give an example.
Rowlands talks about the confusion of information flow in the post-disaster
periods. Why is this so complex and how can it be addressed?
Describe and discuss the Step-by-Step model. Does it incorporate an environ-
mental perspective?
PART III

Vulnerability, resilience and

intersectionality
9
FACTORS SHAPING VULNERABILITY

In this chapter, and Chapters 10 and 11, we revisit the concepts of social vulnerability
and resilience to provide a deeper understanding of people’s capacity to adapt
following disasters. Factors that may cause differential vulnerability include gen-
der, life-cycle stage, socio-economic issues, poverty, illness, disability and access
to services. These chapters are designed to make workers aware that the personal is
political and therefore to understand that there are structural factors that will influ-
ence people’s capacity to adapt when a disaster occurs. Critically, when addressing
vulnerability social workers should adopt an assets- or strengths-based approach,
harnessing the capacity of individuals, families, groups and communities to move
forward in positive ways; and a community development approach to advocate
for changes in structures that disempower. We introduce the idea of conducting
a vulnerability assessment to assess levels of vulnerability within the community.
In Chapter 10 we will focus particularly on gender as a critical marker of vul-
nerability. There are numerous factors that shape the vulnerability of women and
men in a disaster including the care of children and exposure to violence. Chapter
11 addresses additional factors that social workers should acknowledge in assessing
vulnerability including poverty, the life-cycle stage and forced migration. These
three chapters bring to life the factors that shape the disaster experience and the
capacity of people to move beyond the disaster with resilience.

Vulnerability, resilience and capacity to adapt

Circumstances experienced by individuals prior to a disaster will be amplified by
the event and its aftermath. At the same time the disaster experience, prior to, dur-
ing or after the event, render some people more vulnerable than others even within
the same household. In Chapter 2, drawing on the work of noted UK gender and
disaster expert Maureen Fordham, we noted that
166 Vulnerability and resilience

Vulnerability is embedded in complex social relations and processes and is

situated squarely at the human-environment intersection requiring social
solutions if successful risk reduction is to occur.
(Fordham et al. 2013: 12)

Thus, we argue that vulnerability is influenced by factors that shape one’s place in
the world – gender, education, employment, access to resources, family structure,
sexuality, for example – and is framed by circumstances.
Le De, Gaillard and Friesen (2015: 359) note that:

Individuals and communities are vulnerable economically because they are

poor, such as having little savings or access to bank credit. They are vulnerable
geographically because they live in risky locations (for example as a result of
limited land access or information on potential hazards), socially because they
do not have a social security system, insurance or strong social networks, and
politically, since their voice is overlooked by political institutions.

Social workers should understand not only the concept of vulnerability and its com-
plexity, but also the social factors that shape differential experiences of vulnerability.
This requires an understanding of the complex social systems and power relations
that previously existed in the affected area, as well as the personal factors and life
circumstances that will lead to some people being more vulnerable than others.
The International Association for public participation defines a ‘vulnerable
person’ as ‘anyone who might find it difficult to receive, understand or act on
information before, during or after an emergency’ (IAPPA 2014: 8). Thus, there
will be people who do not receive, understand or act on information for a number
of reasons – for example, because of language difficulties, mobility issues, or even
because they lack the resources to access information sites. They may be limited by
their previous positioning in the power structure of the community. They may be
old or very young, they may be mothers of young children, they may be people
who had been renting in the area who therefore do not have immediate access to
the same financial and other supports as those who lost houses. They may, in fact,
be tourists visiting the area when the disaster struck. They may be undocumented
farm workers who are not on official records. They may be people at risk of vio-
lence. They may be people who do not wish to be found or to appear on any
register – for example, fathers who have been in hiding to escape the need to pay
child support (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).
A good example of existing vulnerabilities being amplified by a disaster occurred
during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. Tierney (2012a: 253),
in describing the factors that shaped people’s disaster experiences, notes:

A largely African American population [was] made vulnerable through both

government neglect of cities and the welfare of their residents and the mach-
inations of economic profiteers; hollowed-out public institutions that were
barely functioning even in non-disaster times; the profit-driven destruction
Factors shaping vulnerability 167

of the protections offered by the natural environment; and then, when the
catastrophe struck, a governmental response that failed victims in their time
of greatest need.

The Hurricane exposed this deep underbelly of long-term prior neglect, low socio-
economic circumstances and differential poverty experienced particularly by African
Americans in the region. When the Hurricane hit the region these factors shaped the
capacity of people to respond and adapt. As Bankston (2013) notes, a majority of poor
households had no access to a vehicle to escape the flooding that came with the hur-
ricane. Those who could get out of the region did. Those who could not were left
behind largely to fend for themselves. Many were evacuated to the local Superdome
and over time 45,000 temporary housing units were brought in to the region (Gates
2015). This example illustrates how the crisis of a major disaster amplified the ongoing
vulnerability of the population, who themselves are defined by prior circumstances.
Commenting on the variable vulnerability of disaster survivors following the
Black Saturday fires in Australia, one social worker noted that people require dif-
ferent interventions because of differential vulnerability and that, even in dire
circumstances, post-traumatic growth is possible.

And what is right for one individual or one family is not going to be the same
for another, and that, I think, is why social workers are useful because social
workers will understand that it’s going to be different for everyone. Just
because you’ve had the same disaster experience doesn’t mean the outcome
for you is going to be the same. I mean, for some people I reckon there was
huge growth in understanding what they can – or, what their resilience lev-
els were. ‘Shit, if I can survive that, God, I can go and do a whole number
of different things, or take a whole number of different risks, or, I can get
through the next thing.’

While everyone exposed to a disaster experiences some degree of vulnerability

given the extreme circumstances they have lived through, how people withstand
the event depends on factors that shape their capacity to respond. Those with
resources will fare better, at least initially, than those without.
As disasters increase in frequency, and disaster preparedness becomes more
common, some local areas are establishing vulnerability registers. Such a register
allows the recording of the home addresses of people who may be vulnerable in an
emergency – people living with a disability; older people living alone; and others
who might need assistance. These registers allow emergency services to act quickly
in an emergency to support people who may need additional assistance. Registers
are a useful strategy in the development of risk reduction strategies.

Intersectionality
Vulnerability in the disaster context is a useful but limited concept. We also note
that the notion of intersectionality gives a far more nuanced understanding of
168 Vulnerability and resilience

factors that shape vulnerability/resilience in different circumstances at different

times. The International Women’s Development Organisation (IWDA 2018: 1)
defines intersectionality as

the complex, cumulative manner in which the effects of different forms of

discrimination combine, overlap or intersect. Discrimination does not exist
in a bubble – different kinds of prejudice can be amplified in different ways
when put together.

Certain categories such as gender, ethnicity and class will facilitate systems of power
that shape people’s lives, advantaging some groups and disadvantaging others, and
leading to discrimination and oppression (Ife 1997; Krumer-Nevo and Komem
2015). Yet these factors are not definitive – at various times, people may priori-
tise different aspects of their identity (Trauger et al. 2008: 433). Intersectionality
describes the multiple positions and identities that people can adopt allowing
them to move between different identity markers – for example, from ‘mother’ to
‘professional worker’; from ‘old person’ to ‘local government representative’. As
Trauger et al. (2008) note, intersectionality explains how people will prioritise dif-
ferent aspects of their identities and how they negotiate these identities across time
and space and in response to environmental cues.
Intersectionality reminds us to be aware of the many factors that shape vulner-
ability, both singularly and in concert with each other. At the same time it reminds
us that these categories are not definitive of people’s capacity to adapt and that a
strengths-based approach will assist people to move beyond the disaster experience.

Vulnerability assessment
A critical technique drawn from the physical sciences is the notion of a vulner-
ability assessment. These have been conducted by scientists to assess vulnerable
ecosystems and to assess environmental vulnerability to climate events and to
human-induced disasters. It makes sense to introduce social vulnerability assessments
in post-disaster sites in order to build an informed profile of the community. A
social vulnerability assessment highlights the need to assess the nature of the disaster
as well as to profile the social characteristics of the people and community. For
example, it would be useful to understand the nature of the housing in the com-
munity, as well as the transport systems and health and welfare infrastructure and
to match this with the social data on issues such as poverty levels.
A social vulnerability assessment will facilitate a more informed approach to
disaster interventions in preparedness as well as during and after a disaster. It will
also assist to build a vulnerability register (see Chapter 3). If you are coming into
an area to assist in a disaster zone, community profiles and social vulnerability
assessments are important pieces of information to source. These also allow you to
tap in to local knowledge wherever possible.
Factors shaping vulnerability 169

Resisting ‘welfarising’
As we noted in Chapter 7, social workers must resist the urge to treat all who
seek help following disasters as requiring welfare support. Understanding inter-
sectionality and the factors that shape vulnerability in disasters will reduce the
social work tendency to ‘welfarise’ – or to treat everyone affected by the disas-
ter as passive welfare recipients. The structural arrangements of the social work
profession and its primary location and development within the welfare state
have traditionally ensured that social workers’ primary function has been to
address the welfare of those seeking support. However, in a post-disaster situ-
ation, social workers will encounter resistance if their primary focus is on the
provision of welfare. This approach can lead to a lack of focus on advocacy and
activism and can reduce attention to strategies that can facilitate empowerment
and self-actualisation. Thus, following a disaster there is a tension between a)
wanting to ‘help’; b) translating this into welfare service delivery; and c) over-
looking the need to mobilise and empower communities. We suggest that
when people are made to feel like welfare recipients they will resist. Following
the Black Saturday fires a government employee noted this tension evident in
social work practice.

[social workers are] used to people who aren’t always managing their own
lives all the time and are used to having that real caring relationship – that
was not what a lot of people wanted. A lot of people wanted a personal
assistant, or they wanted an advisor and they were neither – there was a
real struggle in that . . . [the case managers] were completely freaked out by
that . . . [the clients] knew how to use their local members so it was a really
bizarre experience for a lot of people.

Another noted that if we continue to ‘welfarise’ people

we create this massive sense of dependency so that when we do try and pull
away and pull back, we’re not building resilience, we’re actually building
vulnerability.

Community residents also speculated on this tension. One noted that the haste
to ‘recovery’ was flawed. ‘Recovery you get welfare based thinking . . . you get
victim creation. . . . [post-disaster] it’s a renewal process not a recovery.’ Another
noted ‘Welfarising’ ‘worried people – especially those who wanted to rely on their
own resilience’.
Social workers should reconcile the tension between wanting to help, and the
need to empower people to achieve some measure of resilience and control over
their lives.
170 Vulnerability and resilience

Resilience
We define resilience as the capacity of people and communities to adapt and transform
following an event that causes social, political and environmental change. However, while
building resilience is a chief aim of post-disaster social work, social workers should
not ignore the danger that in using ‘resilience’ we leave open the possibility of
governments and other institutions viewing this as a concept based on neoliberal
principles of individual responsibility and on the individual ‘stepping up’. This
view of resilience excuses governments and others from their responsibility to pro-
vide support for citizens. Resilience requires significant input from governments
and others to ensure that people and communities have the resources necessary to
move forward. Thus, a significant role for social workers is to lobby governments
and others for resources and advocate on behalf of those who may not have access
to the resources necessary to build resilience.
Thus, when entering a disaster site it is critical that social workers understand
the nuances of vulnerability in order to focus on strategies that will build resilience.
To do this they must be critically aware of the political, social, economic and
cultural environment in which the community is embedded, as well as the com-
munity structure, its hidden rules, customs and power relations, the groups and
individuals that may be more vulnerable than others, and the processes underway
to rebuild. Access to resources is fundamental to an individual’s and community’s
ability to recover and part of the social work role is to advocate for resources and
for their equitable distribution and to influence policy and decision makers wher-
ever possible.
Critically, the goal is to operate not in a ‘power over’ mode but a ‘power with’,
working with individuals, groups and community to ‘build back better’. Once
the immediate crisis phase is over the intermediate phase will allow social workers
to assist people to lay the foundations for the future, to address locally embedded
inequalities and to build resilient people and structures. This is an opportunity
for community ‘renewal’ – to think beyond what was there before. Longer-term
social workers can undertake community development and capacity building pro-
jects, facilitating adaptation to change. Critically, workers must incorporate a focus
on both social and environmental justice, ensuring that advocacy for the environ-
ment is incorporated into post-disaster practice. As we move into an era where
disasters will become more common, it will be critical for social workers to build
resilience and address social and environmental vulnerability in everyday practice
to prepare communities for potential disaster events.
Building resilience involves:

•• identifying vulnerabilities to disaster impacts;

•• lobbying and advocating for resources;
•• assessing opportunities for reducing risks; and
•• taking actions that build ongoing sustainability.
Factors shaping vulnerability 171

Nonetheless, as noted in Chapter 3, there are barriers to resilience and successful

adaptation including:

•• the physical dimensions of the disaster;

•• the access people have to resources;
•• how risky change might be and the trust people have in their institutions
including governments;
•• how safe it seems to continue as one has always done; and
•• how stable are governance structures.

All of these factors will affect how people respond and adapt to changes. Social
workers should critically appraise these factors when working with people
following disasters.

Addressing embedded inequalities

Power relations that govern communities ensure that there are groups that dominate
positions of power. In a post-disaster situation, while these groups may continue
to be the dominant voices in decision-making bodies and media representations,
they may no longer be representative of the community or its challenges. They
may or may not be the most appropriate decision-makers concerning the need for
resources and the way these might be distributed. It may be useful to establish new
community organisations that are more representative.
One example of powerful voices overshadowing others occurred following the
Black Saturday bushfires. An NGO worker noted that there were a lot of ‘angry
men’ with ‘very loud voices’ and that ‘they weren’t necessarily speaking on behalf
of the community but they were the most heard’.
Social workers should note that the loudest voices are not necessarily repre-
sentative of all in the community and that there are groups outside recognised
pathways of power and leadership. People who are vulnerable in some circum-
stances may not be in others. A good example emerged from the Black Saturday
fires when women who were not as prominent in power structures prior to the
fires, nonetheless were very evident in setting up the community hubs, in prepar-
ing and serving meals and in generally working to build community capacity. They
were also evident in providing longer-term support services and setting up groups
such as the women’s support group the Firefoxes. The following case study pro-
vides another example of women mobilising after a disaster to source and provide
food. This is an excellent example of a vulnerable group taking action to address
immediate needs.
In assisting people to rebuild, it is important to understand power dynamics.
In post-disaster spaces there is often an unseemly haste to put the community
back together just as it was. Communities want to be healed – they also want
to go back to where they were. It takes time to accept that this may never be
172 Vulnerability and resilience

achieved. During this period of renewal as people slowly come to terms with
their losses, this is a perfect time to challenge existing inequalities and to reshape
more equitable communities.

Summary
In this chapter we have discussed factors shaping vulnerability, but also noted that
intersectionality describes a process whereby these factors do not necessarily define
people. We note that it is critical for social workers to be aware of those most
vulnerable during and after a disaster and that part of the social work role is to
access the types of resources that will assist people to address the challenges they
face. Critically, we note that social workers should not be tempted to ‘welfarise’
people beyond the initial stages of disaster recovery, but work to build individual
and community resilience. In the process the aim of addressing social and environ-
mental justice is a significant imperative.

CASE STUDY – CYCLONE YASI, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

Desley Hargreaves

The disaster
On 3 February 2011, Tropical Cyclone Yasi – a category 5 cyclone – struck
the Cassowary Coast in North Queensland, causing widespread damage to
affected areas. Yasi was 650 kilometres wide, the most powerful cyclone to
hit Queensland in a century. It was ‘as powerful as Hurricane Katrina . . . large
enough to engulf the United Kingdom’ (BBC News 2 Feb 2011). Wind gusts
were up to 290 kilometres per hour and significant property and farm crop
damage was sustained. While initially forecast to hit the major population
centre of Cairns, the cyclone crossed in a much less populated area between
Cairns and Townsville, a much larger city to the south.
One person died, and thirty thousand people were evacuated from Cairns
including all the patients from Cairns Base Hospital. These people were air-
lifted by agencies such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and by the Royal
Australian Airforce to Brisbane. Popular tourist areas Mission Beach and nearby
Dunk Island were severely impacted as they were in the direct path of the
cyclone. Other badly affected areas were smaller towns such as Innisfail, Tully,
Tully Heads on the coast, Silkwood and Cardwell. These areas sustained major
damage to houses, buildings, infrastructure and the coastline. A storm surge
estimated to have reached 5 metres destroyed many structures along the coast
including 150 homes, while another 650 were left uninhabitable (mobile.abc.
net.au). Another 2000-plus homes sustained moderate damage.
Factors shaping vulnerability 173

Unlike previous cyclones, Yasi maintained its intensity well inland not less-
ening to a tropical low until near Mt Isa in inland Queensland (800 kilometres
west) over 20 hours later.

How were people affected? Who was particularly

vulnerable?
Yasi caused significant damage to infrastructure, property, livestock, crops,
vegetation and tourist resorts and facilities. The coastline itself was badly
affected. This area was just recovering from Cyclone Larry, which hit the
North Queensland coast near Innisfail on 20 March 2006, causing widespread
damage to property, homes, farm crops such as sugar cane and bananas and
exotic fruits, tourist facilities and infrastructure. Many farmers were still paying
off loans to help them recover when Yasi struck.
Individuals, families and communities were affected. Livelihoods and place
were severely impacted again. Particularly vulnerable were the elderly, those
with limited mobility, the retired, farmers, children and families, tourist opera-
tors and the service industries that supported these businesses. Many people’s
homes were destroyed, or severely damaged. This left many facing homeless-
ness, or living in damaged homes without essential services such as water and
electricity. For those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners or self-funded retir-
ees, the capacity to start again was very limited. Those who were uninsured or
under-insured were particularly vulnerable. Backpackers who were employed
in farming activities such as harvesting and fruit picking lost both accommoda-
tion and employment.
Other long-term damage was sustained. For example, community buildings
with local significance were damaged. Tully High School was destroyed, which
created challenges in terms of ongoing education options for students. Some
places had no power for several months as buildings were deemed unsafe.

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

Prior to this event, in January 2011, Central and then South East Queensland
had experienced devastating floods. I had been seconded from Canberra to
Brisbane to lead the social work and other professional services response for
Centrelink (part of the Australian Government Department of Human Services,
delivering income support and other services). I worked together with three of
our social work managers with significant experience in emergency response.
The traditional role for Centrelink social workers in emergency response
involved supporting administrative staff who were processing payments for
affected people, undertaking crisis intervention where appropriate with cli-
ents applying for such payments, providing information and referral to other
services and supporting a coordinated response. This work could occur in
evacuation centres, processing hubs, recovery centres or out in the field. It

(continued)
174 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

was a short-term role, with longer-term intervention generally provided by

State government and non-government agencies.
As Yasi was approaching, I was sitting in the Crisis Command centre in
Brisbane with key executives from Centrelink and senior social work staff,
watching the path of the cyclone on TV, while still involved in coordinating
the response to the Brisbane floods. It was frightening to watch, given the
scale of the cyclone – its diameter was huge and forecasts continued to predict
it would cross the coast at Cairns – a major population centre approximately
1700 kilometres north of Brisbane. As the night progressed, this changed as
the cyclone moved more towards Townsville, the second largest city in the
State of Queensland after the capital, Brisbane. I was in contact with the social
work manager for North Queensland who was working from home as all staff
had been sent home to ensure their safety and wellbeing and that of their
families, and to allow them to secure their own properties.
I was asked to hand over my responsibility in Brisbane to one of my manag-
ers and go to Cairns or Townsville. A crisis command manager based in Cairns
took over responsibility for coordination of the response due to the damage in
Townsville, which was impacted more extensively by the tail of the cyclone in
terms of wind and rain damage.
My team and I identified and negotiated the release of additional Centrelink
social work staff from around Australia. This was challenging as many had been
involved in the response to the floods. It was not appropriate to use many of
them as they still had work to do where they were, or needed to return home.
Thus, we used fly-in staff from other parts of Australia to backfill ‘business as
usual’ (BAU) positions in Centrelink service and call centres where appropriate.
Building on our experience from the 2009 Victorian bushfires and the 2011
Brisbane floods we established governance structures (Hargreaves 2015) for
the professional staff in both Cairns and Townsville, where I based another
social work manager.
We used senior local staff such as the Cairns-based social work manager.
These social workers who were already connected into the city’s (local or
district) Emergency Management arrangements, facilitated a coordinated
response and timely advice both ways, on service delivery options/proposals
and feedback from those on the ground.
Social workers and some other professional staff such as occupational thera-
pists and psychologists were used to support administrative staff who were
processing payment claims. In Townsville these were located in unused office
space and other available locations where computing capacity could be quickly
and effectively installed – even in the absence of power and telephony at times.
As towns such as Innisfail and centres on the Atherton Tablelands became
accessible, social workers were also rostered into those centres. Wherever
possible, we attempted to ensure that our staffing arrangements facilitated a
gendered response with pairing of team members. This was not always feasible
Factors shaping vulnerability 175

especially in the early stages where we had to use whoever was suitable and
available, and who were not directly impacted themselves by the cyclone.
Social workers were members of small teams visiting the most affected
areas once access was permitted. Senior and/or experienced staff were
deployed because of the level of anticipated trauma. As far as possible we used
local social work staff who had connections with the smaller, badly affected
communities. Social workers also formed part of formal outreach teams led by
agencies such as Australian Red Cross. This was not part of the usual role of
the Centrelink social worker but was most appropriate in the context of limited
resources, lack of access for many of those impacted and also the urgent need
for wellbeing checks on those affected.
Some longer-term community development was undertaken. While not
the usual role for Centrelink social workers, these resources were needed as
part of a coordinated response with all agencies involved. Given the relatively
small size of some of the impacted communities and the infrastructure damage
sustained, this was an important demonstration of support and collaboration.
There was a large population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
in the affected areas. We quickly established links and built on existing rela-
tionships with the Centrelink Indigenous Servicing team in Cairns. Together,
we negotiated servicing arrangements based on referral from this team for
social work follow-up. Cultural competency was a very important requirement
for social workers in this context.
Learnings from previous disasters were implemented. This included provid-
ing good daily briefings – both participating in the briefings with the Crisis
Management Team (CMT) and conducting such briefings in person or by
phone with the with team leaders. The social work team leaders in both Cairns
and Townsville conducted operational and wellbeing debriefings with the ros-
tered staff each day. It was important to ensure that there was an alternate
team leader and also an alternate for my position. As the person in charge
of professional services in this response I tried to be visible to staff, visiting all
service delivery places. It took just over four hours to drive between Townsville
and Cairns in normal times but the highway was cut for periods of time. So
we drove where we could and flew between Cairns and Townsville regularly.
When possible, we travelled by car to various sites with other CMT members.
The purpose of these visits was to provide staff support, undertake strategic
needs assessment (noting constant dynamic changes), information gathering
and exchange, and assess changing staff requirements
It was helpful that I knew many of the staff. I had also worked closely with
some of the non-social work managers who had been part of the Brisbane
flood response and were now working in the response to Yasi, as they were
locals. This was very helpful in terms of my credibility, relationship building
and response planning as part of a team. Social work influence occurred at the
strategic, tactical and operational levels. Some staff moved between all three at

(continued)
176 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

times. Social workers contributed to both the professional services delivery and
the broader crisis response decision making of our agency.
Because of Centrelink’s national reach we could ask call centre social work-
ers and other service centre social workers across Australia to take on the usual
client workload of the social workers from North Queensland so they could
focus on the disaster response. This involved undertaking phone assessments
to ensure timely information and assessment provision for claims for income
support payments where social workers were involved in the claim process.
These included payments for unsupported youth, homelessness, domestic
and family violence, and child support assessments. This also meant a rep-
rioritisation of social work interventions undertaken in the BAU context. An
unexpected benefit was that it provided an opportunity to look at new ways
of working.
As Centrelink’s response scaled back it was important to transition back to
business as usual with the local social work manager taking responsibility for
the ongoing social work response. Because of Centrelink’s income support role
in normal times many of those affected would have an ongoing connection
with the agency. All staff needed to have an understanding of the longer-term
impacts of this event on individuals, families and local communities.

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

Social workers operated at various levels in this response and used a range
of theoretical knowledge and practice skills. This included an understanding
of disaster theory, the nature and stages of disaster and disaster manage-
ment frameworks. Crisis and short-term intervention theory and practice were
important in the initial response, as was an understanding of the impacts
of trauma, grief and loss. Strengths-based and empowerment approaches
underpinned their work. Knowledge of individual, family and community
functioning together with an understanding of systems, organisational and
structural theory also informed their practice. An appreciation of the cultural
context of recovery was important.
It was very important for social workers to understand how the experience
of Cyclone Larry impacted and how people dealt with this disaster. For some,
livelihoods were just being resurrected, and the mortgages taken out after
Cyclone Larry were almost paid off – and then Yasi struck. For some of those
affected, it increased their resilience. For others, it was totally devastating and
hope turned to despair. Meaning making in that context was very difficult.
Social workers understand the need to start where the client is, and focus
on what is most important for the client at that point. Social casework was
fundamental to the response. This ranged from practical support around
immediate needs, psychosocial assessments, crisis intervention, Mental Health
First Aid, bearing witness, problem solving, to information provision and
Factors shaping vulnerability 177

advocacy. Good interpersonal skills were essential to navigate the politics at

all levels including with other agencies in evacuation centres, with partners
in the recovery arrangements, and within the organisation. Equally necessary
was the ability to be respectful of the role of others both within and external
to our organisation.
Professional supervision theory was applied in the provision of supervision,
critical reflection and broader staff support strategies. Knowledge of self-care
strategies was very important in the early days where limited staff numbers
initially put extra pressure on staff. Ensuring that staff wellbeing was actively
monitored was part of the role of the social work managers.
Knowledge of community resources was critical. The use of local social
workers facilitated the appropriate use of and referral to these and also ena-
bled service gaps to be identified quickly. Conflict resolution and negotiation
skills, organisational and coordination skills and effective communication skills
were required in all aspects of the role. This included feeding back situational
assessments, relaying the impact of policy decisions on affected people as well
as the emerging issues in the community.

