Resilient Recovery– Applying the Concept to Urban Disaster Situations

NOHA Master Thesis

Resilient Recovery–

Applying the Concept to Urban Disaster

Situations

Date: 21 June 2015

Student Name: Mareike Bentfeld Student Number: s2213141

2

Table of Content

1 Introduction _________________________________________________ 6 1.1 Background ____________________________________________________ 6 1.2 Problem Statement ______________________________________________ 9 1.3 Research Objective and Research Questions ________________________ 10 1.4 Research Methodology __________________________________________ 11

1.4.1 Research Strategy ____________________________________________ 11 1.4.1.1 Literature Review ______________________________________________ 12 1.4.1.2 Semi-Structured Interviews _______________________________________ 12 1.4.2 Justification of Research Strategy _______________________________ 14

1.4.2.1 Limitations of Methodology Chosen ________________________________ 15

1.5 Relevance of Research ___________________________________________ 15 1.6 Thesis Outline _________________________________________________ 16 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ___________________ 18

2.1 Disaster Recovery ______________________________________________ 18

2.1.1 Evolvement of Recovery Research ______________________________ 20 2.1.2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery ___________________________ 23

2.2 Understanding Disaster Risk and Vulnerability _____________________ 24

2.2.1 Disaster Risk Process _________________________________________ 24 2.2.2 Vulnerability ________________________________________________ 25 2.2.2.1 Pressure And Release Model (Wisner et al., 2004) _____________________ 26 2.2.2.2 Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003) ________________________ 27 2.2.2.3 BBC Framework (Bogardi/Birkmann, 2004 and Cardona, 1999/2004) _____ 27

2.3 Disaster Resilience ______________________________________________ 28

2.3.1 Resilience: Resistance or Adaptation? ____________________________ 29 2.3.2 Characteristics of Resilient Communities _________________________ 32

2.4 Chapter Conclusion _____________________________________________ 34 3 Findings & Analysis __________________________________________ 36

3.1 Understanding the Concept Resilient Recovery ______________________ 36 3.2 Inclusion of Resilient Recovery Thoughts in Recovery Planning and

Implementation ________________________________________________ 42 3.3 Resilient Recovery in Urban Settings ______________________________ 44 3.4 Chapter Conclusion _____________________________________________ 49 4 Discussion __________________________________________________ 50

3 4.1.1 Defining Resilient Recovery ___________________________________ 50 4.1.2 Resilient Recovery and Vulnerability Reduction ____________________ 51 4.1.3 Measuring Resilient Recovery __________________________________ 53

4 List of Figures

Figure 1 Disaster Management Cycle ... 19 Figure 2 Disaster Risk Equation ... 25

List of Tables

Table 1 Definitions Defining Resilience As Resistance ... 30 Table 2 Definitions Defining Resilience As Process ... 31

List of Boxes

5 List of Abbreviations

ADRC Asian Disaster Reduction Centre

BBC Framework Bogardi, Birkmann and Cardona Framework BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

DM Disaster Management

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction

HFA Hyogo Framework of Action

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies NGO Non-Governmental Organization

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

6

1 I

1.1 B

The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami paralyzed the humanitarian community in the face of the tremendous amount of destruction that has been caused by the tsunami. The impact of the tsunami showed how vulnerable people in the region were and how a single event could severely set back economic and social development. As a response to the devastating effects of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the idea of including disaster risk reduction measures in post-disaster recovery processes was widely acknowledged by governments and humanitarian organizations. The vast devastation of houses and infrastructure allowed for an opportunity to decrease future risks by ensuring that disaster risk reduction ideas were taken into account during the recovery phase. This idea is often described as a ‘window of opportunity’ after a disaster that allows for disaster risk reduction as well as better re-development. This window of opportunity relies mostly on the fact that the awareness of the affected people for disaster risk reduction is increased during that time and that additional pressure lays on governments and organizations to prevent similar events in the future which results in the implementation of new policies that decrease the underlying risk factors. Until recently, humanitarian aid and reconstruction processes in the aftermath of disasters were often carried out without a risk reduction focus. And thus, they increased, unintentionally, the physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerability of the population to new events.

7 stating that any rehabilitation or reconstruction activity that fail to reduce the population's exposure to risks are merely sowing the seeds for future disasters. Finally, it has been acknowledged that the additional cost of integrating DRR as part of recovery activities can be justifiable when they are understood as longer-term investments (IRP, 2007).

In order to stress the importance of including disaster risk reduction in the post-disaster recovery phase, the concept of ‘build back better’ was introduced in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami by Bill Clinton (Clinton, 2004). The concept ‘build back better’ defines recovery as being based on ten key propositions which mostly focus on the role of governments during recovery, as well as on the importance of coordination between governmental and nongovernmental actors (Clinton, 2006). Other authors define ‘build back better’ as ‘safe’ re-development (see for example Kennedy et al. (2008)). Nowadays, most disaster recovery and reconstruction activities are branded as ‘build back better’. However, the impact of ‘build back better’ post-disaster recovery activities has been questioned, especially as ‘build back better’ is often implicitly equated with the speed of finalizing reconstruction activities (Kennedy et al., 2008; Lizarralde, Johnson, & Davidson, 2010); levels of community participation in the recovery process (Hidellage & Usoof, 2010); and the level of coordination and cooperation between various actors (Clinton, 2006; Maret & Amdal, 2010). Thus, the concept fails to sufficiently focus on the reduction of underlying vulnerabilities that would lead to a decrease in future risks for the affected populations.

8 implications of applying the concept in disaster recovery activities have not yet been researched.

The importance of increasing resilience during post-disaster interventions becomes especially clear when looking at the increase of risks in urban areas. Disaster risk in general has risen all over the world over the last decades due to increasing vulnerabilities stemming from population growth, unregulated urbanization, poor governance, environmental degradation, conflicts, epidemics, poverty and pressure from development within high risk zones. These vulnerabilities in combination with hydro- meteorological, geological and man-made hazards contribute to an increase in disaster magnitude, intensity and frequency (UNISDR, 2005). Many of these disasters take place in urban areas, affection millions of people each year through loss of life, serious injury and loss of assets and livelihoods. Natural hazards have a disproportionate effect on urban places. Due to the complex, interdependent social, environmental and economic systems in urban settings, the effects of disasters in urban areas often surpass the effects of disasters in rural areas. At the same time, the extent to which rapidly growing and poorly managed urban development increases the risks in urban areas is often underestimated. Furthermore, few national and international disaster agencies have worked with urban governments and community organizations to identify and act on the urban processes that cause the accumulation of disaster risk in and around urban areas.

