Abstract
Background: South Africa faces rising challenges from the environmental impacts of climate change and urbanisation, making disaster risk management (DRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) crucial legal and policy imperatives. Prioritising DRR to build resilient communities, South Africa confronts key risk drivers such as weak local governance and insufficient stakeholder participation in planning and urban management.
Aim: This study aims to provide constitutional and legislative insight into public participation in advancing DRM within South African cities.
Methods: This study employs a doctrinal methodology to analyse legal sources and interpret legal issues, complemented by qualitative methods such as desktop research and secondary data analysis.
Results: Findings highlight public participation as central to South Africa’s DRM, mandated by the Constitution (1996). The Disaster Management Act (DMA) 57 of 2002 enforces consultation, while the National Disaster Management Framework (NDMF) of 2023 (updated 2023) enhances engagement. Courts have also upheld public participation in DRM.
Conclusion: The study concludes that while South African legislation and policies aimed at enhancing DRM through public participation align with international standards, strengthening the implementation is critical to improving their overall effectiveness.
Contribution: This study provides valuable insights into the role of public participation in South Africa’s DRM and also contributes to the broader understanding of how legal and policy frameworks can be optimised to support sustainable development.
Keywords: disaster risk management; public participation; legislation; policy; cities.
Introduction
Countries worldwide are increasingly challenged by the growing risks and adverse environmental effects of climate change and urbanisation (Cullis et al. 2019). Approximately 130 port cities with populations exceeding 1 million are projected to be susceptible to coastal flooding, with a billion people in urban informal settlements facing heightened risk (Geneva Environment Network [GEN] 2024). Roughly one-third of the global population resides in cities exposed to hazards such as cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides or volcanic eruptions (GEN 2024). Climate change intensifies these threats by contributing to more frequent and severe floods, droughts, sea level rise, heat waves, landslides and storms (GEN 2024). In South Africa, the Western Cape recently endured one of the most severe droughts in a century, severely impacting urban water supplies. Water scarcity is expected to escalate, particularly in central, northern and south-western areas, potentially obstructing development goals and increasing conflicts between agricultural and urban or industrial users (World Bank Group 2021). Flood risk is also anticipated to rise in South Africa, with KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo being especially vulnerable (World Bank Group 2021).
Public participation is essential for sustainability, as emphasised by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which calls for broad public involvement (Fox & Stoett 2016). Sustainable urban transformation depends on engaging priority groups, especially underrepresented and underserved populations, in participatory processes that empower them to shape their development (United Nations Human Settlements Programme [UNHSP] 2020). The shift towards open, multi-stakeholder governance models highlights the role of participatory decision-making in promoting human rights (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR] 2018). Globally, the importance of public participation in decision-making is widely recognised. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda (NUA) underscore the critical role of local governments in achieving sustainable development. Sustainable Development Goal 11 focusses on creating inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities, while SDG 16 advocates for peaceful, inclusive societies with access to justice and aims to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels (4th SDG Youth Summer Camp).
In line with SDG 11, which seeks to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) emphasises that the involvement of citizens and local stakeholders is key to reducing disaster impacts, enhancing resilience and achieving long-term sustainable development. The SFDRR adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 emphasises the importance of engaging local communities, civil society and various stakeholders in all phases of disaster management – prevention, preparedness, response and recovery UN n.d.a). Key aspects of public participation in the SFDRR include inclusive, people-centred approaches; community participation in governance; local action and leadership; and enhancing awareness and capacity (UN n.d.a).
The SDGs and the NUA emphasise spatial planning as a critical tool for sustainable development and stress the need for inclusive decision-making (United Nations Habitat [UNH] 2023). The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) highlights the many benefits of public participation for governments, regulated entities and society as a whole, recognising it as essential for advancing sustainable development (Saladin & Van Dyke 1998). Both the SDGs and the NUA advocate for a multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder approach as a core governance strategy for achieving sustainability (UNH 2023).
As cities expand, inequality and poverty become more pronounced, often because of limited community engagement in urban planning (UNHSP 2020). Public involvement is frequently considered secondary (Nkombi & Wentink 2022). A bottom-up approach is most effective for local disaster risk reduction (DRR), fostering community ownership and understanding of risks. Community-based DRR represents a shift from traditional, top-down management towards proactive, local initiatives (Nkombi & Wentink 2022). Municipalities need community collaboration to succeed, serving as channels for enhancing local democracy (Madumo 2015). This engagement fosters meaningful interaction between government and citizens (Madumo 2015).
Section 156 of the Constitution of the Republic South Africa, 1996 grants municipalities executive authority over local government matters listed in Part B of Schedules 4 and 5, which include issues central to disaster risk management (DRM). The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, along with the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 57 of 2002 and the National Disaster Management Framework (NDMF) of 2023, establishes a strong legal basis for public participation in DRM and reduction within South African cities (SACs). However, limited research has examined the effective use and implementation of public participation specifically in enhancing DRM and reduction efforts. This article aims to fill this gap by examining the extent to which public participation has been integrated into South Africa’s legal framework to support DRM and reduction.
Methods and review approach
This review provides an in-depth examination of how public participation contributes to advancing DRM in South Africa. The choice of South Africa is influenced by its unique context of recent disaster recurrence linked to climate change and its political history, which once excluded most of the population from meaningful decision-making. Under apartheid, public participation was limited, but this changed with the 1994 democratic elections, empowering citizens to participate in local governance and planning (Agyemang 2021). In South Africa, participatory planning goes beyond formal requirements; it is embedded in the nation’s legal and policy frameworks (Agyemang 2021).
This study explores the contribution of public participation to DRM within South Africa’s national legal frameworks. The review adopts a doctrinal research methodology, which includes providing insight into legal sources, including statutes, case law, regulations and commentaries. This method aids in interpreting and synthesising these sources to address legal issues and develop legal theories (Sepaha 2023). Doctrinal research is traditionally conducted in a law library by identifying authoritative decisions, applicable legislation and secondary literature (Singhal & Malik 2012).