What worked and did not work

Using local knowledge, staff and networks where that was possible was inte-
gral to delivering an appropriate and responsive service. Relationships and
trust are critical at such a time and local, known staff were trusted to engage
and respond appropriately at different stages of the recovery.
Role clarity was fundamental to achieving good outcomes for affected peo-
ple. Building on learnings from the Victorian bushfires and experience with the
Brisbane floods, we crafted a role statement that brought clarity to the work of
social workers and other professional staff involved in the recovery.
The biggest challenge to a coordinated response was having two separate
sites 350 kilometres away from each other. To make this work I allocated a
social work manager to each site with responsibility for defined geographic
areas in accordance with the broader Centrelink response. We agreed strate-
gies to ensure our relationship and arrangements would work. This included
daily briefings, regular phone contact, visits and planning meetings, which
were conducted by phone. It wasn’t perfect, but we continued to refine this
over time.
Another big challenge was ensuring social work staff were rested – that
they were rostered on with proper down time, and, that we led by example,
especially in the early chaotic stages where we were still finding out facts and
tailoring the response. It is very difficult to take time out in the midst of an
emergency, but we have learned over time that not only is this good model-
ling for our staff but also for our own health and wellbeing and our ability to
make informed, objective decisions.

(continued)
178 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

Good communication in emergencies is essential but often difficult to

achieve. Where this fell down, it created issues such as information being
outdated, and service priorities changing and not being understood. This
reinforced for us the need for structure, supervision, daily briefings, visits and
support but also the importance of getting feedback from those on the ground
about changing circumstances and emerging needs.
Ensuring that no one felt abandoned was difficult when there were chal-
lenges in accessing affected areas because of the scale of damage to roads,
bridges etc. There were media reports of smaller communities feeling that they
had been ignored, and some of them had experienced the most severe dam-
age. As noted earlier, it was important to use local, senior experienced social
workers who had credibility in these communities as part of the visiting team.
Identifying those without social supports and trying to connect them with
assistance was challenging but a key focus (Hobfoll et al. 2007).
It was really important to ensure that responses were coordinated and
that we worked with other agencies as part of a team where appropriate.
Communication was impacted, and this could lead to being where we
were not needed or not being where we were needed at a critical time.
Equally, information sharing across jurisdictions was at times very challeng-
ing, where different legislation and privacy requirements could impede a
coordinated response.

Lessons learned for social work practice

Many of these lessons have been learned through experience working in dis-
asters over many years. However, they continue to resonate. As each disaster
is different and requires a tailored response, new and better ways continue to
be learned. Flexibility is key.
Individuals, families and communities have the right to be heard and to
contribute to their own recovery. This is challenging despite the best inten-
tions of most agencies. Sometimes, it would be the role of our staff to facilitate
that. At other times, it was adding a supporting voice to that of other agencies
who were raising this matter.
Sustaining a healthy resilient workforce requires a strong focus. Working
out of their normal environment can be overwhelming for staff and staff sup-
port is critical. Strategies were highlighted earlier. While I had a responsibility
to ensure the safety and wellbeing of staff, we needed individual social workers
to be aware of and take some responsibility for self-care. Another lesson was
ensuring that the social workers or other professional staff you are deploying
are suited for the role. Not all are. Some are better suited to the structured
work environment of business as usual, although they don’t always see that.
‘Do no harm’ has to be the underpinning principle and there is potential, with
Factors shaping vulnerability 179

the best of intentions, that the unsuited staff member can do harm – in their
interactions with other team members, other agencies, to the reputation of
the agency and, most importantly, with affected people.
The assessment of need is dynamic and must be monitored and responded
to constantly. Linked to this is the need for ongoing evaluation and review of
your service, including after your service involvement is no longer required.
Planning the long-term service strategy concurrently with the immediate
recovery response is challenging but necessary. You can’t leave it until it is time
to withdraw the additional staff to start planning how local staff will continue
to support the recovery.
Policy clarity around eligibility for assistance is desirable but often difficult
to achieve in the early days of disasters. Social workers’ role in policy feedback
was reinforced. Social workers learn from their contact with affected people
and communities about the impact of policies and decisions on those affected.
It is vitally important to ensure that information is fed back to relevant authori-
ties and policy makers. Feedback of individual case studies can be helpful in
seeking changes at the policy level.
We were reminded of the importance of relationships, connections and
the need to link in with existing networks. Tapping into the knowledge and
network of local staff where they are not impacted personally brings credibility
to the response.
Media scrutiny was constant and increased the political pressure on eve-
ryone involved in the response. Being aware of which staff dealt with media
inquiries was extremely important.
We learned that crisis can provide opportunity for change in work practices
in Business as Usual. For some years we had been exploring different ways
of working with clients, prioritising client groups as workloads increased and
resources were limited. The weather events of 2011 forced our social work
service to work differently because so many staff from North Queensland were
involved in the response. This led to sustained changes to work practices in the
longer term.
Importantly, we were reminded never to underestimate the strength and
resilience of the human spirit. Most people recover without help from profes-
sionals, turning to their usual family and social networks for support (Kaniasty
and Norris 2004).

References
BBC News (2011). How big is Cyclone Yasi? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-
pacific-12347702 (2 February 2011). Retrieved on 17 February 2018.
Hargreaves, D. (2015). Emergency relief and social work responses. In James D. Wright
(editor-in-chief), International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (2nd
ed.), Vol 7, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 427–432.

(continued)
180 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

Hobfoll, S.E., P. Watson, C.C. Bell, R. Bryant, M. Brymer, M.J. Friedman, M. Friedman,
B. Gersons, J. Jong, C. Layne, S. Maguen, Y. Neria, A. Norwood, R. Pynoos, D.
Reissman, J. Ruzek, A. Shalev, Z. Solomon, A. Steinberg and R. Ursano (2007). Five
essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: empirical
evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4) winter: 283–315.
Kaniasty, K. and F.H. Norris (2004). Social support in the aftermath of disasters, catas-
trophes, and acts of terrorism: altruistic, overwhelmed, uncertain, antagonistic and
patriotic communities. In R. Ursano, A. Norwood and C. Fullerton (eds), Bio-terrorism:
psychological and public health interventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 200–229.
mobile.abc.net.au (2011). Mobile.abc.net.au>news>cyclone-yasi-destroyed-150-homes
(7 February 2011). Retrieved on 17 February 2018.

Questions
What are some of the factors that shape vulnerability?
What is intersectionality and how does this affect levels of vulnerability?
In the example offered by Desley Hargreaves, describe those viewed as vul-
nerable. Why were they? How was this addressed?
What social work skills were used following the cyclone?
What were the critical learnings from this event?
How would social work disaster theory assist workers in this disaster?
10
GENDER AND DISASTERS

One of the most critical factors shaping vulnerability in disaster situations is gender
(Alston 2015; Lane and McNaught 2009; FAO 2007; Neumayer and Pluemper
2007). Studies from around the world suggest that women are particularly vulner-
able during disasters and in post-disaster situations – they are more likely to die,
and experience higher levels of violence in interpersonal relations. Men are also
impacted by the hyper-masculinity of the disaster space and by ongoing issues
of post-traumatic stress, depression, mental health and drug and alcohol issues.
Both are impacted by a breakdown of educational and employment opportunities;
increased exposure to unsafe conditions; and reduced capacity for local organising
(Dankelman 2010). This chapter addresses the gendered vulnerabilities that emerge
in disasters and post-disasters. It is critical that social workers do not ignore the
gendered vulnerabilities that arise in disaster situations and act to ensure the safety
of women and girls.

Gender
Gender is defined as the social processes and relations that shape our identity as
women or men at a certain time and place. It is socially constructed and dynamic
and therefore will have different manifestations in different cultures at different
times. Nonetheless, gender influences behaviour at individual and institutional lev-
els and is reinforced through the social practices within societies (Enarson 2012:
23–26). The one constant is that women experience significant gender inequalities
in their daily lives and that these inequalities are reinforced by customs if not by
laws. Thus, in some communities, women cannot own land and yet their live-
lihoods may be dependent on access to land. Consequently, an environmental
disaster can have devastating effects at the same time as their lack of ownership
means there is no recourse to compensation.
182 Vulnerability and resilience

As previously noted (Alston 2015), many countries accept and endorse unequal
gender relations leading to reduced economic circumstances, health status and
increased poverty for women. Conservative estimates suggest that women make
up: two-thirds of the world’s illiterate (UNICEF 2013); earn 10 per cent of the
world’s income (Global Poverty Project 2013); occupy only 18 per cent of seats in
the world’s parliaments (International Women’s Democracy Centre 2008); consti-
tute 70 per cent of those living in extreme poverty (Global Poverty Project 2013);
and with their children, represent 80 per cent of the world’s refugee population
(UNHCR 2005). These figures highlight the imperative to consider the unique
circumstances that women face and how these factors cannot only hinder their
resilience and ability to cope with additional shocks and stresses in a post-crisis
context, but also impact their capacity to engage in restoration and renewal pro-
jects as a first priority. Women’s vulnerability results from highly entrenched and
normalised social practices and structural inequalities.
It is important to acknowledge that gender inequalities are not caused by disaster
events – they are exacerbated by them. A much more complex set of circum-
stances, link existing gender inequalities – such as reduced access to land, resources
and decision-making, constraints on freedom of movement, lower income gen-
eration capacity, disproportionate caring roles, traditional cultural customs and
gender-blind policies – to gender vulnerability in post-disaster situations.
Yet it is critical to continually remind oneself of the complexity of the category
‘woman’ and the intersectional nature of gender. For example, rural women living
in poverty are more likely to be severely impacted by disasters and post-disaster
circumstances (Alber 2011). A more nuanced explanation of these complexities
is required in order to open the possibility of greater gender equality, a more
equitable distribution of resources and greater resilience in the face of disasters. As
slow onset and catastrophic weather events and other major disasters become more
frequent and more intense across the globe, gender differences in impacts, vulner-
ability, resilience and adaptive capacity are evident regardless of country, culture or
event (Alston 2015, 2012b and 2013; Enarson 2009 and 2012).
While gender is a key factor in the disaster experience, it has not been promi-
nent in global decision-making arenas and forums that tend to be technocratic,
masculinised arenas. Men dominate global climate and disaster forums, and this
has led not only to a lack of attention to the issues that affect women, but also to a
focus on the economics costs of disasters and on technical and scientific solutions
(Luft 2016).

Women’s vulnerability in disasters

As discussed elsewhere (Alston 2015, 2013 and 2012a), research emerging from
climate-induced post-disaster sites reveals that the impacts for women are generally more
severe than for men in terms of morbidity, mortality, ongoing livelihood restruc-
turing, poverty and levels of support (see, for example, Alston, Whittenbury and
Haynes 2014; Lambrou and Nelson 2010; Enarson 2009; Harris 2010; Neefjes and
Gender and disasters 183

Nelson 2010; Odigie-Emmanuel 2010; Vincent, Cull and Archer 2010; Corral
2011; Tovar-Restrepo 2010).
Women are much more likely to die in disaster events (Neumayer and Pluemper
2007). For example, in the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, one and a half times
more women than men died; in the 1991 Bangladesh floods five times as many
women died; and in the 2004 South Asia tsunami women were three to four times
more likely to die (UNEP 2005 reproduced in Seager 2006).
Women are more likely to be exposed to violence during and after disasters; to be more
constrained by their responsibilities for the aged and children (Enarson 2009 and
2006; Dankelman and Jansen 2010; Alston, Whittenbury and Haynes 2011); to be
living in poverty, to have no ownership of land and resources, to have less control
over production and income, less education and training, less access to institu-
tional support and information, less freedom of association, and fewer positions on
decision-making bodies (Dankelman 2010).
Women are more vulnerable in post-disaster spaces because existing inequalities
are overlaid with additional stressors such as a loss of control over natural resources,
including water; food productive capacity; information and decision-making; time
poverty; a breakdown of educational and employment opportunities; increased
exposure to unsafe conditions; and less capacity for local organising (Dankelman
2010; Alston 2015, 2013; Alston and Whittenbury 2012; Lane and McNaught 2009;
Enarson 2012). With reference to climate-induced disasters, UN WomenWatch
(2011: 1) notes that in many contexts,

women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men
[and] are especially vulnerable when they are highly dependent on local
natural resources for their livelihood. Those charged with the responsibil-
ity to secure water, food and fuel for cooking and heating face the greatest
challenges [and] when coupled with unequal access to resources and to deci-
sion-making processes, limited mobility places women in rural areas in a
position where they are disproportionately affected by climate change. It is
thus important to identify gender-sensitive strategies to respond to the envi-
ronmental and humanitarian crises caused by climate change.

In research conducted in Bangladesh (Alston 2015; Alston, Whittenbury and

Haynes 2014), women reported their vulnerability was enhanced by:

•• not being able to go to shelters without the permission of their husbands;

•• not receiving early warnings;
•• there being no women’s toilets in shelters;
•• the threat of violence; a lack of privacy;
•• not being consulted or provided with information; and
•• being responsible for ongoing care work and income generation.

Previous work with Bangladeshi women notes that they are compromised during
and after disasters by a lack of access to information, food, safe water and sanitation,
184 Vulnerability and resilience

health care facilities, education, housing and ownership, land and inheritance, liveli-
hood strategies, participation in decision-making, and protection, security and bodily
integrity (Nasreen 2008). In particular, women in ethnic minority groups and secluded
coastal environments are more vulnerable due to their marginalised position, and mal-
treatment from the mainstream community (Ahmed et al. 2008).
During disasters there are also recorded gendered impacts (FAO 2007; Alber
2011). This suggests that

•• women are more likely to be rescuing children;

•• their dress limits their movements;
•• they may be culturally compelled to stay within the household unless accom-
panied by a male relative; and
•• shelters designed to protect people may not attend to the needs of women for
safety and privacy.

They are also vulnerable because they do not own assets such as land and thus
have reduced levels of power (Dankelman 2010).
In a seminal work alerting the global community to the gendered implications
of disasters, Dankelman (2010: 59) argued that women have less access to resources
that are essential to disaster preparedness, mitigation and rehabilitation, and that
their workloads increase not only because men are more likely to migrate to look
for work but because of a lack of energy sources, clean water, safe sanitation and
health impacts. Women’s lack of access to resources makes them more vulnerable
in preparing for, and recovering from, disasters and they have less decision-making
power and therefore less ability to influence the way resources are distributed.
In addition, women’s access to information is often tenuous and reliant on oth-
ers and their ability to relocate, to find work and to adapt to changed circumstances
is reduced, further increasing their vulnerability. Heavy workloads following disas-
ters are evident in disaster sites across the world. In the developing world, this often
results in girls dropping out of school to assist. Women are more likely to be food
and water insecure, to be time poor, to have less access to services, information and
support, to hold fewer decision-making positions, and to be more constrained by
care work (Dankelman and Jansen 2010).
In previous research undertaken in the Pacific region, we summarised the gen-
dered impacts of climate-induced disasters for women as:

•• greater likelihood of deaths and injury during natural disasters;

•• higher levels of physical and mental health issues;
•• a greater role in caring for the sick and injured;
•• a greater role in caring for sick children especially in relation to water-borne disease;
•• a greater role in caring for the elderly especially in relation to respiratory disease;
•• greater likelihood of violence and breakdown of societal protections following
disasters and climate events;
•• fewer employment opportunities in reconstruction;
Gender and disasters 185

•• a greater likelihood that women will lose land rights;

•• a higher rate of malnutrition as women tend to eat last;
•• a greater burden of work collecting clean water and fuel for cooking;
•• fewer roles in post-disaster reconstruction and decision-making;
•• a greater loss of status due to declining participation in post-reconstruction,
higher levels of violence, and a loss of basic freedoms;
•• a lack of participation in household/community decision-making;
•• relationship stress; and
•• a loss of traditional women’s knowledge.
(Alston 2010, 2012a)

In addition, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) notes that post-
disaster impacts for women include:

•• malnutrition as they prioritise food for husbands and children;

•• mental health factors associated with trauma;
•• loss of income;
•• inadequate support for female-headed households;
•• increase in maternal and infant mortality;
•• gender-insensitive reconstructive policies;
•• an increase in women’s workloads;
•• deterioration of women’s working conditions more than men’s;
•• slower economic recovery for women; and
•• differential migration patterns.
(Alber 2011; Lambrou and Piana 2006;
Lambrou and Nelson 2010)

Yet it is important to note that women hold critical local knowledge that can
enhance the capacity of the community to adapt. This knowledge can assist the
development of new technologies to address disaster preparedness and response in
areas related to energy, water, food security, agriculture and fisheries, biodiversity
services, health, and disaster risk management. Research from across the world
confirms that building resilience and empowering women is essential to achieving
transformative change in the context of disasters.

Decisions taken during disasters

During disasters, and with potential life-threatening situations developing, women
and men within families often disagree on the appropriate actions for the fam-
ily to take. Men are more likely to want to stay and defend their property/house,
while women are more likely to want to leave the danger area and take their chil-
dren to safety (Alston 2017b; Alston, Hargreaves and Hazeleger 2016). Research
following the Black Saturday bushfires (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014)
indicated that disagreements between couples on the day of the fires led to ongoing
186 Vulnerability and resilience

and largely unresolvable conflict between couples, ultimately leading to reports of

increased violence and a high number of broken relationships (Alston, Hazeleger
and Hargreaves 2014). The Royal Commission that took place after the Black
Saturday fires noted the confusion created by a lack of household plans and a lack
of clear guidelines on ‘stay or go’ actions.
In other research undertaken in Bangladesh (Alston, Whittenbury and Haynes
2014), we learnt of additional issues that influence the decisions of individuals about
leaving a threatening situation. In many cases, women may not have received early
warnings and/ or may not have a male escort to take them to shelters. In other
cases, women reported that they did not wish to leave their livestock (their only
source of income) unattended and preferred to take their chances.

Violence
Research from around the world indicates that violence against women and family
violence increases following large-scale disaster around the world (Duncan et al. 2018;
Campbell and Jones 2016; Henrici, Helmuth and Braun 2010; Houghton et al. 2010;
Parkinson and Zara, 2013; Rohr, Hemmati and Lambrou 2009; Strazdins et al.
2011; Alston, Whittenbury and Haynes 2014). This was evident in disasters such
as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 (Enarson 2006), the 2010 Haitian
earthquake (Bayard 2010) and a diverse range of other disaster sites (Enarson and
Meyreles 2004). This has also led to higher rates of marriage and relationship
breakdown following disasters (Alston and Whittenbury 2012; Phillips and Morrow
2008; Shaw, Unen and Unen 2012).
During and after natural disasters, women are at increased risk of sexual abuse
and this has been consistently reported in cyclone shelters (Oxfam GB and Naripad
2011; Ahmed et al. 2008; Nasreen 2008; WEDO 2008; Ahmed et al. 2007). More
generally, violence occurs in shelters, on the way to shelters, during and after a
climate event and in the reconstruction phase – an extreme outcome of violence
against women is the rise of trafficking of girls and women from disaster sites to the
capitals and across borders (Alston 2015). Women affected by climate change dis-
asters as well as service providers and program directors working in climate affected
areas report exacerbation of gender-based violence, sex trafficking, increased vul-
nerability for women and girls and higher numbers of women seeking assistance for
violence-related health and welfare issues (Alston 2015).
In research conducted in Bangladesh (Alston 2015; Alston et al. 2015) we noted
that climate-induced disasters resulted in a significant increase in forced child mar-
riage. Almost half (45 per cent) of our 617 respondents noted that girls were being
forced into child marriages as a result of climate disasters. In corroborating evi-
dence, Dankelman (2010) notes that children are often married off to older men in
post-disaster situations. She also notes that many women are forced to sell sex for
money in order to survive. At the same time, access to family planning services was
often interrupted by disasters, leading to a rise in unwanted pregnancies (Alston,
Whittenbury and Haynes 2014; Nasreen 2008).
Gender and disasters 187

When husbands move away to seek employment, women and children lack
protection in the home (Oxfam GB and Naripad 2011; Ahmed et al. 2008). Sexual
abuse also occurs when walking to collect water (Ahmed et al. 2008; Nasreen
2008). In Bangladesh, following Cyclone Sidr in 2009, there were reports that
increased sexual violence resulted in a rise in polygamy, early marriages, and
unwanted pregnancies, mental health disorders and sexually transmitted infections.
Research undertaken in the Pacific suggests that gender-based violence is exac-
erbated in areas affected by climate events, that women’s poverty exacerbates their
vulnerability, and that gender inequality and gender-based violence appears to
have increased markedly in some nations. Informants spoke of NGOs facilitating
microcredit to assist women to develop their own income following disasters, but
that women were being attacked and raped on the way to markets to sell their
products (Alston 2010).
Research with Australian service providers working in drought areas in the field
of women’s health and safety suggests that:

•• violence against women increased significantly during severe drought years;

•• violence is exacerbated by financial pressures;
•• increased male drug and alcohol use during this crisis period has led to
increased violence;
•• emotional and financial control/abuse affecting women increased during
drought years; and
•• women are more isolated because they limit their time away from the farm
because of the cost of petrol.
(Whittenbury 2013)

The reasons posited for the increase in violence against women following
disasters include that men vent their frustrations on women due to their
increased psychological stress and lack of employment; that they are punishing
women for not managing the increased workload or resources; that they are not
serving food on time and that they blame women for their inability to procure
relief (Ahmed et al. 2008; WEDO 2008).
Given the significant increase in violence during and after disasters reported
from disaster sites across the world, and regardless of the type of disaster, social
workers should:

•• be aware of the increased likelihood of violence and sexual violence;

•• not label violence as an aberration and hence ignore it;
•• provide access to services and information;
•• ensure shelters, including toilet facilities, are safe;
•• educate communities, services and governments on incidences of violence;
and
•• advocate for increased protections and sanctions.
188 Vulnerability and resilience

Masculinity and disasters

Men are not immune to the impacts of disasters. In the immediacy of a disaster
event, when emergency management services are enacted, a ‘command and control’,
military-style, hypermasculine response is activated, and this is noted by a number
of researchers including Tyler and Fairbrother (2013a) following the Black Saturday
bushfires and Tierney (2012b) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York. As
Duncan et al. (2018) note, the culturally sanctioned response is that men will
behave with authority, that they will be stoic in the face of disaster and that they
will defend their family, property and community with valour. As Duncan et al.
(2018) also note, it is the ideal of male bravery and stoicism that dominates the imagery
of disasters while women are often portrayed as passive and helpless and their work
is largely unheralded. Nonetheless, as Austin (2008) notes, and as we discovered
in our own research (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014), hypermasculinity is
weakened following the immediacy of the disaster when organisational and insti-
tutional structures are reduced or destroyed.
Hypermasculinity has a down side. While we have noted that women are far
more likely to die in disasters, evidence from Black Saturday and other fires sug-
gests that men are more likely to perish in fires (Hazeleger 2013b). This can be
related to the dominance of men in fire services, the barriers to women entering
the services, the consequent masculine culture (Duncan et al. 2018) and the hyper-
masculine response in the immediacy of the fires.
Duncan et al. (2018) and Pease (2016 and 2014) note it is usually impossible
for men to meet the standards of masculine behaviour that is valorised, lead-
ing to health, wellbeing and career consequences. Male stoicism can lead to an
inability on the part of men to access health services when needed. In research
undertaken during the lengthy Australian drought at the turn of the century,
Alston (2012b) notes that the need to continually portray a culturally appropriate
strong image or to meet the expectations of the provider role, led many men to
take their own lives, and impacted on the health and welfare of a large propor-
tion of drought-affected farmers who suffered significant anxiety and depression.
Duncan et al. (2018) note that this failure to meet stereotypical standards can also
lead to the acting out of exaggerated male behaviour including risk-taking and
violent behaviour, including violence against women (Parkinson and Zara 2013;
Zara et al. 2016).
In a catastrophic disaster, it is frequently impossible for men to meet the stand-
ards required of stereotypical manhood and there are costs to men in terms of
health, wellbeing and career (Pease 2016 and 2014; Zara et al. 2016). Hyper-
masculinity, or the acting out of exaggeratedly masculine characteristics, can
emerge in response to these feelings of inadequacy (Austin 2008). Men then
become vulnerable through risk-taking, over-confidence, loss of control, reluc-
tance to seek help, and failure to live up to expectations of them as ‘protector’
during the disasters, and ‘provider’ in the aftermath (Parkinson and Zara 2013;
Zara et al. 2016).
Gender and disasters 189

Outmigration and remittance income

One of the critical outcomes of disasters may be the eradication of usual livelihood
strategies. This can occur across the developed and developing world and most
usually affects men who must leave home to secure an income. Outmigration, or
displacement, describes the process of one or more members of the family moving
away from home to secure income – often for months at a time. This is termed
remittance income and is becoming more common as disaster increase (Le De et al.
2015). In discussing the factors that shape the decisions by families to outmigrate,
Kitkiri (2011) notes the following push and pull factors.
The push factors for migration include:

•• the destruction of livelihoods (farms submerged, crops destroyed);

•• the destruction of houses, shelter and assets;
•• landlessness;
•• poverty;
•• a lack of available shelters;
•• unsatisfactory living conditions in shelters (including congestion, a lack of
sanitation, and a lack of privacy for women);
•• insecurity for children (including the disruption of education, and a fear for
children’s safety if the family is living near embankments or flooded lands);
•• a lack of optimism about any improvement in the villages in the near future;
•• insufficient humanitarian relief;
•• threats to life as a result of potential disease risks;
•• lack of employment or irregular wage-labour income;
•• an imperfect social security system;
•• land shortage;
•• absence of private insurance; and
•• cultural norms and family obligations.
(Kitkiri 2011; Le De et al. 2015)

The pull factors for migration include:

•• better pay and multiple work opportunities in urban areas;

•• job opportunities abroad;
•• the presence of friends and families in other areas;
•• prior knowledge of the destination;
•• access to support systems in the destination community; and
•• a lack of incentives to stay.
(Kitkiri 2011; Le De et al. 2015)

Remittance income is more likely to be earned by male members of the family,

although not exclusively. This income is a significant boost to the family’s ability
to avoid falling into extreme poverty and to purchase food, housing materials and
190 Vulnerability and resilience

to pay for education of children (Lindley 2009). Outmigration, or displacement,

may lead to the breakup of families when only one member leaves. It can also lead
to a significant loss of people and families in the affected communities when whole
families leave to seek a new life elsewhere. This has flow on effects for services in
the community including, for example, a reduction in the numbers of children in
schools – and this will affect the numbers of teachers required; a reduction in the
number of people available for committees, sports teams and social groups, a loss
of employment opportunities and a general loss of community cohesion (Alston,
Kent and Kent 2004, 2006).

