Urbanscapes of Disaster: The Sociopolitical

and Spatial Processes Underpinning Vulnerability

within a Slum in Mexico
Frida Güiza*
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, CONACYT, Mexico and Centro de Investigaciones en
Geografı́a Ambiental, UNAM, Mexico
Yadira Méndez-Lemus and Michael K. McCall
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografı́a Ambiental, UNAM, Mexico

Urbanscapes of disaster are socially and environmentally constituted. Drawing upon

the theoretical framework of social vulnerability to disasters, the concept of urban-
scape is enriched and empirically verified. This paper highlights how urban social
hazards are more relevant for vulnerable people than the risk of experiencing the
negative effects of extreme natural events. The analysis of floods in a slum located
in a Mexican city reveals intricate socioenvironmental conditions underpinning a
disaster process. Findings reveal that social, political, and economic hazards (includ-
ing criminal hazards), imposed by the urban model on its inhabitants, are the most
difficult to cope with and adapt to. This paper contributes to the wider literature
on disasters, presenting an in-depth qualitative analysis of the factors propelling ur-
ban dwellers to endure in a vulnerable urbanscape, regardless of the physical and
environmental conditions at the site.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the constitution over the time of an urbanscape
of disaster in a mid-sized city in a developing country. The landscape plays an active
role in shaping the type of action agents take, their willingness to remain, their links
and attachments to places. We draw upon social vulnerability to disasters as a theoretical
framework, particularly on the sociocultural, political, and spatial processes that increase
the risk on communities of suffering from the negative impacts of natural events. There
is a gap in the literature not explaining in-depth why certain communities dwelling in
hazardous spaces are resolved to stay there. That was our main research question.
Relevant for the argument of this paper is the concept of urbanscapes of disaster, it
highlights the sociocultural component of the social vulnerability to disasters process

∗ Correspondence should be addressed to Frida Güiza, Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental

(CIGA-UNAM), Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda de San José de la Huerta. C.P.
58190, Morelia, Michoacán, México; frida.ciga@gmail.com, fguiza@ciga.unam.mx
Authors want to thank the support of CONACYT postdoctoral research funding. We acknowledge the participa-
tion of the team members, especially Dr. Antonio Vieyra Medrano, Dr. Juan Hernandez-Guerrero, and Antonio
Navarrete, for their contributions.
City & Community 16:2 June 2017
doi: 10.1111/cico.12230

C 2017 American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

209
 CITY & COMMUNITY

within the city context. In our case of analysis, an extreme natural event strikes, and
different agents perform in the area of disaster, dwellers living in hazardous places chal-
lenge social and environmental conditions. Their socioeconomic conditions and experi-
ences help them to increase, diminish, or maintain their social vulnerability. Social vul-
nerability to disasters is related to hazards of different natures.
In this paper, the idea of disaster as a process is persistent, and it relates to the unfold-
ing sets of factors and conditions related with physical exposure to hazards, but mainly to
socioeconomic conditions generated over a long period of time, in combination with nat-
ural events (Cannon 2008; Pelling 2001; Wisner et al. 2004). As we highlight in this paper,
disasters expose the negative impacts of the current neoliberal model operating at the so-
cial, cultural and political dimensions, within the Mexican urban space (Greenberg et al.
2012), revealing divergences between people and physical spaces (Massey 2013; Smith
2008; Swyngedouw and Käika 2003; Wisner et al. 2004).
We chose a slum1 in Morelia, a mid-sized city in the west of Mexico. It is an example of
a specific urbanscape of disaster. A microcosm reveals itself when hazards threaten and
disasters strike in slums, exhibiting the influences of pervasive models of urbanization
on the social fabric (Aragón-Durand 2007). We used a qualitative approach to analyze
in depth and in a reflexive way, how different agents perform in a disaster arena, in
combination with particular sociopolitical factors influencing urban growth. Based on the
characteristics and richness of the site (social, political, and environmental), we selected
the analysis of the slum as an only-case study.
The research uncovered the way people perceive events, in addition to people’s multi-
ple capacities and solidarity. We uncovered how these factors strengthen their possibilities
to continue living in a slum that is continually recreating spatial, social, and environmen-
tal characteristics, making this particular urbanscape prone to disasters. We highlight the
unforeseen political and socioeconomic factors (Pelling 2001) and institutional arrange-
ments at the intersection between governmental organizations and society (Connolly
2009; Eackin 2010; Romero Lankao et al. 2014), as well as vulnerable dwellers’ strate-
gies that let them endure on the site. Using a qualitative approach we found that people
living in urbanscapes of disaster create expectations and projects for the future; they re-
sist uniformization, and build (internal and external) linkages to handle the disaster and
the social conditions. They actively strengthen their capacities (Kuhlicke and Steinführer
2010) to endure in the city and benefit from it.
There is growing literature focusing on the capacities that urban people develop to re-
spond to both social and environmental factors together, in a disaster context (Few et al.
2016; Kuhlicke and Steinführer 2010; Satterhwaite and Mitlin 2013). Other perspectives
highlight risk analysis to explain how people’s perceptions interact with the probability
of occurrence of an extreme event; but they do not explain people’s drivers to remain
dwelling in a hazardous place. This paper illustrates the relationship between social vul-
nerability to disasters and people’s everyday practices in a geographical space, the slum,
all these conditions created over a long period of time make dwellers endure inhabiting
hazardous places (Adger 2006; Cutter et al. 2003; Eakin 2010; Massey 2005; Pelling 2011;
Rodgers et al. 2011; Wisner et al. 2004).
This paper contributes to the Latin American literature on the analysis of disasters
within the urbanscape, particularly on mid-sized cities. It presents people’s drivers to
remain within a slum, despite their vulnerability to extreme natural events. We emphasize

210
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

that in this case flooding is not perceived as the primary risk, but the socioeconomic
threats and pressures associated with dwelling in the city.

