What are the Dimensions of “Disasters Are not Natural” Approach in the Context of Iran? Implications for the Health System

Sanaz  Sohrabizadeh; Azadeh  Tahernejad; Mohammad  Palesh; Masumeh  Kamaledini

doi:10.18502/jimc.v9i1.20483

Sanaz Sohrabizadeh Air Quality and Climate Change Research Center, Research Institute for Health Sciences and Environment, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Azadeh Tahernejad Department of Management Sciences and Health Economics, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Mohammad Palesh Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Masumeh Kamaledini Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Communication and Media, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jimc.v9i1.20483

Keywords: Conservation of natural resources, Data collection, Disaster planning, Disasters, Humans, Iran, Natural disasters, Poverty, Religion

Abstract

Background: Using the adjective “natural” with “disaster” can result in neglecting human-made vulnerabilities. In Iran, applying the “natural disaster” term is almost common in all disaster management settings. The present study is aimed to explore the aspects/dimensions of the “disasters are not natural” approach in the context of Iran and then suggest implications for the health system in regard to the findings.

Methods: The current research is a qualitative study utilizing conventional content analysis. 19 participants were purposively selected, and data were gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection, following the content analysis method outlined by Graneheim and Lundman.

Results: Human roles and interventions theme, as well as five categories and 16 subcategories, were extracted from data. The categories include environmental degradation (e.g., deforestation/desertification), economic vulnerability (e.g., poverty and economic difficulties), political/governance vulnerability (e.g., reactive approach to disasters), socio-cultural barriers (e.g., religious beliefs), and vulnerability of disaster management infrastructure (e.g., insufficient educational resources and programs).

Conclusion: This study highlights the human roles in disasters and the critical need for re-consideration of applying the “natural disasters” term. Using “disasters” instead of “natural disasters” can be facilitated through the increase in community-based programs and interventions such as education and training, public awareness, and exercises.