Impact of culture towards disaster risk 

reduction
Kulatunga, U
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2010.23

Title Impact of culture towards disaster risk reduction
Authors Kulatunga, U
Type Article
URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/15891/
Published Date 2010

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright 
permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, 
downloaded and copied for non­commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the 
manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: [email protected].
 Impact of Culture towards Disaster
Risk Reduction

Udayangani Kulatunga
School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford,
M5 4WT, UK.
(email: [email protected])
 

   

1 
 
 Abstract

Number of natural disasters has risen sharply worldwide making

the risk of disasters a global concern. These disasters have created
significant losses and damages to humans, economy and society.
Despite the losses and damages created by disasters, some
individuals and communities do not attached much significance to
natural disasters. Risk perception towards a disaster not only depends
on the danger it could create but also the behaviour of the
communities and individuals that is governed by their culture. Within
this context, this study examines the relationship between culture and
disaster risk reduction (DRR). A comprehensive literature review is
used for the study to evaluate culture, its components and to analyse
a series of case studies related to disaster risk.

It was evident from the study that in some situations, culture has
become a factor for the survival of the communities from disasters
where as in some situations culture has acted as a barrier for effective
DRR activities. The study suggests community based DRR activities
as a mechanism to integrate with culture to effectively manage
disaster risk.

Key words: Anthropologist, Culture, Components of culture,

Disaster risk reduction, Livelihood patterns

1. Introduction

Disasters are defined as sudden events that bring disruption to a

society with human, material, economic and environmental losses or
impacts that exceed the ability of the affected community to cope up
with by using their own resources (UN/ISDR, 2009). Considering the
fact that disasters do not have to be always a sudden event but can
develop over a time period EM-DAT (2009) defines disasters as a
situation or an event that overwhelms the capacity of the affected
community which seek national or international assistant.
Implementation of appropriate disaster risk reduction (DRR)
measures is an important element in disaster management. Lack of

2 
 
DRR measures could lead to significant loss and damage to human
and materials and could hamper economic wealth of the society.

Over the past years, natural hazards have caused extensive losses
and damages to human lives, physical facilities and socio-economic
conditions of the affected communities. For example Indian ocean
Tsunami (2004), Hurricane Kathrina in New Orleans (2005),
earthquake in Italy (2009) and floods in Pakistan (2010) have created
losses and damages to disrupt essential functions and development
goals of the economy and society. Further these natural disasters
have increased stress and vulnerability of people and disempowered
individuals and society hampering individuals and communities’
development even in the long-run. However, the degree to which
these so called natural hazards to be considered as “natural” is being
questioned (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010). Similar to the views of
Haigh and Amaratunga (2010), Wisner et al. (2004) asset that natural
hazard only cannot create extensive losses and damages, but poorly
managed interactions between society and environment contribute to
convert natural hazards into disasters. Vulnerability of community
towards a disaster can be depend upon the factors related both
physical and social elements of the community (McEntire et al, 2010)
but do not need to totally depend on the natural hazard it self.

Therefore, it is argued that “natural disasters” are also created by

humans by increasing the vulnerability of people towards extreme
physical events by constructing unsafe buildings, poor urban
planning, poverty and dense population. Therefore, considering
natural hazards as events beyond human control is being challenged
but the root causes of the disasters are evaluated to find effective
solutions to minimise the losses and damages to humans, economy
and social activities.

Despite the danger and losses from hazards, sometimes people do

not attach much significance for them. For example, why do some
communities live in the slopes of active volcanoes? According to the
views of anthropologists (who study about humankind especially
human culture and human development), cultural factors influence

3 
 
behaviour of people when facing to a hazard (Oliver-Smith, 1996).
They argue that during a hazardous situation, people not only
consider the danger that they could encounter, but give a priority for
factors like social values, religious believes, traditions, and
attachment to a location.

Accordingly, this study examines the impact of culture towards

DRR through a comprehensive literature review. The study first
evaluates the definitions and elements of culture. This is followed
with an analysis of several case studies related to disaster risk along
with cultural aspects to ascertain links between culture and DRR.
Finally, the study leads to a discussion on highlighting the areas that
we need to consider for effective integration of culture towards DRR.

