Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373

http://d2212-42

n CorrE-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Review Article

Toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk re-duction and climate change adaptation

Rawshan Ara Begum a,n, Md. Sujahangir Kabir Sarkar b, Abdul Hamid Jaafar c,Joy Jacqueline Pereira b

a Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysiab Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Institute (SEADPRI), Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysiac Faculty of Economics and Management (FEP), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 July 2014Received in revised form30 October 2014Accepted 30 October 2014Available online 4 November 2014

Keywords:Disaster risk reductionClimate change adaptationVulnerabilityResilience

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.10.01109/& Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author.ail addresses: rawshan@ukm.edu.my, rawsha

a b s t r a c t

The priorities of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA)agendas both include reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience. Thus, it is crucial tolink DRR and CCA to benefit simultaneously from risk reduction and adaptation measures.The article provides conceptual frameworks that could be useful for better understandingand promoting the integration of DRR and CCA by linking these approaches to acceleraterisk reduction and adaptation measures at all levels (global, regional, national and local).This linkage could be an important basis for discussion in climate negotiations regardingthe allocation of funds needed for tackling climate change, especially in developingcountries. This article also identifies common features and practices for DRR and CCA inseveral sectors and documents the growing acknowledgment and affirmation of the needto integrate DRR and CCA into development policy and planning.

& Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3632. Concepts and Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364

2.1. Disaster risk reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3642.2. Climate change adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3652.3. Conceptual framework of linking DRR and CCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

2.3.1. Vulnerable sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672.3.2. Stakeholders involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672.3.3. Integrated approach and policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672.3.4. Institutional capacity building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672.3.5. Education and awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672.3.6. Effective fund allocation and disbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3682.3.7. Coordination and collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3682.3.8. Political and institutional will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

3. Examples and practices of linking DRR and CCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

n01@yahoo.com (R.A. Begum).

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 363

4. Opportunities of linking DRR and CCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3695. Limitations of linking DRR and CCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3706. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

1. Introduction

There is an increasing trend in the occurrence of natural disasters, and climate change only serves to aggravate the devastatingimpacts of these disasters [1]. This disaster trend has increased over time and climate-related disasters are the most commonlyoccurring disaster events [2–4]. According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), the number ofreported disasters has significantly increased from 294 in 1950–1959 to 3530 in 2000–2008 and 4210 in 2003–2013 [2,5]. In 2013, atotal of 330 natural disasters were reported which was less than the average annual disaster frequency observed from 2003 to 2012(388). This was mostly due to a smaller number of hydrological and climatological disasters (18% and 45% below the annual averageof 2003–2012, respectively). Hydrological disasters (159) still had a largest share in natural disaster occurrence in 2013 (48.2%),followed bymeteorological disasters (106%; 32.1%), climatological disasters (33%; 10%) and geophysical disasters (32%; 9.7%). A largenumber of people have already been affected, and economic losses are significant due to the increasing number of disastersworldwide [4,6]. The overall impacts of climate-related disasters may enhance the vulnerability of many societies and communitiesworldwide, especially those that are already vulnerable [7]. The approaches of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate changeadaptation (CCA) tackle the impacts of shocks and stresses, and seek to make individuals, communities and societies more resilientand less vulnerable to them [8]. According to UNISDR [9], resilience defines as “the ability of a system, community or societyexposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner,including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions” while vulnerability is “thecharacteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard”.Cannon [10] emphasised that vulnerability must be understood as a set of socioeconomic conditions that are identifiable in relationto particular hazard risks, and therefore perform a predictive role that can assist in risk reduction whereas resilience is oftenconfused as a concept, sometimes seen as the inverse of vulnerability, and by others as an independent quality. These confusionsmay be especially relevant in the context of policy for disaster risk reduction at the scale of community [10]. According to someliteratures, high level of resilience infers low vulnerability and vice versa [10–14]. The pattern of highs and lows in the differentcomponents of vulnerability and resilience may vary between individuals, households, groups, and communities [10]. However,other studies rely vulnerability and resilience as separate, possibly overlapping but not its opposite [15–18]. A number of studiesdescribed a detailed of resilience and vulnerability, their sources and relationship, vulnerability and its causative processes in termsof disaster and climate related risks [19–30]. These descriptions are beyond of this article's scope. Nevertheless, both DRR and CCAapproaches are useful in reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to the potential adverse impacts of climate-related ex-tremes and disasters, even though a portion of risks cannot be fully eliminated [4]. In managing risks posed by climate change andclimate-related disasters, the coordination and collaboration for linking DRR and CCA have already been noted by practitioners andpolicymakers as well as by leading national and international organisations [6].

Due to concerns over rising disaster frequency and severity, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) washeld in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, 2005, where the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG) presented the discussionpaper “Disaster Risk Management in a Changing Climate” to support a dialogue on the synergies and differences betweenapproaches to disaster risk management (DRM) and CCA. At Kobe, the link between DRM and climate change was thesubject of intensive formal and informal debates. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005–2015, titled “Building theResilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters,” was adopted by the Conference [31] and calls were made for a strongerrecognition of climate change concerns in DRR strategies that seeks to establish a multi-disciplinary, forward-looking ap-proach [32]. A great deal of attention is now needed to integrate the DRR and CCA agendas conceptually as well as inpractise at sub-national, national and international levels [33,34]. A functional linking of DRR and CCA within the context ofpoverty reduction and development has been recommended by UNISDR [35]. The recent special report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), titled “Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climatechange adaptation,” has also drawn attention to potential linkages between DRR and CCA [4]. The increasing recognition ofthe inter-linkages and overlaps between CCA and DRR is also reflected in the key frameworks of the United Nations Fra-mework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

With the wide-ranging impact of disasters, action is required to ensure that DRR is mainstreamed in policy agreements and issupported by an international DRR mechanism. Although politically challenging, this could be achieved by adopting a legallybinding commitment to DRR with specific goals defined and signatory nations held accountable for their achievements, as is thecase with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. The Hyogo Framework for Action2005–2015 (HFA) expires in 2015, and a process is already in place to negotiate a new global agreement on DRR. However, thecountries of the parties (CoP) on its fifteenth session in Copenhagen aspires that enhanced action and international cooperation onadaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation ofadaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that areparticularly vulnerable, such as least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa [36]. They agreed that

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373364

developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building tosupport the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries. The effective reduction of vulnerabilities to naturalhazards and climate change requires coordination across multiple levels and sectors of governance, and it also requires the in-volvement of a broad range of stakeholders such as government organisations (GOs) including local governments, non-governmentorganisations (NGOs), community people, relevant national and international organisations as well as businesses and experts(hereafter stakeholders refer to these). To strengthen the links between DRR and CCA, it is also important to understand when andat what level coordination is required and who should take the lead [32]. There is a need to better understand the extent to whichcurrent disaster management practices reflect future adaptation needs and assess what changes may be required if such practicesare to address future risks. Therefore, this article attempts to investigate the conceptual frameworks of linkages between DRR andCCA. This paper also provides examples and practices of linking DRR and CCA, and it reviews the associated opportunities andlimitations. A comprehensive literature review was performed to develop conceptual frameworks for linking DRR and CCA.

