Disaster risk reduction

The paper discusses how the current climate change debate influences the way
in which development is conceptualised, negotiated and implemented. The objective of the
article is to explore some of the underlying controversies that characterise development
discourses in the context of climate change. Adaptation to climate change goes along with
a significant shift in discourses used to deal with what is normally called development.
This is reflected in shifting research interests and perspectives, from vulnerability studies to
resilience thinking. However, the paper argues, this shift is problematic for the normative
contents of development and especially for a pro-poor and grass roots perspective.

Understanding how people interpret risks and choose actions based on their interpretations is vital to any strategy for disaster reduction. We review relevant literature with the aim of developing a conceptual framework to guide future research in this area. We stress that risks in the context of natural hazards always involve interactions between natural (physical) and human (behavioural) factors. Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty is inadequately described by traditional models of 'rational choice'. Instead, attention needs to be paid to how people's interpretations of risks are shaped by their own experience, personal feelings and values, cultural beliefs and interpersonal and societal dynamics. Furthermore, access to information and capacity for self-protection are typically distributed unevenly within populations. Hence trust is a critical moderator of the effectiveness of any policy for risk communication and public engagement.

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are defined by IUCN as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges (e.g. climate change, food and water security or natural disasters) effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. The NbS concept, as used in environmental sciences and nature
conservation contexts, has emerged within the last decade or so, as international organisations search for ways to work with ecosystems –
rather than relying on conventional engineering solutions (such as seawalls) – to adapt to and mitigate climate change effects, while improving sustainable livelihoods and protecting natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
NbS is a relatively ‘young’ concept, still in the process of being framed. There is a need now to deepen our understanding of NbS and confirm
the principles upon which NbS is based, in order to move towards an operational framework that can guide applications of the NbS concept. The following set of NbS principles are proposed.
Nature-based Solutions:
1. embrace nature conservation norms (and principles);
2. can be implemented alone or in an integrated manner with other solutions to societal challenges (e.g. technological and engineering solutions);
3. are determined by site-specific natural and cultural contexts that include traditional, local and scientific knowledge;
4. produce societal benefits in a fair and equitable way, in a manner that promotes transparency and broad participation;
5. maintain biological and cultural diversity and the ability of ecosystems to evolve over time;
6. are applied at the scale at a landscape;
7. recognise and address the trade-offs between the production of a few immediate economic benefits for development, and future options for the production of the full range of ecosystems services;
8. are an integral part of the overall design of policies, and measures or actions, to address a specific challenge.
NbS is best considered an umbrella concept that covers a range of different approaches. These approaches have emerged from a variety of spheres (some from the scientific research domain, others from practice or policy contexts)
but share a common focus on ecosystem services and aim to address societal challenges. These NbS approaches can be classified into:
(i) ecosystem restoration approaches (e.g. ecological restoration, ecological engineering and forest landscape restoration); (ii) issues specific ecosystem-related approaches (e.g. ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem-based mitigation, and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction); (iii) infrastructure-related approaches (e.g. natural infrastructure and green infrastructure approaches); (iv) ecosystem based management approaches (e.g. integrated coastal zone management and integrated water resources management); and (v) ecosystem protection approaches (e.g. area-based conservation approaches including protected area management).
A lack of operational clarity presents a major obstacle to the credibility and applicability of new concepts in the fields of conservation and development. Several parallel exercises are currently underway to develop operational parameters for specific NbS approaches (such
as Ecosystem-based Adaptation and REDD+), each proposing its own set of criteria. Many of these criteria could be relevant for other
approaches within the NbS ‘family’ and there is likely an overarching set of parameters, or ‘standards’, that can guide implementation of all types of NbS interventions. To help in this endeavour, five preliminary parameters are proposed: ecological complexity, long-term stability, scale of ecological organisation, direct societal benefits and adaptive governance.
By unifying NbS approaches under a single operational framework, it becomes possible to scale up their implementation and strengthen
their impact in mitigating the world’s most pressing challenges.

Many disasters take place in urban areas, affecting millions of people each year through loss of life, serious injury and loss of assets and livelihoods. Poorer groups are generally most affected. The impact of these disasters and their contribution to poverty are underestimated, as is the extent to which rapidly growing and poorly managed urban development increases the risks. But urban specialists do not see disasters and disaster prevention as being within their remit. At the same time, few

Background: The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters' impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement. Objective: The purpose of this study is to review mental health assessment tools and their use in populations affected by disasters and conflicts. Method: Tools that assess posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use disorder, and general mental health were examined. This review began with a search for assessment tools in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Next, validation studies for the tools were obtained through snowball sampling. A final search was conducted for scientific studies using the selected tools in humanitarian settings to collect the data for analysis. The benefits and limitations described for each tool were compiled into a complete table. Results: Twelve assessment tools were included, with 88 studies using them. The primary findings indicate that half of the studies used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. The most common limitation discussed is that self-report tools inaccurately estimate the prevalence of mental health problems. This inaccuracy is further exacerbated by a lack of cultural appro-priateness of the tools, as many are developed for Western contexts. Conclusion: It is recommended that researchers and humanitarian workers reflect on the effectiveness of the mental health assessment tool they use to accurately represent the populations under study in emergency settings. In addition, mental health assessment should be coupled with action.

Every year worldwide some extraordinary wildfires occur, overwhelming suppression capabilities, causing substantial damages, and often resulting in fatalities. Given their increasing frequency, there is a debate about how to address these wildfires with significant social impacts, but there is no agreement upon terminology to describe them. The concept of extreme wildfire event (EWE) has emerged to bring some coherence on this kind of events. It is increasingly used, often as a synonym of other terms related to wildfires of high intensity and size, but its definition remains elusive. The goal of this paper is to go beyond drawing on distinct disciplinary perspectives to develop a holistic view of EWE as a social-ecological phenomenon. Based on literature review and using a transdisciplinary approach, this paper proposes a definition of EWE as a process and an outcome. Considering the lack of a consistent " scale of gravity " to leverage extreme wildfire events such as in natural hazards (e.g., tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes) we present a proposal of wildfire classification with seven categories based on measurable fire spread and behavior parameters and suppression difficulty. The categories 5 to 7 are labeled as EWE.

Participatory research approaches are increasingly popular with academic researchers and development organisations working to facilitate change in collaboration with local communities. This paper contributes to recent debates over the use of participatory approaches by examining the use of participatory research within disaster risk reduction. Drawing on research in Papua New Guinea in which participatory techniques were used with indigenous communities to determine strategies for dealing with environmental hazards, the value of such techniques is critiqued. Finally the significance of participatory research as a research methodology is discussed as is its possible contribution to disaster risk reduction policy.