Search results

This paper sets out in the context of three strands of knowledge; disaster management, strategic management and project management and builds upon the authors’ (2009) theory for the delivery of post-disaster reconstruction (PDR) projects. With the expected increase in the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters in coming years, more people than ever will be faced with PDR scenarios. In many cases, non-government organisations (NGOs) are in a position to make interventions to improve conditions for people facing the impacts of disasters and it is essential that responding agencies deploy appropriate configurations of competencies to mitigate project barriers. Using a mixed-methods approach, a study incorporated four case studies in post-tsunami Sri Lanka and four case studies in post-cyclone Sidr Bangladesh. Exploratory interviews with expert NGO participants were combined with direct observations and the collection of quantitative survey data. The mechanisms and phenomena observed within the case studies contributed to the development of a conceptual theoretical framework. The study reveals that NGOs face barriers in seven key areas and that they must deploy certain configurations of organisational and operational competencies in order to effectively develop and implement strategies to address these barriers. The theoretical framework demonstrates how the utilisation of these competencies, deployed in targeted clusters, has the potential to create positive outcomes for beneficiaries as measured by PDR Project Success Indicators (PDRPSIs). If dynamic tools can be developed that effectively model competency and predict success, all organisations involved in disaster response and recovery could benefit. In addition, the knowledge is highly transferable to other sectors and environments.

This paper will challenge normative disaster studies and practice by arguing that thriving communities require the pursuit of imperfection and solidarity. The authors use Lewis Carroll’s Looking-Glass World as a lens to critique both how disasters are understood, and how disaster researchers and practitioners operate, within a climate-change affected world where cultural, political and historical constructs are constantly shifting.

The paper will undertake an analysis of both disasters and disaster studies, using this unique (and satirical) critical lens, looking at the unfolding of systemic mistakes, oppressions and mal-development that are revealed in contemporary disasters, that were once the critiques of Lewis Carroll’s Victorian-era England. It shows how disaster “resilience-building” can actually be a mechanism for continuing the status quo, and how persistent colonizing institutions and systems can be in reproducing themselves.

The authors argue the liberation of disaster studies as a process of challenging the doctrines and paradigms that have been created and given meaning by those in power – particularly white, Western/Northern/Eurocentric, male power. They suggest how researchers and practitioners might view disasters – and their own praxis – Through the Looking Glass in an effort to better understand the power, domination and violence of the status quo, but also as a means of creating a vision for something better, arguing that liberation is possible through community-led action grounded in love, solidarity, difference and interconnection.

The paper uses a novel conceptual lens as a way to challenge researchers and practitioners to avoid the utopic trap that wishes to achieve homogenized perfection and instead find an “imperfect” and complex adaptation that moves toward justice. Considering this idea through satire and literary criticism will lend support to empirical research that makes a similar case using data.

The paper explores the implementation and process of a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project in Jacksonville, Florida. Using PAR principles, we sought to disrupt traditional dynamics in research, co-generating knowledge with the community. We aimed to elevate disenfranchised voices and foster effective solutions for neighborhood revitalization and resilience, which are designed and led by the community. In this paper we explore researcher positionality, examining how engagement with the community context profoundly influences researchers' perspectives and roles, thereby shaping the study trajectory.

We use reflexive and thematic approaches to analyze researcher positionalities and dynamics with the community. Researchers' reflections were scrutinized with a focus on their backgrounds, adaptability to community pace of work, lessons learned and evolving perspectives on community-centered research. We present a comprehensive discussion of emerging themes and emphasize the transformative nature of PAR and the significance of the researcher pursuing a relationship of belonging within the community.

The study uncovered key themes clarifying the transformations experienced by researchers engaged in PAR. We underwent a significant shift from a predetermined, structured PAR model to a more organic, community-driven model. This shift is illustrated under key themes in the paper: being vulnerable, valuing relationships, transforming the sense of self and solidarity, focusing on the process and recognizing and valuing community-derived knowledge. We write about the metamorphosis of researchers' roles from passive observers to active and empathic participants and about the implications for our methodological approach. As a result of this adaptation, the research process was enhanced and a symbiotic learning environment was created between the researchers and the community.

This paper distinguishes itself through its community-centric approach, diverging from traditional research paradigms. It explores how PAR-based community engagement can have a positive impact on those who are involved in PAR themselves, contributing to a better understanding of reciprocal dynamics in community-based research. We hope that our process of reflection can help other disaster researchers to ask better questions of themselves when engaging with communities and be open to following the lead and the pace of the community.

Vulnerability is a label and a concept that is widely used in disaster studies. To date the meaning has been quite limited and implied “weakness”, with criticisms arising periodically but not halting vulnerability's reproduction. In this paper, the authors offer a new theory of vulnerability for the field, suggesting that complicating the concept can create space for liberatory discourse and organising.

