Climatologic

A Global Outlook on
Hydrological
Environmental
Disaster Science
Extra-terrestri
MeteorologicalJapan is the most specialized prolific country
in disaster science

japan

China is the most prolific country
in disaster science

Technological

Biologic
Geophysical Transportation
Chemical & Radiologicalchina

mexicounited states
The USA is the second most prolific country
in disaster scienceindia

united kingdom
Brazil’s disaster science research has highscholarly impact

francegermany
italy

er
to scie
pr nceov
ide acco
ins rdingights

brazil

st
isa g
d
in
t in mac , aip
im tion ies
and educ genctaRpu
out Risk ding
y
l
r
a
fun
ster
chol
ent s or Disa , and
c
e
r
f
o
An analysis
ions
ork f
amew institut
r
F
i
a
d
to the Sen
earchts, res
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
to go

A Global Outlook on
Disaster Science
An analysis of recent scholarly output and impact in disaster science according
to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, aiming to provide insights
to governments, research institutions, and funding agencies

2

a global outlook on disaster sciencePrefaces

Elsevier
Every year, natural and man-made disasters destroy and displace lives, and thefrequency of disasters has increased over the past 50 years. Disasters lead toloss of property and disrupted infrastructure, and slow societal development.
The increase in the earth’s population and its concentration to cities andcoastal areas have made us more vulnerable to disasters and have exacerbateddisaster impact. Climate change demands a greater sense of urgency for us asa society to prepare and build resilience against, for instance, sea level rise andheat waves. Policies and actions, by corporations and governments alike, areurgently needed to mitigate anthropogenic and natural hazards and support
disaster risk reduction as well as disaster relief.
Science and technology have an important role to play in reducing disaster
risk, for instance, via improved weather predictions, the development ofearthquake-resilient infrastructure, and the development of pandemic
vaccines. In 2015, at the Third United Nations (UN) World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction, the UN facilitated the adoption of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 by 187 member states. The
framework calls for a stronger role for science and technology in practical risk
reduction and in supporting response and recovery after disasters. In a wider
context, disaster management is featured in 25 targets in 10 of the UN’s 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
As a global information analytics business specializing in science, technology,
engineering, and health, Elsevier provides a platform for the interaction ofscientific and policy communities in the field of science for disaster risk
reduction. We do so through the publication of relevant journals, such as
the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ↗, through our books on the
topic, and increasingly through our data analytics and engagements. For thecurrent report, A Global Outlook on Disaster Science ↗, we partnered with leadinginternational institutions and drew upon high-quality global data to examine
the state of worldwide disaster science research. With this report, we wish todescribe the field of disaster science and contribute to evidence-based disasterrisk reduction policy development and implementation.
This report is part of Elsevier’s continued commitment to support the UN
SDGs, and follows our reports Sustainability in the Global Research Landscape ↗
and Gender in the Global Research Landscape ↗, as well as our engagement of the
RELX Group SDG Resource Center ↗. On behalf of Elsevier, I wish to extend
our sincerest appreciation to our partners and experts for their advice on
this report’s development, including their input on the research questions,
methodologies, analytics, and their comments on the policy context. Our hopeis that the data and insights in this report will inspire further discussions on
how disaster science can support disaster risk reduction, response, recovery,and how science can help build a safer and better world.
Ron Mobed
Chief Executive Officer
Elsevierprefaces

3International Council for Science(ICSU)

Association of Pacific Rim
Universities (APRU)

The impacts of disasters around the world are increasing,as has been, and very unfortunately, demonstrated by
the devastating storms, hurricanes, and flooding in latesummer and early fall of 2017 in the Caribbean. There is anurgent need for integrated, science-based actions to addressthese disasters to reduce their impacts on all countries. The
mission of the International Council for Science (ICSU),
the leading non-governmental global science organization,
is “to strengthen international science for the benefit ofsociety.”

For this ground-breaking report, Elsevier has convened key
international leaders in the field to bring into focus thestate of disaster science research. APRU is pleased to be apartner in this endeavor and is committed to connecting
international science to policymaking through thiscollaboration.

To do this, we need a world where excellence in thesciences is effectively translated into policymaking andsocioeconomic development. ICSU has co-sponsored theWorld Climate Research Programme since its founding
in 1980 and now is a major co-sponsor of the Integrated
Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) program, Future
Earth: Research for Global Sustainability and Urban
Health and Well-Being. ICSU has also been a major
scientific contributor to the Agenda 2015-2030, the Paris
Agreement on Climate Change, the Sendai Framework
for Action, and the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. These international agreements need strong
and continuing scientific input to achieve their targets.
The IRDR program, formally established in 2008 with
the International Social Sciences Council (ISSC) andUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction as cosponsors, is a leading example of the type of integrated,transdisciplinary approach to disaster science that isneeded for the benefit of all societies. The IRDR objectives
are to support science that is focused on understanding
and predicting hazards, vulnerability and risk; effective
decision making and improving risk interpretation toaction; and strategies for reducing risk and curbing losses.
A dozen IRDR International Centers of Excellence arenow established around the world. It is critical that thisresearch be supported and its results are communicatedto the global community, and that leading scientists
worldwide are involved in disaster science research andthe communication of knowledge and advice to the global
community, including policymakers and disaster risk
reduction managers.

One of APRU’s major initiatives, the APRU Multi-Hazards
Program, has been a key player in building disaster scienceto-policy connections. Led by the International Instituteof Disaster Sciences (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University, thisprogram harnesses the collective capabilities of APRU
universities around the Pacific Rim for cutting-edge
research on disaster risk reduction and contributes tointernational policymaking processes. For the past five
years, the APRU Multi-Hazards Program has been shaping
educational outputs, research impact, and trending topics
in disaster risk reduction research, both globally and within
Asia. The APRU Multi-Hazards Program and IRIDeS havecollaborated with Elsevier to conceive and develop thisbenchmark report.
With the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme
disaster events, this report is timely. It provides aninvaluable snapshot of the current status of disaster science
research.
Together with our partners, we intend that this reportwill make a strong contribution to policymaking globally,
improving the way we forecast, prepare for, and respond todisasters at a time of urgent need.
Christopher Tremewan
Secretary General
The Association of Pacific Rim Universities(APRU)For these reasons, ICSU is dedicated to working with theinternational governmental community to ensure that
there is universal and equitable access to scientific dataand information, all countries develop scientific capacity,
scientists have the freedom to do science, and science istranslated into effective policy.
Gordon McBean
President
The International Council for Science(ICSU)
4

a global outlook on disaster science

International Research Institute ofDisaster Science (IRIDeS)
Disaster science is a truly inter- and transdisciplinary
academic field that contributes to the international society
by addressing global issues to reduce the damage andloss associated with disasters. Yet in its current state, it
is insufficient to tackle the various challenges posed bydisasters or reduce their risks; it is critical that disasterscience covers the whole disaster management cycle.
Action-oriented research is key in each stage of the cycle,
generating knowledge through collaborative interactions
between academia and practitioners and integrating anddisseminating scientific discoveries for the benefit of theworld.
A new global strategy, the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction, was adopted at the United Nations World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015, andproposed that academia should play a more prominent rolein contributing to the development of societal resilience
to disasters. The Sendai Framework expects academia tosupport local actions and build an interface between policy
and science for more informed decision making. To achieve
this goal, collaboration among various stakeholders is
indispensable, but is also a major challenge.
The International Research Institute of Disaster Science(IRIDeS) at Tohoku University was established following
the catastrophic disaster of the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami, with the aim of becoming aworld-leading research institute in collaboration withvarious international organizations. It is our role andresponsibility to pass on experience and disaster science
research outcomes to future generations, as well as respondto research needs from all over the world. Furthermore,in collaboration with the Association of Pacific Rim
Universities (APRU), IRIDeS initiated the Multi-Hazards
Program in 2013. The Program contributes to enhancing
inter- and transdisciplinary disaster science research andcollaboration among various stakeholders, which is criticalto the implementation of the Sendai Framework.
The findings of this report highlight the stages of thedisaster management cycle for which we need to further
strengthen our research and the challenges and issues thatface disaster science researchers and policymakers. The
report findings may be of interest to both researchers andnon-researchers, such as funding agencies, policymakers,
and disaster science practitioners.
Fumihiko Imamura
Director
The International Research Institute of Disaster
Science (IRIDeS) of Tohoku University

prefaces5Key Findings
2012-2016

Death toll versus
publications

Economic loss versus
publications

27,273

0.22%

9,571

>5,000

China

USA

Japan

Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh,
Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, Taiwan

countries with the highest death tolls fromnatural disasters tend to have low volumesof disaster science scholarly output

the number of recent scholarly output
in disaster science

the number of recent disaster sciencepublications on geophysical disasters

the most prolific country in disasterscience scholarly output overall anddisaster prevention scholarly output

the most specialized prolific country indisaster science, overall and in researchon each disaster management cycle stage

6

countries with the highest economic losses
from natural disasters tend to have thelargest disaster science scholarly output

the share of recent global scholarly
output belonging to disaster science

the number of recent disaster sciencepublications on each of the following
disaster types: geophysical, meteorological,
chemical & radiological, and hydrologicalthe most prolific country in disaster
preparedness, response, and recovery
scholarly output

territories with 125+ recent papers in disasterscience that are 50%+ more specialized indisaster science than the global averagea global outlook on disaster scienceExecutive Summary
Every year, disasters impact human lives and take asignificant economic toll. Science plays a key role in
reducing disaster risk and mitigating impact. The
importance of disaster science is reflected in the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction,1 which links
research to key priorities, including understanding
disaster causes, investing in resilience, and strengthening
governance.2,3 In this report, we examine the link between
man-made and natural disasters on the one hand, anddisaster science scholarly output on the other. We uncover
the focus areas of disaster science and zoom in on the mostprominent countries involved in disaster science research.
In the last five years, more than 27,000 disaster sciencepapers were published globally, representing 0.22%of the world’s total scholarly output. Disaster science
encompasses research on several disaster management
cycle stages, various disaster types, and specific disasterevents. As such, it requires multidisciplinary approaches
across fields, and transdisciplinary engagements acrosssectors. Research on the disaster management cycle appears
to span across multiple disaster management stages.
Nevertheless, scholarly output is relatively more focused on
disaster prevention and preparedness, and relatively lesson recovery. Across the various disaster types, geophysicaldisasters have been the most heavily researched.
Disaster science output seems to follow the global
distribution of overall scholarly output, in that prolificcountries overall tend to have relatively large outputs in
disaster science. They also suffer the highest economic
losses from natural disasters. Both of these observations
may be influenced by the size of these countries’
economies; however, there are subtle deviations from theexpected patterns. On a global level, the relative size ofthe scientific output on specific disaster types tends toalign to the relative frequency and impact of the disasters
themselves. Asia has a particularly strong position in thefield: of the top ten prolific institutions, nine are in Asia.
Nevertheless, many emerging countries that experience
very high economic or human disaster-related losses
publish few disaster science papers.
The disaster science community is responsive: researchon recent disasters appears quickly in the disaster science

literature. While Japan has substantial research activity
related to geological disasters, following the 2011 Great East
Japan Earthquake and triple disaster, a significant increase
is seen in research related to chemical & radiologicaldisasters in Japan. Interestingly, many papers related tochemical & radiological disasters published in Germany,
the United Kingdom (UK), and France (all of which havetheir own nuclear power generators and nuclear safety
programs) also discuss the consequences of the Fukushima
nuclear accident, and make connections to the Chernobyl
nuclear accident.
Zooming in on specific countries, we note that researchtends to focus on major disasters that occur in the region,
e.g., Japan focuses on earthquakes and tsunamis, theUnited States on meteorological and biological disasters,
Brazil and India on environmental disasters, and China
on climatological disasters. European countries tend to
be less specialized in disaster science, but have a robust
scholarly output and high citation impact, in line with theiroverall research performance. Disaster burden is heavy inJapan, and the country’s focus on disaster science is strong.
Indeed, Japan has the highest disaster economic loss as ashare of GDP among comparator countries, and is the most
specialized comparator country in disaster science.
Disasters can have global and diverse repercussions, andthere is often a disconnect between where most of thedisaster impact is felt and where most of the disasterscience research is done. In addition, some countries
seem to focus their research on disaster types with a highdomestic relevance. This poses the question of whether
there are aspects of disaster science that are particularly
relevant to emerging countries with a high disaster burden,
and whether these are currently under-researched. It also
raises the question of whether more local research andknowledge transfer are needed to effectively reduce disasterrisk and impact.
International, interdisciplinary, and cross-sector scholarly
collaborations may help answer pressing challenges
posed by disasters worldwide. Further analysis is needed,in particular an exploration of the current state ofcollaboration in disaster science research, and how it might
be leveraged to help achieve better outcomes for all.

