Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
ISSN: 0430-5027  
doi: 10.18055/Finis41846  
Artigo de Investigação  
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 – CARTOGRAFIA DOS DESASTRES: UMA PERSPETIVA FORENSE-GEOGRÁFICA SOBRE AS CAUSAS DE  
FUNDO E OS FATORES MOTRIZES DO RISCO DE DESASTRE. 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: 01/02/2026.  
Irasema Alcántara-Ayala: ialcantara@geografia.unam.mx  
1 Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Av. Universidad 3000, 04510, Ciudad de México, México.  
Published under the terms and conditions of an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.  
 
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 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 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
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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  
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,  
3
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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.  
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.  
4
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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: Author  
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.  
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.  
5
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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 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.  
6
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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.  
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.  
7
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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 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  
8
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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 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).  
9
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
Fig. 3 – Analytical applications and dimensions of the forensic-geographic approach.  
Fig. 3 – Aplicações analíticas e dimensões da abordagem forense-geográfica.  
Source: Author  
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.  
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).  
10  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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.  
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.  
11  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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.  
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  
12  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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.  
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  
13  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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 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  
Irasema Alcántara-Ayala  
REFERENCES  
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0794-1201  
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  
14  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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 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  
15  
Alcântara-Ayala, I. Finisterra, LXI(131), 2026, e41846  
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  
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  
16