Abstract
Background: The article provides a framework for the exposition of the effects of disaster management within King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality. Disasters pose a recurring threat and cause profound losses in numerous countries, particularly affecting those residing in impoverished rural areas. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), 2015–2030 emphasises the need for a comprehensive understanding of disaster risk in all dimensions of exposure, vulnerability and hazard characteristics to improve the effectiveness of disaster risk management. Regrettably, local municipalities in South Africa continue to grapple with recurring disasters. The flooding catastrophe that happened in King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) Municipality in April 2022 highlights local municipalities’ vulnerability and limited ability to manage such disasters effectively.
Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of disaster risk management (DRM) strategies utilised by local municipalities to strengthen and implement mechanisms that help affected communities cope with the disaster situation.
Methods: The study adopted a case study approach focused on the KSD Municipality and employed a qualitative approach involving in-depth interviews with eight senior municipal managers involved in DRM.
Results: The study reveals that the KSD prioritises monitoring internal processes but neglects to evaluate the impact of external forces that relate to disasters and the plight of communities.
Conclusion: The KSD lacks disaster management support from provincial authorities, particularly in receiving adequate resources, technical guidance, and coordinated oversight, and experiences the adverse effects of poor stakeholder communication on coordination for effective disaster management.
Contribution: This study offers a valuable contribution by providing decision-makers with practical tools of analyses and insights for prioritising developments for effective DRM.
Keywords: disaster; municipality; risk management; risk reduction; strategies.
Introduction
Disasters are global phenomena that pose a recurring annual threat and cause profound losses in numerous countries, particularly affecting those residing in impoverished rural areas (Li et al. 2025; Prasad 2025; Usman 2025). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), 2015-2030 emphasises the need for a comprehensive understanding of disaster risk in all dimensions of exposure, vulnerability and hazard characteristics to enhance the effectiveness of disaster risk management (DRM) (Peters 2025). This need aligns with the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which aim to build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, reducing their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters (Pandey & Joseph 2025). The shared goal in disaster risk reduction (DRR) is increasingly necessary as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) latest report states that widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people extend beyond natural climate variability (IPCC 2022). Consequently, the international DRR agreements, developments and reforms contributed to the enactment of South Africa’s Disaster Management Act of 2002 (Act No. 57 of 2002) and the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (Coetzee et al. 2023). The proliferation of DRR agreements, policies and legislation has created a growing need for skilled human resources to implement them (Kunguma & Mapingure 2023). The South African government’s efforts to enhance the effectiveness of DRM remain a pressing issue in local municipalities (Motschmann et al. 2022).
Given this background, the devastating floods experienced in King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) Municipality in 2013 triggered by a severe storm resulted in an overwhelming toll of six lives lost, numerous individuals displaced, and extensive damage to infrastructure (Sizani 2022). Regrettably, KSD Municipality (KSDM) continues to grapple with recurring disasters, as evidenced by the recent flooding in April 2022 (KSDM 2022). KSDM continues the strenuous process of recovering from various disasters, including floods, storm surges, wildfires, heatwaves, droughts, and water shortages. This ongoing battle highlights the municipality’s heightened vulnerability and incapacity to manage disasters with limited human capital, financial resources, and limited coping capacity in the face of disasters. Consequently, it is imperative to devise robust disaster risk management strategies to mitigate vulnerability and strengthen coping mechanisms (Eze & Siegmund 2024). Thus, it is crucial to evaluate the capacity and resources available within the municipality to address disasters affecting the community (Dzigbede, Gehl & Willoughby 2020).
The DRM involves deliberate actions to reduce risks and minimise losses that communities suffer from disasters (Masvotore 2024). South African disaster management statutes strongly encourage relevant research (Republic of South Africa 2005). As a result, several institutions globally and in South Africa have embarked on developing disaster resilience programmes (Kunguma & Mapingure 2023). Unfortunately, the SFDRR does not offer guidance on the capacity-building of local and regional governments or integrating DRR into local regulatory by-laws, legal policy frameworks, and land-use management legislation (Muhame, Ncube & Bahta 2024). Resilience, defined as the capacity to sustain livelihoods, develop, innovate, and transform in the face of crises such as climate change, is crucial (Rockström et al. 2023). Muhame et al. (2024) revealed a significant need for local governments to strengthen human resource capacity building for DRR management and information dissemination at the community level. The Municipal Report (2021–2023) highlights several challenges faced by the disaster department in implementing the municipality’s disaster management policy framework. The municipality struggles with budget constraints affecting essential tools of trade, inadequate disaster facilities and a lack of stakeholder participation in disaster management planning (Mamabolo & Sebola 2021). It appears that no significant actions have been taken to enhance the effectiveness of disaster response to meet the SFDRR and SDGs. The underpinning principles of the SFDRR and SDGs – risk reduction and resilience promotion – remain problematic within local municipalities.
This study aimed to identify specific areas and methods through which development interventions could integrate disaster risk considerations into KSD Local Municipality policies and decision-making processes. Given the unprecedented disasters in recent years, South Africa’s impending implementation of effective disaster risk management strategies in local municipalities is particularly pertinent (Nemakonde et al. 2021). A preliminary review of the literature reveals that few studies have explored practical strategies for achieving this in the Southern African context, particularly in the KSD municipality, indicating a significant gap that warrants further investigation. The study’s outcomes will allow the KSDM to engage in proactive measures focused on risk reduction and building a resilient community.
Theoretical background
The study adopted the disaster management cycle (DMC) as a theoretical foundation because of its prominence in the scholarly literature on disaster management. The DMC is widely recognised and accepted as the most effective framework for disaster management (Alexander 2019). This theory simplifies the five-stage planning process, entailing prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery for effective DRM. This theory helps local governments create and sustain effective all-hazards and all-threat plans (FEMA 2021). The interlinked DMC activities were developed to assist governments in establishing interventions that can effectively integrate disaster risk considerations into local government policies and decision-making processes (Sawalha 2020). Proper planning is essential for local municipalities, and the DMC provides a systematic approach to involve the entire community in understanding the lifecycle of potential crises, determining necessary capabilities, and establishing a framework for roles and responsibilities. It guides how local municipalities envision and share desired outcomes, choose effective methods to achieve them and communicate expected results (Mishra, Kumar & Hassini 2019). Another essential component of effective DRM is conducting post-disaster damage, loss, and needs assessments for evaluating the social and economic consequences of disasters (DALA 2010). This approach has evolved as a globally recognised and applied tool to quantify the impacts of disasters and determine the necessary financial resources to achieve full reconstruction and recovery (Borre et al. 2025).
