Safe place or 'catastrophic society'? Perspectives on hazards and disasters in Canada

The essay introduces public risk and destructive events in Canada, their conceptual and policy implications. The discussion is developed in four main steps. First, some widely held, if contradictory perceptions of public security ave identified. A relatively high level of personal safety for most Canadians is attributed to large government and private investments. But these have not prevented recurring disasters, nor singular vulnerability for certain groups and parts of the country; Meanwhile, some novel dangers of modern living compromise the safety of all Canadians. The second section examines evidence of losses from a broad range of hazards, and related risk-averting investments. The national geography of dangers is shown to have been transformed and reorganized by post-World War ii developments. Losses, even from natural hazards, are identified with common, nationwide behaviours and infrastructure, especially motorised mobility and consumer products. A fourth section leaks at some appropriate conceptual frameworks. Charles Perrow's idea of 'organizational society' is considered, and Ulrich Beck's of 'risk society', including his view that late modern societies shift towards a 'catastrophic' condition. In general, the Canadian scene and these ideas support a human ecological view of modernity but challenge an agent-specific and extreme event approach that had prevailed in hazards geography 'Manufactured' vulnerability is a neglected but decisive element. The social space of risks is shown to be recast around changing priorities for, and social justice in, public security and emerging crises of personal safety Risk aversion turns upon questions of the acceptability of risks, acceptance for and by whom, and how it is achieved. For academic work, this suggests a reexamination of risk knowledge and its 'social construction'.