2. Concepts and Frameworks

2.1. Disaster risk reduction

There are two main components of disaster risk management (DRM): disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster man-agement (DM). According to the UNISDR [37], DRR is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematicefforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessenedvulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness foradverse events. DRR describes the development and application of policies, strategies and practices that minimise vul-nerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevent) or to limit (mitigate and adapt to) the adverse impactsof hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development [8,38,39]. Traditionally, disaster management follows fourphases of an emergency event such as mitigation (preplanning), preparation, response, and recovery [40,41]. However, DRMincludes and goes beyond DRR by adding a management perspective that combines prevention, mitigation and prepared-ness with response [39]. In fact, DRR efforts such as prevention, mitigation, preparedness, networking, local level insurance,shelter protection and water provision contribute to poverty reduction, while poverty reduction efforts such as job andlivelihoods creation and protection could also help to reduce disaster risks [41]. For instance, water and environmentalmanagement have emerged as prominent links between DRR and poverty reduction [42]. On a global scale, DRM should beincorporated into poverty reduction policies and initiatives [43].

DRR uses a wide range of options including legal, institutional and policy frameworks, administrative mechanisms andprocedures related to risk reduction of current and future disasters. The Hyogo Framework for Actions (HFA) has outlinedthe roadmap for DRR, encompassing governance, risk assessment and early warning, knowledge and education, reduction ofunderlying risk factors in the context of development and disaster preparedness and response [44]. The HFA has set fivepriorities for promoting DRR which are as follows:

�

Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation. � Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning. � Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. � Reduce the underlying risk factors. � Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

Hence, the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Na-tions International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has taken a global, multi and inter-disciplinary programme,entitled Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) to addressing the challenge of natural and human induced environ-mental hazards, mitigating their impacts, and improving related policy-making mechanisms [45]. Strategic goals of the IRDRProgramme (2013–2017) are as follows [46]:

�

Promote integrated research, advocacy and awareness-raising. � Characterisation of hazards, vulnerability, and risk. � Understanding decision-making in complex and changing risk contexts. � Reducing risk and curbing losses through knowledge-based actions. � Networking and network building. � Research Support.

Attainment of these goals would lead to a better understanding of hazards, vulnerability and risk; the enhanced capacityto model and project risk into the future; greater understanding of the decision making choices that lead to risk and howthey may be influenced; and how this knowledge can effectively lead to disaster risk reduction [46].

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 365

DRR is one of the major components of DRM and CCA is an integral component of DRR or vice versa. All components ofDRM are linked; for example, disaster recovery should include elements of DRR and CCA [44]. Prevention is the eliminationof risks, which is the first and most effective stage of DRR. Hence, DRR programs not only include prevention, mitigation andadaptation but also include the preparedness and response programme for reducing the risk of disasters. Mercer [47]emphasised that DRR demands an integrated approach because of its multi-disciplinary nature of actions. Strategies for DRRinclude hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments. Local-level strategies should be linked with appropriate top-downstrategies and local government interventions [48–50]. Successful DRR creates resilient communities, while ensuring thatvulnerability is not increased through development efforts or other externally initiated activity [38,49,51]. Therefore,multiple actions with multiple stakeholders are needed for managing the risk of disasters in a way that also promotesdevelopment.

2.2. Climate change adaptation

Climate change adaptation is the adjustment of natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climaticstimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities [37,52]. Burton [53] defines it as “theprocess through which people reduce the adverse effects of climate on their health and well-being, and take advantage ofthe opportunities that their climatic environment provides”. Similarly, Smith et al. [54]. state that “adaptation to climatechange includes all adjustments in behaviour or economic structure that reduces the vulnerability of society to changes inthe climate system”. Thus, adapting to the adverse effects of climate change is vital to reduce the impacts of climate changethat are happening now and may increase resilience to future impacts [55]. Fig. 1 shows that adaptation is one of the vitalresponses to climate change.

Adaptation is not accomplished in a single intervention [56]. Multiple actions with the involvement of multiple stake-holders are crucial for better adaptation initiatives and measures. Adaptation requires an approach that incorporates in-terventions ranging from those that address underlying drivers of vulnerability to those designed exclusively to respond toclimate change impacts [57]. The vulnerability of a system depends on its exposure and sensitivity to changes, and on itsability to manage these changes [58]. Climate change adaptation can thus be effected by altering exposure, by reducingsensitivity of the system to climate change impacts, and by increasing the adaptive capacity of the system [59]. Hence,adaptation strategies should be target-oriented, to increase the adaptive capacity and reduce the vulnerability of poorpeople due to climate stresses as well as to contribute to poverty eradication. Addressing climate risk, strengtheningadaptive capacity, and targeting the factors creating vulnerability represent what has to be accomplished in poverty era-dication or development aid to adapt to climate change [60]. Moreover, sustainable practices of adaptation measures couldreduce both vulnerability and poverty by addressing the social dimension of sustainable development [60]. Thus, the in-tegration of DRR and CCA practices would be useful for the alleviation of poverty and for the delivery of the millenniumdevelopment goals (MDGs), especially for the least developed and developing countries. Table 1 shows different means/practices that have been used to support adaptation to climate change. Some of the reviewed adaptation practices are veryrelevant to DRR, e.g., early warning systems, insurance and high seawalls.