The KSDM was severely affected by the recent flooding disaster. The damage caused by the April 2022 floods was extensive, affecting communities and infrastructure (AD HOC Committee on Flood Disaster Relief and Recovery, 2022). These life-threatening events are occurring more frequently. According to Section 41(l)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), all spheres of government must ‘secure the well-being of the people of the Republic’. Local government is mandated to manage disaster risk through the Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act 57 of 2002). This Act mandates an integrated and coordinated disaster management policy focusing on preventing or reducing the risk of disasters, mitigating the severity of disasters, and ensuring emergency preparedness is incorporated into local government policies and decision-making processes (Osia 2024).
The South African local municipalities’ disaster management policy emphasises DRR aligned with international trends and national objectives for efficient and effective local resource management. The DRR includes integrated prevention measures to protect human lives, infrastructure, personal property, and the environment. Disasters adversely affect humans, the economy and the environment, and leave communities facing increased poverty and significant challenges in recovering from these impacts (Masvotore 2024). Local municipalities’ disaster management policy frameworks and the resources within their disaster management plans attempt to promote an integrated DRR and mitigation approach in their development initiatives (Wentink & Van Niekerk 2017). This strategy includes developing and implementing disaster preparedness measures to ensure effective response, recovery, reconstruction, and rehabilitation operations (Rivera 2020). The municipality aims to realign itself towards implementing programmes, initiatives, and projects integrating DRR, mitigation, and prevention measures. The KSDM had four key targets for the 2021/22 financial year: expanding the percentage of destitute households supported after a disaster, revising the number of district disaster risk profiles, upgrading and increasing the number of localised severe weather early warning systems, and enhancing the quarterly reports generated on the functionality of the localised severe weather early warning system. Unfortunately, none of these targets were achieved because of flaws in the planning process and poor implementation in the KSDM (KSDM, 2022).
Given the flaws in planning, adopting a systematic risk management framework is anticipated to enhance disaster management by focusing on interactions between the sources of risk and elements at risk, highlighting critical areas for developing effective intervention strategies (Fell & Mattsson 2021). Integrating risk management, building resilience and improving governance are essential for reducing the impacts of disasters and ensuring effective DRM to create a safer, more resilient future for communities (Masvotore 2024). This comprehensive approach mitigates risks and enhances the capacity of communities to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity. To deepen the understanding of how local municipalities prepare for and respond to disasters, it is important to examine various perspectives on DRM, which offer insight into the strategies, frameworks and challenges involved in reducing disaster-related risks.
Perspectives on disaster risk management
The DRM and DRR are used interchangeably. Although there are subtle differences in emphasis, they ultimately share the overarching goal of reducing the vulnerabilities and risks associated with disasters (Masvotore 2024). The DRM is a complex process involving identifying threats, analysing vulnerabilities, and developing strategies for risk reduction (Agrawal 2018). Scholarly studies affirm that a resilient disaster risk management strategy, focusing on prevention, mitigation, and efficient risk sharing, can help limit and mitigate the socio-economic impacts of natural hazards in a changing climate (Okuda & Kawasaki 2022; Peters et al. 2019; Zuccaro, Leone & Martucci 2020). The SFDRR recommended that the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) develop a national and local Global Assessment Report (GAR) within given timelines and integrate risk reduction as an essential aspect of global development policy and programming (Aronsson-Storrier 2023). Globally, DRR and DRM have gained prominence as proactive approaches to building safer communities and nations (Surianto et al. 2019). However, the practical implementation of DRR and DRM remains elusive and is often ignored in the face of more immediate development objectives (Orimoloye et al. 2022). Despite a wealth of knowledge and experience concerning effective DRR and cost-effective methods for managing the consequences of natural hazards (Busayo et al. 2020), this knowledge remains fragmented and underutilised in decision-making processes that shape community and national development paths. Rahman (2019) highlights the importance of science, technology, and innovation in understanding disaster risk, emphasising the role of data, digital tools, and knowledge management. Collectively, these studies emphasise the ongoing need for research and innovation in DRR, alongside effective policy implementation at the local level.
It is crucial to recognise the significance of environmental and social management systems in advancing sustainable development through an integrated approach and the utilisation of environmental management (Hariram et al. 2023). These studies elucidate the objectives of relevant acts and propose various strategies for achieving them. Izumi et al. (2019) offer practical tools for assessing and enhancing disaster risk management systems at the national, district and local levels. Collectively, these studies highlight the need for a comprehensive, integrated approach to DRR and management to develop effective DRM strategies for local municipalities.
Strategies for disaster risk management
The DRR is a multifaceted process involving the identification of threats, analysis of vulnerabilities, and development of strategies for risk reduction (Agrawal 2018). The DRR should be a central focus in ensuring sustainable development, with specific measures integrated into the SDGs (Cabello et al. 2021). Given the escalating frequency of disasters each year, governments, particularly at the local level, must develop effective strategies to address disaster risk. In practical terms, this means that any signs of emerging risks or vulnerabilities must trigger prompt and decisive measures. Preventive action is not just recommended, it is compulsory and must be implemented immediately to safeguard against foreseeable threats (Albris, Lauta & Raju 2020). This strategy may involve planning the utilisation of available resources for risk management. Municipalities must comprehensively understand the problems they face and establish strategic processes to address them to enhance their DRR capabilities through modern technology and training (Motschmann et al. 2022).
