Introduction
Disabled individuals are more at risk in a disaster or crisis compared to non-disabled individuals, facing barriers that limit the ability to respond effectively or access crucial support (Alexander, Gaillard and Wisner 2012; Kelman 2020). These challenges are often made worse by inaccessible systems and environments, which fail to consider the diversity of the population. Addressing these challenges requires a shift in perspective, treating accessibility as a foundational principle rather than an afterthought. This aligns with Universal Design principles (Steinfeld and Maisel 2012) and the Sendai Framework, which advocate for creating systems and environments that work for all, so that no one is left behind in a crisis or disaster (Stough and Kang 2015). By combining critical disability studies and critical disaster studies, this article offers a different lens for understanding how ableism can impact disaster preparedness and response. The study’s focus on participatory co-creation with disabled people’s organizations provides some original empirical evidence for redistributing agency in disaster risk reduction (DRR) practice. This approach highlights the need to move beyond recognition of vulnerability toward concrete strategies for inclusion. This paper argues that bringing together critical disability studies and critical disaster studies may help to uncover systemic ableism in DRR and point to ways in which co-creation can redistribute power and support more inclusive practices.
While disaster studies has addressed vulnerability issues for much of its history (Oliver-Smith 2022; Wisner et al. 2003), persistent inequalities remain (UNDRR 2023) for many marginalized groups, including disabled people. Critical disaster studies builds on this tradition by explicitly foregrounding power relations and the lived experiences of those most affected. Recent evidence shows that disabled people continue to experience greater negative impacts during disasters (UNDRR 2024), despite decades of recognition of vulnerability (Alexander, Gaillard and Wisner 2012; Kelman 2020; Stough and Kang 2015). Thus, a critical approach remains necessary to identify and challenge the structural factors that perpetuate these negative impacts. Critical disaster studies may show that ideas of risk, exposure, and resilience are shaped by social factors and often reinforce inequality (Remes and Horowitz 2021; Wisner et al. 2003). Instead of focusing only on the immediate, dramatic effects of disasters, this approach looks at the social, political, and historical conditions that make some groups more vulnerable and influence how disasters unfold.
DRR involves preparing for and responding to potential crises, such as natural hazards or public health emergencies (Alexander, Gaillard and Wisner 2012). It includes efforts to assess risks, allocate resources, and protect communities from harm. Governments, institutions, and individuals all play vital roles in DRR. While institutional and governmental bodies are primarily responsible for emergency planning, individuals are encouraged to prepare by staying informed and having necessary supplies in place for emergencies. The four phases of crisis management—mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery—are essential for building resilience and ensuring that communities are better able to cope with future crises (Wisner et al. 2003). A central concern in critical disaster studies is how DRR fails to take certain populations into account. This leads to disaster responses that reinforce existing inequalities, such as inaccessible shelters, emergency communication that neglects to cater for people with sensory impairments, or evacuation plans that assume physical mobility (Kelman 2020).
Recent discussions about decolonizing disaster studies respond to concerns about the predominance of Western knowledge frameworks and the need for greater recognition of local knowledge and cultural perspectives in understanding and managing disasters (Gaillard 2021). This approach critiques how Western frameworks often impose one-size-fits-all solutions, overlooking the cultural and contextual differences that shape disaster vulnerability and resilience in different communities. In the context of disability and disaster, this perspective emphasizes the importance of integrating the lived experiences and expertise of disabled people in the development of more inclusive DRR strategies.
The concepts of vulnerability and resilience are central to DRR. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which individuals and communities are at risk during a crisis. It is not simply a result of a lack of resources but also the intersection of power structures, poverty, and inequality. Disabled people are often more at risk in disasters, not necessarily because of impairments but because of systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing resources, information, and support during emergencies (Kelman 2020). Poverty is a reality for many disabled people, which in turn restricts people’s ability to prepare for and respond to crises. Poverty limits access to safe housing, healthcare, and mobility, all of which contribute to higher vulnerability during emergencies (Kelman 2020).
