Discussion

In this study, we attempted to draw an original picture of DRM to reveal the roots, and dimensions of the concept of DRM, and determine the factors influencing its change from the past to the present. The prevailing conditions of communities during the process of changing the concept of DRM explain why this evolutionary change has occurred. By considering this original picture, managers and stakeholders in the field of DRM can gain advantage of previous experiences and avoid repeating past mistakes.

This review shows that the evolution of the concept of DRM began since the advent of passive defense in the middle of the 20th century, and in subsequent periods, it was proposed in the form of such concepts as civil defense, disaster management, and DRM. It can be said that the notion of civil defense was raised after World War II, and when societies were concerned about chemical warfare and its consequences. ^{Reference Hecker and Domres8} Therefore, in response to the threat posed by air strikes and nuclear strikes, many industrialized nations were to work towards the establishment of precise systems for centralized security of their citizens. ^{Reference Coppola4}

During the 1990s, the first steps for international collaboration in DRM were taken. The UN’s global conferences have played a special role in fostering cooperation among different communities. The UN has held 3 important conferences for disaster reduction, under the title, “The World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction” hosted by Japan in: Yokohama (1994), Kobe (2005), and the Sendai (2015). At the conferences, government officials and other stakeholders from around the world began to discuss how to strengthen sustainable development through risk management and climate change. These scientific meetings led to the development of important global achievements and documents, each of which is considered a milestone in the history of DRM.

In 1994, the Yokohama Summit was held and the representatives of the participating countries, after hours of discussion and sharing DRM experiences, concluded that we need to think about the resiliency enhancement of countries. Following this international event, UNISDR was launched in 1999 to prepare countries to respond to disasters. At that time, the provision of an appropriate response to disasters was the main concern for countries, but this approach gradually changed, so that disaster risk and pre-event periods are now prioritized rather than disaster response and post- event periods, which were more focused on in the past.

In the evolutionary direction of the concept of DRM, an earthquake with the magnitude of 7.3 occurred in Hyogo. Subsequently, the Japanese, who have always been leading in the field of disaster, seriously raised the issue of DRR ^{Reference Katayama16} ; hence in 2005, the first major international meeting in Japan was held under the title of Hyogo Conference, and the Hyogo Framework was formulated, accordingly. The critique put forward at this meeting was that merely addressing resiliency means focusing on capacity building, which entails that we do not have a deep understanding of DRR. This was when societies came to believe that we are not able to completely eliminate the occurrence of disasters and, in particular, eliminate natural hazards, but, we can be confident that it is possible to mitigate the effects of disasters of any kind.

These communities have come to the conclusion that measures taken to reduce the risk of disasters are not a cost but an investment ^{15,Reference Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon and Davis17} ; therefore, disaster management focusing on the response phase was gradually replaced by DRM with the aim of educating communities about the importance of DRR.

DRM means the sum of 2 important elements, including disaster management and DRR. When the concept of DRM was used, the most important indicator was that disaster risk is to be managed rather than disaster alone. Therefore, we do not necessarily think of the response to a disaster, instead we think of the whole process of a risk management cycle. With this approach, residual risk is reduced, and subsequently the response will be smaller and less costly.

It should be noted that expected outcomes are similar in both Sendai and Hyogo documents. Hyogo documents include several items such as substantial reduction of disaster risk and loss in lives, health, economy, etc. However, the risk reduction has been considered as a separate document in Sendai to increase the sensitivity of the subject.

Following this change of approach, since the basis of DRM is the understanding of disaster risk, the focus on understanding disaster risk has increased over the interval between Hyogo and Sendai frameworks. ^{Reference Aitsi-Selmi, Murray and Wannous14} Although, issues such as risk identification, risk monitoring and risk assessment have been mentioned in the Hyogo Framework, understanding disaster risk has been seriously addressed in the Sendai document. It can be said that in the 5 priorities of the Hyogo framework, the emphasis was on preparedness, but the 4 priorities of the Sendai document are as follows:

1. 1) Understanding disaster risk;

2. 2) Strengthening DRM to manage disaster risk;

3. 3) Investing in DRR and resilience;

