Revisiting and adapting the Kates-Pijawka disaster recovery model: A reconfigured emphasis on anticipation, equity, and resilience

Sobhaninia, Saeideh; Buckman, Stephen

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102738

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite considerable attention to urban resilience and its frequent usage, this concept has remained ambiguous, with different interpretations in policy and academic discussions about cities ( Amirzadeh et al, 2022 ; Sobhaninia and Buckman, 2022 ). Even though there are various interpretations of this concept, one of the best definitions was presented by Meerow, Newell, and Stults (2016) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature

Amirzadeh

Sobhaninia

Buckman

et al. 2023

Sustainable Cities and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature

Amirzadeh

Sobhaninia

Buckman

et al. 2023

Sustainable Cities and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Further research suggests that the recovery process should include both physical and social recovery after a disaster [ 37 ]. [ 38 ] divided disaster recovery into four phases: emergency, restoration, basic reconstruction, and major constructions. Among them, the basic reconstruction phase includes rebuilding structures to pre-disaster levels, replacing the population, and building a functioning society.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do urban socio-economic characteristics shape a city's social recovery? An empirical study of COVID-19 shocks in China

Yang

Yang³

et al. 2023

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kates and Pijawka (1977) proposed a four-phased sequential description for recovery, which included an 'emergency', 'restoration', 'replacement and reconstruction', and a 'commemorative, betterment, and developmental reconstruction' period. Even though their model has been referenced and used in several publications (Hill and Keys-Mathews, 2005;Kates et al, 2006;Platt and So, 2017), it has some flaws (Sobhaninia and Buckman, 2022;Rubin, 2009). Sobhaninia & Buckman, (2022) always consecutive for all communities, as well as pre-disaster vulnerability and equity and their impact on recovery.…”

Section: Recovery In the Drm Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though their model has been referenced and used in several publications (Hill and Keys-Mathews, 2005;Kates et al, 2006;Platt and So, 2017), it has some flaws (Sobhaninia and Buckman, 2022;Rubin, 2009). Sobhaninia & Buckman, (2022) always consecutive for all communities, as well as pre-disaster vulnerability and equity and their impact on recovery.…”

Section: Recovery In the Drm Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review article: current approaches and critical issues in multi-risk recovery planning of urban areas exposed to natural hazards

Mohammadi

Angeli

Boni

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Natural hazard disasters recovery has been addressed in the literature by different sectoral perspectives and scientific communities. Nevertheless, studies providing holistic approaches to recovery, integrating reconstruction procedures and socio-economic impacts, are still lacking. Furthermore, recovery has been only marginally explored from a pre-disaster perspective, in terms of planning and actions for better recovery before disasters occur. This paper provides a critical review of existing literature and guidelines on disaster recovery with the twofold aim of identifying current gaps and providing the layout to address multi-hazard recovery planning tools for decision-making. Disaster recovery literature is investigated in the paper by focusing on: the definition of the recovery phase and its separation or overlapping with other disaster risk management phases; the different destinations and goals that an urban system follows through recovery pathways; the requirements to implement a holistic resilience-based recovery roadmap; the challenges for shifting from single hazard to multi-hazard recovery approaches; the available recovery planning tools for optimal investment decision-making to increase physical assets resilience. Finally, the current challenges in multi-risk recovery planning are discussed. This review can be a ground basis for new research directions to help stakeholders in decision-making and optimise their pre-disaster investments to improve the urban system's recoverability.

show abstract

Revisiting and adapting the Kates-Pijawka disaster recovery model: A reconfigured emphasis on anticipation, equity, and resilience

Cited by 20 publications

References 40 publications

Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature

Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature

How do urban socio-economic characteristics shape a city's social recovery? An empirical study of COVID-19 shocks in China

Review article: current approaches and critical issues in multi-risk recovery planning of urban areas exposed to natural hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About