Abstract
Stakeholders often justify limited disaster risk reduction (DRR) action by citing insufficient funding and a lack of dedicated legislation and institutional infrastructure. This has changed thanks to the Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks, as national governments have created dedicated DRR ministries or agencies, resulting in widespread policy adoption and funding increases. Evidence shows these institutionalisations can instrumentalise DRR under neoliberal agendas driven by international donors. This article, however, highlights how the fixation on dedicated laws, institutions and funding has produced a siloed DRR policy. Using Chile as a case, and the implementation of the Law 21.364, it describes the instrumentation created to deal with disasters at the local level, including DRR and emergency plans, as well as new functions and municipal structures. Given Chile’s subnational governance, municipalities are forced to self-fund a policy issue that is not prioritised, and it leads to the separation of risk reduction, climate change and development into discrete sectors. This obsession with everything-should-be-dedicated results in a fragmentation that diverts attention from the structural causes of risk creation embedded in neoliberal development.
Contribution: The analysis emphasises the need to rethink dedicated DRR institutionalism towards integrated, adaptive approaches addressing underlying risk drivers rather than isolated sectors.
Keywords: Chile; disaster policy; disaster risk management; disaster risk reduction; instrumentation; municipalities.
Introduction
Stakeholders of disaster risk reduction (DRR), that is, initiatives ‘aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk’ (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR] 2017), often explain and justify their inaction or, in better cases, their limited action by the lack of sufficient and specific funding. Furthermore, the scarcity of funding is blamed on the lack of dedicated legislation and institutional infrastructure to address disaster risk. The equation is hence simple: no law nor policy, thus no institution and no funding, therefore no action. To overcome this challenge, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) and eventually, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), have encouraged national governments to legislate and establish designated ministries or offices to make DRR visible and a national and local priority (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [UNISDR] 2007, 2015). As a result, national policies and dedicated agencies have mushroomed, especially at the national and regional government levels, and a large amount of dedicated funding has been pumped into DRR all over the world (UNDRR 2023).
The creation and implementation of such laws, policies and funding schemes, however, is no silver bullet. Analyses have shown that dedicated institutions and specific funding foster actions towards reducing disaster risk that are specific rather than holistic (for example, focused only on an early warning system), and project-based and short-term, depending on targeted funding schemes (Lavell et al. 2025). Moreover, this might contribute to the instrumentalisation of DRR within a neoliberal agenda that encourages government agencies (and non-government organisations) to implement initiatives devised by international organisations, donor agencies and/or private companies (e.g. Cheek & Chmutina 2022; Gaillard 2021; Tierney 2015). Furthermore, international funding schemes directed to dedicated government agencies come with strings as per the injunctions of the International Monetary Fund’s and the World Bank’s structural adjustment programmes. As such, the establishment of designated institutions to promote DRR may be perceived as a means of control over the least powerful states.
This short article focuses on the implementation of DRR in Chile to show another ongoing consequence of well-intentioned disaster policies: critically, the obsession with everything-should-be-dedicated, that is, policy, institution and funding, has led to the creation of silos in disaster policy. As we show, with the implementation of a new disaster law, dedicated institutions, tools and funding schemes are turning DRR into another sectoral policy. This results in the differentiation of having some tools and agencies devoted to reducing risks, others to tackle climate change and its effects, and yet others to deal with land uses and development (Núñez 2023). Given the prominent neoliberal character of Chilean disaster policies (Carraro, Visconti & Inzunza 2021; Saavedra, Azócar de la Cruz & Fernández-Vicente 2021), also prevalent in other countries and regions, this siloed policy implementation moves attention away from the structural processes that lead to the creation of disaster risk in the first place (Bankoff & Hillhorst 2022; Wisner et al. 2025).
