Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

ISSN: 0430-5027

doi: 10.18055/Finis41846

Artigo

DISASTER MAPPING:

A FORENSIC-GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE ROOT CAUSES AND DRIVERS OF

DISASTER RISK

1

IRASEMA ALCÁNTARA-AYALA

ABSTRACT – This article advances a forensic-geographic perspective on disaster mapping, emphasising the

need to move beyond hazard-based representations toward uncovering the structural, spatial, and historical causes of

disaster risk. Drawing on the principles of the Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN) framework and critical

geographic thought, it conceptualises mapping as an epistemological and political tool for diagnosing risk creation over

time. Methodologically, the approach integrates multiscale spatial analysis, historical reconstruction, participatory

methods, and diverse data sources – from institutional archives and satellite imagery to community testimonies and

media discourses. Forensic-geographic mapping reveals latent vulnerabilities, governance failures, and

interdependencies that conventional risk maps often obscure. It supports more reflexive, inclusive, and justice-oriented

forms of disaster risk reduction by visualising causality and enabling grounded policy interventions. The paper

discusses this approach's methodological challenges and transformative potential in advancing critical scholarship and

systemic risk governance.

ꢀ

Keywords: Forensic mapping; disaster risk reduction; vulnerability and governance; critical geography; causal

risk analysis.

RESUMO – Este artigo desenvolve uma perspetiva forense-geográfica da cartografia de desastres, salientando a

necessidade de ir além das representações centradas no perigo para revelar as causas estruturais, espaciais e históricas

do risco de desastre. Com base nos princípios da abordagem da Investigação Forense de Catástrofes (FORIN) e no

pensamento geográfico crítico, a cartografia é aqui concebida como uma ferramenta epistemológica e política para

diagnosticar a produção de risco ao longo do tempo. Metodologicamente, a abordagem integra análise espacial

multiescalar, reconstrução histórica, métodos participativos e diversas fontes de dados – desde arquivos institucionais

e imagens de satélite até testemunhos comunitários e discursos mediáticos. A cartografia forense-geográfica revela

vulnerabilidades latentes, falhas de governação e interdependências que os mapas de risco convencionais

frequentemente ocultam. Esta abordagem apoia formas de redução do risco de desastre mais reflexivas, inclusivas e

orientadas para a justiça, ao tornar visível a causalidade e ao permitir intervenções políticas informadas. O artigo

conclui com uma discussão sobre os desafios metodológicos e o potencial transformador desta abordagem no avanço

do conhecimento crítico e da governação sistémica do risco.

ꢀ

Palavras-chave: Cartografia forense, redução do risco de desastre, vulnerabilidade e governança, geografia

crítica, análise causal do risco.

HIGHLIGHTS

•

Uncovers root causes of disaster risk through forensic-geographic mapping

Integrates spatial, historical, and participatory data for risk analysis

Challenges hazard-centric approaches with structural and systemic insights

Visualises hidden vulnerabilities and governance failures over time

Supports justice-oriented and transformative disaster risk reduction strategies

Recebido: 17/06/2025. Aceite: 04/09/2025. Publicado: 1/02/2026.

¹Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Av. Universidad 3000, 04510, Ciudad de México, México.

E-mail: ialcantara@geografia.unam.mx

Published under the terms and conditions of an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

1.

INTRODUCTION

The increasing frequency, severity, and complexity of disasters worldwide have brought

renewed urgency to the need for more comprehensive and critical approaches to understanding

disaster risk (Wisner et al., 2025). While considerable advances have been made in hazard monitoring,

early warning systems, and emergency response planning, the prevailing modes of disaster mapping

remain limited in their scope. Most conventional mapping practices delineate hazard zones (De Moel

et al., 2009) or document the spatial extent of disaster risk or impacts (Maantay & Maroko, 2009).

Although such representations are indispensable for operational purposes, they frequently overlook

the broader structural conditions that give rise to risk in the first place (Ackermann et al., 2014). As a

result, disaster risk is often portrayed as the outcome of isolated natural events, rather than as the

product of systemic processes embedded in socio-political, economic, and spatial dynamics (Lavell &

Maskrey, 2014; Maskrey et al., 2023).

In response to these limitations, critical disaster scholarship has increasingly emphasised the

socially constructed nature of disaster risk (Blaikie et al., 2014; Oliver-Smith et al., 2016, 2017). Far

from being external shocks, disasters are now widely recognised as manifestations of historically and

spatially accumulated vulnerabilities, shaped by unequal power relations, land use transformations,

institutional failures, and unsustainable development trajectories (Bankoff et al., 2013; Blaikie et al.,

2014; Wisner et al., 2025). This epistemological shift calls for a corresponding transformation in how

risk is conceptualised, analysed, and communicated, particularly through mapping. Disaster maps

must evolve beyond event-focused representations to encompass the deeper causal structures and

interdependencies determining how and why specific populations, territories, and systems are

disproportionately exposed to harm.

This article advances the argument that a forensic-geographic perspective offers a robust

framework for rethinking the practice of disaster mapping. Anchored in the principles of forensic

disaster investigations, especially those articulated by the Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN)

(Burton, 2010; Oliver-Smith et al., 2016, 2017) initiative, this perspective seeks to uncover the root

causes and dynamic drivers of risk by integrating geographic analysis with historical reconstruction,

political economy, and institutional critique. Rather than treating maps as neutral technical outputs,

the forensic-geographic approach recognises them as instruments of inquiry capable of revealing the

spatial and temporal dimensions of risk production.

Through this lens, mapping traces where disasters occur and how risk is configured across

scales, shaped by policy decisions, land tenure systems, economic pressures, and environmental

transformations (Smith et al., 2023; Wisner et al., 2025). It allows for identifying risk trajectories and

visualising slow-onset or latent processes that may not be immediately perceptible in the aftermath of

a disaster. This contributes to a more grounded, justice-oriented understanding of disaster risk that

can support more inclusive and transformative strategies for risk reduction and resilience building.

To this end, the paper addresses two interrelated questions: What are the conceptual and

methodological foundations of forensic-geographic disaster mapping? And how can this approach be

operationalised to inform the spatialised production and distribution of disaster risk? The discussion

unfolds as follows. The next section outlines this perspective's theoretical and conceptual foundations,

situating it within broader critical disaster studies, geography, and risk analysis debates. This is

followed by a methodological section detailing the key principles, tools, and data sources that support

forensic-geographic inquiry. The fourth section explores this approach's analytical contributions and

practical applications, including its capacity to reveal hidden or systemic drivers of disaster risk. The

final sections offer a critical discussion of its implications for scholarship, policy, and practice, followed

by concluding reflections on future directions for research and action.

2.

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Understanding disaster risk as a socially and historically constructed process requires a shift in

theoretical and methodological approaches (Oliver-Smith, 1996; McGowran & Donovan, 2021).

