Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment E-Book

Dilanthi Amaratunga

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 644

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Disasters threaten all parts of the world and they appear to be increasing in frequency, scale and intensity. Despite huge improvements in the emergency response, permanent reconstruction is often uncoordinated, inefficiently managed and slow to begin. International agencies are geared to an efficient response in terms of humanitarian relief, but they are not well versed in the requirements of long-term reconstruction, which is often constrained by lack of planning and poorly coordinated management.

The construction industry is typically engaged in a range of critical activities after a disaster, including provision of temporary shelter in the immediate aftermath and restoration of permanent shelter and public infrastructure once the immediate humanitarian needs have been attended to. Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment identifies the challenges that face the industry and highlights best practice to enable the construction industry to address those problems which make an effective response to these unexpected events difficult. Written by an international team of experts, this book will help researchers and advanced students of construction understand the problems faced by communities and the construction industry when faced with a natural or man-made disaster, and identify the planning and management processes required by the industry to mount an effective response.

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

About the Editors

List of Contributors

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 A global challenge

1.2 Why focus upon the built environment?

1.3 Resilience in the built environment

1.4 Disasters as a window of opportunity

1.5 Structure of the book

Chapter 2: Capacity Development for Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Capacity needs for post-disaster reconstruction

2.3 Capacity gaps in post-disaster reconstruction

2.4 Capacity development framework

2.5 Summary

Chapter 3: Capacity of the Construction Industry for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Impact of tsunami

3.3 Disaster risk management

3.4 Role of the construction sector in post-disaster recovery

3.5 Post-tsunami Sri Lanka: the role of the Sri Lankan construction industry

3.6 Capacity of the construction industry in post-tsunami reconstruction

3.7 Summary

Chapter 4: Resourcing for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: A Longitudinal Case Study Following the 2008 Earthquake in China

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The impact of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake

4.3 Wenchuan earthquake reconstruction process

4.4 Resourcing for Wenchuan earthquake reconstruction

4.5 Key resourcing problems and solutions adopted by the Chinese reconstruction teams

4.6 Summary

Chapter 5: Empowerment in Disaster Response and Reconstruction: Role of Women

5.1 Introduction

5.2 The concept of empowerment

5.3 Women's empowerment

5.4 Women in a post-disaster setting

5.5 Women's empowerment in post-disaster reconstruction

5.6 Summary

Chapter 6: Community-Based Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction: Examples from Indonesia

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Disaster vulnerability

6.3 National policy

6.4 Community participation in reconstruction

6.5 Community-based reconstruction practices

6.6 Summary

Chapter 7: Stakeholder Consultation in the Reconstruction Process

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Defining stakeholders

7.3 Stakeholders and post-disaster reconstruction

7.4 Classifying stakeholders

7.5 Expectation gaps in post-disaster housing reconstruction

7.6 Developing a stakeholder engagement strategy

7.7 Summary

Chapter 8: Project Management of Disaster Reconstruction

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Procurement and contract management

8.3 Sourcing of labour, material and equipment

8.4 Resource management

8.5 Quality control

8.6 Financing

8.7 Governance

8.8 Disaster risk reduction

8.9 Summary

Chapter 9: Legislation for Effective Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Cases from New Zealand

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Recovery and reconstruction

9.3 Legislative and regulatory considerations post disaster

9.4 Improving recovery through legislation

9.5 Impediments to post-disaster reconstruction: the New Zealand Building Act (BA) 2004

9.6 New Zealand Case Study 1: Manawatu-Wanganui Floods, 2004

9.7 New Zealand Case Study 2: Matata (Bay of Plenty) Floods, 2005

9.8 Lessons for post-disaster legislation changes

9.9 Summary

Chapter 10: Conflict, Post Conflict and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Exploring the Associated Challenges

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Conflicts

10.3 Conflict circle

10.4 Post conflict

10.5 Post-conflict reconstruction

10.6 Summary

Chapter 11: Private Construction Sector Engagement in Post-Disaster Reconstruction

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Challenges in post-disaster reconstruction

11.3 What is the role of the private sector?

11.4 Business and humanitarian collaborations

11.5 Corporate social responsibility

11.6 Encouraging private sector participation

11.7 Integrating private construction sector support for post-disaster reconstruction

11.8 Summary

Chapter 12: Knowledge Management Practices and Systems Integration

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Disaster management cycle

12.3 Knowledge management in disaster management context

12.4 Sharing and transferring disaster management knowledge

12.5 Case studies of good practices and lessons learned

12.6 Capacity enhancing and knowledge strategies: the ISLAND project

12.7 Summary

Chapter 13: Restoration of Major Infrastructure and Rehabilitation of Communities

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Impact of disasters on infrastructure

13.3 Impact of the failure of infrastructure in disaster-affected communities and infrastructure interdependencies

13.4 Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction and restoring major infrastructure

13.5 Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction for improved quality of life

13.6 Summary

Chapter 14: Sustainable Post-Disaster Waste Management: Construction and Demolition Debris

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Construction and demolition debris management in post-disaster situations

14.3 C&D debris management

14.4 C&D debris management and sustainability

14.5 Summary

Chapter 15: Linking Reconstruction to Sustainable Socio-Economic Development

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Post-disaster reconstruction as a window of opportunity for development

15.3 Millennium development goals as a framework of action for sustainable socio-economic development and infrastructure reconstruction

15.4 Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction as a sustainable socio-economic development strategy

15.5 Summary

Chapter 16: Disaster Risk Reduction and its Relationship with Sustainable Development

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Disasters: a result of poor development

16.3 Disasters: a barrier for development

16.4 Disaster risk reduction for sustainable development and vice versa

16.5 Summary

Chapter 17: Conclusion

Index

This edition first published 2011 © 2011 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell's publishing program has been merged with Wiley's global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Post-disaster reconstruction of the built environment : rebuilding for resilience / edited by Dilanthi Amaratunga and Richard Haigh. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4443-3356-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Buildings–Repair and reconstruction–Standards. 2. Disasters–Social aspects. 3. Architectural design–Technological innovations. 4. Architecture and society. I. Amaratunga, Dilanthi. II. Haigh, Richard. TH3401.P75 2011 690′.24–dc22 2011002981

