A dilemma of language: ‘‘Natural disasters’’ in academic literature

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 aca- demic 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 con- text of ‘‘natural disaster’’ usage. The implications of con- tinuing 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 particu- larly 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

Hydropower development and environmental impact assessments in Vietnam: current practice and shortcomings

Hydropower projects play an important role concerning national energy security in Vietnam; however, the boom in hydropower development in the last ten years had caused many negative impacts on the environment, fisheries, and people’s livelihoods at upstream and downstream river basins, revealing certain weaknesses the management of systems, processes and projects. The main objectives of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are to reduce environmental impact and to be a supporting tool for decision-making processes. However, this study finds that EIAs of small and medium scale hydropower projects in Vietnam did not assess thoroughly the important factors such as water balance changes, deforestation, aquatic production impacts, and cultural impacts on the indigenous population

Disaster risk reduction as a professional competency. A review of related training and education provision for built environment practitioners in the UK and Australia

The UN’s Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 highlights the importance of engaging multiple stakeholders in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). However, questions remain about whether the increasingly broad range of people who are required to make more informed decisions about risk reduction actually have the professional competencies to do so. DRR in the UK is a part of the resilience agenda, which implies a proactive approach to managing disasters and reducing the risks. In Australia, DRR is integrated within national disaster management policy, shifting responsibility away from government towards a proactive private sector, community and individual. When analysed closely it becomes apparent that despite the presence of legislation that encourages integrating such considerations into built environment processes, many built environment practitioners have not received the training required for dealing with DRR. In addition, proactively dealing with disaster risk in both countries is primarily implemented by emergency managers that typically have not been trained to deal with the required range of DRR approaches. These observations suggest that if DRR considerations are going to become better integrated into the (re)development of increasingly urbanised world, then there is a need to better integrate DRR principles into the core professional training (or at least continued professional development) of some of these key built environment practitioners. Therefore with the aim of assessing the extent to which DRR is (or can be) a core professional competency, this paper a) presents a critical review of the current core competency requirements for members of professional institutions, and b) provides an overview of the training of built environment practitioners in the UK and Australia

Language matters: Dangers of the “natural disaster” misnomer

Despite unmistakable human complicity in disasters, the idea that disasters are simply part of the natural state of affairs remains pervasive. This is reflected in the frequent use of the expression “natural disaster”. This paper examines International non-governmental organisations' (INGOs) and Intergovernmental organisations' (IGOs) literature that utilises the expression “natural disaster”. The authors look at how the expression is used, discuss the reasons why it is problematic and ultimately argue that by continuously blaming and putting the responsibility for failures of development on “nature”, we – as a society – fail to hold accountable those who create disaster risk. Section 2 gives an overview of the key terminology that emphasises that disasters are socially produced. Section 3 describes methodology, and is followed by Section 4, in which the results of the analysis are presented. Section 5 brings the discussion together by arguing that risk is created in many ways but ultimately it is the predatory socio-economic system that characterises the current status quo – a status quo that thrives on race, class and gender based discrimination – that both drives the creation of risk and puts down any attempts to overturn its dominance. In the conclusion the authors argue that the language currently being used, particularly the “natural disaster” expression, is not helping to address root causes of disasters. Arguably it is hurting the cause

Editorial: Introduction to the Special Issue on “Conversations with Disasters: Deconstructed”

It is our great pleasure to present this collection of conversations, hosted on the podcast Disasters: Deconstructed1, in which established and early-career researchers, practitioners and activists from around the globe engage in dialogues on central question pertinent to the study of disasters. Each dialogue challenges the status quo of disaster scholarship and practice and foreshadows alternative futures where we might cultivate and cherish more reciprocal and respectful relationships. [...]</p

Reducing disaster risk in cities: moving towards a new set of skills

Cities need to be more resilient to disasters. Lee Bosher of Loughborough University, Cassidy Johnson of UCL and Jason Von Meding of The University of Newcastle, Australia say that civil engineers are ideally placed to help but they need new skills to do so

Standardised indicators for ‘resilient cities’: the folly of devising a technical solution to a political problem

Standardised indicators for ‘resilient cities’: the folly of devising a technical solution to a political problem</p

Disasters and the built environment. Research roadmap

We are all beginning to realize that making the built environment resilient against to be expected impacts from climate change and other threats will take society an enormous investment. It is not only about making the physical environment resilient. If a city is to be resilient its social, economic and institutional infrastructures need to be resilient too. If a city, or whatever type of built environment, has really ambitious resilience goals, the needed approach will be far reaching and of a challenging complexity. It requires the development and implementation of and experimentation with new concepts and technologies and research has a major role to play in this. With this research roadmap CIB hopes to show the international research community how it can be most effective in supporting society as a whole to become more resilient. We hope that this publication will help and in fact stimulate both national and international research funding agencies, research institutes and research dissemination organisations in Building and Construction to define the right priorities and to do this in a worldwide cooperation