Reformation of the Curricula on Built Environment in the Eastern Neighbouring Area


Learning Package 6- Linking reconstruction to sustainable economic development



Download 11.77 Mb.
Page20/20
Date09.08.2018
Size11.77 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20

Learning Package 6- Linking reconstruction to sustainable economic development

  1. Introduction to the learning package


This learning package focuses on highlighting the links between post disaster reconstruction and sustainable economic development of the disaster affected areas and communities. Post-disaster reconstruction is viewed as a window of opportunity for sustainable economic development. However, achieving sustainable economic development, which ensures equity, quality, environmental preservation and growth whilst fulfilling the economic needs of the disaster affected communities is a key challenge in post disaster reconstruction.
      1. Aim of the learning package


To provide opportunity for students to critically appraise the need to link reconstruction in the built environment to sustainable development of communities
      1. Key learning outcomes of the learning package

        1. Knowledge and Understanding


On successful completion of this learning package, a student will be able to:

  • Critically evaluate the concept of reconstruction and its links with economic and sustainable development
        1. Transferable/Key Skills and other attributes


On completion of the module a student will have had the opportunity to:

  • Develop critical thinking, creativity and innovation related to disaster mitigation and reconstruction of the built environment

  • Synthesise information from a number of sources in order to gain a coherent understanding of relevant theory and practice

  • Work within an appropriate ethos and can use and access a range of learning resources

  • Consider the role of the built environment in society

  • Apply judiciously problem solving and lateral thinking in a variety of disaster situations

  • Adopt a methodological approach to problem solving


      1. Lecture notes and hand outs

        1. Lecture 1

Construction and infrastructure

The infrastructure of a country is part and parcel of the construction industry. Morton (2002) stated that by and large, the built environment is designed, built and maintained by the construction industry, which includes civil engineering and infrastructure work such as roads, bridges and railways (Bosher, et al., 2006).

Construction is the one industry most likely to be beneficially impacted, at least in terms of increased activity, by an actual disaster (Benson, et al., 2001). Natural or man-made hazards potentially cause severe damage to infrastructure, for instance much of the damage inflicted by floods all over the world is to the infrastructure (UNESCAP, 2006), resulting in considerable post-disaster construction. By some estimates, infrastructure loss accounts for 65% of all flood loss. For Asia, this would account for average annual infrastructure loss of approximately 12 billion USD for the past decade. However, some argue that in the longer term a major natural disaster can even generate a construction-led economic boom for example Albala-Bertrand, 1993 (Benson, et al., 2001). If the size of the loss to infrastructure is compared to the worldwide lending activity of the World Bank, approximately 50 per cent of the World Bank’s total lending is equivalent to total cost of damage to infrastructure due to natural disasters in the Asian context (UNESCAP, 2006). Over the past decade, the Bank has annually loaned approximately 25 billion USD (Freeman, 1999). The annual investment needed for post-disaster reconstruction of infrastructure and economic recovery in developing countries of the Asian and Pacific region would require an estimated $15 billion, for a total infrastructure-financing requirement estimated at $55 billion per year (UNESCAP, 2006).

The term ‘infrastructure’ has different meanings in different fields. Table 1 provides some common definitions.

Table 1: Common definitions of infrastructure



Infrastructure is generally structural elements that provide the framework supporting an entire structure.

Infrastructure appears in many forms as economic infrastructure, social infrastructure, IT infrastructure etc.

Economic infrastructure is the structural elements of an economy, which allow for production of goods and services without themselves being part of the production process. Economic infrastructure primarily consists of transportation (road, railways and bridges), energy and utilities (electricity, gas), water supply and sanitation services, telecommunication systems, health services and essential government services. The economic infrastructure system is composed of manifold elements. These are organised in hierarchical levels

  • Level of sectors (Ex: Energy, Information & Telecommunication, Transportation)

  • Level of infrastructures (Ex: In Transportation: Road, Railway, Waterway, Postal)

  • Level of components (Ex: In Railway tracks, Stations, Control centres, Vehicles) (Lenz, 2006)

Social infrastructure consists of health, education, safety nets etc. However, in other applications, infrastructure may refer to information technology, informal and formal channels of communication, and software development tools etc. This module deals with the economic infrastructure, which comes to the society as an output of the ‘construction industry’.

The initial work for infrastructure reconstruction in the aftermath of a disaster is for the emergency repair of the facilities, which gradually leads to rehabilitation, and further to reconstruction of critical elements of infrastructure. Importantly, it is worth identifying the differences between a new/traditional infrastructure construction project and a reconstruction project in every aspect of the project, for example analyse the context differences, process differences, procurement system differences, and management system differences.
Developing countries in the firing line

Most of the victims of disasters are reportedly from developing countries either due to natural disasters or man-made disasters. This is because disasters have more impact on developing countries. Many have concluded that disasters damage the entire economy of a country when disasters predominantly take place in the developing countries (Ofori 2002; Amaratunga et al. 2007) and have argued that developing countries are less able to face the impacts of disasters.

The increased frequency of major disasters, such as the December 2004 Tsunami and earthquakes in Gujarat, India; Bam, Islamic Republic of Iran have underlined the importance of identifying the root causes of disasters and measurements to prevent them. In May 2008, deadly tropical cyclone ‘Nargis’ occurred over the Bay of Bengal, and hit Myanmar claiming thousands of lives and economic assets of the country. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China, which measured 8.0 in the Richter scale on 12 May 2008, claimed more than 63,000 lives, while making 374,142 injured, and a further 17,445 listed as missing.

Table 2: Developing countries face more damage during a disaster.....

UNDP - 24 out of 49 low-income developing countries face high levels of disaster risk and six are hit by two to eight disasters each year (Lloyd-Jones, 2006).

DIFD, 2005a - Though only 11 percent of people exposed to hazards live in developing countries, more than half of disaster deaths occur in those low human development countries. These countries suffer far greater economic losses relative to their GDP than richer countries; moreover their capacity to reduce risk is also much weaker.

UN-ESCAP, 2006 - Asia and the Pacific is the world’s most disaster prone region, accounting for 91 percent of deaths from natural disasters in the past century and 49 percent of the resulting economic losses.

Duque, 2005 - From 1994 to 2003, some 2.5 billion people were affected by natural disasters alone worldwide, which is an increase of 60 percent over the past decade. Asia is the continent most affected, accounting for more than half of the casualties, and more than 90 percent of those injured, homeless and needing assistance.

UN-ESCAP, 2006 - Of the world’s 10 most severe natural disasters in 2004, five occurred in the Asian and Pacific region, causing damage amounting to $55 billion, about 70 percent of the total damage, estimated at $80 billion.

Metri, 2006 - Asia-Pacific region experiences nearly 60 percent of the world’s natural disasters.

IFRC, 2000 - There was a more than a 700 per cent increase in the numbers of people affected due to both natural and man-made disasters in 1999 (41,244,335), in comparison to 1997 (4,698,656), in South Asia alone.

Case study 1: What is the situation in Sri Lanka?

Sri Lanka, ‘the pearl of the Indian Ocean’ (formerly Ceylon) is a small island in the Indian ocean of 65,000 square kilometres of area with a population of around 20 million and a tropical climate and lush green forests. Sri Lanka holds a very wealthy and rich history. Unfortunately, there has been on-and-off civil war in Sri Lanka, predominantly between the government and a separatist armed organisation which has claimed thousands of lives, reportedly more than 70,000, as well as many properties in the country. This civil unrest has become the main source of the increased number of casualties resulting from man-made disasters.

Apart from the long lasting civil war in the Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka, it is prone to natural disasters commonly caused by floods, cyclones, landslides, droughts and coastal erosion, with increasing losses to life and property in the past few decades (Jayawardane, 2006). Table 3 depicts the losses due to recent natural disasters in Sri Lanka in the last decade.



Image: Arugam Bay, Sri Lanka, following the 2004 Tsunami

Many natural disasters in Sri Lanka have hydro-climatological antecedents (Zubair et al, 2005). Every year floods and landslides result in many people being killed. Floods that took place during May and June 2008 due to persistent rain resulted in 20 deaths and thousands of people being internally displaced (Palliyaguru et al. 2008). The country has a tropical climate and heavy rainfalls, as well as the climatically differentiated ‘dry-zone’, which is subject to periods of drought while seasonal monsoons regularly bring about flash floods, river floods and storm surges in certain parts of low-lying river basins.