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF 9781444344912; Wiley Online Library 9781444344943; ePub 9781444344929; Mobi 9781444344936

This book is dedicated to disaster-affected communities around the world

About the Editors

Professor Dilanthi Amaratunga ([email protected]) is the Professor of Disaster Management at the University of Salford, UK where she leads the University’s Centre for Disaster Resilience, responsible for supporting research on disaster management portfolios. She is also the Associate Head of International Development for the School of the Built Environment at the University of Salford. Her research interests include: post-disaster reconstruction including conflict mitigation, gender and projection; capability and capacity building in managing disasters; socio-economic measures for conflict-affected re-construction and women in construction. She is the Co-Editor of the International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. She has presented widely at international conferences, has led international disaster management workshops and seminars and is working actively with the United Nations. As a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), she leads several of their disaster management initiatives. She has supervised and supported a wide range of postgraduate research students and to date she has produced over 200 publications, refereed papers and reports, and has made a large number of presentations in over 25 countries. Dilanthi co-chairs the International Conference on Building Resilience: Interdisciplinary approaches to disaster risk reduction, and the development of sustainable communities and cities' to be held in July 2011 (www.buildresilience.org) which encourages debate on individual, institutional and societal coping strategies to address the challenges associated with disaster risk. It will also explore inter-disciplinary strategies that develop the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to disaster-related hazards, to adapt, by resisting or changing, in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. Dilanthi’s profile can be found at www.dilanthiamaratunga.net

Dr Richard Haigh ([email protected]) is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Disaster Resilience, which is based in the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. He is Programme Director of the School’s Disaster Mitigation and Reconstruction Masters programme and also Joint Editor of the International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment.

Richard undertakes research related to the application of disaster risk reduction in the built environment. His main research interests include the reintegration and rehabilitation of conflict-affected communities in Sri Lanka, and corporate social responsibility in disaster risk reduction. He is working closely with local government and major stakeholders to reduce the level of disaster risk in the Sri Lankan District of Batticaloa as part of the UNISDRs Resilient Cities campaign.

He was previously Joint Coordinator of CIBs Task Group 63 on Disasters and the Built Environment (2006–2010) and Co-Chair of the 2008 Building Education and Research Conference, held in Kandalama, Sri Lanka. The conference focused on the built environment field’s role in developing a society’s resilience to disasters.

A detailed list of Richard’s publications and activities can be found at www.richardhaigh.info.

List of Contributors

Yan Chang is an active researcher on project management requirements for post-disaster reconstruction. She is currently studying for a PhD with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, and is also part of the national research team ‘Resilient Organisations’ where she is working on resourcing for post-disaster reconstruction. Yan holds a BSc degree with First Class Honours in Civil Engineering and a Masters degree in Management Science and Engineering from Central South University in China. Apart from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, she has been involved in the reconstruction studies of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Indonesia and the 2009 Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires in Australia. Her current research interests are cross-culture disaster reconstruction studies, longitudinal post-disaster recovery, reconstruction housing project management, sustainability planning for disaster reduction, and resource availability in post-disaster situations.

Kanchana Ginige is a full time doctoral researcher at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. Her doctoral research focuses on mainstreaming women into disaster risk reduction in the built environment. She earned her BSc degree with First Class Honours in Quantity Surveying from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka in 2005. Kanchana worked as a research assistant in the Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka for about one year. She then worked as a researcher attached to a project titled ‘Constructing Women Leaders’ at the Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK in 2007. Currently, she contributes to a CIB/UN-HABITAT initiative on ‘Capacity Development for Disaster Mitigation and Reconstruction in the Built Environment’ at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford as the project research assistant.

Gayani Karunasena is a senior lecturer in Building Economics, attached to the Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. She obtained her BSc(Hons) degree in Quantity Surveying and MPhil in Construction Information Technology from the same university. Currently, she is reading for her split site PhD in the area of disaster waste management at the University of Salford, UK. She has won awards for outstanding research performance by academic staff for 2008 and 2009, awarded by the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Her current research interests are on disaster management, construction information technology and value management.

Kaushal Keraminiyage is a lecturer at the University of Salford, UK teaching on both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. He completed his PhD on construction process improvements in 2009. Kaushal is also the co-programme director for the BSc (Quantity Surveying) programme. He is an active member of the research centre for disaster resilience at the University of Salford. His research interests are decision-making in post-disaster reconstruction, ICT for the Built Environment in disaster management contexts, collaborative environments for construction education and research, building capacities of construction in Higher Education Institutions through ICT-enabled collaborations, energy conscious construction through process/ICT co-maturation and virtual learning and research environments for the built environment. Kaushal’s publication profile includes edited books, book chapters, journal papers, various reports and international conference papers and presentations. He served as an editor for the proceedings of the CIB International World Congress 2010. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment and he has facilitated a number of international research workshops and served as an organising committee member for a number of international conferences.

Udayangani Kulatunga has over 6 years’ experience in teaching and research in the UK and Sri Lanka. She is a member of the Centre for Disaster Resilience at the University of Salford. She completed her PhD in performance measurement in construction research and development in 2008 at the University of Salford. She is currently attached to the same university as a lecturer in Quantity Surveying and teaches on both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Udayangani leads the research themes ‘disaster risk reduction’ and ‘culture and disaster risk reduction’ at the Centre for Disaster Resilience at the University of Salford. In 2010, she won an INSPIRE exploratory grant funded by the British Council to explore disaster risk reduction activities in Bangladesh. Her research capabilities have also been rewarded with the New Researcher Scheme funded by the Faculty of Business, Law and the Built Environment, University of Salford to explore the cultural impact on disaster risk reduction. Udayangani was the guest editor for a special issue of Facilities journal on performance measurement and management and for a special issue of the International Journal of Strategic Property Management on disaster management. Her research output is demonstrated by the number of publications in both journals and international conferences. More details on her experiences can be found at http://www.seek.salford.ac.uk/profiles/U.KULATUNGA.jsp

Dean Myburgh has held senior leadership roles in public and private sector organisations, both in New Zealand and abroad. He is currently a director of two consultancies focused on the facilitation of strategic and operational decision-making related to risk, business continuity and emergency management, organisational change management and process improvement. From 1996 to 2005 he was a member of the Executive Steering Group of the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. Dean is an Industry Researcher on the ‘Resilient Organisations’ research programme (publications at http://www.resorgs.org.nz/pubs.shtml). His main interest is in the leadership and decision-making aspects related to recovery and resilience and he has recently addressed whole-brained thinking approaches to emergency management (in association with Auckland University of Technology).

