Territory and safety: spatial needs, barriers, and countermeasures from the perspective of local organizations working with people with cognitive disabilities

1 Introduction

Hydrogeological risks are becoming more frequent due to climate change-induced extreme weather patterns (Granata et al., 2025). Because of their frequency and ubiquity, research and policy have started to analyse their unequal impact on different groups. The impact of hydrogeological disasters, defined as the combination of water-related hazards (pluvial and fluvial floods, landslides, droughts etc.), environmental exposure, and social vulnerability, on people with disabilities is a particularly complex challenge, shaped by the wide array of disability types, each associated with distinct vulnerabilities, levels of exposure, and response needs (Demiröz Yildirim, 2025). As a result, a critical issue for policymakers and disaster management practitioners lies in developing reliable methods to assess risk and exposure across specific disability groups, ensuring that preparedness strategies are both targeted and effective.

Compared to physical disabilities, defined as revolving around movement impairments but not cognitive capacities, such as wheelchair users, people with cognitive disabilities (PCD) face a series of additional challenges during emergency scenarios in problem-solving, memory, comprehension, and attention (Spassiani et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2025). Within these scenarios, despite their frequency, there is limited work specifically on the impact of hydrogeological risks on PCDs, with a preference for high-impact disasters, such as earthquakes (Demiröz Yildirim, 2025), or emergency scenarios in general (Park, 2023).

Then, this perspective piece draws on three in-depth expert interviews conducted with organizations supporting families of individuals affected by grave cognitive disabilities in the autistic spectrum, in Japan and Italy, in the context of hydrogeological risks. Through a focus on the concepts of safety and territory, both crucial to understanding risk perception and expected behavior, the findings highlight that PCDs might face several key challenges due to difficulties in risk comprehension, lack of familiar patterns during emergencies, limited adaptability to evacuation procedures, and a lack of tailored, accessible information, especially during a disaster event requiring evacuation or prolonged self-isolation. At the same time, the interviews revealed ongoing local initiatives aimed at addressing these gaps, as well as existing disaster preparedness practices and the inherent coping capacities developed by families. Together, these insights contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how hydrogeological risks affect this population and underscore the need for more inclusive disaster preparedness strategies involving local realities.

2 Overview of people with disabilities and emergency infrastructures

In the field of disaster risk reduction, disability inclusive disaster risk reduction (DIDRR) is defined by Villeneuve et al. (2021) as “people with disability have the same opportunity to access emergency preparedness information, to participate in emergency preparedness programs in their community, and to be included as a valuable stakeholder in all phases of local community disaster risk management” (Villeneuve et al., 2021). This vision defines people with disabilities (PwD) as including all typologies of disabilities, and is also embedded in the people-centered approach promoted by the 2015 sendai framework for disaster risk reduction (SFDRR) and the 2006 convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) (UNISDR, 2015; OHCHR, 2006).

These international frameworks have contributed to the recognition of the vulnerability of PwDs in risk and humanitarian contexts over the last two decades and have consolidated the responsibility of national and local governments to ensure their safety.

In Italy, various reports acknowledge PwDs' vulnerabilities during emergencies (Italian Ministry of International Affairs Cooperation, 2015; Verona Charter: On the rescue of people with disabilities in case of disasters, 2007), translated in practice in emergency measures focusing primarily on professional training (Civil Protection and Fire Fighters) with people with mobility issues (Zsoldos, 2021). This approach creates two main issues. Firstly, this means that safety relies on the timely presence and intervention of trained professionals, in the absence of whom families are not adequately informed about the suggested practices for safe evacuation. Secondly, the official approach to cognitive disabilities is generalized, as it can be surmised from the summary of the official information regarding cognitive disabilities in five standardized suggestions (Italian Government, 2026): “i. Make sure that the person has perceived how dangerous the situation is; ii. Accompany the person if they show little sense of direction; iii. Provide instructions divided into simple stages; iv. Use simple signals or symbols that can be easily understood; v. Try to interpret the possible reactions.” The official guidelines also include a remark on physical safety and the use of force: “When facing aggressive behaviors, give priority to safeguard the physical safety of the person. Recourse to coercive intervention if this is the only possible solution.” (Italian Government, 2026). So far, no additional training or information is given on how to improve the preparedness and resilience of people with cognitive disabilities through other official or non-official channels.

