Search results

This chapter introduces Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL) as a critical concept for improved library planning both prior to and following a disaster or other emergency. Building Back Better, an idea widely discussed in the disaster recovery literature, seeks to use the difficulty of a disaster as an opportunity to go beyond the status quo and to promote changes that result in stronger, more resilient communities. The authors will define BBB elements and frameworks, building upon those to create a model for library disaster planning and recovery, and applying it to cases involving space and facilities, collections, services, and people.

Literature on the Building Back Better concept and frameworks, as well as library emergency response, was reviewed. This source material was used to develop a modified framework for improved library disaster planning and recovery. The Building Back Better Libraries framework is discussed and applied to cases involving library facilities and spaces, collections, and services, and its implementation through a disaster planning team is reviewed.

Though all libraries hope to avoid disaster, few succeed. One survey found that as many as 75% of academic library respondents had experienced a disaster or emergency. Evidence also suggests that few libraries are prepared, with as many as 66–80% of libraries reporting that they have no emergency plan with staff trained to carry it out. Even when plans are in place, the rush to respond to immediate needs following a disaster can overwhelm the ability to pursue effective long-term planning. Building Back Better, when framed for libraries, provides a planning tool to balance short-term response with long-term recovery and resilience. The Building Back Better Libraries framework focuses on the areas of risk assessment for library collections and spaces; recovery and rejuvenation for facilities, collections, and services; and implementation and monitoring, with particular discussion of the human element and the role of a library disaster planning team.

The proposed framework, Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL), can be used to strengthen disaster planning in a manner that balances meeting immediate needs with implementing longer term plans to create stronger and more resilient libraries.

Although aspects of BBB ideas are present in existing library literature, the concept is not formally defined for the library context.

This study aims to reframe the common concept of post-disaster reconstruction “building back better”, especially in the context of post-disaster housing design.

An Aceh post-tsunami housing reconstruction project is used as a case study with qualitative methodology through in-depth interviews of selected respondents.

The study findings have shown that the term “building back better” is not a familiar term for housing recipients. Whichever different personal background post-disaster survivors come from, whether they are housewife, civil servant, fisherman, university student, businessman or a professional, none have ever heard this phrase. All found it hard to understand the term. This study argues that the “building back better” concept is good in policy but not working in practice. As a result, housing recipients not only were dissatisfied with their new houses but also found that the new housing configurations profoundly altered their traditional way of life. In light of these findings, the paper argues that the concept of “building back better” needs to be reframed to take account of the cultural individual and communal needs and wants of post-disaster survivors.

This study discusses only one aspect of post-disaster reconstruction that is the design of housing reconstruction.

Results from this study provide a practical contribution for reconstruction actors especially designers, architects and planners. It helps them to reconsider the common concepts they have used for post-disaster reconstruction processes particularly in designing housing reconstruction projects.

This study focuses on the question of how tsunami survivors in Aceh reacted to the design of their new post-tsunami houses and what they had done themselves to make their homes a better and nicer place to live within their own cultural needs. This study also sought to understand what motivated the opinions the respondents had about the design of housing reconstruction after the tsunami in Aceh generally. In addition, the study investigated whether survivors knew the phrase and the credo of “building back better” in a post-disaster context.

Disasters are increasingly depicted as unique opportunities to ‘build back better’, to make communities more ‘resilient’ and to address pre-existing ‘vulnerabilities’. This has seen international disaster risk reduction (DRR) and recovery frameworks attempt to link short-term relief efforts with long-term development objectives while at the same time ensuring active community participation, local knowledge inclusion and ownership. This chapter looks at how ‘build back better’ – which became institutionalised through the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – attempts to reconcile normative concepts of ‘better’ with diverse place-based needs, interests and knowledge. Through an analysis of three United Nations DRR frameworks from 1994 to 2015, the chapter tracks how disasters have been constructed as opportunities for development, and asks whether the post-disaster context is the right time for implementing development agendas given the potential for recovery to be co-opted by dominant development ideologies.

