Content uploaded by Aaron Opdyke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aaron Opdyke on Apr 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Deconstructing disaster risk creation discourses
Grace Muir a and Aaron Opdyke a
a School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Abstract
Processes of disaster risk creaon are outpacing the achievements of disaster risk reducon
iniaves. Prevenng risk creaon is consequently an objecve recognised by major disaster
frameworks. However, there exists a gap in our understanding of the processes contribung to risk
creaon, with the exisng body of knowledge lacking conceptual claricaon to guide empirical
applicaons. This review disls how disaster scholarship either implicitly or explicitly theorises the
concept of disaster risk creaon by employing a semi-systemac scoping strategy and themac
analysis of the literature. Disaster risk creaon is inferred to be the process, or set of processes,
through which risk is constructed (by human actors) in relaon to (socio-)natural hazards. The major
themes emerging from scholarly enquiries into risk creaon are idened as (1) risk-creang
developments, (2) risk producon in relaon to risk reducon eorts, and, intersecng these
themes, (3) the mul-scale nature of risk creaon. To avoid disaster risk creaon and queson the
connued establishment of risk-creang path dependencies, we idenfy a need for future research
to look both at ongoing and changeable, as well as more distal, trajectory-seng processes. The
outcomes of this review have the potenal to enrich and advance the applicaon of disaster risk
creaon within the eld of disaster studies, inspiring the further interrogaon and eventual
deconstrucon of disaster risk creaon processes.
Keywords
Disaster Risk Creaon; Development; Inequity; Disaster Studies; Literature Review.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
2
1 Introducon
With disaster occurrence projected to be on the rise, there is growing aenon to the generaon of
disaster risk as progressively outstripping risk reducon eorts (Covarrubias & Raju, 2020; Lavell &
Maskrey, 2014; UNDRR, 2015a, 2022). It has been suggested that disaster risk reducon (DRR) may
only truly be achieved by understanding and addressing processes of disaster risk creaon (DRC)
(Alexander, 2016). Leaving communies to “reduce risk created at macro levels” without challenging
DRC will only perpetuate inequies in felt risks (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2022; Clark-Ginsberg et al.,
2021b). An equitable reframing of approaches would entail not just countering exisng or ancipated
risks but acvely targeng the processes which rounely create them (Castro et al., 2015; UNDRR,
2022).
Wisner (2019) suggests a need for the conceptual claricaon and empirical documentaon of the
DRC process - the ‘hidden’ counterpart of DRR. Research centring on the concept remains limited
(Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021b), with the exisng pool of literature not yet comprehensively reviewed.
This review aends to this need by charng how the concept of DRC has been explored to date.
Prevenng DRC is an objecve recognised by major disaster frameworks (UNDRR, 2015b), so it is
hoped that such a review inspires the further interrogaon, and eventual deconstrucon, of the
enclosed processes. This review seeks to answer:
1. How is disaster risk creaon dened and conceptualised in academic literature?
2. What are the recognised sources, processes, and products of disaster risk creaon?
Here, we briey specify the scope and analyc bounds within which this research is situated. This
review does not aempt to comprehensively collate insights on all components broadly contribung
to disaster occurrence or disaster risk. Despite literature reinforcing the prevalent discourse that
disaster risk is created at the intersecon of hazards, vulnerability, and exposure (e.g. Alves et al.,
2021), it is beyond the scope of this paper to synthesise all ways this interface has been studied. This
element of the discourse can be furthered at the reader’s discreon via the abundant literature on
vulnerability paradigms, disaster frameworks (e.g. the PAR model), and root causes of disaster. While
recognising the ensuing discussion cannot be detached from such discourses, this review looks
explicitly at ‘disaster risk creaon’ as a theorecally important and disnct (set of) process(es).
2 Methods
We used a semi-systemac scoping strategy to idenfy a broad range of literature reporng on
disaster risk creaon (Munn et al., 2018; Snyder, 2019). A semi-systemac approach was adopted on
the basis that a fully systemac approach, dening strict upfront search and inclusion criteria, would
lack a predened base of commonly accepted DRC-related terminology (e.g. Pecrew & Roberts,
2008). It was also ancipated that many scholars would discuss risk creaon processes implicitly,
rendering a fully systemac approach inadequate to capture the plurality of ways the concept is
discussed (Snyder, 2019). An iterave exploraon of literature discussing DRC informed the inial
search string, which ulised preliminarily idened DRC-related terms. We searched publicaon
tles, abstracts, and keywords in the Scopus database in November 2023 using the following: (
creat* OR construct* OR generat* OR produc* OR driv* OR increas* ) W/3 "disaster risk*". ‘W/3’
narrows the search to instances where “disaster risk” lies within three words from any of the
bracketed terms. The use of ‘*’ in the search string enabled the inclusion of mulple variaons of
each term, with creat*, for instance, encompassing terms such as create(s), creang, creaon, and
created. We limited our search to books, book chapters, arcles, and reviews.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
3
Supplementary search strategies were adopted through the review process to broaden the pool of
reviewed literature. This included a concurrent search for the bounded term “disaster risk creaon”
in Google Scholar to idenfy missing papers that explicitly discuss DRC within their body text which
Scopus is unable to search as it is limited to tle, abstract, and keywords. Addional search strings,
such as: ("risk creat*" AND disaster) or ("creat* risk" AND disaster), were informed iteravely. We
snowballed the search using included arcle or book bibliographies to idenfy further relevant
sources.
From the inial Scopus search, 400+ studies’ tles and abstracts were screened according to
iteravely designed inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria, at its broadest, required studies to
describe any (set of) human-driven process(es) leading to a heightened state of disaster risk. This
was the understanding of DRC adopted by the authors upon concepon of the screening process.
‘Increasing’, for example, would have to be framed in a way that aligned with this denion to be
included in the analysis component of the review. The review specically targeted natural hazard-
related risk, so any isolated discussion of (e.g.) nance or business-related risk was excluded.
Examples of excluded topics from the inial search thread comprised references to (1) ‘creang’
disaster risk models, frameworks, policies, or knowledge, (2) ‘increasing’ disaster risk management,
reducon, monitoring, or governance eorts, or talking generally to (3) an ‘increased (trend in)
disaster risk’ to contextualise a study, without suggesng there will be any discussion or analysis of
risk-enhancing processes. Studies which appeared to discuss risk-creang processes in their abstracts
were later excluded from the review if there was no further expansion in the main body text. Aer
inial screening, we idened 150 studies for inclusion.
Following this, we themacally analysed the selected literature with the aim of providing an
overview of the dominant ideas and paerns emerging from the assessed texts (Braun & Clarke,
2006). The primary search string enabled the idencaon of papers deemed to have conceptual
overlaps with the central term (DRC), i.e. talking to processes by which people and social processes
are acvely enhancing disaster risk. All texts were imported into NVivo soware for qualitave
content analysis to determine common paerns surrounding DRC. Inducve qualitave coding was
rst used to capture how the concept of disaster risk creaon and its oshoot terminologies are
dened in academic literature. Through a parallel phase of inducve coding and categorisaon we
themacally clustered sources, processes, and products of DRC idened in the reviewed literature.
Examples of source codes included ‘development pressures’, ‘build back beer ideologies’, ‘systemic
constraints’, ‘risk subjecvies’; process codes included ‘band-aid DRR soluons’, ‘urgency in decision
making’, ‘marginalised populaons’; and product codes included ‘inadequate structures’, ‘hazard
proximity’, ‘displaced risk’. These codes experienced mulple iteraons and were ulmately
categorised according to the major themes of the ensuing discussion.
3 Findings
Scholars note that we have constructed and connue to construct risk(y) sociees, with socially- and
structurally-induced vulnerabilies woven into their very fabrics (Banko & Hilhorst, 2022; Coates &
Warner, 2023) (see Figure 1). Literature presents processes of disaster risk creaon as intertwined in
disnct social assemblages (e.g. Dickinson & Burton, 2022), contextually situates instances of DRC in
case examples, and relates them to diverse forms of governance. A point of divergence in empirical
scholarship is whether paerns of risk creaon are discussed retrospecvely, focusing on ‘realised
risk’ manifest in past events (e.g. Uehara et al., 2022), or in an ancipatory fashion. As an example,
Guadagno & Guadagno (2021) discuss processes of disaster risk construcon via a retrospecve
analysis of disaster damage. Rumbach & Németh (2018, p. 341) argue for the equal importance of
assessing the ongoing accreon of risk, specically in urban developments, to bring light to unjust
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
4
processes of risk creaon and distribuon. Other approaches employed to study DRC processes
include mapping disaster-causing factor chains, conducng policy or organisaonal analysis, and
adopng urban, colonial, or development studies perspecves.
Figure 1. (In)tangible and (un)intenonally inequitable inuences interacng across spaotemporal scales,
culminang in disaster risk creaon (DRC). The presented sample of risk-creang components are extracted
from scholarly enquiries into DRC.
We interpret DRC to be the process, or set of processes, through which risk is constructed (by human
actors) in relaon to (socio-)natural hazards. Through this review, aenon is drawn to the sources,
processes, and products of DRC. We begin the review by exploring denions of DRC. We then
unpack the risk-creang nature of development decisions, risk producon in relaon to DRR eorts,
and nally, the mul-scalar nature of processes of risk creaon. The laer of these incorporates
development and DRR-related processes but focuses squarely on interrogang the signicance of,
and relaons between, dierent scales of inuence in DRC. We end the review by discussing some
proposed means of avoiding DRC, although recognise such discussions are in their infancy.
3.1 Dening disaster risk creaon
The discourse surrounding the creaon, construcon, or producon of disaster risk predominantly
centres it as a ‘socially constructed’ phenomenon (e.g. Alcántara-Ayala, 2021), a product of human-
mediated processes and chains of causaon. Clark-Ginsberg et al. (2021b) label the interpretaon of
risk as socially constructed a unifying feature of work on DRC. Rumbach & Németh (2018, p. 342)
likewise suggest DRC as a concept “focuses aenon more squarely on human agency in the
producon and distribuon of risk”. DRC is thus a process aligned with individuals’, communies’,
organisaons’, and governments’ implicit or explicit, voluntary or involuntary choices and adopted
behaviours. Whether decision makers are ignorant to the risk-creang implicaons or knowingly
creang inequitable risk is replete, with both encapsulated respecvely in Lewis & Kelman's (2012)
‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ categorisaons of risk-creang behaviours. DRC processes are also regarded here as
encompassing ‘a lack of acon’. This review will later further the idea of intenonality in DRC.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
5
O highlighted is the systemic nature of the producon of disaster risk (e.g. Covarrubias & Raju,
2020; Yang et al., 2018), so, in aempng to understand risk creaon processes, these should not be
unbound from the systems within which they are situated. Risk-creang acons are, for instance,
discussed as bound in neoliberal agendas, post-colonial trajectories, or the systemic marginalisaon
of populaons (e.g. Barclay et al., 2019; Covarrubias & Raju, 2020). We interpret Poudel et al.’s
(2023, p. 5) framing of DRC as implying the producon of risk takes place via the amalgamaon of
both ongoing and elapsed decisions and acons as well as their dynamically evolving byproducts.
The idea of disaster risks being in a permanent state of construcon is echoed by Sandoval et al.
(2023). Another important denional element is the posioning of DRC as a pre-, during, or post-
disaster process. While Kelman's (2018) framing, among others’, seemingly connes DRC to the ‘pre-
event’ space, other framings appear to contend for a broader situaonal posioning of DRC
processes. We highlight a sample of denions from the literature in Table 1.
Table 1. Disaster risk creaon denions.
Authors
DRC Denitions
Clark-Ginsberg et al.
(2021a, p. 445)
“the creation or exacerbation of hazard, increase in exposure and
propagation of vulnerability”
Clark-Ginsberg et al.
(2021b, p. 449)
“a product of inequity”
Poudel et al. (2023, p. 5)
“a constellation of active processes through which risk is produced and
reproduced”
Wisner (2022, p. 185)
“the evil twin of ‘disaster risk reduction’”
Dickinson and Burton
(2022, p. 203)
“a process that increases vulnerability”
3.1.1 Through which lens is disaster risk creaon conceptualised?
Disaster risk is a concurrently social and physical condion (e.g. Barclay et al., 2019). The dominant
lens through which concepons of disaster risk, and subsequently DRC, are framed in the literature
relates to the habitually core components: hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Guadagno &
Guadagno (2021), for example, discuss the inuence of outmigraon on selement-related risk
creaon with specic regard to all three elements in the context of Southern Italy’s Apennines.
Sandoval & Sarmiento (2020) present these elements more implicitly, with DRC emerging via the
combinaon of socio-environmental fragilies, exposure, and housing precarity.
The role of hazard generaon in risk creaon is explored across the reviewed studies. Cheek et al.
(2023), for instance, note new hazards are generated through the interacons of the built
environment with exisng hazards, using the landll-induced heightened incidence of seismic
liquefacon in Tokyo as an example. Aronsson-Storrier (2020) and Derakhshan et al. (2020), along
similar lines, respecvely note increased landslide and seismic disaster risk succeeding fracking and
wastewater injecons. Rumbach & Németh (2018) speak to the construcon of risk via ‘mul-storied
concrete buildings’ on hillslopes, exacerbang slope failure incidence. Within this context, a
secondarily generated downslope hazard via collapsed building debris is also observed. Such
phenomena have been referred to as ‘socio-natural’ hazards, “generated at the intersecon of
human pracces and environment” (Lavell et al., 2023, p. 132). Commonly aligned (hazard-
exacerbang) processes broadly include climate change and environmental degradaon, with the
spaal scales of causality and impact not always aligned (Alcántara-Ayala, 2021). One example of risk
creaon through climate change is reported by Shang et al. (2023), who note the associated melng
of permafrost increases the risk to building foundaons whose stability is inuenced by the thermal
regime of the surrounding permafrost. Poudel et al. (2023) explore another example whereby
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
6
Khokana’s (Nepal) urbanisaon trajectory is modifying hazard geographies. Prevailing socio-
environmental relaons are also considered more generally as risk-creang (Forino, 2016).