In Japan, the higher awareness and higher exposure to natural hazards led to more specific information available online with regards on good practices and information about a variety of disabilities. For example, the National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities collects in a single page all the information regarding emergencies 防災 and people with disabilities 障害のある人 both institutional and from other no-profit stakeholders, divided in various categories: children and adults with development disabilities, disaster prevention measures, evacuation shelters, welfare evacuation shelters, mental health care (transl. Resources useful for disaster relief, 2026). Furthermore, information is shared by private and public service organizations on self-help and community help practices, focusing on learning simple essential actions in daily life that can prove life-saving during emergencies, such as spare medicines and spare batteries for medical devices or creating an evacuation plan (Disaster Preparedness Guide for People with Disabilities: The Concept of “Inclusive Disaster Preparedness” and Truly Useful Preparations, 2025).

Both countries' approach to disaster preparedness does not distinguish between different emergency scenarios. This leads to the focus of this paper on hydrogeological risks. Considering the different preparedness needs, impacts, frequency, and ubiquity of hydrogeological hazards compared to other hazards such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes (Granata et al., 2025), more research is needed to understand and promote the resilience of different PwDs categories, especially PCDs, to these risks. The definition of resilience will focus on the ability to cope with risk through preparedness strategies for anticipating and mitigating expected risks, and through adaptation strategies for mitigating exposure and vulnerability to unexpected risks during the disaster event.

In addition to official frameworks, the literature has given important insights into the multifaceted aspects of disabilities and disasters. Social and cultural studies have informed us of vulnerabilities, capabilities, and stakeholder engagement of PwDs in risk scenarios¹ (JDF, 2015; Jevtić et al., 2025; Maeda et al., 2017), while urban and human geography studies have highlighted the importance of space and disability, for example, of public spaces in the case of visual impairment (Boucherit et al., 2026). The focus of this work is on PCDs, whose relationship with the outside world, including with space and territory, is defined by their dependence on external support, primarily mediated by caregivers and families (Wang et al., 2025). In policy or the literature, where the notion of disability-inclusive space is often associated simply with the presence and physical accessibility of infrastructure, such as ramps, without considering perceived sense of safety or situational comprehension of the space. This aspect is especially important in the context of disaster preparedness and emergency infrastructure.

Then, the research question driving this work is: what are the main challenges and capabilities faced by carers of people with severe cognitive disabilities in facing hydrogeological hazards in their specific locality? Through this question, this perspective piece contributes to DIDRR by focusing on the unique impacts of hydrogeological hazards on PCDs, specifically individuals affected by severe cognitive disabilities in the autism spectrum (henceforth referred to simply as PCDs), and specifically how the relationship with familiar spaces and emergency scenarios is mediated and approached by the caregivers.

3 Methodology

To answer the research question, a qualitative approach was chosen, through in-depth exploratory interviews focusing on the experiences and concerns of local organizations working with PCDs in Italy and Japan. This approach was chosen to promote the localized approach that is recommended in DIDRR literature, recognizing the expertise and experience of workers in the field in dealing with PCDs, and to compare the local reality of risk perception and preparedness with the formal policy framework outlined previously.

Through outreach events organized with partner organizations as part of the project Motivation and Engagement in Disaster Mapping in Europe (MEDiME), four organizations were identified as potential participants in the study because of their work with severe cognitive disabilities and location in areas exposed to hydrogeological risks. Upon receiving an information sheet regarding the project, three organizations working with individuals affected by severe disabilities in the autistic spectrum expressed their interest. These organizations worked with individuals affected by severe limitations, mainly: lack of independence in daily life, difficulty in understanding emergency scenarios and instructions, proneness to panic in unfamiliar settings, inability to understand or communicate under stress, and possible physical opposition to safety behavior. Despite the complexity of cognitive disabilities, the experience of these organizations was considered informative of the experience of carers for individuals with cognitive disabilities, as some of these symptoms can be found in other diagnoses, such as elderly dementia (Fahmy and Alme, 2026).

