Search results

This conversation highlights the need to rethink how we approach disaster risk reduction in different South Asian contexts.

This paper is based on the webinar held as part of Asia Week at the University of Copenhagen which was organised by Asian Dynamics Initiative and Copenhagen Centre for Disaster Research on the September 12, 2023.

The prominent themes emerging from this conversation represents hybridity, self-rule and self-recovery. Along with this we suggest a fundamental turn to ensuring hope, solidarity and empathy is part of a post-colonial future.

The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions on moving away from colonial practices in disaster risk reduction and disaster studies broadly.

The purpose of this study is to identify LGBTQ+ perceptions of and experiences with hazards, vulnerabilities and disasters in the San Francisco Bay Area in the USA and to co-develop applied projects to “queer” disaster knowledge production and risk reduction activities in the region.

This is a community science project in which we collaborate with community members to enhance both community and scientific knowledge with the goal of utilizing it to produce a positive change to pressing social issues and their underlying causes. We do this through a series of four focus group workshops to identify community priorities, hazards, vulnerabilities and local action. We follow this with further ethnographic research and projects to apply findings from phase one.

The authors have found that: LGBTQ+ people in the Bay Area have unique experiences with hazards, vulnerabilities and disasters; there are significant gaps in the representation of LGBTQ+ hazard exposure in local scientific models that we can address through alternative methodologies; and tabletop exercises, learning modules and podcasts help orient and train disaster response agencies and personnel on LGBTQ+ inclusive operations.

This initiative entails novel approaches to community science for disaster risk reduction and creative collaboration with community-based organizations to foster the development of LGBTQ+ inclusive disaster risk reduction and response.

The paper reviews existing literature on South Asian ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (DRR) and identifies how community participation can be used to plan and implement ecosystem-based DRR approaches.

The literature review methodology involved several stages. Firstly, the research objective was determined. Secondly keywords for the literature search were determined. Scopus, Google Scholar, JSTOR and AUT online library were utilized for the literature search. After the search, the literature was screened. The study design, methodology, results and limitations were identified and documented. After data extraction, the literature was analyzed. The patterns, trends and inconsistencies in the literature were identified based on the research question. Later the gaps, controversies and future research needs were identified. Then, a comprehensive and structured literature review that summarizes the relevant literature, synthesizes the findings and provides a critical evaluation of the literature was documented. After writing the document, it was reviewed and edited to ensure its clarity, accuracy and coherence.

The paper identifies four different themes recurrently emerging in literature on the importance of community participation in ecosystem-based DRR in South Asia. The themes are local community participation in ecosystem-based DRR governance, knowledge production, livelihood enhancement and increased public acceptance.

The paper also illustrates the challenges in integrating community participation with the dominant physical scientific approaches ecosystem-based DRR and proposes a five-element framework to facilitate the integration.

This short paper builds on and critiques work presenting potential non-disasters: disasters that did not seem to happen despite a major hazard. Previous work does not differentiate among different types of potential non-disasters. This short paper uses local information to propose three categories according to reasons for vulnerability being low or absent. These proposed categories are used to critique the construct of “potential non-disasters”.

This short paper uses a subjective approach to examples of potential non-disasters in 2022, focusing on local information that describes what happened. This information is applied and analysed for the three proposed categories using examples from Japan, Nepal, the Philippines and Vietnam. Such comparisons are useful for critiquing “potential non-disasters”, by understanding better local approaches and information available for reporting on situations that could be disasters.

Potential non-disasters remain relevant for exploring mechanisms, tools and actions for educating about vulnerability causes and vulnerability reduction to avert disasters. Limitations are evident by relying on media reports, even local ones with local authors. A suggestion is to implement a grant programme for collecting data immediately after a major hazard without an evident, major disaster. Additionally, an annual report and critique of each year's potential non-disasters, categorised and analysed, would help to evidence the presence and limits of the “potential non-disaster” construct.

This short paper contributes a much deeper theoretical dive into understanding potential non-disasters, both describing them and the drawbacks of the construct. To practitioners, the construct now offers more avenues for actions while illustrating their effectiveness in reducing vulnerabilities. Thus, this paper supports multiple, linked pathways towards more non-disasters.

Due to the unknown location, size and timing of disasters, the rapid response required by humanitarian operations (HO) faces high uncertainty and limited time to raise funds. These harsh realities make HO challenging. This study aims to systematically capture the complex dynamic relationships between operations in humanitarian settings.

To achieve this goal, the authors undertook a systematic review of the extant academic literature linking HO to system dynamics (SD) simulation.

The research reviews 88 papers to propose a taxonomy of different topics covered in the literature; a framework represented through a causal loop diagram (CLD) to summarise the taxonomy, offering a view of operational activities and their linkages before and after disasters; and a research agenda for future research avenues.

As the authors provide an adequate representation of reality, the findings can help decision makers understand the problems faced in HO and make more effective decisions.

While other reviews on the application of SD in HO have focused on specific subjects, the current research presents a broad view, summarising the main results of a comprehensive CLD.

The study, within the Increasing Resilience of Cultural Heritage (ResCult) project, aims to support civil protection to prevent, lessen and mitigate disasters impacts on cultural heritage using a unique standardised-3D geographical information system (GIS), including both heritage and risk and hazard information.

