Introduction
We know, so far, that the idea of an integrated disaster risk management (IDRM) has been around for at least 3 decades. Starting from the 1990s, conversations on integration and disaster risk management (DRM) have been intertwined with concepts such as sustainability and climate change. Nevertheless, conceptualizing IDRM has been elusive partly because it has never taken a central place in the disaster discourse and partly because “integration” tends to mean a lot of things to a lot of people and fields, from system research to sociology and anthropology.
In this work, we investigate IDRM from an international perspective and analysis in national contexts, adopting a politico-economic and social constructionist approach. By conducting a literature review and analyzing key definitions from selected works, we dig into how the concept of integration has emerged, and we ask what elements of a DRM system are necessary to consider it “integrated.” Some of these questions, such as where did the idea of IDRM come from, what does IDRM really mean, and how can we assess or evaluate “integration” in a national context, have guided this research.
You are viewing: What Does Idrm Mean
Read more : What Is Duvalin
The starting point is a basic yet significant interpretation of DRM. According to widely used international definitions, DRM “is the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new risk, reduce existing risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses” (UNDRR 2022c). Although useful for some contexts, this definition leaves aside key elements that later will be fundamental to better understand “integration” in the context of DRM. This is the case of understanding DRM as a social product intrinsically tied to the way that different groups define risk and their means to “manage” it or reduce it at a specific time in history. This relational approach entails that DRM is a dynamic sociocultural process subjected to the historical process of social formation, routinization of everyday life, and institutionalization, implying that it is embedded in and is the result of societal relations and processes that are historically defined (Voss and Dittmer 2016). A systemic view of disaster risk formation/definition, management, and reduction considers that DRM is largely affected by societal everyday life experiences and definitions, including processes of power relations, division of labor, and class, among others. This relational approach is also linked to the systemic nature of risk (Voss and Dittmer 2016; Kelman 2020; Murray et al. 2021) where disaster risk is associated with cascading impacts that spread within and across systems and sectors (for example, urban settings, ecosystems, health, food supply, and critical infrastructure) through the movements of capital, goods, information, and people across regions and countries (Sillmann et al. 2022). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and more recently the war in Ukraine clearly show how the challenges of addressing risk in an interconnected and interdependent world go beyond traditional notions of DRM and risk governance (Merkes et al. 2020). These crises have also demonstrated the need to better understand “compound risk”—amplified by underlying vulnerabilities—and “cascading impacts,” as well as the political and societal responses to disasters. Consequently, addressing these complexities from a systemic viewpoint will also require integrating different cultural and politico-economic perspectives and fostering system thinking while implementing key intergovernmental agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals (Sillmann et al. 2022).
Along the literature review, we analyzed different IDRM ideas and experiences—especially from China, Japan, and Mexico—to later explore potential indicator candidates or “proto-indicators” as proposed by Czúcz et al. (2021). These proto-indicators are considered entry points for further discussions on IDRM. In total, 29 proto-indicators were found, grouped in three meta-categories that relate to different kinds of integrations detected in our study: sectoral, spatial/hierarchical, and temporal. We consider that a prospective analysis may help to guide the discussion and support strategic planning for IDRM implementation in national and international contexts. Finally, the reflections collected in this study may help to guide upcoming discussions and implementations of IDRM, as expressed in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (UNDRR 2015), and especially in a context where integration between complementary global agendas is crucial.
Source: https://t-tees.com
Category: WHAT