In contrast, resilience is the ability to withstand and recover from disasters, emphasizing the capacity of communities to absorb shocks, maintain essential services during crises, and recover in the aftermath of disasters (Twigg 2009). Resilience is not just about bouncing back from a disaster but involves adapting to new circumstances and building stronger systems that can better withstand future events. However, resilience must not shift responsibility away from institutions; it should work alongside efforts to address systemic inequalities and empower disabled communities (Ton et al. 2019; Twigg 2009; White and Haughton 2017). A more inclusive approach to resilience recognizes the importance of addressing the needs of marginalized groups, such as disabled people, and ensuring that disaster planning and response systems are designed to accommodate diverse needs (Wisner et al. 2003). Despite international commitments to disability inclusion in DRR, such as the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction (Stough and Kang 2015), a recent study (UNDRR 2024) suggests that the development has moved in the opposite direction.
While critical disaster studies has increasingly focused on marginalized populations, disability perspectives remain underrepresented (Kelman 2020). Adding critical disability perspectives may address this gap by foregrounding ableism and the lived experience of disabled people in the context of DRR (Priestley and Hemingway 2007).
Critical disability studies emerged as a response to the traditional medical model of disability, which historically framed disability as a medical condition to be fixed or cured. The medical model often pathologized disability and situated it as an individual’s personal tragedy, reinforcing a view of disabled people as inherently flawed (Haegele and Hodge 2016). In contrast, critical disability studies redefines disability as a natural part of the human experience, one that is socially constructed rather than an individual defect (Garland-Thomson 2018). This perspective emerged in the 1980s, and it grew across various disciplines, including the humanities, social sciences, arts, and education, providing a nuanced understanding of how disability intersects with other social justice issues like racism, sexism, colonialism, and classism (Goodley et al. 2019). A central tenet of critical disability studies is that disabled people, alongside their allies, play a crucial role in shaping and advancing theoretical frameworks and research agendas. This perspective is especially relevant to DRR as it shifts focus from individual impairments to the ways in which disaster response systems fail to take into account some disabled people.
The social model of disability, a key influence in critical disability studies, critiques the medical model by emphasizing the societal barriers that disable people rather than focusing on impairments (Oliver, Sapey and Thomas 2012). The social model redirects attention from individual deficits to the environmental, cultural, and societal factors that create disabling experiences (Barnes 2019). However, criticisms of the social model suggest that it oversimplifies the disability experience, neglecting the personal and medical aspects of living with an impairment, such as pain or fatigue (Shakespeare 2006). Additionally, its Western-centric nature has been called into question, as it may not adequately account for how disability is understood in other cultural contexts (Jarman 2005).
Intersectionality is another key concept in critical disability studies (Collins and Bilge 2020; Davis and Lutz 2023), as it explores how various identities—such as gender, race, class, and disability—intersect to shape individuals’ experiences of privilege and oppression. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of marginalization, emphasizing that the social categories do not operate in isolation but interact in ways that produce unique forms of discrimination. Within the context of DRR, intersectionality helps to highlight how socio-economic status, gender, and cultural background intersect with disability to shape the experience of risk and exclusion during crises.
Campbell (2019) argues that being ‘abled’ or ‘disabled’ is not an inherent trait or fixed state; rather, these identities emerge through practices and processes shaped by ableist systems. These systems are fluid and difficult to isolate, operating through shifting practices that nonetheless create the appearance of a straightforward, linear relationship between bodily difference and social outcome. This reframing of perspective shifts the attention from categorizing individuals as abled or disabled to analyzing how such distinctions are actively produced, normalized, and sustained through social, cultural, and institutional processes (Campbell 2012; Campbell 2019; Nario-Redmond 2019). This perspective allows for an understanding of how DRR systems can inadvertently reproduce these processes, beyond mere oversight or neglect, in the very practices and policies intended to protect all populations. This can be seen in disaster management policies and practices where disabled people are frequently positioned as recipients of support, reinforcing a cycle where their expertise and needs are overlooked in crisis planning (Kelman 2020). Sara Ahmed (2012) critiques inclusion policies that treat marginalized groups as outsiders who must be ‘welcomed in’ rather than as integral participants. In DRR, this translates to temporary or slight accommodations instead of systemic change. For example, emergency shelters may add ramps but fail to provide accessible communication or decision-making processes that include disabled people from the beginning. A critical disability perspective would challenge this by arguing that inclusion should not be an afterthought but an integrated part of crisis planning and preparation.
Bringing a critical disability perspective into critical disaster studies highlights the structural barriers that increase disabled people’s vulnerability while also recognizing their agency and expertise in crises. Despite a growing emphasis on inclusion in DRR, disabled people’s participation is often limited to symbolic representation rather than actual power-sharing. This study explores how co-creation can help to redistribute power and support participants to have real influence over crisis preparedness strategies. Co-creation refers to collaborative processes where different stakeholders jointly develop solutions, emphasizing shared power and agency (Sanders and Stappers 2008).
While critical disability studies exposes ableism by analyzing how bodies and minds are differentially valued (Goodley 2014), critical disaster studies interrogates how vulnerability is produced through social, political, and historical power relations (Gaillard 2021). Bringing the two traditions together clarifies that what appears as the impact of a crisis or disaster is, for disabled people, the result of layered inequities, ableism within disaster institutions compounded by broader structural injustice. Mitigating those inequities therefore demands interventions that redistribute decision-making power rather than merely recognizing vulnerability (Kelman 2020; Twigg 2009).
The research questions were:
How can critical disability studies and critical disaster studies reveal power imbalances in DRR?
How can mitigating power imbalances in DRR activities prepare the ground for a more inclusive system of disaster management?
Methods
Research design
This paper adopted a qualitative, critical approach informed by critical disability studies and critical disaster studies (Kelman 2020; Meekosha and Shuttleworth 2009). It built on material from a broader research project examining inclusive crisis planning for disabled people. The focus of this paper is to investigate how to center disabled voices to create a more equitable crisis management system using insights from the workshops. All research activities were carried out in accordance with national and institutional ethical guidelines. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Swedish ethics review board under approval number 2022-04091-01. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, using formats adapted to their needs, including easy-read information sheets and verbal explanations when appropriate.
Workshop overview
The broader research project included a variety of participatory workshops designed to co-create inclusive DRR strategies. Each workshop was designed to prioritize participatory methods and amplify the voices of disabled people, ensuring that their lived experiences informed the outcomes. The workshops were conducted in 2023 and 2024. All workshops were conducted in collaboration with local disability organizations and/or municipal actors, ensuring relevance to the local context (Sanders and Stappers 2008) and crises infrastructure.
Co-design workshop with stroke survivors and family members
This workshop involved 12 participants who collaborated to identify barriers in crisis preparedness and communication while also providing input into crisis scenarios. Drawing on their lived experience of communication and cognitive challenges, participants explored how planning and crisis information could better reflect their needs. Facilitators guided discussions around scenarios, encouraging participants to share insights and co-develop ideas (Sanders and Stappers 2008). Stroke survivors and their families collaborated to co-design new knowledge about crisis scenarios, focusing on identifying gaps in accessibility and communication. Data collection included field notes and participant-created materials, as well as sound recordings of the discussions.
Narrative-based co-creation workshop with young adults with cognitive impairments
Ten young adults (ages 18–22) attending a boarding school participated in a two-part workshop. Several participants also had sensory or mobility impairments. In the first part, a Shared Reading (Forslid et al. 2022) session used a fictional flood scenario to prompt reflection and discussion around preparedness. In the second part, a tactile ‘crisis box’ with items such as flashlights and sleeping bags supported conversations about needs and priorities. Using artifacts as conversation starters (Johansson 2019) provided access to some abstract concepts, such as crisis or preparing for crisis. Participants then created individual crisis lists. A follow-up survey conducted two weeks later asked whether participants had reflected further on the topic or taken related action. Data collection included observations, audio recordings, and photos of the crisis lists.
Scenario-based tabletop discussion with disabled participants and staff from a municipality
This workshop included 13 disabled participants and eight municipal crisis communicators. Together, they explored a simulated flood scenario designed to reflect local risks. The format allowed participants to share lived experiences of gaps in accessibility, while municipal staff contributed insights into policy and procedures. The discussion surfaced concrete accessibility challenges and revealed the difficulty of capturing detailed personal perspectives in limited time. Despite this, the local relevance of the scenario helped strengthen mutual understanding. Observations, field notes, and post-workshop reflections were used for data collection. The discussions brought together a cross-section of stakeholders, including representatives from municipalities, disabled people’s organizations, and crisis communicators, to collaboratively identify and discuss accessibility gaps in crisis planning.
Live-action urban crisis exercise with municipal crisis coordinators and disabled participants
Seven disabled participants (including wheelchair users, a blind person, and individuals with intellectual disabilities) took part in a three-hour crisis simulation alongside five municipal crisis preparedness staff. The scenario involved a contaminated water supply followed by a blackout. Participants navigated a public urban environment to reach a designated support point, where crisis staff were available to respond to questions and needs. The staff were not informed in advance about the participants’ disabilities, which allowed authentic responses to emerge. The exercise highlighted key accessibility gaps, including the need for accessible information, emotional support, and backup power for assistive devices. Disabled participants supported one another throughout the role-play, sharing strategies and reinforcing one another’s needs. Researchers facilitated the exercise and collected data via field notes and photographs.