Traditional frameworks rooted in hazard-centric paradigms have dominated disaster studies, framing

disasters as exceptional events triggered by natural forces and managed primarily through

technological and emergency interventions (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2023). While still prevalent in

practice, this perspective has been extensively challenged by critical scholars who emphasise the

2

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

importance of structural vulnerability, social inequality, and the long-term production of risk (Oliver-

Smith et al., 2016). This section discusses a forensic-geographic approach to disaster mapping by

engaging three interrelated thought: the evolution of disaster risk paradigms, the principles of forensic

investigations of disasters, and the spatial-political dimensions of risk production.

2.1. From Hazard to Risk Creation: Evolving Paradigms in Disaster Studies

The conceptual evolution from a hazard-centred to a vulnerability-based understanding of

disasters has been a defining feature of critical disaster studies over the past four decades. Early

models – such as the Pressure and Release (PAR) and Access models (Blaikie et al., 2014; Wisner et al.,

2025) – highlighted the layered and root causes of vulnerability, linking disasters to long-standing

social, economic, and political conditions. These frameworks departed from technical hazard

assessments by foregrounding how systemic inequalities, weak institutions, and marginalisation

patterns condition exposure and reduce adaptive capacity (Wisner & Alcántara-Ayala, 2023).

Recognising that disasters are not ‘natural’ but constructed within specific social and territorial

contexts has profound implications for how risk is studied. It calls for a deeper engagement with the

processes that generate risk, including policy failures, land use decisions, environmental degradation,

and the spatial unevenness of development, resulting from accumulated and invisible risk trajectories

underpins the need for a forensic-geographic perspective capable of uncovering these latent dynamics.

2.2. The Forensic Approach to Disaster Risk: Principles and Contributions

The forensic perspective emerged in response to the need for more systematic explanations of

disaster causation, particularly in contexts where high-impact events were followed by limited

institutional learning or accountability. The Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN) initiative,

launched by the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk programme, proposed a structured methodology

to investigate the conditions that led to disaster, with an emphasis on causality, temporal sequencing,

and the interaction of multiple drivers (Burton, 2010; Oliver-Smith et al., 2016, 2017).

FORIN’s approach rests on the premise that disasters are not isolated incidents but outcomes of

complex causal chains involving historical legacies, governance arrangements, social exclusions, and

environmental interactions. These investigations prioritise depth over immediacy, seeking to identify

the configurations of risk that precede and amplify hazard impacts (Burton, 2010; Oliver-Smith et al.,

2016, 2017) (fig. 1). Importantly, FORIN can use diverse methods – including historical analysis, actor

mapping, and institutional diagnostics – aligning well with geographic inquiry. The forensic approach

thus provides a conceptual and methodological bridge for integrating spatial analysis into explaining

disaster causation, tracing the progression from root causes and risk drivers to conditions of exposure

and vulnerability, identifying immediate or critical causes and the triggering event to uncover the

whole causal chain of disasters.

Fig. 1 – Key analytical dimensions of the FORIN approach.

Fig. 1 – Principais dimensões analíticas da abordagem FORIN.

Source: Forensic Investigations of Disasters

3

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

2.3. Geography, Spatial Justice, and the Politics of Risk

Geography, a discipline deeply concerned with spatial relations, territorial dynamics, and

human-environment interactions, offers essential tools and perspectives for forensic disaster analysis

(Zimmerer, 2017). Spatial justice – the equitable distribution of risks, resources, and decision-making

power across space – has emerged as a central concern in geographic debates about urbanisation,

development, and environmental governance (Walker, 2009). Disasters often make visible the

spatialised nature of injustice: informal settlements on unstable slopes (Alcántara-Ayala, 2025), flood-

prone areas occupied by the poor, and infrastructure deficits concentrated in peripheral zones.

A forensic-geographic perspective builds on this tradition by foregrounding how space is not

merely a backdrop to disaster but an active dimension in the production of risk. It examines how

territorial planning, infrastructure development, environmental management, and land tenure

regimes shape patterns of vulnerability and resilience. Moreover, it interrogates the uneven

geographies of risk creation, revealing how risk is often displaced, externalised, or rendered invisible

through political and economic processes (Beck, 2009; Adam & Van Loon, 2000).

In this context, mapping becomes a technical exercise and a form of critical inquiry – a means to

visualise and challenge the power relations and decisions that generate unsafe conditions. Integrating

the spatial and the forensic, this approach offers a more comprehensive and justice-oriented

understanding of disaster risk, which is attentive to structure and agency, history and geography,

evidence and ethics.

3.

METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FORENSIC-GEOGRAPHIC MAPPING

Building on the theoretical insights outlined in the previous section, this part elaborates on the

methodological underpinnings of a forensic-geographic approach to disaster mapping. In contrast to

conventional cartographic practices that prioritise the spatial representation of hazards or the

visualisation of post-disaster impacts, forensic-geographic mapping seeks to uncover the deeper

causal structures and systemic conditions that generate disaster risk (Lavell & Maskrey, 2014;

Maskrey et al., 2023). It relies on a multi-method, multi-scalar, and temporally sensitive methodology

that integrates spatial analysis with historical reconstruction, political economy, and institutional

diagnostics. This section outlines the key methodological principles, data sources, tools, and ethical

considerations that inform this approach.

3.1. Principles of Forensic Spatial Inquiry

Forensic-geographic mapping is grounded in the principle that disaster risk is produced rather

than given. This premise requires methods to identify the spatial distribution of vulnerability and

exposure and how these conditions are constructed over time and across multiple scales (Adger,

2006). Methodologically, this entails four interrelated commitments that inform the design and

application of forensic-geographic inquiry.

First, multiscale analysis recognises that disaster risk is embedded in dynamics operating at

various spatial and institutional levels – local, regional, national, and global. Forensic-geographic

mapping seeks to trace the connections between land use changes observed in specific territories and

broader processes such as development policies, economic restructuring, or governance reforms that

shape risk landscapes.

Second, historical reconstruction is essential to understanding present-day risk. A temporal lens

is required to uncover how past decisions, policy failures, and infrastructural trajectories have

contributed to the accumulation of vulnerability. This involves using historical timelines, institutional

memory, and archival cartography to document the genealogy of risk and reveal long-term patterns

that may otherwise remain obscured.

Third, the principle of layered causality and feedback loops reflects the complexity of disaster

risk. Rarely the result of a single cause, risk emerges from the interaction of multiple drivers, including

environmental degradation, insecure land tenure, socio-spatial inequality, and fragmented governance

structures. Forensic mapping seeks to identify these interacting factors and examine how they

reinforce or intensify one another across time and space.

4

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

Finally, context-specific inquiry underscores the need for methodological flexibility and situated

analysis. There is no universal model for forensic-geographic mapping; each context demands an

approach tailored to its unique socio-political, ecological, and institutional characteristics. Such

inquiry must be informed by technical expertise and grounded local knowledge, ensuring relevance,

sensitivity, and analytical depth.