Beyond doctrinal research, this study employs qualitative methods, primarily desktop research and secondary data analysis. Secondary sources, including national and local legislation, South African case law repositories, journal articles and books, are utilised. Key databases used include Google Scholar, Taylor and Francis, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect and ResearchGate, with search terms such as ‘public participation’, ‘disaster risk management’, ‘constitution’ and ‘legislation’. Conducted between 10 July and 01 November 2024, this research draws from recent literature of the past decade and older works to offer a comprehensive perspective on public participation in DRM and DRR in South Africa. The analysis focusses on South African laws and case law, using purposive sampling to select legislative frameworks and cases relevant to the research aims (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim 2016).
The article begins by highlighting the connection between urban environments and natural disasters, focussing specifically on South Africa. It then underscores the importance of public participation in DRM. A review of the 1996 Constitution, relevant legislation, policies and case law follows, examining how these frameworks recognise and enforce public participation to strengthen DRM efforts. The study concludes that South Africa’s legal and policy frameworks acknowledge the essential role of public engagement in effective DRM.
Literature review
Overview of cities and natural disaster risk
Currently, 55% of the global population resides in urban areas, a figure expected to rise to 68% by 2050. Recent UN data indicate that this shift from rural to urban settings, combined with population growth, could lead to an additional 2.5 billion people moving to urban areas by mid-century, with nearly 90% of this growth occurring in Asia and Africa (United Nations Department Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA] 2018a). Northern America (82% urban in 2018), Latin America and the Caribbean (81%), Europe (74%) and Oceania (68%) are currently the most urbanised regions. While urbanisation in Asia has reached nearly 50%, Africa remains predominantly rural, with only 43% of its population in urban areas (UNDESA 2018a). Figure 1 shows the varying levels of risk cities face from natural disasters, highlighting areas most susceptible to hazards like floods, earthquakes, droughts, and wildfires.
 |
FIGURE 1: Cities’ risk of exposure to natural disasters. |
|
Some cities have seen population declines in recent years, particularly in low-fertility countries in Asia and Europe, where overall population numbers are stagnant or decreasing. Economic downturns and natural disasters have also contributed to population losses in certain cities, although some declines do not appear to be linked to crises (UNDESA 2018b). While overall city growth is anticipated to slow through 2030, growth in African cities is expected to accelerate, with average growth rates exceeding 3% across all city sizes (UNDESA 2018c). The 10 fastest-growing cities during this period, with annual growth rates ranging from 5.2% – 5.9%, are all in Africa (data not shown) (UNDESA 2018c). In contrast, European cities with populations below 500 000 are projected to experience the slowest growth (UNDESA 2018c). Cities, which account for over 80% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), have the potential to support sustainable growth through enhanced productivity and innovation when effectively managed (World Bank Group 2023). Urban areas offer numerous socioeconomic benefits, such as jobs and income generation (Srinivas 2020). Also, the features of contemporary cities – such as dense populations, gathering places, compact buildings and intricate, interconnected infrastructure – can heighten the city’s susceptibility to disasters or security threats. Many urban areas possess significant advantages, including economic output and distribution, a skilled workforce, active civil society and access to services, all of which can be leveraged to mitigate disaster risks and vulnerabilities (Prior & Roth 2013).
However, urban areas also play a significant role in driving environmental change (GEN 2024). They are increasingly becoming risky environments, particularly for low-income residents in developing countries (Srinivas 2020). The concentration of people, industries, infrastructure and economic activities in cities has heightened exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards (Brecht, Deichmann & Wang 2013). Urbanisation has been a key factor in the dramatic rise in disaster-related fatalities and economic damages in recent decades (Brecht et al. 2013). Population density and economic expansion in high-risk areas, such as cyclone-prone coastal zones, are major contributors to the growing disaster risk. Notably, the world’s low-lying coastal areas, which cover only 2% of global land, are home to 10% of the world’s population (Brecht et al. 2013).
Cities consume two-thirds of global energy and generate over 75% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (GEN 2024). The International Energy Agency projects that urban energy-related GHG emissions will rise from about 67% today to 74% by 2030 (UN n.d.b). Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), another type of emission, also contribute to global warming while affecting public health, food and water resources (UN n.d.b). As an emerging economy, South Africa depends significantly on fossil fuels, especially coal, which produces substantial GHG emissions (Igamba 2023). In 2020–2021, coal generated 81% of the electricity on the national grid, while nuclear energy provided 4% (Eskom 2021). Consequently, South Africa ranks as the 14th largest global emitter of GHGs and is the 7th largest coal producer worldwide (Smit 2023). Fossil fuels dominate the country’s energy mix, comprising 92%, with coal being a major component – over 80% of its electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants (Smit 2023).
There is a clear link between climate change and shifting risk patterns in cities: in some cases, this connection is direct, as climate change leads to more frequent and intense extreme weather events, while in other cases, it is mediated by urban development pathways and local environmental stresses and degradation (Gencer et al. 2018). Urban areas are not inherently prone to disasters; rather, socioeconomic structural processes – such as rapid urbanisation, migration and population concentration – intensify vulnerability, particularly among low-income residents. The risks stem from both physical factors, such as building practices, urban planning and infrastructure, and human processes that amplify vulnerability, including lifestyle choices and consumption patterns. These issues have varying impacts across urban areas, shaped by socio-spatial structures and urban layout. Migrants often settle in high-risk zones vulnerable to natural disasters (e.g. floods, landslides) or create potential hazards through environmental degradation, slum fires and health risks (Srinivas 2020).
