This article focuses on the complex relationship between development and disaster risk. Development and disaster risk are closely linked as the people and assets exposed to risk, as well as their vulnerability and capacity, are largely determined by development processes. Transformation is key to moving from current development patterns that increase, create or unfairly distribute risks, to forms of development that are equitable, resilient and sustainable. Based on a review of existing literature, we present three opportunities that have the potential to lead to transformation in the development-disaster risk relationship: (i) exposing development-disaster risk trade-offs in development policy and decision-making; (ii) prioritizing equity and social justice in approaches to secure resilience; and (iii) enabling transformation through adaptive governance. This research aims to contribute to breaking down existing barriers in research, policy and practice between the disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and development communities by providing cross-sectoral opportunities to operationalize theoretical knowledge on transformation. It also helps to clarify the connections between different global agendas by positioning transformation as a potential bridging concept to link disconnected policy processes. This paper argues for empirical research to test the opportunities presented here and further define transformative pathways at multiple scales.

Development and disaster risk are deeply linked. Disasters reverse development gains; development initiatives influence the risk, vulnerability, and exposure of people, assets, and environments to disasters. Hence, knowledge of key dimensions of the potential trade-offs between development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) may inform decision-making processes, goals, and initiatives in ways that have potential to address unsustainable development practices that are commonplace in countries of all economic levels. This paper presents, explores, and tests a conceptual framework for analysing the trade-offs that underpin this relationship as evidenced through policy goals, initiatives, and decision-making processes. We categorise key dimensions of relevant trade-offs into five specific dimensions: (i) The aggregation of development and DRR gains and losses, (ii) risk prioritisation when seeking to reduce multiple risks, (iii) the equity of decision-making processes and outcomes, (iv) the balancing of near- and long-term goals, and (v) the distribution of power and participation. By framing key questions related to each trade-off dimension, we test the framework in the context of a major disaster recovery process in Tacloban, the Philippines, following Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in November 2013. We consider how decision-making trade-offs can be made more visible and useful in the pursuit of transformative change in development and DRR.

This discussion brief examines issues that must be addressed to help ensure that the design, governance and implementation of nature-based solutions (NbS) are just and equitable. The authors outline five principles to incorporate in NbS to achieve these goals, and they present a case study from a semi-informal settlement in Kenya that illustrates how such principles can be integrated into very preliminary efforts to set the stage NbS-oriented approaches to address multiple community-level concerns.

Human activity has modified and deteriorated natural ecosystems in ways that reduce resilience and exacerbate environmental and climate problems. Physical measures to protect, manage and restore these ecosystems that also address societal challenges in sustainable ways and bring biodiversity benefits are sometimes referred to as “nature-based solutions” (NBS). For example, reducing deforestation and restoring forests is a major opportunity for climate mitigation, while protecting or restoring coastal habitats can mitigate damage to coastal areas from natural hazard events, in addition to potentially providing co-benefits related to livelihood, recreation, and biodiversity. There is now an impetus to shift towards greater deployment of nature-based solutions. Not only do they offer an alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based or hard infrastructure solutions but, if implemented correctly, they also hold great promise for achieving multiple goals, benefits and synergies. These include climate mitigation and resilience; nature and biodiversity protection; and economic and social gains. 2020 saw an explosion in publications about NBS, which have contributed to filling many of the knowledge gaps that existed around their effectiveness and factors for their success. These publications have also highlighted the knowledge gaps that remain and have revealed a lack of critical reflection on the social and economic sustainability aspects of NBS. Building on these gaps, we decided to launch this mini-series of four briefs to provoke a more nuanced discussion that highlights not only the potential benefits, but also the potential risks and trade-offs of NBS. The purpose is not to downplay the importance of NBS for biodiversity, ecosystems, and coastal mitigation and adaptation, but to ensure that we establish a dialogue about ways to overcome these challenges while leaving no one behind.