Getting the Message Across for Safer Self-Recovery in Post-Disaster Shelter

Parrack, Charles; Flinn, Bill; Passey, Megan

doi:10.1108/ohi-03-2014-b0006

Cited by 40 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Natural hazards are affecting increasingly large populations (Dominey-Howes 2015). In contrast to what might be expected, worldwide less than 15% of the affected population receives shelter assistance after a disaster by humanitarian organisations (Parrack et al 2014). This leaves the majority, the remaining 85%, to improvise their own shelter, without humanitarian or governmental shelter assistance (Parrack et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This paper proposes to focus on knowledge exchange in communities who self-recover after disaster. Self-recovery is inevitable in many post disaster situations (Parrack et al 2014) and can be beneficial in a number of ways. It creates autonomy of the end-user in the design and building process and the liberty of expression of local identity (Harris 2003).…”

Section: Self-recovery and Knowledge Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge exchange and adoption to enable safer post-disaster self-recovery

Hendriks¹,

Luyten

Parrack

2018

IDRiM Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite extensive knowledge on disaster risk reduction and knowledge transfer studies since the 1970s in management and classroom situations, the adoption of knowledge to reconstruct more hazard-resistant housing after a natural disaster is still rare in self-recovery processes. Approximately 85% of the disaster affected populations recover without humanitarian or governmental shelter assistance. Hazard-resistant construction guidelines are infrequently applied, and new insights from scientific research rarely lead to changes in policy and practice. As a result, disaster affected populations remain vulnerable in case of recurring disasters. The focus of this study is to understand where and why the exchange of knowledge and adoption of knowledge fails in the self-recovery process. The literature presents causes for the rejection of knowledge as the lack of institutional structures and communicating science, and proposes to engage both ends of the producer-user spectrum in a dialogue to negotiate a consensual view of what is feasible and desirable. Currently, governmental and humanitarian organisations involved in recovery aid have difficulty designing communicative interactions effectively in communities using and diffusing hazard-resistant construction guidelines. To reach and support the 85% in self-recovery processes, there is a need to develop an adequate understanding of how knowledge exchange and adoption in such interactions can be more effective. To address this challenge, we propose an analytical framework to evaluate knowledge transfer interventions in self-recovery processes. Current knowledge interactions in post-disaster recovery are examined and critically analysed using existing knowledge exchange literature. The framework intends to highlight barriers and failure mechanisms that may hamper the knowledge adoption. This analysis provides proposals based on logic to overcome these obstacles; lifting barriers, strengthening trust, matching need and knowledge and reducing risk of adoption failure. The value of these proposals needs to be verified in field research. In line with the proposals a second framework is proposed, that enables the analysis of knowledge exchange interventions, as knowledge exchange is essential for adoption.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Self-recovery and Knowledge Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge exchange and adoption to enable safer post-disaster self-recovery

Hendriks¹,

Luyten

Parrack

2018

IDRiM Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, self-organising, voluntary groups and individuals are a common but under-recognised feature of disasters, responding to immediate needs long before formal organisations are able to mobilise (Twigg and Mosel 2017). In recent years, the term self-recovery has been coined to describe this process of rebuilding that relies on the mobilisation of the family's own resources, and there is much interest in developing humanitarian responses that recognise the inevitability of this process and actively seek to support it (Parrack, Flinn and Passey 2014;Schofield et al 2019).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is often stated that humanitarian shelter assistance only ever reaches between 10 and 20 per cent of the need (Parrack, Flinn and Passey 2014;Miranda-Morel 2018). The conclusion that can be drawn is that, one way or another, 80 to 90 per cent of households recover their homes using their own resources, coupled with assistance drawn from the community itself, remittances from the national diaspora living overseas or government subsidies.…”

Section: Self-recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Urban Risk and Resettlement in the Global South

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL. She was principal investigator on the 'Reducing Relocation Risk in Urban Areas' project that this book is based on. Her academic interests are linked by a commitment to improving the quality of life and livelihoods of low-income groups living in urban areas in the global South. Her research contributes to the area of disaster risk reduction and disaster recovery and to the role of local governments and civil society in this -and to integrating an understanding of disaster risk into development. This encompasses issues of urban planning, housing quality, building code regulations, informal settlements (and upgrading) and evictions. Her work engages internationally with policymakers as well as with local communities and she has worked in countries across Asia and Africa, including Turkey,

show abstract

“…However, the process of self-recovery is not well understood and there is very little guidance on how to conduct a project implemented by humanitarian actors that supports self-recovery. The provision of cash and technical assistance has been employed effectively to provide appropriate assistance to a large number of affected people (Parrack et al, 2014) but there are many other potential opportunities for supporting the process of self-recovery and lifting the barriers that hinder people's recovery paths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of the physical environment on self-recovery after disasters in Nepal and the Philippines

Sargeant

Finlayson

Dijkstra

et al. 2020

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a disaster, the majority of families rebuild their homes themselves. In this paper, we consider how the physical environment influences such 'self-recovery' by investigating disasters in the Philippines (typhoons Haiyan in 2013 and Haima in 2016) and Nepal (the 2015 Gorkha earthquake). Despite the many differences in the disaster contexts, there are some common barriers to self-recovery (and building back better) in a substantially changed and dynamic multi-hazard, post-disaster environment. These are related to changes in water supply (shortage or surplus), impacts of post-disaster geohazard events on infrastructure (particularly affecting transport) and the availability of technical advice. People face a broad spectrum of challenges as they recover and tackling these 'geo-barriers' may help to create a more enabling environment for self-recovery. The findings point to what needs to be in place to support self-recovery in dynamic physical environments, including geoscience information and advice, and restoration of infrastructure damaged by natural hazard events. Further research is necessary to understand the issues this raises for the shelter and geoscience communities, particularly around availability of geoscience expertise, capacity and information at a local scale. Highlights The research identifies that changes in the physical environment following a disaster have a significant influence on recovery.  There are potential opportunities to support self-recovery if geoscientists, humanitarian practitioners and affected communities work together.  The interdisciplinary approach taken in the research has yielded a more complete view of self-recovery as it is affected by the changing dynamics in the physical environment, and has highlighted what might be needed to support it.

show abstract

Getting the Message Across for Safer Self-Recovery in Post-Disaster Shelter

Cited by 40 publications

References 4 publications

Knowledge exchange and adoption to enable safer post-disaster self-recovery

Knowledge exchange and adoption to enable safer post-disaster self-recovery

Rethinking Urban Risk and Resettlement in the Global South

The influence of the physical environment on self-recovery after disasters in Nepal and the Philippines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About