Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 32, Number 2, 2011, pp79-88

Developing Disaster Risk ScienceʊDiscussion on the Disaster Reduction Implementation Scienceʊ

Peijun SHI*,**,***Wei XU*,***Tao YE*,***
Chunyang HE*,*****Jing’ai WANG*,**,****
Ning LI*,**,****State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100875, China;**Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster; Ministry of Education of China, Beijing
Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;***Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management, Ministry of Civil Affairs & Ministry of
Education, Beijing 100875, China;****School of Geography, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875;*****College of Resources Sceicne and Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China(Received January 8, 2011 Accepted April 2, 2011)
ABSTRACT
By reviewing the disaster reduction implementation science system, the necessity ofdeveloping disaster risk science is discussed and its preliminary framework is proposedin this paper. At the third IIASA-DPRI Forum on Integrated Disaster Risk Management,
Okada (2003) presented the disaster reduction implementation science system, that is,
the Networking of Vitae System, and expatiated on the structure, function, and system
dynamic issues of integrated risk management. Inßuenced by the Vitae System of integrated
risk management and based on the disaster system framework proposed by Shi in 1991,
the authors examine the three basic components of disaster risk science, that is, disasterscience, emergency technology, and risk management. Building upon these discussions,the structure, function, and dynamic system of integrated risk management are further
explored, with the understanding that the core of integrated risk management is to optimize
development and disaster reduction, to combine governmental and non-governmental
disaster reduction actions, to integrate structural and non-structural countermeasures, andÞnally to form the regional integrated disaster reduction paradigm.
Keyword: Integrated risk governance, structure and function, system dynamics, regional
disaster reduction paradigm, disaster reduction implementation science79

P. SHI, W. XU, T. YE, C. HE, J. WANG, N. LI

The increase of global disaster risk is closely
linked with global environmental changes (WMO,
2007). However, for decision making on integrated
risk governance, further analyses and studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms and processes of such relationship. Recently, a great number of scholars in thedisaster reduction field around the world have tried
to explore the internal relationships between hazards
and disasters from the complex processes of disaster
formation and disaster risks, especially by focusing
on the role of social systems, economic systems, andnatural environments in these processes. Also, a large
number of work on developing the theories and methodologies of integrated disaster risk research havebeen carried out. A new cross-disciplinary science, thedisaster risk science, is coming into being (Shi, 2006).
At the third IIASA-DPRI Forum on Integrated
Disaster Risk Management in 2003, Okada at the Disaster Prevention Research Institute of Kyoto University, Japan proposed the disaster reduction implementation science system to promote integrated disasterrisk management, and the Vitae System, which has
three basic cardinal functions: “to stay alive”, “to live
lively”, and “to live together”, as the new conceptual
framework for integrated disaster risk management(Okada, 2003). Based on this theory, through the Pagoda Model, the Octopus Model, and the Case Station
and Field Campus (CASiFiCA) paradigm, Okada had
also expatiated on the theories and methodologies ofdisaster risk science. As a starting point, this paper
provides a brief review of the schools of integrated
risk governance, with a special focus on the disaster
reduction implementation science system.

els are summarized into five schools of integrated risk
governance as follows.
1.1 The Capacity School of Integrated Risk
Governance
The UN/ISDR Secretariat published the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disaster, which
was proposed at the International Disaster Reduction
Conference on 18th–22nd, January, 2005 in Kobeof Hyogo, Japan. The core of the framework is “toensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and alocal priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation; to identify, assess and monitor disasterrisks and enhance early warning; to use knowledge,
innovation and education to build a culture of safety
and resilience at all levels; to reduce the underlying
risk factors; and to strengthen disaster preparednessfor effective response at all levels” (UN/ISDR, 2007)(Figure 1). The framework emphasizes that capacity
building of a commnity or a region is especially important for integrated disaster risk management.
1.2 The Policy School of Integrated Risk
GovernanceIn 2005, the International Risk GovernanceCouncil (IRGC) released a framework for integrated
risk governance. The key content of the frameworkis that integrated risk governance is composed of science based risk assessment, policy based risk management and risk communication, that is, interactive
exchange of information and opinions concerning
risks (IGRC, 2007) (Figure 2). In this framework, risk
communication is the core serving as the bridge to integrate risk understanding and decision making (Figure 3). Besides disaster risks, terror, technology, andmarket risks are also focuses of this school. Policy
issues and information sharing mechanism have beenemphasized for risk analysis.

