Major Essay ATS1310

Disaster Risk Management & Climate Change Adaptation

Terry Rapson: You predicted it would happen.

Jack Hall: Yes, but not in our life time. This is too fast.
Day After Tomorrow

This essay will discuss the ways that disaster risk management and climate change adaptation differ
from each other as well as how they converge and can work together most effectively through an
exploration of their defining characteristics and theoretically, using the context of various disaster
events such as extreme temperatures, rising sea levels and a potential asteroid impact event.

Preparing for the worst lies at the heart of both disaster risk management and climate change
adaptation. We (Humans?) live in a world where a vast range of environmental hazards and disasters
seem to unrelentingly affect and disrupt communities from both developing and developed
countries around the globe. As human activity continues to influence the climate, we are’re also
under increasing risk of the resulting repercussions of long-term (and mostly adverse) changes to
many components of the climate system. (Pachauri et al 2014, V).

Traditionally, disaster risk management has focussed on local, immediate hazards, emergencies and
disaster reduction in the short-term whilst climate change adaptation has looked more at longer-
term slow-onset hazards, particularly those driven by climate, and approaches to mitigation and
adaptation. (Smith 2013, 21, 402). Whilst each discipline possesses its own distinct characteristics,
there are certainly areas of similarity where they converge as in Figure 1. It is through these
synergies, as well as leveraging the areas where they differ, that both disciplines can be further
developed to strengthen their joint strategies to prepare, protect, mitigate and adapt which are so
fundamental to our resilience and ability to survive future disasters.

P1
Figure 1: Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation: key similarities and differences - a visual
summary of the features of both disciplines explored in this essay.
Source: Adapted from Venton & Latrobe, 2008, 10.

Disaster risk management was developed primarily in response to the need to provide disaster
management and humanitarian relief around disaster events, acknowledging that losses of all kinds
could be minimized through appropriate preparation, mitigation and adaptation techniques (Ireland
2005, 333) whilst climate change adaptation originated in the science community with a strong
culture in climate change theory and projections of future changes to our climate. (Venton & Latrobe
2008, 10). These differences in origins can also be evidenced by the assorted government and not-
for-profit organisations that support each discipline, for example climate change adaptation is
largely fuelled by scientific and government organisations such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change) and national bodies like the Climate Council in Australia or EPA (Environment
Protection Agency) in the United States. Disaster risk management is spearheaded by the UNISDR
(The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) with large NGOs (Non-governmental
Organisations) such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and Medicins Sans Frontieres critical to post-disaster
aid and efforts in restoring communities to basic levels.

Perhaps a feature attributed to their difference in origins, is the way each discipline communicates
messages pertaining to risk to the public. Keith Smith (2013, 118) proposes that people in hazardous

P2
areas who have greater risk awareness can more easily identify threats and consequently take
appropriate loss-preventing actions. In a 2012 paper, Beate Ratter (and co-authors) et al identified
the fact that there has been a decline in public concern about climate change. This may be due to
information fatigue, personal experiences of local weather trends (Pidgeon 2012, 88) or the idea
that the effects of climate change are something too far into the future to take priority over more
immediate concerns. Regardless of this decline in concern, the media has ensured that public
awareness of climate change remains high. Evidence suggests that the science-based messages
behind climate change tend to polarize people on the issue (Hart & Nisbet 2012, 701) and can cause
them to ‘switch off’ to the information being conveyed. Conversely, there is little doubt that the
human-element of disasters captures the public’s attention and concern in intense media coverage
and aid requests, whilst there is likely low awareness of the discipline and terminology of ‘disaster
risk management’ itself. Working together to exploit the existing awareness of climate change
coupled with the emotive effects of disaster on individuals and communities may lead to greater
public relations value than promoting each discipline in isolation, and could potentially lead to
greater awareness and education levels that help build resilience in the face of disasters. For
example, an information pamphlet prepared for a community entitled ‘Floods are coming: how to
protect your home and family’ is likely to have more impact on awareness and lead to subsequent
action than a more literal title such as ‘Climate change and rising sea levels.’