1	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; 2015.

http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291

2	Murray, V., Maini, R., Clarke, L., Eltinay, N.; International Council for Science, Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Coherence

between the Sendai Framework, the SDGs, the Climate Agreement, New Urban Agenda and World Humanitarian Summit, and the Roleof Science in Their Implementation; 2017. https://www.icsu.org/cms/2017/05/DRR-policy-brief-5-coherence.pdf
3	European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Science for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2014.
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC76764/jrc_disater%20reportweb.pdf
executive summary7

8

a global outlook on disaster scienceContents
Prefaces

3

Key Findings

6

Executive Summary

7

Introduction

11

Interview

Shuaib Lwasa
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR)

14chapter 1

Global perspective on disasters and disaster science

15Interview

Chadia Wannous
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)

24chapter 2

Country focus on disasters and disaster science25

2.1 Research activity versus disaster impact per country

26

2.2 Patterns for key countries in disaster science32

Gordon McBean
International Council for Science (ICSU)

37

Interview

Future Outlook

39

appendices

A Acknowledgements, Subject Experts, & Project Team42

B Rationale & Methodology

44

C Glossary of Terms & Data Sources

45

D Keyword Search Criteria

contents

online ↗

910

a global outlook on disaster scienceIntroduction
The World Economic Forum identified major disasters
as one of the top five global risks in 2017.4 The risk andimpact of major disasters have been exacerbated byclimate change, growth in population and urbanization,and environmental degradation.5 These risk multipliers
combine with other underlying factors—poverty, poor
governance, and a degraded infrastructure—which further
increase the severity of disaster impact on communities
and populations. Disasters can be particularly devastatingin poorer areas that are not as able to respond, putting
a significant strain on humanitarian efforts to meet theneeds of affected populations.6 The growing impact ofdisasters has led to efforts to reduce the vulnerability
and improve the resilience of nations, regions, andcommunities against disasters. As gains made bycountries and regions toward sustainable development
are often lost after a major disaster—for example, throughdestruction of human settlements and infrastructure,
food production capacity, and sources of safe drinking
water—it is increasingly understood that disastermanagement activities are essential to achieving the
majority of UN sustainable development goals (SDGs).7 In
turn, sustainable development through land management,
ocean conservation, and combating climate change canhelp reduce the risk and impact of disasters.

From disaster response to disastermanagement
During the last three decades, there has been a significant
shift in focus from disaster response to a morecomprehensive concept of disaster management. In 1994,
the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World was adopted at
the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction,

which recognized that directing resources towards natural
disaster response was not only costly, but provided only
a temporary benefit to affected communities.8 The UN
called for strengthening resilience to reduce the humanand economic impact of natural disasters by addressing
the entire disaster management cycle—prevention,
preparedness, response, and recovery—through an
integrated, cooperative global effort.9 These efforts werealso more explicitly linked to environmental protection
and sustainable development. The Yokohama Strategy
was reviewed in 2005 and led to the development of the
Hyogo Framework for Action,10 which further described
the integration of natural disaster risk considerations into
sustainable development policies to improve the resilienceof communities to specific hazards.
In 2015, these two previous documents were expanded tocreate the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
at the third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction.11 The Sendai Framework outlines a global
strategy for reducing disaster risk, increasing resilience,and decreasing the impact of disasters by: (1) supporting
research to assess hazard characteristics, local exposure,
local capacity to respond, and vulnerability; and (2) applying
this knowledge to develop and implement evidence-based
policy. Notably, the Sendai Framework expands the scope ofdisaster management to include all types of disasters and at
all scales, with an emphasis on understanding disaster risk
and building capacity for collaboration and information
sharing across international, national, regional, andcommunity levels and private and public sectors. This more
holistic view of the disaster management cycle aims tobuild a strong science-policy interface with the capacity toevaluate the root causes and risk multipliers of disasters on
a macro level, to inform data-driven policy.124	World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2017. 12th Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2017.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf

5	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). http://www.unisdr.org
6	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). UNISDR Strategic Framework 2016 – 2021. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2016.

http://www.unisdr.org/files/51557_strategicframework.pdf

7	United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disasterriskmanagement; PreventionWeb. Sendai Framework: Sustainable

Development Goals with Targets Related to Disaster Risk. http://www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sdg/target

8	United Nations. Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation; 1994.

https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/8241

9	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Words into Action Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2017.

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/53055_npslpswiapublicconsultation2017.pdf

10	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 – 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities toDisasters; 2005. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf

11	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; 2015.

http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291

12	Oliver-Smith, A. Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., Lavell, A.; International Council for Science. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Forensic Investigations of Disaster(FORIN): Towards the Understanding of Root Causes of Disasters; 2017. https://www.icsu.org/publications/disaster-risk-reduction-policy-briefs-2017; United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Work Programme 2016 – 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2016.
http://www.unisdr.org/files/51558_workprogramme.pdf
introduction

11What is disaster science?
While the Sendai Framework emphasizes the criticalrole of science in developing evidence-based disasterrisk reduction policies, the field of disaster sciencecan be difficult to define.13 It encompasses both thequalitative and quantitative study of disasters and theirrisk and impact. It can focus on specific types of disasters
or individual disaster events, or investigate specificaspects of the disaster management cycle: prevention,
preparedness, response, and recovery. It certainly entails atransdisciplinary approach that relies on input from anddata sharing between academic researchers, policymakers,
and practitioners at multiple levels, across both public andprivate sectors, and working on different time scales.

Evidence-based decision-making in disastermanagement
The importance of disaster science to disaster management
is underscored by the Sendai Framework, which lists“Understanding disaster risk” as Priority 1, calling forstrengthening “a science-policy interface for effective
decision-making in disaster risk management.”14 Achieving
this goal requires an expansion and better coordination ofscientific activities, a focus on building cross-disciplinarity
and communication between researchers, policymakers,
and practitioners, greater training and education indisaster risk research, and engagement of both private andpublic sectors.15

Better knowledge, stronger evidence and a greater focus
on transformative processes and innovation are essential
to improve understating of risk, build resistance and riskinformed approaches to policymaking and contribute tosmart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC)17

Science and technology are critical to addressing allcomponents of the disaster management cycle byinforming evidence-based policy and practice.16 Predicting
where a disaster is most likely to occur requires thedevelopment and deployment of monitoring technologies
and big data analysis. Geology, hydrology, and climatology,
for instance, are key to understanding what causes
disasters, what can be done to improve early warning
systems, and how to lessen the frequency and severityof disasters. Engineering principles can be applied to
improve infrastructure, building materials, land-use,
and urban planning to lessen the impact of disasters.
Science can shed light on the most effective way to deploy
first responders and humanitarian aid to rapidly meetthe needs of affected populations. Medicine and publichealth research can provide information on exposure tohazards and the short- and long-term health risks posed bydisasters. The social sciences provide critical information
about the culture, politics, and economics of at-risk areas
to aid in policymaking and investment related to disastermanagement. Social science also contributes to a better
understanding of the factors that underlie vulnerability
to disasters—poverty, urbanization, education—andhow best to engage communities on the topic of disasterrisk. Finally, disaster science provides a mechanism forcontinuous testing and refining of disaster management
processes and policies.
Promising areas of disaster science research identified
by the DRMKC include climate services, nature-based
solutions for building more resilient cities, dynamic
earth observation and monitoring, and humanitarian aid
personnel tracking.17 In the European Union (EU), current
research areas for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) include
mapping population concentrations and types of buildings
and understanding the risk of industrial or technologicalaccidents after a natural disaster.18 JRC is also a sponsor
of INFORM,19 a global, open-source risk assessment toolthat can help inform decisions about disaster prevention
preparedness and response. JRC is involved in efforts toimprove the monitoring and forecasting of disasters, such13	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Words into Action Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2017.

	http://www.preventionweb.net/files/53055_npslpswiapublicconsultation2017.pdf; European Commission Disaster Risk Management
Knowledge Centre. Science for Disaster Risk Management 2017: Knowing Better and Losing Less. European Union: Luxembourg; 2017.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/science-disaster-risk-management-2017-knowing-better-and-losing-less
14	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; 2015. p. 15.
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291
15	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Launching UNISDR Science and Technology Partnership and theScience and Technology Road Map to 2030. January 27-29, 2016; Geneva International Conference Centre; Geneva, Switzerland.
	http://www.preventionweb.net/files/45270_unisdrcnws4wg2capacitydevelopment.pdf; Fakhruddin B., Murray V., Maini R.;
International Council for Science. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Disaster Loss Data in Monitoring the Implementation of the
Sendai Framework; 2017. https://www.icsu.org/cms/2017/05/DRR-policy-brief-2-data.pdf
16	Basher R. Science and Technology for Disaster Risk Reduction: A Review of Application and Coordination Needs. Geneva, Switzerland:
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR); 2013.
	http://www.preventionweb.net/posthfa/documents/Science-and-Technology-for-Disaster-Risk-Reduction.pdf; UNISDR. Using Sciencefor Disaster Risk Reduction. Report of the UNISDR Scientific and Technical Advisory Group – 2013. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2013.
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/32609
17	European Commission Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre. http://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
18	European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Disaster Risk Reduction Portal. http://drr.jrc.ec.europa.eu/; European Commission.
Joint Research Centre. Science for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2014.
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC76764/jrc_disater%20reportweb.pdf
19	Index for Risk Management (INFORM). http://www.inform-index.org/
12

a global outlook on disaster scienceas through the Global Flood Partnership,20 the Global
Disaster Alert and Coordination System (GDACS), andEuropean Flood Awareness System (EFAS). Other research
is underway on monitoring technologies for rapid postdisaster needs assessment and use of social media andremote sensing technologies for assisting first responders.

It is great to see research on disaster risk management
grow and to track how the discipline is evolving.
GFDRR and The World Bank are helping developing
countries create evidence-based risk management
policies, using the latest research in the field. This report
helps us stay up to date.
Stephane Hallegatte
Lead Economist, Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery(GFDRR)GFDRR is a multi-donor partnership, managed by the World Bank that helps
developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities tonatural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local
and international partners, GFDRR provides knowledge, grant funding, andtechnical assistance.

Supporting disaster science research on a
global scale
Several groups are helping to build the global, collaborative
science-policy interface called for in the Sendai
Framework, supporting cross-cutting research projects
and dissemination of knowledge across all stakeholders.
These groups include the International Council for
Science,21 which co-sponsors the Integrated Research on
Disaster Risk Program;22 the Association of Pacific Rim
Universities Multi-Hazards Program,23 initiated by theInternational Research Institute of Disaster Science;24 The
Risk Academy of the Global Risk Forum Davos;25 The WorldBank’s Disaster Risk Management Program26 and Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery;27 and The
International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties.28

An analysis of disaster science research
Across all disaster management organizations, there is a
unified call for global cooperation and networking amongscientists, policymakers, and practitioners. This would
strengthen disaster science research capacity at all levels
and in all sectors as well as improve the broad transfer
of knowledge and technology. It would also help inform
policies to improve resilience to disasters.
Periodic assessment of the state of disaster scienceis essential to identify gaps in knowledge and review
progress in resilience-building programs, investment,
and development planning.29 Elsevier, together withinstitutional partners and experts and in accordance withthe goals of the Sendai Framework, seeks to contributeto these efforts with this quantitative analysis of disasterscience research scholarly output from 2012 to 2016. In
Chapter 1, the report analyzes global scholarly output inthe field of disaster science and the specific topics being
studied within research on different types of disasters.
Chapter 2 then examines disaster science in the context ofthe human toll and economic burden of natural disasters,
and focuses on the disaster science research being
conducted in 10 individual countries in the Americas,
Asia, and Europe, assessing which disaster types are being
studied and where.
The report also contains insights from key thought leadersin the field of disaster management: Shuaib Lwasa fromthe Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR), Chadia
Wannous from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR), and Gordon McBean from the International
Council for Science (ICSU), Future Earth: Research
for Global Sustainability council, and the Institute forCatastrophic Loss Reduction.
The findings of this analysis may assist governments andresearch institutions in recognizing opportunities to build
disaster science research capacity, forge internationaland regional partnerships, strengthen the science-policy
interface, and engage stakeholder communities. In
addition, funding agencies will be able to visualize where
financial support might be allocated to strengthen disasterscience research capacity, responsiveness, and impact.

20	European Commission Global Flood Partnership. https://gfp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
21	International Council for Science. https://icsu.org/
22	Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. http://www.irdrinternational.org/
23	Association of Pacific Rim Universities Multi-Hazards Program. http://apru.org/partnering-on-solutions/multi-hazards-program24	International Research Institute of Disaster Science. http://irides.tohoku.ac.jp/eng/index.html
25	Global Risk Forum Davos. https://grforum.org/
26	The World Bank. Disaster Risk Management. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disasterriskmanagement; World Bank Group, Global Facility for

Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Investing in Urban Resilience; 2015. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/739421477305141142/pdf/109431WP-P158937-PUBLIC-ABSTRACT-SENT-INVESTINGINURBANRESILIENCEProtectingandPromotingDevelopmentinaChangingWorld.pdf
27	Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. https://www.gfdrr.org/
28	International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Management.
http://www.ifrc.org/en/get-involved/learning-education-training/research/capacity-building-for-disaster-risk-management/
29	Aitsi-Selmi A., Murray V., Wannous C., et al. Reflections on a science and technology agenda for 21st century disaster risk reduction. Int J Disaster
Risk Sci. 2016;7:1-29. doi:10.1007/s13753-016-0081-x
introduction

13

Interview
Shuaib Lwasa

Committee Chair, Scientific Committee,
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR)