2. Culture

2.1 What is culture?

The importance of culture towards disasters was particularly

highlighted during the Indian Ocean Tsunami. When the Tsunami hit
the coast lines of the south Asian countries in the year 2004, some
communities with indigenous knowledge regarding Tsunami were
successfully survived where as migrants and tourists who did not had
local knowledge were hugely affected (Arunotai, 2008). Survival of
some indigenous communities as oppose to migrants and tourists
were mainly based on the presence of “cultural” knowledge different
people had on the Tsunami. People view culture in different ways
and some argue that it is complex and difficult to define. For some,
culture is simply the way of life that expresses certain meanings and
values of people (Williams, 1961). Baligh (1994) extends Williams’s
(1961) definition and sees culture as the ultimate way of doing things
or a way of finding ways of doing things. Anthropologists view
world as a “cultural mosaic” of traditional culture and inherited
values (Nanda and Warms, 2007). The famous anthropologist
Edward Taylor claims that culture as the “complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, moral, law, custom and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”

4 
 
(Taylor, 1924). Similarly, Swidler (1986) sees culture as a tool kit
comprising of symbols, stories, rituals, and world views which
people may used in different situations. These elements within
culture are passed down from one generation to another and provide
guidance for individuals to survive in the society (Hall, 2003).

Some of the definitions for culture encompass a “group element”.

Schein (2004) defines culture as ‘a pattern of shared basic
assumptions (beliefs) that was learned by a group as it solved its
problems of external adoption and internal integration, that has
worked well enough to be considered valid”. Since cultural aspects
are considered valid and help groups for their survival, it is taught to
new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relating to those problems (Schein, 2004). Similarly Rapoport (1987)
sees culture is “about a group of people who have a set of values and
beliefs which embody ideas, and are transmitted to members of the
group through enculturation”. Haviland (1993) describes culture as
the common denominator that makes the actions of individuals
attached to a group or not. Due to this strong link between “culture”
and “group” they cannot exist without the other.

Having explored some of the definitions of culture, next section

evaluates the components of culture.

2.2 Components of culture

Culture can be divided into two components as material and

nonmaterial. Material culture consists of physical or tangible
creations that members of society make, use or share where as
nonmaterial culture consists of the abstracts and intangible human
creations of society that influence people’s behaviour (Ogburn, 1966
cited in Schaefer, 2009). At the most basic level, material culture is
important for us to protect against the environment for example
houses. Beyond this level, material culture can indicate your
personality for example the clothes we wear (Kendal, 2010). Some
other examples of material culture include crafts, historic buildings,
locations (UNESCO, 2003; Throsby, 2001). Nonmaterial culture

5 
 
comprises of beliefs, values, language, rules of behaviour, family
patterns, political systems, networks. Kendal (2010) asserts the
central component of material culture as the beliefs- the mental
acceptance or confidence that certain things are true or real. In his
definition, Hall (2003) also considers both material and nonmaterial
culture when describing culture.

The main components of nonmaterial culture comprises of

symbols, language, values and norms.

Symbols: symbol communicates abstract concepts with visible

objects. Symbols provide shared meanings to a culture and can
provide loyalty, animosity, love and hate.

Language: language helps to express ideas and enables

communication with others.

Values: values are ideas of right and wrong, good or bad and
desirable and undesirable. Kendal asserts that values do not dictate
which behaviours are appropriate or inappropriate, but provide ideas
or beliefs about behaviour. Values help us to evaluate people, objects
and event.

Norms: Norms have behavioural expectations that are established in

the form of rules or standards of conducts. Prescriptive norms say
what behaviour is appropriate or acceptable whilst proscriptive norms
say what behaviour is inappropriate or unacceptable.