A top-down approach, starting from existing standards (an INSPIRE extension integrated with other parts from the standardised and shared structure), was completed with a bottom-up integration according to current requirements for disaster prevention procedures and risk analyses. The results were validated and tested in case studies (differentiated concerning the hazard and type of protected heritage) and refined during user forums.

Besides the ensuing reusable database structure, the filling with case studies data underlined the tough challenges and allowed proposing a sample of workflows and possible guidelines. The interfaces are provided to use the obtained knowledge base.

The increasing number of natural disasters could severely damage the cultural heritage, causing permanent damage to movable and immovable assets and tangible and intangible heritage. The study provides an original tool properly relating the (spatial) information regarding cultural heritage and the risk factors in a unique archive as a standard-based European tool to cope with these frequent losses, preventing risk.

Despite the widespread use and application of resilience, much uncertainty about the conceptualization and operationalization in the context of tourism destinations still exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual elaboration on destination resilience and to introduce a model for an improved understanding of the concept.

Taking a conceptual research approach, this paper seeks to untangle the fuzziness surrounding the destination and resilience concept by providing a new interpretation that synthesizes theories and concepts from various academic disciplines. It analyses the current debate to derive theoretic baselines and conceptual elements that subsequently inform the development of a new “Destination Resilience Model”.

The contribution advances the debate by proposing three key themes for future resilience conceptualizations: (1) the value of an actor-centered and agency-based resilience perspective; (2) the importance of the dynamic nature of resilience and the (mis)use of measurement approaches; (3) the adoption of a dualistic resilience perspective distinguishing specified and general resilience. Building on these propositions, we introduce a conceptual model that innovatively links elements central to the concepts of destination and risk and combines different narratives of resilience.

The contribution advances the debate surrounding destination resilience by critically examining the conceptualization and operationalization of destination resilience within previous research and by subsequently proposing a “Destination Resilience Model” that picks up central element of the three new frontiers identified in the conceptually driven review. The innovative integration strengthens the comprehension of the resilience concept at destination level and supports building future capacities to manage immediate adverse impacts as well as novel and systemic risks.

The Astroworld concert tragedy is used as an example of crisis (mis)management and the potential utility of the 4R model. Although the 4R model has been implemented in high-risk emergency management situations, it is useful in the PR field because of its actionable approach, creating a way for practitioners to prepare for and manage crisis situations.

This is an analysis of the crisis that occurred at Astroworld, spanning preparation, day-of events, casualties and enduring reputational impact. The paper applies the 4R method to the Astroworld tragedy to show how it could have lessened or even prevented the tragedy. Finally, the SCCT model is used to explain why the official post-crisis statements were ineffective.

Social media has heightened the importance of a quick and effective organizational response to risk and crisis situations because poor responses can go viral quickly. However, social media also provides intelligence and crowd sourced information that can inform PR practitioners of emerging crisis scenarios. It is also an underutilized tool for two-way communication during crises.

The 4R approach is beneficial to general practitioners as it simplifies crisis best-practices, something essential for quick action. As our world changes and becomes less predictable, practitioners must have a clear plan to protect their organizations and the public surrounding them. This approach includes reduction, readiness, response and recovery, which are all essential in crisis communication.

The 4R method has not been explored or applied in the PR field. This paper highlights how the model has been utilized in the emergency management field and illustrates the way 4R can serve the PR field.

Disasters and armed conflict often co-occur, but does that imply that disasters trigger or fuel conflict? In the small but growing body of literature attempting to answer this question, divergent findings indicate the complex and contextual nature of a potential answer to this question. The purpose of this study is to contribute a robust cross-country analysis of the co-occurrence of disaster and conflict, with a particular focus on the potential role played by disaster.

Grounded in a theoretical model of disaster–conflict co-occurrence, this study merges data from 163 countries between 1990 and 2017 on armed conflict, disasters and relevant control variables (low human development, weak democratic institutions, natural resource dependence and large population size/density).

The main results of this study show that, despite a sharp increase in the co-occurrence of disasters and armed conflict over time, disasters do not appear to have a direct statistically significant relation with the occurrence of armed conflict. This result contributes to the understanding of disasters and conflicts as indirectly related via co-creation mechanisms and other factors.

This study is a novel contribution, as it provides a fresh analysis with updated data and includes different control variables that allow for a significant contribution to the field.

This paper argues that extractivist logic creates the environmental conditions that produce “natural” hazards and also the human conditions that produce vulnerability, which combined create disasters. Disaster Risk Creation is then built into the current global socio-economic system, as an integral component not accidental by-product.

As part of the movement to liberate disasters as discipline, practice and field of enquiry, this paper does not talk disasters per se, but rather its focus is on “extractivism” as a fundamental explanator for the anthropogenic disaster landscape that now confronts us.

Applying a gender lens to extractivism as it relates to disaster, further highlights that Disaster Risk Management rather than alleviating, creates the problems it seeks to solve, suggesting the need to liberate gender from Disaster Risk Management, and the need to liberate us all from the notion of managing disasters. Since to ‘manage’ disaster risk is to accept uncritically the structures and systems that create that risk, then if we truly want to address disasters, our focus needs to be on the extractive practices, not the disastrous outcomes.

The fundamental argument is that through privileging the notion of “disaster” we create it, bring it into existence, as something that exists in and of itself, apart from wider socio-economic structures and systems of extraction and exploitation, rather than recognising it for what it is, an outcome/end product of those wider structures and systems. Our focus on disaster is then misplaced, and perhaps what disaster studies needs to be liberated from, is itself.