How have you and the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk
(IRDR) program been engaged in the field of disaster science?
My role in disaster science has been on two levels: one as anindependent scientist working on disaster issues and the other as
science committee chair of the Integrated Research on Disaster
Science ↗ (IRDR) program. The IRDR is taking an integrated,interdisciplinary scientific approach to understanding disaster risk,
as well as developing the interface between science and practiceso that evidence informs policy in the disaster risk area. At the
IRDR, my specific role has been to respond to the demand forscience-informed policy regarding disaster questions. For example,
disasters can cause severe economic losses and substantial
destruction to governments and institutions at a national level. So,
we have conducted research and provided knowledge about ways
to mitigate these losses that lead to policy recommendations. We
share scientific knowledge and information with different levels ofpolicymaking bodies, for instance the UNISDR in a preparatory
meeting for the Sendai meeting, where the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction ↗ was adopted in 2015. The IRDR has
also provided leadership on scientific outputs in the development ofa risk reduction framework.
What role does science play in disaster risk reduction?
The impact of disasters is felt on a community scale that is usuallymuch smaller than the geographic scale in terms of area. So, thescience that strives to reduce the risk of disasters needs to be linked
to those areas where disasters occur. The IRDR International
Centers of Excellence in Canada, Uganda, and various areasin Japan, and China, provide leadership and science-based
information products to help inform policy to improve disaster
response as well as reduce risk. Policies on disaster recovery
must take into account disaster risk reduction—development
efforts must focus on reducing the impact of future disasters.
This is where science is most helpful. As an example, the response
to drought risk in large parts of East Africa has included thedevelopment of new policies regarding the use of the natural
resources of grasslands and water to try and reduce the impact
and losses related to drought. Our scientific outputs played adirect role in informing decisions regarding natural resource
management. In the USA, the South Carolina IRDR International
Center of Excellence ↗ has provided real-time data on floods
and disaster loss that is now being used to inform risk reduction
responses to flooding. IRDR International Centers of Excellencesometimes work with policy makers. In Canada, the International
Center for Excellence ↗ is providing guidance on the reduction ofloss to infrastructure and housing associated with extreme water
events locally and in other parts of the world. In each of theseexamples, disaster risk reduction knowledge is being leveraged
directly into policy development.
14

Is there information in the report that you think is particularlyinteresting, unusual, or likely to have an effect on thedevelopment of the field looking forward?
The link between disasters and the UN sustainable development
goals (SDGs), and how disaster risk reduction is essential tomeeting several of the SDG targets, is very critical. Anotherimportant point is the shift in focus away from disaster response
and toward reducing the risk of disasters and building resilience.
This is underscored in the report by the impressive volume of
publications on prevention and preparedness. The prevention
and preparedness work will lead directly to resilience building.
If science continues to generate knowledge on prevention andpreparedness, we will be better able to inform risk reduction policy.
Thinking about the future of disaster science and theconclusion of the Sendai Framework timeline, where do you
think disaster science will be by 2030?
Something that is of great interest to the community at the
moment is the move toward integrated, transdisciplinary disasterscience. I see this as the future of the disaster science field for2030 and beyond. I would like to see more capacity building intransdisciplinary approaches that would help with risk-informed
policy development. I predict that disaster science will actuallychange the policy development paradigm in such a way that any
future planning for development, investment, economics, andsocial cultural issues will take disaster risk into account, and inthat way, will move societies and countries to build resilience. So
in 2030 and beyond, I foresee that the work around preparedness
and prevention will intensify, as will application of this research
into forging the path to resilience.

a global outlook on disaster sciencechapter 1
Global perspective on
disasters and disaster science15

For this report, we rely upon the knowledgeof internationally recognized disaster science
experts to help us define the field of disasterscience. The many implications of disasters
require multidisciplinary approaches thatharness expertise across scientific disciplines.
In addition to disaster science as a whole, we also examine
the stages of the disaster management cycle and specificdisaster types, following UNISDR definitions.30,31 This isimportant as research per disaster category is crucial tounderstanding and therefore managing disaster risk.32
Aligning to the Sendai Framework also facilitates potential
future analyses to understand the progress made under theframework and how science can further support it.

Identifying scholarly output in disaster science
We adopt a keyword-search approach to identify therelevant corpus of disaster science. We focus our searchon those publications that strictly adopt a disaster science
perspective, thereby also ensuring consistency acrossthe different corpora. All data are restricted to peerreviewed publications, so that the publication sets arefundamentally scholarly in nature.

To achieve substantial reduction in disasters, we need to shift
the focus of our efforts from managing disasters to managing
risks. This requires adopting an evidence-based, all-hazards,
multi-sectoral approach to disaster risk reduction. By providing
a detailed analysis of recent scholarly output and impact indisaster science, this report contributes to the evidence basefor disaster risk reduction and will help inform risk reduction
policy development and implementation.
Chadia Wannous
Senior Advisor,
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR)

30	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Suggested List of Hazards for the Purpose of Measuring Global Targets of the Sendai Framework.
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/47137_proposedlistofhazardsforglobaltarge.pdf
31	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; 2015.
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291
32	European Commission Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre. Science for Disaster Risk Management 2017:
Knowing Better and Losing Less. European Union: Luxembourg; 2017.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/science-disaster-risk-management-2017-knowing-better-and-losing-less16

a global outlook on disaster scienceDisaster science
Disaster Zone

Radioactive Water Pollutants

Catastrophe Risk

Radioactive Pollution Sichuan Earthquake 2008

Peru Earthquake 2007

Chemical Hazard Release Mass Casualty Incidents

Oil DisasterLushan Earthquake 2013

Hurricane Event Biohazard Release

Hurricane Katrina 2005

Preparedness
Geological Hazard Emergency Responders Emergency
Hurricane Sandy 2012

Radioactive Soil Pollutants Disaster Preparedness

Disaster Medicine Catastrophic Event
Tohoku Earthquake 2011 Preparedness Chernobyl Accident
Rescue Work Wenchuan Earthquake
Hurricane Rita 2005

United States Department of Homeland Security

Business Continuity

Meteorological Hazard

Bam Earthquake 2003

Flood Insurance

Bhopal Accidental Release

Disaster Prevention
TsunamiDebris Flow Disaster Management

Crisis Management
Emergency Management
Disaster Relief
Risk Communication Process

Natural Catastrophes

Typhoon Haiyan 2013 Accident Source

Earthquake Risk

Temporary Housing

Humanitarian Assistance

Human-made Disaster
Hurricane Andrew 1992

Disaster Prevention

Emergency Shelter

Surge Capacity

Hurricane Ike 2008
Catastrophe Bonds
Nuclear Hazard

Temporary Shelter

Dam Failure

Tsunami Event

Disaster Planning Flood Damage Nuclear Reactor Accidents
Emergency Response Fukushima nuclear Accident
Agricultural Disaster

Flood Risk

Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004 Washi Disaster Assistance Core Meltdown

Grassland Fires

Acute Radiation Syndrome

Santalum Yasi Technological Accident

Disaster Response Cesium Radioisotopes Rainstorm
Yushu Earthquake 2010 Chemical Terrorism

Haiti Earthquake 2010

Emergency Relief

Humanitarian Logistics

Natural Hazards

Hurricane Irene 2011

Earthquake Damage Disaster Victims
Hurricane Katrina Radioactive Pollutants
Business Continuity Management

Natural Disasters

Geological DisasterMeteorological Disaster
Building Destruction Tropical Cyclone Event

Kashmir Earthquake 2005

Radiation Decontamination

Nuclear Devices Hurricane Ivan 2004

Man-made Disasters
Strategic Stockpile

A first examination of the total corpus of disaster science scholarly output,
as depicted in Figure 1.1, shows three main types of concepts emerging mostprominently, revealing the current foci of the field:►	The disaster management cycle as a whole and its stages, most notably
disaster prevention►	Specific disasters, most of which are recent, such as the Fukushima
nuclear accident, Hurricane Katrina, the Chernobyl nuclear accident,
and various earthquakes (Tohoku, Haiti, Wenchuan, Sichuan)►	Specific disaster types such as tsunamis, nuclear reactor accidents,
geological disasters, natural hazards, and meteorological disasters

Figure 1.1 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience relative to the overall frequency ofconcepts in Scopus®; size represents the numberof publications containing that concept; shade
represents the concept’s relative weight; 20122016; sources: Scopus® and Elsevier Fingerprint
Engine™.

Figure 1.2 indicates that in the last 5 years, over 27,000 disaster science papers
were published globally. This represents 0.22% of the world’s total scholarly
output. Further analysis indicates that a fairly substantial proportion ofdisaster science research has an explicit policy focus: 7.5% of disaster sciencepublications contain the word “policy” in their title, abstract, or keywords.

Figure 1.2 — Disaster science scholarly output
overall, by disaster management cycle stage,
and by disaster type according to the Sendai
Framework; 2012-2016; source: Scopus®.

publications
Overall

Disaster science

StagesPrevention

27,273
17,598Preparedness

15,125

Response

11,623

Recovery
Types

3,671
9,571

GeophysicalMeteorological

6,767

Chemical & radiological

6,445

Hydrological

6,237

Biological

5,716

Climatological

3,949

Technological

2,654

Environmental

1,163Transportation

381

Extra-terrestrial

72

chapter 1 global perspective on disasters and disaster science

17

The extensive body of research summarized in thisdocument represents our continually expanding
understanding of the state of disaster science. We
generally consider disasters to consist of the four stagesof anticipation, mitigation, response, and recovery.
While we cannot prevent significant natural disasters,
through research and collaboration, we can hope tocontain their effects, and to stop them from becoming
significant humanitarian disasters.
John Rundle
Distinguished Professor,
Departments of Physics and Geology,
University of California, Davis

Similarly, 7.4% of disaster science research is firmly
rooted in the real word via an explicit mention of thephrase “case study” in the publication title, abstract, or
keywords.
Prevention and Preparedness are the most researcheddisaster management cycle stages, with over 15,000
papers each. Natural Language Processing analyses on
the phases of the disaster management cycle reveal that it
appears to be more of a continuum rather than a clear-cut
juxtaposition of stages. This interlink may also reflect how
the research community’s work addresses several aspectsof the continuum at once, and/or reviews specific stages
in the context of disaster management overall.
On a global level, the relative size of output on specificdisaster types roughly corresponds to the relative
frequency and impact of such disasters, showing analignment between disasters and disaster science. The
UNISDR report Poverty & Death: Disaster Mortality 19962015 states that “of the 1.35 million people killed bynatural hazards over the past 20 years, more than halfdied in earthquakes, with the remainder due to weatherand climate-related hazards.”33 The broader and/or mostimpactful disaster type categories, such as geophysical,
meteorological, chemical & radiological, and hydrological,
have over 5,000 papers each in 2012-2016, while thecorpus of research on geophysical disasters alone
approaches 10,000 papers (see Figure 1.2 on previous page),echoing findings from the 2016 Association of Pacific Rim
Universities (APRU) Impact Report.34

33
34

18

The following analyses show that concepts relating to
specific disasters and disaster types may appear in morethan one set of publications. This reflects both the nonmutually exclusive nature of the Sendai framework, as wellas the multidisciplinary aspect of disaster science itself.
Research on specific disaster types also contains several
concepts that apply to various disaster management cycle
stages. Research on some disaster types seems to be more
focused on certain stages of the cycle than others. Disastermanagement and prevention are particularly frequent inresearch on geophysical disasters, appearing in 15% ormore of papers. They are also present in 10% or more ofpapers on climatological, geophysical, and meteorologicaldisasters. Disaster prevention appears in 10% of papers on
environmental disasters.

It is encouraging to see that research into the reductionof technological accident risk is increasingly accepted
as an integral part of disaster science. This reflects therecognition that a multi-hazards approach is needed for
effective disaster risk reduction globally.
Elisabeth Krausmann
Principal Scientist,
Directorate Space, Security and Migration,
Joint Research Centre, European Commission
Ian Clark
Head of Unit,
Disaster Risk Management,
Joint Research Centre, European Commission

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Poverty & Death: Disaster Mortality 1996-2015.
https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/50589
Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU). APRU Impact Report 2016.
https://apru.org/about/secretariat/item/660-apru-impact-report-2016
a global outlook on disaster scienceGeophysical disasters
Rural Housing

Kobe Earthquake 1995

Meteorological Hazard

RockfallHumanitarian Logistics
Kashmir Earthquake 2005

Haiti Earthquake 2010

Gujarat Earthquake 2001

Mudﬂow

Temporary Shelter Disaster AssistanceSearch and Rescue Tsunami Waves Natural Disasters
Bam Earthquake 2003 Geological Hazard Natural Hazards
Natural Catastrophes
Earthquake Mechanism
Disaster Prevention
Essential Facilities

Chile Earthquake 2010
Business Continuity Management

Geological Disaster Emergency Response Tohoku Earthquake 2011 Humanitarian Aid

Disaster PlanningDebris FlowDisaster Victims Hazard Assessment

Business Continuity

Yushu Earthquake 2010

Rock Bursts

LandslidesEarthquake Damage Disaster Management
Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004Disaster Zone

Alos Temporary Housing

Disaster Medicine
Catastrophic Event

Palsar Man-made Disasters

Hazard Area Slope Protection

Technological Accident
Cartosat

EarthquakesTsunami

Fukushima nuclear Accident

Wenchuan Earthquake

Emergency Services Rainstorm

Disaster Prevention

Natural Risk
Core Meltdown

CanterburyEarthquake Magnitude

Sichuan Earthquake 2008 Crisis Management Geophysics

Human-made Disaster

Seismic Zone

Humanitarian Assistance

Supply Chain Disruptions
Catastrophe Risk Emergency Relief

Surge Capacity

Mass Casualty Incidents

Rescue Operations

Emergency Responders

Earthquake Event

Tangshan Earthquake 1976 Seismic Phenomena

Nuclear Hazard
Catastrophe Bonds

Earthquake RiskTsunami Event

Disaster Response Disaster Relief Slope Failure Rescue WorkSeismic Retroﬁt

GrowthDisaster PreparednessSeismic Hazard Relief Work Posttraumatic
Meteorological Disaster

Recovery Plan Emergency Shelter

Earthquake Intensity

Haiti

Lushan Earthquake 2013
Postseismic Process

Slope Dynamics Dam Failure

Peru Earthquake 2007

Figure 1.3 shows that research on geophysical disasters focuses on geologicalhazards, notably earthquakes, tsunamis, and landslides, as well as disastermanagement and prevention. Concepts mentioning specific recent disasters(e.g., Peru earthquake 2007, Haiti earthquake 2010) are particularly prominent
in the geophysical disasters set of papers, reinforcing the close connection
between the research and specific disaster events. Disaster response isapparent through concepts such as temporary housing and emergency shelter.