Table 3: Natural disaster related losses in Sri Lanka



(Source: Hettiarachchi, 2004; and Joint Report, 2005 cited in Jayawardane, 2006)

Year

No. of deaths

Houses damaged

Families affected

1994

18

52,927

357,333

1995

01

11,707

91,921

1996

13

9,343

216,208

1997

19

3,608

466,153

1998

03

7,937

38,002

1999

09

3,803

167,416

2000

15

86,845

257,682

2001

06

11,445

458,008

2002

02

N/A

20,201

2003

254

39,521

140,310

2004

35,322

98,000

250,000

Sri Lanka is also vulnerable to low-frequency high impact events, demonstrated by the 2004 Tsunami, which left Sri Lanka facing one of the worst natural disasters, with a large proportion of losses in housing and infrastructure. The Mahawansa (Sri Lanka’s ancient history chronicle dating from the Sixth Century) does tell of a wall of water flooding the land 2,000 years ago. Though Sri Lankan history holds evidence of earthquakes that have been recorded over the past 400 years, they were relatively small in magnitude with no significant damage. Future seismic damage to Sri Lanka cannot be excluded, due to increased seismic activity in the region with a new tectonic boundary formed below Sri Lanka (Jayawardane, 2006). The most devastating loss of life in recent years was the much larger in magnitude of 9.3 on the Richter scale, Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004, which was driven by one of the most powerful earthquakes (the third largest ever recorded), six miles beneath the seabed of the Indian Ocean, with an epicentre near the West coast of Northern Sumatra. The under-sea earth-quake set off a series of other earthquakes and led to generation of the tidal waves which set about their journey towards more distant coastlines, where Sri Lanka became one of the most devastated countries, with a heavy death toll, and large economic and social losses. The destructive ocean waves killed more than 35,000 people and displaced nearly 2,500,000 people in Sri Lanka. The coastal infrastructure, namely roads, railways, power, telecommunications, water supplies and fishing ports were also significantly affected.
Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction and disaster management
Vulnerability, exposure and the capacity of infrastructure for disasters

Infrastructure facilities possess all kinds of vulnerabilities (physical, social, cultural, political, economic, technological). For an infrastructural system, vulnerability can be generally distinguished between the system vulnerability and the vulnerability of each component (service lines, structures or control systems) (Jost, 2000). Conventional vulnerability assessment concentrates often only on structural vulnerability (damage to the structural system), but the functional vulnerability is at least as important. But Jost (2000) places functional vulnerability higher than structural vulnerability, as functional failure precedes the structural failure. Elimination or reduction of these vulnerabilities, exposure or inadequate capabilities of infrastructure throughout the different phases of disaster management cycle, can be achieved, but is dependent on a variety of factors, such as the infrastructure system and availability of funds. Various types of infrastructure systems fulfil different needs within the disaster management cycle, as discussed in the following section.
Infrastructure to manage disasters: Role of infrastructure in the disaster management cycle

Ofori (2002) describes that the developing countries are less able to face the impacts of disasters and so it is imperative to develop the construction industries of the poorer nations in order to equip them to manage disasters. Therefore, the prevailing demand for the development of infrastructure of the poorer nations is apparent as infrastructure can facilitate the day-to-day activities, reduce the losses resulting from disasters and facilitate post-disaster recovery (UN/ESCAP, 2006). Investment in infrastructure for disaster management is essential in this context as it can result in reduced loss of lives. Hence, the role of infrastructure in the disaster management cycle is worth to be explored. Disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, actual disaster, immediate relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction are the main phases of disaster management cycle. Appropriate actions at all points in the cycle lead to greater preparedness, better warnings, reduced vulnerability or the prevention of disasters during the next iteration of the cycle.
Mitigating disasters and the role of infrastructures

At the disaster reduction/mitigation phase, investment in the infrastructure for disaster management is essential as it can result in reduced loss of lives. The critical infrastructure can be developed to withstand disasters and reduce/prevent damage from natural disasters (UN/ESCAP, 2006). For instance, drinking water systems can be very effective for flood management. Moreover, critical infrastructure reduces the risk of failure and thus contributes to disaster reduction and prevention (Lenz, 2006). Thus infrastructure can play a major role in case of a disaster particularly in minimizing devastating impacts and even prevention of disasters. Every nation must ensure that damage to the critical infrastructure is kept to a minimum during disasters through the necessary mitigatory measures (Amaratunga et al. 2007). If mitigation activities before disasters aim specifically at protecting these critical infrastructures, it will result in effective and efficient relief and reconstruction activities in post-disaster phases (UN/ESCAP, 2006). Poor infrastructure also contributes to high logistics costs and high inventory levels. For example, in Sri Lanka although the transport sector was relatively little affected by the tsunami as such, the needs emerging in the post-tsunami period have highlighted the neglected and general lack of development that the transport network has suffered for many years. This is a good example for lack of mitigation. Mitigation activities before disasters strike should aim, in particular, at protecting these physical infrastructures so that relief and reconstruction activities afterwards can be carried out efficiently (UN/ESCAP, 2006).

Construction and operation of signalling and communication systems such as earthquake observation systems, meteorological observation systems and early warning systems; facilitation of additional water supplies and sanitation systems are just some of the activities that come under this phase. The infrastructure also has a key role to play in saving peoples lives and other property at this phase. When the Tsunami struck the Sri Lankan coastal belt, there were no early warning systems to communicate the impending event to government or among coastal communities. Physical infrastructures including early warning systems can make a major contribution both to preparedness for disasters and recovery from them (UN/ESCAP, 2006). Further, necessary preparedness measures are required to protect the infrastructure from forthcoming disasters. ‘United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific’ (UN/ESCAP) has specifically identified the significance of Asia and Pacific regional cooperation for disaster management, including infrastructure development (UN/ESCAP, 2006). As Asia and Pacific regional cooperation has so far been limited in developing the physical infrastructure for disaster management, it has recently declared their priority concerns on rebuilding infrastructure and investing in infrastructure for disaster prevention and preparedness (UN/ESCAP, 2006). Furthermore, this phase involves the development of awareness among the population on the general aspects of disasters and on how to behave in future disasters. This includes education on warning signs of disasters, methods of safe and successful evacuation and first aid measures.


Infrastructures and Immediate relief/early recovery phase

Immediate relief/early recovery phase is the period that immediately follows the occurrence of the disaster, which can last days, weeks or months depending on the nature of the disaster and local conditions. The needs of the population during this phase are immediate medical help, food, clothing, shelter and essential infrastructure. In an infrastructural system not every structure, or subsystem has the same importance to maintain the functionality of the system, for instance during a disaster not every public service has to function to the same extent as in normal times (e.g. to maintain the public health system in emergency periods - not every hospital has the same importance and equal emergency capacities) (Jost, 2000). The responsible authorities of every infrastructural system have to define services to be provided during each type of disaster. This is called ‘reduced mode’ and it will vary with the disaster type and its intensity. The system vulnerability has to be evaluated to maintain such reduced modes. To carefully define reduced modes of services is a delicate political problem often with economic consequences. Hence, there is a need to clearly define first response efforts, specifically in securing of affected infrastructures. The basic community infrastructure must be secured as much as possible and immediate approaches to such infrastructure are very important in assisting human on emergency basis and immediate fulfilling of sanitation requirements of the community. Adequate reconstruction of infrastructure reduces the efforts on securing infrastructure in a second disaster. For instance, proper reconstruction of communication systems like early warning systems would be monitoring a secondary disaster. Ideally, there should be a smooth transition from relief to long-term recovery. Humanitarian relief is often very effective, but seldom leads smoothly to rapid, effective and productive recovery and long-term reconstruction (Lloyd-Jones, 2006). In the medium term recovery phase, the infrastructure will be restored to an extent, which is more workable than the relief phase. However, it argues that the effectiveness of medium-term recovery and long-term reconstruction is constrained by the lack of planning, co-ordinated management and targeted funding of the response in the post-disaster recovery phase.
Rehabilitation and long term sustainable development and the role of infrastructures

There is no distinct point at which immediate relief changes into rehabilitation and then into long-term sustainable development. Normally reconstruction phase lasts from six months to many years. Reconstructing the infrastructure is often essential to sustain recovery after major disasters (Anand, 2005). However, Lloyd-Jones (2006) highlights the inefficient management and coordination of permanent reconstruction despite the huge improvements in the emergency response to natural disasters. Immense disasters require effective planning and programming for post-disaster reconstruction, not only providing of burrows, but also rehabilitating physiologic, social and economic infrastructures, which are badly mutilated as consequences of the events (Baca and Gorcun 2006). They identify one of the serious challenges confronting the developing countries is to provide sustainability of interventions undertaken as part of post-disaster reconstruction. Sufficient examples have been identified to show that in many cases reconstruction also serves to reinforce and sometimes-even increase the vulnerability of rural and urban areas, e.g. the reconstruction following 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Therefore, infrastructure reconstruction programmes should aim to change the vulnerable conditions for the development of the country. According to Anand (2005), in post-conflict contexts, the infrastructure planners need to cope with the problem of the ‘missing baseline’. This is applicable to the natural post-disaster reconstruction process well. The process needs to address not only the infrastructure that may have been damaged but also the infrastructure that never existed or that has been damaged due to lack of maintenance over years. Proper and pertinent post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction will particularly reduce the needs of infrastructure reconstruction in a second disaster. Infrastructure failures in post-disaster period can become the fundamental reason for another series of devastating effects followed by later natural disasters.

