Abstract
Disaster researchers devote considerable attention to concept formation in an attempt to steer DRR terminology towards greater definitional coherence. Many researchers and policy makers frequently turn to UNISDR and their oft-cited terminology guide to ensure that concepts are employed consistently between agencies and research projects. An update to this guide introduced in 2017 introduced a range of new terms while removing and redefining others that featured in the 2009 edition of the guide. Taking a comparative look at the changes introduced, this paper sets out to reflect on the direction in which the conceptual landscape in the DRR field is headed. Whether the sum of the terminological updates made by the open ended intergovernmental expert working group is positive or negative will probably depend on the stakeholder group in question. For researchers in particular, some of the new definitions should be welcomed as they are more precise and allow for better discrimination. However, as yet other definitions are more ambiguous, some researchers may prefer definitions from the 2009 guide, definitions from elsewhere, or their own stipulated definitions that suit their research needs.
Highlights
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) research is increasingly developing its own technical vocabulary as part of efforts to establish the field as a distinct profession and academic discipline [1,2,3]
An essential but often overlooked aspect of this process has been the way in which DRR terminology has evolved over time as part of this maturation process
Because the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) terminology guide arguably plays a central role in DRR research and the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [29], this paper is inspired by a desire for more critical discussions on the nature of individual cases of definitional change, and on the overall direction and patterns of such changes
Summary
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) research is increasingly developing its own technical vocabulary as part of efforts to establish the field as a distinct profession and academic discipline [1,2,3]. Whereas some conceptual shifts may be traced to new empirical insights, theoretical problematisation, political changes, or feedback from practitioners or policy makers, others may, in hindsight, appear to have been unproductive, or what Outhwaite (1983: 26) referred to as ‘verbal innovations of a very fast rate of obsolescence’ An example of the former is the realisation that the term ‘natural disaster’ is, a misnomer, as disasters are more a product of historical patterns of vulnerability creation rather than the natural phenomena (hazards) that seemingly trigger them Because the UNISDR terminology guide arguably plays a central role in DRR research and the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [29], this paper is inspired by a desire for more critical discussions on the nature of individual cases of definitional change, and on the overall direction and patterns of such changes. Section three concludes the paper by placing these changes within the broader context of DRR research and practice by reflecting on patterns, directions, and trends in definitional changes, while reflecting on a set of potential practical and political implications of the terminological updates
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