Analysis
Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006; 2021) six-phase process of reflexive thematic analysis, which conceptualizes themes as constructed by the researcher rather than objectively discovered, and acknowledges the influence of researcher positionality throughout interpretation. The process began with a thorough familiarization phase, involving repeated reading of transcripts and review of all supporting materials to gain an in-depth understanding of the dataset. This was followed by systematic initial coding to identify patterns of meaning relevant to the research aims. Related codes were then organized into preliminary themes, which were iteratively refined to ensure coherence and distinction. In the theme review phase, the developing thematic structure was scrutinized against the dataset as a whole to confirm its analytic fit. Each theme was then clearly defined and named to capture its scope and analytic focus. The final phase involved integrating these themes into a coherent narrative for reporting, ensuring consistency between the analytic claims and the supporting data.
Results
The findings suggested that co-creation workshops with disabled people supported their participation in knowledge transfer between participants and stakeholders of different kinds. By engaging disabled individuals and their representatives as active collaborators, the workshops questioned traditional power dynamics and illustrated the positive impact of inclusive, participatory approaches. The analysis identified four central themes: power, agency, narrative control, and co-design in accessible environments. These findings highlight the importance of addressing ableist structures in crisis management and point to the need for more equitable and inclusive systems.
Power
A key finding was how the co-creation workshops disrupted existing power dynamics that often sideline disabled people in crisis planning. In common crisis management processes, disabled individuals are positioned as recipients of aid or help rather than as active contributors. The workshops shifted this dynamic by recognizing disabled participants as experts in their own needs and lived experiences, challenging assumptions on capacity and the autonomy of participants with intellectual disabilities. For example, in a scenario-based tabletop exercise involving municipal officials and disabled people’s organizations, participants collectively contributed to new knowledge on how crisis planning could improve for disabled people using the expert knowledge of disabled participants as a starting point for discussions. One such starting point was preparation and planning where one person talked about how to create a crisis kit or box. ‘The national board of health and welfare sent a message saying I should have a month’s worth of diabetes medication at home, but that’s not possible.’ Another input was, ‘Not everyone can spend that money on a hand-crank radio. It’s not for the average person.’ Disabled participants also identified critical challenges, such as inaccessible information regarding training and poor communication strategies during power outages—issues often overlooked by planners. Information was often given in complicated language or only written form, which can be hard for people with learning or sensory disabilities. People who use sign language, pictures, or other ways to communicate may be left out because the system expects spoken or written words. One participant from a disability organization shared, ‘We have many members that are not digital, if you don’t have a radio, which maybe you don’t have today … then you don’t get any information.’ Another insight from a participant was, ‘There are those who are outside the community. How do they get help in a crisis? There are also people who choose to stand outside … How do we reach them?’ The involvement of personnel from the municipality allowed these insights to be shared in a wider structural context, demonstrating how participatory approaches may help reshape power structures towards more inclusive crisis management.
Co-creation workshops redistributed decision-making power by positioning disabled individuals as knowledgeable contributors rather than passive recipients. By centering participants’ lived experience, the process disrupted traditional hierarchies in crisis planning. Disabled participants actively questioned standard assumptions about readiness (for example, the feasibility of stockpiling medicines or the cost of emergency equipment) and brought overlooked perspectives into the conversation. In practice, this meant that officials and community members worked together to find solutions, with disabled individuals helping to define what needed to be addressed. This shift in influence exposed systemic gaps (such as inaccessible information channels) and encouraged planners to reconsider how policies and resources might be decided.