Taufika Ophiyandri is a lecturer at the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Andalas, Padang, Indonesia. He completed his BSc in Civil Engineering from the same university and was awarded an MSc in Construction Management from the University of Birmingham, UK. He has been working for the University of Andalas since 1998 and taught engineering economics and construction management. Currently he is a full time doctoral student at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. His research interest is on risk management for community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction and is fully funded by the Ministry of National Education, Republic of Indonesia.

Roshani Palliyaguru successfully completed her PhD in Infrastructure Development and Environmental Concerns in Disaster Management in November 2010 at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. Having completed her PhD, she is involved in lecturing at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford and works as a research assistant at the Centre for Disaster Resilience in the same university on the research initiative called CEREBELLA (Community Engagement for Risk Erosion in Bangladesh to Enhance LifeLong Advantage). In 2005, Roshani was recruited at the Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa on completion of her BSc (Hons) in Quantity Surveying degree from the same department. In 2006, Roshani was awarded the Graduate Teaching Assistantship at the University of Salford. Since then she has made contributions to the academic discipline in the domain of construction management, including lecturing undergraduates, conducting and publishing research work. From 2006, Roshani has been lecturing on construction economics, construction measurement and economics & management at the University of Salford. Roshani is a researcher in disaster management discipline whereas her research interests are ranged in a widespread area including disaster risk reduction, post-disaster reconstruction, vulnerability reduction for natural hazards, and socio-economic development in post-disaster contexts. With over 5 years of research and teaching experience, Roshani has published over 19 research papers, of which five are in international journals.

Chaminda Pathirage completed his PhD in Knowledge Management from the University of Salford, UK. He is currently working as a lecturer and a programme director at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, delivering lectures on both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the fields of construction management and financial management. Chaminda has worked on several RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)-funded research projects on knowledge management in disaster management and facilities management, and has developed his specific research interest in exploring the role of knowledge management in the disaster management cycle. He is also an Editorial Advisory Board member of the International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment and an Editorial Review Board Member of International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations. With over 8 years of research and teaching experience, Chaminda has published extensively in both journals and international conferences, and he is leading the research theme ‘Knowledge Management for Disaster Resilience’ within the Research Centre for Disaster Resilience, University of Salford.

Regan Potangaroa has been an Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture, UNITEC, New Zealand for the last 7 years. However, his professional background is as a structural engineer with over 25 years experience in 17 different countries. In the last 13 years, he has completed over 50 humanitarian assignments and consequently has seen the ‘good, the bad and the ugly’ of post-disaster reconstruction. He has worked through the concepts of ‘durable solutions’ and ‘aid dependency’, then ‘participatory design’ and more recently ‘build back better’ and ‘up scaling’. The thread through these has been ‘resilience’ which he believes holds promise for more effective and efficient assistance for those in disasters.

James Olabode Rotimi’s PhD thesis examined the improvements that could be made to disaster-related legislation so that it can facilitate post-disaster reconstruction. His study makes particular reference to the Civil Defence Emergency Management, Resource Management and Building Acts in New Zealand. He has written several papers around this subject area to show how subsisting legislation could become a source of vulnerability after significant disasters. His view is that proper consideration should be given to the peculiarities of post-disaster reconstruction within building and environmental development legislation. A ‘business as usual’ approach should not be expected to be operable during significant reconstruction programmes. James has over 15 years of teaching and research experience in universities in Nigeria and New Zealand. His background is in construction management and he has industry experience including an associate role in a quantity surveying consultancy before becoming an academic. James holds professional membership of the Nigerian Institute of Building, Chartered Institute of Building and the New Zealand Institute of Building. He currently lectures at the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

Krisanthi Seneviratne is a postgraduate research student in the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. She is currently reading for her PhD in post-conflict reconstruction, focusing especially on the area of housing. Krisanthi is working on the ISLAND-II (Inspiring Sri-Lankan reNewal and Development-Phase II) research project which is jointly sponsored by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the School of the Built Environment. This research aims at increasing the effectiveness of disaster management by facilitating the sharing of appropriate knowledge and good practices relating to the key phases of knowledge capturing within the disaster management cycle. Following completion of her first degree at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, she worked as an assistant quantity surveyor in UAE, Dubai. Krisanthi joined the Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka in 2006 as a research assistant and was promoted to lecturer. She has won an Overseas Research Studentships Awards Scheme (ORSAS) for her outstanding academic ability and research potential.

Erica Seville leads the ‘Resilient Organisations’ research programme (www.resorgs.org.nz) which involves 17 researchers from Canterbury and Auckland Universities as well as key industry players, working to making organisations more resilient in the face of major hazards in the natural, built and economic environments. In addition to leading Resilient Organisations, Erica is also a director of Risk Strategies Research and Consulting where she works with clients from a variety of sectors including major health providers, the mining industry, construction contractors, and critical infrastructure providers to offer strategic risk management advice and proactively build their resilience capabilities. Erica has a Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree and a PhD in risk assessment.

Nuwani Siriwardena is a PhD researcher attached to the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK. She obtained her first degree and Masters degree from the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Nuwani has been working at the Department of Commerce, University of Colombo since 2001. She has published and presented several papers within and outside the UK. Her current focus is on stakeholder expectations of post-disaster housing reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, stakeholder theories and budgetary controls are other inspirational areas of research.

Richard Sutton is a Project Manager with a major non-governmental organisation involved in humanitarian and reconstruction work across the globe. Richard graduated with a BSc (Hons) in Construction Management and initially worked in the UK construction industry for a major management contractor before moving to the humanitarian sector. His research interests include the development of socially responsible ways to engage private sector construction firms in post-disaster environments.