In the aftermath of the Eastern Japan Earthquake in 2011, the Sendai Framework for Action introduced a new task called ‘Build Back Better (B3)’. This study discusses this new task and proposes an extended framework which strategically includes a pre-disaster period. This extended framework is named ‘Build Back Better, even Before Disaster (B⁴)’. The following points are observed:

SMART Governance under Persistent Disruptive Stressors (PDS) proposed by Okada offers an effective new methodology for systematically studying B⁴ problems.

For the purpose of actual practice and social implementation, we need to set up, then foster and repeatedly activate a communicative place, where participants meet openly, plan and act together step by step.

The place can be very small in size, particularly at the start but needs to be adaptively designed and recreated though a communicative process.

Yonmenkaigi System Method (YSM) serves as a useful media and tool for place-making and process design for involving stakeholders in making collaborative action development towards win–win solutions.

Finally, we consider the Case of the Merapi Volcano region in Indonesia to establish the above points.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of build back better (BBB) in contexts affected by depopulation and shrinking economies discussing how and if its principles are able to drive the recovery pattern toward a sustainability re-development path.

BBB principles’ usefulness in driving toward a sustainable post-disaster recovery has been tested in L’Aquila’s area (Italy) – severely affected by an earthquake in 2009 – through interviews and analyses of reconstruction plans and policies.

Although most of the BBB principles can be recognized within the intentions of plans and policies, the recovery process highlights a major fallacy in addressing the pre-disaster socio-economic stresses inducing to shrinkage and depopulation development lock-ins.

Although most of the principles can be recognized in the intentions of plans and policies, the recovery process highlights a main fallacy of the “BBB paradigm”: the need of addressing pre-disaster socio-economic stresses while recovering from the shocks was not explicitly nor implicitly addressed.

Shrinkage as a process of territorial transformation has been little explored in relation to natural hazards and post-disaster contexts. Indeed, while from one side BBB concept and principles drive toward a potential mitigation of the main risks while re-building, it results challenging to overcome the built environment re-building priorities to question whether, what and how to re-build while investing in socio-economic recovery. Reverting, or accepting, shrinkage could indeed implies to not build back part of the urban fabric, while investing in skills and capacity building, which, in turn, would be difficult to justify through the reconstruction budget. The tension between re-building (better, the built environment) and re-development (skills and networks, at the expense of re-building) is critical when BBB faces disasters happening in shrinking territories.

This article explores the community recovery and resilience element of “building back better” (BBB) through the perspectives and experiences of community influencers who provided psychosocial supports after the 2013 floods in southern Alberta, Canada.

The Alberta Resilient Communities (ARC) project adopted a community-based research methodology to examine the lived realities of children, youth, families and their communities postflood. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 37 community influencer participants representing a range of organizations including not-for-profit agencies, community organizations, social service agencies and government departments.

The findings were drawn from the interviews held with community influencers in flood-affected communities. Major themes include disaster response challenges, insufficient funding for long-term disaster recovery, community partnerships and collaborations and building and strengthening social capital.

Findings demonstrate the need to build better psychosocial services, supports and resources in the long term to support community recovery and resilience postdisaster for children, youth and families to “build back better” on a psychosocial level.

Local social service agencies play a key role in the capacity of children, youth and families to “build back better” postdisaster. These organizations need to be resourced and prepared to respond to psychosocial needs in the long term in order to successfully contribute to postdisaster recovery.

The findings illustrate that adopting a psychosocial framework for disaster recovery can better inform social service disaster response and long-term recovery plans consistent with the BBB framework. Implications for social service agencies and policymakers interested in fostering postdisaster community recovery and resilience, particularly with children and youth, are presented.

The purpose of the paper is to inform stakeholders involved in post‐disaster reconstruction how to incorporate Build Back Better (BBB) principles when implementing structural design improvements to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in the rebuilding process.

