Disaster Education in the Context of Postsecondary Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Disaster education (DE) is a functional, operational, and effective strategy for reducing disaster risk and developing capacity in current and prospective professionals as well as the general public (Breen et al. 2023; Preston 2021; Torani et al. 2019). It is essential for achieving disaster risk reduction (DRR) and building resilient and sustainable societies (Shaw et al. 2011b; Shiwaku and Shaw 2008). Disaster and emergency management (DEM) refers to systematic efforts to avoid and lessen the adverse effects of hazards by means of prevention, mitigation, and preparedness. In contrast, DRR goes beyond DEM and looks into the causal factors of disasters (UNISDR 2009). While often used interchangeably, DRR also refers to the policy objective of anticipating and reducing risk and DEM can be considered the execution of DRR because DEM involves actions on the ground (UNISDR 2015a).

In the context of postsecondary education, DE has been widely developed throughout traditional disciplines (such as engineering, planning, and public health) (Kitagawa 2021); DE-driven interdisciplinary programs and research centers have also been surfacing, such as the Interdisciplinary Disaster and Emergency Management Doctoral Program at the University of Delaware; the Master of Disaster and Emergency Management at York University, Canada; the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan; and the University of Pretoria Natural Hazard Centre, South Africa. Evidence-based strategies suggest that DE builds specialists’ professional capacities and raises the general public’s awareness to better cope with and adapt to future disasters (Hoffmann and Blecha 2020; Rafliana 2012). As early as the 1980s and 1990s, Quarantelli (1988) and Mileti (1999) recognized the importance of education in disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The exacerbation of climate change and the resulting increase in extreme events worldwide has propelled an urgent call to evaluate the existing DE to better educate prospective disaster and emergency management academics, practitioners, and policymakers (Subarno and Dewi 2022; Zhang and Wang 2022). The international DRR agreement has confirmed this need in the Sendai Framework of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2015b), where DE becomes a cross-cutting theme covered by the four priority areas. This is the major thrust, encouraging a systematic review examining the existing DE knowledge, skills, and practices to identify future research, training, practice, and policy- and decision-making orientations.

Two main streams of scholarship have primarily contributed to the understanding and development of DE. First, scholars in the field of hazards and disaster research have highlighted the forms, functions, and roles of education in DRR and DEM (Shaw et al. 2011b; Subarno and Dewi 2022) that can be further divided into two fields: (1) scholars who are engaged in their disciplinary silos, including sociology, social work, architecture, and engineering (Adams et al. 2022; Cooper and Briggs 2014; Perdomo and Pando 2014), and (2) scholars who are contributing from an inter/transdisciplinary orientation (Chan and Nagatomo 2022; Righi et al. 2021; Tidball et al. 2010). The second stream essentially comprises the work of education scholars who have contributed to pedagogical innovations by bringing in social justice and antiracist perspectives and emphasizing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the teaching and learning of DE (Dufty 2020; Preston 2010, 2021). However, several potential grounds for cross-fertilization can significantly enhance our understanding of DE, including the pedagogical aspect of teaching and learning in DE. This article considers the work of both streams concerned with postsecondary-level DE.

DE can be conducted in diverse forms but is primarily conducted in three streams: formal, nonformal, and informal (Shaw et al. 2011b). Formal education, offered by traditional education institutions (i.e., K–12, colleges, and universities), is organized programs recognized as qualified with structured learning objectives and goals (Kitagawa 2021; Thayaparan et al. 2014). Generally, universities and colleges offer formal education and train next-generation academics and practitioners (Littledyke et al. 2013). Postsecondary education, in this article, refers to formal education after secondary (Grade 12) education, including, but not limited to, apprenticeship; certificate and diploma from colleges and technical institutes; and bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees from colleges, universities, and research institutions (Statistics Canada 2023). The term postsecondary education is often used interchangeably with tertiary education, implying any form of postsecondary formal education as indicated (World Bank 2021). Educational institutions that offer postsecondary education are referred to in this article as postsecondary education institutes (PSEIs).

Nonformal and informal DE are less structured and more flexible than formal education. They are usually conducted in the form of seminars, workshops, and short courses, which may or may not lead to certification (Subarno and Dewi 2022; Shaw et al. 2011b). Informal education often involves community participation, engaging the general public to develop their capacity. Although universities and colleges are primarily considered formal educational hubs, they also contribute to nonformal and informal DRR and DEM in the form of community-based outreach activities (i.e., workshops and seminars) in collaboration with public, private, and not-for-profit sectors (Brundiers 2018). DE addressed in this article primarily focuses on postsecondary institutions and their roles in formal, nonformal, and informal education.

DRR-specific postsecondary education is essential for knowledge, skills, and capacity development and enhancement for hazard and disaster professionals and stakeholders from other related fields (Littledyke et al. 2013). PSEIs are also engaged in research and collaboration with other postsecondary and research institutions and communities. Such partnerships are required to address emerging disaster risks induced by climate change at the local level and improve the course and program curriculum (Wongphyat and Tanaka 2020; Yasuhiro et al. 2019). However, a holistic understanding of the diverse roles of PSEIs in DE still needs to be explored. Responsively, this article aims to narrow this knowledge deficit by systematically reviewing material from the last decade (2011–2022) and developing recommendations that will inform future research.

Two factors justify the review period. First, DE literature has exponentially increased since 2011. For instance, a search using the keyword “disaster education” in the SCOPUS database shows an exponential growth in literature (Fig. 1). Second, some of the foundational and comprehensive works emerged during 2011, including the book Disaster Education by Shaw et al. (2011b).

