Resident perception of disaster recovery planning priorities

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to determine household perceptions of disaster recovery plan development and implementation, and to identify groups that may be less aware of the recovery planning process to provide recommendations to officials for improving participation in planning and resident support of implementation priorities.

Design/methodology/approach

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 194 residents of a US Atlantic coast county impacted by Hurricane Irene. Respondents were selected via a two-stage cluster sampling method automated through the use of a Geographic Information Systems toolkit.

Findings

Although few households reported participation in the county’s recovery planning process, a majority felt that the plan would be better if it incorporated input from a wide range of stakeholders. The number one reason residents did not participate was the lack of knowledge that they could. Some vulnerable populations were less aware of the recovery plan, including the elderly and those living in poverty, while others were more aware, including those with children and those without access to a working vehicle. Respondents prioritized recovery activities around infrastructure and public safety, yet ranked activities related to public information and housing as less important.

Practical implications

This paper highlights potential successes of emergency management outreach and identifies groups that are not being reached during recovery planning. The paper provides insight on resident priorities for recovery after disaster.

Originality/value

There has been little research on the implementation of recovery plans and few studies that have examined the behaviors and opinions of households with regard to recovery plan development and implementation.

Citation

Horney, J., Simon, M.C., Ricchetti-Masterson, K. and Berke, P. (2016), "Resident perception of disaster recovery planning priorities", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 330-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-09-2014-0068