Some scholars diverge from explicitly discussing hazard generaon as a risk-creang element,
framing “exposure and vulnerability as the main ingredients” (Alcántara-Ayala, 2021, p. 324), with
exposure further depicted a necessary determinant of DRC (Ehrlich et al., 2018; Lavell et al., 2023).
Alcántara-Ayala (2021) suggest disaster risk results when landslide exposure emerges via rural
transformaons and the staoning of socio-economic acvies on hazard-suscepble land.
Contrasng more hazard-oriented conceptualisaons of DRC are both Lewis and Kelman (2012) and
Kelman (2018), who primarily centre their discussions on ‘vulnerability drivers’ and ‘vulnerability
creaon’. Dickinson & Burton (2022, p. 203) complement this standpoint by suggesng DRC “is a
process that increases vulnerability”. Chipangura et al. (2017) note the dominance of hazard
framings across the Zimbabwe disaster risk management system, criquing the resultant silencing of
vulnerability and theisc framings, with the laer labelled key components in the social construcon
of risk. Covarrubias & Raju (2020) explicitly use the vulnerability paradigm to invesgate the role of
the polical-economic system as a ‘vulnerability creator’. Clark-Ginsberg et al. (2021b), Jerolleman
(2019), and Sarmiento (2018) likewise centre vulnerability in their DRC framings.
Although vulnerability is centralised in many DRC discourses, Lizarralde et al. (2021) problemase
conceptualisaons of DRC as synonymous with vulnerability creaon, nong alignment with a
‘radical construcvist approach’ neglects hazard-related discourses. Peters (2021) explicitly
disnguishes between vulnerability creaon and DRC in conict contexts, seeing the former as only a
paral insight into the processes contribung to DRC. The author does, however, report the majority
inuence emanates through vulnerability creaon (p.5). It is important to note that vulnerability is
not an enrely unproblemac concept, oen abused in disaster studies (Cannon, 2022) by failing to
account for the fact “those facing systemic oppression are made vulnerable” or “vulnerabilised” by
agents and instuons (von Meding & Chmuna, 2023). We observe that DRC might work to draw
specic aenon to the processes and sources of risk creaon which are oen le unaccounted for
in vulnerability discourses (Banko & Hilhorst, 2022).
3.2 A tendency towards risk-creang development decisions
Wisner (2016, p. 35) surmises that “the very development process that is supposed to ‘li all boats’
is, in fact, sinking [certain groups’] by creang risk”. Mirroring this asseron, the framing of disasters
as ‘disruptors’ of development is problemased, with scholars suggesng they should instead be
viewed as the very result of development in its failed forms (Chmuna et al., 2021; Lavell et al.,
2012). Development supposedly entails “the movement upward of the enre social system” (Myrdal,
1974, p. 729), but risk-generang forms of ‘development’ acvely work against this collecve
upliing. Employed concepons of development frequently challenge this ideal due to the malleable
and value-laden nature of ‘moving upward’ or ‘making beer’ (Chambers, 2004; McEwan, 2009).
Development decision-making subsequently involves navigang inconsistent or conicng guiding
principles, with incompable and inequitable goals oen resulngly pursued (Fra.Paleo, 2015;
Lukasiewicz, 2020).
Many DRC discussions centre themselves in urban contexts, with risk creaon manifest in structural
development processes via (e.g.) the consolidaon of capital and populaons onto hazard-
suscepble or otherwise unsuitable land, hazard generaon, and processes of socio-spaal
marginalisaon (Castro et al., 2015; Guadagno & Guadagno, 2021; Lavell et al., 2023; Page, 2021;
Rumbach, 2014; Sulkkar Ahamed et al., 2023). Disaster risk can thereby be viewed as a reecon of
socio-spaal conguraons (Ramalho, 2019; Meriläinen & Koro, 2021), created in the producon of
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
7
spaces (Lara et al., 2021; Ríos, 2015). There is also a noted connecon between displacement, forced
by rural development projects or urban gentricaon, and DRC (Banko & Hilhorst, 2022; Wisner,
2016). The accompanying creaon of risk is associated with displaced populaons facing foreign
hazards, livelihood concerns, and the erasure of place local idenes, knowledge, and community
structures (Banko & Hilhorst, 2022; Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021).
The following secons are framed around three inducvely derived themes, depicted in Figure 2. The
rst relates to the foundaons of risk-creang development decisions, the second to the processes
involved in upholding such tendencies, and nally, to the general product of these processes.
Figure 2. The sources, processes, and products of risk-creang development decisions.
3.2.1. Why do development decisions create disaster risk?
Literature is replete with examples of selements being (knowingly) expanded into hazard zones
(e.g. Poudel et al., 2023) or constructed to decient standards. Development decisions are therein
ghtly bound to processes of DRC (Ruiz-Cortés & Alcántara-Ayala, 2020). There appears a reluctance
among praconers to challenge mainstream planning processes and ideologies with the greater
consideraon of disaster risk and alternave socio-spaal conguraons. To illustrate this, we draw
on literature highlighng compeng development priories and exploring informal selement
contexts. This secon is framed around the emergent idea that there are explicit, hidden, and
neglected agendas underlying development decisions, each with associated spectrums of
intenonality in their risk-creang implicaons.
3.2.1.1. Neglecng disaster risk concerns
Observable silos in development and DRR policy- and decision-making can result in government and
private sector development acvies that are insensive to the risk they produce (e.g. Poudel et al.,
2023; Raikes et al., 2022). The risk-creang eects of these disciplinary silos are exemplied by
Lizarralde et al. (2020) who point to the separaon of departmental responsibilies as heightening
risk to selements. Scholars contend that DRR should be more uidly integrated into development
planning processes to negate the risk-creang potenal of established development pracces
(Bosher et al., 2021; Joshi et al., 2022; Oliver-Smith et al., 2017a, 2017b). Sandoval et al. (2023)
similarly call for incorporang awareness of DRC into inter-sectoral development components,
namely water, agriculture, and housing. Yet, disaster risk connues to be viewed as a separate and
disnct enty (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2023), with DRR agendas (e.g. in reconstrucon) resulngly
constrained by conicng development standards (Cheek et al., 2023).
The tendency for decision-makers to view disaster risk as low-priority next to demands for property
development is echoed across the literature (e.g. Barclay et al., 2019), with a lack of risk-oriented
land-use planning potenang DRC (Su et al., 2021; Vogel et al., 2022). The decient regard for
disaster risk in urban development decisions could, in part, be fuelled by the incongruous training of
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
8
and standards held by built environment praconers (Chmuna & von Meding, 2022). Deciencies
in building codes further inhibit DRR integraon (Chmuna & Bosher, 2015). Corrupon is another
means through which the possession of hazard-prone land, and subsequent DRC, is enabled. French
et al. (2020), for instance, report on the intenonal shortcoming of Peruvian ocials to enforce risk-
related regulaons to advance their polical backing. Risk can also be created through a deciency of
context-specic regulaons, which hinder safe development pracces since dicules in compliance
can promote non-adherence to (e.g.) suggested building codes (Rumbach & Németh, 2018). Data
deciencies in remote regions can fuel these non-contextually grounded policies (Rumbach &
Németh, 2018). Coates (2021) observes an incidence in the district of Nova Friburgo, Brazil in which
land was deforested, subsequent construcon was unregulated and overlooked by the environment
secretariat, the area was hit by a landslide, and approved once again as a site for a new housing
development. These instances of disregard for disaster risk in development contexts are not unique,
so what is compeng with the agenda to address disaster risk?
3.2.1.2. Explicitly compeng priories & tacitly aecve powers
Urban landscapes are the product of various polical ideologies, economic powers, and development
regulators (Cheek et al., 2023; Ríos, 2015). Conformance to select principles, norms, biases, and
values is inferred here as explicitly and tacitly guiding decision-makers in ways that culminate in DRC.
To understand the processes by which risk is created, Tuhkanen et al. (2018) suggest a need to
recognise inherent trade-os in decisions and their eecve potenal. Kii & Doi (2020) highlight
trade-os in relaon to urban seismic risk and economic eciency, with the spaal clustering of
urban acvies evidencing a trade-o of the former for the laer. The signicance of trade-os in
DRC demands crical examinaon of the values underlying priorisaon processes.
Clark-Ginsberg (2020a) reports the creaon of risk is unavoidable in complex urban sengs since
there are inescapable trade-os in risk. However, when trade-os are made between development
and disaster risk, short-term ‘development’ goals and economic interests are oen the priorised
objecves (Chmuna et al., 2021; Hilhorst & Mena, 2021). Prot-seeking frequently priorises DRC
over DRR (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020b) and decision-making powers oen lie with actors who gain from
the risk they emplace on others (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2023). This process of priorisaon appears a
core risk-generang process, and economic interests prove to be a strong governing force (Aronsson-
Storrier, 2020; Kennedy, 2013). In Castro et al.'s (2015) study, the consolidaon of informal
selements in at-risk areas followed desires for ‘economic advancement’ in two cies in Chile. Such
processes are oen overlooked (Berg & De Majo, 2017), likely given their fundamentality to the
connuity of the (heavily desired by those beneng) ‘economic status quo’ (Cheek et al., 2023).
There exists a lack of accountability to ‘intertemporal fairness’ in relaon to DRC in land-use planning
decisions. A socially or polically induced noon of urgency in addressing economic concerns
(Hilhorst & Mena, 2021) and near-range visions in naonal policy development and investments
encourage risk-enhancing decisions by neglecng temporally-removed risk (Alcántara-Ayala et al.,
2023; Barclay et al., 2019; Marincioni & Negri, 2020; Stevenson & Seville, 2017). The immediate
‘need’ for selement or transport infrastructure is, for instance, reported to supersede risk-related
concerns, movang development on oodplains (Coates & Warner, 2023). At an individual decision-
making level, land pressures, feelings of prosperity, and the potenal for income generaon can all
encourage trade-os which favour short-term (risk-creang) development gains (Murnane et al.,
2016; Paci-Green et al., 2020; Rumbach & Németh, 2018). The aenon drawn to the compeng
‘needs’ of today and the future brings aenon to the fundamental subjecvies in how risk is
dened. Even the framing of today’s needs as ‘urgent’ versus future risks only a ‘potenal’ by
Murnane et al. (2016) is reecve of the seemingly dominant tendency to priorise short-term gains.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
9
Priorising short-term hazards can also create down-the-line risks for other hazard types (Rumbach
& Follingstad, 2019). In contrast to the discourse that short-termism is leading to DRC, Coates &
Warner (2023) imply that by focusing on future risk, forced displacement in Rio de Janeiro produces
presently felt risks. The observed temporal dichotomies in processes of priorisaon promote a need
for assessments of both long- and short-term outcomes of development decisions in relaon to DRC
(Thomalla et al., 2018).
3.2.1.3. Informal selements versus formal planning processes
‘Informally-occupied’ areas are grounds for some of the highest incidence of socially-constructed risk
(Lavell et al., 2023), with increases in risk through urbanisaon projected to be found primarily in
‘unplanned’ areas (Akola et al., 2023). Roy (2009) views informal housing as lying outside the formal
realms of regulaon. Such selements are typically non-compliant with governing bodies’
established standards, lacking basic public services, and situated on hazard-prone land (Sandoval &
Sarmiento, 2020).
There is some consensus on the risk-creang implicaons of rapid and ‘poorly planned’ urbanisaon
processes (Dickinson & Burton, 2022; Kumar & Bhaduri, 2018; Lucatello & Alcántara-Ayala, 2023).
Poudel et al. (2023) describe the development path of Kathmandu Valley as ‘haphazard’, lacking pro-
poor, risk-informed urban plans. Providing an important contrast to concepons that a lack of land-
use planning potenates DRC, Clark-Ginsberg et al. (2022) demonstrate that if ooding is framed as a
product of ‘inadequate state control’ in council guidelines, the implementaon of regulatory, control-
oriented risk management measures may be promoted. This is problemac since adopng planning
approaches that overlook informal local systems can also generate risks (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2020).
It is thus important to stress that although DRC may emerge in unplanned spaces, the creaon of risk
will not (necessarily) be averted by retaining centralised development controls, especially where
alternate agendas (besides equitable DRR) shape the movaons of developers. So, although
informality may be a ‘feature’ of DRC, it can be central to cies’ funconing (e.g. in Freetown - Clark-
Ginsberg et al., 2022) and working with rather than against informality is therefore essenal to
addressing DRC.
Land tenure and security, as well as housing ownership, are of relevance to the discourse on DRC
since they shape the ancipated permanency of infrastructure. Insecure housing or land tenureship
can result in a risk-enhancing tendency towards lower quality housing materials, with a comparave
incenve to invest in structures where tenure is secure (Rumbach, 2014; Skwarko et al., 2024; Unger
et al., 2017). Decient urban services are also noted to be heightened by tenure insecuries in
informal selements, with the associated ‘condions of fragility’ contribung to DRC (Peters et al.,
2022). Recfying issues of insecure tenure could thus be one means of working with condions of
informality to undermine related risk-creang construcon pracces.
The socio-polical and geographic marginalisaon of such selements is implied by Peters et al.
(2022) to result in risk-creang fragilies. Sandoval & Sarmiento (2020) analyse naonal urban
development guidelines discussing (jointly) the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reducon
(SFDRR) and informal selements. No clear means towards facilitang DRR in these contexts are
idened in the reports, nor is the recognion of urban development processes’ role in DRC
(Sandoval & Sarmiento, 2020). The aempted management of unplanned spaces is (unsurprisingly,
given the observed policy neglect) noted to facilitate DRC. Parida et al.'s (2023) study site in
Bhubaneswar hosts risk-creang tendencies via ‘adapve’ slum redevelopment processes.