Figure 1.3 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on geophysical disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.

Meteorological disasters
Mass Casualty Incidents

Risk Governance Risk Vulnerability

Earthquake 2013 Flood Forecast
Geological Hazard Hurricane Ike 2008
Geological Disaster Lushan
Resiliency
Typhoon Haiyan 2013 Recovery Plan
Katrina
Catastrophic
Event
Rita Extreme Events Hurricane Event
Humanitarian Logistics

Flood Predictions Disaster AssistanceSlope Failure

Disaster Response Storm Surge Storm Damage Emergency Management

StormsTornadoes
September 11 Terrorist Attacks Debris Flow
Wind Damage
Landslides Natural Hazards Return Period
Snowstorm

Temporary Shelter
Natural Risk

Disaster MedicineDisaster Planning
Lake Pontchartrain (la) Hurricane Andrew 1992

Hurricane Irene 2011

Humanitarian Assistance

Emergency Relief

Control
Disaster Management FloodFlood
Risk
Hurricane Katrina
Disaster Prevention
Meteorological Disaster
Mine Dust
Formosat

Flood Damage

Man-made Disasters
Mtsat

Washi

Surge Capacity Haiti Earthquake 2010Tropical Cyclone Event

Disaster Zone

Santalum Yasi

Building Permit

Natural Disasters

Emergency Shelter

Flood Insurance
Climate Resource

Crisis Response

Mudﬂow

Ice Storm

Sichuan Earthquake 2008

FloodsCrisis ManagementPreparedness
World Trade Center
Hazard AssessmentHurricane Sandy 2012 Tropical Cyclone
Katrina 2005
Disaster Preparedness Natural Catastrophes
New Orleans Hurricane
Disaster Relief Dam Failure Disaster Victims Meteorological Hazard
Rainstorm

Ice Mapping

Catastrophe Risk

Flood Forecasting

Temporary Housing

Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004

Oil Disaster

Water Damage

Zoning System

Green Tide

Hurricane Rita 2005

Hurricane Ivan 2004

Emergency Responders Disaster PreventionClimatic Processes

Figure 1.4 shows that the body of research on meteorological disasters
contains many publications on storms and floods as well as disastermanagement and prevention. Concepts mentioning specific recent disasters(e.g., Typhoon Haiyan 2013, Hurricane Sandy 2012, Hurricane Katrina 2005)
are particularly prominent in the meteorological disaster set of publications,reinforcing the close connection between the research and specificdisastrous meteorological events.
chapter 1 global perspective on disasters and disaster science

Agricultural DisasterFigure 1.4 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on meteorological disasters relative tothe overall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.
19

Chemical & radiological disasters
Biohazard Release Emergency Responders

Technological Accident Strontium Radioisotopes

Response Plan
Disaster Management Crisis
Environmental Accident Power Company
Radiation Decontamination

Consequence Assessment

Atmospheric Radioactivity Risk Communication Process

Emergency PlanningRadionuclide Migration
Personal Protective Equipment Meteorological DisasterRadioactive Pollutants Radioactive Materials
Civil Defense Disaster Planning Emergency Plan
Radioactive Water Pollutants
Radioactive ContaminationTsunami EventRadioactive Air Pollutants

ms Radiation Monitoring Nuclear Power Plant
Core Meltdown

Artiﬁcial Radioactivity
Technological Hazard

Accident Source

Mass Casualty Incidents Radioactive Soil Pollutants Nuclear Risk Radioactive Pollution Chemical Hazard Release
Core Meltdown
Hazardous Materials Spills
Oil Spill Response
Major Accident
Disaster Assistance

Environmental Health Hazard

Hurricane Katrina 2005

Disaster Relief

Nuclear Safety

Man-made Disasters
Radioactive Contaminants

Strategic Stockpile
Disaster Zone
Kanto Region

Nuclear Reactor Accidents

Cesium Radioisotopes

Potassium Radioisotopes
Atmospheric PlumeRadioactive Emission

Radioactive Food Contamination

Cesium Isotopes

Disaster Prevention
Tohoku Earthquake 2011

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (u.s.)

Chemical Safety

Emergency Response

Disaster Prevention

Gamma Ray Spectrometry

Emergency Shelter

First Responders

Radioactive Substance

Whole-body Counting Nuclear Hazard

Disaster Response Oil DisasterContaminated Area

Fukushima nuclear Accident

Preparedness Chernobyl Accident Tsunami Fallout

Nuclear Electric Power Generation

Dispersion Calculation

Acute Radiation Syndrome

Nuclear Devices

CesiumDisaster Victims

Accidents

Oil Spills Disaster Preparedness Nuclear Explosions

Chemical Explosions

Surge Capacity

Chemical Terrorism Risk Communication Geological Disaster

Disaster Medicine Chemical Hazards

Plutonium Isotope

Brassica Rapa Subsp. Nipposinica Var. PerviridisCore Disruptive Accidents

Radiologic Health Temporary Housing

Figure 1.5 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on chemical & radiological disasters relative
to the overall frequency of concepts in Scopus®;
size represents the number of publications
containing that concept; shade represents theconcept’s relative weight; 2012-2016; sources:
Scopus® and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.

Figure 1.5 shows that research on chemical & radiological disasters includes
many publications on accidents, in particular nuclear reactor accidents, andalso on nuclear power plants. Relative to the overall frequency of concepts inthe whole database, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident stands out. Other
relatively frequent concepts include oil disaster, chemical hazard release, andseveral terms relating to biohazard or radioactive pollution, pointing to afocus of research on the consequences of chemical & radiological disasters.

Hydrological disasters
Community Rating Humanitarian Logistics

PalsarTemporary Shelter

Levee Hazard Area Glacial Lake Geological Hazard

Tohoku Earthquake 2011

Disaster Assistance

Storm Damage

Water Seepage

Natural Catastrophes

Mudﬂow Disaster Prevention

Disaster Victims Waterlogging

Emergency Shelter

Rockfall

Flood Forecasting Slope Stability Mitigation MeasureRavines Extreme Events
Natural Risk Lushan Earthquake 2013
Meteorological Disaster Geological Disaster Disaster Preparedness
Indus River Tailings Dam

Hurricane Event Haiti Earthquake 2010

Temporary Bridges

Rock Avalanche

FloodsFlood DamageHazard Assessment Disaster Response
Agricultural Disaster

Paleoﬂood

Slope Dynamics

Rock Bursts

Flood ControlFlood Risk Storm Surge
Emergency Responders

Disaster Management

Emergency Services

Slope Failure

Alos
Land Policy

Flooding

Santalum Yasi Digital Diﬀerential Analyzers

Flood Forecast

Risk Vulnerability

Cartosat

Rainstorm

Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Katrina 2005

Debris Flow

Disaster Prevention

Natural Hazards Tsunami

Slope Protection
Flood Frequency

Emergency Management Wenchuan Earthquake Dam Break

Cedar Rapids (ia)Disaster Relief

Man-made Disasters

Landslides

Rescue Operations

GeoeyeSichuan Earthquake 2008 Catastrophic Event
Insurance
Early Warning Flood
Catastrophe Risk Flood Routing
Meteorological Hazard
Event
Flood Protection Earthquake Trigger TsunamiHurricane
Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004 Business Continuity
Microinsurance
Disaster Zone
Sandy 2012

Dam Failure Flood Wave

Technological Accident Water Damage

Figure 1.6 shows that research on hydrological disasters contains many
publications on floods and landslides as well as disaster management andprevention. These last two concepts are also particularly prominent, as are
geological, meteorological, and agricultural disasters, demonstrating themulti-faceted causes and consequences that hydrological disaster events
can have.

20

Emergency Relief

Flood Predictions Risk Governance

Natural Disasters

Figure 1.6 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on hydrological disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.
a global outlook on disaster scienceds

Biological disasters
Hurricane Katrina 2005 Strategic Stockpile

Disaster Prevention Chemical Hazard Release

Wind Resistance
Public Health Professional Education

H7n9 Subtype Inﬂuenza a Virus

Bhopal Accidental Release

Dam Failure Tailings Dam
2010
Meteorological Disaster Yushu Earthquake
Biohazard Release

Emergency Planning Hurricane Katrina Disaster Victims

First Responders Humanitarian Assistance

Public Health Surveillance Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute
Bioterrorism Geological DisasterWenchuan Earthquake
Personal Protective Equipment Radioactive Pollution
Fluid Queue Biosurveillance

Disaster Preparedness Civil Defense
Catastrophic Event
Pandemic CesiumRadioisotopes
Man-made Disasters Fukushima nuclear Accident
Human-made Disaster

Environmental Accident

Disaster Medicine Disaster Response Disaster Prevention
Mass Graves

War-related Injuries Health Facility Administration Business Continuity Management

Tsunami Disaster Planning Preparedness
Nuclear Reactor Accidents Disaster ManagementOil Spills
Mass Casualty Incidents

Haiti

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (u.s.)Acute Radiation Syndrome

Snowstorm

Ice Storm
Disaster Zone Radioactive Contamination
Mine Fires

Microbialite
Indra

Recovery Plan

Crush Syndrome

Health Regulation

Traumatic Stress Disorders Catastrophic Risk

Emergency Response

Emergency Management CatastropheSeptember 11 Terrorist Attacks Rescue Work
Dam BreakRadionuclide Migration

World Trade Center Katrina
Oil Disaster Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever

Disaster Relief Haiti Earthquake 2010 Business Continuity

Tohoku Earthquake 2011
Emergency Responders Shore Protection Chernobyl Accident Relief Work Radioactive
Pollutants
Natural Catastrophes Temporary Housing
Hurricane
Sandy
2012
Crisis Response Plan Sichuan Earthquake 2008 Emergency Shelter Ebolavirus
Agricultural Disaster

Psychological Resilience
Methyl Isocyanate

Disaster AssistanceKashmir Earthquake 2005

Surge CapacityTemporary Shelter

Figure 1.7 shows that research on biological disasters contains many publications on
disaster management and various stages of the disaster management cycle, such as
disaster planning, prevention, and preparedness. A large proportion of publications alsomention specific hazards spanning across various disaster types (e.g., tsunami, pandemic,
oil spills, nuclear reactor accident), revealing the variety of origins that biologicaldisasters can have. Specific disastrous occurrences are particularly prominent (e.g., Haiti
earthquake 2010, Fukushima nuclear accident, Hurricane Sandy 2012). The importanceof studying how to respond to this type of disaster is indicated by the relatively highfrequency of concepts such as emergency shelter, strategic stockpile, or surge capacity.

Figure 1.7 — Most frequent concepts
in disaster science on biologicaldisasters relative to the overallfrequency of concepts in Scopus®;
size represents the number ofpublications containing that concept;
shade represents the concept’s relative
weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.

Climatological disasters
Copula Function

Smoke Abatement Mine Explosions

Emergency Plan Geological Hazard
Disaster Victims Emergency Vehicles
Crop Insurance Emergency Shelter Fire Prevention Catastrophic EventFire Control Chemical Hazard Release
Fire Season Grassland Fires Wildland Fire Management

Forest Fire Detection
Natural Catastrophes Temporary Shelter

Search and RescueMan-made Disasters World Trade Center Drought Stress Glacial Lake
Geological Disaster

Fire Hazards Disaster Medicine

Surge Capacity Extreme Events Fire Management
Dust Storms
Civil Conﬂict
Disaster
ResponseFire
SpreadDisaster Relief Mass Casualty Incidents
Emergency Responders

Gas Explosions

Water Damage

Civil DefenseEmergency Response

Disaster Zone

Zoning System

Emergency Management Fire Fighting

Disaster Prevention

Fires
Drought

Forest Fire Disaster Management
Fire Service
Disaster Planning WildﬁreFire Point Meteorological Hazard Wadis

Rescue System

Rescue Work
Fire Severity

Qing Dynasty

Evacuation Preparedness

Mine Dust

Fireﬁghters Evacuating
Fire Services

Emergency Services Crisis Management Disaster PreparednessFire Extinguishers
Attacks
First Responders
Natural HazardsMeteorological Disaster September 11 Terrorist
Wildland-urban Interface

Flood Forecast

Paleoﬂood

NightclubTemporary Housing Structure Fires
Hurricane Sandy 2012Risk Governance Rescue Operations
Fire DetectionDisaster Prevention Fukushima nuclear Accident
Fire Fighting Equipment
Agricultural Disaster
Ming Dynasty
Fireprooﬁng
Human Health and Safety
Rescue Service Disaster AssistanceMine Fires Business Continuity

Forest Fire Management Fire Detectors

Hurricane Event

Figure 1.8 shows that research on climatological disasters contains several
publications on droughts and fires as well as disaster management
and prevention. This last concept is particularly prominent, as aremeteorological and agricultural disasters, reflecting how disastrous
climatological events may overlap with various disaster types. Hurricane
Sandy also has high relative frequency in this set of publications.

chapter 1 global perspective on disasters and disaster science

Fire Damage

Figure 1.8 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on climatological disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.
21

Technological disasters
Man-made Disasters

Technological Hazard

Environmental Geology

Housing
Chernobyl Accident Tailings Dam Rescue Operations Temporary
Radionuclide Migration
Nuclear
Explosions
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (u.s.)TechnologicalAccident
Radioactive Substance
Risk Society Meteorological Hazard
Gas Hazards