We analyse Chilean disaster policy from an instrumentation perspective, that is, understanding this policy as a condensed form of knowledge that is not neutral but actively produced through a set of devices (Lascoumes & Le Gales 2007). Lascoumes and Le Gales (2007:9) argue that ‘… instrumentation is really a political issue, as the choice of instrument – which, moreover, may form the object of political conflicts – will partly structure the process and its results’. Similarly, as argued by James C. Scott (1998), the state creates particular ‘projects of legibility’ that turn into practices of measurement and ways of seeing: the state and its institutions produce certain maps, tools, procedures, files, actions, programmes and so on. Thus, we focus on the Chilean disaster policy to describe how it has been implemented at the local level and how it is producing an ineffective DRR silo.
Up next, we describe the emergence of the new policy in a post-disaster context, particularly in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake and tsunami, given its role in producing an institutional crisis. Then, we focus on the subnational arrangements and tools created by this law, including the development of plans and municipal structures. We end by discussing some shortcomings of the siloed DRR.
The genesis and aims of Chilean disaster risk reduction policy
Despite the historical advancement of seismic norms and other disaster policies in Chile (Camus et al. 2016), the 8.8 MW earthquake and associated tsunami of 2010, on the 27 of February (27F hereafter), pushed forth myriad transformations. Its occurrence represented a profound institutional crisis in Chilean disaster policy (Cuevas & Flores 2020; Vergara-Saavedra & Ejsmentewicz 2024). The earthquake, and especially the tsunami, exposed a lack of coordination between technical State agencies that were responsible for monitoring seismic and tsunami threats and civil protection; as argued by Farías (2014), Chilean agencies misrecognised the tsunami as a threat due to different information and tensions between knowledges. This led to a widespread questioning of public policy and its institutions regarding their capabilities for emergency prevention and response, mainly as the expression of a traditionally reactive approach that characterised the then National Emergency Office (ONEMI [Oficina Nacional de Emergencia]). This office followed a policy paradigm focused on top-down, reactive response and short-term rehabilitation of the affected areas, with scant resources to implement plans and activities to mitigate and prevent risks (Cuevas & Flores 2020). Given the extent of social and political damage, and in the face of failures in the existing instrumentation, the 27F represents an institutional crisis that led to a transformation of disaster policy (Nohrstedt 2022).
Eventually, and after more than 10 years of parliamentary debate, the Law 21.364 was enacted in 2021 (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile [BCN] 2021). This law establishes a new normative framework to manage disaster risks, moving away from the emergency-centred ONEMI. It also created the new Servicio Nacional de Prevención y Respuesta ante Desastres (National Service for Disaster Prevention and Response, SENAPRED). The law redefined the roles and responsibilities of all state actors, emphasising inter-institutional and public–private coordination and enhancing subnational action at the regional, provincial and local levels. Conceptually, the law defines disaster risk management (DRM) as the:
… continual process of social, professional, technical and scientific character for the formulation, execution, monitoring and assessment of policies, plans, programmes, regulations, instruments, standards, measures and permanent actions for knowing and reducing disaster risks, with the purpose of avoiding the generation of new disaster risks, reducing the existing ones and managing residual risk. (BCN 2021:Art. 2)
From this overly technical, abstract and comprehensive conceptualisation, the law establishes actions throughout the pervasive disaster management cycle (Bosher, Chmutina & Van Niekerk 2021). As such, the law defines four phases: mitigation (reducing existing risks and avoiding creating new ones); preparation (actions related to prevention and warning); response (in time of emergency per se, aiming to save lives and reducing impacts); and recovery (including rehabilitation and reconstruction, aiming to reestablish ‘normal conditions’) (BCN 2021:Art. 3). The law defines DRR as ‘activities aimed at preventing new disaster risks, reducing existing disaster risks and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to the country’s sustainable development’ (BCN 2021:Art. 2). Institutional coordination is conducted through ad hoc committees depending on the government level, and the different stages of the disaster management cycle, and critically, the level of emergency. The law offers an event-focused definition of emergency and establishes different levels (minor, major, disastrous and catastrophic) depending on the area impacted as well as the number of people and the administrative levels affected (BCN 2021:Art. 2). This new law is undoubtedly an advancement for Chile, not only in comparison to the previous ONEMI, but also in understanding the social character of disaster risks as influenced by the SFDRR. This new disaster law includes a more complex assessment of risks and promotes institutional coordination. As we show in the next section, the law has also created a new set of governance tools at different levels.
