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

Abstract

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.

Public health implications of multiple disaster exposures

“…152 Recovery processes 26 articles focused on elements of recovery from multiple disasters, including economic recovery, 153,154 government and political factors in the recovery stage, 53,66,[155][156][157][158][159][160] community capitals, 24 schools as central hubs for recovery, 161 disaster recovery committees, 162 inequalities in recovery, [163][164][165][166][167] and reconstruction experiences. 150,[168][169][170] This group also included articles on programmes undertaken in a recovery setting in low-income and middle-income countries, including a food security and relief programme, 171 a microcredit programme, 172 a recovery aid programme, 69 and a global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programme. 70 Some studies looked at individual or household recovery experiences (eg, of reconstructing housing, or settling insurance claims); 158,160,166,167,169,173 however, most focused on recovery at the community level 24,69,70,154,172 or the country level.…”

“…150,[168][169][170] This group also included articles on programmes undertaken in a recovery setting in low-income and middle-income countries, including a food security and relief programme, 171 a microcredit programme, 172 a recovery aid programme, 69 and a global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programme. 70 Some studies looked at individual or household recovery experiences (eg, of reconstructing housing, or settling insurance claims); 158,160,166,167,169,173 however, most focused on recovery at the community level 24,69,70,154,172 or the country level. 153,171 This focus was in contrast to some of the included mental health studies, which conceptualised individual-level recovery as the absence of mental health conditions or return to pre-disaster psychosocial or cognitive functioning.…”

“…28,48,83 Few of the 26 articles identified provided a definition of recovery, and those that did gave different definitions. 160,163,166,167,169 The majority (23; 88%) of articles discussed recovery as a generalised concept, rather than recovery from multiple disasters. We identified only three articles that directly focused on the complexities of recovery from multiple disasters.…”

“…We identified only three articles that directly focused on the complexities of recovery from multiple disasters. Sargeant and colleagues 169 looked at the aftermaths of Typhoon Haiyan (2013) and Typhoon Haima (2016) in the Philippines and the Nepal earthquakes (April and May, 2015), and found that individual recovery was constrained by the continued need to respond to new cases of flooding, landslides, and monsoons. Ray-Bennett 172 suggested that multiple disasters can produce complex crises that make recovery tenuous, and Himes-Cornell and colleagues 24 emphasised the need for further research into what happens to communities that experience a disaster while they are still recovering from a previous one.…”

The evolution of shelter �self-recovery�: adapting thinking and practice for post-disaster resilience

“…55 53 'Promoting safer building and self-recovery in the Philippines' (2017); 'Promoting safer building and selfrecovery in Nepal' (2017); 'Promoting safer building and supporting self-recovery: report of Promoting Safer Building Multidisciplinary Conference, Royal Geographical Society, London, 13 July 2017'. 54 ; Schofield et al (2019); Sargeant et al (2020). 55 Flinn and Echegaray (2016).…”