This chapter focuses on how urban development relates to riverine flood risk. It begins with an overview of flooding and related riverine processes (e.g., sediment transport, floodplain formation, channel migration). It then presents the urban development and flood histories of Vienna (Austria) on the Danube and Calgary (Canada) on the Bow River, including the latter’s 2013 flood disaster. The cases are assessed and compared using the Urban Risk Dynamics framework. Vienna and Calgary demonstrate several key themes, including the “levee effect.” Each city’s relationship with the river has been one of technological control, intensifying over time. During periods of major population growth, flood protection investments are made that allow the city to expand into hazard lands. Once set in motion, the reliance on technology for flood protection becomes self-reinforcing, difficult to reverse as more of the city comes to depend on it. Over time, there is a loss of collective memory about flood risk. The role of government becomes increasingly important. Disaster events lead to learning and adaptation but do not fundamentally alter processes of urban development that give rise to risk.

In 1812, the courts were again thrust into the center of international conflict. Decades of resentment over British domination prompted the United States to embark upon what many Americans thought of as the nation’s “second war for independence.” It was one the United States was unprepared to fight. Longstanding distrust of permanent military establishments left the nation unable to counter British armed might, especially on the water. Privateers were a potential solution, but Congress and the Madison administration were unequal to the task of regulating the United States’ private navy. Responsibility fell to the judiciary, even though Jeffersonians had spent the previous decade attacking the courts for their supposed undermining of republican principles. As the revolutionary generation had learned, judicial enforcement of the laws of maritime war was critical to maintaining the nation’s international credibility. And the courts’ disposition of ships and goods captured by American privateers kept the nation’s war machine running. By marrying government authority to private enterprise, judges made it possible for the United States to reassert its standing as a sovereign and independent nation.

1. How can the social work profession in Tanzania continue to improve the well-being of people and promote social justice? 2.There is a need to encourage and support social workers on several levels in Tanzania. What issues of human rights are related to this task? 3. How can social workers living outside Tanzania support colleagues working in the region?

In the nineteenth century, playwrights began to consider speech not only as a prelude to action and conflict but to exploit its potential as a site of action and conflict. The result was the burgeoning of a more discursive and dialectical theatre that directly engaged with social, political, and philosophical debates, leading to the development of such forms as the problem play, the discussion play, and the play of ideas. While these genres have often been considered the conventional types of realist theatre against which other forms of modernism reacted, this chapter argues that they were in fact significant innovations that responded to crises of modernity. In so doing, the chapter traces their circulation as they were adopted and adapted in cultures beyond their origins in Europe.

1. How can we create brave spaces for students in social work? 2. How can we use stories in the classroom? 3. How can brave spaces be made transferable to social work practice?

1. In what way can personal stories from practitioners in social work bring in something new in education? 2. What issues connected to the joy of practising social work can be transferred to social work education? 3. How can stories from practitioners be told to service users, to become relational bridges that connect people?

In 1788, John Marshall made a prediction that was more prescient than he realized: The federal courts the new Constitution called for would be “the means of preventing disputes with foreign nations.” Marshall could not have known it, but for the next several decades international disputes over persons, ships, and goods caught up in maritime war would wash onto American shores, and into federal courtrooms. The courts’ decisions were essential to the United States’ emergence as a sovereign and independent nation. But preoccupation with Marshall’s famous constitutional rulings has obscured this story of judicial nation-building at sea. And while we have grown accustomed to the idea that “foreign affairs” are the domain of the legislative and executive branches, the political leaders who first tried to solve the puzzle of constitutional governance did not hew to such rigid notions of institutional responsibility. If Marshall’s legacy is the establishment of both judicial and national authority, this book shows that he and his contemporaries did so, first and foremost, at sea.

Joseph Story thought that the United States needed more than courts to vindicate its independence in the War of 1812. The youngest justice on the Supreme Court also believed that the nation needed legal doctrines that would support its aspirations to global power. For decades, American policymakers – and especially the Court under John Marshall – had defended the rights of neutral nations to trade peaceably in wartime. That approach made sense when a militarily weak but commercially vigorous United States sought to profit from trade with European powers embroiled in conflict. But now that the United States itself was at war, Story envisioned a different national future, in which a robust military and strong central government were the foundation of American sovereignty. The split that emerged on the Court over neutral and belligerent rights reflected a generational divide over how to preserve and extend American independence, and it fractured the Marshall Court’s prior unanimity. Despite Marshall’s resistance, Story persuaded his colleagues to adopt doctrines that favored the rights of nations at war, pushing the courts – and the country – to assume a more assertive presence at sea.