Policy implementation at the subnational level
The new disaster law demands the elaboration of a number of emergency-related initiatives at the regional and provincial level, such as Emergency Plans, which are focused on response. However, it has also introduced new roles, competencies and tools for DRR to the different tiers of government, including the 345 municipalities in Chile. This includes the participation of elected authorities and technical parties in ad hoc committees for risk management (the Comités para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres [COGRID]); the demand to create DRM units at the local level; the development of local hazard maps; and the development of two plans at the local level: the emergency and the DRR plans (BCN 2021:Art. 27, 28, 32). These new functions demand emergent administrative and governance capacities, as well as the professionalisation (i.e. the need for formal training and qualifications, the development of expert knowledge on the topic, etc.) of local teams towards strategic planning in DRR and emergency response.
Formally, the new law forces the 345 Chilean municipalities to reorient local policies and instruments and consider DRR activities. However, while the Law 21.364 did create a Programme at the national level with a special budget for DRM instruments (BCN 2021:Art. 41), there is no special budget for local governments to enact these new policies and plans (Vergara-Saavedra & Ejsmentewicz 2024). The created Programme can be used by the regional, provincial and municipal levels, leading in practice to public funds for which local governments have to apply to and compete with other agencies. Given Chile’s spatial inequality, along with a funding structure of municipalities that forces them to self-fund part of their basic functioning (Montecinos 2022), municipal governments have had to resort to their own local budgets to support these new DRR instruments. In the context of incomplete decentralisation (Contreras, Guevara & Vásquez 2024), this means that local DRR instrumentation ends up competing with other priorities of local governments – and is not very high on the list, since DRR rarely leads to direct electoral gains.
Despite limited funding, it is interesting to have an overview of the law’s local implementation. As mentioned, the law mandates municipalities to have an Emergency Plan, that is, the management tool that coordinates the actions and capacities during the response phase, which includes annexes by hazards (BCN 2021: Art. 32); and a Disaster Risk Reduction Plan, which orients and manages the set of actions, initiatives, projects and programmes considering the risks present in the local government’s jurisdiction (BCN 2001:Art. 28). Servicio Nacional de Prevención y Respuesta ante Desastres encourages the creation of these through detailed instructions and publicly available templates,1 as well as through the individual application of governments to their funding programme. As a result, data from June 2025 show that local government agencies are making progress with both plans. As shown in Figure 1, the municipalities with no plans are the minority throughout the regions (except for Aysen). Furthermore, 87% of local municipalities have at least one plan; 82% of which have an emergency plan, and 40% have a DRR plan. Therefore, the law is, at least formally, influencing local DRR policies.
 |
FIGURE 1: Implementation of Emergency and DRR plans at the local level in Chile, by region. |
|
In practice, however, the plans show important deficiencies in delineating concrete activities with municipal funds, are scantly including communities and are still widely focused on emergencies (Baeza 2025; Silva Bustos 2024). When analysed side by side, the plans are rather generic instruments that tend to look the same and have similar content. This is the expression of how the plans are being developed in practice: frequently, a private contractor funded through SENAPRED’s Programme is hired to develop a number of local DRR and emergency plans in one particular region or territory. The advancement of the plans is, ultimately, the accomplishment of legal demands in the context of the new disaster law and not a politically driven initiative to reduce local risks effectively.