Agency
Agency as a key theme showed how the workshops enabled disabled participants to actively shape strategies, rather than only responding to pre-existing plans. For example, participants proposed new types of crisis drills and raised practical questions about real-life scenarios, highlighting their role as co-creators in the process. One participant stated, ‘Maybe we should have other types of drills as well, or crises, for example, a power outage drill to see how you manage a day without electricity.’ Another participant said, ‘It might be good to practice how to do it. How do you get to a shelter? Where are they? For example, if you’re at work and need to go to a shelter. Do you go with your colleagues? Should you hurry home to pick up your children?’ This was also evident in the co-design workshops with stroke survivors and their families, where participants not only discussed existing crisis plans but also proposed modifications in organizing crisis planning that reflected both individual and collective needs. ‘It is too late to google when the internet’s down.’ One participant suggested that emergency contacts be stored in accessible digital formats, initiating a broader discussion about how technology can be leveraged to address the systemic barriers disabled people face in crisis contexts. The recommendations, such as establishing an integrated and accessible way of practicing and learning more about safety in a crisis, demonstrated how agency extends beyond personal accommodations to influence systemic change. In one of the workshops, a participant responded to the collaborative discussions about the government’s new crisis brochure that had recently been distributed with, ‘A brochure is not enough!’ The workshops demonstrated that co-creation could empower disabled individuals to influence the systems that have historically overlooked their perspectives.
The workshops encouraged a sense of agency by allowing disabled people to propose and refine emergency responses themselves. Instead of only reacting to existing procedures, participants co-created new strategies tailored to realistic scenarios. They raised questions about everyday logistics (such as shelter routes from workplaces or keeping emergency contacts accessible without the Internet), demonstrating practical foresight. These contributions moved beyond individual accommodations toward system-wide improvements. In this way, the participants became co-authors of the disaster preparedness process, pushing planners to build structures that actively accommodate their needs.
Narrative control
The workshops indicated that co-creation allowed disabled people to reclaim control over the narratives surrounding their needs, capabilities, and roles in crisis situations. In narrative-based co-creation workshops with young adults with cognitive impairments, participants used fictional disaster scenarios to explore preparedness strategies. One group, for example, imagined a flood situation and created a crisis kit that included visual aids and simplified instructions. When talking about solutions, one person stated, ‘I would get a boat.’ A different participant said, ‘In an emergency, I would bring my family. I cannot survive without my family.’ Another person talked about their experience of a power outage as, ‘We ended up using the barbeque to cook outside, it worked fine.’ The crisis kits exemplified how participatory design can lead to more inclusive, innovative solutions that challenge the practices often embedded in traditional disaster preparedness strategies, which often overlook the lived experiences of disabled people. In these workshops, participants shared their own stories, offering perspectives that complicate common assumptions about disability. Rather than being framed solely as dependent or vulnerable, disabled participants presented themselves as proactive, resourceful, and resilient. These alternative narratives help to broaden how disability is understood in disaster contexts and point to how a failure to include disabled people in planning processes can reflect underlying ableist assumptions.
Engaging disabled participants in creative scenario workshops enabled them to assert new narratives about disability and emergency response. Through storytelling and role-play, they envisioned themselves as proactive problem solvers—for example, developing personalized crisis kits with visual aids or improvising solutions like cooking outdoors when the power fails. By voicing these perspectives, participants challenged the common narrative of disability as pure vulnerability. They reframed their identities in disasters as resilient and innovative, which encouraged planners to value their insights and dismantle stereotypes.
Co-design in accessible environments
The creation of accessible environments for co-design was central to the success of the workshops. Accessibility was not treated as an afterthought but was embedded in the structure of the workshops to ensure meaningful participation from all individuals. This was evident in the live-action exercise conducted in an urban setting, where disabled participants tested evacuation routes and communication strategies alongside municipal crisis coordinators. Disabled participants tested routes to a ‘safety point’ in an urban area, identifying both physical and informational barriers that had previously been overlooked. Their direct input led to new knowledge being created both within the group of crisis planners and coordinators and also in the diverse group of participants learning from each other, demonstrating how systemic ableism can be addressed through real-time collaboration. One of the participants with a visual impairment wondered, ‘How would a less assertive person get help in an emergency? I usually just grab someone and ask them.’
In a scenario-based tabletop exercise, a flood simulation with a diverse set of stakeholders, disabled participants identified critical gaps in emergency communication stemming from the experiences of the pandemic, such as the absence of plain-language alerts. One experience was, ‘It took a long time before we got information during Covid, especially for people who need easy-read material and information in other languages.’ Their recommendation to introduce multi-modal alerts, including both audio and visual messages, dispersed via a diversity of sources, directly challenged the ableist assumption that standardized communication strategies are universally effective. Feedback from these exercises showed both physical barriers, such as inaccessible sidewalks, and systemic issues, such as crisis planners’ lack of training in engaging with disabled individuals. The workshops provided a platform for addressing these inequities in real time, highlighting the need for environments that are intentionally designed to facilitate equal participation and challenge systemic ableism.