9

1.2 P

S

While the idea of including disaster risk reduction measures in post-disaster interventions has been introduced more than a decade ago with the idea of ‘build back better’, there is a lack of applying the core ideas of ‘build back better’ in actual recovery activities. The concept of ‘build back better’ proved to be useful to draw the attention to the importance of taking disaster risk reduction measures into account during post-disaster interventions. However, research has shown that the concept is often applied in a wrong way focusing not on the reduction of underlying risks and vulnerabilities but focusing more on speed of recovery, degree of coordination and local participation. Therefore, a new concept that better captures the key ideas of reducing vulnerabilities in post-disaster situations and which also provides practitioners with the necessary framework and guidance for implementation is needed.

The term ‘resilient recovery’ has therefore been introduced as a new concept to improve the impact of recovery on reducing underlying vulnerabilities. ‘Resilient recovery’ stresses the importance of resilience building, therefore implicitly drawing the attention to vulnerability reduction and capacity development. However, there is a lack of conceptualization and no efforts have been made to apply the concept in actual recovery activities. ‘Resilient recovery’ should therefore be conceptualized by using a two-folded approach. First, there is the need to integrate the concept of resilience into recovery research. Second, the theoretical understanding of the concept has to be enriched by experiences and opinions of disaster risk management practitioners who have experience with the implementation of recovery programs.

10 Therefore, there is the need to explore the concept ‘resilient recovery’ in more detail. Especially the application of resilient recovery in urban disaster situations requires more in-depth research in order to improve the existing understanding of resilient recovery and its application in specific disaster situations. Based on the identified problem, the thesis is focusing on the application of ‘resilient recovery’ in urban disaster recovery in South-East Asia.

1.3 R

O

R

Q

This research is conducted as an attempt by the researcher to close existing research gaps by conceptualizing the concept resilient recovery and by investigating how resilient recovery can be applied to urban disaster recovery. A better understanding of the concept ‘resilient recovery’ will provide humanitarian actors with the possibility to establish specific indicators for disaster recovery that can give information about the effectiveness of disaster recovery activities and will therefore be useful to inform future disaster recovery programs.

Based on the above objective, this research will aim to answer the following research question:

In how far can the current theoretical and practical understanding of resilient recovery be used to guide recovery programs in urban disaster situations? In order to answer the research question, the following sub-questions will guide the research efforts:

1. What is the concept of resilient recovery and how has the concept been defined/conceptualized?

2. How can the concept of resilient recovery be included in recovery planning and implementation?

3. What are the practical challenges when implementing resilient recovery in urban settings?

11 develop more successful disaster recovery activities and (2) assess the effectiveness of disaster recovery efforts.

1.4 R

M

In order to answer the research questions of this study, a qualitative research approach has been chosen. As the thesis is interested in an in-depth exploration of one concept, a qualitative research approach is beneficial as the concept cannot be measured yet and should therefore be explored using qualitative measures to ensure that all nuances of the concept can be covered. The remainder of this chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part of the chapter, the research strategy is discussed. The research contains a detailed literature review as well as semi-structured expert interviews. Both approaches will be explained in more detail. Furthermore, there will be a section on the justification of the research strategy chosen as well as an overview of the limitations of the study.

1.4.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY

In order to answer the research questions, a qualitative research approach has been taken. As the thesis deals with an emerging issue with limited research and practice available, a two-folded approach that combines theory and practice has been chosen. In a first step, a detailed literature review has been undertaken, focusing on the key concepts relevant for the research namely disaster recovery, resilience and vulnerability reduction. The goal of the literature review is to link disaster recovery with resilience and vulnerability reduction research in order to come up with a preliminary understanding of the concept ‘resilient recovery’.

12 Using two different research methodologies, namely a literature review as well as the key informant interviews allows for triangulation of the findings which allows for more reliable results. Furthermore, the combination of theoretical information as well as first-hand experience will shed a light on the particular shortcomings that may be faced be disaster risk management practitioners when implementing recovery in urban disaster situations.

1.4.1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review forms the basis of the thesis and has been carried out in the beginning of the thesis research. The literature review evolves around three main topics namely disaster recovery, disaster resilience and vulnerability reduction. Key documents for each of the three topics have been identified and key ideas and findings have been included in the theoretical framework. The literature review resulted in a more defined conceptualization of the concept from a theoretical point of view which was subsequently used to develop the questions for the semi-structured interviews. Using this approach, it could be ensured that the interview questions were of relevance to answer the main research question.

1.4.1.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

In-depth interviews were carried out with a number of disaster risk management practitioners from different non-governmental organizations that are active in disaster recovery in South-East Asia. The aim behind the interviews has been to assess how disaster risk management practitioners define resilient recovery and how they apply the concept in their recovery programs and activities. Furthermore, it has been assessed whether there are particular opportunities and challenges when implementing resilient recovery in urban settings.

Research Questions

The research questions have been divided in three sets. The exact questions can be found in Annex 1. The following paragraph will give a summary of the three questions sets and provide background information about the choice of questions.

13 of successful recovery and resilient recovery, as well as their opinion on the relationship between disaster resilience, vulnerability and recovery. Furthermore, the respondents were asked to give their opinion on how resilient recovery could be measured. This set of questions allows the researcher to assess how the respondents define resilient recovery.

The second set of interview questions is interested in the application of resilience recovery thoughts in actual disaster recovery activities (questions 8–9). In order to put the answers into context, the respondents were asked about specific experiences in disaster recovery in the region, and about the exact type of interventions that have been carried out as part of disaster recovery. These questions are related to the idea established in the conceptual framework that disaster recovery can only be regarded as being resilient when taking into account different areas of recovery. The questions also inquire about the decision-making process when planning and implementing disaster recovery activities/ programs to see how the idea of resilient recovery is taken into account when planning for recovery.