Within each phase of the disaster-management cycle, short-range goals can simultaneously contribute to long-range ones. For example, the reconstruction of water supplies should merge naturally into on-going development activities (such as community mobilisation) to further improve the water-supply systems (or other agreed environmental health goals). During ‘normal’ times, these development activities should aim to reduce the vulnerability of people and infrastructure to future emergencies and disasters. Thus, the routine construction of infrastructure should, for example, incorporate design features that protect them from known hazards. These practices are subject to change depending on the nature of construction, whether it’s a construction or reconstruction project.


Infrastructure construction vs reconstruction

Though a new construction begins from the level zero; the case is very much different in a reconstruction project. Infrastructure reconstruction after major disasters involves immediate and temporary restoration of infrastructure such as health services, educational services, roads, railways, power, telecommunications, and water supply and sanitation, medium term reconstruction and long term reconstruction. The differences between an infrastructure construction project and an infrastructure reconstruction may appear in many folds. A few obvious major differences are encountered in the project cycle, decision-making process and key decision makers, procurement systems, funding arrangements, and especially the need assessments etc.

A typical project cycle of infrastructure reconstruction project (project appraisal and social assessment, design, operation and maintenance) has been tabulated by Nigim etal., (2005) as depicted in the Table 4 in which the key activities are also identified for each phase where key decision makers are involved.

Due to the context differences of these two types of constructions, the key activities and personnel involved will also differ.

Though the post-disaster reconstruction has been the subject of a significant body of research particularly in developing countries, the knowledge about differences between a new infrastructure construction and an infrastructure reconstruction project is not clearly established. Hence, there is a need to establish this difference in order to enhance the effectiveness of post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction. This knowledge is extremely important in distinguishing and understanding the benefits that these two types of constructions can bring forth. Infrastructure construction has an obvious contribution towards economy of a country where it takes place. In much of a similar manner, infrastructure reconstruction can also contribute to economy of a country at a time when the economy is down due so called disasters. It is because, as reported and revealed by many scholars that these natural disasters have a close linkage with the processes of development (Fox, 2006), therefore, with reconstruction. Further, disasters are relatively time limited in most cases although the effects may be longer lasting (Eshghi and Larson, 2008). Further, disaster risk reduction initiatives are considered to be resulting in many development concerns.

Table 4: Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction project cycle

Project Cycle

Key Activities

Preparation phase


Wish list preparation

Project appraisal & Assessment

Preliminary acceptance to modified wish list


Financing phase

Financing agreement

Project Design and implementation phase


Implementation

Project specs

Project design

Physical work



Cost of executed work

Operation & maintenance phase

Operation and maintenance

The gross indirect costs of disasters are partly offset by the positive downstream effects of the rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts, such as increased activity in the construction industry (UNDP, 2004). However, the precise impact of a disaster depends on a number of factors, including the extent to which the reconstruction process draws on local materials and labour. The tsunami 2004 made a major construction demand in the housing and infrastructure reconstruction sectors in Sri Lanka in an unprecedented scale. It is indicated that the economic recovery of the nations most adversely affected by this tsunami will be rapid, although it will take longer in the resorts and coastal regions hit the hardest (Becker, 2005). This post-tsunami reconstruction period was therefore considered as a massive construction boom period in Sri Lanka compared to other periods. Thus, the level of construction output is subject to fluctuation very often under the influence of demand and supply forces and the nature of the industry. The effects of a construction boom are highly quantitative, mainly through economic growth indicators. But, measuring of qualitative aspects of economic development needs a different approach.

        1. Practice questions


  1. What factors are likely to contribute to the vulnerability of infrastructure in a community?



  1. Provide further examples on the link/role of infrastructure in the following phases of the disaster management cycle.

    1. disaster mitigation

    2. immediate relief/transition

    3. rehabilitation and long term post disaster re construction ?


        1. Lecture 2- Economic development

What is economic development?

The major task of development economics is to explore the possibility of emancipation from poverty for developing countries (Hayami and Godo, 2005). From a policy perspective, ‘economic development’ can be defined as efforts that seek to improve the economic well being and quality of life of a community. It should be strongly focused on low-income developing countries where poverty is especially acute. There are significant differences between ‘economic growth’ and ‘economic development’. The close link between these two is simultaneously a matter of importance as well as a source of considerable confusion (Sen, 1998). Economic growth may be one aspect of economic development but is not the same, economic growth stands as a measure of the value of output of goods and services within a time period. Economic Development is more or less a measure of the welfare of humans in a society. ‘Economic development’ refers not only to quantitative expansions but also improvements in non-quantitative factors such as institutions, organisations and culture under which economies operate (Hayami and Godo, 2005).

A wide variety of indicators can be used to measure the economic development differences between developed and developing countries. The key indicators among those are; GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy rates, poverty etc. (Meier and Rauch, 2000). The discipline of economics has very wide coverage, as it is underpinned by a matrix of political, religious, social, technological and environmental strands (Broadbent and Broadbent, 2006). According to Broadbent and Broadbent (2006), a deeper comprehension of the role of economics in disaster management is required to improve the current way things are done. It shows how economic analysis can be used to advise decision-makers about alternative policy options. Economics applied objectively can lead to the selection of the best of all alternatives given a range of options, and its application can certainly avoid significant waste. It is therefore understandable why economics should play such a key role in both reconstruction and development initiatives, even though it can have a very frustrating impact when efforts set out to accelerate progress or achieve quick results.

As far as world development issues are concerned, Millennium Development Goals (MDG) form an effective framework for planning and implementation of so called development as MDGs carry much economic and social development sense. The following section identifies brief details on BDGs in this context.

Millennium Development Goals

The 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world's main development challenges (United Nations, 2007). Millennium development goals range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015. The MDGs are drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000. Eight Millennium Development Goals, which agreed upon in 2000 in turn have been broken down into 18 quantifiable targets with 48 indicators for progress (http://www.undp.org/UNDP, 2004). Table 1 below lists the 8 MDGs:

Table 1: Millennium development goals



Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Critical success factors of economic development

The wider variety of economic development indicators can be classified in many different ways. One such way is to group them as development indicators, growth indicators, human development index and other measure (Refer Table 2). Each group of indicators consists of several other sub indicators as in the following table.

Critical success factors (CSF) are a set of factors/circumstances which are necessary for an organisation or project to achieve its mission/success criteria. For example, ‘poverty’ is a CSF for successful economic development. Therefore, the above stated indicators of economic development under the heading of development indicators (in Table 3) and the millennium development goals are here onwards considered to be the critical success factors of economic development as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Indicators of economic development


Categories of economic development indicators


Indicators of economic development


Development Indicators


Poverty

Inequality

Progress

Sustenance

Self esteem

Freedom


Sustainable

Proportion of activity in different sectors of the economy (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)



Growth Indicators


National Income

Reliability of data, Distribution of income, Quality of life, Impact of exchange rate, Black/informal economy

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Real GDP versus Nominal GDP

Gross National Product (GNP)


Human Development Index


Socio-economic measure

Non-monetary factors

Life expectancy - Longevity

Literacy rates - Knowledge

Standard of Living (Purchasing Power Parity PPP)


Other Measures


Number of doctors per head

Number of fridges per head

Number of TVs per head

Number of cars per family

Disease Indicators

Economic activity per sector

Health care data


Table 3: Critical success factors of economic development


Critical success factors of economic development


Poverty


Gender equality and empower women


Child Morality


HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases


Environmental sustainability


Global partnerships for development

Performance targets of economic development

Performance targets are a specific, well-defined target to be aimed for in the course of a programme or project and its implementation. The performance targets of the above critical success factors of economic development are listed below in the table 4, some of which are the ‘targets of the millennium development goals’.

Table 4: Performance targets of economic development




Critical success factors of economic development


Performance targets of economic development


Poverty


Improving access to infrastructure

Improving quality of infrastructure

Full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

Reducing people who suffer from hunger



Gender equality and empower women


Eliminate gender disparity

Empowering women



Child Morality


Reducing mortality rate among children under five

HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases


Reducing incidence of malaria and other major diseases

Environmental sustainability


Improving access to infrastructure

Global partnerships for development

Developing international partnerships for construction /reconstruction projects



Performance indicators of economic development

Performance indicators are an indication of progress that has been reached in any given topic. The following table 5 is a mix of performance indicators of economic development, some of which are ‘indicators of targets of millennium development goals’.