To synthesize the current state of knowledge on DE in PSEIs, this literature review is guided by the following research questions: (1) How has education on risk and disaster, DRR, and DEM been framed at the PSEIs? (2) What roles do PSEIs play in nonformal and informal DE? (3) How does the current literature connect DE with other global issues, such as climate change? and (4) What gaps need to be addressed and what are other recommendations for future research? To answer these questions, this article employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021).

The PRISMA approach, a widely accepted guide for systematic review, was used to direct the data curation of this literature review (Fig. 2). A mixed-method analysis process, that is, quantitative (univariate analysis) and qualitative (thematic inquiry) analyses, was utilized to develop the findings to address the research questions.

This section has two broad parts. The first provides a quantitative analysis in terms of the general overview of the selected content, including the geographical distribution of the selected content and the nature of the content (i.e., case study or review). The second provides findings from the thematic analysis and has four main subsections as identified previously.

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the current state of knowledge on DE at the postsecondary level. To this end, the preceding sections attempted to answer the following questions through quantitative univariate and qualitative thematic analysis:

This section summarizes key findings and attempts to answer the final research question: what are the gaps and recommendations for future research?

In terms of quantitative findings, this article documented the geographic distribution of DE-related content and the nature of the studies (i.e., empirical study, course evaluation, or perspective/synthesis). In terms of the former, it was found that studies were not symmetrically distributed around the globe. Most studies were conducted in Asia, followed by Europe and North America. This article also attempted to find the connection between the frequency of disasters and the number of DE-related documents for a particular region. It was found that such links only hold for the continent of Asia, where the highest number of DE-related content was found along with the highest frequency of disasters. The second and third highest number of DE-related content was located in Europe and North America, respectively, but with relatively less frequent disaster events than in Asia and Africa during the same period (2010–2022). The continent of Africa ranked second in terms of the frequency of disaster events and fourth in terms of DE-related content. In terms of the nature of the study, this article found three categories of studies: perspective/opinion/synthesis/report, empirical study, and evaluation. The first covers the highest number of documents, closely followed by empirical research, while evaluation had the smallest number of studies in the selected content.

In terms of qualitative findings, this study documents four major themes: (1) the pedagogical characteristics of DE; (2) the disciplinary nature of DE; (3) postsecondary institutions, informal and nonformal DE; and (4) DE and climate change. The first two themes provide answers to the first research question, while the third and fourth themes offer answers to the second and third research questions, respectively. Regarding the pedagogical characteristics of DE, there is a call for a radical shift in tools and approaches, recognizing that conventional teaching approaches are inadequate in tackling the emerging risks induced by climate change. Different recommendations have been put forward that include using the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction as a new pedagogical tool for DE (Gouramanis and MoralesRamirez 2021; Drolet et al. 2015), as well as drawing insights from Jack Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning and Freire’s theory of critical pedagogy (Corazza et al. 2022). Different disciplines, such as architecture, social work, and urban planning, have been found to integrate risk and disaster-related education into respective disciplines for better managing disasters on the ground and mitigating the impact of shocks (Wu 2021a, b). In addition to such disciplinary attempts to incorporate DE, attempts have been made to integrate DE into an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary perspective to address a specific hazard or all hazards (Peek et al. 2020a). PSEIs, such as universities and colleges, through engagement and partnership with communities can provide informal and nonformal education to community inhabitants who bear the brunt of disasters. Last, attempts have been made to connect DE and climate change education. A greater synergy among these three streams is more likely to foster the skill sets of practitioners, educators, and community residents to capture the postdisaster opportunity for transformative change required to attain greater sustainability. This takes us to the discussion of interthematic connection.

For furthering DE at the postsecondary level, the interconnection among the four themes must be considered. For example, Shaw et al. (2011b) provided five guiding principles of higher education in DRR: inclusive curriculum, theoretical focus, field orientation, interdisciplinary approach, and skill enhancement. To implement such principles, PSEIs need to build partnerships with community-based and different research institutions and promote interdisciplinary DE. As noted previously, such engagement of PSEIs with communities is likely to have a two-way benefit: (1) increasing community capacity and awareness through extension programs, and (2) improvement of the curriculum at the postsecondary level. However, such feedback relationships among different forms of DE are still a significant gap in DE that requires further attention.

Last, decades of disaster studies’ scholarship indicate that often informal DE through means of partnership has taken the top-down approach where community voice, learning, and knowledge are relegated to a more marginalized position, which is likely to make a community more vulnerable than resilient in the long term (Choudhury and Wu, forthcoming; Choudhury et al. 2021; Grove 2013; Wu 2021a). The recent decolonization turn in disaster studies recognizes the need to incorporate more community voices, learning, and knowledge to bring about DRR and resilience (Cadag 2022; Siddiqi and Canuday 2018). Similarly, education scholars urge a socially just form of DE where equity and justice rank high in importance, particularly valuing different worldviews and ontological and epistemological positions (Dufty 2020; Preston 2012). It is also recognized that greater integration of different forms of learning, knowledge, and worldviews can significantly enhance the next generation of scholars’ diverse capacities to achieve DRR (Wu et al. 2022b). This article contends that equity, diversity, and inclusion are vital in offering different forms of DE, which is still a significant gap in DE in general, and at the postsecondary education level in particular. To this end, a cross-fertilization between these two streams of scholarship is required.

All data used to develop this literature review are available in a repository online in accordance with funder data retention policies (https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-4z53-ay44).

This material is based on work supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program (Grant No. CRC-2020-00128). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canada Research Chairs Program.