Disaster risks are increasing in frequency and magnitude, affecting communities more profoundly than ever. Early warning systems for extreme weather events are crucial in developing and implementing disaster risk management in local municipalities, reducing fatalities and damage (Šakić Trogrlić et al. 2022). Effective systems must address four key elements: risk identification, monitoring and warnings, warning dissemination, and response actions. Proactive disaster preparation significantly improves disaster risk management, limiting infrastructure damage, reducing fatalities, and simplifying municipal responsibilities. Ghafuri and Koohpaei (2022) emphasise developing strategies to mitigate disaster risk as a primary concern for municipalities. Disasters can have significant adverse effects on individuals, underscoring the importance of minimising these effects. Landoll (2021) outlines crucial steps for ensuring appropriate controls and managing disasters effectively. These steps include reframing emergency management as a component of DRR, adopting a network governance approach, and developing the capacities of strategic-level emergency managers to address natural hazard challenges (Amil 2024). Strategic disaster management, which involves multi-stakeholder governance, is essential for sustainable development and should be integrated into national strategic plans and targets (Korkın & Genç 2021). Municipalities are key in determining policies and decision-making processes that effectively incorporate disaster risk considerations into development interventions.
Disaster risk management involves mitigating the potential challenges of disasters, including identifying, managing, preventing, and recovering from these events. The literature review presented various approaches to addressing disaster risk, aiding in assessing risk levels and mitigation strategies. Patil, Gaikwad and Gengaje (2019) suggest that DRR can be achieved by enhancing preparedness, increasing state responsibility, fostering societal engagement, empowering local decision-making, adopting a hazard-based approach, and making informed decisions about local and specific risks. Challenges in implementing these strategies include political will, institutional capacity, coordination and collaboration, social and cultural factors, data and information availability, and awareness and education (Enwereji & Uwizeyimana 2019).
Localising disaster management
Research on disaster risk management in South African local municipalities is crucial for aligning with global trends and strategies (Matikinca, Nyamakura & Shackleton 2024). Section 152 of the South African Constitution, 1996 mandates the local government to provide a safe and secure environment. This provision does not permit local authorities to evade their responsibility to implement DRR in a sustainable and integrated manner. The South African government has established legal frameworks to guide local, provincial, and national governance, particularly concerning societal welfare (Grest 2022). Section 152 of the Constitution also encourages community involvement in local government matters. Municipalities are urged to, within their financial and administrative capacities, provide services, promote social and economic development, and ensure a safe and healthy environment (Mashamaite & Lethoko 2018). These efforts enable municipalities to fulfil their constitutional obligations and contribute to disaster risk management for community safety. However, challenges persist in effectively implementing these policies, notably community participation (Pandey 2019), public accountability (Uddin et al., 2021), and engaging local communities in development planning and policy processes (Shannon & O’Leary 2020). Addressing these challenges is imperative to ensuring the successful fulfilment of constitutional obligations and the management of disaster risks for community safety.
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act [2000] (Act 32 of 2000) was enacted to guide the preparation and improvement of disaster management in municipalities. This Act aims to encourage citizen involvement in matters affecting their lives and ensure the fair distribution of scarce resources. Section 26(g) of this Act emphasises municipalities’ need to establish frameworks and platforms for efficient community interaction and implement effective disaster risk management plans. The primary goal of this Act is to safeguard citizens’ lives and promote social and economic development. However, disaster risks remain a significant concern, particularly concerning extreme weather events and climate change adaptation, with local governments bearing the brunt of these impacts (Busayo & Kalumba 2021). Despite legislation for disaster risk management, South Africa continues to lag in implementation efforts and building resilience.
Theoretical perspectives from different scholarly studies emphasise that there is a need for significant improvement in compliance with the Hyogo Framework for Action of 2002 at the local level, including fostering a culture of safety, involving local actors and communities, and developing capacity for DRR (Kimengsi & Mbih 2022; Marshall 2020; Šakić Trogrlić 2022). This framework aimed to reduce disaster losses by 2015. Local municipalities remain far behind in meeting the framework demands, particularly considering current global declarations and expected outcomes (Vambe et al., 2021). The importance of local governance in DRR is emphasised, with a call for a participatory approach, clear roles, and adequate resources (Atanga 2020). The role of local government in building urban resilience to disasters is also highlighted, with a focus on scaling up DRR capacity (Hofmann 2021). The need for international collaboration and coordination in DRR is underscored (Raikes et al. 2022).
Considering the aforesaid, the shortage of skilled personnel at the local government level has been identified as a key obstacle, highlighting the urgent need for DRR management expertise (Kunguma & Mapingure 2023). The South African government is actively working to enhance disaster risk management. Currin (2023) highlights the government’s initiatives, which include establishing national and provincial disaster management centres and activating provincial joint operation centres involving municipalities, relevant government departments, state agencies, and social partners such as the South African Weather Service. These measures aim to enhance disaster preparedness and strengthen the effectiveness of disaster risk management in local municipalities.
Research methods and design
The study was conducted at the KSD Local Municipality, located within the OR Tambo District Municipality in the inland region of the Eastern Cape province, Republic of South Africa. It investigated the effectiveness of DRM and the strategies employed, using KSDM as a case study. A qualitative research approach was chosen to explore, describe and understand realities from an insider’s perspective. This approach was motivated by the need to discover new ways of understanding, driven by rapid social changes and the resulting complexities in social life and contexts (Schurink, Schurink & Fouché 2022). A qualitative approach was deemed the most suitable for investigating the challenges in achieving effective DRM strategies. A snowball sampling technique was employed to select participants based on their positions as implementers of DRM strategies in the KSDM. The researcher found that responsibilities related to DRM are not centralised within a single department, such as the Department of Disaster Management. Instead, other departments, including Fire Services, Human Settlements, and Public Safety. also play critical roles in DRM functions. Given the cross-departmental nature of these responsibilities, a snowball sampling technique was deemed appropriate. This technique involves identifying one initial respondent who possesses relevant knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation and then using their network to identify further participants (Grinnell & Unrau 2014). Snowball sampling enables the continued selection of participants until no additional individuals with the required characteristics can be found or until data saturation is reached (Sarantakos 2013). Specifically, municipal officials from departments actively involved in disaster management matters were selected because of the relevance of their roles and expertise. The assumption was that these participants would have the knowledge and experience necessary to provide valuable insights for achieving the study’s objectives (Kumar, 2019).
Data collection involved in-depth interviews with eight senior municipal managers (SMMs) from the departments of Disaster Management, Fire, Human Settlements, and Public Safety. Thematic analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data gathered from the face-to-face interviews, identifying themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset concerning the research question (Braun & Clarke 2013). Thematic analysis is recognised for its versatility and flexibility, enabling researchers to understand a studied phenomenon holistically (Nowell, Bodkin & Bayoumi 2017). The Walter Sisulu University Research Ethics Committee granted ethical clearance to conduct the study in KSDM. During data collection, the researcher adhered to the Protection of Personal Information Act, No. 41 of 2013, ensuring respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality. This Act safeguards personal information processed by public and private bodies, including local authorities (Netshakhuma 2020).
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Walter Sisulu University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) (No. 2023/HN/AHM-5400).
Results
Themes such as effectiveness of disaster risk management, municipal challenges, adequate support for disaster risk management, intervention strategies to reduce risks, and overcoming the challenges of disaster were established to address the responses of SMMs to questions exploring the intersection of complexity and effectiveness in DRM within local municipalities and the strategies employed by these municipalities to cope with such challenges.
Effectiveness of disaster risk management
A noteworthy theme that emerged concerns the significance of effective DRM within KSDM, as emphasised by all participants. Most municipal officials highlighted the importance of ensuring the safety and well-being of residents amidst potential disasters. One of them remarked:
‘The effectiveness of disaster risk management is very important as the municipality continues to ensure the lives of its residents are well taken care of. The municipality has tried to expand the existing resources and has found new ways of improving the disaster risk. The KSD try and assess each area that has experienced a disaster. The municipality needs the communities to communicate with the municipality within 24 hours so that they can be of help. SMM1, female, control director for disaster
In the same interview, a respondent from the fire department stated:
‘The municipality recognises the importance of educating workers about disaster risk and is aligned with the constitutional mandate to involve communities and organizations in local governance. Despite efforts, some communities still face significant risks, highlighting ongoing challenges. SMM2, male, fire chief.
This finding reflects a positive policy intention by the municipality to align with South Africa’s constitutional mandate, which emphasises community involvement in governance and disaster risk management. The recognition of worker education on disaster risks shows a proactive approach to capacity building (Rockström et al. 2023). However, the fact that some communities remain significantly at risk reveals a gap between policy and practice. This suggests that while frameworks may exist, implementation challenges such as limited resources, ineffective communication, or lack of tailored interventions may hinder impact. The finding highlights the need for more inclusive, targeted, and sustained community engagement to bridge this disconnect and build resilience effectively (Pandey 2019).
An emerging subtheme regards the municipality’s role in ensuring DRM effectiveness. The SMM from the Human Settlement Department stated:
‘The KSD Municipality actively engages in disaster management through a dedicated unit, which contributes to improving residents’ livelihoods by monitoring and reviewing disaster situations. Although this unit is instrumental in enhancing risk reduction efforts but there are still some challenges. SMM3, female, human settlement director.
The results of this study underscore the KSD municipality’s commitment to disaster management through the establishment of a dedicated unit, reflecting institutional readiness and strategic intent to improve community resilience. However, the acknowledgement of persistent challenges indicates that despite structural mechanisms in place, there may be limitations on community-based approaches. This gap suggests that it is necessary to fully realise the benefits of disaster risk reduction efforts. The respondents emphasised that effective risk management involves comprehensive planning, coordination, and management of all risk-related processes. They stressed the importance of reporting and reviewing structures to identify and assess risks adequately and ensure the implementation of appropriate safeguards and response measures. Routine evaluations of standards and policies are conducted to protect resources and prepare for future disasters (Motschmann et al. 2022).
However, the analysis suggests that while the municipality focuses on monitoring internal processes, it may overlook evaluating the impact of disasters on communities. This oversight could hinder the effectiveness of DRM efforts. The significance of understanding the impact of disaster risk on social vulnerability levels and the importance of adaptation and DRM strategies are emphasised (Šakić Trogrlić et al. 2022). This perspective implies that while internal monitoring and evaluation are crucial, a broader assessment of community impact is essential for effective DRM.
Municipal challenges
Another theme that emerged from interviews regarding challenges faced by the municipality in implementing DRM was the lack of sufficient funds attributed to underperforming revenue sources and economic downturns (Muhame et al. 2024). Most participants agreed that the municipality encounters significant challenges in this regard. A noticeable response from the SMM Public Safety Department stated:
‘Despite developing plans and monitoring financial issues, the KSD municipality struggles with the economic impact, which affects its operations. Measures are in place to mitigate the effects on disaster risk management, but difficulties persist in obtaining economic commitments due to competing needs and pending orders. SMM5, male, public safety director
The municipality recognises the significance of risk reduction but acknowledges the need for economic growth. Balancing these priorities highlights the complexity of allocating scarce resources between DRM and economic development. Rahman (2019) emphasises the importance of identifying, assessing, and managing disaster risks and implementing preventive and recovery measures. However, insufficient financial resources hinder the effective implementation of DRM plans. The struggle to secure consistent economic commitments reflects the reality of limited resources and competing priorities within the municipality. This analysis reveals that persistent financial constraints pose significant challenges to the municipality’s DRM efforts, and pending obligations continue to disrupt operational efficiency. While the importance of risk reduction is acknowledged, economic considerations complicate resource allocation. This situation reveals the need for innovative strategies to secure funding and achieve a balance between disaster preparedness and integrated principles. This indicates a need for improved fiscal planning, prioritisation mechanisms, and perhaps stronger intergovernmental support to ensure that disaster risk management is not compromised by broader economic instability (Borre et al. 2025).
A respondent from the Department of Disaster Management identified a lack of participation from sector departments as a substantial challenge, stating:
‘The section dedicated to disaster management is not fully developed, making it difficult for the municipality to effectively coordinate disaster response efforts. SMM4, male, disaster manager
This finding reveals a structural weakness within the municipality’s disaster management framework. The underdevelopment of the disaster management section implies a lack of capacity, resources, or strategic planning, which in turn undermines the municipality’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies (Muhame et al. 2024). This gap not only affects internal coordination but may also hinder collaboration with external stakeholders such as provincial authorities and community organisations. Strengthening this section is essential for building resilience, improving preparedness, and ensuring a more integrated and responsive disaster management system. Despite efforts to strengthen forums and improve government participation, support for disaster management remains insufficient. The absence of stakeholder communication hampers coordination, monitoring, evaluation, and early warning systems crucial for disaster management. Without addressing these obstacles, vulnerable populations face increased risk, response efforts become reactive rather than proactive, and the overall impact of disasters can be far more severe. Motschmann et al. (2022) posit that sharing information across organisations is hindered by interoperability issues, further complicating disaster management efforts.
