Field Of Disaster Risk Reduction Research Articles

Stanovlenie i razvitie sotrudnichestva Rossiyskoy Federacii i OON v sfere snizheniya riska bedstviy (2000-2015 gg.)

Stanovlenie i razvitie sotrudnichestva Rossiyskoy Federacii i OON v sfere snizheniya riska bedstviy (2000-2015 gg.)

Operationalizing resilience: A content analysis of flood disaster planning in two coastal cities in Central Java, Indonesia

Global concern has sought to connect resilience with the field of disaster risk reduction, which was prominent in the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) and updated in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). However, defining disaster risk reduction and resilience as policy goals geared towards reducing vulnerability and minimizing risk requires a closer examination. This research examines operationalization of resilience in programs and budgets of development plans in Indonesian cities. This paper investigates the documentation of planning policies in the Indonesian context, examining National to local level efforts. The research specifically analyzes case studies at two cities, Semarang and Tegal, and highlights how these sites have accommodated the term resilience to address flooding. The scope of the research focuses on flooding as it is the most commonly experienced hazard across Indonesia. Content analysis is applied to assess identified planning documents. The content analysis is further verified through focus group discussions among key stakeholders. Findings indicate that there are fourteen areas of plans/programs in terms of reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, improved management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness to address flooding in the two selected cities. The elaboration of resilience-related programmes provides important lessons, namely that operationalizing resilience should be integrative and comprehensive, and require both short-term actionable initiative(s) and long-term transformative frameworks.

OpenStreetMap Infrastructure Mapping and Its Usage on Flood Impact Assessment Using InaSAFE in Surabaya

OpenStreetMap has become one of the open data sources used for humanitarian purpose in the last decade. This paper focus on mapping process and flood impact assessment using InaSAFE on exposure data in Surabaya provided by OSM. Key infrastructure mapping by of one of the OSM groups HOT ID in Surabaya has provided various lessons and benefits for Surabaya. These lessons learned are very useful to improve the quality of OSM infrastructure data intrinsic quality and data management, particularly data that related to key and vulnerable infrastructure in the field of disaster risk reduction

Should all disaster risks be reduced? A perspective from the systems concept of the edge of chaos

ABSTRACTThe field of disaster risk reduction (DRR) has risen to prominence since the declaration of the International Decade of Disaster Risk Reduction between 1990 and 2000. This decade provided the impetus for a change from the predominant paradigm of disaster response to that of disaster risk reduction as a means of addressing the underlying drivers that lead to disasters. In an effort to promote risk reduction, the UNISDR (the principal agency for disaster risk reduction within the UN structure) formulated policies and strategies to provide both conceptual and practical guidance as to how risk should be reduced. However noble the efforts, this paper contends that the current approach to and understanding of risk within the international community might not be cognisant of complex adaptive systems (CAS) concepts such as the edge of chaos. Specifically, this concept argues that risk (or chaos) within a system is actually a fundamental requirement to the functioning of all resilient socio-ecological systems. Therefore, the reduction of risk without an understanding of the role of that risk within the larger socio-ecological system might actually end up reducing the system’s overall level of disaster resilience. This paper aims to explore the concept of edge of chaos through a literature review of key theoretical works on the topic, followed by a discussion on its implications for the predominant paradigm of risk reduction within disaster risk management policy and practice.

Children in Disaster Risk Reduction in Portugal: Policies, Education, and (Non) Participation

International agencies and scientific research have been calling for the inclusion of children in disaster preparedness and risk reduction, to hear their voices in order to address their specific needs and vulnerabilities and harness their capabilities in terms of building community resilience. This article assesses the roles ascribed to children in policy and education for disaster risk reduction in Portugal. The approach is based on a scoping methodology that encompasses document analysis and interviews with national and local stakeholders and policymakers in the disaster risk reduction field. The research is carried out within the scope of a European funded project, CUIDAR Cultures of Disaster Resilience among Children and Young People. More specifically, the article provides an overview of the discourses on the roles ascribed to children in urban disaster risk reduction (DRR). The authors maintain that although children are often taken as a target group in urban disaster prevention and management, they are seldom considered in terms of active participation in disaster risk reduction programs in the Portuguese context. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that there is a growing awareness of the relevance of active participation by children in order to create successful DRR.

