In architecture, mitigation reduces the magnitude of climate change by reducing demand for resources; anticipatory adaptation improves performance against hazards; and planned adaptation creates policies and codes to support adaptation.
Adaptation prepares for a future with intensifying climate conditions. The built environment must prepare for challenges that may be encountered during the service life of the building, and reduce human exposure to hazards. Structures are responsible for about 39% of the primary energy consumption worldwide and 24% of the greenhouse gas emissions, significantly contributing to the causes of climate change. Measures to reduce demand in the initial construction and over the life cycle of the building operation directly impact the climate.
Improving performance against hazards requires a suite of modifications to counter specific threats. Adaptation measures may address higher temperatures, extreme precipitation, stormwater flooding, sea-level rise, hurricanes, drought, soil subsidence, wildfires, extended pest ranges, and multiple hazards. Because resources to meet every threat are inadequate, actions with low costs now which offer high benefits under a range of predicted future climates become high-priority solutions.
Disaster risk is also reduced by aligning policies for planning and construction with anticipated hazards. Climate adaptation policies based on the local effects of climate change are a new tool to communicate risk and share resources. Building codes establish minimum standards for construction, so incorporating adaptation strategies into codes ensures that the resulting structures will survive a range of uncertain futures.
Article
Adapting to Climate Sensitive Hazards through Architecture
Allison Hoadley Anderson
Article
Agenda Setting and Natural Hazards
Rob A. DeLeo
Agenda setting describes the process through which issues are selected for consideration by a decision-making body. Among the myriad of issues policymakers can consider, few are more vexing than natural hazards. By aggregating (or threatening to aggregate) death, destruction, and economic loss, natural hazards represent a serious and persistent threat to public safety. While citizens rightfully expect policymakers to protect them, many of the policy challenges associated natural hazards fail to reach the crowded government agenda. This article reviews the literature on agenda setting and natural hazards, including the strain between preparing for emerging hazards, on the one hand, and responding to existing disasters, on the other hand. It considers the extent to which natural hazards pose distinctive difficulties during the agenda-setting process, focusing specifically on the dynamics of issue identification, problem definition, venue shopping, and interest group mobilization in natural hazard domains. It closes by suggesting a number of future avenues of agenda-setting research.
Article
Assessment and Adaptation to Climate Change-Related Flood Risks
Brenden Jongman, Hessel C. Winsemius, Stuart A. Fraser, Sanne Muis, and Philip J. Ward
The flooding of rivers and coastlines is the most frequent and damaging of all natural hazards. Between 1980 and 2016, total direct damages exceeded $1.6 trillion, and at least 225,000 people lost their lives. Recent events causing major economic losses include the 2011 river flooding in Thailand ($40 billion) and the 2013 coastal floods in the United States caused by Hurricane Sandy (over $50 billion). Flooding also triggers great humanitarian challenges. The 2015 Malawi floods were the worst in the country’s history and were followed by food shortage across large parts of the country.
Flood losses are increasing rapidly in some world regions, driven by economic development in floodplains and increases in the frequency of extreme precipitation events and global sea level due to climate change. The largest increase in flood losses is seen in low-income countries, where population growth is rapid and many cities are expanding quickly. At the same time, evidence shows that adaptation to flood risk is already happening, and a large proportion of losses can be contained successfully by effective risk management strategies. Such risk management strategies may include floodplain zoning, construction and maintenance of flood defenses, reforestation of land draining into rivers, and use of early warning systems.
To reduce risk effectively, it is important to know the location and impact of potential floods under current and future social and environmental conditions. In a risk assessment, models can be used to map the flow of water over land after an intense rainfall event or storm surge (the hazard). Modeled for many different potential events, this provides estimates of potential inundation depth in flood-prone areas. Such maps can be constructed for various scenarios of climate change based on specific changes in rainfall, temperature, and sea level.