The SMM from the Department of Human Settlement emphasised the vulnerability of rural areas to disaster risk, remarking:
‘These areas often struggle with response and recovery due to limited resources and hazardous locations. Poor infrastructure, such as bad roads, impedes municipal officials’ ability to reach rural residents, particularly during changing seasons. SMM3, female, human settlement director.
The findings confirm that the locations of rural areas, which exacerbate the vulnerability of these communities, are critical challenges faced by municipalities in delivering effective disaster response and recovery services. Poor infrastructure, especially inadequate road networks, further restricts timely access to affected areas, particularly during adverse weather conditions (Masvotore 2024). This not only delays emergency response but also hinders long-term recovery efforts. The analysis points to the need for targeted infrastructure development and resource allocation strategies to enhance accessibility and resilience in rural settings. These responses provide a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing KSDM in DRM. They highlight issues such as inadequate participation from sector departments, underdeveloped disaster management structures, communication gaps, rural vulnerability, and infrastructure limitations. Despite these challenges, the municipality appears committed to addressing them and enhancing the effectiveness of its DRM efforts. Understanding these obstacles is crucial for implementing targeted strategies to improve disaster resilience and response capabilities.
Another subtheme was whether or not KSDM has implemented the measures required to enhance effective DRM. A respondent from the Department of Public Safety emphasised the necessity for adequate budget allocation, stating:
‘The municipality’s cash flow has challenges, largely attributed to recurrent disasters affecting roads and infrastructure. These financial constraints make it difficult to address disaster-related expenses within existing resources. The municipality has sought assistance, with the Red Cross intervening by providing homes and vouchers for groceries. Despite having strategic plans in place, the municipality’s limited financial resources, coupled with average growth rates, hinder its ability to address disaster issues effectively. SMM6, male, general manager
This response indicates the critical importance of sufficient budget allocation for effective DRM. Financial constraints pose significant challenges in responding to disasters and implementing risk reduction measures. Intervention from organisations such as the Red Cross highlights the need for external support in times of crisis. However, inherent challenges in implementing these strategies imply that obstacles may impede the effectiveness of disaster risk interventions (Enwereji & Uwizeyimana 2019).
In analysis, the response highlights the complex interplay between financial resources and disaster management effectiveness. While the municipality recognises the importance of adequate funding, it faces ongoing challenges in securing sufficient budgetary allocations. External assistance can alleviate some of these burdens, but long-term sustainability requires comprehensive strategies to address financial constraints and strengthen disaster preparedness and response capabilities (Rivera 2020).
Adequate support for disaster risk management
The findings reveal that while KSDM receives support from the district and province for its DRM plan, this support is deemed insufficient. The responsibility for securing such support is attributed to Section 139 of the South African Constitution, 1996 that mandates cooperation between different levels of government. A respondent from the Department of Public Safety in KSDM shared insights during an interview, stating that:
‘This support has been inconsistent and the performance of the municipality in disaster risk management remains unclear. There is a lack of guidance for implementing resources effectively for disaster risk management. SMM4, male, disaster manager
The finding on the inconsistency in support suggests fragmented or unreliable backing from key stakeholders, which undermines the municipality’s ability to respond proactively to disasters. Furthermore, the unclear performance indicates either an absence of performance evaluation mechanisms or poor communication of outcomes. The lack of clear guidance for resource implementation reveals a structural weakness in planning and execution, emphasising the need for strategic frameworks, capacity building, and consistent oversight to improve disaster resilience and accountability (Pandey & Joseph 2025). Despite attempts to seek government assistance, improvements have been slow, although recent efforts have resulted in better performance than in previous years. However, it is posisted that municipal-level DRM shows little evidence of consistent implementation in day-to-day operations.
In contrast, a respondent from the Department of Fire and Disaster Management mentioned the support received from residents, stating:
‘The elected councillors are the ones who possess valuable knowledge about infrastructure damage, environmental needs, and economic requirements. However, they politicise the disaster recovery processes. The collaboration facilitates the development, review, and assessment of disaster risks, ensuring that services are available to affected communities. SMM2, male, fire chief.
This finding highlights a dual dynamic in disaster risk management. On the one hand, elected councillors are acknowledged as key stakeholders because of their direct knowledge of infrastructure conditions, environmental concerns and economic needs. This positions them to make meaningful contributions to disaster planning and response. On the other hand, the politicisation of disaster recovery processes undermines the objectivity and effectiveness of these efforts. When political agendas influence disaster response, it can result in unequal service delivery, delayed interventions and diminished trust among affected communities (Enwereji & Uwizeyimana 2019).
While collaboration between stakeholders is essential for risk assessment and service provision, it must be guided by transparency, neutrality and accountability to ensure fair and effective disaster management. Integrating the roles of political office bearers and municipal officials can strengthen community resilience and provide consistent support throughout the DRM process (Muhame et al. 2024). Having outlined the findings related to support for DRM, the next theme explores intervention strategies aimed at reducing disaster risks.
Intervention strategies to reduce risks
Intervention strategies to reduce disaster in KSDM emerged as a crucial issue during the interviews. Most participants confirmed that:
‘The KSD municipality employs intervention strategies to reduce risks in disaster management. These strategies primarily involve awareness campaigns aimed at educating communities on risk assessment to understand the nature and magnitude of potential threats and effectively manage and mitigate risks. SMM1, female, control director for disaster
This approach aligns with the Disaster Management Act 2002, which emphasises DRR and recognises the multi-sectoral nature of disaster management.
A respondent from the Department of Fire and Disaster Management highlighted the existence of disaster forums within the KSDM:
‘These forums facilitate discussions on disaster issues and the development of strategies to combat risks. The department implements plan-based business strategies to identify and assess potential risks, aiming to minimise loss caused by disasters. Furthermore, vital resources are distributed in the event of disastrous disasters that could affect residents. SMM2, male, fire chief.
Although disaster risk cannot be eliminated, these intervention strategies minimise the risks. The municipality’s strategies align with national efforts to improve disaster risk management, including establishing national and provincial disaster management centres, activating joint operation centres, and collaborating with relevant stakeholders to ensure preparedness, response, and recovery mechanisms are in place (Currin 2023). The municipality focuses on community awareness, planning, and resource allocation to enhance its disaster resilience. The alignment of these strategies with national disaster management efforts underscores the importance of coordinated action at various levels to effectively manage disaster risks and ensure the safety and well-being of residents.
Another qualitative interview revealed that KSDM actively mobilises assistance from organisations such as the Red Cross and government agencies to bolster its disaster management capabilities. Collaboration with organisations such as the Red Cross is beneficial for enhancing disaster relief efforts and improving outcomes. Disaster management teams remain consistently on standby to provide prompt assistance when needed, enhancing residents’ livelihoods. Providing shelters for residents, particularly disaster victims, is a crucial municipal role (Atanga 2020). The next theme explores practical approaches and strategies aimed at overcoming the challenges of disaster.
Overcoming the challenges of disaster
The respondents unanimously highlighted the importance of engaging stakeholders to overcome the challenges faced by the municipality in DRR. They emphasised the need for collaboration with various departments and provincial and national government entities to develop innovative solutions for disaster risk management. Stakeholder involvement has proven beneficial in multiple ways. Moreover, involving government stakeholders is crucial for implementing public policies, including disaster management (Mamabolo & Sebola 2021). The effectiveness of government functions depends on citizen participation and input, highlighting the importance of stakeholder engagement in driving successful DRR efforts. Ultimately, it reflects a commitment to strengthening systems and empowering stakeholders to withstand and recover from disasters more effectively.
In addition to stakeholder engagement, the government’s role in economic recovery involves ensuring resource availability and making proper adjustments for disaster recovery. Officials emphasise the municipality’s commitment to high-quality standards in disaster risk management to protect residents’ safety and support sustainable livelihoods. This aligns with the principle that prevention is immediate and mandatory in DRR efforts (Alexander 2019).
Conclusion
The study highlights the ongoing challenges faced by KSD Local Municipality in effectively managing disaster risks, particularly in the aftermath of floods. Despite efforts to improve DRR, residents continue to struggle with recovery. The municipality acknowledges the necessity for government support but faces challenges in obtaining adequate assistance because of limited resources. Despite attempts to evaluate and address these issues, poverty persists, and developmental plans remain unimplemented. The lack of sufficient support and resources from sector departments and higher levels of government exacerbates the challenges within KSD Local Municipality. Implementation issues have persisted since 2012, leading to limited effectiveness in disaster management. Consequently, communities face increased poverty and difficulties in recovering from disaster impacts. Ineffective communication or the lack of tailored interventions hinders inclusive, sustained community engagement and the effective building of resilience. The KSD policy framework on disaster management promotes an integrated DRR and mitigation approach in its development initiatives. However, without institutional readiness and strategic intent to improve community resilience, challenges will persist. The struggle to secure consistent economic commitments in KSD Local Municipality poses significant challenges to the municipality’s DRM efforts, and pending obligations continue to disrupt operational efficiency. Structural weakness within the municipality’s disaster management framework and limitations of community-based approaches undermine the municipality’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies. While efforts are made to improve collaboration and performance, there is still a need for comprehensive plans to ensure sufficient government support for effective disaster risk management. The study reflects the municipality’s inadequate efforts to address obstacles in disaster risk management through stakeholder cooperation and government assistance. Nevertheless, the shortfall in comprehensive support highlights the ongoing need for sustained advocacy and collaboration to strengthen DRR initiatives.
Recommendations
The study proposes several actions for the KSDM to strengthen the effectiveness of DRM efforts. These include prioritising community-based disaster awareness programmes to educate municipal workers and residents and conducting regular disaster assessments to identify vulnerabilities. The KSD Local Municipality must collaborate with neighbouring municipalities and government agencies to share resources and expertise in disaster response. The municipal policy and planning department should advocate for active participation in development programmes, investment in infrastructure resilience, and effective land-use planning, as these are crucial for mitigating disaster risks. The municipal council should advocate for timely assistance from national and provincial government support programmes during and after disasters. The municipal information and knowledge department should record and analyse historical data to inform future planning while securing a specific budget for early warning systems. KSD Local Municipality should conduct a comprehensive assessment to understand citizens’ vulnerability to disasters and develop tailored action plans. The human resource department should establish defined criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of DRM strategies with regular monitoring and evaluation processes in place. The municipality should invest in existing technology, such as geography information systems (GIS) mapping and early warning systems, to improve the effectiveness of DRM. The municipal officials must ensure that all residents understand their roles in DRR efforts through community engagement and awareness campaigns. Lastly, the KSDM must foster open communication channels between stakeholders involved in DRM to coordinate programmes and improve disaster resilience within the municipality.
The limitation of this study lies in its focus solely on KSDM, excluding input from other potential stakeholders, including communities within KSD. The study recommends that future researchers extend the current research to include cross-sector coordination, collaboration, and interaction between all spheres of government for effective DRM across South African municipalities. Future researchers should consider using diverse research methodologies such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, and cross-triangulation, to enrich perspectives and investigate the strategies applied by other municipalities for effective DRM.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
A.N. and B.Y. performed conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, writing—review and editing. A.N. was responsible for investigation, resources, writing—original draft preparation. B.Y. carried out validation.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, B.Y., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Agrawal, N., 2018, Natural disasters and risk management in Canada, vol. 166, Springer Dordrecht Netherlands.
Albris, K., Lauta, K.C. & Raju, E., 2020, ‘Strengthening governance for disaster prevention: The enhancing risk management capabilities guidelines’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 47, 101647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101647
Alexander, D.E., 2019, ‘L’Aquila, central Italy, and the “disaster cycle”, 2009–2017’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 28(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-01-2018-0022
Amil, A.C., 2024, ‘Collaborative governance mechanisms in disaster risk reduction and management in the Philippines: A systematic review’, in International Conference on Public Administration and Social Science (ICoPASS), vol. 1. Jurnal Untirta, 1(1), (149–173), Marawi City.