THE THEORETICAL APPROACH OF VULNERABLE

URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER
To build on the idea of an urbanscape of disaster, we make use of the concept of land-
scape (Cresswell 2013,b) from the perspective of cultural geography, in conjunction with
the theoretical framework of social vulnerability to disasters. From this perspective, space
is not given in nature, but is socially constructed, continually contested and empirically
known (Rodman 1992). The landscape concept from the cultural perspective, along with
social vulnerability to disaster, gave us a better understanding of the sociocultural drivers
of social vulnerability to disasters in the urban space (Cutter et al. 2003).
We consider that the concept of urbanscapes of disaster is more comprehensive, pay-
ing attention to sociocultural factors attached to the analysis of material features. The
concept of urbanscapes of disaster is consistent with the theoretical standpoint on disas-
ter as a social process suggested by the theoretical framework of vulnerability to disasters.
Different perspectives relating landscape and hazards or risk have been developed, never-
theless, they relate to the physical event (hazard) or the probability of occurrence (risk).
These perspectives do not provide a framework for understanding the interactions be-
tween a natural event and the community experiencing it.
People’s perception of the world and their consequential actions are related with the
experience of place and space (Ancio et al. 2016) where they dwell, and the links they
create with the place. Hazardscapes (Collins 2009; Khan 2012; Mustafa 2013) exhibit the
potential source of hazards and riskscapes, and the probability of damage from extreme
events (Müller-Mahn 2012). In this case, the social construction of urbanscapes of dis-
asters implies that social structural causes, juxtaposed with ongoing environmental con-
ditions, increase the vulnerability of communities to experience disasters (Castells 1977;
Cohen 2012; Cutter et al. 2003).
Urbanscapes of disaster show the tension between city dwellers, the social structure,
and environmental factors. More than a simple interaction between human societies and
nature, landscape bridges nature and culture, identity and values, cohesion and rivalry.
The landscape theory pays attention to the roles society, nature, and culture play in the
creation of strategies and understandings around extreme events. It is the base of identity
for local cultures; it is linked to its dwellers’ expectations of the future and life projects.
Some slums constitute urbanscapes of disaster; they are socially and spatially associ-
ated with vulnerable communities (Güiza et al. 2016; Cutter et al. 2003). They are char-
acterized by dense populations and lack of services (Rubin and Rossing 2012). Haz-
ards, violence, and illegality dominate (IPCC 2012; Mitchell and Heynen 2009), and
their residents’ livelihoods are constantly damaged. Slums as both social and spatial
gaps reflect the uneven and unfair development of the urban space (Cutter et al. 2003;
Graham 1998; Harvey 2010; Massey 2005; Satterthwaite and Tacoli 2003; Swyngedouw
and Kaı̈ka 2003).
The constitution of urbanscapes of disaster is related to sociocultural, environmental
and political processes operating from a local to a global scale. Particularly, but not exclu-
sively in less developed countries, these processes exhibit the unequal distribution of the

211
 CITY & COMMUNITY

space, risk, and access to the city’s benefits. This context increases disaster proneness in
highly vulnerable sites such as slums. In this regard, the theoretical framework of social
vulnerability to disasters helps to uncover structural forces, agents, and environmental
processes behind a disaster (Güiza et al. 2016). The disaster process has been extensively
discussed in the literature on the topic. In the 1980s, Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) ex-
plained that the preconditions for disasters, root causes, and dynamic pressures may have
been forming over a long period. The social construction of urbanscapes of disasters im-
plies that the social structural causes juxtaposed with environmental conditions increase
the vulnerability of communities to experience disasters.
Social vulnerability to disasters is understood here as a multilayered and multidimen-
sional social process in which political, economic, and organizational capacities are com-
promised (Watts and Bohle 1993). Wisner et al. (2004) and Cutter and Finch (2008)
suggest that vulnerability is the outcome of inequality and it has political, spatial, and
social consequences, mirroring geographies of poverty. Social vulnerability to disasters
is a dynamic process in which biophysical and social dimensions shape local conditions
(O’Brien et al. 2007). The analysis of the ultimate causes of floods in this case study, to-
gether with the strategies put in practice by the population living within the interface
of sociopolitical and natural worlds in a vulnerable urbanscape, reveals intricate circum-
stances underpinning disaster processes (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Pelling 2001; Sen
1981; Walker and Bulkeley 2006; Walker 2005). Urban political ecology scholars analyzing
social vulnerability to disasters in developing countries have demonstrated that the cities’
character relates to the amount of political power that particular groups have (Chelleri
et al. 2015; Pelling 2003a,b; Roy et al. 2016). These groups influence negotiations over
urban resources, and the distribution of space (Eackin 2010; Hewitt 1998; Massey 2013;
Pelling 2011; Wisner et al. 2004). The moment when a disaster strikes, for a short pe-
riod it exhibits the sociostructural causes behind it (Guha-Sapir 2013; Cutter et al. 2003;
Mustafa 2003; Pelling 2011).
In this regard, there is a link between disasters and the global economic model and
urban growth, characterized by wider patterns of inequality and exclusion in the social
sphere (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Brenner et al. 2009). It produces fragmented and
unequal cities in Latin America and particularly in Mexico. Latin American cities and
particularly mid-sized cities are experiencing increasing land commoditization. We agree
with Pelling (2003a,b), who claims that urban expansion and the organization of the city
is an extension of socioeconomic processes and political power.
There is an increasing unemployment rate in the private and public sector, as well as
intensive migration to urban centers raising poverty rates, violence, and the occurrence
of security problems (Greenberg et al. 2012). These conditions put pressure on cities’
local resources (social and environmental) beyond their means (Brenner and Theodore
2002; Massey 2013; Wacquant 2008).
Within a context of rapid urbanization in mid-sized cities, slums are part of the ur-
banscape. Connolly (2009) considers that people in search of access to city benefits and
stability and security cover their housing needs by building on available or abandoned
land. Slums are one stage in the process of the incorporation of the poor into the
city (Davis 2010; UN-Habitat 2003). People have to diversify their assets, abilities and
strategies to cope with sociostructural forces and environmental factors (Chambers 1994;
Engle 2011; Gaillard 2010).

212
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

Slums mirror the uneven and unfair development of the urban space exhibiting
different types of sociopolitical inequities (Elkind 2006; Graham 1998; Harvey 2010;
Pelling 2003a,b; Smith 2008). Nevertheless, slum dwellers are not passive receivers of
these aforementioned inequities. They contest the inequalities and asymmetric power
relationships (Davis 2004) produced by sociopolitical and environmental impacts (Güiza
et al. 2016; Pelling 2003a,b). Castree and Braun (2001) and Pelling (2003a,b) claim that
within urban centers, power interests and unforeseen sociopolitical factors relate to land
purchasing and access to services, poor urban policy design, patronage, and clientelism
(Frerkset et al. 2011).
There are two approaches explaining the drivers for marginalized people to live in a
disaster prone urbanscape. One approach suggests that there is no alternative for vulner-
able people when choosing to live on hazardous sites. Structural conditions push them to
dwell in vacant areas (Brighenti 2013; Imai 2013). Poverty forces them to live in risky ar-
eas, plus a sociopolitical context in which their individual capacities are chronically weak-
ened. Another approach suggests an active role for poor people. Slum dwellers select a
site based on their needs, the main rationale behind this selection is to benefit from the
city’s facilities. From this perspective, people’s rationale is based on pragmatic choices
such as feasible livelihood access, proximity to city resources, and jobs (Ibarra 2012;
Rubin 2014; Satterthwaite and Mitlin 2013; UN-Habitat 2003).
We claim that both assumptions are complementary. The limited availability of dwelling
places in high value urban spaces forces people to inhabit hazardous areas. However,
these decisions go hand in hand with people making complex decisions and evaluations
about risk-prone spaces (Rubin and Rossing 2012). We maintain that “slum-dwellers” in-
habiting hazardous spaces have particular rationales; they make choices, and they are not
simply hopeless victims.