Disaster response policies

Policies, programs and practices that are introduced to address disasters or to under-
take the processes of reconstruction are almost universally what Enarson (2012: xix)
refers to as ‘stubbornly gender-blind’. For example, Australia’s emergency recov-
ery plans are described as having a ‘pervasive gender-blindness’ demonstrated in
statements on diversity within these plans that focused on factors such as ethnicity
and age but disregarded gender (Hazeleger 2013b: 41). This benign neglect of the
gender implications of disaster policies, can have a number of unforeseen conse-
quences, including the reestablishment and reinforcement of gender inequalities
and gender normative behaviours and a failure to adequately sanction hypermascu-
line responses such as violence against women. In fact, Enarson (2012: 2) notes the
striking disregard for gender in the context of disasters despite the evident differences
in impacts and outcomes.
Yet international research confirms that the engagement of women in post-
disaster restoration significantly increases positive outcomes. The UN International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2007: 9) notes that ‘attention and resources
directed to local, women’s . . . traditional cultural knowledge and expertise pro-
duced more efficient, relevant and cost-effective projects’.

Social work actions

Critical to social work effectiveness in the need to:

•• address gender equality;

•• acknowledge and address gendered vulnerabilities;
•• prioritise gender equality and gender sensitivity in all actions and strategies
before, during and after a disaster;
•• incorporate women and men in all committees and decision-making bodies
in equal numbers; and
•• advocate against policies that discriminate and ensure that resources are equi-
tably distributed.

When acting in disaster sites, social workers can use the IAPPA framework to
strengthen gender equality – inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower.
Gender and disasters 191

This will assist workers to understand who is included and excluded and to act to
ensure that marginalised groups are incorporated into practice actions.

Summary
In this chapter we have introduced the notion of gender as a critical factor shap-
ing vulnerability before, during and after disasters. Women are far more vulnerable
than men in the context of disasters, a fact that has been reinforced in disaster sites
across the world in both developed and developing countries. Across the world gender
inequalities that are embedded in diverse cultural contexts lie at the heart of wom-
en’s disadvantage. Social workers must be aware of cultural and social practices in the
context of disasters, in order to enhance gender sensitivity in disaster responses and
reimagining post-disaster sites as critical spaces to address gender equality. We can do
this through actions and practices that not only acknowledge the rights of women and
girls but also destabilise traditional customs that disempower them. As Enarson (2012:
197) so aptly notes ‘without paying attention to gender relations, as one of the defining
characteristics of private and public life, we will not build an inclusive and gender-
responsive approach to emergency management and disaster risk reduction’. Attention
to gender in disaster policies and actions is critical to achieving gender equality.

CASE STUDY – SOCIAL VULNERABILITY OF PEOPLE IN

DISASTER SPACES: THE CASE OF PAKISTAN
Golam Mathbor

What was the disaster and who was affected?

In 2010 and 2011, Pakistan was affected by monsoon rains that caused severe
flooding. Sindh province, in southern Pakistan, experienced torrential rain for
a month in 2011, which affected 22 of 23 Sindh districts, including Badin
district, the area where this study took place. UNICEF reported that 68 per
cent of the people in the district were affected (www.unicef.org/protection/
pakistan_59803.html).
The weather pattern was exacerbated by man-made risks, often with
unethical practices overlooked by the government. These risks included water
diversion, erosion from deforestation, faulty building techniques and poor
infrastructure. When the Indus River reached capacity in 2011, over a million
homes were damaged in the Sindh Valley, with these man-made problems
adding to disaster conditions (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/13/world/
la-fg-pakistan-logging-20101013).
The Pakistani government was reactive, rather than proactive, because of
failure to adequately prepare for disasters such as the 2011 floods. Early warn-
ing systems and evacuation plans were non-existent. Disaster assistance at the

(continued)
192 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

time in Badin was fragmented with barely any organised effort. The local dis-
trict took care of its own as best it could with limited resources, and received
assistance from the neighbouring Thatta district. The national response and
oversight were limited due to inadequate planning and resources, although
the military did have a role in recovery.

The research project – what did you (and others) do as

social workers?
This research was completed post-disaster. It highlighted that at the time of
the disaster in Badin, a blueprint did not exist for social work practice to help
people cope with the social impacts of disaster. Affected populations had to
build their own resilience locally, with little, if any, assistance from social work-
ers. The focus of the research was the role of women in disasters that affected
Badin district and improvements needed for future disaster planning. The
research team organised two focus groups in Badin, and these groups gave
people the opportunity to discuss their disaster experiences, present prob-
lems encountered and discuss possible solutions. Groups enabled community
members to participate and have a voice, rather than involving only village
leaders and landowners. Ten in-depth interviews were also completed with key
officials from government, NGOs and civil society.

Gendered dimensions in post-disaster Pakistan

The following section shows the gendered aspects related to rebuilding lives
post disaster in Pakistan. Findings of this section are based on focus group dis-
cussions organised with equal numbers of both males and females in Baksho
Dero of Badin district on 11 January 2014.
The severe floods that affected Badin district damaged crops and diminished
the fertility of the land. Women’s workload doubled as a result of the 2010, and
particularly, the 2011 floods. Traditionally, women took care of the children
and elderly members of the family, but now they were required to also lend
their labour to support or provide assistance to the quick recovery of agricul-
tural activities for their family. Women noted that the community was now
supporting other people financially and commodity-wise, more so than before
the disaster. As a result of the disaster, people moved to higher ground to feel
more secure and protect their belongings. To prevent damage from a future
flood, people were building smaller houses at a higher elevation, rather than
bigger houses at lower levels as in the past. They hoped this would save them
from a big disaster in the future.

Gender roles post-disaster

After the flood, women started to rebuild their homes, worked in agriculture
fields, fertilised the lands again and worked for other household activities. ‘In
Gender and disasters 193

our village, females work together with males in agriculture activities. Also,
women helped their family members in reconstruction of their houses’ (FGD
session with females, Baksho Dero, 11 January 2014). Respondents reported
that in their areas, females worked together with males in the agricultural field.
Women helped their family members to re-establish their lives and reconstruct
their houses. Also, women were affected in terms of household work, health
and education. There were a number of issues for women, with the most
important issue being the shortage of washrooms in the areas. Since 1999, no
awareness programs were launched in the district of Badin and with the situa-
tion of sudden disasters, no men and women could help prevent the disasters.
According to the Sindh government, 84 per cent of the population of
Badin resides in rural areas relying on farming for subsistence. Badin district
is one of the poorest districts because of vulnerability to disaster from floods,
earthquakes, cyclones and drought (http://pwdsindh.gov.pk/districts/badin.
htm). Although agriculture was the main source of livelihood, after the floods
people shifted from agriculture temporarily to other labour, as all of the agri-
cultural lands were destroyed in the flood. People mostly started work on
masonry labour and could not resume agriculture until sometime after the
floods. The disaster involved all genders, which included men and women,
but also children were very affected. After the flood, women started to rebuild
their homes, worked in agriculture, made the lands fertile again and did what
was necessary for their income and households.
The situations that occurred during or after the flood were mainly faced
by the women who were forced to handle harsh conditions. They suffered
with children in a single room in a camp, especially at the time of pregnan-
cies and deliveries. They also stressed the fact that the government needed to
provide gender-sensitive services for the affected people and more awareness
for women regarding their rights and responsibilities was also needed. Data
and reports prepared by many point to the fact that women suffer more than
men, and, due to cultural and social norms. They are responsible for children,
and their vulnerability increases as they cannot just leave everything behind.

Social vulnerability of women post-disaster

Smyth and Sweetman (2015) note that resilience approaches need to be
rooted in understanding the contributions, achievements, and challenges
faced by women living in poverty in the south (p. 405). In Pakistan post dis-
aster, women helped in reconstructing houses, whereas men provided the
materials. Women were now also working with men in the agriculture field.
Capacity in many cases is a function of resources. Dominelli (2012) notes vul-
nerability is the flip-side of the resilience coin (p. 67). ‘We reconstructed our
homes by gaining the materials and other things which were used in recon-
struction process. We used plaster and other construction procedures and

(continued)
194 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

our men supplied the materials (FGD session with females, Baksho Dero, 11
January 2014).’ Females stressed the importance of creating an early warning
system in their community to ensure that all residents could take shelter in a
secure area to protect themselves and their livelihoods. They also suggested
building more shelter houses on higher grounds.
As noted earlier, about 55 per cent of the population of Badin district is
female. Women encountered insensitive situations both during and imme-
diately after the disaster. A shortage of washrooms was one of the biggest
problems for females because they had to go for open defecation, and for that,
they always waited for the night time or early in the morning. The govern-
ment needed to provide gender-sensitive services for the affected people in
the shelter houses (FGD session with females, Baksho Dero, 11 January 2014).

Positive outcomes
After the disasters, the number of women’s agencies in the area neither
increased nor decreased, and the focus of existing agencies shifted from
gender-based violence to disaster and climate change concerns and their
impact on women. A number of professional women became active post
disaster, such as women doctors who set up some need-based organisations
in the affected areas. The Pakistani government established a gender and
children cell within the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
The needs of girls were being formulated in consultation with provincial gov-
ernment and district authorities were also involved in this initiative. NDMA
guidelines for gender-based needs have been formulated in different disaster
management activities.

Implications for social work practice: social work skills

and knowledge used and lessons learnt
Empowerment can be a daunting phrase, even for social work. Empowering
women encompasses gender equality, women’s rights and equal opportunity,
as well as giving women the ability to change. Empowerment can be emotion-
ally satisfying to individuals when they are personally involved in the solution.
This study enabled women to discuss their disaster experience in Badin district.
It gave individual women a voice thus empowering them to tell their stories. A
strong community response, with sensitivity to the needs of others can assist
in disaster response.
Disasters do not discriminate based on social class and vulnerability. When
they take place, whoever and whatever is in the way is affected. Because disas-
ters affect people in different ways, adequate planning, response and recovery
must include social work to help provide adequate solutions, especially for the
most vulnerable. The reality of disaster plans is that, unfortunately, it takes
Gender and disasters 195

tragedy to ignite movement in policy, which can often take too much time to
implement. Social work professionals need to be part of the disaster process,
so that lessons learnt will meander through to disaster policy.
Social work has important roles before, during and after a disaster. Right
after a disaster, the community needs to mobilise local community resources
first and then look for external resources that may take more time to secure.
Social workers live and work in local communities, and they know local
resources and indigenous practices. Social workers are usually familiar with
people in their local area, such as those with special needs, children, frail
individuals and other vulnerable people. They can also assist those who need
special accommodation. Social work practice also has a special role to ensure
equitable treatment with no discrimination in provision of disaster services.

What worked and did not work?

This research allowed females to express their desire to receive training on
emergency management and early warning systems. They also suggested
that emergency kits should be provided prior to a disaster, and the process of
rebuilding infrastructure needs to be started immediately after the disaster,
so that transportation facilities are functional to carryover commodities. The
study also showed how women contributed to building resilience post-flood
by helping in reconstructing houses, whereas men provided the materials.
From their role in maintaining the home environment to rebuilding the com-
munity, research studies indicate the vulnerability and capability of women
in post disaster activities. The need to address the diverse challenges faced by
women in disaster recovery is integral to a more holistic approach to building
resilience and sustainable development in devastated communities.
This research study looked at how rural areas such as Badin handle disasters.
The study also looked at how to lessen gender disparities in disaster manage-
ment, and how women help in building resilience. The focus groups became
a voice for the disadvantaged and gave the opportunity for those affected to
be heard and for the government to take action. Without the groups, their
concerns may not have been heard outside of their local communities. What
followed this study was that the government of Pakistan set up disaster guide-
lines and encouraged women to be more fully involved in policies.

Recent developments in Pakistan

Pakistan has experienced 13 major floods since independence in 1947 (Government
of Pakistan 2013: 1). The 2010 super floods were unprecedented, while the 2011
rains and floods severely affected lives and livelihoods in the Sindh Province. The
Government of Pakistan recognised that women are adversely affected by disaster
but also recognised the vital role that women should have in disaster management

(continued)
196 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

of the country. In May 2014, the government established a Child and Gender Cell
within the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), which put forth
guidelines to be followed in disaster management to reduce the vulnerability of
women and other groups. The guidelines state that women need to be included
in key areas of government disaster management planning and policy and should
also be included in local rescue and recovery operations (p. 41). Empowerment
of women is seen as a benefit to both men and women as their roles in disaster
management are complementary. Women are seen as ‘agents of change’ (www.
ndma.gov.pk/new/Documents/gcc_policy.pdf).
According to the UN, ‘gender inequality, despite much progress, remains
among the greatest challenges for the country. Compounding the situation
are prevalent social norms and practices, which create difficulty in accessing
services and equal opportunities’ (UN Pakistan 2013: 6). Pakistan has a Gender
Inequality Index value of 0.536, ranking it 121 out of 154 countries in the
2014 index, and a low human development index of 147 out of available
data for 188 countries (ibid.). Examples documented by the UN (ibid.) include
women being traditionally discouraged from entering public life, men resist-
ing women working outside the home; and the fact that domestic violence is
endemic, but not always taken seriously.

Conclusion
The 2010 super floods were unprecedented, while 2011 rains/floods severely
affected lives and livelihoods in the Sindh Province of Pakistan. The gender
roles post disasters were clearly evident with women’s workload doubling as a
result of the 2010 flood and particularly the 2011 flood that affected the Badin
district of Sindh Province. Women contributed to building resilience post-flood
by helping in re-constructing houses, whereas men provided the materials.
From their role in maintaining the home environment to rebuilding the com-
munity, research studies indicate the vulnerability and capability of women in
post-disaster activities. The need to address the diverse challenges faced by
women in disaster recovery is integral to a more holistic approach to building
resilience and sustainable development in devastated communities. This case
study shows the need to improve gender disparities in all areas of disaster
relief and management. Females expressed their desire to receive training on
emergency management and early warning systems. As a result of the flood,
women were more susceptible to many serious diseases such as malaria, chol-
era, and skin diseases from the lack of clean water and other hygienic issues.
Findings of this case study also focus on women’s contributions in building
resilience and sustainable development in diverse post disaster contexts.
Women reported assisting men in the reconstruction process. In closing, it is
evident that gender-related issues need to be addressed in rebuilding lives post
disaster in order to ensure sustainable development post disaster.
Gender and disasters 197

Funding
The author wish to acknowledge financial support from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Lead Pakistan and its leadership particularly Mr Ali Sheikh,
and Ms Hina Lotia for their administrative support and facilitation of this field
based research project in Pakistan. The author also acknowledges the hard
work of Mr Haseeb Kiani and Ms Zuhra Ghulam Mohammad, who worked as
Research Associate for this study in Badin district of Sindh Province. The resi-
dents of Baksho Dero deserve special acknowledgments for providing insightful
thoughts and helpful information regarding their lived experiences in the local-
ity at the time of disasters.

References
Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work: from environmental crises to environmental justice.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Government of Pakistan (2013). National Monsoon Contingency Plan 2013. www.
ndma.gov.pk/new.Documents/National_monsoon.contingency.plan.2013.pdf.
Accessed on 20 August 2015.
Smyth, I. and C. Sweetman (2015). Introduction: gender and resilience. Gender &
Development, 23(3): 405.
United Nations (UN) Pakistan (2013). One UN Program II Annual Report 2013. Retrieved
from www.un.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OPII-Annual-Report-2013-FINAL-1.pdf

Questions
Why is gender such a critical factor in vulnerability to disasters?
List some of the gendered impacts of disasters.
What actions, if any, are taken to address gender vulnerabilities in disasters?
What actions can social workers take to address gender inequalities?
In the case study presented by Mathbor, he notes certain factors that shape
women’s vulnerability in Pakistan following the flood disaster. Name these
factors. How do culture and customs shape vulnerability?
Earlier, we discussed ecofeminism. How does this theory, and its incorporation
into ecological social work, assist our understanding of gender disadvantage in
disasters?
11
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

This chapter examines additional factors that shape vulnerability in disasters including
age, income, forced migration and climate refugee status. The chapter will draw
out the additional features that make some more vulnerable than others and the
implications of these features. This chapter draws heavily on the issues paper devel-
oped by Duncan et al. (2018).

Poverty and socio-economic disadvantage

Poverty is a critical indicator of vulnerability to disasters as a lack of resources
severely reduces people’s options and defines people’s ability to cope and recover
in the event of a disaster. Poverty is also dependent on pre-existing conditions.
Those with the means to do so can adopt mitigation efforts that reduce the threat
of damage to life and property; can escape more readily in the event of a disaster;
and have significantly more options in the aftermath of a disaster.
McMahon (2007) notes that those living in poverty are less able to prepare for
disasters and for some people the capacity to have extra food, fuel, money and med-
ications stored away is unrealistic. The options available to those living in poverty
following a disaster are also limited and very much shaped by people’s access to social
security/social protection; local job opportunities and waged labour and by their
level of education as a factor in seeking employment elsewhere.
It is little wonder that the earning of remittance income by a family mem-
ber in the cities or overseas, has become such a significant livelihood strategy in
many countries vulnerable to disasters, including especially Pacific Island Nations
and countries across South Asia. Le De et al. (2015) note that those families with the
capacity to send a family member away to earn remittance income for the family
ensure that those left behind are better off than their neighbours and can reduce their
vulnerability to extreme poverty. Further, they note that those most vulnerable are
Vulnerable populations 199

households with limited remittance opportunities such as the elderly, female-headed

households, the landless or the unemployed.
Communities where poverty is concentrated, are also limited in their capacity
to prepare for and to withstand disasters. McMahon (2007) notes that these com-
munities may have limited infrastructure, early warning systems, communications
infrastructure, disaster response plans and healthcare. Access to services may also
be more limited thereby reducing the capacity of people to seek assistance in the
post-disaster period.

Social workers
Support those most vulnerable to disasters in disaster preparedness and disas-
ter response phases
Ensure fair distribution of resources including ensuring that resource distri-
bution does not further disadvantage those living in poverty

Forced migration and displacement

Following disasters, there are many people who are not able to remain in place –
often forced out by the extent of the disaster and its destruction of homes and
livelihoods. Many are ‘climate refugees’ who are displaced by climate events such
as sea level rises, forcing a permanent migration. By 2040, it is predicted that tens
of millions of people will be forced from their homes across the African nations
by droughts and water shortages (Taylor 2017) and from the Pacific Nations by
sea level rises (Doherty and Roy 2017). For others who have been temporarily
displaced by catastrophic events such as Hurricane Katrina or the Black Saturday
fires, many may never return. This may be because of the loss of their homes, the
danger of the ongoing threat, the magnitude of the disaster, which may make it
impossible to rebuild, or the loss of loved ones and friends making remaining in
place unbearable.
In other cases, as noted in Chapter 10, many families are forced to readjust
their livelihood strategies as one or more member of the family outmigrates for
work, sending remittance income back to their families (Alston 2015; Alston
2010). In all of these scenarios, families, and family members, are vulnerable to
the uncertainties of migration. For some, forced migration is so destabilising that
families break down.

Older people
The deaths of up to 15,000 older people in a major heatwave in Paris in 2003
alerted France and the world to the increasing dangers associated with climate
disasters for vulnerable people (Ford 2003). The combination of a heatwave that
200 Vulnerability and resilience

created heat islands within the city, together with numbers of elderly living alone
in non-air-conditioned apartments and the lack of support services to address such
a catastrophe awakened the world to the vulnerability of older people to disasters.
When a disaster strikes, older people may find it too difficult to seek shelter else-
where and may be forced to take their chances in their homes. Older people are
particularly vulnerable in all types of disasters for a combination of reasons. These
include their health status, their lack of family support, living on a fixed income
with no capacity to deal with emergency situations, if they are living alone and if
they are not linked into early warnings or disaster preparedness strategies.
The vulnerability of older people does not end with the event itself. Boon,
Cottrell and King (2016: 98 quoted in Duncan et al. 2018) note that, ‘In the year
following Hurricane Katrina, the health of elderly survivors declined at a rate of
four times the national average for older adults not affected by the disaster’. In
research conducted during the Australian drought, we learnt that older people
were particularly susceptible to increased anxiety and depression as the drought
continued, leading to some being hospitalised (Alston and Kent 2006).
Older people are particularly vulnerable when community support systems and
particularly informal supports, break down, when family members are forced to
move away and when their isolation limits their access to post-disaster resource
distribution and information. At the same time older people can be a source of
great resilience as they have long-term local knowledge and previous experiences
of disasters that can assist in disaster preparedness and response. They may, in fact,
be mentally strong, having previously lived through similar events.

Children and young people

Children are often the overlooked and forgotten survivors of disasters as they have
unique vulnerabilities during and after disasters. Yet Szente (2018: 1) describes the
experiences of children in disasters as follows:

Loud explosions, falling buildings, falling people, screaming, chaos, cri-

ses, fear, desperation, losing a friend, a family member, or pet. Witnessing
cruelty, running away, moving away, leaving everything behind—possibly
forever. Rising water, losing a home and school, losing a daily routine.
Separating from loved ones and anything familiar, walking for days, weeks,
long months, getting into strange boats, trains, trucks and witnessing more
chaos and human cruelty. Being harmed. Being abused. Becoming disabled.
Begging in streets, having nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, no place to call
home. Nowhere to go to school. Nowhere to feel safe. And nowhere to
feel loved and cared for. Losing a childhood and maybe even the hope for a
brighter, safer, and happier tomorrow.

This quote describes the range of experiences of children and young people experi-
encing disasters and the potential fragility of their lives in the aftermath. Many will
Vulnerable populations 201

experience the loss not only of loved ones and carers, but also of their homes and
possessions, their schools and neighbourhoods, leaving many without the impor-
tant routines of childhood. Children who have been through disasters will often
keep their own trauma to themselves, remaining silent as they watch their parents
and siblings dealing with their own stresses. It is not uncommon for children to
act out their trauma two to three years after the event when they feel their parents
have stabilised and they feel they can safely expose their own feelings.
For children who have experienced disasters, their school can provide an oasis
in an otherwise troubled world – a place where teachers can support children’s
need to discuss their anxiety, to write about their experiences, to sit quietly with
their thoughts and to be around people who have had similar experiences often of
major loss. In our research we are aware of significant efforts made by schools to
support children. In one community visited during the long-running drought in
Australia, the principal paid a significant amount for scarce water in order to keep
a small patch of grass alive in the playground so that children would not forget
what green grass looked like (Alston, Kent and Kent 2004). In our experience,
many schools also provide breakfast for children whose families may not be able to
provide this. These types of supports for children create a significant site of healing
and support.
Researchers also note that children should be involved in decision-making in
age-appropriate ways in the emergency recovery phase (Gibbs et al. 2016) and
should be part of the ongoing post-disaster recovery efforts (Duncan et al. 2018).