1. The Schools of Integrated Risk Governance
Since the United Nations carried out disaster reduction actions in the last decade of the 20th century,
several terms, including disaster, disaster reduction,
large-scale disaster risk governance, and integrated
risk management, have frequently appeared in related
journal papers, books, and governmental documents.
Scholars in different research fields and practitioner
with varied knowledge and backgrounds, from various points of view, all emphasized the importance of
research on integrated risk governance and together,developed a large number of conceptual frameworks
and models. In this paper, these frameworks and mod-1.3 The Sustainable Development School ofIntegrated Risk Governance
The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP)
focuses on the effects of global change on sustainable development, and the IGBP, IHDP, and WCRR
emphasize implementing regional and global sustainable development by integrated risk governance. The
Graduate School of Geography of Clark University,80

DEVELOPING DISASTER RISK SCIENCE

Expected Outcome
The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social,economic and environmental assets of communities and countries

Strategic Goals
The integration of disaster risk
reduction
intosustainable
development policies and planning

Development and strengthening ofinstitutions,mechanisms
andcapacities to build resilience tohazards

The systematic incorporation of risk
reduction approaches into the implementationof emergency preparedness, response andrecovery programmes

Priorities for Action
Ensure that disaster risk
reduction is a national anda local priority with astrong institutional basis
for implementation

Identify, assess andmonitor disasterrisks and enhanceearly warning

Use knowledge,
innovation andeducation to build aculture of safety andresilience at all levels

Reduce theunderlying risk
factors

Strengthen disaster
preparedness for
effective response
at all levels

Cross Cutting Issues
Multi-hazard approach

Gender perspective andcultural diversity

Community andvolunteers participation

Capacity building andtechnology transfer

Figure 1 Summary of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters (Hyogo Framework, modified)Figure 2 Framework for integrated disaster risk
analysis (IGRC)

Figure 3 Framework for integrated risk governance (IRGC)

USA, and the Institute for Environment and Human
Security of United Nations University, Japan are two
typical organizations agreeing with this viewpoint.
The core of this school is to establish the integrated
assessment model system for vulnerability, resilience,
and adaptation to disaster risks, to integrate risk governance and vulnerability reduction strategies into
sustainable development, and to develop regional sustainability paradigm based on economic development,social equality, and ecological security (Serageldin,
1995) (Figure 4). Subsequently several models of

Economic
Sustainable growth
Capital Efficiency

SocialEquitySocial mobility
Participation
Empowerment

Ecological
Ecosystem integrity
Natural Resources
Biodiversity
Carrying capacity

Figure 4 Serageldin’s triangle of sustainability
81

P. SHI, W. XU, T. YE, C. HE, J. WANG, N. LI
Scale of consideration
National
State orProvince
District orMunicipal
Local orCommunity
Single unit orhouse
Human being
Physical
Functional
Economic
GenderAdministrative
Environmental

Components of Vulnerability

Figure 5 Framework for vulnerability introducing the notion of independent dimensions of scale of consideration, components, and sectors

Figure 6 The vulnerability framework (Turner et al, 2003)
vulnerability by integrating sustainability into disasterrisk governance have been proposed (e.g., Figure 5
and Figure 6) (UNU-EHS, 2006; Turner et al., 2003).
Overall, this school emphasizes on balancing disasterrisk management and sustainable development.

implementation science system from the viewpointsof the structure and function of disaster system. The
core of the Vitae System School is to develop theVitae System for enhancing community’s coping capacity, through integrating the Pagoda Model (Figure7) and the Octopus Model (Figure 8), and to enhance
implementation of the disaster reduction implementation science through the Case Station and Field
Campus (CASiFiCA) paradigm. A detailed discussion

1.4 The Vitae School of Integrated Risk
GovernanceOkada (2003) proposed the disaster reduction82

DEVELOPING DISASTER RISK SCIENCEof this school’s approaches is provided in the second
part of this paper.

Figure 9a Structure of a disaster system

Figure 7 Pagoda Model

Figure 9b Function of a disaster system

Figure 8 Octopus Model

Figure 10 Structure of the disaster system by Mileti

1.5 The System School of Integrated Risk
GovernanceIn 1991, Shi attempted to find an effective way
for integrated risk governance from the viewpoint ofdisaster system (Figure 9) (Shi, 1991). In this system,
disaster risk is closely related to the stability of theenvironment, the intensity and frequency of the hazard, and the vulnerability of the exposure. In 1999,
Mileti also addressed the issue of integrated disasterrisk from this viewpoint (Figure 10) (Mileti, 1999). In
this system, disaster risk is closely related to the stability of the environment (atmosphere, hydrosphere,
biosphere and lithosphere), the vulnerability of human system (demographics, culture, economic andtechnology, etc.) and structure system (the structureof built environment). The main focus of this school
is on the structure and function of disaster systems aswell as their dynamic and non-dynamic activities, andthe dynamic and non-dynamic models of these systems.

