Non Structural Hazard Mitigation

3.0 Introduction
The review guides to an argument of recent unique understandings about the role of both human and non-human actors in any process. Various academics and times past have documented time and again that existing hazard mitigation measures unaided are insufficient (De Silva 1981; Mileti, 1999; UNISDR2007; Peacock et al., 2009).
3.2 Hazard Mitigation Strategies known approaches
It is implicit that hazards are impractical to predict (Neisser2014). Many scholars believe that hazard can be prevented based on how people plan their communities in the bid to accomplish the purpose of mitigation (Milet 1999; Madamombe 2004). The common non-structural hazard mitigation embraces the following:
3.2.1 Open system approach
The Open systems

Although widely adopted by NGOs, the sustainable livelihoods framework has received criticisms (Ncube-Phiri et al., 2014). These include its, little attention at times too complex social-ecological consequences of adaptive livelihood (Musarurwa and Lunga 2012).
3.3 Actor Network Theory and Hazard mitigation
The literature reviewed points that few studies have adequately addressed the complex roles of both nature and society in promoting a better understanding of the concept hazard mitigation (Wessing 1988). ANT highlights how human and non-human agencies (actors) stimulate the process, guide and edge action of human users (Ernstson 2008).
1.3.1 Power
According to ANT, an actor does not continue to exist merely as an entity, but rather as a coalition of heterogeneous essentials that arrange into a network (Latour 2005). Within such a network, it is possible to analyse power relations (Ernstson 2008). The point is that no actor is any more important than another.
1.3.2

Actors among them are those: (1) that are not identified by the objectives of the network, (2) who might be resistant; (3) who are disruptive; and (4) that exercise control on behalf of the controlling actor (Callon 1986; González 2013).
1.3.5 Criticism of Actor Network Theory
Actor-Network Theory is challenged in its assignment of nonhuman actors as important facilitators in different processes by (Latour 1997; Gad and Bruun Jensen 2010). The question on power has also been questioned within a network. The theory has also been criticised for being ‘everything’ since one cannot tell whether it is a theory or an approach (Spicer 2008). Despite all of the criticism, ANT is recognised as a powerful tool and has been used by many researchers (Law 1992; Chua 1995; Law 2008).
1.4 Ziziphus mauritiana (or