Indigenous peoples
Indigenous people have significant traditional knowledge of land and country and
of previous disaster events and there is much to learn from Indigenous narra-
tives and oral tradition. However, Indigenous peoples are often marginalised in
decision-making forums and may not receive timely advice on warnings and ser-
vices. It is critical to ensure clear lines of communication and the dissemination
of information on early warning systems, emergency services, and information on
where shelters located. Social workers must be aware of the critical importance of
Indigenous knowledge and the multiple voices that shape our sense of place and act
on this information. Social workers can facilitate the involvement of Indigenous
people at all stages of the PRRR process, by working through existing agencies
and leaders to connect with Indigenous people impacted by the disaster. As Gray,
Coates and Hetherington (2007) note, we need to be alive to Indigenous knowl-
edge of place and healing.

People with animals or pets

A group that does not receive a great deal of attention in literature about disasters
are those who have pets and companion animals or who are reliant on animals for
their livelihoods – farmers, for example, people who rely on companion animals
202 Vulnerability and resilience

or women who run small-scale livestock enterprises from their home base. When a
disaster occurs, people are reluctant to leave their animals, often preferring to take
their chances in the disaster. People who are reliant on companion animals such
as guide dogs, and those whose pets are part of the family, may put their lives in
danger rather than lose their animals.
In the case of large farmers and small-scale enterprise farmers, the potential loss
of animals is devastating both on a personal level and in the destruction of liveli-
hood it represents. Farmers will put themselves in great danger to try and move
their animals – to higher ground in the case of floods, or to safer pastures in the case
of fires. Following the Black Saturday fires and during the long-running Australian
drought, farmers were forced to shoot many animals that had been too badly burnt
or too poor to survive and this has significant impacts on mental health.
In our research with Bangladeshi communities (Alston 2015; Alston,
Whittenbury and Haynes 2014), we were aware of women running small animal
enterprises who had refused to go to shelters during hurricanes because of their
animals. One response to this has been that the Bangladeshi design of shelters now
includes spaces for animals.
What these scenarios expose is the need for careful planning in disaster
preparedness plans and in response and rebuilding strategies (Duncan et al.
2018; Taylor 2017). In Australia, for example, there is a plan for pets in the
emergency management arrangements. There is also a need to understand the
anguish caused to many people by the loss or potential loss of animals. In post-
disaster situations, consideration needs to be given to ongoing care for animals
and the survival of pets and companion animals provides a significant boost to
the resilience of those affected.

Rural and remote communities

Particularly vulnerable before, during and after disasters are rural and remote com-
munities. The isolation of many communities may make it difficult for services
and response teams to reach some areas quickly. For example, the magnitude 7.9
Sichuan earthquake of 2008 in China and its numerous aftershocks resulted in
90,000 people being declared dead or missing, including over 5000 children who
were in their schools at the time. In addition, 375,000 people were injured by fall-
ing buildings and over 200 relief personnel were killed by mudslides (Pletcher and
Rafferty 2009). Critically, the size of the quake and the ongoing damage caused
by mudslides made it very difficult to reach remote villages. Hence the delay in
delivering services and in rebuilding was extensive and people were left for long
periods to fend for themselves.
Rural areas are also subject to slow onset disasters such as droughts. The damage
to livelihoods and spirits can be incremental – slowly eroding the spirits of people
coping with what seems to be a never-ending disaster. Droughts not only cause
emotional turmoil, they also significantly erode livelihoods as the financial burden
increases both through loss of income, the ongoing costs of feeding livestock and
Vulnerable populations 203

the loss of topsoil in droughts and floods. Also important are the losses incurred
by local businesses dependent on the agricultural industry as these are often over-
looked when supports or resources are delivered to rural areas.
Rural and remote areas may have few services and supports in good times. So
the lack of these can be keenly felt when a disaster is underway. It is often difficult
to convince policy makers that services and resources are needed because they are
largely invisible to the bulk of the community and often escape mainstream media
attention. Rural and remote areas are often overlooked in disaster preparedness
planning and in ongoing national strategies.

Homeless
Particularly vulnerable in a disaster are the homeless. Those who are homeless may
lose their existing shelter and be overlooked or given a very low priority when
displaced people are housed. Prior to the disaster, homeless people may not receive
early warnings or be aware of where shelters are being established.
In some circumstances, however, homeless people may have benefited from
the post-disaster support services. For example in our research following the Black
Saturday fires, a young person who had left the foster care welfare system with little
or no financial support was now able to access a ready pool of resources including
clothes, food and accommodation. As he explained

For the first time I was not the only person who looked like a dreg and peo-
ple didn’t look at you weird when you were in town, and people wanted
my help because I could carry stuff and I could lift stuff and I could drive
stuff, and there was always food around, and you could get any clothes and
toiletries that you needed all the time and no one made you fill out forms
or anything for it.
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014)

Nonetheless, it is important to address the needs of the homeless and to ensure they
are receiving adequate support.

Migrants, refugees and undocumented workers

Migrants, refugees and undocumented workers may be particularly vulnerable for a
number of reasons. There may be language issues that restrict the flow of informa-
tion, they may not be on local government or electoral role lists, and hence may
not be receiving early warnings or disaster preparedness advice, and may not be
accessing emergency services. Duncan et al. (2018) note that migrants and refugees
may have little local social supports, may lack experience with disasters and may
not know the history of local disasters. They may also have past trauma experiences
that are exacerbated by disaster experiences. They may freeze in a crisis or they
may in fact be highly resilient because of past traumas.
204 Vulnerability and resilience

There are also increasing numbers of undocumented workers in developed

countries who may be working in agricultural industries but not receiving early
warning advice or other resources. Drolet et al. (2018) note the case of undocu-
mented agricultural workers in Florida who lived through the 2004 series of deadly
hurricanes. Their research concludes that migrant workers came together to help
each other, that churches and NGOs, rather than government or law enforcement,
were key providers of support; that they felt discriminated against by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and received little help to rebuild their
homes – often having little or no insurance. The undocumented workers reported
being afraid to seek help because of their undocumented status.

People with a disability

Duncan et al. (2018) note that people with a disability are reported to be two to
four times more likely to be killed or injured in natural disasters than the gen-
eral population and are often the first to be left behind and the last to be rescued
(UNESCAP 2015). According to Duncan et al. (2018), the vulnerability of people
with a disability is attributable to a number of factors including limited mobility,
compromised health, reliance on equipment, and difficulty with seeing or hearing
emergency bulletins. These can all contribute to vulnerability in emergency situ-
ations. Further, they note that people who are blind or vision-impaired may not
receive early warnings, may not have access to disaster information, may not be
able to evacuate as required, and may have significant problems if they do reach
shelters – for example, with hygiene, access to medications and safety. Children
with a disability may require individualised safety plans to ensure they receive
adequate care if they are separated from family.
McDermott et al. (2016) note that several challenging disasters in South
Carolina exposed the vulnerability of people with a disability and led to the devel-
opment of a Disaster Preparedness planning group – Citizens with Functional
Needs. The group has been actively addressing the issue of accommodating
people with functional needs in shelters. Several ongoing developments have
occurred in the US as a result of the civil society attention to this issue includ-
ing the National Council on Disability being involved in disaster preparedness,
management and recovery.
Despite their careful planning and attention to detail, when a 1000-year flood
hit in 2015, their systems were tested. McDermott, Martin and Gardner (2016:
185) note

There were a number of disturbing failures that have been noted during the
early days after the flood. Some of these were systems breakdowns such as
Hospice services not able to get to patients and cancellation of Meals on Wheels
deliveries. Others were personal, such as failure to get therapists deployed to
shelters, no ASL interpreters at sites where people who are deaf resided.
Vulnerable populations 205

This example illustrates the need for significant attention to disaster preparedness
planning and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of strategies to support people
with a disability when a disaster strikes.

People with mental illness

People living with mental illness are particularly vulnerable during disasters. These
events – before, during and after – can exacerbate anxiety and worsen their con-
dition. As with people living with a disability, it is critical that social workers
incorporate the needs of those with mental illness into disaster preparedness plans
and post-disaster actions.
McMurray and Steiner (2000) report on the impact of a disaster on people with
a severe mental illness drawing on experiences during the severe ice storm of 1998
in Canada. This storm left many without power or heating for nearly two weeks.
They note that stressful events are associated with relapse, and that these patients
often have poor social supports in general and yet they found that patients tend to
adjust reasonably well. They conclude

•• The needs of individuals with severe mental illness must be considered in

developing disaster plans.
•• Patients can cope well in natural disasters if the integrity of the service delivery
structure is maintained.
•• A flexible, outreach-oriented approach to service delivery should be consid-
ered during natural disasters.
(p. 385)

People who don’t want to be found

There is another group of people who may be impacted by disasters and require
assistance. These are people we would term ‘those who do not want to be found’.
In this category we would list those being sought by the law, including errant
fathers who are hiding from their responsibilities for child maintenance payments.
This group poses a significant dilemma for social workers who will inform the cli-
ent that they are under an obligation to report the information. Critically workers
will deliver support in post-disaster circumstances to all who have been affected
keeping faith with their ethical obligations.

Summary
There are a significant proportion of people who can be classified as ‘particularly
vulnerable’ in disaster, many for multiple reasons. This chapter alerts workers to be
critically aware of the needs of all people and to be especially alert to characteristics
that may impact people’s vulnerability and capacity to cope in emergencies. In
Chapter 11 we examine the pressures that disaster social work places on individuals
and outline strategies to address self-care.
206 Vulnerability and resilience

CASE STUDY – THE IMPACT OF HURRICANES ON MIGRANT

FARM WORKERS IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, USA
Robin Ersing

The state of Florida geographically spans the coastlines of both the Atlantic
Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, making it a target for tropical storms and hurricanes.
Annually, between June and November the population of nearly 21 million
people in Florida prepare for hurricane season and the possibility for damag-
ing winds and flooding rains that may result in the loss of life, property and
livelihoods (US Census 2017). This case study discusses the impact of several
hurricanes making landfall during 2004 and 2005 in a moderate-sized agricul-
tural community situated on the Atlantic coast of north-eastern Florida. The
case focuses on the experiences of women with limited English language skills
working within the migrant farm labour community.
Florida is one of several states identified as a ‘home-base site’ for migrant
farm workers (National Center for Farmworker Health 2018), offering agricul-
tural work for both seasonal and year round migrant laborers. Farm workers in
Volusia County, Florida, are involved in field and orchard agriculture through
planting and harvesting, and horticultural activities such as nursery and green-
house operations. However, the coastal location of the county exposes it to a
number of climatic factors, placing an already vulnerable farmworker popula-
tion at considerable risk to coastal hazards.
Using community-based participatory research, we examined the experi-
ences of a hidden and vulnerable population of female migrant farm workers
in Volusia County. Stakeholders in the field of disaster response and recovery
were also interviewed. Lessons learned offer important feedback to emergency
planners, social workers, and others in the hazards field to understand the
added vulnerabilities of female migrant laborers in post-disaster recovery.

Description of the disaster

In 2004, the state of Florida experienced an unprecedented hurricane sea-
son with four named storms making landfall in 44 days during the months
of August and September. Three of those hurricanes (Charley, Frances and
Jeanne), reached at least Category 3 strength with winds exceeding 115 mph
(Bell et al. 2004). Charley, Frances and Jeanne each crossed through Volusia
County leaving behind severe storm damage to the state totalling over $45
billion dollars (FEMA 2009). In 2005 Volusia County was further impacted
by Hurricane Wilma causing the state an additional $20 billion dollars in
destruction (Malmstadt, Scheitlin and Elsner 2009). Accumulated storm
damage between 2004 and 2005 took a heavy toll on the agricultural indus-
try in Volusia County, resulting in the loss of livelihoods for many migrant
farm labourers.
Vulnerable populations 207

Physical destruction from the hurricanes included downed trees, power

lines, and street lighting throughout the area. It was estimated that damage
from Hurricane Charley alone created 18 million cubic yards of debris (Holt
2014). Homes and businesses were without power for more than a week in
many neighbourhoods. For many families, this meant the loss of air condition-
ing in sweltering heat, as well as the loss of food as it spoiled inside refrigerators
and freezers that no longer operated. The amount of rainfall produced flooding
in many communities, making homes uninhabitable and causing environmen-
tal hazards such as contaminated drinking water and sewage run-off (Acierno
et al. 2007). Hurricane force winds ripped roofs off homes, blew out windows,
and in some cases levelled less sturdy property. There was a high need for blue
tarps to cover exposed roofs, chainsaws to remove tree debris, and supplies to
begin the clean-up process.
In addition to the destruction of property, Floridians who endured the
direct impact of the hurricanes also acknowledged significant emotional stress.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) these
included feelings of worry and general anxiety, dietary issues such as loss of
appetite, sleeping disorders, and a reduced ability to focus on mental tasks at
work and school. The 2004 hurricane season in Florida became known as one
of the most destructive in the State’s history and one of the largest disaster
relief efforts taken on by the US to that point in history (FEMA 2014a).

How were people affected and who were particularly

vulnerable?
While much of the state of Florida was affected by the volatile 2004 and 2005
hurricane seasons, the farmworker community in Volusia County was particu-
larly impacted. As mentioned previously, the agriculture industry sustained
significant damage to crops resulting in the loss of work for many migrant
labourers. This loss of livelihood, coupled with the loss of housing, posed
significant challenges for migrant families. In addition, the ability to seek
post-disaster relief for this population was complicated by two factors: legal
status and language. Although neither factor directly prohibited the receipt
of humanitarian assistance from disaster service organisations such as the
American Red Cross or local non-profit and faith-based groups, the threat of
risk added to their level of vulnerability.
An estimated six in ten of our nation’s farmworkers have undocumented
status (Southern Poverty Law Center 2014). A demographic profile of the
immigrant farm labourer population compiled by the National Center for
Farmworker Health (2018) reports 71 per cent of the population to be Hispanic
minorities (e.g. Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American).
Among foreign born individuals, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) are native
Mexican and as many as half are considered undocumented. As a result, many

(continued)
208 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

migrant workers in Volusia County with undocumented status feared legal

ramifications including arrest and deportation.
The second factor adding to heightened vulnerability among the farm-
worker community was Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This issue has
gradually gained attention in the hazards literature; however, a gap remains
specific to Spanish-speaking migrant labourers and their families. Data sug-
gest that speaking Spanish at home and speaking English less than very well
or not at all, correlates with a series of indicators linked to increased social
vulnerability (American Community Survey Reports 2013). Indicators include
having less than a 12th grade education, being over age 60, living in poverty
and having a disability. This group is often a silent voice in community disaster
planning (Mathew and Kelly 2008) despite the National Response Framework
recognising individuals with limited English language skills as a special needs
population entitled to disaster preparedness and recovery resources (Homeland
Security 2016).
Of particular interest in this case study is the role of women in the LEP
migrant community and their recovery efforts post-disaster. Aggregate demo-
graphics show this group was between the ages of 18 and 53 years old with a
mean age of 26 years. Just over half were married (53 per cent) with household
size ranging from two to seven people. The women reported to be primarily
Latin American (86 per cent) and 29 per cent had some education beyond
secondary school.

What did you (and others) do as social workers?

In the rural agricultural areas of Volusia County, social work recovery and
humanitarian services were primarily provided to the migrant farmworker com-
munity through local disaster serving organisations. These non-government
organisations included voluntary agencies and faith-based groups. The work
of these non-profit organisations was important to the migrant community
since FEMA was viewed with suspicion and not trusted as a government entity.
The American Red Cross was the most recognised agency; however, some
farmworker families still associated uniformed volunteers with legal authorities
capable of deporting undocumented individuals. Therefore, recovery outreach
efforts were relegated to local community or faith-based groups known for
supporting the migrant workforce.
While it is not known whether staff and volunteers from local organisa-
tions had formal social work training, there was some attempt to assist the
farmworker population. Several churches were involved, and migrant fami-
lies viewed their efforts to be more helpful than those of law enforcement
or government sources. Despite this, outreach services remained lacking as
evidenced by the decision not to locate a point of distribution for water, ice
and other basic supplies within the area of the migrant labour camps. Some
Vulnerable populations 209

attributed this to the issue of undocumented status primarily among a portion

of Mexican workers in the camps. Some acknowledged that disaster service
organisations such as the Salvation Army and American Red Cross responded;
however, information about service availability and access for undocumented
individuals was unclear.
As a result, a small group of migrant women spontaneously organised
Alianza de Mujeres Activas (AMA) [Alliance of Active Women]. This grassroots
group had strong ties to the farm worker community, with members of their
households engaged in this work. A key objective of AMA was to fill a gap
by providing outreach and assistance to the farmworker and LEP communities
which had been overlooked by both the government sector of emergency man-
agement and local disaster service organisations. Destruction of crops meant
loss of employment; damage to housing left people needing shelter as well as
food, clean water, supplies for children such as diapers and formula, and mate-
rials to begin removing debris and cleaning up what the storms left behind.

What social work skills and knowledge were used?

The concept of community resilience in disaster recovery includes two con-
structs familiar to social work practice: collective efficacy and adaptive
capacity. According to Paton (2006), efforts to return to a more normal level of
community functioning post-disaster is often hindered by the changed physi-
cal and social environment stemming from the impact of the natural hazard.
With this in mind, reliance on social ties with family, friends and neighbours
is important to connect survivors with systems of mutual support. Collective
efficacy has been defined as, ‘social cohesion among neighbors combined
with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good’ (Sampson,
Raudenbush and Earls 1997: 919). These social connections, which encour-
age a community to mobilise and act, are believed to be integral in successful
disaster mitigation strategies (Paton and Johnston 2001). Indeed, collective
efficacy can aid in the identification, organisation, and mobilisation of assets
and resources at the local level to achieve meaningful and sustainable post-
disaster recovery (Ersing 2012).
In 2004, a number of migrant farmworker families in Volusia County experi-
enced several hurricanes in a matter of weeks. Women in those families shared
how this unprecedented experience created greater unity within the migrant
community. Indeed, many who lost their homes doubled up with other families.
The collective efficacy of the community helped to strengthen the bonds of fam-
ilies, friends and neighbours. One women shared, ‘People came closer together
and did not take their friends or families for granted . . . they were helping each
other more like in the neighbourhoods and stuff so there was more help for
each other’. Another woman spoke about the migrant community relying on
social networks as part of the post-disaster recovery stating, ‘We were homeless

(continued)
210 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

living in mobile trailers . . . we hunkered down with some of our Mexican family
friends . . . three hurricanes in a row they were there at the door step they took
us in we are very good friends till this day’.
The second construct familiar to disaster recovery and social work practice
is adaptive capacity. At its core, the ability to change or adapt is important
to manage and maintain one’s quality of life within a given environment
(Gallopi’n 2006; Smit and Wandel 2006). This can involve an integration of
strengths from human, social and ecological systems to collectively cope and
sustain recovery from a stressor (Gunderson 2010). Disaster social work recog-
nises the importance of such protective factors, which manifest as coping skills
in the recovery process (Zakour and Gillespie 2013).
Women often play an important part in the wellbeing of their commu-
nities drawing on untapped assets to promote adaptation through capacity
building. As agents of change, women are often able to leverage their social
networks to mobilise others for collective action in disaster preparedness and
recovery. This can include sharing knowledge and establishing channels of
communication (Ersing et al. 2015).
In the aftermath of the hurricanes that crossed through Volusia County, a
call went out through social networks in the migrant farmworker community.
Due to the vulnerability of this population and the lack of services provided
through emergency management, the informally organised group of women
who formed AMA, began to gather whatever items they could spare and set
up their own humanitarian distribution site in someone’s front yard. Outreach
teams of migrant women delivered care packages into the impacted areas of
their community and, while handing out supplies, also searched for others in
need. One woman described the start of this grassroots effort sharing, ‘(we)
were all sheltered together and food in the refrigerator was being spoiled so
the immediate resilience of the women was cooking and making the meals
and preparing and pulling together’. A testament to adapting to a devastating
situation through collective action, a woman shared, ‘it was kind of, you know,
a beautiful little moment that you know psychologically I’m doing something’.
The efforts of AMA, formed through the mutual support of migrant women,
proved vital to unite and aid their families during the early stages of post-
disaster recovery.

What worked and did not work?

Given the vulnerability of the farmworker population in Volusia County dur-
ing the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, the grassroots effort of the women
resulted in several sustainable outcomes in disaster resilience. First, the work of
the AMA group promoted a strong sense of unity within the community. This
asset aided in the empowerment of a population previously marginalised from
local emergency management and disaster service organisations by providing
Vulnerable populations 211

a voice. For example, following the 2004 storms, emergency management

leaders acknowledged the percentage of limited English speaking individuals
and low income families presented the most challenging issues.
One emergency manager explained, ‘we had really no rapport with the north-
west community, which is largely Spanish speaking immigrants, a lot of farm
workers, they didn’t have any trust for the government back then and we really
had a hard time reaching out’. Another was candid in stating, ‘in the LEP commu-
nity we did not have a good rapport with them at that point . . . they depended
on each other and they turned to each other to take care of each other’.
Since then, two organisations were formed to foster communication
and planning among vulnerable populations, disaster service organisations
and emergency management. Community Organisations Active in Disasters
(COAD), comprises health, human service and other community organisations
that provide various types of assistance post-disaster. The other organisation
was formed by faith-based leaders. Voluntary Interfaith Network in Emergencies
(VINE) is a collective of churches and social service agencies such as the
American Red Cross and United Way. The primary mission of VINE is to identify
and assist individuals at risk of falling through cracks in the post-disaster recov-
ery system. Both COAD and VINE provide an added safety net for vulnerable
and hard to reach populations such as LEP and migrant farm worker groups.
Another successful outcome from the work of the AMA women’s group was
the establishment of a new grassroots group known as El Grupo Comunitario
de Respuesta a Desastres (also referred to as ‘El Grupo’), [Community Disaster
Response Group]. ‘El Grupo’ brings together members of the farm worker
and LEP communities to advocate for participation in Volusia County emer-
gency planning activities. ‘El Grupo’ has been successful in organising its own
bi-lingual Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) to work in cooperation
with local fire, police and disaster response personnel. ‘El Grupo’ also received
a competitive Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP) grant
from the Florida Department of Health. The purpose of NEPP is to support com-
munities and neighbourhoods in becoming self-sufficient and self-supporting in
times of disaster or local emergencies. ‘El Grupo’ now represents a broader mix
of community members (e.g. male and female, bilingual, youth and adults),
engaged in identifying and planning for the needs of the LEP and farm worker
communities with emergency management leaders to promote resilience and
post-disaster sustainability. These resources provided an opportunity for the
migrant community to build bridges of cooperation and establish a voice in
community-based disaster preparedness and recovery.

‘Lessons learned’ for social work practice

The impact of the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons endured by members of
the migrant farm worker community in Volusia County resulted in two key

(continued)
212 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

lessons learned. Both have implications for social work practitioners engaged
in disaster recovery work at the macro level. The first lesson involves raising
awareness of dealing with hard to reach vulnerable populations. Over time,
both the grassroots AMA women’s group and the disaster trained ‘El Grupo’
continued to expand their capacity through volunteer recruitment and part-
nerships with other groups and organisations. Members of AMA and ‘El Grupo’
used their outreach skills to educate other LEP and migrant families about the
importance of preparing for hurricanes, tropical storms and other natural dis-
asters including the development of a safety plan. They also collected donated
items to help vulnerable members of the community assemble supplies as
part of a preparedness kit. These awareness-raising activities were conducted
through participation in local health fairs and school and library programs. A
partnership was formed with two Spanish language radio and television sta-
tions. Both Univision and Telemundo hosted media promotions to educate the
LEP community on disaster preparedness. The lesson of awareness raising has
important implications for social workers who are often in contact with vulner-
able groups. Alerting individuals to these and related resources can empower
those who may otherwise feel hidden from the mainstream community.
The second lesson addresses the issue of cultural sensitivity and disaster
resilience. In their after action review, local emergency management and gov-
ernment officials in Volusia County recognised the disparities that existed for
the LEP and migrant labour populations. This included a lack of bi-lingual ser-
vice providers, lack of knowledge on qualifications for aid, and understanding
the diverse cultural values, beliefs and behaviours of a group. Locally, members
of AMA and ‘El Grupo’ partnered with professionals in social work and public
health to present annually at the Florida Governor’s Hurricane conference. The
audience is primarily emergency management leaders, first responders, and
staff and trained volunteers from disaster service organisations. These pres-
entations demonstrated strategies to promote cultural sensitivity in natural
hazards planning based on direct experiences of LEP and farm worker groups.
This lesson was bolstered nationally after the impact of Hurricane Katrina on
New Orleans, Louisiana, in 2005. Since that time, FEMA (2011) has created a
‘whole community’ approach to disaster preparedness and recovery stressing
the need to be inclusive of all populations, particularly those considered to be
a special or vulnerable group. Individuals who have limited English proficiency
(LEP) are part of that designation. In addition to the new paradigm of ‘whole
community’, FEMA and other national organisations developed more bi-lingual
materials for community distribution (US Government Accounting Office 2017).
FEMA (2014b) also created training guides for disaster service workers to improve
outreach in communities with vulnerable and special needs populations.
Although there is no obvious correlation between the Volusia County
experience and the national move to improve cultural sensitivity in the realm
of emergency management, the implication for social work practice is clear.
Vulnerable populations 213

Grassroots efforts have the ability to empower and give voice to those who fall
into the cracks of our social systems. Social workers are instrumental in connect-
ing with hard to reach populations, and advocating for changes in policies and
practices that marginalise. Oftentimes, this is achieved by engaging those most
impacted as agents of change. Disaster social work is well suited to this challenge.

