Search results

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) was established in 1986. It was restructured in July 2003 to focus on specific technical areas: climate variability and change management, urban disaster risk management, public health in emergencies, building national and provincial disaster management systems, and community based disaster risk management (CBDRM), promoting regional cooperation, identifying disaster risk management (DRM) needs in the region and developing strategic solutions. The consolidation enables ADPC's teams to work more effectively with stakeholders and build cross-team inputs into their work. Multiple hazards under this new thematic approach are a key concept along with new areas of importance to DRM that include chemical, biological and radio-nuclear risks, heritage and disaster mitigation, and the role of domestic capital markets in financing improvements in the built environment to create a safer, more disaster-resilient world.

The terms “risk management”, “risk reduction”, “vulnerability reduction”, “capacity building” and “mitigation” began replacing the reactive term “disaster management”, thus making pro-active DRM in Asia part of the development agenda that must deal with the growing variety and intensity of hazards. It was a shift from short-term, reactive, charity-driven responses to long-term, proactive, development initiatives.

Making the right development choices requires coordinated efforts by committed leaders who have the political will and determination to include risk reduction measures in their policies and plans; a corporate sector that will prioritise risk issues and include them into their business plans; scientists who will provide the knowledge and understanding of current and new areas of risk reduction; committed non-government agencies that advocate for risk reduction; educators who are responsible for shaping the awareness of future generations; a mass media that has the power to influence and change behaviour; and informed citizens who make choices about the risks in their lives.

Evidence abounds on surging disasters, mainly as consequences of poor risk identification and management, which have historically accompanied disaster management in many African countries. Effective management of disaster risks, whether natural or man-made, is necessary for building resilience, enhancing mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and adaptation. As part of a broad-based risk management approach, Nigeria made frantic efforts to mitigate the effects of various disasters, by establishing relevant institutions and formulating policies. In spite of these efforts, implementation outcomes have not been adequately quantified and managed. This study reviews and assesses the policies and practices of disaster risk management (DRM) vis-á-vis institutional framework in Nigeria. It utilises available data and policy documents to review and analyse Nigeria’s institutional framework. Furthermore, the study carries out implicative scenario analysis based on the current institutional framework, to match the DRM trends. It also proffers recommendations on how best institutions could drive proper DRM in Nigeria. The strengths, opportunities, gaps and constraints associated with disaster and risk reduction in Nigeria are then highlighted.

Surging natural disasters globally has precipitated renewed interests in disaster risk management. Though several global and regional disaster risk management policy frameworks have been put in place, it is necessary to evaluate their successes and capacities to deliver. This chapter reviews key disaster management frameworks, particularly the Yokohama Strategy, the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. It examines the extent to which these policies shaped Africa’s regional disaster risk management processes, with an emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Through documentary analysis and scientific literature review, this chapter identifies key parameters that shaped SSA’s disaster risk reduction (DRR) processes and their implications for DRR policy instruments and impact studies. The analysis reveals a number of findings. First, the roll-out process of global disaster reduction and management policy processes and instruments is yet to optimally impact SSA, in terms of effective disaster management. Second, a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude and severity of natural disasters could contribute to stem the damages linked to their occurrence. This is yet to be achieved. Third, paradigm shifts towards fully appreciating underlying disaster risk factors and manifestations could potentially support the practical drift from disaster coping and management towards risk identification, reduction and resilience building in SSA. Finally, instruments that prioritise capacity building (such as extension services training, research and development, information and communication), organisational governance, sustainable financing and technology, still relatively weak in SSA, should be stepped up to promote DRR capacities and strategies.

The aim of the study was to examine the role of collaborative approaches (productive collaboration, collaborative innovation and collaborative risk management) in disaster risk situations. Thus, the study focused on the effect of productive collaboration and collaborative innovation on collaborative risk management, and the effect of collaborative risk management and collaborative innovation on adaptability.

Data were collected from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling software was used to obtain results on the influence of productive collaboration and collaborative innovation on collaborative risk management, the influence of collaborative innovation on adaptability and the influence of collaborative risk management on adaptability.

Findings indicated that both productive collaboration and collaborative innovation influence collaborative risk management, and both collaborative innovation and collaborative risk management influence adaptability.

The study mainly focused on the NGOs eliminating the government, beneficiaries and other actors that may be involved in disaster risk situations. The research has implications to decision makers in government, NGOs and other actors concerned with disaster risk management.

Countries worldwide are focusing on collaborative innovation and productive collaboration in addition to collaborative risk management to respond to epidemics and natural disasters. Despite the relevance of the collaborative initiatives, empirical research explaining the relevance of the variables to adaptability of actors during epidemics or natural disasters is still lacking.

This paper analyses how disaster risk management paradigms have gradually developed since the 1960s, shaped by practical experience of-and the debate about-the rising number of disasters, growing urbanization, and changing climatic conditions. In this context, climate change is shown as driving an urban pro-poor adaptation agenda, which could allow current shortcomings in urban risk reduction to be overcome. However, as past lessons in disaster risk management are rarely considered, any potential for improvement remains untapped. Possible ways of rectifying this situation are discussed, and a comprehensive framework for the reduction of both disaster and climate risks is presented.

This paper aims to summarize the current state of research on risk, crisis and disaster management in the generic field, and in tourism and hospitality. It identifies key themes and compares the main topics studied in both the tourism and hospitality management and marketing literature.

