Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Recovery Rocks Community of peers in recovery.

Description of history of the community.

The community is successful in providing mutual support in members journeys of recovery.

The community exists in Perth, Western Australia.

Similar communities might be developed by groups of peers in other places.

Offers an innovative, peer support community approach to facilitating recovery.

Offers an innovative approach to fostering recovery in a peer support community that could act as a model for the development of other similar communities.

This paper aims to propose a set of principles for implementation of successful post-disaster social recovery in-line with the concept of “building back better” (BBB).

A set of preliminary principles for post-disaster social recovery was established from literature review. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires was chosen as a case study to examine the implemented social recovery approaches and impacts.

Analysis of the literature and case study have led to the creation of a set of modified BBB principles for social recovery under two categories, first, community support and, second, community involvement. Key principles under first category include: providing personalized support for affected families, specialized support for vulnerable groups and improved psychological support; building community cohesion; and keeping the community informed. Key principles under second category include: involving the community in designing and implementing recovery projects; providing support to the community; and maintaining full transparency.

This study focusses on one case study. The appropriateness and applicability of the proposed principles can be further tested using a range of different case studies in both developed and developing countries.

The principles presented should be incorporated into post-disaster social recovery programmes implemented by governments.

This research takes a unique look at drawing from international experiences to form a set of practical and universal principles to aid post-disaster social recovery as an important part of BBB.

The purpose of this research is to examine why communities facing the same disaster recover differentially and determine pathways to successful disaster recovery in the research setting of New Orleans neighborhoods affected by Hurricane Katrina. While previous studies suggest that there are a variety of pathways to recovery, a broader cross-case comparison is necessary to generalize these pathways into a recovery framework. Specifically, this study seeks to determine what pre-disaster and post-disaster causal factors, alone or in combination, were important to recovery following Hurricane Katrina.

This paper presents a cross-case comparative study of neighborhood-level recovery. Based on prior work, which used the Delphi method to determine hypothesized causal factors and indicators of recovery, data was collected through publically available sources, including the US Census, the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center and previously completed studies for 18 damaged neighborhoods. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis was used due to its ability to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data for smaller case studies.

The results show that there are multiple pathways combining pre-disaster community factors and post-disaster actions that led to recovery, as measured by population return. For example, economic capacity is nearly sufficient for recovery, but a combination of low social vulnerability, post-disaster community participation, a high proportion of pre-World War II housing stock and high amounts of post-disaster funds also led to recovery.

This research uses a novel method to link pre-disaster measures of resilience and vulnerability to recovery outcomes and, through cross-case comparison, generates results that will enable researchers to develop a theory of sustainable community recovery.

The purpose of this paper is to develop further the understanding of co-productive methodological practice for substance use research by demonstrating the use of a mobile, multimedia interviewing aid by members of a UK recovery community.

A co-productive approach to data collection was piloted using a bespoke, audio-visual booth located in a range of recovery and community-focused social events. Audio-visual data were collaboratively selected, curated and analysed by recovery community partners and researchers.

Findings illustrate how a mobile audio-visual booth can be used successfully within co-productive research. This approach facilitated a better understanding of the experiences and practices of self-reflection within the recovery community as they worked together to create a meaningful recovery largely independent of conventional recovery services.

This research was performed with one cohort of co-production members. However, the co-productive nature of the enquiry and the rich data this provided invites the making of cautious but firmer claims with regard to the transferability of this approach to similar recovery contexts.

Co-productive approaches confer a meaningful impact upon members of the recovery community, and wider understanding of this approach will promote an impact upon others engaging in recovery, supporting growth of a practice-based and theoretically underpinned evidence base.

This study highlights use of digital technologies within co-productive community-based methodologies, reducing reliance upon academic expertise, and facilitating participant leadership in research. The analysis also signposts new areas for scholarly discussion in the area of co-productive, community-driven research.

The aim of this paper is to highlight key themes and issues relating to the recovery phase of disaster. Particular emphasis is given to psychosocial and community dimensions and the lessons identified by and for those working in recovery‐related programmes. The paper starts with a review of the research undertaken as a result of two Winston Churchill Memorial Trust fellowships, and is followed by a discussion of the meaning and application of recovery in relation to emergency management.

Both Churchill projects shared the common aim of seeking to understand the meaning of psychosocial recovery following disaster from the perspective of those directly involved in community‐based activities. A snowball sampling approach enabled further contacts to develop beyond initial interviewees identified. The following themes informed the topics explored and questions asked: comparative experiences of community impacts of disasters and approaches to psychosocial support strategies; post‐disaster activities that supported the wellbeing of people and communities following major emergencies (and those which did not work so well); and lessons and implications for future post‐disaster recovery agendas.

