Why Representation Matters in Disaster Recovery

Disaster mobilities, temporalities, and recovery: experiences of the tsunami in the Maldives

“…This suggests, in turn, that full recovery from disasters is not possible for many individuals and groups; the notion of ‘recovery’ instead serving the interests of civil society organisations and governments concerned with identifying and achieving a measurable endpoint to post‐disaster interventions. Such a conception of open‐endedness is summed up by Few et al (2021, p. 3) as follows:

Disaster impacts are never short‐term. The crisis does not come to an end when the immediate physical effects of a hazard cease or when the last survivors have been rescued, buildings have been made safe, relief supplies have been set in place, and the news cameras have moved elsewhere.

…”

“…Similarly, recognising the importance of everyday mobilities to people's recovery processes emphasises the need for better understanding of how post‐disaster settlements are designed and constructed by governments and aid agencies. As argued by Few et al (2021, p. 14), the ways in which rehousing is represented and talked about in these circumstances ‘tends to obscure socio‐economic vulnerabilities linked to local livelihoods, place attachment and the psychosocial impacts of relocating, as well as homogenize differentiated needs and hopes’. As we have demonstrated through our empirical work, people's need for external assistance does not cease when new, post‐disaster settlements are ‘handed over’ by national and local authorities.…”

“…The snowball sampling technique allowed the researchers to identify individuals who were willing and comfortable to speak about the tsunami and its aftermath. Emphasis was on identifying a diverse range of individuals differentiated by gender, age, livelihood activity, and socioeconomic background to ensure multiple and various accounts of the disaster (Few et al, 2021).…”

Inclusive recovery planning for incremental systemic change: A methodology, early outcomes, and limitations from the Falkland Islands' Covid‐19 recovery planning experience

“…The massive costs of disasters are a further reason for the neglect of the recovery phase (e.g., Chernobyl—$700 billion [Samet & Seo, 2016]; Sichuan Earthquake—$180 billion [Miyamoto et al, 2009]; Australian bushfires 2019/20—$71.8 billion [Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2020]—all adjusted for 2021). Given such enormous costs, it is unsurprising that post incident recovery management is populated by those already in positions of power, already maintaining existing structures and less likely than those less powerful to perceive a need for systemic change (Few et al, 2021).…”

“…Australian bushfires 2019/20-$71.8 billion [Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2020]-all adjusted for 2021). Given such enormous costs, it is unsurprising that post incident recovery management is populated by those already in positions of power, already maintaining existing structures and less likely than those less powerful to perceive a need for systemic change (Few et al, 2021).…”