Nirooja Thurairajah is a full time PhD researcher at the School of the Built Environment, University of Salford. Her PhD research is on women’s empowerment in post-disaster reconstruction. Nirooja holds a BSc degree with First Class Honours in Quantity Surveying from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Currently she is working as a researcher for a community engagement project ‘Resilient Homes’. She has also worked as a researcher for an ESF-funded project ‘Constructing women leaders’. Her research interests are on women’s issues within the built environment, organisational policies related to gender equality, community engagement, empowerment of women and post-disaster reconstruction.

Suzanne Wilkinson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Suzanne is part of the national research team ‘Resilient Organisations’ where she leads a team of researchers working in the area of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. Recently the team have been examining the post-disaster reconstruction of Samoa following the tsunami which destroyed parts of the coastline and coastline villages and Australia following the Australian bush fires north of Melbourne, which destroyed whole communities. Suzanne also teaches construction management, construction administration and construction law and is leader of the construction management research team.

Foreword

Disasters, both natural and man-made, seem to beset communities across the world with increasingly regularity. It may be, of course, that in such a connected world we are simply more immediately aware of these horrendous events, but this very global access to information presents the opportunity to endeavour to accelerate learning about how best we can predict, mitigate and recover from disasters. This is the context for this book, which puts the spotlight on the pervasive contribution that the construction industry could and should make on a very broad front.

Thus, Professor Amaratunga and Dr Haigh, their dedicated and passionate team of researchers and several other invited authors have taken a whole life cycle approach to the subject, but with a strong emphasis on how to break out of strong negative spirals, by focusing on sustainable human and capital development. Strategic perspectives are connected to practical experiences drawn from Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia and New Zealand. Chapters in the book cover a range of economic, social and technical issues.

This extensive treatment of the subject should meet two connected aims. First it will provide a benchmark of the various ways in which construction can make a positive contribution. Secondly, it is to be hoped that it will raise awareness and motivation within the built environment community to actively grasp these opportunities and to promote and deliver rational, balanced responses to these typically unbounded threats to humankind.

As mankind pushes the boundaries of the Earth’s carrying capacity to the limit and injects social disasters, such as wars and famine, into the mix, it seems clear that the issues are both technical and social in character. Thus, I am confident that this initiative will link to a positive stream of activities engaging the many stakeholders necessary to build an effective response to disasters of whatever form.

Professor Peter Barrett University of Salford, UK

Acknowledgements

The Editors of the book express their gratitude to all the contributing Authors for sharing their knowledge pertaining to various aspects of post-disaster reconstruction, in particular, towards rebuilding for resilience. Without this input detailing various examples in the international context, this book wouldn’t have been produced.

Further, the Editors and the Publisher acknowledge the help of those who granted their permission to reproduce the material (as indicated within individual chapters) for the benefit of the readers. Authors have taken every step to secure prior permission in this process, but if there are any omissions and errors, we as Editors apologise on behalf of all Authors and will take steps to rectify any mistakes.

Professor Dilanthi AmaratungaDr Richard Haigh

1

Introduction

Richard Haigh and Dilanthi Amaratunga

With growing population and infrastructures, the world's exposure to hazards – of both natural and man-made origin – is predictably increasing. This unfortunate reality will inevitably require frequent reconstruction of communities, both physically and socially. At the same time, it will be vital that any attempt to reconstruct after a disaster actively considers how to protect people and their environment to ensure those communities are less vulnerable in the future.

For the remainder of this book and in common with the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), which maintains the International Disasters Database (EM-DAT), a disaster is a ‘situation or event, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering’. For a disaster to be entered into the database at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: 10 or more people reported killed; 100 people reported affected; there is declaration of a state of emergency; or, a call for international assistance.

There are wide-ranging origins and causes to the many disasters that have affected communities across the world with ever greater frequency. The term disaster is frequently associated with geo- and hydro-meteorological hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and flooding. Three main categories of natural disasters account for 90% of the world's direct losses: floods, earthquakes and tropical cyclones (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2010).

The degree to which such disasters can be considered ‘natural’ has long been challenged. In their seminal paper entitled ‘Taking the “naturalness” out of natural disasters’, O’Keefe et al. (1976) identified the cause of the observed increase in disasters as, ‘the growing vulnerability of the population to extreme physical events’, not as changes in nature. However, as Kelman (2009) observes, even as early as 1756, Rousseau, in a letter to Voltaire about the earthquake and tsunami that hit Portugal a year earlier, commented that nature did not build the houses which collapsed, and suggested that Lisbon's high population density contributed to the toll.

More recently, the links between disasters and climate change have increasingly been recognised. There are growing concerns over the threats posed by climatological hazards such as extreme temperatures, drought and wild fires, and the multi-faceted threats associated with sea level change. The scale of human contribution to climate change may still be open to debate, but there is widespread, although many would argue, insufficient concern from politicians, commentators, researchers and the public alike, over its ability to increase the number and scale of hazards, and the potential for resultant impact on communities world-wide. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) figures showed that 2008 was the 10th warmest year since reliable records began, meaning that the 10 warmest years on record all occurred in the past 12 years.

Alongside disasters of so called ‘natural origin’, many other disasters to affect populations in recent times are unquestionably of human origin. Conflict sometimes results in wars and terrorist acts that match or exceed the losses from any ‘natural’ disaster. Other types of disaster, often referred to as ‘technical’, result from equipment malfunction or human error. Although less frequent they still have the potential to cause widespread damage to people and property.

Regardless of the origins and causes, as previously noted by the authors (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010), the consequences to human society are frequently similar: extensive loss of life, particularly among vulnerable members of a community; economic losses, hindering development goals; destruction of the built and natural environment, further increasing vulnerability; and, widespread disruption to local institutions and livelihoods, disempowering the local community.