Between 1998 and 2017, sudden-onset disasters resulted in the deaths of 1.3 million people and impacted an additional 4.4 billion. Most fatalities were caused by geophysical events such as earthquakes and tsunamis. However, climate-related events – including storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather – made up 91% of all disasters. These events can undo significant development achievements and devastate lives in lasting ways. If action is not taken, climate change is expected to lead to even greater loss of life and destruction (Wallemacq & House n.d.). Frequently, the regions most impacted by these hazards are inhabited by populations with the least adaptive capacity, such as slum residents, individuals without land tenure and migrants. In South Africa, 23% of the urban population lives in informal settlements (Centre for Affordable Housing Finance Africa [CAHFA] 2021). Within the eight metropolitan areas, 16.8% of households occupy informal dwellings, which are generally makeshift structures predominantly constructed from corrugated iron and often lack sufficient access to water, sanitation and electricity (CAHFA 2021). Most urban growth is taking place in middle- and low-income countries, which often have limited resources and capabilities to manage and adapt to existing risks, let alone emerging threats, thereby increasing their vulnerability and exposure (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNODRR] n.d.). In addition, a significant portion of the increase in urban poverty is occurring in areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters and are expected to be most affected by climate change, such as low-lying coastal zones and arid drylands (UNDESA 2018c). Nearly 60% of cities with populations of 300 000 or more are at high risk of exposure to at least one of six types of natural disasters (cyclones, droughts, floods, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions), and this number is on the rise (UNDESA 2018c).
The impact of disasters has been steadily increasing over time, with data indicating a significant rise in losses as a result of natural catastrophes. From 1990 to 1999, disaster-related expenses, when measured in constant dollars, were more than 15 times greater than in the 1950s (Brecht et al. 2013). In addition, the number of individuals affected by natural hazards nearly quadrupled from the period of 1975–1984 to 1996–2005 (Brecht et al. 2013). This rise can be attributed to various factors, including changes in land use, social inequalities, land subsidence and environmental degradation (Brecht et al. 2013).
In 2018, out of 1146 cities with populations exceeding 500 000, 679 (or 59%) were identified as being at high risk for at least one of six natural disaster types: cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions. Collectively, these cities accounted for a population of 1.4 billion people. In addition, 189 cities – primarily along coastlines – were at high risk of exposure to two or more disaster types, while 26 cities, including the megacities of Manila, Osaka and Tokyo, faced a high risk of three or more types of disasters (UNDESA 2018d).
Climate-induced extreme events are projected to escalate significantly in the coming decades (IPCC 2014). World Bank (2013) estimates that by 2050, the number of people in developing cities exposed to cyclone and earthquake risks will more than double compared to 2000 levels. Disasters with major urban impacts are becoming more frequent and severe, as evidenced by past events such as the Thailand floods (US $45.7 billion in losses) and Hurricane Sandy in New York (US $65 billion in economic losses), both of which disrupted national and global business operations. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), over the past 40 years, disaster-related costs as a percentage of GDP have more than tripled, with major disasters reducing real GDP per capita by an average of 0.6%, rising to 1.0% in low-income countries (UN, n.d.b).
South African cities and disaster risk
South Africa faces significant vulnerabilities to natural hazards such as droughts, floods and storms, which are anticipated to worsen because of climate change (World Bank Group 2021). Based on information from the EM-DAT database (1952–2019), Swiss Re, the Risk and Development Annual Review (RADAR), National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC), government reports and peer-reviewed research, South Africa is ranked 92nd out of 180 countries worldwide in natural disaster risk. Between 1952 and 2019, the country faced total economic losses of US$9 billion (Tau 2021). Key disaster drivers include droughts, floods and wildfires, collectively resulting in economic losses estimated at 3 billion Rand annually (World Bank Group 2021). Drought poses the greatest risk, occurring moderately often – about once every 6 years (Tau 2021). Coastal cities like Cape Town and Durban are threatened by rising sea levels (World Bank Group 2021). Municipalities are increasingly challenged by water scarcity, especially following severe droughts in the Western Cape, which may lead to conflicts over water use (World Bank Group 2021). Flood risks are projected to rise in regions like KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo, increasing the incidence of waterborne diseases (World Bank Group 2021).
Table 1 provides an overview of natural disasters in South Africa from 1900 to 2020, illustrating the varied impacts of hazards such as droughts, earthquakes, epidemics, extreme temperatures, floods, landslides, wildfires and storms in terms of frequency, death toll, affected populations and economic damage. Key findings include that drought, despite being infrequent (11 events), affected the largest number of people (20.9 million) and resulted in significant economic losses of approximately $2.6 billion, highlighting its long-term impacts on agriculture and water resources. Conversely, earthquakes were rare (5 events), caused 37 deaths and had minimal financial impact ($20 000), suggesting either limited occurrence or effective infrastructure. Epidemics accounted for 323 deaths, impacting 111 960 individuals, but no financial losses were recorded, emphasising the importance of public health preparedness. Extreme temperatures resulted in 63 deaths but were not associated with economic damages, pointing to the need for health risk policies.
| TABLE 1: Natural disasters in South Africa, 1900–2020. |
Floods were the most frequent and devastating, causing 822 deaths and substantial economic losses of $1.65 billion for riverine floods, indicating vulnerability in flood-prone areas. Landslides resulted in 34 deaths without additional economic damages reported, while wildfires caused 97 deaths and approximately $440 million in damages, reflecting the risks posed by fire in South Africa’s diverse landscapes. Storms also had significant impacts, with convective storms responsible for 148 deaths and $1.27 billion in damages. Overall, droughts and floods were the most impactful hazards, highlighting the need for improved disaster management strategies in response to the economic and social vulnerabilities of South Africa’s infrastructure and communities.