3.2. Data Types and Sources

Forensic-geographic mapping relies on diverse data that captures disaster risk's spatial,

temporal, institutional, and experiential dimensions. These data are not merely technical artefacts but

embedded in epistemologies, worldviews, and power relations. Consequently, their selection and

interpretation must be methodologically rigorous and reflexively aware. A key premise of this

approach is that disaster risk cannot be understood without accounting for the historical processes

and situated experiences that have shaped it (Oliver-Smith, 1996). In this context, historical data,

including multiple voices, particularly those of affected communities, are essential to reconstructing

the causal landscape of disasters (fig. 2).

Fig. 2 - Key data sources and knowledge domains informing forensic-geographic disaster risk mapping.

Fig. 2 - Principais fontes de dados e domínios de conhecimento que informam o mapeamento geográfico e forense de

riscos de desastres.

Source: Own elaboration

3.2.1. Historical and Archival Records

Documenting the genealogy of disaster risk requires close engagement with historical and

archival materials revealing past decisions, socio-environmental transformations, and institutional

arrangements. These sources are essential for tracing the long-term processes that shape vulnerability

and identifying the underlying conditions that give rise to disaster risk.

Historical maps and cadastral surveys provide valuable evidence of changes in land use, patterns

of urban expansion, and environmental modifications such as reforestation or deforestation. These

spatial records allow for visualising territorial transformations that may have increased exposure to

hazards or disrupted ecological buffers.

Urban development plans, zoning regulations, and environmental impact assessments offer

further insight into how risk was configured – or overlooked – within formal planning and regulatory

frameworks (Dickson et al., 2012). These documents can reveal whether decision-makers anticipated

hazard exposure or whether vulnerable populations were systematically located in unsafe areas due

to neglect, exclusion, or economic pressures.

5

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

Legal and institutional records, including property disputes, water management policies, and

shifting mandates of disaster risk governance bodies, shed light on the contested and evolving nature

of territorial control and regulatory responsibility. They help to expose institutional discontinuities,

fragmentation, and conflicts that may have undermined effective risk management.

Municipal archives also hold crucial information, including council meeting minutes, civil

protection protocols, and infrastructure-related budgetary allocations. These materials document the

extent to which risk reduction was prioritised – or marginalised – within local governance processes

and can reveal critical gaps in planning, preparedness, and institutional accountability.

Taken together, these historical and archival sources support the reconstruction of long-term

trajectories of risk accumulation. They provide essential evidence for identifying the structural,

institutional, and policy-related failures – or deliberate omissions – that have contributed to the

creation and persistence of disaster vulnerability.

3.2.2. Narratives and Testimonies from Affected Communities

Equally significant to the forensic-geographic approach is the inclusion of lived experiences and

diverse accounts of past disasters (Kelman et al., 2016). Communities affected by such events often

possess rich, situated knowledge of the conditions that rendered them vulnerable, the shortcomings

of institutional responses, and the adaptive strategies they have developed. These perspectives –

elicited through oral histories, ethnographic interviews, storytelling, and community-based memory

initiatives – offer critical insights that are frequently absent from, or actively marginalised within,

official narratives and documentary records (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2023).

Incorporating these narratives allows researchers to juxtapose institutional explanations with

local understandings of causality and accountability. It also enables the identification of neglected or

suppressed claims, such as long-standing demands for infrastructure, protective measures, or legal

recognition. Furthermore, it highlights disaster's affective and symbolic dimensions – experiences of

loss, displacement, trauma, and memory – often overlooked in technocratic analyses.

By foregrounding these perspectives, forensic-geographic mapping reframes local actors not as

passive victims of disaster, but as active knowledge holders and co-producers of insight into the

processes that generate and sustain risk. Doing so contributes to a more inclusive and socially

grounded understanding of disaster causation.

3.2.3. Participatory and Community-Generated Data

A fundamental tenet of the forensic-geographic approach is recognising that disaster risk is

experienced and understood differently across social groups, and that any serious investigation into

its root causes must engage with these diverse perspectives. To this end, the approach incorporates a

range of participatory methods designed to recover, represent, and validate community-based

knowledge systematically. These methods provide access to situated understandings of vulnerability

and exposure and contribute to the co-production of spatial information grounded in lived realities

rather than externally imposed frameworks.

Community mapping and participatory Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are central tools

(Gaillard et al., 2015). They enable local residents to visualise, describe, and annotate areas of

perceived risk, past hazard events, unsafe infrastructure, or environmental degradation. These

mappings often reveal knowledge either absent from official datasets or differently prioritised by

institutions, such as informal networks of evacuation routes, flood-prone footpaths, or locations of

failed mitigation efforts.

Complementing these tools are participatory timeline exercises (Bustillos Ardaya et al., 2018),

which support the reconstruction of key historical events, policy interventions, or environmental

changes that community members remember. These temporal narratives shed light on the sequence

and interplay of actions and omissions contributing to risk accumulation. They also reveal collective

memory, trauma, and resilience patterns critical for understanding how disasters are embedded in

everyday life.

In addition, focus group discussions and transect walks facilitate more dynamic and dialogical

forms of engagement (Ahmed & Kelman, 2018), articulating collective interpretations of vulnerability,

resource access, institutional trust, and capacities for self-organisation. These encounters often reveal

contradictions, contested narratives, or internal differences within communities, reminding

6

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

researchers that local knowledge is not monolithic but situated, negotiated, and sometimes unevenly

distributed.

Together, these participatory methods foster what can be described as horizontal knowledge

production (Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2021). They create spaces where communities are not merely

consulted but actively engaged as collaborators in identifying, analysing, and visualising disaster risk.

In doing so, they enhance mapping outputs' legitimacy, relevance, and social accountability, reflecting

local priorities and epistemologies. Crucially, they help prevent the reproduction of top-down

cartographic practices that risk silencing or misrepresenting those most affected by disaster.

In this way, participatory and community-generated data do more than enrich empirical

analysis – they reposition mapping as a socially embedded and politically meaningful practice. They

allow forensic-geographic investigations to uncover the layered, contested, and place-specific nature

of risk, and to do so in ways that support analytical depth and democratic engagement.

3.2.4. Media Archives and Public Discourse

Media archives constitute a critical and often underutilised data source for forensic-geographic

investigations into disaster risk. Unlike institutional records or technical assessments, media content

captures the discursive and symbolic dimensions through which disasters are represented, debated,

and made intelligible to the broader public. Analysing such content – from newspaper articles and

radio broadcasts to television transcripts and digital platforms – enables researchers to trace how

disaster events and their underlying causes are framed, who is held responsible or exonerated, and

how different social groups are depicted in moments of crisis.

The media play a central role in shaping public understanding of disasters, influencing not only

perceptions of risk but also responses by policymakers and institutions (Miles & Morse, 2007). For

example, a critical reading of press coverage may reveal whether narratives focus narrowly on the

event itself or extend to structural explanations involving governance failures, socio-spatial

inequalities, or environmental degradation. It may also show whose voices are amplified or excluded,

whether the experiences of affected communities are foregrounded, marginalised, or instrumentalised

in constructing post-disaster discourse (Barnes et al., 2008).