References
Acierno, R., K.J. Ruggiero, S. Galea, H.S. Resnick, K. Koenen, J. Roitzsch, M. de Arellano,
J. Boyle and D.G. Kilpatrick (2007). Psychological sequelae resulting from the 2004
Florida hurricanes: implications for post-disaster intervention. American Journal of
Public Health, 97(S1), S103–S108.
American Community Survey Reports (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011.
Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.
Bell, G., S. Goldenberg, C. Landsea, E. Blake, M. Chelliah, R. Pasch and K. Mo (2004).
The 2004 north Atlantic hurricane season: a climate perspective. Retrieved from
www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/hurrsummary_2004.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005). Epidemiologic assessment of the
impact of four hurricanes – Florida, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 54, 693–697.
Ersing, R.L. (2012). Using social networks to build disaster resilient communities: the
strategy of CODE ONE. In R.L. Ersing and K.A. Kost (eds), Surviving disaster: The role
of social networks. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Press.
Ersing, R.L., O. Alhassan, J. Sey Ayivor and K. Caruson (2015). Enhancing hazard resilience
among impoverished urban communities in Ghana: the role of women as catalysts for
improvement. In P. Filion, M. Skidmore and G. Sands (eds), Cities at risk: planning for
and recovering from natural disasters. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 15–30.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). Fact sheet: Hurricane Charley
recovery by the numbers. Factsheet 1539-015. 3 August. Retrieved on 20 October 2018
from www.fema.gov/news-release/2009/08/03/hurricane-charley-recovery-numbers
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2011). A whole community approach
to emergency management: principles, themes and pathways to action. Retrieved
from www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045-0649/whole_com-
munity_dec2011__2_.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2014a). A decade after 2004
storms, FEMA urges hurricane preparedness. Retrieved from www.fema.gov/news-
release/2014/08/22/decade-after-2004-storms-fema-urges-hurricane-preparedness
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2014b). Draft language access plan.
Retrieved from www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/draft-fema-lep-plan_0.pdf
Gallopi’n, G.C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 293–303.
Gunderson, L. (2010). Ecological and human community resilience in response to natu-
ral disasters. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 1–11.
Holt, T. (13 August 2014). Ten years ago, hurricanes Charley, Frances and Jeanne turned
Volusia and Flagler into a disaster zone. Daytona Beach News Journal. Retrieved from
www.news-journalonline.com/news/20140813/ten-years-ago-hurricanes-charley-
frances-and-jeanne-turned-volusia-and-flagler-into-a-disaster-zone

(continued)
214 Vulnerability and resilience

(continued)

Homeland Security (2016). National response framework (3rd ed). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Malmstadt, J., K. Scheitlin and J. Elsner (2009). Florida hurricanes and damage costs.
Southeastern geographer, 49(2), 108–131.
Mathew, A.B. and K. Kelly (2008). Disaster preparedness in urban immigrant communities:
lessons learned from recent catastrophic events and their relevance to Latino and Asian
communities in Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.
National Center for Farmworker Health (2018). Agricultural worker demographics. Retrieved
from www.ncfh.org/uploads/3/8/6/8/38685499/fs_demographics_2018.pdf
Paton, D. (2006). Disaster resilience: building capacity to co-exist with natural hazards
and their consequences. In D. Paton and D. Johnston (eds), Disaster resilience: an
integrated approach. Springfield, IL: Thomas, pp. 3–10.
Paton, D. and D. Johnston (2001). Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience
and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10(4): 270–277.
Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush and F. Earls (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:
a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328): 918–924.
Smit, B. and J. Wandel (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3): 282–292.
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2014). Immigrant justice. Retrieved from www.splcenter.
org/what-we-do/immigrant-justice
US Census (2017). Quick facts: Florida. Retrieved from www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/
table/fl/PST045217
US Government Accounting Office (2017). Federal disaster assistance. (Report No. GAO
17-200). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/690/682557.pdf
Zakour, M. and D.F. Gillespie (2013). Community disaster vulnerability: theory, research,
and practice. New York: Springer.

Questions
Why are some groups more vulnerable than others?
Using the categories in this chapter, describe two vulnerable groups and
explain the factors that shape their vulnerability.
In her case study, Ersing describes migrant farm workers as being particularly
vulnerable during hurricanes. Why are they vulnerable and what supports are
available to them?
Describe the social work skills adopted in this case study and comment on the
effectiveness of these.
PART IV

Social workers engaged in

disaster practice
12
SOCIAL WORK AND SELF-CARE

In Chapter 12 we discuss factors that are often overlooked when there is important
work to be done – that is self-care and the provision of personal support to workers in
the field. The chapter is shaped around the need for social workers and their agency
managers to reflect on their practice, to be aware of their own limitations, to be clear
about their expectations of themselves and their workers and to understand that they
cannot do everything. The immediate desire of social workers going into disaster
sites is to work long hours with little break because of the scale of need. Social work-
ers who have worked in this field speak of working in the field for extensive periods
without a day off, and then ‘hitting a wall’ or burnout phase about two months into
their post-disaster work. In this chapter we draw heavily of the words of workers
and managers interviewed after the Australian Black Saturday bushfires to give a
deeper understanding of, and personal reflections on, the impacts of these pressures
on workers. The chapter is designed to give workers and their agencies tools or
practice structures that will assist them to prepare for the scale of disasters, for the
personal impacts of the work involved, and the types of supports that will assist work-
ers deployed to disaster sites, including how to know when it is time to withdraw.

Pitfalls of practice
There are a number of ways that social workers enter a disaster space. Chief
amongst these is by way of their membership of disaster response teams and of
various government and non-government organisations assigned particular tasks in
the disaster phases. Often, entry to the field is a dramatic one with only a day to a
week’s notice during which time social workers will need to:

• leave their existing caseloads, supervisory and management responsibilities to

others;
• attend planning meetings;
218 Social workers and disaster practice

• ensure that health checks and vaccinations are up to date;

• bid farewell to their families;
• be transported to an unfamiliar area, possibly across national borders;
• enter a chaotic environment where there will be intense suffering;
• be potentially exposed to bodies that have not yet been retrieved and to people
with significant injuries;
• enter a destabilised area where dangers may still exist;
• be unprepared for the scale of the disaster and the initial chaos;
• be concerned for one’s own safety;
• be located in temporary space if they have a working area at all;
• attend disaster response meetings in the disaster zone;
• be working in areas where services and support structures may no longer be
functioning; and
• begin work.

There will be few limits on work hours, and client need often dictates that hours
are long. Potentially, there will be limited access to supervisors if telecommuni-
cations infrastructure is destroyed, and this can leave workers feeling vulnerable
themselves. There may be significant mobility issues if roads and bridges are dam-
aged. Critically, there will also be pressure on workers to deliver outcomes, and
managing these expectations can be difficult.
It is in these circumstances that workers may find themselves forgetting
the very basics of self-care – the need to take breaks, get enough sleep, seek
professional supervision and generally take time for themselves. It is not unu-
sual for social workers to overdo things and work themselves into ill-health,
particularly if they are from the local area and have the additional felt need to
continue to work for their communities and neighbours. Often, local workers
will have their own issues with grief and loss, and know the people seeking
assistance, and this can detract from their capacity to work effectively (Cooper,
Briggs and Bagshaw 2018). It is important for social work coordinators to
ensure local workers have the space and permission they need to deal with their
own issues before deploying. Sometimes they can initially provide important
information on, and introduction to, the community, its networks, resources
and key contacts to enable staff who do come into the affected area to connect
and respond appropriately.
Local area social workers may also engage as volunteers with limited super-
visory support. It is not unusual for these workers to report that, after working
10 to 12-hour days with no days off, they collapse themselves after a couple
of months. However, it is more likely that workers will be deployed in from
elsewhere to work in unfamiliar surroundings. Whatever their entry point,
workers speak of the adrenalin rush that accompanies their entry to the site and
of the difficulty associated with winding down when they are in the field. One
worker noted:
Social work and self-care 219

[it’s difficult to] actually self-regulate and to manage that. What you need
to do is to stop becoming an adrenaline junkie, and to some degree you
can’t necessarily completely do it. You can’t turn it off, you’ve got to have
some [time off] – but you know you’re going to get home at 11 o’clock
at night, have a shower and go to bed and you’re not going to go to
sleep until half past one . . . but it’s that mindfulness stuff, so you accept
that and you go, ‘Now I’m awake, I can’t go to sleep, so I just have to
accept that, but what I need to do is I need to consciously, deliberately,
on purpose, think about something else. I need to focus on counting the
sheep, or counting the names, or whatever it might be, so that I can start
to separate it.’
(Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014)

In these circumstances it is little wonder that workers and volunteers may experience
vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and burn out.

Vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and burnout

Social workers who are exposed to disasters and who work with traumatised peo-
ple are in danger of experiencing their own vicarious trauma (Evces 2015). Cooper
et al. (2018 drawing on Baum 2014) note that social workers working in dangerous
areas, and working with people who are sharing their trauma narratives experience
‘double exposure’ to trauma. This is characterised by personal anxiety for one’s
own safety and an inability to escape this fear, at the same time as they hear the
trauma narratives of survivors. Evces (2015: 11) notes that

in the event of the collective trauma associated with large-scale disasters, it is

more likely that many workers will experience sudden, repeated, and intense
indirect trauma exposure. Even the most experienced and well-trained clini-
cians may feel overwhelmed if the level of indirect exposure exceeds their
ability to cope. Many will lack the training and support for prevention and
remediation of any lasting effects. Whether it’s a gradual accumulation, as in
clinical outpatient work, or the sudden and enveloping collective trauma of
large-scale disaster response, clinicians often find themselves engaging with
some of the most painful aspects of human experience

The risk of experiencing vicarious trauma in disaster work is high and social workers
need to take the time for self-care strategies, which we will discuss below. Another
issue that may affect workers in disaster sites is compassion fatigue. Compassion
fatigue is defined as a state of exhaustion and dysfunction – biologically, psychologi-
cally, and socially – as a result of prolonged exposure to compassion stress and all
that it evokes (Figley 1995: 253). Compassion fatigue occurs when workers have
been exposed over and over to the trauma stories of clients, and consequently have
220 Social workers and disaster practice

trouble feeling empathic as time goes on. They may be hearing the same types of
stories and find themselves unable to muster the same level of outrage and empathy.
They might also experience a general fatigue about the continual stream of people
needing help and the scale of the need (Evces 2015). In these circumstances work-
ers might feel completely inadequate to the task of continuing. In this case they
will experience burnout.
Hamama (2012 drawing on Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter 2001: 399) defines
burnout as a ‘psychological syndrome in response to chronic interpersonal stressors
on the job’. She notes that this is more likely amongst younger workers, females,
and those with higher levels of education. Burnout will result from a number of
factors including an inability to manage the adrenalin rush in the early stages of the
disaster when there are often not enough staff to address the complexity and extent
of necessary tasks. Workers may feel guilty about leaving to get rest and there is a
danger they will lose their sense of objectivity and ability to assist those affected,
and may begin to make poor decisions. It is critical in these circumstances that they
have good supervisors able to help workers to manage the stresses, ensure breaks are
taken, provide good debriefings at the end of each day, provide regular individual
or group supervision, offer support and referral to external employee assistance
programs or supervisors and advise on when to take a break. Importantly, it is also
important to ensure this advice is heeded.

Supervision
To address the potential for vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and burnout it
is critical that workers have self-care strategies. Chief amongst these is supervision
during and after their involvement and this could be by way of normal supervision
arrangements, referral to in-house or external supervisors or to external employee
assistance programs.
Supervision in the field is essential for workers to ensure they are well supported
and encouraged to look after themselves. However, supervision following disas-
ters can be haphazard and limited. One worker engaged following Black Saturday
noted the difficulties she experienced:

[a manager] organised these group supervisions . . . and they organised them

for all case managers, for anyone working in fire recovery to just come along,
and people did, people came in droves, they came from [a distance]. I didn’t
have professional supervision in my office, and I argued, because the [organi-
sation] said that they would provide it to me when I started but then they
didn’t, and I didn’t want supervision from a church minister, completely so
removed, [and doing] different work. So they paid someone externally.

As this worker notes, sometimes it’s up to the worker to insist on supervision being
provided in some form and to keep insisting until they feel they have adequate sup-
port. If capacity is stretched, group supervision is one strategy managers can adopt
Social work and self-care 221

to assist workers in the field. Another is to ensure as much as possible that workers
have the same supervisor throughout the process. It is also important to ensure that
social workers are supported on their return to their usual workplace. With the
permission of the social worker involved, good communication between the onsite
disaster supervisor and the workplace supervisor assists this process.

Self-care – organisational responsibilities

Social workers who work in disaster situations must be very conscious of self-care
in the field because of the tendency to work long hours under trying conditions.
As one manager, noting the extent of their responsibilities to staff and of trying to
assess whether workers would be able to cope with what they were about to face,
explained:

Are they going to be able to handle the intense emotionally distressing

post-disaster environment? It poses unique challenges for workers, so in
other words, we need to build their resilience. So I don’t just dump
workers in a disaster situation because the actual physical impact of what
they’re seeing, what they’re smelling, ‘When you go into a bushfire area
do you realise it stinks?’ ‘If you go in after a tsunami or a flood the mud,
the filth, the heat, the flies, the conditions – are you going to be able to
deal with that?’

There are a number of ways managers through their organisational structures can
assist workers to address their ongoing physical and psychological health. These
can include:

• providing good governance, supervision, structure and support when social

workers are deployed in disaster situations. This can take time, so disaster plan-
ning should be built into normal agency work on a day to day basis to ensure
that they are ready in the event of an emergency;
• supporting self-care practices such as time with family and encouraging leisure
activities;
• encouraging and facilitating teamwork, team communication and debriefings,
the sharing of experiences between colleagues and the provision of supervision
(Cooper et al. 2018; Du Plooy et al. 2013);
• supporting staff to address physical and psychological pressures associated with
disaster practice;
• ensuring that physical, technological and information resources are available to
field staff and updated regularly if required;
• selecting suitable staff to be deployed as not all social workers are suited to
work in disaster environment;
• ensuring the rostering of staff where possible so that adequate downtime is
provided;
222 Social workers and disaster practice

• providing role clarity to ensure confidence and reduce stress; and

• providing daily briefings at the beginning of the day and debriefings at the end of
the day in a team context – this enables leaders to pick up those who may need
additional support or redeployment, or a break (Desley Hargreaves – personal
experience as a manager in several disaster sites).

While it is very challenging to manage the organisational responsibility to work-

ers when a major disaster occurs, and often from afar, this must be a central part
of organisational responsibility. One manager in a government service who was
responsible for a large cohort of staff deployed during the Black Saturday fires
describes it this way:

We got up to an organisational size of somewhere between about 120 to 140

[workers deployed], and so that was scaled up and scaled down within two
years, so it was pretty much getting everybody on board and then just getting
rid of everybody as part of that front of management transition, and for a lot
of people it was emotionally very taxing, very trying stuff, and so we were
really concerned that we were just churning people through and just spitting
them out the other end and leaving them as damaged goods.
We did pick up from early on when we were starting to hear back from the
first people that had been through and had gone back to their jobs, saying that
that was a real struggle for them going back to their jobs, and particularly . . . a
number of people were going back, and probably within three months or so
resigning from their jobs and moving on to something else. So we brought
in a very extensive transition, change management, sort of program – bring-
ing those people back to talk about their experience after they left and getting
people to think through all those things before they left the organisation as well
was really good. Because we did have lots of support [during the crisis], but
it was just very hard because there was obviously a lot of other things to do.

This quote illustrates the challenges facing managers to ensure that there are enough
workers on the ground in a very short space of time, to manage their care and then
to ensure they transition back to their normal employment effectively. Sometimes
this process of getting people on the ground quickly can inadvertently take prec-
edence over attention to the needs of workers. Another social work manager noted
that it is critical to withdraw workers in a timely fashion

you’ve got to make sure the client as well as your staff member is exited okay
from this sort of intensity of service arrangement.

Nonetheless, there is often tension between managers and workers over the tim-
ing of their withdrawal. Managers will judge the timing of staff withdrawal on a
number of factors including the health of the staff. Workers on the other hand,
often feel that they are being withdrawn before the job is complete. As one noted:
Social work and self-care 223

That was a terrible job to wind up, it was awful. The people, it was terrible,
it was awful. You would never, in any other service, leave people that will-
ingly wanted service and still had lots of work to do. In no other service in
no other place.

Provision of training for workers

An important, and yet often overlooked, aspect of support for workers in the field
is training. This training should include the provision of material to assist work-
ers to understand the region they are entering, the challenges, chain of command,
elements of effective practice, potential hazards and where to seek help. One
Australian government manager outlined the type of training provided to workers
being sent to a disaster (Alston, Hazeleger and Hargreaves 2014).

We did lots of waves of training. In the beginning the training was very
much concentrated on equipping them to know what help is out there, to
educate them about [livelihood] issues, about clean water, about asbestos and
about how to clean up. All that stuff that they needed to have access to to be
able to do their jobs, so those first weeks and months were all about what is
out there, and we turned the [information] into resource guides.

Another noted:

People come out of university, they’ve probably come straight out of school,
straight into university, they’ve seen a few mad, sad and bad people, but they
haven’t really seen the horror of a bushfire, they haven’t experienced it, and
that in itself is something we need to prepare workers for. I’ve seen heaps of
disasters, but I think every disaster is unique, and I think every one poses per-
sonal challenges for workers. I think the exposure to vicarious trauma over a
prolonged period of time takes its toll too. So again, we need to provide the
training to cover these core issues.

Others noted the need for workers to have psychological first aid training and
training in rapid response.

I think what would help a social worker is a component around quick

decision making, that quick social psychosocial support. Let’s not look at a
medium to long term method of engagement . . . not how we’re going to
solve your problems, but what we can do in the next 24 hours.

Self-care – worker responsibilities

While agencies can provide significant support to staff in the field, ultimately it
is the worker’s personal responsibility to ensure that they look after themselves.
224 Social workers and disaster practice

Workers can assist themselves in a number of ways before and during a disaster.
These include:

• undertaking regular training on the role of social workers in disasters;

• undertaking any additional training and preparation before deployment;
• taking advantage of peer support in the field – staff may be together for lengthy
periods, so it is useful to seek support from each other;
• maintaining contact with colleagues in usual place of work for support;
• attending to all occupational health and safety issues including ensuring that
vaccinations are up to date;
• checking the health risks if being deployed offshore in disaster areas – for
example, knowing the dangers of ongoing earthquakes, or further bomb risks
for example;
• being aware of communicable diseases;
• maintaining contact with family;
• taking regular time out;
• undertaking leisure activities;
• addressing workload issues with supervisors if this becomes overwhelming;
• doing mindfulness exercises; and
• having an external mentor/ supervisor – potentially someone who can be
objective.

Ethical issues
Finally, in this chapter we wish to address some of the ethical issues that social
workers will face in post-disaster spaces. These will include problems associated
with resource distribution for example, ensuring that available resources are distrib-
uted fairly and equitably and that processes of distribution are structured to ensure
gender justice and to incorporate vulnerable groups. This is particularly pertinent
as resources coming into the site dwindle over time and decisions must be made
about priorities for scarce resources.
It is also pertinent for social workers to consider that the response team’s own
presence in disaster sites automatically places additional stresses on resources includ-
ing water, food and shelter and this can inflate prices putting further pressures
on shattered families and communities (Pyles 2017). Additionally, when response
teams source bulk products from outside the area in their haste to establish efficien-
cies, this can place great strains on already destabilised local businesses.
Ethical issues arise when deciding when to wind up a service in disaster areas,
particularly when the decision is driven by resource issues rather than need.
They arise when personal boundaries may be crossed in a humane response
to survivors – for example, hugging a person who is identifying the body of a
loved one, or visiting the site of their destroyed home. Privacy can also be an
issue when social workers, who are easily identifiable, must see clients in public
spaces. Issues can also arise in relation to how staff from other agencies might
Social work and self-care 225

treat survivors. Challenging racist and discriminatory attitudes, for example, can
be a source of tension for social workers.
Cooper et al. (2018) also note that ethical issues arise concerning the prioritisa-
tion of clients – who is seen first and why? What factors shape these decisions? Are
there groups who are not being seen? Are there inbuilt disadvantages in the alloca-
tion system? They also note that, in disaster situations, workers will see clients in a
number of different situations including social gatherings and they must be careful
about crossing professional boundaries and protecting the privacy of clients.
Du Plooy et al. (2014) note also the disquiet amongst workers about media
requests and the need to weigh up the need to protect clients who have been criti-
cally injured with the need for the wider community to be informed. There will
be other ethical issues including being careful not to include experience sharing
with clients in a ‘we’re all in this together’ way as this deflects from the profes-
sional relationship between client and worker. A contrary view might be that the
conscious use of self enables rapport to be built in a short time in an emotionally
loaded, grief-stricken environment.
In these situations and others, workers must be conscious of the professional
code of ethics including respect for persons, social justice and professional integrity.
Adhering to these professional values will assist workers to make good choices in
the field.

Summary
In this chapter we have discussed the critical need for social workers to be con-
scious of self-care and to continually look after their own welfare. We have noted
that agencies have significant responsibilities to their staff in the field and workers
themselves must be strict in looking after themselves. We have noted the potential
for ethical issues to arise and the need for workers to continue to check their
professional values and ethical behaviour.
Social workers working in disaster sites are building expertise that is of huge
significance given that disasters are becoming more frequent. Our book provides a
guide to workers and educators to alert our profession to the issues and practices that
are important to building practice knowledge and experience in this challenging area.
Yet we leave this book with optimism as we note that social workers have
responded magnificently to the challenges of disasters, bringing hope and support
to many people affected by disasters. Social workers will be critical to the future of
disaster preparedness and practice.
13
SHAPING SOCIAL WORK
DISASTER PRACTICE

This chapter brings together the information provided in the previous chapters
into a succinct summary of the role social workers can play in disasters. We examine
the factors that shape disaster practice including the randomness of the events
and the need for a quick response; the policies that shape disaster responses; the
organisational structures through which social workers come to disaster practice;
the various roles social workers adopt before, during and after disasters including
their role in disaster risk reduction, disaster management, disaster policy develop-
ment and disaster research. We also examine ethical issues that may arise for social
workers. This chapter brings together the various aspects of disasters that are criti-
cal for workers to be aware of in this challenging field of practice. We discuss our
social work disaster theory and urge the profession to respond effectively to this
emerging field of practice.

Disaster policies
Because disasters are becoming more frequent and intense, disasters and disaster
responses are drawing significant attention from global, national, state, regional and
local level leaders. Disasters, whether natural or human-induced, are consistent in
their randomness, their destruction of people and place, and the significant impacts
on those affected and their environments. As a result, there is an increasing policy
focus on mitigating disasters as well as on adaptation.
Climate-related disasters have perhaps drawn most attention, with world lead-
ers attempting to develop global consensus on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions through the UNFCCC and the regular COP meetings. The Paris
Agreement, designed to commit the world to a temperature increase limited to
2 degrees, saw leaders move close to consensus. However, the withdrawal of
Shaping social work disaster practice 227

many countries including the US, has reduced the likelihood of a binding global
commitment. For our purposes, this essentially means that climate-induced disas-
ters will continue, and that they will become more frequent and intense – there
will be more frequent and longer droughts, major floods, extensive wildfires, sea
and air temperature rises – and these will carry significant health risks. Those
whose livelihoods are dependent on the natural environment will suffer from
the uncertainties of food production cycles and food and water insecurity will
increase. The UNFCCC will continue its work in trying to bring consensus and
the annual COP meetings will also build on processes of collaboration although
not necessarily consensus. Given these facts, and the increasing certainty of major
environmental and social problems, social workers would do well to ascertain their
country’s commitments to these processes and the corresponding policies that have
been developed within country to address climate changes and disasters. Holding
governments to account for the social outcomes of, and environmental degrada-
tion caused by disasters demands we understand the policies and processes and
actively engage at transnational, national, state, regional and local levels to ensure
those policies attend to environmental as well as social justice.
Similarly, it is important that we understand the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, and our country’s commitments and
actions under the Framework. The primary aim of this instrument is to reduce
disaster risk and the loss of lives, livelihoods and health. Understanding how
nations are addressing these factors provides a significant advocacy tool both for
disaster responses and for post-disaster resourcing.
These transnational policies filter down to national policies including national
disaster frameworks, and disaster emergency management plans. National govern-
ments are committed through these processes to address disaster risks, to undertake
mitigation efforts and to act quickly when disasters occur. These policies also fil-
ter down to state and regional levels and influence local level policies. Thus it is
critical that we not only understand the policies at all levels, but that we actively
engage our communities to implement mitigation actions and to be aware of the
need for disaster planning at individual, family and community levels. Assisting
people and communities to be prepared, to have their plans ready and to prepare
emergency kits will become a common feature of community development and
disaster planning.
We suggest that social workers keep abreast of these policies at all levels of gov-
ernance, use them, evaluate them, challenge them, intersect with them, and work
with civil society groups to improve policy responsiveness to disasters. We have
stressed the need for social workers to introduce the language of social justice and
human rights to the policies and practices that shape the way we deal with disasters.
The current focus on economic costs of disasters and the dominance of scientific
and technical knowledge have overshadowed attention to just outcomes. Social
workers have a major role to play in bringing forward the social implications and
ensuring these are addressed.
228 Social workers and disaster practice

Workers might make themselves aware of the people at all in-country gov-
ernance levels who have influence over the policies and processes through which
disasters are addressed and advocate where necessary for policy changes needed and
for social workers to be consulted into the future. We especially urge social workers
to engage in debates concerning climate change and transnational policies, as the
profession has demonstrated its keen commitment to preserving the planet for future
generations and to recognising the indivisible links between people and planet.
We have also noted the increase in violent disasters such as mass shootings and
conflict situations. The processes and practices outlined in this book are designed
to address the uncertainties of violent events. Social workers must be critically
aware of the types of practices they may be called on to deliver in these circum-
stances and assist governments to build effective policies and processes in response
to these terrible events.