2.3. Conceptual framework of linking DRR and CCA

As DRR and CCA are both concerned with vulnerability reduction and enhancing resilience, a combined approach isnecessary in development planning and decision-making at national, regional and global levels. There are some differencesbetween DRR and CCA in their scope and specific interests for example, DRR includes addressing volcanoes and earthquakes,which are not in CCA, but they have very similar aims towards building resilience against hazards [6,62]. DRR and CCA alsouse some common non-structural measures including policies, knowledge development/awareness and methods such asthe participatory approach, which can reduce disaster risk and increase the adaptive capacity of the community and nation[62]. For example, awareness-raising as a component of an early warning system not only reduces the current flood risks butalso provides an understanding of future flood scenarios. Governments worldwide have shown an increase in the level ofpolitical interest in both approaches: more intensely in CCA, but moderately in DRR as well [63]. Both CCA and DRR can be

Consequences

Natural and Human systems

Responses Adaptation Mitigation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Climate Change

Fig. 1. Adaptation and other responses to climate change [42].

Table 1Applying practices for climate change adaptation [61].

Type of response toclimate change

Autonomous Policy-driven

Short-run � Making short-run adjustments, e.g. changing crop plantingdates

� Spreading the loss, e.g. pooling risk through insurance

� Developing greater understanding of climate risks, e.g.researching risks and carrying out a vulnerabilityassessment

� Improving emergency response, e.g. early-warningsystems

Long-run � Investing in climate resilience if future effects relatively wellunderstood and benefits easy to capture fully, e.g. localisedirrigation on farms

� Investing to create or modify major infrastructure, e.g.larger reservoir storage, increased drainage capacity,higher seawalls

� Avoiding the impacts, e.g. land use planning to restrictdevelopment in floodplains or in areas of increasingaridity

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373366

linked by governments in their policy agendas. Experts and policymakers could promote the incorporation of DRR and CCAinto sustainable development plans and policies. Thus, it is very crucial to mainstream both approaches into national de-velopment plans, poverty reduction strategies, sectoral policies and other development tools and techniques [62,64].

Despite the growing acknowledgment of linkages between DRR and CCA, there are some hindrances that impede ef-fective integration. On the global and international levels, the institutions responsible for implementing DRR and CCAstrategies are often separate. The global climate change community works under the UNFCCC, while the DRR community isfollowing HFA under UNISDR. This situation is often similar on the national level; taking Malaysia as an example, theNational Security Council, in the Prime Minister's Department implements DRR, while the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment (MNRE) is responsible for CCA. So it is important to establish linkages between global, national and sub-national platforms and organisations. There are different ways to link DRR and CCA that might not involve integration suchas bridge or blend or cooperate. Each of these ways to link would require different responses from the DRR and CCAcommunities and their supporting institutions. Thus, this article provides a detailed insight of integration as a form oflinkages between DRR and CCA. Fig. 2 exposes the direct and indirect linkages between DRR and CCA. Prevention strategiesin DRR could be useful for the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and should be based on holistic approachesconsisting of the delimitation of risks, protection measures and early warning systems. For example, land use planning andmanagement is a DRR prevention strategy that also contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation by re-ducing emissions and the impacts of climate change and hazards, respectively. However, many of the adaptation measuressuch as vulnerability assessments, sectoral and national planning, capacity-building and response strategies are also directlysupportive of DRR. In addition, holistic approach should embrace various risks and account for synergies and trade-offs dueto huge variations between countries, in terms of risks and capacities. All stakeholders of the local authorities should beinvolved at the different stages of the process through a governance structure [65]. Therefore, the frameworks suggest theestablishment of a linkage between DRR and CCA at local levels, where engagement and coordination among local gov-ernments and communities are necessary.

DRR concept: without linkages Global platform eg. UNISDR

National platform eg. National Security Council, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia All type of hazards Policy for DRR

Direct linkages Prevention strategies Building resilience Non-structural measures Political interest Development concerns

Indirect linkages International organization Govt. agency NGOs Experts

Need coordination and collaboration among the stakeholders

CCA concept: without linkages Global platform eg. UNFCCC

National platform eg. Ministry of Natural Resources& Environment, Malaysia Climate related hazards Policy for CCA

Fig. 2. Conceptual framework I: linkages between DRR and CCA.

Political and institutional will

Linking DRR and CCA

Vulnerable Sectors eg. Agriculture Forestry Water Health Infrastructure and so on

Stakeholders involvement eg. International organisation GOs and NGOs Expert

Business community Local people

Effective fund allocation and disbursement

Integrated approach and Integrated policy

Coordination and collaboration among sectors, stakeholders, institutions, policies and programmes

Education and awareness programmes

Institutional capacity building

Fig. 3. Conceptual framework II: factors involvements to linking DRR and CCA.

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 367

Fig. 3 has been drawn to provide a conceptual framework for better understanding the linkages of DRR and CCA at thelocal and national level. The factors involved to linking DRR and CCA have been discussed in the following sub sections. Italso highlights a summary of reviews on experiences of integrating DRR and CCA from several international organisationsand compares how integration has been approached and implemented.

2.3.1. Vulnerable sectorLinking DRR and CCA should take into place for vulnerable sectors due to climate change and disasters. UNISDR [37]

emphasised to integrate DRR and CCA through sectoral policy, in particular, agriculture, water resources, health, land use,environment, finance and planning. For instance, AusAID [66] implemented some projects in transport and communicationsector towards climate proofing infrastructure in Fiji, Vanuatu etc.

2.3.2. Stakeholders involvementIntegration of DRR and CCA can be promoted through participatory and community based multi-stakeholder approach

with local government's involvement in the development process [67]. Gero et al. [68] also suggested a multi-stakeholderand multi-sector approach for linking DRR and CCA with special emphasis to community-based DRR and CCA. Thus, thestakeholders such as local governments, NGOs, community people, relevant national and international organisations shouldbe involved in the process of integrating DRR and CCA.

2.3.3. Integrated approach and policyIntegrated approach and policy should be taken into consideration for successful integration of DRR and CCA into na-

tional and local development policy and planning, and poverty reduction measures [37,69,70]. For example, Samoa hasstrategically addressed risk reduction and adaptation as complementary issues for both national and community levelsthrough its national disaster management plan whereas Philippines Government enacted new legislation called ClimateChange Act of 2009 by integrating DRR measures into CCA plans, development and poverty reduction programmes [37].

2.3.4. Institutional capacity buildingThere is an urgent need to build capacity in particular, institutional capacity for linking DRR and CCA. International

organisations often give emphasis to community based development and institutional capacity building [42,71–73].Nevertheless, Tonga has a Joint National Action Plan (JNAP) to strengthen institutional arrangements and capacity buildingfor disaster risk management (DRR included) and CCA [42].