Norms can be further classified into informal (folkways and mores)

and formal (law) according to the leading sociologist William
Sumner (Sumner, 1907). Folkways are informal norms or customs
that may be violated without serious consequences (Sumner, 1907).
Folkways are followed through imitation and with less social
pressure, but not strictly enforced by law. On the other hand, Mores
are considered to be compulsory for the stability of the society
(Sumner, 1907). These are informal norms that are unavoidable and
are based on cultural values and deemed to be important for the well-
being of the society. Formal norms such as laws are written down as
legislations and enforced by formal sanctions. According to Sumner

6 
 
(1907) folkways and mores create group patterns and behaviour
within a society and because of the group pressure; people in the
society tend to follow them.

Many researchers assert one of the core characteristics of culture

as its generational transformation of the aforementioned components
of culture: knowledge, beliefs, values and norms (Kroeber and
Kluckhohn, 1953, in Faulkner et al., 2006; Rapoport, 1987; Hall,
2003; Schein, 2004).

2.3 Culture and livelihood

Daskon and Binns (2009) argue that culture is closely linked with
both livelihood choices and opportunities. Livelihood comprises of
capabilities, assets (both material/tangible and social/intangible
resources), and activities required for a means of living (Chambers
and Conway, 1992). Many authors emphasise the cultural impact
towards sustainable livelihood (Daskon and Binns (2009); Adato and
Meinzen-Dik, 2002). They argue that components of livelihood need
to be expanded to include culture in addition to the components such
as human capital, social capital, natural capital, financial and
physical capital. When we consider the livelihood patterns of various
societies, it is evident that they rely on the intangible assets such as
traditional customs and knowledge, practices, beliefs, skills, and
social institutions, scared sites, language, identity (Schech and
Haggis, 2000; Adato and Meinzen-Dik, 2002). The research carried
out by Cahn (2002) based in Pacific Island indicates that there is a
strong link between culture and livelihood and emphasis livelihood
must work within culture and tradition. Their study identified a
number of factors that could have the impact of culture such as risk
and vulnerability; access to and control of resources; choice and
success of livelihood strategies; the incentives that people respond to;
societal norms, gender roles and relations, traditional politics.
Highlighting the importance of culture towards livelihood, Perez and
Cahn (2000) asserts that sometimes unsustainable and unproductive
livelihood patterns continue because of tradition and habits of
communities.

7 
 
 By evaluating the above definitions and characteristics of culture,
author summarises culture into below points: Culture…

…is a set of components (values, norms, symbols etc)

…is a way of life (that is influenced by the components)

…provides strategies for the survival

…provides livelihood choices and opportunities based on the

available resources

…influences group behaviour

…is passed from one generation to another

Having identified what is culture and its components, the

following section discusses how the above cultural elements have
affected DRR activities by evaluating some reported case studies.

3. Culture and disaster risk reduction

Within the main stream literature on DRR, it is often claimed that

cultural elements are neglected when planning and implementing
DRR strategies (Hoffman 1999; Wisner et al. 2004). As asserted by
Nunn et al. (2007) and Oliver-Smith and Hoffman (1999) failing to
address cultural aspects could lead to increase the vulnerabilities of
community towards disasters and the development of unsuccessful
DRR strategies. Similarly Huntington (2000) asserts that role of
cultural values and attitudes as obstacles to or facilitators to progress
of DRR activities have been ignored by governments and aid
agencies. Accordingly, to further evaluate the impact of culture
towards DRR activities following case studies are analysed. They
consider the behaviours of communities and individuals when
subjecting to disastrous situations along with the underline cultural
aspects of them. Further, the case studies also evaluate the instances
where the government interventions were unsuccessful due to
neglecting cultural elements of the community.

