Disaster response: Volunteers, unite!

An ongoing change in legislation means decision-makers in Aotearoa New Zealand need to incorporate 'mātauranga' (Māori knowledge/knowledge system) in central and local government legislation and strategy. This paper develops a 'te ao Māori' (Māori worldview) disaster risk reduction (DRR) framework for non-Māori decision-makers to guide them through this process. This 'interface framework' will function as a Rosetta Stone between the 'two worlds'. It intends to help central and local officials trained in Western knowledge-based disciplines by translating standard DRR concepts into a te ao Māori DRR framework. It draws on previous work examining Māori DRR thinking to create a novel framework that can help these stakeholders when they are converting higher-level theoretical insights from mātauranga Māori into more practical 'on the ground' applications. This type of interface is essential: while Indigenous knowledge's utility is increasingly recognised nationally and internationally, a gap remains between this acknowledgement and its practical and applied integration into emergency management legislation and strategy.

This special issue focuses on “Build Back Better,” which is the key concept of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction provides United Nations member states and economies concrete actions to protect their economic development achievements from disaster risk. However, how “Build Back Better” can be measured and linked to disaster risk reduction remain unclear. Three papers here analyze the results of the “Life Recovery Survey Five Years After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake,” which was conducted in June of 2016. The first Life Recovery Survey was conducted four years after the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake to document the extent to which the disaster victims had been able to rebuild their lives. Subsequently, the survey was conducted every two years until ten years after the earthquake. The survey was also conducted in the areas affected by the 2004 Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake and the 2007 Niigata Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake. Five years after the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the present authors conducted a survey to document the actual situation of the disaster victims in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures, which were the hardest hit by the disaster. In addition, we analyzed the history of Nankai Trough earthquakes with the goal of preparing for the next Nankai Trough earthquake, which is predicted to occur in the near future. These results make it possible to identify issues and make recommendations on the kinds of systems that should be implemented. It is our hope that this special issue will provide basic data to elucidate these issues.

The contexts in which “safe” and “safety” are used in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction are clarified to inform the selection of necessary elements in establishing science for global safety in relation to disaster risk reduction. The present report shows that “safe” and “safety” are used in the contexts of health, legal systems, housing, more assured provision of means of livelihood, and important infrastructure. From the perspective of the continuity of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and preceding international policies, it is determined that the contexts of legal systems, health, and land usage are significant to establishing science for global safety.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 has been directing global efforts in disaster risk reduction since its adoption in 2015, and its unprecedented emphasis on health has affirmed unequivocally the critical role of health throughout the disaster cycle. The Sendai Framework calls for the strengthening of resilience through the prevention and reduction of hazard exposure and vulnerability, and increased preparedness for response and recovery. While health resilience is one of the core themes in the Sendai Framework, with it being recognized as both a determinant and outcome of disaster risk reduction at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Cancun, Mexico in 2017, its impact at implementation level requires sustained efforts on all fronts. The aspirations and recommendations set out in the Bangkok Principles on the implementation of health aspects of the Sendai Framework have not yet been fully addressed. To synergize the concerted efforts all relevant practitioners, Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (Health-EDRM) has emerged as a discipline that cuts across emergency and disaster medicine, disaster risk reduction, humanitarian response, community health resilience, and health systems resilience. Health-EDRM highlights the intersection of health and disaster risk reduction and has been playing a key role in supporting the implementation of the health aspects of the Sendai Framework. Major challenges however remain for Health-EDRM to develop into a well-established field of inquiry, with the quality of data and research methodology requiring urgent attention.

