Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk from which disaster risk policy can be analysed. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the implications of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk which is essential in explaining why disaster risk has different nuances and consequently policy responses. Design/methodology/approach – A literature survey was used to explore social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk. The survey involved documentary searches from academic books, journal articles and disaster risk reports to serve as primary research data. Findings – The analysis revealed that viewing and managing disasters through the lens of objectivism might not yield the desired results of minimising risk as it conceals the vulnerabilities to disaster risk. The objectivist perspective is therefore in itself considered inadequate for the study of disaster risk and that social constructivist assumptions are required in order to analyse disaster risk. Towards this end, social constructivism offers a discursive approach to disaster risk policy science; one that more optimally illuminates competing local perspectives. Originality/value – An epistemological and ontological assessment of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk can assist greatly in understanding the discursive dimension of disaster risk through explanations of how and why disasters are framed the way they are framed and the implications of this on policy formulation and implementation.

This paper examines closely the institutional arrangements for disaster risk reduction from a rights-based perspective. In Zimbabwe, the disaster risk reduction framework and the ensuing practice have not yet accommodated some of the most vulnerable and excluded groups, especially the terminally ill, people with disabilities and the very poor. Top-down approaches to disaster management have largely been blamed for lack of resilience and poor preparedness on the part of sections of society that are hard hit by disasters. Often, disaster risk reduction has also been modeled along the needs and priorities of able-bodied people, whilst largely excluding those with various forms of impairments. Against this background, this paper is based on field research on people’s disaster risk experiences in four districts of Zimbabwe, with a special emphasis on the disaster risk reduction framework. It provides a critical analysis of the disaster risk reduction framework in Zimbabwe, focusing on the various forms of disadvantages to different categories of people that the current framework has tended to generate. The paper thus examines the current disaster risk reduction framework as largely informed by the Civil Protection Act and the Disaster Risk Management Policy Draft as revised in 2011. Crucial at this stage is the need to interrogate the disaster risk reduction framework, right from formulation processes with regard to participation and stakeholders, particularly the grassroots people who bear the greatest brunt of vulnerability, shocks, stresses and trends. In conclusion, the paper stresses the potential benefits of adopting an inclusive, rights-based thrust to disaster risk reduction in Zimbabwe.

No abstract