Abstract
Integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) is widely recognized as a solution for reducing the risk and impacts of disasters. However, successful integration seems elusive, and the two goals continue to function in isolation and in parallel. This article provides empirical insights into the perceived effects of separating government institutions for DRR and CCA within the Southern African Development Community member states. A mixed method research design was applied to the study. A total of 40 respondents from Botswana, Eswatini (until April 2018 Swaziland), Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe participated in face-to-face interviews or an online survey. Five major effects of separating the organizations for DRR and CCA that impede efforts to reduce disaster risk coherently were identified: duplication of services, polarization of interventions, incoherent policies, competition for the same resources, and territorial contests. Given the continued fragmentation of institutions for DRR and CCA, highlighting these effects is important to emphasize the need for integrated approaches towards the reduction of disaster risk.
Highlights
Over the last two decades, the disaster risk literature has emphasized an increasing need for integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA)
This study was conducted within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (Fig. 1), an organization comprising 16 member states for the purpose of the development of the southern African region (Shams 2003)
The study draws on a range of data collection techniques, including a thorough and comprehensive literature review relating to DRR and CCA in general and in the SADC member states key informant interviews, and an online survey
Summary
Over the last two decades, the disaster risk literature has emphasized an increasing need for integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). Pilli-Sihvola and Vaatainen-Chimpuku (2016) indicated that DRR and CCA share many similar objectives as they both address exposure and underlying vulnerability, and aim at enhancing the resilience of affected people, assets, and ecosystems In their definition of adaptation, the UNISDR (2009) acknowledged that many DRR measures can directly contribute to better adaptation because by definition, DRR accounts for all drivers of hazards and vulnerabilities including climate change (Kelman et al 2016). Nalau et al (2015) argued that the integration of DRR and CCA can result in practical benefits such as the rational use of resources, increased access to a broader range of expertise, sharing the growing international funding for adaptation, and embedding a forward thinking approach in DRR by considering longer time frames. In the following we briefly introduce the research methodology used in the study and present and discuss the findings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
