Search results

The way that disasters are managed, or indeed mis-managed, is often represented diagrammatically as a “disaster cycle”. The cyclical aspects of the disaster (risk) management concept, comprised of numerous operational phases, have, in recent years, been criticised for conceptualising and representing disasters in an overly simplistic way that typically starts with a disaster “event” – and subsequently leads onto yet another disaster. Such cyclical thinking has been proven to not be very useful for the complexities associated with understanding disasters and their risks. This paper aims to present an alternative conceptualisation of the Disaster Risk Management phases, in a way that can better factor in the underlying root causes that create differential levels of vulnerability.

This is a conceptual paper developed, through a review of the literature and discussions between the authors, as a counterpoint to the pervasive “disaster cycle”.

The “Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Helix” is presented as an alternative way of conceptualising the DRM phases. The helictical conceptualisation of DRM phases presented in this paper is intentionally presented to start a discussion (rather than as an end point) on how best to move away from the constraints of the “disaster cycle”.

It is envisaged that the helictical conceptualisation of DRM can be suitably malleable to include important factors such as temporal considerations and the underlying root causes that create differential levels of vulnerability. It is, thus, the intention that the DRM Helix can provide a catalyst for exciting discussions and future adaptations of the diagram that can better capture the dynamic (non-cyclical) nature of disasters and their root causes.

Cultural heritage (CH) sites are not only important components of a country’s identity but can also be important drivers of tourism. However, an increasing number of extreme events associated with the impacts of climate change, natural hazards and human-induced threats are posing significant problems in conserving and managing CH worldwide. Consequently, improved climate change adaptation and enhanced hazard/threat mitigation strategies have become critical (but to-date under-researched) considerations. The purpose of this paper is to identify the key hazards and threats to CH sites, the most common types of risks to CH and the strategies being adopted to mitigate or even eradicate those risks.

This paper reviews 80 CH case studies from around the world, which have been presented at a UNESCO International Training Course between 2006 and 2016. The case studies cover 45 different countries and provide practical insights into the key challenges being encountered in a variety of “at risk” locations.

The analysis assesses the key natural hazards and human-induced threats to the sites, an overview of the typical impacts to the tangible components of heritage and identifies the types of strategies being adopted to mitigate the risks, some of which could be transferred across cultural and geographical contexts.

The paper provides a wealth of useful information related to how challenges faced by CH sites might be addressed in the future.

Driven by the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, decision makers have been striving to reorientate policy debates towards the aspiration of achieving urban resilience and monitoring the effectiveness of adaptive measures through the implementation of standardised indicators. Consequently, there has been a rise of indicator systems measuring resilience. This paper aims to argue that the ambition of making cities resilient does not always make them less vulnerable, more habitable, equitable and just.

Using an inductive policy analysis of ISO standard 37123:2019 “Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for resilient cities”, the authors examine the extent to which the root causes of risks are being addressed by the urban resilience agenda.

The authors show that the current standardisation of resilience fails to adequately address the political dimension of disaster risk reduction, reducing resilience to a management tool and missing the opportunity to address the socio-political sources of risks.

Such critical analysis of the Standard is important as it moves away from a hazard-centric approach and, instead, permits to shed light on the socio-political processes of risk creation and to adopt a more nuanced and sensitive understanding of urban characteristics and governance mechanisms.

A number of severe weather events have influenced a shift in UK policy concerning how climate-induced hazards are managed. Whist this shift has encouraged improvements in emergency management and preparedness, the risk of climate change is increasingly becoming securitised within policy discourses, and enmeshed with broader agendas traditionally associated with human-induced threats. Climate change is seen as a security risk because it can impede development of a nation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the evolution of the securitisation of climate change, and interrogates how such framings influence a range of conceptual and policy focused approaches towards both security and climate change.

Drawing upon the UK context, the paper uses a novel methodological approach combining critical discourse analysis and focus groups with security experts and policymakers.

The resulting policy landscape appears inexorably skewed towards short-term decision cycles that do little to mitigate longer-term threats to the nation’s assets. Whilst a prominent political action on a global level is required in order to mitigate the root causes (i.e. GHG emissions), national level efforts focus on adaptation (preparedness to the impacts of climate-induced hazards), and are forming part of the security agenda.

These issues are not restricted to the UK: understanding the role of security and its relationship to climate change becomes more pressing and urgent, as it informs the consequences of securitising climate change risks for development-disaster risk system.