Finding Agency in Adversity: Applying the Refugee Convention in the Context of Disasters and Climate Change

This article argues that, as individuals are already applying for refugee status in the context of disasters and climate change, a robust understanding of why disasters happen and how different groups are affected, combined with a principled methodology for determining such claims, are critical aspects of the anxious scrutiny that each claim should receive. The limitations of the “hazards” paradigm, which is shown to be dominant in international refugee law, are highlighted. Adopting the “social” paradigm developed within the field of disaster risk reduction, the argument is advanced that an understanding of disasters as social phenomena within which existing patterns of discrimination contribute to differential impacts, provides a sharper lens with which to consider eligibility for refugee status. The article argues that recent case-law from the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal reflects an awareness of the social paradigm, and the methodology for determining such claims is described and largely endorsed. It concludes by identifying sources of country of origin information that can help to address some of the evidentiary challenges claimants may face, and argues that the risk assessment under refugee law is more generous than the “immediacy” requirement identified by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal in relation to complementary protection claims.

Adapting and Reacting to Measure an Extreme Event: A Methodology to Measure Disaster Community Resilience

The 2005 UN Hyogo Declaration introduced the concept of resilience in the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR) unifying environmental sustainability and civil protection concepts. Crucial in this new approach is the development of a new quantitative adaptive strategy, which starting from the risk analysis of a territory, aims at strengthening a symbiotic and adaptive relationship between human communities and their surrounds. This paradigmatic shift needs new analytical and measuring tools in order to describe, evaluate and develop sustainable DRR strategies. Traditional cartographic tools, such as hazard, vulnerability, or risk maps, cannot appropriately represent the overall resilience of a territory (inclusive of its social and environmental dimensions). This article proposes a methodological approach to map such community resilience by assessing energy and resource consumption to maintain the stability of the social-ecological system. Starting from the identification of the complex relations between socioeconomic processes and disasters, this method computes a resilience score or index, integrating hazard and vulnerability factors with emergency management actions (e.g. community planning, mitigation and disaster response capabilities). Such index will enable, inter-alia, the drawing of maps of resilience, necessary to planners and policy makers to assess the effects and sustainability of different DRR strategies and policies.

A review of multivariate social vulnerability methodologies: a case study of the River Parrett catchment, UK

Abstract. In the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR), there exists a proliferation of research into different ways to measure, represent, and ultimately quantify a population's differential social vulnerability to natural hazards. Empirical decisions such as the choice of source data, variable selection, and weighting methodology can lead to large differences in the classification and understanding of the "at risk" population. This study demonstrates how three different quantitative methodologies (based on Cutter et al., 2003; Rygel et al., 2006; Willis et al., 2010) applied to the same England and Wales 2011 census data variables in the geographical setting of the 2013/2014 floods of the River Parrett catchment, UK, lead to notable differences in vulnerability classification. Both the quantification of multivariate census data and resultant spatial patterns of vulnerability are shown to be highly sensitive to the weighting techniques employed in each method. The findings of such research highlight the complexity of quantifying social vulnerability to natural hazards as well as the large uncertainty around communicating such findings to stakeholders in flood risk management and DRR practitioners.

Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: An African perspective.

Indigenous knowledge is valuable knowledge that has helped local communities all over the world survive for generations. This knowledge originates from the interaction between members of the community and the environment in which they live. Although much has been written about indigenous knowledge, its documentation in the area of disaster risk reduction and climate change in Africa has been very limited. The wealth of this knowledge has not been well-recognised in the disaster risk reduction field, as policy-makers still rely on mitigation strategies based on scientific knowledge. Colonialism and lack of proper documentation of indigenous knowledge are some of the contributing factors to this. Ignoring the importance of understanding adaptive strategies of the local people has led to failed projects. Understanding how local people in Africa have managed to survive and adapt for generations, before the arrival of Western education, may be the key to developing sustainable policies to mitigate future challenges. Literature used in this article, obtained from the books, papers and publications of various experts in the fields of disaster risk reduction, climate change, indigenous knowledge and adaptation, highlight the need for more interest to be shown in indigenous knowledge, especially in the developing country context. This would lead to better strategies which originate from the community level but would aim for overall sustainable development in Africa.