This article reviews climate change within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR), analyzing how climate change is mentioned in the framework’s text and the potential implications for dealing with climate change within the context of disaster risk reduction. Three main categories are examined. First, climate change affecting disaster risk and disasters, demonstrating too much emphasis on the single hazard driver and diminisher of climate change. Second, cross-sectoral approaches, for which the SFDRR treads carefully, thereby unfortunately entrenching artificial differences and divisions, although appropriately offering plenty of support to other sectors from disaster risk reduction. Third, implementation, for which climate change plays a suitable role without being overbearing, but for which other hazard influencers should have been treated similarly. Overall, the mentions of climate change within the SFDRR put too much emphasis on the hazard part of disaster risk. Instead, within the context of the three global sustainable development processes that seek agreements in 2015, climate change could have been used to further support an all-vulnerabilities and all-resiliences approach. That could be achieved by placing climate change adaptation as one subset within disaster risk reduction and climate change mitigation as one subset within sustainable development.

The alerts given accurately on time via Early Warning mechanisms can save thousands of lives as well as can minimize the level of damage to the Critical Infrastructure to a greater extent. With the rapid occurrence of natural hazards day by day, more emphasis on Disaster Risk Reduction strategies are concerned in order to minimize the disaster-related economic losses and damages. The concept of Multi-Hazard Early Warning emerged with the implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction strategies over the world to work under different global frameworks, mainly with the initiation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Communication and dissemination component of the Multi-Hazard Early Warning mechanism can be considered more significant in terms of reducing the damages and losses over lives and properties. Science and technological applications can be vividly incorporated to enhance the efficiency of delivering Multi-Hazard Early Warning messages from upstream, interface phases towards the downstream community level. With the proper delivery of Early Warning information through technological applications, the efforts on minimizing the damage extent on Critical Infrastructures can be undertaken. This concern is mainly elaborated as one of the seven targets in Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Under this research study, different mobile apps using in different countries are overviewed with the special focus on the comparison of mobile apps that are currently using in Sri Lanka, Maldives and Indonesia. With these concerns, the feasibility of using mobile apps in disaster Early Warning mechanism in Sri Lankan context was examined using a questionnaire survey which was conducted within 10 Grama Niladari divisions. Under this, community responses were collected from 323 responses and these were analyzed using Fuzzy logic approach to identify the decision making scores of the community on level of importance and level of usefulness of the mobile apps.

Disasters disproportionately affect conflict-affected regions, where approximately two billion people reside, posing significant challenges for disaster risk reduction (DRR). This reality has increasingly spurred calls for violent conflict to be included in the global DRR agenda. However, consideration of peace has been lacking, despite that challenges for peace can distinctly impact capacities to set, pursue, and achieve DRR objectives. This study investigated how the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) engages with peace through a document analysis, revealing three key findings. First, the SFDRR does not mention “peace,” mirroring its lack of reference to conflict. Second, while peace-related terms appear throughout the SFDRR in themes related to partnership and all-of-society approaches, this engagement is superficial. Third, the SFDRR’s approach is fundamentally problematic for advancing peace due to its avoidance of the complex social and political dynamics inherent to disaster risk and its reduction. The SFDRR united United Nations Member States in its ambition to “leave no one behind,” but has taken approaches that smooth over diversity rather than strengthen pluralistic connections. A radical, integrated DRR-peacebuilding agenda must take conflict as the new starting point and carve new pathways toward peace including through disaster diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding. By embracing the ambiguity between war and peace and addressing the root causes of risk, societies can cultivate peaceful interactions and collectively advance safety. This study concludes with recommendations for a global DRR policy that not only implicitly relies on peace but actively contributes to peacebuilding in the world’s diverse and divided societies.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) represents an inclusive approach to disaster risk reduction, linked to development and recovery. Building on previous international guidelines, the SFDRR promotes practical and measurable outcomes for reducing disaster losses, including indicators to measure progress towards seven specific global targets. Evaluated in the context of the priorities and global targets of the SFDRR, the article considers the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 2011 to illustrate advances and limitations in pre-disaster tsunami hazard engineering and post-disaster recovery. With respect to the targets set out in the Sendai Framework related to risk reduction and tsunami engineering, especially Priority 1, understanding disaster risk, there have been significant advances in hazard assessment and systems for tsunami detection and warning. Although the SFDRR emphasizes actions in the recovery phase through Priority 4, enhancing disaster preparedness with an emphasis on the concept of build back better, on its own this does not function as a clear directive for guiding recovery. However, the overall people-centered and inclusive approach of the SFDRR, as well as the global targets and several sub-priorities, can be a useful way to shape good practices in recovery and evaluate recovery progress.