2.3.5. Education and awarenessEducation and awareness raising about the importance of integrating DRR and CCA could lead to make effective de-

velopment planning and programming. A number of organisations offered importance on integrating DRR and CCA tools for

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373368

reducing resources burden and sharing of DRR and adaptation tools with the purpose of increasing learning and reducingduplication [67,69,74].

2.3.6. Effective fund allocation and disbursementEffective fund allocation and disbursement can enhance integration through capacity building for planning, preventive

measures, preparedness and management of disasters related to climate change for instance, contingency planning, inparticular, for droughts and floods in areas prone to extreme weather events [74]. This can be done through effectivefunding mechanism and guidance as well as negotiation among parties for coordination and collaboration between inter-national, regional, national and local level.

2.3.7. Coordination and collaborationFor successful integration of DRR and CCA, it is vital to establish a joint coordination and collaboration across sectors,

stakeholders, institutions and programs [37,69,70,74].

2.3.8. Political and institutional willIntegrating DRR and CCA will only happen if there is a strong political and institutional will. Therefore, attention to

political and institutional will is urgently needed to integrate DRR and CCA as implementation of such activities and pro-grammes largely depends on it [74,75].

3. Examples and practices of linking DRR and CCA

As the likely impacts of climate change have become better understood, CCA has grown from a minor environmentalconcern to a major challenge for human development and a crucial element in eradicating poverty and achieving the MDGs.The disaster management community has focused beyond providing humanitarian relief and rehabilitation activities to-wards preventing and reducing the risk of disasters. There are clear inter-relationships between tackling climate change anddisasters. DRR is a natural entry point for adaptation. Yet, two distinct communities of researchers and practitioners haveevolved, one dealing with long-term environmental impacts of climate change and the other dealing with short termimpacts of hazards/disasters on human society [76]. Some studies have found practical and conceptual similarities anddifferences between DRR and CCA [i.e. 62,63,77,78]. These studies found that while there are some political and physicaldistinctions between the scopes of each field, there is a key area of similarity that focuses on vulnerability reduction and theenhancement of resilience. A number of compelling arguments for the integration of DRR and CCA have been made, anddiscussions are occurring across different scales and levels to make this a reality [79–81]. Table 2 shows a number ofcommon practices of DRR and CCA that are promoting the linkages between DRR and CCA in several sectors.

The integration of DRR and CCA into development policy and planning agendas has already received international acknowl-edgment. On one hand, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) calls for special attention todeveloping countries prone to natural disasters (Article 4.8d), but does not reference the concepts of hazard or disaster risk. Underthe UNFCCC in the 2007 Bali Plan of Action, DRR was highlighted as a key element of CCA, opening up a range of possibilities forintegration of CCA into DRR strategies [34]. On the other hand, world policymakers also focused upon the issue of disasters in theWorld Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in Japan 2005, where climate change concerns within disaster risk reduction

Table 2Common practices of DRR and CCA in several sectors.Source: Modified from UNISDR [3].

Sector Actions/ practices

Agriculture Altering crop strains to enhance their drought and pest resistance;Changing planting times and cropping patterns;Altering land topography to improve water uptake and reduce wind erosion;

Forestry Erosion protection and reserve forest protection;New and planned tree plantation and reduce deforestation;

Water Protecting water supply infrastructure and water supply sources;Developing flood ponds, water harvesting;Improved irrigation, desalination, non-water-based sanitation and improved watershed and trans-boundary water re-source management;

Health Early warning & air-conditioning to address extreme weather events;Raise public awareness about water- and vector-borne diseases through watershed protection, vector control, and safewater- and food-handling;Enforcement of relevant regulations; and support for education, research and development on climate-related healthrisks;

Education and awareness Including DRR and CCA in the school curriculum;Campaigns in radio and television programmes and public poster;Awareness-raising for strategic intermediaries i.e. teachers, actors etc.

Table 3Growing recognition of linking DRR and CCA.

Linking DRR and CCA References

Integration of DRR and CCA is a critical component of HFA for implementation UNISDR [31]Bali Action Plan reflects a growing recognition that DRR and CCA are closely linked UNFCCC [83]DRR must be a key component for an effective and sustainable adaptation approach Tearfund [62]CCA needs to converge with DRR UNFCCC [84]CCA and DRR are closely linked. CCA is reflecting in the post-2015 framework for DRR UNFCCC [85]Risk reduction tools such as risk assessments, environmental protection, early warning systems, and insurance are usingclimate change adaptation.

UNFCCC [85]

National adaptation plans (NAPs) can provide useful mechanisms to address climate change and disaster risk in nationaland local sustainable development planning.

UNFCCC [86]

Integration of DRR and CCA can be enhanced by developing an integrated policy framework and approach at different level. UNISDR and UNDP [42]

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 369

strategies were recognised as part of the Hyogo Framework for Action: 2005–2015. The Cancun Adaptation Framework underUNFCCC also urged enhanced action on climate-related DRR [82]. The Doha Climate Change Conference 2012 has also beensupportive of strong linkage between DRR and CCA as well as the integration of CCA into the post-2015 framework of DRR. Thesedevelopments reflect that key international frameworks are raising their voices for linking DRR and CCA. Table 3 summarises thegrowing acknowledgments and affirmations for the linking of DRR and CCA.

Additionally, some countries have already taken initiatives to integrate DRR and CCA, especially at the local level, as bothapproaches share common goals of reducing vulnerability and building resilience. For example, integrated structures for DRR andCCA in Pakistan and France and increased coordination in Indonesia have made progress in removing the institutional barriersagainst linking the issues [87]. Bangladesh is using common tools to address DRR and CCA in local and national planning processes,and NGOs are also bringing them under a common programme where West Bengal in India is integrating both approaches into allaspects of economic and social development at the local level [87]. In some of the Lower Mekong basin countries, DRR and CCA arebeing merged in existing arrangements for local development planning and funding [87].

4. Opportunities of linking DRR and CCA

One of the major objectives of linking DRR and CCA is to make development planning and decision making more effective.These two agendas are also associated with poverty reduction. Because DRR, CCA and poverty reduction exercise more or less sameplan of actions in terms of measures and objectives. They all seek to take integrated, multi-sectoral approaches to mitigate risksfaced by poor people. They tackle the impact of, and seek to make individuals, communities and societies more resilient and lessvulnerable to shocks and stresses [8]. In this case, coordination between DRR and CCA helps to avoid duplication of efforts andreduces administrative inefficiencies [78]. Key benefits of integration have been identified: a) reduced climate related lossesthrough widespread DRR measures, b) increased efficiency of resources and c) enhanced effectiveness and sustainability of DRRand CCA approaches [63]. The following multiple benefits would result from successfully linking DRR and CCA.

�

TabCosSou

P

FRDMImS

DRR with linked CCA offers cost-effective approaches to reduce the negative impacts of flooding, landslides, heat waves,temperature extremes, droughts and intense storms. The benefits can be calculated not only in money savings but also in moresecure livelihoods and saved lives. Table 4 shows some of examples of the cost-effectiveness of disaster risk reduction projectsas an adaptation measure. China spent US$3.15 billion on flood control between 1960 and 2000 and has averted losses of anestimated US$12 billion whereas Rio de Janeiro flood reconstruction and prevention project in Brazil yielded an internal rate ofreturn (IRR) exceeding 50% [88]. The disaster mitigation and preparedness programmes in Andhra Pradesh, India yielded abenefit/cost ratio of 13.38 while a mangrove-planting project in Vietnam aimed at protecting coastal populations from typhoonsand storms yielded an estimated benefit/cost ratio (BCR) of 52 over the period 1994–2001 [88]. Property-owners in the US GulfStates who implemented hurricane protection methods employed at nearly 500 locations avoided US$500 million in propertylosses from Hurricane Katrina, after customer investments of only US$2.5 million [89]. These customers sustained eight times

le 4t-effectiveness of disaster risk reduction as an adaptation measure.rce: Modified from [88] and added [89].

roject Cost Cost saved/ Benefit BCR

lood control between 1960–2000 in China US$3.15 billion US$12 billion 3.81io de Janeiro flood reconstruction and prevention project, Brazil – – IRR 50%isaster mitigation and preparedness programs in Andhra Pradesh, India – – 13.38angrove-planting project, Vietnam – – 52plementation of hurricane protection methods, USA US$2.5 million US$500 million 200

mall-scale water management project, D R Congo $1 US$46 46

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373370

less damage than those who chose not to implement the protection measures. Venton and La Trobe [63] also identified in-creased efficiency of resources as one of the key benefits of integration between DRR and CCA. Without the linkage, funds areused separately for these two approaches despite their extensively shared agendas, limiting eventual output. Benefits are seen interms of cost savings and higher output, risk reduction and adaptation. The data show greater benefit/cost ratios associated withintegration, indicating better economic performance of programs or strategies, which ultimately reduces the political costs ofintegration through lower costs of design, implementation and fund disbursement mechanisms.

�

Different organisations, NGOs and international bodies are working toward disaster risk reduction and climate changeadaptation. However, scattered and minimal efforts bring lower output and may confuse the results. Thus, this linkagehelps to perform climate-related tasks jointly by the different government organisations and NGOs. This is done so thateffective coordination may be established among them. It is said that the overall result provides a significant output.

�

Well-established integration between DRM and CCA can increase the reliability of climate data by reducing the un-certainties in projections.

�

One of the great benefits of this linkage is the gathering of knowledge and experience related to climate change anddisaster management issues because of the large platform that includes government entities, international body, NGOs,experts and so on.

�

Because establishing link helps the DRR and CCA communities to work together by, so a better level of projection relatedto climate change and costs required for current and future disaster management would be possible. Thus, establishinglinks between DRR and CCA can act as a basis for climate negotiation and fund disbursement for effective disasterreduction and higher adaptation, especially in developing countries.

�

Reducing disaster risks and improving disaster-related adaptive capacity requires effective and efficient approaches,techniques and strategies. The joint output of different stakeholders provides new methods and approaches that canaccelerate the reduction of disaster risk and adaptation to climate change.

�

Linkage between DRR and CCA helps to achieve a better environment not only for the present but also for future gen-erations. Successful linkages established between DRR and CCA may reduce the loss of economic and human resourcesand may increase the adaptive capacity of human systems. The cost-effectiveness and benefits of this integration couldcontribute to sustainable development.

5. Limitations of linking DRR and CCA

There are also some limitations to linking DRR and CCA that have been identified by different studies at all politicallevels, such as incoherent funding structures, the affiliation of two communities with different national ministries, andinsufficient data regarding the local effects of climate change [32,77,80,90–97]. A lack of common norms is also problematicwith regard to the use of terms and definitions, which vary widely between DDR and CCA [9,98,99]. Additionally, thefollowing limitations have been found for linking DRR and CCA measures.

�

DRR and CCA exercise separate policy spheres on different levels, despite the fact that they interplay and overlap on alllevels [3]. The implementation of the HFA is motivating and guiding worldwide efforts to reduce disaster risk, while theprocesses of the UNFCCC are facilitating and guiding negotiations and action to reduce emissions (mitigation) and toadapt to the impacts of climate change (adaptation).

�

There are also some terminological differences between both communities. For example, in the climate change field,“mitigation” refers to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than the mitigation of disaster impacts, and“adaptation” refers to reducing the vulnerability arising from climate change only [100].

�

Another challenge is that there is a lack of common agreement regarding the investment and funding issue, which canhelp in linking DRR with CCA. The last UN conference on climate change in Doha 2012 has failed to make sufficient fundsavailable to address climate change issues. At the same time, allocated funds are not effectively used in many developingcountries. This raises a core issue of accountability for the disbursement and utilisation of funds. It is very essential todevelop a Good Humanitarian Donorship policy for the justifiable disbursement of climate funds.

�

A fundamental problem is that disaster risk is poorly quantified in financial terms; it is difficult to assess the value oflowered risk and disasters averted, or the efficiency of particular measures to reduce risk. Due to a lack of exact figures, itis not clear how much investment is needed for countries to reduce disaster risk and enhance adaptive capacity. Perhapsthe most effective course of action would be to incorporate risk considerations in development policies and povertyreduction strategies through adaptation.

�

Despite attention having been drawn to the links between climate change and disaster management, effective co-ordination between different stakeholders, such as government, NGOs and international organisations, has been lacking.It is very essential for collaborating entities to establish and adopt exact roles that clearly define how they interact andwork together to achieve their goals.

