Towards guidelines for post-disaster vulnerability reduction in informal settlements

Disasters ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent Doberstein ◽  
Heather Stager
Author(s):  
Omer Aijazi

Purpose – This paper introduces a model of social repair to the language of disaster recovery that potentially provides a new way of conceptualizing reconstruction and recovery processes by drawing attention to the dismantling of structural inequities that inhibit post-disaster recovery. Design/methodology/approach – The paper first engages with the current discourse of vulnerability reduction and resilience building as embedded within a distinct politics of post-disaster recovery. The concept of social repair is then explored as found within post-conflict and reconciliation literature. For application within the context of natural disasters, the concept of social repair is modified to have evaluative and effectiveness significance for disaster recovery. A short case example is presented from post-flood Pakistan to deepen our understanding of the potential application and usage of a social repair orientation to disaster recovery. Findings – The paper recommends that the evaluative goals of post-disaster recovery projects should be framed in the language of social repair. This means that social relationships (broadly defined) must be restored and transformed as a result of any disaster recovery intervention, and relationship mapping exercises should be conducted with affected communities prior to planning recovery interventions. Originality/value – Current discourses of disaster recovery are rooted within the conceptual framings of reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. While both theoretical constructs have made important contributions to the disaster recovery enterprise, they have been unable to draw sufficient attention to pre-existing structural inequities. As disaster recovery and reconstruction projects influence the ways communities negotiate and manage future risk, it is important that interventions do not lead to worsened states of inequity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 05019002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devon J. McGhee ◽  
Sherri Brokopp Binder ◽  
Elizabeth A. Albright

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Sandoval ◽  
Martin Voss

This exploratory work seeks to shed light on disaster governance by looking into potential linkages between the production of vulnerability and disaster governance in Chile. Our point of investigation is the case of post-disaster Chaitén and the Chilean model of Disaster Risk Management. The work begins by situating disaster governance and the production of vulnerability in a broader context of existing governance system that includes a multiplicity of actors and socio-economic, socio-ecological, and political processes. Coming from a multi-scalar perspective, we use the disaster Pressure and Release (PAR) model to enable a differentiated analysis of the multiplicity of actors, rules, and processes related to DRM that participate in the production of disaster vulnerability in the current Chaitén. With this we address the questions as to ‘why’ the Chilean model of DRM is prominently centralised and ‘what’ are the effects on the production of disaster vulnerability for the case of post-disaster Chaitén.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Taş ◽  
Nilüfer Taş ◽  
Selen Durak ◽  
Gül Atanur

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 607-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane C. Ingram ◽  
Guillermo Franco ◽  
Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio ◽  
Bjian Khazai

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1137-1157
Author(s):  
Awais Arifeen ◽  
Siri Eriksen

This paper uses governance of water infrastructure in two settlements of Baltistan as an entry point to examine the co-production of power and vulnerability. Access to water and irrigated land is a critical factor in determining how the effects of disasters, such as flooding, are socially distributed within a community. At the same time, the governance of water is intimately linked to the longer-term politics of disaster vulnerability. We examine three different forms of disputes over water infrastructure where struggles over authority and social ordering materialise: (i) between and within settlements over access to a water resource; (ii) within settlements over post-disaster water infrastructure development and (iii) between a settlement and the district government over land, water rights and flood protection. The findings illustrate that the governance of water infrastructure involves continuous negotiations, contestations and disputes over access rights. Access to water resources as an expression of rights plays a key role in the recognition of authority relations. In particular, influential individuals seek to legitimise their leadership role in a settlement by representing the rights and interests of groups in the negotiation of these disputes. However, environmental variability and change, including disasters and post-disaster development interventions, alter perceptions of what constitute legitimate rights, and provide spaces for popular contestation of authority relations through silent non-compliance with decisions. The close interlinkages between material and non-material effects of a disaster are a key feature of the co-production of power and vulnerability. By adding authority relations to studies of village-level practices around disasters, we enrich our understanding of the co-production of power and vulnerability and how these dynamics unfold over time. It is only by investigating this co-production that a deeper understanding can be developed of the mechanisms through which vulnerability is either exacerbated or reduced for particular groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document