Table 5: Performance indicators of economic development



Performance targets of economic development

Performance indicators of economic development


Improving quality of infrastructure



Level of Achieving original project objectives

Frequency and cost of maintenance requirements

Safety/Ability to withstand disaster situations/Less harmfulness to the society/Vulnerability to future disasters

Ability to reduce user vulnerability

Level of external appearance

Service provision levels

Extent of customer satisfaction

Extent of community involvement for reconstruction

Rate of people who suffer from hunger


Empowering women

Extent of gender equality in project stakeholders

Full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people




Eliminate gender disparity


Extent of gender equality in project stakeholders

Extent of gender sensitivity of policies




Reduction of child mortality


Mortality rate among children under five

Reduction of incidence of malaria and other major diseases


Level of causing or spreading malaria and other major diseases during disasters and post-disaster phase


Improving access to infrastructure


Performance levels at normal times

Performance levels during and immediate after disaster




Developing international partnerships for construction/reconstruction projects


Extent of international partnerships

All above mentioned critical success factors, performance targets and performance indicators of economic development help to measure the contribution of disaster risk reduction towards them. in the same context, it is useful to discuss the link between disasters and development and the way this link is interpreted by various scholars. It is because that this linkage is the one which forms the basis for measuring the contribution of disaster risk reduction on economic development. Natural disaster is intimately connected to the processes of development. According to Jigyasu (2002), the link between disasters and development is very critical. According to Fox (2006) the issues related to link between disaster and development has been raised by some disaster planners (Haigh, 2006). Lewis (1999) questions which way round should it be; ‘disasters and development’ or ‘development and disasters’?  
Link between disasters and development

Post-disaster reconstruction can influence development programs both positively and negatively. Similarly, the pre-disaster level of development in a country will have a bearing upon the success of recovery and reconstruction. Past examples prove that in areas of low pre-disaster development, recovery will be slow or, sometimes, can never be achieved. Delays in reconstruction will also decrease public and private investments, divert resources away from development activities to sustaining rehabilitation over an extended period of time. Productive capital takes a particularly long time to replace in the case of agriculture and stock breeding, which may result in migration from the disaster stricken area. Reduced industrial output, on the other hand, can lead to wage losses, unemployment and disruption of dependent economic activities. While loans and subsidies can act as emergency economic measures, reconstruction programs need to be planned with close consideration of the likely developmental status of the affected area. Since disasters often hit the least developed areas and the most disadvantaged groups hardest, rehabilitation and reconstruction programs should also aim to change the vulnerable conditions for the high risk population through development programs. These conditions can be much more deep rooted than they seem on the surface when revealed by disaster, such as lack of access to information, limited economic means to maintain safety, environmental degradation lack of social networks or limited political power. A wide range of examples of developmental inputs in post-disaster programs to address some of the root causes of vulnerability are in the Disasters and Development module.

Natural disaster is intimately connected to the processes of development. According to Jigyasu (2002), the link between disasters and development is very critical. Lewis (1999) questions which way round should it be; ‘disasters and development’ or ‘development and disasters’? The answer is straight forward. It has a two way relationship. The following two sub sections elaborate on this.


Impact of disasters on development

Disasters sometimes put development gains at risk (UNDP, 2004); disasters on its own can set back development. For instance, meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is extremely challenged in many communities and countries by losses from disasters triggered by natural hazards (UNDP, 2004). Disaster losses do appear in various forms as destruction of infrastructure, the erosion of livelihoods, damage to the integrity of ecosystems and architectural heritage (UNDP, 2004), reduce human capital as a result of the deaths, injuries and long-term trauma suffered by affected individuals etc. as direct outcomes of disasters (Bendimerad, 2003). Such disaster losses may set back social investments aiming to or originally planned for development and service provision, ameliorate poverty and hunger, provide access to education, health services, safe housing, drinking water and sanitation, or to protect the environment as well as economic investments that provide employment and income mainly due to funding redirected to rehabilitation and reconstruction requirements (Bendimerad, 2003; UNDP, 2004). Thus, disasters delay development programs by reducing available assets and interrupting planning. Disasters also decrease the economic potential of society by exacerbating poverty, disrupting small business and industry activities, and disabling lifelines vital for economic activity and service delivery.

Not only are disasters set back development processes, a disaster has the ability to make an immense contribution to the particular economy where it took place and also to the surrounding economies. For instance, the Kobe earthquake of 1995 killed over 6,000 persons, and destroyed more than 100,000 homes, still the economic recovery not only of Japan but also of the Kobe economy was rapid (Becker, 2005). He reports that some argue that in the longer term a major natural disaster can even generate a construction-led economic boom, for example, Albala-Bertrand, 1993. The Tsunami 2004 is distinctive among other natural disasters, due to the massive economic impact it caused in a developing country like Sri Lanka. The tsunami struck at a time when the Sri Lankan macro economy was already under pressure on several fronts, re-igniting fears of a slide into the kind of a crisis that was seen in 2001 when the economy contracted by 1.5 percent (Jayasuriya et al. 2006). However, some literature claims that the lasting economic effects are similarly small for most other natural disasters that have occurred during the past couple of centuries (Becker, 2005). Davis (2005) claimed that looking at disasters as development opportunities is becoming one of the core principles of disaster and emergency management (Asgary et al. 2006). Conventionally, reconstruction and development were perceived and represented linearly (Lewis, 1999). In reality however, they are simultaneous, each ‘stage’ overlapping with others and in response to the same or different disasters. The ‘disaster continuum’ approach positively attempts to align post-disaster assistance with development, recognising the intervening stages of recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction as each stage should lead to the other in that sequence. Thus, post-disaster reconstruction is relevant to development discourse.


Impact of development on disasters

The development choices made by individuals, communities and nations can pave the way for unequal distributions of disaster risks (UNDP, 2004). In a vicious cycle, development processes contribute to the number and scale of disasters (Wijkman & Timberlake, 1984 cited in Lyons, 2008), increasing vulnerability to future disasters and undermining future recovery and development (Lyons, 2008). Inappropriate development interventions results in accumulation of disaster risks (UNDP, 2004).
Case study 2: Linking reconstruction to development

An earthquake in February 1976 was felt over nearly half of Guatemala. It killed 23,000 people and destroyed more than 250,000 houses. In the municipality of Joyabaj, in the northwest of the country, 600 people died, another 5,500 were injured and over 95% of the predominantly adobe buildings were wrecked.

A local NGO, ALIANZA, hitherto involved in public health work, became heavily involved in relief and subsequently in co-ordinating reconstruction efforts that promoted earthquake-resistant housing. The work followed a standard pattern of training builders, building demonstration houses, distributing materials and generally raising awareness, but projects were developed within the community. Local people were recruited as promoters. Local workers’ teams provided design suggestions as well as labour. There was constant discussion of design issues which led to confidence in the project and a feeling of community ownership of the final results.

The initiative had a five-year timetable in which reconstruction was not seen as an end in itself: rather, emphasis was to be gradually shifted towards a more comprehensive development programme with projects to improve health and nutrition, education, productivity and infrastructure, and to support the development of local organisational capacity. The five-year planning framework was a crucial element in long-term success.

Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction as an economic development strategy
The added contribution of post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction to economic development

Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction is relevant to development discourse and is often essential to sustain recovery after major disasters. Disasters provide physical, social, political and environmental development windows of opportunities that can be used during the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to not only to reconstruct the impacted areas, but also to improve the socio-economic and physical conditions of the impacted population in the long run (Asgary et al. 2006). As many researchers have identified, Yaoxian (2002) too has admitted that reconstruction following a natural disaster is a complicated problem concerning social, economical, cultural, environmental, psychological, and technological aspects. For developing countries or regions, it is a good opportunity to change its original economy development model and to push the urban and rural renewal forward. Infrastructure development and reconstruction is very vital to the economic development and more susceptible to economic policies. As more infrastructures is developed in rural areas to combat poverty, and as the frequency and severity of natural disasters increase, the impacts on the poor will become more critical (Freeman, 1999).

After a disaster, it is essential, not only to cope with the impacts but also to help ensure that the region sustains its economic growth (UN/ESCAP, 2006). Lewis (1999) admits that, in any case, development will have been taking place appropriately or inappropriately, planned or unplanned, successfully or not, for a long time. However, it is argued that there is a limited time frame of approximately two years for such opportunities to be utilised efficiently (Asgary et al. 2006).

The World Bank aims to contribute with sound economic foundations to infrastructure policy making. The World Development Report 1994, examines the link between the infrastructure and development and explores ways in which developing countries can improve both the provision and the quality of infrastructure services. In the report, the World Bank describes the direct links of infrastructure to poverty (Freeman, 1999). In fact, access to sanitation, electricity, and clean water, all supplied by infrastructure, are measures of poverty. Freeman (1999) admits that the clear link of natural disasters to poverty is through infrastructure. Accordingly, that the linkages can be described in at least three components:


  • Access to infrastructure is often a measure of poverty,

  • Infrastructure is a key component of economic growth,

  • Loss of infrastructure may have significant indirect and secondary costs that directly affect the poor

Lack of access to infrastructure is a welfare issue. Further, access to infrastructure for the rural poor, primarily irrigation and transportation, increases income that enables the poor to manage risk (Freeman, 1999). The maintenance of infrastructure is essential to maintain economic growth - the primary linchpin in reducing poverty.

The quality of infrastructure and access to safe infrastructure are measures of poverty (Freeman, 1999). In recent decades, developing countries have made substantial investments in the infrastructure, achieving dramatic gains for households and producers by expanding their access to services such as safe water, sanitation, electric power, telecommunications, and transport. Urban residents in low-income countries have much less access to the main infrastructure services than do their counterparts in middle-income countries (Briceño-Garmendia et al. 2004). Roja (2003) reports a recent study of seven Latin American countries that suggests that because of poor quality, the effectiveness of public infrastructure in the region is only about 74 percent of that in industrial countries (Briceño-Garmendia et al. 2004). Despite growing recognition of the economic and social significance of infrastructure quality, there is no indicator of the combined dimensions of quality. Not only must access be improved, but major rehabilitation efforts and capacity building are probably also needed to address weak technical performance in the poorest countries. It also suggests that new investment requires policy changes to ensure that service quality is improved and maintained at a reasonable level and that assets are effectively operated and systematically maintained.