To assess the impact of the modeled hazard (e.g., cost of damage or lives lost), the potential exposure (including buildings, population, and infrastructure) must be mapped using land-use and population density data and construction information. Population growth and urban expansion can be simulated by increasing the density or extent of the urban area in the model. The effects of floods on people and different types of buildings and infrastructure are determined using a vulnerability function. This indicates the damage expected to occur to a structure or group of people as a function of flood intensity (e.g., inundation depth and flow velocity).
Potential adaptation measures such as land-use change or new flood defenses can be included in the model in order to understand how effective they may be in reducing flood risk. This way, risk assessments can demonstrate the possible approaches available to policymakers to build a less risky future.
Article
Bridging Risk Communication and Health Literacy to Improve Health Outcomes Related to Heat
Kristin VanderMolen and Benjamin Hatchett
Extreme heat, whether occurring as single or multiple anomalously hot days and nights, poses direct and indirect impacts to human health and to built and natural systems. Direct impacts include heat-related illnesses (e.g., heat cramps, heat exhaustion, heatstroke) and mortality. Indirect impacts include exacerbations of other hazards, like drought and wildfire, as well as stressors like air pollution. Adaptation to extreme heat can take many forms, such as in behavioral, institutional, infrastructural, technological, and ecosystem-based change. It can also take place on varying levels or spatial scales, requiring different resources and time frames to implement. Given that heat-related illnesses and mortality are often preventable when people are able to take protective action, one potentially near-term, relatively cost-efficient, and effective adaptation is to successfully inform the public about heat risk. This requires not only communicating with the public about heat risk when it is imminent (i.e., institutional adaptation), but also educating the public about heat risk such that it can interpret and make use of the messaging received (i.e., behavioral adaptation). The field of risk communication offers recommendations and guidance that can help inform heat risk communication, for example related to warning source and channel as well as to message purpose, content, and style. Similarly, the field of health literacy, and in particular the newly conceptualized “climate and health literacy,” offer proposed pathways that can be leveraged to help educate the public about heat risk. Bridging these two fields and the actors (or practitioners) within them therefore promises to be fruitful in the reduction of heat-related morbidity and mortality and in improving overall health outcomes in vulnerable populations across the globe. Critically, however, to be effective, both risk communication and climate and health literacy must be designed with direct knowledge of and engagement with target audiences. Accordingly, actors within these fields should collaborate not only with one another but also with the specific audiences they intend to serve.
Article
Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction
Rajib Shaw
Community-based approaches existed even before the existence of the state and its formal governance structure. People and communities used to help and take care of each other’s disaster needs. However, due to the evolution of state governance, new terminology of community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) has been coined to help communities in an organized way. Different stakeholders are responsible for community-based actions; the two key players are the local governments and civil society, or nongovernment organizations. Private sector and academic and research institutions also play crucial roles in CBDRR. Many innovative CBDRR practices exist in the world, and it is important to analyze them and learn the common lessons. The key to community is its diversity, and this should be kept in mind for the CBDRR. There are different entry points and change agents based on the diverse community. It is important to identify the right change agent and entry point and to develop a sustainable mechanism to institutionalize CBDRR activities. Social networking needs to be incorporated for effective CBDRR.
Article
Disaster Management and Climate-Change Adaptation Using Traditional and Local Knowledge in the Pacific Islands
Patrick D. Nunn and Roselyn Kumar
Covering almost one-third of the earth’s surface, the region of the Pacific islands is subject to a range of environmental stressors—including those deriving from volcanoes and earthquakes, and of course those attributable to atmospheric and oceanic processes. Most people living on the islands, peppered across this vast ocean, occupy island coasts, where food and water are generally most readily obtainable but where the impacts of many hazards focus. While popularly viewed as particularly vulnerable to disasters and climate change, Pacific Islanders have evolved formidable bodies of traditional and local knowledge (TLK) that have enabled their survival on comparatively small islands often thousands of kilometers from continental shores. While it is largely place-specific, this TLK is wide-ranging. It includes ensuring water and food security (especially in the aftermath of disasters), predicting and surviving extreme events (especially tropical cyclones), creating traditional pharmacopoeias, learning how to sail across thousands of kilometers of open ocean, and developing cultural resilience that could be adapted to changing circumstances. Detailed accounts are given of the use of Pacific TLK in disaster management and in climate-change adaptation. While much TLK has been lost and has suffered from being overwhelmed by a flood of outsider (science-based) solutions, it remains a potent force among many rural communities in the Pacific islands. Owing to its demonstrable effectiveness, its place-based nature, and its ability to accommodate change, Pacific TLK should be at the heart of future plans for helping Pacific Islanders cope with future climate change.
