Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment

Rebuilding for Resilience

Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781444344929
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Construction & Architectural Engineering
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Disasters threaten all parts of the world and they appear to be increasing in frequency, scale and intensity. Despite huge improvements in the emergency response, permanent reconstruction is often uncoordinated, inefficiently managed and slow to begin. International agencies are geared to an efficient response in terms of humanitarian relief, but they are not well versed in the requirements of long-term reconstruction, which is often constrained by lack of planning and poorly coordinated management.

The construction industry is typically engaged in a range of critical activities after a disaster, including provision of temporary shelter in the immediate aftermath and restoration of permanent shelter and public infrastructure once the immediate humanitarian needs have been attended to. Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment identifies the challenges that face the industry and highlights best practice to enable the construction industry to address those problems which make an effective response to these unexpected events difficult. Written by an international team of experts, this book will help researchers and advanced students of construction understand the problems faced by communities and the construction industry when faced with a natural or man-made disaster, and identify the planning and management processes required by the industry to mount an effective response.

1

Introduction

Richard Haigh and Dilanthi Amaratunga

With growing population and infrastructures, the world's exposure to hazards – of both natural and man-made origin – is predictably increasing. This unfortunate reality will inevitably require frequent reconstruction of communities, both physically and socially. At the same time, it will be vital that any attempt to reconstruct after a disaster actively considers how to protect people and their environment to ensure those communities are less vulnerable in the future.

For the remainder of this book and in common with the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), which maintains the International Disasters Database (EM-DAT), a disaster is a ‘situation or event, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering’. For a disaster to be entered into the database at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: 10 or more people reported killed; 100 people reported affected; there is declaration of a state of emergency; or, a call for international assistance.

There are wide-ranging origins and causes to the many disasters that have affected communities across the world with ever greater frequency. The term disaster is frequently associated with geo- and hydro-meteorological hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and flooding. Three main categories of natural disasters account for 90% of the world's direct losses: floods, earthquakes and tropical cyclones (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2010).

The degree to which such disasters can be considered ‘natural’ has long been challenged. In their seminal paper entitled ‘Taking the “naturalness” out of natural disasters’, O’Keefe et al. (1976) identified the cause of the observed increase in disasters as, ‘the growing vulnerability of the population to extreme physical events’, not as changes in nature. However, as Kelman (2009) observes, even as early as 1756, Rousseau, in a letter to Voltaire about the earthquake and tsunami that hit Portugal a year earlier, commented that nature did not build the houses which collapsed, and suggested that Lisbon's high population density contributed to the toll.

More recently, the links between disasters and climate change have increasingly been recognised. There are growing concerns over the threats posed by climatological hazards such as extreme temperatures, drought and wild fires, and the multi-faceted threats associated with sea level change. The scale of human contribution to climate change may still be open to debate, but there is widespread, although many would argue, insufficient concern from politicians, commentators, researchers and the public alike, over its ability to increase the number and scale of hazards, and the potential for resultant impact on communities world-wide. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) figures showed that 2008 was the 10th warmest year since reliable records began, meaning that the 10 warmest years on record all occurred in the past 12 years.

Alongside disasters of so called ‘natural origin’, many other disasters to affect populations in recent times are unquestionably of human origin. Conflict sometimes results in wars and terrorist acts that match or exceed the losses from any ‘natural’ disaster. Other types of disaster, often referred to as ‘technical’, result from equipment malfunction or human error. Although less frequent they still have the potential to cause widespread damage to people and property.

Regardless of the origins and causes, as previously noted by the authors (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010), the consequences to human society are frequently similar: extensive loss of life, particularly among vulnerable members of a community; economic losses, hindering development goals; destruction of the built and natural environment, further increasing vulnerability; and, widespread disruption to local institutions and livelihoods, disempowering the local community.

1.1 A global challenge

In 2008, more than 220 000 people died in events like cyclones, earthquakes and flooding, the most since 2004, the year of the Asian tsunami (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2010). Meanwhile, overall global losses totalled about US$200 billion, with uninsured losses totalling US$45 billion, about 50% more than in 2007. This makes 2008 the third most expensive year on record, after 1995 when the Kobe earthquake struck Japan, and 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina in the US. The frequency, scale and distribution of disasters in recent years is further evidence, if any is needed, that hazards – of both natural and man-made origins – are a global problem, threatening to disrupt communities in developed, newly industrialised and developing countries. The developed world cannot afford to be complacent.

But recent disasters also highlight that developing and newly industrialised countries are most at risk: the losses to life and the economy – as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) – are far greater. During the last decade of the 20th century, direct losses from natural disasters in the developing world averaged US$35 billion annually (Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2000). Although a disturbingly high figure by itself, perhaps more worryingly, these losses are more than eight times greater than the losses suffered over the decade of the 1960s.