Effective reconstruction of the infrastructure is often essential to sustain recovery as ineffective post-disaster reconstruction affects society in many ways and exacerbates civil imperfections; demoralises staff working in remote locations, mainly in vulnerable areas. Thus, it further delays the process of state rebuilding, and undermines the effectiveness of the rebuilding process (Anand, 2005). Furthermore, it leads to poverty, hunger and infectious deseases all round. Infrastructure failures can also act on gender and other aspects of identity and exaggerate powerlessness, vulnerability and disability. Due to society’s strong dependency on goods and services provided by the critical infrastructure, their failure during post-disaster reconstruction may in turn cause further devastating effects followed by later natural disasters (Amaratunga et al. 2007).

‘Reconstruction of infrastructure’ needs more attention than ever before particularly within third world poor countries, as poorer communities are often the main victims of disasters (Gunasekara, 2006)


Case study 3: case of Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, rehabilitation of the infrastructure focused initially on the restoration of key transport and services, initiated speedily by the Government with donor support. Line ministries took initiatives for the repair of (including temporary provision for) broken portions of major roads, railway, electricity, telecommunication etc. It was recognised that following the Tsunami 2004, although the initial restoration work of infrastructure was completed within a relatively short period of time in Sri Lanka, there are clearly still some key challenges in post-disaster reconstruction process in achieving economic development (RADA, 2006; Amaratunga et al. 2007, Palliyaguru et al. 2006). The South Asian Disaster Report, ‘Tackling the Tides and Tremors’ (Nivaran, 2005) identified a key challenge with respect to the longer-term and larger task of developing the infrastructure and services along the devastated coastal belt and to new settlements. The challenge identified was whether recovery is used to address disparities in quality and access of infrastructure and services to communities. He questions, in particular, to what extent infrastructure re-development would extend towards and deal with issues related to poor people’s infrastructure and services needs, reconcile environmental-development complexities and link development to future disaster risk management.

Further, the contribution of post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction projects on such measures; quality of infrastructure and access to safe infrastructure is not well explored in the current literature. Therefore, exploring how the integration of disaster risk reduction strategies in post-disaster reconstruction projects contribute to overcoming the problems mentioned above will be a more useful approach. On the other hand, while the infrastructure needs are increasingly recognised, in many developing countries key infrastructure services are still in serious short supply, of poor quality, and coverage in particular is typically much lower in rural areas where most poor people live. However, urban coverage is also under pressure, partly because of rapid rural-urban migration in many countries (Briceño-Garmendia, 2004). According to ‘The Central Bank of Sri Lanka Annual Report, 2005’, infrastructure facilities have been expanding in Sri Lanka but are not adequate or competitive yet, thereby constraining economic growth. Accordingly, the adequacy and quality of services provided by public enterprises in the areas of electricity generation, transmission and distribution, passenger transport and water supply leave much to be desired (CBSL, 2005). The country has the potential to develop these service sectors. Now, more than four years after the Tsunami disaster, it is worth questioning whether these development opportunities have been used or lost? Moreover, reconstruction must take into account the implications in reducing disaster vulnerability in the long term (Jigyasu, 2002). Whilst the need for mitigation and reduction of natural disaster risks has been widely recognised all over the world, achieving this ambitious goal has proven difficult in the developing world. Calls have been made to inform and design development efforts to reduce natural disaster related losses, and contribute to truly sustainable social and economic development.


Links of Millennium development goals with post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction

Millennium development goals have a potential of linking post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction to economic development in a much effective way.

At a glance all eight MDGs have clear links with the post disaster infrastructure reconstruction. Effective post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction has a key role to play within ‘Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger’, which is the most first MDG. It is mainly because, the DRI proves through statistical analysis a long-held theoretical position that human vulnerability to natural disasters and income poverty are largely co-dependent (UNDP, 2004). At the national level, reducing disaster risk is often contingent upon alleviating poverty and vice versa (UNDP, 2004). Hunger reduces individual capacity to cope with disaster stress and shock and disasters can destroy assets leading to hunger (UN/ISDR, 2004). Therefore, effective post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction is of paramount importance for the achievement of the first MDG, which directly correlates with reduction of poverty through adequate access to and quality of such infrastructure.

In achieving universal primary education, which is considered to be the second MDG, the target is to ensure that children everywhere complete a full course of primary education by 2015. Educational attainment is a fundamental determinant of human vulnerability and marginalisation but the destruction of schools is one very direct way in which disasters can inhibit educational attainment, but perhaps more important is the drain on household resources that slow and sudden-onset disasters inflict (UNDP, 2004). Within this context, immediate restoration and reconstruction of educational facilities is a key determinant of the achievement of this second MDG.

Children under five years of age are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of environmental hazards ranging from the everyday risks of inadequate sanitation and drinking water to death and injury following catastrophic events and their aftermath (UNDP, 2004). Post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction should aim to support sustainable development paths by reducing child mortality (UNDP, 2004).

The MDG goal 7, ‘ensure environmental sustainability’ targets to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and program and reverse the loss of environmental resources. It also targets to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015. The main two indicator of this target are (1) the proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural (2) the proportion of population with access to improved sanitation, urban and rural. These two indicators appear to be the indicators of effective post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction too.

Integration of disaster risk reduction to post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction
Why do we need to integrate disaster risk reduction to post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction?

There are significant benefits to be realised from well developed disaster risk reduction strategies (DFID, 2005b), which often have significant development benefits, even in the absence of natural disasters. Therefore, it is presumed that integration of disaster risk reduction is simply a best method of converting disasters into development opportunities. Reducing disaster risk should ensure that development interventions are sound, for example, ensuring appropriate construction of critical infrastructure in highly vulnerable areas (DFID, 2006). All such measures are of paramount importance for post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction because this integration brings development benefits, which in turn help achieving Millennium Development Goals.

Further, effective reconstruction of the infrastructure is often essential to sustain recovery. When infrastructure reconstruction aims to change the vulnerable conditions, it directly affects the disaster risk reduction in numerous ways and disaster risk reduction is an important aspect, which needs to be fully attained during the reconstruction of infrastructure. For instance, simply building an infrastructure project is not enough for a sustainable and long-term development gain, infrastructure exposed to natural hazard must be disaster resistant, and people using them need to prepare for disaster (UNDP, 2004). Building schools is not enough for a sustainable and long-term development gain, schools exposed to natural hazard must be disaster resistant, and people using them need to prepare for disaster. This implies a two-way relationship between the kind of development planning that can lead to the achievement of the MDGs and the development processes that are currently associated with an accumulation of disaster risk. It is therefore realised that all critical infrastructure facilities must be designed to a given level of safety from disaster impact.

For many people, natural hazard stress and shock is felt as one of many pressures (UNDP, 2004). HIV/AIDS and other diseases can undermine individual and collective coping capacity, just as disaster impacts can take away development gains and livelihoods, making people more vulnerable to illness. Integration of disaster risk reduction into health related infrastructure would strengthen basic health care provision and in turn strengthen society and building capacity with which to resist natural hazards. This helps achieving the sixth Millennium Development Goal, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and diseases.

For instance, during and after a disaster, the line-based systems as water and power lines crosses wide areas with different geological and topographical conditions involves more local and temporal interruptions. These line-based systems can most effectively be strengthened by introducing some network redundancy (Jost, 2000). Redundancy also improves the operational availabilities in normal times. The behaviour of object-based systems depends heavily on the local site conditions. A careful site selection with respect to earthquake hazard is very important. Avoiding unfavourable site conditions such as loose soil deposits, or high water table reduces the hazard damages. When strengthening is foreseen, the influence on the shaking level and the overall underground behaviour has to be evaluated carefully. Practical experience demonstrates often lacks in this regard.

One of the clearest signals of a crisis in environment- human relations is natural disaster. Soil degradation, biodiversity loss, over-fishing, deforestation or drinking water scarcity undermine rural livelihoods and pave the way for vulnerability to environmental hazard (UNDP, 2004). In cities, pollution of waterways and the air and inadequate provision of drinking water, sanitation or solid waste management systems shape patterns of illness that run down resistance to everyday hazards. In rural and urban contexts, risk accumulation that ends in disaster is often closely tied to problems of environmental sustainability. Integration of strategies to enhance environmental sustainability into post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction will make a contribution to breaking the chain of accumulated risk.

Integration of disaster risk reduction to post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction may have potential to overcome certain economic development barriers and loop holes in the infrastructure reconstruction. Accordingly, the next section explores the relationship between disaster risk reduction and economic development.


