Alternatives for sustained disaster risk reduction: A re-assessment
Loic Le De,
Louise L. Baumann,
Annabelle Moatty,
Virginie Le Masson,
Faten Kikano,
Mahmood Fayazi,
Manuela Fernandez,
Isabella Tomassi,
Jake Rom D. Cadag
Affiliations
Loic Le De
School of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland
Louise L. Baumann
School of Environment, Faculty of Science, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland, Auckland
Annabelle Moatty
Department of Sismology, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris - IPGP, Université Paris Cité, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Paris
Virginie Le Masson
Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London
Faten Kikano
Centre d’étude en responsabilité sociale et écocitoyenneté (CÉRSÉ), Collège de Rosemont, Montreal, Canada; and, Architecture Sans Frontières International, Paris
Mahmood Fayazi
Centre RISC, Institution: Collège Notre-Dame-de-Foy, Québec, Canada; and, École d’Architecture, Aménagement, Université de Montréal, Montréal
Manuela Fernandez
Conicet National Scientific and Technical Research Council, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina; and, INTA - National Institute of Agricultural Technology, San Carlos de Bariloche
Isabella Tomassi
Géographie, UFR Temps et Territoires, EVS, Université Lumières Lyon 2, Lyon
Jake Rom D. Cadag
Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
Alternatives for sustained disaster risk reduction’ was published in 2010 by Francophone and Anglophone researchers as a critique on the way disasters were studied and disaster risk reduction handled in the Francophone sphere. The authors criticized the dominant Francophone approach for being heavily hazard-centred and called for more emphasis on vulnerability to understand disasters and foster disaster risk reduction – a shift that had already taken place in the Anglophone disaster literature. Twelve years later, this paper draws upon a bibliographic analysis to examine if the arguments developed in the 2010 publication have stem attention in the Francophone disaster literature. Contribution: The article finds that the shift towards the vulnerability paradigm has, to some extent, happened but took much longer in the French context than in the Spanish language and the Asian disaster literature. The article emphasises the need for a re-assessment of our practices and study of disasters, including reflections on what disasters are studied, how, by whom, and for whom. Eventually, alternatives for sustained disaster risk reduction now and in the future might include drawing upon more diverse ontologies and epistemologies that are pertinent locally, considering local people as co-researchers though participatory methods, and empowering local Francophone researchers to play a greater role in researching disasters and leading disaster risk reduction in their own localities.