In part, this high risk felt by developing and newly industrialised countries can be attributed to hazard frequency, severity and exposure. The three main categories of natural disasters that account for the greatest direct losses – as identified earlier, these are floods, earthquakes and tropical cyclones – periodically revisit the same geographic zones. Earthquake risk lies along well-defined seismic zones that incorporate a large number of developing countries. High risk areas include the West Coast of North, Central and South America, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China and Indonesia. Similarly, the pattern of hurricanes in the Caribbean and typhoons in South Asia, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific is well established. These typically affect Algeria, Egypt, Mozambique, China, India, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Afghanistan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Mongolia, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Venezuela. These examples illustrate that to a significant degree, developing countries are unfortunate in being located in regions that are particularly prone to natural hazards. Of course, this correlation is not entirely accidental. The large number of disasters resulting from this high level of exposure has seriously hindered the ability of these countries to emerge from poverty.

Aside from hazard frequency, severity and exposure, the other contributory factor to disaster risk is capacity. Unsurprisingly, newly industrialised and developing countries both tend to lack the capacity to deal with the threats posed by hazards. This capacity needs to be deployed before the hazard visits a community in the form of pre-disaster planning. Effective mitigation and preparedness can greatly reduce the threat posed by hazards of all types. Likewise, capacity can also be deployed following a major disruptive event. The post-disaster response can impact the loss of life, while timely reconstruction can minimise the broader economic and social damage that may otherwise result.

Although frequently represented as discrete stages, there is also recognition that the same are inter-connected, overlapping and multidimensional (see for example McEntire et al., 2002). In particular: the level and quality of pre-disaster planning will largely determine – positively or negatively – the post-disaster response; and, the effectiveness of post-disaster reconstruction will determine to what extent the community remains vulnerable to the threats posed by hazards in the future. This link between sustainable development and mitigation has been referred to by Mileti (1999) as ‘sustainable hazard mitigation’.

With this in mind, although this book is focused on post-disaster reconstruction, much of what is discussed within its chapters is intent on ensuring that communities are less vulnerable in the future. The emphasis on reconstruction also recognises that, unfortunately, many communities are left in a perpetual cycle of disasters, as failures in reconstruction efforts prevent them from addressing underlying risk factors.

1.2 Why focus upon the built environment?

As noted in the book's title, the emphasis of its chapters is concentrated on reconstruction of the ‘built environment’. As will be explained later, this focus does not mean that the authors are suggesting that reconstruction of the built – or physical – environment should be carried out in a vacuum. Instead, many of the chapters will highlight the importance of linking the physical requirements with broader social, natural, institutional and economic needs. However, this emphasis does recognise the growing recognition that the construction industry and built environment professions have a significant role to play in contributing to a society's improved resilience to disasters (Haigh et al., 2006; Lloyd Jones, 2006). In order to understand this role, it is necessary to understand what constitutes the ‘built environment’ and the nature of the stakeholders involved in its creation and maintenance.

The environments with which people interact most directly are often products of human initiated processes. In the 1980s the term built environment emerged as a way of collectively describing these products and processes of human creation. The built environment is traditionally associated with the fields of architecture, building science and building engineering, construction, landscape, surveying and urbanism. In Higher Education, Griffiths (2004) describes ‘a range of practice-oriented subjects concerned with the design, development and management of buildings, spaces and places’.

The importance of the built environment to the society it serves is best demonstrated by its characteristics, of which Bartuska (2007) identifies four that are inter-related. First, it is extensive and provides the context for all human endeavours. More specifically, it is everything humanly created, modified, or constructed, humanly made, arranged or maintained. Second, it is the creation of human minds and the result of human purposes; it is intended to serve human needs, wants and values. Third, much of it is created to help us deal with, and to protect us from, the overall environment, to mediate or change this environment for our comfort and well-being. Last, is that every component of the built environment is defined and shaped by context; each and all of the individual elements contribute either positively or negatively to the overall quality of environments.

As previously noted by the Editors (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010), several important consequences for disaster risk can be identified from these characteristics. The vital role of the built environment in serving human endeavours means that when elements of it are damaged or destroyed, the ability of society to function – economically and socially – is severely disrupted. Disasters have the ability to severely interrupt economic growth and hinder a person's ability to emerge from poverty. The protective characteristics of the built environment offer an important means by which humanity can reduce the risk posed by hazards, thereby preventing a disaster. Conversely, post-disaster, the loss of critical buildings and infrastructure can greatly increase a community's vulnerability to hazards in the future. Finally, the individual and local nature of the built environment, shaped by context, restricts our ability to apply generic solutions.

1.3 Resilience in the built environment

The consequences outlined above serve to underline and support the growing recognition that those responsible for the built environment have a vital role to play in developing societal resilience to disasters. The notion of resilience is becoming a core concept in the social and physical sciences, and also in matters of public policy. But what does resilience mean? What are the attributes of resilience? What is needed to create a disaster resilient built environment?

