A Dilemma of Language: “Natural Disasters” in Academic Literature

Abstract

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.

Inherent Complexities of a Multi-stakeholder Approach to Building Community Resilience

“…It will inevitably have its limits in terms of the ability of local communities to cope with the response demands of an event, the skills that they need to deal with those demands, and the role that government should play in building and sustaining resilience. To support this point, Chmutina and von Meding (2019) call for the mindful use of language in framing issues that could further undermine the resilience of the most vulnerable in society. Chmutina and von Meding (2019) charge those making efforts to prevent disasters to rather focus on addressing the complex root causes.…”

“…Chmutina and von Meding (2019) charge those making efforts to prevent disasters to rather focus on addressing the complex root causes. That is, reducing community vulnerability and exposure to hazards through initiating empowering policies and regulations, pursuing an equitable society structure, and providing needed resources (Wisner et al 2004;Gould et al 2016;Chmutina and von Meding 2019). (Table 1).…”

Five Years Beyond Sendai—Can We Get Beyond Frameworks?

“…What do we know for sure? 6 Disasters are not ''natural'' (O'Keefe et al 1976;Chmutina and von Meding 2019). The conventional and common-sense notion of a ''natural'' disaster is wrong and misleading.…”

The (im)possibilities of disaster risk reduction in the context of high-intensity conflict: the case of Afghanistan

“…The distinction between human-induced disasters (e.g. conflict) and natural disasters has long been obsolete (Chmutina and von Meding, 2019; see Dynes and Quarantelli, 1971;Quarantelli and Dynes, 1977;Sorokin, 1943;Stallings, 1988). Recognising the social dimensions of disasters, academic and policy literature avoid the phrase 'natural disasters', as disasters come about through the interplay of socially produced vulnerability and natural hazards, which are largely determined by land use, water management, human-induced climate change, and social mitigation measures, among others (Cannon, 1994;Kelman, 2010;Kelman et al, 2015;O'Keefe et al, 1976).…”