Scholars in these schools of integrated risk governance have different backgrounds, viewpoints, andfocuses, but all agree that development and disaster
reduction need to be synchronized, technology andmanagement need to be integrated, and research andimplementation need to go hand in hand.
2. Understanding the Disaster Reduction
Implementation Science
From a multi-disciplinary perspective, Okada
and his group in the Kyoto University have carriedout in-depth studies on integrated risk governance.
Recently, DPRI and IIASA have made fruitful cooperation and advanced the disaster reduction implementation science system research by jointly organizing
the Forum on Integrated Disaster Risk Management.
2.1 The Vitae System
At the third IIASA-DPRI Forum in 2003, Okada
83

P. SHI, W. XU, T. YE, C. HE, J. WANG, N. LI

proposed the Vitae System for integrated disaster risk
management. This model takes cities, regions andcommunities as living (vital) integrity (or living body)with robustness and resilience in its coping capacity.
Each living body has three cardinal functions, that is,(i) “Survivability” (to live through or become alive),(ii) “Vitality” (to live lively), and (iii) Conviviality (tolive together or communicate).

risk management needs to systematize and link any
particular, specialized knowledge and technology to
relevant policy concerns and governance issues. Okada depicted such multidisciplinary approach using an
Octopus Model as shown in Figure 8 (Okada 2003),
and stated that disaster risk management needs multiple legs (polyped) that cling to other interconnectedareas.
2.4 PDCA cycle and urban diagnosis
The PDCA cycle (Figure 12), with the continuous improvement cycle of “Plan”, “Do”, “Check” and“Act” was advocated by Shewhart and Deming after
the World War II (Aguayo, 1991), and used for production management and quality control in industries.
Seƫng up communicaƟon
plaƞorm for policy development

Act
Urban
diagnosis

Figure 11 The Vitae System
Planning policy
making/revising

As Figure 11 shows, the model is depicted as atriangule with three nodes representing fundamental
functions of any living body. The area of the triangle
represents the degree of viability, a property characterizing the range of coping capacity. The Vitae System has the properties of “holism”, “biorhythm” and“communalism”.

PlanManagement
cycle

Check

Observingcurrent state

Do
ImplemenƟng
policyFigure 12 PDCA Cycle

2.2 The Pagoda Model
Okada proposed this conceptual model to broaden the scope of disaster management. The point was
to envision the region (land, city, and community) as
a vital (living) common space represented by a fivestoried pagoda model as depicted in Figure 7 (Okada,2002). The top layer corresponds to “living activities,” the second to “land-use and built-environment,”
the third to “infrastructure,” the fourth to “social
environment,” and the fifth (bottom) to “natural environment.” Much of disaster risk is commonly latentand spatially/temporally distributed across a region.
Moreover social hazards may lie in ambush overniches between different layers in the spatial/temporalsystem of the pagoda.

This cycle fits well with the evolving perspectiveof participatory disaster planning and management.
In the cases of participatory community planning, allstakeholders (local government, local people, NGOs/
NPOs, and/or experts) need to share information on
the status quo and their knowledge in the community
before they start the planning. Okada (2002) introduced this PDCA cycle into urban risk managementtasks called “urban diagnosis”, which emphasizes thediagnosis of the status quo based on the practice of“Check” and “Act” before “Plan”. Thus the cycle isaslo called CAPD cycle in the fields of disaster risk
management. This management method is also suggested to help participating agents to share the current
condition and to provide a communication platform
for disaster preparedness policy making.

