In this guest post, Dr Andrea Carrión Hurtado and Dr Julien Rebotier discuss their research on disaster risk management and climate change adaption in the Andean Region, which was supported by the USF International Fellowship.
Over the past decades, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation have evolved as distinctive —yet intermingled— academic debates, political rationalities, and communities of practice. Although both include monitoring hazards, reducing vulnerability, and enhancing resilience, they have different purposes, temporal scales, knowledge bases, and governance frameworks. Supported by the Urban Studies Foundation, the international fellowship allowed a multi-layered examination of how these fields intersect in the Andean Region, focusing on urbanization processes, local governments, human mobilities, and the science-policy interface.
Studies have questioned the nexus between risks, development, and the environment for disaster risk management, helping to off-center hazards and focus on vulnerabilities. The key message is that disasters are not natural. The #NoNaturalDisasters campaign “aims to change the terminology to show that whilst some hazards are natural and unavoidable, the resulting disasters almost always have been made by human actions and decisions.” Certainly, development choices involve creating uncertain risks; hence, those threats and trade-offs must be considered to build sustainable development and resilience. As a policy arena, it has a broader perspective on potential hazards that require concrete actions to reduce vulnerability, address near-term risks, and respond to disasters; hence, hierarchical governance commonly supersedes risk management. Overall, there has been an evolution from disaster response to disaster risk reduction, disaster risk management, and disaster risk governance.
Meanwhile, adaptation to climate change is “the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2023, 2898). Hence, it includes adjustments to long-range scenarios of global warming, climate averages, weather variability, and environmental transformation, not limited to concrete weather hazards. Rather than denial or despair, the adaptation framework encourages individual participation, collective action, and political decision-making as a viable response to climate change. Hence, adaptation is an overarching principle to envision long-term effects –including new risks and global warming– but tends to involve relatively short-term projects for expected or experienced impacts in local communities.
There is increasing evidence that extreme weather and slow-onset events are linked to global warming, but actual disasters result from the materialization of a latent situation. Yet, the discursive fields encompass labeling some disasters as “climate change disasters,” which precludes the attribution of causality to climate hazards, a naturalization of climate events, a detachment from other risks, a cover for negligence, and a sense of urgency for increased financial aid. The purpose is to cater to the adverse effects of climate change and compensate the victims rather than questioning structural inequalities or politicizing risk management. The root causes of vulnerability are being obscured while scientific knowledge claims and technocratic interventions become centered.
From an operative stance, local governments are unable to match the requirements of national policymaking in a fast-paced policy arena. Hence, alliances with interested parties, municipal networks, and multilateral organizations help advance planning instruments. Therein, climate urbanism emerges as a new paradigm that introduces the climate variable into urban planning, usually encompassing policy alternatives related to nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based adaptation. In some cases, such instruments remain a performative mechanism to position locations within a discursive field, leverage visibility, and attract potential donors. However, the procedural requirement to socialize policy designs and enhance citizens’ participation opens options for transformation. From a more radical perspective, collaborative approaches to the science-policy interface might embrace plural and ancestral knowledge, including non-academic perspectives grounded on ethical principles and valuation languages.
Supported by the TREE LAB / CNRS and IRD we plan to continue this work by developing a collaborative research proposal on risk management and sustainability sciences in Quito, Ecuador. Experience shows that knowledge production alone, whether in the geosciences or the social sciences, is not sufficient to achieve effective risk reduction. The project will help develop interdisciplinary approaches involving non-academic actors to foster action-oriented research.