The advancement of DRR and emergency plans can be complemented by considering another dimension of the new legislation at the municipal level, as the new disaster law also mandates the creation of units dedicated to DRM (BCN 2021:Art. 45). These units, which have the function of supporting and coordinating DRM in local governments, as well as elaborating both plans, are created by local mayors, and thus, also supported by municipal budgets. A study focused on the law’s implementation in the O’Higgins region,2 in the centre-south of Chile, shows the advancement of the creation of DRM units, where 70% of the 33 municipalities have a structure dedicated to this (either called DRM office, department, units or directions). It is telling, however, that some of these are created or nested within units dedicated to other functions, including public security (i.e. functions related to crime governance), civil protection, and even public works; hence further narrowing down the scope of DRR to a secluded subfield within another governance portfolio. Such fragmentation takes DRR away from addressing the root causes of vulnerability grounded in people’s everyday lives. Moreover, given that municipal officials frequently share responsibilities with other departments, the same study shows that only 48% of municipalities have personnel dedicated solely to these DRM units, and furthermore, most only have one person working. Finally, the study shows that people in charge of DRM offices lack relevant professional qualifications: while there are safety engineers, sociologists or social workers, many others are business managers, construction experts, audiovisual communicators or accountants.
When looking at the formal implementation of the Chilean disaster policy, it seems that there are some advancements at the local level. There are new functions instrumentalised in tools, municipal structures and personnel. In practice, however, at the municipal level, the law operates more as a symbolic formality – an isolated pocket of DRR activity, sometimes of secondary importance and nested within other governance portfolios. The development of plans describes an ineffective advancement, as these are being created externally to the municipality just to comply with the law. Regarding the embedded character of DRM units, this shows less integration and more of a lack of interest in developing a proper DRR. For all these reasons, the advancements so far are rather shallow and solely to conform to the formalities of the new law and its instrumentation.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Law 21.364 and the creation of SENAPRED reflect the institutionalisation of DRR in Chilean subnational governance structures. The law has created decentralised units, tools and personnel. Surely, in many cases, local governments have prioritised disaster-related issues and gained important capacities to prevent and respond to disasters. The law and its implementation, however, mirror a rather ambivalent progress. There is a tension regarding formal and actual capacities towards DRR, as it forces local structures to create and manage new functions. As such, the creation of planning tools may be rather useless, trapping disaster risk issues into a silo. While this institutional apparatus represents a successful story of DRR from the perspective of the SFDRR, it nonetheless maintains a focus on emergencies and fails to engage with the root causes of risk creation.
As mentioned, the state creates a particular way of enacting its objectives, which includes certain practices that structure ways of measuring and acting upon the world and that produce particular results. Hence, there is a particular conceptualisation and instrumentation behind a policy such as the one advanced by SENAPRED: disasters remain technical issues, and nature an outside and controllable matter. It is often the alleged extra-ordinary nature of natural hazards that justifies the call for more dedicated funding; hazards that sit outside of the everyday social fabric and that hence require a standalone machinery to deal with them. This is a throwback in disguise to the civil defence, military-devised paradigm of the extreme that we thought was long gone, but now raises its head again as climate change leads to increased concerns about so-called ‘extreme events’ and margination of everyday risks.
It is our contention that it is hence time to go beyond such siloing of DRR and move towards resisting risk creation (Wisner & Lavell 2017). Indeed, preventing disaster risk creation neither relies upon dedicated institutions nor designated funding. Rather, reducing existing disaster risk and preventing the creation of new ones entails redressing the uneven distribution of power and resources in society to the benefit of people whose voices are usually unheard and who prove most vulnerable. The responsibility for such an agenda falls on multiple and diverse government agencies, international organisations, NGOs and responsible private companies all together. This is thus a matter of political commitment to reducing inequalities – a task of everyday that extends much beyond specific and ad hoc DRR initiatives designed by dedicated agencies.
