Analyze

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

Emergency response is not addressed in terms of the immediate response. The article focuses instead on the aftermath of the incident on Sept. 11th, dealing primarily with the cleanup efforts and investigation that followed in an effort to provide closure to the public and resume the regular business of the city, both important steps in recovering from a disaster.

A year after Hurricane Sandy, ten different design groups, filled with designers, architects, planners and engineers, decided to gather at NJIT to discuss ways on how to make Newark less vulnerable to hurricanes and other natural disasters. One team was lead by a professor at NJIT, who had four different proposals that will protect a wide portion of the coasts of New Jersey. Each of the teams came up with several ideas on how to make Newark more resilient to natural disasters.

The article has not been referenced extensively, as it is focused on a very specific topic. However the ideas presented in the article, and by extension the ideas presented in the book have been included in other papers including some of the author's later works.

The article focuses on the lasting effects of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent years of rebuilding that never fully repaired the communities and lives destroyed. The authors attribute a lasting sense of displacement to the treatment of survivors directly after the destruction of New Orleans, and the subsequent failures of the government to effectively support displaced survivors.

Emily Goldman is an epidemiologist with a background in public health, she currently works for NYU College of Global Public Health and teaches a course in psychiatric epidemiology. Sandro Galea is an epidemiologist and physician working at Columbia University, he currently sits on two New York City councils for Hygiene and Public Health.

The US Department of Veteran Affairs does not do extensive research but instead uses the existing research and discoveries to keep up to date with medical practices.

As the disasters studied occurred many years ago and have been thoroughly studied previously this study did not present sufficiently new information to be disseminated through news reports. The study did however provide information of interest for future studies, and has been cited in other articles indicating it was used as reference in determining the effectiveness of research techniques.