Relationship between disaster risk reduction and economic development

The relationship between disaster risk reduction and economic development is expected to be viewed from the perspective of importance of disaster risk reduction in achieving millennium development goals because the MDGs contain cross-cutting themes in development and disaster risk policy (UNDP, 2004).

Each of MDGs goals seemingly interact with disaster risk and contribute to a reduction of human vulnerability to natural hazard (UNDP, 2004). However, the processes undertaken in meeting each goal is a key determinant of the extent to which disaster risk is reduced. Unless disaster risk considerations are factored into all development related to the MDGs, well-meaning efforts to increase social and economic development might inadvertently increase disaster risk. Recent catastrophic earthquakes highlight key deficiencies and trends in the approach to disaster risk reduction, such as a poor understanding by decision makers of seismic related risk, as well as the tendency of some builders to use the cheapest designs and construction materials available to increase short-term economic returns on their investment (UN/ISDR, 2002b). At the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Japan, 90 percent of immediate deaths (more than 5,000) were caused by the collapse of buildings (UN/ISDR, 2002b).

Furthermore, a considerable incentive for rethinking disaster risk as an integral part of the development process comes from the aim of achieving the goals laid out in the Millennium Declaration (UNDP, 2004). The risk to development stemming from natural disaster is recognised in the Millennium Declaration in Section IV, entitled ‘Protecting Our Common Future’. Within this section is stated the objective; ‘to intensify our collective efforts to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters’. Natural disasters are the results of hazardous events and peoples’ vulnerability. From one perspective, reducing the number and effects of natural disasters means tackling the development challenges that lead to the accumulation of hazard and human vulnerability that prefigure disaster.

Many international organisations work towards socio-economic development of developing countries. However, among all these, the World Bank stands to be special as its mission is to ‘reduce poverty and improve living standards through sustainable growth and investment in people’. In achievement of the above aim, the World Bank has a clear objective of promoting economic growth strategies based on expanded infrastructures, which are environmentally responsible and socially acceptable, and bringing a sustainable future closer to today’s reality. Virtually all World Bank activities have a bearing on poverty. Tackling natural or man-made disasters is an important part of this mission. Disasters represent a significant source of risk for the poor, and providing assistance to prepare for and recover from natural and man-made disasters is an important activity of the World Bank in achieving their mission (The World Bank Group, 2006). The World Bank's ‘Hazard Risk Management Team’ aims to reduce human suffering and economic losses caused by natural and technological disasters by helping provide a more strategic and rapid response to disasters and promoting the integration of disaster prevention and mitigation efforts into the range of development activities. All their activities are aimed at promoting disaster risk management as an integral part of sustainable development.


Disaster risk reduction in reconstruction: Emphasis on post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction

Disaster risk reduction is aimed at tackling the fundamental elements of disaster risk: vulnerability, hazards (or shocks) and exposure (DFID, 2006). International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, (2004) defines disaster risk reduction as the conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development. Disaster risk reduction entails measures to curb disaster losses by addressing hazards and the vulnerability of people to them (DFID, 2005a). Good disaster risk reduction happens well before disasters strike, but also continues afterwards, building resilience to future hazards (DFID, 2005a). ‘UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction’ defines the term ‘Disaster risk reduction’ as ‘the systematic development and application of policies, strategies and practices to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse impact of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development’ (http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm). Reducing disaster risk is not just about additional investments – it is also about ensuring that development interventions are sound; for example, ensuring appropriate construction of critical infrastructure in highly vulnerable areas (DFID, 2006).
Disaster risk reduction measures

Disaster risk reduction measures can be categorised in various ways.

Nateghi-A, (2000) classifies the range of techniques that the city of Teheran is considering after strong earthquake in June 1990;



    1. Engineering and construction measures

    2. physical planning measures

    3. economic planning measures

    4. policy guidance measures and

    5. public response measures.

Concern Worldwide (2005), which is a non-governmental, international, humanitarian organization dedicated to the reduction of suffering and working towards the ultimate elimination of extreme poverty in the world’s poorest countries points outs that the term ‘disaster risk reduction’ includes the three aspects of a disaster reduction strategy;

    1. mitigation,

    2. preparedness and

    3. advocacy.

The three categories are not mutually exclusive (Concern Worldwide, 2005). Mitigation measures can be divided into infrastructural and non-infrastructural measures that reduce the frequency, intensity, scale and impact of hazards; preparedness plans often include capacity building. They are usually knowledge based and include early warning systems that monitor and predict the occurrence of hazards, and contingency plans for effective response; Advocacy seeks to favourably change policies and practice by networking and influence (Concern Worldwide, 2005).
Disaster risk reduction strategies

DFID (2005b) has a similar classification of disaster risk reduction strategies as shown in the following table:

Table 6: Disaster risk reduction strategies (Source: DFID, 2005b).



Classification

Description

Policy and planning measures


Implement a national plan for protection against disasters, including preparedness and contingency planning

Land-use planning that better incorporates risk of flooding

Integrated management of flooding and water supply

Integrated warning and response system

Improving networks / links with local governments


Physical preventative measures

Flood defences (eg: Dam, multipurpose, seaborne etc) and sea wall

Natural protection against floods (eg: reforestation of watersheds)

Installation of drainage pumps


Physical coping and/or adaptive measures

Raised plat forms (equipped with latrines and drinking water)

More resilient roads and infrastructure (eg: raised roads)

More resilient water supply systems (eg: boreholes, raised hand-pumps)

Design and building of contingency mechanisms for coping with disasters, (eg: escape roads)




Community capacity building

Community based disaster preparedness-communities trained in disaster preparedness Public warning system

Safety nets to ensure that poor households can rebuild productive livelihoods (through building on existing programmes)



Revolving funds managed by the community used to better cope in disaster situations (eg: for storing and distributing food)








There are some inherited challenges with this integration process, particularly in the developing country settings.
Case study 4: Challenges associated with integration of disaster risk reduction to post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction in Sri Lanka

As far as the tsunami affected ‘Class C’ and ‘Class D’ roads in the southern Sri Lanka are concerned, none of them are specifically designed for much disaster situations. The certain elements such as road drainage systems have been designed to cater the present demand. According to experts view, events such as floods are not given due consideration as they are used to be regarded as just a 2-3 day problem. In this context, most of the rural roads are not designed for disaster risk reduction or no special concerns are in place for integration of disaster risk reduction to reconstruction of infrastructure. The main factor hampering this vital integration is financial constraints. Other problems encountered in the reconstruction process are;

  • Incomplete designs at the start of physical reconstruction (When the contractor starts work only they recognise the problems in the design such as unsuitable material for coastal belt structures etc.)

  • Drastic economic downturn in the country (High inflation)

  • Legal problems like obtaining lands from people

  • Staff recruiting problems

  • Decision making problems like Engineers/construction staff are not in one agreed decision

  • High price inflation has resulted in most of the contractors reducing the quality of infrastructure

  • Inaccuracy of estimates at the inception (the necessary items like culverts, drainage systems were missing) had led contractors to reduce or avoid necessary items and reduce quality of roads

  • Financial constraints have prevented designers from doing designs for disaster risk reduction

The key gaps identified in the road reconstruction were;

  • Lack of organisational level policy and planning for disaster risk reduction

  • Designs are not much inherited with the concept of ‘disaster risk reduction’ due to various constraints

  • Professionals involved in reconstruction are not much keen on giving a priority to disaster risk reduction thinking that nothing is permanent

  • Lack of community participation in reconstruction

  • Lack of capacity building for the staff for disaster risk reduction

Furthermore, the poor communities in the certain tsunami affected areas were identified as the hardest hit communities with no proper access to purified, drinkable water in the country. Therefore, this water supply and sanitation projects were augmented with the intention of:

  • provide proper drinking water

  • provide some job opportunities for the tsunami affected people and people around the area and

  • provide water for tsunami affected people and samurdhi people at a lower price.

Major problems encountered in these projects with regard to integration of disaster risk reduction to the reconstruction project were;

  • Budgetary constraints

  • Inadequate ground water in the area

  • No awareness programs for the community by the Government or the National Water Supply and Drainage Board

  • Lack of training for operation & maintenance staff in case of a disaster

  • Lack of construction skills of the working staff

  • Problems associated with recruiting trained people for construction supervision mainly due to skilled people emigration to Middle-East

  • The new employees’ poor understanding of required quality and their lack of moral towards achieving the project success

The key gaps identified in the water supply and sanitation reconstruction were;

  • Lack of information about possible hazards in the area and their magnitudes

  • Lack of contingency planning in case of a disaster

  • Lack of coordination between relevant parties/institutions such as disaster management centre etc.
What is sustainability and what leads to sustainable development?

Sustainable development has been defined as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983 (Anderson, 1995). There the pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future. The sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts:

  • environmental sustainability,

  • economic sustainability and

  • socio-political sustainability.

It has been argued through various international forums such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Convention on Biological Diversity, that there are four pillars of sustainable development, the fourth being cultural. Thus, cultural diversity has become the fourth policy area of sustainable development.