The interviews were conducted online in Japanese and Italian by the main author and a local mediator. The interviews lasted around 40–45 minutes and were conducted between October 2025 and February 2026. The interviewees included the founders of two organizations based in Italy, Salerno (Organization 1), and Ischia (Organization 2), and one social worker in an organization in Kurume, Japan (Organization 3). Salerno is a metropolitan city along the coast in the Campania region, exposed to flash flooding caused by the overflowing of buried urban streams (like the Fusandola canal) or the Sarno river basin; Ischia is a small volcanic island that has recently faced increased challenges due to earthquakes (2017), heavy rainfalls and landslides (2022). Finally, Kurume is part of a region of Japan that is exposed to flooding risk during typhoon season. In addition to shedding light on how these spatial realities intersect with PCDs, these organizations offered the opportunity to explore the perspective of local organizations working with disability support. Each organization had different experiences of disaster, exposure, and demographics, with Organizations 2–3 having experienced serious disaster events in the last 6 years.

The interview protocol was guided by five main topics and related questions: role and activities of the non-profit organization; Emergency experience; Main risks; Challenges of the territory; Concluding thoughts (Appendix Table A1). Although the interviews focused on hydrogeological emergencies, participants also referred to other relevant hazards, including earthquakes and fires. With permission, the interviews were recorded and transcribed by hand in anonymised form. The recordings were then deleted permanently, and the transcripts were coded by the author to identify main issues and relative preparedness measures of PCDs, their families, and the stakeholders involved. Then, the data was coded thematically in two main groups: behavioral and cognitive barriers, and communication and physical barriers.

This study is part of the MEDiME project (Grant agreement ID: 101104502), which investigates socio-cultural vulnerabilities and disaster resilience and has received positive advice from the relevant institutional ethics committee². Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained from all participants regarding the sensitive topic and the objectives of the study, and the participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the interview at any time.

4 Results: a complex network

The thematic analysis of the interviews highlighted a complex network of concerns, countermeasures and stakeholders, as shown in Figure 1. There is a remarkable similarity in the needs and risk perceptions of families dealing with cognitive disabilities across the three locations. These concerns can be divided into two main categories: (a) behavioral and cognitive barriers, due to opposition or non-comprehension of existing danger of the people with cognitive disability (PCD); and (b) communication and physical barriers, due to the lack of preparation by other stakeholders. In the coming paragraphs, we will go more in depth in the examples and countermeasures (in Italic) offered in each conversation, highlighting the impact of cross-sector measures and the importance of local support.

4.1 Behavioral and cognitive barriers

4.1.1 Resistance of the PCD to leave or stay in the house

A main concern is the PCD emotional reaction to staying or leaving the house, leading to difficulty of movement, or unpredictable behavior which, in the worst case, would lead to physically “force” the PCD, at times stronger and younger than the carer: “There is an important difference in this fragility, that is a cognitive disability. One thing is physical disability, so let's say a person that can more or less move, if you want, but that can participate actively and can be of help to others in moments of difficulty. Another [is] cognitive disability, which we can define as non-collaborative, the one that does not understand the external context and so, obviously, with respects to any help you might want to help them, there is not necessarily positive feedback” (Organization 1). With the PCD's low level of comprehension of risk and emergency, the solution often lies with the carer's communication skills to use different incentives to enforce a safety rule. In other words, to give them an objective they would comply with. For example, rather than saying “there is a fire we have to leave the house,” a more positive outcome can be reached by saying “let's go visit so-and-so,” where so-and-so is a cared person by the PCD. This approach would likely create the desired outcome, i.e., leave the house (ibid.).

Also staying in the safe space of the house during a risk situation, such as a blackout, causes concern, as any change to the known environment can shift the perception of the space to unsafe and lead to unpredictable behavior, highlighting the importance of household preparedness measures to avoid stress-inducing situations: “Every type of environmental variation is a big problem. Yesterday, for example, there was a blackout due to the weather. When we have blackouts at home it is complicated…Now I put a few emergency lamps around the house, to avoid that total black feeling during blackouts” (Organization 2).

4.1.2 Reaching and staying in an evacuation shelter

The second issue is reaching and staying in an evacuation shelter with a PCD. An unfamiliar environment, with unfamiliar people and a disrupted routine can cause additional stress to the PCDs and their families (Organizations 1–3). The countermeasures discussed were heavily influenced by the territoriality of the organization.