The third set of interview questions is related to urban recovery in specific (question 10–13). The specific challenges when implementing disaster recovery in urban settings are identified. Furthermore, the respondents are asked to compare urban and rural disaster recovery based on their own experiences/ understandings.

Approach

In order to find the most suitable respondents for the research interviews, research about the main disaster events in the region has been conducted focusing on disaster events that affected urban areas requiring long-term recovery measures. The main disaster events that have affected urban areas in South-East Asia in the last 5 years, requiring profound recovery efforts are the Thailand Floods 2011 (affecting various provinces and cities including Bangkok), and Typhoon Haiyan 2013 (affecting the provincial capital of Leyte, Tacloban city). Key organizations working in the recovery efforts after these disaster events have been identified and contacted.

14 Interested respondents could then choose between a face-to-face interview, a telephone interview or filling in the questionnaire and sharing it via email. None of the respondents contacted was available for a face-to-face interview mostly due to their current work location being outside of Bangkok where the researcher is currently based. Four of the respondents (respondent 1, 2, 3 and 6) opted for filling in the questionnaire while the remaining three respondents have been interviewed via phone. During the phone interviews, the researcher took notes which have been sent back to the respondents for their approval. In the case of the respondents that opted to fill in the questionnaire and share it via email, the researchers followed up with additional emails in case of the need for more explanations.

As the thesis is interested in exploring a new concept, the answers of the respondents have been classified according to their key ideas to make it easier to compare and combine the answers from the interviews with the theoretical framework that will be established in chapter two. No value is given to any of the answers, as there was no right or wrong answer to any of the questions.

Respondents

The respondents of this study are presented semi-anonymous. As the questions in the semi-structured interview were interested in subjective opinions, the respondents will only be referred to with a number (e.g. respondent 1, respondent 2) instead of with their affiliated organization. There is one respondent from each of the following organizations, Red Cross, World Vision, Safe the Children International, Plan International, and Caritas, as well as two independent consultants that have been engaged by various stakeholders in recovery processes. The respondents have been engaged in the recovery efforts after the Thailand Floods 2011, Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 and the Gujarat Earthquake in 2001. All of the respondents are senior level manager who have been engaged in management of recovery projects as well as advisory tasks related to the recovery efforts.

1.4.2 JUSTIFICATION OF RESEARCH STRATEGY

15 A literature review allows the identification of the current state of research on a topic as well as the establishment of a theoretical framework that cannot only guide subsequent research but can also be used to answer the research questions from a theoretical point of view. A strong theoretical background is essential for the thesis research and was therefore an important first step in answering the research question.

In-depth interviews provide the needed freedom to allow the respondents to also steer the conversation based on their own experiences and to contribute with any information that is of importance to them in relation to the research topic (Hakim, 2000). Semi structured interviews are beneficial for this goal as they allow the respondents to thoroughly reflect on their views while at the same time ensuring that key ideas are discussed with all respondents. Besides, semi-structured interviews enable the researcher to ask follow-up questions to respondents. Thus, these types of interviews enable the researcher to gain most from the experience and opinions of the respondents. Using closed interview questions would therefore restrict the amount of information that could be extracted and would not serve the purpose of the study at hand.

1.4.2.1 LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY CHOSEN

As the research is interested in the experience of very specific respondents, it was difficult to identify a large number of respondents. In addition, conducting semi-structured interviews is very time consuming; therefore, the researcher was only able to interview a small number (7) of key informants. While these interviews provided very deep insights into the research topic, it is not possible to generalize from the experiences of the respondents, even though great care has been taken to choose a good cross-section of organizations of interest.

1.5 R

R

16 concept resilient recovery in more depth. Resilient recovery provides an opportunity to ensure that disaster risk reduction ideas are included in all recovery efforts and that recovery is contributing to the overall goal of building safe and resilient communities and nations. It is therefore important to explore the concept from various angles in order to identify common attributes and characteristics that will enable DRM practitioners to enhance the effectiveness of disaster recovery efforts and to strive towards the building of safe and resilient communities all over the world.

Conceptualizing the new resilient recovery approach is not only important from a humanitarian perspective, but also from a developmental perspective. Recovery plays an important role for sustainable development. Sustainable development is the key goal of all nations and adequate recovery activities can support this goal. Conceptualizing disaster recovery is therefore pivotal to reach the Sustainable Development Goals that will be adopted at the United Nations Summit in September 2015. Especially in the proposed sustainable development goal number 11 - make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable -, the importance of resilient recovery becomes apparent.

Besides strengthening the overall understanding of resilient recovery and the inclusion of disaster risk reduction ideas in post-disaster interventions, the thesis research will look into the application of the concept in urban settings. As stated earlier, urban disasters are constantly increasing with the worldwide increase in urbanization and the increased levels of risk resulting from a variety of factors such as poor urban planning, and lack of social support.

1.6 T

O

The first chapter provided the introduction to the thesis research. The background of the research topic has been introduced and the problem statement on which the main research question is based has been presented. The main research question as well as the three sub-questions that will guide the research has been introduced. In addition, the methodology used in the research as well as the relevance of the research topic has been discussed.

17 disaster resilience will be discussed in detail focusing on the definition of community resilience. Furthermore, the idea of resilience and resilient recovery will be linked to vulnerability frameworks that provide some interesting inputs into the understanding of resilient recovery.

The third chapter presents and analyses the findings from the expert interviews. The key statements from the interviews will be analysed based on each interview question to allow for comparison between the answers of the different respondents as well as for generalization.

In chapter four, the findings of the expert interviews as well as the literature review will be integrated and discussed. Each of the three sub-questions will be discussed separately and a preliminary answer will be presented before the final conclusion in chapter five.