Public participation and disaster risk management
Davids (2005) views public participation as a broad process designed to enhance democratic governance through structured opportunities for involvement. True public participation means involving stakeholders in each step of decision-making, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and ensuring the fair distribution of the benefits from governance and development efforts. This process is marked by open communication and joint problem-solving, leading to outcomes that are more widely accepted (Legislative Sector-South Africa 2013). Kotze (1997) describes public participation as a people-centred approach to development, which includes involvement, open communication, shifts in government attitudes and reciprocal influence. Public participation is not limited to decision-making; it establishes the foundation for decisions and spans all stages of implementation, monitoring and evaluation, continuing well before and after decisions are made (Bekker 1996).
Disaster risk management involves using administrative policies, organisational skills and operational abilities to implement strategies that improve communities’ capacity to handle hazards (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [UNISDR] 2009). Disaster risk management’s goal is to prevent or lessen the adverse impacts of hazards through activities focussed on prevention, mitigation and preparedness (UNISDR 2009). This approach aims to build resilience against disasters and hazards by using early warning systems, infrastructure investments, social protections, risk awareness, education and environmental management (Vathana et al. 2013). Disaster risk reduction, on the other hand, focusses on systematically analysing and reducing the root causes of disaster risks. Disaster risk reduction efforts include reducing exposure to hazards, minimising vulnerabilities, improving land and environmental management and strengthening preparedness (United States Agency for International Development [USAID] 2011). While DRR is concerned with strategic planning, DRM is focussed on implementing these strategies at a tactical level (USAID 2011).
Mami Mizutori, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for DRR, emphasises the importance of focussing on urban areas and local efforts to build inclusive, resilient and sustainable communities. She highlights the urgency of these efforts given the complexity of urban risks and the rapid growth of cities in developing economies, as outlined in frameworks such as the Sendai Framework, the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and the NUA (UNODRR n.d.). The 2019 Global Assessment Report (GAR 19) identifies urban areas as central to DRR because of their dense populations, activities and assets, stressing the need to embed DRM in urban planning (UNODRR n.d.).
Urban areas function as intricate, interconnected systems that are facing increasing challenges contributing to disaster risk (UNODRR 2010). Rapid urban development often pushes communities into high-risk zones and disrupts ecosystems that help mitigate threats such as landslides, floods and storms (UNODRR 2010). Addressing these issues requires policies and strategies that contribute to a broader vision of making cities of all sizes more resilient and liveable. Key risk drivers include weak local governance and limited community involvement in planning (UNODRR 2010). Natural disasters can be mitigated through strong policies, actions and local engagement (UNODRR 2010). Although urbanisation and natural hazards are unavoidable, effective DRM can significantly reduce disaster impacts (Brecht et al. 2013).
Community involvement offers essential insights for city planners, helping to ensure that plans align with local priorities. For local governments to build trust, they should first address pressing community needs and follow up with feasible, cost-effective measures to support ongoing initiatives (UNODRR 2010). In South Africa, major cities are working to harmonise cooperative governance with inclusive practices by partnering with city networks and intermediaries to address issues such as droughts, natural disasters and power outages (South African Cities [SAC] 2022). Integrating public participation into DRM within legal and policy frameworks presents both opportunities and challenges. Table 2 outlines these opportunities and challenges in advancing DRM and reduction through public participation, highlighting its recognition within legal and policy contexts.
| TABLE 2: Public participation in disaster risk management: Opportunities and challenges. |
Section 2.2. explores the legislative and policy frameworks crucial for implementing public participation in DRM and reduction. It specifically examines the constitutional, legislative and policy structures that facilitate the advancement of environmental sustainability through public engagement.
Research findings
Public participation in disaster risk management under South African laws
South African Constitution of 1996
Public participation is a fundamental pillar of South African democracy, carefully enshrined within the Constitution to uphold inclusive decision-making and accountability at all levels of government. At the national level, the Constitution outlines explicit mandates to facilitate public participation in legislative processes, primarily through Sections 59(1) and 72(1).
Section 59(1) mandates the National Assembly to ‘facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes’, which emphasises the importance of an inclusive approach to lawmaking. This requirement ensures that legislation reflects the public’s concerns and interests, making the process responsive to the citizens’ needs. Moreover, Section 72(1) imposes a similar obligation on the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) to involve the public in its proceedings. At the provincial level, Section 118(1) reinforces the principle of public engagement by compelling provincial legislatures to encourage community involvement in legislative activities. This provision acknowledges that provincial governments often serve as the closest link between national policies and their implementation in diverse local contexts.
The local government level also holds a crucial role in promoting public participation, as mandated by Section 152(1)(e). This section obliges municipalities to involve communities in matters of local governance, with objectives that encompass promoting accountability, ensuring sustainable service delivery and advancing social and economic development. Given that municipalities interact most directly with the public, the emphasis on participation at this level is particularly significant.
Public participation also extends to public administration as outlined in Section 195(1), which calls for accountability, transparency and public involvement in policymaking. Section 195(1) reinforces the need for government officials and institutions to conduct their duties with openness and responsiveness to the people they serve. This commitment to transparency and accountability ensures that public administrators remain answerable to the public, fostering trust in government operations. Complementing this, Section 33 enshrines the right to just administrative action, which allows the public to engage with, challenge and seek redress for administrative decisions that may impact their rights and interests. This right not only empowers individuals to participate in the administrative process but also safeguards them against arbitrary or unfair practices, fostering a more equitable and just administrative system.
Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002
The DMA establishes a DRM framework in South Africa, creating the NDMC and defining the roles of all government levels. The Act focusses on risk reduction, emergency response and recovery, with an emphasis on proactive measures and public participation. It also grants the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) the authority to oversee policy implementation in collaboration with stakeholders.
