Bibliographic details:

Lichter, M., & Felsenstein, D. (2012). Assessing the costs of sea-level rise and extreme flooding at the local level: a GIS-based approach. Ocean & coastal management, 59, 47-62

Abstract:

This paper presents a systematic framework for assessing the costs of sea-level rise (SLR) and extreme flooding at the local level. The method is generic and transferable. It is built on coupling readily available GIS capabilities with quantitative estimates of the effects of natural hazards. This allows for the ex-ante monetization of the main costs related to different scenarios of permanent inundation and periodic flooding. This approach can be used by coastal zone planners to generate vital information on land use, capital stock and population at risk for jurisdictions of different sizes. The simple mechanics of the method are presented with respect to two examples: one relates to the two largest coastal cities in Israel (Tel Aviv and Haifa) and the other to the Northern Coastal Strip region containing a variety of small towns and rural communities. The paper concludes with implications for coastal zone planning praxis.

Paper

Webpage

Bibliographic details:

Samimian‐Darash, L. (2011). Governing through time: preparing for future threats to health and security. Sociology of health & illness, 33(6), 930-945.‏

Abstract:

During preparations for the Second Gulf War, Israel considered universal smallpox vaccination. In doing so, it faced a problem: how to legitimize carrying out a security action against an uncertain future danger (smallpox pandemic), when this action carried specific, known risks (vaccine complications). To solve this problem, the Israeli preparedness system created a new domain through which the security action could reach its goal with minimum risk: first responders (a group of medical personnel and security forces). First‐responder vaccination represents a shift in the form of ‘securing health’ and in the governmental technology applied to this goal, in which past, present, and future occurrences are governed to enable the execution of a security action. Through this practice, risks are not located in the present or in the future but in a ‘shared’ temporal space and thus can be seen as existing simultaneously. Preparedness for emerging future biological events, then, involves more than questioning how the future is contingent on the present and how the present is contingent on the future’s perception; it also recognises the need for a new time positioning that allows operating on both present and future risks simultaneously. Governing these risks, then, means governing through time..

Paper

Bibliographic details:

De Goede, M. (2008). Beyond risk: Premediation and the post-9/11 security imagination. Security Dialogue, 39(2-3), 155-176

Abstract:

In the context of the 'war on terror', techniques of imagining the future have taken on new political significance. Richard Grusin has coined the term 'premediation' to describe the way in which news media and cultural industries map and visualize a plurality of possible futures. This article examines the relation between the politics of risk and premediation as a security practice. Premediation simultaneously deploys and exceeds the language of risk. Its self-conscious deployment of imagination in security practice feeds economies of both anxiety and desire.

Paper

Bibliographic details:

De Goede, M. (2008). The politics of preemption and the war on terror in Europe. European journal of international relations, 14(1), 161-185

Abstract:

In the midst of the war on terror and unilateral US security politics, many observers look to Europe for alternatives. It is argued that Europe is particularly opposed to preemptive security practice, and prefers instead to rely on the rule of law. This article examines the meaning of preemption in the war on terror, and analyses three aspects of European counter-terror policy. It becomes clear that, with respect to a number of policies that play a key role in preemptive security practice, including criminalizing terrorist support, data retention, and asset freezing, the European Union is world leader rather than reluctant follower. Instead of relying on images that position Europe as inherently critical of preemptive security, debate concerning the legitimacy and desirability of such practices must be actively fostered within European public space.

Paper

Webpage

Bibliographic details:

De Goede, M., Simon, S., & Hoijtink, M. (2014). Performing preemption. Security Dialogue, 45(5), 411-422

Abstract:

Nearly fifteen years after 9/11, it is time to grapple with the way in which imperatives of preemption have made their way into routine security practice and bureaucratic operations. As a growing literature in security studies and political geography has argued, preparing for catastrophe, expecting the worst, and scripting disasters are central elements of contemporary, speculative security culture. One of the most-discussed findings of the 9/11 Commission Report was that US security services had insufficiently deployed their imagination to foresee and preempt the attacks. This paper introduces a special issue that offers a range of in-depth empirical studies that analyze how the imperative of routinizing the imagination plays out in practice across different policy domains. It deploys the lens of performativity in order to conceptualize and explain the materialization of preemption and its situated entanglements with pre-existing security bureaucracies. The lofty rhetoric of preparing for the worst encounters numerous obstacles, challenges and reversals in practice. As becomes clear through the notion of performativity, such obstacles and challenges do not just ‘stand in the way’ of implementation, but actively shape the materialization of preemption in different sectors.