The game changes: “Disaster Prevention and Management” after a quarter of a century

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to mark the 25th anniversary of the founding ofDisaster Prevention and Management. It reviews the modern-day challenges facing researchers, scholars and practitioners who work in the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR).Design/methodology/approach– The paper reviews key issues in DRR, including the relationship between capital and labour and its influence on vulnerability, the role of human mobility and migration in disaster vulnerability and the definition of welfare.Findings– There is a need for a major revision in the body of disaster theory so that it can take account dynamic changes in the modern world. In the future, climate change and migration may radically alter the bases of vulnerability, risk and impact. The ways in which this will occur are not yet clear, but indications can be gained from current trends and the state of foment in which the world presently exists.Research limitations/implications– Prediction of future developments is always subject to the caveat that unexpected influences may change the expected course of events. However, the authors need to anticipate developments in order to produce theory, policies and practical solutions that are well-thought-out and viable.Practical implications– Disaster theory must adapt to new conditions if it is to remain the “road-map” that clarifies complex realities and enables disasters to be managed and abated.Social implications– Huge changes in the stability, expectations and vulnerabilities of populations are underway. These need to be understood much more fully in terms of their ability to influence disaster risks and impacts.Originality/value– Presently, few analyses of the dynamism of global society are able to present a clear picture of the future needs of theory generation, scholarship and research.

Correction: International cooperation in the field of disaster risk reduction (2015, vol.6, no.1, pp.52)

Propustom autora, iz teksta Milosavljević, B., Međunarodna saradnja u oblasti smanjenja rizika katastrofa, koji je objavljen u br. 1/2015 Pravnih zapisa, izostavljena je sledeća napomena: 'Ovaj članak nastao je u okviru projekta Post Floods Early Recovery in Serbia, koji je finansirao UNDP i koji se sprovodi u saradnji sa Kancelarijom Vlade za obnovu poplavljenih područja i Ministarstva za državnu upravu i lokalnu samoupravu.'.

Preface: Building social capacities for natural hazards: an emerging field for research and practice in Europe

“Capacities” have gained considerable attention in the field of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation; this at least is the impression that one gets when reading through scientific publications published over the past few years. The notion of “capacity” is considered as being integral to the concept of vulnerability, i.e. the function of exposure, susceptibility, coping and/or adaptive capacity (Fuchs et al., 2011); it is fundamental to the idea of resilience and its emphasis on how a system is able to absorb shocks and disturbances (Lorenz, 2013) and also central to the consequences of climate change (IPCC, 2007). But the idea of capacities has also gained prominence on the policy level. The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (UN-ISDR, 2005), for instance, promotes local-level disaster reduction and acknowledges that for such a shift to take place, capacity building efforts are required (UN-ISDR, 2005). The Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative (CDRI) also launched a so-called capacity-building programme in a number of Asian cities in order to enhance the awareness and communication skills of local decision makers with regard to climate-related risks in their cities (CDRI, 2010). More recently, while the notion of “capacity” is increasingly present, its actual meaning is often taken for granted and, thus, rarely defined. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD-DAC) (2006), capacity can be generally defined as “the ability of people, organisations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (Baser and Morgan, 2008, p. 22). A broader search, particularly in development and hazard research, reveals that the term is widely used to encapsulate a broad set of resources (including abilities, skills, financial means, competences, and social relations) of an individual or a social entity (such as a group, a local community or even an entire society) including capacities that are either actually available or provide a potential capacity (i.e. to something latent). Moreover, “capacity” always refers to the existence of something positive. Therefore a lack of capacities implies some sort of deficit. A deficit in capacities thus requires capacity building. Although the explicit term “social capacity building” is only sparsely used, all definitions and approaches basically relate to a social endeavour based on learning, increasing abilities and resources as well as improving interactions between different actors. This special issue entitled “Building social capacities for natural hazards: an emerging field for research and practice in Europe” offers a forum to different views and conceptualizations dealing with capacities and their development. By doing so, this special issue structures this new and interdisciplinary topic by identifying different types of capacities, different approaches to building and enhancing capacities as well as good practices from across Europe. The single papers come from and reflect a broad range of research domains centring on more established concepts in risk and hazard research such as risk governance, risk perception, social vulnerability, or risk communication. As the single contributions show, in all of these different strands of research and established fields of policy different conceptualizations of social capacities and how to enhance and develop them exist. This special issue intends to identify unifying topics and general

The World Risk Index – An Approach to Assess Risk and Vulnerability on a Global Scale