18

2 L

R

T

F

In this chapter, the underlying theoretical framework of the thesis is explained in detail. As indicated in the introduction, the research focuses on the exploration of the concept resilient recovery and the application of this new concept in the context of urban disaster recovery activities. The theoretical framework will therefore focus on existing literature related to the key concepts used in the thesis research, namely disaster recovery as one of the phases of disaster risk management, disaster resilience, as well as the linkages between disaster risk and vulnerability as part of the disaster risk reduction framework. The main goal of the theoretical framework is the development of a preliminary conceptualization of the term resilient recovery which will be used to guide the expert interviews as well as to better understand the research findings.

The chapter is structured as follows: In the first part of the theoretical framework, the recovery phase is introduced as one of the phases of the disaster risk management process. Furthermore, the history of disaster recovery research will be presented and a rationale for the introduction of the new approach to recovery, namely resilient recovery, will be given. As indicated in the introduction, resilient recovery is closely linked to ideas of disaster risk reduction; therefore, in the second part of the theoretical framework, the concept of disaster risk will be explored in more detail, focusing especially on the importance of vulnerability reduction as a way to reduce overall disaster risk. Afterwards, the concept resilience as discussed in disaster literature is explored. This section evolves mostly around the question whether disaster resilience should be characterized as the resistance of a community and/or system in the face of natural hazards, or whether it should be defined as the ability of a community and/or system to adapt to new circumstances.

2.1 D

R

19 Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) in collaboration with The World Bank, UNDP and the EU to develop a framework for disaster recovery. In this work, the organizations stress the linkages between building resilience and disaster recovery (DRF Factsheet, 2013).

Disaster recovery is one of the four key activities of the disaster management process. Throughout the disaster management process, individuals, groups and communities attempt to avoid, minimize and/or recover from the risk and damages associated with hazardous events. The four phases of disaster management – mitigation, preparedness, relief/response, recovery – are interconnected and have to be implemented on a continuous basis. This means that activities within the different phases have to build on each other and have to take into account the constantly changing environment of post-disaster situations. Figure 1 demonstrates the cyclical nature of the disaster management cycle1.

Often, misunderstandings arise about the use of the terms recovery, reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration. The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2000) defines recovery as referring to all “non-emergency measures following disaster whose purpose is to return all systems, both formal and informal, to as normal a state as possible”. Recovery is therefore defined by all the activities, processes and outcomes that occur during the post-disaster period and reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration should therefore be regarded as specific sets of activities that fall under the overall recovery phase. Especially the term reconstruction is often used interchangeably with recovery and in the general public disaster recovery is often solemnly understood as the physical reconstruction of facilities and basic services after a disaster (FEMA, 2004). While the impacts of disasters are wide-ranging, the physical damage is commonly most visible. Therefore, recovery efforts tend to focus on these obvious damages.

1 _{Adapted from J Twigg, (2004) Disaster Risk Reduction, Good Practice Review No. 9, Humanitarian}

20 However, disasters also cause less visible impacts that are just as significant. Focusing on the less visible damages of disasters (e.g. interruption of livelihood activities) is important as their consequences often last longer than the physical damage (IRP, 2007). An evaluation of the Disasters Emergency Committee involvement in the 2001 Gujarat recovery effort noted that, “people constantly emphasized the need to restore livelihoods rather than receive relief and expressed some frustration that outsiders did not listen to them on this point” (Humanitarian Initiatives UK, 2001: 16).

Especially in urban environments, disaster recovery is a very complex process. Due to the high population densities in urban areas as well as the presence of many societal and infrastructural dependencies, urban areas are prone to severe loss of self-reliance in the aftermath of a disaster (Neef et al., 2013). In addition, the interdependency of the different systems and communities within an urban environment results in ripple effects to a much wider area than the actual impacted area making resilient recovery a key requirement for the sustainability and well-being for urban settlements.

2.1.1 EVOLVEMENT OF RECOVERY RESEARCH

Research on disaster recovery started around 1970, most notably with the work of Barton and Haas, Kates and Bowden. While Barton was interested in the role of the community as a social entity to support the recovery of a community (Barton, 2005), thus social capital related to recovery, Haas, Kates and Bowden did research about the steps of recovery (1977). According to their findings, recovery activities always follow a specific sequence:

1. Emergency period: Refers to the first couple of days after a disaster happened and where the community starts to cope with the impacts of a disaster event

2. Restoration period: focuses on the restoration of basic services such as transportation and communication

3. Replacement reconstruction period: focuses on the rehabilitation of social and economic activities

21 Afterwards, recovery research moved towards researching the role of vulnerability and sustainable development in relation to disaster recovery. Mileti (1999) brought forward the sustainable hazard mitigation approach that includes six key components: maintaining and enhancing environmental quality, maintaining and enhancing people’s quality of life, foster local resiliency to and responsibility for disasters, recognize the sustainable, vital local economies are essential, identify and ensure inter and intra-generational equality, and adopt a consensus building approach (Mileti, 1999: 31 – 34). The sustainable hazard mitigation approach has been included in the sustainable recovery framework developed by UNDP (2010). The sustainable recovery framework states that “recovery should be conceived as an integral part of on-going developmental process at all levels: national, regional, and local” (p.3). The framework contains 10 guiding principles for implementing recovery that is sustainable thereby focusing on the inclusion of disaster risk reduction thoughts throughout the recovery process. One of the guiding principles is for example the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in the recovery and development process as well as building local and national capacities for increased resilience, risk management and sustainable development (UNDP, 2010: 5-7).

While the sustainable hazard mitigation approach as well as the sustainable recovery framework provide some interesting thoughts for implementing recovery activities, other researchers have argued that sustainable development is not directly linked with the root causes of disasters namely vulnerability and is therefore not suitable to guide recovery efforts, or disaster risk management efforts in general (see e.g. McEntire, 1998). Instead McEntire (1998) proposed the invulnerable development approach which argues that development should be focused on addressing underlying vulnerabilities in order to decrease the likelihood that any development progress (social, political and economic) will be set back during a disaster event. Even though the concept of invulnerable development was not explicitly developed for recovery, it can be a very valuable concept to be used in recovery planning and implementation. The concept of ‘build back better’ is an example how focusing on underlying vulnerabilities during the recovery effort can contribute to overall development which is in line with the core ideas of the invulnerable development approach.