2.3 Octopus Model
Since disasters are complex systems, disaster2.5 CASiFiCA
Due to the very complex nature of natural di84

DEVELOPING DISASTER RISK SCIENCE

sasters and risks, risk reduction research erequiresthat researchers from relevant fields work together
to affect a change towards a safer society. Such aninterdisciplinary research has largely been difficult
owing to the very nature of the problems and theirsolutions. Case Stations and Field Campus, proposedby Okada in 2005, has proven to be an excellent tool
for assessing the feasibility of implementing scientificand policy advancements in the field of disaster risk
reduction research. These methodologies effectively
integrate various disaster risk reduction technologies,
principles, practices, and policies at a pilot locationand try to study their net impact on ultimate reductionof risk and fostering sustainable development.

is that the disaster risk science system should havethree components, that is, disaster science, emergency
technology, and risk management.
3.1 Disaster Risk Science System
Disaster Science

Assessments

Emergency Technology

IRG

Models

Policies

Risk Management

Figure 14 Disaster Risk Science
Figure 14 shows the three components of thedisaster risk science. Disaster science is the complex
science concerning the formation mechanisms andchange processes of disaster systemes, as well as
disaster reduction countermeasures (Shi, 2002). A disaster system is a complex system of the earth surface(Shi, 1991) and an interactive and integral entity ofhuman beings and the nature. It is composed of thestructure system consisting of hazard, exposure, andhazard-formative environment, and the function system consisting of vulnerability, complexity, and adaptation (Shi, 2002, 2005) (Figure 9a and Figure 9b).
The change of the disaster system is determined by its
dynamic and non-dynamic processes (Shi, 2005). The
countermeasures of disaster reduction mainly include
preparedness, emergency response, and restoration
and reconstruction, which are referred to as disasterprevention, disaster resistance, and disaster relief in
the Chinese disaster reduction actions.
Emergency technology is the technology set
used in emergency response planning, action, andcommand for disaster emergency management. Emergency plans include general principles, institutions,the organization of operations, emergency response
support, and monitoring and management for local or
central government to deal with disasters. Generally,
emergency response plans can be categorized into
six types: general plans, special plans, sectoral, local
plans, plans for enterprises and organizations, andplans for large-scale activities. Emergency response
action is a series of countermeasures including forecast, early warming, emergency handling, restoration
and reconstruction, and information dissemination by

Figure 13 CASiFiCA
Together, the Vitae System, the Pagoda Model,
the Octopus Model, the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” Model,
and the Case Station and Field Campus paradigm,
which are mutually interdependent, describe the driving force, structure, function, response, and paradigm
of disaster systems in the disaster reduction implementation science.
3. Developing Disaster Risk Science
Continuous and in-depth research on integrated
disaster risk management promotes the formation ofdisaster risk science. The studies on disasters can bedivided into three schools, namely, hazard school,
exposure school, and hazard-formative environment
school (Shi, 1996). Likewise, the studies on integrated risk governance have been summarized into
five schools as discussed in the first part of this paper.
Illuminated and influenced by the ideas of disaster
reduction implementation science, this paper proposes
to further develop the disaster risk science. Our view85

P. SHI, W. XU, T. YE, C. HE, J. WANG, N. LI

following the emergency response plans. Emergency
response command is the institution and organization (the leading groups, operational groups, working groups, and expert groups), emergency response
support system (human resources, financial supports,
public facilities, science and technology supports,and so on), and emergency response monitoring andmanagement (drills, propaganda and trainings, and a
responsibility and reward system) corresponding todifferent disaster levels as stipulated in emergency
response plans.
Risk management is a part of public administration that consists of disaster risk identification, risk
classification and assessment, modeling, response,
and adaptation. Disaster risk identification is to examine hidden risks of a region, an enterprise, or an
organization according to corresponding criteria. Risk
classification is to determine risk types and risk levels
based oncertain indicators. Risk assessment is to assess risk levels using models and certain standards.
Risk modeling is to simulate potential disaster risksof the above mentioned entities. Risk response is thepreventative measures to disaster risks taken by these
entities following the results of risk assessment. And
risk adaptation is a series of adjustments made to theplans and actions of these entities in accordance withestimated disaster risks.

perspective, that is, to discuss integration from thescience, technology, and management fields of integrated risk governance. The second is to deepen our
understanding and to carry out integration crossing
scales, that is, to integrate from the macro, meso andmicro scales of integrated risk governance. Based onthese, it is recognized that: (1) multiple stakeholders
including the government, communities, organizations, households, and individuals all need to be involved; (2) multiple actions such as structural (hard)and non-structural (soft) countermeasures need becoordinated; (3) multiple stages of activities, that is,
activities before, during, and after a disaster need be
integrated; and (4) given the multiple system characteristic, it is necessary to optimize the integration ofsystems by integrating the multi-stakeholder, multiaction, and multi-stages of activity systems (Figure15) (Shi, 2007).
Multi-action (Coordination)

Structural

Non-structural
Multi-system (Optimization)

C1

Individual Household Institute Community
Government Multi-stakeholder
Before(Cooperation)

C2

DuringC3

3.2 Integrated Risk GovernanceDisaster systems are characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and diversity and are global andintegrative in nature. Therefore, disaster risk governance, integrated disaster reduction, and emergency
management need to be carried out in an integrated
way. Scholars and practitioners have attempted toanswer the questions of “what to integrate” and “howto integrate” in integrated disaster risk management.
However, these still remain open questions. Based on
our long-term study and understanding of disaster risk
management, the authors put forward the following
viewpoints for discussion.

