The state of disaster and resilience literature in British Columbia, Canada. A systematic scoping review

British Columbia (BC), Canada is exposed to diverse natural hazards, leading to extensive research into disaster and resilience topics in the province. However, within disaster studies there is commonly siloing of research and knowledge between different fields, hindering integrated risk reduction solutions. This review aims to summarize the current state of disaster and resilience research in BC to provide context for future innovative research and response efforts. A systematic scoping review was used to balance the need for quantitative and qualitative analysis. 24 databases were systematically searched, and additional records were added from a Google Scholar scan and recommendations from disaster researchers. In total 4403 records were screened, of which 343 documents were analyzed. 87% of documents named a natural hazard type/s as the primary subject matter, while 13% discussed disaster and resilience more generally. Earthquakes were the most frequently discussed hazard, while storm/weather and drought were the least. STEM disciplines published the most on the reviewed themes (73% of documents). A spatial disjuncture was found between locations discussed in the literature versus historic BC disaster trends. Overall, there were several hazards, scales and disciplines that were underrepresented. Furthermore, there was a trend towards application of methods and findings primarily to inform global conversations, missing opportunities to provide local or regional recommendations, or deeper acknowledgements of cultural and historical contexts. This review highlights strengths and gaps in the current disaster and resilience publications in BC and adds to the growing literature on the importance of interdisciplinary and place-based disaster research. • Earthquakes are the most commonly published-upon hazard type in BC. • STEM-associated disciplines are predominant in the literature. • Clear definitions of disaster or resilience are infrequent in the literature. • Literature hazard and location trends differ from historic BC disaster trends. • BC policy suggestions are limited despite strong empirical basis to inform them.