Search results

Pre-colonization, Tribes lived in ways that were well-adapted to natural hazards and stewarded the environment respectfully. Colonization and the federal reservation system have stuck Tribes in static, often hazard-prone, areas; removing their foundational capabilities for avoiding disaster and environmental hazard impacts. The premise of ceded lands and the reservation system was a trust responsibility of the federal government to provide resources for continuing self-governance of Tribal Nations. Fulfillment of the federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribal Nations in the realm of climate change and disasters is predicated on the provision of sufficient resources for the Tribal Nation itself to properly govern. The trust responsibility is not fulfilled through the federal government allowing applications to program-dictated grant opportunities or even consistent, yet insufficient, recurring funding for disaster management. Nor is the trust responsibility fulfilled through the preparation and resourcing of outside entities – local, state, and up to the federal government itself – to enact disaster management actions on sovereign lands. The ability of a nation to develop and administer governmental programs and services independent of outside interference is the very foundation of sovereignty and self-determination. The fulfillment of the trust responsibility for disaster management hinges, therefore, on the allocation of sufficient resources and legal space for self-governance for Tribal Nations to return to pre-colonization levels of capability and sovereignty for disaster management for their citizens and residents.

The paper illustrates how accountability of collaborative governance was constituted in the context of disaster managerial work carried out by the Government, local authorities, and Maori community organisations, after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand.

A case study detailing the communitarian approach to disaster recovery management by a nationalised Maori earthquake response network is contrasted with the formal emergency management infrastructure's response to the Canterbury earthquakes.

Critical analysis of the effectiveness and failures of these approaches highlights the institutional and cultural political issues that hinder the institutionalization of collaborative and accountable governance in the fields of disaster risk reduction and emergency management.

The paper contributes to the accountability research and practice in general and disaster accountability in particular by addressing a more multifaceted model of ‘accountability combined with collaborative governance’ as a way to build on and critique some of the seemingly more narrow views of accountability.

The study presents rare insights on the interactions between formal and community level accountability and collaborative governance in the context of New Public Governance (NPG).

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.

This chapter discusses some issues of diversity in hazard mitigation when just recovery is considered or not. Justice in hazard mitigation becomes crucial considering unequal distribution of resources, systemic racism, and social vulnerability to hazards. While there has been research on just recovery, there is little or no evidence of research that examines the issue of equity and justice in hazard mitigation, This chapter discusses what hazard mitigation is, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 focusing on the planning process, public involvement in the planning process, some planning theories on vulnerability, and building the case for achieving and striving for justice and equity in promoting diversity in hazard mitigation. The chapter makes some recommendation on how to achieve diversity in hazard mitigation.

It has been observed in a number of recent disasters, and most evidently after the South Asian tsunami, that remote, underdeveloped, and most vulnerable communities take the longest to recover, in‐spite of an abundance of resources available for supporting them. The loss compounding approach of analysing the tsunami impact is a useful way of identifying those factors within the recovery process that need attention for helping affected communities get rehabilitated in a better and faster manner. The paper seeks to address this issue.

The paper looks at how and why the recovery process has been slower and less efficient in the tsunami affected small island communities of India as compared to the mainland communities. This is further analysed in terms of the physical, social and environmental impacts and their recovery aspects.

The paper identifies good governance and social capital as important elements for ensuring equitable recovery processes, and for ensuring appropriate capacity building in marginalised and highly vulnerable communities.

The practical implications of the discussed approach and findings are two pronged: governance needs to be responsive to community systems; and communities need to tap into their social capital to enhance their local coping capacities. Participation is a primary element in achieving these goals. Participation is a crucial element of governance to ensure that it is responsive, locally relevant, and accountable to specific needs of less represented communities. At the same time, it is also a critical process that enables local realilsation of needs and contexts, and creates an environment of capacity building at the grassroot level.

The paper highlights the continuing lack of recognition of the importance of local coping capacities, with no appreciation of the fact that rehabilitation needs to be based on local resources, determined by local capacities, and decided by local communities.

The participatory method, a major factor for a successful post-disaster reconstruction (PDR) project, is applied in various stages of the PDR. However, the application of this method for PDR involving indigenous populations is underexplored. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the critical factors that can influence the participatory PDR in the indigenous context.

Two large-scale, indigenous, post-disaster relocation projects after the 2009 Typhoon Morakot were selected as case studies. The qualitative and quantitative methodology (semi-structured interview and questionnaire) were applied in the research.

A participation-friendly policy, community organization, the extent of damage, flexibility of nongovernmental organizations, understanding of the participatory concept and mutual trust were found to be essential factors that profoundly influence participation in PDR projects.

This study contributes by providing guidelines for future participatory PDR projects, especially in the indigenous context.

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 analyzes the link between the digital divide, infrastructure regulation, and disaster planning and relief through a case study of the flood in San Jose, California triggered by the Anderson dam’s overtopping in February 2017 and an examination of communication failures during the 2018 wildfire in Paradise, California. This chapter theorizes that regulatory decisions construct social and disaster vulnerability. Rooted in the Whole Community approach to disaster planning and relief espoused by the United Nations and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this chapter calls for leadership to end the digital divide. It highlights the imperative of understanding community information needs and argues for linking strategies to close the digital divide with infrastructure and emergency planning. As the Internet’s integration into society increases, the digital divide diminishes access to societal resources including disaster aid, and exacerbates wildfire, flood, pandemic, and other risks. To mitigate climate change, climate-induced disaster, protect access to social services and the economy, and safeguard democracy, it argues for digital inclusion strategies as a centerpiece of community-centered infrastructure regulation and disaster relief.