Disaster risk management has extensive historical and practical field experience (beyond that of the
still-emerging field of climate change adaptation) which can be capitalized on for mutual benefits to
disaster management and adaptation for a range of disaster events. The broader range of disasters
alone that disaster risk management actively deals with, can serve as a significant source of
knowledge for climate change adaptation endeavours. Both disaster risk management and climate
change adaptation share an interest in heatwaves, floods, drought, tropical cyclones, extreme
weather and wildfires. In fact, Birkmann & Teichman (2010, 1) propose that climate-related hazards
are ‘major triggers for the majority of disasters’. The IPCC states that ‘a changing climate leads to
changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and
climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.’ The
relationship between disaster risk management and climate change adaptation works both ways
here; climate change experts are best placed to advise disaster risk management professionals about
global trends in disasters in the future whilst disaster risk management organisations have the
experience to deal with these disaster events at a local level.

Perhaps one of the more pronounced differences between climate change adaptation and disaster
risk management is the forward-looking nature of climate change adaptation and its inclusion of

P3
slow-onset hazards such as air pollution, loss of biodiversity and rising sea levels. The extent to when
these hazards become global and local disasters in the future may not be entirely clear at this stage,
but it seems vital that research findings are shared with the disaster risk management community to
allow for suitable time to prepare, given that impacts of these kind of disasters are not something
that they current have extensive experience in dealing with (Venton & Latrobe 2008, 9).

One of the benefits of combining disaster risk management’s past experience in dealing with most
disaster events with climate change adaptation’s superior long-term forecasting knowledge can be
demonstrated in our response to increasing extremes in maximum temperatures. The 2015 National
Geographic documentary ‘Forces of Nature: ‘Six Degrees Could Change the World’ creatively depicts
the effects that changes in temperature from one to six degrees Celsius could inflict on people and
on our ecosystems. However dramatized, the documentary accurately warns of some of the
probabley outcomes of higher extreme temperatures and a warming climate. Current climate
forecasting models are able to simulate variations in extreme temperatures better than many other
climate-related trends, projecting substantial increases in temperature extremes by the end of the
twenty-first century with heatwaves increasing in length, frequency, and/or intensity (Field et al
2012, 13). Armed with a high-level global view of the projected changes, climate change adaptation
experts could work closely with disaster risk management communities at a local level to ensure
there is ample early warning for heat waves with more than enough time to develop the required
infrastructure and disaster planning such as creating more heat-friendly urban areas with ‘green
space’ to reduce heat in cities (Oliviera et al 2011, 2186) and supporting those most at risk, like the
elderly. The disaster risk management community could also use longer-term warnings from climate
change adaptation to prepare for heat-related disasters such as wildfires, drought and diseases like
Meningococol Meningitus and Cholera which spread under such conditions (Kuhn et al 2005, 21).

Another example that would demonstrate an urgent need for disaster risk management and climate
change adaptation to cooperate, is the occurrence of an asteroid impact disaster event, which in
some ways is a unique disaster in its elevated potential to seriously affect the climate. On average
every 500,000 years the earth will be struck by an asteroid 1.5 km in diameter. (Bucknam & Gold
2008, 143). An impact of this size would be likely to destroy land area the size of France and impact
the atmosphere with prolonged cooling, dust and soot along with probable damage to the ozone
layer. (Gritzner et al 2006, 364). Keith Smith (2013, 418) suggests that a lead time of decades may be
possible for some asteroids, which would provide more time for climate change adaptation scientists
to prepare detailed analysis of the effects on our climate across the globe while disaster risk
management experts could prepare for the mass displacement of millions of people with the
possibility of wide scale evacuations. (Morrison 2006, 2042). In this case study, climate change

P4
adaptation and disaster risk management experience a role reversal in their normal time scales and
could certainly draw on each other’s expertise and experience. Climate change adaptation concerns
would be more relevant in a much nearer future than they used to working with whilst disaster risk
management would have a far longer lead time than usual to prepare communities for the
impending disaster.

The IPCC (2012, 6) recognises that vulnerability is a key element of disaster risk and that vulnerability
and exposure shapes disaster impacts. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in
developing countries are directly dependant on the ecosystem for their livelihood and are therefore
most exposed to the effects of disasters and changes to the climate. In many of these hyper-
vulnerable areas, disasters occur so frequently that any resources (financial or otherwise) that could
be allocated to poverty reduction and economic development are exhausted in disaster relief and
the resultant recovery and reconstruction (Thomalla 2006, 41). Disaster risk management views
vulnerability in varying levels of risk through the UN Disaster Risk Index to help identify those most
in need of disaster management and aid. (Smith 2013, 54). Climate change adaptation developed its
own understanding of vulnerability directly correlated to the effects of changes to the climate on
communities and their adaptive capacity (Romieu et al 2010, 160). Neither discipline is designed to
address the global poverty and inequality factors at the root of disaster vulnerability that are
products of a long historical process of uneven global development (Weber & Berger 2012, 376). For
example, neither disaster risk management with its core objectives of immediate disaster relief or
climate change adaptation’s long-term scientific forecasts have the capacity to improve the enduring
and systemic nature of poverty and other factors that make a community especially vulnerable to
hazards. It is an area where both disciplines could work more closely with each other to develop
sustainable strategies that evolve current responses from coping mechanisms and short-term
adaptation to real progress in reducing vulnerability in the long-term.

Though fundamentally different in their origins, disaster risk management and climate change
adaptation are both fast evolving to address the gaps between them and to take increasing
advantage of the areas where they converge and transect. Accepting that disasters and changes to
our climate are linked and inevitable, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation
share a symbiotic relationship that, with continued collaboration, holds the best chance for the value
of our survival amid the significant risks and hazards facing us now and in the future.

P5
References

Birkmann J & Teichman K 2010, Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation:
key challenges—scales, knowledge, and norms, Sustain Sci 5:171–184.

Bowman, Ros (dir), 2015, National Geographic ‘Forces of Nature: ‘Six Degrees Could Change the
World’, DVD Documentary, National Geographic Television, United States.

Bucknam M & Gold R 2008, Asteroid Threat? The Problem of Planetary Defence, Survival: Global
Politics and Strategy, 50:5, 141-156.

Emmerich, Roland (dir.) 2004, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, DVD, Twentieth Century Fox, United States.

Field C, Barros B, Stocker T, Dahe Q et al 2012, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
IPCC, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.

Gritzner C, Dürfeld K, Kasper J & Fasoulas S 2006, The asteroid and comet impact hazard: risk
assessment and mitigation options, Naturwissenschaften (2006) 93: 361–373.

Hart S & Nisbet C 2012 Boomerang Effects in Science Communication, Communication Research,
Vol.39(6), pp.701-723.

Ireland P 2010, Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: Contested spaces and
emerging opportunities in development theory and practice, Climate and Development, 2:4,332-
345.

Kuhn K, Campbell-Lendrum D, Haines A & Cox J 2005, Using Climate to Predict Infectious Disease
Epidemics, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Morrison D 2006, Asteroid and comet impacts: the ultimate environmental catastrophe,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical And, 2006 Aug 15, Vol.364
(1845), pp.2041-20.

Oliviera S, Andrade H & Vaz T 2011, The cooling effect of green spaces as a contribution to the
mitigation of urban heat: a case study of Lisbon, Building and Environment 46, 2186-94.

Pachauri R, Meyer L et al 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp V.

Pidgeon, N 2012, Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international
perspectives and policy, Climate Policy, 2012, Vol.12 Suppl 1, pp.S85-S106.

Ratter B, Phillip K & von Storch H 2012, Between hype and decline: recent trends in public perception
of climate change, Environmental Science and Policy 18, 3-8.

Romieu E, Welle T, Schneiderbauer S Pelling M et al 2012, Vulnerability assessment within climate

change and natural hazard contexts: revealing gaps and synergies through coastal applications,
Sustainability Science, 5, pp 159-70.

P6
Smith, K 2013, Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, Routledge, New York,
USA, pp.21, 402.

Thomalla F, Downing T, Spanger-Siegfried E, Han G et al, 2006, Reducing hazard vulnerability:

towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation, Disasters, 30
(1) : 39−48, Overseas Development Institute, 2006.

UN/ISDR 2008, Disaster risk reduction strategies and risk management practices: critical elements for
adaptation to climate change, Submission to the UNFCCC Adhoc Working Group on Long Term
Cooperative Action. UN/ISDR.

Venton P & Latrobe S 2008, Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction.
Tearfund, London, pp. 10.

Weber H & Berger M 2012, ‘Chapter 27 Global Poverty, Inequality and Development, in Devetak R,
Burke A, George J, An Introduction to International Relations, Cambridge University Press, New York,
USA, pp. 373-385.

P7