Radioactive Contamination Trust in Government
Major Accident Emergency
Responders Emergency Plan

Radioactive Water Pollutants Critical InfrastructureRadioactive PollutionDisaster Zone
Deepwater Drilling Emergency Management Mine Explosions
Emergency Shelter

Hazard Release Outages Surge Capacity
Mass Casualty Incidents Oil DisasterChemical
Oil Spill Response
Hurricane Event

Underground Explosions

Emergency Planning

Risk GovernanceFukushima nuclear Accident Business Continuity
BombingHazardous Materials Spills Preparedness

Natural Risk

Gas Bursts Disaster Preparedness

Transboundary Pollution

Disaster Victims

Disaster Medicine
Geological Disaster

Mud

Radioactive Air Pollutants

PlanningIndustrial Accidents Disaster
Terrorist Attack

Nuclear Reactor Accidents
Chemical Hazards
Environmental Accident

Tennessee Valley (al-ky-tn)
Methyl Isocyanate

Explosions
Dam Failure Tohoku Earthquake 2011

Public Inquiry

Us History

Disaster PreventionEmergency Services

Oil Spills Marine Pollution Disaster Management
Crisis Management
Nuclear Devices

Disaster Prevention

Crisis Response

Mine Dust

Emergency Response

Disaster Response Catastrophic Event Industrial Safety
Radioactive Pollutants
Radioactive Soil Pollutants Cesium Radioisotopes
Civil DefenseTransboundary Explosive
Extraction and Processing Industry
Devices
Residual Risk Crisis Response PlanGas Explosions
Disaster Relief First Responders
Blast
Injuries
Chemical Explosions
Oﬀshore Petroleum Prospecting
Cesium Isotopes Flammable Gases Radiation Decontamination

Explosion Testing

Hurricane Katrina 2005

Figure 1.9 shows that research on technological disasters includes many
publications on explosions, industrial accidents, and oil spills, as well as
disaster management and prevention. This last concept is particularly
prominent, as are oil disasters, chemical hazard release, and mine andgas explosions. The Fukushima nuclear accident also has high a relative
frequency in this set of publications. All of these concepts reflect thediverse nature of technological disasters.

Figure 1.9 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on technological disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.

Environmental disasters
Tailings Dam

Tsunami Waves Fire Detectors Disaster Prevention

Ecological Stability Oil Spill Response Rising Sea Level

Beach Erosion Yellow River Socio-economic ImpactDisaster Preparedness

Shoreline ChangeCoastal Development

Planning Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004
Erosion ControlEmergency
Us History
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
Land Degradation
Geosynthetic MaterialsFlood Damage
Dust StormsGeological Disaster Remote Sensing Technology Slope Failure Wenchuan Earthquake
Meteorological Disaster
SalinizationHazard Assessment
Catastrophic Event
Coastal Wetland
Forest Fire Management Forest Fire Detection
Accelerated Erosion
Adaptive Capacity Regime Shift Environmental Damage

River Bank
Rainstorm

Oil Spills

Soil Erosion Soil Conservation

ErosionFlood Control

LandslidesDisaster PreventionOvertopping Floods
Siltation Water Erosion

Erosivity

Disaster Response
Coastal Protection

Oil Slicks

Bank Erosion

Management
Forest Fire RavinesDisaster
Flood Risk
Disaster Relief

Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Erosion
Environmental Crisis Debris Flow
Hazard Area
Earth
Observation
Fire Hazards
Storm Surge Fireprooﬁng
Fire Prevention
Natural Hazards

Land Consolidation

Mountainous Area
Sichuan Earthquake 2008
Dam FailureSlope Dynamics
Wind Erosion Observation Satellite
Environmental Hazard
Geological
HazardOutburst Gully Erosion Palsar Man-made DisastersHumanitarian Assistance
Soil Erosion Models Danube River
Rainfall Duration

Satellite Constellations Drainage Channels
Political Ecology

Fire Detection Dam Break Slope Protection Thematic Mapping
Grassland Fires Glacier Retreat

Figure 1.10 shows that research on environmental disasters includes
many publications on erosion, floods, and landslides, as well as disastermanagement and prevention. This last concept is particularly prominent, as
is geological disaster, reflecting how disastrous environmental events may
have diverse causes. There are also several concepts relating to fires that haveparticularly high relative frequency in this set of publications, reinforcing the
preponderance of this hazard type in research on environmental disasters.
22

Glacial Lake Forest Protection

Figure 1.10 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on environmental disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containing
the concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.
a global outlook on disaster scienceTransportation disasters
Civilians Major Accident
Air Traﬃc
Tank Trucks
Transportation System Organizational Factors Materials Handling Pilot Training
Model Checking
Instrument Flight Rules Man Machine Systems Safety Factor Search and Rescue
Rail Transport Aircraft Safety
Transport Aircraft Early Warning System
Military Aviation
DisasterManagement
Flight
Crews
CrashworthinessGeneral Aviation Aircraft
Aftermath Road Safety
Airline Industry

Crash

Hazardous Materials Weather Condition Accident Investigation Railroads
Civil
Aviation
Passengers
Avionics
Safety Management
Airports Transportation Safety

Waterway Transportation
Oil Spills

Transportation
Rails Safety Engineering
Incidents Aircraft Accidents Aviation
Flight Safety

Control
Air Transportation Flight
Air Navigation

Railroad Accidents
Industrial Accidents

Railway

Bayesian Networks

Traﬃc Accidents Bioengineering Risk Management

Aerospace

Pilot
AircraftAviation Safety
Classiﬁcation System FlightHuman Error

FatalityFighter Aircraft

Aviators

Accidents

Airport RunwaysRailroad Transportation Takeoﬀ
Health and Safety
Air Traﬃc Controllers (personnel) Occupational Injury Safety Assessment
Pilot Error Aircraft Control Flight Dynamics
Transport Vehicle
Conﬁned Spaces Flight Control Systems Multimodal Transportation Flight SimulatorsDistraction
Transportation
Ice Formation Crews Landing Risk Analysis
Emergency Response Cockpits (aircraft) Petroleum
Management Disaster Preparedness
Confusion Casualties
Early Warning Emergency
Traﬃc Safety Labor Statistics
Disaster Response
Spent Fuels

Figure 1.11 must be interpreted with caution as the corpus of researchon transportation disasters is small. Concepts such as accidents, aircraft
accidents, and aviation appear in the largest number publications,dominating the corpus because most recent large-scale transportation
disasters involve planes. This focus is also reflected in the most frequentconcepts relative to the overall frequency of concepts in the whole database(e.g., pilot error, aircraft accidents, aviation safety, aircraft safety).

Training Aircraft

Figure 1.11 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on transportation disasters relative to theoverall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.

Extra-terrestrial disasters
FailureCivilians
CoastSeismic
BiologicalInvasion Terrorism
Monitoring
TaylorAnalogy
Explosions
Waves Islands Body
Solar
System
Co-operation
Convention
World Wide Web
Railroads Settlement
Ecosystem Grid DamageEcological Observation
Mission Security

DistanceAsteroids

EventMeteorites Storms Principles

Indigenous Population Marine Environment Expert

Origins
Protection

Person Accidents

Networks Life
Near

ImpactEarthquakes China Space Weather

Research

Disturbance Place Geomagnetic Storm Threat Earth (planet)

Forecast Forecasting PlanInfrastructure
Geomagnetism Community
Atmosphere Complex SystemsCausesDisaster Prevention
Climate Change
Extremes Induced Currents
International
Law Nation
Biodiversity
Prevention
Weapons Space

GlobalHazard Shock Waves

Magnetic FieldsGovernment
Coastal Area Large-scaleIntercalation Science Vulnerability
India Nuclear ClimateSatellite Beijing Public Radiation Tsunami Integrity
Sunspots Narrative

Scenarios
Eﬀect Human Rights

Figure 1.12 must be interpreted with caution as the corpus of research on
extra-terrestrial disasters is very small. Concepts such as Earth, impact,geomagnetism, and space appear in the largest number of publications.
Relative to the overall frequency of concepts in the whole database,geomagnetic storm, space weather, geomagnetism, and asteroids are
particularly prominent in the set of publications, and the most visible
disaster management cycle stage is disaster prevention.
chapter 1 global perspective on disasters and disaster science

Figure 1.12 — Most frequent concepts in disasterscience on extra-terrestrial disasters relative tothe overall frequency of concepts in Scopus®; size
represents the number of publications containingthat concept; shade represents the concept’s
relative weight; 2012-2016; sources: Scopus®
and Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™.
23

Interview
Chadia Wannous

Senior Advisor, UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR)

How have you been engaged in the field of disaster science?
I have been working on disaster risk reduction and emergency
preparedness for more than a decade, in close collaboration withresearchers and other stakeholders. I joined UNISDR in early 2015,
where I have applied my background and experience in the scienceof reducing risks to the implementation of the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), paying particular attention tobiological and man-made hazards.
What is the role of science in disaster risk reduction?
The role of science and technology in shaping policies and practices
to reduce disaster risk is vital. Science is informing evidence-based
policymaking in disaster risk reduction, providing data to not only
better understand the risks, but also to inform governments andthe private sector as they drive investment in sound interventions
and assessment of their impact over time. Taking a systematic
approach to encouraging greater interaction between scientists,
DRR practitioners, and policymakers represents an important
step towards enhancing the access and application of science andtechnology to decision making. In January of 2016, UNISDR
organized an international conference attended by 700 scientists,
policymakers, and other stakeholders from the private sector,
NGOs, and the media. At the conference, the science and technology
partnership for DRR was launched and a roadmap was adopted
that outlines the key outcomes and actions the science community
and its partners need to take to support the implementation of thepriorities of the Sendai Framework.
What information in this report did you find particularlyinteresting or that is likely to have an effect on thedevelopment of the field looking forward?
There are two results from the report that I would like to comment
on. First, countries with the highest death toll for natural disasters
tend to have low scholarly output in disaster science. This is a very
important finding not only for the scientific community but also forpolicymakers—there is a need to invest in more research or seek out
partnerships to build research capacity in these countries, including
through south-south collaborations. Second, the share of disasterscience research to global scholarly output is only 0.2 percent, which
is very low. We must work to increase the volume and quality of
research being done in the disaster science field to address key gaps
in our knowledge. In particular, we need to support local research
efforts to focus on smaller and more frequent disasters—what wecall extensive risks—that affect mostly developing countries andhave a devastating impact on human and social capital as well as
on development gains. These countries will benefit from collaborative
research and transdisciplinary approaches that link disaster risk
reduction to the achievement of sustainable development goals, theParis Agreement on climate change, and the new urban agenda.
24

What parts of the report do you think are important forpolicymakers or institutional leaders?
The report highlights the importance of the social and theeconomic aspects of disasters and the need for transdisciplinary
research to consider issues such as the cost of disasters, social
protection and safety nets during and after disasters, andcommunicating the risks associated with different types ofhazards. The report very clearly points out the need for both public
and private investments in disaster risk reduction based on theavailable scientific evidence. The report also highlights the need formore international collaboration between researchers in industrial
countries and developing countries to help build research capacity.
Thinking about the future of disaster science and theconclusion of the Sendai Framework timeline, where do you
think disaster science will be by 2030?
Currently, there is increased attention on the role of scienceand technology in addressing global challenges—disaster risk
reduction, climate change, and urbanization—in order toachieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. As a result,
I expect by 2030 we will see more targeted funding for researchthat specifically addresses related gaps in knowledge, policy, andpractice and for solution-driven, interdisciplinary research. We will
also see a greater dialogue and collaboration between researchersand policymakers, with researchers sharing scientific evidence
in a timely manner with national and local institutions andpolicymakers and in a way that is adapted to their needs. Among
policymakers, we will see an increased commitment to greaterapplication of scientific evidence to develop effective measures
to reduce risks. We will also be better at translating research
into clear messages about reducing disaster risks that the public
can understand and that facilitate their involvement in DRR,
particularly at the local level.

a global outlook on disaster sciencechapter 2Country focus on disasters
and disaster science25Disasters come in many forms, as we have seenin the previous chapter. The burden of disasteris not uniform: certain countries appear to bedisproportionately affected by specific disastertypes. Likewise, disaster science research activity
has a distinct pattern across the world. In thischapter, we compare key countries and regions,both in terms of their output specialization andin terms of their scholarly impact.