In the case of Japan, this issue is addressed by making efforts during regular times to become acquainted with the evacuation shelter location and dynamics through training with the PCD. The advantage of this approach is that it requires the organization to train the participants, oftentimes through gamification processes, for an emergency scenario, and the designation of a specific location as evacuation shelter, without additional infrastructural expenses (Organization 3). In the case of Ischia, the organization used a novel approach to address the issue of emergency evacuation. Through the creation of a new safe space, an independent apartment, equipped with basic features such as kitchen, bathroom, and living space. This space, originally created to make the PCD experience independent life in a safe environment can, in case of disaster, become an evacuation shelter for a limited number of PCDs. This approach is novel and has the advantage of having created a higher level of familiarity with the space and create minimal disruption from daily routine, minimal exposure to foreign environmental and unfamiliar faces. The limitation of this measure is that it can only work in very small settings since the apartment can only host one family at the time. Furthermore, the establishment of such ad hoc evacuation spaces requires considerable funding and, in the eventuality of an actual disaster, its location and function must be shared with the local authorities to ensure consistent and effective information exchange (Organization 2). Finally, the case of Salerno represents yet again a different approach to the issue of evacuation for PCDs. In the absence of institutional training, designated evacuation areas, or sufficient funding to invest in additional infrastructures, the highest level of adaptability solely relies on the family's resources and resilience (Organization 1). This unstructured approach, which relies mostly on existing social networks and support, is common compared to the above-mentioned countermeasures from Kurume and Ischia.

Representatives in all three locations implicitly raise the issue that evacuation spaces are not necessarily “safe” for people with cognitive disabilities. Safety comes from familiarity with both the physical space and the presence of familiar people. Emergency shelters rarely have these features. Ensuring the identification of safe areas where the PCD can evacuate is crucial at times of emergency.

4.1.3 Altered perception of risk and emergency

These behavioral concerns result from the cognitive barrier of PCDs, i.e., the inability to understand moments of risk or emergency. To address the cognitive barrier, three measures were highlighted, with different goals and stakeholders. Firstly, the importance of raising familiarity with the emergency procedures by training with the PCDs in more accessible ways. This training should be done in a more accessible way, through play or theater, and can be initiated by families, authorities, or local support organizations. Organization 3 is involved in the latter, through a monthly activity on fire and earthquake drill involving both the staff and the guests. Secondly, it is important to prepare the living spaces for emergency situations with PCD. In the home, this means that family members and carers must have emergency food, water and medicine stock stored in the house (Organization 1). It is also important to prepare the spaces that host the PCDs during the day for an emergency. In this case, the responsibility is of the service workers: “When we know a typhoon is coming, we prepare by filling up the baths, check the inventory, and make sure that the windows don't break” (Organization 3). Finally, an important measure, implemented by the families and carers, is to ensure safety in an outside location. This can be done by visiting the evacuation location with the PCD, for example the local school, and making sure to include in the emergency backpack whatever can be used to calm down the PCD during stressful times (ibid.).

4.2 Communication and physical barriers

4.2.1 The complex nature of cognitive fragility

A concern shared by all the organizations is that the diversity of cognitive disabilities is often misrepresented or misunderstood by the disaster risk management (DRM) stakeholders, namely the municipal decision-makers and rescue operators. This concern is also reflected in the literature on DIDRR (Pertiwi et al., 2019; Shiba et al., 2021).

The complexity of the issue lies in the individuality of the disability profile. An important role in better preparing the families for disasters can be played by the clinicians (Lindsay and Hsu, 2024). Organization 1 believed that medical stakeholders can also support rescue operators by sharing the patients' information through a census of personal medical details, to be made available to the rescue workers, fire fighters and civil protection operators, only in case of emergency to appropriately schedule rescue operations (Organization 1). This discourse can be generalized not only for PCDs, but also for other disabilities. The importance of the spatial dimension of this suggestion is evident, for the focus would be not only to share the unique disability profile but actually map their physical location in specific neighborhoods to influence rescue maneuvers, for example by giving priority to elderly and PCDs.

Other practical suggestions for solving the lack of effective preparedness of the DRM stakeholders with regards to PCDs go back to the traditional cross-sector collaboration encouraged by the SFDRR. Organization 2, for example, is fostering inclusivity and awareness by working with local schools. Working with local governments instead has proven difficult, especially compared to Organization 3, which has instead used connections with both academic institutions and local governments to foster disaster preparedness events targeting PwDs, including PCDs. This absence of support from the official stakeholders is perceived as a crucial concern in Southern Italy: “The first issue [we face] is that as you know in the South of Italy, the levels of services and awareness from the institutions is reduced (Interview 2)”. This argument refers to a broader discussion, known as the Mezzogiorno issue, specifically referring to the economic and social disadvantages in the Southern regions (Angrist et al., 2017).

