Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.