According to Section 5(1) of the DMA, the Minister is required to establish a National Disaster Management Advisory Forum, chaired by the Head of the National Centre as stated in Section 5(2). This Forum serves as a consultative body, as outlined in Section 5(3)(a), enabling coordination of disaster management activities among national, provincial and local governments and other stakeholders. Furthermore, Section 5(3)(b) of the Act mandates that the Forum recommends improvements to the NDMF to the Intergovernmental Committee on Disaster Management and provide advice on disaster management to various entities, including government bodies, statutory organisations, Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community groups and the private sector.
In addition, Section 7(1) of the DMA requires the NDMF to establish a coherent, transparent and inclusive policy for disaster management throughout South Africa. Section 7(2) specifies that the framework must address different types of disasters based on their severity and scale, and emphasise reducing vulnerability in disaster-prone communities. It also mandates (f) the involvement of private sector entities, NGOs, traditional leaders, technical experts and volunteers in disaster management, and (g) the fostering of partnerships among state organs, private entities and communities. In addition, the framework should promote capacity building, training and education on disaster management, including in schools, and provide incentives for these initiatives.
Moreover, Section 15(1) directs the National Centre to take all necessary steps to achieve its objectives as stated in Section 9, including (g) promoting the recruitment, training and involvement of volunteers in disaster management. Similarly, Section 30(1) requires provincial disaster management centres to encourage volunteer recruitment and training when assessing local disasters and considering local state declarations under Section 55. Section 25(1) mandates national organs of state to align and coordinate their disaster management plans with those of other state organs and to invest in DRR and climate change adaptation, including ecosystem and community-based approaches. Section 38(1) obligates each provincial organ of state to coordinate its plan implementation with other state organs and invest in DRR and climate change adaptation as well.
Section 42(1) requires metropolitan and district municipalities to establish and implement a disaster management framework to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to disaster management within their jurisdictions, with Section 42(2) mandating district municipalities to develop their frameworks in consultation with local municipalities. Section 43(1) states that each metropolitan and district municipality must establish a disaster management centre, with Section 43(2) specifying that district municipalities consult local municipalities during its establishment. In addition, Section 43(4) allows local municipalities to create their disaster management centres in consultation with the relevant district municipality, based on a service-level agreement that aligns with national standards.
Under Section 50(1), a municipality’s disaster management centre is required to submit an annual report to the municipal council. If the centre collaborates with local municipalities, as in a district municipality, Section 50(3) requires the report to be prepared in consultation with those municipalities. Section 51(1) permits metropolitan and district municipalities to establish a municipal disaster management advisory forum, which may include representatives from organised business, labour unions and community organisations.
Section 52(1) requires each municipal organ of state, other than a municipality, to (d) coordinate its plan’s implementation with other state organs and institutional stakeholders and (e) specify its investment in DRR and climate change adaptation, emphasising ecosystem and community-based approaches. In addition, Section 51(1) outlines that a metropolitan or district municipality may form a disaster management advisory forum that includes: (1) the head of the municipal disaster management centre, (2) senior representatives from each department in the municipality, (3) representatives from local municipalities for district municipalities and (4) other disaster management stakeholders, including organised business, labour, community organisations and one elected traditional leader from recognised councils.
Section 53(1) mandates each municipality to implement DRR and climate change adaptation measures that prioritise ecosystem and community-based approaches. Municipalities must also develop early warning mechanisms for identified risks, regularly review and update their plans, and consult the local community during plan preparation or amendments, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000). Section 53(2) stipulates that the disaster management plan must be integrated into the municipality’s development plan. Finally, Section 54(1) clarifies local disaster coordination responsibilities, stating that: (1) the metropolitan municipality council is responsible for managing local disasters in its area and (2) a district municipality council, in consultation with the relevant local municipality, is responsible for local disaster coordination within its jurisdiction.
Public participation in disaster risk management under South African policy
National Disaster Management Framework of 2005
The NDMF, aligned with the DMA, provides a comprehensive approach to DRM in South Africa. It focusses on risk reduction, preparedness and response, with proactive measures such as risk assessments and early warning systems. The Framework highlights the roles of disaster management centres at all levels and encourages public participation. It also promotes coordination between legislation and institutions, supporting capacity building to achieve a disaster-resilient nation.
Part 1.1 of the NDMF outlines the importance of addressing current and future disaster risks through effective monitoring, assessment and understanding of these risks, along with the sharing of relevant information and strengthening governance and coordination across institutions. It emphasises meaningful stakeholder participation at appropriate levels. Part 1.2.6 mandates that each metropolitan and district municipality must establish DRM capabilities aligned with national and provincial frameworks, facilitating cooperative governance and promoting community involvement. Part 1.3 emphasises the necessity for active participation from all stakeholders – including the private sector, NGOs, technical experts and communities – in disaster risk planning and operations. It requires the creation of structures that promote coordinated stakeholder engagement and the integration of technical expertise. If municipalities do not establish these structures, they must identify suitable alternatives to ensure compliance with cooperative governance and community participation as required by the Act and the Framework.
Part 1.3.5 of the NDMF highlights the critical role of community participation in DRM. It requires governments to engage a diverse range of stakeholders – including women, children, youth, persons with disabilities, low-income groups, migrants, indigenous peoples, volunteers, practitioners and older persons – in the development and implementation of policies and plans. Collaboration among public and private sectors, civil society organisations, academia and research institutions is also essential to foster partnerships and encourage businesses to integrate DRM into their operations. The framework asserts that DRM should be community-led, with all planning and initiatives prioritising community needs and goals. Municipalities are encouraged to actively involve local communities in various activities, including promoting community participation in training and preparedness planning. It also highlights that communities are the first responders during disasters, making broad participation and volunteer recruitment crucial, especially in high-risk areas. Establishing ward-based DRM committees is vital for fostering local leadership and involvement. If municipalities do not form these structures, they must designate existing groups to fulfil these responsibilities and leverage local organisations – such as burial societies, farmers’ associations and religious groups – to strengthen DRR and response efforts.