1.1 A global challenge

In 2008, more than 220 000 people died in events like cyclones, earthquakes and flooding, the most since 2004, the year of the Asian tsunami (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2010). Meanwhile, overall global losses totalled about US$200 billion, with uninsured losses totalling US$45 billion, about 50% more than in 2007. This makes 2008 the third most expensive year on record, after 1995 when the Kobe earthquake struck Japan, and 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina in the US. The frequency, scale and distribution of disasters in recent years is further evidence, if any is needed, that hazards – of both natural and man-made origins – are a global problem, threatening to disrupt communities in developed, newly industrialised and developing countries. The developed world cannot afford to be complacent.

But recent disasters also highlight that developing and newly industrialised countries are most at risk: the losses to life and the economy – as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) – are far greater. During the last decade of the 20th century, direct losses from natural disasters in the developing world averaged US$35 billion annually (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2000). Although a disturbingly high figure by itself, perhaps more worryingly, these losses are more than eight times greater than the losses suffered over the decade of the 1960s.

In part, this high risk felt by developing and newly industrialised countries can be attributed to hazard frequency, severity and exposure. The three main categories of natural disasters that account for the greatest direct losses – as identified earlier, these are floods, earthquakes and tropical cyclones – periodically revisit the same geographic zones. Earthquake risk lies along well-defined seismic zones that incorporate a large number of developing countries. High risk areas include the West Coast of North, Central and South America, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China and Indonesia. Similarly, the pattern of hurricanes in the Caribbean and typhoons in South Asia, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific is well established. These typically affect Algeria, Egypt, Mozambique, China, India, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Afghanistan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Mongolia, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Venezuela. These examples illustrate that to a significant degree, developing countries are unfortunate in being located in regions that are particularly prone to natural hazards. Of course, this correlation is not entirely accidental. The large number of disasters resulting from this high level of exposure has seriously hindered the ability of these countries to emerge from poverty.

Aside from hazard frequency, severity and exposure, the other contributory factor to disaster risk is capacity. Unsurprisingly, newly industrialised and developing countries both tend to lack the capacity to deal with the threats posed by hazards. This capacity needs to be deployed before the hazard visits a community in the form of pre-disaster planning. Effective mitigation and preparedness can greatly reduce the threat posed by hazards of all types. Likewise, capacity can also be deployed following a major disruptive event. The post-disaster response can impact the loss of life, while timely reconstruction can minimise the broader economic and social damage that may otherwise result.

Although frequently represented as discrete stages, there is also recognition that the same are inter-connected, overlapping and multidimensional (see for example McEntire et al., 2002). In particular: the level and quality of pre-disaster planning will largely determine – positively or negatively – the post-disaster response; and, the effectiveness of post-disaster reconstruction will determine to what extent the community remains vulnerable to the threats posed by hazards in the future. This link between sustainable development and mitigation has been referred to by Mileti (1999) as ‘sustainable hazard mitigation’.

With this in mind, although this book is focused on post-disaster reconstruction, much of what is discussed within its chapters is intent on ensuring that communities are less vulnerable in the future. The emphasis on reconstruction also recognises that, unfortunately, many communities are left in a perpetual cycle of disasters, as failures in reconstruction efforts prevent them from addressing underlying risk factors.

1.2 Why focus upon the built environment?

As noted in the book's title, the emphasis of its chapters is concentrated on reconstruction of the ‘built environment’. As will be explained later, this focus does not mean that the authors are suggesting that reconstruction of the built – or physical – environment should be carried out in a vacuum. Instead, many of the chapters will highlight the importance of linking the physical requirements with broader social, natural, institutional and economic needs. However, this emphasis does recognise the growing recognition that the construction industry and built environment professions have a significant role to play in contributing to a society's improved resilience to disasters (Haigh et al., 2006; Lloyd Jones, 2006). In order to understand this role, it is necessary to understand what constitutes the ‘built environment’ and the nature of the stakeholders involved in its creation and maintenance.

The environments with which people interact most directly are often products of human initiated processes. In the 1980s the term built environment emerged as a way of collectively describing these products and processes of human creation. The built environment is traditionally associated with the fields of architecture, building science and building engineering, construction, landscape, surveying and urbanism. In Higher Education, Griffiths (2004) describes ‘a range of practice-oriented subjects concerned with the design, development and management of buildings, spaces and places’.

The importance of the built environment to the society it serves is best demonstrated by its characteristics, of which Bartuska (2007) identifies four that are inter-related. First, it is extensive and provides the context for all human endeavours. More specifically, it is everything humanly created, modified, or constructed, humanly made, arranged or maintained. Second, it is the creation of human minds and the result of human purposes; it is intended to serve human needs, wants and values. Third, much of it is created to help us deal with, and to protect us from, the overall environment, to mediate or change this environment for our comfort and well-being. Last, is that every component of the built environment is defined and shaped by context; each and all of the individual elements contribute either positively or negatively to the overall quality of environments.

As previously noted by the Editors (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010), several important consequences for disaster risk can be identified from these characteristics. The vital role of the built environment in serving human endeavours means that when elements of it are damaged or destroyed, the ability of society to function – economically and socially – is severely disrupted. Disasters have the ability to severely interrupt economic growth and hinder a person's ability to emerge from poverty. The protective characteristics of the built environment offer an important means by which humanity can reduce the risk posed by hazards, thereby preventing a disaster. Conversely, post-disaster, the loss of critical buildings and infrastructure can greatly increase a community's vulnerability to hazards in the future. Finally, the individual and local nature of the built environment, shaped by context, restricts our ability to apply generic solutions.

1.3 Resilience in the built environment

The consequences outlined above serve to underline and support the growing recognition that those responsible for the built environment have a vital role to play in developing societal resilience to disasters. The notion of resilience is becoming a core concept in the social and physical sciences, and also in matters of public policy. But what does resilience mean? What are the attributes of resilience? What is needed to create a disaster resilient built environment?

The term resilience was introduced into the English language in the early 17th century from the Latin verb resilire, meaning to rebound or recoil. However, there is little evidence of its use until Thomas Tredgold introduced the term in the early 18th century to describe a property of timber, and to explain why some types of wood were able to accommodate sudden and severe loads without breaking. In 1973, Holling presented the word resilience into the ecological literature as a way of helping to understand the non-linear dynamics observed in ecosystems. Ecological resilience was defined as the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem could withstand without changing self-organised processes and structures.