8 
 
 People’s ideology sharpened by culture regarding what is right
and wrong could create a certain mindset or beliefs for people. These
cultural beliefs play a major role in DRR activities as shown in the
following example. The Merapi volcano in Indonesia is one of the
most active volcanoes in the world. Despite the risk from the
volcano, Jevanese community lives on the slopes of the volcano due
to their livelihood patterns and cultural believes. Community living
near the volcano, carryout annual offerings to the volcano following
their traditions. De Coster (2002, cited in Lavigne et al, 2008 )
reports that because of the religious beliefs, majority of community
living near the area thinks that losses due to the volcanic eruption is
under the control of divine forces. During the eruption of Merapi in
year 2006, going against the instructions of government authorities,
some communities refused to evacuate their villages until they got
instructions from their “cultural leader” (Lavigne et al, 2008). This
example shows that community’s vales judgement regarding
following the orders of their cultural leader. The community’s idea is
such that they believe following the instructions of the cultural leader
is “correct” than following scientific knowledge and instructions
given by the government. Further, the community’s belief regarding
the relationship between god and human is strongly evident from the
offerings and prayers communities do to the “gods” inherent in the
hazards. Furthermore, this example shows how the behaviours of
communities or groups are influenced by cultural beliefs as explained
in above section (see (Schein, 2004; Rapoport, 1987; Haviland,
1993). As noted by Koentjaraningrat (1985), the Javanese
community living near Merapi volcano believes that the village they
live in and the land they cultivate are also their ancestors. As a result
of that even during a disastrous situation, people do not prefer to
evacuate their village and always want to return back soon to their
village- to their ancestors.

Within the definitions of culture, “knowledge” that is transferred

from one generation to another was highlighted. The importance of
local, indigenous knowledge towards DRR was evident during the
Indian Ocean Tsunami in December 2004. It was evident that
different communities and individuals reacted to the Tsunami

9 
 
disaster in different ways. Some communities and individuals who
had indigenous knowledge regarding Tsunami were successfully
survived from it. For example, the Moken community in Thailand
identified the signs such as unusual behaviour of animals, birds and
low tide as indications for a Tsunami from their traditional stories.
Thus this community moved away from the sea towards protective
areas (Arunotai, 2008). On the other hand, most of the other
communities, migrants and tourists who do not have embedded
historical knowledge within the mainstream regarding Tsunami did
not identify Tsunami signs thus did not evacuate the danger zone.
Further, some of the communities in Sri Lanka who lack such
historical knowledge about the Tsunami moved towards the sea
rather than moving away from the sea, when they saw the low tide
created. However, author argues that lack of historical knowledge
cannot be purely due to the none-existence of such knowledge. It
could be also due to the none-transfer of historical knowledge and/or
not accepting or ignoring historical knowledge by considering such
knowledge as not valid or not according to the current state of art of
the community. Nevertheless, sole reliance on indigenous knowledge
for DRR activities can increase the vulnerability of people. For
example, some of the traditional housing construction in Philippine
island has not considered appropriate technical knowledge (Hall,
1997). Due to the readily available material from environment,
traditional houses are constructed with bamboo trees. However, these
houses do not have any measure to withstand strong winds thus fail
during monsoon period.

The importance of material culture and disaster risk reduction

also has a significant link. During disastrous situation, some
communities did not want to evacuate their houses and other
belongings indicating strong attachment towards the material that
they are possessing. As noted by Lavigne et al (2008), after the
Merapi volcano eruption in year 2006, despite the danger from the
volcano, some people especially the men returned to their farms and
houses day and night to protect them from looters. They identified
the probability of subjecting to theft higher than the threat from

10 
 
volcano. Further, some people returned back to their villages despite
the risk from the hazard to protect their houses and belongings.