Part 2.1.6 of the NDMF promotes community-based disaster risk assessment to enhance local capacity for DRR. It requires the involvement of vulnerable groups, including isolated communities and female- or child-led households, in disaster risk assessments. By integrating local and indigenous knowledge with scientific data, the quality and relevance of these assessments improve. Engaging special needs groups, such as women, children and the elderly, not only enhances the assessment outcomes but also fosters community ownership of DRR efforts. The framework employs the Pressure and Release (PAR) model to clarify disaster risk factors and impacts for vulnerable communities.
Part 2.5.3 outlines key performance indicators (KPIs) for disaster risk assessments, which include community involvement and stakeholder engagement. Part 3.2 focusses on DRR planning, following principles from the SFDRR. These principles stress the importance of inclusive engagement and partnerships, particularly for vulnerable populations, while integrating considerations of gender, age, disability and cultural perspectives. It also highlights the importance of promoting leadership roles for women and youth and emphasises organised voluntary citizen participation as crucial for effective DRR. Also, Part 5.2 of the NDMF describes the Integrated Information Management and Communication Support needed for key performance areas (KPAs). It emphasises the importance of building integrated institutional capacity for disaster management, particularly in Part 5.2.1, which requires an information management and communication system to maintain a directory of community participation structures and their members’ contact information. Part 6.5.1 of the same policy mandates the development of a nationwide Integrated Public Awareness Strategy to promote risk-avoidance behaviours among stakeholders, including government entities at all levels, schools and high-risk communities. This strategy aims to foster a well-informed society that collaborates with the government on DRR. It should utilise the National Indicative Disaster Risk Profile and the National Education, Training and Research Needs and Resources Analysis (NETaRNRA).
The NDMC is responsible for establishing a public awareness service that integrates international trends and indigenous knowledge, helping local disaster management centres implement community programmes addressing local hazards. A user-friendly website with current information on disasters and stakeholders will be a crucial component of this service. Qualified personnel will manage material development, consultations and media relations to ensure effective communication. Public awareness campaigns to promote risk-avoidance behaviours may include:
- Planned conferences involving all disaster management centres and intergovernmental structures.
- Imbizo (a Zulu term for a traditional community meeting convened by the chief to address important local issues (Mabelebele 2006); meetings and volunteer participation).
- Incentives, rewards, competitions and recognition programmes to boost awareness and engagement in risk-reduction activities.
Part 6.5.3 of the NDMF 2023 outlines the media’s critical role in disaster management. Effective communication about DRR, preparedness, response and recovery is essential for ensuring that important information reaches communities involved in early warning and recovery efforts. The responsibilities of the media during disasters should be established through a collaborative approach that includes media representatives, disaster response participants and affected communities. Building public awareness and support for disaster initiatives can be enhanced through effective media publicity. To achieve this, disaster management centres at all levels must cultivate ongoing relationships with local and national media outlets.
Given the complexities of media relations, disaster management centres must adhere to established organisational policies. Promoting DRR programmes via the media is vital for encouraging public participation, and clear communication of programme goals and benefits to at-risk communities is essential. Regular monitoring of media communications should focus on both positive and negative publicity, the effectiveness of messaging in vulnerable communities and the impact of social media. Part 6.5.4 outlines the responsibilities for an Integrated Public Awareness Strategy, with the NDMC tasked with planning and launching a national strategy based on comprehensive disaster risk assessments. The NDMC must also develop programmes to raise awareness and promote risk-avoidance behaviours among stakeholders. Strong media relations are crucial for ensuring balanced coverage and enhancing public understanding of disaster management.
All government bodies must align their public awareness programmes with the national strategy and consult communities, NGOs and the private sector in the design phase. Involving volunteers in these initiatives can foster community ownership and engagement. Each government entity and disaster management centre must designate an individual or office for managing media relations, and the NDMC should be notified in advance of relevant media activities.
Part 7.9.1.2 stresses the importance of an Integrated Public Awareness Strategy. The NDMC is responsible for improving public awareness strategies to promote risk avoidance within government and communities. State bodies must create appropriate public awareness campaigns, allocate budgets for ongoing and new initiatives, and access NDMC funding for programmes addressing national disaster risks. Municipalities should integrate awareness campaigns into community participation efforts, thereby reducing the need for additional funding, and are encouraged to collaborate with community organisations, NGOs and the private sector to share costs on targeted initiatives.
Public participation in disaster risk management under South African case law
Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province and Others (CCT67/06) [2007] ZACC 13; 2007 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC); 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC) (7 June 2007).
The case is a landmark decision by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 June 2007. This case emerged from concerns regarding the environmental implications of establishing fuel retail outlets in Mpumalanga, specifically focussing on compliance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998.
At the heart of the case was a challenge by the Fuel Retailers Association against the Director-General of Environmental Management’s approval of environmental authorisations for new fuel retail outlets. The Association contended that these approvals were granted without sufficient public participation, thus contravening the legal requirements set forth by environmental legislation. The key legal issues addressed by the Court included the extent of public participation mandated by environmental laws, the impact of inadequate public consultation on the constitutional rights of affected communities – particularly their right to a healthy environment – and the compliance of the granted approvals with the stipulations of relevant environmental legislation.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court sided with the Fuel Retailers Association, emphasising several crucial points. Firstly, the Court highlighted the essential role of public participation in environmental decision-making processes, asserting that the failure to engage affected parties constituted a breach of the principles of cooperative governance and the right to a healthy environment. Consequently, the Court deemed the environmental authorisations issued by the Director-General as invalid because of the lack of public consultation, which compromised the legitimacy of the decision-making process. Furthermore, the judgement underscored the importance of prioritising sustainability and public health in environmental management decisions. It reinforced the idea that affected communities must have a meaningful voice in decisions that impact their environment.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP) (8 March 2017).