22 provide a ‘window of opportunity’ for disaster risk reduction and better re-development due to the renewed awareness of the affected population of the risks of disasters and their commitment to change. The approach has been in particular promoted by Clinton, who proposed 10 propositions for building back better:

Proposition 1: Governments, donors, and aid agencies must recognize that families and communities drive their own recovery.

Proposition 2: Recovery must promote fairness and equity.

Proposition 3: Governments must enhance preparedness for future disasters. Proposition 4: Local governments must be empowered to manage recovery efforts, and donors must devote greater resources to strengthening government recovery institutions, especially at the local level.

Proposition 5: Good recovery planning and effective coordination depend on good information.

Proposition 6: The United Nations, World Bank, and other multilateral agencies must clarify their roles and relationships, especially in addressing the early stage of a recovery process.

Proposition 7: The expanding role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement carries greater responsibilities for quality in recovery efforts.

Proposition 8: From the start of recovery operations, governments and aid agencies must create the conditions for entrepreneurs to flourish.

Proposition 9: Beneficiaries deserve the kind of agency partnerships that move beyond rivalry and unhealthy competition.

Proposition 10: Good recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risks and building resilience (Clinton, 2006, p. 3).

23 & Davidson, 2010); levels of community participation in the recovery process (Hidellage & Usoof, 2010); and the level of coordination and cooperation between various actors (Clinton, 2006; Maret & Amdal, 2010). In addition, the term ‘build back better’ often focuses on reconstruction activities thereby forgetting about the importance of including disaster risk reduction thoughts in other recovery sectors such as livelihoods, and social recovery.

2.1.2 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RECOVERY

Nowadays, more and more organizations advocate for an integrated approach to disaster recovery, stressing the function of recovery activities to address the underlying risks of disasters in a community, and to decrease the disaster risk after a disaster happened. The International Recovery Platform (IRP) (2010) stresses the importance of the systematic incorporation of DRR approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery. The Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC, 2005) states that any rehabilitation or reconstruction activity that fails to reduce the population's exposure to risks are merely sowing the seeds for future disasters.

The Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) of UNDP states “managing recovery will require building national capacities, restoring coping mechanisms, empowering communities and determining root causes and vulnerabilities which makes societies disaster prone” (BCPR, n.d.: 3) Even more focused on the positive effects of well-planned and implemented post-disaster recovery is the understanding of recovery given by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) who defines post-disaster recovery as “decisions and actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring or improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken community, while encouraging and facilitation necessary adjustments to reduce disaster risk” (UNISDR, n.a.). Currently, governments (national, provincial, city or local) and NGOs (both international and local) put tremendous efforts into reducing vulnerability and to enhancing sustainability in the reconstruction and rehabilitation programs, thereby often overlooking possibilities to include disaster risk reduction in the recovery efforts (Shaw, Gupta, & Sharma, 2003).

24 2010; IRP, 2007). Similarly Wisner et al. (2004), states that “in order to have ‘recovered’, a household should have not only re-established its livelihoods, physical assets and patterns of access, but should be more resilient to the next extreme event” (p.359). According to him, recovery should also take into account the underlying causes for vulnerability such as social relations and structures of access to power. Without profound changes in these underlying issues, recovery cannot take place and will never take place.

In order to come to a better understanding how disaster risk reduction and vulnerability reduction can be integrated in disaster recovery efforts, the following section will present some of the key research findings related to disaster risk reduction and vulnerability, before resilience research is introduced.

2.2 U

D

R

V

As indicated earlier, one of the major shortcomings of the ‘build back better’ approach is the insufficient focus on vulnerability reduction as part of the overall disaster risk reduction initiatives. While one of the proposition proposed by Clinton states that “good recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risks and building resilience” (Clinton, 2006, p. 3), the importance of vulnerability reduction is never explicitly stated.

Therefore, the following section will briefly introduce the overall disaster risk process focusing on the role of vulnerability in experiencing disaster risk and will then introduce three vulnerability frameworks to better understand how disaster risk reduction and especially vulnerability reduction can be included in recovery planning and implementation.

2.2.1 DISASTER RISK PROCESS

25 exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources” (UNISDR, 2005:3).

This means that a disaster needs to be regarded as a product of its social, political and economic environments and the resulting vulnerabilities faced by affected communities (Wisner et al., 2004). Therefore, disasters should be viewed as a risk process, whereby the risk of a disaster is defined as a combination of hazards, specific conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity to reduce negative consequences of risk (Ahrens et al., 2006). This risk process can be expressed with the following equation:

Figure 2 Disaster Risk Equation

The concept of hazard refers to the “natural events that may affect different places singly or in combination (e.g. coastlines, hillsides, earthquake faults) at different times (e.g. season of the year, time of day)” (Wisner et al., 2004:49). As indicated in the risk equation presented in the section above, besides the experiences of hazards, disaster risk is influenced by vulnerabilities as well as capacities. In the following section, the concept of vulnerability is more closely examined and three frameworks explaining vulnerability will be introduced.

2.2.2 VULNERABILITY

26 construction and inadequate or non-existent services. The poor communities living in these conditions cannot afford insurance, savings or asset accumulation, and their vulnerability is immense. This increases the risk that disasters will devastate both the built environment and the social economy, resulting in longer- term and more extensive setbacks to development.

Various models and frameworks have been developed, studying the relation between disaster risk and vulnerability, exposure to hazards and coping capacities in more detail. Three of the frameworks will be presented in more detail as they provide valuable contributions to understanding the concept resilient recovery. Of particular importance is thereby the role of vulnerability when it comes to disaster risk as vulnerability reduction has been identified as one of the key aspects of improving resilience. The chosen frameworks are the Pressure and Release Model (Wisner et al., 2004), the Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003) and the “BBC” (Bogardi, Birkmann and Cardona) Framework (Bogardi & Birkmann, 2004 and Cardona, 1999 & 2004).