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 371

6. Conclusion

This article reveals the concepts of DRR and CCA, which are aimed at tackling hazards and climate change by reducingvulnerability and enhancing resilience. DRR efforts such as prevention, mitigation, preparedness, networking, local in-surance, shelter protection and water provision serve to reduce poverty and enhance resilience, while poverty reductionefforts such as job creation and increased livelihood and protection could help to reduce disaster risks and vulnerability.Prevention strategies in DRR could be useful for the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, which should be basedon holistic approaches consisting of the delimitation of risks, protection measures and early warning systems. The proposedconceptual frameworks firstly indicated the extent of linkages between DRR and CCA (i.e. direct, indirect and null linkages)and then demonstrated how the other relevant factors to be involved to linking the DRR and CCA include vulnerable sectors,stakeholder engagement, political and institutional will, capacity-building, integrated approach and policy, fund allocationand disbursement, education and awareness programmes and coordination and collaboration. An integrated approach,involving widespread stakeholder engagement across multiple sectors, is essential to build successful and effective linkagesbetween DRR and CCA. Capacity-building of the stakeholders and a holistic basis of planning could help form a sharedunderstanding of DRR and CCA [101]. Strengthening local government and decentralisation is an urgent need for the in-tegration while bottom-up policy formulation gear up the actions. Because it is very difficult for a government to implementall of the involved tasks alone, engagement of the business community and NGOs is necessary. The linkage can be ac-celerated by the political and institutional will, while the involvement and effort of core people will give a breakthrough forlinking these two approaches. The linking between DRR and CCA also need effective fund disbursement among the sectors,institutions and stakeholders. For doing the linkages and monitoring the works, there is also need for integration amonginstitutions at local and national level.

The frameworks proposed in this article could be useful for better understanding and promoting the linkage and in-tegration of DRR with CCA to accelerate risk reduction and adaptation measures at all levels (global, regional, national andlocal). This linkage could also provide an important basis of discussion in climate negotiations regarding the allocation offunds needed for tackling climate change, especially in developing countries. This article also presents common features andpractices that characterise relationships between DRR and CCA in several sectors. DRR has been in place for many decadeswhereas CCA is relatively recent. DRR has traditionally been based on the history of past disaster events while CCA is basedon projections of climate change to the future. However, there are different socio-political considerations in the im-plementation of DRR versus CCA. The need to linking DRR and CCA for the development of policy and planning has beenincreasingly acknowledged and affirmed. This article provides insight into how DRR and CCA could be linked in ways thatcould be beneficial for policy and decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders. To establish formal linkages, thereis a strong need for coordination and collaboration among various sectors, stakeholders, institutions, policies and pro-grammes. Efforts are also needed to engage the business community, local people and NGOs to build their commitment toimplementing public–private partnerships to reduce vulnerability and increase community resilience. Linkages betweenDRR and CCA could accelerate the implementation of prevention and risk reduction strategies which improves quality of lifeby avoiding the loss of economic and human resources and securing social protection. At the local and national levels,linking these two approaches would reduce governmental cost burdens and increase the capacity and resilience of localinstitutions, communities and nations. Thus, the next step to achieve the proposed linkage is to conduct local level casestudies to assess and evaluate the frameworks for successful linkages of DRR and CCA.

Acknowledgments

The authors are greatly acknowledged to the research Grant ‘Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS)’ under theMinistry of Higher Education, Malaysia (Project code: ERGS/1/2011/SS/UKM/02/29).

References

[1] R.A. Begum, I. Komoo, J.J. Pereira, Linking green technology and disaster risk reduction, Adv. Nat. Appl. Sci. 6 (8) (2012) 1296–1301.[2] CRED. Annual Disaster Statistical Review, Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, 2008. Source:

CRED International Disaster Database. Available from ⟨www.emdat.be⟩. (accessed 04.12.12).[3] UNISDR, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, 2008.[4] C.B., Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.) IPCC,

2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, 2012, 582 pp.

[5] D. Guha-Sapir, Ph. Hoyois, R. Below., Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2013: The Numbers and Trends, CRED, Brussels, 2014 (Available from).[6] GAR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2011.[7] UNDP, Human Development Report 2011: Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, 2011

(Published by).[8] M. Davies, B. Guenther, Leavy, J. Tom Mitchell, T. Tanner, Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and Social Protection: Complementary Roles in

Agriculture and Rural Growth, Centre for Social Protection and Climate Change and Disasters Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,Brighton, 2008.

[9] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction). UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction; 2009. Available from ⟨http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminologyeng.htm⟩. (accessed 12.01.13).

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373372

[10] T. Cannon, Vulnerability, “innocent” disasters and the imperative of cultural understanding, Disaster Prev. Manag. 17 (3) (2008) 350–357.[11] W.N. Adger, T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, J. Rockstrom, “Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters”, Science 309 (5737) (2005) 1036–1039.[12] A. Bahadur, M. Ibrahim, T. Tanner, “The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters”, Strengthening Climate

Resilience Discussion Paper 1, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 2010, 45.[13] J. Birkmann, “Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: theoretical bases and criteria”, in: J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural

Hazards, Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, UNU Press, Tokyo, 2006, p. 550.[14] Y. Haimes, “On the definition of resilience in systems”, Risk Anal. 29 (4) (2009) 498–501.[15] P. Buckle, G. Marsh, S. Smale, “Assessment of Personal & Community Resilience & Vulnerability”, EMA, 2001 EMA Project Report No. 15/2000 49.[16] G.C. Gallopin, “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global Environ. Change 16 (3) (2006) 293–303.[17] P. Timmermann, “Vulnerability, Resilience, and the Collapse of Society”, Environmental Monograph Series, Institute for Environmental Studies University of

Toronto, Toronto, 1981.[18] B. Turner, R. Kasperson, P. Matsone, J. McCarthy, R. Corell, L. Christensene, N. Eckley, J. Kasperson, A. Luerse, M. Martellog, C. Polskya, A. Pulsiphera, A. Schillerb,