Stages of disasters
We have outlined the stages of disasters including disaster planning and preparedness,
the disaster experience and post-disaster scenarios. Social workers are very evident in
post-disaster response teams and are becoming more evident in other stages. We urge
social workers to more effectively engage in disaster planning in whatever organisa-
tional structures through which they might work. As disasters increase, communities
and organisations will need to build awareness of the types of disasters that may
threaten their communities, and be aware of the potential for environmental as well
as human-induced disasters. These might include the possibilities of earthquakes or
droughts, of chemical spills or heat waves, of violent events or conflict situations. No
community is immune to disasters and all should be addressing disaster preparation.
The need to undertake disaster planning, at organisational, household and com-
munity levels, will become the norm and hence an essential element of practice.
Disaster planning will require cross-institutional engagement at local levels and
will bring social workers into regular contact with local emergency workers, local
authorities and government and civil society groups. Being prepared for disasters
and educating the community on effective mitigation and preparedness strategies is
an area of emerging social work practice.
As we have outlined, social workers will also be engaged in disaster response
teams both during and after the event. When disasters are imminent this may
include workers assisting people to evacuate, helping to organise shelters and other
services and preparing to assist people flee potential harm. Immediately following
the event they will be engaged with assisting often very traumatised people to
safety, and supporting people in the critical period following the disaster. Longer-
term social workers will be involved in assisting people to build resilience, to ‘build
back better’ and to moving forward following the disaster. Social workers have a
role to play across the spectrum of disaster responses and disaster practice must be
a critical element of social work education.
Shaping social work disaster practice 229

Theory and practice

As we have noted in Chapters 4 and 5, social workers will work at the macro-,
meso- and micro-levels. At the macro-level they will engage with policy and with
planning to address potential disasters and undertake community development and
advocacy. At the meso-level they will engage across institutions and agencies and
work with communities and groups to build social and environmental resilience,
and to educate and train people to build their capacity to address the uncertainties
of disasters. At the micro-level they will work with individuals, families and com-
munities to build resilience, support people to prepare for the future and address
local level actions for disaster risk reduction and environmental resilience. They
will do this by undertaking crisis interventions including the delivery of psycho-
logical first aid and trauma-informed social casework adapted appropriately to the
disaster situation.
The level of engagement of individual social workers may include a post-disaster
intervention as part of an emergency response team, or a lengthy engagement with
a community. They will draw on a range of theories, knowledge and skills as they
would in their everyday work. The way these are applied in the disaster situation
and their knowledge of eco-social work and disaster theories will enable an expan-
sion of their practice horizons to incorporate a commitment to environmental,
social and gender justice; to strengths-based interventions, empowerment practices,
advocacy skills, community development practice and activism. Social workers will
be deeply engaged in disaster practice at all levels and with a range of skills that will
be essential to how the world addresses disasters.
Their roles on site will vary. Dominelli (2012: 200) notes that social workers
in disaster sites may at various times act as: facilitators, coordinators, community
mobilisers, resource mobilisers and coordinators, negotiators, mediators, consult-
ants, advocates, educators, trainers, cultural interpreters, psycho-social trainers and
scientific translators.

Principles for practice – theorising disaster social work

Our theory for social work disaster practice rests on acknowledgement of:

a) sustainability as a central element that overarches the purpose of interventions;

b) interdependence of humans and planet as a fundamental tenet of human exist-
ence; and
c) social, environmental and gender justice as inherent elements of disaster practice.

We view sustainability in its broadest sense as encompassing social, environmen-

tal, economic, cultural and spiritual elements and we note that unlimited growth
and neoliberal capitalism are destructive of sustainability. We therefore urge social
workers to question sustainability policies that are built on adherence to neoliberal
principles (Tierney 2012b).
230 Social workers and disaster practice

Our orientation to disasters provides a critical focus on the environment as an

element of practice and we urge workers to address the environment as a central
part of their practice before, during and after disasters. We endorse the previous
work of environmental social work theorists who call for a greater understanding
of the interconnections between people and planet. Therefore, as Pyles (2015)
reminds us, disaster recovery practices must be based on sustainability; address
environmental restoration and transformation, be grounded in community partici-
pation and based on social equity.
As Dominelli (2012) reminds us, we view part of the social work role to be:

• to care for the environment;

• to engage in disaster preparedness and risk reduction;
• to focus on the health of people and their ‘place’; and
• to foster social and environmental justice through policy advocacy and direct
practice.

In post-disaster sites the tendency to hastily restore communities often masks

the opportunity to build and transform communities. We see a major role for social
workers to be advocacy for social, environmental and gender justice as central to
how we approach disaster social work – before, during and after disasters. Matthies
and Narhi (2017) remind us that building resilience leads to transformation and
transformative practice.
We therefore urge social workers engaged in disaster practice to look beyond
the crisis situation and to address ways we can assist people and communities to
build resilience and to ‘build back better’. We support the principles espoused by
Pyles (2017: 641–643) that social workers should:

• ‘take a critical and holistic approach to the intersections between capitalism,

environmental destruction and disasters;
• not replicate the past: disentangle post-colonialist humanitarian practices;
• localise responses; and
• centre community needs’.

We would add additional principles include the need to:

• understand the social, political, economic, cultural aspects of a community and

its power relationships and gender politics;
• ensure that environmental, social and gender justice underpin disaster practice;
• advocate at global, national, state and local levels for disasters policies to pri-
oritise social issues and human rights.

Further, if we are crossing borders to enter disaster sites, we must guard against
bringing with us neocolonial attitudes and therefore we must ‘decolonise disaster
social work’ (Pyles 2017: 633).
Shaping social work disaster practice 231

Vulnerability and resilience

The focus of practice is to address the vulnerability of people and place, to understand
the nuances of community in order to assess those on the margins, to foster inclu-
siveness and to ensure that resources are distributed fairly and equitably. In Chapters
9, 10 and 11 we have outlined factors that shape vulnerability leading to some people
being more vulnerable than others even in the same household and despite similar
disaster experiences. Part of the social work role is to assess vulnerability.
Throughout our book we have stressed the need to understand and attend to
vulnerability and to build resilience in people and communities. Here we return
to this theme and make the following points. Vulnerability concerns both people
and the environment, and in attending to the needs of vulnerable people we must
also observe and act on environmental vulnerabilities. For example, if a disaster has
been caused by sea level rises – is it wise to rebuild in the same place? If a disaster
has been caused by a chemical spill, is it okay to ignore the companies involved in
our haste to attend to those compromised by the spill? These are the larger ques-
tions we must ask when addressing vulnerability.
The flip side of vulnerability is resilience and it is important that social workers
work to build resilience in people, families, communities and the environment.
There are a number of strategies undertaken by social workers across the world to
build resilience. These include:

• assisting communities to undertake disaster risk reduction projects;

• developing disaster preparedness strategies for individuals, families and
communities;
• undertaking social casework with individuals and families;
• organising group work with like-minded groups – for example, through craft
groups or women’s groups;
• working to build environmental restoration projects;
• undertaking community development with communities experiencing disas-
ters across the world;
• ensuring community leadership groups are representative;
• empowering local people;
• distributing resources;
• advocating for changes in policies and for services and supports.

Research and training

The field of disaster practice is a relatively new area and yet the rapid increase
in the numbers of disasters and the need for critical responses has overtaken the
development and evaluation of response strategies. It is critical that social workers
continue to undertake research in this field building new knowledge and evalu-
ating interventions and strategies in diverse disasters and countries. We need to
understand whether similar strategies can be applied in different sites, and the
232 Social workers and disaster practice

effectiveness of social work interventions in a range of circumstances. While the

social work profession has been deeply engaged in the development of environ-
mental social work (as outlined in Chapter 1), there is a critical need to extend this
work to incorporate disaster practice. This will guide workers who are working
on the ground in countries across the world.
The growing interest in disaster social work has developed as a response to the
increasing need for social workers to be part of emergency responses to disasters.
Research and evaluation studies, particularly in cross-country situations, will assist
to build a strong basis for disaster practice. This information must find its way into
social work curricula so that students are aware of this field of practice and the
strong likelihood that they may be involved in disaster practice in the future. In
Chapter 11 we examine the pressures that disaster social work places on individuals
and outline strategies to address self-care.

Concluding remarks
This book provides a thorough examination of disaster social work and is designed
to alert workers to the issues that frame practice in this challenging area. We leave
the reader with a summary of the factors that we feel will shape disaster practice
and assist to build social work theory in this emerging field. Critically, we note that
this builds on a number of areas of social work theory and practice – particularly
the work of environmental social work theorists who have built a new understand-
ing of the relationship between people and planet (see Chapter 4). These theorists
have alerted social workers to the need to incorporate the physical environment
into our understanding of the ‘person-in-environment’ concept. Our work incor-
porates these ideas and advances them in the context of damaged environments.
How do we build social and environmental justice into work in post-disaster sites
where human suffering is so overwhelming? How do we prioritise environmental
degradation when we are overwhelmed by the impacts on people? We would
argue that there is no more ideal time to understand, and act on, environmental
activism than prior to, and in the wake of disasters.
While we have spent a large part of this book explaining the types of social
work practice that will assist us in our work with the people, families and com-
munities affected by disasters, we want to leave you with a critical message about
sustainability, and the limits of our beautiful planet earth. Attending to the needs of
people and communities who have been impacted by disasters is critical work, and
the scale and frequency of disasters creates the need for environmental actions as
part of our brief as social workers. However, in the broader scheme of things, and
for those disasters caused by human-induced actions, this is like applying a bandage
to a gaping wound. Human-induced disasters will continue to grow in frequency
and intensity while ever a) there remains a dominant focus on increasing produc-
tivity, and b) neoliberal politics frames global and national policies. Under this
scenario, we will continue to be called on to contain the outcomes. Thus, in the
broader scope of social work theory and practice we must not only provide insights
Shaping social work disaster practice 233

on disaster practice, we must also alert social workers to the need for a broader
attention to human–planet interactions and make part of our brief as social work
professionals be the need to shape a more equitable and harmonious relationship
between people and the environment.
Thus, we support the increasing calls by social work theorists such as Maathies
and Narhi (2017) and Boetto (2017: 49) for social transformations and fundamental
changes in eco-social interactions. However, this requires significant changes in
our understanding of the concept of ‘people-in-environment’ and a move away
from our foundational modernist bedrock. Boetto, for example, reminds us that
currently there is ‘incongruence’ between the way social work pursues its mod-
ernist agenda and that this contributes to ‘the misuse of nature’. For social work
to truly address the environmental crisis we must be prepared to re-examine the
breadth and scope of social work. There is no doubt that we have begun that pro-
cess through the Global Agenda for Social Work (IFSW and IASSW 2012). There
is much more to be done at the level of everyday practice.
Throughout our book we have stressed the need to understand and attend to
vulnerability and to build resilience in people and communities. Here we return to
this theme and make the following points. Vulnerability concerns both people and
the environment, and in attending to the needs of vulnerable people we must also
observe and act on environmental vulnerabilities.
Likewise, in building the resilience of people and communities are we attending
to the resilience of the environment? What restoration and mitigation actions are
required? What disaster preparedness strategies are needed before disasters happen
and how do we motivate people to act before a disaster has occurred? Additionally,
we should also question the nature of resilience and ask whether resilience is an
individual responsibility, or should we be questioning the very structures of society
that have rendered people vulnerable in the first place? Therefore, what types of
societal transformations should we be advocating for?
These are big questions and ones we cannot answer. However, in closing we
note that we will not address these while they remain on the fringes of social
work. We note the need for environmental and disaster social work to be a
central part of social work curricula and for workers to enter the field already
aware of the larger social and environmental questions that disasters expose. As
Rock and Corbin (2007: 383) in discussing social work responses to disasters in
the Caribbean note, social work disaster response training must be part of social
work curricula. We are pleased to have been part of the genesis of this growth
of understanding of our responsibility to our planet but are very conscious that
there is much more to do. We thank also the people who have contributed to
this work by providing case studies of disasters and the responses of social workers
across the world.
REFERENCES

Abbas, Sharima Ruaida and Joanne Sulman (2016). Nondeliberative crisis intervention in
disaster zones: social group work using guided artwork with child survivors. Social Work
with Groups, 2 April 2016, 39(2–3), 118–128.
ABC News (2015). Paris climate talks: Tuvalu PM Enele Sosene Sopoaga criticizes demand
for evidence of claims. 5 December. Retrieved on 26 July 2018 from www.abc.net.
au/news/2015-12-05/tuvalu-pm-criticises-demand-for-evidence-of-climate-change-
claim/7004090
ActionAid, DFAT, the Economist and the Intelligence Unit (2014). South Asia Women’s
Resilience Index. Retrieved on 19 August 2018 from http://actionforglobaljustice.action-
aid.org/womens-resilience-index/download/The%20South%20Asia%20Women’s%20
Resilience%20Index%20Dec8.pdf
Adams, Lavonne, Lisa Smith and Susan Weeks (2013). Multidisciplinary team responses
to support survivors of mass casualty: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database of
Systematice Reviews and Implementation Reports, 11(11), 8–20.
Adamson, C. (2014). Editorial: disaster informed curriculum for social work and social wel-
fare education. Advances in Social Work and Social Welfare Education, 16(2), 5–6.
Adeola, Francis (1998). Environmental injustice in the state of Louisiana: hazardous wastes
and environmental illness in the cancer corridor. Race, Gender & Class, 31 October, 6(1),
83–108.
Adger, W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human
Geography, September, 24(3), 347–364.
Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty,
B. Smit and K. Takahashi (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints
and capacity. In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson (eds), Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 717–743.
Ahmed, A.U., S. Neelormi and N. Adri (2007). Entrapped in a water world: impacts of and
adaptation to climate change induced water logging for women in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Centre for
Global Change.
References 235

Ahmed, A.U., S. Neerlormi, N. Adri, S. Alam and K. Nuruzzaman (2008). Climate change,
gender and vulnerable groups in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Climate Change Cell, DoE, MoEF,
Component 4b, CDMP, MoFDM.
Alber, Gotelind (2011). Gender, cities and climate change: thematic report prepared for cit-
ies and climate change global report on human settlements. Retrieved on 29 November
2011 from www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2011
Albrecht, G., G.M. Sartore, L. Connor, N. Higginbotham, S. Freeman, B. Kelly, H. Stain,
A. Tonna and G. Pollard (2007). Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change.
Australasian Psychiatry, 15(1), S95–S98, doi:10.1080/10398560701701288
Allen, James D. (2008). Jane Addams (1860–1935): social worker and peace builder. Social
Work and Society International Journal On-Line, 6(2). Retrieved from www.socwork.net/
sws/article/view/68/370
Alston, Margaret (2010). Gender and climate change in the Pacific. A report prepared for
UNESCO. Monash University, Department of Social Work, Melbourne.
Alston, Margaret (2012a). Introduction: gender and climate change. In Margaret Alston and
Kerri Whittenbury (eds), Research, action and policy: addressing the gendered impacts of climate
change. New York: Springer, pp. 3–16.
Alston, Margaret (2012b). Rural male suicide in Australia. Social Science and Medicine, 74(4),
515–522.
Alston, Margaret (2013). Environmental social work: accounting for gender in climate dis-
asters. Australian Social Work, 66(2), 218–233.
Alston, Margaret (2015). Women and climate change in Bangladesh. London: Routledge.
Alston, Margaret (2017a). Ecosocial work: reflections from the global south. In Aila-Leena
Matthies and Kati Narhi (eds), The ecosocial transition of societies: the contribution of social work
and social policy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 91–104.
Alston, Margaret (2017b). Gendered outcomes in post-disaster sites: public policy and
resource distribution. In Marjorie Cohen (ed.), Gender, climate change and work in rich
countries, Canada: McGill Queens.
Alston, Margaret and Fred Besthorn (2012). Environment and sustainability. In Karen
Lyons, Terry Hokenstad, Manohar Pawar and Nathalie Huegler (eds), Sage handbook of
international social work international social work, London: Sage.
Alston, Margaret and Wendy Bowles (2018). Research for Social Workers (4th ed.). Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Alston, Margaret, Jo Clarke and Kerri Whittenbury (2018). Limits to adaptation: reducing
irrigation water in the Murray-Darling Basin dairy communities. Journal of Rural Studies,
58, 93–102.
Alston, Margaret, Tricia Hazeleger and Desley Hargreaves (2014). Research project con-
ducted with the Rebuilding Lives Post-Disaster project under the auspice of Prof Julie
Drolet at Calgary University. Our project assessed Black Saturday bushfires.
Alston, Margaret, Tricia Hazeleger and Desley Hargreaves (2016). Social work in post-
disaster sites. In J. McKinnon M. and Alston (eds), Eco-social work. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Alston, Margaret, Tricia Hazeleger and Desley Hargreaves (2018). Post-disaster social work:
reflections on the nature of place and loss. Special edition Australian Social Work, doi:
10.1080/0312407X.2017.1409776
Alston, Margaret and Jenny Kent (2006). Impact of drought on rural and remote education access: a report
to DEST and rural education fund of FRRR. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.
Alston, Margaret, Jenny Kent and Anne Kent (2004). Social impacts of drought: report to NSW
Agriculture. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University.
236 References

Alston, Margaret and Jennifer McKinnon (eds) (2016). Ecological social work: towards
sustainability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alston, Margaret and Kerri Whittenbury (2012). Does climatic crisis in Australia’s food
bowl create a basis for change in agricultural gender relations? Agriculture and Human
Values, 30, 115–128.
Alston, Margaret, Kerri Whittenbury and Alex Haynes (2014). Gender and climate change in
Bangladesh. A report to Monash-Oxfam. Melbourne: Monash University, Department of
Social Work.
Alston, Margaret, Kerri Whittenbury, Alex Haynes and Naomi Godden (2015). Are
climate challenges reinforcing child and forced marriage and dowry as adaptation
strategies in the context of Bangladesh? Women’s Studies International Forum, 47(A),
137–144.
Alston, Margaret, Kerri Whittenbury and Deborah Western (2016). Rural community sus-
tainability and social work practice. In Jennifer McKinnon and Margaret Aston (eds),
Ecological social work: towards sustainability. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 94–111.
Attorney-General’s Department (2011). Australia’s national strategy for disaster resilience
(Attorney-General’s Department 2011). Retrieved on 22 January 2018 from www.ag.
gov.au/EmergencyManagement/Documents/NationalStrategyforDisasterResilience.pdf
Austin, D.W. (2008). Hyper-masculinity and disaster: gender role construction in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina. Paper presented at the Hyper-Masculinity and Disaster: Gender Role
Construction in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina, Sheraton Boston and the Boston
Marriott Copley Place, 31 July, Boston. Retrieved from http://research.allacademic.
com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/1/5/3/p241530_index.html
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) (2013). Australian social work education and
accreditation standards. Canberra: AASW. Retrieved on 23 September 2014 from www.
aasw.asn.au/document/item/100
Australian Association of Social Workers (2015). Scope of social work practice: psychosocial assess-
ments. North Melbourne: AASW. Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from www.aasw.asn.au/
document/item/8312
Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR) (2018). Australian Institute for Disaster
Resilience handbook. Retrieved on 28 October 2018 from https://aesrg.com.au/australian-
institute-for-disaster-resilience-handbook/
Australian Psychological Society and Australian Red Cross (2010). Psychological first aid: an
Australian guide. Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from http://earlytraumagrief.anu.edu.au/
files/Red-Cross-Psychological-First-Aid-Book.pdf
Australian Red Cross (2018). Are you ready for an emergency? Retrieved on 28 July 2018
from www.redcross.org.au/prepare
Avgar, Amos and Roni Kaufman (2011). Challenges for community development in dis-
aster situations. In Roni Kaufman, Richard L. Edwards, Julia Mirsky and Amos Avgar
(eds), Crisis as an opportunity: organisational and community responses to disasters. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, pp. 33–46.
Banerjee, Dwaipayan (2013). Writing the disaster: substance activism after Bhopal.
Contemporary South Asia, 21(3), 230–242.
Bankoff, G. (2006). The tale of the three pigs: taking another look at vulnerability in light
of the Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. 11 June. Retrieved on 26 July 2018
from http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Bankoff/
Bankston, Carl L. (2013). Review: race, poverty, and policy in the wake of disaster: post-
Katrina views. Sociological Forum, 28(4) (December 2013), 888–899.
Bartlett, H. (1970). The common base of social work practice. Washington, DC: National
Association of Social Workers.
References 237

Baum, N. (2014). Professionals’ double exposure in the shared traumatic reality of war-
time: contributions to professional growth and stress. British Journal of Social Work,
44, 2113–2134.
Bauwens, J. and A. Naturale (2017). The role of social work in the aftermath of disasters and
traumatic events. Clinical Social Work, 45(2): 99–101.
Bayard, Dominique (2010). Haiti earthquake relief – long-term needs and local resources.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(20), 1858–1861.
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (2009). World risk society and manufactured uncertainties. IRIS, 1(2), 2919.
Bell, Keith Clifford (2011). Lessons from the reconstruction of post-tsunami Aceh.
International Finance Corporation. Retrieved on 19 August 2018 from file:///Users/
malston/Downloads/2011%20World%20Bank%20Build%20Back%20Better%20
Through%20ensuring%20Women%20are%20at%20the%20Centre%20of%20Land.pdf
Benson, Perry W., Leola Dyrud Furman, Edward R. Canda, Bernard Moss and Torill
Danbolt (2016). Spiritually sensitive social work with victims of natural disasters and ter-
rorism. British Journal of Social Work, 46(5), 1372–1393.
Besthorn, F.H. (1997). Reconceptualizing social work’s person-in-environment perspective: explo-
rations in radical environmental thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
Besthorn, F.H. (2012). Deep ecology’s contributions to social work: a ten-year retrospec-
tive. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 248–259.
Besthorn, F.H. (2013). Radical equalitarian ecological justice. In M. Gray, J. Coates and
T. Hetherington (eds), Environmental social work, Oxon: Routledge, pp, 31–45.
Besthorn, F.H. and Edward R. Canda (2002). Revisioning environment: deep ecology
for education and teaching in social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 11 April,
22(1–2), 79–101.
Besthorn, Fred and Diane Pearson McMillen (2002). The oppression of women and nature:
ecofeminism as a framework for an expanded ecological social work. Families in Society,
May/Jun, 83(3), 221–232.
Besthorn, F.H. and D. Saleebey (2003). Nature, genetics and the biophilia connection:
exploring linkages with social work values and practices. Advances in Social Work, 4(1),
1–18.
Besthorn, F.H., D. Wulff and S. St George (2010). Eco-spiritual helping and postmodern
therapy: a deeper ecological framework. Ecopsychology, 2(1), 23–32.
Bisson, Jonathon and Catrin Lewis (2009). Systematic review of psychological first aid.
Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from www.researchgate.net/publication/265069490_
Systematic_Review_of_Psychological_First_Aid
Bliss, Susan (2010). Haiti: disasters, poverty and citizenship [online]. Geography Bulletin, 42(1), 33–
42. Retrieved on 15 July 2018 from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.lib.monash.
edu.au/documentSummary;dn=045962835517866;res=IELAPA>ISSN:0156-9236
Boetto, Heather (2017). A transformative eco-social model: challenging modernist assump-
tions in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 48–67.
Boon, H.J., A. Cottrell and D. King (2016). Disasters and social resilience: a bioecological
approach. Routledge Explorations in Environmental Studies. London: Taylor & Francis.
Briggs, Lynne, Desley Hargreaves and Patricia Fronek (2018). Social work responses to floods in
Queensland and earthquakes in Christchurch. Symposium presentation, International Social
Work and Social Development Conference, Dublin, Ireland, July.
Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, Working paper 38. Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change, UK.
238 References