Social media content and digital testimonies have become increasingly relevant in the context

of more recent disaster events (Palen & Hughes, 2017). Platforms such as X (former Twitter),

Facebook, and WhatsApp serve as tools for communication and mobilisation and as rich sources of

real-time data on how populations perceive and respond to unfolding crises. These digital narratives

often include expressions of distress, frustration, solidarity, and political critique, and they may

document aspects of the disaster that remain unreported in official or mainstream channels.

By examining mainstream and social media content, researchers can identify dominant

framings, counter-narratives, and forms of resistance (Amaral, 2021). These may contest official

accounts, expose misinformation, or demand accountability for long-standing neglect. As such, media

archives contribute to a more contested, plural, and politically situated mapping of disaster causation,

reflecting the diversity of interpretations and experiences accompanying any disaster event.

Incorporating media analysis into forensic-geographic mapping strengthens its capacity to

engage with the discursive construction of risk, complementing spatial and historical studies with

insight into the politics of meaning and representation. It also reinforces the understanding that

disasters are not only material phenomena but also communicative events, shaped by and shaping

public discourse, institutional legitimacy, and collective memory.

3.2.5. Socio-demographic, Environmental, and Spatial Data

The forensic-geographic approach also draws upon a range of conventional datasets essential

for the spatial analysis of vulnerability and risk. While often used in technical risk assessments, these

datasets gain renewed relevance and interpretive depth when integrated into a framework concerned

with the distribution of risk and its historical, structural, and relational construction.

Socio-demographic data, particularly census information disaggregated by income level, gender,

ethnicity, housing quality, and access to essential services, provide crucial indicators of differentiated

vulnerability (Tate et al., 2021). These data allow for identifying social groups and territories

disproportionately exposed to risk due to entrenched inequalities in living conditions and institutional

neglect.

7

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

Environmental data – encompassing rainfall patterns, soil composition and stability, vegetation

cover, and hydrological flows – are equally critical (Van Westen, 2013). They provide insight into the

biophysical conditions that shape hazard dynamics and interact with human settlement patterns.

When interpreted through a forensic-geographic lens, such data help reveal how environmental

degradation, unsustainable land use, and climate variability contribute to long-term risk accumulation.

Remote sensing and satellite imagery are powerful means of detecting landscape changes over

time (Franklin et al., 2002). These tools are particularly effective in identifying land cover transitions,

urban expansion into hazard-prone areas, deforestation, and the extent of damage following disaster

events. Temporal analysis of such imagery can illuminate how risk evolves spatially and reveal the

consequences of planning decisions, infrastructural development, or the absence thereof.

Infrastructure and service provision maps further contribute to this analytical framework by

exposing spatial inequalities in access to critical systems such as roads, potable water, electricity,

healthcare, and education (Dodman et al., 2023). These layers help to identify infrastructural

vulnerabilities that may increase exposure or impede recovery, particularly in marginalised areas.

Together, these datasets provide the material substrate for constructing multi-layered spatial

analyses that indicate where risk is located and how it is shaped and compounded over time by

interacting variables. Their value lies in their quantitative robustness and capacity to be cross-

referenced with other forms of data – archival records, community narratives, participatory mappings,

and media content – to build a more nuanced and systemic account of disaster risk.

By integrating these varied data sources, the forensic-geographic approach offers a

comprehensive and reflexive understanding of vulnerability, restoring visibility to risk dimensions

often obscured in conventional hazard-based assessments. It acknowledges all knowledge's partial

and situated nature, embracing methodological pluralism to develop a richer, more context-sensitive

analysis of disaster causation. It provides an essential corrective to technocratic models and

contributes to constructing more just and inclusive frameworks for disaster risk reduction.

3.3. Tools and Techniques for Mapping Root Causes

A forensic-geographic approach to disaster mapping draws on various analytical tools to

investigate the spatial, institutional, and systemic drivers of risk. These tools help visualise complex

causal relationships, identify key actors and processes, and examine the multiscale dynamics through

which vulnerability is produced and sustained. Their use goes beyond conventional hazard analysis,

engaging critically with the spatial dimensions of power, marginalisation, and governance failure.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) remain a foundational element in this framework but are

reconfigured to exceed the confines of hazard and exposure mapping (Van Westen, 2013). Within

forensic applications, GIS enables the spatial correlation of vulnerability indicators, integration of

historical and environmental data, and modelling of risk trajectories. This supports a more holistic

understanding of how socio-environmental and institutional processes converge in the creation of risk.

Temporal mapping and sequence diagrams are equally essential, facilitating the reconstruction

of risk chronologies. These visual tools document institutional decisions, regulatory changes, and

socio-spatial transformations that drive vulnerability over time. By incorporating time as a key

analytical dimension, they capture the cumulative and often delayed effects of structural processes

that lead to disaster.

Actor and institutional mapping provide insights into the governance landscape surrounding

risk production (Mardiah et al., 2017). This technique highlights key stakeholders, inter-agency

dynamics, and points of cooperation or contention. It helps expose institutional fragmentation,

overlapping mandates, and asymmetries of power that impede coordinated risk reduction.

The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) (Eppinger & Browning, 2012) is particularly effective for

visualising interdependencies among risk drivers by mapping how insecure land tenure, degraded

environments, and inadequate infrastructure interact. DSMs support the complexity analysis and

reveal the relational architecture of vulnerability.

Finally, critical cartography (Crampton & Krygier, 2005) anchors the epistemological

foundations of this approach. Mapping is understood not as a neutral act of representation but as a

spatial critique – one capable of challenging dominant narratives, recovering marginalised

perspectives, and interrogating the technocratic assumptions that often obscure the root causes of risk.

Crucially, none of these tools is neutral. Their application requires methodological reflexivity

and an acute awareness of the assumptions and power relations they may reinforce or challenge. The

8

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

forensic-geographic approach demands a commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and accountability

in analytical practice and knowledge's visual production.

3.4. Ethical Considerations in Mapping Risk and Vulnerability

Forensic-geographic mapping entails methodological and analytical decisions and ethical

responsibilities (Heesen et al., 2015). Visualising vulnerability, marginalisation, and institutional

shortcomings carries significant implications, particularly when maps are used in public discourse,

policy-making, or advocacy. The ethical stakes of representing risk are exceptionally high in social

inequality, contested governance, or historical neglect. The maps produced through this approach do

not merely document spatial realities; they shape how communities are perceived, whose knowledge

is legitimised, and which claims are heard or silenced. For this reason, ethical reflexivity must be

embedded throughout the research process.

A primary ethical concern is the avoidance of stigmatisation (Kasperson et al., 2012). Maps

highlighting risk-prone areas, informal settlements, or institutional failures must not reinforce deficit-

based narratives or portray communities as inherently vulnerable or dependent. Such representations

can have unintended consequences, including social exclusion, discrimination, or the justification of

coercive interventions. Instead, mapping practices should recognise and reflect the agency, resilience,

and capacities within at-risk populations.

Informed consent and meaningful participation are equally fundamental (Sarker, 2025).

Particularly when engaging in participatory mapping or collecting qualitative data, researchers must

ensure that communities retain agency over how their territories, experiences, and knowledge

systems are represented. This includes transparent communication about the purpose of the mapping,

how the information will be used, and the potential risks associated with public dissemination.

