Conclusions: This comparative glossary demonstrates just how widely the definitions of a single term can range. Many terms are tightly interwoven and are even used interchangeably. The listing informs the reader about the multiple definitions in use across various disciplines and sectors, which is an important stepping stone to dispelling the often lamented misunderstandings that arise in discussions of disaster reduction. What the above listing fails to offer is a harmonized concept of core terms that is precise enough to delineate the terms from each other, yet flexible and broad enough so as to be applicable across sectors, disciplines, and scales on which disaster reduction operates. Terms such as vulnerability and risk are envelopes for complex and interconnected parameters and processes. A paradigm shift has taken place that puts more and more emphasis on non-natural science issues. These are harder to conceptualize since they are often not tangible, or of qualitative nature, e.g. coping capacity, resilience, institutional frameworks, cultural and social aspects. Terms of such complexity are not easily defined in an exhaustive way. No matter it is more important to agree on their key characteristics. That way, it is possible to create a conceptual frame whose content will vary with context, geographic scale, and time scale. Here the author describes the characteristics of some central terms in such a way that they all fit into a logically coherent framework. Once the basic framework is established, each term can always be defined more precisely to fit the specific context, use, and scale