Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic narrative review reveals improved hazard knowledge and preparedness intentions in educational settings, highlighting persistent gaps in sustained behavior and inclusive practices.
Education on natural hazards is a non-structural component of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), but the evidence base spans curriculum studies, risk-perception research, educational interventions, geospatial approaches and analyses of education-system continuity. This systematic narrative review synthesizes 27 outcome-bearing studies published between 2013 and the partial year 2026. PRISMA 2020 was used as a reporting framework, while PRISMA-S informed a retrospective audit of the search documentation. A structured design-sensitive appraisal recorded evidence family, comparison or temporal structure, outcome directness, permitted inference and principal limitation. The studies were coded into six mutually exclusive primary axes: reviews and frameworks; curriculum and policy; knowledge and risk perception; educational interventions and active methodologies; GIS and geospatial technologies; and educational continuity and system resilience. The included literature suggests that locally situated problems, maps, simulations and inquiry can support knowledge, risk appraisal and preparedness intentions, although demonstrated effects on sustained performance or actual preparedness behavior remain limited. Cross-cutting gaps include weak longitudinal assessment, sparse attention to teacher professional development, limited treatment of indigenous or local knowledge, and no core study centered on learners with disabilities or special educational needs. The review defines critical territorial risk literacy as the capacity to interpret hazard, exposure, vulnerability, capacity and uncertainty through spatial evidence; evaluate their unequal territorial distribution; and translate that understanding into inclusive, proportionate preparedness and collective action.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seguido et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: