Classifying disaster risk reduction strategies: conceptualizing and testing a novel integrated approach

Dimitrova and Snair Globalization and Health https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-01006-8 (2024) 20:7 Globalization and Health Open Access RESEARCH Classifying disaster risk reduction strategies: conceptualizing and testing a novel integrated approach Mariya Dimitrova1,2*   and Megan Snair2 Abstract Background Although disaster risk reduction (DRR) addresses underlying causes and has been shown to be more cost-effective than other emergency management efforts, there is lack of systematized DRR categorization, leading to insufficient coherence in the terminology, planning, and implementation of DRR. The aim of this study was to conceptualize and test a novel integrated DRR framework that highlights the intersection between two existing classification systems. Methods Grounded theory was used to conceptualize a novel DRR framework. Next, deductive conceptual content analysis was used to categorize interventions from the 2019 Cities100 Report into the proposed DRR framework. The term “connection” indicates that an intervention can be categorized into a particular section of the novel integrated approach. A “connection” was determined to be present when the intervention description stated an explicit connection to health and to the concept within one of the categories from the novel approach. Further descriptive statistics were used to give insight into the distribution of DRR interventions across categories and into the application of the proposed framework. Results The resulting framework contains nine intersecting categories: “hazard, prospective”, “hazard, corrective”, “hazard, compensatory”, “exposure, prospective”, “exposure, corrective”, “exposure, compensatory”, “vulnerability, prospective”, “vulnerability, corrective”, and “vulnerability, compensatory”. The thematic analysis elucidated trends and gaps in the types of interventions used within the 2019 Cities100 Report. For instance, exposure-prospective, exposurecompensatory, and vulnerability-compensatory were the most under-utilized strategies, accounting for only 3% of the total interventions. Further descriptive statistics showed that upper middle-income countries favored “hazard, corrective” strategies over other DRR categories while lower middle-income countries favored “exposure, corrective” over other DRR strategies. Finally, European cities had the highest percentage of DRR connections (51.39%) compared to the maximum possible DRR connections, while African cities had the lowest percentage of DRR connections (22.22%). Conclusions The study suggests that the proposed DRR framework could potentially be used to systematically evaluate DRR interventions for missing elements, aiding in the design of more equitable and comprehensive DRR strategies. Keywords Disaster risk reduction, DRR, Categorization, Comprehensive, Framework *Correspondence: Mariya Dimitrova Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Dimitrova and Snair G lobalization and Health (2024) 20:7 Background Disasters are hazards that significantly disturb the functioning of a community, region, nation, or society, causing human, material, economic, or environmental losses and effects [1]. The severity or impact depends on the intersection of the hazard with conditions of exposure, vulnerability, and the capacity of a community. As climate change intensifies, disasters are also expected to increase in frequency and severity [2]. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as a practice differs from traditional disaster management efforts in that DRR not only considers disasters in terms of preparing for or responding to them, but also anticipates their future effects, attempting to reduce the associated risk [3]. DRR aims to be preventative and holistic by addressing underlying drivers, such as vulnerability, and has been shown to be more cost-effective than other emergency management efforts [3–5]. DRR is also interwoven with public health risks, especially related to infectious disease outbreaks, as linkages between fragile states, natural, or manmade disasters and the emergence of pathogens are well established [6]. Going further upstream in tackling these issues can be beneficial in reducing the impacts these public health risks may bring. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development addresses the need for predisaster prevention and planning in Sustainable Development Goal Number 3, and Target 3.d as a means of implementation by calling for increased “early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks” to strengthen the capacity of all countries [7]. Similarly, in paragraph 17, the United Nations (UN) Sendai Framework for DRR calls to: “prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated and inclusive … measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience” [8]. However, compared to disaster management, less progress has been made in DRR whether in preventing risk, addressing underlying drivers of disasters [9], or strengthening resilience to risk [10]. This lack of progress is multifaceted, but includes poor governance and political barriers as some of the key challenges preventing better implementation of these types of DRR frameworks. The incentives within our political systems often conspire against prevention and preparedness, and certain political dynamics may push towards or away from preparedness actions [11]. Simply investing in preparedness frameworks and actions has been slow due to a lack of political will in countries from Kenya [12] to the United States [13] to Pakistan [14], with most governments Page 2 of 15 allocating investments to disaster response efforts because those are more visible and leaders often think will have more value to constituents. Poor governance, envir (...truncated)