International Conference
“World in Change: from Consumption to Sustainability, from Competition to
Collaboration, from Hierarchy to Networks, from being Good to Doing Good”
Riga, 19 May 2014
Mg.sc.pol. RIHARDS BAMBALS
PhD student | Department of Political Science |
University of Latvia
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

“An event concentrated in time and space, in
which a society or one of its subdivisions
undergoes physical harm and social disruption,
such that some essential functions of the society
or subdivision are impaired” (Fritz, 1961: 655);

“Events that kill at least 10 or affect at least 100
people” (UNDP, 1994: 29);
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

“(1) disasters are inherently social phenomena, and
(2) the source of disasters is rooted in the social
structure or social system” (Quarantelli, 2005:339);

“If there are no negative social consequences, there is
no disaster” (Quarantelli, 2005:347);

“(Disaster) risk faced by people must be seen as a
cross-cutting combination of vulnerability and
hazard. Disasters are a result of the interaction
between both” (Risk=Hazard x Vulnerability)
(Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 2004:49)
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com





No one discipline (inter-disciplinary research in
both social & natural sciences)
No ultimate definition of disaster
No ‘disaster theory’
No ultimate research methodology
Common approach – social consequences of
disasters more important than physical harm:
1) Social Sciences research people and societies;
2) Only social structures can be strengthened to enhance
disaster preparedness, mitigation and recovery
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
People-centric, comprehensive and universal
security concept
 Development studies & Security Studies
 UNDP Human Development Report 1994:

 ‘Freedom from want’ & ‘Freedom from fear’
 ‘Safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and
repression’ & ‘protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes,
jobs or in communities’ (UNDP, 1994:23)
 7 security dimensions: economic, food, health,
environmental, personal, community, political security
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com






No commonly accepted definition
Too vague as a concept (more efforts on
widening than deepening)
No one particular scientific discipline
Poor efforts to operationalize & measure Human
Security (“How much (in)security?”)
The comprehensive nature of HS has been
constantly ignored (mostly used ONLY in LDCs)
Only few attempts to use for disaster research
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com





Outcasts (no discipline) → interdisciplinary research
Common interests → human, society
Unfinished → room for improvements/new
scientific approaches & models
Society’s resilience (HS) is hard to test without
external impact (e.g. natural disasters)
Objectives:
▪ Create new analytical tool/approach for disaster research
▪ Deepen Human Security concept, prove its holistic nature and
possibilities to apply to any society in the world
▪ Longterm: research which (and why) societies are more
resilient to natural disasters than other
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Previous attempts:
• UNDP Reports (Human
Security Unit, 2009);
• Generalized Poverty
Index (King & Murray,
2002);
• Human Security Audit
(Bajpai, 2000);
• GECHS (Lonergan,
Gustavson & Carter,
2009);
• Human Security Report
Index;
• Human Security
Mapping (Owen, 2004).
HOWEVER
all suffer from
various shortfalls:
• Only objective HS is
measured;
• Too big reliance on
data availability;
• Only some (not all)
of 7 HS dimensions
are analysed;
• Only LDCs are
usually researched
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Objective HS:
• Statistics & indexes
• Several indicators for
each of 7 HS dimensions,
compared before & after
disaster
• Values assigned based
on comparisons (0-1)
&
Subjective HS:
•Social surveys &
interviews
•Socially constructed
sense of security;
• Precise, quantifiable and
inter-comparable results
•Fast & representable
1. UNDP Report 1994:
definition of HS &
7 dimensions of HS threats
2. UNDP Latvia Report 2003:
3. Comprehensive HS
model (Ozolina, 2012):
Subjective & Objective HS;
‘securitabilities’;
personal security strategies;
security constellations
interaction between state & individual,
role of intermediaries, area of HS
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Timeframe of the floods: 15 to 19 April 2013
People and households affected (officially): 1 deceased and 23 people
evacuated, 39 indemnification applications and 120 households
affected/damaged
The scale of damages: ~2 000 000 Lats (3 million Euro)
Main providers of security:
•State-provided – VUGD, police, emergency medical aid and National
Guard (armed forces)
•Non-conventional - local religious community, Red Cross, local NGOs,
private entrepreneurs, enterprises & individuals
Population size: 28 151 (Ogre town + Ogresgals = affected regions)
Initial target: 1% of the population (281). Samples (~50 each) from 6 different
districts: 3 (50%) from directly affected (close proximity to the river); 3 (50%)
from indirectly affected
Surveying time: 4 to 19 May, 2013 (2-4 weeks after the floods)
Results: N=270 (0.96% of population; 38.52% men and 61.11% woman), Margin
of error = 5.9% (with 95% level of confidence)
Questionnaire with 8 questions (all close ended multiple choice):





Self evaluation of HS changes (each of 7 dimensions) after floods;
Evaluation of the assistance provided,
Trust to different security providers,
Intensity of HS threat perception,
Demographics, proximity to the river, filtering question.
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
1.
Human Security
Dimension
Affected by the floods in Ogre
(2013)
Environmental security
59.26%
2. Food security
30.56%
3.
29.63%
Personal security
4. Health security
24.08%
5.
22.41%
Economic security
6. Community security
22.22%
7.
5.93%
Political security
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Security provider
Level of trust
1.
Family, closest relatives
94.07%
2.
Own strength
89.63%
3.
Friends, acquaintances
88.89%
4.
Service of the state for rescue and 82.97%
fire-fighting (VUGD)
5.
Emergency medical aid
79.26%
6.
Police of the local municipality
67.41%
7.
National Guard (armed forces)
60.74%
8.
The municipality of Ogre region
35.19%
9.
Aid from an international
29.63%
organization (EU, NATO, UN, etc.)
10.
Aid from another country
24.82%
11.
Latvian government
21.11%
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com

Human Security has potential to become a new approach for
disaster research. It allows:
 Identify & measure, which security dimension (and how much) is affected;
 Measure changes in public perception of different threats;
 Measure society’s trust/confidence to state & non-state security providers.



Disasters & Human Security apply to any country → HS analytical
tool is holistic & universal
Disasters ≠ homogenous. They can (and do) affect each of 7 HS
dimensions
HS changes after disaster → quality of ‘securitabilities’ before it
(knowledge and skills for not losing sense of security, or its fast recovery)


States investing in HS have more resilient societies (Japan)
People around & networking matter more than state
provided security constellations (good or dangerous?)
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
Human Security analytical tool could be used in:
 Academic – improve knowledge on disasters and





Human Security concept;
Policy – better disaster preparedness, risk mitigation
and recovery;
Insurances - risk evaluation;
Finances - foreign investment (risk) analysis
Development – medium/long-term state development
strategies (Latvian NAP, 2014-2020)
Foreign policy/international relations – smarter
development aid programmes (Japan, Canada, Norway)
Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com
What I do for my PhD thesis research?
“Changes of Human Security after disasters in
Japan, Phillippines, Australia and Poland”;
 Comparative analysis of Objective HS = done.
Searching options for researching Subjective HS
(nation-wide surveying, incl. Japan);
 Results will allow to identify, which states are more
resilient to disasters, and which factors (and
‘securitabilities’) influence it. Can they be adapted in
other states? Formula for sustainable development?

Contact me: rihards.bambals@gmail.com