The countries along the Belt and Road are located in regions highly prone to various natural disasters. From 1900 to 2022, these areas experienced 9,595 major natural disasters, resulting in over 16 million deaths and economic losses exceeding two trillion USD. This article first reviews global disaster risk assessment and governance frameworks, then examines the development and practical achievements of the Belt and Road International Cooperation Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management (BRIDRREM). Using policy analysis and case study methods, it evaluates the framework’s effectiveness at multilateral, regional, and bilateral levels, and delves into the three key challenges: evolving climate risks, capacity disparities among nations, and institutional gaps. Finally, policy recommendations are proposed, including alignment with the Sendai Framework, strengthened top-level design and legal and institutional processes, and enhanced practical cooperation with neighbouring countries, offering a Chinese approach to improve regional disaster control resilience and emergency response capabilities. Keywords: Belt and Road; Natural Disasters; Emergency Management; International Cooperation; Framework Development.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 recognizes the strong connection between health and disasters and promotes the concept of health resilience throughout. Several of the seven global targets stated in the Sendai Framework are directly related to health in terms of reducing disaster mortality, the number of affected people, disaster damage to critical infrastructure, and disruption of basic services such as health facilities. The Sendai Framework also maintains close coordination with other United Nations landmark agreements relevant to health such as the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the measurement of health-related indicators is challenging. Issues arise, for example, in linking deaths to disasters because of the complex interplay between exposure, risk, vulnerability, and hazards. The lack of a universal classification of disasters also means that recording of health data in disasters is not standardized. Developing the guidelines to enable data on the indicators to be collected and reported to support the Sendai targets requires detailed thinking, time, and consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders. Strong collaboration and partnership will be vital to achieving success.

Literature data on the scientific development of the concept of disaster medicine, which began about five decades ago, are analyzed. Various disciplines such as public health, emergency medical services, emergency medicine and military medicine work within the framework of disaster medicine. Disaster medicine aims to ensure that public health services and facilities are functional both before and after disasters in order to prevent and reduce the adverse health effects on societies facing disaster risks. It is a discipline with slow scientific progress due to its unclearly systematized interdisciplinary structure and fields of study. However, important goals for disaster medicine have been specified in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 published by the United Nations. Among the global goals of disaster medicine are to reduce the number of deaths and injuries, reduce the number of people affected, strengthen the infrastructure of critical facilities, and ensure the sustainable functioning of these facilities during disasters. To achieve these goals, disaster medicine is expected to grow rapidly both institutionally and academically. Disaster medicine is a global, mass, administrative, and doctrinal discipline that extends beyond clinical research. In particular, the development and dissemination of education in disaster medicine was first emphasized in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which was adopted globally in 2015. It is believed that the discipline of disaster medicine will reach the peak of development by 2030. At present, the development and improvement of disaster medicine knowledge system is one of the priority areas. Disaster medicine is a new and comprehensive discipline that covers a broad area of practice and research and includes medical disciplines such as emergency medicine, trauma medicine and public health and health care, as well as disaster management covering non-medical issues such as communications, logistics and transportation. Disaster medicine is a field that requires specialized training to interact with the many agencies working for disaster management.

