For decades sections of the academic community have been emphasizing that disasters are not natural. Nevertheless, politicians, the media, various international organizations-and, more surprisingly, many established researchers working in disaster studies-are still widely using the expression ''natural disaster.'' We systematically analyzed the usage of the expression ''natural disaster'' by disaster studies researchers in 589 articles in six key academic journals representative of disaster studies research, and found that authors are using the expression in three principal ways: (1) delineating natural and human-induced hazards; (2) using the expression to leverage popularity; and (3) critiquing the expression ''natural disaster.'' We also identified vulnerability themes that illustrate the context of ''natural disaster'' usage. The implications of continuing to use this expression, while explicitly researching human vulnerability, are wide-ranging, and we explore what this means for us and our peers. This study particularly aims to stimulate debate within the disaster studies research community and related fields as to whether the term ''natural disaster'' is really fit for purpose moving forward.

No abstract

Purpose: The UK construction industry produces up to one third of all waste to landfill. This study\ud aims to identify specific project practices impeding the reduction of waste in construction projects as\ud well as uncovering potential waste solutions throughout the project delivery process. The rationale\ud being that for such a drastic reduction in waste to landfill, holistic and extensive measures would be\ud required.\ud Design/Methodology/Approach: A two-way methodological approach was used. These comprised\ud of qualitative unstructured interviews and a quantitative questionnaire survey of three major\ud stakeholders in the UK construction industry: clients, architects and contractors.\ud Findings: Design factors remain the major cause of impediments to waste reduction to landfill.\ud Critical impediments include, clients making waste prevention a top priority in projects, overly\ud complex designs, waste taking a low priority compared to project time and costs, lack of concerns by\ud designers for buildability among others. Critical solutions include early supply chain involvement in\ud design process, choosing materials for their durability, early communication of design changes to all\ud parties, longer project programmes and better lead times, among others.\ud Practical Implications: In all, the target of halving construction waste to landfill based on the 2008\ud benchmark is achievable but would require construction companies to take it upon themselves to\ud implement the proposed solutions suggested by this study.\ud Originality/Value: The value of this research is to provide UK construction companies with solutions\ud to reduce waste and aid the reaching of the landfill target, as landfill is decreasing as a solution to\ud waste. In addition the cost savings on reducing waste could be crucial for companies in this current\ud economic climate

Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have similar targets and goals in relation to climate change and related risks. The integration of CCA in core DRR operations is crucial to provide simultaneous benefits for social systems coping with challenges posed by climate extremes and climate change. Although state actors are generally responsible for governing a public issue such as CCA and DRR integration, the reform of top-down governing modes in neoliberal societies has enlarged the range of potential actors to include non state actors from economic and social communities. These new intervening actors require in-depth investigation. To achieve this goal, the article investigates the set of actors and their bridging arrangements that create and shape governance in CCA and DRR integration. The article conducts a comprehensive literature review in order to retrieve main actors and arrangements. The article summarizes actors and arrangements into a conceptual governance framework that can be used as a backdrop for future research on the topic. However, this framework has an explorative form, which must be refined according to site-and context-specific variables, norms, or networks. Accordingly, this article promotes an initial application of the framework to different contexts. Scholars may adopt the framework as a roadmap with which to corroborate the existence of a theoretical and empirical body of knowledge on governance of CCA and DRR integration.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Gaza Strip has suffered regular cycles of reconstruction due to systematic destruction during Israeli military operations, as in 2006, 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014. In this context of ongoing conflict this article aims to identify, rank, and discuss the most important factors influencing post-disaster reconstruction project management (PDRPM) for housing in the Gaza Strip. A set of key factors that influence PDRPM were assembled as a result of a global literature review. A questionnaire survey was conducted, and the obtained data were analyzed using a relative importance index for each PDRPM factor. Findings are presented in six groups: housing approaches, organizational behavior, project funding, supply chain and logistics, communication and coordination, and PDRPM context. Findings indicate that the most significant factors that influence PDRPM for housing provision in the Gaza Strip are related to issues associated with financial resources. It is critical that sufficient funding should be available in order to allow organizations to undertake housing projects in an effective and efficient way. Joint efforts are required from international donors and local organizations in order to effectively manage financial resources with the ultimate goal of improving PDRPM for housing provision.

No abstract

No abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030’s (SFDRR) framing moved away from disaster risk as a natural phenomenon to the examination of the inequality and injustice at the root of human vulnerability to hazards and disasters. Yet, its achievements have not seriously challenged the long-established capitalist systems of oppression that hinder the development leading to disaster risk creation. This article is an exploratory mapping exercise of and a collective reflection on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and SFDRR indicators—and their use in measuring progress towards disaster risk reduction (DRR). We highlight that despite the rhetoric of vulnerability, the measurement of progress towards DRR remains event/hazard-centric. We argue that the measurement of disaster risk could be greatly enhanced by the integration of development data in future iterations of global DRR frameworks for action.