2.2.2.1 PRESSURE AND RELEASE MODEL (WISNER ET AL., 2004)

According to the Pressure and Release Model (Wisner et al., 2004) vulnerability can be understood as the result of the interaction between three different layers of vulnerability, namely root causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions. According to this model, vulnerability is characterized by the so-called root cases that encompass general and widespread processes in a society. The root causes include basic characteristics of a society such as beliefs, norms and values. However, even more important, the root causes also include patterns of access to resources and power. Households or communities with low access to power and resources are therefore likely to be more vulnerable to experience a disaster as their overall vulnerability is shaped by the underlying root causes. These root causes are then transformed in ‘unsafe conditions’ which are the “specific forms in which the vulnerability of a population is expressed in time and space in conjunction with a hazard” (Wisner et al. 2004: 55).

27 resilient recovery and the identification of recovery measures that fit into the definition of resilient recovery.

2.2.2.2 VULNERABILITY FRAMEWORK (TURNER ET AL., 2003)

According to the Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003), vulnerability is a combination of exposure, sensitivity, and resilience of a community. Of particular importance in this model is the human-environment linkage. Hazards have the potential to affect both subsystems of the coupled human-environment system and changes in one of the subsystems always affect the other subsystems as well. A certain coping response in the human subsystem could for example make the biophysical sub-system more or less able to cope with a hazard and vice versa. This understanding of vulnerability provides valuable contribution to understand the role of recovery measures in building resilience. While e.g. the Pressure and Release Model focuses more on the human vulnerability, the Vulnerability Model draws the attention to the linkages between the human system and the environment stressing the fact that both sub-systems should be targeted by resilient recovery measures to decrease the overall vulnerability, and at the same time increase the overall resilience of a community.

2.2.2.3 BBC FRAMEWORK (BOGARDI/BIRKMANN, 2004 AND CARDONA, 1999/2004)

The last model that has been analysed is the BBC (Bogardi, Birkmann and Cardona) Framework2. According to the BBC Framework, vulnerability can be described as the combination of exposed and vulnerable elements and the coping capacities of these elements. The vulnerability takes place within three spheres which are related to three main pillars of sustainable development, namely the environmental sphere, the social sphere and the economic sphere (UN, 1993).

Therefore, the BBC Framework goes one step further than the Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003) by including not only the human and environmental sphere, but also the economic sphere thereby linking vulnerability and disaster risk closely with sustainable development. One of the key characteristic of the BBC Framework are the vulnerability reduction feedback loops. According to the BBC

28 Framework, there are two options to reduce vulnerability. First, vulnerability can be reduced as part of preparedness activities thereby reacting to risks that have been identified before the actual disaster happens. Furthermore, vulnerability can be reduced after a disaster happens, as part of the disaster response. Finally, the framework stresses that it is possible that vulnerability reduction in one of the spheres may lead to increased vulnerability in one of the other spheres. These shifts do not imply real vulnerability reduction and should therefore be taken into account when planning for vulnerability reduction (Birkmann, 2006).

This model provides a very valuable addition to the understanding of resilient recovery. First of all, the model supports the idea that has been brought forward earlier namely that vulnerability can not only be reduced pre-disaster, but that there is also the opportunity to decrease vulnerability (and thereby building resilience) as part of the post-disaster efforts. In addition, similar to the Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003), the BBC Framework stresses the fact that vulnerability can only be reduced when taking into account all three spheres, namely social, environmental and economic sphere. The communities as the receiving entity of disaster recovery efforts can therefore only benefit from disaster recovery efforts in the long-term, when all three spheres are targeted during the recovery efforts. Focusing recovery efforts purely on livelihood recovery e.g. would therefore potentially only shift vulnerabilities into another sphere and would not make the community more resilient facing future hazardous events.

In the following section, disaster resilience literature is introduced to provide additional insights into the theoretical conceptualization of resilient recovery. As stated earlier, the criticism of current recovery approaches evolves mostly around the fact that these approaches do not sufficiently take into account the importance of vulnerability reduction. In order to better understand whether the concept ‘resilient recovery’ is dealing with this criticism, the following section will look at the theory behind the concept resilience to combine it with on-going recovery research.

2.3 D

R

29 concepts should be discussed together. Often, resilience is understood as the opposite of vulnerability. Kasperson and Kasperson (2001) for example argue that a social or ecological system that loses resilience will become more vulnerable to changes and threats that previously could have been absorbed by a system. A similar argument has been brought forward by Godschalk (2003), who argues that cities can only become resilient when underlying vulnerabilities are reduced.

Disaster resilience is not a clear-cut concept with a single widely accepted definition (Manyena, 2006). Various authors and researches tried to explain and conceptualize the concept, without reaching a conclusion about the key characteristics of resilience. Depending on the research field, resilience research has been focusing on specific actors. In the field of psychology for example, resilience research is mainly focusing on individual resilience, while in the field of ecology, resilience research is focusing on the description of ecosystems. In the field of disaster research, the concept of resilience has mostly been focusing on the resilience of communities. However, limited research has also been carried out in relation to resilience of systems e.g. societies. In the context of the research at hand, the focus will lie on community resilience as communities are at the core of recovery activities, and the increase of community resilience is the main goal of disaster risk reduction activities.

In the next section, existing definitions of resilience will be explored and discussed. Thereby, the core debate evolves around whether community resilience should be defined as outcome (referring to the capacity of a community to absorb disturbance or shocks; resistance) or as a process (focussing on the regenerative abilities of a community; adaption).

2.3.1 RESILIENCE: RESISTANCE OR ADAPTATION?

30 Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA). The concept of resilience is at the core of the HFA, as the HFA strives to increase the resilience of societies towards natural hazards.

In Table 1, some of the definitions of community resilience have been summarized. The first part of the table shows all the definitions of resilience that define resilience as the ability of a community to withstand or absorb external pressures or disturbances (see e.g. Mileti, 1999) or the ability of communities to bounce back after disasters (see e.g. Ronan & Johnston, 2005 and Berke & Campanelle, 2006). In all the definitions, the focus lies on the capacities of communities to reduce or avoid losses, contain the effects of disasters, and recover with minimal social disruptions (Manyena, 2006). While this definition of resilience is very prominent, it has been argued, that it fails to take into account the dynamic nature of people and communities (Maguire & Catwright, 2008).

Table 1 Definitions Defining Resilience As Resistance

Author Definition

Berke and Campanella, 2006

The ability to survive and cope with a disaster with minimum impact and damage.

