Search results

This conversation presents the reflections from six international disaster scholars on how disaster capitalism manifested in very different ways in different countries, including Japan, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the September 15, 2020.

The prominent themes in this conversation include profiteering, oppression and the politics of disasters.

The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around disaster capitalism and disaster risk creation.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the reliability of Build Back Better slogan in the context of post-disaster housing reconstruction in developing countries, at enhancing disaster-resilience of housing and its occupants in the long term from socio-ecological systems resilience perspective.

A predominantly qualitative methodology and multi-disciplinary case study methodology is adopted to compare long-term outcomes of two post-disaster housing reconstruction interventions: post-2008 Bihar Kosi River floods in India and post-2010 Mentawai earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia.

Out of the nine generalizable findings, two of the most significant findings include giving freedom of choice or human capabilities to the disaster survivors and sustaining capacity development during and beyond the completion of housing reconstruction. These two processes play a significant role in linking reconstruction to resilience in the long term, especially of those living at- risk and poverty.

This paper further advances the current scholarship on overarching long-term impacts of housing reconstruction efforts, based on longitudinal and empirical studies in India and Indonesia. While these findings represent a snapshot of diverse and complex disaster experiences in the developing-world context, the comparison offers insight into how to turn the rhetoric surrounding “owner-driven” or “built back better” into long-term resilience outcomes.

Post-disaster reconstruction poses a double-edged sword to its implementers as it demands addressing survivors’ need for speed as well as meeting the growing expectation to trigger resilience. While an owner-driven housing reconstruction (ODHR), inter-disciplinary and long-term approach has been promoted internationally; however, there is limited research focussed on the long-term impacts (>10 years after a disaster) of ODHR. Furthermore, there is no one accepted framework for practitioners to guide through the process of ODHR projects to carve pathways for disaster resilience. The purpose of this paper is to assimilate findings—contingent and generalisable—into a novel framework for future change in practice.

This paper deployed a mixed methods methodology with a comparative case study research method. Two case study projects were from the Indian state of Gujarat, 13 years after the 2001 earthquake and the other two from Bihar, 6 years since the 2008 Kosi river floods. Due to multi-disciplinary nature of research, empirical data collection relied on a mix of social sciences methods including 80 semi-structured interviews, and architectural research methods including the visual analysis of photographs and sketches. Three sample groups of agency members, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were purposively selected. Thematic content analysis was used for the data analysis.

The paper provides empirical insights on how ODHR projects in Indian states of Gujarat and Bihar succeeded at enhancing disaster resilience of communities. It suggests that the civil society organisations acted as “enablers” at four stages: envisioning strategically based on systemic understanding, building soft assets including community trust and dignity for social mobilisation prior to, proposing minor modifications to construction technology for its multi-hazard safety as well as cultural relevance, and sustaining capacity building efforts beyond reconstruction completion or beyond one project life-cycle.

The author of this paper cautions that the spiral framework needs further development to make it flexibility and customisable to suit the specifics of a particular context.

The implications of the findings discussed in this paper are primarily for practitioners involved in disaster recovery and development sector. Since prevailing models or frameworks neither incorporate multi-disciplinary approach (demanded by socio-ecological systems resilience concept), nor represent project scale, a novel, four-pronged framework for ODHR has been proposed in this paper for strategic success. The framework has been illustrated in spiral and tabular forms, and has been kept abstract to provide practitioners the much-needed flexibility for adapting it to suit the specifics of a particular context.

The purpose of this paper is to identify “key processes” during the owner-driven reconstruction (ODR) process by implementing agencies, to enhance the long-term disaster-resilience of housing and community.

A mixed methods methodology and “case-study” approach is adopted to compare good practice reconstruction projects in India in the past 15 years. This paper discusses findings from investigations conducted in two settlements of Bihar – Orlaha and Puraini, after major flooding in 2008. The sites were visited during 2012 and 2014.

One of the key processes that lead to the success of the ODR process in terms of its effect on the long-term disaster-resilience in Bihar is community mobilisation it functions primarily as an information and communication device promoting the success (or otherwise) of the reconstruction project.

The findings are based on empirical evidence gathered during in-field investigations and interviews to post-disaster reconstructed villages. While these findings represent a snapshot of diverse and complex disaster experiences in the Indian context, the comparison offers insight on how to turn the rhetoric surrounding “owner-driven” or “built back better” into positive long-term community outcomes.

This paper aims to highlight the localised shelter solutions to fulfil adequate and disaster resilient housing needs of urban informal settlers of Honiara, the capital city of Solomon Islands, in a way that is sensitive to their unique challenges, values and aspirations, is gender- and disability-inclusive, and considers housing from the complete lifecycle of a disaster (pre-, during- and post-).

Qualitative data was gathered through empirical research through five community workshops at five hotspot settlements, two stakeholder workshops and a stakeholder interview. Semi-structured questions as well as photographs of housing and settlement were used for data collection. With an emphasis on self-recovery, the identified shelter needs were then matched with the roles and responsibilities of the Government to support a process of “assisted” self-preparedness and recovery.

The output of the research was the Solomon Islands Shelter Guide. This paper draws from the Guide to present some of the findings. One of the key findings was an emphasis on shelter self-preparedness and self-recovery. However, in order for them to do that, they needed a combination of assistance – technical knowledge, materials and financial support – which is tailored to their settlement’s specific needs and based on hazard damage assessment. While the Guide provides one form of the assistance (i.e. technical), this paper is a call for action from the Solomon Islands Government and shelter responders to fulfil the rest of the community needs for shelter adequacy.

The paper contributes to existing scholarship on shelter after disasters by adding “assisted” in front of self-recovery, in line with the limited access to resources by the most vulnerable to recover, despite housing being” a human right and definition of adequate housing (UN-Habitat, 2015, 2021), which includes freedom of choice, entitlements and meeting minimum adequacy criteria.

There are many implications of this research. Since the publication of the Shelter Guide, there is excitement among most humanitarian and development agencies, government authorities and the local communities in Honiara. The Guide forms the first step in contributing to identified needs and strengthening community capacities to self-build, self-recover or self-retrofit one’s house based on their own choice of materials, design, social and economic circumstance. However, it provides one of the three elements identified as needs by the communities, as i) technical guidance, and a kit-of parts for multi-hazard safe housing, ii) financial and economic assistance and iii) a political voice or being supported and heard by the government. The research team are working with the same five urban informal communities in 2022–2023 to develop and operationalise local disaster plans (in partnership with local non-government organisations), capacity-building activities and translation of the Shelter Guide into technical posters (for local builders) and graphic novel in local pidgin language, as part of the Climate Resilient Honiara project (funded by the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) Adaptation fund and administered by UN-Habitat). In the longer term it would be worth evaluating the practical implications of the Guide or to examine whether the proposed socio-technical and governance guidance will find roots in the local culture.

While the Guide adhered to internationally agreed concepts of self-recovery, incremental shelter and core space, it contributes to existing scholarship on shelter after disasters by adding “assisted” in front of self-recovery, in line with housing as a human right and adequate housing (UN-Habitat, 2015, 2021), including freedom of choice, entitlements and meet minimum adequacy criteria, all of which require materials and financial assistance by the relevant in-country authorities.