Search results

In the realm of disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts and disaster resilience discipline globally, the impacts of disasters at the family level – especially in terms of interpersonal relationships – remain largely understudied. This paper aims to explore the impacts of postdisaster relocation on the internal dynamics of families in Southville 7 in Calauan, Laguna, Philippines during the aftermath of the 2009 typhoon Ketsana, and endeavors to inform institutional policies to strengthen families’ disaster resilience.

Purposive sampling was applied in choosing the 20 participating families for the case study of Site III, Southville 7 – a relocation site housing more than 3,000 displaced families from Metro Manila during typhoon Ketsana. Data gathering methods such as semistructured interviews and personal observations were used during fieldwork, the findings of which were coded to reveal the study’s analytical themes.

Research findings reveal that the impacts of postdisaster relocation to family dynamics could be classified into seven broad categories: family composition and structure; members’ roles; parenting; parents’ marital relationship; familial relationship; family member’s personalities; and death and disabilities. The interplay between these impacts results in either stronger overall family cohesion or further relational ruptures.

By spotlighting the impacts of disasters on overall family dynamics in the context of postdisaster relocation, this study seeks to elevate the place of the family in the DRR and disaster resilience discourse.

This paper aims to identify key factors for a contextualised Systemic Risk Governance (SRG) framework and subsequently explore how systemic risks can be managed and how local institutional mechanisms can be tweaked to deal with the complex Indonesian risk landscape.

Using a case study from Palu triple-disasters in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the authors demonstrate how inland earthquakes in 2018 created cascading secondary hazards, namely tsunamis, liquefactions and landslides, caused unprecedented disasters for the communities and the nation. A qualitative analysis was conducted using the data collected through a long-term observation since 2002.

The authors argue that Indonesia has yet to incorporate an SRG approach in its responses to the Palu triple-disasters. Political will is required to adopt more appropriate risk governance modes that promote the systemic risk paradigm. Change needs to occur incrementally through hybrid governance arrangements ranging from formal/informal methods to self- and horizontal and vertical modes of governance deemed more realistic and feasible. The authors recommend that this be done by focusing on productive transition and local transformation.

There is growing awareness and recognition of the importance of systemic and cascading risks in disaster risk studies. However, there are still gaps between research, policy and practice. The current progress of disaster risk governance is not sufficient to achieve the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) unless there is an effective governing system in place at the local level that allow actors and institutions to simultaneously manage the interplays of multi-hazards, multi-temporal, multi-dimensions of vulnerabilities and residual risks. This paper contributes to these knowledge gaps.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how past experiences in implementing disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities can be harnessed to conceptualise effective and appropriate climate change adaptation (CCA) programs in Indonesia. The authors propose a conceptual framework for integrating DRR and CCA in managing climate‐related risks and explain the need for joint implementation.

The study is conducted through review and analysis of academic, government and non‐government literature to determine the Indonesian experience in integrating DRR and CCA. Interviews were conducted with 26 DRR and CCA stakeholders in Indonesia.

The authors make three propositions in this paper. First, there needs to be a re‐orientation of the institutional arrangements for DRR and CCA, to increase the effectiveness of planning and implementation. Second, DRR and CCA activities needed to be stronger supported at the local level, with a specific aim to reduce the underlying causes of vulnerability of communities at risk. Third, non‐government organisations play a very important role in integrating DRR and CCA through community‐based initiatives.

While this paper focuses specifically on Indonesia, the findings are relevant to other countries with similar geographical and socio‐economic conditions, as they are likely to face similar challenges.

The paper provides practical suggestions on what steps government actors, at all political levels, can do to support the integration of DRR and CCA planning and implementation activities in Indonesia.

The paper is one of the first to document progress in integrating DRR and CCA in Indonesia.