Search results

The purpose of this paper is to make an argument that there are different types of social construction of disasters.

The focus is on disasters triggered by natural hazards.

It is now widely accepted that disasters are a product of a natural hazard having an impact on a vulnerable population. But the value of the concept of vulnerability is in danger of becoming less meaningful because it is removed from the political and economic processes that generate some vulnerabilities. On the other hand, there are some types of disasters that are relatively “innocent”, in the sense that people live in places that are exposed to risk for purposes of access to their livelihood, and not because social forces or power relations have forced them to live there, or made some groups more vulnerable than others.

If it is the case that some vulnerability is “innocent”, then forms of explanation are needed of people's willingness to expose themselves to risk that go beyond the “strong” forms of social construction (where power relations are a key factor in generating the social construction of disasters). Instead, it is essential to examine “cultural” and psychological explanations of people's behaviour, including an understanding of group behaviour, religious beliefs and other aspects that often distinguish the perspective on risk taken by “insiders” compared with the supposedly rational and policy‐oriented approach of “outsiders” who see it as their role to help reduce disaster risks.

The discussion of different types of social construction of disasters is original. Debate on the need to include analysis of cultural and psychological aspects in disaster risk reduction is not very well developed and, according to this paper, is of absolutely crucial importance in reducing the impact of natural hazards.

Disasters are increasingly depicted as unique opportunities to ‘build back better’, to make communities more ‘resilient’ and to address pre-existing ‘vulnerabilities’. This has seen international disaster risk reduction (DRR) and recovery frameworks attempt to link short-term relief efforts with long-term development objectives while at the same time ensuring active community participation, local knowledge inclusion and ownership. This chapter looks at how ‘build back better’ – which became institutionalised through the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – attempts to reconcile normative concepts of ‘better’ with diverse place-based needs, interests and knowledge. Through an analysis of three United Nations DRR frameworks from 1994 to 2015, the chapter tracks how disasters have been constructed as opportunities for development, and asks whether the post-disaster context is the right time for implementing development agendas given the potential for recovery to be co-opted by dominant development ideologies.

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to how harmful and inaccurate discourses pertaining to disaster responsibility is produced, the negative implications such narratives pose and the role of the media in the ways in which discourses about queerness and disaster are reported.

Throughout this paper, the authors detail examples of media reporting on discourses relating to people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) being blamed and held responsible for disasters across the world. The authors examine the value of such reporting as well as describing the harm blame narratives have on queer people and communities.

There is little value in reporting on accounts of people publicly declaring that people with diverse SOGIESC are to blame for disaster. More sensitivity is needed around publishing on blame discourses pertaining to already marginalised communities.

This article contributes to the developing scholarship on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, agender, asexual and aromantic individuals, plus other gender identities and sexual orientations (LGBTQIA+/SOGIESC) and disasters by detailing the harm of blame discourses as well as drawing attention to how the media have a role to play in averting from unintentionally providing a platform for hate speech and ultimately enhancing prejudice against people with diverse SOGIESC.

The notion that disasters are not natural is longstanding, leading to a growing number of campaigns aimed at countering the use of the term “natural disaster.” Whilst these efforts are crucial, critical perspectives regarding the potential risks associated with this process are lacking, particularly in places affected by violent conflict. This paper aims to present a critical analysis of these efforts, highlighting the need to approach them with care.

The author draws upon insights and discussions accumulated over a decade of research into the relationship between disasters and conflict. The article includes a critical literature review on the disaster–conflict relationship and literature specifically addressing the idea that disasters are not natural. The analysis of field notes led to a second literature review covering topics such as (de) politicisation, instrumentalisation, disaster diplomacy, ethics, humanitarian principles, disaster risk reduction, peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity.

This analysis underscores the importance of advocating that disasters are not natural, especially in conflict-affected areas. However, an uncritical approach could lead to unintended consequences, such as exacerbating social conflicts or obstructing disaster-related actions. The article also presents alternatives to advance the understanding that disasters are not natural whilst mitigating risks, such as embracing a “do-no-harm” approach or conflict-sensitive analyses.

The author offers an innovative critical approach to advancing the understanding that disasters are not natural but socio-political. This perspective is advocated, especially in conflict-affected contexts, to address the root causes of both disasters and conflicts. The author also invites their peers and practitioners to prioritise reflective scholarship and practices, aiming to prevent the unintentional exacerbation of suffering whilst working towards its reduction.

The aim of this paper is to add a new dimension to urban resilience by exploring how representations of disasters, reconstruction and human settlements are made, and how, by shaping plans and programs, they ultimately influence resilience.

The paper draws on James Scott's notion of “legibility” to ask how different representations simplify complex realities and how they are transformed into plans and programs. The paper first outlines the various broad analytic lens used to examine legibility to portray post‐disaster reconstruction, drawing on international literature and policies. The paper then focuses on post‐earthquake Haiti and analyzes eight reconstruction plans and reviews design proposals submitted for the Building Back Better Communities program to explore how different stakeholders portrayed the disaster, identified the reconstruction challenges and proposed to address human settlements.