The purpose and key principles of psychosocial recovery are highlighted, including the importance of focusing on people, facilitating community engagement and addressing organizational and personal resilience among recovery personnel. The need to plan for and address psychosocial recovery as part of an integrated and holistic approach to emergency management is a key message in this paper and, it is argued, is of relevance to all involved in dealing with disasters: “if there is an emergency to respond to, there is something to recover from”, as Kate Brady wrote in 2010 in Best Practice Psychosocial Recovery following Emergencies.

Further research might build on the themes identified here and draw further comparisons across other case studies in terms of the meaning of recovery and what “success” might mean in terms of recovery programmes. In the UK, a longitudinal perspective might also offer researchers opportunity to examine the experiences and lessons associated with psychosocial recovery across those communities affected by the decade of disasters in the 1980s, soon approaching their 30th anniversaries.

Based on primary research, the article reinforces and illustrates key themes and principles in the field of disaster recovery. It focusses on the psychosocial dimension, an aspect sometimes neglected in disaster management. Its messages are of value to both researchers and practitioners within the field of emergency management.

Social capitals in a community are in the form of bonding, bridging and linking through social networks. This paper aims to determine the role of social capital in the recovery process of cultural heritage sites. It identifies the existing social capital and the role of community.

The paper is based on the existing literature reviews complemented by the questionnaire survey. Three disaster-affected cultural heritage sites in Kathmandu were selected for the study. The questionnaire survey and group discussion with 300 disaster survivors were conducted.

This paper discusses social capital and its limitations for recovery. It proposes a new model of disaster recovery based on social capital and community.

This research is based on the region with high social capital. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test in the low social capital community.

The approach of disaster recovery discussed in this paper can be implemented in the cultural heritage rebuilding after the disaster.

This paper is based on social capital and community involvement. This paper identifies the importance of community involvement in the recovery.

The paper identified that during the recovery, in addition to social capitals, the role of community participation is unavoidable. This paper demonstrated how recovery is complicated despite external resources without community participation.

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.

This chapter focuses on the experiences and processes of earthquake recovery to discuss the general state of disaster recovery in Japan. In this way, it is expected that the outcome and discussion can provide effective insights for both domestic and international disaster-related efforts. First, the characteristics of natural disasters in Japan are summarized using statistical data. Quantitative and qualitative methods are flexibly used to analyze published data, materials, and semistructured interview data. Published data and materials are collected from various sources. Interview data were gained from diverse interviewees. Then, four case studies of earthquake recovery are introduced and the application of their recovery experiences to future disaster risk reduction is proposed. Finally, conclusions have been drawn from these case studies to show the practical influence of disaster-recovery experiences to regions that are currently experiencing or are likely to experience natural disasters in the future. More specifically, the chapter illustrates what challenges and influences past earthquakes can have on our present preparedness against a Nankai Trough Earthquake, which is predicted to occur in the near future.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the local wisdom‐based recovery model that has been applied in the Bantul district, Yogyakarta, Indonesia following the 2006 earthquake. This recovery model might appropriately be implemented in any type of local government in developing countries which have strong local culture characteristics.

This research is an exploratory case study which concentrates on the Bantul district. Data were gathered in two categories: primary data and secondary data. Primary data were collected through in‐depth interviews. Secondary data were collected from related document such as articles, books, web sites or government and NGO reports.

Bantul is a small district in the province of Yogyakarta Special region, Indonesia, and is known to be a highly urbanized area, poverty‐stricken and lacking in funds, and with a limited capability to manage a disaster. However, the two years of recovery has resulted in “reimaging” this district as a well‐planned area with a correctly targeted development strategy. The results of the recovery phase were satisfactory. The recovery efforts paid due respect to the high quality of existing local cultures and popular wisdom. Principally, it is the people themselves who should decide how to rebuild their houses. Local government has only provided assistance for earthquake‐resistant houses and has supported basic housing needs.

This paper presents lessons learnt from local government in a developing country in dealing with a recovery process based on local community wisdom.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the role of community participation in reducing anxiety and trauma in communities during two New Zealand earthquakes: the 1987 Edgecumbe and 2003 Te Anau events and explore the effectiveness of various approaches in providing information, reducing stress, and facilitating a recovery process.

The principle methods of data collection were semi‐structured interviews were undertaken between October 2006 and March 2007 with key agencies and individuals involved in the response and comprehensive analysis of papers, reports and articles in newspapers. The research was undertaken prior to the 4 September 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, and therefore community recovery from these events are not discussed in this paper.

Effective survival and recovery from disasters depends not just on people's abilities to cope with the physical impacts of the event, but also on how the societal environment complements and supports the complex and protracted processes of community recovery. Central to recovery is how society organises, mobilises and coordinates the diverse range of organizational and professional resources that can be called upon to assist recovery.

The paper offers insight into the effectiveness and benefit of incorporating of community participation in reducing anxiety and trauma in communities during earthquakes.