Purportedly used as a ‘risk governance tool’, the process is interpreted to neglect consideraon of
potenal conicts, only focus on select risks, and construct spaally dierenated risks and
opportunies. There appears limited guidance for incorporang ‘informal’ spaces into planning
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
10
pracce, with these instead seen as “chaoc, illegal, and unwanted spaces within a city that need
revival” and stand in conict with exisng modes of development (Parida et al., 2023, p. 4). Castro et
al. (2015, p. 110) further highlight the sgma and power-deciencies associated with ‘informal’
selements, viewing them instead as simply an “alternave mode of the producon of the urban
space”. Their case shows how formalising informal selements exacerbates and creates risks via
instuonal insensibilies that consolidate their hazard exposure and condions of precarity (Castro
et al., 2015). A similar case of neglect by development authories towards urbanising villages in Delhi
is reported by Kumar & Bhaduri (2018). Such processes of exclusion are seemingly validated by
negavely held concepons of the urban poor (Ramalho, 2019).
3.2.2. How do decision-makers create disaster risk?
With the foundaons of development-related DRC set by the condions outlined thus far, here we
explore the processes facilitang risk-creang decisions in sociees purportedly sensive to disaster
risk concerns. There oen exists a misalignment between the ‘resilience’ narraves put forward by
(inter)naonal urban development policies and the actual decisions and acons actors adopt
(Rumbach & Németh, 2018) – a ‘discursive fantasy’ deepened by ever-overriding risk-creang
ideologies (Covarrubias & Raju, 2020). Manipulated risk discourses are reported here to enable
development decisions to create disaster risk even where they supposedly account for it. Since
disaster risk is a dynamic and subjecve phenomenon, it is easy for those in power to ‘fail’ to
incorporate the risk experiences, percepons, and ideologies that compete with their (neoliberally-
oriented) objecves. Recognising which voices inuence (high-level) development decisions is
important (Aronsson-Storrier, 2020), as low representaon and accountability can normalise risk-
creang acvies (Thomalla et al., 2018), when the needs of marginalised, at-risk persons are
overlooked by unaected decision-makers (Poudel et al., 2023). Dominant risk interpretaons oen
reect “one cultural reality rather than a universal truth” (Gaillard, 2021) and non-transparent (or
blatantly biased) ‘expert’ assessments of risk can perpetrate powerful actors’ (cultural) values into
decision outcomes, resulng in the nonuniform distribuon of benets (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021).
Risk discourses which centre the voices of those unaected in situaons of disaster can lead to
decisions wherein benets are emplaced with greater value than the concurrent negave
implicaons, as observed in post-disaster relocaon development projects (Bodine et al., 2022;
Lizarralde et al., 2020). Here we look at how the sidelining of certain risk knowledge facilitates DRC.
The idea of ‘risk-informed development’ is seemingly redundant in its intenons if risk denions
can be so easily manipulated to aend to alternate agendas. If parcular ‘organising principles’
shape how risk is perceived, they can inuence adopted acons by making certain interpretaons of
reality more convincing (Chipangura et al., 2017). Local knowledge may be liable to manipulaon
where it is forced to conform to ‘experts’’ prior generated disaster risk knowledge and concepons.
Risk-related concerns surrounding livelihoods and community may therefore be neglected where
local perspecves are “socially constructed as less reliable and therefore irrelevant” (Espia &
Salvador, 2017, p. 87). Coates (2021) reports from Brazil, for instance, that people wishing to return
to their aected residencies post-disaster were more concerned with losing their community or
commung distances than the risk posed by mudows. While such concerns are sidelined in
‘arbitrary’ DRR-related decisions, those with the money to inuence decisions are blatantly beer
accounted for (Coates, 2021). The imposion of top-down, technocrac decision-making approaches
discount grassroot experiences and legimise externally-dened concepons of hazards (Clark-
Ginsberg et al., 2021; Wisner, 2022), undermining capacies to escape condions of risk (Tagalo,
2020). Decisions to label places ‘at-risk’ addionally have down-the-line impacts on levels of
investment in places with implicaons for homeownership, creang risk by liming disaster relief
capacies (Jerolleman, 2019). Compeng ideologies in what is deemed a risk to any given community
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
11
should be accounted for and inuenal in how we are dening and working with risk if the aim is to
negate paerns of risk creaon as perceived by the people adversely experiencing hazard events.
Oliver-Smith et al. (2017b) present disaster risks as socially constructed both in terms of human
acons and risk percepon. Aligning with the laer, Renn & Klinke (2015, p. 26) suggest risks can be
conceptualised as mental constructs “created and selected by human actors”. Although scholars
talking to the social construcon of risk are not primarily referring to these ‘mental’ constructs (e.g.
van Riet, 2021), this perspecve is pernent to the DRC discourse as it helps crique how risk is
considered and thus managed. Since disaster risk exists in our minds as a result of constructed
narraves, it is pernent to note that risk narraves are subjecve and liable to the inuence of
social actors (Coates & Warner, 2023). The noon of ‘disaster’ is also fundamentally a product of
subjecve construcon processes (Lizarralde et al., 2021). Thus, important to discussions of DRC is
the level of meaningful accountability to subjecve and mulple experiences and percepons of
disaster risk.
The eect of framing is such that equal but dierenally presented problems can conjure disparate
decision outcomes (Fischho, 1995; Kahneman, 2003). With actors able to choose the risk lens that
ts their preferred discourse, DRC can thereby be inadvertently (or immorally) potenated. Posivist
risk framings among DRR sta can, for instance, lend to a narrow concepon of risk as a probability
(Tagalo, 2020). What results is the operaon of DRR agendas and acvies in line with this
concepon of risk. Bodine et al. (2022) put forward that relocaon decisions oen follow and are
shaped by one type of hazard event and relocaon processes need to be more accountable to mul-
hazard threats. Their case shows that while reducing storm surge exposure, relocated persons face
increased ood exposure. Marchezini (2020) similarly shows that in the face of compeng hazards,
certain hazards have favoured weighngs in polical agendas. In Lizarralde et al.'s (2021) study,
residents were taught that construcng on slopes was unsafe; these teachings nonetheless resulted
in risk-creang construcon pracces, as risk was also conngent on structures being able to
withstand hazards. The priorisaon (and associated sidelining) of certain risks or risk components
can thus contribute to DRC (Parida et al., 2023).
A related stream of discussions emerging from the literature concerns how risk comes to be dened
as ‘acceptable’; a challenge in the face of contrasng risk concepons (Fuentealba, 2021). Dickinson
& Burton (2022) frame DRC as playing a key role in “creang unnecessary increases in vulnerability
and disasters”. We should queson who has the power to dene what an ‘unnecessary’ level of
vulnerability or incidence of disaster is. Thomalla et al. (2018, p. 1) similarly refer to a ‘pping point’
beyond which risk-taking developments exceed “tolerable and acceptable risk levels”, but again, who
is dening ‘tolerable and acceptable’? Determining risk acceptability is not a technical conundrum,
and although ‘experts’ can contribute, social negoaons and the inclusion of psycho-cultural risk
parameters are crical (Cienfuegos, 2022; de Oliveira Santos et al., 2021; Huang, 2018; Murnane et
al., 2016). Yet, locally-dened risk elements remain on the periphery of urban planning decisions
(Poudel et al., 2023). There also appears a temporality to places and decisions being perceived as
‘risky’, with compeng priories able to take precedence and facilitate DRC where risk concepons
are low. Shis in risk percepon occur through me in the face of felt risk (see Hartmann, 2011), with
paerns of risk creaon reemerging with me post-disaster (Surjan & Shaw, 2009).
Disaster educaon can be ulised as a means of shaping risk perspecves to uphold the status quo
and dominant polical ideologies. Coates' (2021) study hones in on an example of a DRR programme
manipulated by polical concerns, which inuence the design, delivery, and recepon of iniaves,
yet are frequently le uninterrogated. Key appears how the framing of causal components leads to
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
12
risks being viewed as reducible or otherwise (Coates, 2021). Based on these observaons, it seems
important to consider how the disseminaon of disaster-related informaon inuences and
potenally perpetrates risk-creang processes. As well as educaon being a potenal means or
enabler of DRC, a lack of targeted educaon can also result in the construcon of new disaster risk
(Ruiz-Cortés & Alcántara-Ayala, 2020). Ruiz-Cortés & Alcántara-Ayala (2020) thus argue for the
greater parcipaon of youth in DRR educaon with the hope this will shape a mindful and informed
generaon of actors.
With approaches to addressing any said risk through development inuenced by whether
components are framed or perceived as risk-enhancing, there is a need to examine the im/explict
values accounted for in the risk denions shaping policy and pracce (Espia & Salvador, 2017). As
Mahewman (2015, p. 154) observes, the “right risk culture can make all of the dierence”.
3.2.3. What do development decisions produce?
Having charted the enabling condions (sources and processes) of DRC, we here explore the
generally-observed product of risk-creang development decisions. Central to the DRC-development
discourse is that there oen exists disnct beneciaries and vicms of risk-creang processes (Chan
& Liao, 2022; cf. Fra.Paleo, 2015). Disaster risk has been and connues to be displaced, transferred,
and oset to certain populaons through (urban) development processes. Clark-Ginsberg et al.
(2021b, p. 450) purport embedded socio-polical inequies enable certain groups “to create risk and
allocate it to others”. One example can be seen through lower-income inhabitants being subject to
risk created by strategies protecng city ‘elites’ (Alvarez & Cardenas, 2019; Jerolleman, 2019). In New
Orleans, canals designed to protect ‘well-o’ areas acvely displace risk into racially-segregated
areas (Zakour & Grogg, 2018). Risk creaon can thus be seen as a ‘transaconal’ process, with the
bearers of created risk oen holding no power to rebu risk-generang developments (e.g. Bodine et
al., 2022; Rumbach & Németh, 2018).
The idea that specic actors or processes put people at-risk is arculated across the reviewed
literature, highlighng agency in the creaon of risk (e.g. Earle, 2016; Paci-Green et al., 2020). Those
responsible for DRC are either inferably or directly noted, but where ‘risk-creators’ are highlighted
they are, on the most part, not the same groups as those with the risk imposed on them (Wisner &
Lavell, 2017). Ríos (2015) emplaces direct responsibility on provincial and municipal governments
and developers in producing uneven disaster risk spaces, with the capital (or social) gains associated
with DRC largely inaccessible to the groups fronng the consequences. When risk is oset to
marginalised populaons in this way, inequitable and unjust paerns of risk emerge (Clark-Ginsberg,
2020b). Powers regulang global economies disregard concerns for social jusce, resulng in the
connued imposion of risk “on those least likely to benefit” (Linarelli et al., 2018, p. 226). Given
those construcng vulnerability in pursuit of ‘economic development’ and those risks are
subsequently allocated to are seldom one and the same, it appears key to queson whom economic
gains are expensing (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021). DRC is subsequently reported as “a product of
inequity” by Clark-Ginsberg et al. (2021b, p. 449), with Thomalla et al. (2018) drawing specically on
distribuve equies in development-related trade-os.
With certain groups embodying a disproporonate share of the risks relave to the associated
benets, DRC is a perpetuaon of social injusces (Jerolleman, 2019). Social injusce produces
disaster risk and is embedded in the spaces we construct (Chmuna & von Meding, 2022; Poudel et
al., 2023), with cases illustrated in Hai (Cheek et al., 2023), Lan America, and the Caribbean (Lavell
et al., 2023). The creaon of such ‘spaally unjust’ selements are commonly noted products of
neoliberal development models (Sandoval et al., 2021). Despite compeng structural forces there is
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
13
space for more just and equitably distributed risk (Rumbach & Németh, 2018; van Riet, 2021). This is
not something to be tackled within disaster scholar and praconer realms alone; it will require
polical and instuonal will to address inequalies and overturn marginalising, prot-oriented, and
ulmately risk-creang systems. Unjust socio-spaal arrangements will otherwise remain central and
structurally-embedded enablers of DRC.
3.3 Risk producon amidst reducon eorts
Discussions centred on DRC o incorporate ideas concerning DRR (Dickinson & Burton, 2022). DRC is
an observable product of systemic imbalances creang disparate beneciaries and vicms of
(purportedly) resilience-enhancing iniaves. To queson authority gures employing ‘DRR’ is
sgmased (Wisner, 2020), but it appears these ‘soluons’ can actually be signicant processes
through which risks are further generated and consolidated. Manifestaons of created risk (disaster
‘events’) are addionally frequently met with DRR aempts that use this already heightened risk
level as a baseline from which risk should be reduced. If we do not challenge the bounds of our risk-
creang systems through revised risk reducon eorts, operaonalising DRR will connue to be a
necessary, but self-defeang pracce.
We idenfy three main themes (Figure 3) within the disaster risk reducon – producon arena: (1)
inequitable access to DRR measures as creang risk, (2) DRR measures that paradoxically create risk,
and (3) DRR measures that fail to combat DRC, thereby enabling such processes to prevail.
Figure 3. Disaster risk reducon (DRR) or producon? Adjusng DRR’s possibility space encourages acvies
that do not just reduce select risk components while upholding risk-creang systems, but holiscally reduce
risk by ensuring equitable access and acvely targeng risk creaon.