The term resilience was introduced into the English language in the early 17th century from the Latin verb resilire, meaning to rebound or recoil. However, there is little evidence of its use until Thomas Tredgold introduced the term in the early 18th century to describe a property of timber, and to explain why some types of wood were able to accommodate sudden and severe loads without breaking. In 1973, Holling presented the word resilience into the ecological literature as a way of helping to understand the non-linear dynamics observed in ecosystems. Ecological resilience was defined as the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem could withstand without changing self-organised processes and structures.

In subsequent decades, the term resilience has evolved from the disciplines of materials science, ecology and environmental studies to become a concept used by policy makers, practitioners and academics. During this period, there have been a range of interpretations as to its meaning.

For some, resilience refers to a return to a stable state following a perturbation. This view advocates a single stable state of constancy, efficiency and predictability, or, as the ability to absorb strain or change with a minimum of disruption (Horne and Orr, 1998; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). For others, resilience recognises the presence of multiple stable states, and hence resilience is the property that mediates transition among these states. This requires very different attributes, as for example advocated by Douglas and Wildavsky (1982), who define resilience from the perspective of risk as, ‘the capacity to use change to better cope with the unknown: it is learning to bounce back’ and emphasise that, ‘resilience stresses variability’. More recently but in a similar vein, Dynes (2003) associates resilience with a sense of emergent behaviour that is improvised and adaptive, while Kendra and Wachtendorf (2003) argue that creativity is vital.

Further discrepancy can be found in the degree to which resilience should be defined in merely passive terms. Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) focus on the ability to simply ‘bounce back’ from a ‘distinctive, discontinuous event that creates vulnerability and requires an unusual response’. Wildavsky (1988) further characterises resilience as the, ‘capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest’ and notes that resilience is usually demonstrated after an event or crisis has occurred. Lettieri et al. (2009) suggest a ‘contraposition’ in the literature between two concepts: resilience and resistance. Resilience they argue focuses on after-crisis activities, while resistance focuses on before-crisis activities. These all suggest a reactive approach whereby resilience is considered a ‘pattern rather than a prescribed series of steps or activities’ (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2003). Others stress a positive approach that suggests resilience is more than mere survival; it involves identifying potential risks and taking proactive steps (Longstaff, 2005). The objective is to build resilience by maximising the capacity to adapt to complex situations (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005). Similarly, Paton et al. (2001) write of a paradigm shift that accommodates the analysis and facilitation of growth, whereby resilience ‘describes an active process of self-righting, learned resourcefulness and growth’.

Resilience is evidently complex and open to a variety of interpretations but how can it be applied to the built environment? The relationship between disaster risk, resilience and the built environment suggests that a resilient built environment will occur when we design, develop and manage context sensitive buildings, spaces and places that have the capacity to resist or change in order to reduce hazard vulnerability, and enable society to continue functioning, economically and socially, when subjected to a hazard event. It is possible to elaborate on this definition by exploring specific characteristics of resilience and how they may be present in the built environment.

Firstly, resilience is seen as the ability to accommodate abnormal or periodic threats and disruptive events, be they terrorist actions, the results of climatic change, earthquakes and floods, or an industrial accident. Identifying, assessing and communicating the risk from such threats and events are therefore vital components. Individuals, communities, organisations and, indeed, nations that are prepared and ready for an abnormal event, tend to be more resilient. Consequently, those responsible for the planning, design and management of the built environment need to understand the diverse hazard threats to buildings, spaces and places and the performance of the same if a disruptive event materialises.

The next characteristic is the ability to absorb or withstand the disturbance while still retaining essentially the same function. This may mean returning to the state or condition that existed before the disturbance occurred, or returning to an improved state or condition. This absorption might be realised through the specification and use of hazard resistant methods, materials and technologies. It might also result from the construction of protective infrastructure, or the protection of critical infrastructure. Such measures may r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• About the Editors
• List of Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Capacity Development for Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment
• Chapter 3: Capacity of the Construction Industry for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka
• Chapter 4: Resourcing for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: A Longitudinal Case Study Following the 2008 Earthquake in China
• Chapter 5: Empowerment in Disaster Response and Reconstruction: Role of Women
• Chapter 6: Community-Based Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction: Examples from Indonesia
• Chapter 7: Stakeholder Consultation in the Reconstruction Process
• Chapter 8: Project Management of Disaster Reconstruction
• Chapter 9: Legislation for Effective Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Cases from New Zealand
• Chapter 10: Conflict, Post Conflict and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Exploring the Associated Challenges
• Chapter 11: Private Construction Sector Engagement in Post-Disaster Reconstruction
• Chapter 12: Knowledge Management Practices and Systems Integration
• Chapter 13: Restoration of Major Infrastructure and Rehabilitation of Communities
• Chapter 14: Sustainable Post-Disaster Waste Management: Construction and Demolition Debris
• Chapter 15: Linking Reconstruction to Sustainable Socio-Economic Development
• Chapter 16: Disaster Risk Reduction and its Relationship with Sustainable Development
• Chapter 17: Conclusion
• Index