Community members should have opportunities to validate, revise, or contest how their realities are

visualised.

Another essential consideration is data sensitivity and confidentiality (Sarker, 2025). Forensic-

geographic investigations often uncover sensitive issues such as land tenure disputes, informal

urbanisation, environmental degradation, or institutional corruption. When such data are mapped,

primarily if they circulate beyond academic or community settings, there is a risk of exposing

individuals or groups to harm. Researchers must take care to anonymise data where appropriate,

obtain explicit permission for publication, and critically assess the potential consequences of visual

disclosures.

Ethical mapping requires ongoing reflexivity and awareness of positionality (Jacobson &

Mustafa, 2019). Researchers must remain attentive to their roles in shaping risk narratives, the

epistemological assumptions they bring to the mapping process, and the power dynamics that

structure their engagement with communities. This involves recognising how knowledge is co-

produced, whose perspectives are prioritised, and how representational choices may reflect or

challenge dominant frameworks.

Integrating these ethical principles into the methodological design can transform forensic-

geographic mapping from a purely analytical tool to an instrument of social accountability, epistemic

justice, and community empowerment. When conducted responsibly, this approach enhances the

rigour and credibility of disaster research and supports more inclusive, respectful, and transformative

engagements with risk and vulnerability.

4.

APPLICATIONS AND ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS

The forensic-geographic approach to disaster mapping provides a conceptually and

methodologically robust framework for investigating the underlying conditions through which

disaster risk is generated, sustained, and rendered invisible. It moves beyond static representations

that isolate hazards or measure impacts in isolation, instead enabling the spatial and temporal analysis

of risk as a dynamic, socially embedded, and historically produced phenomenon. This approach

positions mapping as a tool for visualising outcomes and interrogating the socio-political and

environmental processes that shape vulnerability and exposure over time and across scales.

A key contribution of this approach lies in its ability to map what is often obscured in

conventional disaster representations. These include visible manifestations of risk, such as damaged

9

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

infrastructure or hazard-prone areas, and root causes and latent conditions that precede disaster

events and determine their uneven impacts. In this sense, mapping becomes a diagnostic device for

exposing the structural dimensions of risk, including spatial inequalities, institutional vacuums, and

development models that externalise environmental and social costs (fig. 3).

Fig. 3 – Analytical applications and dimensions of the forensic-geographic approach.

Fig. 3 – Aplicações analíticas e dimensões da abordagem forense-geográfica.

Source: Own elaboration

4.1. Mapping the Invisible: Root Causes and Latent Risk

Among the most significant analytical strengths of forensic-geographic mapping is its capacity

to visualise processes and drivers that remain imperceptible in hazard-centric or post-impact maps.

These include embedded vulnerabilities, unresolved institutional deficits, and long-term patterns of

socio-environmental degradation that operate across extended temporal horizons. Conventional

disaster maps often treat the event as the primary analytical unit – an abrupt rupture to be responded

to and measured. In contrast, forensic mapping reconceptualises disaster as the outcome of a

continuum of causation, wherein historical legacies, governance failures, and territorial decisions

converge to produce risk.

This shift in analytical perspective enables researchers, planners, and policymakers to identify

the pre-existing conditions that magnify the severity of disaster impacts. It facilitates the

reconstruction of the genealogies of institutional neglect, fragmented governance, and exclusionary

urban planning that contribute to the systematic accumulation of risk. Furthermore, it reveals slow-

onset and diffuse processes that do not always trigger immediate disasters but degrade resilience over

time, such as unchecked deforestation, informal settlement expansion in hazard-prone areas, loss of

wetlands and buffers, and the gradual erosion of institutional capacities for regulation and

enforcement.

Forensic-geographic mapping strengthens retrospective analysis and prospective risk

governance by focusing on these latent and systemic drivers (Renn et al., 2022). It equips decision-

makers with tools to anticipate future risk configurations, particularly in contexts undergoing rapid

urbanisation, ecological transition, or climate-induced variability. This anticipatory function is

essential in settings where the pace of change outstrips the capacity of formal institutions to respond,

and where vulnerability is less a result of individual choices than of entrenched structural constraints.

Mapping the invisible is not simply about making risk visible; it is about rendering legible the

historical, spatial, and political dynamics through which certain places and populations come to bear

the brunt of disaster. Through this analytical lens, the forensic-geographic approach contributes to a

more transformative and justice-oriented understanding of disaster risk – one that seeks not only to

measure but also to explain, expose, and ultimately reduce the conditions of vulnerability at their

source.

10

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

4.2. Unpacking Drivers: Spatialising Governance, Urbanisation, and Environmental Change

Forensic-geographic mapping facilitates a nuanced and multi-layered diagnosis of the spatial

production of disaster risk by tracing the interactions between governance, urbanisation, land use, and

socio-environmental change. Central to this approach is the recognition that spatial patterns of

vulnerability are not natural or inevitable outcomes of environmental processes, but rather the result

of political choices, institutional arrangements, and development trajectories that systematically

expose specific populations and territories to heightened levels of risk (Blaikie et al., 2014).

This perspective reorients the analytical focus from where disasters happen to how and why

risk becomes concentrated in particular locations. It reveals, for example, how land tenure regimes,

often shaped by historical exclusions or informal arrangements, can render entire communities legally

invisible and therefore unprotected by formal disaster risk reduction efforts. Similarly, it draws

attention to the spatial consequences of urbanisation processes, particularly in contexts where rapid

growth is unaccompanied by adequate planning, basic services, or environmental safeguards. Informal

settlements – frequently situated on floodplains, unstable slopes, or degraded land – exemplify spaces

where risk is not simply present but actively produced through neglect, exclusion, and marginalisation

patterns.

Infrastructural deficits compound this vulnerability. Forensic-geographic mapping helps to

visualise the uneven distribution of essential services such as drainage, water supply, road access, and

emergency infrastructure. These disparities often correlate with socio-economic inequalities,

reinforcing cycles of exposure and reducing adaptive capacity in already at-risk communities.

Moreover, such analysis sheds light on how risk is displaced through urban development schemes or

relocation policies that push vulnerable populations into environmentally fragile zones, often under

the guise of progress or safety, yet reproducing or even amplifying existing vulnerabilities.

Equally critical is the mapping of governance fragmentation, whereby overlapping mandates,

conflicting institutional jurisdictions, or a lack of coordination between agencies result in regulatory

blind spots or paralysis in implementing risk reduction measures (Marks & Lebel, 2016). These

institutional fractures are spatially expressed in gaps between protected and unprotected areas,

hazard zoning inconsistencies, and fragmented early warning or non-resistant infrastructures.

Forensic mapping makes these patterns visible, linking them to broader political and administrative

power structures that underpin risk production.

