Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T05:19:07.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sendai Framework Eight Years On: Whither the “Science–Policy Interface”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2023

Adam Jon Lebowitz Open the ORCID record for Adam Jon Lebowitz [Opens in a new window]
Adam Jon Lebowitz*
Affiliation:
Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This short commentary is a general analysis of the current state of the knowledge–policy relationship in the disaster field. This “science–policy interface” was described as fundamental in the 2015 UN Sendai Framework. However, midway to the 2030 deadline, there have been concerns from both the UN and academia about the lack of policy compared to research production. This suggests that barriers to this relationship may exist. To explain these, recent scholarship on factors influencing the general relationship between knowledge and policy is examined. Aspects of the “shape” of disaster research and its effect on policy creation are also examined, and a new direction is proposed. How the UN’s initial approach plausibly did not support this interface is also explained; however, more recent advocacy suggests that the organization has taken a new approach that may prove effective. Overall, a debate within the disaster field about its role in policy creation may be necessary.

Keywords

academic researchdisaster policymakingknowledge-informed policyUN Sendai Framework
Type
Commentary
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 17 , 2023 , e501
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

James, JJ. Advancing population health science to public health policy. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(4):421. doi: 10.1017/DMP.2018.108 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Progress in Disaster Science—Aims and Scope. ScienceDirect. Accessed June 3, 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/progress-in-disaster-science/about/aims-and-scope Google Scholar
Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 Report of the Secretary-General. UNDRR. Published August 15, 2022. Accessed May 10, 2023. https://www.undrr.org/publication/report-secretary-general-implementation-sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-3 Google Scholar
Capano, G, Malandrino, A. Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020). Policy Sci. 2022;55(3):399-428. doi: 10.1007/S11077-022-09468-0/TABLES/7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case Studies Exploring Community-Led Recovery and Coordination. Social Recovery Reference Group. Published December 2019. Accessed December 2, 2021. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/7351/case-studies-exploring-community-led-recovery-and-coordination-final.pdf Google Scholar
McLennan, BJ. Conditions for effective coproduction in community-led disaster risk management. Voluntas. Published online January 30, 2018:1-17. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-9957-2 Google Scholar
Hsu, M. Lost, found and troubled in translation: reconsidering imagined Indigenous “communities” in post-disaster Taiwan settings. Alt Native. 2016;12(1):71-85. doi: 10.20507/AlterNative.2016.12.1.6 Google Scholar
Jayasinghe, K, Kenney, C, Prasanna, R, Velasquez, J. Enacting “accountability in collaborative governance”: lessons in emergency management and earthquake recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquakes. J Public Budg Account Financial Manag. 2020;32(3):439-459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, FH, Friedman, MJ, Watson, PJ, et al. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry. 2002;65(3):207-239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster; 2020.Google Scholar
Aldrich, DP, Meyer, M. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254-269. doi: 10.1177/0002764214550299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, PS, Kwon, SW. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev. 2002;27(1):17-40. http://www.worldbank.org/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadushin, C. Too much investment in social capital? Soc Netw. 2004;26:75-90. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satyanath, S, Voigtländer, N, Voth, HJ. Bowling for fascism: social capital and the rise of the Nazi party. J Polit Econ. 2017;125(2):478-526. doi: 10.1086/690949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, LB. Collaborative governance. In: Bevir, M, ed. The SAGE Handbook of Governance. Sage; 2011:386-401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, JM, Crosby, BC, Stone, MM. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Adm Rev. 2006;66(Suppl. 1):44-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C, Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(4):543-571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A, Perry, J, Miller, TK. Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2007;19(1):23-56. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article-abstract/19/1/23/909274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, C, Nohrstedt, D, Baird, J, et al. Collaborative crisis management: a plausibility probe of core assumptions. Policy Soc. 2020;39(4):510-529. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2020.1767337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union, UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Disaster Risk Reduction to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals: A Toolkit for Parliamentarians. UNDRR; 2021.Google Scholar
West, JD, Bergstrom, CT. Misinformation in and about science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(15):1-8. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.1912444117 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework. World Health Organization. Published 2019. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326106 Google Scholar
A Vision for Managing Natural Disaster Risk: Proposals for Public/Private Stakeholder Solutions. World Economic Forum. Published April 2011. Accessed May 25, 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_VisionManagingNaturalDisaster_Proposal_2011.pdf Google Scholar
The Chairperson’s Guide to Valuing Nature. World Economic Forum. Published January 2023. Accessed May 25, 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Chairpersons_Guide_2023.pdf Google Scholar
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Annual Report 2022. UNDRR. Published 2023. Accessed June 1, 2023. https://www.undrr.org/annual-report/2022 Google Scholar
WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management. World Health Organization. Published 2021. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345591 Google Scholar
Damage Estimates for a Direct Tokyo Earthquake. Tokyo Municipal Disaster Prevention Committee. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://www.bousai.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_page_/001/021/571/20220525/n/002n.pdf (in Japanese)Google Scholar