The case represents a crucial legal milestone in South Africa, highlighting the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making. Decided by the High Court of Gauteng, the case arose from the environmental advocacy organisation Earthlife Africa’s challenge to the Minister of Environmental Affairs’ approval of the Thabametsi coal-fired power station in Limpopo province. This project sparked significant controversy because of its potential adverse environmental impacts, particularly regarding climate change and air quality.
Earthlife Africa contended that the decision to authorise the construction of the power station violated key legal principles outlined in the NEMA and the constitutional right to a healthy environment. Central to the case were three primary legal issues: the adequacy of the public participation process before the granting of the environmental authorisation, the implications of the project for the constitutional right to an environment conducive to health and well-being, and the Minister’s consideration of climate change impacts.
In its ruling, the High Court favoured Earthlife Africa, underscoring several critical points. Firstly, the Court determined that the public participation process was insufficient, failing to adequately engage affected communities and stakeholders, thereby violating the requirements of NEMA and good governance principles. Secondly, the Court stressed the need for a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that considers all potential environmental impacts, including climate change issues. It found that the Minister’s decision had neglected significant factors regarding GHG emissions and the broader consequences of fossil fuel projects. Lastly, the judgement reaffirmed the necessity of transparency and accountability in environmental decision-making.
Discussions
The discussion above underscores the significant efforts South Africa has made to integrate public participation as a crucial element of DRM, acknowledging the role of interested parties through constitutional and legal frameworks. The 1996 Constitution, particularly Sections 59(1), 72(1), 118(1), 152(1)(e), 195(1), and 33, establishes and guarantees the right to public participation, ensuring that stakeholders are included in governance. Key sections of the NDMF that recognise the role of public participation in DRM and reduction include Parts 1.1, 1.2.6, 1.3, 1.3.5, 2.1.6, 2.5.3, 3.2 and 5.2. Meanwhile, the DMA specifically implements this right within the context of DRM. Important sections of the National Disaster Management Act (NDMA) that promotes public participation include Sections 5(1), 5(3)(b), 7(1), 7(2), 15(1), 30(1), 25(1), 38(1), 42(1), 42(2), 43(1), 43(2), 43(4), 50(1), 50(3), 51(1), 52(1), 53(1), 53(2), and 55.
In South Africa, public participation in DRM encompasses not only constitutional and legislative frameworks but also case law, including notable cases such as Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province and Others (CCT67/06) [2007] ZACC 13; 2007 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC); 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC) (7 June 2007) and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP) (8 March 2017).
Conclusion
The article explores DRM through public participation within the framework of South African constitutional, legislative and policy structures. It highlights the connection between public participation and DRM. The article identifies a key legal and policy framework – the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and NDMF – that acknowledges public participation, with the DMA giving effect to this involvement in DRM. In addition, South African case law reinforces this principle, with the judiciary ensuring that public participation is more than just a procedural requirement; it is a substantive right.
Public participation in DRM is essential for building resilience and reducing the effects of disasters. In sub-Saharan Africa, the incorporation of public participation into national legal frameworks varies by country. Some nations have successfully recognised and facilitated public involvement, while others face challenges in clearly defining their role within the legal context of DRM. Future research could provide valuable insights by examining how different sub-Saharan African countries have integrated public participation in DRM and reduction into their legislative frameworks. Case studies and best practice guidelines could help clarify the scope of public participation, integrate it into local legislation and policies, and identify gaps in existing approaches, offering recommendations to improve DRM through effective public engagement.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author reported that they received funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF), which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The author has disclosed those interests fully and has implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Author’s contributions
F.A. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research and does not contain any studies involving human participants performed by the author.
Funding information
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research of this article. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (grant number 115581).
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, F.A., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
4th SDG Youth Summer Camp, SDG resource document: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development’s 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), viewed 18 August 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/SDG%20Resource%20Document_Targets%20Overview.pdf.
Agyemang, F., 2021, ‘The impact of spatial contestation between street hawkers/traders and pedestrians on vehicular traffic flow: Investigating the Durban Central Business District’, Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa).
Bekker, K., 1996, Citizen participation in local government, 1st edn., JL van Schaik, Pretoria.
Brecht, H., Deichmann, U. & Wang, G.H., 2013, A global urban risk index, Policy Research Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Centre for Affordable Housing Finance Africa (CAHFA), 2021, Africa housing finance yearbook 2021, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://housingfinanceafrica.org/app/uploads/2021/12/South-Africa.pdf.
Cullis, J.D., Horn, A., Rossouw, N., Fisher-Jeffes, L., Kunneke, M.M. & Hoffman, W., 2019, ‘Urbanisation, climate change and its impact on water quality and economic risks in a water scarce and rapidly urbanising catchment: Case study of the Berg River Catchment’, H2Open Journal 2(1), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2019.027
Davids, I., 2005, Voices from below: Reflecting on ten years of public participation the cases of local government in the Western Cape Province, Foundation for Contemporary Research.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58; [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP), 2017.
Eskom, 2021, Integrated report 2021, viewed 20 June 2024, from https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021IntegratedReport.pdf.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. & Alkassim, R.S., 2016, ‘Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling’, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fox, O. & Stoett, P., 2016, ‘Citizen participation in the UN sustainable development goals consultation process: Toward global democratic governance?’, Global Governance 22, 555. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02204007
Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province and Others (CCT67/06) [2007] ZACC 13; 2007 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC); 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC), 2007.
Gencer, E., Folorunsho, R., Linkin, M., Wang, X., Natenzon, C.E., Wajih, S. et al., 2018, ‘Disasters and risk in cities’, in C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal & S. Ali Ibrahim (eds.), Climate change and cities: Second assessment report of the urban climate change research network (ARC3.2), pp. 61–98, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Geneva Environmental Network (GEN), 2024, Cities and the environment, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/cities-and-the-environment/.
