|
|
- Permanent Link:
- http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13042100/00001
Notes
- Summary:
- This guidance note on recovery focuses on shelter needs of victims in the aftermath of a disaster. It creates a cohesive documented body of knowledge for disaster recovery planners and policy makers, in the recognition that preventive measures are vital to reducing the more costly efforts of responding to disasters. In spite of a wealth of experience and expertise within governments and organizations on disaster recovery focusing on shelter, the majority of this knowledge is not well documented, compiled, nor shared. This guidance note fulfills this knowledge gap by documenting, collecting and sharing disaster recovery experiences and lessons. The note draws from documented experiences of past and present recovery efforts, collected through a desk review and consultations with relevant experts. These experiences and lessons are classified into nine major issues: shelter recovery transitions; site selection; project implementation method; building design; legal implications; technical assistance and expertise; construction materials; construction labor; and maintaining lives, livelihoods, and community character. Each of the major issues above is explored along housing solutions that are permanent, sustainable, hazard resilient, culturally acceptable and environmentally friendly. The document mentions the following factors as the key sources of vulnerability in the shelter sector: poor, weak or in appropriate building materials; inappropriate building design; insufficient building codes; inadequate code enforcement; poor land use planning; high-density living; fatalism/ignorance; and dependence on weak infrastructure. Factors identified as obstacles to shelter recovery are: pressure to quickly rebuild or replace housing; denial of future risk to similar housing units; poverty; inequality in housing reconstruction; the availability and cost of building materials and labor; the loss or lack of buildable land; a lack of community consensus; and dependence on infrastructure and wraparound services. The document concludes that shelter recovery is a highly complex function in large part because of the interactions that exist between the provision and occupancy of repaired and/or reconstructed housing and other recovery sectors (eg. livelihoods). The recovery period presents significant opportunity to improve the conditions of those affected in ways that might not otherwise be possible given legal, financial, or technical ramifications. ( English )
- Subject:
- Shelters ( English )
- Scope and Content:
- TABLE OF CONTENTS p. I; TABLE OF BOXES p. III; INTRODUCTION p. IV; INTRODUCTION TO SHELTER RECOVERY p. 1; ISSUE 1: SHELTER RECOVERY TRANSITIONS p. 13; SUB-ISSUE: TRANSITIONAL SHELTER OPTIONS p. 14; Case 1: Conflict in Pakistan, December 2009 p. 16;
Case 2: Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, USA, 2005 p. 17; Case 3: Hurricane Mitch, Nicaragua and Honduras, 1998 p. 20; Case 4: Earthquake, 2006, Yogyakarta, Indonesia p. 20; Case 5: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 22; Case 6: Marmara Earthquake, Turkey, 1999 p. 23; Case 7: Earthquake, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006 p. 24; Case 8: Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, USA, 2005 p. 25; Case 9: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 26; Case 10: L’Aquila Earthquake, Abruzzo, Italy, 2009 p. 27; Case 11: Earthquake and Tsunami, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 2004 p. 28; Case 12: Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, USA, 2005 p. 29; ISSUE 2: SITE SELECTION p. 30; SUB-ISSUE: INHERENT RISK OF THE EXISTING SITE p. 30; Case 13: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 31; SUB-ISSUE: THE BENEFITS OF STAYING ON SITE p. 32; Case 14: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 32; SUB-ISSUE: RELOCATION p. 33; Case 15: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 34;
Case 16: Earthquakes, August and November 1999, Kocaeli and Marmara Turkey p. 36; Case 17: Tsunami, 2004, Tamil Nadu, India p. 38; Case 18: Floods, 2000/2001, Mozambique p. 39;
Case 19: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 41; Case 20: Earthquake, Bam, Iran, 2003 p. 42; ISSUE 3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION METHOD p. 43; Case 21: Earthquake, Pakistan, 2005 p. 45; Case 22: Earthquakes, Nahrin, Afghanistan, 2002 p. 46; Case 23: Earthquake and Tsunami, Aceh, Indonesia, 2004 p. 48; Case 24: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 48; Case 25: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 49;
Case 26: Indian Ocean Tsunami, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India, 2004 p. 51; Case 27: Great Hanshin Earthquake, Kobe, Japan, 1995 p. 52; Case 28: Tsunami, Sri Lanka, 2004 p. 53;
