Search results

The purpose of the paper is to challenge and address the limitations of the traditional system of knowledge production that is embedded in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It argues that knowledge production in research processes conforms to colonialist thinking or west-inspired approaches. Such a system often results in the omission of crucial information due to a lack of participation, inclusion and diversity in knowledge production.

The paper proposes practices and recommendations to decolonise knowledge production in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It provides a brief literature review on the concepts of decolonisation of knowledge and epistemological freedom, and its origins; assesses the need for knowledge decolonisation, emphasising on the integration of local knowledge from grassroots women-led initiatives in instances where disasters and crises are being investigated in vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South; and finally the paper proposes to decolonise knowledge production through activating co-learning and co-production. The practices have been developed from the work of relevant authors in the field and case studies.

Through a brief literature review on previous discourses on the topic of knowledge decolonisation and analysis of recent case studies on disaster and crisis management and community resilience, the paper finds that there exists a lack of pluralism and inclusion in epistemology which limits the pursuit to obtain the whole truth in the production of knowledge in research studies.

This paper adds to the discussion of decolonisation of knowledge in the field of disaster and climate change research studies, and research processes in general. It provides in-depth analyses of recent case studies of emerging community resilience and local practices that were crucial in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis.

This chapter explores the ways in which residents in Pekan, Kuantan and Temerloh districts dealt with extreme floods in the Pahang River Basin. The data were based on a survey of 602 respondents who were affected by the floods, using a set of questionnaire in a face-to-face interview conducted in June 2015. Results of the study show that the flood has destructed the livelihood, crops and small business activities of the affected communities. Vulnerabilities of the communities are linked to the lack of flood warning, landlessness, unstable housing and food insecurity, in addition to female-headed households with financial burden. Community empowerment is necessary for recovering and reducing the loss and damages incurred and improving the quality of life. The prevention and coping measures aim to reduce risk of disasters for the communities in areas that are most vulnerable and less resilient. Flood preparedness is a good preventive measure to limit the negative impacts of extreme flooding in the future. Upgrading of communication system, diversification of income and strengthening of social institution networks are most appropriately recommended for flood adaptation and mitigation strategies.

The transcript is of one from a number of interviews with disaster risk reduction (DRR) “pioneers” carried out in 2022 as a part of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project to record the history of the field. It aims to enable one of the “pioneers” to explain his role in the emergence of disaster studies and provide critical commentary on what he considers is wrong with current DRR approaches.

Terry Cannon was interviewed to explain the beginnings of his involvement in disasters research and to comment on his views on progress in the field of disaster risk reduction since his early work in the 1980s. The transcript and video were developed in the context of the UNDRR project on the history of DRR.

The interview provides an account of the origins of the book “At Risk” and why it was considered necessary. This is put into the context of how the field of DRR has emerged since the 1980s. It elicits opinions on what he considers the gaps in both his early work (especially in the book “At Risk” of which he was a co-author) and in the field of DRR recently.

It provides historical context on how early disaster research developed the alternative framework of “social construction” of disasters, in opposition to the idea that they are “natural”. It challenges some of the approaches that have emerged as DRR and has been institutionalised, including its increasing difficulty in supporting the ideas of social construction.

This paper aims to contribute to the ethical debate over roles and responsibilities to address the injustices of climate change and its impacts. The current impasse over taking action may lie in the very different ways people view the world and their place in it. The aim is to explore some profound contradictions within differing strands of knowledge feeding into common understandings of climate justice.

A literature review of appropriate peer-reviewed and “grey” literature was conducted with a view to defining the term “climate justice”.

In addition to there being no single, clear definition of climate justice, a fundamental schism was found between what indigenous peoples want to see happen and what industrialised nations can do with respect to both the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

One limitation to defining climate justice, and reason for publishing, is the lack of peer-reviewed work on this topic.

This paper has many practical implications, the most fundamental of which is the need to reach a consensus over rights to the Earth’s resources. If humanity, within which there are many societies, chooses to follow a truly equitable path post 2015, industrialised countries and corporations will need to move away from “endless growth economics”. The ways in which climate justice might be operationalised in future are considered, including the concept of a “climate-justice” checklist.

While the reconciliation proposed in this paper might be considered idealistic, unless it is acknowledged the Earth’s resources are limited, over-exploited and for all people to use sustainably, thus requiring a reduction in consumption by individuals relatively affluent in global terms, climate negotiators will continue talking about the same issues without achieving meaningful change.

The study investigates the intention to adopt climate change and the pro-environmental behaviours among the residents of a developing country (Pakistan) through the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).

This is a quantitative designed study and uses a questionnaire to collect cross-sectional data. The authors distributed about 1,600 questionnaires, of which 980 were returned; this represented a 61% response rate.

From applying the PLS-SEM 3.0 technique, the findings highlight the positive and significant impact of attitudes towards climate change (ATCC) and subjective norms (SN) on the intention to adopt climate change (ITCC). On the other hand, perceived behavioural control (PBC) has an insignificant effect on ITCC. Moreover, the ITCC is a significant predictor of pro-environmental behaviour (PEB). Finally, ITCC has a positive effect in mediating the relationship between TPB constructs (ATCC, SN and PBC) and PEB.

This study's findings assist policymakers in designing policies and better plans to enrich the individuals' vision and attitudes towards creating a conducive and healthy environment. Further, this study's findings encourage the promotion of widespread intentions to overcome the environmental challenges of climate change.

In the context of Pakistan, this study's findings offer empirical confirmation of TPB, climate change and PEB.