A narrative (thematic) review and synthesis was completed based on articles published in the top 20 tourism and hospitality management journals from 2011 to March 2021. A review was conducted of the generic literature from 2016 to 2020.

From 210 papers reviewed, only 47 are in the hospitality field. The authors found that 80% of papers were empirical with slightly more quantitative papers produced. The majority of the papers focused on crises. Three key themes were found from the review and future research proposed to address gaps based on these findings and a review of 26 papers from the generic risk, crisis and disaster management field.

Research is required into planning and preparedness, not just response and recovery to crises and disasters. Future research should consider hospitality rather than tourism, particularly focusing attention outside of the accommodation sector. Hospitality studies also need to go beyond the micro-organizational level to include more meso- and macro-level studies.

The review provides a number of future research directions for tourism and hospitality research in the field. The paper provides a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework to synthesize studies and identifies research gaps. It also provides recommendations on methodologies required to progress these research directions. Research in this field is likely to grow because of the impact of COVID-19.

The human efforts to be prepared better for the future challenges of natural disasters go back ages. Natural disasters occur when a natural event, such as an earthquake, triggers the social vulnerability. These natural disasters kill thousands of people worldwide annually and cause economic losses in millions of dollars. Moreover, the global cost of natural disasters has increased substantially, and mega-disasters occur when the need for recovery truly becomes national or international. There are several trends in nature and society, which suggest that this pattern may continue, with mega-disasters occurring more frequently in the future. In the past 100 years, the number of disasters and the number of people affected by these disasters have exponentially up surged. Thus, there is no other way to improve preparedness in a meaningful or diverse future-oriented manner.

This paper focuses on how to design and customize a conceptual foresight model in “disaster risk management” in Iran, and offers an executive model to help decision-makers in disaster management, through which an appropriate practical framework for the implementation of foresight has been developed.

The model has presented a possible framework for implementing a foresight practice within the context of disaster management. This paper particularly addresses different elements of a customized model, developed through a substantial literature review and comparative study for defining the suitable model in the disaster management context. The final model is validated using two rounds of the Delphi method, with the participation of national disaster management experts, practitioners and scientists.

Although the whole model could be used all around the world, the main source of data validating the proposed model is limited to the expert’s opinions in a developing country (I. R. Iran.) and the geographical conditions of Iran are considered as a core of attention in response to natural disasters. Based on the indicators for choosing Delphi participants and experts, only 43 qualified experts are selected to validate the model. The main focus of this research is on natural disasters issues.

This study showed that while there has been a scattered global effort to recognize the increasing uncertainties in diverse disciplines, very little work in academic foresight has been undertaken to identify how it could be implemented. In particular, a series of factors in foresight processes is identified based on the comparative study and some additional elements are added to precisely identify the disaster management context and the most suitable model for national foresight implementation in disaster management.

The main value of this research paper is to clarify the exact relationship between the two interdisciplinary fields; the relationship between the key concepts of “futures studies” and “disaster management” has been thoroughly established. Also, a specific conceptual model for enriching the “pre-foresight” stage and selecting a proper “foresight approach” in “disaster management” is provided. This model has been validated through two rounds of the Delphi method. Finally, a cumulative framework of foresight patterns that includes the new model is presented to be applied in areas especially related to “natural disaster management”.

Understanding bottom-up approaches including local coping mechanisms, recognizing them and strengthening community capacities is important in the process of disaster risk reduction. The purpose of this paper is to address the questions: to what extent existing disaster policies in Nepal support and enable community-based disaster resilience? and what challenges and prospects do the communities have in responding to disaster risk for making communities resilient?

This paper is based on policy and academic literature reviews complimented by field research in two communities, one in Shankhu, Kathmandu district and another in Satthighare, Kavrepalanchowk district in Nepal. The author conducted in-depth interviews and mapped out key disaster-related policies of Nepal to investigate the role of communities in disaster risk management and post-disaster activities and their recognition in disaster-related policies.

The author found that existing literature clearly identifies the importance of the community led initiatives in risks reduction and management. It is evolutionary phenomenon, which has already been piloted in history including in the aftermath of Nepal earthquake 2015 yet existing policies of Nepal do not clearly identify it as an important component by providing details of how communities can be better engaged in the immediate aftermath of disaster occurrence.

The author conducted this research based on data from two earthquake affected areas only. The author believes that this research can still play an important role as representative study.

The practical implication of this research is that communities need to understand about risks society for disaster preparedness, mitigation and timely response in the aftermath of disasters. As they are the first responders against the disasters, they also need trainings such as disaster drills such as earthquakes, floods and fire and mock practice of various early warning systems can be conducted by local governments to prepare these communities better to reduce disaster risk and casualties.

The mantra of community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) is community engagement, which means the involvement of local people to understand and prepare against their local hazards and risks associated with disaster and haphazard development. CBDRM approaches motivate people to work together because they feel a sense of belongingness to their communities and recognize the benefits of their involvement in disaster mitigation and preparedness. Clearly, community engagement for disaster risk reduction and management brings great benefits in terms of ownership and direct savings in losses from disasters because the dynamic process allows community to contribute and interchange ideas and activities for inclusive decision making and problem solving.

This research is based on both primary and secondary data and original in case of its findings and conclusion.