The demand for information and understanding on natural hazard related risk on a global scale has grown in recent years. Such information is crucial for stakeholders who are working in the field of disaster risk reduction, spatial planning and (re-)insurance. This article provides a new approach to assess risk and vulnerability towards natural hazards on country scale and allows the comparison of countries at global scale. The concept of the WorldRiskIndex focuses on the understanding of risk which is defined as the interaction of physical hazards and the vulnerability of exposed elements. The exposure to natural hazards was assessed by using five indicators that describe the expsoure of people towards earthquakes, cyclones, floods, droughts and sea level rise. Whereas vulnerability consists of susceptibility, coping capacity and adaptive capacity was calculated on the basis of 23 indicators which comprise social, economic and environmental conditions of a society. The method and the results of the WorldRiskIndex were validated by using statistical analysis such as reliability, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. The results of the WorldRiskIndex were mapped and classified by means of a GIS system to show different patterns of exposure, vulnerability and risk on global scale. The global perspective of risk clearly shows that the vulnerability of a society or a country is not the same as exposure to natural hazards.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Persons with Disabilities

In this paper, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) is evaluated with respect to its ramifications for persons with disabilities. In the SFDRR, persons with disabilities were referenced either directly or indirectly as part of the preamble, the guiding principles, the priorities for action, and the role of stakeholders. In addition, the 2015 World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, during which the SFDRR was adopted, incorporated explicit recommendations toward a disability-accessible and inclusive environment not evident in previous disaster risk reduction conferences. The infusion of disability-related terms and concepts such as accessibility, inclusion, and universal design throughout the SFDRR document was significant. These concepts, which have their origin in disability studies, are used in the SFDRR document to refer to the needs of all in disaster, not only to people with disabilities. These disability-related concepts will now serve the field of disaster risk reduction as important overarching disaster-related principles. The authors conclude that the SFDRR has firmly established people with disabilities and their advocacy organizations as legitimate stakeholders and actors in the design and implementation of international disaster risk reduction policies.

Revitalising Evidence-based Policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: Lessons from Existing International Science Partnerships.

The convergence of agreements on disaster risk reduction (DRR), development finance, sustainable development and climate change in 2015 presents a unique opportunity for coherence across these inter-related policy areas. At the same time, demand is growing for a more prominent and effective role for science and technology in providing evidence for policy, with the international community recognising that successful disaster risk reduction (DRR) depends on it. Reflecting this ambition, science is included as a core aspect of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, although the ways in which this will be implemented in practice is still unclear. This paper aims to inform the implementation of international science coordination for DRR by examining a number of existing international science partnerships used across other relevant areas of policy to understand best practice, options for coordination and lessons identified. In the field of DRR, the science-policy interface needs to be strengthened in line with the best practice described in this review. An enhanced UNISDR Scientific and Technical Advisory Group will be given the mandate for to enhance the evidence base for DRR and mobilise science and technical work in coordination with a broad range of stakeholders. The structure and function of an enhanced STAG must be as open, as inclusive and as participatory as possible in order to build trust in new and existing institutions at local, national, regional and global levels. The challenge for the international community is to facilitate evidence-based policy making by formally recognising the links between DRR, development finance, sustainable development and climate change in the upcoming post-2015 agreements.

Resilience – an emerging paradigm of danger or of hope?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether “resilience” offers any positive inputs to international discourse in the field of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and if so, what recommendations can be made for further research on the topic. Design/methodology/approach – In addition to an in-depth literature review, observations on resilience were made based on interdisciplinary research conducted in Nepal 2008-2011 with landslide affected communities, to map local understandings of resilience in contrast to issues of risk and vulnerability. Findings – Resilience has the potential to offer a more systemic and cross-cutting approach to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and the humanitarian sector. However, it needs to be assessed critically as one attribute of sustainable development, not as a lesser substitute. Originality/value – This paper provides new insights to the emerging contrast between proponents and critics of the resilience paradigm with recommendations for avoiding potential dangers that this paradigm brings.