“A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science”, PNAS 100 (14) (2003) 8074–8079.[19] D.E. Alexander, Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 1 (2013) 1257–1284.[20] L. Poulsen, Costs and benefits of policies and practices addressing land degradation and drought in the drylands, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Scientific Con-

ference White Paper II, UNCCD. 2013, pp. 137.[21] M. Reghezza-Zitt, S. Rufat, G. Djament-Tran, A. Le Blanc, S. Lhomme, “What resilience is not: uses and abuses”, Cybergeo: Eur. J. Geogr. Environ. (2012).[22] K. Hewitt, ‘Disasters in “development” contexts: contradictions and options for a preventive approach’, Jàmbá: J. Disaster Risk Stud. 5 (2) (2013) 91–98, http:

//dx.doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v5i2.91. (Available at).[23] J. Lewis, I. Kelman, “Places, people and perpetuity: community capacities in ecologies of catastrophe”, ACME: An Int. E-J. Crit. Geogr. 9 (2) (2010) 191–220.[24] T. Mitchell, K. Harris, “Resilience: a risk management approach”, in Overseas, in: Development & Institute (Ed.), ODI Background Note, Overseas Development

Institute, London, 2012, p. 7.[25] I. Sudmeier-Rieux Karen, Resilience – an emerging paradigm of danger or of hope? Disaster Prev. Manag. 23 (1) (2014) 67–80.[26] K.I. Sudmeier, M. Jaboyedoff, S. Jaquet, Operationalizing “resilience” for disaster risk reduction in mountainous Nepal, Disaster Prev. Manag. 22 (4) (2013)

366–377.[27] T. Cannon, Reducing people's vulnerability to natural hazards communities and resilience, Research paper / UNU-WIDER, 2008, No. 2008.34, ISBN 978-92-

9230-080-7. Available at: ⟨http://hdl.handle.net/10419/45089⟩.[28] T. Cannon, D. Müller-Mahn, Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change, Nat. Hazards 55 (3) (2010) 621–635.[29] I. Kelman, Understanding Vulnerability to Understand Disasters. Kelman, I. (ed.) 2009. Version 3, (accessed on 19.01.09). Available from ⟨http://www.island

vulnerability.org/docs/vulnres.pdf⟩.[30] B. Wisner, Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power, and Daily Life, GeoJournal 30 (2) (1993) 127–140.[31] UNISDR, (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015, in: Proceedings of the World Conference on

Disaster Reduction Building of the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. 2005.[32] R. Few, H.Osbahr, L.M. Bouwer, D. Viner, F. Sperling, Linking climate change adaptation and disaster risk management for sustainable poverty reduc-

tion, Synthesis Report, Study carried out for the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG). 2006.[33] M. Johansson, L. Nyberg, M. Evers, M. Hansson, Using education and social learning in capacity building – the IntECR concept, Disaster Prev. Manag. 22 (1)

(2013) 17–28.[34] T.M. van Aalst Mitchell, P.S. Villanueva, Assessing Progress on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development Processes,

Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK, 2010.[35] UNISDR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, 2009.[36] UNFCCC. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009 [FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 30 March

2010].[37] UNISDR, Adaptation to Climate Change by Reducing Disaster Risks: Country Practices and Lessons, Briefing Note 2, United Nations International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction, Geneva, 2009.[38] UNISDR, Terminology: Basic Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, 2004.[39] S. Baas, S. Ramasamy, J.D. Depryck, F. Battista, Disaster risk management systems analysis, Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division, Food and

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome (2008). (Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai504e/ai504e00.pdf (Accessed 20 April 2013).[40] B.L., Moore, R.J., Geller, C. Clark Hospital Preparedness for Chemical and Radiological Disasters. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, Articles in Press,

2014.[41] T. Tingsanchali, Urban flood disaster management, Proc. Eng. 32 (2012) 25–37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1233.[42] UNISDR., Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned, A Publication of the Global Network of NGOs for Disaster

Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), UN/ISDR secretariat. Geneva, 2008.[43] GTZ, Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management, German Development Cooperation (GTZ), 65726 Eschborn, Germany, 2005.[44] UNISDR, UNDP, Disaster Risk Reducton and Climate Change Adaptaton in the Pacifc: An Institutional and Policy Analysis, Suva, Fiji: UNISDR, UNDP (2012) 76.[45] ICSU , A Science Plan for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk: Addressing the challenge of natural and human-induced environmental hazards. 2008.[46] IRDR , Integrated Research on Disaster Risk-Strategic Plan 2013–2017. 2013, IRDR, Beijing. (Available from).[47] J. Mercer, Disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation: are we reinventing the wheel? J. Int. Dev. 22 (2010) 247–264.[48] M.B. Anderson, P.J. Woodrow, Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 1998.[49] Department for International Development (DFID), Disaster Risk Reduction: a Development Concern, DFID, London, 2005.[50] E.D.G. Fraser, A.J. Dougill, W.E. Mabee, M. Reed, P. McAlpine, Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator iden-

tification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management, J. Environ. Manag. 78 (2006) 114–127.[51] UNDP, Reducing Disaster Risk: a Challenge for Development, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2004, 146.[52] IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-

mental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2007.[53] I. Burton, Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of climate and climate change, Climatic Change 36 (1997) 185–196.[54] B. Smit, D. McNabb, J. Smithers, Agricultural adaptation to climate change, Clim. Change 33 (1996) 7–29.[55] M.S.K. Sarkar, R.A. Begum, J.J. Pereira, A.H. Jaafar, Review of costs and methods for climate change adaptation, J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5 (6) (2012) 397–406.[56] FAO. FAO-Adapt Framework Programme on Climate Change Adaptation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2011. Available at

⟨www.fao.org/climatechange/fao-adapt⟩ (accessed 15.05.13).[57] ODI. Responding to a Changing Climate: Exploring how Disaster Risk Reduction, Social Protection and Livelihoods Approaches Promote Features of Adaptive

Capacity. Working Paper No. 319, 2010.[58] IPCC, Climate Change 2001. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC Third Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001.[59] OECD, Climate Change and Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation, Paris. 2010.[60] GECHS, Climate Change Adaptation and Poverty Reduction: Key interactions and critical measures, A report prepared by the Global Environmental Change and

Human Security (GECHS) for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Oslo (2007).[61] Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.[62] Tearfund, Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, Tearfund, Teddington, UK, 2008 Available at ⟨http://www.preventionweb.net/files/

3007_CCAandDRRweb.pdf⟩ (accessed 15.12.12).[63] P. Venton, S. La Trobe, Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, Tearfund, 100 Church Road, Teddington, United Kingdom, 2008, 19.[64] L.-F. Melgarejo, T. Lakes, Urban adaptation planning and climate-related disasters: an integrated assessment of public infrastructure serving as temporary

shelter during river floods in Colombia, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 9 (2014) 147–158.[65] EFDRR. How does Europe link DRR and CCA? Working paper, Working Group (WG) on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, European

Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013, pp1-19. Available at ⟨http://www.unisdr.org/files/35277_ddrccafinal.pdf⟩.[66] AusAID, Integration in practice: Integrating disaster risk reduction, climate change and environmental considerations in AusAID programs, Australian Agency

for International Development (AusAID), Canberra, Australia, 2010 (Available at).