Article
Evolution of Strategic Flood Risk Management in Support of Social Justice, Ecosystem Health, and Resilience
Paul Sayers
Throughout history, flood management practice has evolved in response to flood events. This heuristic approach has yielded some important incremental shifts in both policy and planning (from the need to plan at a catchment scale to the recognition that flooding arises from multiple sources and that defenses, no matter how reliable, fail). Progress, however, has been painfully slow and sporadic, but a new, more strategic, approach is now emerging.
A strategic approach does not, however, simply sustain an acceptable level of flood defence. Strategic Flood Risk Management (SFRM) is an approach that relies upon an adaptable portfolio of measures and policies to deliver outcomes that are socially just (when assessed against egalitarian, utilitarian, and Rawlsian principles), contribute positively to ecosystem services, and promote resilience. In doing so, SFRM offers a practical policy and planning framework to transform our understanding of risk and move toward a flood-resilient society. A strategic approach to flood management involves much more than simply reducing the chance of damage through the provision of “strong” structures and recognizes adaptive management as much more than simply “wait and see.” SFRM is inherently risk based and implemented through a continuous process of review and adaptation that seeks to actively manage future uncertainty, a characteristic that sets it apart from the linear flood defense planning paradigm based upon a more certain view of the future.
In doing so, SFRM accepts there is no silver bullet to flood issues and that people and economies cannot always be protected from flooding. It accepts flooding as an important ecosystem function and that a legitimate ecosystem service is its contribution to flood risk management. Perhaps most importantly, however, SFRM enables the inherent conflicts as well as opportunities that characterize flood management choices to be openly debated, priorities to be set, and difficult investment choices to be made.
Article
Impacts and Adaptation Measures of Climate Change on Agriculture in Coastal Bangladesh
Umma Habiba and Md Anwarul Abedin
According to the Global Climate Risk Index (2021), Bangladesh ranked as the seventh-most affected by climatic calamities across the world during the period 2000–2019. Climate change poses a great threat to Bangladesh’s economy because of its high dependence on agriculture. Today, the agricultural sector employs about 40.6% of the country’s labor force and contributes 14.10% to Bangladesh’s gross domestic product. Various climatic variabilities, such as changes in precipitation, temperature, rises of sea level, salinity intrusion, and natural disasters, that is, storm surges, cyclones, flood, drought, and so on, distress the agricultural sector. These impacts ultimately affect crop production and increase food insecurity. In Bangladesh, the coastal zone covers 32% of the land area and is home to 26% of total population. This area is particularly different from the rest of the country because of its unique geo-physical characteristics, funnel-shaped Bay of Bengal, and vast network of rivers. The coastal zone frequently faces the impacts of climate change through coastal flooding, cyclones, storm surges, drought, salinity intrusion, waterlogging, and so on. They not only affect agricultural productivity but also lead to degradation of soil productivity and enhance lower agricultural production. To cope with the impacts on coastal agriculture, government, non-governmental organizations, and communities have practiced a number of adaptation measures. Various climate change scenarios projected that the impacts will be more in future, and these will hamper agricultural production significantly. Considering these, this article provides nature-based promising agricultural adaptation measures such as: stress-tolerant rice and non-rice crops, floating gardens, sorjan farming, pond dyke systems, tower cultivation, zero tillage, among others. For the successful accomplishment of these adaptation measures, it further emphasizes the strengthening of agricultural research-extension services for disseminating up-to-date agricultural adaptation technologies, ensuring access to inputs, training and extension services, and formulating crop insurance.
