Search results

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the ways that refugee and forced im/migrant (RFI) youth move across time and context in their educational experiences. In particular, the contextual characteristics of determinism, duration, and mobility are explained, and the factors most often associated with RFI youth educational experiences (i.e., trauma, identity, and language) are discussed in reference to the ways that educational infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability are typically established and maintained in educational situations worldwide. This chapter also provides a brief overview of the volume’s chapters and the ways that each chapter addresses one or more of these themes or topics.

This paper proposes a way of reflexing on how we think within critical disaster studies. It focuses on the biases and unthought dimensions of two concepts – resilience and development – and reflects on the relationship between theory and practice in critical disaster studies.

Premised on the idea of epistemic reflexivity developed by Pierre Bourdieu, and drawing on previous research, this theoretical article analyses two conceptual biases and shortcomings of disaster studies: how resilience builds on certain agency; and how development assumes certain political imagination.

The article argues that critical disaster scholars must reflect on their own intellectual practice, including the origin of concepts and what they do. This is exemplified by a description of how the idea of resistance is intimately connected to that of resilience, and by showing that we must go beyond the capitalist realism that typically underlies development and risk creation. The theoretical advancement of our field can provide ways of thinking about the premises of many of our concepts.

The paper offers an invitation for disaster researchers to engage with critical thought and meta-theoretical reflexions. To think profoundly about our concepts is a necessary first step to developing critical scholarship. Epistemic reflexivity in critical disaster studies therefore provides an interesting avenue by which to liberate the field from overly technocratic approaches and develop its own criticality.

Policy is key for effective displacement governance in times of crises and in response and recovery. Therefore, this study assessed if Australian climate, disaster and emergency management policies provide effective mechanisms for governing displacement crises and areas where current approaches could be improved.

This study assessed 18 national and state-level disaster, emergency and climate change management frameworks to determine if best practice displacement governance themes were reflected in policy documents. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method.

Issues of displacement are reflected in policies analysed in this study. However, current policy frameworks need to be equipped to comprehensively address the housing requirements of displaced people or provide long-term initiatives. Approaches are focused on crisis management rather than pre-emptively planning for displacement response and recovery. Therefore, Australia has not exercised national responsibility for displaced people appropriately.

Disaster displacement is an under-researched area of Australian scholarship and disaster management policy and practice. Therefore, this paper has practical implications in so far as it draws attention to the issue of displacement in Australia. A limitation of this paper is that it only analysed policy frameworks specific to disasters. While broader engagement was outside the scope of this study, this limitation provides opportunities for further research from disciplinary perspectives of public housing and homelessness to examine displacement policy challenges in these fields. Furthermore, this study is limited to a theoretical inquiry into this topic through a desktop review of policy documents. While this is a necessary first step, empirical studies are required to determine accurate displacement rates, drivers and people’s experience of being displaced.

This research aims to inform policy by presenting recommendations for policy interventions for disaster displacement governance. Therefore, this research has practical implications as policy and disaster risk reduction (DRR) professionals can draw from the findings of this research when planning and initiating disaster response for displaced persons.

This research draws attention to an area of disaster management practice and policy that has not been adequately accounted for. Highlighting gaps in current policy can assist in developing targeted strategies and solutions for internally displaced people, which protect their rights and meet their needs.

Displacement is a growing climate change issue. This research aims to help address this problem by drawing attention to areas where Australian disaster management approaches fail to account for displaced populations. Therefore, this research has practical implications for addressing future issues of disaster injustice that may arise if displacement continues, unacknowledged in disaster management.

The occurrences of disasters have become a common phenomenon in the world and there is evidence that the frequency and intensity of disasters are increasing. There have been more than 7,000 disaster events and around 265 million displacements in the period from 2008 to 2018, which constitutes more than three times of conflict and violence-related displacements (Disaster Displacement – A global review, 2019). Natural disasters are responsible for nearly 60,000 deaths per year on average and are responsible for 0.1% of global deaths. Various forms of natural disasters pose significant threats to lives, livelihoods, economic development, and ecological diversity around the world. Similar to the world scenario, Sri Lanka has a similar situation. Sri Lanka has been identified as a drought hot spot. Nearly, 15,000 people per million are at risk of disaster-induced displacement every year in Sri Lanka. During the Tsunami, in 2004, 31,000 human lives were lost, and more than a million people were displaced. Thus, natural disasters cause a huge negative impact on society and the economy in Sri Lanka. In this context, the main objectives of this study are to overview the disasters and displacements that have occurred during the last two decades and to explore the livelihood activities of the affected people and their best practices of disaster resilience. Secondary data were used to overview the disasters and displacements of the last two decades and the related policy framework of the country. Primary data were used to identify livelihood activities and disaster-resilient strategies of the affected people. In-depth interviews were conducted with an unstructured questionnaire from 15 recovered families who have been affected by Tsunami and landslides that occurred in the country. The purposive sampling method was used to select families from the most disaster-affected areas. Descriptive methods were used to analyze the data. The study revealed five recovery strategies followed by displaced people from tsunamis and landslides. Those are continuing with the previous livelihood activities as much as possible, moving to different livelihood activities, moving to different areas to find better jobs, attaining external assistance, and self-management on household finance. Finally, policy guidelines for building resilience in communities that will help to enhance their capacity to cope and recover from vulnerability are proposed in improving their lives.

