Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 7 results ...
Apu, N and Das, U (2021) Tectonics and earthquake potential of Bangladesh: a review. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 295-307.
Borg, R P, Borg Axisa, G, Ophiyandri, T and Hakam, A (2021) The development of inter-regional and intra-regional cooperation frameworks for multi-hazard early warning systems in South and South-East Asia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 265-79.
Carandang, A M S, Garciano, L E O, Maruyama, O and De Jesus, R (2021) Proposed resilience index of water lifeline systems. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 253-64.
Giuliani, F, De Falco, A, Cutini, V and Di Sivo, M (2021) A simplified methodology for risk analysis of historic centers: the world heritage site of San Gimignano, Italy. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 336-54.
Huynh, H T L, Nguyen, H X, Ngo, T T and Van, H T (2021) Pre-disaster assessment of flood risk for mid Central Vietnam. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 322-35.
Neeraj, S, Mannakkara, S and Wilkinson, S (2021) Build back better concepts for resilient recovery: a case study of India’s 2018 flood recovery. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 280-94.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: 2018 Kerala floods; build back better; disaster mitigation; disaster prevention; India; post disaster reconstruction
- ISBN/ISSN:
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2020-0044
- Abstract:
Purpose: This paper aims to understand the recovery process after the 2018 floods in Kerala, India, and it determines whether the recovery efforts were aligned with Build Back Better (BBB) concepts. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative approach was adopted to collect the data from the officials of Government and NGOs involved in Kerala recovery. The participants were interviewed on the challenges faced during the recovery process and the actions taken by them to overcome it. Findings: The study identified that the Kerala Government was proactive at making the community resilient from future disasters by – encouraging owner-driven reconstruction among flood-affected households; supporting locals to rejuvenate their business; and by creating a local-level recovery authority. Further, this paper identifies the areas that Kerala was lacking in terms of BBB and where resilience-based plans and actions are needed for the future. Research limitations/implications: The participants were employees of Government and NGOs at a state level as they were the primary decision-makers to implement any recovery actions. Researchers believe that the authorities at district and village level could have had a different perspective towards implementing the recovery actions. Practical implications: The best practices presented in this paper for effective BBB will assist the government to build/improve resilience in the community. Originality/value: The implementation of BBB concepts in the areas of disaster risk reduction, community recovery and effective implementation was never studied extensively. The research provides valuable information on what extent Kerala’s post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities were in-line with BBB practices. © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited.
Shupe-Diggs, C, Diko, S K and Santo, C A (2021) An integrated social vulnerability assessment of riverine flood hazards in Shelby County, Tennessee. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(03), 308-21.