The design of the workshops themselves embodied inclusivity, ensuring that every participant could engage fully. One exercise had disabled volunteers physically test evacuation paths and safety points in a cityscape, enabling planners to witness firsthand where sidewalks, ramps, or signage failed. In another tabletop scenario, participants pinpointed flaws in crisis communication. By working together in these accommodating environments, the participants learned from each other’s perspectives. The result was an immediate identification of inequities (physical barriers, lack of training for helpers, overly generic materials) and an emphasis on designing planning processes that are accessible by default.
Together, these findings suggest three interrelated mechanisms through which DRR practices may mitigate existing power asymmetries: (1) institutionalizing accessible co-decision-making, (2) embedding multi-modal communication as standard rather than exception, and (3) recognizing disabled people’s situated expertise as a strategic asset.
Discussion
This study’s findings contributed to critical disability and disaster studies by highlighting the potential of co-creation in challenging systemic inequities and amplifying marginalized voices. The themes of power, agency, narrative control, and accessible co-design showed how DRR frameworks could be influenced by a different approach. This different approach centered on collaborative, inclusive methods that treat disabled individuals as knowledgeable partners, embedding their lived experiences into the design of crisis preparedness and response. By positioning disabled individuals as experts, the workshops demonstrated how participatory methods disrupted traditional practices, opening up for a more equitable approach to crisis planning. These findings aligned with previous scholarship emphasizing the need for inclusive methodologies in disaster research (Alexander, Gaillard and Wisner 2012), while also extending this work by illustrating practical strategies for implementation.
The shift in traditional power dynamics observed in the workshops reinforced the central tenet of critical disability studies: that disabled individuals’ lived experiences should inform systems and policies affecting them (Goodley et al. 2019). For example, the collaborative discussions around local crisis management demonstrated how participatory processes can directly address structural barriers, such as inaccessible information structures and communication gaps. These findings suggested that centering disabled voices not only enhances the inclusivity of DRR initiatives but also challenges broader societal inequities embedded within crisis management systems by letting people meet and share experiences. The theme of agency reflected an important shift from tokenistic involvement toward genuine empowerment of disabled participants. By enabling participants to shape workshop outcomes, the study echoed critical disaster studies’ emphasis on localized knowledge and community-led solutions (Gaillard and Mercer 2013). These contributions highlighted the combination of disability and disaster research, where addressing individual needs contributes to broader societal resilience.
Implications for disaster risk reduction
The findings have some implications for DRR practices, particularly regarding the inclusion of disabled people in disaster preparedness and planning. The workshops suggested the value of participatory approaches in identifying and addressing systemic barriers. For example, the scenario-based tabletop exercise highlighted gaps in accessible crisis communication, issues that are often overlooked in traditional planning. By incorporating disabled individuals into these processes, planners can develop more equitable strategies. Also, the emphasis on narrative control challenges dominant discourses that frame disabled people as passive or dependent during crises. The fictional scenario discussions and crisis kits created by participants demonstrated resourcefulness and ingenuity, which in the long run might help reshape societal perceptions of disability. This reframing has broader implications for DRR, as it promotes a more inclusive understanding of resilience that values diverse contributions.
Finally, making environments accessible highlights the need for broader changes in how DRR is carried out. The live-action exercises showed that physical and informational barriers are still common, even when policies claim to support accessibility. This broader change involves starting with accessibility as a core idea from the beginning. This approach matches both Universal Design thinking (Steinfeld and Maisel 2012) and the Sendai Framework’s call to build systems that work for everyone (Stough and Kang 2015).
The findings showed that the co-creation process held particular value for DRR by enabling participants to shape both the process and its outcomes. Their contributions extended beyond sharing lived experiences; participants identified overlooked accessibility gaps, proposed practical recommendations, and introduced alternative preparedness strategies that challenged prevailing assumptions in crisis planning. These inputs did not simply supplement existing DRR practices but prompted a reconsideration of underlying priorities and decision-making structures, illustrating how collaborative approaches can shift power relations and foster more inclusive preparedness frameworks.
Theoretical contribution
This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of inclusion in disaster research by connecting critical disability studies and critical disaster studies. Critical disability studies emphasizes the importance of challenging ableism and promoting equity, while critical disaster studies advocates for localized, community-driven approaches to resilience. Together, these frameworks provide a lens for examining and addressing the inequalities that exist in disaster planning and response.
