Following Dr David Oldmeadow’s lecture on “Engineering for Remote Aboriginal Com

Question

Following Dr David Oldmeadow’s lecture on “Engineering for Remote Aboriginal Communities”, what do you understand by ‘ugly’, ‘bad’ and ‘good’? (5 marks) 3 marks for explanation, 2 marks for examples

Get rid of the UGLY, the technology that can not be used, e.g.

• Massive OHS risk • Unreliable • Wasteful • Cannot maintain • Poor build quality • No consideration of suitability to climate • Not appropriate housing • Lack of maintenance leads to disrepair • Safety issues – No RCD

They need to mention and discuss a technology fulfilling at least one of these criteria, some examples are related to generators •

Replace the BAD when useful life is over

• Ageing infrastructure • Non compliant with modern OHS standards • Poor build quality • No insulation in roof or walls • Solar hot water system water hardness - maintenance problems • Evaporative air- conditioning • filters calcify • Non- Automatic switchboards • Manual switching • OHS issues • Vandalism

They need to mention and discuss a technology fulfilling at least one of these criteria, some examples are related to generators, solar hot water tech, water tank etc.

Ensure that new works are GOOD

• Compliant with modern OHS standards • Reduced fuel usage • $ saving • Reduced carbon footprint • Use of renewable energy for water pumping eliminates risk of GW contamination • Climate sensitive • Collaborative design • Quality build • Fully Automatic power stations • Intelligent Load sharing • Full telemetry allowing remote access • well maintained- no vegetation • Well designed- ample capacity • Securely fenced

They need to mention and discuss a technology fulfilling at least one of these criteria, some examples are related to generators, solar hot water tech, water tank, fuel tank, water ponts, fencing, Photovoltaic panel etc.

Explanation / Answer

ANSWER:

A large part of the literature analyzing the links between biodiversity conservation and community development assumes that nature-based tourism managed by indigenous communities will result not only in conservation of natural resources but also in increased development. Transparent communication is key to maintaining trust. It’s imperative that you share “the good, the bad and the ugly” – delaying or trying to put a positive spin on a piece of news will not improve a situation. Inform the leadership as soon as possible and seek their counsel on how to disseminate the information to the community.

Behavior by a few politically or commercially powerful frequently causes endangerment to or impoverishment of many others, as is illustrated by seven categories incorporating bad and ugly behaviors and consequent actions:

1. Environmental degradation.

2. Discrimination.

3. Displacement.

4. Self-seeking public expenditure.

5. Denial of access to resources.

6. Corruption.

7. Siphoning of public money.

These behaviors are identified as sources of actions creating conditions of endangerment and impoverishment leading to vulnerability. But though these behaviors lead collectively to vulnerability, the action of each is brought about by separate and distinctly different reasoning, even within each category. For instance, marginalization has long been identified as a source of vulnerability, but behaviors that are the sources and causes of the elements of marginalization, internally and externally to a community, need to be recognized. That means that, in the recent and historical case studies (Table 1), some categories are distinctly “bad”, some are distinctly “ugly”, and some include examples of both, separately or in combination. Circumstances, and complexities of the reality of the cases, and often the entanglement of “the bad” and “the ugly”, is the world-wide institutionalization of DRR serving more as cover-up, papering over the cracks of a façade?

Massively “bad” and “ugly” drivers persist in practice as a pernicious and prevailing reality, triggered by negative aspects of human behavior. If DRR is being accepted as or aimed to be a “culture”, “contra-culture” exists as does “contra-development”.

It is not poverty or the ‘slash and burn’ practices of poor farmers that set the degradation of nature in motion, but the greedy and unjust behavior of concessionaires, politicians, and law enforcement officers involved in the conversion of forests to plantations. This created the vulnerable ecological and social conditions for the fire disaster. Interpreting “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” in its three categories, this paper identifies specific and pragmatic examples of on-the-ground realities of vulnerability for comparison with wide-scale, remote, and relatively top-down conceptions within necessarily internationally agreed and produced documents.

Here, “the good” is interpreted as positive DRR measures, but expounding on some of the problems with the presentation of what is taken to be “good”. Meanwhile, “the bad” and “the ugly” are interpreted as processes that increase, or fail to decrease, vulnerability and that actively or initially stymie or constrain DRR efforts. “Bad” is effectively malfeasance—actions in which the perpetrators to a large degree understand, or should understand, that their specific choices, over which they have power, are causing disaster-related problems, usually (although not always) for others. “Ugly” does not refer to “ugly in appearance”, instead implying “ugly in intent and action” even though there might be limited understanding of the vulnerability- and disaster-related implications, not out of wilful ignorance but due to realities, especially externally imposed realities, that often preclude integration of disaster implications into decision-making processes. As will become clear through the specific case studies, the line between “bad” and “ugly” is often blurred and the literature has ongoing debates regarding whether or not such activities should be separated. For instance, argued that some disasters and vulnerability are “innocent” because sometimes people make active choices—perhaps through group behavior, religious beliefs, or priorities other than disaster risk reduction—to accept vulnerabilities and risks for livelihood or quality of life purposes. That is fair as a truism, corroborated through ample field evidence as well as our own day-to-day decisions as disaster professionals, but the moniker “innocent” is unconvincing and introduces the possibility of external pressures, or layers of ethical judgments, which ought to be further explored.

World Conference on Disaster Reduction, the HFA, and the Global Assessment Reports, are perpetually required to trade on well-meaning innate optimism, positive drive, and honorable common good for the future of humankind. What such documents do not express, therefore, is that governments, societies, and communities, whether rural or urban, include the bad and the ugly as well as the good, the corrupt as well as the ethical, and the inert and the weak as well as the powerfully active. Good governance applies to the rural as well as to the urban, to the rich as well as the poor. It cannot be restricted to initiating or permitting favorable systems and procedures but has to prevent and inhibit other procedures that, whilst advantageous to the powerful few, result in widespread deprivation for the many.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.