SITE OF RESEARCH

In this section, our aim is to present the connections in the field with the theoretical
standpoints described earlier. The site description is oriented to emphasize the tensions
between city dwellers, environmental factors, and the social structure predominant in the
area under study. The geographical description is an important resource to understand
how vulnerability plays in certain areas, together with the land attachments and rationales
of the agents at play within an arena of disaster, as well as the constitution of urbanscapes
of disasters.
Morelia is a medium-sized city in the west central state of Michoacan (see fig. 1). Two
rivers run through the city, one from north to south, Rı́o Chiquito, and the other from
west to east, Rio Grande. Floods are frequent events because of the river system and large
flood plains, in addition to anthropogenic changes, which increase flooding risks. Until
the 1940s, the city had a centered structure and its population grew steadily. However, in
the 1970s, the population grew from 44,304 to 161,040 (INEGI 2010). This growth came
with faster physical expansion into the rural hinterland2 of the city, rapidly surpassing the
physical boundaries set by the rivers.
From the 1990s to the early 2000s, the population did not significantly increase in
Morelia, but a housing policy promoted by the federal government as an employment
strategy motivated additional physical expansion of the city. The artificial urban expan-
sion in the rural periphery was intensified by the low cost of land, lack of clear rules for

213
 CITY & COMMUNITY

FIG. 1. Morelia city map, courtesy: Antonio Navarrete CIGA–UNAM.

land use change, and corruption (Güiza and McCall 2017). Another objective of this pol-
icy was to reduce illegal housing, promoting joint cooperation between the private sector
and governmental funding. Nevertheless, it was oriented to workers in formal jobs. The
paradox is that about 60 percent of the population is in the informal sector (OECD
2014), leaving a great number of people without the possibility of getting a mortgage.
Therefore growing numbers of marginalized people are dwelling in hazardous areas, in-
creasing their risk of experiencing a disaster.
The booming urban development of Morelia, especially at the periphery, makes it at-
tractive for all sorts of dwellers. The northern periphery of Morelia in particular fits with
the model of urban expansion explained earlier (see fig. 1). Ávila and Pérez (2014) sug-
gest that the northern fringe of Morelia is where most of the housing and industrial activ-
ities are expanding. In this area, land values are rising, significant city projects and gated
housing for the middle class are being built. Access is easy to main avenues and public
transportation is available. There is a mixture of commercial services for diverse socioe-
conomic groups. In Morelia, the local press reports 222 irregular settlements, about 80
percent of them are placed in risk prone areas (Raya 2012). Immigrants, particularly poor
peasants, settle on cheap, unregulated risky areas with no services, such as flood plains,
dumping sites, and seasonal stream run-off areas.
We particularly study a small former seasonal lake, which is the site of a community of
about two thousand families. The flooding risk is high there, as it is the destination of a
large watershed runoff. People’s livelihoods in the slum are on the city streets and in the
markets, with informal types of employment. The statistical data from the government
(INEGI 2010) claim that this slum is the most marginalized in the city.
The contemporary history of the slum helps us to understand the sociopolitical and
economic factors, defining differential local vulnerability, and the rationales behind

214
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

Presa de los Reyes

slum
Floods hit
height of
1.50 mts

Floods
Failed 1.50 mts
1000 families Reselement
seasonal of squaers offer
Small group of
small lake squaers move move in
area into the area

Legal
2012- land tenure
2000 2002 2004 2007 2008 2011 denided
2014
Canal covered
Division wall built by on the
developers fraccionamiento
side

FIG. 2. Time line of the slum. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

people’s decisions to live in this place. Below, a timeline (Fig.2) illustrates the recent
history of the slum, representing 15 years in which the inhabitants have experienced
risk, hazards, and disasters. The timeline is introduced with the intention of facilitating
clarification on the historical and social process of vulnerability to floods, and the
formation of an urbanscape of disaster.
On the same geographical site, adjacent to the slum, another community dwells be-
hind a barbed wire wall. We call it the fraccionamiento, a modern formal gated community
officially authorized in 2003. Its construction began in 2004, with the western wall being
built first. Residents of the fraccionamiento are middle-class, low-income workers. Houses in
the fraccionamiento were marketed for formal workers, through joint agreement between
private developers and government organizations such as ISSSTE and INFONAVIT.3

METHODS

This study presents results from a project on vulnerability to disasters in Morelia. Data
collection took place for 1 year and 8 months from late 2012 until 2014.
In the slum, we applied various strategies to gather information, all of them qualita-
tive. During this period the team, which comprised four researchers, two research as-
sistants, and about five undergraduate students, did participant observation to register
different practices and viewpoints of the slum dwellers. We did documentary research,
collecting documents related to the history of the slum, the violation of land use codes
in the city, and we revised press reports to verify critical events reported by the slum
dwellers. Following a snowball technique (Denzin 2011; Goodman 2011), we did 20 indi-
vidual semi structured in-depth interviews with inhabitants in the slum and 20 more with
different stakeholders, such as government officials, local politicians, NGOs, and slum’s
neighborhoods. In the slum, relatives of people participating in the interviews provided
complementary information. We did six focus groups, three with scholars and three with
governmental officials of different areas, such as civil protection, City Urban planning,
environment, cadastral, among others. We did seven in-depth interviews with city officials
and local NGOs. Qualitative techniques facilitate interpretations of others’ actions; thus,
they are conducted with a limited number of people (De La Rosa et al. 2012). Different
themes and subthemes were addressed during interviews with all the agents. We ana-
lyzed interviews following general topics we chose beforehand (see Table 1). First-order

215
 CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 1. Themes and Subthemes Addressed during Interviews with all Participants

Agents Themes Subthemes

The city
The slum
Floods
Livelihoods
Governmental General topics Violence
Organizations Insecurity
The fraccionamiento
Hazards and risks
Housing policy
NGOs Urban development
Institutional arrangements Civil protection
Patronage
Clientelism
Corruption
Disasters: emergency, coping, mitigation
Dwellers Networks
*Slum Services provision
*Fraccionamiento Strategies Daily life experiences
Community sense
Community building
Leaders
Land purchasing
Sociopolitical unforeseen factors Access to services and social aids
Contesting power

topics were generated through discussions among the team and following the vulnera-
bility to floods theory. Later, during field work, emerging topics on the interest of the
participants were integrated. After this we compared the answers trying to find repetition
and agreement among participants, we were constantly searching for credible interpreta-
tions of the meanings given to different topics by participants. We were always in search
of the participant’s perspective (see Table 1).
We prioritized inclusion of the widest range of people that could represent the broad
spectrum of people that make up the community. We ensured that interviewees knew that
we were not a threat, and we guaranteed that their information would remain confiden-
tial and safe, and if for any reason participants could be identified during conversation
with the researcher, we assured them that the text would be replaced, while retaining
its essential nature. We informed people about the need for audio-taped, in-depth in-
terviews, as well as possible follow-up interviews. It took about 3 months to achieve full
permission and social acceptance for visits and interviews at the slum, given the condi-
tions of illegality and continuous threats of eviction people in the slum face, they are
always vigilant for any sign of disturbance, and they can react with hostility.
There is little difference in the kind of jobs squatters at the slum do, they collect waste
for recycling such as aluminum or plastic cans, glass bottles, or damaged equipment.
Some women we interviewed worked as house cleaners, men work as masons or garden-
ers. At the fraccionamiento, people were mainly low-level governmental officials or teach-
ers and housewives. Their slum neighbors were farmers, housewives, factory workers, and
shopkeepers.