Clearly, such an approach to DRR does not suggest that specific funding and designated institutions are useless. It is indeed helpful when requested by local actors to address their own concerns, especially challenges that people face in their daily lives. Our point is rather that the absence of dedicated institutions and funding should not be used as an excuse to evade responsibility in slacking when it comes to addressing the root causes of disaster risk. Indeed, our contention is that one can do much with few specific resources. In fact, calling for designated agencies and dedicated funding may further enclose DRR within its own silo. On the contrary, everyday investments in economic development, housing, education, health, social services, arts and culture and environmental stewardship have a much more significant impact towards strengthening people’s everyday livelihood and well-being and, therefore, reducing existing risks and preventing the creation of new ones.
Acknowledgements
The argument was partly presented at the University of Auckland (Waipapa Taumata Rau) in New Zealand (Aotearoa), as part of the Disaster Prevention and Management Seminar Series in February 2025. We are thankful to Cristian Leyton from the Universidad de O’Higgins, who provided comments on an early draft.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Ricardo Fuentealba: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – original draft and Writing – review & editing. JC Gaillard: Conceptualisation, Writing – original draft and Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This article is based on research funded by the ANID SIA Grant 85240326, the ANID Fondecyt Starting Grant #11240523 and the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Disaster Risk, Resilience and Recovery (CIGIDEN R+) (grant ANID/CIN250023), all from the Government of Chile.
Data availability
The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Ricardo Fuentealba, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Baeza, H., 2025, ‘Implementación de planes comunales para la reducción del riesgo de desastres en Chile: Estudio de caso en la comuna de Peñalolén entre los años 2021 y 2025’ [Implementation of communal plans for disaster reduction in Chile: Case study in the municipality of Peñalolén between the years 2021 and 2025], Undergraduate thesis, Universidad de Chile, Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Chile, viewed 11 March 2026, from https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/209221/implementacion-de-planes-comunales-para-la-reduccion-del-riesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Bankoff, G. & Hillhorst, D., 2022, Why vulnerability still matters. The politics of disaster risk creation, Routledge, New York, NY.
Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile (BCN), 2021, Ley No 21.364, que establece el Sistema Nacional de Prevención y Respuesta ante Desastres [Ley No 21.364, which establishes the National System of Prevention and Response to Disasters], viewed 28 July 2025, from https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1163423.
Bosher, L., Chmutina, K. & Van Niekerk, D., 2021, ‘Stop going around in circles: Towards a reconceptualisation of disaster risk management phases’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 30(4), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2021-0071
Camus, P., Arenas, F., Lagos, M. & Romero, A., 2016, ‘Visión histórica de la respuesta a las amenazas naturales en Chile y oportunidades de gestión del riesgo de desastre’ [Historical vision of the response to natural hazards in Chile and opportunities for disaster risk management], Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 64, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022016000200002
Carraro, V., Visconti, C. & Inzunza, S., 2021, ‘Neoliberal urbanism and disaster vulnerability on the Chilean central coast’, Geoforum 121, 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.023
Cheek, W. & Chmutina, K., 2022, ‘“ Building Back Better” is neoliberal post-disaster reconstruction’, Disasters 46(3), 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12502
Contreras, M., Guevara, G. & Vásquez, C., 2024, ‘La incompleta y renuente descentralización chilena: Un análisis multiescalar del sistema político-administrativo y sus recientes transformaciones’ [Chile’s incomplete and reluctant decentralization: A multi-scalar analysis of the political-administrative system and its recent transformations], Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 89, 104–131. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022024000300004
Cuevas, V. & Flores, C., 2020, ‘Capacidad del Estado ante Desastres Socionaturales: 27F en la Retina de Chile’ [State capacity in the face of socio-natural disasters: 27F in Chile’s collective memory], Revista Estado, Gobierno y Gestión Pública 34, 43–66. https://doi.org/10.5354/0717-8980.2020.58706
Farías, I., 2014, ‘Misrecognizing tsunamis: Ontological politics and cosmopolitical challenges in early warning systems’, The Sociological Review 62(1_suppl), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954x.12124
Gaillard, J., 2021, The invention of disaster: Power and knowledge in discourses on hazard and vulnerability, Routledge, London.
