Rebuilding Communities after Disasters: Lessons from the Tsunami Disaster in Sri Lanka

Abstract

Disaster management literature is inundated with rhetoric about ‘community participation’ or ‘community‐led recovery’, yet the studies on how to achieve this have been unconvincing, displaying a shallow understanding of what ‘community’ means. Development scholars often argue that better preparation for ‘extreme events’ can prevent them from becoming ‘disasters’, but a string of recent disasters – from Haiti to Japan – reminds us that the world community will continue to be called on to help rebuild shattered communities. This article reflects the findings of a major study of social recovery from the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka that set out to identify and analyse examples of good practice with regard to community‐led recovery. It aims to elaborate what a community development approach to disaster recovery might look like as part of a more ‘deliberative’ and patient approach to long‐term social recovery.

Towards a critical geography of disaster recovery politics: Perspectives on crisis and hope

“…The process of disaster recovery is intensely value laden, driven by questions of power, equity and prioritisation over what is rebuilt, by who and where (Vale & Campanella, , Mulligan, ). Despite the ‘window of opportunity’ into the power structures of society that disaster provides, these processes of recovery are one of the least studied aspects of these destructive events (Berke, Kartez, & Wenger, ; Ride & Bretherton, ; Rozario, ).…”

On Ambivalence and Hope in the Restless Search for Community: How to Work with the Idea of Community in the Global Age

“…The author's work on rebuilding local communities in the wake of the tsunami disaster led him to advocate a conscious and deliberative 'community development' approach to the rebuilding of traumatized communities (Mulligan, 2013). Use of the term 'community development' acknowledges the existence of the field of practice that first emerged in countries such as the UK, USA and Australia in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Craig, 2008(Craig, [1989; Kenny, 2007).…”

“…From 2004 to 2014, the author has been involved in a number of big Australian research projects on the growing importance of community-based art (Mulligan et al, 2006;Mulligan andSmith, 2010, 2011). These studies have suggested that a national growth in community art practice reflects an underlying desire to create and project a sense of belonging to communities of place, and the work of Arlene Goldbard (2006) points to similar developments in the USA and UK.…”

“…The suggestion – made by Delanty and others – that the desire for community reflects an ancient and perennial discourse of loss and recovery is reflected in the fact that ‘natural’ disasters often trigger an outpouring of rhetoric on the need to ‘rebuild’ affected communities, even to ‘build back better’ (Mulligan and Nadarajah, 2012). Unfortunately, the word ‘community’ is often used loosely and uncritically in the international literature on disaster recovery even if there is an awareness that projected claims about who belongs to the community can divide and further traumatize disaster-affected communities (Mulligan, 2013). Shallow or narrow projections of community can make long-term social recovery from a disaster more difficult (Khasalamwa, 2009; Mulligan and Nadarajah, 2012), while loose references to community can obscure a more nuanced understanding of social recovery.…”

“…In examining what might be learnt about rebuilding disaster-affected communities from the Sri Lanka tsunami disaster of 2004, the author and his co-researchers sought out examples of good practice and were surprised to find that some people with no past experience in this kind of work did better than some who arrived with pre-existing ideas about what should be done. The author concluded (Mulligan, 2013) that haste is the enemy of effective long-term disaster recovery work because ‘outside’ aid workers need to take time to identify and work with respected locals who understand the potential for division and conflict within the traumatized community. The 2004 tsunami struck coastal Sri Lankan communities that included a delicate mix of sub-communities divided by ethnic origin and religious affiliations.…”