3.3.1. Inaccessible DRR
An absence of investment in equitable and accessible DRR resources by governing bodies is noted
across literature sources to create risk for certain groups via the coupled tapering of coping
capacies (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021; Govindarajulu, 2020). Gumucio et al. (2022) report how the
restricon of local coping capacies through acts of ‘counter-humanitarianism’ in conict enables
DRC by blocking access to humanitarian aid. The low instuonal funconality and capacity in post-
conict areas to insgate DRR, alongside the assumpon that DRR cannot be enacted in condions of
conict, leave billions without access to DRR iniaves in these sengs (Caso et al., 2023; Peters,
2021). DRC is also seen to emerge where resource-strained states have inhibited capacies to invest
in proacve DRR measures. Low investment in proacve DRR is in part potenated by decient risk
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
14
understandings (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2022). Ulmately, however, the lack of any noon of legal
responsibility by the internaonal community to provide signicant humanitarian assistance outside
instances of recovery and reconstrucon signicantly perpetuates DRC in marginalised states
(Banko & Hilhorst, 2022).
Jerolleman (2019) contends the emplaced localised or individualised responsibility to reduce losses
ignores inequies in DRC and the associated constraints aected groups have in accessing protecon.
DRC thereby shadows ‘the commodicaon of safety’ (Jerolleman, 2019). Power relaons are vital in
understanding parcipaon in DRR iniaves, with disparate constraints and opportunies notable
relave to social groups’ inclusion in risk governance structures (Banko & Hilhorst, 2022; Collins,
2018). Nonuniform accessibility to DRR infrastructure in ‘lower-value’ or ‘informally-seled’ areas is
seen to parallel the creaon of risk (Akola et al., 2023; Coates, 2021). The systemac exclusion of
those residing in informal selements from governing bodies’ DRR and preparedness acvies, as
well as related decisions, can also force these groups into a state of dependence on NGOs for risk-
reducing services (Peters et al., 2022). This marginalisaon process is noted to create risk through
vulnerability producon.
3.3.2. DRR iniaves as risk creang
The concept of DRC can help draw aenon to the paradoxical nature of intended risk reducon
policies and highlight myriad instances whereby DRR measures have produced further disaster risks
(Banko & Hilhorst, 2022; Hilhorst & Mena, 2021). We speak to both intenonally corrupt and
unintended instances of risk creaon through DRR but suggest ‘unintenonal’ instances should
equally be criqued in their failure to ancipate the risk-creang consequences of iniaves. It
should be noted that the posioning of presented cases along this spectrum of intenonality is not
always easily inferable since the disparies between stated and hidden intenons are rarely explicitly
interrogated. This leaves a crical research gap towards understanding the processes surrounding
DRC through risk reducon eorts.
3.3.2.1. Unintenonal byproducts of DRR iniaves
One way well-intenoned iniaves have induced counterproducve eects and contributed to DRC
is by intensifying and concentrang development behind purportedly hazard-protecve structures
(Lazarus, 2022; Ríos, 2015). Iniated under a noon of ‘safe-development’, the accompanying risk-
creaon is o hidden and denied signicance, despite the heighted potenal for disastrous
consequences upon defence failure (Lazarus, 2022; Tierney, 2014). This safe-development paradox,
otherwise termed a ‘control paradox’ - an, oen unfounded, noon of control over nature (Coates &
Warner, 2023) - lends to the accreon of risk in diked or leveed areas following investments and
populaon inuxes (Mochizuki et al., 2014). Regulatory approaches may unknowingly incenvise
iniaves which create risk in increasingly complex and interdependent systems (Clark-Ginsberg,
2020b; Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021). However, posing DRC as an ‘unintended’ or ‘unpredictable’
outcome of iniaves which ‘innocently’ seek to reduce risk creaon or encourage risk reducon
removes any element of blame for malpracce. This is problemac if used as a means of making
ambiguous the responsibility of risk creators to prevent (deliberately or otherwise) inequitable risk-
creang acons. Although it may be dicult to decipher in all cases the extent of intenonality in the
risk-creang nature of acons adopted, the lack of any ancipaon or acknowledgement of DRC
processes paralleling DRR eorts appears a key enabler of their connuaon.
DRR-movated slum-clearance projects in Nairobi, Lagos, and Bangkok are reported to have
destabilised informal modes of risk governance (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2020). Without an enforced
responsibility to ancipate and account for the risks created in such iniaves, the fundamental
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
15
intent behind DRR can be severely undermined. Another case of ‘unintenonal’, but arguably
predictable, risk creaon is put forward by Rumbach (2014), where town planners in India failed to
account for the inux of low-income workers to Salt Lake’s periphery, with increased risks for the
poron of the populaon le residing outside the protected township. Parida et al. (2023) suggest
unancipated consequences are more probable if there is a narrow focus on certain risks, which
raises quesons of jusce in ancipang threats and accounng for at-risk populaons’ epistemic
rights. Samaraweera (2023) show how post-ood, a bridge was built by the government in a Sri
Lankan riverside community, with an aim to reduce ood risk, yet subsequent ood events entailed
new dynamics directly because of the bridge, with residents having reduced evacuaon capacies to
evade these newfound risks. From these examples, it appears ‘unintenonal DRC’ may just be
another way of framing the absence of ancipaon of DRC processes, with a lack of investment in
ancipang risks an enabler of inadvertently risk-creang pracces.
Contrasng the dominant concepon of DRC as a pre-event process, post-disaster risks have also
been noted to be created by ineecve or inecient response processes (Hao & Wang, 2020;
Hilhorst & Banko, 2022). Hilhorst & Mena (2021) provide an account of social resistance to the
lockdowns employed in response to COVID-19, which ulmately proved a means of DRC. A common
feature of post-disaster sengs in relaon to DRC is the urgency under which decisions are made
(e.g. Thomalla et al., 2018). Speedy construcon in such sengs may be celebrated and strived for
(e.g. in Aceh post-2004) over minimising risk or ensuring livelihoods are supported (Cheek &
Chmuna, 2022). Peters (2021) reports, for example, how in the southeast Bangladeshi mountains
ood and landslide-related risks were increased by the rapid construcon of roads and shelter to
host Rohingya refugees.
Disaster management agencies have explicitly been posed as enablers of DRC. Clark-Ginsberg et al.
(2021b) look at the ‘organizaonal roots’ of DRC by invesgang how disaster management agencies,
specically the United States’ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), create risk. They
responsibilise FEMA for its role in DRC, purporng such agencies embody biases that mean
supposedly resilience-enhancing iniaves can be inhibited by distribuve, procedural, and
contextual inequies (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021b). This can be through the sidelining of certain
voices in decisions or priorisaon of ‘expert’ risk understandings resulng in inequitably benecial
measures (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2021b). If DRM frameworks, plans, and policies reect only the
dominant ideologies, risk framings and percepons (Cheek & Chmuna, 2022; Espia & Salvador,
2017), certain risks or risk components may ‘unintenonally’ (or otherwise) be le unaddressed,
culminang in DRC (Parida et al., 2023). Resultantly, decisions to employ DRM measures can be risk-
creang when they fail to account for other risk elements. DRM policy controls instated in areas of
high disaster recurrence can, for instance, restrict basic government service provision, leaving at-risk
populaons without services that would ulmately enhance their coping capacies (Lavell et al.,
2023).
3.3.2.2. Using ‘DRR’ narraves to purport alternate agendas
Ideas of intenonality arise through discussions of post-disaster rebuilding eorts. Although risks
created through associated growth paerns may be the emergent byproducts of well-intenoned
acons, they can also arise through the intenonal capitalising of opportunies for restructuring
socio-spaal conguraons (Lazarus, 2022). In post-disaster sengs, DRR agendas may be frontlined,
most notably through the promoon of ‘build back beer’ (BBB) ideologies in recovery. Under the
BBB narrave, progress is regularly measured in terms of the speed and nature of recovered
economic assets rather than relave building safety or protecon of livelihoods (Cheek & Chmuna,
2022; Chmuna et al., 2021). This creates space for the emergence of risk-creang processes via
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
16
disaster capitalism. Sandoval et al. (2022) note the limited examinaon of public and private eects
on DRC using this perspecve, themselves scoping global instances wherein disaster capitalism had
facilitated DRC. Their ndings show that failing to strive for ‘posive social change’ enables
egocentric actors to dominate DRR spaces and create risk through neoliberally-oriented reforms. To
this note, Cheek & Chmuna (2022, p. 604) suggest “reconstrucon under a banner of BBB is,
ironically, the process of reconstrucng risks”. The SFDRR’s fourth priority area aims to reduce DRC
through this very ideology, though lacks praccal guidelines (Schipper et al., 2016). Hopes that this
ideal could shi development pracces to truly reduce risks and prevent the creaon of new risks are
resulngly not o aained, with vulnerabilies instead rebuilt (Magnuszewski et al., 2019).
Risk management smulated by polically constructed feelings of urgency has created a multude
of risks by facilitang adherence to polical or nancial elites’ ulterior moves over legimate and
locally-driven risk concerns (Parida et al., 2023). Coates & Warner (2023, p. 6) point to a case of
forcible reselement in Rio de Janeiro, where powerful actors’ moves are disguised as post-
disaster ‘resilience-enhancing’ measures but aend to their “longstanding policy of forced removal
of the poor”. The manipulaon of post-disaster environments to serve underlying polical agendas is
also reported by Hilhorst & Mena (2021) who discuss the securisaon of emergency responses as
an instrument to serving ulterior polical objecves, such as oppressing populaons, media, and
opposion groups. They describe how governments use the ‘state of excepon’ arising in response
landscapes to employ ‘urgent’ acons and agendas, sidelining all compeng issues to address the
priorised threat, with these acons presented as an objecve necessity. Aase (2021) presents a
case in which one threat (the COVID-19 pandemic) was used to accelerate the relocaon of Rohingya
refugees, overriding resistance aligned with the risk-creang potenal in forcing their inhabitaon of
hazard-prone relocaon sites. Enforced ‘risk-reducing’ relocaons post-ood can addionally
increase risks via non-access to post-ood compensaon for households choosing to remain in-situ
(Samaraweera, 2023). Displaced persons’ voices and needs are connually marginalised in disaster
plans (Peters, 2021; Rumbach et al., 2020) and post-disaster sengs could be more equitably and
inclusively planned for outside this state of emergency (Bodine et al., 2022), overturning risk-
creang forms of risk governance.
3.3.3. DRR measures that fail to combat processes of DRC, enabling them to prevail
Without insinuang disaster studies has not “achieved a good deal” through exisng iniaves,
Wisner (2019, p. 61) suggests work towards risk reducon remains ‘trapped’. DRR instuons are
seen as shying away from challenging the ‘harsh realies’ of DRC, focusing instead on delivering
normavely posive (‘risk-reducing’) outcomes (Alexander, 2016). There exists a persistent and
overwhelming focus on correcve and compensatory risk management (Lavell & Maskrey, 2014),
otherwise termed ‘symptom management’ (Raikes et al., 2021). Socially-constructed ‘emergency
imaginaries’ help in sustaining symptom management over system reform in post-disaster
landscapes (Aase, 2021). While such measures can temporarily oset disaster events or lessen their
impacts, they systemacally fail to address risk-creang processes (Chmuna et al., 2021), and
cyclically reinforce response-dominated systems, impeding the insgaon of transformaonal
approaches (French et al., 2020; Oliver-Smith et al., 2017b). DRR that fails to account for risk-creang
processes will only further compound them, lending to an ever ‘uphill bale’ and hindering progress
in reducing net risk levels (Imperiale & Vanclay, 2020; Raikes et al., 2021).
Wisner (2019, 2020) proposes the term DRR might even be distracng from the issue of DRC, with
associated terminology only perpetuang soluons adhering to inequitably-balanced agendas rather
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
17
than combang the very issues driving the need for risk reducon eorts in the rst place. Disaster
studies, with its overwhelming focus on ‘DRR’, has disenabled polical and scholarly engagement
with socio-polical and economic systems’ role in DRC (Lizarralde et al., 2020; Wisner, 2019). Cheek
& Chmuna (2022), as an example, report ‘BBB’ ideologies generally fail to confront the systems that
produced the very risks they supposedly set out to reduce. Under this lens, DRR intervenons and
‘resilience-building’ in the built environment will uphold risk-creang processes by simply preserving
the ‘status quo’ (Cheek & Chmuna, 2022; Cheek et al., n.d.; Chmuna et al., 2023). Without
challenging the polical roots of risk-creang processes, such approaches merely prepare
marginalised groups for sustained condions of risk (Coates, 2021).
3.3.1.1. Apolical aempts to reduce ‘naturalised’ risk
Promong disasters as ‘natural’ phenomena is a polically-driven method of displacing responsibility
for DRC (Chmuna & von Meding, 2019, 2022). Focusing on physical hazard aributes to understand
disaster risk can have the eect of marginalising key social construcon processes (Chipangura et al.,
2017; Oliver-Smith et al., 2017b). Risk is then (falsely) believed to emerge almost enrely from
uncontrollable processes, liming proacve aempts to reduce risk by targeng socio-polical
processes. Thus, “externalising tragedies to climate or nature precisely avoids tackling - and by
extension enables - the kind of unsustainable developments that created disaster in the first place”
(Coates & Warner, 2023). Chipangura et al. (2017) present their observaons of Zimbabwe’s DRM
system and note it to be ruled by hazard framings, in the process supressing interpretaons of
disaster risk as socially-constructed. Posivist and determinisc framings of risk force DRR away from
holding social processes accountable in DRC (Lizarralde et al., 2021), resulng in hazard migaon
dominang DRR policy realms (Raikes et al., 2022).
In the same way nature is used to render disaster risk an unavoidable aspect of socio-polical
systems, so too is the framing of vulnerability as an uninterrogated ‘weakness’ of certain individuals
or groups - instead of seeing them as fundamentally ‘vulnerabilised’ or made vulnerable (von Meding
& Chmuna, 2023), perpetuang paternalisc forms of DRM (Banko, 2001). Problem framing
inuences the soluon space and subsequently adopted soluons, so under this mindset, DRR will
connue to embody approaches that fail to crique nor overturn the condions driving DRC, instead
re-embedding inequalies. Inuenal frameworks, such as SFDRR, have been rendered apolical
projects given their lack of crique of power in their vulnerability discourses (Chmuna et al., 2021).