Aronsson-Storrier, M., 2023, ‘UN office for disaster risk reduction (2021)’, Yearbook of International Disaster Law Online 4(1), 485–490. https://doi.org/10.1163/26662531_00401_024
Atanga, R.A., 2020, ‘The role of local community leaders in flood disaster risk management strategy making in Accra’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 43, 101358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101358
Borre, A., Ghizzoni, T., Trasforini, E., Ottonelli, D., Rudari, R. & Ferraris, L., 2025, ‘Developing the recovery gap index: A comprehensive tool for assessing national disaster recovery capacities’, Sustainability 17(3), 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031044
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2013, Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners, SAGE, London.
Busayo, E.T. & Kalumba, A.M., 2021, ‘Recommendations for linking climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in urban coastal zones: Lessons from East London, South Africa’, Ocean & Coastal Management 203, 105454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105454
Busayo, E.T., Kalumba, A.M., Afuye, G.A., Ekundayo, O.Y. & Orimoloye, I.R., 2020, ‘Assessment of the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction studies since 2015’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 50, 101906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101906
Cabello, V.M., Véliz, K.D., Moncada-Arce, A.M., Irarrázaval García-Huidobro, M. & Juillerat, F., 2021, ‘Disaster risk reduction education: Tensions and connections with sustainable development goals’, Sustainability 13(19), 10933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910933
Coetzee, C., Khoza, S., Nemakonde, L.D., Shoroma, L.B., Wentink, G.W., Nyirenda, M. et al., 2023, ‘Financing disaster risk reduction: Exploring the opportunities, challenges, and threats within the Southern African Development Community Region’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 14(3), 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00499-6
Currin, M., 2023, Government update on inclement weather conditions expected in various parts of the country, viewed 04 March 2024, from https://www.gcis.gov.za/newsroom/media-releases/government-update-incliment-weather-conditions-expected-various-parts.
DALA, 2010, Design and execution of a damage, loss and needs assessment, Guidance Note for Task Managers, vol. 1, World Bank Group, viewed 15 June 2024, from WWW.GFDRR.ORG.
Dzigbede, K.D., Gehl, S.B. & Willoughby, K., 2020, ‘Disaster resiliency of US local governments: Insights to strengthen local response and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic’, Public Administration Review 80(4), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13249
Enwereji, P.C. & Uwizeyimana, D.E., 2019, ‘Challenges in strategy implementation processes in South African municipalities: A service delivery perspective’, Gender and Behaviour 17(3), 13756–13776.
Eze, E. & Siegmund, A., 2024, ‘Analyzing important disaster risk factors for enhanced policy responses in perceived at-most-risk African countries’, Environments 11(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11020027
Fell, T. & Mattsson, J., 2021, ‘The role of public-private partnerships in housing as a potential contributor to sustainable cities and communities: A systematic review’, Sustainability 13(14), 7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147783
FEMA, 2021, Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version 3.0, viewed 15 June 2024, from https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_cpg-101-v3-developing-maintaining-eops-summary-changes.pdf.
Ghafuri, Y. & Koohpaei, A., 2022, ‘Risk characterisation and methods of improving practice for municipal waste management in disaster situations: A case study in Qom Province, Iran’, Jàmbá-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 14(1), 1151. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v14i1.1151
Grest, J., 2022, ‘The crisis of local government in South Africa’, in State, resistance and change in South Africa, pp. 87–116, Routledge, London.
Grinnell, R.M. & Unrau, Y.A., 2014, Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based practices, 10th edn., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Hariram, N.P., Mekha, K.B., Suganthan, V. & Sudhakar, K., 2023, ‘Sustainalism: An integrated socio-economic-environmental model to address sustainable development and sustainability’, Sustainability 15(13), 10682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310682
Hofmann, S.Z., 2021, ‘100 Resilient Cities program and the role of the Sendai framework and disaster risk reduction for resilient cities’, Progress in Disaster Science 11, 100189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100189
IPCC, 2022, ‘IPCC: Annex III: Scenarios and modelling methods’, in P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A.A. Khourdajie, R. Van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz & J. Malley (eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change, pp. 1841–1908, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Izumi, T., Shaw, R., Djalante, R., Ishiwatari, M. & Komino, T., 2019, ‘Disaster risk reduction and innovations’, Progress in Disaster Science 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100033
Kimengsi, J.N. & Mbih, R.A., 2022, ‘International disaster risk management policies and instruments: A review’, Emerald Insight, Emerald Publishing Limited in Disaster management in sub-Saharan Africa: Policies, institutions and processes, pp. 35–56. Leeds.
King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality (KSDM), 2022, Quality services to all communities, AD HOC Committee on Flood Disaster Relief and Recovery visits KSD, viewed 06 April 2024, from https://ksd.gov.za/2022/06/13/ad-hoc-committee-on-flood-disaster-relief-and-recovery-visits-ksd/.
Korkın, E. & Genç, F.N., 2021, ‘Strategic Disaster Management: The Case of Turkey’, in C. Babaoğlu, E. Akman & O. Kulaç (eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Challenges for Improving Public Services and Government Operations, pp. 310–329, IGI Global Scientific Publishing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4978-0
Kumar, R., 2019, Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners, SAGE, Los Angeles, CA.
Kunguma, O. & Mapingure, T., 2023, ‘Review of disaster management training: A case study of a South African university’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 15(1), a1342. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1342
Kunguma, O., 2020, South African disaster management framework: Assessing the status and dynamics of establishing information management and communication systems in provinces, pp. 1–289, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Landoll, D., 2021, The security risk assessment handbook: A complete guide for performing security risk assessments, CRC press.
Li, Y., Zhou, T., Jia, N. & Chen, R., 2025, ‘Investigating the decoupling effects between global sustainable development and multi-disaster crises’, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 32(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2024.2436916
Mamabolo, M.A. & Sebola, M.P., 2021, ‘The role and adequacy of disaster management unit within the South African Municipalities’, The Business and Management Review 12(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.24052/BMR/V12NU02/ART-09
Marshall, T.M., 2020, ‘Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 47, 101557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101557
Mashamaite, K. & Lethoko, M., 2018, ‘Role of the South African local government in local economic development’, International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies 10(1), 114–128.