216
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

The qualitative approach is more effective in difficult contexts like the slum (De la Rosa
et al. 2012; Goodman 2011).The aim of case studies using a qualitative approach is to un-
derstand and grasp complexity and deep meanings of the agents involved as expressed
through social practices (Flyvbjerg 2006). Qualitative research helped us to collect ac-
counts of the social context with a reflective analysis of the information. This approach
leads us to interesting in-depth findings about the rationales of often silenced, disempow-
ered communities (Creswell 2013; Ragin 2013).
In this paper, we present the results of one case, part of a larger project that attempted
to elucidate flood vulnerabilities and people’s adaptive capacities. We ordered topics and
ideas, meanings and interpretations using open codes, identifying categories and links
among them in a flexible manner. We aimed at the identification of emerging new con-
nections. During verbatim transcription, the interviews were persistently examined to
understand what people told us, giving us insights that we used to contrast and confirm
initial theoretical beliefs. We compared findings with literature on vulnerability and ur-
banscapes of disaster. We sought to understand people’s reflections on their actions.

FINDINGS: THE SOCIOPOLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

INTERFACE IN THE SLUM

In the following part, we examine the internal dynamics within the slum and the sociopo-
litical and spatial processes producing a vulnerable urbanscape of disasters. We examine
the ways in which community members at the slum perceive their own vulnerability, the
meanings they build to make sense of dwelling on this site, and their efforts and practices
to engage in particular activities for community improvement. Below we present a brief
description of the slum’s history, and its environmental and sociopolitical conditions.

THE SOCIOPOLITICAL AND SPATIAL CONFIGURATION IN THE SLUM

The history of the property rights of the former lake is unclear. Based on field interviews
with different agents, the former seasonal lake belonged to ejido4 Gertrudis Sanchez. Eji-
datarios transferred rights of the lake to the municipality to build a natural city park.
However, with nontransparent powerful forces at work, both private and political, the
land was turned into private land (Sánchez Rincón 2011). According to the State Cadas-
tral office, the land tenure status of the former lake is private and regular, though in
contrast, maps produced by INEGI5 (2010) show the area as prone to flooding. Maps
also show a geological fault on one side of the former lake area.
The earlier squatters at the former lake arrived in 2002, after an apparently fraudulent
deal with a political leader, now in jail. Based on slum dwellers’ accounts, there are two
salient types of residents, earlier and recent squatters. This is important since they rec-
ognize different intentions and needs of each group depending on their internal status.
Spatially, the first squatters live in the highest side of the area. The recent squatters live
next to the fraccionamiento wall, where the height of the water reaches 1.5 m. Currently,
the recent squatters are the bigger group in numbers; they may belong to a political or
religious group, or simply be followers of the leaders currently in power.
In the case of this particular slum, after an extreme flash flood in 2008, municipal
authorities offered resettlement to the slum dwellers in locations further out into the

217
 CITY & COMMUNITY

extended periphery of Morelia. A few of them accepted the offer, but many of them are
still waiting for a better place to live, since the place on offer is not suitable for their needs
and livelihoods.
In 2011, a flood disrupted both the slum and the fraccionamiento. In the slum the water
reached 1.5 m, in the fraccionamiento the water height was about 50 cm. A lack of re-
sponse from the company and the local government prompted the residents to organize
themselves to request a solution to the floods. The solution local government and the
company found was to reduce the size of the canal on the slum side and cover the canal
on the fraccionamiento side, to prevent bad odors and overflowing. This mitigation strategy
reduced the amount of water entering the fraccionamiento, nevertheless, the intervention
causes rubbish and water to clog the outlet on the slum side, so that the height of the
water actually raises the level of flooding.
It is evident that the wall itself is a flood barrier for the fraccionamiento and can stop the
running water, but on the slum side, it increases the flooding risk. In this case, the au-
thorities and the company transferred the risk to the slum dwellers, the most vulnerable
and with minimal resources (material and financial) to cope with the event.
In recent years, both squatters and fraccionamiento residents are in search of legal prop-
erty recognition. During the time of our last interviews in 2014, property rights were
denied for both the slum and the fraccionamiento, for different reasons. Nevertheless, this
condition may change, since the municipal administration is replaced every 3 years.

STRATEGIES TO ENDURE IN A VULNERABLE FLOOD PRONE SITE

In search of enduring in the slum, people make use of their assets and capacities, the
slum livelihoods are place-based. Its inhabitants sell products in the streets, their ac-
tivities may include sorting and disposing of waste. They recycle and reuse furniture
and rubble, and offer low-cost technical services. If lucky, they are hired for temporary
jobs, most of the time with no attendant rights. Since their jobs are unstable, their in-
comes are too irregular to pay outgoings. Dwellers provide many unrecognized services
for other inhabitants of Morelia, including cheap accommodation for poor immigrants
and workers in low-income jobs such as cleaners, gardeners, and masons. They live in
the hope that they shall do better in life, and they are trying to maximize their oppor-
tunities to improve their livelihoods. People in the slum do not consider themselves as
“work-shy,” but they face numerous difficulties in integrating into society and the formal
economy.
In the slum, people’s permanence is based on the strategies they have for alternating
between formal and informal sectors. They are willing to invest in bettering their property
and the slum (both individually and communally) if this investment helps them to, at
least, maintain minimum habitable conditions or improve living standards. There are
continuous efforts to improve the physical infrastructure they own, in order to cope with
natural events such as floods, or sociopolitical threats, like eviction. People at the slum pay
private suppliers for urban services that are not formally or legally provided; even though
often times, the apparently low charges are more expensive than those exacted by the
government. They use their own labor force and resources at hand to meet basic needs
such as drinking water, electricity, sewerage, entertainment, health, communication, and
nourishment.