The recently concluded World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR) in Sendai, Japan and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) have set renewed priorities for disaster risk reduction (DRR) for the next 15 years. This framework is the main guiding instrument for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) within the scope of sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. Disaster management policies and practices should be based on an understanding of risks, not just on an ideological level. Gap and key challenges identified include Still weak coordination, cooperation and linkages among the sectors related to DRR, Lacks of skills in loss assessment and post disaster needs, lack of strategic research agenda, absence of consensus regarding terminology, and limited coordination between stakeholders. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of why disaster risk reduction efforts undertaken by regional policy often fail to improve future disaster responses. These findings can be used to help guide to improve regional policy in disaster risk reduction processes. This research is a systematic review study by collecting articles that are relevant to International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. From the analysis, we found that all four priorities for action in the Sendai Framework are relevant to Disaster Risk Management (DRM) field as follows: 1). Understanding disaster risk; 2). Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; 3). Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience and 4). Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Building sustainable and resilient societies is a multidimensional challenge that affects achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In crises and disasters, civil protection authorities typically use emergency powers and a command-and-control approach to manage resources and to design and implement disaster management interventions. They centralise knowledge, technologies and responsibilities for prevention, mitigation and monitoring, while stifling the capacities of local communities to reduce disaster risks and impacts. The mechanism they enact leads to a poor understanding of the capacities of local people to learn and transform, and of how community wellbeing, vulnerabilities, and resilience influence disaster risks. The mechanism does not strengthen the role of local communities in disaster risk reduction. Instead, it facilitates disaster capitalism at all levels of society. Drawing on the disaster risk reduction and resilience paradigm and on our analysis of the disaster management interventions conducted before and after the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, we discuss the main constraints to implementing the four Priority Areas in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: (1) Understanding risk in its multiple dimensions; (2) strengthening disaster risk governance; (3) investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience; and (4) enhancing preparedness and build back better in response, recovery and reconstruction. We discuss how top-down, emergency-centred civil protection approaches create second disasters, and fail in all four priorities. We suggest that shifts in paradigm and investment are required in disaster management and development practice from centralised civil protection systems to decentralised, socially sustainable community empowerment systems.

The World BOSAI Forum (WBF) is a biennial conference on disaster risk reduction (DRR) that has been held in Sendai, Japan, since 2017. The WBF aims to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR), which advocates for diverse participation of stakeholders in DRR. This study examines the efforts and outcomes of the WBF in fostering diverse participation, especially from civil society, in DRR. This study analyzes the transitions in attitude toward diverse participation, participant attributes, and externally dispatched issues over the past three WBFs. It adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data from various sources, such as official documents, in-depth interviews, and text mining. The study finds that the WBF has three main objectives: to disseminate the concept of BOSAI, promote the SFDRR, and encourage the diverse participation of stakeholders, especially civil society, in DRR. The results show that the WBF is gradually increasing its commitment to diverse participation and achieving positive results in encouraging non-expert citizen participation. It is suggested that a detailed analysis of the WBF would contribute to forming a platform with diverse participation, including the participation of non-expert citizens. Conversely, challenges remain in women’s participation, and content analysis is required to choose a platform that promotes diverse forms of participation.

Disaster risk reduction in rural Africa can contribute to reducing poverty and food insecurity if included in local development plans (LDPs). Five years after the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), we do not know how much risk reduction is practiced in rural Africa. The aim of this assessment is to ascertain the state of mainstreaming DRR in development planning in the rural jurisdictions of tropical Africa. One hundred and ninety-four plans of 21 countries are considered. Ten characteristics of the plans are examined: Climate trends, hydro-climatic hazards, vulnerability and risk assessments, alignment with Sendai Framework, vision, strategies and objectives, DRR actions, internal consistency, DRR relevance and funding sources, local and technical knowledge integration, public participation. It is found that local climatic characterization is almost always absent and risk reduction is an objective of the plans in one case out of three. Prevention actions prevail over those of preparedness. There is poor participation in the plan preparation process and this limits the implementation of the actions. A modification of the national guidelines on the preparation of LDPs, the orientation of official development assistance towards supporting climate services and the training of local planners, together with the increase of financial resources in local jurisdictions are essential for improving DRR at local scale.