The forensic-geographic approach strengthens the analytical bridge between material

geographies and the political economy of risk by revealing how spatial arrangements are co-produced

by political decisions, economic imperatives, and institutional logics. It enables a critical reading of

space not simply as a passive backdrop, but as a dynamic terrain of contestation, negotiation, and

structural inequality. In doing so, it contributes to a deeper understanding of how vulnerabilities are

embedded within broader urbanisation and environmental change processes, and why certain groups

remain persistently exposed to disaster.

4.3. Visualising Complexity and Interdependencies

Disaster risk is rarely attributable to a single factor or isolated event. It emerges from a

constellation of interdependent variables interacting across multiple spatial and temporal scales.

These variables – from environmental degradation and infrastructural vulnerabilities to institutional

weakness and socio-economic inequality – rarely operate in isolation. Instead, they compound,

reinforce, or trigger one another, often in unpredictable ways. A core strength of the forensic-

geographic approach lies in its capacity to visualise this complexity, enabling the identification of

feedback loops, causal chains, and cascading effects that are often overlooked in linear or sectoral

analyses.

Forensic-geographic mapping embraces this complexity by employing tools designed to

represent multi-layered and dynamic systems of causation. Among these, Design Structure Matrices

(DSM) are particularly valuable, as they allow for systematically analysing interdependencies among

risk drivers (Spiekermann et al., 2015). DSMs help reveal how particular factors, such as informal land

occupation, deficient infrastructure, and environmental stress, are interconnected and mutually

reinforcing. When complemented by temporal layering and network-based mapping, these tools make

it possible to visualise how risk evolves, interacts across sectors, and responds to shocks in ways that

may not be immediately visible through conventional mapping techniques.

11

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

This analytical dimension is particularly salient in compound and cascading disasters, where

multiple hazards or failures occur simultaneously or sequentially, producing complex and often

disproportionate impacts. Interconnected systems – such as housing, public health, transportation,

energy, and ecosystems – can become vulnerable at multiple points, with a disruption in one domain

triggering failures in others. For example, a landslide may damage homes, block access roads, cut off

water supply infrastructure, and generate secondary displacement or health emergencies.

Through its capacity to trace these cross-sectoral relationships, forensic-geographic mapping

provides stakeholders with critical insights into systemic vulnerabilities. It enables decision-makers

to understand how small perturbations can escalate into large-scale crises when they affect critical

nodes or tipping points within complex systems. This knowledge is instrumental for improving

anticipatory governance: by identifying which areas, systems, or institutions are most susceptible to

cascading impacts, it becomes possible to design interventions that strengthen resilience at multiple

levels.

Moreover, such visualisations foster a more integrated approach to risk management, one that

moves beyond hazard silos and single-sector planning. They inform the development of early warning

systems, infrastructure investments, and institutional reforms that account for the relational nature of

vulnerability. Forensic-geographic mapping supports the design of more robust, adaptive, and context-

sensitive efforts to disaster risk reduction capable of addressing the symptoms and the interlocking

structures that perpetuate risk across space and time.

4.4. Linking Knowledge to Action: Implications for Policy and Practice

A central aim of the forensic-geographic approach is to move beyond academic analysis and

contribute meaningfully to more inclusive, accountable, and effective disaster risk governance. By

revealing the root causes and systemic drivers of vulnerability, this approach seeks to deepen

understanding and inform action. In this context, mapping becomes more than a technical or

descriptive tool – it is reimagined as a strategic instrument for social transformation, capable of

exposing injustice, legitimising claims, and opening political space for dialogue and intervention.

The outputs of forensic-geographic mapping offer multiple entry points for policy and planning

processes. First, they can inform risk-sensitive territorial planning by identifying structurally unsafe

areas, visualising cumulative vulnerabilities, and supporting land use regulation, zoning, and urban

development decisions. Unlike traditional hazard maps, forensic mappings contextualise spatial

exposure within historical and socio-political processes, allowing for more grounded and preventative

planning.

Second, such mappings can support policy design and reform by providing evidence of

institutional dysfunctions, regulatory fragmentation, or implementation gaps. By visualising patterns

of neglect, omission, or policy contradiction, they can critique existing governance structures and

advocate for reforms that align more closely with the lived realities of at-risk communities.

Third, forensic-geographic mapping can reinforce accountability mechanisms. When used to

document failures to act on known risks or to protect vulnerable populations, maps can function as

tools for public oversight and advocacy. They provide tangible, spatially anchored evidence that can

be mobilised by civil society, media, or legal actors to press for institutional responsibility and redress.

Importantly, mapping also serves as a medium for community empowerment when embedded

within participatory processes. It enables affected groups to articulate risk experiences, challenge

dominant narratives, and demand structural change. This way, participatory mapping becomes a

political agency, bridging grassroots knowledge with institutional dialogue (Boll-Bosse & Hankins,

2018). Moreover, these processes can foster new alliances between researchers, communities, and

policy actors, building coalitions committed to socially just and transformative approaches to disaster

risk reduction.

Forensic-geographic mapping fundamentally challenges technocratic approaches that reduce

risk to abstract indicators or decontextualised models by foregrounding complexity, causality, and

spatial justice. Instead, it promotes a conception of disaster risk as historically rooted, politically

produced, and spatially manifest, requiring equally systemic and equitable responses. As such, it offers

a critical contribution to the realisation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and to

broader goals of sustainable, inclusive development that centre rights, equity, and accountability.

12

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

5.

DISCUSSION

The preceding analysis demonstrates that forensic-geographic mapping offers a significant

departure from conventional approaches to disaster cartography, enabling a deeper interrogation of

risk causation and its spatial articulation. By integrating historical, institutional, and lived dimensions

of vulnerability, this approach provides an enriched analytical framework capable of uncovering

processes of risk creation that are otherwise obscured in hazard-centric paradigms. This discussion

reflects on the implications of this perspective for knowledge production, policy engagement, and risk

governance, while also considering the methodological and epistemological challenges it entails.

5.1. Mapping as Method and Critique

Disaster maps are often treated as technical outputs – neutral representations that provide

objective evidence of risk or impact. Yet mapping is inherently a political and epistemological act. It

involves choices about what to include or exclude, whose knowledge to privilege, and how spatial

relationships are interpreted (Kitchin et al., 2013). From a forensic-geographic standpoint, mapping is

not simply a method of representation but also a form of critique: it challenges dominant narratives of

disaster causation, renders visible the structural and systemic nature of risk, and exposes the

spatialised injustices embedded in development trajectories.

This reorientation aligns with critical cartography traditions, which view maps as socially

constructed artefacts that reflect and shape power relations. Forensic-geographic mapping builds on

this tradition by situating maps within a broader forensic investigation, using them to question the

“official” accounts of disaster and uncover suppressed or overlooked explanations. Doing so confronts

the depoliticisation of disaster risk and contributes to more reflexive and accountable knowledge

production.

5.2. Towards Transformative Risk Governance

Beyond academic inquiry, forensic-geographic mapping carries significant implications for

disaster risk governance. Its emphasis on causality, complexity, and justice offers a counterpoint to

policy approaches that rely on standardised risk metrics, narrowly defined hazard models, or crisis-

driven interventions. In many cases, such approaches fail to address the deeper drivers of risk, leading

to cyclical vulnerability and the repetition of preventable losses.