Culture and livelihood of community have a strong link as

evident from literature (Daskon and Binns (2009); Adato and
Meinzen-Dik, 2002). Post-disaster recovery activities that neglected
livelihood patterns of the affected community has challenged in most
of the situations. For example, after the Tsunami in year 2004, Sri
Lankan government impost a 100m buffer zone restricting any
development within this limit. Even though the implementation of
buffer zone was done to increase the safety of the community living
in the coastal areas, it affected their livelihood patters and main
source of income. Hence, the community continued to live and use
100m buffer zone neglecting the government’s restrictions. This led
the government to revise the policy related to buffer zone and to
develop appropriate policy that consider both livelihood patters of
the community and safety (Nissanka et al, 2008). In another example,
the 1992 earthquake in Flores Island in Indonesia, some communities
living in Babi Island were relocated due to the possibility of
subjecting those villages to Tsunami. The relocated area Nangahure,
was about 200m away from the shoreline. However, the relocation
did not consider the social, cultural and economical conditions of the
community (Boen and Jigyasu, 2005). Similar to the situation in Sri
Lanka, sea was very much a part of their lives thus their livelihood -
fisheries was severely affected due to the relocation. Post-disaster
reconstruction activities also neglect the traditional features
associated with the community’s houses. For example, the earlier
houses were built up on poles to prevent submerged during high
tides. The fishermen used these poles to tie their boats near to their
houses during high tides. However, after the relocation, houses were
built up on land without considering the requirements of the
community. Boen and Jigyasu (2005) reports that after 8 years in
2001, most of the community has left their relocated village
Nangahure, and gone back to live near the shoreline and build up
their houses on poles creating a similar circumstances of 1992
earthquake condition.

11 
 
 4. Discussion

The analysis of case studies in the above section linked cultural

factors with DRR activities. They highlighted how culture has
influenced DRR activities and vice-versa. It was evident that in some
instances, culture has become a factor for the survival of the
communities from disasters where as in some instances culture has
acted as a barrier for effective DRR activities. Therefore, it can be
argued that culture has the power of increasing or reducing
vulnerability of communities towards disasters. Further, above case
studies highlighted that lack of considerations on cultural aspects of
the affected community can hamper effective DRR strategies thus
increasing vulnerability of the affected community rather than
reducing it. However, as explained in the above section (Lavigne et
al, 2008; Hall, 1997) factors such as climate change, infrequent
patterns of natural hazards, poverty and economic conditions of
disaster vulnerable communities indicate that it is difficult for them
to withstand the effects of disasters and survive on their own by
strictly adhering to cultural believes whilst totally relying on the
indigenous knowledge on disasters and DRR measures.

Literature and case studies on culture and DRR lead to three

questions that need investigating.

• How to integrate positive aspects of culture towards

effective DRR activities?
• How to reduce negative impact from cultural towards DRR
activities?
• How to make DRR strategies and measures compatible
with cultural aspects of community?

Giving due consideration to cultural aspects of communities and

providing appropriate scientific knowledge to increase community
resilience against natural disasters can be identified as a way forward
to effectively integrate culture and DRR. However, the next question
is how we can do this integration? According to the views of Schein
(2004), one of the seminal authors in culture, cultural beliefs can take

12 
 
two forms: espouse and actual. People like to promote or possess
espoused cultural beliefs where as actual beliefs are manifest through
one’s unconscious behaviour. Understanding culture by only
studying the surface level manifestation can therefore be not
successful as people may claim one but the actual underlying belief
can be different. Proper engagement with culture is therefore, a vital
part if we are to utilise culture towards effective DRR activities and
vice-versa. Accordingly, community based DRR activities are
considered as a better way of integrating cultural aspects for effective
DRR activities (Mercer, 2009). Community based DRR activities are
a form of participant empowerment and a mechanism that transfer
ideas from community to the authorities who take decisions at the top
level of the governance system. Further, community based DRR
activities provide opportunities for the affected community to
provide their contribution towards the development of DRR
strategies and measures thus increasing community’s commitment
and belongingness for the disaster management activities that they
are involved in. For instance the study carried out by Rathnayake and
Rameezdeen (2008) revealed that the owner driven housing
reconstruction activities after the Tsunami disaster was much
successful than the donor driven housing reconstruction. The owner
driven housing reconstruction were led by the community that were
affected by the Tsunami with external financial support and technical
assistance where as donor driven housing programmes were
completely handled by donor agencies. Above case studies indicated
that in some instances, communities going against the government’s
disaster mitigations strategies and evacuation efforts by strictly
following the traditional cultural beliefs of the society (see Lavigne
et al, 2008). However, community based DRR activities can be used
as a mechanism to provide awareness to the community about the
risks that they could encounter from such cultural beliefs.

