Towards a natural disaster intervention and recovery framework

Abstract

Contemporary responses to facilitate long-term recovery from large-scale natural disasters juxtapose between those of humanitarian agencies and governments and those of the affected community. The extent to which these mechanisms articulate is crucial to the recovery propensity of the affected communities. This research examines such action by exploring the relationship between the scale of post-disaster response interventions, the extent of community participation in them, and their impact on community recovery, using a community wealth capital framework. The investigation was applied to a study of the longer-term community recovery of the island of Vilufushi, Republic of Maldives, which was almost completely destroyed by the Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004. Data were analysed through the employment of a pattern match technique and a holistic recovery network analysis. The research framework, informed by the case-study results, other long-term recovery evaluations, and existing resilience theory, is reconfigured as a testable roadmap for future post-disaster interventions.

Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation

“…Unsustainable harvesting through illegal killings of elephants has the potential to drastically reduce elephant populations and negatively impact on tourism [89,90], which would otherwise be a source of revenues for crop protection. The disaster risk reduction of crop damage also depends on the ability of the subsistence farmers and stakeholders to deal with hazardous conditions such as poverty, individually and collectively [91,92]. Although farmer compensation schemes against elephant crop damage can significantly socially and economically militate against crop losses and even help attract local support for wildlife conservation [76], they require good planning, implementation and monitoring that overcome the potential myriad of challenges associated with their application at the farm level [14,93].…”

The role of the natural environment in disaster recovery: “We live here because we love the bush”

“…As noted earlier, commonly used theoretical models developed for understanding disaster recovery have generally emphasised the importance of social and economic capitals (or closely related factors such as political and human capital) for underpinning resilience (see for example Abramson et al, 2014;Aldrich, 2012;Norris et al, 2008). Disaster scholars who have included a focus on place attachment have tended to describe the natural environment as a resource that is important primarily for supporting or disrupting social and/or economic interests (Cox and Perry, 2011;Himes-Cornell et al, 2018;Lawther, 2016;Stedman and Ingalls, 2014). Our findings build on but diverge from this place-attachment disaster-recovery literature, strongly suggesting that the natural environment appeared to have a deep personal significance for individuals over and above any role as a site for social connections or economic activity.…”

“…Abramson and colleagues, meanwhile, describe human, economic, social and political capital as comprising 'resilience attributes' at community and individual levels (Abramson et al, 2014). Another framework suggests that there are four wealth capitals of disaster recovery: manufactured, natural, human, and social, (Ekins et al, 2008;Lawther, 2016), with Lawther (2016) arguing that social capital should be regarded as the primary wealth capital, underpinning and permeating the others.…”

Post-earthquake health-service support, Nepal

“…Yet disasters have long-term consequences and their management encompasses more than immediate interventions. 2 Affected health systems must be restored, actual and potential health risks mitigated, and communities enabled to prepare better for future disasters. 3 …”