After

Multi-stage (Organization)

C1: Construction
C2: Communication
C3: Clarification

Figure 15 Three Dimensional Paradigm of Integrated
Risk Governance3.2.2 How to integrate?
After the contents for integration are determined,
the next question is how to integrate in disaster risk
governance. Recently, the question of how to integrate has generated a large amount of discussions
by scholars from various traditions. Generally, there
are four approaches having been proposed. The firstis to organize workshops (conferences or forums)
involving multi-disciplinary, multi-field and multidepartmental participants to explore the ways to carryout integrated risk governance through brainstorming.
Discussions on integrated risk governance at the annual meetings (conference or forum) of Internatonal
Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC), World Confer-

3.2.1 What should be integrated?
Disaster system is a complex system of the surface of the earth as mentioned above, therefore two
principles should be adhered to in integrated risk
governance. The first is to deepen our understanding
and to carry out integration from a multi-disciplinary86

DEVELOPING DISASTER RISK SCIENCE

ence on Disaster Reduction (WCDR), International
Risk Governance Council (IGRC) and IIASA-DPRI
are evidences of such attempts. The second is to develop information sharing network to speed up theprocess of risk information sharing. For example, theUN/ISDR secretariat is setting up the Global Platformfor Disaster Risk Reduction (GP/DRR); the Disaster
Reduction Hyperbase-Asian (DRH-Asian) is underconstruction in Japan; and the Integrated Risk Governance Network (iRiskNet|IRG-China) is being developed in China. The third is to develop integrated risk
mapping, for example, the map of Hotspots of Global
Disaster Risk jointly developed by the UNDP and theWorld Bank, and the national first generation integrated disaster risk map in China. The fourth is to develop
various models to simulate the evolution of disasterrisks. Such examples are the Alliance for Global Open
Risk Analysis developed by the Kyoto University ofJapan, the System of System developed by the Old
Dominion University of USA, and the Integrated Risk
Governance System Dynamics developed by the Beijing Normal University of China.

regional political, economic and cultural systems ofconcern by (1) cooperation among different stakeholders such as the government, communities, organizations, households, and individuals; (2) coordinationof structural countermeasures with non-structuralcountermeasures; (3) integration of preparedness,
emergency response, restoration and reconstruction;and (4) optimization of such multi-stakeholder, multiaction and multi-stage activities. That is to say, it is tointegrate the coordination institutions between central
and local level activities, the cooperation mechanisms
among different stakeholders, and the legal systemgoverning such coordination and cooperation.
4. Conclusion
This paper has summarized the schools of integrated risk governance, discussed the disaster reduction implementation science, and put forward a preliminary framework of disaster risk science. We havefound that there are five schools of integrated risk
governance, namely, the Capacity School, the Policy
School, the Sustainable Development School, the Vitae School, and the System School. The Vitae System,
the Pagoda Model, the Octopus Model, the “Plan-DoCheck-Act” Model, and the Case Station and Field
Campus” paradigm describe the driving force, structure, function, response, and paradigm of disaster systems in the disaster reduction implementation science.
Disaster risk science is composed of the disaster science to understand the structure, function, and driving
force of disaster systems; emergency technology to
improve disaster handling; and risk management tostandardize disaster responses. To complete the disaster risk science system and to improve and enhance
regional or industrial integrated risk governance capacity, establishing typical cases and integrated disaster reduction paradigms would be necessary in future
research.