Using critical disaster studies and state theory, we assess the disaster aid platform named Lebanon Reconstruction, Reform and Recovery Framework (3RF) that was put in place by international donors in the aftermath of the Beirut Port Blast in August 2020, in order to examine the effectiveness of its inclusive decision-making architecture, as well as its institutional building and legislative reform efforts.

The paper uses the case study approaach and relies on two original data sets compiled by authors, using desk reviews of academic literature and secondary data, in addition to 24 semi-structured expert interviews and participant observation for two years.

The aid platform appears innovative, participatory and effectively functioning toward recovery and reform. However, in practice, the government dismisses CSOs, undermines reforms and dodges state building, whereas the 3RF is structured in incoherent ways and operates according to conflicting logics, generating inertia and pitfalls that hinder effective participatory governance, prevent institutional building, and delay the making of projects.

The research contributes to critical scholarship as it addresses an important research gap concerning disaster aid platforms’ institutional design and governance that are under-studied in critical disaster studies and political studies. It also highlights the need for critical disaster studies to engage with state theory and vice-versa.

The research contributes to evaluations of disaster recovery processes and outcomes. It highlights the limits of disaster aid platforms’ claims for participatory decision-making, institutional-building and reforms.

The paper amplifies critical disaster studies, through the reflexive analysis of a case-study of an aid platform.

Nepal is exposed to multi-hazard risk and is highly prone to disasters such as earthquake, flood, landslide, and drought. The climate, topography, nature-based livelihood, and weak economy and institutional capability to deal with such disasters put the country at frontline of the highly vulnerable countries in the world. Majority of the population of Nepal live in rural areas which are characterized by poorly developed infrastructures. Several disasters in such areas induce temporarily or permanently displacements of the people. Vulnerable communities, households, and individuals lack the capacity to withstand shocks, while more resilient communities are able to reduce the associated risks. Migration during disasters is itself an adaptive response which is both the opportunity and challenge for developing a resilient community. This chapter presents the trends and patterns of disaster-induced displacements in Nepal and explores how disaster-induced displacements could be an opportunity to build back better to enhance the resilience of the vulnerable communities. This chapter also highlights the existing institutions and disaster management framework of the national policies and strategies at the federal, provincial, and local levels in the light of disaster-induced displacement, and recommend actions that need to be taken to manage the risk of disaster-induced displacements and enhance resilient livelihoods in Nepal.

The question of “why we are in disaster studies” can be essential to reflect on discourses and practices – as students, researchers and professors – in constituting an oppressive disaster science and finding ways to liberate from it.

This paper is based on autobiographical research and institutional ethnography to observe and analyze the discourses and practices about career trajectories as students, researchers and professors in disaster studies.

The paper provides some categories, concepts, theoretical approaches and lived experiences helpful for discussing ways of liberating disaster studies, such as public sociology of disaster.

Few papers have focused on professional trajectories in disaster studies, bringing insights from public sociology and questioning oppressive disaster science.

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.

The authors revisit the notion of co-production, highlight more critical and re-politicized forms of co-production and introduce three principles for its operationalization. The paper’s viewpoint aims to find entry points for enabling more equitable disaster research and actions via co-production.

The authors draw insights from the authors’ reflections as climate and disaster researchers and literature on knowledge politics in the context of disaster and climate change, especially within critical disaster studies and feminist political ecology.

Disaster studies can better contribute to disaster risk reduction via political co-production and situating local and Indigenous knowledge at the center through three principles, i.e. ensuring knowledge plurality, surfacing norms and assumptions in knowledge production and driving actions that tackle existing knowledge (and broader sociopolitical) structures.

The authors draw out three principles to enable the political function of co-production based on firsthand experiences of working with local and Indigenous peoples and insights from a diverse set of co-production, feminist political ecology and critical disaster studies literature. Future research can observe how it can utilize these principles in its respective contexts.

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.