Article
Lessons on Risk Governance From the UNISDR Experience
Sálvano Briceño
In the context of this article, risk governance addresses the ways and means—or institutional framework—to lead and manage the issue of risk related to natural phenomena, events, or hazards, also referred to popularly, although incorrectly, as “natural disasters.” At the present time, risk related to natural phenomena includes a major focus on the issue of climate change with which it is intimately connected, climate change being a major source of risk.
To lead involves mainly defining policies and proposing legislation, hence proposing goals, conducting, promoting, orienting, providing a vision—namely, reducing the loss of lives and livelihoods as part of sustainable development—also, raising awareness and educating on the topic and addressing the ethical perspective that motivates and facilitates engagement by citizens.
To manage involves, among other things, proposing organizational and technical arrangements, as well as regulations allowing the implementation of policies and legislation. Also, it involves monitoring and supervising such implementation to draw further lessons to periodically enhance the policies, legislation, regulations, and organizational and technical arrangements.
UNISDR (now known as UNDRR) was established in 2000 to promote and facilitate risk reduction, becoming in a few years one of the main promoters of risk governance in the world and the main global advocate from within the United Nations system. It was an honor to serve as the first director of the UNISDR (2001–2011).
A first lesson to be drawn from this experience was the need to identify, understand, and address the obstacles not allowing the implementation of what seems to be obvious to the scientific community but of difficult implementation by governments, private sector, and civil society; and alternatively, the reasons for shortcomings and weaknesses in risk governance.
A second lesson identified was that risk related to natural phenomena also provides lessons for governance related to other types of risk in society—environmental, financial, health, security, and so on, each a separate and specialized topic, sharing, however, common risk governance approaches.
A third lesson was the relevance of understanding leadership and management as essential components in governance. Drawing lessons on one’s own experience is always risky as it involves some subjectivity in the analysis. In the article, the aim has, nonetheless, been at the utmost objectivity on the essential learnings in having conducted the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction—UNISDR—from 2001 to around 2009 when leading and managing was shared with another manager, as I prepared for retirement in 2011.
Additional lessons are identified, including those related to risk governance as it is academically conceived, hence, what risk governance includes and how it has been implemented by different international, regional, national, and local authorities. Secondly, I identify those lessons related to the experience of leading and managing an organization focused on disaster risk at the international level and in the context of the United Nations system.
Article
Megacity Disaster Risk Governance
James K. Mitchell
Megacity disaster risk governance is a burgeoning interdisciplinary field that seeks to encourage improved public decision-making about the safety and sustainability of the world’s largest urban centers in the face of environmental threats ranging from floods, storms, earthquakes, wildfires, and pandemics to the multihazard challenges posed by human-forced climate change. It is a youthful, lively, contested, ambitious and innovative endeavor that draws on research in three separate but overlapping areas of inquiry: disaster risks, megacities, and governance. Toward the end of the 20th century, each of these fields underwent major shifts in thinking that opened new possibilities for action. First, the human role in disaster risks came to the fore, giving increased attention to humans as agents of risk creation and providing increased scope for inputs from social sciences and humanities. Second, the scale, complexity, and political–economic salience of very large cities attained high visibility, leading to recognition that they are also sites of unprecedented risks, albeit with significant differences between rapidly growing poorer cities and slower growing affluent ones. Third, the concept of public decision-making expanded beyond its traditional association with actions of governments to include contributions from a wide range of nongovernmental groups that had not previously played prominent roles in public affairs. At least three new conceptions of megacity disaster risk governance emerged out of these developments. They include adaptive risk governance, smart city governance, and aesthetic governance. Adaptive risk governance focuses on capacities of at-risk communities to continuously adjust to dynamic uncertainties about future states of biophysical environments and human populations. It is learning-centered, collaborative, and nimble. Smart city governance seeks to harness the capabilities of new information and communication technologies, and their associated human institutions, to the increasingly automated tasks of risk anticipation and response. Aesthetic governance privileges the preferences of social, scientific, design, or political elites and power brokers in the formulation and execution of policies that bear on risks. No megacity has yet comprehensively or uniformly adopted any of these risk governance models, but many are experimenting with various permutations and hybrid variations that combine limited applications with more traditional administrative practices. Arrangements that are tailor-made to fit local circumstances are the norm. However, some version of adaptive risk governance seems to be the leading candidate for wider adoption, in large part because it recognizes the need to continuously accommodate new challenges as environments and societies change and interact in ways that are difficult to predict. Although inquiries are buoyant, there remain many unanswered questions and unaddressed topics. These include the differential vulnerability of societal functions that are served by megacities and appropriate responses thereto; the nature and biases of risk information transfers among different types of megacities; and appropriate ways of tackling ambiguities that attend decision-making in megacities. Institutions of megacity disaster risk governance will take time to evolve. Whether that process can be speeded up and applied in time to stave off the worst effects of the risks that lie ahead remains an open question.