Idened ‘vulnerable persons’ are therein provided access to support but no means towards
quesoning the risk-creang condions they are aorded (von Meding & Chmuna, 2023). Such risk
framings can perpetuate beliefs that “vulnerability is a regreable state of being that must be
responded to with charity, but not system change” (von Meding & Chmuna, 2023, p. 369), thereby
upholding the very systems that create risk. With the core of DRC noted to lie in unjust social
structures, more polically-oriented DRR intervenons are encouraged (Clark-Ginsberg, 2017).
In their analysis, which takes DRC back to the educaonal roots of praconers, Chmuna & von
Meding (2022) suggest that since higher educaon pracces in engineering disciplines are founded in
‘objecvity’, they embody apolically-oriented curricular. Their study argues this reinforces
ineecve, technocrac pracces among built environment praconers who assume disasters can
be avoided by ‘taming’ nature. Uncrically apolical DRR pedestals ‘objecve’ problem-solving and
‘technical xes’ (Gaillard, 2019). Viewing these as neutral soluons only perpetrates risk by leaving
the value biases of praconers unquesoned and overlooking the fact risk is socially-constructed
(Chmuna & von Meding, 2022). The issue raised here is not that technical soluons cannot in some
sense reduce risk, it is instead that it so commonly overrides the parallel need for transformaon in
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
18
our risk-creang social systems (Berg & De Majo, 2017). By leaving DRC unchallenged, presently
employed ‘risk-reducing’ iniaves simply prepare communies for sustained condions of risk.
3.4. Mul-scalar relaons in risk creaon
Scholars see disaster risk as created via diuse actors and acvies, with risk-creang processes
discussed at an array of spaotemporal scales (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2022; Lavell et al., 2012;
Meriläinen & Koro, 2021; Oliver-Smith et al., 2017; Peters, 2021; Wisner, 2001). Bounding ‘risk
networks’ thus carries the potenal to miss important risk-creang relaons (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020b)
and there is conict in the literature concerning approaches to analysing associated processes (e.g.
between DKKV and FORIN) (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2023). This secon thus aims to unpack
discussions related to mul-scalar processes in DRC. It appears imperave to look both at processes
which are ongoing and changeable but also more distal trajectory-seng processes to queson the
connued establishment of risk-creang path dependencies.
3.4.1. Intangible risk-creang processes
The literature frequently assesses the broader contexts within which disaster risk is produced, with
local manifestaons of risk commonly presented as the result of wider (inter)naonal processes
(Clark-Ginsberg, 2017). The rights of risk bearers are undermined by powerful global actors’ decisions
overriding local spheres of inuence, cemenng external desires to retain the disproporonately
benecial ‘current state of aairs’ (Covarrubias & Raju, 2020). This ‘extra-territorial’ shaping of
locally-manifest disaster risk (Lavell et al., 2012) is evidenced by Gumucio et al. (2022), who report
on locally-embedded elements of DRC ed to individuals’ coping capacies as parallelling wider
societal inequalies. Clark-Ginsberg (2017) also report that agents external to Freetown’s slums (e.g.
in the wider city, authories, global actors through climac inuences) largely produced residents’
felt ood risks. Distal socio-polical and economic arrangements thus appear signicant in feeding
DRC processes at the local level.
3.4.1.1. Turning a blind eye to disconnected risk components
Scholars draw aenon to a disregard by both public and private-sector actors for the cascading risks
potenated by their decisions (Aase, 2021; Thomalla et al., 2018). Using Stevenson & Seville's (2017)
discussion of private-sector-induced DRC, it is inferred self-interested decision-makers may, with
spaal or temporal detachment between risk sources and recipients, be able to neglect the risk they
impose on others, given the regulatory challenges in connecng disconnected DRC processes. The
distanced nature of acvies’ risk-creang implicaons has been used to jusfy actors’ ignorance or
neglect, fuelling the (re)creaon of risk (Kousky & Zeckhauser, 2006). The tendency for risks
associated with ideologies of growth to be relocated across spaotemporal dimensions is further
observed by Tierney (2014) to mask DRC.
A lack of knowledge on risk drivers and components could be fuelling this ability to turn a blind eye
to processes of risk creaon. Ruiz-Cortés and Alcántara-Ayala (2020), for instance, suggest weak
policies exist and create risk because of knowledge deciencies. Ancipang decision outcomes may
be dicult in complex systems (Stevenson & Seville, 2017), but to what extent is this excusable for
the undue neglect for thorough analysis of forms of DRC? The idea of decisions being ‘blind to risk’ is
correlated with a lack of polical will to ensure investments are systemacally and equitably risk-
informed, laying the grounds for DRC (Chmuna et al., 2021; Wisner, 2020). There are resulngly
instances where DRC processes have not just been neglected, but intenonally concealed, with
urban developers making risks ‘invisible’ to conform to real estate pressures (Acuña et al., 2021). This
intenonal concealing is clearly inexcusable, but there is not always a clear line separang intenonal
acons from the unintended. A means of concealing processes in DRC can be seen in the aribuon
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
19
of select disasters to climate change, shiing public aenon instead to bygone processes of
industrial eras (Coates & Warner, 2023; Raju et al., 2022). In discussing climate-related disasters,
Lizarralde et al. (2021, p. 2) suggest external groups’ role in DRC “can translate into a feeling of
impotence and dependence”. Jackson (2021) similarly reects on the despondency among study
parcipants towards the changeability of systemic roots in idenfying producve means towards risk
reducon. Given its potenal to generate feelings of impotence, there are signicant implicaons
associated with the deliberate suppression of awareness on the changeability of risk-creang
processes and creaon of an arcial disncon between processes and their risk-creang
implicaons in the public eye.
DRC is not conned to the tangible processes ed to the primary incidence of felt risk, so why do we
connue to treat disasters as me-bound events (Huang, 2018; Meriläinen & Koro, 2021)? Even
major frameworks, such as SFDRR, do lile to engage with far-o processes, focusing instead on
measuring event-based impacts, such as the number of damaged facilies aributed to disasters
(Chmuna et al., 2021; Wisner, 2020). Given the temporal disparies that exist between processes of
DRC and felt impacts, it is crical to undermine narraves of a bound disaster ‘event space’. “Events
are merely processes made visible” (Mahewman, 2015, p. 136); this can be the process of
neoliberalism, systemic exclusion, environmental degradaon, or any other risk-creang pracce
observed in this review. Assuming there exists a detached period before a disaster ‘event’ disguises
the entangled risk-creang socio-economic and polical processes in this temporal realm (Aronsson-
Storrier, 2022; Bosher et al., 2021; Cheek & Chmuna, 2022; Fuentealba, 2021). This vail of
intangibility likely enables symptom management and other ‘easy xes’ to prevail over the
prevenon of obscured risk-generang processes (Poudel et al., 2023; Thomalla et al., 2018; Tran &
Shaw, 2007). Although reacve risk reducon eorts can be seen as a normave good, they detract
aenon “from other mes and spaces that could be beer loci for intervenon” (Coates & Warner,
2023, p. 1). Oliver-Smith et al. (2017a) likewise indicate a need to move away from an exclusive
concentraon on the ‘disaster site’ to sites of policy creaon and execuon.
The lack of aenon to spaotemporally removed processes weakens decision-makers’
accountability towards their risk-creang outputs. Despite clearly unjust, cross-naonal inuences in
DRC (see Aronsson-Storrier, 2020; Wisner, 2022), there is a reluctance among wealthy states to
embody a collecve internaonal responsibility for global experiences of disaster risks, as adopted in
internaonal climate convenons (Dickinson & Burton, 2022). Rumbach & Németh (2018) likewise
queson the obligaons urban development professionals hold across generaonal divides in their
decision-making pracces. The present lack of accountability for the societal implicaons emerging
from public and private sector decisions increases subopmal outcomes for society (i.e. risk creaon)
(Stevenson & Seville, 2017). Temporally-displaced risks have, for instance, been observed in Mexico
City following aempts by ocials to push risks to the urban periphery; as the city expanded,
previously exploited groundwater in the outskirts increased incidences of subsidence, ooding, and
landslips (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2020). Although such outcomes could be framed as ‘unintended
byproducts’ of innocently driven processes, there is room for actors to take responsibility for and
ancipate distal risk-creang processes.
3.4.1.2. Structural constraints
In problemasing processes of DRC, we must consider the factors involved in the constraints of
choice. Consider, for instance, persons systemically forced into situaons in which they ‘choose’ to
adopt acons which increase their risk. A (perceived) lack of alternave may force marginalised
groups onto hazard-prone land. With such choices constrained by broader systemic issues, we
denote such forms of DRC largely involuntary (Sandoval et al., 2021). When assigning blame in
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
20
relaon to DRC, the potenal for unethical ‘vicm blaming’ should be crically considered if the most
observable and directly-tangible processes are those at the micro level and higher-level processes
are sidelined (van Riet, 2021).
Samaraweera (2023) draws aenon to the importance of considering and accounng for wider
system structures when analysing its individual components, with structural foundaons shaping
individuals’ behaviours and the implicaons of those behaviours. Covarrubias & Raju (2020) nd the
lens of neoextracvism useful for its mul-scalar posioning enabling examinaon of local-level
processes of DRC and their connecon to regional polico-economic arrangements. In their study, to
understand disaster risk governance they deem it essenal to begin from the guiding economic and
socio-polical principles shaping ‘development’ pracces. Cheek & Chmuna (2022) further this
discussion on global-state interacons, reporng on states’ drive towards compability with the
global economy, suggesng global capital trends thereby help dene naonal economic and legal
structures. Regarding legal structures, Aronsson-Storrier (2020) analyses the role of internaonal law
in DRC, stang that while some laws (e.g. on human rights) help enforce DRR, others (e.g. investment
law) provide opposing forces. The role of internaonal investment law in perpetuang disaster risk is
only furthered by governments’ pressure to pursue various foreign investments and the associated
absence of risk-creang safeguards (Wisner, 2020).
Systems constrain the ‘possibility space’ within which development and DRR processes are
undertaken, resulng in a seemingly self-fuelling cycle of risk creaon. Possibility spaces are bounded
(abstract) places wherein polical ideologies have dened the realms of potenality in decision-
making (Dimer, 2014; McGowran & Donovan, 2021). Recovery processes are, for instance,
implicated in DRC by re-establishing the risk-producing systems wherein they emerge and are
structurally constrained (Cheek et al., 2023).
3.4.2. Risk-creang trajectories
The idea that sociees have been, and connue to be, set on long-term risk-creang pathways is
apparent through our global development trajectories (Oliver-Smith, 2015). A city’s trajectory is
shaped by both past and present (un)intenonal choices of ocials and built environment
professionals (Clark-Ginsberg et al., 2020). The ability of urban environments to signicantly alter
their built form is constrained by previous developmental taccs (Lara et al., 2021), with exisng
urban fabrics or land use mediang DRC by controlling available choices (e.g.) on available
selement locaons (Guadagno & Guadagno, 2021). Places as we see them today have their roots in
their histories, cultures, and structures and are set on development paths within global systems
(Cheek et al., 2023b). These historic undercurrents shaping present-day social structures and support
networks are labelled the starng point for DRC (Gumucio et al., 2022), and are key for
understanding both how condions of risk emerge but also “how societal inera causes them to
persist over me” (Barclay et al., 2019, p. 151; Duvat et al., 2021; Lazarus, 2022). Dominang
resilience ideologies that work with incremental (or stagnant), rather than transformaonal change,
enable inequitable risk-creang development and capitalist-oriented pracces to prevail (Thomalla et
al., 2018; von Meding & Chmuna, 2023). The accompanying status quo produces and upholds
societal inequalies and subsequent disaster risk (Cheek et al., 2023; Olson et al., 2020). Below we
briey explore three connected themac areas.
3.4.2.1. Colonial drivers
Barclay et al. (2019) report how acons and choices adopted during colonial mes inuenced the
development path of Dominica. Land-paroning and the shiing of selements during this me, for
instance, shape present-day risk accumulaon through populaons’ paerns of habitancy (Barclay et
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
21
al., 2019). Rooted in this historically-determined state, processes through me have culminated in
(and connue to contribute to) DRC. Associated dispossession of land and resources has ongoing
implicaons for felt risks, e.g. by determining recovery capacies. Connual manifestaons of
oppression mean colonisaon is itself a form of ongoing DRC (Lambert & Mark-Shadbolt, 2021).
Nepal, Lan America and the Caribbean are reported as some cases where (neo-)colonial legacies
acvely inuence DRC through global economic frameworks (Covarrubias & Raju, 2020; Poudel et al.,
2023).
3.4.2.2. Cultural norms
Fing within the overarching concepon of risk creaon as a product or process of human
behaviours and acons, aenon is drawn to cultural inuences in the construcon of risk (e.g.
Banko et al., 2015). The constructs shaping our behaviours are grounded in cultural values
concerning our relaons to each other and the material world (Oliver-Smith, 2015). Achievements in
DRR are noted to be hindered at the core by dominant groups’ guiding (socio-cultural) principles
which inuence global societal development processes (Oliver-Smith, 2015). Depicng neoliberalism
as a cultural construct, Oliver-Smith (2015) suggests it enables DRC by informing socio-
environmental relaons and globalisaon processes. Naonal DRM organisaons’ cultures can also
been seen as powerful in determining commonly-accepted pracce and beliefs, which thereby shape
individual and groups’ risk-related behaviours and percepons (e.g. Chipangura et al., 2017).
3.4.2.3. Cumulave and overlapping risk components
Risk-creang processes do not emanate in simple, linear forms. It is instead the combinaon of risk-
creang factors that culminate in the construcon and subjecve experience of risk. It is inevitable
that disaster risk, a complex and subjecvely perceived phenomenon, can be aributed to a
multude of risk-creang components; exactly which depends on the scale of analysis and framing of
risk. Scholars list and frame groups of interdependent components when discussing risk creaon,
with dialogues of ‘interacng’ components commonly arising across the reviewed literature (e.g.