4.2.2 Infrastructural and spatial concerns

Finally, issues about the infrastructural and spatial barriers that might render evacuation with PCDs harder were identified. Starting the accessibility of certain spaces, at times of adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rainfalls, areas that are reachable only via narrow roads and steep inclines, become temporarily inaccessible. This issue is known to be a key barrier for people with disabilities (Flacke et al., 2025), and it creates additional challenges for PCDs who rely on routine and often do not understand the concept of emergency. Especially in Ischia areas of primary necessity, such as supermarkets or pharmacies, become inaccessible during heavy rains or storms. In these cases, household preparedness measures implemented by the families and local service organizations, such as food, water and medicine stocks, are important as what might be considered an inconvenience for some might become a source of greater stress and risk for PCDs (Organization 1, 2). A related concern focused on the accessibility of the road networks rather than accessibility of the destination. In particular, the condition of the roads and car, preferred means of evacuation in Italy in case of evacuation (Organization 1) is a concern that affects all residents in hazard-prone areas. While infrastructural interventions would be the ideal but often unrealistic solution, including this aspect in disaster training would mitigate this risk. For example, training with families, local service organizations or rescue operators could include a simulated scenario in which the main road is too congested or flooded and an alternative plan must be devised (Organization 3). A final concern is mobility to evacuate on foot from a dangerous location. While PCD does not necessarily include a mobility issue, it might happen that fast evacuation, even when willing and voluntary, is difficult and having a wheelchair might prove lifesaving (Organization 3). This measure can be implemented by families, if they can afford a wheelchair, by local organizations, or professional rescue operators (Ebrahimnejad et al., 2021).

5 Discussion: territory, safety and local support

In a context where addressing infrastructural barriers is insufficient and expert communication is difficult, the key DRR notions of territory and safety need to change. The discussions in this paper suggest that “territory” and “safety” are interlinked concepts based on the combination of routine, trusted spaces, and the presence of known carers. This unique interrelation informs a concept of safety that overrides the necessary adjustments needed during an emergency. In fact, as discussed, for individuals with cognitive disabilities, movement is often limited to territory and spaces that are part of an often rigid routine. This routine includes a combination of specific uses, times, and people. Variations of any aspect of this routine can cause confusion, resistance, and panic. In emergency scenarios where such variations are necessary, it is therefore pivotal for the relevant stakeholders, both families and rescue operators, to be aware of elements that can contain unwanted reactions that increase risk and can instead promote safe behaviors. Ultimately, the results indicate that creating familiarity with people and spaces before the emergency arises is crucial to promote compliance with safe behaviors. Local support groups that work with these individuals, having established a relationship of trust, play a crucial role to achieve this goal by integrating new routine elements that can significantly impact the resilience of the PCDs and their families during an emergency (Chang et al., 2023). Especially in Italy, where the perceived absence of official support is higher, these networks between families are often the main source of information and countermeasures to both daily challenges and hazard risks.

Local support groups offer not only concrete solutions to mitigate the risks of the PCDs, but also indispensable social capital and mental health support for the families themselves. Families dealing with cognitive disabilities deal with a significant amount of stress and isolation, which is strengthened in case of geographic isolation, like Ischia Island: “We are from Ischia, so I speak of isolation/loneliness times two, because in any case the island one of the determining gaps is precisely the island being an island, so this network by default creates a sense of isolation. And this was, let's say, an engine that pushed us to create this association. Few families that we started because we really started in a small room with three families.” (Organization 2). The importance of supporting the mental health of families by providing a familiar and safe space where information and support can be found among people facing similar issues should not be discounted: “This organization is supported mutually by the families [with PCDs]… it has become a point of reference for families with similar issues and it is very important because it is the only time they can be outside the family but in a familiar space, not discriminated, a sort of ‘second family'” (Organization 1), as it can prevent extreme cases of “stress from caregiving work” and even instances of violence (Vivaldi, 2026).