Igamba, J., 2023, ‘Climate change in South Africa: 21 Stunning facts about South Africa’s climate breakdown’, Greenpeace Africa, 30 August, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/54171/climate-change-in-south-africa-21-stunning-facts-about-south-africas-climate-breakdown/.
Kotze, D.A., 1997, Development administration and management, JL van Schaik, Pretoria.
Legislative Sector – South Africa, 2013, Public participation framework for the South African legislative sector, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://sals.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/ppf.pdf.
Mabelebele, J., 2006, ‘Ideological objectives underpinning imbizo as a model of communication and governance’, Communicare: Journal for Communication Sciences in Southern Africa 25(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v25i2.1749
Madumo, O.S., 2015, ‘Developmental local government challenges and progress in South Africa’, Administratio Publica 23(2), 153–166.
Nkombi, Z. & Wentink, G.J., 2022, ‘The role of public participation in disaster risk reduction initiatives: The case of Katlehong township’, Jàmbá-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 14(1), 1203. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v14i1.1203
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2018, Guidelines for states on the effective implementation of the right to participate in public affairs, viewed 18 September 2024, from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/GuidelinesRightParticipatePublicAffairs_web.pdf.
Prior, T. & Roth, F., 2013, Preparing for disasters in global cities: An international comparison, Technical Report, Center for Security Studies, ETH Zürich, Zürich.
Saladin, C. & Van Dyke, B., 1998, Implementing the principles of the public participation convention in international organizations, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, DC.
Sepaha, P., 2023, ‘Doctrinal and non-doctrinal research’, Law Colloquy, 03 November, viewed 18 January 2024, from https://lawcolloquy.com/publications/blog/doctrinal-and-non-doctrinal-research-/269.
Shamsizad, G., Daneshfard, K. & Faghihi, A., 2024, ‘Challenges and opportunities of public participation in disaster management policies in IRCS’, Quarterly Scientific Journal of Rescue and Relief 16(3), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.61186/jorar.16.3.162
Singhal, A.K. & Malik, I., 2012, ‘Doctrinal and socio-legal methods of research: Merits and demerits’, Educational Research Journal 2(7), 252–256.
Smit, S., 2023, Including diverse insights to increase the justice of the just energy transition: Collective intelligence and climate change, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), viewed 20 August 2024, from https://www.undp.org/south-africa/blog/including-diverse-insights-increase-justice-just-energy-transition-collective-intelligence-and-climate-change.
South Africa, 1996, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, Government Printer, Pretoria.
South Africa, 1998, National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, Government Printer, Pretoria.
South Africa, 2002, Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002, Government Printer, Pretoria.
South Africa, 2005, National disaster management framework, Government Printer, Pretoria.
South African Cities (SAC), 2022, Cooperative governance of the just urban transition, viewed 04 November 2024, from https://www.sacities.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/S2-4.pdf.
Srinivas, H., 2020, Cities and urban vulnerability in the context of urban environmental management, GDRC Research Output – Concept Note Series E-125, Global Development Research Center, Kobe, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/cities-vulnerability.html.
Tau, M., 2021, The role of government in disaster risk management, National Disaster Management Centre South Africa, viewed 05 November 2024, from https://www.gtac.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Role-of-Government-in-Disaster-Risk-Management-National-Disaster-Management-Centre-South-Africa.pdf.
UNDESA, Population Division, 2018, The world’s cities in 2018 – Data booklet, ST/ESA/SER.A/417, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3799524/files/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf.
United Nations (UN), n.d.a, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.
United Nations (UN), n.d.b, HABITAT III issue papers 17 – Cities and climate change and disaster risk management, viewed 30 March 2024, from https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-17_Cities-and-Climate-Change-and-Disaster-Risk-Management-2.0.pdf.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), 2018a, 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), 2018b, World urbanization prospects 2018: Highlights, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://population.un.org/wup/assets/WUP2018-Highlights.pdf.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), 2018c, World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://population.un.org/wup/assets/WUP2018-Report.pdf.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), Population Division, 2018d, The world’s cities in 2018 – Data booklet, ST/ESA/SER.A/417, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3799524/files/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf.
United Nations Habitat (UNH), 2023, Enabling meaningful public participation in spatial planning processes, viewed 18 January 2024, from https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/01/final_enabling_meaningful_public_participation_in_spatial_planning_processes.pdf.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHSP) (UN-Habitat), 2020, World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/wcr_2020_report.pdf.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2009, UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction, UNISDR, Geneva, viewed 08 September 2024, from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR), 2010, Making cities resilient: My city is getting ready! – Campaign kit 2010, viewed 19 May 2024, from https://www.unisdr.org/files/14043_campaignkit1.pdf.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR), n.d., Global assessment report on disaster, urbanisation: Cities on the front line of disaster risk reduction, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://www.undrr.org/developing-national-disaster-risk-reduction-strategies.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 2011, Introduction to disaster, viewed 03 November 2024, from https://www.preventionweb.net/files/26081_kp1concepdisasterrisk1.pdf.
Vathana, S., Oum, S., Kan, P. & Chervier, C., 2013, Impact of disasters and role of social protection in natural disaster risk management in Cambodia, ERIA Discussion Paper 2013-10, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta.
Wallemacq, P. & House, R., n.d., Economic losses, poverty and disasters 1998–2017, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), viewed 20 October 2024, from https://www.undrr.org/publication/economic-losses-poverty-disasters-1998-2017.
World Bank Group, 2021, Climate risk profile: South Africa, viewed 20 October 2024, from https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/country-profiles/15932-WB_South%20Africa%20Country%20Profile-WEB.pdf.
World Bank Group, 2023, Urban development, viewed 30 October 2024, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
