Categorising potential non-disasters

Abstract

PurposeThis short paper builds on and critiques work presenting potential non-disasters: disasters that did not seem to happen despite a major hazard. Previous work does not differentiate among different types of potential non-disasters. This short paper uses local information to propose three categories according to reasons for vulnerability being low or absent. These proposed categories are used to critique the construct of “potential non-disasters”.Design/methodology/approachThis short paper uses a subjective approach to examples of potential non-disasters in 2022, focusing on local information that describes what happened. This information is applied and analysed for the three proposed categories using examples from Japan, Nepal, the Philippines and Vietnam. Such comparisons are useful for critiquing “potential non-disasters”, by understanding better local approaches and information available for reporting on situations that could be disasters.FindingsPotential non-disasters remain relevant for exploring mechanisms, tools and actions for educating about vulnerability causes and vulnerability reduction to avert disasters. Limitations are evident by relying on media reports, even local ones with local authors. A suggestion is to implement a grant programme for collecting data immediately after a major hazard without an evident, major disaster. Additionally, an annual report and critique of each year's potential non-disasters, categorised and analysed, would help to evidence the presence and limits of the “potential non-disaster” construct.Originality/valueThis short paper contributes a much deeper theoretical dive into understanding potential non-disasters, both describing them and the drawbacks of the construct. To practitioners, the construct now offers more avenues for actions while illustrating their effectiveness in reducing vulnerabilities. Thus, this paper supports multiple, linked pathways towards more non-disasters.