In subsequent decades, the term resilience has evolved from the disciplines of materials science, ecology and environmental studies to become a concept used by policy makers, practitioners and academics. During this period, there have been a range of interpretations as to its meaning.

For some, resilience refers to a return to a stable state following a perturbation. This view advocates a single stable state of constancy, efficiency and predictability, or, as the ability to absorb strain or change with a minimum of disruption (Horne and Orr, 1998; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). For others, resilience recognises the presence of multiple stable states, and hence resilience is the property that mediates transition among these states. This requires very different attributes, as for example advocated by Douglas and Wildavsky (1982), who define resilience from the perspective of risk as, ‘the capacity to use change to better cope with the unknown: it is learning to bounce back’ and emphasise that, ‘resilience stresses variability’. More recently but in a similar vein, Dynes (2003) associates resilience with a sense of emergent behaviour that is improvised and adaptive, while Kendra and Wachtendorf (2003) argue that creativity is vital.

Further discrepancy can be found in the degree to which resilience should be defined in merely passive terms. Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) focus on the ability to simply ‘bounce back’ from a ‘distinctive, discontinuous event that creates vulnerability and requires an unusual response’. Wildavsky (1988) further characterises resilience as the, ‘capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest’ and notes that resilience is usually demonstrated after an event or crisis has occurred. Lettieri et al. (2009) suggest a ‘contraposition’ in the literature between two concepts: resilience and resistance. Resilience they argue focuses on after-crisis activities, while resistance focuses on before-crisis activities. These all suggest a reactive approach whereby resilience is considered a ‘pattern rather than a prescribed series of steps or activities’ (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2003). Others stress a positive approach that suggests resilience is more than mere survival; it involves identifying potential risks and taking proactive steps (Longstaff, 2005). The objective is to build resilience by maximising the capacity to adapt to complex situations (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005). Similarly, Paton et al. (2001) write of a paradigm shift that accommodates the analysis and facilitation of growth, whereby resilience ‘describes an active process of self-righting, learned resourcefulness and growth’.

Resilience is evidently complex and open to a variety of interpretations but how can it be applied to the built environment? The relationship between disaster risk, resilience and the built environment suggests that a resilient built environment will occur when we design, develop and manage context sensitive buildings, spaces and places that have the capacity to resist or change in order to reduce hazard vulnerability, and enable society to continue functioning, economically and socially, when subjected to a hazard event. It is possible to elaborate on this definition by exploring specific characteristics of resilience and how they may be present in the built environment.

Firstly, resilience is seen as the ability to accommodate abnormal or periodic threats and disruptive events, be they terrorist actions, the results of climatic change, earthquakes and floods, or an industrial accident. Identifying, assessing and communicating the risk from such threats and events are therefore vital components. Individuals, communities, organisations and, indeed, nations that are prepared and ready for an abnormal event, tend to be more resilient. Consequently, those responsible for the planning, design and management of the built environment need to understand the diverse hazard threats to buildings, spaces and places and the performance of the same if a disruptive event materialises.

The next characteristic is the ability to absorb or withstand the disturbance while still retaining essentially the same function. This may mean returning to the state or condition that existed before the disturbance occurred, or returning to an improved state or condition. This absorption might be realised through the specification and use of hazard resistant methods, materials and technologies. It might also result from the construction of protective infrastructure, or the protection of critical infrastructure. Such measures may resist the threat, or at least reduce the losses experienced.

As outlined in the opening of this chapter, we live in a world which is constantly evolving, in some cases through natural processes and in other cases through the intervention of mankind. There is common agreement in the literature that systems, organisations and people who are able and willing to adapt tend to be more resilient. Creative solutions, the ability to improvise and the capacity to adapt will be essential in order to address the challenges posed by what is often seen as an unbounded threat.

The ability and willingness to learn is often linked to adaptability and being prepared. The learning may come from studying the lessons of others in a formal manner: by gathering and evaluating data, by conducting research in an objective, independent and balanced manner, and by communicating the findings, conclusions and recommendations.

The ability to absorb or withstand also requires economic and human capacity. A resilient built environment will need to be supported by a strong domestic industry and appropriately skilled professions and trades. A well-developed construction sector and supply chain, which largely comprise of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, provides a strong means to counter the economic shocks that frequently accompany other disasters, while also offering an economic stimulus and livelihood opportunity in the recovery period.

As society becomes more complex, resilient communities tend to be those which are well coordinated and share common values and beliefs. This sense of interconnectedness can be undermined by self-interest and personal gain, resulting in vulnerable societies that are less able and willing to plan for, and react to, disruptive events. Understanding the link between the physical and social environment will be vital in developing connectedness. Culturally sensitive, sustainable and socially responsible planning, design and management of the built environment, have the potential to help develop community cohesion and thus contribute to wider societal resilience.

From this discussion of its characteristics, it is evident that the concept of resilience provides a useful framework of analysis and understanding on how we can plan, design and maintain a built environment that copes in a changing world, facing many uncertainties and challenges. Sometimes change is gradual and things move forward in continuous and predictable ways; but sometimes change is sudden, disorganising and turbulent. Resilience provides better understanding on how society should respond to disruptive events and accommodate change.

1.4 Disasters as a window of opportunity

If this idea of a resilient built environment is appealing, how can it be achieved? A further reason for the book's emphasis on reconstruction is that the post-disaster period provides a window of opportunity to address many of the vulnerabilities usually encountered in a community's built environment. There are several features of this post-disaster period that can be capitalised upon. Firstly, the disaster has destroyed much of the built environment that was improperly designed and vulnerable, creating a fresh start from which to address disaster risk. Furthermore, the experience gained during the disaster typically generates new knowledge, which brings various stakeholders together around a shared awareness of the nature of risk. The mistakes of previous development policies and strategies are exposed and can be addressed. Next and perhaps even more significantly, the political will and desire to act is almost certainly stronger than usual. Any interest in disaster risk reduction that had been forgotten or side-lined before the disaster, will suddenly gain renewed prominence in the recovery period. In a similar vein, the lack of resourcing for risk reduction, any presence of corruption and otherwise weak institutional structures that allowed a vulnerable built environment to be constructed will have been highlighted. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the post-disaster period often provides a level of resourcing, including considerable external funding, that would be otherwise unattainable. If properly utilised – something that is by no means certain – this additional resource does afford a major opportunity to reduce vulnerability.

