Reply on RC1

<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> Central Asia is an area characterized by complex tectonics and active deformation; the related seismic activity controls the earthquake hazard level that, due to the occurrence of secondary and tertiary effects, has also direct implications on the hazard related to mass movements as landslides, which are responsible for an extensive number of casualties every year. Climatically, this region is characterized by strong rainfall gradient contrasts, due to the diversity of climate and vegetation zones. The region is drained by large, partly snow- and glacier-fed rivers, that cross or terminate in arid forelands; therefore, it is affected also by a significant river flood hazard, mainly in spring and summer seasons. The challenge posed by the combination of different hazards can only be tackled considering a multi-hazard approach harmonized among the different countries, in agreement with the requirements of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. This work was carried out within the framework of the SFRARR Project (&ldquo;<em>Strengthening Financial Resilience and Accelerating Risk Reduction in Central Asia</em>&rdquo;) as a part of a multi-hazard approach, and is focused on the first landslide susceptibility analysis at a regional scale for Central Asia. To this aim the most detailed landslide inventories, covering both national and transboundary territories were implemented in a Random Forest model, together with several independent variables. The proposed approach represents an innovation in terms of resolution (from 30 to 70 m) and extension of the analysed area with respect to previous regional landslide susceptibility and hazard zonation models applied in Central Asia. The final aim was to provide a useful tool for land use-planning and risk reduction strategies to landslide scientists, practitioners and administrators.

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.

Two massive earthquakes that caused 8898 deaths, 22,309 injuries, and billions of dollars damage in Nepal ([ 1 ][1]) prompted substantial support from aid agencies, relief organizations, and volunteers for rescue and relief. Volunteers in scientific communities—affiliated with government, academic, and private research institutions, as well as individual researchers and citizen scientists around the world—provided free satellite imagery, helped map the damage, and analyzed the disaster data ([ 2 ][2]). Nepal has weak data infrastructure and limited scientific capacity. The efforts of science volunteers provided crucial data for rescuers and disaster responders, informed the public about the scale of the damage, and prevented further damage. Scientific volunteerism during crises has emerged spontaneously as the Internet, smartphones, and social media have fueled a feeling of shared responsibility. However, working sporadically in cyberspace might lead to duplication of tasks and an overload of information. Poorly equipped government authorities, as in Nepal, cannot easily find useful information in the gigantic pool of data. The services offered by science volunteers could even make a situation worse. ![Figure][3] Debris surrounds the temple of Seto Machindranath in Jana Bahal 3 months after the Nepal earthquake. PHOTO: RATNAYAKE/REX SHUTTERSTOCK/AP IMAGES Given that the trends of scientific volunteerism have been increasing globally during disasters, from Typhoon Haiyan in Philippines ([ 3 ][4]) to the recent earthquake in Nepal, a global action to systematize these efforts is necessary. Currently, this increasing global trend of volunteerism in scientific communities during natural disasters is not acknowledged in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030—a global framework for disaster risk reduction ([ 4 ][5]). We need a strategy to harness the efforts of scientific volunteers in future. To be better equipped for the next disaster, we should analyze the patterns of science volunteers, including their affiliations and the nature of their involvement; prepare government authorities, especially those in developing countries, to harness invaluable information provided by volunteer scientists; and create a global network of volunteer scientists that could contribute to a coordinated effort. 1. [↵][6]Government of Nepal, Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal ( ). 2. [↵][7]Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Nepal Earthquake—Geographic Community Response ( ). 3. [↵][8]1. D. Butler , Crowdsourcing goes mainstream in typhoon response, Nature 10.1038/nature.2013.14186 (2013). doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14186 [OpenUrl][9][CrossRef][10] 4. [↵][11]United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction ([www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015][12]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: pending:yes [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCrowdsourcing%2Bgoes%2Bmainstream%2Bin%2Btyphoon%2Bresponse%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252Fnature.2013.14186%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature.2013.14186&link_type=DOI [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [12]: http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015

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 (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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 promise of a “people-centred” approach to floods: Types of participation in the global literature of citizen science and community-based flood risk reduction in the context of the Sendai Framework

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.