Article
Natural Hazards and Public Health in Urban Areas
Mary C. Sheehan
The world’s cities face natural hazards that expose their large, concentrated populations to health, safety, and well-being risks. The most important of these hazards in the urban context can be grouped into several categories: meteorological and hydrological, including extreme heat, flooding, and drought; environmental, including air pollution and wildfires; and geological, including earthquakes. Multiple natural hazards may affect an urban area simultaneously or in sequence, while any hazard may create a cascading interaction with the urban built environment. This produces the potential for what has been called “connected hazard events.” While earthquakes and extreme heat may lead to the deadliest urban disasters, connected hazard events contribute substantially to the full health burden of urban natural hazards. Thus, human activity—including rapid urbanization, biodiversity loss, and climate change—is increasing the frequency, severity, and complexity of many natural hazard-triggered disasters.
Public health risk from natural hazards in urban areas is determined by the type of hazard; the extent and nature of population exposure; population vulnerability factors such as age, health status, housing quality, economic well-being, and social conditions; and the capacity of urban systems to cope, adapt and learn. Populations in cities of all sizes and income categories face natural hazards. Among those at highest risk are urban dwellers in the coastal cities of Asia and Africa, and in the informal settlements of the world’s largest cities. While cities in wealthier countries report greater value of assets damaged in hazard events, those in lower income countries report more lives lost, and more people affected by injury, illness, or displacement. Policy and practice strategies for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation can reduce the risks and enhance the capacity of city dwellers. Risk and vulnerability assessments, hazard monitoring and mapping, early warning systems, health preparedness and response, nature-based solutions, and population health surveillance are among the strategies with a growing evidence base. Involving city public health agencies can strengthen their impact. Enhanced collaboration of public health and urban planning; more consistent metrics, monitoring, and research, particularly in the most vulnerable low- and middle-income country cities; and developing a culture of preparedness are opportunities to reduce health risks from natural hazards in urban areas.
Article
Relocation due to Climate Change
Vicki M. Bier and Susan B. King
Coastal flooding due to sea-level rise associated with climate change is likely to lead to long-term relocation (as opposed to short-term evacuation) of sizable populations from at-risk areas. Flooding has major adverse effects on the people affected by it, making it advantageous for people to relocate proactively (before experiencing major flooding) rather than only in the aftermath of flooding. However, relocation itself can also be associated with significant hardship, both financial and otherwise, making planning and assistance important in facilitating relocation.
Several social and cultural factors, including social capital and social cohesion, can affect the extent to which vulnerable populations are resilient to the risk of disasters such as flooding. A number of actions and planning efforts can enhance resilience and minimize adverse impacts of both flooding and relocation. These include planning efforts to reduce the need for relocation in at-risk areas, economic incentives to facilitate and encourage voluntary relocation, assistance to support people in preparing for relocation, and planning to accommodate relocatees in possible receiving communities. In particular, receiving communities will need to deal with considerations of housing availability. In all of these processes, special attention is needed to effectively address issues of equity (e.g., difficulties experienced by low-income or less educated individuals in accessing available aid) as well as differing levels of community administrative capacity. Finally, disaster planning has historically focused primarily on the needs of homeowners; further attention to the needs of renters is therefore needed. Many of these tasks require leadership and coordination at the national and state levels (e.g., to review and possibly redesign assistance and financial-aid programs for disaster preparedness and recovery to improve equity).
