Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand the resourcing issues that concern the provision of resources required for reconstruction projects after a disaster and to enable them to be integrated into a holistic planning process.

Triangulation methodology is adopted in this paper including both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative approach, namely statistic analysis with the aid of questionnaires and SPSS is employed to identify the key factors affecting resource availability in post‐disaster reconstruction situations. The qualitative semi‐structured interviews and desk reviews of government and media documents are conducted to further interpret outcomes in the questionnaire session.

Based on empirical research, the major finding of the paper is that in order to arrive at a resilient and sustainable built environment after a disaster, resourcing efforts should be made around four components – resourcing facilitator: legislation and policy; resourcing implementer: construction industry; resourcing platform: construction market; and resourcing access: transportation system.

The original part of this paper is in raising the importance of resourcing for achieving a resilient post‐disaster built environment, and in presenting a thorough overhaul of the resourcing components. The paper also offers a vision of comprehensive planning and preparedness to facilitate resourcing operations in post‐disaster reconstruction; pinpoints possible constraints inherent in post‐disaster resourcing environment; and provides a direction‐setting framework to achieve the vision with built environment resilience considerations incorporated.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation. The study reported in this paper is part of ongoing research concerned with developing a methodology to improve the outcomes of resource availability for projects in post‐disaster environments. This study attempts to address the following questions: what factors impinge upon the availability of resources in a disaster recovery project and what are the common resource availability determinants across different recovery environments?

The method of analysis in this investigation is a comparative case study. The researchers took part in disaster field trips to Indonesia, China and Australia during their recovery from natural disasters. By using case studies and a triangulation method, critical factors that affected resource availability in the three examined countries were identified and compared.

A comparative analysis shows that specific cultural elements, the socio‐economic environment and the political agenda in the three countries influenced their resourcing problems and the solutions they adopted. Despite different resourcing approaches in the three cases, competence of construction professionals, and government response and intervention were identified as common determinants to resourcing disaster recovery projects.

The research findings contribute to the project management methodology to post‐disaster reconstruction.

From this research, decision makers and construction practitioners can have a clearer direction for improving their resourcing effort in a post‐disaster situation. This study provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation, with a view to enhancing their capability of managing disaster recovery projects.

A comparative analysis of three cases provides a multi‐perspective view of the resourcing issues in a post‐disaster situation. As many problems are faced in disaster recovery projects, resource availability intrinsically links to chronic conditions of vulnerability in existence in the broader social system prior to a disaster. The five aspects of resourcing discussed in the paper show the key areas of recovery planning in relation to resource availability.

In large and complex disaster recovery operations, the availability of resources is bound to be limited. Identified resourcing problems are likely to be universal and can be anticipated and pre‐planned for, irrespective of the environment when a disaster happens. The paper provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation.

This paper seeks to explore the application of auditing and quality assurance principles and practices to the planning and implementation of post‐disaster recovery and reconstruction.

The paper notes the risk to a disaster recovery organization's credibility if fraud and poor performance are apparent in its efforts to support disaster recovery and reconstruction, and it provides examples of relief organizations' efforts to ensure that their actions are both credible and effective. The paper examines the complex and multi‐faceted processes of post‐disaster recovery and reconstruction, and it describes the growing emphasis around the world on social justice/equity issues and the importance of proper governance. It explores the advantages and pitfalls of incorporating auditing practices into the effective implementation of recovery and reconstruction activities. The paper concludes with a discussion of the importance to the affected communities of knowing that expenditures – both financial and emotional – will achieve something better.

Recovery and reconstruction efforts can help to mitigate possible future disaster effects by making the community more sustainable and more survivable. Mechanisms for assessing whether recovery funds were well spent are often weak or missing. A potential solution is to adapt and apply the processes and protocols of performance auditing and performance measurement to recovery and reconstruction – identifying risks and controls, setting measurable targets, assessing whether sustainability and survivability goals are met.

Recovery and reconstruction efforts would gain greater credibility with aid donors, stakeholders, and the affected public by having formal programs in place for assessing recovery performance

There is a need to understand resourcing issues when reconstructing the built environment in a post‐disaster situation. The purpose of this paper is to determine the resourcing difficulties that are likely to face the international practitioners in post‐disaster reconstruction by identifying and comparing the factors that affected resource availability following natural disasters in Indonesia and China respectively.

The research methodology included field‐based questionnaire surveys, semi‐structured interviews and observations. A comparative analysis was used to extract similarities and differences with regard to resourcing approaches in Indonesia and China.

Despite the different resourcing approaches adopted in Indonesia and China in their recovery from large‐scale disasters, there are common issues facing post‐disaster reconstruction stakeholders, including competence of the implementing agencies, capacity of transportation, governance and legislation, and market conditions. Specifically, community‐related housing features played a dominant role in donor‐driven resourcing practice in post‐Indian Ocean tsunami reconstruction in Indonesia, whereas factors related to project control and management primarily contributed to resourcing performance of Chinese reconstruction specialists following the Wenchuan earthquake.

To solve resourcing problems, countries need to create an enabling environment and build institutional capacity. The cross‐cultural comparative analysis encourages policy makers and practitioners to exchange experiences from recent recovery operations.

The paper illustrates the infrastructural and institutional weaknesses that hindered effective resource procurement during post‐disaster reconstruction in Indonesia and China. The research findings show common areas in need of improvement in other disaster prone countries, along with the issues to be addressed in the donor‐led or contractor‐led resourcing practice in the two studied countries.

The purpose of this paper is to understand and define the concept of Building Back Better (BBB) and represent it using a comprehensive framework.

Literature related to the concept of BBB were studied to understand the key concepts which constitute BBB. These concepts were analysed and categorised to form the basis of the proposed BBB framework.