Gumucio et al., 2022; Sandoval & Sarmiento, 2020). While Huang et al. (2021) present a
methodology for uncovering ‘disaster-causing factor chains’, others contend for approaches which
focus on mapping relaonal networks of components (e.g. Qazi & Simsekler, 2021).
3.5. Avoiding disaster risk creaon
Processes of DRC are socially-constructed, and thus theorecally avoidable (Figure 4). Since a need
for avoiding the construcon of new risks has been stressed by scholars and prominent DRR
instuons, perhaps the most signicant dearth of literature lies in outlining praccal means through
which to achieve these ends (cf. Peters et al., 2022). Risk communicaon is presented as one
mechanism through which averng DRC could be promoted as a social and instuonal priority
(Alcántara-Ayala, 2018); advancing teachings in DRR is, for instance, noted imperave to avoiding
DRC in built environment pracces (Chmuna & von Meding, 2022). It also appears pernent that
tradional forms of DRM are broadened to encompass ongoing processes of DRC and disaster risk
concerns are meaningfully integrated at mul-scale levels of governance and development
(Magnuszewski et al., 2019; Raikes et al., 2022). This will require collecve acon across society
(Clark-Ginsberg, 2020b). By improving our behaviours and choices we can lessen the negave
consequences associated with disaster events (Dickinson & Burton, 2022). However, the compeng
values aligned to these ‘choices’ appear to be what denes the risk-creang trade-os witnessed
across society. The key is thus to unpack what is constraining and inuencing our risk-creang
decisions to understand our potenal to overturn them.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
22
Figure 4. Divergent pathways towards (1) preserving the current state of aairs (risk creaon) or (2) altering the
trajectory to avoid disaster risk creaon.
Avoiding DRC will entail stakeholders and at-risk populaons aaining a greater understanding of the
factors driving risk and support in strengthening disaster risk governance systems (Alcántara-Ayala,
2021). FORIN appears to be a versale tool which has been employed in response to a desire to
interrogate processes of risk creaon (Wisner, 2016). Understanding processes and trajectories of
DRC and communicang them in a meaningful way could help change atudes towards risk-creang
decisions (Alcántara-Ayala, 2018). This process of understanding may, however, not be so simple.
Compeng narraves of risk creaon (e.g. Lizarralde et al., 2021) may inhibit groups from aaining a
collecve acceptance of who or what processes are responsible for, or involved in, DRC. Lizarralde et
al.’s (2021, p. 10) study respondents queson the ascripon of DRC “to local corrupon and socio-
polical dynamics versus colonial crimes, American polics, or polluon in industrialized naons”.
Despite observed successes of community-based DRR, the localisaon of blame and promoon of
eorts centred on individual responsibility to address risk will not negate the ongoing processes of
risk creaon that require broader structural changes (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020b; Sandoval et al., 2023).
The prevalence of compeng trade-os and systemic constraints outlined in this review should not
insinuate that the problem of DRC is too embedded in our societal norms and pracces to overturn.
Instead, the bearers of inequitable risk should be empowered to demand change from those creang
it through meaningful community dialogues (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020a; Coates, 2021). Empowering
marginalised groups can help “shi the dynamics of the futures-in-the-making”, i.e. manipulang
present-day DRC processes to overturn risk-creang trajectories (McGowran & Donovan, 2021, p.
1607). Countering presently problemac BBB ideologies, disaster memories could be ulised to shi
discourse, pracce, and culture towards resisng DRC (Fuentealba, 2021). Aempts to draw focus to
risk-creang processes “are oen edited out, marginalized or ignored, as they may strike sensive
chords among authories and special interest groups” (Oliver-Smith et al., 2017b). Further research
would thus be welcome into ways of overcoming idened forms of resistance and compeng
priories, navigang towards systems which favour the avoidance rather than creaon of disaster
risk. Recognising ways of overcoming resistance (e.g. in the private sector) towards crossing sectoral
boundaries, for instance, is one means through which such groups’ contribuons to DRC could be
migated (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020b). Breaking such silos and culvang collecve concern for DRC
should help embed disaster risk concerns into development pracce (Lavell et al., 2023) - this could
be achieved in part through greater convergence research (Lakhina et al., 2021; Peek et al., 2020).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
23
4. Conclusion
The dialogues presented in this review collecvely call for transformaonal change away from
inherently risk-creang pracces. Dominant risk discourses align with a preservaon of the status
quo and breaking the cycle of risk creaon appears stalled. The centralisaon of risk percepons that
do not account for the priories of those being put at risk are seen to lead to risk-creang
development decisions. Subsequently, those who gain out of risk-creang decisions, and those
bearing the risk, are seldom one and the same, with marginalised and less inuenal groups forced
to adopt the role of risk bearer. Problemasing the processes by which risk is created could provide a
gateway for remediang the relaon between development and disaster risk through intervenons
targeng ‘risk-generang’ development decisions (Tuhkanen et al., 2018). This will, however, involve
overcoming the presently low polical will to support instuonal capacity to prospecvely address
disaster risk (French et al., 2020). While it would be naïve to envisage a state without trade-os
between DRR and short-term development gains, it is not unreasonable to suggest disaster risk be
considered and priorised to a greater extent from the iniaon of development-related decisions
(Magnuszewski et al., 2019). Kelman (2018) remarks that “[c]reang risk is not necessarily
detrimental”. But fundamentally, the state of DRC appears such that if those embodying the negave
implicaons of risk-creang processes are not also proporonally beneng (or at least are given
agency to do so), DRC as a process is detrimental and wholly unjust. How we achieve a more just
state of aairs in the distribuon of risk is a queson for further research and interrogaon.
5. References
Aase, M. (2021). Disaster governance and autocrac legimaon in Bangladesh. In S. Widmalm,
Routledge Handbook of Autocrazaon in South Asia (1st ed., pp. 233–245). London:
Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003042211-24
Acuña, V., Roldán, F., Tironi, M., & Juzam, L. (2021). The geo-social model: A transdisciplinary
approach to ow-type landslide analysis and prevenon. Sustainability, 13(5), 1–37.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/su13052501
Akola, J., Chakwizira, J., Ingwani, E., & Bikam, P. (2023). An AHP-TOWS Analysis of Opons for
Promong Disaster Risk Reducon Infrastructure in Informal Selements of Greater Giyani
Local Municipality, South Africa. Sustainability, 15(1), 1–14.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/su15010267
Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2018). TXT-tool 4.052-1.2: Landslide Risk Communicaon. In K. Sassa, B. Tiwari, K.-
F. Liu, M. McSaveney, A. Strom, & H. Seawan (Eds.), Landslide Dynamics: ISDR-ICL Landslide
Interacve Teaching Tools: Volume 2: Tesng, Risk Management and Country Pracces (pp.
731–742). Springer. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57777-7_47
Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2021). Integrated landslide disaster risk management (ILDRiM): The challenge to
avoid the construcon of new disaster risk. Environmental Hazards, 20(3), 323–344.
hps://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1810609
Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., Lavell, A., Oliver-Smith, A., Brenes, A., & Dickinson, T. (2023). Forensic
invesgaons of disasters: Past achievements and new direcons. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster
Risk Studies, 15(1), 1–11. hps://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1490
Alcántara-Ayala, I., Gomez, C., Chmuna, K., Van Niekerk, D., Raju, E., Marchezini, V., Cadag, J. R. D.,
& Gaillard, J. C. (2022). Disaster Risk (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315469614
Alexander, D. E. (2016). The game changes: “Disaster Prevenon and Management” aer a quarter of
a century. Disaster Prevenon and Management, 25(1), 2–10. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-
11-2015-0262
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
24
Alvarez, M. K., & Cardenas, K. (2019). Evicng Slums, ‘Building Back Beer’: Resiliency Revanchism
and Disaster Risk Management in Manila. Internaonal Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 43(2), 227–249. hps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12757
Alves, P. B. R., Djordjević, S., & Javadi, A. A. (2021). An integrated socio-environmental framework for
mapping hazard-specic vulnerability and exposure in urban areas. Urban Water Journal,
18(7), 530–543. hps://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2021.1913505
Aronsson-Storrier, M. (2020). Sendai Five Years on: Reecons on the Role of Internaonal Law in the
Creaon and Reducon of Disaster Risk. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(2),
230–238. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00265-y
Aronsson-Storrier, M. (2022). Keep the curtains drawn! Event, process and disaster in internaonal
law. In M. Aronsson-Storrier & R. Dahlberg (Eds.), Defining Disaster (pp. 45–57). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. hps://doi.org/10.4337/9781839100307.00012
Banko, G. (2001). Rendering the World Unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as Western Discourse. Disasters,
25(1), 19–35. hps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00159
Banko, G., Cannon, T., Krüger, F., & Schipper, E. L. F. (2015). Introducon: Exploring the links
between cultures and disasters. In F. Krüger, G. Banko, T. Cannon, B. Orlowski, & E. L. F.
Schipper (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
Banko, G., & Hilhorst, D. (Eds.). (2022). Why Vulnerability Sll Maers: The Polics of Disaster Risk
Creaon. London: Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219453
Barclay, J., Wilkinson, E., White, C. S., Shelton, C., Forster, J., Few, R., Lorenzoni, I., Woolhouse, G.,
Jowi, C., Stone, H., & Honychurch, L. (2019). Historical Trajectories of Disaster Risk in
Dominica. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(2), 149–165. Scopus.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-0215-z
Berg, M., & De Majo, V. (2017). Understanding the Global Strategy for Disaster Risk Reducon. Risk,
Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 8(2), 147–167. hps://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12110
Bodine, S. P., Tracy, A., & Javernick-Will, A. (2022). Quesoning the eecveness of risk reducon via
post-disaster relocaon. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 71, 102834.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102834
Bosher, L., Chmuna, K., & van Niekerk, D. (2021). Stop going around in circles: Towards a
reconceptualisaon of disaster risk management phases. Disaster Prevenon and
Management: An Internaonal Journal, 30(4/5), 525–537. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-
2021-0071
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using themac analysis in psychology. Qualitave Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. hps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cannon, T. (2022). What must be done to rescue the concept of vulnerability? In G. Banko & D.
Hilhorst (Eds.), Why Vulnerability Sll Maers (1st ed., pp. 68–87). London: Routledge.
hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219453
Caso, N., Hilhorst, D., & Mena, R. (2023). The contribuon of armed conict to vulnerability to
disaster: Empirical evidence from 1989 to 2018. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk
Reducon, 95, 103881. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103881
Castro, C. P., Ibarra, I., Lukas, M., Orz, J., & Sarmiento, J. P. (2015). Disaster risk construcon in the
progressive consolidaon of informal selements: Iquique and Puerto Mon (Chile) case
studies. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 13, 109–127.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.001
Chambers, R. (2004). Ideas for development: Reecng forwards. Brighton: Instute of Development
Studies.
Chan, J. K. H., & Liao, K.-H. (2022). The normave dimensions of ood risk management: Two types of
ood harm. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 15(2), e12798.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12798
Cheek, W., & Chmuna, K. (2022). ‘Building back beer’ is neoliberal post-disaster reconstrucon.
Disasters, 46(3), 589–609. hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12502
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
25
Cheek, W. W., Chmuna, K., & von Meding, J. (2023). In the Arena: Contesng Disaster Creaon in
Cies. Disasters, 48(1), 1–21. hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12588
Chipangura, P., Van Niekerk, D., & Van Der Waldt, G. (2017). Disaster risk problem framing: Insights
from societal percepons in Zimbabwe. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 22,
317–324. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.012
Chmuna, K., & Bosher, L. (2015). Disaster risk reducon or disaster risk producon: The role of
building regulaons in mainstreaming DRR. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon,
13, 10–19. Scopus. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.03.002
Chmuna, K., Lizarralde, G., von, M. J., & Bosher, L. (2023). Standardised indicators for “resilient
cies”: The folly of devising a technical soluon to a polical problem. Internaonal Journal
of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
hps://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2022-0099
Chmuna, K., & von Meding, J. (2019). A Dilemma of Language: “Natural Disasters” in Academic
Literature. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(3), 283–292.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00232-2
Chmuna, K., & von Meding, J. (2022). Towards a liberatory pedagogy of disaster risk reducon
among built environment educators. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal
Journal, 31(5), 521–535. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-02-2022-0041
Chmuna, K., von Meding, J., Sandoval, V., Boyland, M., Forino, G., Cheek, W., Williams, D. A.,
Gonzalez-Muzzio, C., Tomassi, I., Páez, H., & Marchezini, V. (2021). What We Measure
Maers: The Case of the Missing Development Data in Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reducon Monitoring. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12(6), 779–789.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00382-2
Cienfuegos, R. (2022). Flood risk from geophysical and hydroclimac hazards: An essenal integraon
for disaster risk management and climate change adaptaon in the coastal zone. Natural
Hazards, 119(2), 1113–1115. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05405-9
Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2017). Parcipatory risk network analysis: A tool for disaster reducon
praconers. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 21, 430–437.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.006
Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2020a). A Complexity Approach for Reducing Disaster Risks for Marginalized
Urban Populaons: Comparing DRR Intervenons Across Four Cies. In I. Chowdhooree & S.