218
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

A clear finding from the fieldwork is that people in the slum, who are the most deprived
in economic terms, have a vigorous community life.
I live on this side of the slum and I really like it. I have friends and they give me a
hand when I’m finding it difficult to feed my children, or when I can’t look after
them because I’m working. I was offered help to move to a new place far from here,
but there I don’t know anyone and I would have to pay for services, I prefer to
remain here. In many ways, I’m used to this place and I like it (Sra. R, inhabitant of
the slum 2013).
During interviews, they expressed willingness to support each other when floods strike,
to defend their properties and boundaries when threatened, to evict bad leaders, and
to choose new ones. Inside the slum, charismatic local leaders handle social order and
peace.
Leaders are ambiguous figures, sometimes people fear them, but their opinions are
listened to and respected. In an interview with the leader of a protestant church he said:
They [the leaders] rule right, everything is in order within this place. If they say
land is sold, it is sold, but if they don’t want it to happen, it isn’t sold (Rickmers
2014, 67).
They project power using violence and threats, but also the same people who sup-
port them are able to remove them. In order to remain in the site, periodically leaders
direct the community to protest, blocking important streets in the city demanding le-
gal recognition of land ownership. Leaders select the land for invasion, usually federal
government properties; they are in charge of bargaining with authorities over the legal
tenancy of the plots. Among many other things, leaders request political support and a
payment in order to have the right to own a plot from the slum dwellers. Squatters also
have to pay for security, due to criminal activity in the area or eviction threats from the
authorities.
So long as people in the slum are aiming for legal recognition of their land property
rights, or for resettlement in legal and safe areas, they are willing to withstand extreme
events such as floods, fires, and outbreaks of disease. Dwellers can use these conditions
as bargaining conditions with authorities.
If we had better houses we wouldn’t suffer, we had a plague of scorpions in the
first year; later fires from arsonists aiming to expel us from here, disease because of
unhealthy conditions, floods in different times and, here we are. We need support
from the authorities; we will remain here (Mr. R, dweller 50 years).
Squatters are more fearful of everyday social hazards not letting them maintain their
livelihoods than of seasonal floods or natural threats. Therefore, in case of resettlement,
the offered area must provide better conditions than the current ones, which do not
threaten the residents’ livelihoods.
After a big flood, the municipal president offered resettlement, he said that with
15 thousand pesos we could own our own plot, something similar to this, but a
property, some accepted and later returned (Mr. C, 37 years). . . . [the place) is far
from here, is near the airport, I prefer suffering from floods, I know the people here
and we give a hand to each other when we need it, I’ll lose my house, my friends,

219
 CITY & COMMUNITY

my job (Ms. G, 25 years). Here I know everybody, in that place I don’t know who
they are, I think is more dangerous than here because is far from here (Mrs. J, 23
years).
Even when structural circumstances influence people’s decisions on where to live, slum
dwellers base their decisions on grounded analysis. There are risks that squatters are
willing to face, both environmental and social; therefore, they are frequently developing
strategies and capacities to cope with the whole situation at the slum.

STRATEGIES FOR ENDURING IN THE SLUM: SOCIAL NETWORKS, TENSIONS,

AND DISCONNECTIONS

At a time when state handouts and influence are receding, people in the slum are actively
changing themselves from being only a source of votes for local politicians, to supporting
diverse religious, health, social, and cultural NGOs that provide dwellers with resources.
Their ability to continue to live in these illegal places depends on community action and
diverse external support.
The social fabric and networks of the slum are key elements to survival. Slum dwellers’
perceptions regarding the authorities’ neglect are close to reality. Their strategy to re-
duce a lack of access to resources is to engage with diverse civic, political, and religious
associations to strengthen their networks and influence.
This is a Christian church, I’m the pastor, I live here with my wife and children. We
are financially supported by an NGO, the president of the association is running for
city membership in the local congress. We provide of some medical care but we are
in search of spirituality, here extreme poverty reduces morality (Pastor, 65 years).
Internally, the community has reached a dynamic stability and their ties are stronger in-
side and outside, with different sorts of social agents. Clampet-Lundquist (2010) suggests
that social relations are key for stability and permanence since they strengthen physical
and social protection.
For example, one official who was interviewed suggested that people in the slum are
nonexistent for them (officials and authorities), until they protest with demonstrations
on the city streets, or they are victims of criminal violence or natural disasters. The official
suggests that slum dwellers are troublesome for governmental organizations, because of
the many political interests at play. There are also the problems of illegality and mafias;
not only criminal, but also political, which have influence on the slum.
Slum dwellers contest their invisibility to the authorities when it suits them, especially
after a disaster strikes or eviction threats, but they might keep quiet when they are blamed
for crimes, or they are receiving benefits because of their deprivation.
You see, this place is hidden, from the avenue you can’t see it. We need help from
the police, they don’t come here, neither ambulances nor the Red Cross. We had
a difficult time after the big flood when the government wanted to evict us, we
needed help from outside (Mr. P, 40 years). We face a bad reputation, like when a
few corpses were thrown at the edge of the slum, then we remained in silence, we
were so scared of the criminals and the city government, they are trying to find an
excuse to evict us (Mr. J, 28 years).

220
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

Their invisibility relates to spatial and social conditions. The former lake is at the bot-
tom of the basin; therefore, it is on a lower level than the rest of the site. These geo-
graphical conditions are an advantage for the squatters, when it is necessary to hide the
community from the rest of the neighborhoods, but can also work against them, as there
is a lack of support because nobody (the city, the governmental organizations, and their
neighbors) wants to notice the slum.
The slum’s landscape has changed over the time and dwellers acknowledge this. Pop-
ulation density is rapidly increasing, they have access to services they pay for, and the lo-
cation and betterment of the surrounding urban infrastructure are key elements for the
rising prices of the land. The area faces growing social stratification and changing land
prices driven by the construction of important infrastructure such as the city stadium, the
bus terminal, a sports recreation center, a huge city library, malls, and residential areas
for medium income people. The location of the slum is close to these facilities

People living here (in the slum) are in need, we are very poor. Those who want to
evict us want to take advantage, because they will make this land regular, the price
is going to rise and I’m sure they’ll build houses. It is very close to the city centre
(Pastor, 65 years).