The major task of development economics is to explore the possibility of emancipation from poverty for developing countries (Hayami and Godo, 2005). From a policy perspective, ‘economic development’ can be defined as efforts that seek to improve the economic well-being and quality of life of a community. It should be strongly focused on low-income developing countries where poverty is especially acute. There are significant differences between ‘economic growth’ and ‘economic development’. Economic growth by itself may not suffice to bring about sustainable development (Salih, 2003). ‘Economic growth’ has a connotation of quantitative expansions in economic variables, especially aggregate and per capita national incomes as measured by such statistics as GDP and GNI. However, ‘economic development’ refers to not only quantitative expansions but also improvements in non-quantitative factors such as institutions, organizations and culture under which economies operate. On the other hand, development intends, among other objectives, to lift the economic status of the poor or the economically under-privileged, increase the level of employment, make better utilization of economic resources, and promote social equality (Salih, 2003). A very wide variety of indicators can be used to measure the economic development differences between developed and developing countries. The key indicators among those are GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy rates, quality of infrastructure, access to safe infrastructure, poverty reduction etc (Hayami and Godo, 2005).


Need to link infrastructure reconstruction and sustainable economic development

Creation of significant negative consequences to infrastructure together with other built environment facilities due to disasters would lead to pathetic economic consequences and depauperated quality of life often for long periods of time (Government of India. 2002). Though, there is a more limited sense of their broader macroeconomic significance or the problems they could pose for longer-term development, partly because most assessments of the economic impacts of disasters have concentrated on the most easily measured direct losses and the practical difficulties of isolating and measuring the indirect and secondary impacts that result from the transmissions of a disaster shock through the economy (Benson and Clay, 2003), when events such as natural disasters destroy infrastructure, their opportunity cost becomes painfully evident (UNESCAP, 2006).

‘Ignorance of infrastructure’ affects the society in many ways. It exacerbates civil imperfections, demoralizes staff working in remote locations, mainly in vulnerable areas and thus further delays the process of state rebuilding, and undermines the effectiveness of the rebuilding process (Anand, 2005). Further, it leads to poverty, hunger and infectious deceases at all (Anand, 2005). Moreover, infrastructure failures can act on gender and other aspects of identity and exaggerate powerlessness, vulnerability and disability. Admittedly, due to strong dependency of society on good and services provided by critical infrastructure, their failure may lead to disaster (Lenz, 2006). Poorly planned development can turn a phenomenon into a human and economic disaster. Infrastructure failures in the post-disaster period can become the fundamental reason for another series of devastating effects followed by other natural disasters. Whilst infrastructure can increase productivity, reduce the cost of production, increase trade and reduce poverty, it can create major disasters or can enhance the effects of disaster in a completely negative manner. Within this context, the need to link infrastructure reconstruction and sustainable economic development is a l need of the developing economies as infrastructure is critical to a safe and a resilient economy.


Linking infrastructure reconstruction and sustainable economic development

This could be achieved in variety of ways. Looking from the perspective of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs-eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world's main development challenges) is a straightforward way of exploring how this linkage can be achieved or established. MDGs range in the areas of poverty, education, gender equality, child morality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS, environment and development cooperation, which are drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000. Eight Millennium Development Goals in turn have been broken down into 18 quantifiable targets with 48 indicators for progress. The measures, processes, systems required within infrastructure reconstruction projects for achieving these MDGs could be called as the ways or means of linking infrastructure reconstruction and sustainable economic development.

One major way of achieving this is through disaster risk reduction, where a disaster and risk reduction is emerging as an important requisite for sustainable development (UN/ISDR, 2003). On the other hand sustainable development activities which lead to economic growth, social equity and environmental protection have a major contribution to disaster risk reduction as both are aimed at vulnerability reduction (Stenchion, 1997).

Reconstruction must take into account the implications in reducing disaster vulnerability in the long term (Jigyasu, 2002). Whilst the need for mitigation and reduction of natural disaster risks has been widely recognised all over the world, there is a need to design development efforts to reduce disaster related losses, and contribute to truly sustainable economic development. Disaster risk reduction has been defined by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) as the systematic development and application of policies, strategies and practices to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse impact of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development (UN/ISDR, 2003). Further, improvements in coordination systems between different governmental and private institutions involved in reconstruction process, getting all relevant people and institutions in as when required, taking measures on expediting reconstruction, building capacity of working staff and the organisations, systematic management of resources can bring forth variety of effects, which will ultimately result in sustainable economic development. However, the extent to which these strategies result in sustainable economic development depend on the level of effect that strategy have on areas such as poverty reduction, uplifting education, gender equality, child morality reduction, maternal health improvement, having HIV/AIDS, environment and development cooperation.

        1. Practice questions


  1. Discuss the main differential points/phases/event/systems you see in a new/traditional bridge construction project and a bridge reconstruction project.



  1. Identify the general challenges associated with linking sustainable economic development with road reconstruction project in a developing country and a developed country.



  1. Discuss the importance of focusing on ‘sustainable economic development’ in prioritising infrastructure reconstruction projects after a major disaster
      1. References


Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R and Palliyaguru, R.S., (2007) Improving Infrastructure to Reduce Future Vulnerabilities to Natural Disasters: Review of Infrastructure Development in Sri Lanka Associated With Post Tsunami Reconstruction, Proceedings of the CIB World Congress 2007, 13th-16th May 2007, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anand, P.B. (2005) Getting infrastructure priorities right in post-conflict reconstruction, In Proceedings of UNU/WIDER Jubilee Conference on the Future of Development Economics, WIDER, Helsinki, Research Paper No. 2005/42, June.

Ariyabandu, M.M. (2003) in Sahni, P. and Ariyabandu, M.M. (Eds), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.

Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), (2005), Total Disaster Risk Management - Good Practices 2005, Kobe, Available in http://www.adrc.asia/publications/TDRM2005/TDRM_Good_Practices/GP2005_e.html

Asgary, A., Badri, A., Rafieian, M. and Hajinejad, A., (2006) Lost and used post-disaster development opportunities in Bam earthquake and the role of stakeholders, Proceedings of the International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17th-19th May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm, [accessed on 10/12/2006)]).

Baca, M. and Gorcun, O. F., (2006) Post-disaster reconstruction in rural and urban areas of Turkey, Proceedings of the International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17th-19th May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm [accessed 10/12/2006]).

Becker, G.S., (2005) …And the economics of disaster management, The Wall Street Journal, New York, N.Y. pg.A.12, (available online http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/ [accessed on 10/09/2007)].

Bendimerad, F. (2003), Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development, World Bank Seminar on The Role of Local Governments in Reducing the Risk of Disasters, Istanbul, Turkey, 28 April – 2 May 2003, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Benson, C and E.J. Clay (2004) Understanding the Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters, Disaster Risk Management Series paper # 4, World Bank, Washington DC

Benson, C., and Clay, E. J. (2000). “Developing Countries and the Economic Impacts of Natural Disasters.” Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies, A. Kreimer and M. Arnold, eds., World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Berke, P.R (1995), ``Natural hazard reduction and sustainable development: a global assessment'',Working Paper Number S95-02, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P., Glass, J. and Price, A. (2006) The construction industry and emergency management: Towards as integrated strategic framework, Proceedings of the International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17-19 May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm [accessed 10/12/2006])

Briceño-Garmendia, C., Estache, A. and Shafik, N., (2004) Infrastructure services in developing countries: Access, quality costs and policy reforms, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 3468.

Broadbent, S.G. and Broadbent, M., (2006) Rethinking future UK support to post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholders perspectives, Proceedings of the International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17th-19th May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm [accessed on 10/12/2006]).

Concern Worldwide - Emergency Unit, (2005), Approaches to Disaster Risk Reduction

Coleman, L., (2006), Frequency of man-made disasters in 20th century, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management , 14(1), pp3-11

CRED (2006), “The OFDA/CRED international disasters database”, December, available at www.cred.be/emdat/disdat.htm.

Department for International Development (DFID), (2005a) Disaster Risk Reduction: A development concern. DFID: London.

Duryog Nivaran., (2005) Tackling the tides and tremors: South Asia Disaster Report 2005.

Department for International Development (DFID) (2005b), “Natural disaster and disaster risk reduction measures: a desk review of costs and benefits”, Draft Final Report, DFID, London.

DFID (2006), “Reducing the risk of disasters – helping to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in a vulnerable world”, A DFID policy paper, DFID, London.

Duque., P.P., (2005), Disaster management and critical issues on disaster Risk reduction in the Philippines, International Workshop on Emergency Response and Rescue, October 31 - November 1, Paper number n

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2006) Enhancing Regional cooperation in infrastructure development including that related to disaster management, Unites Nations, Bangkok. April.

Eshghi, K. and Larson, R.C., (2008), Disasters: Lessons from the past 105 years, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, 2008, pp. 62-82, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Freeman, P.K. (1999), Infrastructure, natural disasters and poverty, Proceedings of the EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophic Risk Management: Flood Risks in Europe. IIASA, 6-9 June 1999, Laxenburg, Austria.

Government of India, (2002) Disaster Management-The development perspective, An extract of the chapter in the Tenth five-year plan [2002-2007], India.