M. Ghani (Eds.), External Intervenons for Disaster Risk Reducon: Impacts on Local
Communies (pp. 171–192). Singapore: Springer. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4948-
9_10
Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2020b). Disaster risk reducon is not ‘everyone’s business’: Evidence from three
countries. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 43, 101375.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101375
Clark-Ginsberg, A., Blake, J. S., & Patel, K. (2020). Disaster Risk Reducon in Cies: Towards a New
Normal. In I. Chowdhooree & S. M. Ghani (Eds.), External Intervenons for Disaster Risk
Reducon: Impacts on Local Communies (pp. 123–134). Singapore: Springer.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4948-9_7
Clark-Ginsberg, A., Blake, J. S., & Patel, K. V. (2022). Hybrid governance and disaster management in
Freetown, Sierra Leone, Monrovia, Liberia, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Disasters, 46(2),
450–472. hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12466
Clark-Ginsberg, A., DeSmet, D., Rueda, I. A., Hagen, R., & Hayduk, B. (2021a). Disaster risk creaon
and cascading disasters within large technological systems: COVID-19 and the 2021 Texas
blackouts. Journal of Conngencies and Crisis Management, 29(4), 445–449.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12378
Clark-Ginsberg, A., Easton-Calabria, L. C., Patel, S. S., Balagna, J., & Payne, L. A. (2021b). When
disaster management agencies create disaster risk: A case study of the US’s Federal
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
26
Emergency Management Agency. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal
Journal, 30(4/5), 447–461. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2021-0067
Coates, R. (2021). Educaonal hazards? The polics of disaster risk educaon in Rio de Janeiro.
Disasters, 45(1), 86–106. hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12399
Coates, R., & Warner, J. (2023). Calamitous events? Exploring percepons of disaster. Internaonal
Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 91, 103700. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103700
Collins, A. E. (2018). Advancing the Disaster and Development Paradigm. Internaonal Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 486–495. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0206-5
Covarrubias, A. P., & Raju, E. (2020). The Polics of Disaster Risk Governance and Neo-Extracvism in
Lan America. Polics and Governance, 8(4), 220–231.
hps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3147
de Oliveira Santos, I. P., Fracalanza, A. P., Coates, R., & Warner, J. (2021). São Paulo’s 2013 water
crisis: A socially constructed disaster risk. Sustentabilidade Em Debate, 12(3), 167–181.
hps://doi.org/10.18472/SUSTDEB.V12N1.2021.38652
Derakhshan, S., Hodgson, M. E., & Cuer, S. L. (2020). Vulnerability of populaons exposed to seismic
risk in the state of Oklahoma. Applied Geography, 124, 1–10.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102295
Dickinson, T., & Burton, I. (2022). Disaster risk creaon: The new vulnerability. In G. Banko & D.
Hilhorst (Eds.), Why Vulnerability Sll Maers: The Polics of Disaster Risk Creaon (pp. 192–
205). hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219453-14
Dimer, J. (2014). Geopolical assemblages and complexity. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3),
385–401. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513501405
Duvat, V. K. E., Volto, N., Stahl, L., Moay, A., Defossez, S., Desarthe, J., Grancher, D., & Pillet, V.
(2021). Understanding interlinkages between long-term trajectory of exposure and
vulnerability, path dependency and cascading impacts of disasters in Saint-Marn
(Caribbean). Global Environmental Change, 67, 102236.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102236
Earle, L. (2016). Urban crises and the new urban agenda. Environment and Urbanizaon, 28(1), 77–
86. Scopus. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815620335
Ehrlich, D., Melchiorri, M., Florczyk, A. J., Pesaresi, M., Kemper, T., Corbane, C., Freire, S., Schiavina,
M., & Siragusa, A. (2018). Remote sensing derived built-up area and populaon density to
quanfy global exposure to ve natural hazards over me. Remote Sensing, 10(9), 1–20.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091378
Espia, J. C., & Salvador, A. M. (2017). Of stories that maer: The social construcon of risk in planning
for coastal areas in Anque, Philippines. Disaster Prevenon and Management, 27(1), 87–
101. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2016-0199
Fischho, B. (1995). Risk Percepon and Communicaon Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process’. Risk
Analysis, 15(2), 137–145.
Forino, G. (2016). Hurricane Mahew is just the latest unnatural disaster to strike Hai. The
Conversaon.
Fra.Paleo, U. (2015). Risk governance: The arculaon of Hazard, Polics and Ecology (1st ed., p.
507). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
017-9328-5
French, A., Mechler, R., Arestegui, M., MacClune, K., & Cisneros, A. (2020). Root causes of recurrent
catastrophe: The polical ecology of El Niño-related disasters in Peru. Internaonal Journal of
Disaster Risk Reducon, 47(101539), 1–14. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101539
Fuentealba, R. (2021). Divergent disaster events? The polics of post-disaster memory on the urban
margin. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 62, 102389.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102389
Gaillard, JC. (2019). Disaster studies inside out. Disasters, 43(S1), S7–S17.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12323
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
27
Gaillard, JC. (2021). The Invenon of Disaster: Power and Knowledge in Discourses on Hazard and
Vulnerability (1st ed.). London: Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315752167
Govindarajulu, D. (2020). Strengthening instuonal and nancial mechanisms for building urban
resilience in India. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 47(101549), 1–10.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101549
Guadagno, L., & Guadagno, E. (2021). Migraon, housing & disaster: Risk reducon and creaon in
Southern Italy’s Apennines. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 61, 102305.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102305
Gumucio, T., Greatrex, H., & Lentz, E. (2022). Causal Chains Linking Weather Hazards to Disasters in
Somalia. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(3), 849–860. hps://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-
21-0165.1
Hao, H., & Wang, Y. (2020). Leveraging mulmodal social media data for rapid disaster damage
assessment. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 51(101760), 1–13.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101760
Hartmann, T. (2011). Contesng land policies for space for rivers – raonal, viable, and clumsy
oodplain management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4(3), 165–175.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01101.x
Hilhorst, D., & Banko, G. (Eds.). (2022). Why Vulnerability Sll Maers: The Polics of Disaster Risk
Creaon. Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219453
Hilhorst, D., & Mena, R. (2021). When Covid-19 meets conict: Polics of the pandemic response in
fragile and conict-aected states. Disasters, 45(S1), S174–S194.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12514
Huang, S. (2018). Understanding disaster (in)jusce: Spaalizing the producon of vulnerabilies of
indigenous people in Taiwan. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(3), 382–403.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618773748
Huang, S., Wang, H., Xu, Y., She, J., & Huang, J. (2021). Key disaster-causing factors chains on urban
ood risk based on bayesian network. Land, 10(2), 1–21.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/land10020210
Imperiale, A. J., & Vanclay, F. (2020). Barriers to enhancing disaster risk reducon and community
resilience: Evidence from the L’aquila disaster. Polics and Governance, 8(4), 232–243.
hps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3179
Jackson, G. (2021). Percepons of disaster temporalies in two Indigenous sociees from the
Southwest Pacic. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 57, 102221.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102221
Jerolleman, A. (2019). Disaster Recovery Through the Lens of Jusce. Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillan. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04795-5
Joshi, N., Wende, W., & Tiwari, P. C. (2022). Urban Planning as an Instrument for Disaster Risk
Reducon in the Uarakhand Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development, 42(2), D13–
D21. hps://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-21-00048.1
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspecve on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded raonality.
American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. hps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kelman, I. (2018). Lost for Words Amongst Disaster Risk Science Vocabulary? Internaonal Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 9(3), 281–291. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0188-3
Kennedy, D. (2013). Law and the Polical Economy of the World. Leiden Journal of Internaonal Law,
26(1), 7–48. hps://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000635
Kii, M., & Doi, K. (2020). Earthquake risk and inter-temporal fairness: An economic assessment of the
naonal land-use structure. Transport Policy, 87, 77–83.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.08.009
Kousky, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2006). JARring Acons That Fuel the Floods. In R. J. Daniels, D. F. Kel, &
H. Kunreuther (Eds.), On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina (1st ed., pp. 59–
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
28
73). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
hps://doi.org/10.9783/9780812205473.59
Kumar, B., & Bhaduri, S. (2018). Disaster risk in the urban villages of Delhi. Internaonal Journal of
Disaster Risk Reducon, 31, 1309–1325. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.022
Lakhina, S. J., Sutley, E. J., & Wilson, J. (2021). “How Do We Actually Do Convergence” for Disaster
Resilience? Cases from Australia and the United States. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk
Science, 12(3), 299–311. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00340-y
Lambert, S., & Mark-Shadbolt, M. (2021). Indigenous Knowledges of forest and biodiversity
management: How the watchfulness of Māori complements and contributes to disaster risk
reducon. AlterNave: An Internaonal Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(3), 368–377.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/11771801211038760
Lara, A., Bucci, F., Palma, C., Munizaga, J., & Montre-Águila, V. (2021). Development, urban planning
and polical decisions. A triad that built territories at risk. Natural Hazards, 109(2), 1935–
1957. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04904-5
Lavell, A., Chávez Eslava, A., Barros Salas, C., & Miranda Sandoval, D. (2023). Inequality and the social
construcon of urban disaster risk in mul-hazard contexts: The case of Lima, Peru and the
COVID-19 pandemic. Environment and Urbanizaon, 35(1), 131–155.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/09562478221149883
Lavell, A., Gaillard, J. C., Wisner, B., Saunders, W., & Van Niekerk, D. (2012). Naonal Planning and
Disaster. In Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reducon (1st ed., p. 12). Routledge.
Lavell, A., & Maskrey, A. (2014). The future of disaster risk management. Environmental Hazards,
13(4), 267–280. hps://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.935282
Lavell, A., Oppenheimer, M., Diop, C., Hess, J., Lempert, R., Li, J., Muir-Wood, R., Myeong, S., Moser,
S., Takeuchi, K., Cardona, O. D., Hallegae, S., Lemos, M., Lile, C., Lotsch, A., & Weber, E.
(2012). Climate change: New dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and
resilience. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptaon: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol.
9781107025066, pp. 25–64). hps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.004
Lazarus, E. D. (2022). The disaster trap: Cyclones, tourism, colonial legacies, and the systemic
feedbacks exacerbang disaster risk. Transacons of the Instute of Brish Geographers,
47(2), 577–588. hps://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12516
Lewis, J., & Kelman, I. (2012). The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Disaster Risk Reducon (DRR) Versus
Disaster Risk Creaon (DRC). PLOS Currents Disasters, 4(e4f8d4eaec6af8), 1–21.
hps://doi.org/10.1371/4f8d4eaec6af8
Linarelli, J., Salomon, M. E., & Sornarajah, M. (2018). The Misery of Internaonal Law: Confrontaons
with Injusce in the Global Economy (Online Ed). Oxford: Oxford Academic.
hps://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198753957.001.0001
Lizarralde, G., Bornstein, L., Robertson, M., Gould, K., Herazo, B., Peer, A.-M., Páez, H., Díaz, J. H.,
Olivera, A., González, G., López, O., López, A., Ascui, H., Burdiles, R., & Bouchereau, K. (2021).
Does climate change cause disasters? How cizens, academics, and leaders explain climate-
related risk and disasters in Lan America and the Caribbean. Internaonal Journal of
Disaster Risk Reducon, 58, 102173. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102173
Lizarralde, G., Páez, H., Lopez, A., Lopez, O., Bornstein, L., Gould, K., Herazo, B., & Muñoz, L. (2020).
We said, they said: The polics of conceptual frameworks in disasters and climate change in
Colombia and Lan America. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal Journal,
29(6), 909–928. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-01-2020-0011
Lucatello, S., & Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2023). Addressing the interplay of the Sendai Framework with
sustainable development goals in Lan America and the Caribbean: Moving forward or going
backwards? Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal Journal, 32(1), 206–233.
hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-2022-0152
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
29
Lukasiewicz, A. (2020). The Emerging Imperave of Disaster Jusce. In A. Lukasiewicz & C. Baldwin
(Eds.), Natural Hazards and Disaster Jusce: Challenges for Australia and Its Neighbours (pp.
3–23). Singapore: Springer. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_1
Magnuszewski, P., Jarzabek, L., Keang, A., Mechler, R., French, A., Laurien, F., Arestegui, M., Eenne,
E., Ilieva, L., Ferradas, P., McQuistan, C., & Mayor, B. (2019). The Flood Resilience Systems
Framework: From Concept to Applicaon. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management,
9(1), 56–82. hps://doi.org/10.5595/idrim.2019.0348
Marchezini, V. (2020). “What is a Sociologist Doing Here?” An Unconvenonal People-Centered
Approach to Improve Warning Implementaon in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reducon. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(2), 218–229.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00262-1
Marincioni, F., & Negri, A. (2020). Homo sapiens, anthropocene and disaster risk reducon. In S.
Longhi, A. Monteriù, A. Freddi, L. Aquilan, & M. G. Ceravolo (Eds.), The First Outstanding 50
Years of ‘Universita Politecnica delle Marche’: Research Achievements in Life Sciences (pp.
631–645). Springer Nature Switzerland. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33832-9_40
Mahewman, S. (2015). Disasters, Risks and Revelaon. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
hps://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294265
McEwan, C. (2009). Postcolonialism/Postcolonial Geographies. In R. Kitchin & N. Thri (Eds.),
Internaonal Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 327–333). Oxford: Elsevier.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00114-0
McGowran, P., & Donovan, A. (2021). Assemblage theory and disaster risk management. Progress in
Human Geography, 45(6), 1601–1624. hps://doi.org/10.1177/03091325211003328
Meriläinen, E., & Koro, M. (2021). Data, Disasters, and Space-Time Entanglements. Internaonal
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12(2), 157–168. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00333-
x
Mochizuki, J., Mechler, R., Hochrainer-Sgler, S., Keang, A., & Williges, K. (2014). Revising the
‘disaster and development’ debate—Toward a broader understanding of macroeconomic risk
and resilience. Climate Risk Management, 3, 39–54.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.05.002
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systemac
review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systemac or
scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(143), 1–7.
hps://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Murnane, R., Simpson, A., & Jongman, B. (2016). Understanding risk: What makes a risk assessment
successful? Internaonal Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(2), 186–
200. hps://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2015-0033
Myrdal, G. (1974). What Is Development? Journal of Economic Issues, 8(4), 729–736.
hps://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1974.11503225
Oliver-Smith, A. (2015). Conversaons in Catastrophe: Neoliberalism and the cultural construcon of
disaster risk. In Cultures and Disasters. Routledge.
