MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220720076 · doi:10.1080/14693062.2022.2048784

Disaster risk reduction and climate policy implementation challenges in Canada and Australia

2022· article· en· W4220720076 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrock University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilDepartment of Industry and Science, Australian Government
KeywordsDisaster risk reductionRisk governanceCorporate governanceRisk managementPreparednessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementStakeholderClimate changeBusinessEmergency managementClimate riskGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceEconomic growthPublic relationsEconomicsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disaster risk reduction is central to managing the risks of climate change at global, national, and sub-national levels. The operationalization of disaster risk reduction, however, has been met with challenges that have restricted successful policy implementation. Drawing from document analyses and Delphi studies with government practitioners, this article examines the policy context for disaster risk reduction in Canada and Australia and investigates the state of flood and drought planning and preparedness. Results are organized around two central themes: risk (ownership and sensitivity) and engagement (stakeholder involvement and capacity-building). The findings show that public policies on disaster risk reduction in Canada and Australia reflect international discourse that advocates for a whole-of-society, risk-sensitive, and risk-informed approach. However, implementing this approach in household planning and preparedness, cross-sector planning and policy integration, terminology, and socio-cultural representation, has been hampered by several factors. Government practitioners in both countries argued that while disaster risk reduction and climate risk management continue to evolve in multi-level governance, policy implementation is constrained by the legacies of past governance arrangements that have enabled disaster risk creation and accumulation. The results presented herein suggest a need for institutional reform that better reflects the holistic and systemic relationships between disaster risk, climate change, and other policy problems. We argue that disaster risk reduction and climate risk management policies require bridging governance arrangements between these and related policy domains to foster effective multi-level implementation.Key policy insights Implementing disaster risk reduction has been inconsistent, exacerbating exposure to climate change and increasing socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster impacts.Managing climate and disaster risk requires a holistic approach that targets vulnerable groups, tackles underlying drivers of risk, and builds capacities to support disaster risk reduction.Although disaster risk reduction and climate risk management policies continue to evolve, implementation is hindered by legacy governance arrangements that favour economic growth over sustainable, climate-sensitive disaster risk management.Transformation through the integration of disaster risk reduction and human development offers potential pathways to reduce vulnerabilities via a holistic disaster risk and climate policy approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it