Lascoumes, P. & Le Gales, P., 2007, ‘Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments – From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation’, Governance 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00342.x
Lavell, A., Arnold, M., Bender, S., Benson, C., Gaillard, J., Keipi, K. et al., 2025, ‘Advances and challenges in DRR investment and financing: An analysis in three parts – Part II. Section 2: Expert perspectives on DRR investment and financing’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 34(5), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-04-2025-0130
Montecinos, E., 2022, ‘De la administración municipal al gobierno local en Chile, ¿qué nos falta? Aporte sobre la planificación territorial y la participación ciudadana’ [From municipal administration to local government in Chile: What are we missing? Insights on territorial planning and citizen participation], Revista Iberoamericana de Gobierno Local 22, viewed 08 August 2025, from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9185494.
Nohrstedt, D., 2022, ‘When do disasters spark transformative policy change and why?’, Policy & Politics 50(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16508834302815
Núñez, D.A., 2023, ‘Desafíos de gobernanza nacional y comunal de Chile, a partir del nuevo ordenamiento jurídico e institucional del cambio climático, gestión del riesgo de desastres y ordenamiento territorial’ [Challenges for national and local governance in Chile arising from the new legal and institutional framework for climate change, disaster risk management, and land-use planning], Master’s thesis, Universidad de Chile, Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Chile, viewed 11 March 2026, from https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/199474.
Saavedra, J., Azócar de la Cruz, G. & Fernández-Vicente, P., 2021, ‘Neoliberalism of disaster and long-term recovery: The case of the 2010 earthquake in Talcahuano, Chile’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 61, 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102356
Scott, J.C., 1998, Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Silva Bustos, N., 2024, ‘Efecto de la Planificación para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres en Chile: El Caso del Plan Comunal de Licantén’ [The impact of disaster risk management planning in Chile: The case of the Licantén Municipal Plan], Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos Sobre Reducción Del Riesgo de Desastres REDER 8(2), 198. https://doi.org/10.55467/reder.v8i2.167
Tierney, K., 2015, ‘Resilience and the neoliberal project: Discourses, critiques, practices – And Katrina’, American Behavioral Scientist 59(10), 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215591187
UNISDR, 2007, Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters, viewed from https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/1217.
UNISDR, 2015, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030, The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 08 August 2025, from https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), 2017, The Sendai framework terminology on disaster risk reduction. ‘Disaster risk reduction’, viewed 03 June 2026, from https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-reduction.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), 2023, The report of the midterm review of the implementation of the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030, UNDRR, Geneva.
Vergara-Saavedra, P. & Ejsmentewicz, D., 2024, ‘Implementación de nueva institucionalidad para la Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres en Chile: Reflexiones sobre los avances y desafíos para la gestión del riesgo de desastres’ [Implementation of a new institutional framework for disaster risk reduction in Chile: Reflections on progress and challenges in disaster risk management], Polis 23(67), 49.
Wisner, B., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Gaillard, J., Kelman, I. & Marchezini, V., 2025, Understanding and addressing disaster risk. Who speaks? Who suffers? Routledge, Abingdon.
Wisner, B. & Lavell, A., 2017, ‘The next paradigm shift: From disaster risk reduction to resisting disaster risk creation (DRR > RDRC)’, paper presented at the Dealing with Disasters Conference, University of Durham, Durham, 20th September.
Footnotes
1. See BiblioGRD section in the SENAPRED webpage, viewed 06 August 2025, from https://bibliogrd.senapred.gob.cl/handle/123456789/3363.
2. Unpublished report ‘Informe diagnóstico: Gobernanza del riesgo de desastre en comunas de la región del Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins’, developed as part of the SIA Project 85240326 funded by ANID. It focused on this region for the recent occurrence of disasters, with relevant floods occurring in June and August 2023. The aim of this study was to characterize the municipal units associated to DRM functions in the region, through assessing the 33 municipalities’ organization charts, human capital and installed capacities. The main sources were municipal web pages and transparency records.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
