Building back better with people centered housing recovery

Maly, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.005

Cited by 71 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no friendly policy environment with flexibility or sensitivity to indigenous culture to facilitate a genuine participation in discussing collective relocation. The people-centered approach to housing recovery in Indonesia after the 2013 eruption of Mount Merapi (Maly, 2018) may be a case to look after, especially the flexibility it offers to the displaced people in building up a variety of houses to meet their different needs and the possibility for them to reutilize their old lands.…”

Section: Opportunities or Vulnerabilities?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding disaster (in)justice: Spatializing the production of vulnerabilities of indigenous people in Taiwan

Huang

2018

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing disaster studies scholarship tends to uncritically privilege official institutional responses to disasters over bottom-up, community-based reactions and adaptations in the longer term. Meanwhile, the state-recognized disasters mostly exclude socioeconomic and environmental contradictions that generate disasters by making people vulnerable in the first place. Discussion of disaster justice, then, is limited to the immediate state responses to understanding disasters as natural episodes, often incorporating distributive justice into its policy responses. A more spatialized understanding of disaster justice should move beyond these dual limitations-constraints in defining disasters as isolated episodes and in planning for recovery as only emergency responses-and pay attention to the socio-spatial production of risk. This approach would better attend to underlying societal vulnerabilities created through urbanization, in this case, of the indigenous peoples of Taiwan. A spatialized understanding of disaster justice guides this research to attend to both the reoccurring displacements of indigenous people from where their socioeconomic-ecological relations were embedded and the systematic production of risk that has been reinforced and exacerbated by inadequate land use planning. Based on a study of two indigenous groups in Southern Taiwan, Kucapungane and Makazayazaya, this paper explains disaster justice from the indigenous context wrought by multiple expropriations and displacements from the 1930s onwards. This paper plans to do two things: First, it will investigate bottom-up responses to a series of historical disaster-driven migration/ urbanization through theories of community resilience. Secondly, it will expand understanding of ''disasters'' by taking into account the state-led relocation projects as human-made disasters and examine how they have contributed to the vulnerability of the indigenous communities under climate change. It will contribute to a better understanding of disaster justice that overcomes the dual limitations and opens up opportunities for alternative research and practices.

show abstract

Section: Opportunities or Vulnerabilities?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding disaster (in)justice: Spatializing the production of vulnerabilities of indigenous people in Taiwan

Huang

2018

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The shelter response to Typhoon Haiyan in Southeast Asia in 2013 (Shelter Cluster Philippines, 2014) was the first major humanitarian shelter initiative to identify the provision of support for shelter self-recovery as a strategic objective. It has been a strategic objective in other humanitarian post-disaster shelter responses since then (Maynard, Parker, and Twigg, 2017), and the approach was given global institutional backing by the Global Shelter Cluster (2018) as part of their 2018-2022Strategy (Global Shelter Cluster, 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building safety in humanitarian programmes that support post‐disaster shelter self‐recovery: an evidence review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The humanitarian sector is increasingly aware of the role that good quality evidence plays in the underpinning of effective and accountable practice. This review addresses the need for reliable evidence by evaluating current knowledge about the intersection of two key outcome targets of post‐disaster shelter response: supporting shelter self‐recovery and building back safer. Evidence about post‐disaster shelter programmes that aim to improve hazard resistance while supporting shelter self‐recovery has been systematically analysed and evaluated. Technical support, especially training in safer construction techniques, was found to be a central programme feature, but the impact of this and other programme attributes on building safety was largely not ascertainable. Programme reports and studies lack sufficient detail, especially on the hazard resistance of repaired houses. Accounts of shelter programmes need to include more reliable reporting of key activities and assessment of outcomes, in order to contribute to the growing evidence base in this field.

show abstract

“…'Build(ing) back better' (BBB) became a postdisaster slogan following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (Boano & García, 2011;Maly, 2018) and plays a significant role today in global recovery efforts. With the exception of conflict-induced displacement such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion, the desired outcome of displacement and resettlement is to improve people's lives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Certainly, vulnerable people are largely absent from the discussions that set the agenda' (p. 175). Now widely used in disaster risk reduction and recovery, and post-disaster recovery plans, BBB was even featured in the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Maly, 2018). Pelling, 2001;Wisner et al, 2003;Bankoff et al, 2004;Adger, 2006) does not mean foundational issues are necessarily understood or addressed in practice; those defining who or what is 'vulnerable' and institutionalised processes that contribute to the perpetuation of vulnerability must be considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet an increasing focus in current disaster literature on vulnerability reduction or the political and socioeconomic roots of disaster (e.g. Often seen as an opportunity to implement structural design improvement and change (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2013;Ophiyandri et al, 2013;Mochizuki and Chang, 2017), BBB has since been expanded beyond a more narrow focus on the built environment to also include social recovery (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2014;Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2015;2018). When such procedural vulnerability (Veland et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2015) is not addressed or remains invisible, it essentially equates to continuing cultural domination through marginalisation of representation, aspirations and values of the people whomwith good intentionsthe experts, institutions and representatives of the dominant culture intend to assist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resettling, disconnecting or displacing? Attending to local sociality, culture and history in disaster settings

Hsu

Okada

Mori

et al. 2019

Asia Pacific Viewpoint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many disaster settings, top-down responses emphasise 'expert-led' solutions that often involve relocating disaster-affected communities. While the intention might be to move people from harm's way and facilitate recovery, failure to attend to local pre-disaster circumstances as well as the interplay between power, resilience and vulnerability within and around affected communities often sees resettlement reconfigure as displacement or disconnection. This oversight may even usher in a new phase of dispossession and disadvantage for marginalised groups (particularly in colonial settings). This paper explores experiences in Australia, Japan and Taiwan to reflect on what issues of local sociality, local culture and local resilience need to be attended to in framing 'better' disaster responses.

show abstract

Building back better with people centered housing recovery

Cited by 71 publications

References 7 publications

Understanding disaster (in)justice: Spatializing the production of vulnerabilities of indigenous people in Taiwan

Understanding disaster (in)justice: Spatializing the production of vulnerabilities of indigenous people in Taiwan

Building safety in humanitarian programmes that support post‐disaster shelter self‐recovery: an evidence review

Resettling, disconnecting or displacing? Attending to local sociality, culture and history in disaster settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About