Shealing: Post‐disaster slow healing and later recovery

Abstract

This paper explores approaches to "later recovery" or "slow recovery" in postdisaster contexts, viewing it as a positive force by terming it "slow healing" contracted to "shealing." Slow healing hopes to develop a multi-scalar, processual, open-ended, and future-oriented approach to asynchronous and differentiated processes and practices of individual and collective recovery. "Shealing," as used here, then denotes ongoing, individual, and collective efforts through remaking and building one's life post-disaster. This process of shealing, of re-making and making lives liveable, is a process of assembling, or trying to assemble, life and livelihoods, without necessarily immediately eradicating all traces of destruction which might be vestiges of a life before the disastrous manifestation of compound vulnerabilities. Shealing provides an alternative to assumptive, linear approaches in order to enfold healing and vulnerability reduction within day-today , continual, accepted, non-spectacular actions. From a noun or an attribute, "shealing" functions as a verb by being a continuous and open-ended process in the present, not just a defined stage, whether a hoped-for endpoint or a recovery of some predisaster state. Shealing allows theorising the many ways of living in and through disaster experiences alongside the range of everyday post-disaster approaches to re-making one's life that an individual or community might embrace. Shealing forms a joint scholarly-practical approach that better addresses what needs to be done and accepted after experiencing a disaster. This paper focuses on disasters, but wider implications and connections emerge, such as for grief, trauma, and social work.

Remembering, Forgetting, and Absencing Disasters in the Post-disaster Recovery Process

“…Hence the role of memory building is twofold. On the one hand, it acts as coping strategy to face the trauma of the disaster, and on the other, it supports a narrative that shapes the development trajectory of the affected place (Mika and Kelman 2019). Yet, several studies have highlighted that there is no straightforward link between risk awareness, experience, and preparedness (Wachinger and Renn 2010;Wachinger et al 2013).…”

Paradoxes of financial schemes for resilient flood recovery of households

“…Psychological and physical needs request long‐term support, which is widely accepted by postdisaster management (Davis, 1978). This rapid rebuild often creates a situation where the recovery does not change the vulnerability which created the risk (Hülssiep, Thaler, & Fuchs, 2020; Mika & Kelman, 2020; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Consequently, recovery can take a long‐term perspective with a focus on nonlinear and open‐ended development process instead of a linear perspective of vulnerability reduction with the classical understanding of return to normal (Mika & Kelman, 2020).…”

“…This rapid rebuild often creates a situation where the recovery does not change the vulnerability which created the risk (Hülssiep, Thaler, & Fuchs, 2020; Mika & Kelman, 2020; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Consequently, recovery can take a long‐term perspective with a focus on nonlinear and open‐ended development process instead of a linear perspective of vulnerability reduction with the classical understanding of return to normal (Mika & Kelman, 2020). Therefore, policy need to overcome the dilemma to “go back to normal” more towards an open‐ended process.…”

“…The policy paradox of resilient recovery can be summarized as the wish to rebuild the preflood situation in a quick return (Mika & Kelman, 2020). The short‐term motivation of decision makers drives financial schemes that support the quick building back of private properties as well as providing basic needs, such as shelter, water, food, and so on, which the society also demands this.…”

How path dependency manifests in flood risk management: observations from four decades in the Ennstal and Aist catchments in Austria

“…Decisions are often taken in a quick and ad hoc manner in the aftermath of flood events within the current FRM paradigm and focus on bounce-back to restore the pre-disaster situation instead of bounce-forward towards a climate-resilient society, bridging the still disconnected policy domains of disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and sustainable development (Leitner et al 2020 ; Slavikova et al 2021 ). The result often does not alleviate the vulnerability of the affected community (Wisner et al 2004 ; Mika and Kelman 2020 ). Current decision processes tend to replicate past strategies and neglect alternative options, resulting in what is often called path dependency.…”