Article
Social Capital and Natural Hazards Governance
Daniel P. Aldrich, Michelle A. Meyer, and Courtney M. Page-Tan
The impact of disasters continues to grow in the early 21st century, as extreme weather events become more frequent and population density in vulnerable coastal and inland cities increases. Against this backdrop of risk, decision-makers persist in focusing primarily on structural measures to reduce losses centered on physical infrastructure such as berms, seawalls, retrofitted buildings, and levees. Yet a growing body of research emphasizes that strengthening social infrastructure, not just physical infrastructure, serves as a cost-effective way to improve the ability of communities to withstand and rebound from disasters. Three distinct kinds of social connections, including bonding, bridging, and linking social ties, support resilience through increasing the provision of emergency information, mutual aid, and collective action within communities to address natural hazards before, during, and after disaster events. Investing in social capital fosters community resilience that transcends natural hazards and positively affects collective governance and community health.
Social capital has a long history in social science research and scholarship, particularly in how it has grown within various disciplines. Broadly, the term describes how social ties generate norms of reciprocity and trust, allow collective action, build solidarity, and foster information and resource flows among people. From education to crime, social capital has been shown to have positive impacts on individual and community outcomes, and research in natural hazards has similarly shown positive outcomes for individual and community resilience. Social capital also can foster negative outcomes, including exclusionary practices, corruption, and increased inequality. Understanding which types of social capital are most useful for increasing resilience is important to move the natural hazards field forward.
Many questions about social capital and natural hazards remain, at best, partially answered. Do different types of social capital matter at different stages of disaster—e.g., mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery? How do social capital’s effects vary across cultural contexts and stratified groups? What measures of social capital are available to practitioners and scholars? What actions are available to decision-makers seeking to invest in the social infrastructure of communities vulnerable to natural hazards? Which programs and interventions have shown merit through field tests? What outcomes can decision-makers anticipate with these investments? Where can scholars find data sets on resilience and social capital? The current state of knowledge about social capital in disaster resilience provides guidance about supporting communities toward more resilience.
Article
Understanding Human Behavior Response to Disasters
Dmitry Erokhin and Nadejda Komendantova
Human behavior during disasters is shaped by a complex interplay of psychological, social, cultural, and economic factors. Understanding these elements is critical to improving disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.
Psychological factors, such as risk perception, significantly influence how individuals prepare for and respond to disasters. Personal experiences, media coverage, and cognitive biases shape risk assessments and decision-making processes. Theories such as protection motivation theory and the extended parallel process model offer insights into how individuals make decisions about disaster preparedness. Coping mechanisms during disasters can be problem focused, addressing the root causes of stress, or emotion focused, managing the emotional impact through strategies such as seeking social support.
Social and cultural dimensions also play crucial roles in disaster resilience. Social networks and community cohesion provide essential support systems that facilitate recovery. Cultural beliefs, including religious and spiritual practices, offer comfort and explanations during disasters, while traditional knowledge contributes to preparedness and response efforts. However, social vulnerability is heightened among certain groups, such as lower income individuals, the elderly, and those with disabilities. Gender roles further influence disaster experiences and responses, often dictating the resources and support available to individuals.
Economic factors are equally significant in shaping disaster outcomes. Access to financial resources and insurance can determine the extent of disaster preparedness and recovery. Economic inequality exacerbates the impact of disasters, with marginalized groups frequently experiencing the most severe consequences. Targeted interventions and support for these vulnerable populations are essential for reducing disparities and promoting equitable recovery.
Case studies, such as those on Hurricane Katrina, the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, and the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrate the diverse psychological, social, cultural, and economic factors that influence disaster responses and recovery efforts. Integrating these behavioral insights into disaster management strategies is vital for motivating protective behaviors, ensuring culturally sensitive interventions, and providing comprehensive mental health support.
Building resilient communities requires a multifaceted approach that includes community-based strategies, economic policies addressing vulnerabilities, and resilient infrastructure design. These efforts are crucial for enhancing community resilience and minimizing the impacts of future disasters.