3.3 Integrated Risk Governance Paradigms
To affect integrated risk governance requires todevelop exemplary cases that can be replicated elsewhere, that is, the integrated risk governance paradigm, taking into account regional political, cultural,
economic, and social characteristics. For example,
Roger Kasperson and his colleagues at Clark University, USA have studied the critical zone with nine
typical case study areas (Kasperson, 1995), Norio
Okada and his colleagues at the Kyoto University, Japan have proposed the Case Station and Field Campus(CASiFiCA) methods (Okada, 2005), and Peijun Shi
and his colleagues have developed the Paradigm ofIntegrated Disaster Risk Reduction of China (PIDRR)(Shi, 2005). The core purpose of these activities is toimplement integrated risk governance, and to enhanceand improve regional integrated disaster reduction
capacity and risk governance level for large-scale disasters by cooperation, integration, coordination, andoptimization in a given region. Achieving these goals
will help to lay the foundation for building safer communities, regions, countries, and a safer world, and toensure a sustainable development of the world.
The essence of these paradigms is to implement
the integrated risk governance appropriate for the

REFERENCE
Aguayo R, 1991. Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught
the Japanese about Quality, Fireside,.
IRGC, White Paper No.1, Risk Governance – Towards an
Integrative Approach. Available: http://www.irgc.org
IRGC, 2007. Available: http://www.irgc.org
Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, and Turner BL, 1995. Region

87

P. SHI, W. XU, T. YE, C. HE, J. WANG, N. LI

Shi P, 2007. Regional Integrated Disaster Risk Manage-at Risk. United Nations University Press, Tokyo – New

ment. In: Li L. et al. eds., Disaster Emergency Treat-

York – Paris.

ment and Integrated Disaster Reduction, Peking Uni-

Mileti D S, 1999. Natural Hazards and Disasters – Disasters

versity Press, pp.274-288 (in Chinese).

by Design, Washington: Joseph Henry Press.
Okada N, 2002. Disaster Mitigative Urban Diagnosis

Shi P, Guo W, and Li B, et at., 2005. Disaster Reduction and(DiMUDnosis) Viewed as Process of Risk Manage-

Sustainable Development: Adjustment of Disaster Re-

ment, 2nd Japan China Joint EQTAP Meeting on Ur-

duction Strategies of China based on “The 2nd Worldban Disaster Risk Management, Beijing, China, 2002.

Conference on Disaster Reduction, 2005”. Journal of
Natural Disasters, Vol.14, No.3, pp.1-7 (in Chinese).

Okada N, 2003. Integrated Disaster Risk Management. 3rd

Shi P, Li N, and Liu J, et al., 2006. Discussion on Harmoni-

IIASA-DPRI Forum, Kyoto, Japan, 3-5 July.
Okada N, 2005. Placing the Research Stream of Integrated

zation Way of Development and Disaster Reduction:

Disaster Risk Management (IDRiM) In Retrospect andHarmonization Strategies of Development and Disaster

Prospect, 5th IIASA-DPRI Forum, Beijing, China, 14-

Reduction in China based on “The International Disas-

18 September.

ter Reduction Conference, Davos, 2006”. Journal of
Natural Disasters, Vol.15, No.6, pp.1-8 (in Chinese).

Serageldin I, 1995. Promoting Sustainable Development:
Towards a New Paradigm, in Serageldin I, and Steer A

Shi P, Shao L, and Zhao Z, et al, 2007. On Integrated Disas-

eds, Valuing the Environment: Proceedings of the First

ter Risk Governance: Seeking for Adaptive Strategies

Annual International Conference on Environmentallyfor Global Change. Earth Science Frontiers, Vol.14,

Sustainable Development, Washington D.C.: World

No.14(in print and in Chinese).
Turner B L, Kasperson R E, and Matson D A, et al., 2003.

Bank, pp.13-21.
Shi P, 1991. Theory and Practice on Disaster System. Jour-

A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainable

nal of Nanjing University (Natural Sciences), Special

Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-

Issue for Natural Disaster, pp.37-41(in Chinese).

ence, 100(14): 8074-8079.

Shi P, 1996. Theory and Practice of Disaster Study. Journal

UN/EHS, 2006. Vulnerability – A Conceptual and Method-of Natural Disasters, Vol.4, No.4, pp.6-15 (in Chinese).

ological Review (Juan Carlos Villagrán de León), No.
4.

Shi P, 2002. Theory on Disaster Science and Disaster Dynamics. Journal of Natural Disasters, Vol.11, No.3,

UN/ISDR, 2007. Available: http://www.unisdr.org

pp.1-9 (in Chinese).

WMO, 2007. Climate Changes, 2007. The Physical Science
Basis, Summary for Policy Makers, IPCC WGI Forth

Shi P, 2005. Theory and Practice on Disaster System Re-

Assessment Report, Paris, February, 2007.

search in a Fourth Time, Journal of Natural Disasters,
Vol.14, No.6, pp.1-7 (in Chinese).

88