Ferrier, 2008 The relative ability of communities to absorb the effects of a hazardous event and quickly return to normal, or near-normal, operations.

Holling, 1973 Persistence of relationships within a system and a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb change of state variables, driving variables and parameters, and still persists.

Manyena, 2006 The intrinsic capacity of a system, community or society predisposed to a shock or stress to adapt and survive by changing its non-essential attributes and rebuilding itself.

Mileti, 1999 Local resiliency with regard to disaster means that a local is able to withstand an extreme natural event without suffering devastating losses, damage, diminished productivity, or quality of life and without a large amount of assistance from outside the community. Ronan and

Johnston, 2005

All activities and capacities that allow communities and societies to withstand, rebound and bounce back after disaster events.

31 functionality through the recovery process (Maguire & Hagan, 2007:17). This is similar to the approach taken by the Resilience Alliance, who understands resilience along three dimensions: the ability to absorb, the degree of self- organization, and the capability for learning and adaptation (Kuhlicke, 2010). The creativity approach regards resilience as a process rather than as an outcome.

The process-related resilience is defined in terms of continual learning and taking responsibility for making decisions that improve the capacity to handle hazards. As can be seen in the definitions included in table 2, regarding resilience as a process is also closely related to the idea of using disasters as catalysers to build back better (e.g. Gasparini et al., 2013 and Ride and Bretherton, 2011). This is in line with Cutter et al.’s understanding of resilience. According to her, resilience has two qualities: inherent and adaptive. The inherent characteristic of resilience ensures that a community functions well during a non-disaster situation, and the adaptive characteristic of resilience is related to the flexibility of response during a disaster (Cutter et al., 2008).

The understanding of resilience as a process and catalyst for change, has led into a growing body of literature. The core idea of this understanding of resilience is that changes are accepted as something inevitable and potentially positive and not as something that requires the community to ‘bounce back’ from to get back to their original state (see e.g. Maguire & Cartwright, 2008). Conceptualizing resilience from this perspective provides an opportunity to improve disaster recovery efforts by including resilience thoughts in the planning and implementation. According to Holling (2004), resisting change and avoiding adaptation allows a system to remain ‘locked in’ thereby increasing its vulnerability and chance of catastrophic collapse. Including resilience thoughts in recovery would therefore provide the community to break from this vicious cycle and to improve overall living conditions after a disaster event thereby decreasing the likelihood of a community to experience another disaster in the future. Table 2 Definitions Defining Resilience As Process

Author Definition

Chenoweth,

2001 The ability to respond to crises in ways that strengthen community bonds, resources, and the community's capacity to cope. Gasparini et

al., 2013

32 recovery, as well as to be in a better position to reduce losses from future disasters.

Kimhi and

Shamai, 2004 Social resilience is understood as having three properties: resistance, recovery, and creativity, in which (1) resistance relates to a social entity’s efforts to withstand a disturbance and its consequences; (2) Recovery relates to an entity’s ability to pull through the disturbance; (3) Creativity is represented by a gain in resilience achieved as part of the recovery process, and it can be attained by learning from the disturbance experience.

Pelling, 2003 The ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to hazard stress. It is a product of the degree of planned preparation undertaken in the light of a potential hazard, and of spontaneous or premeditated adjustments made in response to felt hazard, including relief and rescue.

Ride and Bretherton, 2011

The capacity of a community to cope with the emergency, to rebuild, and to learn from the experience, such that the new physical, social, and political structures are better adapted to the environment.

As a conclusion, this thesis will regard resilience as both an outcome as well as a process. In line with what Cutter et al. (2008) proposed, the author of the thesis believes that there are two kinds of resilience when it comes to community resilience. First, there is the resilience that is related to vulnerability and which makes communities as well as the surrounding systems ‘resilient’ towards hazard events which as a result makes it less likely for this community to experience a disaster. However, besides this resilience, there is also the adaptive form of resilience (resilience as a process) that influences the degree of recovery that a community experiences and which links back to the inherent resilience (vulnerability related resilience) of a community.

2.3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESILIENT COMMUNITIES

While a growing body of literature is dealing with the concept of resilience as such, so far, only limited research has been conducted to identify specific characteristics of resilient communities that can be used to inform program planning and implementation. In the next section, two frameworks for understanding community resilience will be introduced that can be used to better understand how recovery activities can support resilience building.

33 5 key priorities of action of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA). The characteristics have then been field tested in various countries and settings, and a final guidance note has been published in 2009, identifying 167 characteristics of resilient communities across the five thematic areas of the HFA3. A summary of the key characteristics can be found in Box 1.

Box 1 Key Characteristics of Resilient Communities (Twigg, 2009)

A different approach to characterize resilient communities has been taken by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The IFRC identified 6 key characteristics of resilient communities based on an analysis of existing resilience frameworks and research papers.

The following characteristics of a safe and resilient community have been developed by the IFRC (2012):

A safe and resilient community...

1. is knowledgeable and healthy. It has the ability to assess, manage and monitor its risks. It can learn new skills and build on past experiences

2. is organized. It has the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities and act.

3 _{The full list of all 167 characteristics of a resilient community can be accessed via the following link:}

http://community.eldis.org/.59e907ee/Characteristics2EDITION.pdf

• Shared long-term vision

• Clear leadership and clear division of responsibilities (including the availability of disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and recovery plans)

• Participatory approaches

• Resources and capacities (including capacity building)

• Hazards, risks, vulnerabilities and capacities are monitored regularly • Access to information and knowledge

34 3. is connected. It has relationships with external actors who provide a wider

supportive environment, and supply goods and services when needed.

4. has infrastructure and services. It has strong housing, transport, power, water and sanitation systems. It has the ability to maintain, repair and renovate them. 5. has an economic opportunity. It has a diverse range of employment

opportunities, income and financial services. It is flexible, resourceful and has the capacity to accept uncertainty and respond (proactively) to change.

6. can manage its natural assets. It recognises their value and has the ability to protect, enhance and maintain them.