2.1	Research activity versus
disaster impact per country
Natural disasters alone are estimated to have claimed
1.35 million lives in the past 20 years.35 The human toll ofdisaster is unevenly spread across regions: eight of the ten
countries with the most deaths from disasters in 20042013 are in Asia. While overall country and population size
plays a part in the absolute number of deaths a country
sustains from disasters, it is not a sole determinant: Haiti
alone suffered nearly 230,000 deaths from disasters in
2004-2013. It is also the country most affected when deaths
are normalized by population size, followed by Myanmar
and Sri Lanka. Indeed, the UNISDR finds that “theoverwhelming majority of […] deaths occurred in low- andmiddle-income countries. The poorest nations paid thehighest price in terms of the numbers killed per disasterand per 100,000 population.”36

35	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Poverty & Death: Disaster Mortality 1996-2015.

https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/50589

36	Ibid.
37	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/home/GAR_2015/GAR_2015_1.html

26

a global outlook on disaster scienceEconomic losses from natural disasters are estimated at
USD 250-300 billion per year,37 and are also unequallydistributed, with several large countries heavily affected inabsolute terms. When this economic burden is normalized
by GDP, Haiti again appears particularly impacted, insecond place behind Belize. The top 10 countries on thelist are mostly from Africa and Asia, reflecting the heavy
economic burden that disasters can have on emerging
economies. This is illustrated in the world maps in Figure
2.1, in which the shade of each country depicts its death
toll (relative to country population) and Figure 2.2 whichshows economic loss (relative to country GDP).
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (see next pages) also demonstrate thatdisaster science scholarly output seems to follow the global
distribution of overall scholarly output patterns—prolificcountries overall tend to have relatively large outputs in
disaster science. China (6,301) and the United States (USA;6,287) have the largest number of recent publicationsin the field of disaster science followed by Japan (4,017)
and the United Kingdom (UK; 1,351). These countries
are also in the global top 5 in recent research overall, butwith a different order: the USA has the largest scientificoutput overall, followed by China, the UK, Germany, andJapan. The fact that China and Japan are prominent in thedisaster science field may not be surprising, as the Asian
region is prone to many disasters. Looking deeper into
the data, nine out of the ten most prolific institutions interms of scholarly output are in China and Japan, with
the Chinese Academy of Sciences being first, and the
University of Tokyo second. The first non-Asian institution
is Columbia University, ranked tenth in terms of volume.
Beyond China and Japan, other Asian countries are also
relatively specialized in disaster science. For instance,
among the territories with 125+ recent disaster sciencepapers, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Japan,
New Zealand, Thailand, and Taiwan have each publishedmore than 50% as much in disaster science compared to
global publication patterns. Among the countries with
50+ recent papers in disaster science, the Philippines,
Nepal, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Japan havepublished more than twice as much in disaster science
relative to the global publication distribution. Being
more specialized in the field does not mean that all ofthese countries have large corpora of research on disasterscience, however, especially when their overall scholarly
output is small.
In fact, many emerging areas of the world with the highest
relative burden of disaster cost are limited in scholarly
output in disaster science. For instance, Belize has thehighest disaster economic loss as share of GDP but only
one recent publication in the field of disaster science.
Haiti has the second highest disaster economic loss as
share of GDP, but only 42 recent publications in the field,
while Madagascar has the third highest disaster economic
loss as share of GDP but no recent publication in the field.
chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science

Counting publications per country
Our analysis makes use of whole rather than fractionalcounting, meaning that internationally-collaborated
papers count once for each collaborator country. So a
publication with one author in the United States andone author in China counts as one publication for theUnited States and one publication for China.

Relative activity index (RAI)RAI is calculated by dividing the share of a country’s
output in a particular field relative to the share of
the world’s output in that same field. It therefore
represents how concentrated a country’s output is in
a particular area relative to the world average and canbe used to estimate specialization in a particular field.
For instance, 0.66% of Japan’s scholarly output is in
Disaster Science, compared to 0.22% of the global
scholarly output. Japan’s RAI in disaster science istherefore 0.66/0.22=3.

Similarly, many emerging areas of the world with theheaviest relative human death toll from disasters arelimited in scholarly output in disaster science. For instance,
Haiti has the highest human death toll relative to its
population. Myanmar has the second highest humandeath toll relative to its population but only nine recent
publications in the field. Sri Lanka has the third highest
human death toll relative to its population and although its
scholarly output is highly specialized in disaster science, its
total recent output in the field consists only of 51 papers.
For the countries most affected by disasters, the current
analysis suggests that international collaboration in disasterscience research would be particularly crucial, as it would
help increase their scholarly output in the field.

Until recently, our knowledge of how disasters occur has been
empirical. Disaster management as a science is very young.
The challenge now is to understand why disasters occur
and how they will occur in the future. It is also important
to construct a bridge between geological, hydrological, andmeteorological events and their social and economic impacts
to know more about disasters and work towards disasterrisk reduction. A platform that contains global information
about the current status of disaster science is very welcome
and timely.
Osvaldo de Moraes
Head, National Center for Alerting and Monitoringof Natural Disasters (CEMADEN), Brazilian
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation27

Natural disasters death toll versus
disaster science output & specialization

Publications 1 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Relative activity index

Death toll from natural disasters
normalized by population

0

0%

1

2+

0.1%+

Figure 2.1 — 2004-2013 natural disasters death toll as a share of population (shade of country), disasterscience 2012-2016 scholarly output (size of circle), disaster science 2012-2016 relative activity index (RAI,
color of circle); sources: Scopus®, IFRC 2015 Disaster Report, World Bank, and Taiwan Statistical Data book.

28

a global outlook on disaster scienceNatural disasters economic loss versus
disaster science output & specialization

Publications 1 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Relative activity index

Economic loss from natural disasters
normalized by GDP

0

0%

1

2+

0.5%+

Figure 2.2 — Natural disasters economic loss, calculated as the most recent available rolling annual
average loss normalized to the most recent available annual GDP (shade of country), disaster science 2012-2016
scholarly output (size of circle), disaster science 2012-2016 relative activity index (RAI, color of circle); sources:
Scopus®, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction Cycle 2015, and World Bank.

chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science29

Academia and researchers have a certain level of
responsibility and play important roles in disastermanagement – through education, inquiry, and social
contribution. The link between disaster research andpractice or policymaking is not strong enough, andresearch outcomes have not been sufficiently leveraged
into practice. It is crucial to strengthen the collaboration
between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, tounderstand local needs, and to conduct collaborative
research with countries that are particularly vulnerable
to disaster risks.
Takako Izumi
Associate Professor, International ResearchInstitute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS),
Tohoku University; Director, APRU MultiHazards Program

Do countries that suffer disproportionally from disasteroccurrence conduct more disaster research? The previous
section gave anecdotal evidence. Figure 2.3 (see next page)
examines this question systematically, by plotting natural
disaster burden against disaster scholarly output for eachcountry, in absolute and relative terms. The data suggeststhat disaster burden, both human and economic, isunevenly distributed.

These hypotheses are to some extent influenced by size, forwhich we can account by normalizing the data. We do thisby looking at scholarly output specialization in terms of
the relative activity index (RAI), while putting the death tollin the context of population and the economic burden in
the context of GDP. Still, the proportion of countries thatis highly specialized in disaster science is higher among
countries with a relatively heavy death toll due to natural
disasters than among countries with a relatively low death
toll from natural disasters (upper right panel). Similarly,
the proportion of countries highly specialized in disasterscience is higher among countries with a relatively higheconomic burden due to natural disasters than among
countries with a relatively low economic burden fromnatural disasters (lower right panel).

To promote integrated, inter- and transdisciplinary
disaster research, we need to focus the mindset ofresearchers as well as research managers and research
funders. It is the overall research ecosystem that needschange, toward need-based innovation in disaster science.
Rajib Shaw
Professor, Keio University; Member,
UNISDR STAG (Science and Technology
Advisory Group)

Countries with the highest death tolls from natural
disasters tend to have low volumes of scholarly output indisaster science. Conversely, countries with the highest
numbers of disaster science publications tend to suffer
relatively low death tolls (upper left panel). These countries
also tend to encounter high economic loss from natural
disasters (lower left panel). Countries with the highest
scholarly output in disaster science are intensive researchnations that also lead in overall scholarly output. It cantherefore be hypothesized that one underlying variablein the uneven distribution of disaster science research
may be overall GDP. Typically, a higher GDP permits
higher investments in research, with more funding for
research overall and in disaster science, which leads togreater scholarly output. It may also result in a resilient
infrastructure that can help save lives and therefore reduces
the human toll of natural disasters. A higher GDP may also
allow for a more complex and expensive infrastructure,
which in turn may lead to greater economic loss fromnatural disasters.

30

a global outlook on disaster scienceNatural disasters death toll
2.5%

150,000
200,000
100,000
150,000
50,000100,000
50,0000
001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
disaster science publications

0

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
disaster science publications

natural disasters
natural disasters
economiceconomic
loss
loss
in billioninusd
billion usd

50
40
50
35
45
30
40
25
35
20
30
15
25
10
20
155
5
0

2.0%
2.5%
1.5%
2.0%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
1.0%
0%
0.5%
0%

0

10
20
30
40
disaster science relative activity index

50

0

10
20
30
40
disaster science relative activity index

50

10
20
30
40
disaster science relative activity index

50

10
20
30
40
disaster science relative activity index

50

14%

Natural disasters economic loss

45

100

natural disasters
natural disasters
death toll
death toll
as share ofas sharepopulationof population

200,000
250,000

0

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
disaster science publications

0

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
disaster science publications

natural disasters
natural disasters
economiceconomic
loss
loss
as share ofas sharegdp of gdp

natural disasters
natural disasters
death toll
death toll

250,000

12%
14%
10%
12%
8%
10%
6%
8%
4%
6%
2%
4%
0%
2% 0
0%

0

Figure 2.3 — Upper panel left: 2004-2013 natural disasters death toll versus 2012-2016 publications
in disaster science per country. Upper panel right: 2004-2013 natural disasters death toll as shareof population versus 2012-2016 relative activity index (RAI) for disaster science scholarly output per
country. Lower panel left: natural disasters economic loss, calculated as the most recent available
annual rolling average loss, versus 2012-2016 publications in disaster science per country. Lower
panel right: natural disasters economic loss, calculated as the most recent available annual rolling
average loss normalized to the most recent available annual GDP, versus 2012-2016 RAI for disasterscience scholarly output per country. Sources: Scopus®, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction Cycle 2015, IFRC 2015 Disaster Report, World Bank, and Taiwan Statistical Data book.

chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science312.2	Patterns for key countries
in disaster science
Apart from output volume, we look at the impact of researchthrough its field-weighted citation impact (FWCI). Figure 2.4
shows that Japan stands out. It publishes a lot in disasterscience and is also highly specialized (nearly three times asmuch as the global average) in the disaster science field. In
addition, Japan’s publications in disaster science are more
impactful than the global average and more impactful thanits own overall research output. However, high output or
specialization in disaster science does not necessarily leadto high citation impact. For instance, although European
countries tend to be less specialized in disaster science,
they have a strong output and high citation impact in thefield, exceeding that of their respective overall research
performance. The USA is also not particularly specialized
in the disaster science field but nevertheless prolific, and
its FWCI is more in line with that of its overall research.
Brazil publishes few papers in disaster science, and has little
specialization in this area, but it has a high FWCI for its
disaster science research output, both in absolute terms andcompared to its overall research performance. India’s FWCI
in disaster science is also higher than the world averageand markedly superior to its overall research performance.
China shows a reverse pattern, with high output andspecialization in the field, but low citation impact, bothcompared to the world average and its own overall
performance. Mexico’s extreme FWCI is caused by a coupleof highly collaborative papers with very high FWCI thatskew the FWCI calculation due to the relatively low numberof papers from Mexico in disaster science. As such, it is not
an accurate reflection of the overall citation impact of the

field-weighted citation impact

9.0

3.0

Brazil284

2.5France
Italy
733
824
UK
1,354

Germany
876

2.0

India
918

1.5
1.0

6,287

World average

0

0.2

0.4

USA
6,301

0.5
0

Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI)
Scholarly communications build upon each other:
if previously published work is relevant to scientists’research, they will strive to read it and then reference
it in their own forthcoming publications. We cantherefore evaluate the scholarly impact of researchby using these citations. Citation patterns differ by
field: there are more, faster citations in the biomedical
sciences than in mathematics, for instance. They
likewise tend to vary by publication type. Finally,
citations take time to accrue: scientists first need toread publications, do their own research, and thenpublish their own results including any references
to previous work. Only when their publications areindexed in a database can the citations be counted. So
the longer since a paper has been published, the moretime it has had to be read, referenced, and indexed. To
normalise for these three factors (scope, type, and age)
we use field-weighted citation impact: an indicator ofmean citation impact that compares the actual numberof citations received by a publication with the expected
number of citations for publications of the same
document type, publication year, and subject area(s).

World average

Mexico113

8.5

country in disaster science, but rather shows the effect thatcollaborations can have on a country’s research impact. To alesser extent, this also affects Brazil's FWCI.38

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Japan 4,017
China

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

relative activity index
Figure 2.4 — Disaster science scholarly output (circle size), relative activity index, andfield-weighted citation impact per comparator country; 2012-2016; source: Scopus®.
38	In fact, large-scale collaborations may have a disproportional effect on a small entity’s FWCI relative to its actual level of participation in the research.

To account for this, we restrict the following analyses to publications with 100 or fewer authors.

32

a global outlook on disaster scienceWe next examine in which areas comparator
countries specialize within the field of
disaster science, looking first at the stages ofthe disaster management cycle in Figure 2.5.

relative activity index

Americas Brazil

Americas
The distribution of the USA’s output indisaster preparedness and prevention issimilar to the world average, and higher than
the world average in recovery and response.
In absolute scholarly output, the USA leads indisaster preparedness, response, and recovery
research.

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.41
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.18

MexicoDisaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.54
0.66
0.64
0.42
0.35

USA

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

1.02
1.02
1.07
1.26
1.27

China

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

1.24
1.34
1.15
0.89
0.87

India

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
RecoveryJapan

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
RecoveryFranceDisaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.61
0.47
0.60
0.62
0.52

Germany Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.52
0.47
0.56
0.60
0.40

Both Brazil and Mexico are less specialized
in research on all disaster management cycle
stages than the global average.
Asia
Japan’s output is more than three times
as concentrated in disaster recovery as
the global output, and more than twice inpreparedness, prevention, and response.
Japan has been affected by disaster types thatusually require extensive rebuilding, whichmight explain the extra emphasis put on
research on disaster recovery in this country.

Asia

Relative to global publication patterns, China
is more specialized in disaster preparedness
and prevention research (in which it also
leads in output), but less so in recovery andresponse research. This specialization pattern
may to some extent be influenced by thetypes of disasters with the heaviest humandeath toll for China, such as floods.
India’s output is less concentrated than theworld average in research on all disastermanagement cycle stages.