This approach facilitates a shift from reactive to proactive governance by foregrounding root

causes, such as land dispossession, urban segregation, institutional fragmentation, and environmental

mismanagement. It encourages institutions to identify and address structural weaknesses, reform

planning and regulatory systems, and design interventions sensitive to context and inclusive of

affected communities.

Moreover, the participatory dimensions of forensic-geographic mapping can contribute to more

democratic forms of governance. When communities are engaged as co-producers of knowledge, maps

become tools for advocacy, dialogue, and negotiation. They can support claims to land, housing, and

services, document rights violations, and generate pressure for policy change. In this sense, mapping

becomes an instrument not only for analysis but also for social transformation.

5.3. Methodological and Epistemological Challenges

Despite its strengths, the forensic-geographic approach is not without challenges.

Methodologically, integrating diverse data types – quantitative and qualitative, formal and informal,

historical and real-time – requires significant time, resources, and interdisciplinary collaboration

(Wagner et al., 2011). Accessing archival material or conducting participatory research may be

constrained by institutional barriers, political sensitivities, or the precarity of affected communities;

moreover, the interpretation of narratives and the representation of complexity demand analytical

rigour and ethical sensitivity. Epistemologically, the approach must navigate tensions between

scientific validity and local knowledge, abstraction and specificity, and critical distance and

engagement (Escobar et al., 2020). It also confronts the question of scale: how to translate insights

from place-based investigations into broader patterns or policy frameworks without losing the

granularity that makes them meaningful.

13

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

Finally, the political nature of mapping may provoke resistance from authorities or stakeholders

implicated in the reproduction of risk. In contexts marked by weak governance, corruption, or social

conflict, efforts to expose root causes may be met with denial, co-optation, or repression. Researchers

must be prepared to navigate these realities with caution, integrity, and a commitment to solidarity

with those most affected by disaster risk.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has advanced the argument that a forensic-geographic perspective offers a vital and

timely reconfiguration of disaster mapping. In contrast to conventional approaches focusing on

hazards and impacts, the forensic-geographic approach shifts attention to the structural, historical,

and spatial conditions that produce and perpetuate disaster risk. Rooted in critical geographic thought

(Blomley, 2006) and informed by the principles of the Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN)

initiative, this perspective positions mapping not as a neutral or purely technical exercise but as a tool

for revealing causality, challenging dominant narratives, and supporting more just and inclusive forms

of risk governance.

The methodological foundations of this approach lie in its commitment to multiscale analysis,

historical reconstruction, and the integration of diverse data sources – including spatial indicators,

institutional archives, participatory knowledge, and lived experiences. By incorporating community

narratives, participatory mapping techniques, and critical readings of public discourse, forensic-

geographic mapping renders visible the often-invisible processes of risk accumulation, institutional

neglect, and spatialised inequality. Its capacity to visualise complexity, feedback loops, and

interdependencies makes it especially relevant in a context of increasing systemic risk, where disasters

are no longer discrete events but manifestations of deeply embedded vulnerabilities across

interconnected systems.

Analytically, the approach enables a richer understanding of disaster causation that resists

reductionist explanations and embraces the entanglement of social, environmental, and political

forces. Practically, it holds transformative potential for informing policy, guiding planning, and

amplifying community agency. Forensic-geographic mapping identifies risk at its roots and opens new

possibilities for prevention, accountability, and rights-based approaches to disaster risk reduction.

Nevertheless, the approach also presents challenges. Methodological complexity,

epistemological tensions, and political sensitivities demand reflexivity, ethical engagement, and

careful navigation. These challenges should not be considered limitations but integral to reimagining

disaster risk knowledge in rigorous and socially responsive ways.

Looking ahead, scaling up forensic-geographic practices will require institutional and academic

innovation. Curricula in geography, urban planning, and disaster studies must integrate this

perspective to equip future professionals with the analytical and ethical tools needed for systemic risk

diagnosis. Cross-sector training initiatives – targeting municipal authorities, civil society actors, and

emergency planners – can facilitate the operationalisation of forensic-geographic methods in real-

world governance contexts. Embedding these practices in territorial planning instruments,

environmental impact assessments, and early warning system design would further enhance their

impact and policy relevance.

Further research is needed to explore the institutionalisation of forensic-geographic approaches

within national disaster risk frameworks and deepen their participatory dimensions. To drive

systemic change, place-based investigations must be linked with broader territorial, national, and

global analyses. As the world confronts escalating climate extremes, urban vulnerabilities, and socio-

ecological disruptions, it becomes increasingly urgent to map what is, why it is, and for whom.

Forensic-geographic mapping offers one pathway toward meeting that imperative – bridging critical

scholarship, institutional reform, and pursuing risk justice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the Editorial Committee of Finisterra – Revista Portuguesa de

Geografia and Professor José Luís Zêzere, Director of the Centre for Geographical Studies at the University

14

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

of Lisbon, for the generous invitation to deliver the 2024 Annual Lecture, which provided the impetus for

this publication. The opportunity to share and further develop these reflections in written form has been an

honour and a valuable occasion to advance critical perspectives on disaster risk. The author deeply

appreciates the support and engagement of the Committee and Professor Zêzere throughout the process.

ORCID ID

Irasema Alcántara-Ayala

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0794-1201

REFERENCES

Ackermann, F., Howick, S., Quigley, J., Walls, L., & Houghton, T. (2014). Systemic risk elicitation: Using causal maps to

engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. European Journal of Operational Research,

238(1), 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.035

Adam, B., & Van Loon, J. (2000). Introduction: Repositioning risk; the challenge for social theory. In B. Adam, U. Beck,

& J. van Loon (Eds), The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory (pp. 1-31). SAGE

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3), 268-281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006

Ahmed, B., & Kelman, I. (2018). Measuring community vulnerability to environmental hazards: a method for

combining quantitative and qualitative data. Natural Hazards Review, 19(3), 04018008.

Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2025). Landslides in a changing world. Landslides, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-024-

02451-1

Alcántara-Ayala, I., Gomez, C., Chmutina, K., van Niekerk, D., Raju, E., Marchezini, V., Cadag, J.R. & Gaillard, J. C. (2023).

Disaster risk. Routledge.

Amaral, F. (2021). Voices from the Favelas: Media Activism and Counter-narratives from below. Rowman & Littlefield.

Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., & Hilhorst, D. (Eds.) (2013). Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people.

Routledge.

Barnes, M. D., Hanson, C. L., Novilla, L. M., Meacham, A. T., McIntyre, E., & Erickson, B. C. (2008). Analysis of media

agenda setting during and after Hurricane Katrina: Implications for emergency preparedness, disaster

response, and disaster policy. American Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 604-610.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.112235

Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Polity.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2014). At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters.

Routledge.