Masvotore, P., 2024, ‘Opportunities and challenges of mainstreaming disaster risk management in faith institutions’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 16(1), a1667. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v16i1.1667
Matikinca, P., Nyamakura, B. & Shackleton, S., 2024, ‘Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in South Africa’s local municipal plans’, South African Journal of Science 120(7–8), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2024/15797
Mishra, D., Kumar, S. & Hassini, E., 2019, ‘Current trends in disaster management simulation modelling research’, Annals of Operations Research 283(1), 1387–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2985-x
Motschmann, A., Teutsch, C., Huggel, C., Seidel, J., León, C.D., Munoz, R. et al., 2022, ‘Current and future water balance for coupled human-natural systems–Insights from a glacierized catchment in Peru’, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 41, 101063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101063
Muhame, C., Ncube, A. & Bahta, Y.T., 2024, ‘Dissemination and participation in early warnings and disaster risk reduction in South Africa’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 16(1), a1566. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v16i1.1566
Nemakonde, L.D., Van Niekerk, D., Becker, P. & Khoza, S., 2021, ‘Perceived adverse effects of separating government institutions for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation within the Southern African Development Community Member States’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00303-9
Netshakhuma, N.S., 2020, ‘Assessment of a South Africa national consultative workshop on the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)’, Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 69(1/2), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2019-0026
Nowell, B., Bodkin, C.P. & Bayoumi, D., 2017, ‘Redundancy as a strategy in disaster response systems: A pathway to resilience or a recipe for disaster?’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 25(3), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12178
Okuda, K. & Kawasaki, A., 2022, ‘Effects of disaster risk reduction on socio-economic development and poverty reduction’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 80, 103241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103241
Orimoloye, Y.M., Babalola, T., Olusola, A. & Orimoloye, I.R., 2022, ‘Evaluating risk from disasters to improve resilience: Lessons from Nigeria and South Africa’, in S. Eslamian & F.A. Eslamian (eds.), Disaster risk reduction for resilience: Disaster economic vulnerability and recovery programs, pp. 131–145, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Osia, M.M., 2024, ‘Centres or units: Making sense of decentralisation of disaster management in South African Municipalities’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 6(2), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2024.6.2.2
Pandey, A. & Joseph, J., 2025, ‘Advancing climate justice: Aligning the strategies with SDGs’, in Community climate justice and sustainable development, pp. 1–18, IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Park, H., 2020, ‘Development of a community-based Natech risk management framework through the lenses of local community, first responders and government’, Doctoral Dissertation, Kyoto University.
Patil, S.V., Gaikwad, S.P. & Gengaje, S.R., 2019, ‘A case study of WSN MAC protocols to achieve lifetime maximization’, in 2019 5th International Conference on Computing, Communication, Control and Automation (ICCUBEA), pp. 1–4, IEEE.
Peters, K., Peters, L.E., Twigg, J. & Walch, C., 2019, Disaster risk reduction strategies, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Peters, L.E., 2025, ‘The peace imperative for the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 16(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00596-0
Prasad, R.R., 2025, ‘Climate change scenarios’, in The role of higher education institutions in climate change adaptation and mitigation: A case study of Fiji and Indonesia, pp. 31–62, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham.
Rahman, F., 2019, ‘Save the world versus man-made disaster: A cultural perspective’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235(1), 012071. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012071
Raikes, J., Smith, T.F., Baldwin, C. & Henstra, D., 2022, ‘The influence of international agreements on disaster risk reduction’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reductión 76, 102999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102999
Republic of South Africa, 2000a, Disaster Management Act of 2002 (Act 57 of 2002), Government Printers, Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa, 2000b, The municipal systems Act of 2000 (Act 32 of 2000), Government Printers, Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa, 2013, The protection of personal information, 2013 (Act No. 41 of 2013), Government Printers, Pretoria.
Rivera, J.D., 2020, ‘The impact of evacuating on short-term disaster recovery: A study of individuals affected by hurricane Harvey living in Texas counties’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 44, 101424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101424
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S.J., Abrams, J.F., Andersen, L.S. et al., 2023, ‘Safe and just Earth system boundaries’, Nature 619(7968), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8
Šakić Trogrlić, R., Van Den Homberg, M., Budimir, M., McQuistan, C., Sneddon, A. & Golding, B., 2022, ‘Early warning systems and their role in disaster risk reduction’, in Towards the ‘perfect’ weather warning: bridging disciplinary gaps through partnership and communication, pp. 11–46, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Sarantakos, S., 2013, Social research, 4th edn., Springer (Red Globe Press), London.
Sawalha, I.H., 2020, ‘A contemporary perspective on the disaster management cycle’, Foresight 22(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-11-2019-0097
Schurink, W.J., Schurink, E.M. & Fouché, C.B., 2022, ‘Qualitative data analysis and interpretation’, in C.B. Fouché, H. Strydom & W.J.H. Roestenburg (eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human services professions, 5th edn., pp. 391–415, Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria.
Shannon, L.A.U.R.A. & O’Leary, F.E.R.G.A.L., 2020, Local government: Engaging and empowering local communities, Institute of Public Administration (IPA).
Sizani, 2022, Mthatha flood victims waiting since 2013 to be relocated, Groundup, viewed 06 April 2024, from https://groundup.org.za/article/mthatha-flood-victims-waiting-2013-be-relocated/.
Surianto, S., Alim, S., Nindrea, R.D. & Trisnantoro, L., 2019, ‘Regional policy for disaster risk management in developing countries within the Sendai framework: A systematic review’, Open access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 7(13), 2213. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.614
Usman, M., Ali, A., Baig, S.A., Radulescu, M., Abbas, A. & Akram, R., 2025, ‘Food security in Punjab, Pakistan: Rural views on climate disasters and their impacts’, in Environment, development and sustainability, pp. 1–23.
Wentink, G.J. & Van Niekerk, D., 2017, ‘The capacity of personnel in disaster risk management in South African municipalities’, The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 13(1), a427. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v13i1.427
Zuccaro, G., Leone, M.F. & Martucci, C., 2020, ‘Future research and innovation priorities in the field of natural hazards, disaster risk reduction, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation: A shared vision from the ESPREssO project’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51, 101783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101783
|
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