Literature review was used to establish BBB principles required for post‐disaster structural changes. The application of these principles was then tested in the Indian Ocean Tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka, and the Victorian Bushfires in Australia. Qualitative data were collected in each country by conducting interviews with stakeholders from governmental authorities, and non‐governmental and community‐level organisations who were directly involved in recovery activities along with other documentation. Results were compared to understand how/to what extent BBB principles were applied and their implications, to finally determine the applicability of these principles in different environments.

Proposed BBB principles for post‐disaster structural changes from literature were grouped under: building codes and regulations, cost and time, and quality. Principles such as multi‐hazard‐based building codes, education and support for communities, long‐term funding and quality assurance through inspections were applicable in both case studies. Experiences in Australia and Sri Lanka also presented a few extra principles to add practicality based on local contextualisation. These included avoiding high‐risk lands using buy‐back/land‐swap schemes, incentives to attract skilled builders, and the use of comfortable temporary accommodation to relieve time pressures.

The study does not look into detail at the administrative, regulative and social systems which contributed towards the inability of the built environment to withstand the respective hazards. A general understanding of these systems was gained and taken into consideration when analysing the results. The findings show that despite the differences found between Australia and Sri Lanka the relevance of the principles for structural improvements remained intact.

The government, engineers and building practitioners involved in reconstruction will benefit from learning from the experiences of others, and understanding how implementing structural changes can be done more successfully by applying BBB principles.

This research takes a unique look at how BBB principles drawn from international experiences can be incorporated when implementing structural changes in post‐disaster rebuilding to further improve the outcome.

The purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential to use this challenging global context as an opportunity to build back better and more equitable educations systems.

The approach taken involves drawing on the emerging literature to explore the relationship between COVID-19 and educational equity.

The analysis undertaken involves the presentation of a typology framed by the quality of educational offer and the opportunity for engagement in the offer accompanied by four reflective questions for further consideration.

The analysis presented here underpins the presentation of a heuristic typology designed to stimulate exploration and discussion relating to building back better, more equitable education systems after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the Diversity Project’s Build Back Better report, which considers leadership practice while maintaining the fight for equality through and beyond COVID-19, through the lens of ambidextrous leadership.

The authors succinctly present findings from the Build Back Better report that explores an industry response of investment and savings practitioners to managing diversity and inclusion through and beyond COVID-19. Ambidextrous leadership is applied to the discussion to offer greater theoretical discussion and practical consideration for HR leaders and their strategic approaches to the subject at hand.

The Build Back Better report offers numerous recommendations for leadership practice within these unprecedented times. An ambidextrous leadership approach can assist in supporting many of the recommendations, as they are complex and potentially paradoxical.

The Build Back Better report offers a practitioner’s immediate response to supporting business leaders shape their strategies as national lockdown periods ease while also ensuring the fight for equality is not lost within the COVID-19 crisis.

We consider what happened in the initial reconstruction interventions following the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila (Italy). Using the disaster risk reduction and resilience paradigm, we discuss the cognitive and interactional failures of top-down approaches, and we analyse the main constraints to enacting inclusive social learning and socially-sustainable transformation and building back better more resilient communities in post-disaster reconstruction.

Our evidence comes from participant observation, action anthropology and analytic auto-ethnography conducted during the reconstruction phase following the L'Aquila earthquake. Findings were triangulated with document analysis, media analysis and retrospective interviewing conducted in 2013 and 2017.

The shift from civil defence to civil protection did not bring any advance in disaster management and development practice in terms of DRR and resilience. The militaristic command-and-control approach, which is still in vogue among civil protection systems, means that local political leaders become the civil protection authorities in a disaster area. As in the L'Aquila case, this exacerbates local social and environmental risks and impacts, inhibits local communities from learning and restricts them from participating in post-disaster interventions.

Most previous commentary on disaster recovery and reconstruction following the L'Aquila earthquake has focussed on the top-down approach carried out by the national government and the Italian Department of Civil Protection (DCP). This paper is unique in that it sheds light on how the command-and-control approach was also implemented by local authority figures and on how this undermined building back better more resilient communities.