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

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.

PurposeDisaster studies has emerged as an international interdisciplinary body of knowledge; however, similar to other academic disciplines, its terminology is predominantly anglophone. This paper explores the implications of translating disaster studies terminology, most often theorised in English, into other languages and back.Design/methodology/approachThe authors chose six of the most commonly used (as well as debated and contested) terms that are prominent in academic, policy and public discourses: resilience, vulnerability, capacity, disaster, hazard and risk. These words were translated into 54 languages and the meanings were articulated descriptively in cases where the translation did not have exactly the same meaning as the word in English. The authors then analysed these meanings in order to understand implications of disaster scholars working between dominant and “peripheral” languages.FindingsFindings of the study demonstrate that many of the terms so casually used in disaster studies in English do not translate easily – or at all – opening the concepts that are encoded in these terms for further interpretation. Moreover, the terms used in disaster studies are not only conceptualised in English but are also tied to an anglophone approach to research. It is important to consider the intertwined implications that the use of the terminology carries, including the creation of a “separate” language, power vs communication and linguistic imperialism.Originality/valueUnderstanding of the meaning (and contestation of meaning) of these terms in English provides an insight into the power relationships between English and the other language. Given the need to translate key concepts from English into other languages, it is important to appreciate their cultural and ideological “baggage”.

‘Building back better’ (BBB) has become one of the most common expressions in disaster risk reduction. Disasters offer an opportunity to encourage improvements not only in the structural safety of buildings and infrastructure, but also in addressing structural inequalities and injustice. Consequently, they are an opportunity to make things ‘better’. However, in the context of neoliberalism, the definition of ‘better’ does not always mean ‘good for all’. We argue here that BBB allows for widely varied definitions of what is and what is not a risk, who is and is not responsible, and what forms of action are to be taken in response to these dangers. This serves as a designation for capacity to make ‘better’, but not actively change, social and political systems that initially create risk. Disasters and its terminology, therefore, are not ideologically neutral and should thus be deliberately unpacked and critically evaluated rather than accepted unquestioned.

Numerous fast-growing coastal cities in the Global South are exposed to coastal, fluvial and pluvial floods, as a consequence of decades-long rapid urbanisation and weak enforcement of planning regulations. Integrating Blue–Green Infrastructure (BGI) concepts into the development of the urban landscape has the potential to increase flood resilience and offer broader environmental benefits. BGI is an innovative approach that combines water management and green infrastructure to maintain natural water cycles and enhance environmental and urban renewal. This paper identifies socio-economic, cultural and political challenges influencing BGI adoption in Semarang city in Indonesia. Data was collected from residents of three communities through interviews (n=30), questionnaires (n=180) and focus groups with policymakers and community representatives. The combined quantitative and qualitative data provide an understanding of the specific socio-economic, cultural and political issues at play and reveal flood experience as well as perceptions of community members regarding flood management. Challenges are presented from the point of view of residents and local policymakers and are based on a framework for facilitating local BGI adoption, setting the principles of “inclusive”, “appropriate” and “proactive” as pre-conditions for enhancing community resilience to flooding.

Nepal is considered one of the most disaster-prone countries is the world, with vulnerabilities exacerbated by chronic poverty. Whilst a variety of sound buildings codes and regulations has been introduced in the past decades, a challenge exists in implementing these as the majority of the building stock is constructed by informal construction workers. Based on a case study of Nepal's Banepa Town, this paper aims to explore the role of knowledge, perceptions of and experiences with disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures among informal construction stakeholders. The paper highlights that whilst the level of awareness of hazards and knowledge of the importance of DRR measures among informal construction stakeholders is high, it is also important to consider perceptions and organisational challenges when finding the best solutions for promoting DRR measures. There is still a gap between transforming knowledge into practice, often because of the perceptions (such as trust, experience, and gender) that are predominant in the sector. Understanding these issues is important as this situation is not unique to Nepal: rapid urbanisation in many developing countries has similarly led to a boom in informal construction sectors and construction that has little regard for building codes and regulations.