EuropeEuropeAll four comparator countries are lessspecialized on research on all disastermanagement cycle stages relative to global
publication patterns, although the United
Kingdom (UK) and Italy are closer to theworld average than France or Germany.

Figure 2.5 — Disaster science relative activity index(papers with 100 or fewer authors) per comparator
country, overall, and per disaster management cycle
stage; 2012-2016; source: Scopus®.
chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science

World average (1.0)

0.70
0.74
0.78
0.74
0.62
2.95
2.56
2.48
2.92
3.47

Italy

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.79
0.79
0.92
0.79
0.90

UK

Disaster science
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

0.76
0.78
0.83
0.89
0.78
33

We next examine in which disaster type comparator
countries specialize within the field of disaster science inFigures 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8. These analyses show that disasterscience in strong research nations tends to focus on the
major disasters that occurred in the region, e.g., Japan on
chemical & radiological disasters and geophysical disasters;
the USA on meteorological and biological disasters; andBrazil, China, and India on environmental disasters. The
disaster science community is responsive: recent disastertypes appear quickly in the published literature. Japan has
a strong research focus on geological disasters, following
the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, which triggered a tsunami
and caused the Fukushima nuclear accident. There is also astrong increase in research related to chemical & radiologicaldisasters in Japan. Publications related to disasters are notconfined to the region in which they occur: many papers
related to chemical & radiological disasters published inGermany, the UK, and France (which all have their own
nuclear power generators and nuclear safety programs) also
discuss the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident,
and make connections to the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
Figure 2.6, depicting comparator countries in the Americas,
reveals that Brazil publishes the largest proportion of its
disaster science scholarly output on hydrological disasters,
but is more specialized, relative to global publication
patterns, on environmental disasters. This appears
consistent with the frequent floods and mudslides that
affect the country (e.g., the January 2011 disaster event inseveral towns of the mountainous region of the state of
Rio de Janeiro). Brazil’s research on geophysical disasters
is cited 22% more than the world’s. Relative to global
publication patterns, Mexico is less specialized in disasterscience and research on all disaster types. It publishes
few papers in disaster science, and most of these are on
geophysical and hydrological disasters. The USA publishes
the largest proportion of its disaster science scholarly output
on meteorological and biological disasters—the former
might be accounted for, to some extent, by the relatively
heavy death toll of storms in that country. Relative to global
publication patterns, meteorological and biological disasters
are also areas of high specialization for the USA, alongsideresearch on technological and transportation disasters.
The USA’s research on all disaster types is highly cited, inline with the citation impact of the USA’s overall scholarly
output. Among comparators, the USA also has the mostpublications explicitly mentioning policy in their title,
keywords, or abstract (more than 2.5 times as many as its
closest comparators Japan, China, or the UK). As disaster

AmericasBrazilTechnologicalTransportation
Biological

Meteorological0

Field-weighted citation impact
34

0

1

2+

ClimatologicalHydrological

Environmental

1
2
3
4
5

Geophysicalrelative activity index

MexicoTechnological

Biological
Chemical &radiological

Meteorological

Climatological

0

Environmental

Hydrological
1
2
3
4
5

USA

Geophysicalrelative activity index

Transportation
Technological

Biological

Meteorological0
Figure 2.6 — Disaster science scholarly output (angle of slices),
relative activity index (length of slices), and rebased field-weighted
citation impact (color), for papers with 100 or fewer authors percomparator country in the Americas and per disaster type; 20122016; source: Scopus®.

Chemical &radiologicalHydrological1

Geophysical

Chemical &radiological

Climatological

Environmental
2 Extra-terrestrial
3
4
5

relative activity index

a global outlook on disaster scienceAsiascience should have a strong influence on policy, it would
be worthwhile to examine this result in more detail insubsequent studies.
Figure 2.7, focusing on Asia, demonstrates that China
publishes the largest proportion of its disaster sciencescholarly output on geophysical disasters, but it’s inhydrological and climatological disasters that its output isconcentrated 50% or more relative to global publication
patterns. The former specialization may be influenced
by the relatively heavy human death toll due to floods in
China—the country has experienced six of the world’s
most deadly floods and landslides, and three of the ten
most fatal earthquakes.39 India publishes the largest
proportion of its disaster science scholarly output on
geophysical, hydrological, and meteorological disasters;
this specialization may be affected by the relatively highnumber of human deaths due to floods and extreme
temperatures in India. However, India is more specialized,
relative to global publication patterns, on environmental
disasters, and its research in this subfield is cited 28% morethan the world’s. Japan publishes the largest proportionof its disaster science scholarly output on geophysicaland chemical & radiological disasters, in which it is also
highly specialized relative to global publication patterns.
This reflects recent disaster occurrences in Japan, the mostearthquake prone country in the world,40 with 10% of allactive volcanoes.41 The citation impact of Japan’s disasterscience research is at or higher than the world average in alldisaster types except environmental disasters.
Figure 2.8 (see next page), featuring European countries,
illustrates that relative to global publication patterns,
Germany publishes comparatively few papers in disasterscience. Most of these are on chemical & radiologicaldisasters. Perhaps this focus is due to some extent tothe country’s nuclear program, experience following theChernobyl accident, and decision to phase out nuclear
energy.42 The citation impact of Germany’s disaster science
research is at or higher than the world average in alldisaster types, in line with the citation impact of Germany’s

China
TechnologicalField-weighted citation impact

01

Biological
Chemical &radiological

Meteorological

Environmental

Hydrological

2
3
4
5

India

Geophysicalrelative activity index

Transportation
Technological

Biological

Meteorological

Chemical &radiological0

ClimatologicalHydrological

Environmental
1
2
3
4
5

Extra-terrestrial
Geophysicalrelative activity index

Transportation
Technological

Biological

MeteorologicalHydrological

Chemical &radiological0
Climatological39	“Natural disasters in China.” Wikipedia. 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disasters_in_China

140	Skymetweather.com. “10 earthquake prone countries in the world.”

chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science

Extraterrestrial

12+	https://www.skymetweather.com/content/earth-and-nature/10-earthquakeprone-countries-in-the-world/
41	Volcano Discovery. “Volcanoes of Japan.”https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/japan.html
42	BBC News. “Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022.” May 30, 2011.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13592208

Climatological

0

Japan
Figure 2.7 — Disaster science scholarly output (angle of slices),
relative activity index (length of slices), and rebased field-weighted
citation impact (color), for papers with 100 or fewer authors percomparator country in Asia and per disaster type; 2012-2016;source: Scopus®.

Transportation

2
Geophysical3
4
5

Environmental
Extra-terrestrial

relative activity index
35

overall scholarly output. Relative to global publication
patterns, France is less specialized in disaster scienceand research on most disaster types except chemical &radiological disasters, on which it publishes as muchas the global average. Chemical & radiological disasters
are also the subfield in which it publishes most of its
disaster science scholarly output. Perhaps this focus isalso due to the country’s nuclear safety program, as wellas the experiences and learnings from the Chernobyl
and Fukushima nuclear accidents. The citation impact ofFrance’s disaster science research is at or higher than theworld average in all disaster types except for technologicaldisasters, in line with the citation impact of France’s
overall scholarly output. Relative to global publication
patterns, the UK is less specialized in disaster science andresearch on most disaster types. It publishes comparatively
few papers in disaster science, and most of these are on
geophysical and chemical & radiological disasters. The
citation impact of the UK’s disaster science researchis at or higher than the world average in most disastertypes, in line with the citation impact of the UK’s overall
scholarly output. Italy publishes the largest proportionof its disaster science scholarly output on geophysicaldisasters, and is as specialized as the world average in thisfield, relative to global publication patterns. This may be
due to recent geophysical disasters in this country. Italy
is most specialized, however, in research on technologicaldisasters. Italy’s research on all disaster types is highly
cited, in line with the citation impact of Italy’s overall
scholarly output.

EuropeFranceTransportation
Technological

MeteorologicalHydrologicalGeophysical1

Extra-terrestrial

Italy

1

TechnologicalTransportation
Technological

MeteorologicalHydrological

Chemical &radiological0

Climatological

Biological

Meteorological

Chemical &radiological0

Climatological
Environmental
2 Extra-terrestrial
3
4
5
relative activity index
1GeophysicalUK
Biologicalrelative activity index

Germany

2+

Transportation

Climatological
2 Environmental
3
4
5

Figure 2.8 — Disaster science scholarly output (angle of slices),
relative activity index (length of slices), and rebased field-weighted
citation impact (color), for papers with 100 or fewer authors percomparator country in Europe and per disaster type; 2012-2016;source: Scopus®.
0

Chemical &radiological0

HydrologicalField-weighted citation impact

BiologicalTransportation
Technological

Biological

Meteorological0

Hydrological

Chemical &radiological

Environmental
Geophysical1

Geophysical

2
3
4
5

36

Extra-terrestrial

relative activity index

1
2
3
4
5

Climatological
Environmental
Extra-terrestrial

relative activity index

a global outlook on disaster science

Interview
Gordon McBean

President, International Council for Science (ICSU); Co-Chair,
Governing Council, Future Earth: Research for Global Sustainability;
Director, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction; Professor
Emeritus, Department of Geography, Western University

What roles have you and the International Council for Scienceplayed in the field of disaster science?

What parts of the report do you think are important for policy
makers or institutional leaders?

As an atmosphere-ocean physicist, I have studied storms, beenhead of Canada’s weather service and, since 2000, been at theInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Western University.
I chaired the Planning Group, then Science Committee for the
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk ↗ (IRDR) program. I continue
to be involved in Canadian and international disaster science andpolicy and led the science delegation at Sendai. The International
Council for Science ↗ (ICSU) is the leading non-governmental
international science organization. It partners with UN and otherorganizations to co-sponsor major global research programs,
including the IRDR, World Climate Research Programme andFuture Earth: Research for Global Sustainability ↗.

I think the numbers on the impact of disasters - 230,000 recent
disaster-related deaths in Haiti alone - really emphasize theneed for the international scientific community to help building
disaster resilience in developing countries. These countries do
not have the resources to support disaster science programs, but
the international disaster science field can help them use theresources they have and use them in the optimal way to reduce
their vulnerability to disasters. These kinds of reports can be very
useful for policy makers. We need to get more scientists working
with stakeholders to better communicate the information in thereport about disaster risk in ways that stimulates evidence-based
policymaking.

How do you see the role of science in disaster risk reduction?

Thinking about the future of disaster science and theconclusion of the Sendai Framework timeline, where do you
think disaster science will be by 2030?

Science is very important in disaster risk reduction. Disaster scienceleads to understanding the hazards causing disasters, enabling
prediction of their timing, location and magnitude and provision of
information and early warnings for action. Natural science, social
science, engineering, health and economics are all important in
reducing exposure and vulnerability, developing resilience of people
and communities and reducing disasters’ impacts. Excellence indisaster science requires a transdisciplinary, integrated approach toaddress disaster risk reduction.
What information in this report did you find particularlyinteresting or that is likely to have an effect on thedevelopment of the field looking forward?

I am optimistic about the progress that will be made by the
programs and projects that we have in place globally andnationally. But there needs to be more investment in disasterscience, which needs to be integrated across the issues ofsustainable development, climate, disasters, and health, in waysthat produce evidence-based guidance that has greater impact.
There is value in taking a narrow scientific approach, but toaddress the big, cross-cutting issues in disaster management, weneed to have a transdisciplinary approach. I think that is startingto happen now and will continue into the future.

It is very interesting to see the distribution of disaster sciencepublications in terms of topics, issues, authors and origins. There
were about 9,000 citations to earthquakes and about 15,000
to meteorological, climatological, and hydrological events.
Understanding of transport events led to the IRDR Forensic
Investigations of Disasters (FORIN) program, which integrates
approaches from the transportation sector to understand what goes
wrong and why in other disasters. Understanding the statistics on
publications within the disaster science field is important because
it can help us find the gaps in knowledge and better understandthe relationships between scientific capacity and disaster impact
in developed and developing countries. Research in disasterscience has multidimensional value, and understanding thedifferent kinds of disasters, and how different disasters happen indifferent countries, requires that we bring scientists together as aninternational community. We need to make sure that the report’s
information is used to support disaster science research and has
a positive impact on societies around the world through informed
policy and actions.
chapter 2 country focus on disasters and disaster science

37

38

a global outlook on disaster scienceFuture Outlook
Despite the key role science plays in the implementation of
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, disasterscience represents only 0.22% of the world’s total scholarly
output. Asia appears to have a central position in thedisaster science field. Worldwide, many emerging countries
with high burdens of disaster-related human or economic
loss publish few disaster science papers.
The data suggests that countries focus their researchon disaster types with high domestic relevance. In thecontext of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (UN SDGs), two questions come to mind. First,
are there research areas within disaster science that areunder-researched globally, because they have relatively low
relevance to the top research countries? On disaster types,
we argue in Chapter 1 that this is not the case; however, wehave not looked at the question at a more detailed level.
Secondly, to what extent are research results transferrable
between geographies? Or in other words, to what extent islocal research in the countries bearing the highest burden
necessary to effectively reduce disaster risk and impacts?
This disconnect between where most of the disaster impact
is felt and where most of the research is done could be tosome extent addressed by international, interdisciplinary,and cross-sector scholarly collaborations and knowledgetransfer. While it is beyond the scope of the present
report to examine the detailed collaboration patterns ofdisaster science researchers, a few comments on the topic
of collaborations provide an interesting context. Disasterscience has an overall degree of international collaborationof 20%, which is slightly higher than the global average inall fields of science of around 18% during the time period
covered.
While China overall has a few more publications, theUnited States (USA) is the top collaborator for all countries
included in the comparative section of this report. China
is among the top five collaborators for the United States,
Japan, and the United Kingdom (UK), while for Brazil and
Mexico, China is not even among the top 15 collaborators.
Furthermore, collaborations between the five mostresearch-intensive nations in disaster science (China, USA,
Japan, and the UK) is to a large extent bilateral rather thanmultilateral. For the two largest research nations in disasterscience, China and the USA, this follows the generalcollaboration pattern. For Japan and the UK, as an example,
in science overall there is a higher degree of collaborations
beyond bilateral collaborations.

