Build back better: implementation in Victorian bushfire reconstruction

Abstract

The 'build back better' (BBB) concept signals an opportunity to decrease the vulnerability of communities to future disasters during post-disaster reconstruction and recovery. The 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia serve as a case study for this assessment of the application of core BBB principles and their outcomes. The results show that several BBB measures were successfully implemented in Victoria and are relevant for any post-disaster reconstruction effort. The BBB initiatives taken in Victoria include: land-use planning determined by hazard risk-based zoning; enforcement of structural design improvements; facilitated permit procedures; regular consultations with stakeholders; and programmes conducted for social and economic recovery. Lessons from the Victorian recovery urge the avoidance of construction in high-risk zones; fairness and representativeness in community consultations; adequate support for economic recovery; the advance establishment of recovery frameworks; and empowerment of local councils.

Beyond solidarity and losses in aid: strategic approaches towards adversity

“…Khasalamwa (2009) and Roberts (2000), among other authors, see BBB as an opportunity in post-disaster moments to improve general conditions for communities, improving underscored features in their environments. Mannakkara et al (2014) also express a similar point in their study of Australia's bushfires in 2009. Interviewees repeat the same approach.…”

“…Mannakkara et al. () also express a similar point in their study of Australia's bushfires in 2009. Interviewees repeat the same approach.…”

Building safety in humanitarian programmes that support post‐disaster shelter self‐recovery: an evidence review

“…Aiming to ‘build back better’—to enhance the economic, physical, and social resilience of a community—has become an essential feature of post‐disaster shelter strategy (Blaikie et al, ; Clinton, ; Paul, ; Schilderman and Lyons, ; Mannakkara, Wilkinson, and Potangaroa, ). Making use of the window of opportunity opened during the recovery phase to achieve this aim is widely advocated by academics, policymakers, and practitioners alike; this period can be utilised to ensure that conditions of vulnerability are not recreated during the building process and that safer structures are built, ones that will be more able to withstand the shock of recurring hazardous events (Schilderman, ; Ong et al, ; Twigg et al, ).…”

Natural Disasters: Altruism, Interests, and Opportunities

“…However, there are still scientific perspectives, not definitively understood, that could indicate new possibilities of positive changes: some transitory, others of a structural nature. The tsunami in Asia, for example, in addition to the human and economic damage, is remembered as an opportunity for the establishment of peace and institutional advances (Renner et al, 2007);Hayakawa (2013) discusses the capacity of disasters to accelerate important decisions, but which remained dormant owing to political and administrative barriers; agencies such as the World Bank (see 2014) emphasize the importance of lessons learned as references for new public policies; Khasalamwa (2009), Roberts (2000, and Mannakkara et al (2014) show confidence in the opportunities for reconstructing a more just society and a human/nature relationship better qualified than in pre-disaster times. In these cases, the distinction in the traditional understanding in respect to pre-disaster, disaster, and post-disaster remains as: 1. prevention, mitigation, preparation and alertness; 2. response activities during the emergency or immediately after the event has occurred; and 3. the cyclical medium and long-term recovery process (see, for example, Johns Hopkins, 2008;Red Cross, 2008).…”