Search results

This chapter provides the foundation for the book. The objective of this chapter is to outline the theme of the book and to provide the context for the chapters that follow. Disaster recovery is a challenge for governments and for affected communities, families, and individuals. It is a challenge, because recovery from catastrophic disasters can be much more complicated and elusive than what can be addressed by national and international aid organizations given the time and other resources. The short literature review provides the research context, and the overview of the book describes each of the chapters briefly.

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.

The Morgan Library at Colorado State University in Fort Collins suffered catastrophic flooding as the result of a historic rain storm and flood that swept through the town on July 28, 1997. This study examines this single library's organizational disaster response and identifies the phenomena that the library's employees cited as their motivation for innovation.

Purpose – This study provides an example of a library where a pre-disaster and post-disaster organizational environment was supportive of experimentation. This influenced the employees’ capacity and motivation to create a new tool meant to solve a temporary need. Their invention, a service now called RapidILL, advanced the Morgan Library organization beyond disaster recovery and has become an effective and popular consortium of libraries.

Design/methodology/approach – This is an instrumental case study. This design was chosen to examine the issues in organizational learning that the single case of Morgan Library presents. The researcher interviewed employees who survived the 1997 flood and who worked in the library after the disaster. The interview results and a book written by staff members are the most important data that form the basis for this qualitative research.

The interviews were transcribed, and key phrases and information from both the interviews and the published book were isolated into themes for coding. The coding allowed the use of NVivo 7, a text analysis software, to search in employees’ stories for “feeling” words and themes about change, innovation, motivation, and mental models.

Three research questions for the study sought to learn how employees described their lived experience, how the disaster altered their mental models of change, and what factors in the disaster response experience promoted learning and innovation.

Findings – This study investigates how the disruptive forces of disaster can influence and promote organizational learning and foster innovation. Analysis of the data demonstrates how the library employees’ feelings of trust before and following a workplace disaster shifted their mental models of change. They felt empowered to act and assert their own ideas; they did not simply react to change acting upon them.

Emotions motivate adaptive actions, facilitating change. The library employees’ lived experiences and feelings influenced what they learned, how quickly they learned it, and how that learning contributed to their innovations after the disaster. The library's supervisory and administrative leaders encouraged staff members to try out new ideas. This approach invigorated staff members’ feelings of trust and motivated them to contribute their efforts and ideas. Feeling free to experiment, they tapped their creativity and provided adaptations and innovations.

Practical implications – A disaster imposes immediate and often unanticipated change upon people and organizations. A disaster response urgently demands that employees do things differently; it also may require that employees do different things.

Successful organizations must become adept at creating and implementing changes to remain relevant and effective in the environments in which they operate. They need to ensure that employees generate and test as many ideas as possible in order to maximize the opportunity to uncover the best new thinking. This applies to libraries as well as to any other organizations.

If library leaders understand the conditions under which employees are most motivated to let go of fear and alter the mental models they use to interpret their work world, it should be possible and desirable to re-create those conditions and improve the ability of their organizations to tap into employees’ talent, spur innovation, and generate meaningful change.

Social implications – Trust and opportunities for learning can be central to employees’ ability to embrace change as a positive state in which their creativity flourishes and contributes to the success of the organization. When leaders support experimentation, employees utilize and value their affective connections as much as their professional knowledge. Work environments that promote experimentation and trust are ones in which employees at any rank feel secure enough to propose and experiment with innovative services, products, or workflows.

Originality/value – The first of its kind to examine library organizations, this study offers direct evidence to show that organizational learning and progress flourish through a combination of positive affective experiences and experimentation. The study shows how mental models, organizational learning, and innovation may help employees create significantly effective organizational advances while under duress.

An original formula is presented in Fig. 1.

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.

This chapter describes the complexity of large-scale disaster recovery programs in the United States, the challenges faced by these programs, and the importance of multiteam systems in overcoming these challenges.

This chapter is a case study based on the experience of the authors in hurricane recovery programs.