The fact that this window of opportunity exists does not mean that the various actors involved in reconstruction will take advantage of it. Although many, if not all, of these features are usually present following a major disaster, even a cursory glance at the countless studies and evaluations of programming after disasters, provides evidence that it is frequently a missed opportunity.

There are a myriad of reasons as to why these failures occur. Humanitarian principles are primarily concerned with addressing acute human suffering. By necessity, a timely response is essential. Anything that slows this response is likely to be a problem. Unfortunately, the well-planned reconstruction of a more resilient built environment will take time. Likewise, humanitarian principles also tend to dictate maintaining independence, neutrality and impartiality. This can dissuade actors from highlighting previous failings, which would otherwise create the necessary political will for change.

Effective reconstruction of the built environment is also competing with many other priorities. Poverty alleviation, improved health and good governance are a few of the many goals usually mainstreamed in the post-disaster recovery period. A more resilient built environment can certainly contribute to these goals, but there will inevitably be a time-lag; other recovery programmes can sometimes appear more appealing due to their ability to deliver short-term results. If the window of opportunity is to be taken advantage of, then advocates of a more resilient built environment will need to demonstrate the vital role it plays in helping society achieve much broader development goals.

A further complication is the natural tension between the need for timely reconstruction and a desire to utilise and where necessary develop local capacity. Institutions and local enterprise to plan and construct the built environment may matter, but they are often simply not there. Government, both national and local, is usually called upon to make critical long-term planning decisions, and to develop and enforce appropriate building regulations. This expectation is made of institutions that have usually failed to achieve this in far less challenging periods. The reality is that large scale reconstruction may have to be undertaken during a period soon after a major part of the civil service has perished, or at least been severely disrupted. At a time when even greater demands are being made of the civil service, its employees are sometimes being laid off, with the damage to the local tax base reducing available funding. At the same time, the local construction industry is suddenly called upon to increase its output to meet the needs of an unprecedented programme of reconstruction activity, while simultaneously familiarising itself with less vulnerable methods and materials. Building human resources and local capacity to address these shortfalls and support reconstruction may take years.

The alternative, to make use of international agencies and private enterprises, understandably raises other concerns. International actors are often accused of poaching the most talented local civil servants and encroaching on a country's independence, while the private sector is accused of disaster profiteering and leaves local industry unable to ‘benefit’ from the economic opportunities afforded by the disaster.

In summary, there is a window of opportunity, but it is beset with challenges. A pragmatic approach to the development of a resilient built environment needs to include an understanding of these difficulties and their implications for what can actually be done, at least in the short term. While the humanitarian efforts are frequently a rushed process, effective rebuilding for resilience will require reflection, discussion and consensus building. This should not undermine the importance of starting this process early in the recovery phase; indeed, a failure to consider long-term reconstruction goals early in the recovery can lead to wasted or misguided effort, as well as undermine efforts for future resilience. Instead, it recognises the importance of a judicious approach that addresses the complexity of creating resilience.

1.5 Structure of the book

It is evident from the discussion thus far in this opening chapter that the challenges associated with creating a disaster resilient built environment are considerable. The following chapters of this book elaborate on these many challenges while also offering ways to rebuild the built environment for resilience. In doing so, they explore individual, institutional and societal coping strategies for dealing with a range of hazards of both natural and man-made origin.

As noted earlier in this chapter, the frequency, scale and distribution of disasters in recent years demonstrate that the threat posed by these many hazards are a global problem, promising to disrupt communities in developed, newly industrialised and developing countries. Consequently, this book explores strategies in different contexts; many chapters include examples of how the built environment and the community it serves has coped when facing a hazard, and also how that community has responded in the aftermath of a disaster. The examples cover a range of communities and are thus taken from developing and developed countries.

The early chapters focus on the need for capacity in reconstruction. Ginige and Amaratunga begin the discussion in Chapter 2, exploring the challenge of capacity development for post-disaster reconstruction of the built environment. They consider the need to address capacity gaps across a range of built environment-related stakeholders. Within Chapter 3, Seneviratne builds on this opening to consider the human, physical, economic and social impact of the Indian Ocean Tsunami in Sri Lanka. The capacity of the Sri Lankan construction industry to respond to this challenge is examined. Using a very different context, within Chapter 4, Chang, Wilkinson, Potangaroa and Seville look at resourcing for post-disaster reconstruction using a longitudinal case study following an earthquake in China.

Maintaining the capacity theme but with a change of emphasis, Chapter 5 sees Thurairajah explore the opportunity for empowerment in disaster response and reconstruction, and in particular the role of women. In a similar vein, Ophiyandri examines the effectiveness of community-based post-disaster reconstruction in Indonesia in Chapter 6.

The second part of the book moves on to explore organisational perspectives of reconstruction. In Chapter 7, Siriwardena and Haigh highlight the importance of stakeholder engagement, and consider how they can be identified, classified and subsequently engaged in the reconstruction process. In Chapter 8, Kulatunga addresses the challenges associated with managing post-disaster reconstruction projects, including issues such as procurement, contract management, the sourcing of labour, materials and equipment, and financial accountability. Offering a different perspective, in Chapter 9 Rotimi, Wilkinson and Myburgh use examples from New Zealand to examine the problems that can be encountered with legislative provision for construction in a post-disaster environment, while Seneviratne and Amaratunga use Chapter 10 to illustrate the difficult context in which reconstruction often takes place, in this instance with specific reference to post-conflict environments. Sutton and Haigh complete the organisational perspective in Chapter 11. They consider whether there is a role for multi-national construction firms in helping to address the resource gap that usually exists in post-disaster environments: the gap between the volume of construction work to be undertaken and the capacity of the local construction industry.