Blomley, N. (2006). Uncritical critical geography? Progress in Human Geography, 30(1), 87-94.

https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph593pr

Boll-Bosse, A. J., & Hankins, K. B. (2018). “These maps talk for us:” Participatory action mapping as civic engagement

practice. The Professional Geographer, 70(2), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2017.1366788

Burton, I. (2010). Forensic disaster investigations in depth: a new case study model. Environment, 52(5), 36-41.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2010.507144

Bustillos Ardaya, A., Evers, M., & Ribbe, L. (2018). Integrated participatory methodologies for disaster risk reduction:

Tools to analyse complex systems through participatory processes in Brazil. In Strategies and tools for a

sustainable rural Rio de Janeiro (pp. 361-376). Springer.

Crampton, J. W., & Krygier, J. (2005). An introduction to critical cartography. ACME: An International Journal for

Critical Geographies, 4(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v4i1.723

De Moel, H. D., van Alphen, E. J., & Aerts, J. C. (2009). Flood maps in Europe–methods, availability and use. Natural

hazards and earth system sciences, 9(2), 289-301.

Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D., & Tiwari, A. (2012). Urban risk assessments. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Dodman, D., Hayward, B., Pelling, M., Castán Broto, V., Chow, W., Chu, E., ... & Ziervogel, G. (2023). Cities, settlements

and key infrastructure. In H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría… B.

Rama (Eds.). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to

15

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 907-10140). Cambridge

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.008

Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. (2012). Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press.

Escobar, A., de Souza Filho, C. F. M., Nunes, J. A., Coelho, J. P. B., dos Santos, L. G., de Oliveira Neves, L. J., ... & Ghai, Y.

(2020). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies. Verso Books.

Franklin, S. E., Lavigne, M. B., Wulder, M. A., & Stenhouse, G. B. (2002). Change detection and landscape structure

mapping using remote sensing. The Forestry Chronicle, 78(5), 618-625. https://doi.org/10.5558/TFC78618-5

Gaillard, J. C., Hore, K., & Cadag, J. R. D. (2015). Participatory mapping for disaster risk reduction: a review. The Globe,

(76), 31-38.

Heesen, J., Lorenz, D. F., Voss, M., & Wenzel, B. (2015). Reflections on ethics in mapping as an instrument and result of

disaster research. In Max Wyss & Silvia Peppoloni (Eds). Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth

Sciences (pp. 251-262). Elsevier.

Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical

qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919870075.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075

Kasperson, R. E., Jhaveri, N., & Kasperson, J. X. (2012). Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Towards a

framework of analysis. In Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne Kasperson (eds). Social Contours of Risk (pp. 161-180).

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772549

Kelman, I., Gaillard, J. C., Lewis, J., & Mercer, J. (2016). Learning from the history of disaster vulnerability and resilience

research and practice for climate change. Natural Hazards, 82, 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-

2294-0

Kitchin, R., Gleeson, J., & Dodge, M. (2013). Unfolding mapping practices: a new epistemology for cartography.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 480-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

5661.2012.00540.x

Lavell, A., & Maskrey, A. (2014). The future of disaster risk management. Environmental Hazards, 13(4), 267-280.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.935282

Maantay, J., & Maroko, A. (2009). Mapping urban risk: Flood hazards, race, & environmental justice in New York.

Applied geography, 29(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.08.002

Manuel-Navarrete, D., Buzinde, C. N., & Swanson, T. (2021). Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with

Indigenous people by leveraging researchers' transdisciplinary intentions. Ecology & Society, 26(2), 22.

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12265-260222

Mardiah, A. N., Lovett, J. C., & Evanty, N. (2017). Toward integrated and inclusive disaster risk reduction in Indonesia:

Review of regulatory frameworks and institutional networks. In Riyanti Djalante, Matthias Garschagen &

Frank Thomalla, Rajib Shaw (Eds.). Disaster risk reduction in Indonesia: Progress, challenges, and issues (pp. 57-

84).

Marks, D., & Lebel, L. (2016). Disaster governance and the scalar politics of incomplete decentralization: Fragmented

and contested responses to the 2011 floods in Central Thailand. Habitat International, 52, 57-66.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.024

Maskrey, A., Jain, G., & Lavell, A. (2023). The social construction of systemic risk: towards an actionable framework for

risk governance. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 32(1), 4-26.

https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-2022-0155

McGowran, P., & Donovan, A. (2021). Assemblage theory and disaster risk management. Progress in Human

Geography, 45(6), 1601-1624. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325211003328

Miles, B., & Morse, S. (2007). The role of news media in natural disaster risk and recovery. Ecological economics, 63(2-

3), 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.007

Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual review of anthropology, 25(1),

303-328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.303

Oliver-Smith, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., & Lavell, A. (2016). Forensic investigations of disasters (FORIN). A

conceptual framework and guide to research. IRDR - Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.

https://irdrinternational.org/pdf/uploads/files/p0Rm0Zgt1EyRt4vABHAn4IOUXCig6WE5xi9iVri9.pdf

Oliver-Smith, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., & Lavell, A. (2017). The social construction of disaster risk: Seeking root

causes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 469-474.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.006

16

Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI, 2026, e41846

Palen, L., & Hughes, A. L. (2017). Social media in disaster communication. In Havidán Rodríguez, William Donner &

Joseph E. Trainor (Eds). Handbook of disaster research (pp. 497-518). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

63254-4_24

Renn, O., Laubichler, M., Lucas, K., Kröger, W., Schanze, J., Scholz, R. W., & Schweizer, P. J. (2022). Systemic risks from

different perspectives. Risk analysis, 42(9), 1902-1920. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13657

Sarker, M. N. I. (2025). Research Ethics in Climate Change and Disaster Studies. In Otto Federico von Feigenblatt & M.

Rezaul Islam (Eds). Ethics in Social Science Research: Current Insights and Practical Strategies (pp. 191-208).

Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9881-0_15

Smith, K., Fearnley, C. J., Dixon, D., Bird, D. K., & Kelman, I. (2023). Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing

disaster. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351261647

Spiekermann, R., Kienberger, S., Norton, J., Briones, F., & Weichselgartner, J. (2015). The Disaster-Knowledge Matrix–

Reframing and evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster

Risk Reduction, 13, 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.002

Tate, E., Rahman, M. A., Emrich, C. T., & Sampson, C. C. (2021). Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United

States. Natural Hazards, 106(1), 435-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2

Van Westen, C. J. (2013). Remote sensing and GIS for natural hazards assessment and disaster risk management.

Treatise on geomorphology, 3(15), 259-298.

Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., ... & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to

understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of

Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004

Walker, G. (2009). Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice.

Antipode, 41(4), 614-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00691.x

Wisner, B., & Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2023). Revisiting frameworks: Have they helped us reduce disaster risk? Jàmbá:

Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 15(1), a1491. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1491

Wisner, B., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Gaillard, J. C., Kelman, I., & Marchezini, V. (2025). Understanding and Addressing Disaster

Risk: Who Speaks? Who Suffers? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003292814

Zimmerer, K. S. (2017). Geography and the study of human–environment relations. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M.F.

Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu & R.A. Marston (Eds.). International encyclopedia of geography: People, the

earth, environment, and technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1028

17