Understanding the Global Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

Abstract

Disasters are a growing international concern that has spurred the development of political strategies and policies from international to local levels. This paper analyzes how disasters are constructed as a policy problem within the UN global strategy for disaster risk reduction. Building on a social constructivist view of policy problems, we analyze how disasters and disaster risks are being represented through these global policies, while we also pay attention to what this representation excludes and deemphasizes. We show that the UN strategy is mostly concerned with adjusting or adapting societies to hazards, and managing risks, rather than addressing the social processes that render people vulnerable to those hazards. The predominant concern with technological and managerial solutions eclipses the need for changes in the social structures that create disaster risks. We argue that the understanding of disasters represented in the UN strategy supports an emerging holistic paradigm. However, we also argue that the holism it represents is limited rather than radical. By making visible what is excluded or not properly problematized in this representation, we point to the complexity of the task and show where its limitations lie.

Disaster management and emerging technologies: a performance-based perspective

“…The multiple threats posed by disasters suggest the adoption of a holistic view of DM with a more strategic focus on the actions and tools targeted to reduce exposure and Disaster management and emerging technologies vulnerability to disasters (Berg and De Majo, 2017). The holistic view marks a paradigm shift from responsive to proactive management of natural hazards based on the principles of resilience and disaster risk reduction (Manyena, 2006;Demiroz and Haase, 2019).…”

“…This topic has been widely discussed in the academic literature in recent decades through different perspectives (Faulkner, 2001; Pearce, 2003; Lettieri et al , 2009) and, most recently, with a specific focus on how firms (Kraus et al , 2020; Ferrigno and Cucino, 2021) and public institutions (Steen and Brandsen, 2020) have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. Social scientists frame disasters from three different perspectives: the hazard , the vulnerability and the holistic view (Berg and De Majo, 2017).…”

The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities

“…It is evident that resilience is vital to disaster management plans so communities can respond positively when disasters occur [24]. The priorities of SFDRR deal mainly with the ways through which concepts, such as resilience and vulnerability, are defined, measured, and operationalized, as well as the extent to which they are implemented at a national or local level [25].…”

Making a Step Forward Towards Urban Resilience. The Contribution of Digital Innovation

“…), [12][13][14][15]. The frequency and intensity of disasters and extreme weather events occurred in the last decade posed critical issues that forced policy makers to prioritize disaster risk management and community resilience in the policy agenda [16][17][18], defining effective strategies that might spread a common sense of preparedness, adaptation and awareness through the communities.…”