Challenges of sustainable recovery processes in tsunami affected communities

Abstract

PurposeSustainable housing and community recovery processes in the aftermath of tsunamis have to cope with direct impacts, such as fatalities, destroyed buildings, and loss of economic assets, as well as indirect impacts caused by shortcomings in recovery management. Recent studies on post‐tsunami recovery tend to focus on direct impacts, ranging from monitoring to prevention studies. Less attention is paid to recovery as a complex bundle of multi‐agent processes causing subsequent problems.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents results from field studies evaluating post‐tsunami recovery processes in Sri Lanka against the concept of sustainable housing and community recovery. Semi‐structured observations and interviews were conducted on eight sites in the south‐western part of Sri Lanka during field visits 2005‐2006. The research involved beneficiaries and other citizens, representatives from government and administration, field workers (non‐governmental organizations), and scientists.FindingsEmpirical findings identify subsequent problems for specific capital forms, across different capital forms, and across different administrative levels. Moreover, critical issues refer to conceptualizing temporal horizons, comprehensive planning and decision making, stakeholders' involvement, and institutional embedding of recovery processes.Originality/valueAgainst this empirical background, the paper indicates improvement potentials referring to literature on comprehensive and adaptive planning to address the sustainable recovery challenges identified. The paper provides guidance for researchers, decision makers, planners, and field workers engaged in post‐disaster sustainable development.

Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges

“…In a transdisciplinary project in Sri Lanka, this challenge became so serious that the success of the overall project became jeopardized. The project objective was to develop a culturally sensitive, practically applicable, and, nevertheless, scientifically sound planning framework for sustainability-oriented longterm recovery after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean (Wiek et al 2010). While researchers insisted on employing and integrating advanced scenario construction and multi-criteria assessment methods into the framework, partners from local NGOs and international aid organizations opted for rather pragmatic tools.…”

Low‐carbon Reconstruction: A Meta‐Synthesis Approach for the Sustainable Development of a Post‐Disaster Community

“…Post-disaster communities are vulnerable socialecological systems. More frequent disasters have caused considerable and systemic destruction to often already vulnerable communities, destroying physical buildings and infrastructure, and causing extreme socioeconomic and ecological pressures (Wiek et al, 2010). Thus, the affected community's human-environmental systems are more vulnerable in the CPDR period (Ingram et al, 2006).…”

“…The need for the LCR An effective way to solve the key contradiction in the CPDR is to build resilience. Because fragile communities are more likely to be susceptible to disturbance (Allenby and Fink, 2005;Saavedra and Budd, 2009), building resilience and thus reducing vulnerability is a prerequisite for focusing post-disaster communities towards a more sustainable future (Ingram et al, 2006;Wiek et al, 2010). That is, the more resilient a community, the less vulnerable it becomes, and the larger the disturbance it can withstand (Walker et al, 2006).…”

“…In general, a community with higher levels of community capital is more likely to be a sustainable community (Roseland, 2000). Corresponding to the components of a low-carbon community, community capital could be summed up as including physical, human, social, economic, cultural and natural capital (Buckland and Rahman, 1999;Roseland, 2000;Wiek et al, 2010). In a low-carbon and post-disaster context, community capital components have special meanings and significance.…”

“…'Sustainability' has been shown to achieve economic vitality, social equity and ecological integrity in communities (Ercan, 2011); and this 'development' can be described as a process of fulfilling human needs and building a sustainability capacity (Roseland, 2000). Despite the significant research into CPDR effectiveness, the promotion of sustainable development in a post-disaster community still faces many challenges (Wiek et al, 2010). It has been observed that many post-disaster community development programs have failed to achieve sustainable development after the completion of the reconstruction projects because of a lack of long-term and systemic consideration (Ingram et al, 2006;Kumaran and Negi, 2006).…”