Ecosystem Considerations for Postdisaster Recovery: Lessons from China, Pakistan, and Elsewhere for Recovery Planning in Haiti

Abstract

ABSTRACT. As the world joins forces to support the people of Haiti on their long road of recovery following the January 2010 earthquake, plans and strategies should take into consideration past experiences from other postdisaster recovery efforts with respect to integrating ecosystem considerations. Sound ecosystem management can both support the medium and long-term needs for recovery as well as help to buffer the impacts of future extreme natural events, which for Haiti are likely to include both hurricanes and earthquakes. An additional challenge will be to include the potential impacts of climate change into ecosystem management strategies.

The barriers to environmental sustainability in post‐disaster settings: a case study of transitional shelter implementation in Haiti

“…5 GRRT (2010); Hendricks, Christensen and Toussaint (2010); Ingram et al (2006); Mainka and McNeely (2011);Roseberry (2008); Srinivas and Nakagawa (2008). 6 Barrett, Murfitt and Venton (2007); GRRT (2010); Hendricks, Christensen and Toussaint (2010); Ingram et al (2006); Mainka and McNeely (2011);Roseberry (2008); Smith and Wenger (2007); Srinivas and Nakagawa (2008). 7 See Goodland (1995) and WCED (1987).…”

“…It identified potential environmental risks related to the earthquake and the recovery and provided recommendations to mitigate these risks. 22 Barrett, Murfitt and Venton (2007); GRRT (2010); Ingram et al (2006); Mainka and McNeely (2011);Roseberry (2008); Srinivas and Nakagawa (2008); van Breda and Laprade (2008). 17 Concrete is defined as the hardened combination of cement with aggregate and water.…”

“…The Sphere Project identified minimum standards in key lifesaving sectors which are now reflected in the Handbook's four technical chapters: water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion; food security and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-food items; and health action' (Sphere Project, 2004). 22 Barrett, Murfitt and Venton (2007); GRRT (2010); Ingram et al (2006); Mainka and McNeely (2011);Roseberry (2008); Srinivas and Nakagawa (2008); van Breda and Laprade (2008).…”

“…Expanding global population and increasing rates of urbanisation will result in greater population density in hazard-prone lands, rendering more people and property vulnerable to disasters (IPCC, 2008;Mainka and McNeely, 2011;O'Brien et al, 2006). 2 Moreover, due to the increasing severity of the effects of climate change, the likelihood of high-impact natural hazards will continue to increase (Mainka and McNeely, 2011;Pelling, 2007;van Aalst, 2006). Thus, it is likely that the rate and severity of disasters will continue to increase-and that the demand for post-disaster recovery efforts will intensify accordingly.…”

A pragmatic approach for comparing species distribution models to increasing confidence in managing piping plover habitat

“…Due to dense human population and development, piping plovers in this region are severely threatened by both direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts that remove or degrade habitat (Defeo et al, 2009;McFadden, 2007;Schlacher et al, 2016). Habitat availability can be increased through restoration activities or protections against human disturbance (Maslo, Handel, & Pover, 2011;Maslo, Leu, Pover, Weston, & Schlacher, 2018); yet, rarely do arguments for piping plover conservation overcome those pertaining to anthropogenically focused coastal land use planning (Jones et al, 2017;Mainka & McNeely, 2011). Therefore, one of the key problems in this system is the conflict between beach habitat conservation and human recreational use.…”