The final part of the book focuses upon sustainable reconstruction. In Chapter 12, Pathirage explains the importance of effectively managing knowledge among complex sets of stakeholders, with a specific focus on practices and systems integration. Keraminiyage uses Chapter 13 to examine the importance of restoring a community's major infrastructure as a means for rehabilitating communities, while in Chapter 14 Karunasena tackles the challenge of managing the large volumes of construction and demolition waste that invariably arise following a disaster. In Chapter 15, Palliyaguru and Amaratunga emphasise the links between reconstruction and sustainable economic development, while in Chapter 16, Ginige focuses on the link between disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.

Chapter 17 completes the book, with Haigh and Amaratunga reflecting upon the points raised in the earlier chapters and considering the overall contribution to building resilience.

References

Bartuska, T. (2007) The built environment: definition and scope. In: Bartuska T. and Young, G. (Eds), The Built Environment: A Creative Inquiry into Design and Planning. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A.B. (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Danger. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Dynes, R. (2003) Finding order in disorder: continuities in the 9-11 response. Inter-national Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 21, 9–23. Research Committee on Disasters, International Sociological Association.

Griffiths, R. (2004) Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 709–726.

Haigh, R., Amaratunga, D. and Keraminiyage, K. (2006) An Exploration of the Construction Industry's Role in Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery. Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS COBRA 2006), The RICS and The Bartlett School, University College London.

Haigh, R. and Amaratunga, D. (2010) An integrative review of the built environment discipline's role in the development of society's resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1, 11–24.

Holling, C. (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

Horne III, J. and Orr, J. (1998) Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations. Employment Relations Today, 24, 29–39.

Kendra, J. and Wachtendorf, T. (2003) Creativity in Emergency Response to the World Trade Center Disaster … Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research. Special Publication No. 39. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.

Kelman, I. (2009) Natural Disasters Do Not Exist (Natural Hazards Do Not Exist Either). Version 2, 10 September 2009 (Version 1 was 26 July 2007). http://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/NaturalDisasters.rtf

Lengnick-Hall, C. and Beck, T. (2003) Beyond Bouncing Back: The Concept of Organizational Resilience. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA, 1–6 August.

Lengnick-Hall, C. and Beck, T. (2005) Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: how organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31, 738–757.

Lettieri, E., Masella, C. and Radaelli, G. (2009) Disaster management: findings from a systematic review. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18, 117–136.

Lloyd-Jones, T. (2006) Mind the Gap! Post-disaster Reconstruction and the Transition from Humanitarian Relief. London: RICS.

Longstaff, P. (2005) Security, Resilience, and Communication in Unpredictable Environments Such as Terrorism, Natural Disasters and Complex Technology. Report for the Center for Information Policy Research, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

McEntire, D., Fuller, C., Johnston, C. and Weber, R. (2002) A comparison of disaster paradigms: the search for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review, 62, 267–281.

Mileti, D. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. and Wisner, B. (1976) Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 260, 566–567.

Paton, D., Johnston, D., Smith, L. and Millar, M. (2001) Community response to hazard effects: promoting resilience and adjustment adoption. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 16, 47–52.

Sutcliffe, K. and Vogus, T. (2003) Organizing for resilience. In: Cameron, K. (Ed.), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. pp. 94–110.

Swiss Reinsurance Company (2000) Natural Catastrophes and Man-Made Disasters in 1999: Storms and Earthquakes Lead to the Second–Highest Losses in Insurance History. Zurich: Sigma.

Swiss Reinsurance Company (2010) Natural and Man-Made Catastrophes in 2009. Zurich: Sigma.

Wildavsky, A. (1988) Searching for Safety. New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Books.

2

Capacity Development for Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment

Kanchana Ginige and Dilanthi Amaratunga

2.1 Introduction

‘The built environment is the aggregate of human-constructed “physical plant”, with its myriad of elements and systems. It includes the buildings where we live, work, learn, and play; the lifelines that connect and service them; and the community and region that they are a part of. It is the roads, utility lines and the communication systems we use to travel, receive water and electricity or send information from one place to another. The pipes and transmission lines that carry vital supplies and wastes for use or treatment are other essential elements. Very simply, the built environment comprises the substantive physical framework for human society to function in its many aspects – social, economic, political, and institutional’ (Geis, 2000, page 8).

Geis’ definition ably demonstrates the critical role that the built environment plays in the functioning of society. As a consequence, destruction of a community's built environment during a disaster, regardless of that disaster's origin will, in all likelihood, significantly hinder the regular functioning of that society. In this context, rapidly reconstructing the built environment after a disaster becomes critical. Post-disaster reconstruction of the built environment primarily focuses on the repair and reconstruction of physical infrastructure and buildings. Although reconstruction is usually urgent in order to minimise the social and economic disruption to a society, it is important that this understandable desire for haste, does not compromise goals for sustainability and greater resilience that would reduce a society's vulnerability to future disasters. It is now widely acknowledged that the characteristics of the built environment – issues such as location, form and type – will significantly impact disaster vulnerabilities (Duque, 2005). It is therefore vital that any reconstruction programme adequately addresses mitigation and long-term sustainability, rather than merely reinstate what has been destroyed.

The challenge of sustainable reconstruction is wide-ranging in nature. This chapter focuses on one aspect: how to analyse, create, utilise and retain capacities for construction of the built environment so that communities are more resilient and less vulnerable to the threat posed by local hazards. This chapter presents a framework that has been developed to develop capacity for post-disaster reconstruction in the built environment. In particular, the framework aims to strengthen the knowledge, abilities, skills and behaviour of individuals responsible for the built environment, and improve institutional structures and processes to ensure that post disaster reconstruction meets its mission and goals in a sustainable way.

2.2 Capacity needs for post-disaster reconstruction

Capacities exist in different forms; they may be knowledge, skills, technology and resources. According to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) (2009), capacity is the combination of all the strengths, attributes and resources available within a community, society or an organisation, and that can be used to achieve agreed goals. They can exist in the forms of infrastructure and physical means, institutions, societal coping abilities, human knowledge, skills, and collective attributes such as social relationships, leadership and management.