A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction integration

Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have similar targets and goals in relation to climate change and related risks. The integration of CCA in core DRR operations is crucial to provide simultaneous benefits for social systems coping with challenges posed by climate extremes and climate change. Although state actors are generally responsible for governing a public issue such as CCA and DRR integration, the reform of top-down governing modes in neoliberal societies has enlarged the range of potential actors to include non state actors from economic and social communities. These new intervening actors require in-depth investigation. To achieve this goal, the article investigates the set of actors and their bridging arrangements that create and shape governance in CCA and DRR integration. The article conducts a comprehensive literature review in order to retrieve main actors and arrangements. The article summarizes actors and arrangements into a conceptual governance framework that can be used as a backdrop for future research on the topic. However, this framework has an explorative form, which must be refined according to site- and context-specific variables, norms, or networks. Accordingly, this article promotes an initial application of the framework to different contexts. Scholars may adopt the framework as a roadmap with which to corroborate the existence of a theoretical and empirical body of knowledge on governance of CCA and DRR integration

From Poverty to Disaster and Back: a Review of the Literature

Poor people are disproportionally affected by natural hazards and disasters. This paper provides a review of the multiple factors that explain why this is the case. It explores the role of exposure (often, but not always, poor people are more likely to be affected by hazards), vulnerability (when they are affected, poor people tend to lose a larger fraction of their wealth), and socio-economic resilience (poor people have a lower ability to cope with and recover from disaster impacts). Finally, the paper highlights the vicious circle between poverty and disaster losses: poverty is a major driver of people’s vulnerability to natural disasters, which in turn increase poverty in a measurable and significant way. The main policy implication is that poverty reduction can be considered as disaster risk management, and disaster risk management can be considered as poverty reduction

Mixed Cerebrovascular Disease and the Future of Stroke Prevention

Stroke prevention efforts typically focus on either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. This approach is overly simplistic due to the frequent coexistence of ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease. This coexistence, termed “mixed cerebrovascular disease”, offers a conceptual framework that appears useful for stroke prevention strategies. Mixed cerebrovascular disease incorporates clinical and subclinical syndromes, including ischemic stroke, subclinical infarct, white matter disease of aging (leukoaraiosis), intracerebral hemorrhage, and cerebral microbleeds. Reliance on mixed cerebrovascular disease as a diagnostic entity may assist in stratifying risk of hemorrhagic stroke associated with platelet therapy and anticoagulants. Animal models of hemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease, particularly models of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and hypertension, offer novel means for identifying underlying mechanisms and developing focused therapy. Phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors represent a class of agents that, by targeting both platelets and vessel wall, provide the kind of dual actions necessary for stroke prevention, given the spectrum of disorders that characterizes mixed cerebrovascular disease

Reflections on 40 years of Disasters, 1977–2017

This reflection, based on a keynote address to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Disasters on 14 September 2017, begins by considering some of the prevailing assumptions that existed at the time of the journal's creation. Next is a summary of significant milestones during the past 40 years, covering major global trends, changing disaster impacts, and key developments in disaster risk management. Contrasting approaches in the first and fourth decade of the journal's history are then followed by examples of changes in terminology in the disaster field as an indication of shifting values. The paper goes on to explore the context of 2017, with observations of problem areas such as the loss of knowledge, failures to tackle the root causes of disasters, shortfalls in international assistance, and some negative attitudes. It closes by evaluating some current positive occurrences, including a reduction in casualties, sharing of experience, technological advances, and dramatic improvements in disaster warning

Disaster preparedness and cultural factors: a comparative study in Romania and Malta

The research reported in this paper was carried out as part of the CARISMAND project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (2014–20), Grant Agreement Number 653748.This exploratory study investigates the relationships between the disaster preparedness of citizens and cultural factors in Romania and Malta. With regard to methodology, quantitative and qualitative data were collected during two Citizen Summits, which consisted of a real-time survey and focus group discussions. The results point to two specific cultural factors that may bridge this ‘gap’ and be operationalised to enhance people's readiness for a disaster event. In Malta, the findings reveal how community cohesion is altered from a personal to a cultural value, which has the potential to encourage the transformation of preparedness intentions into actual preparedness behaviour. In Romania, meanwhile, the findings highlight the ambivalent aspects of trusting behaviour as a cultural norm on the one hand, and distrust in authorities based on experience and unmet expectations on the other hand. Social media use may reduce this tension between trust and distrust, and thus foster successful disaster risk-related communication.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe