| 1. |
- Di Baldassarre, Giuliano, et al.
(författare)
-
An integrative research framework to unravel the interplay of natural hazards and vulnerabilities
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Earth's Future. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2328-4277. ; 6:3, s. 305-310
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Climate change, globalization, urbanization, social isolation, and increased interconnectednessbetween physical, human, and technological systems pose major challenges to disaster risk reduction(DRR). Subsequently, economic losses caused by natural hazards are increasing in many regions of theworld, despite scientific progress, persistent policy action, and international cooperation. We argue thatthese dramatic figures call for novel scientific approaches and new types of data collection to integratethe two main approaches that still dominate the science underpinning DRR: the hazard paradigm and thevulnerability paradigm. Building from these two approaches, here we propose a research framework thatspecifies the scope of enquiry, concepts, and general relations among phenomena. We then discuss theessential steps to advance systematic empirical research and evidence-based DRR policy action.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nohrstedt, Daniel, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
Disaster risk reduction and the limits of truisms : Improving the knowledge and practice interface
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. - : Elsevier. - 2212-4209. ; 67
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Action toward strengthened disaster risk reduction (DRR) ideally builds from evidence-based policymaking to inform decisions and priorities. This is a guiding principle for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), which outlines priorities for action to reduce disaster risk. However, some of these practical guidelines conceal oversimplified or unsubstantiated claims and assumptions, what we refer to as 'truisms', which, if not properly addressed, may jeopardize the long-term goal to reduce disaster risks. Thus far, much DRR research has focused on ways to bridge the gap between science and practice while devoting less attention to the premises that shape the understanding of DRR issues. In this article, written in the spirit of a perspective piece on the state of the DRR field, we utilize the SFDRR as an illustrative case to identify and interrogate ten selected truisms, from across the social and natural sciences, that have been prevalent in shaping DRR research and practice. The ten truisms concern forecasting, loss, conflict, migration, the local level, collaboration, social capital, prevention, policy change, and risk awareness. We discuss central claims associated with each truism, relate those claims to insights in recent DRR scholarship, and end with suggestions for developing the field through advances in conceptualization, measurement, and causal inference.
|
|
| 3. |
- Parker, Charles F., 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Collaborative crisis management : a plausibility probe of core assumptions
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Policy & Society. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1449-4035 .- 1839-3373. ; 39:4, s. 510-529
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this article, we utilize the Collaborative Governance Databank to empirically explore core theoretical assumptions about collaborative governance in the context of crisis management. By selecting a subset of cases involving episodes or situations characterized by the combination of urgency, threat, and uncertainty, we conduct a plausibility probe to garner insights into a number of central assumptions and dynamics fundamental to understanding collaborative crisis management. Although there is broad agreement among academics and practitioners that collaboration is essential for managing complex risks and events that no single actor can handle alone, in the literature, there are several unresolved claims and uncertainties regarding many critical aspects of collaborative crisis management. Assumptions investigated in the article relate to starting-points and triggers for collaboration, level of collaboration, goal-formulation, adaptation, involvement and role of non-state actors, and the prevalence and impact of political infighting. The results confirm that crises represent rapidly moving and dynamic events that raise the need for adaptation, adjustment, and innovation by diverse sets of participants. We also find examples of successful behaviours where actors managed, despite challenging conditions, to effectively contain conflict, formulate and achieve shared goals, adapt to rapidly changing situations and emergent structures, and innovate in response to unforeseen problems.
|
|