As explained before, this area is shared with another community, the fraccionamiento.
For both groups at the flooding site, people’s determination to continue living in this
place is strengthened by access to city facilities and livelihoods. The proximity of “the
other” (slum–fraccionamiento), explains the tensions between them as well as the history
and politics of the site. The disconnections in policy design in urban, social, and environ-
mental fields, as well as the role of social agents, contribute to the social vulnerability to
disasters in the area.
Residents in the fraccionamiento consider that the illegal settlement is the cause of their
most significant problems: burglary and floods. Their discourse in relation to people
from the slum is tainted with negative stigmas. From the perspective of the fraccionamiento
inhabitants, the people of the slum are dirty and criminal. There is drug trade and abuse,
alcoholism and criminality. The fraccionamiento residents assume all the slum inhabitants
make their livelihoods from burglary, prostitution, drug trade, street vending, and car
theft. They also blame slum people for dumping rubbish in the canal, blocking it and
causing pollution and flooding (interviews with dwellers in fraccionamiento, 2013).
From the slum dwellers’ perspective, the fraccionamiento inhabitants instigated the re-
duction in the size of the canal, not the government or the company, creating more re-
sentment toward their neighbors. Both communities experiment conflict with the other,
feeling challenged and threatened. They do not know each other and they consider that
their neighbors lack respect for them.
The geographical site imposes a series of social and environmental challenges to the
slum dwellers and they are constantly developing strategies to cope with them. The lack of
services presents risks for the inhabitants in terms of health and well-being, and in terms
of security not only within the slum, but also in the neighborhoods around it. Dwellers
perceive the sociopolitical and economic challenges as the most difficult to cope with,
and they have to adjust to them.
The authorities threaten the slum dwellers with eviction from the site, arguing the
probability of harm from natural events. Nevertheless, the proximity of a gated private

221
 CITY & COMMUNITY

residential area makes them reluctant to accept relocation and at the same time justifies
their permanence in the slum.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed the sociocultural microcosm of a slum and its continuous process of
constitution as an urbanscape of disaster. We aim to understand the rationales of peo-
ple enduring in a risky area, threatened by sociopolitical and spatial circumstances, in
a Mexican peripheral urban area. In this case, interest groups avoid responsibility by
creating powerful discourses blaming nature, thereby denying the social aspects of dis-
asters and abdicating their responsibility to the people in these communities (Bicker-
staff et al. 2009). We found that people’s permanence on a hazardous site is strongly
related to sociopolitical factors, particularly access to the city benefits (Mackelbergh
2012; Portes and Roberts 2005). Moreover, in this case study, floods are bearable and
perceived by the people as being manageable, unlike the uncertainties of sociopolit-
ical conditions and structural processes that are imposed on them by the city’s rapid
expansion.
In this regard, literature on social vulnerability to disasters is oriented to reveal the pro-
found negative outcomes on a population living within the interface of sociopolitical and
natural worlds, and the different strategies people are developing to cope with disasters.
Literature in urban political ecology focuses on the spatial and social conditions imposed
by the fragmented urban model producing rapid expansion, and the strategies of peo-
ple dwelling in the remaining spaces (Cannon 2008; Murray 2009; Soja 2010). Without
diminishing the relevance of natural events, it is necessary to return to the theoretical
foundations of social vulnerability to disasters (Pelling 2001; Wisner et al. 2004), claim-
ing that disasters happen where there are people. Social vulnerability to experiencing the
negative impacts of natural events is related to socioeconomic and environmental factors
arising in a political space (Bankoff 2003; Wisner and Luce 1993).
The effects on land purchasing and access to services tainted by corruption, clientelism,
and other political factors help us to understand the context where illegal arrangements
act as a substitute for administrative regulations (Castree and Braun 2001; Pelling 2001,
2011; Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete 2011). Within the study of communities dwelling in
urbanscapes where the disaster process is constructed, we unexpectedly found that the
social, political, and economic hazards (including criminal hazards) imposed by the city
on the inhabitants are the most difficult to cope with and adapt to. Natural events such
as floods are a nuisance for the slum dwellers; nevertheless, people at the slum in this
study have dynamic strategies to mitigate the negative effects of natural disasters. They
transform every asset, social or natural, into an opportunity to help them remain in the
city, making use of the facilities that the city provides. They have multiple capacities (legal
and illegal) and want to integrate into the formal urban world. We agree with Stengers
(2005) on the relevance of providing a different perspective on a problem, to create
different strategies to address it. Giving voice to those generally silenced within power
struggles may be interpreted as a subjective account; this by itself could be a potential
limitation that could obscure the relevance of the study. Nowadays, more theories and
research methodologies are recognizing the legitimacy and relevance of lay and experi-
ential knowledge of those most affected, marginalized and politically voiceless.

222
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an in-depth understanding of the intersections of sociopolitical and

spatial processes and meanings that vulnerable people have to endure in a flood-prone
urbanscape. Within one slum, large power asymmetries are exhibited, and it was possi-
ble to observe the vigorous and complex social, environmental, and spatial composition
of the community. Dwellers are dynamically adjusting to the challenges of the site. We
can confirm the complementary nature of the two approaches presented earlier in this
article, in relation to the agency and drivers of marginalized people in the selection and
endurance on the dwelling site.
The expectation of slum dwellers of benefiting from the advantages of the city amelio-
rates the sufferings in the slum. Floods, pests, or health threats are not strong enough fac-
tors to discourage people in need of a permanent and stable place to live. Slum dwellers
try to find different strategies to remain in the city, such as property legalization based
on political mobilization and financial support from the government, resettlement, or at
least remaining in the slum until better conditions emerge. The essential driver for the
people to live in the slum is to achieve plot security rights, even if only suffering from
disasters brings the possibility of achieving their aim. A policy design based on the invis-
iblization of the most vulnerable people and risky sites strengthens the illegal processes
for land access and services, creating opportunities for the development of urbanscapes
of disaster.
From the governmental point of view, slum dwelling is considered a negative condition
in the urban context; nevertheless, in the absence of housing policies and an effective
land tenure policy oriented to reduce the impact of urban expansion, informality appears
to be a functional strategy for marginalized people. We also concluded that in a context
of excessive commodification, hazardous vacant land is profitable for private developers,
and for marginalized people in search of cheap and stable property close to the city
benefits.
We confirmed that sociopolitical and economic factors have a determinant impact on
low-income and marginalized populations, with a minimum or lack of formal property
rights. A relevant issue to discuss further is the role of administrative organizations in
making space and supporting informal agreements for land tenure in the urban context
in Latin America.

Notes
1 Regarding the slum concept, we are aware of the derogatory connotation that the concept implies; nev-
ertheless, we found it practical to describe the complex life of unplanned settlements, and to facilitate the
description and analysis of the place.
2 Based on Sánchez and Urquijo (2014), the Michoacán government offered land to real estate companies

and different federal and state institutions for housing provision. Large pieces of land were under the control
of land speculators and leaders of political parties and political organizations.
3 ISSSTE and INFONAVIT are governmental institutions providing housing benefits for regular workers.
4 Ejidois communal land individually used for agricultural and farming purposes; the individual ownership
of a communal plot is registered at Mexico’s National Agrarian Registry (Registro Agrario Nacional). Ejidatario is
the owner of a communal plot.