Brown, Paul (2016). Anger and disaster management. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 50(9), 924–926.
Cacciatore, Joanne, Bonnie Carlson, Elizabeth Michaelis, Barbara Klimek and Sara Steffan
(2011). Crisis intervention by social workers in fire departments: an innovative role for
social workers. Social Work, 56(1), 81–88.
Calhoun L. and R. Tedeschi (1999). Facilitating posttraumatic growth: a clinician’s guide.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Campbell, L. and S. Jones (2016). An innovative response to family violence after the
Canterbury earthquake events: Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration’s Achievements,
successes, and challenges. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 20, 89–100.
Retrieved from www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2016-2/AJDTS_20-2_Campbell.pdf
Carr, Anne (2014). Women together in the darkest days of the ‘Troubles’. Open Democracy.
Retrieved from www.opendemocracy.net/5050/anne-carr/women-together-in-darkest-
days-of-troubles
Carson, Rachel (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Caye, Joanne S. (2011). Interventions in disasters: an international perspective. In Roni
Kaufman, Richard L. Edwards, Julia Mirsky and Amos Avgar (eds), Crisis as an opportu-
nity: organisational and community responses to disasters. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, pp. 16–32.
Chae, E., T. Kim, S. Rhee and D. Henderson (2005). The impact of flooding on the mental
health of affected people in South Korea. Community Mental Health Journal, 41, 633–645.
Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) (2011). National strategy for disaster resilience.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/
media/2153/nationalstrategyfordisasterresilience.pdf
Coates, John (2003). Ecology and social work: towards a new paradigm. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing.
Coates, John and Mel Gray (2012). Guest editorial: The environment and social work: an
overview and introduction. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 230–238.
Coates, John, Mel Gray and Tiana Hetherington (2006). An ecospiritual perspective: finally,
a place for Indigenous approaches. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(3), 381–399.
Cocklin, Chris and Margaret Alston (2003). Introduction. In Chris Cocklin and Margaret
Alston (eds), Community sustainability: a question of capital? Wagga Wagga, Australia:
Centre for Rural Social Research.
Cooper, Lesley, Lynne Briggs and Susan Bagshaw (2018). Post-disaster counselling:
personal, professional, and ethical issues. Australian Social Work, special edition post-
disasters, 71, 430–443.
Corral, Thais (2011). Gender perspectives in adaptation strategies: the case of Pintadas Solar
in the semi-arid region of Brazil. In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change: an
introduction. London: Earthscan, pp. 138–144.
Cox, Eva (1995). A truly civil society. Boyer Lecture Series. ABC. Lecture 2 Raising Social
Capital. Retrieved on 26 January 2018 from www.crcresearch.org/files-crcresearch/
File/cox_95.pdf
Cunsolo, Ashlee and Neville Ellis (2018). Ecological grief as a mental health response to
climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change, April 2018, 8(4), 275–281.
Dankelman, Irene (2010). Introduction: exploring gender, environment and climate
change. In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change: an introduction. London:
Earthscan, pp. 1–20.
Dankelman, Irene and Willy Jansen (2010). Gender, environment and climate change:
understanding the linkages. In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change. London:
Earthscan, pp. 21–54.
References 239

Datar, C. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: introduction to the discourse. India: Rawat Publications.
Doherty, Ben and Eleanor Ainge Roy (2017). World Bank: let climate-threatened Pacific
islanders migrate to Australia or NZ. The Guardian, 8 May. Retrieved on 13 July 2018
from www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/08/australia-and-nz-should-allow-
open-migration-for-pacific-islanders-threatened-by-climate-says-report
Dominelli L. (2010). Social work in a globalising world. Cambridge: Polity.
Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work: from environmental crisis to environmental justice.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dominelli, L. (2013). Environmental justice at the heart of social work practice: greening
the profession. International Journal of Social Welfare, October 2013, 22(4), 431–439.
Dominelli, L. (2014). Promoting environmental justice through green social work practice:
a key challenge for practitioners and educators. International Social Work, 57(4), 338–345.
Downing, T.E. and A. Patwardhan (2004). Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation,
Technical Paper 3: assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation, UNDP. Retrieved
from www.undp.org/gef/05/documents/publications/apf-technical-paper03.pdf
Drolet, Julie, Robin Ersing, Lena Dominelli, Margaret Alston, Golam Mathbor, Yenyi
Huang and Haorui Wu (2018). Rebuilding lives and communities postdisaster: a case
study on migrant workers and diversity in the USA. Australian Social Work, 71, 444–456.
Drolet, Julie, Haorui Wu, Robin Ersing, Margaret Alston, Desley Hargreaves, Yenyi
Huang, Chao Hsing Huang and Golam Mathbor (2017). Rebuilding lives post-disaster:
innovative community practices for sustainable development. In Lena Dominellie (ed.),
The Routledge handbook of green social work. London: Routledge, pp. 63–73.
Du Plooy, Leah, Louise Harms, Kellie Muir, Belinda Martin and Stephanie Ingliss (2013).
‘Black Saturday’ and its aftermath: reflecting on postdisaster social work interven-
tions in an Australian trauma hospital. Australian Social Work, 67(2), 274–284, doi:
10.1080/0312407X.2013.862558
Duncan, A., D. Parkinson, F. Archer and E. Keech (2018). Diversity in disaster issues paper.
Thornbury: Women’s Health in the North. Retrieved from genderanddisaster.com.au/
diversity-in-disaster-conference and knowledge.aidr.org.au
Ellis, N. and G. Albrecht (2017). Climate change threats to family farmers’ sense of place
and mental wellbeing: a case study from the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Soc. Sci.
Medicine, 175, 161–168.
Elsen, Susanne (2017). Community-based economy and ecosocial transition. In Aila-Leena
Matthies and Kati Narhi (eds), The ecosocial transition of societies: the contribution of social
work and social policy. London and New York: Routledge, Advances in Social Work,
pp. 54–70.
Emmanuel, David and Elaine Enarson (2012). The women of Katrina: how gender, race, and class
matter in an American disaster. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Enarson, E. (2006). Women and girls last?: Averting the second post-Katrina Disaster.
Retrieved on 14 March 2011 from http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Enarson/
Enarson, E. (2009). Women, gender and disaster. India: Sage Publications.
Enarson, E. (2012). Women confronting natural disaster: from vulnerability to resilience. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.
Enarson, E. and L. Meyreles (2004). International perspectives on gender and disaster: dif-
ferences and possibilities. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(10),
49–93.
Equal Climate: Gender and Climate Change from a Nordic Perspective (n.d.). Gender equal-
ity events at COP meetings. Retrieved on 26 January 2018 from www.equalclimate.org/
en/background/historical_overview/gender_equality_events_at_cop/Gender+equality+
events+at+COP+meetings.9UFRvU1Q.ips
240 References

European Capacity Building Initiative (ECBI) (2017). Pocket guide to gender equality under
the UNFCCC. Retrieved on 21 January 2018 from www.eurocapacity.org/downloads/
Final-Gender.pdf
Evces, Mark (2015). What is vicarious trauma? In Gertie Quitangon and Mark R. Evces
(eds), Vicarious trauma and disaster mental health: understanding risks and promoting resilience.
New York: Routledge, pp. 9–23.
Faist, Thomas (2010). The crucial meso-level. In Marco Martiniello and Jan Rath (eds),
Selected studies in international migration and immigrant incorporation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, pp. 59–90.
Figley, C.R. (1995). Epilogue: the transmission of trauma. In C.R. Figley (ed.), Compassion
fatigue, New York: Bruner/Mazel Inc.
Findley, Patricia, Kathleen Pottick and Stephanie Giordano (2017). Educating graduate
social work students in disaster response: a real-time case study. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 45(2), 159–167.
Folke, Carl (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Thomas Elmquist, Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling and Brian
Walker (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a
world of transformations. Ambio, 1 August, 31(5), 437–440.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2007). Gender and climate change: existing research
and knowledge gaps. Rome: Gender and Population Division, FAO, Rome.
Ford, Peter (2003). France reaches out to its elderly: 15,000 heatwave deaths this summer
spur Paris to fund care for the aged by forgoing a public holiday. The Christian Science
Monitor, 7 November 2003, 6.
Fordham, Maureen, William E. Lovekamp, Deborah S.K. Thomas and Brenda D. Phillips
(2013). Understanding social vulnerability. In Deborah S.K. Thoman, Brenda D.
Phillips, William E. Lovekamp and Alice Fothergill (eds), Social vulnerability to disasters
(2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 1–32.
Freddolino, P.O., D.M. Moxley and C.A. Hyduk (2004). A different model of advocacy in
social work practice. Families in Society, 85(1), 119–128.
Gallopin, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Global Environ. Change, 16(3), 293–303. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.02.004
Gates, Jimmie E. (2015). FEMA trailers brought shelter, problems to Katrina vic-
tims. USA Today. August 28. Retrieved on 5 July 2018 from www.usatoday.com/
story/news/nation/2015/08/28/fema-trailers-brought-shelter-problems-katrina-vic
tims/71342988/
Gender and Disaster Pod (2018). An initiative of WHGNE, WHIN and MUDRI. Data
retrieved on 20 August 2018 from www.genderanddisaster.com.au/
Germain, C.B. (1973). An ecological perspective in casework practice. Social Casework,
54(6), 323–330.
Germain, C.B. (1976). Time: an ecological variable in social work practice. Social Casework,
57(7), 419–426.
Germain, C.B. and A. Gitterman (1980). The life world of social work practice. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Germain, C.B. and A. Gitterman (1996). The life model of social work practice: advances in theory
and practice. New York: Columbia University Press
Gibbs, L., R. Bryant, L. Harms, D. Forbes, K. Block, H.C. Gallagher, G. Ireton, J.
Richardson, P. Pattison, C. MacDougall, D. Lusher, E. Baker, C. Kellett, A. Pirrone, R.
Molyneaux, L. Kosta, K. Brady, M. Lok, G. Van Kessell and E. Waters (2016). Beyond
References 241

bushfires: community resilience and recovery final report: 2010–2016. Melbourne, Victoria:
University of Melbourne.
Gitterman, A. and C. Germain (2008). The life model of social work practice: advances in theory
and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Global Poverty Project (2013). Global Poverty Info Bank. Retrieved on 15 January 2013
from www.globalpovertyproject.com/infobank/women
Gordon, W.E. (1969). Basic constructs for an integrative and generative conception of
social work. In G. Hearn (ed.), The general systems approach: contributions towards an holistic
conception of social work. New York: Council on Social Work Education, pp. 5–12.
Gray, M. (2008). Viewing spirituality in social work through the lens of contemporary social
theory. British Journal of Social Work, 38(1), 175–196.
Gray, Mel and John Coates (2008). From ‘Indigenisation’ to cultural relevance. In Mel
Gray, John Coates and Michael Yellow Bird (eds), Indigenous social work around the world:
towards culturally relevant education and practice. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 13–29.
Gray, M. and J. Coates (2012). Environmental ethics for social work: social work’s respon-
sibility to the non-human world. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 239–247.
Gray, M. and J. Coates (2013). Changing values and valuing change: toward an ecospiritual
perspective in social work. International Social Work, 56(3), 356–368.
Gray, M. and J. Coates (2015). Changing gears: shifting to an environmental perspective in
social work education. Social Work Education, 14 August, 1–11.
Gray, M., J. Coates and T. Hetherington (2007). The Indigenous voice in mainstream social
work. Families in Society, 88(1), 55–66.
Gray, M., J. Coates and T. Hetherington (2012). Environmental social work. Abingdon:
Taylor & Francis.
Gray, M., J. Coates and T. Hetherington (2013). Conclusion. In M. Gray, J. Coates and
T. Hetherington (eds), Environmental social work. Oxon: Routledge.
Gray, Mel, John Coates and Michael Yellow Bird (eds) (2008). Indigenous social work around the
world: towards culturally relevant education and practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Gray, Mel and Stephen Webb (2013). Introduction. In Mel Gray and Stephen A. Webb
(eds), Social work theories and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage, pp. 1–10.
Gray, Mel, Michael Yellow Bird and John Coates (2008). Towards an understanding of
Indigenous social work. In Mel Gray, John Coates and Michael Yellow Bird (eds),
Indigenous social work around the world: towards culturally relevant education and practice.
Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 49–58.
Green Climate Fund (GCF) (2017). What we do. Retrieved from www.greenclimate.fund/
home
Grinnell, R. (1973). Environmental modification: casework’s concern or casework’s
neglect? Social Service Review, 47(2), 208–220.
Grise-Owens, Erlene, J. Jay Miller and Larry W. Owens (2014). Responding to global
shifts: meta-practice as a relevant social work practice paradigm. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 34(1), 46–59.
Hamama, Liat (2012). Differences between children’s social workers and adults’ social
workers on sense of burnout, work conditions and organisational social support. British
Journal of Social Work, 42, 1333–1353, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr135
Handmer, J. and S. Dovers (2009). A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for sus-
tainable development. In E.L.F. Schipper and I. Burton (eds), Adaptation to climate change.
London: Earthscan, pp. 187–220.
Hansan, J.E. (2013). Charity organization societies (1877–1893). Social Welfare History
Project. Retrieved 3 January 2018 from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/civil-
war-reconstruction/charity-organization-societies-1877-1893/
242 References

Harms, L. (2010). Understanding human development: a multidimensional approach (2nd ed.).

South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Harms, L. (2015). Understanding trauma and resilience. London: Macmillan Education/Palgrave.
Harms, Lou and Margaret Alston (2018). Introduction to special edition on social work and
disasters. Australian Social Work, 71, 386–391.
Harms, Louise, Karen Block, H. Gallagher, Lisa Gibbs, Richard Bryant, Dean Lusher, John
Richardson, Colin Macdougall, Elyse Baker, Vikki Sinnott, Greg Ireton, David Forbes,
Connie Kellett and Elizabeth Waters (2015). Conceptualising post-disaster recovery:
incorporating grief experiences. British Journal of Social Work, Dec, 45, i170–i187.
Harms, Lou and Jenny Boddy (in press). Systematic review of social work and post-disasters.
Harris, Rachel (2010). Gender aspects of climate change in the US Gulf Coast region. In
Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change: an introduction. London: Earthscan,
pp. 152–157.
Hartman, A. (1970). To think about the unthinkable. Social Casework, 51(4), 467–474.
Hazeleger, T. (2013a). Through women’s eyes: resilience – what needs to change (poster).
Retrieved on 9 August 2018 from www.alpineshire.vic.gov.au/files/Residents/
Resilience_What_Needs_to_Changecv.pdf
Hazeleger, Tricia (2013b). Gender and disaster recovery: strategic issues and actions in
Australia. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(2), 40–46.
Hazeleger, Tricia, Margaret Alston and Desley Hargreaves (2018). Social work in post-natural
disaster sites. In Margaret Alston, Samone McCurdy and Jennifer McKinnon (eds), Social
work fields of practice (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–310.
Healy, Lynne M. (2017). Situating social work within the post-2015 global agenda. European
Journal of Social Work, 20(1), 5–16, doi: 10.1080/13691457.2016.1168788
Henrici, J.M., A.S. Helmuth and J. Braun (2010). Women, disasters, and Hurricane
Katrina. Washington. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/women-disasters-
and-hurricane-katrina/
Hoff, M. and R. Polack (1993). Social dimensions of the environmental crisis: challenges for
social work. Social Work, 38(2): 204–211.
Hoff, M.D. and J.G. McNutt (eds) (1994). The global environmental crisis: implications for social
welfare and social work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Houghton, R., T. Wilson, W. Smith and D. Johnston (2010). If there was a dire emer-
gency, we never would have been able to get in there: domestic violence reporting and
disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 28, 270–293.
Hunt, S., R.J. Sargisson, H. Hamerton and K. Smith (2014). Integrating research on the
impact of volunteering following the Rena oil spill into the University of Waikato social
work teaching curriculum. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, Dec 2014,
16(2), 36–45.
Ibrion, Michaela, Farokh Parsizadeh, Maryam Pakdaman Naeini, Mohammad Mokhtari
and Farrokh Nadim (2003). Handling of dead people after two large earthquake disasters
in Iran: Tabas 1978 and Bam 2003 – survivors’ perspectives, beliefs, funerary rituals,
resilience and risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 11, 60–77.
Ife, Jim (1997). Rethinking social work: towards critical practice. South Melbourne: Longman.
Ife, Jim (2011). Human rights from below: achieving rights through community development.
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Ife, Jim (2013). Community development in an uncertain world: vision, analysis and practice. Port
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001). Climate change: third assessment
report. Retrieved on 26 May 2012 www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_
and_data_reports.shtml#.T8BtkVFpu8U
References 243

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (2015). Global overview 2015: peo-
ple internally displaced by conflict and violence. Data retrieved on 24 July 2018 from
www.internal-displacement.org/publications/global-overview-2015-people-internally-
displaced-by-conflict-and-violence
International Association for Public Participation Australasia (IAPPA) (2014). A guide to
engaging in disaster recovery. Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from www.iap2.org.au
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS) (2016).
World disasters report. Louvain: CRED.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), International Association of Schools of
Social Work (IASSW) and the International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) (2012).
The global agenda for social work and social development commitment to action. Retrieved on 29
May 2015 http://cdn.ifsw.org/assets/globalagenda2012.pdf
International Women’s Democracy Centre (2008). Fact sheet, Women’s political participation.
Retrieved on 15 January 2013 from www.iwdc.org/resources/fact_sheet.htm
International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (2018). Intersectionality. Retrieved
from https://iwda.org.au/what-does-intersectional-feminism-actually-mean/
Jayasinghe, Nimali, Cezar Giosan, Susan Evans, Lisa Spielman and Joann Difede (2008).
Anger and posttraumatic stress disorder in disaster relief workers exposed to the
September 11, 2001 World Trade Center disaster: one-year follow-up study. The Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(11), 844–846.
Jones, Amy L.E. and Katy Mattingly (2016). Empowerment, social justice and feminist
self-defence: the benefits of incorporating embodied empowerment skills in social work
practice. Affilia, May, 31(2), 263–270.
Jones, Lindsey (2010). Overcoming social barriers to adaptation: background note. Overseas
Development Institute. Retrieved on 16 May 2011 from www.odi.org.uk/resources/
download/4945.pdf
Jordan, Karin (2015). The disaster survivor’s hierarchy of needs: what every disaster
mental health worker should know. Vistas On-line, Article 95. Retrieved on 28 July
2018 from www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/the-disaster-survivor.pdf?
sfvrsn=e2db432c_6
Jung, H.Y. (1990). Shallow thinking on deep ecology. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy,
7(2), 95–98.
Karimi, Faith, Jason Hanna and Steve Almasy (2018). California mudslides: evacuation
zones expanded as search continues. CNN. 12 January. Retrieved 13 January 2018 from
http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/11/us/southern-california-mudslides/index.html
Kaufman, Roni, Richard L. Edwards, Julia Mirsky and Amos Avgar (2011). Introduction.
In Roni Kaufman, Richard L. Edwards, Julia Mirsky and Amos Avgar (eds), Crisis as an
opportunity: organisational and community responses to disasters. University Press of America,
Lanham, pp. ix–xiii.
Kemp, Susan P. (2011). Recentring environment in social work practice: necessity, oppor-
tunity, challenge. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1 September, 1198–1210,
https://doiorg.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1093/bjsw/bcr119
Kitkiri, K. (2011). Climate change and migration: a case study from rural Bangladesh.
Gender & Development, 19(1), 23–38.
Klein, Naomi (2014). This changes everything. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Koelle, Bettina and Sheona Shackleton (2011). Presentation to the World Universities
Network Limits to Adaptation group. Penn State University, PA.
Kovarik, Bill (2010). Enduring legacy: women and the environment. Radford Women’s
Forum, 9 March. Retrieved on 25 July 2018 from www.environmentalhistory.org/billk-
ovarik/2012/08/02/enduring-legacy/
244 References

Krumer-Nevo, Michal and Michal Komem (2015). Intersectionality and critical social work
with girls: theory and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 45(4), 1190–1206.
Laitinen, Merja and Sanna Väyrynen (2016). Social work practices and research with Sámi
people and communities in the frame of indigenous social work. International Social Work,
59(5), 583–596.
Lambrou, Yianna and Sibyl Nelson (2010). Farmers in a changing climate: food security in Andhra
Pradesh, India. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).
Lambrou, Yianna and Grazia Piana (2006). Gender: the missing component of the response to
climate change. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).
Lane, Ruth and Rebecca McNaught (2009). Building gendered approaches to adaptation in
the Pacific. Gender and Development, 17(1), March, 67–80.
Lang, N.C. (2016). Nondeliberative forms of practice in social work: artful, actional, ana-
logic. Social Work with Groups, 39(2/3), 97–117.
Larson, Grant, Julie Drolet and Miriam Samuel (2015). The role of self-help groups in
post-tsunami rehabilitation. International Social Work, September 2015, 58(5), 732–742.
Lauer, Matthew (2012). Oral traditions or situated practices? Understanding how
Indigenous communities respond to environmental disasters. (Indian Ocean Earthquake
and Tsunami, 2004) Human Organization, Summer, 71(2), 176–187.
Le De, L., J.C. Gaillard and W. Friesen (2015). Poverty and disasters: do remittances repro-
duce vulnerability? The Journal of Development Studies, 19 June 2015, 1–16.
Lindley, Anna (2009). The early-morning phone call: remittance from a refugee diaspora
perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1 September 2009, 35(8), 1315–1334.
Luft, Rachel E. (2016). Men and masculinities in the social movement for a just reconstruc-
tion after Hurricane Katrina. In Elaine Enarson and Bob Pease (eds), Men, masculinities
and disaster. London: Routledge, pp. 34–44.
Mary, N.L. (2008). Social work in a sustainable world. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
Maslach, C., W.B. Schaufeli and M.P. Leiter (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422.
Mathbor, Golam M. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters:
the role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and manage-
ment. International Social Work, May, 50(3), 357–369.
Matthies, Aila-Lena (2017). The conceptualization of eco-social transition. In Aila-Leena
Matthies and Kati Narhi (eds), The ecosocial transition of societies: the contribution of social work
and social policy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–34.
Matthies, Aila-Lena and Kati Narhi (2017). Introduction: it is time for social work and social
policy research on the ecosocial transition. In Aila-Leena Matthies and Kati Narhi (eds),
The ecosocial transition of societie: the contribution of social work and social policy. London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 1–14.
McDermott, Suzanne, Kathy Martin and Jevettra Devlin Gardner (2016). Disaster response
for people with disability. Disability and Health Journal, April 2016, 9(2), 183–185.
McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: towards some definitions: Hawke Research Institute
Working Paper Series No 27. Hawke Research Institute University of South Australia
Magill, South Australia. Retrieved on 27 October, 2012 http://w3.unisa.edu.au/
hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp27.pdf
McKinnon, J. (2008). Exploring the nexus between social work and the environment.
Australian Social Work, 61(3), 256–268.
McKinnon, Jenny and Margaret Alston (2016). Introducing ecological social work. In Jenny
McKinnon and Margaret Alston (eds) Eco-social work. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–18.
McMahon, Margaret M. (2007). Disasters and poverty. Disaster Management & Response,
5(4), 95–97.
References 245

McMurray, Lisa and Warren Steiner (2000). Natural disasters and service delivery to indi-
viduals with severe mental illness – ice storm 1998. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
May 2000, 45(4), 383–385.
Merchant, C. (1990). Ecofeminism and feminist theory. In I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein
(eds), Reweaving the world: the emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club
Books, pp. 100–105.
Meyer, C.H. (1970). Social work practice: a response to the urban crisis. New York: The Free
Press.
Meyer, C.H. (1976). Social work practice: the changing landscape. New York: The Free Press.
Middleman, R.R. and Goldberg, G. (1974). Social service delivery: a structural approach to social
work practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva (1993). Ecofeminism (1st ed.). London: Fernwood
Publications.
Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva (2014). Ecofeminism (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
Miljenović, Ana and Nino Žganec (2012). Disintegration and possibilities for rebuilding
of war-affected communities: the Vojnić municipality case. International Social Work,
September 2012, 55(5), 645–661.
Miller, Joshua (2012). Psychosocial capacity building in response to disasters. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Molyneux, Rebecca (2010). The practical realities of ecosocial work: a review of the litera-
ture. Critical Social Work, 11(2), 1–8.
Morgan, Wesley (2017). Coal comfort: Pacific Islands on collision course with Australia
over emissions. The Conversation. 1 March 2017. Retrieved on 24 January 2018 from
http://theconversation.com/coal-comfort-pacific-islands-on-collision-course-with-
australia-over-emissions-73662
Närhi, K. and A.L. Matthies (2001). What is the ecological (self)consciousness of social
work? Perspectives on the relationship between social work and ecology. In A.-L.
Matthies, K. Närhi and D. Ward (eds), Ecological social approach in social work. Jyväskylä:
Sophi, pp. 16–53.
Närhi, Kati and Aila-Lena Matthies (2017). The contribution of social work and social
policy in the ecosocial transition of society. In Aila-Leena Matthies and Kati Narhi (eds),
The ecosocial transition of societies: the contribution of social work and social policy. London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 319–326.
Nasreen, M. (2008). Violence against women during flood and post-flood situations in Bangladesh.
Dhaka: ActionAid Bangladesh.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (n.d.). Social justice. Retrieved on 23
September 2014 from www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
National Child Traumatic Stress Network and National Centre for PTSD (2016).
Appendix A: overview of psychological first aid. Washington DC: US Department of
Veteran Affairs.
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)
(2017). Annex of statistical information: country reports on terrorism 2016. A Department of
Homeland Security Science and Technology Centre of Excellence based at University of
Maryland, College Park. Information retrieved on 14 May 2017 from www.state.gov/
documents/organization/272485.pdf
National Museum of Australia (2018). Bali bombing. Retrieved on 27 July 2018 from
www.nma.gov.au/online_features/defining_moments/featured/bali_bombings
Neefjes, Koos and Valerie Nelson (2010). Responding to climate change in Vietnam:
opportunities for improving gender equality. In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and cli-
mate change: an introduction. London: Earthscan, pp. 107–114.
246 References

