Practice Framework for the Management of Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Programmes

Abstract

Despite an international consensus for housing to be “built back better” (BBB) following disasters, and the considerable resources expended on reconstruction efforts globally, the management of post-disaster housing reconstruction programmes often leaves much to be desired. This research presents a framework for the management of post-disaster housing reconstruction in developing countries based on a comprehensive identification of the issues affecting the management of reconstruction programmes and the management measures which have proved effective in mitigating these issues and achieving the desired BBB outcomes. The framework highlights the strategic importance of preparedness measures that should be taken before the next disaster strikes and the cross-cutting nature of capacity building and beneficiary community engagement measures that are essential to all stages of the post-disaster reconstruction process. The research findings are limited to developing countries, as the evidence on which they are based is almost entirely from post-disaster housing experiences in the developing world. The framework may, however, be adapted to different, specific post-disaster reconstruction contexts. This research has compiled, extended and up-dated current knowledge regarding the management of housing reconstruction programmes and it provides practical guidance for policy makers and practitioners.

Lombok earthquake, one year later: housing sector recovery

“…A framework for project management of post disaster should provide practical guidance for policy makers and practitioners. Several issues of management for permanent housing reconstruction (PHR) were identified which is the strategic importance of communities' preparedness; The need for sound initiation of the reconstruction program based on a thorough damage and loss assessment, and taking into consideration the needs of affected communities towards; The establishment of a legislative, regulatory and policy framework that provides direction for stakeholders; The need for critical assessment of communities' vulnerability and identification of existing and underlying hazards and disaster risks; The need for beneficiary community engagement in the reconstruction process is essential to give them ownership of the program; The provision of education and capacity building for stakeholders throughout the PHR management process [3]. Furthermore, it has been proven that the development of general framework improved data collection for further research in order to improve management practices for housing sector of post disaster [4].…”

Critical success factors for managing post-disaster reconstruction projects: the case of Angola

“…They are considered as key resources and skills hence project management practices to meeting the requirements of a project in terms of processes and project outputs. Implementation of Post-Disaster Reconstruction Projects (PDRPs) has been ineffective and their intended outcomes have not been achieved (Bilau, Witt and Lill, 2018;Vahanvati and Mulligan, 2017). Although PDRPs differ from typical projects in terms of dynamics, hugeness and complexity, researchers contend that PDRPs have been ineffective due to management issues (Bilau and Witt, 2016;Bilau, Witt and Lill, 2018).…”

“…Some of the CSFs seem to dominate in many researches i.e. adequate funding, effective planning and competent project managers (Sadiqi, Coffey and Trigunarsyah, 2013;Bilau, Witt and Lill, 2018), analyzing the critical factors in an unexplored context like Angola is important. Authors contend that the most important project management-related problem is lack of knowledge about the project management best practices in post-disaster environments (Hayat, Haigh and Amaratunga, 2019;Ismail, et al, 2014).…”

University-Community Partnerships: A Local Planning Co-Production Study on Calabarzon, Philippines

“…Other factors included issues of power structures and funding, as well as communication and internal politics. While previous studies [39,40] support the results of the study, their study was conducted after the formation of the partnership; hence, the results became part of holistic recommendations for future studies. Conversely, we have tried to elucidate potential sustainability indicators and factors in all stages of partnership implementation.…”

“…Further, there was a need for the development and use of new ideas, methods, and products to promote the creative implementation of integrated and sustainable planning activities. The results of this study indicate the importance of reporting, monitoring, and evaluation, as well as the role played by top officials and local councils to assure quality, transparency, and accountability [15,39].…”