List

This post was originally published by David Lallemant on ResilientUrbanism.org in July 2013. The original post can be found here.

I have been working on an assessment of Haiti’s housing recovery and reconstruction process. Specifically I have been tasked to look at how “disaster risk management” was or was not integrated into reconstruction in order to build disaster resilience. I have found this project really interesting, and so I plan to share it, but in digestible pieces surrounding particular ideas.

“Building back better” has been all the rage in the post-disaster reconstruction community. The concept is not particularly novel, but re-branding it with alliteration has made all the difference (it also makes great acronyms like BBB and B3!). The basic idea is that we should not rebuild vulnerability. Unfortunately, the term has pretty much stayed at this level of abstraction: catchy but not particularly descriptive. What does “Building Back Better” mean? Victoria asked similar questions in her post on “what do we mean by recovery?” Specifically she asked “if recovery is a process then what is the intended outcome?” What I am looking at is not outcome as reconstruction in a physical sense (number of buildings reconstructed, etc), but outcome in terms of resilience.

While I was thinking about all this, I started drawing a diagram of how “resilience” progresses through disaster recovery (in an ideal case). This simplified diagram attempts to conceptualize recovery as a process to build resilience, as well as highlights new terminology in the field: “reformative recovery.”

 

Recovery as a process of resilience building. In this framework, disaster risk reduction in reconstruction means having a steeper trajectory (shorter time) and a higher end-point (more resilience).

Recovery as a process of resilience building. In this framework, disaster risk reduction in reconstruction means having a steeper trajectory (shorter time) and a higher end-point (more resilience). Diagram by David Lallemant

The humanitarian/reconstruction sector often discusses post-disaster work in terms of “phases,” usually broken down into “response,” “early recovery” and “reconstruction.”  This terminology of  “phases” is problematic since it implies that these are strictly chronological. In a way, this artificial decomposition of the reconstruction timing has been a self-fulfilling prophecy, since agencies have designed their processes and programs according to this concept (for instance “humanitarian” agencies can often only fund activities linked to so-called “response” and “early recovery”). Hence I will call these “processes” rather than phases, and emphasize through parallel lines that all these activities actually start right after the disaster (or should).

This brings me to the key messages I am attempting to communicate through this diagram:

(1) The response, recovery, reconstruction (and other) processes start at the same time. The attention and funding for each process changes in time, but fundamentally they need to start right after the disaster, at least at the planning level.

(2) The importance of distinguishing these processes is that each is linked to specific activities and goals in terms of resilience:

  • Response: the process is one of stabilization, preventing further death or injuries due to the immediate crisis.
  • Early Recovery: the goal here is to address the extreme vulnerability following the disaster, such as lack of access to safe shelter, lack of physical security, basic economic security etc.
  • Recovery/reconstruction: strictly speaking, recovery and reconstruction means going back to the previous state. Hence this is a restorative process to the original level of resilience.
  • Building back better: As mentioned previously, what is rebuilt should be more resilient. Since “building” has a material reality, the term has mostly referred to increasing the resilience of the built environment. It is a classic (and very important!) engineering approach, focused on construction guidelines, material quality etc.
  • Reformative recovery: The concept of “reformative recovery” is set in contrast to the traditional “restorative recovery.” The aim of reconstruction has usually been to restore to the previous state. Any improvements from this previous state is usually focused solely on the physical infrastructure (build back better). Reformative recovery by comparison is a process through which new dynamics for disaster resilience are created, often through government and social reform. It is a “new normal” as Victoria mentioned in her post. I stumbled upon the term “Reformative recovery” in this article. I have not seen the term used anywhere else, but I really love it!

(3) Finally, these processes create path-interdependencies (hence the parallel lines). In other words the earlier processes (not so much earlier as those with most funds at the early stages) set the initial direction, therefore creating path dependencies for other activities. This can be very problematic in the absence of common targets. In Haiti following the 2010 earthquake for instance, many of the “temporary” solutions significantly constrained the path for safe permanent reconstruction.

Ultimately this model does not fundamentally change the current framework of thought on reconstruction and disaster resilience, but I hope to give it a bit of a nudge and/or provoke some thinking about the way post-disaster reconstruction can reform the dynamics of risk.

One Response to “Building Post-Disaster Resilience”

  1. 110 years ago today: the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire - David Lallemant, PhDDavid Lallemant, PhD

    […] This week the earth has definitely reminded us of its often violent temperament. A 6.9Mw earthquake struck rural Myanmar on Wednesday, a 7.0Mw earthquake struck Southern Japan on Friday, and a 7.8Mw earthquake struck Ecuador on Saturday (note this earthquake was as powerful as the 1906 earthquake!). These have already caused nearly 400 fatalities and the numbers are still rising. The communities that have been destroyed will take years to fully recover. Hopefully through recovery they will build more resilient communities. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  Posts

1 2
April 19th, 2018

Before the Great San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake

Before the Great San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Today is the 112th anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, an […]

September 11th, 2017

“Natural Hazards, Un-natural Disasters” – On Hurricane Irma, Harvey and Others

There is no such thing as a natural disaster, only natural hazard. That’s because the impact of hurricanes, earthquakes and […]

February 20th, 2017

Darwin’s account of the 1835 earthquake in Concepción, Chile

On Feb 20th 1835, a large earthquake (estimated M8.1-8.2) shook the cities of Concepción and Talcuahano in Chile, and generated […]

January 13th, 2017

Remaining Risk 7 yrs After the Haiti Earthquake

Today marks the 7th year since the Southern part of Haiti was shook by a devastating 7.0M earthquake. The earthquake […]

April 18th, 2016

110 years ago today: the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire

110 years ago today (April 18th 1906), the San Francisco Bay Area shook violently from the magnitude 7.8 rupture of […]

February 26th, 2015

Remaining Earthquake Risk of Port-au-Prince, Haiti – Updated maps with Google Earth Engine

In a previous post I shared some of my research on the remaining earthquake risk of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. The main […]

February 5th, 2015

Storyboarding my Research on Urban Disaster Risk

I’m passionate about my work and therefore enjoy sharing it with others. So I wanted to explore how I could […]

October 22nd, 2014

Mapping Global Earthquakes and Hurricane tracks with R

I created this code in order to do a visualization of natural hazards globally, to use as a graphic for […]

October 5th, 2014

Waiting for the Big One: the Continued Earthquake Risk of Port-au-Prince, Haiti.

This post is transcribed from a paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Urban Disaster Recovery (3ICUDR). The M7.0 earthquake […]

April 15th, 2014

On the “Top 10 Riskiest Cities” and Getting Mauled by Bears

This post was originally published by David Lallemant on ResilientUrbanism.org in April 2014. The original post can be found here. In […]