Neumayer, E. and T. Pluemper (2007). The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact
of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy 1981–2002. Retrieved from
http://ssm.com/abstract=874965http://ssm.com/abstract=874965
Nhanenge, J. (2010). Ecofeminism: towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and
nature. Lanham MD: University Press of America.
Nobel Prize (2007). The Nobel Peace Prize 2007. Retrieved on 20 January 2018 from
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
Norton, Christine Lynn (2012). Social work and the environment: an ecosocial approach.
International Journal of Social Welfare, July, 21(3), 299–308.
O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transfor-
mation. Progress in Human Geography, October 2012, 36(5) 667–676.
O’Brien, K. and E. Selboe (2015). Social transformation: the real adaptive challenge. In
K. O’Brien and E. Selboe (eds), The adaptive challenge of climate change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–324.
Odigie-Emmanuel, Omoyemen (2010). The gender impact of climate change in Nigeria.
In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change: an introduction. London: Earthscan,
pp. 123–129.
Oliver, K. (2012). Home, hope, heart: restoring sense of place after Black Saturday. New
Community Quarterly, 10(4), 15–20.
Oxfam (2009). The future is here: climate change in the Pacific. Victoria: Oxfam Australia, Carlton.
Oxfam GB and Naripad (2011). Handbook: women leadership in disaster risk management.
Dhaka: Oxfam GB.
Parkinson, D. and C. Zara (2013). The hidden disaster: domestic violence in the aftermath
of natural disaster. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28, 28–35.
Parkinson, Deb and Claire Zara (2011). The way he tells it: relationships after Black
Saturday. Women’s Health Goulburn North East, Wangaratta Parkinson and Zara
Women’s Health Goulburn North East.
Payne, M. (2000). Teamwork in multiprofessional practice. London: Macmillan.
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pease, B. (2014). Hegemonic masculinity and the gendering of men in disaster management
and response. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 16(2), 60–72.
Pease, B. (2016). Masculinism, climate change and ‘man-made’ disasters: towards an
environmental pro-feminist response. In Elaine Enarson and Bob Pease (eds), Men, mas-
culinities and disaster. London: Routledge, pp. 21–33.
Peeters, J. (2012a). A comment on ‘Climate change: social workers’ roles and contributions
to policy debates and interventions’. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(1), 105–107.
Peeters, J. (2012b). The place of social work in sustainable development: towards ecosocial
practice. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 287–298.
Peeters, J. (2016). Empowerment, resilience and social capital: building blocks for a sus-
tainability transition. In Jenny McKinnon and Margaret Alston (eds), Eco-social work.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 197–217.
Pelling, Mark (2011). Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. London:
Routledge.
Pennisi di Floristella, Angela (2016). Dealing with natural disasters. The Pacific Review, 29(2),
283–305, doi: 10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498
Perlman, Helen Harris (1957). Social casework: a problem-solving process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Phillips, B.D. and B.H. Morrow (eds) (2008). Women and disasters: from theory to practice.
USA: Xlibris.
References 247

Phillips, Mary and Nick Rumens (eds) (2016). Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Pletcher, Kenneth and John P. Rafferty (2009). Sichuan earthquake of 2008. Encyclopedia
Britannica. Retrieved on 13 July 2018 from www.britannica.com/event/Sichuan-
earthquake-of-2008
Plumwood V. (2002). Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason. Oxon: Routledge.
Pockett, R. (2006). Learning from each other: the social work role as an integrated part
of the hospital disaster response. Social Work in Health Care, 43, 131–149, doi:10.1300/
J010v43n02_09
Pyles, Loretta (2007). Community organizing for post-disaster social development: locating
social work. International Social Work, May 2007, 50(3), 321–333.
Pyles, Loretta (2015). Participation and other ethical considerations in participatory action research
in post-earthquake rural Haiti. International Social Work, September 2015, 58(5), 628–645.
Pyles, Loretta (2017). Decolonising disaster social work: environmental justice and com-
munity participation. British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), 630–647.
Queensland Government (2018). Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery (PPRR) dis-
aster management guideline. Prepared by the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services.
Retrieved on 27 July 2018 from www.disaster.qld.gov.au/dmg/Documents/QLD-
Disaster-Management-Guideline.pdf
Raineri, Maria Luisa and Valentina Calcaterra (2018). Social work strategies against crisis in
everyday practice: an anti-oppressive case study. International Social Work, 61(1), 130–142.
Ramsay, Sylvia and Jennifer Boddy (2017). Environmental social work: a concept analysis.
British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 68–86.
Reininger, Belinda, Mohammad Rahbar, Minjae Lee, Zhongxue Chen, Sartaj Alam,
Jennifer Pope and Barbara Adams (2013). Social capital and disaster preparedness among
low income Mexican Americans in a disaster prone area. Social Science & Medicine, April
2013, 83, 50.
Roberts, Albert R. (2005). Crisis intervention handbook: assessment, treatment and research.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rock, Letnie F. and Charles A. Corbin (2007). Social work students’ and practition-
ers’ views on the need for training Caribbean social workers in disaster management.
International Social Work, May, 50(3), 383–394.
Rogge, M.E. (1993). Social work, disenfranchised communities, and the natural environ-
ment: field education opportunities, Journal of Social Work Education, 29(1), 111–120.
Rohr, U., M. Hemmati and Y. Lambrou (2009). Towards gender equality in climate change
policy: challenges and perspectives for the future. In E. Enarson and P.D. Chakrabarti
(eds), Women, gender and disaster: global issues and initiatives. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 289–302.
Rowlands, Alison (2018). Guest lecture, social work students, Newcastle University, NSW,
Australia – Social work and disaster response.
Sandilands, K. (1991). Ecofeminism and its discontents: notes toward a politics of diversity.
Trumpeter, 8(2), 90–96.
Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a dis-
course. Environmental Politics, 22 (1): 37–55.
Schlosberg, D., L.B. Collins and S. Niemeyer (2017). Adaptation policy and community
discourse: risk, vulnerability, and just transformation. Environmental Politics, doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1287628
Seager, J. (2006). Noticing gender (or not) in disasters. Geoform, 37, 2–3.
Shaw, C., Unen, J.V. and J.V. Unen (2012). Women’s voices from the floodplain. Retrieved
from www.security4women.org.au/boosting-womens-economic-security/disaster-round-
table-report/economic-impact-on-women-in-disaster-affected-areas-in-australia
248 References

Shiva, V. (2010). Staying alive: women, ecology and development. Cambridge, MA: Southend
Press.
Siporin, M. (1972). Situational assessment and intervention. Social Casework, 53(1), 91–109.
Smith, Erin (2006). National disaster preparedness in Australia: before and after 9/11. Journal
of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC), 4(2), 1–13.
Soine, L. (1987). Expanding the environment in social work: the case for including envi-
ronmental hazards content. Journal of Social Work Education, 23(2), 40–46.
Strazdins, L., S. Friel, A. McMichael, S.W. Butler and E. Hanna (2011). Climate Change
and child health in Australia: likely futures, new inequities? International Public Health
Journal, 2, 493–500.
Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) (2016). Deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce faces the
reality of climate change. 21 May. Retrieved on January 24 2018 from www.smh.
com.au/national/deputy-prime-minister-barnaby-joyce-faces-the-reality-of-climate-
change-20160520-gozlh3.html
Szente, Judit (2018). Introduction. In Judit Szente (ed.), Assisting children caught in disasters:
multidisciplinary perspectives and interventions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 1–8.
Taylor, Alan (2014). Bhopal: the world’s worst industrial disaster, 30 years later. The
Atlantic, 2 December. Data retrieved on 25 July 2018 from www.theatlantic.com/
photo/2014/12/bhopal-the-worlds-worst-industrial-disaster-30-years-later/100864/
Taylor, Matthew (2017). Climate change will create the world’s biggest refugee crisis. The
Guardian, 2 November. Retrieved on 13 July 2018 from www.theguardian.com/envi
ronment/2017/nov/02/climate-change-will-create-worlds-biggest-refugee-crisis
Teague, Bernard, Ron McLeod and Susan Pascoe (2010). 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal
Commission. Final report. Government of Victoria, Melbourne. Retrieved on 24 June
2018 from http://royalcommission.vic.gov.au/finaldocuments/summary/PF/VBRC_
Summary_PF.pdf
Tedeschi, R. and L.G. Calhoun (1995). Trauma and transformation: growing in the aftermath of
suffering. London: Sage Publications.
Tedeschi, R. and L.G. Calhoun (2004). Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and
empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
Tierney, K. (2012a). Critical disjunctures: disaster research, social inequality, gender, and
Hurricane Katrina. In E. David and E. Enarson (eds), The women of Katrina: how gender,
race, and class matter in an American disaster. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press,
pp. 245–258.
Tierney, K. (2012b). Disaster governance: social, political and economic dimensions. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341–363.
Tovar-Restrepo, Marcela (2010). Climate change and Indigenous women in Colombia.
In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender and climate change: an introduction. London: Earthscan,
pp. 145–151.
Trauger, Amy, Carolyn Sachs, Mary Barbercheck, Nancy Ellen Kiernan, Kathy Brasier and
Jill Findeis (2008). Agricultural education: gender identity and knowledge exchange.
Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 432–439.
Tschakert, P. (2011). Presentation to the Limits to Adaptation working group, Penn State
University, 17 May.
Tschakert, P., J. Barnett, N. Ellis, C. Lawrence, N. Tuana, M. New, C. Elrick-Barr, R.
Pandit and D. Pannell (2017). Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: values,
places, and experiences. WIREs Clim Change, e476, doi: 10.1002/wcc.476
Tschakert, P., B. Koelle, M. Alston, S. Sallu, G. Ziervogel and S. Shackleton (2012). Limits
to adaptation. Paper presented to the Adaptation Futures: 2012 International Conference
on Climate Adaptation, May, Tucson, Arizona.
References 249

Tschakert, P., G. Ziervogel, S. Sallu, S. Shackleton, M. Alston and B. Koelle (2011).

Barriers and limits to climate change adaptation: a conceptual framework. Enquiries
tomargaret.alston@monash.edu.
Tudor, Raewyn, Jane Maidment, Ada Campbell and Karen Whittaker (2015). Examining
the role of craft in post-earthquake recovery: implications for social work practice. British
Journal of Social Work, 45, Supplement 1, i205–i220.
Turner, Sandra G. and Tina M. Maschi (2015). Feminist and Empowerment theory and
social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 3 April 2015, 29(2), 151–162
Tyler, M. and P. Fairbrother (2013a). Bushfires are ‘men’s business’: the importance of gen-
der and rural masculine hegemony. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 110–119.
Tyler, M. and P. Fairbrother (2013b). Gender, masculinity and bushfire: Australia in an
international context [online]. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, April 2013,
28(2), 20–25. Retrieved on 23 June 2018 from https://search-informit-com-au.
ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=364426207882751;res=IELAPA>I
SSN:1324-1540
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2007). Gender perspective: working
together for disaster risk reduction; good practices and lessons learned – examples of
good practice, Geneva. (Included in annex of resources.)
UN WomenWatch (2011). Women, gender equality and climate change. Retrieved on 29
November 2011 from www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/downloads/
Women_and_Climate_Change_Factsheet.pdf
Ungar, M. (2002). A deeper, more social ecological social work practice. Social Service
Review, 76(3), 480–497.
UNHCR (2005). The world’s women 2005: progress in statistics. Retrieved on 27
November 2012 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/
wwpub.htm
UNICEF (2013). The millennium development goals. Retrieved from www.unicef.org/
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
(2015). Disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction. 4th session Bangkok. 27–29 October.
Retrieved 29 October 2018 from www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/pre-ods/E_
CDR(4)_INF4.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2005). Feature focus: Gender, poverty
and environment, GEO Yearbook 2004/5. Nairobi: UNEP.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2018). United
Nations climate change. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2009). UNISDR
terminology on disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland. Data retrieved on 24 July
2018 from www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2017a). Hyogo framework
for action. Retrieved on 21 January 2018 from www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2017b). Sendai framework
for disaster risk reduction. Retrieved on 21 January 2018 from www.unisdr.org/we/
coordinate/sendai-framework
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2017c). UNISDR terminol-
ogy on disaster risk reduction. Retrieved from www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2017d). Build back better
in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Data retrieved on 24 July 2018 from-
www.unisdr.org/files/53213_bbb.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Authority (US EPA) (2014). What is environmental
justice. Retrieved on 23 September 2014 from www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
250 References

Vakoch, Douglas and Sam Mickey (eds) (2017). Ecofeminism in dialogue. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Vincent, Katharine, Tracy Cull and Emma R.M. Archer (2010). Gendered vulnerability to
climate change in Limpopo Province, South Africa. In Irene Dankelman (ed.), Gender
and climate change: an introduction. London: Earthscan, pp. 130–137.
VonMeding, Jason (2018). ‘Natural disasters’ and people on the margins – the hidden
story. The Conversation. 14 August. Data retrieved on 14 August 2018 from https://
theconversation.com/natural-disasters-and-people-on-the-margins-the-hidden-story-
100251?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%
20for%20August%2014%202018%20-%20108689683&utm_content=Latest%20from%
20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2014%202018%20-%20108689683+
CID_acc0811bb4ce782b57f10696675fbfc1&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_
term=Natural%20disasters%20and%20people%20on%20the%20margins%20%20the%20
hidden%20story
Wall Street Journal (2012). Bali Bombing ten years later. Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444799904578051520975663536
Whittenbury, Kerri (2013). Climate change, women’s health, wellbeing and experiences
of gender-based violence in Australia. In Margaret Alston and Kerri Whittenbury (eds),
Research, action and policy: addressing the gendered impacts of climate change. London: Springer.
Wityk, T.L. (2002). Burnout and the ethics of self care for therapists: linking research to
educational practice, symposium paper, University of Calgary. Information retrieved on
20 August 2018 from www.aasw.asn.au/events/event/self-care-for-professional-social-
workers
Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) (2008). Gender, climate
change and human security: lessons from Bangladesh, Ghana and Senegal. New York: WEDO.
World Bank (2013). Building resilience: integrating climate and disaster risk into development.
Retrieved on 21 January 2018 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/762871468148506173/pdf/826480WP0v10Bu0130Box37986200OUO090.pdf
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common
future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2010). Mental and behavioural disorders: ICD-10.
Retrieved on 28 July 2018 from http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/
en#/F40-F48
World Health Organisation (2017). Environmental health in emergencies. Retrieved from
www.who.int/environmental_health_emergencies/natural_events/en/
Zapf, M.K. (2005). The spiritual dimension of person and environment: perspectives from
social work and traditional knowledge. International Social Work, September 2005, 48(5),
633–642.
Zapf, M.K. (2008). Transforming social work’s understanding of person and environment:
spirituality and the ‘common ground’. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work:
Social Thought, 1 June, 27(1–2), 171–181.
Zara, C., Debra Parkinson, Alyssa Duncan and K. Joyce (2016). Men and disasters: men’s
experience of the Black Saturday bushfires and the aftermath. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, 31(3), 40–48.
INDEX

active listening 95 climate deniers 33, 34

activism 169 Coalition of Australian Governments
adaptation 44–5, 49, 69 (COAG) 33
adaptation strategies 44 command and control 3, 144, 188
adaptive capacity 45 community capacity building 88, 89
advocacy 82, 96, 97, 132, 169, 170, community cohesion 104–5
229, 230 community development 160, 229, 230
anger 121 community development approach 106
anti-oppressive practice 70 community development in emergency
Australian Association of Social Workers’ management 99
Code of Ethics 136 community dynamics 105
Australian National Strategy for Disaster community renewal 170
Resilience 45 community resilience 89
community work 96
bearing witness 95, 129 Community-Based Disaster Management
‘Bhopal’ tragedy 18 (CBDM) 107
brief counselling 156 compassion fatigue 219–20
‘build back better’ 3, 82, 170, 230 Conference of the Parties (COP) 26, 33, 227
building capacity 6 conflicts 3
burnout 2, 217, 219–20 COP – Gender Awareness 28
‘bushfire brain’ 6, 129 coping strategies 44
business-as-usual workers 142 Crisis Intervention 95, 127–30, 156

‘Cancer Alley’ 18 debriefing 127

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Deep Ecology 20, 59, 66–7
Authority 112 deforestation 21
capacity to adapt 165–7 disaster mental health 130
case management 91, 134, 155 disaster planning 82, 88, 228
charitable model 15 disaster plans 89, 90
Charitable Organisation Societies (COS) disaster policies 226–7
15, 16 disaster preparedness 9, 84, 86, 88, 89, 95,
children and young people 200–1 127, 144, 228, 230, 231
climate change 21 disaster preparedness practice 88–90
252 Index

disaster preparedness response 87 environmental destruction 19

disaster preparedness strategies 85–8, 233 environmental ethics 21
disaster recovery 96 environmental justice 20, 21, 23, 48–9, 63,
disaster recovery community development 64, 69, 70, 71, 123, 229, 230, 232
108–9 environmental literacy 61
disaster recovery plan 93 environmental racism 18
disaster resilience 83 environmental restoration projects 231
disaster resilience community 45 environmental revitalisation projects 108
disaster response policies 190 environmental social work 2, 60, 61, 63, 69
disaster responsiveness 146–7 environmental social work theories 63–4
disaster risk 84 environmental sustainability 14, 20, 21, 22,
disaster risk reduction 84, 231 30, 63, 66, 89
disaster training, planning and ethical issues 224
preparedness 89
disconnection 8 family breakdown 1
displacement 1, 7, 8, 189, 199 family violence 186
domesticated profession 59 Firefoxes 125
during a disaster practice 90–2 First Nations knowledge 70
first responders 141
early marriages 187 forced child marriage 186
early warning systems 89, 90, 144 forced migration 165, 199
Earth Summit 1992 25 friendly visitors 15
Earthquake Commission (EQC) 113 frontline emergency workers 2
Earthquake Support Coordination
Service 116 gender 181–2
eco-social work 2, 229 Gender and Disaster Taskforce 99
ecofeminism 21, 61–3 gender inequalities 182
ecofeminist social work 59 gender justice 63, 70, 229, 230
ecological approach 64–5 gender responsiveness 84
ecological grief 122 gender-based violence 187
ecological justice 64 gender-sensitivity 61
ecological perspective 17 GenderCC 28
ecological social work 59, 63, 69 gendered vulnerabilities 181
ecological/life models 16 Get Ready, Get Thru 86
economic disadvantage 198–9 Global Agenda 22, 32, 233
ecosocial approach 65–6 goodness-of-fit model 16
ecosocial transformation 67 governance challenges 147–8
ecosocial transition 21, 68 grass-roots activism 66
ecosocial work 65 Green Climate Fund 30
ecospiritual approach 66 green social work 59, 68–9
embedded inequalities 171 grief 121, 132, 153
emergency management 100 grief and loss 119, 120–1, 134
Emergency Management Australia 144 grief and trauma 1
Emergency Management Committees 94 group work 124–6
emergency management planning 96
emergency responders 140 health epidemics 88
emergency response 143 Homeland Security 144
emergency response teams 147 homeless 203
emergency service response 92 homelessness 1
empowerment 21, 48, 69, 115, 127, Household Emergency Action Plan 86
131–2, 169, 194 Hull House 15
environmental activism 66, 232 human intervention 4
environmental advocacy 14 human rights 70
environmental degradation 16, 30, 42, human-with-environment 63
62, 63 Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–15 31
Index 253

hypermasculine response 188 Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery

hyper-masculinity 181, 188 Arrangements 154
natural disasters 4, 88
imperialism 21 needs assessment 94, 95, 156
Important Documents Bag 86 neoliberal capitalist economics 67,
Indigenous knowledge 21 69, 131
Indigenous people 201 neoliberal economic paradigm 19, 71
Indigenous traditional knowledge 60 neoliberal paradigm 19
individualism 20, 67 neoliberal policies 5, 70
industrialisation 14, 15 neoliberal politics 232
inequality 8 Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)
intangible loss and damage 32 140, 142
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Northern Ireland Women’s Peace Quilt 125
Change (IPCC) 24, 25, 34
International Federation of Social Workers older people 199–200
(IFSW) 26, 27 outmigration 189–90
International Non-Government
Organisations (INGOs) 140, 142 Paris Agreement 27, 34
intersectionality 9, 167–8 Paris COP 27, 33
Participatory Action Research (PAR) 109
Jane Addams 14, 15, 16 people who don’t want to be found 205
people with a disability 204
Kyoto Protocol 2005 26 people with animals or pets 201–2
people with mental illness 205
Lang’s theory of nondeliberative people-in-environment 65, 233
practice 124 person-in-environment 13, 16, 17, 19, 65
life-model approach 65 place 122
local networks 108 pollution 21
loss and grief perspective 54 polygamy 187
loss of place 122 post-disaster practice 92–5
post-traumatic growth 122–3, 135–6
macro-, meso- and micro-levels of practice post-traumatic stress 181
81–3 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 120,
macro-level 82–3, 90–1, 93–4 121, 122, 135
Mary Richmond 15, 16 poverty 1, 8, 198–9; urban 15
masculinity 188 PPRR approach 85
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 123 professional supervision 218
Men’s Sheds 125 prolonger grief disorder 121
mental health 187 Psychological First Aid 127, 130, 142
Mental Health First Aid training 97 psychosocial assessments 130
meso-level 83, 91, 94
micro-level 83, 92, 95 radicalism 131
migrant farm workers 206 RediPlan 86
migrants 203–4 refugees 203–4
Millennium Development Goals regrief 51, 121
(MDGs) 30 remittance income 189–90, 198
modernist profession 14 renewal 122–3
modernity 19, 20, 59 research 109–10
multidisciplinary approach 144 research and training 231–2
multidisciplinary teams 141–2 resilience 3, 6, 37, 45–6, 49, 69, 70, 84, 98,
122–3, 124, 131, 137, 153, 157, 165–7,
National Emergency Management 170–1, 221, 231, 233
Plan 146 Right Services Right Time (RSRT) 116
National Strategy for Disaster Resilience risk management 85
33, 85 risk reduction 230
254 Index

risk reduction strategies 85 Through Women’s Eyes project 98

rituals 126 toxic chemicals 18
rural and remote communities 202–3 Toynbee Hall 15
training for workers 223
self-actualisation 169 transformational approaches 131
self-care 217–25 transformational change 70
self-determination 132 transformative adaptation 45
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk transformative change/social change
Reduction 2015–30 31, 227 64, 70
Settlement Movement 15, 16 transformative eco-social model 67–8
sexual abuse 186, 187 transformative practice 230
sexual violence 187 transilience 123
sexually transmitted infections 187 trauma 119, 120, 132, 134, 157
‘shallow justice’ 67 trauma informed social casework 229
situational assessment 95
social capital 47–8, 69, 88, 89, 104–5 UN Climate Change Secretariat 26
social casework 83, 231 undocumented workers 203–4
social dislocation 1 United Nations Conference on
social justice 48–9, 63, 67, 69, 70, 89, 100, Environment and Development 25
115, 229, 230, 232 United Nations Environment Program
social sustainability 46, 63, 69 (UNEP) 24
social transformations 233 United Nations Framework Convention
social vulnerability 43, 165, 193–4 on Climate Change (UNFCC) 25, 26,
social vulnerability assessments 168 30, 33, 227
social vulnerability registers 91 unwanted pregnancies 187
social work and disaster theory 59 urbanisation 1, 5
socio-ecological lens 122
soil erosion 21 vicarious trauma 219–20
solution-focused approach 157 violence 186–7
spirituality 20, 63 violence against women 186, 187
stay and defend 185 volunteers 108, 143
strengths-based approach 101, 127, 157 vulnerability 21, 42, 42–4, 45, 49, 61, 69,
structural approach 16 70, 81, 89, 128, 153, 165–7, 170, 231,
structural inequalities 83 233; women’s 182–5
supervision 220–1 vulnerability assessment 43, 165, 168–9
survivor-responder(s) 54, 143 vulnerability register 86, 88, 89, 90
sustainability 49, 67, 70, 229, 232 vulnerable groups 89
sustainable development 46, 84
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 30 ‘welfarise’ 130, 169
systems failures 144 Women’s Environment Development
systems perspective 16 Organisation (WEDO) 28
systems/ecosystems approach 16 women’s resilience index 82
World Disaster Reduction Conference 31
tangible loss and damage 32 World Meteorological Organisation
terrorist acts/attacks 3, 4, 88 (WMO) 24