Paper

Bibliographic details:

Diprose, R., Stephenson, N., Mills, C., Race, K., & Hawkins, G. (2008). Governing the future: The paradigm of prudence in political technologies of risk management. Security Dialogue, 39(2-3), 267-288

Abstract:

Increasingly, governmental responses to incalculable, but high-consequence, threats to life and security are framed by what has been described as the `precautionary principle' (Ewald), `preparedness' (Collier, Lakoff & Rabinow) or `pre-emption' (Derrida). This article redescribes features common to these characterizations as the paradigm of prudence and examines how this approach to risk management is playing out in the context of fears that feature within the Australian political imaginary. We explore how the approach to the future entailed in the paradigm enframes `life' and stifles democratic participation and innovation in ways of living. Three case studies (in biosecurity, bioecology and biomedicine) demonstrate not only how the paradigm pervades the government of everyday life, but also how it is challenged by human `agents', material `life' and the dynamic relations between these two. By formulating what this involves, we point to a concept of the political more conducive to democratic pluralism, diversity of life and innovative culture.

Paper

Other

Bibliographic details:

Grove, K. (2012). Preempting the next disaster: Catastrophe insurance and the financialization of disaster management. Security Dialogue, 43(2), 139-155

Abstract:

The 2007 launch of the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) introduced a new mechanism of state security against the uncertainties of climate change. Proponents argue that increasing the ability of member-states to finance disaster recovery through catastrophe insurance mitigates the effects of increasingly frequent and intense hurricanes and thus contributes to climate change adaptation. In contrast, I offer a critical analysis of the CCRIF that draws out how it facilitates what I call the ‘financialization of disaster management’. The introduction of financial logics and techniques enables the state and capital to visualize a population’s self-organizing adaptive capacity as both a threat to state-based forms of order and a value that can be leveraged on capital markets as catastrophe risk. Leveraging enhances a state’s ability to repair its critical infrastructure and preemptively negate undesirable adaptations. The CCRIF blends risk pooling with parametric insurance techniques to turn the uncertainty surrounding a population’s immanent adaptability into catastrophe risks that can be leveraged to enhance state security and capital accumulation in an emergent environment.

Paper

Bibliographic details:

Kaufmann, M. (2016). Exercising emergencies: Resilience, affect and acting out security. Security Dialogue, 47(2), 99-116.‏

‏

Abstract:

The idea of the complex emergency has given rise to the notion of resilience as a form of acting out security. While security policies largely embrace the concept of resilience, critical scholarship points to the ‘responsibilization’ of the threatened subject, who is ‘programmed’ to act out security in a fashion that internalizes neoliberal values. This behavior is trained through disciplinary practices, such as exercises, that seek to conduct the conduct of disaster populations. However, is the resilient subject only ever an instance of programs and disciplinary power? This article takes a look at how self-organization comes about and how this process can be conceptualized through affect. It uses the setting of a cyber-security exercise to describe the dynamic interplay between affect and re/action. Building on Spinoza’s understanding of affect as the onset for action, the article discusses what affect theory contributes to resilience theory. It concludes that, as a form of acting out security, resilience incorporates both ‘programmed’ and ‘self-determined’ actions. Both forms of acting, however, imply that the resilient subject has no choice but to act out security. Given this fundamental restraint, powerlessness as the incapacity to act appears as one of the few instances that escape the governmental logic of resilience.

Paper

Webpage

Bibliographic details:

Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. foresight, 9(1), 5-25.

Abstract:

Purpose – The paper aims to review all the techniques for developing scenarios that have appeared in the literature, along with comments on their utility, strengths and weaknesses.

Design/methodology/approach – The study was carried out through an electronic search using internet search engines and online databases and indexes.

Findings – The paper finds eight categories of techniques that include a total of 23 variations used to develop scenarios. There are descriptions and evaluations for each.

Practical implications – Futurists can use this list to broaden their repertoire of scenario techniques.

Originality/value – Scenario development is the stock‐in‐trade of futures studies, but no catalog of the techniques used has yet been published. This list is the start at developing a consensus list of techniques that can be refined as the field matures.

Paper

Bibliographic details:

Brassett, J., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2015). Security and the performative politics of resilience: Critical infrastructure protection and humanitarian emergency preparedness. Security Dialogue, 46(1), 32-50

Abstract:

This article critically examines the performative politics of resilience in the context of the current UK Civil Contingencies (UKCC) agenda. It places resilience within a wider politics of (in) security that seeks to govern risk by folding uncertainty into everyday practices that plan for, pre-empt, and imagine extreme events. Moving beyond existing diagnoses of resilience based either on ecological adaptation or neoliberal governmentality, we develop a performative approach that highlights the instability, contingency, and ambiguity within attempts to govern uncertainties. This performative politics of resilience is investigated via two case studies that explore 1) critical national infrastructure protection and 2) humanitarian emergency preparedness. By drawing attention to the particularities of how resilient knowledge is performed and what it does in diverse contexts, we repoliticize resilience as an ongoing, incomplete, and potentially self-undermining discourse.

Paper

Webpage