223
 CITY & COMMUNITY

5 INEGI is the Mexican agency oriented to collect census data, the monthly gross domestic product, consumer

trust surveys, employment and occupation statistics among other data

REFERENCES
Adger, W. Neil. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16(3):268–81.
Anacioa, Danesto B., Noba F. Hilvanoa, Isagani C. Buriasa, Christine Pinea, Gloria Luz M. Nelsonb, and Rico C.
Ancoga. 2016. “Dwelling Structures in a Flood-Prone Area in the Philippines: Sense of Place and its Functions
for Mitigating Flood Experiences.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 15:108–15.
Aragón-Durand, Fernando. 2007. “Urbanisation and Flood Vulnerability in the Peri-Urban Interface of Mexico
City.” Disasters 31(4):477–94.
Aryal, Komal Raj. 2014. “Disaster Vulnerability in Nepal.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 9:137–46.
Avila, Patricia, and Abelardo Perez. 2014. “Pobreza urbana y vulnerabilidad en la ciudad de Morelia.” In A. Vieyra
(ed.), En Urbanizacion, sociedad y ambiente. Mexico: UNAM.
Bankoff, Greg. 2003, “Vulnerability as a Measure of Change in Society.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters 21:5–30.
Bickerstaff, Karen, Harriet Bulkeley, and Joe Painter. 2009. “Justice, Nature and the City.” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 33(3):591–600.
Blaikie, Piers, and Brookfield, Harold (eds.). 1987. Land Degradation and Society. New York: Methuen.
Brenner, Neil, Peter Marcuse, and Margit Mayer. 2009. “Cities for People, Not for Profit.” City 13(2–3):176–84.
Brenner, Neil, and Nick Theodore (eds.). 2002. Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and
Western Europe, Vol 4. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Brighenti, Andrea Mubi (ed.). 2013. Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-between. New York, N.Y.:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Cannon, Terry. 2008. “Vulnerability, “innocent” Disasters and the Imperative of Cultural Understanding.” Dis-
aster Prevention and Management 17(3):350–57.
Castells, Manuel. 1977. “The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach.” Social Structure and Social
Change 1. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Castree, Noel, and Bruce Braun (eds.). 2001. Social Nature. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chambers, Robert. 1994. “Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and Paradigm.” World
Development 22(10):1437–54.
Chelleri, Lorenzo, Thorsten Schuetze, and Luca Salvati. 2015. “Integrating Resilience with Urban Sustainability
in Neglected Neighborhoods: Challenges and Opportunities of Transitioning to Decentralized Water Man-
agement in Mexico City.” Habitat International 48:122–30.
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan. 2010. “Everyone had your Back: Social Ties, Perceived Safety, and Public Housing
Relocation.” City & Community 9(1):87–108.
Cohen, Manuel Perló 2012. “15 Cities in Times of Economic Crisis: A Challenge for Local Governments.” In P.
Cooke, M. D. Parrilli, and J. L. Curbelo (eds.). Innovation, Global Change and Territorial Resilience. Northamp-
ton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Collins, Timothy W. 2009. “The Production of Unequal Risk in Hazardscapes: An Explanatory Frame Applied
to Disaster at the US–Mexico Border.” Geoforum 40(4):589–601.
Connolly, Patricia. 2009. “Observing the Evolution of Irregular Settlements: Mexico City’s Colonias Populares,
1990 to 2005.” International Development Planning Review 31(1):1–35.
Creswell, John. W. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cresswell, Tim. 2013. Place: A Short Introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Cutter, Susan L., Bryan J. Boruff, and W. Lynn Shirley. 2003. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Social Science Quarterly 84(2):242–61.
Cutter, Susan L., and Christina Finch. 2008. “Temporal and Spatial Changes in Social Vulnerability to Natural
Hazards.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(7):2301–306.
Davis, Mike. 2004. Planet of Slums: Urban Involution and the Informal Proletariat. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
De La Rosa, Mario, Rosa Babino, Adelaida Rosario, Natalia Valiente Martinez, Lubna Aijaz. 2012. “Challenges
and Strategies in Recruiting, Interviewing, and Retaining Recent Latino Immigrants in Substance Abuse and
HIV Epidemiologic Studies.” The American Journal on Addictions 21(1):11–22.

224
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eakin, Hallie, Amy M. Lerner, and Felipe Murtinho. 2010. “Adaptive Capacity in Evolving Peri-Urban Spaces:
Responses to Flood Risk in the Upper Lerma River Valley, Mexico.” Global Environmental Change 20(1):14–22.
Elkind, Sarah S. 2006. “Environmental Inequality and the Urbanization of West Coast Watersheds.” Pacific His-
torical Review 75(1):53–61.
Engle, Nathan L. 2011. “Adaptive Capacity and Its Assessment.” Global Environmental Change 21(2):647–56.
Few, Roger, Zoe Scott, Kelly Wooster, Mireille Flores Avila, and Marcela Tarazona. 2016. “Strengthening Ca-
pacities for Disaster Risk Management II: Lessons for Effective Support.” International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction 20:154–62.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):219–45.
Frerks, Georg, Jeroen Warner, and Bart Weijs. 2011. “The Politics of Vulnerability and Resilience.” Ambiente &
Sociedade 14(2):105–22.
Gaillard, Jean Claude. 2010, “Vulnerability, Capacity and Resilience: Perspectives for Climate and Development
Policy.” Journal of International Development 22(2):218–32.
Goodman, Leo A. 2011. “Comment: On Respondent-Driven Sampling and Snowball Sampling in Hard-to-Reach
Populations and Snowball Sampling Not in Hard-to-Reach Populations.” Sociological Methodology 41(1):347–
53.
Graham, Stephen. 1998. “The End of Geography or the Explosion of Place? Conceptualizing Space, Place and
Information Technology.” Progress in Human Geography 22(2):165–85.
Guha-Sapir, Debarati, and Philippe Hoyois. 2013. Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012: The Numbers and Trends.
Brussels: CRED.
Güiza, Frida, Simmons Peter, Burgess Jacqueline, and McCall Michael Keith. (2016). Chronic institutional fail-
ure and enhanced vulnerability to flash-floods in the Cuenca Altadel Rı́o Lerma, Mexico. Disasters 40(1):
112–33.
Güiza, Frida, and Michael K. McCall. 2017. El enfoque crı́tico del análisis geoespacial. Deconstruyendo la vul-
nerabilidad en una comunidad afectada por inundaciones en la ciudad de Morelia. En Análisis Geoespacial en
los Estudios Urbanos, Ley G. Judith y Mas Jean F. Coord. Mexico, SELPER-CIGA UNAM Ed. (in press).
Harvey, David. 2010. Social Justice and the City (Vol. 1). Atlanta: University of Georgia Press.
Hewitt, Kenneth. 1998. Excluded Perspectives in the Social Construction of Disaster. London: Routledge.
Ibarra, David. 2012. Mercado de Trabajo y Protección Social con Referencia Especial a Mexico. Mexico: CEPAL.
Imai, Heide. 2013. “The Liminal Nature of Alleyways: Understanding the Alleyway as a ‘Boundary’ between Past
and Present.” Cities 34:58–66.
INEGI. 2010. National Census. Mexico.
IPCC, 2012. Summary for Policymakers. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation. Field, Christopher B., Vicente Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D.
Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M. Midgley (eds.). A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–19.
Khan, Shabana. 2012. “Disasters: Contributions of Hazardscape and Gaps in Response Practices.” Natural Haz-
ards and Earth System Science 12(12):3775–87.
Kuhlicke, Christian, and Annett Steinführer. 2010. “Social Capacity Building for Natural Hazards.” A Conceptual
Frame. CapHaz-Net WP1 Report. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig.
Maeckelbergh, Marianne. 2012. “Mobilizing to Stay Put: Housing Struggles in New York City.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(4):655–73.
Massey, Doreen. 2005. For Space. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
———. 2013. World City. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Mitchell, Don, and Nik Heynen. 2009. “The Geography of Survival and the Right to the City: Speculations on
Surveillance, Legal Innovation, and the Criminalization of Intervention.” Urban Geography 30(6):611–32.
Müller-Mahn, Detlef (ed.). 2012. The Spatial Dimension of Risk: How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes.
London and New York: Routledge.
Murray, Martin J. 2009. “Fire and Ice: Unnatural Disasters and the Disposable Urban Poor in Post-Apartheid
Johannesburg.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(1):165–92.
Mustafa, Daanish. 2003. “Reinforcing Vulnerability? Disaster Relief, Recovery, and Response to the 2001 Flood
in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.” Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 5(3):71–82.