Multiteam systems provide the range of expertise and experience needed to implement complex large-scale disaster recovery programs. For such disasters, responsibility for recovery work needs to be divided among specialized teams with unique expertise, some of which act as checks and balances for others. Challenges facing these teams include ensuring compliance with multiple Federal and state requirements, providing sufficient training to program staff, modifying procedures in response to changing program policies, and communicating changes for all pressure to move quickly, while at the same time facing intense pressure to process applications for assistance as rapidly as possible.

This chapter provides organizations responsible for disaster recovery important information about the scope of work and challenges they are likely to face following a large-scale disaster.

Disasters do not discriminate. Socio-political systems create the circumstances by which hazards disproportionately impact some individuals more than others. It is also these systems that either provide policies, procedures, and processes to help every person recover in an effective and positive manner, or create further inequalities and inequities leading to additional harm and delivering insufficient opportunities for substantial recovery. This chapter seeks to explore the unique disaster response considerations that must be taken into account for individuals with access and functional needs, and the subsequent challenges in recovery that may be experienced by this population. This exploration will be through the lens of justice, including the roles of equality, equity, and human rights. More specifically, this chapter will examine Jerolleman’s principles for Just Recovery and the applicability of this concept to individuals with access and functional needs.

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.

This study aims to examine the role of information and communication technology (ICT)-based communication technologies to create a sustainable recovery strategy through Build Back Better practice in the existing policy framework of Bangladesh. Its purpose is to analyse the problems associated with the current recovery process of the country and how the ICT-based communication technology can improve the situation. Nevertheless, the aim also extends towards the limitation of the technology and the infrastructures and possible adjustments in this regard.

To achieve the aim, the study conducted an extensive literature review of numerous grey literature, policy papers and scientific/academic articles in an exploratory approach.

The result shows that the disaster recovery process of Bangladesh is slow, and there are some mismanagements (the lengthy risk assessment using ancient data generation processes, lack of accessibility and report-based data product) which was a cause behind the massive destruction done by recent cyclones. The ICT-based methods (proper database, many to many communications, GIS) can make this response faster, transparent and easy to access.

The research results may lack generalizability due to the research approach of the study. Thus, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

The study includes some possible adjustments to the argument for the existing policy infrastructure and scope of communication technology to bridge the theory and practice.

The study also includes some suggestions to engage society in disaster recovery processes.

This paper urges to study the implication of technology in terms of disaster recovery on a broad scale.

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.

There is a noticeable confusion in the literature between Business Continuity Planning (BCP) and Disaster Recovery Planning (DRP). The two expressions are very often used interchangeably especially when it comes to their application. In this paper, the differences between business continuity and disaster recovery are discussed. The disaster management cycle is also addressed in order to highlight the importance of having plans before, during and after the occurrence of an incident.

A review of the extant literature on business continuity and disaster recovery was made. A number of different views were then presented in order to provide a better understanding of the two concepts and their potential overlap/connection. The literature review was conducted in 2020 using a variety of academic resources ranging from journal articles to text books and credible Internet websites. Relevant journal articles were obtained from two primary databases: Emerald Insight and EBSCOhost. Keywords, such as DRP, continuity, disruption and BCP, were mainly used to facilitate the search for these resources and other related material.

Reviewing the literature revealed that BCP and DRP are not the same. Yet, they are used interchangeably very often in the literature. This indicates a possible relationship/overlap between the two. The relationship between BCP and DRP can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, which altogether provide a better understanding of their purposes and application.

On top of the need to differentiate between business continuity and disaster recovery, the widespread impact of the current COVID-19 crisis, especially on businesses and supply chains, has unfolded the necessity to deal with business disruptions in all their forms and the significance of quick and effective recovery. This research clarifies the purpose of BCP and the purpose of DRP and their role in combating impacts of disruptive incidents on businesses and organizations.

BCP and DRP are discussed extensively in the literature. Yet, few studies attempted to address the precise functions of the two resulting in an obvious confusion between their meaning and purpose which subsequently reduced the uniqueness of their application and the uniqueness of the application of each. Only a small minority of practitioners and academics recognise the precise differences between the two. This study aims at clarifying this misconception to a wider set of readers and interested parties.