Search results

1 – 8 of 8
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 October 2020

Shankar Neeraj, Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Wilkinson

This paper aims to understand the recovery process after the 2018 floods in Kerala, India, and it determines whether the recovery efforts were aligned with Build Back…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to understand the recovery process after the 2018 floods in Kerala, India, and it determines whether the recovery efforts were aligned with Build Back Better (BBB) concepts.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative approach was adopted to collect the data from the officials of Government and NGOs involved in Kerala recovery. The participants were interviewed on the challenges faced during the recovery process and the actions taken by them to overcome it.

Findings

The study identified that the Kerala Government was proactive at making the community resilient from future disasters by – encouraging owner-driven reconstruction among flood-affected households; supporting locals to rejuvenate their business; and by creating a local-level recovery authority. Further, this paper identifies the areas that Kerala was lacking in terms of BBB and where resilience-based plans and actions are needed for the future.

Research limitations/implications

The participants were employees of Government and NGOs at a state level as they were the primary decision-makers to implement any recovery actions. Researchers believe that the authorities at district and village level could have had a different perspective towards implementing the recovery actions.

Practical implications

The best practices presented in this paper for effective BBB will assist the government to build/improve resilience in the community.

Originality/value

The implementation of BBB concepts in the areas of disaster risk reduction, community recovery and effective implementation was never studied extensively. The research provides valuable information on what extent Kerala’s post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities were in-line with BBB practices.

Details

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 12 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-5908

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 6 February 2017

Mark Bassett, Suzanne Wilkinson and Sandeeka Mannakkara

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, vol. 26 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0965-3562

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 14 December 2020

Elrasheid Elkhidir, Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Wilkinson

The purpose of this paper is to establish the factors affecting the selection of a suitable partner city for resilience building at the national level.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to establish the factors affecting the selection of a suitable partner city for resilience building at the national level.

Design/methodology/approach

An exploratory sequential research was adopted using New Zealand as a case study. Data were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews and subsequently validated through an online survey.

Findings

The study confirmed that the criteria for selecting partner cities for collaboration and knowledge sharing on resilience were similarity of hazards, geographic proximity, city resources and priorities, resilience performance, city size and demographics, previous relationship, willingness to collaborate and similar industries.

Practical implications

The findings of this paper will help guide cities that are interested in developing national-level resilience partnerships through the process of selecting the most suitable partner cities.

Originality/value

Despite the existence of international intercity resilience networks, there is a lack of information on the criteria affecting the selection of suitable resilience partner cities at the national level. This paper addresses this gap and offers informed decision-making criteria for cities to consider.

Details

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 12 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-5908

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 11 June 2018

Tinu Rose Francis, Suzanne Wilkinson, Sandeeka Mannakkara and Alice Chang-Richards

The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes were one of the most devastating events in New Zealand’s history. Due to the large scale of disruption and losses, the central…

Abstract

Purpose

The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes were one of the most devastating events in New Zealand’s history. Due to the large scale of disruption and losses, the central government created a separate body, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to manage and oversee recovery activities. Working with local authorities and stakeholders, CERA plays a major role in driving the recovery in Christchurch. This paper aims to analyse CERA’s decision-making process and the effects of some of its critical decisions on the recovery outcomes. The paper takes a “build back better” (BBB) perspective to understand the decisions taken and processes used.

Design/methodology/approach

The case study adopted a mixed-methods research design (Creswell, 2013) and was conducted by reviewing official CERA documents and publications related to its recovery assessments and by conducting interviews with key officials from CERA. Collecting data from both qualitative and quantitative data sources enabled the process of triangulation.

Findings

Lessons learned from the Canterbury experience in terms of recovery best practices are reported. CERA’s recovery policy aimed to give confidence to the community and renew and revitalise the damaged city. Compared with the BBB theory, the community-driven recovery strategy and the multi-stakeholder approach worked well. Other critical decisions aligned with the BBB theory include land zoning, empowering community and integration with existing developmental plans.

Originality/value

BBB can be used as a tool for the implementation of recovery and restoration measures following a large disaster. However, a set of practical indicators to measure the level of BBB is needed.

Details

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 9 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-5908

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 19 May 2020

Rizwan Akbar Ali, Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Wilkinson

This paper aims to describe an in-depth study conducted on transition of recovery into subsequent recovery phases after the 2010 super floods in the Sindh province of…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to describe an in-depth study conducted on transition of recovery into subsequent recovery phases after the 2010 super floods in the Sindh province of Pakistan. The objectives of this research were to examine the post-disaster activities after the floods and highlight the critical areas hindering the transition into an effective recovery phase.

Design/methodology/approach

A case study approach based on literature reviews with semi-structured interviews with disaster management stakeholders were applied as the primary source of data.

Findings

The study found that long-term recovery was the most neglected phase of post-disaster recovery (PDR). The factors hindering successful transition following short-term recovery activities are lack of following: community-level involvement, local administration and community capacity, disaster governance, different stakeholders and coordination, information and knowledge management.

Research limitations/implications

This paper examines the long-term disaster recovery after the 2010 super floods in three districts of Sindh. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to investigate the factors in other areas for different types of disasters.

Practical implications

These findings are critical to planning future post-disaster recoveries in the region. It also provides a basis to investigate other types of disasters.

Originality/value

The transition of recovery into long-term phase has never been investigated before. The recovery phase is an opportune time to incorporate strategies for building back better, resilience, mitigation and preparedness. A PDR that does not incorporate these strategies in the long-term leaves affected communities in more vulnerable conditions for future disasters.

Details

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 11 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-5908

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 8 June 2015

Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Jane Wilkinson

– 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).

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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

Originality/value

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.

Details

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 6 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-5908

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 27 May 2014

Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Wilkinson

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

Downloads
1676

Abstract

Purpose

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

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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

Originality/value

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.

Details

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 7 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1753-8378

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 23 August 2013

Sandeeka Mannakkara and Suzanne Wilkinson

The purpose of the paper is to inform stakeholders involved in post‐disaster reconstruction how to incorporate Build Back Better (BBB) principles when implementing…

Downloads
1695

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Structural Survey, vol. 31 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0263-080X

Keywords

1 – 8 of 8