5. Conclusion

The study evaluates the influence of culture towards DRR

activities. Definitions of culture indicated that culture is important to
the individuals as well as to the society. As individuals, people rely

13 
 
on culture because; it provides information for them to survive in the
world. Survival of the society also depends on the culture as without
systems, rules and laws that protect the rights of the society, it will
not survive. Culture provides certain identity to a community based
on the common language, values and norms that they have, and the
symbols they are used to. Due to the generational transformation of
cultural components such as knowledge, beliefs, values and norms,
society’s values are preserved for the future. This also helps to
further strengthen the sustainability and identity of the
society/community. Due to the close link between culture and group,
culture can be an enormously stabilising aspect for a society as well
as could lead to conflicts and violence when people within the group
act differently than the set cultural values of the group. Culture is
strongly linked with livelihood patterns of the communities thus
when the cultural factors are aligned with the livelihood patterns,
communities can be more resilience towards economic, social and
environmental challenges. This is due to the fact that a community’s
culture is closely linked with resource availability in the society,
traditional knowledge that is being transferred from generations that
provide guidance to survive.

The strong link between culture and disaster risk-averseness was

evident from the paper. The risk perception regarding disasters and
the impact these disasters can bring towards community and
individuals can be influenced by the cultural aspects such as beliefs,
traditional knowledge, values, behaviour of the community/group
that they are belonging to, livelihood patterns etc. It was also
identified that culture can act as a both positive and negative aspect
for DRR. Therefore, the paper emphasis the importance of sustaining
and integrating with culture that reduces risk, and also engaging with
culture that increases the vulnerability of communities from
disasters. It is important to make the DRR strategies compatible with
cultural aspects of the community in further strengthening
community’s coping capacity towards disasters. Further, the
integration of local knowledge with appropriate scientific knowledge
in an effective way to make the disaster affected communities
resilience against natural disasters and their impacts also emphasised.

14 
 
 6. References

Adato M and Meinzen-Dik R. 2002, Assessing the impact of

agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihood
framework, International food policy institute, USA

Arunotai, N. 2008, Saved by an old legend and a keen observation:

the case of Moken sea nomads in Thailand, Indigenous knowledge
for disaster risk reduction: good practices and lessons learnt from
the Asia-Pacific region, R. Shaw, N. Uy and J. Baumwoll, eds.,
UNISDR Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, pp.73-78.

Baligh, H H, 1994, Components of culture: Nature, interconnections

and relevance to the decisions on the organisational structure,
Management science, 40. 1

Boen T and Jigyasu R, 2005 Cultural considerations for post-disaster

reconstruction: Post Tsunami challenges, available online at
http://www.adpc.net/irc06/2005/4-6/TBindo1.pdf (accessed July
2010)

Cahn, M 2002, Sustainable livelihood approach: concept and

practice, accessed June 2010, available at:
http://forum.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Cahn_Miranda.pdf
(accessed June 2010)

Chambers R and Conway G R 1992 Sustainable rural livelihoods:

practical concepts for the 21st century, IDS discussion paper no. 296,
IDS, Brighton

Daskon C and Binns T, 2009 Culture, tradition and sustainable rural

livelihoods: Exploring the culture-development interface in Kandy,
Sri Lanka, Community development journal, May

EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database), Available online:

http://www.emdat.be/explanatory-notes [accessed on June 2010]

Faulkner, S., Baldwin, J., Linsley, S. 2006 Layers of meaning: an

analysis of definition of culture, in J. R. Baldwin, S. L. Faulkner, M.

15 
 
L. Hecht and S. L. Lindsley, eds, Redefining Culture: Perspective
Across the Disciplines, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New
Jersey, pp. 27–52.

Hall, J R, 2003, Sociology on culture, Routhledg, New York

Hall, N. 1997 Incorporating local level mitigation strategies into

national and international disaster responses, in J. Scobie, (ed.):
Mitigating the Millennium, Intermediate Technology Development
Group, Rugby, pp. 35–45.