There is a need to proactively address strategic weaknesses in protecting the built environment from a range of hazards. This paper seeks to focus on the mitigation for flood hazards in the UK; particularly in understanding the extent of the problem, collating key guidance and legislation related to flood hazard mitigation, identifying who the key construction decision makers are and the most opportune stages of the Design‐Construction‐Operation Process when they need to make their key decisions.

A pluralistic research design was adopted for the study, which included a UK‐wide questionnaire survey and a set of semi‐structured interviews involving a range of professionals from construction, planning, insurance, emergency management and local/national government agencies was undertaken.

Despite the publication of a range of guidance on flood hazard mitigation in the UK there is still insufficient evidence that key construction stakeholders are playing an active role in mitigating flood risk. The pre‐construction phase of a building's life cycle is identified as is the most critical stage when key stakeholders need to adopt flood hazard mitigation strategies. The socio‐institutional constraints to the proactive attainment of built‐in resilience are highlighted as are recommendations as to how these constraints can be addressed.

The paper reports on the provisional findings of an ongoing project but these findings nonetheless provide essential foundations for the latter development of the PRE‐EMPT toolkit and also raise some important considerations about flood resilience in the UK.

The findings presented reveal how stakeholders should be better involved, and what issues they need to address, regarding the integration of built‐in resilience into construction decision making.

The paper seeks to assess the influence and effectiveness of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) in targeting and aiding “communities” to reduce their socio‐economic vulnerability to infrequent large‐scale and common everyday crises in coastal Andhra Pradesh.

Data collection included 342 questionnaires with village inhabitants, local and regional government officials and personnel managing and working for local NGOs. To add qualitative detail to the quantitative data that were collected, 308 “everyday” sociograms, 294 “crisis” sociograms, and 34 semi‐structured interviews were also conducted.

The research identifies that NGOs in the study areas do not operate in multi‐caste villages, apparently because they prefer to operate in relatively homogeneous single‐caste villages. The implications are that some of the most vulnerable members of society, such as the marginalised “communities” that partially constitute multi‐caste villages, do not receive the support they need.

This study focuses on a specific region of Andhra Pradesh with the consequence that the findings are potentially very context‐specific. Nonetheless, the findings highlight a fundamental flaw in the way many NGOs operate in this region, through the targeting of perceived “easy cases”, and this is a matter that development agencies should consider and further investigate.

This paper will be of value to researchers and practitioners seeking to gain a better understanding of NGOs and the way some of them operate. The paper recommends a number of ways that the observed inefficiencies could be addressed.

Professions involved with the construction industry need to become more aware of disaster risk management (DRM) activities if lessons are to be learned from the past and a resilient built environment attained in the future. This study aims to focus on identifying which construction‐associated stakeholders should be involved with DRM initiatives in the UK, and when these stakeholders should be involved. This research is thereby unique and a key step in the longer‐term aim of identifying how stakeholders should be involved and what issues they need to address regarding the integration of DRM into construction decision making.

This paper presents the findings of a UK‐wide questionnaire survey, semi‐structured interviews and a validation exercise involving a range of professionals from construction, planning, insurance, emergency management and local/national government agencies.

This research identifies the key construction stakeholders that should be responsible for ensuring that resilience issues become integrated and ensuring the key stages of the design‐construction‐operation process where their inputs are required.

The finding presented are an important and logical step in the longer term aim of identifying how stakeholders should be better involved and what issues they need to address regarding the integration of DRM into construction decision making.

Employing a case study of Barbados, the purpose of this paper is to highlight key stakeholders involved in the construction sector, discusses the roles of construction stakeholders in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and the key stages of the construction process where proactive DRR inputs could be made, The following objectives are addressed: to describe the main natural hazards in Barbados; to reveal key stakeholders involved in the decision making during the design, construction and operation process (DCOP) and DRR process; to discuss the roles of construction stakeholders in DRR and the key stages of the DCOP where proactive DRR inputs could be made; to emphasise the main barriers to the implementation of DRR in the Barbados’ construction sector.

A qualitative case study methodology, that includes semi-structured interviews with construction stakeholders in Barbados, a critical review of relevant literature and media coverage of natural hazards, and construction site visits.

The key construction stakeholders that should be responsible for DRR integration in construction process are identified. The main barriers to the implementation of DRR in the Barbados’ construction sector are also discussed; these include the absence of an enforced building code and complacency towards natural hazards from the general population as well as construction stakeholders.

Whilst some attempts have been made in mainstreaming DRR into construction projects in Barbados, many of the measures are not effectively implemented due to various constraints. In addition, little research has been done on the state of the construction sector and its use of DRR in the Caribbean. This paper aims to fill this research gap.