The concept of narrative control, as explored in this study, offered a novel contribution to both fields by enabling disabled participants to articulate their own stories and solutions. This approach challenged traditional top-down methods to crisis management and addresses Ahmed’s (2012) critique of inclusion, which highlights how marginalized people are often positioned as outsiders requiring special accommodations rather than already being integral to societal norms. This adds to Goodley’s (2014) assertion that disability studies must engage with broader social structures to effect meaningful change. Additionally, the emphasis on accessible co-design extends existing work on Universal Design by demonstrating its applicability in dynamic, crisis-oriented contexts.
While the study provides some insights, it is not without limitations. One limitation is the sample size and demographic composition of the participants. Additionally, the reliance on workshop-based methodologies raises questions about scalability. While co-creation seemed useful in this study, replicating such approaches on a larger scale may present logistical and resource challenges. These limitations may be considered when interpreting the findings and planning future initiatives.
Building on the findings of this study, several areas for future research emerge. There is a need for longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of co-creation on DRR outcomes. For example, tracking the implementation and effectiveness of revised evacuation plans could provide valuable insights into the sustainability of participatory approaches. Future research could explore the inclusion of underrepresented groups, such as individuals with sensory or cognitive impairments, in disaster planning. This could involve adapting workshop methodologies to better accommodate diverse needs, ensuring that all voices are heard. Finally, comparative studies across different geographic and cultural contexts would help identify context-specific barriers and solutions, improving the generalizability of the findings. Such research could also examine how socio-political factors, such as governance structures and resource availability, influence the effectiveness of inclusive DRR practices.
There may also be a need to explore the role of digital technologies in facilitating inclusion in disaster planning. For example, virtual platforms could expand the reach of participatory initiatives, enabling engagement with disabled individuals in remote or underserved areas. Investigating the potential of these technologies could open new avenues for innovation in inclusive DRR. By addressing these areas, future research can hopefully build on this study, advancing the integration of disabled voices into all aspects of disaster preparedness and response.
Concluding Discussion
This study suggests that mitigating power imbalances in DRR is a practical pathway to a more just and effective disaster management. By embedding critical perspectives in both disability and disaster scholarships, and by operationalizing co-creation as a practice, agencies may move beyond vulnerability recognition to systemic transformation. This study showed the importance of including disabled voices through co-creation, offering an opportunity to address systemic inequalities and ableist practices in DRR. By addressing barriers to power, agency, narrative control, and accessibility, the research demonstrates how participatory methods can offer a fresh perspective on traditional crisis planning. Disabled participants, recognized as experts, contributed directly to practical improvements and knowledge exchange, reaffirming the value of lived experience in shaping more inclusive systems. The findings also illustrated that disabled individuals are not merely passive recipients of aid but active contributors to resilient communities. Through narrative-based exercises and live-action drills, participants reframed the discourse surrounding disability in crises, demonstrating resourcefulness, adaptability, and innovation. These insights may advance theoretical understandings of inclusion in disaster research and provide a practical roadmap for fostering equity in DRR practices.
Centering disabled voices is not an optional part of disaster planning, it is essential. The experiences and ideas shared by disabled participants challenge dominant perspectives that keep exclusion in place. By shifting from tokenistic consultation to genuine collaboration, DRR practices can move closer to achieving equitable and effective systems for all. Importantly, the study highlights that addressing ableism is not merely about mitigating barriers but about confronting the societal structures that sustain a continued failure to take into account disabled people. Participatory methods, as discussed here, can reveal the deeper inequalities that make those systems inaccessible in the first place. As the climate crisis and other global challenges intensify, the importance of inclusive DRR cannot be overstated. Disabled individuals must be at the center of DRR efforts, shaping policies and practices that reflect their expertise and lived realities. Through co-creation and a willingness to challenge entrenched inequities, DRR systems can become more inclusive, resilient, and fair, making sure no one is left out. Future research could explore how the integration of critical disability studies and critical disaster studies might be applied in different cultural and policy contexts and what forms of co-creation are most effective in challenging ableist assumptions within DRR. Such questions remain important for advancing both theory and practice in building more inclusive preparedness systems.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all the participants who generously shared their knowledge and experience. A sincere thank you is also extended to Stefan Johansson and Josefine Wälivaara for their thoughtful and constructive comments on this manuscript.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.