Case 29: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 54; Case 30: Earthquake, Bam, Iran, 2003 p. 56; Case 31: The Maharashtara Earthquake, Maharashtra, India, 1993 p. 57; ISSUE 4: BUILDING DESIGN p. 59; SUB-ISSUE: HAZARD-RESISTANT DESIGN p. 59; Case 32: Earthquake, Yogyakarta and Central Java Indonesia, 2006 p. 60; Case 33: Earthquake, Bam, Iran, 2003 p. 61; Case 34: Earthquake, Pakistan, 2005 p. 62; SUB-ISSUE: APPEARANCE AND FUNCTION p. 64; Case 35: Earthquake, Dinar, Turkey, 1995 p. 64; Case 36: Earthquake, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006 p. 65; Case 37: Earthquake, Pakistan, 2005 p. 66; Case 38: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 70; Case 39: Tsunami, Tamil Nadu, India, 2004 p. 71; Case 40: Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, USA, 2005 p. 72; Case 41: Tsunami, 2004, Tamil Nadu, India p. 73; ISSUE 5: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS p. 75; SUB-ISSUE: LAND USE ORDINANCES AND CONSTRUCTION CODES p. 75; Case 42: Great Hanshin Earthquake, Kobe, Japan, 1995 p. 76; Case 43: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 76; SUB-ISSUE: LAND AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP p. 77; SUB-ISSUE: COMMUNITY DRIVEN ADJUDICATION p. 78; Case 44: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 79; Case 45: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 81; Case 46: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 82; ISSUE 6: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE / EXPERTISE p. 83; Case 47: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 84; Case 48: Earthquake, Yemen, 1982 p. 85; Case 49: Lebanon, July War 2006 p. 86; Case 50: Earthquake, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006 p. 87; Case 51: Hurricane Dean, 2008, Jamaica p. 88; ISSUE 7: CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS p. 89; Case 52: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 89; Case 53: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Andoman and Nicobar Islands, India p. 91; Case 54: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 91; Case 55: Earthquake in Bhuj, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 92; Case 56: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 93; Case 57: Earthquake and Tsunami, Aceh, Indonesia, 2004 p. 94; Case 58: Multiple Hurricanes, 2008, Cuba p. 95; Case 59: Hurricane, Honduras and Nicaragua, 1998 p. 96;
SUB-ISSUE: TEMPORARY HOUSING MATERIALS p. 96; Case 60: Volcanic Eruption, Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2002 p. 97; Case 61: Volcanic Eruption, Montserrat, 1995 p. 97;
Case 62: Hurricane Mitch, Honduras and Nicaragua, 1998 p. 98; Case 63: Earthquake, Guatemala, 1976 p. 98; SUB-ISSUE: REUSING OR RECYCLING MATERIALS p. 99; Case 64: Earthquake, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006 p. 100; ISSUE 8: CONSTRUCTION LABOR p. 101;
Case 65: El Salvador Earthquakes - January/February 2001 p. 102; Case 66: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 103; Case 67: Earthquake, El Salvador, 2001 p. 104;
Case 68: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 106; Case 69: Cyclone (1999) / Flood (2001), Orissa, India p. 107; Case 70: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 109; Case 71: Cyclone, India, 1977 p. 110; ISSUE 9: MAINTAINING LIVES, LIVELIHOODS, AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER p. 111; Case 72: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 111; Case 73: Indian Ocean Tsunami, Maldives, 2004 p. 112;
Case 74: Floods in Mozambique, 2000 p. 113; Case 75: Great Hanshin Earthquake, Japan, 1995 p. 114; Case 76: Hurricane Mitch, Nicaragua, 1998 p. 115; Case 77: Earthquake and Tsunami, 2004, Banda Aceh, Indonesia p. 116; Case 78: Los Angeles, USA Earthquake, 1994 p. 117;
Case 79: Great Hanshin Earthquake, Kobe, Japan, 1995 p. 119; Case 80: Bhuj Earthquake, Gujarat, India, 2001 p. 121; ANNEX 1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS p. 122; ANNEX 2: SHELTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY TIMELINE p. 123; ANNEX 3: PRE DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING p. 125; ANNEX 4: RESOURCES CITED p. 128; Table of Boxes: BOX 1: LENSS TOOL p. 7; BOX 2: TRANSITIONAL SHELTER DEFINED p. 14; BOX 3: TRANSITIONAL SHELTER TYPES p. 15; BOX 4: TRANSITIONAL SHELTER INFORMATION p. 18; BOX 5: EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFULLY-RELOCATED COMMUNITIES p. 36; BOX 6: EXAMPLES OF MANUALS AND GUIDES ON BUILDING PROCESS p. 67; BOX 7: SOURCES OF BUILDING MATERIALS p. 100 ( English )
- Citation/Reference:
- Haddow, G., Coppola, D., Bhatia, S., Maly, L. (2010). Guidance note on recovery: shelter. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-India, International Recovery Platform (IRP), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
Record Information
- Source Institution:
- Florida International University
- Rights Management:
- These volumes may be freely quoted but acknowledgement of source is requested
- Resource Identifier:
- FI13042100
|
|