DR4 communication in the South African context: A conceptual paper

Within the disaster risk reduction field the term that is used to encompass all pre- and post-disaster phases such as disaster planning, preparedness, prevention, mitigation, warning, impact, rescue, relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and recovery (Van Niekerk, 2008, p. 367), is disaster risk reduction, response and recovery, shortly referred to as DR4. DR4 communication refers to communication, management applied during the disaster management phases.In the Hyogo Framework for Action (UN/ISDR, 2005), that calls for action to build resilience of nations against disasters, information sharing and cooperation, dialogue between parties involved in disaster management, public awareness and media relations is suggested as some of the priorities that should receive attention (UN/ISDR, 2005, p. 23). Authors, such as Wisner, Gaillard, and Kelman (2012, p. 1), also refer to the importance of communication between stakeholders and specifically the fact that disaster risk reduction requires specialist knowledge on communication management.In addition, the South African National Disaster Management Framework (SANDMF) specifically focuses on communication management and communication flow during incidences by identifying this aspect as one of the three enablers of the SANDMF (South Africa, 2005, p. 3). Communication responsibilities are even assigned to the Provincial Disaster Management Centre and Municipal, Disaster Management Centre (South Africa, 2005, pp. 13–14). Communication is thus regarded as a critical aspect of disaster management (Coombs, 2012, p. 17) and assistance with disaster communication management is needed in order to limit current problems experienced with communication in disaster risk reduction and disaster management (see International Wildland Fire Summit, 2003; Reid & Van Niekerk, 2008, p. 246).An analysis of disaster (crisis) communication literature showed that it mainly focuses on (i) pre- and post-crisis reputational communication from the profit organisation's point of view (Avery, Lariscy, Kim, & Hocke, 2010, p. 192) and (ii) on the profit organisation's expected technical reaction communication during the, crisis, i.e. who to phone to activate response agencies (Avery et al., 2010, p. 192; Littlefield et al., 2012, p. 248). From a disaster risk reduction field, the little information there is on communication, focuses on media engagement during a disaster (see Radford & Wisner, in Wisner et al., 2012, pp. 761–771; Van Niekerk, 2008, p. 362). Research on the trans-disciplinary focus of combining the disaster risk reduction and communication management fields, is lacking.This paper conceptualises DR4 communication by:1.Theoretically placing strategic communication management within the disaster risk reduction, and management paradigm,2.Defining DR4 communication; and3.Applying DR4 communication to the South African context.The findings indicate that appropriate disaster communication could assist to lessen the risk and aid disaster recovery (Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005, p. 112, 114) as communication practitioners could provide strategic information from the environment that could reduce uncertainty in strategic decision-making and ensuring that disaster management goals align with stakeholder expectations in order to save lives and limit the impact of a disaster (Grunig, 2006, p. 3, 6; Phillips, 2006a, 2006b, p. 34, 35; Valin, 2004). Specifically in South Africa, a country where myriad of man-made disasters and 77 natural disasters (between 1980 and 2010) took place (Preventionweb, 2012), communication management has a positive role to play in disaster risk reduction.

Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective

Vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation are three fundamentally inter-related concepts among such research communities as global environmental/climatic change, social–ecological and disaster risk science. However, their mutual relationships are still unclear so far particularly in the field of disaster risk reduction, which to some extent blocks the reasonable risk analysis and scientific decision making. This paper performed a brief overview on the basic definitions and evolution processes of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation, and tentatively categorized past diverse thoughts of their relationships into three modalities, such as, vulnerability preference, resilience preference, and overlapped relationships. From a “hit-damage-recovery-learning cycle” insight and based on an empirical case study, we put forward two conceptual frameworks to address the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation within the disaster risk domain, and we further discussed their broader implications in terms of disaster risk management and social–ecological sustainability. In an attempt to bring together the analytical frameworks of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation, this study indicates that a sustainable adaptation strategy to the unavoidable disasters or changes should not only seek to reduce the vulnerability of a social–ecological system, but also to foster its resilience and adaptive capacity to future uncertainties and potential risks.

Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment

This paper develops a framework based on procedural, methodological and ideological elements of participatory vulnerability and risk assessment tools for placing individual approaches within the wide range of work that claims a participatory, local or community orientation. In so doing it draws on relevant experience from other areas of development practice from which the disasters field can learn. Participatory disaster risk assessments are examined for their potential to be empowering, to generate knowledge, to be scaled up, to be a vehicle for negotiating local change and as part of multiple-methods approaches to disaster risk identification and reduction. The paper is a response to an international workshop on Community Risk Assessment organised by ProVention Consortium and the Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme, University of Cape Town. The workshop brought together practitioners and academics to review the challenges and opportunities for participatory methodologies in the field of disaster risk reduction. In conclusion the contribution made by participatory methodologies to global disaster risk reduction assessment and policy is discussed.

Social resilience: the forgotten dimension of disaster risk reduction

The current thinking in the Disaster Risk Reduction field emphasizes assessment and reduction of vulnerability and especially social vulnerability as an important factor in mitigating the effects of disasters. In the process of emphasizing vulnerability, the role and complexity of social resilience was somewhat lost and at times minimized. For example, Terry Cannon and his colleagues include resilience as a factor of social vulnerability in a report to United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) (Cannon, Twigg and Rowell, 2002). The United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) delineates “Social Vulnerability” and “Individual Vulnerability” as working areas, but does not mention Social or Individual Resilience (Bogardi, 2006).