Haigh R and Amaratunga D, 2010, An integrative review of the built

environment discipline’s role in the development of society’s
resilience to disasters, International journal of disaster resilience in
the built environment, 1.1 pp 11-24

Haviland W A, 1993 Cultural Anthropology, Orlando, Floroda

Hoffman, S. M. 1999 Anthropology and the angry earth: an

overview. In Oliver-Smith A and Hoffmann S M, eds., The angry
earth: disasters in anthropological perspective, Routledge, New
York, 1-16.

Huntington, S. P. 2000 Foreword – cultures count, in L. E. Harrison

and S. P. Huntington, eds, Culture Matters: How Values Shape
Human Progress, Basic Books, New York

Kendall D 2010 Sociology in our times, 8th Edition, Cengage

Learning, USA

Koentjaraningrat A, 1985, Javanese culture, Oxford University press,

Singapore

Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. 1953 Culture, A Critical View of

Concepts and Definitions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

16 
 
Lavigne, F et al 2008, People’s behaviour in the face of volcanic
hazards: Perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia,
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172, pp 273-287

McEntire, D., Crocker, C.G. & Peters, E. (2010). Addressing

vulnerability through an integrated approach, International Journal
of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1, 50 - 64

Mercer J 2009, Cultural Perceptions of Hazard and Risk, keynote,

Disaster Risk Reduction for Natural Hazards: Putting Research into
Practice, University College London, 4-6th November 2009

Nanda, S. and Warms, R. L. (2007) Cultural Anthropology,

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA.

Nissanka N.M.N.W.K, Karunasena G, Rameezdeen. R, 2008, Study

of Factors Affecting Post Disaster Housing Reconstruction, in
Keraminiyage K, Jayasena S, Amaratunga D and Haigh R, (Eds),
Post Disaster Recovery Challenges in Sri Lanka, CIB, The
University of Salford, UK

Nunn, N, P. D., Hunter-Anderson, R., Carson, M. T., Thomas, F.,

Ulm, S., and Rowland, M. J. (2007). Times of plenty, times of less:
last-millennium societal disruption in the Pacific Basin. Human
Ecology, 35(4), 385–401.

Ogburn, W F.1966, Social change: With respect to cultural and

original nature. Oxford England: Delta Books

Oliver-Smith, A. S. 1996, Anthropological research on hazards and

disasters, Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303-328.

Oliver-Smith, A. S., and Hoffman, S. M. 1999 The angry earth,

Routledge, New York.

Perez I N and Cahn M 2000 Water and livelihoods: a participatory

analysis of a Mexican rural community, Research report 00/01

17 
 
Division of applied management and computing, Lincoln University,
NZ

Rapoport A, 1987, On the cultural responsiveness of Architecture,

Journal of Architectural Education, 41/1

Ratnayake R.M.G.D. and Rameezdeen R. 2008, Post Disaster

Housing Reconstruction: Comparative Study of Donor Driven vs.
Owner Driven Approach in Keraminiyage K, Jayasena S,
Amaratunga D and Haigh R, (Eds), Post Disaster Recovery
Challenges in Sri Lanka, CIB, The University of Salford, UK

Schaefer, R T, 2009. Sociology: A Brief Introduction 8th Edition.

New York: McGraw-Hill

Schech, S. and Haggis, J. 2000, Culture and Development: A Critical

Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Sumner, W.G. 1907, Folkways: A study of the sociological

importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals, Ginn
and Company, Boston

Swidler, A. 1986, Culture in Action, American Sociological Review,

51(2): 273-286.

Taylor W 1924, Primitive Culture, 7th ed. New York: Brentano's

Throsby, D. 2001, Economics and Culture, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge

UN/ISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction), (2009) 2009 UN/ISDR terminology on disaster risk
reduction, UN/ISDR, Geneva

UNESCO. (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible

cultural heritage, Available online at accessed at:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php (accessed June 2010).

18 
 
William R, 1961, The long revolution, Chatto and Windus, London

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004). At risk:
natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters – 2nd edition.
Routledge, London

19