These two studies show that specific characteristics of communities are related to their resilience towards natural hazards. While the two studies differ in the amount of characteristics that have been identified as key characteristic of a resilient community, there are some strong resemblances between the two studies. When applying the findings of the two studies to the idea of resilient recovery, it can be assumed that recovery activities that actively try to develop and/or increase these specific characteristics in affected communities will contribute to building resilience in these specific communities. Therefore, recovery activities that claim to be resilient should try to rely on local expertise and decision-making processes, be as participatory as possible, ensure the health and well-being of the people, enable economic opportunities, and build the capacities of the communities in monitoring their own risks and proactively encounter these risks.

2.4 C

C

The literature review provided some very useful insights into the current status of recovery research as well as detailed explorations of the concepts of disaster risk reduction and the role of vulnerability in disaster risk reduction, as well as the theoretical understanding of resilience. As indicated in the introduction of the thesis, the concept ‘resilient recovery’ is fairly new and no systematic research has been carried out to achieve a common conceptualization of the concept which could be used to inform recovery activities in practice.

35 ‘Resilient recovery’ as a new concept has the potential to deal with this criticism as resilience itself is often regarded as the opposite of vulnerability. Achieving resilient recovery would then automatically include the idea of vulnerability reduction.

However, the theoretical framework also shows that resilience is more than the opposite of being vulnerable. Resilience should be regarded as both an outcome as well as a process. First, there is the resilience that is related to vulnerability. Resilience is understood as the capabilities of communities and their surrounding systems to respond to hazardous events. Thus, the likelihood to experience disasters is decreased for resilient communities. Besides this notion of resilience, there is also the adaptive form of resilience. The adaptive form of resilience highlights resilience as a process that influences the degree of recovery that a community experiences. The adaptive resilience links back to the inherent resilience (vulnerability related resilience) of a community.

Based on the understanding that inherent resilience can be regarded as the opposite of vulnerability, this thesis will look at the inherent resilience as being influenced by the three main spheres as proposed by the Vulnerability Framework (Turner et al., 2003) and BBC Framework (Bogardi/Birkmann, 2004 and Cardona, 1999/2004). The idea that resilience is influenced by different spheres has also been brought forward by Godschalk (2003) who explored characteristics of resilient cities. According to Godschalk (2003), a resilient city is comprised of two systems, the physical and the human system. In order to achieve resilient recovery after a disaster in an urban area, it is therefore of importance to implement recovery measures that increase both the resilience of the physical systems (e.g. infrastructure, housing) as well as the resilience of the human system (e.g. social capital). When one of the systems would be neglected during the recovery phase, a possible future hazard would still have a disastrous effect on the urban area.

36

3 F

&

A

The findings presented in this chapter are based on the research interviews that have been carried out with recovery practitioners who have been actively engaged in the planning and implementation of at least one major recovery effort in South-East Asia. The chapter is structured according to the three research sub-questions. First, the answers to question 1- 7 will be presented. These questions relate to the understanding of the concept resilient recovery. Afterwards, the answers to question 8 and 9 will be presented, which are related to the implementation of resilient recovery. In the last section of this chapter, the remaining answers will be presented, related to the application of resilient recovery in urban disaster situations. In the following chapters, the answers will be discussed in relation to the theoretical findings as presented in the theoretical framework and conclusions will be drawn.

3.1 U

C

R

R

As stated earlier, resilient recovery is a relatively new term that has only recently been promoted by various stakeholders. The key informant interviews included a number of questions to identify how disaster risk management practitioners define resilient recovery and how the concept can be measured in a real life setting.

Question 1: How would you define disaster resilience?

37 Key statements

Absorb external shocks and bounce back

Build long-term capacities to better cope with future hazards Quick recovery from disaster events

Experience less severe disaster impacts Cope with a threat in a positive way

Question 2: How would you describe successful recovery?

In essence, all respondents described successful recovery as recovery that allows the affected communities to come back to their pre-disaster living conditions. However, respondent 1 stressed that successful recovery has only been taken place when communities are having a higher degree of preparedness to anticipate future disasters. A similar notion has been made by respondent 2, who stated that successful recovery is any recovery that “does not only recovery from the direct impact of a disaster but also takes the community to a higher level of risk reduction in a defined time and budget”. A very similar description has been given by respondent 3 who stated that successful recovery has taken place when pre-disaster levels have been reached in the least possible time without the added risk from natural hazards. Respondent 7 stated that successful disaster recovery “improves the lives of a disaster affected community taking into account the pre-existing vulnerabilities”. The remaining respondents, respondents 4, 5 and 6 focused on the return to normality in the least possible time as a description of successful recovery.

Key statements

Return to pre-disaster living conditions Higher degree of disaster preparedness Higher level of risk reduction

Improvement of lives through taking into account the pre-existing vulnerabilities

Question 3: How would you describe resilient recovery?

38 stressed the fact that resilient recovery should be defined as the ability to increase the resilience of communities to face future adversities and at the same time as the successful reduction of risks from similar disasters in the future. According to respondent 3, resilient recovery could be achieved by integrating hazard and risk assessments as well as the corresponding mitigation activities in the recovery plan to ensure that disaster risks are minimized. Respondent 4 connected resilient recovery with the building back better principles. Respondent 7 stated that there should not be a difference between recovery and resilient recovery as recovery activities should always take into account underlying vulnerabilities irrespective of how it is called.

Key statements

Increase resilience of communities Minimize disaster risks during recovery Related to building back better principles

Question 4: What do you think is the role of vulnerability during disaster recovery? All respondents agreed that vulnerability plays an important role during disaster recovery as disaster events occur because of underlying vulnerabilities. As respondent 2 stated: “disasters occur mainly due to vulnerability and recovery needs to address this primary source of the problem”. Respondent 1 stressed that focusing on underlying vulnerabilities during recovery efforts helps to minimise the effect of disasters in the future. Respondent 3 explained the role of vulnerability in disaster recovery even more precise when stating that “the vulnerabilities of the people and economic assets in the disaster area must be reduced if not totally eliminated in the recovery process.” Respondent 3 further stressed that it is important to not only look at vulnerabilities in general, but to identify the exact sources of vulnerability, both from a social as well as economic perspective.