Ksenia Chmutina

This Progress Report is the first of three reports that revisit what could be perceived as a simple question—what is a disaster? In this first review, instead of providing a comprehensive historical overview of the concept, the Progress Report provides an overview of the tensions and the diversity of (mis)understandings of disasters in what could be called interdisciplinary disaster studies. In particular, it reviews how the more recent debates have shifted toward the analysis of and the call for a political framing of disaster as well as challenging the universality of the concept of disasters. Such shifts mark a move toward more meaningful, critical, and ethical disaster studies—the kind of disaster studies that generate new ideas, values, and commitment that will hopefully one day take the place of the capitalist, extractivist, oppressive, and unjust logic that continues to recreate violence, oppression, and disaster risk.

Purpose: This paper aims to reflect on how knowledge about disasters is produced: what is said, by whom and where and through which methodological approaches – and how these processes shape the field. Here we ask: do the current conditions of knowledge production in disaster scholarship make the transformation called for in the Manifesto possible at all? Design/methodology/approach: To understand how the knowledge is produced and whether the Manifesto is at the heart of the knowledge production, we took a two-fold approach to evidence finding. First, we did a broad search for the papers that mention Disaster Studies Manifesto, and secondly, we reviewed all papers published in three disaster journals between 2020 and 2024. We examined patterns across three dimensions: discursive concentration, geographical asymmetry and methodological distribution to understand how the knowledge is produced. Findings: The findings show that disaster scholarship is structured by a relatively narrow epistemic vocabulary, uneven relations between sites of research and sites of authorship, and a dominance of methodological approaches that prioritise extraction, quantification and limited forms of participation. Whilst critical perspectives are increasingly visible, epistemic inequalities in the field limit the possibility of enacting the principles of the Disaster Studies Manifesto, which risks becoming a token gesture rather than a driver of transformation. Originality/value: The paper demonstrates that the production of knowledge in disaster studies remains shaped by disciplinary traditions rooted in positivism, fragmentation and exclusion. These conditions do not simply limit what is studied, but structure how knowledge is produced, legitimised and circulated.

Disasters have been catching the attention of politicians, news reports, academics, and many others for centuries; yet the way that disasters have been framed changes significantly depending on who is talking about them and to whom. This chapter demonstrates that disasters cannot be understood without untangling unequal and often oppressive social, political, and economic systems. We argue that framing disasters as “natural”, “unexpected”, “sudden”, and “events” promotes the idea that disasters are tragic but simply inevitable and ignores their social and political origins. We discuss the concepts most widely used—and contested—to define disasters and explain why these concepts can be so problematic and indeed can often only be understood within the contextual framework of the prevailing socio-economic system.

The urban spatial network plays a key role in the aftermath of an earthquake, potentially endangering its occupants, while also enabling evacuation. However, studies on vulnerability associated with the spatial network remain a fraction of the otherwise predominately building-centred work on urban disaster risk. Applications of space syntax modelling in disaster risk management to assess urban resilience in disaster scenarios are significant contributions towards understanding the spatiality of vulnerability. Although promising, the existing approaches are theoretically and methodologically disengaged from disaster theories. This shortcoming potentially leads to incorrect interpretations of urban disaster risk dynamics and leaves the fraction of risk associated with urban form poorly detected and unaddressed. To overcome this limitation, this paper applies a transdisciplinary approach and reinterprets selected space syntax measures and morphological concepts within the framework of disaster risk mnemonics, enabling the establishment of an integrated approach of benefit to a broader range of disciplines.

Freetown, Sierra Leone, faces increasing risks from hazards such as floods, landslides, mudslides, fires and coastal erosion, threats that are increasingly intensified by climate change. Although disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) policies are in place, concerns persist regarding their effectiveness. This study investigates the extent to which these policies have transitioned from good intentions to effective interventions in Freetown. Employing a case study approach, the research critically examines the disaster context, reviews relevant policy frameworks and implementation processes, and identifies both enablers and barriers to effective policy execution across five informal settlements, Kroo Bay, Susans Bay, Kulvert, Kolleh Town and Dwarzack. The findings reveal systemic deficiencies in DRM and CCA, including weak legal and institutional structures, poor inter-agency coordination, inadequate enforcement, limited access to data, and ineffective risk communication. Further obstacles include insufficient community engagement, the absence of legal mechanisms for resolving DRM and CCA related disputes, corruption, political instability, underinvestment in research and technology, and inadequate urban planning. The study recommends strengthening policy and institutional frameworks, promoting integrated collaborative planning processes, and supporting community-led resilience initiatives. Key priorities include enhancing risk assessments, developing robust early warning systems (EWS), improving urban planning, and fostering innovation through research and technology. Contribution: The study identifies key measures for effective DRM and CCA in Freetown, including community inclusion, capacity building, financial mechanisms, data management, risk communication, and resilient infrastructure development, especially for “at-risk” communities.