Oliver-Smith, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., & Lavell, A. (2017a). Forensic Invesgaons of Disaster
(FORIN): Towards the understanding of root causes of disasters. Internaonal Council for
Science; Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. hps://council.science/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/DRR-policy-brief-3-forin.pdf
Oliver-Smith, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., & Lavell, A. (2017b). The social construcon of disaster
risk: Seeking root causes. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 22, 469–474.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.006
Olson, R. S., Emel Ganapa, N., Gawronski, V. T., Olson, R. A., Salna, E., & Pablo Sarmiento, J. (2020).
From Disaster Risk Reducon to Policy Studies: Bridging Research Communies. Natural
Hazards Review, 21(2), 04020014. hps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000365
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
30
Paci-Green, R., Pandey, B., Gryc, H., Ireland, N., Torres, J., & Young, M. (2020). Challenges and
benets of community-based safer school construcon. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk
Reducon, 43(101384), 1–10. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101384
Page, R. (2021). Principles regarding urbanisaon, disaster risks and resilience. In S. Eslamian & F.
Eslamian (Eds.), Handbook of Disaster Risk Reducon for Resilience: New Frameworks for
Building Resilience to Disasters (Eds, pp. 57–77). Cham: Springer.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61278-8_3
Parida, D., Van Assche, K., & Agrawal, S. (2023). Climate Shocks and Local Urban Conicts: An
Evoluonary Perspecve on Risk Governance in Bhubaneswar. Land, 12(1), Arcle 1.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/land12010198
Peek, L., Tobin, J., Adams, R. M., Wu, H., & Mathews, M. C. (2020). A Framework for Convergence
Research in the Hazards and Disaster Field: The Natural Hazards Engineering Research
Infrastructure CONVERGE Facility. Froners in Built Environment, 6(110), 1–19.
Peters, L. E. R. (2021). Beyond disaster vulnerabilies: An empirical invesgaon of the causal
pathways linking conict to disaster risks. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 55,
102092. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102092
Peters, L. E. R., Clark-Ginsberg, A., McCaul, B., Cáceres, G., Nuñez, A. L., Balagna, J., López, A., Patel, S.
S., Patel, R. B., & Van Den Hoek, J. (2022). Informality, violence, and disaster risks:
Coproducing inclusive early warning and response systems in urban informal selements in
Honduras. Froners in Climate, 4(937244), 1–20.
Pecrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systemac reviews in the social sciences: A praccal guide (1st
ed.). Wiley.
Poudel, D. P., Blackburn, S., Manandhar, R., Adhikari, B., Ensor, J., Shrestha, A., & Prasad Timsina, N.
(2023). The urban polical ecology of ‘haphazard urbanisaon’ and disaster risk creaon in
the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 103924.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103924
Qazi, A., & Simsekler, M. C. E. (2021). Assessment of humanitarian crises and disaster risk exposure
using data-driven Bayesian Networks. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon,
52(101938), 1–11. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101938
Raikes, J., Smith, T. F., Baldwin, C., & Henstra, D. (2021). Linking disaster risk reducon and human
development. Climate Risk Management, 32, 100291.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100291
Raikes, J., Smith, T. F., Baldwin, C., & Henstra, D. (2022). The inuence of internaonal agreements on
disaster risk reducon. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 76(102999), 1–11.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102999
Raju, E., Boyd, E., & Oo, F. (2022). Stop blaming the climate for disasters. Communicaons Earth &
Environment, 3(1), 1–2. hps://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00332-2
Ramalho, J. (2019). Worlding aspiraons and resilient futures: Framings of risk and contemporary
city-making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 60(1), 24–36.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12208
Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2015). Risk Governance and Resilience: New Approaches to Cope with
Uncertainty and Ambiguity. In U. Fra.Paleo (Ed.), Risk Governance: The Arculaon of Hazard,
Polics and Ecology (pp. 19–41). Springer Netherlands. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
9328-5_2
Ríos, D. (2015). Present-day capitalist urbanizaon and unequal disaster risk producon: The case of
Tigre, Buenos Aires. Environment and Urbanizaon, 27(2), 679–692.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815583616
Roy, A. (2009). Why India Cannot Plan Its Cies: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of
Urbanizaon. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87. hps://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099299
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
31
Ruiz-Cortés, N. S., & Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2020). Landslide exposure awareness: A community-based
approach towards the engagement of children. Landslides, 17(6), 1501–1514. Scopus.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-020-01391-w
Rumbach, A. (2014). Do new towns increase disaster risk? Evidence from Kolkata, India. Habitat
Internaonal, 43, 117–124. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitant.2014.03.005
Rumbach, A., & Follingstad, G. (2019). Urban disasters beyond the city: Environmental risk in India’s
fast-growing towns and villages. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 34, 94–107.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.008
Rumbach, A., & Németh, J. (2018). Disaster risk creaon in the Darjeeling Himalayas: Moving toward
jusce. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(3), 340–362.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618792821
Rumbach, A., Sullivan, E., & Makarewicz, C. (2020). Mobile Home Parks and Disasters: Understanding
Risk to the Third Housing Type in the United States. Natural Hazards Review, 21(2). Scopus.
hps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000357
Samaraweera, H. U. S. (2023). Reproducing vulnerabilies through forced displacement: A case study
of ood vicms in Galle District, Sri Lanka. In M. Hamza, D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, C.
Malalgoda, C. Jayakody, & A. Senanayake (Eds.), Rebuilding Communies Aer Displacement:
Sustainable and Resilience Approaches (Eds, pp. 291–312). Cham: Springer.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21414-1_13
Sandoval, V., Darien Alexander Williams, Cheek, W., von Meding, J., Chmuna, K., Gonzalez-Muzzio,
C., Forino, G., Tomassi, I., Marchezini, V., Vahanva, M., Páez, H., & Boyland, M. (2022, May
24). The role of public and private sectors in disaster capitalism: An internaonal overview |
UNDRR. hp://www.undrr.org/publicaon/role-public-and-private-sectors-disaster-
capitalism-internaonal-overview
Sandoval, V., & Sarmiento, J. P. (2020). A neglected issue: Informal selements, urban development,
and disaster risk reducon in Lan America and the Caribbean. Disaster Prevenon and
Management: An Internaonal Journal, 29(5), 731–745. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-04-
2020-0115
Sandoval, V., Voss, M., Flörchinger, V., Lorenz, S., & Jafari, P. (2023). Integrated Disaster Risk
Management (IDRM): Elements to Advance Its Study and Assessment. Internaonal Journal
of Disaster Risk Science, 14(3), 343–356. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00490-1
Sandoval, V., Wisner, B., & Voss, M. (2021). Natural Hazards Governance in Chile. In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Oxford.
hps://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.364
Sarmiento, J. P. (2018). What is the post-2015 development agenda? A look from the underlying
disaster risk drivers. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal Journal, 27(3),
292–305. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2018-0088
Schipper, E. L. F., Thomalla, F., Vulturius, G., Davis, M., & Johnson, K. (2016). Linking disaster risk
reducon, climate change and development. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Resilience in
the Built Environment, 7(2), 216–228. hps://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2015-0014
Shang, Y.-H., Niu, F.-J., Yuan, K., Sun, T., & Wu, L.-B. (2023). Thermal and mechanical characteriscs of
a thermal pile in permafrost regions. Advances in Climate Change Research, 14(2), 255–266.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2022.10.002
Skwarko, T., He, I., Cross, S., Opdyke, A., Handayani, T., Kendall, J., Hapsoro, A., McDonald, G., & Idris,
Y. (2024). The long-term impact of humanitarian housing intervenons following the 2010
Merapi erupon. Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Reducon, 100, 104076.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104076
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal
of Business Research, 104, 333–339. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Stevenson, J. R., & Seville, E. (2017). Private Sector Doing Disaster Risk Reducon Including Climate
Change Adaptaon. In I. Kelman, J. Mercer, & J. C. Gaillard (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
32
Disaster Risk Reducon Including Climate Change Adaptaon (1st ed., pp. 363–376). London:
Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684260
Su, Q., Chen, K., & Liao, L. (2021). The impact of land use change on disaster risk from the
perspecve of eciency. Sustainability, 13(3151). hps://doi.org/10.3390/su13063151
Sulkkar Ahamed, M., Sarmah, T., Dabral, A., Chaerjee, R., & Shaw, R. (2023). Unpacking systemic,
cascading, and compound risks: A case based analysis of Asia Pacic. Progress in Disaster
Science, 18(100285), 1–10. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100285
Surjan, A., & Shaw, R. (2009). Enhancing disaster resilience through local environment management:
Case of Mumbai, India. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal Journal,
18(4), 418–433. hps://doi.org/10.1108/09653560910984474
Tagalo, R. D. (2020). How does government discourse make people vulnerable? Disaster Prevenon
and Management: An Internaonal Journal, 29(5), 697–710. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-
07-2020-0225
Thomalla, F., Boyland, M., Johnson, K., Ensor, J., Tuhkanen, H., Gerger Swartling, Å., Han, G.,
Forrester, J., & Wahl, D. (2018). Transforming Development and Disaster Risk. Sustainability,
10(1458), 1–12. hps://doi.org/10.3390/su10051458
Tierney, K. (2014). The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promong Resilience. Redwood City:
Stanford University Press. hps://doi.org/10.1515/9780804791403
Tran, P., & Shaw, R. (2007). Towards an integrated approach of disaster and environment
management: A case study of Thua Thien Hue province, central Viet Nam. Environmental
Hazards, 7(4), 271–282. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.03.001
Tuhkanen, H., Boyland, M., Han, G., Patel, A., Johnson, K., Rosemarin, A., & Lim Mangada, L. (2018). A
Typology Framework for Trade-Os in Development and Disaster Risk Reducon: A Case
Study of Typhoon Haiyan Recovery in Tacloban, Philippines. Sustainability, 10(6/1924), 1–19.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/su10061924
Uehara, M., Liao, K.-H., Arai, Y., & Masakane, Y. (2022). Could the magnitude of the 3/11 disaster
have been reduced by ecological planning? A retrospecve mul-hazard risk assessment
through map overlay. Landscape and Urban Planning, 227(104541), 1–15.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104541
UNDRR. (2015a). Global assessment report on disaster risk reducon 2015.
hp://www.undrr.org/publicaon/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reducon-2015
UNDRR. (2015b). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reducon 2015—2030. United Naons Oce
for Disaster Risk Reducon (UNDRR).
UNDRR. (2022). Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future. United Naons.
Unger, E.-M., Zevenbergen, J., & Benne, R. (2017). On the need for pro-poor land administraon in
disaster risk management. Survey Review, 49(357), 437–448.
hps://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2016.1212160
van Riet, G. (2021). The Nature–Culture Disncon in Disaster Studies: The Recent Peon for
Reform as an Opportunity for New Thinking? Internaonal Journal of Disaster Risk Science,
12(2), 240–249. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00329-7
Vogel, A., Seeger, K., Brill, D., Brückner, H., Khin Khin Soe, Nay Win Oo, Nilar Aung, Zin Nwe Myint, &
Kraas, F. (2022). Idenfying Land-Use Related Potenal Disaster Risk Drivers in the
Ayeyarwady Delta (Myanmar) during the Last 50 Years (1974–2021) Using a Hybrid Ensemble
Learning Model. Remote Sensing, 14(15/3568), Arcle 15.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153568
von Meding, J., & Chmuna, K. (2023). From labelling weakness to liberatory praxis: A new theory of
vulnerability for disaster studies. Disaster Prevenon and Management: An Internaonal
Journal, 32(2), 364–378. hps://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-10-2022-0208
Wisner, B. (2001). Capitalism and the shiing spaal and social distribuon of hazard and
vulnerability. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 16(2), 44–50.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
33
Wisner, B. (2016). Vulnerability as Concept, Model, Metric, and Tool. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia
of Natural Hazard Science. Oxford Research Encyclopedias.
hps://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.25
Wisner, B. (2019). Disaster Studies at 50: Time to Wear Bifocals? In J. Kendra, S. G. Knowles, & T.
Wachtendorf (Eds.), Disaster Research and the Second Environmental Crisis: Assessing the
Challenges Ahead (pp. 47–68). Cham: Springer. hps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04691-
0_3
Wisner, B. (2020). Five Years Beyond Sendai—Can We Get Beyond Frameworks? Internaonal Journal
of Disaster Risk Science, 11(2), 239–249. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00263-0
Wisner, B. (2022). Power writ small and large: How disaster cannot be understood without reference
to pushing, pulling, coercing, and seducing. In G. Banko & D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Why
Vulnerability Sll Maers: The Polics of Disaster Risk Creaon (1st ed., pp. 171–191).
London: Routledge. hps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219453-13
Wisner, B., & Lavell, A. (2017). The Next Paradigm Shi: From ‘Disaster Risk Reducon’ to ‘Resisng
Disaster Risk Creaon’. Dealing with Disasters Conference, Durham University.
hps://www.researchgate.net/publicaon/320045120_The_Next_Paradigm_Shi_From_%2
7Disaster_Risk_Reducon%27_to_%27Resisng_Disaster_Risk_Creaon%27
Yang, Q., Gao, R., Bai, F., Li, T., & Tamura, Y. (2018). Damage to buildings and structures due to recent
devastang wind hazards in East Asia. Natural Hazards, 92(3), 1321–1353.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3253-8
Zakour, M. J., & Grogg, K. (2018). Chapter 7 - Three centuries in the making: Hurricane Katrina from
an historical perspecve. In M. J. Zakour, N. B. Mock, & P. Kadetz (Eds.), Creang Katrina,
Rebuilding Resilience (pp. 159–192). Oxford: Buerworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809557-7.00007-7
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4794204