Post-disaster recovery in-line with BBB concepts can be achieved by having a holistic view of four key categories: risk reduction entails improving the resilience of the built environment through improvement of structural designs and land-use planning; community recovery includes addressing and supporting psycho-social recovery of communities and supporting economic rejuvenation; implementation addresses ways in which risk reduction and community recovery practices can be put in place in an efficient and effective way; monitoring and evaluation stretches across the first three categories, and calls for putting in place mechanisms to monitor and evaluate recovery activities to ensure compliance with BBB-based concepts and obtain lessons to improve future disaster management practices.

The BBB Framework generated in this study can be used as a foundation to determine best-practice recommendations to implement recovery activities under each of the BBB categories.

The BBB Framework forms a guideline to holistically plan and implement recovery programmes in order to BBB.

A comprehensive guideline or framework which clarified what BBB really means is currently inexistent. This paper addressed this research gap by amalgamating existing information to create a singular framework to simply and comprehensively represent BBB.

Improving the resilience of the construction sector helps countries recover quicker from crises and can assist with improving community resilience and recovery. This study aims to explore ways in which the construction sector might improve its resilience.

This paper examined past disasters and the role construction plays to understand what and how better construction resilience can be built, and the impact this will have on recovery and reconstruction.

The findings showed that after a crisis, the construction sector is called upon to manage building and infrastructure recovery and reconstruction. Construction organisations are needed by the community, as they provide physical resources, people, materials, logistics, management and technical expertise and rebuilding. To ensure that recovery and reconstruction programs are successfully implemented, it is necessary for the construction sector to be resilient. To achieve improved resilience in the construction industry, disaster resilience management needs to become mainstreamed into construction processes.

Although larger organisations have some preparation to respond to crises, including having emergency or disaster plans, smaller companies struggle to achieve a reasonable level of resilience. It appears that senior management and key people in construction organisations are familiar with the procedures but that the majority of staff in organisations lack knowledge and skills.

Understanding the role the construction sector plays in disasters and providing directions for improving construction sector resilience will ultimately improve recovery and reconstruction outcomes.

This paper discusses how communities rely on services provided by construction organisations to enable them to recover from emergencies and crises. Pre-disaster construction company resilience impacts on the ability of construction companies to function post-disaster.

This paper focuses on a number of cases and shows where and how the construction sector has worked in disasters and provides a new analysis of the role the industry plays, and the various disaster stages where the industry has maximum impact.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to determine how post-disaster legislation can be used to support building back better (BBB) in the horizontal infrastructure sector (roading, water, wastewater and stormwater networks).

A case study approach was taken looking at the rebuild following the Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand. Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured open-ended interviews with members of the organization responsible for implementing the horizontal infrastructure rebuild.

The results showed that the post-disaster legislative actions taken in Christchurch were comparable to existing findings on post-disaster legislative best practices in developed countries. This study confirmed that post-disaster legislation is an effective mechanism to support BBB through enforcing BBB concepts such as risk reduction and better implementation, and facilitating the recovery process to improve efficiency.

It is recommended that this study is extended to conduct similar case studies in other countries to further explore legislative implications in different sectors as well as different legislative environments.

This paper makes a valuable contribution to existing research on how post-disaster legislation can be used to support BBB in the horizontal infrastructure sector. The findings also add to wider knowledge on the Canterbury earthquakes recovery process.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesise critical success factors (CSFs) for advancing post-disaster infrastructure recovery and underpinning recovery authorities in decision making when facing future disasters.

The seismic recovery after the Canterbury (NZ) earthquake sequence in 2010-2011 was selected as a case study for identifying CSFs for an efficient recovery of infrastructure post-disaster. A combination of research approaches, including archival study, observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted for collecting data and evidences by engaging with participants involved at various tiers in the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. The CSFs are evaluated and analysed by tracking the decision-making process, examining resultant consequences and foreseeing onwards challenges.

Six salient CSFs for strengthening infrastructure recovery management after disasters are identified. Furthermore, the study shows how each of these CSFs have been incorporated into the decision-making process in support of the post-disaster recovery and what difficulties encountered in the recovery process when implementing.

The proposed CSFs provide a future reference and guidance to be drawn on by decision makers when project-managing post-disaster recovery operations.

The value of the paper is that it bridges the gap between managerial contexts and technical aspects of post-disaster recovery process in an effort to rapidly and efficiently rebuild municipal infrastructure.

The protection of traditional grassroots place-making knowledge and skills that comprise valuable intangible heritage has not been attracting enough attention in the field of post-disaster reconstruction and recovery. Based on the Guchengping Village’s reconstruction that followed the Lushan earthquake (Sichuan, China), the purpose of this paper is to identify the benefits of a co-design approach for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, in order to ascertain various stakeholders’ contributions toward the protection of community-based intangible place-making heritage.

A qualitative method was employed to assist the professional designers in facilitating the co-design approach by bridging governments closer together with local communities. At the governmental level, focus groups and personal interviews were conducted to discover the government’s role in preserving the communities’ intangible heritage. At the community level, community-based workshops and family-based design partnerships engaged various community stakeholders to decipher their roles and contributions toward advancing the heritage age.

As the advocates of intangible heritage, all levels of government guaranteed that intangible heritage would be safeguarded in the government strategic plans. At the community level, local residents played a fundamental role as the grassroots protectors. Professional designers utilized cutting edge technologies to improve weaknesses found in the traditional knowledge and skills, by performing the protection in practice. Community-based service agencies promoted the value of heritage to address societal issues.

The co-design approach offered a new method of intangible heritage protection in post-disaster reconstruction and recovery by engaging different stakeholders, in order to effectively transfer the governmental strategic plans into community-based action plans, and in turn, enabled the grassroots voice to inform the government policies.