What We Measure Matters: The Case of the Missing Development Data in Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Monitoring

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.

The challenges of dynamic vulnerability and how to assess it

“…The authors describe vulnerability as an integral part of disasters and what makes disasters human constructs (Rusca et al, 2021). Chmutina et al (2021) argue that the way in which the UN's Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) assesses progress in terms of disaster risk reduction (DRR) remains hazard or disaster-focused instead of being rooted in vulnerability and development as root causes of risk, calling disasters ''time-delayed manifestations of structural violence and maldevelopment.'' We hypothesize that this is especially the case for hazards where more structural DRR measures can be taken, such as floods.…”

Towards a liberatory pedagogy of disaster risk reduction among built environment educators

“…This has implications for DRR as the solutions a love-based response might generate, with central values of care and solidarity, are diametrically opposed to the long-term consequences for those bearing vulnerability under the status quo. A strong critique of the existing socio-political system often lays bare the agenda of those proposing and implementing technocratic DRR solutions (Chmutina et al, 2021). A curricular grounded in love would teach how to connect local solutions to global problems, engaging with historical legacies, and practicing courage and solidarity (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2012;Sultana, 2019).…”

“…This has implications for DRR as the solutions a love-based response might generate, with central values of care and solidarity, are diametrically opposed to the long-term consequences for those bearing vulnerability under the status quo. A strong critique of the existing sociopolitical system often lays bare the agenda of those proposing and implementing technocratic DRR solutions (Chmutina et al. , 2021).…”

Socioterritorialidad del Riesgo de Desastres: Un Estudio de Representaciones Sociales en el Municipio de Piedecuesta, Colombia

“…No obstante, en gran parte de los países latinoamericanos, el riesgo de desastres se sigue abordando desde sólo una perspectiva técnica, bajo una óptica de ingeniería del medio ambiente (Chmutina et al, 2021;Preciado, 2007), lo cual reduce el espacio participativo de la población y las comunidades. Este contexto justifica el interés que la academia de ciencias sociales de la región ha mantenido en el estudio de aquellas dimensiones que remiten a la naturaleza social de la problemática, así como a la construcción colectiva de soluciones.…”