Disaster scholarship purportedly promotes disaster risk reduction and resists disaster risk creation, thereby deeply engaging with transboundary existential risks, justice, and political power. It is thus a commitment to humanity, and for it to become truly equitable and just, solidarity must lie at its heart. In this paper we connect solidarity with knowledge production and assess the implications of disaster scholarship and the relationships on which it is built. We offer a critique of the kind of research produced by neoliberal academic institutions and provocations for resistance through solidarity. We call on disaster scholars to use these prompts to reflect on their practice, research ethics, and their commitment to other human beings, inside and outside of the academy. Solidarity can help scholars to avoid the saviourism, self‐congratulation, and paternalism that are common in academia. Solidarity in disaster scholarship is a worthy endeavour precisely because it yields a concrete alternative vision of resisting disaster risk creation through knowledge production.

Purpose: Disaster research is often geared towards logocentrism and has relatively few outputs that explore alternative forms of representation, particularly those using an artistic medium. This paper explores how the creative use of audio representation can enhance understanding of flooding experiences, challenging the predominant text-based approach within qualitative study.Design/methodology/approach: During a series of visits to people who had been flooded in 2019 in the UK, interviews and ambient sounds were recorded, analysed and then intertwined with musical elements composed by the lead author. The result is a phonographic representation of the synthesised data. The process explores a tripartite, creative, sonic approach that comingles thematic spoken excerpts with local sounds and musical compositions.Findings: This article presents three sonic vignettes that illustrate the use of audio as a medium for academic research outputs. It contributes to the current consensus that the interpretation, representation and dissemination of research findings should be broadened beyond the dominance of the written word to align with the ethos of the Disaster Studies Manifesto.Research limitations/implications: The research contributes to disaster scholarship by developing a transdisciplinary approach to explore people’s experiences. By retaining the participants’ voices at its core, it makes use of in-depth, rich data to illustrate individuality, rather than aiming to generalise.Originality/value: Very little disaster research has focussed on pushing the boundaries of investigation by using the arts as a lens for both the researcher and their audience. Such work may connect with a wider range of people compared to a text-based “traditional” academic output. It can offer new opportunities for practical uses within Disaster Risk Reduction, for example as a communicative and educational tool.Contribution to impact: This paper contributes to understanding the impact of developing audio representation as a medium for conveying people’s experiences of flooded homes.

From earthquakes to oil spills, Italy is recurrently affected by different kinds of disasters. This book brings a critical perspective to post-disaster reconstr...

Purpose: Vulnerability is a label and a concept that is widely used in disaster studies. To date the meaning has been quite limited and implied “weakness”, with criticisms arising periodically but not halting vulnerability's reproduction. In this paper, the authors offer a new theory of vulnerability for the field, suggesting that complicating the concept can create space for liberatory discourse and organising.Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw from diverse understandings of vulnerability to generate new conceptual ground for disaster scholars. The authors explore the relationships between power and agency and autonomy and social hierarchy with regards to how vulnerability is considered within neoliberal democracies. The authors also outline ideological responses and the political actions that follow.Findings: This exploration is underpinned by dissatisfaction with the way that vulnerability has thus far been theorised in disaster studies. Using the analytical framings provided, the authors hope that others will build on the idea that so-called “vulnerable” people, working in solidarity and using intersecting frameworks of anti-racism, anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism, can undermine the risk-creating norms of the neoliberal state.Originality/value: The authors argue that the dominant framing of vulnerability in disaster studies – and usage of the vulnerability paradigm – provides political traction for neoliberal social projects, based on notions of humanitarianism. The authors make this claim as a challenge to the authors and the authors' peers to maintain reflexive scholarship and search for liberatory potential, not only in vulnerability but in other concepts that have become normative.