Goodyear, E.J., (2003) in Sahni, P. and Ariyabandu, M.M. (Eds), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.

Gunasekara, J., (2006) Building capacity for sustainable and participatory post-tsunami rebuilding, In International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17th-19th May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm [accessed on 10/12/2006]).

Haigh, R., Amaratunga, D. and Keraminiyage, K. (2006) An exploration of the construction industry’s role in disaster preparedness, response and recovery, In Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors – COBRA 2006,The RICS, London, pp282–290, September.

Hayami, Y. and Godo, Y., (2005) Development economics: From the poverty to the wealth of nations, 3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2005, World disaster report 2005: Focus on information on disasters, Geneva

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2006, World disaster report 2005: Focus on neglected crises, Geneva

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (2003), “Disaster types”, April, available at: www.ifrc.org/what/disasters/types/

Jayasuriya, S., Steele, P. and Weerakoon, D., (2006) Post-tsunami recovery: Issues and Challenges in Sri Lanka, ADB Institute Research Paper Series No 71.

Jayawardane, A.K.W., (2006) Disaster Mitigation Initiatives in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of International Symposium on Management Systems for Disaster Prevention, 9th-11th March 2006, Kochi, Japan, (available online www.iiirr.ucalgary.ca/Publications/Kochifullpaper-final.pdf [accessed on 10/02/2007]).

Jayaraj. A., (2002), Post disaster reconstruction experiences in Andhra Pradesh, in India, Conference proceeding of Improving post-disaster reconstruction in developing countries, 23rd May -25th May 2002, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada. Available at http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/i-rec%20papers/annie.pdf

Jigyasu, R., (2002) From Marathwada to Gujarat – emerging challenges in post-earthquake rehabilitation for sustainable eco-development in South Asia, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Post-disaster Reconstruction: Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, 23rd-25th May, Universite de Montreal, Canada.

Jost A., (2000), Vulnerability of Infrastructure, Studer engineering, Zürich

Kelman, I. and Pooley, S. (eds.), (2004), ‘Disaster Definitions’, Version 2, 24 July 2004, http://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/DisasterDefinitions.rtf, viewed: 10/05/2008.

Keraminiyage K., Amaratunga, D. and Haigh, R., (2007), Role of construction in managing disasters in developing economies, Proceedings of the Annual Bank Conference on Developing Economics, The World Bank, Bled, Slovenia

Kim,P.S. and Lee,J.E., (1998), Emergency management in Korea and its future directions, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6 (3), pp162-170.

Lenz, S. (2006) Critical Infrastructure Protection for Disaster Reduction, Presentation of International Disaster Reduction Conference, 27 August - 01 September 2006, Davos, Switzerland, (available online (www.davos2006.ch/Presentations/Lenz_S_Pres.pdf [accessed 26/04/2006])

Lewis, J., (1999) Development in disaster-prone places: Studies of vulnerability, London: Intermediate Technology.

Leon Abbott, P. (2005), Natural Disasters, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Science, New York, NY.

Lloyd-Jones, T. (2006) Mind the gap! Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief, RICS, London, June.

Lyons, M. (2008), Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction, World Development (2008), doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006

McEntire D.A., 2001, Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction: towards a holistic paradigm, Disaster Prevention and Management, Volume 10(3), pp. 189-196

McEntire, D.A. (2005), “Why vulnerability matters – exploring the merit of an inclusive disaster reduction concept”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 206-22.

Meier, G.M. and Rauch, J.E., (2000) Leading issues in economic development, 7th ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

Metri B.A., (2006) Disaster mitigation framework for India using quality circle approach, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 15(4), pp. 621-635, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Miles, M.B. and Hurberman, A.M., (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.

Moe T.L. and Pathranarakul P., (2006), An integrated approach to natural disaster management Public project management and its critical success factors, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 396-413, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Muzaffer, B. and Omer F. (2006) Post-disaster reconstruction in rural and urban areas of Turkey, Proceedings of the International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 17-19 May 2006, Florence, Italy, (available online www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu2006.htm [accessed 10/12/2006])

Nateghi-A, F., (2000), Disaster mitigation strategies in Teheran, Iran, Disaster prevention and management, Volume 9(3), pp. 205-211,

Nigim K. A., Hipel K. W. and Smith G. B., (2005), An Effective Approach to Infrastructure Reconstruction of Devastated Countries, Proceedings of International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Honolulu, Hawai, July 8-10 2005

Niekerk D.V. (2007) in Waldt G.V.D (Eds), Municipal Management: Serving the people, JUTA

Ofori, G., (2002) Construction Industry Development for Disaster Prevention and Response, Proceedings of i-Rec Conference on Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, 23rd-25th May 2002, University de Montreal, Canada, (available online www.GRIF.UMontreal.ca/pages/papersmenu.html [accessed 10/11/2006]).

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), (2007), Vulnerability Benchmarking Tool, Saint Lucia

Razick, S. and Perera, R. (2005), Fine Scale Natural Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Identification Informed by Climate in Sri Lanka, International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, New York, NY.

Sahani. P., and Ariyabandu, M.M., (2003) in Sahni, P. and Ariyabandu, M.M. (Eds), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.

Sen, A., (1998) The concept of development. In H. Chenery and T.N. Srinivasam, eds. Handbook of development economics: Volume 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V, 12-23.

Shaluf, I. M. and Ahmadun, F. (2006), ‘Disaster types in Malaysia: an overview’, Disaster prevention and Management, 15(2), pp 286-298.

Shaluf, I. M., Ahmadun, F. and Said. A.M., (2003), A review of disaster and crisis, Disaster prevention and Management, 12(1), pp 24-32.

The World Bank, (1994) The World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for development, New york:

Trim, P.R.J., (2004), An integrative approach to disaster management and planning, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 13(3), pp. 218-225, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

United Nations, (2007), Millennium development goals report 2007, New York

UNDP (2004), http://www.undp.org.

United Nations Development Programme (2004), A global Report- Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York.

UNEP, (2008), Environment and Disaster Risk: Emerging perspectives, Geneva.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), 2008 http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng-p.htmUNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (2009), Available in http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm, Accessed on 20th February 2009

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) (2004a) Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat, Geneva

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) (2004b), “Terminology: basic terms of disaster risk reduction”, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm (accessed 18 June 2007).

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), (2003), ‘Disaster Reduction and Sustainable Development’, http://www.unisdr.org/eng/riskreduction/sustainable-development/DR-and-SD-English.pdf, viewed: 20/12/2007.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) (2002a), “Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives”, Preliminary version prepared as an interagency effort coordinated by the ISDR Secretariat, Geneva.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), (2002b) Natural disasters and sustainable development: Understanding the links between development, Environment and natural disasters: Background paper no. 5, Geneva.

UN/ISDR, AfDB, African Union, NEPAD (2004), Disaster Risk Reduction for Sustainable Development in Africa: Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Assessment in Development, UN/ISDR, AfDB, African Union, NEPAD.

Weichselgartner, J., 2001, Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited, Disaster Prevention and Management, Volume 10(2), pp. 85-94

Yaoxian, Y., (2002) Chinese experience with post-natural-disaster Reconstruction, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Post-disaster Reconstruction: Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, 23rd-25th May, Universite de Montreal, Canada.

Zubair, L., Perera, R., Lyon, B., Ralapanawe, V., Tennakoon, U., Yahiya, Z., Chandimala, J.,

  1. Recommended reading list


Amaratunga D. and Haigh, R. (eds) (2011) Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Rebuilding for Resilience, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Limited

Barakat, S. (ed) (2005) After the Conflict: Reconstructions and Redevelopment in the Aftermath of War, London: I.B.Tauris and Company

Bosher, L. (ed) (2008) Hazards and the built environment: Attaining built-in resilience. London: Taylor and Francis.

Business Continuity Institute, Good Practice Guidelines 2013- Global Edition- A Guide to Global Good Practice in Business Continuity.

Dasgupta, R. (2007) Disaster Management and Rehabilitation, New Delhi: Mittal Publications

Duyne Barenstein J. E. and Leemann, E. (eds) (2013) Post-Disaster Reconstruction and Change: Communities' Perspectives, Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group

Gonsalves, J. and Mohan, P. (ed) Strengthening Resilience in Post-Disaster Situations: Stories, Experience and Lessons from South Asia, New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

Haigh, R. and Amaratunga, D. (2010), “An integrative review of the built environment discipline’s role in the development of society’s resilience to disasters”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-24.

Jha A.K. and Duyne J. E (2010) Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing After Natural Disasters, The World Bank

Karim, N. (2004) Options for cyclone protection: Bangladesh context, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Post-disaster Reconstruction: Improving post-disaster reconstruction in developing countries, April 22-23, 2004, Coventry, UK.



Saunders, W. (2008) Urban Design and Natural Hazard Mitigation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Post-disaster Reconstruction: Building resilience: Achieving effective post-disaster reconstruction, April 30-May 1, 2008, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Wisner, B., Gaillard, J.C. and Kelman, I. (2012) Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, Routledge.

Download 11.77 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page