The authors draw from diverse understandings of vulnerability to generate new conceptual ground for disaster scholars. The authors explore the relationships between power and agency and autonomy and social hierarchy with regards to how vulnerability is considered within neoliberal democracies. The authors also outline ideological responses and the political actions that follow.

This exploration is underpinned by dissatisfaction with the way that vulnerability has thus far been theorised in disaster studies. Using the analytical framings provided, the authors hope that others will build on the idea that so-called “vulnerable” people, working in solidarity and using intersecting frameworks of anti-racism, anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism, can undermine the risk-creating norms of the neoliberal state.

The authors argue that the dominant framing of vulnerability in disaster studies – and usage of the vulnerability paradigm – provides political traction for neoliberal social projects, based on notions of humanitarianism. The authors make this claim as a challenge to the authors and the authors' peers to maintain reflexive scholarship and search for liberatory potential, not only in vulnerability but in other concepts that have become normative.

Disaster studies has emerged as an international interdisciplinary body of knowledge; however, similar to other academic disciplines, its terminology is predominantly anglophone. This paper explores the implications of translating disaster studies terminology, most often theorised in English, into other languages and back.

The authors chose six of the most commonly used (as well as debated and contested) terms that are prominent in academic, policy and public discourses: resilience, vulnerability, capacity, disaster, hazard and risk. These words were translated into 54 languages and the meanings were articulated descriptively in cases where the translation did not have exactly the same meaning as the word in English. The authors then analysed these meanings in order to understand implications of disaster scholars working between dominant and “peripheral” languages.

Findings of the study demonstrate that many of the terms so casually used in disaster studies in English do not translate easily – or at all – opening the concepts that are encoded in these terms for further interpretation. Moreover, the terms used in disaster studies are not only conceptualised in English but are also tied to an anglophone approach to research. It is important to consider the intertwined implications that the use of the terminology carries, including the creation of a “separate” language, power vs communication and linguistic imperialism.

Understanding of the meaning (and contestation of meaning) of these terms in English provides an insight into the power relationships between English and the other language. Given the need to translate key concepts from English into other languages, it is important to appreciate their cultural and ideological “baggage”.

This paper aims to enhance the understanding of what is being taught – and how – to future built environment (BE) professionals in higher education (HE) BE curricular in the context of disaster risk reduction (DRR).

Reflecting on the results of an extensive survey carried out among 21 BE educators representing 14 countries, the pedagogies used to educate tomorrow’s BE professionals about DRR-related subjects are explored.

The vast majority of HE training for the future BE professionals focuses on hazards as a “problem” posed by nature – something that can be “solved” through a technical solution. Little reflection is required as to the social implications of DRR “solutions”, and knowledge too often remains analytical and distant from any sort of lived experience. Whilst many DRR-related subjects introduce the ideas of human-centric DRR, there is still a disconnection between technical engineering subjects and broader social science subjects. This is a missed opportunity for students acquiring technical knowledge to reflect on and engage with a wider societal context.

The paper draws on the liberative pedagogies of Paulo Freire, bell hooks and others to engage BE educators in collectively drawing on philosophies and practices that emphasise holistic ways of knowing and learning and encourage the broader consideration of non-technical ideas. This kind of DRR pedagogy is required if the society is to collectively strive for a BE that enhances equity and well-being, while avoiding the creation of risk through development and redevelopment.

One of the main strategic targets in the national power development plan of Vietnam is to give priority to hydropower. However, there is evidence that the most “at risk” in Vietnamese society have, to date, broadly failed to benefit from hydropower development but rather have become more vulnerable. This paper aims to broaden the perspective of decision makers (government agencies, investors and banks) in the hydropower industry regarding the environmental and social impacts of unrestrained development and the critical need to not only reduce disaster risk for communities but also provide a sustainable model for Vietnam’s energy demand.

This position paper presents a critique of public policy in Vietnam related to hydropower industry, undertaken alongside an analysis of socio-economic community resilience and disaster risk reduction literature.

Small hydropower investment must be delayed until measures are put in place to ensure that multi-stakeholder risk is a central component of the investment dialogue. Current pricing policies are not aligned with the hydropower development management, and this erects barriers to environmentally and socially conscious decision-making.

This paper suggests that the development of small hydropower projects must be curtailed until new measures are put in place. This has practical implications for investors, policy makers and residents of affected areas. The authors argue for a significant shift in government strategy toward building resilience as opposed to growth and profit at any cost.

Conscious of Vietnam’s energy demands and development goals, this paper investigates the context of increasing disaster risk and ecological pressures, as well as social injustice relating to the hydropower industry. This kind of analysis can support future efforts to reduce disaster risk and the vulnerability of marginalized groups in Vietnam.

The authors present a comprehensive review of Vietnamese hydropower from a disaster resilience perspective and provide analysis that will be useful in further research in this emerging area.