A final note should be included on how some of the issues discussed can be generalized for other vulnerable groups. Firstly, the concerns and measures discussed with reference to individuals with severe cognitive disabilities in the autistic spectrum in this work can be a useful starting point for discussion of other cognitive disabilities, based not on the same diagnosis but rather on similar symptoms and related concerns, such as opposing behavior and emergency-induced panic. Secondly, the concerns identified can also inform broader discussions on compound data with physical disabilities, adding to the literature in human geography and urban studies on the concerns of accessibility and medical care for the elderly or wheelchair users during emergencies (Daniels et al., 2024; Ebrahimnejad et al., 2021; Kapsalis et al., 2024; Maeda et al., 2017). Lastly, discussions on how to minimize the barriers of comprehension can also inform discourses on preparedness and resilience of other social groups, such as foreign residents and tourists. In fact, some of the comprehension barriers in understanding instructions or expected behavior can be found in foreign people who are not familiar with the spaces, the language, and customs of the hosting country. It is found, for example, that foreign residents struggle to understand emergency messages in a foreign language and are often unable to ask for help (Petraroli and Baars, 2022). While the approach to solve comprehension gaps for PCDs must be highly localized, it is worth exploring how easier communication of risk and emergency can be fostered at the higher level for a variety of vulnerable groups, for example through pictograms and non-verbal means (Cooper et al., 2026; Frommberger and Waidyanatha, 2017).

6 Study limitations

The issue of disability is a complex one that requires robust consistent study. Based on the perspectives of the three participating organizations, this study is not representative of the variety of experiences and issues faced by families with members with cognitive disabilities. Furthermore, no individual with PCDs was directly involved, leading to potential biases and misrepresentations. However, it is reasonable to assume that some of the issues faced, as well as the adaptation measures, can contribute to a bigger discussion on the importance of cross-sector collaborations both in academia and policy making.

7 Conclusion

In this short piece, the authors addressed the question “what are the main challenges and capabilities faced by carers of people with severe cognitive disabilities in facing hydrogeological hazards in their specific locality?”. This work contributes to the understanding of disabilities as being experienced not just by the individuals but by their carers as well.

The study focused on the relation between the existing support for cognitive disabilities and how this support translates to disaster resilience for the PwDs and their families. In Italy, the support is provided primarily by local organizations and networks of families with people with similar disabilities. Free medical support is offered by the national healthcare system, but specific training or communal spaces are not offered specifically to deal with the intersection of disability and risk. Also, there is limited information offered to families with cognitive disabilities when it comes to natural hazards. The organizations interviewed created their own countermeasures to cognitive and behavioral barriers through experience rather than structured training. As a result, household preparedness is relatively more developed at the expenses of a clear evacuation plan, except for the creation of a separate “safe evacuation space” in the Ischia case study. In Japan, organizations working with disabilities are usually subsidized by municipal offices. Due to the mainstreamed awareness of disaster preparedness and risk, training is provided for the staff and the guests as part of their regular activities. For this reason, the countermeasures discussed are structured to primarily address communication and physical barriers to evacuation while indirectly targeting cognitive and behavioral barriers through familiarity with evacuation spaces and procedures.

Regarding the stakeholder's role, this investigation suggests that the family unit is the most informed with the detailed information of the disability case, and the necessities and requirements of the PCD. This heightened sense of preparedness is due to the different perception of risk when having a family member with disabilities, such as a simple blackout or change in routine. Another important source of resilience can be found in the local communities and non-profit organizations. Especially in rural or smaller areas, the awareness of the presence of a disability case can ease the transition in the emergency and reconstruction phase by supporting the families with PCDs. Furthermore, these organizations provide indispensable mental health support to the families. Finally, local and national authorities are responsible for sharing disaster and resilience information from the PwDs and PCDs perspective. Their support, while varying depending on the region, is considered crucial in raising awareness and ensuring successful rescue operations.

To conclude, all these stakeholders—families, local organizations and local authorities—with their specific expertise and countermeasures, are equally fundamental to increasing the resilience of PCDs, which can be achieved through a relational redefinition of the concepts of territory and safety and open action-oriented collaborations. By adopting this definition and approach, it would be possible to ultimately improve disaster planning, for example by identifying familiar rather than only officially designated shelters and involving local organizations in evacuation mapping for PCDs.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Jhon Ricardo Escorcia Hernandez, Ricerca Sul Sistema Energetico, Italy

Reviewed by: Daniela Schmitz, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany

Haotian Wang, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

Carolina Ojeda, Universidad San Sebastián, Chile

Footnotes

The UNDRR defines vulnerability as “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards” (UNDRR, 2017).

Application for Ethical Review n. 240966.