Search results

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.

The transcript provides an overview of the development of the field and changing paradigms in this regard.

The transcript was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the history of disaster risk reduction (DRR).

The transcript traces the initial discussions of how the At Risk book was conceived and presents new dimensions and challenges within the field.

The interview highlights the importance of the need to document the transitions, developments and paradigm changes in the field over time.

The transcript takes you on a journey of the book mapping vulnerability and the developments thereafter.

The transcript and video was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the History of DRR.

This interview highlights how DRR is central to conflict settings as well.

The interview provides reflections on DRR in conflict settings.

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.

In this paper, we explore the impact of land management practices on post-disaster housing, to draw lessons from the case of reconstruction in Türkiye.

We conducted two qualitative case studies of two reconstruction experiences following the 2020 Elazığ and İzmir earthquakes. We analyzed 70 articles, technical reports and press releases and then used a set of policy analysis tools to examine five policy documents in depth. Finally, we wanted to understand how key officers interpreted these policy documents, so we closely analyzed the transcripts of eight semi-structured interviews.

Türkiye’s legal framework comprises five main policies that concentrate power in the central government and are not tailored to post-disaster reconstruction. This framework facilitates the construction of rubber-stamped apartment buildings, which disregard cultural and social contexts and practices. The current reconstruction policy neglects alternative options like cooperative housing, which could better respond to communal needs and expectations. It also often leads to the loss of land rights among affected residents.

We only analyzed decision-making processes in two case studies and based our study on a limited number of interviews. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize our results and apply them to other contexts. Further quantitative and qualitative work is necessary to conceptualize the links between land management and post-disaster housing reconstruction.

Our findings suggest a need for legislative frameworks specifically designed to address land management during post-disaster reconstruction. The concentration of power in central governments is problematic, thus it remains crucial to empower local authorities by reinforcing technical expertise and facilitating administrative autonomy.

This study offers unique insights into how power relations influence land management practices in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Examining the centralization of power and its impact on cultural and social practices identifies common forms of dispossession and points to key areas for policy improvement.