4. 4) Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. ⁵

This document emphasizes that any policy and practice should be based on understanding the concept of risk. In this regard, the Sendai document emphasizes the design of context-band models. If DRM models are tailored to each community in accordance with its conditions, and adjusted to the characteristics of that specific community, then there will be an “understanding of disaster risk.” Obviously, a single model cannot be generalized for all the world’s societies, although its principles are the same. This model is developed if we could capture a picture of the hazards of a community; so it is necessary to identify elements such as vulnerability, exposure, capacity, and hazards in the target community and design a model highly compatible with that specific context. In this way, risk perception is formed and risk informed decision making would be possible. Ideally, DRM is based on the prioritization process. When hazards are identified, they are evaluated for the likelihood of the damage and the impact of the damage they cause. Then, considering vulnerability, exposure, and capacity, hazards are prioritized based on the highest probability and the maximum impact of the associated damage. ^{Reference Keim18} An important issue is that today, DRM deals with such important vulnerability factors, including political, ^{Reference Prinsloo and van der Waldt19} economic, and sociocultural conditions, fragile infrastructure, lack or weakness of the developed safety policies, inappropriate socio-political organizations, lack of early warning systems, and increased population density, especially around chemical facilities. ^{Reference Katayama16,Reference Koenig, Schultz, Koenig and Schultz20}

Moreover, one of the most important issues that must be considered as a priority in many societies is paying attention to underlying risk factors such as poverty, social capital, gender based violence, sexual harassment, gender inequity, and cultural influential factors. In the management of the tsunami in Japan (2011), 1 of the most important facilitators for emergency managers was the proper behavior of the people, who followed the orders with caution. In other words, social capital in this country has played an important role in the recovery phase, because people’s respect for moral values and solidarity, prevents them from rushing for help and looting available resources. Furthermore, people’s respect for moral values encourages them to prioritize public benefits over personal interests. ^{Reference Zaré and Afrouz13} The importance of the underlying factors in DRM, especially in response and recovery phases, has also been emphasized in other studies. ^{Reference Prinsloo and van der Waldt19,Reference Alipour, Khankeh, Fekrazad, Kamali, Rafiey and Ahmadi21,Reference Flanagan, Gregory, Hallisey, Heitgerd and Lewis22} Although mentioned in the Hyogo documents, the importance of cultural influential factors was seriously emphasized in the Sendai summit.

It can be said that at present, DRM approaches are shifting towards community participation, community involvement, and community ownership. Nowadays, community participation and collaboration is very important, which is the fact emphasized by different international documents. The latest international frameworks for DRM, in particular the Sendai document, emphasize the need for active participation in DRR, as well as the creation of new partnerships between private and public institutions to reduce the current and future risks. ^{Reference Hochrainer-Stigler and Lorant23} DRR considering underlining factors and focusing on participation and community, is important because all included stakeholders and lay people should be involved in the disaster risk cycle.

According to the Sendai framework, the year 2020 seems to be a turning point. On October 13, 2020, which was the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction, the slogan chosen was: “it’s all about governance.” ²⁴ The slogan was chosen at a time when a large number of deaths and ill people could be attributed to COVID-19 infection. This slogan is in line with target E of the Sendai framework that states:

With the realization of this slogan, many disasters can be prevented, provided that there are risk reduction strategies, and new risks are prevented. This requires proper disaster risk governance. Certainly, the events that occurred in 2020 will be remembered for a long time; it is hoped that it will not only be remembered for the disaster created by COVID-19, but also for the beginning and adoption of effective measures and fundamental reforms to manage disaster risk in a systemic way. ^{Reference Toscano-Rivalta2}

In a message released this year on disaster risk reduction day, the Director-General of WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said: “COVID-19 has reminded us that for all our differences, we’re 1 humanity, and that the only way to build a safer world is together.”

He believes that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected all sectors of the society and economy, highlighting the relationship between human, animal and planetary health; therefore, only with the 1 Health approach, can this problem be solved. ²⁵

Referring to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for DRR, Mami Mizutori, also stated that COVID-19 sheds new light on the systemic nature of danger as we can see today. A public health disaster quickly became a socio-economic disaster on a scale we had never seen before. We have learned from the worst tragedy of the 21st century that if we do not strengthen disaster risk governance to deal with the existing threats, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past months, which resulted in damage to the physical, economic, and social well-being of millions of people. Hence, that is why governments need to develop their national DRR strategies with a clear understanding of the systemic nature of disaster risk. Importantly, these strategies should not remain on paper. ^{Reference McClean26}

According to the history of DRM, as well as the experiences that COVID-19 has taught us in the recent months, it seems that fundamental steps should be taken. The global response to COVID-19 offers important lessons and unprecedented experiences that can help to shape future risk reduction policies and take effective measures all around the world. ²⁷