225
 CITY & COMMUNITY

———. 2013. Water Resource Management in a Vulnerable World: The Hydro-hazardscapes of Climate Change. London:
Philip Wilson Publishers.
O’Brien, Karen, Siri Eriksen, Lynn P. Nygaard, and Ane Schjolden. 2007. “Why Different Interpretations of
Vulnerability Matter in Climate Change Discourses.” Climate Policy 7(1):73–88.
OECED. 2014. OECD Employment Outlook. OECD. e-version at http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-
Management/oecd/employment/oecd-employment-outlook-2014 empl outlook-2014-en#page1, last visit
May 2017.
Pelling, Mark. 2001. “Natural Disasters?” In N. Castree and B. Braun (eds.), Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and
Politics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
———. 2003a. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Earthscan.
———. 2003b. “Paradigms of Risk.” In M. Pelling (ed.), Natural Disaster and Development in a Globalizing World,
Vol. 1. London: Routledge.
———. 2011. “The Vulnerability of Cities to Disasters and Climate Change: A Conceptual Framework.” In Coping
with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security. Medford, MA: Springer.
Pelling, Mark, and David Manuel-Navarrete. 2011b. “From Resilience to Transformation: The Adaptive Cycle in
Two Mexican Urban Centers.” Ecology and Society 16(2):11.
Portes, Alejandro, and Bryan R. Roberts. 2005. “The Free-Market City: Latin American Urbanization
in the Years of the Neoliberal Experiment.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):
43–82.
Ragin, Charles C. 2013. “New Directions in the Logic of Social Inquiry.” Political Research Quarterly 66(1):171–74.
Raya, Ernesto. 2012. Existen 222 Colonias Irregulars en Morelia, Cambio de Michoacan, accessed 2 March 2015.
http://cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/vernota.php?id=171947
Rickmers, Arne. 2014. “Conditions and Applicability of VGI Tools in Poor Urban Areas—Coping With Risks in
the Midsized City of Morelia, Mexico.” Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Masterarbeit.
Rodgers, Dennis, Jo Beall, and Ravi Kanbur. 2011. “Latin American Urban Development into the Twenty-
First Century: Towards a Renewed Perspective on the City.” European Journal of Development Research 23(4):
550–68.
Rodman, Margaret C. 1992. “Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality.” American Anthropologist
94(3):640–56.
Romero-Lankao, Patricia, Sara Hughes, Hua Qin, Jorgelina Hardoy, Angélica Rosas-Huerta, Roxana Borquez,
and Andrea Lampis. 2014. “Scale, Urban Risk and Adaptation Capacity in Neighborhoods of Latin American
Cities.” Habitat International 42:224–35.
Roy, Manoj, Sally Cawood, Michaela Hordijk, and David Hulme (eds.). 2016. Urban Poverty and Climate Change:
Life in the Slums of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.
Rubin, Oliver. 2014. “Social Vulnerability to Climate-Induced Natural Disasters: Cross-Provincial Evidence from
Vietnam.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 55(1):67–80.
Rubin, Oliver, and Tine Rossing. 2012. “National and Local Vulnerability to Climate-Related Disasters in Latin
America: The Role of Social Asset-Based Adaptation.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 31(1):19–35.
Sanchez, Hector y Urquijo Pedro. 2014. La expansión urbana en el suroriente de Morelia. Una revisión histórico
ambiental 1885–2010. En Vieyra Antonio coord. Urbanización, sociedad y Ambiente. Experiencias en ciudades
medias. UNAM.
Sánchez Rincón, Rosa Marı́a. 2011. 400 familias invaden La Presa de los Reyes, La Prensa, Organización Edito-
rial Mexicana, accessed 6 March 2015. http://www.oem.com.mx/laprensa/notas/n2160731.htm
Satterthwaite, David, and Diana Mitlin (eds.). 2013. Empowering Squatter Citizen: Local Government, Civil Society
and Urban Poverty Reduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Satterthwaite, David, and Cecilia Tacoli. 2003. The Urban Part of Rural Development: The Role of Small and Interme-
diate Urban Centers in Rural and Regional Development and Poverty Reduction, Vol. 9. London: IIED.
Sen, Amartya. 1981. “Ingredients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Entitlements.” The Quarterly Journal Of
Economics, 96(3):433–64.
Smith, Neil. 2008. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens Georgia: University of
Georgia Press.
Soja, Edward W. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “The Cosmopolitical Proposal.” In B. Latour and P. Weibel (eds.), Making Things Public,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Swyngedouw, Edward, and Maria Kaı̈ka. 2003. “The Making of ‘Glocal’ Urban Modernities.” City 7(1):5–21.
UN-Habitat. 2003. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. London: Earthscan.

226
 URBANSCAPES OF DISASTER

Wacquant, Loı̈c. 2008. “Relocating Gentrification: The Working Class, Science and the State in Recent Ur-
ban Research.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(1):198–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2427.2008.00774.x
Walker, Gordon P., and Harriet Bulkeley. 2006. “Geographies of Environmental Justice.” Geoforum 37(5):655–59.
Walker, Peter A. 2005. “Political Ecology: Where is the Ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 29(1):73–82.
Watts, Michael J., and Hans G. Bohle. 1993. “Hunger, Famine and the Space of Vulnerability.” GeoJournal
30(2):117–25.
Weaver, Thomas, James B. Greenberg, William L. Alexander, and Anne Browning-Aiken. 2012. Neoliberalism and
Commodity Production in Mexico. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
Wisner, Ben, and Henry R. Luce. 1993. “Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power and Daily Life.” GeoJournal
30(2):127–40.
Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Iann Davis. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability
and Disasters. London: Routledge.

227