Representations of the disaster, the reconstruction challenge and the housing problem were quite varied. While the plans assumed a very broad view of the reconstruction challenge (one that goes beyond the representations found in the literature), the BBBC program adopted a very narrow view of it (one that the literature condemns for failing to achieve sustainable resilience).

The empirical research is exploratory, suggesting an approach that throws a new light on the analysis of plans and programs for improved resilience.

The study suggests that the representations that decision makers, institutions and organizations make of the world ultimately establish the framework in which resilience is constructed.

The lens of legibility confirms that the expression of different representations makes the world legible in different ways and therefore transforms the way in which resilience can be improved.

Recently, frequent occurrence of fire incidences in various building types with devastating effects on human settlements have proliferated and have become of serious concern to Nigeria’s economy. Hence, there is a need to proactively address strategic weaknesses in measures directed at protecting the built environment (BE). The purpose of this paper is to examine stakeholders’ role in the frameworks on disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the context of fire hazards within Lagos metropolis. Analysis is based on findings of research carried out on vulnerability, resilience assessment and guiding principles from three recent frameworks.

Mixed research design was adopted using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. In all, 165 BE professionals in the construction industry, state/federal emergency management and local/national government agencies were randomly selected.

Findings show that stakeholders believe prevention, preparedness and mitigation of disasters are the most important; however, BE professionals in the construction industry do not play active roles in the mitigation of fire risk despite wide publications on guidance for fire hazard mitigation. These stakeholders urgently need to adopt fire hazard mitigation strategies, especially in the pre-construction phase of a building’s life cycle which is identified as the most critical stage in the construction phase.

The paper looked at fire occurrence in Lagos from the perspective of the BE with the view to fill knowledge gaps for adopting fire hazard mitigation strategies.

The findings brought to bear the need for stakeholders, especially BE professionals in the construction industry, to be better involved in DRR as regards fire occurrences.

Balochistan is one of the earthquake disaster prone areas in Pakistan. Earthquakes adversely affect people and their economy, therefore disaster preparedness especially at the community level is imperative to avoid future damages. The purpose of this paper is to examine the issues associated with community preparedness in earthquake prone areas and recommend upgrading the community preparedness, and improving coordination between provincial and national agencies during disasters and seismic emergencies.

The study is based on field visits. Observations, key informant interviews and group discussions were conducted to analyze the preparedness, both at community and organizational levels.

Disaster impacts are still handled by provincial level organizations in Balochistan. Disaster management authorities do not implement any activities related to preparedness at local levels, and focus more on reactive and top‐down approaches. On the other hand, community is vulnerable to multiple hazards associated with earthquakes. The study reveals that the available institutional framework does not meet community needs. Both the government institutes and communities are not well prepared, therefore communities get affected from time to time due to earthquake hazards in Balochistan.

Disaster management authorities should implement projects and activities at the local levels to empower communities for disaster preparedness and for disaster risk reduction.

The paper concludes that for efficient preparedness the coordination should be improved between the provincial and national level agencies and community preparedness needs to be enhanced for upgrading people's awareness and defensive mechanism for safeguarding their lives with reference to seismic emergencies.

The following article seeks to expand comprehension of the concept of vulnerability in order to promote further scholarship in this area and provide policy guidance for practitioners.

Various findings from the academic literature pertaining to vulnerability are discussed in order to generate a more holistic understanding of this key factor of disaster.

This exposition defines vulnerability, illustrates the causes of vulnerability, identifies those who may be vulnerable to disasters, and suggests ways to reduce vulnerability.

Because this paper offers a preliminary view that both includes and goes beyond the traditional social vulnerability school, additional research on this matter will undoubtedly be required. However, it is hoped that the breadth and complexity of challenges we are currently facing will be made manifest in this discussion.

This paper extends the author's prior work in this area and reinforces the need to give greater priority to the concept of vulnerability in disaster research and emergency management.

The aim of this research is to identify the factors responsible for the inability of authorities in rapidly growing megacities in developing countries to integrate disaster risk vulnerability reduction strategies effectively with their development plans.

The study followed a qualitative research strategy. A survey research approach with pre‐tested questionnaires as key data collection instrument was used in eliciting responses from 135 randomly selected built environment professionals in academics and disaster management practitioners in government and non‐governmental organizations in Lagos Megacity Area, Nigeria.

A number of factors militating against the adoption of effective disaster vulnerability reduction strategies in the area were identified. The most critical were faltering institutions and governance, weak infrastructure base and a low level of disaster education.

The sample population comprised mainly built environment professionals in academics and disaster managers across the city. Therefore, the views presented in the paper may not be considered generalizable within the context of multiplicity of stakeholders in disaster studies. However, the research presents the perception of experts and key stakeholders in disaster vulnerability reduction in the study area.

The findings can form the basis for addressing these challenges, most particularly in generating and adopting new approaches to policy formulation and implementation by the public and private sectors.

Research on this subject‐matter is very limited in Nigeria. It is, however, very relevant in efforts at addressing the challenges of sustainable development in developing countries from the human and policy dimensions.