Disaster science is a critical part of understanding thefactors that contribute to risk and vulnerability, anddeveloping pre-emptive actions that can be taken to save
lives. With the increasing data available on geological,hydrological, and climatological hazards, better predictions
can be made, and mitigation and adaptation mechanisms
can be put in place to ensure better outcomes for people.
Jemilah Mahmood
Under Secretary General,
The International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Many of the multilateral collaborations in disaster science
are related to larger longitudinal studies, for instancein the medical area. Collaborations, notably between
research-intensive nations and emerging nations, areexpected to improve disaster science scholarly output.
Further analysis is needed, in particular, to explore thecurrent state of collaboration in disaster science research,and how it might be leveraged to help achieve better
outcomes for all.
Research on the disaster management cycle is not
limited to single stages, instead covering a continuumof interlinked stages. The disaster science community
is also responsive to recent disasters. The multifaceted
nature of the issues at stake and complex implications ofdisaster impacts require expertise that spans the whole
scholarly landscape and includes cross-sector approaches
to improving disaster resilience and mitigation.
Further analysis is needed of interdisciplinarity,transdisciplinarity, and cross-sector collaboration and how
these might be optimized to accelerate the pace of researchin the disaster science field.
Relating to the priorities of the Sendai Framework, notably
Priority 4, on enhancing disaster preparedness for effective
response—to “Build Back Better” in terms of recovery,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction—it would be interesting
to study whether more research on the science-policypractice nexus is needed.43 As disaster science shouldhave a strong influence on policy, it would be worthwhile
to look into the connections between disaster sciencescholarly output and policymaking in more detail insubsequent analyses.

43	Aitsi-Selmi A., Blanchard K., Al-Khudhairy D., et al. UNISDR STAG 2015 Report: Science is Used for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.

http://preventionweb.net/go/42848
future outlook

39

40

a global outlook on disaster scienceAppendices

A Acknowledgements, Subject Experts, & Project Team42

B Rationale & Methodology

44

C Glossary of Terms & Data Sources

45

D Keyword Search Criteria

appendicesonline ↗

41

Appendix A
Acknowledgements, Subject Experts,& Project TeamAcknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without invaluable input from the participating expert
organizations. We would like to express our deepest gratitude and acknowledge the following individuals
and organizations for their expertise, insight, and meaningful contributions toward the development of
this report, including the experts who participated in the interviews included in the report:
Shuaib Lwasa
Committee Chair, Scientific Committee,
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk
(IRDR)
Chadia Wannous
Senior Advisor,
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR)

Gordon McBean
President, International Council for Science(ICSU); Co-Chair, Governing Council, Future
Earth: Research for Global Sustainability;
Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction;
Professor Emeritus, Department ofGeography, Western University

Subject experts — in alphabetical order
Ian Clark
Head of Unit, Disaster Risk Management,
Directorate Space, Security and Migration, Joint
Research Centre, European Commission

John Rundle
Distinguished Professor, Departmentsof Physics and Geology, University of California,
Davis

Takako Izumi
Associate Professor, International ResearchInstitute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku
University, Japan; Director, APRU Multi-Hazards
Program

Rajib Shaw
Professor Keio University; Member,
UNISDR STAG (Science and Technology
Advisory Group)

Fumiko Kasuga
Global Hub Director, Japan, Future Earth
Secretariat; Senior Fellow, National Institutefor Environmental Studies; Visiting Professor,
Integrated Research System for Sustainability
Science (IR3S), The University of Tokyo

Josh Tewksbury
Director, Colorado Global Hub, Future Earth;Executive Editor, Anthropocene; Research
Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder;
Senior Scholar, School of Global Environmental
Sustainability, Colorado State University

Elisabeth Krausmann
Principal Scientist, Technology Innovationin Security, Directorate Space, Security and
Migration, Joint Research Centre, European
Commission

Chadia Wannous
Senior Advisor, UN Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction (UNISDR)

Osvaldo de Moraes
Head, National Center for Alerting and Monitoringof Natural Disasters (CEMADEN), Brazilian
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation42

a global outlook on disaster science

Elsevier project team — in alphabetical order
Ludivine Allagnat
Senior Academic Relations Manager
Global Strategic Networks
Project Management, Engagements, Communications

Shereen Hanafi
Head of Marketing
Research Intelligence
Communications

Jeroen Baas
Head of Data Science
Research Products
Data Extraction

Sarah Huggett
Analytical Services Product Manager
Research Networks
Analyst, Author

Stephane Berghmans
Vice President Academic & Research Relations
Global Strategic Networks
Engagements

Anders Karlsson
Vice President Academic Relations
Global Strategic Networks
Author, Engagements

Sacha Boucherie
Senior Manager Communications
Research Networks
Press Relations, Communications

Lisette van Kessel
Content Assets Coordinator
Research Networks
Project Management (Production)

Basak Candemir
Analytical Services Product Manager
Research Networks
AnalystMaria de Kleijn-Lloyd
Senior Vice-President Analytical Services
Research Networks
AuthorDante Cid
Vice President Academic Relations
Global Strategic Networks
Engagements

Eleonora Palmaro
Data Scientist
Research Products
Data Extraction

Ann E. Gabriel
Vice President Academic & Research Relations
Global Strategic Networks
Engagements

Alisher Perez-Makhmoudova
InternGlobal Strategic Networks
General Support

Writer commissioned
for this report
Stacey Tobin
Writer and Editor
The Tobin Touch, Inc.
Authorappendices

Designer commissioned
for this report
This report was designed for online and print by
CLEVER°FRANKE (www.cleverfranke.com ).

43Appendix B
Rationale & Methodology
Rationale

Methodology

Our methodology is based on the theoretical principles andbest practices developed in the field of quantitative scienceand technology studies, particularly in science and technology
indicators research. The Handbook of Quantitative Science andTechnology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics
in Studies of S&T Systems (Moed, Glänzel and Schmoch,2004)44 gives a good overview of this field and is based on
the pioneering work of Derek de Solla Price (1978),45 Eugene
Garfield (1979)46 and Francis Narin (1976)47 in the USA, andChristopher Freeman, Ben Martin and John Irvine in the UK(1981, 1987),48 and in several European institutions including
the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden
University, the Netherlands, and the Library of the Academy of
Sciences in Budapest, Hungary.

In this report, we rely upon the knowledge of internationallyrecognized disaster science experts to help us define thefield of disaster science for our analyses. Disaster science is acomplex field in its essence. The many causes and implicationsof disasters require research that draws from various regionsof the scholarly landscape and harnesses expertise acrossscientific disciplines.

The analyses of bibliometric data in this study are based
upon recognized advanced indicators (e.g., the concept ofrelative citation impact rates). Our base assumption is thatsuch indicators are useful and valid, though imperfect andpartial measures, in the sense that their numerical values are
determined by research performance and related concepts,
but also by other influencing factors that may cause systematic
biases. In the past decade, the field of indicators research hasdeveloped best practices that state how indicator results should
be interpreted and which influencing factors should be taken
into account. We believe in using a basket of various metrics
complemented by qualitative inputs to present a holistic
picture of the various outputs and impacts of research, and our
methodology for this report builds on these practices.

We therefore adopt a keyword-search approach to define
the field of disaster science, to avoid restrictions to any
particular subject areas that may ignore a significant portionof the relevant corpus of research publications. We focus oursearch on those publications that explicitly adopt a disasterscience perspective, thereby also ensuring consistency acrossthe different sets of publications included in the analysis.
In addition to disaster science as a whole, we also examine
disaster types per the Sendai Framework and disastermanagement cycle stages. Full definitions of search criteria are
available in the separate Appendix D.

44	Moed H., Glänzel W., Schmoch, U. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Kluwer: Dordrecht; 2004.
45	de Solla Price, D.J. (1977–1978). Foreword in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 3, v–ix.
46	Garfield, E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics. 1979;1(4):359-375. doi:10.1007/BF02019306
47	Pinski, G., Narin, F. Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory with application to literatureof physics. Information Processing & Management. 1976;12(5):297–312. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(76)90048-0

48	Irvine, J., Martin, B. R., Abraham, J., Peacock, T. Assessing basic research: Reappraisal and update of an evaluation of fourradio astronomy observatories. Research Policy. 1987;16(2-4):213-227. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(87)90031-X

44

a global outlook on disaster scienceAppendix C
Glossary of Terms & Data Sources
Glossary of terms

Data sources

A paper or publication refers to an article, review, orconference proceeding indexed in the Scopus® database.
Scholarly output for an entity is the count of articles with atleast one author from that entity. All analyses make use ofwhole counting rather than fractional counting. For example,
if a paper has been co-authored by one author in Japan and
one author in the USA, then that paper counts towards eachcountry’s scholarly output. Total counts for each entity are theunique counts of publications.

Scopus®↗ is this report’s source of research performance data.
It is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed
literature, with over 68 million records. These span over
22,500 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers.
Scopus® coverage is global; titles from all geographicalregions are covered, including non-English titles as long as
English abstracts can be provided with the articles. In fact,
approximately 21% of titles in Scopus® are published in up
to 40 languages other than English (or published in both
English and another language). In addition, Scopus® offers
broad coverage of the peer-reviewed literature and quality web
sources across science, technology, and medicine (STM), as
well as social sciences and arts & humanities (A&H).

A citation is a formal reference to earlier work made in anarticle or patent, frequently to other journal articles. A citation
is used to credit the originator of an idea or finding and isusually used to indicate that the earlier work supports theclaims of the work citing it. The number of citations received
by an article from subsequently published articles is a proxy forthe importance of the reported research.
The relative activity index (RAI) is calculated by dividing theshare of a country’s output in a particular field by the share of
the world’s output in that same field. It therefore represents
how concentrated a country’s output is in a particular area
relative to the world average. As such, it can be used to analyze
specialization. For instance, 0.66% of Japan’s scholarly output isin disaster science, compared to 0.22% of the global scholarly
output. Japan’s RAI in disaster science is therefore 0.66/0.22=3.
Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is an indicator of mean
citation impact, and compares the actual number of citations
received by an article with the expected number of citations
for articles of the same document type (article, review, orconference proceeding paper), publication year, and subject
area. When an article is classified in two or more subject
areas, the harmonic mean of the actual and expected citation
rates is used. The indicator is therefore always defined withreference to a global baseline of 1.0 and intrinsically accounts
for differences in citation accrual over time, differences incitation rates for different document types (reviews typicallyattract more citations than research articles, for example) as
well as subject-specific differences in citation frequencies
overall and over time and document types. It is one of the mostsophisticated indicators in the modern bibliometric toolkit.

appendices

The Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™↗ applies a variety of
Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to mine thetext of any scientific document. Key concepts that define thetext are identified in thesauri spanning all major scholarly
disciplines. The Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™ creates an index
of weighted terms that defines the text, known as a semantic
fingerprint. This consists of all the key concepts derived from apiece of text, weighted to reflect their relative importance. The
advantage of using key concepts based on semantic fingerprint
technology is that the resulting terms are of higher quality andare more representative than standard sets of keywords, which
often contain duplicates, synonyms, and inclusion of irrelevantterms. Semantic fingerprints can be used for describing
themes and are ideal for describing groups of articles andidentifying articles that are related to one another in terms ofsubject area.
We also use disaster economic loss data featured in the Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction Cycle 2015 at ourexperts’ recommendation. In the country profiles, the datais credited as coming from OFDA/CRED, the International
Disaster Database from the Université Catholique de Louvain.
To make these disaster economic data more comparable acrosscountries of different sizes and with different resources, wenormalize them by GDP data from the World Bank.
We also use disaster death toll data featured in the IFRC
2015 Disaster Report. To make these disaster economic data
more comparable across countries of different sizes and withdifferent resources, we normalize them by population datafrom the World Bank and Taiwan Statistical Data book.

45

This report was prepared by Elsevier. Elsevier’s Research Intelligence portfolio of products
and services serves research institutions, government agencies, funders, and companies.
For more information, visit elsevier.com/research-intelligence ↗
46

Notes

notes

47

48

a global outlook on disaster sciencePeriodic assessment of the state of disaster science is essential
to identify gaps in knowledge and review progress in resiliencebuilding programs, investment, and development planning.
Elsevier, together with partners and experts and in accordancewith the goals of the Sendai Framework, seeks to contribute tothese efforts with this quantitative analysis of disaster science
research scholarly output from 2012 to 2016.
The findings of this analysis may assist governments and research
institutions in recognizing opportunities to build disaster science
research capacity, forge international and regional partnerships,
strengthen the science-policy interface, and engage stakeholder
communities. In addition, funding agencies will be able tovisualize where financial support might be allocated to strengthen
disaster science research capacity, responsiveness, and impact.

Elsevier and Empowering Knowledge are registered trademarks of Elsevier B.V. RELX Group and the
RE symbol are trademarks of RELX Intellectual Properties SA, used under license. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.