R.A. Begum et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 362–373 373

[67] Oxfam, Rising to the Call: Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the Philippines, , 2011.[68] A. Gero, K. Meheux, D. Dominey-Howes, Integrating community based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: example from Pacific, Nat. Hazard

Earth Sci. 11 (2011) 101–103.[69] AusAID, Progress report for the disaster risk reduction policy, Disaster Risk Reduction Unit, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Can-

berra, Australia, 2012 (Available at).[70] UNFCCC. Integrating practices, tools and systems for climate risk assessment and management and strategies for disaster risk reduction into national policies

and programmes, Technical paper, FCCC/TP/2008/4, 2008.[71] ADPC, Integrating Disaster Risk Management into Climate Change Adaptation. Disaster Risk Management Practitioner's Handbook Series, ADPC, Bangkok, 2013.[72] Caritas Australia. Building disaster response and preparedness of Caritas partners in the Pacific. In: Caritas Australia (ed.). Australia, 2008.[73] A Gero, K.Méheux and D. Dominey-Howes, Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Pacific: The challenge of integration. ATRC-NHRL

(Australian Tsunami Research Centre-Natural Hazards Research Laboratory) Miscellaneous Report 4, 2010.[74] DFID, Convergence of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: A review for DFID, Department for International Development, UK, 2008.[75] A. Lavell and A. Maskrey, The future of disaster risk management: An on-going discussion, Jointly organized by the Latin American Social Science Faculty

(FLACSO) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), 2013. Available at: ⟨http://www.unisdr.org/files/35715_thefutureofdisasterriskmanagement.pdf⟩.

[76] FAO, Climate change and disaster risk management. Technical background document from the expert consultation held on 28-29 February 2008, Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 2008.

[77] F. Thomalla, T. Dowing, E. Spanger- Siegfried, G. Han, J. Rockstrom, Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach disaster risk reduction andclimate change adaptation, Disasters 30 (1) (2006) PP39–PP48.

[78] T. Mitchell, M. Van Aalst, Convergence of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review for DFID, Institute of Development Studies,Brighton, 2008.

[79] M. Glantz, Climate Affairs: A Primer, Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 2003.[80] G. O'Brien, P. O'Keefe, J. Rose, B. Wisner, Climate change and disaster management, Disasters 30 (1) (2006) PP64–PP68.[81] J. Lewis Climate and disaster reduction, Tiempo Climate Newswatch, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2007. Available at:

⟨http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch/comment070217.htm⟩ (accessed 27.03.13).[82] UNFCCC, Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Con-

vention, Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, 2011.[83] UNFCCC. Decision 1/CP.13, Bali Action Plan, in: Proceedings of the thirteenth Conference of the Parties to United Nations Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, Bali, Indonesia, 2007. 3 to 15 December 2007.[84] UNFCCC., Integrating practices, tools and systems for climate risk assessment and management and strategies for disaster risk reduction into national policies

and programmes, , 2008 Technical paper, FCCC/TP/2008/4,.[85] UNFCCC. 2012 UN Climate Change, COP 18, in: Proceedings of the 18th session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC Doha, Qatar, 26 November to 07, 2012

December.[86] UNFCCC. 2011 United Nations Climate Change, COP17, in: Proceedings of the 17th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, 28 November to 11 December 2011

Durban, South Africa.[87] COP18 (2012), “Integrating Disaster risk reduction (DRR), Climate change adaption (CCA) and Sustainable development” The fifth round of the online dialogue

on the post 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction, the 18 Conference of the Parties (COP18) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.[88] R. Mechler, “Cost-benefit Analysis of Natural Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries”, Working paper for sector project “Disaster Risk Management

in Development Cooperation”, GTZ (2005).[89] E. Mills, and E. Lecomte, From Risk to Opportunity: How Insurers Can Proactively and Profitably Manage Climate Change, 2006. Available at ⟨http://eetd.lbl.gov/

EMills/PUBS/PDF/Ceres_Insurance_Climate_Report_090106.pdf⟩. (accessed 07.01.12).[90] CCD, Incentives and constraints to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction—a local perspective, Commission on Climate Change and Develop-

ment (CCD), Stockholm, Sweden, 2008.[91] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Scoping paper—IPCC special report: managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate

change adaptation, 2009. Available at ⟨http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session30/doc14.pdf⟩.[92] M. Moench, Adapting to climate change and the risks associated with other natural hazards: methods for moving from concepts to action, in: E.L.F. Schipper,

I. Burton (Eds.), Adaptation to climate change—the Earthscan Reader, Earthscan, London, 2009, pp. 249–280.[93] L. Schipper, I. Burton (Eds.), Adaptation to Climate Change, Earthscan, London, 2009.[94] M.K. van Aalst, T. Cannon, I. Burton, Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment, Glob.

Environ. Change 18 (2008) 165–179.[95] Tearfund, Linking climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, Tearfund, Teddington, UK, 2009.[96] Srinivasan Prabhakar SVRK, A. Shaw, R. Climate change and local level disaster risk reduction planning: need, opportunities and challenges, Mitig. Adapt.

Strateg. Glob. Change 14 (2009) 7–33.[97] G. McBean, I. Ajibade, Climate change, related hazards and human settlements, Curr. Option Environ. Sustain. 1 (2009) 179–186.[98] J. Birkmann, Teichman von, Sustain. Sci., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0180-y.[99] L. Schipper, Meeting at the crossroads? Exploring the linkages between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, Clim. Dev. 1 (1) (2009) 16–30.

[100] CCD, Links between disaster risk reduction, development and climate change, Commission on Climate Change and Development, Stockholm, Sweden, 2008(accessed 05.11.12).

[101] P. Becker, “The importance of integrating multiple administrative levels in capacity assessment for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation”,Disaster Prev. Manag. 21 (2) (2012) 226–233.