Iuchi, K. and Maly, E.

Survey Report: Roles of People, Community and Planning in Recovery After Mega-Disasters: A Symposium Synopsis

Kanako Iuchi and Elizabeth Maly

International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University 468-1, Aza Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan E-mail: [email protected] [Received September 1, 2015; accepted January 5, 2016]

The concept of ‘building back better’ is being main- arena [2]. While practitioners in international develop- streamed in international development to minimize fu- ment have thus far focused on the role of recovery in de- ture devastation from natural disasters. This paper velopmental approaches, planning literature suggests that reports on presentations and discussions from the Sec- related theories require further attention to support and ond International Symposium on Recovery after Mega increase resiliency [3, 4]. Planners have long focused on Disasters: People, Community and Planning, held mitigation efforts pre-disaster, such as reducing impacts March 16, 2015 during the Third World Conference and vulnerabilities by upgrading structural resistance, en- on Disaster Risk Reduction. International experts, in- forcing building codes, and avoiding the use of hazardous cluding practitioners and researchers, presented var- land among other activities identified in the four-stage ied recovery efforts and insights. The three follow- cycle of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recov- ing principles emerged from the symposium. 1) Re- ery [5]. Analysis of plans implemented at the local gov- location, compact (re)development, renewable energy, ernment level after carefully assessing various hazards in- and flood controls are key policy focuses in recovery cluding seismic [6], flood [7], and [8] has shown plans, and require careful individual and community these efforts to be effective. Yet ways to recover better – involvement, planning designs, and information shar- to rebuild in ways that reduce future vulnerabilities and ing. 2) Identifying unique local resources is key for threats of disasters – need further exploration. successful recovery and can help formulate innovative In this dialogue of rebuilding better, the role of plan- strategies. 3) As rebuilding that considers local cul- ning is becoming more important. In theory, plan- ture, systems, and groups aids in resilient recovery, ning supports local communities reestablishing them- planning practitioners need in-depth understanding of selves more resiliently through identifying long-standing local contexts to derive better solutions. Given these problems and developing strategies and programs to min- three principles, participants agreed that at its core, imize negative impacts and issues identified in the re- the concept of ‘building back better’ requires tailor- building process [3]. Planners can help communities made planning designs and processes. develop consensus through participatory and commu- nicative approaches to overcome issues [9, 10], and can set the groundwork for sustainable, equitable develop- Keywords: disaster recovery, recovery planning, build ment [11, 12] by taking coordination, advocacy, and me- back better, community participation diation roles, among others [5, 13]. Local needs can then be reflected in rebuilding plans and actions. In the course 1. Rebuilding Better After Disasters of recovery, various actors – including government offi- cials, policy makers, NGO staff, consultants and com- munity representatives – find themselves in positions to The number of deaths per disaster has continued to lead and take action. However, general principles and rise in the past two decades, while the number of peo- guidelines are not widely available, making research on ple affected has declined. This is largely due to grow- practice-based recovery and information sharing about a ing populations and agglomerated urban systems world- wide range of cases more important than ever. wide [1]. In rebuilding, the concept of building back bet- Developing key principles by examining a variety of ter has been mainstreamed as a way to guide and provide cases is challenging [5]. First, recovery planning devel- a theoretical framework for practical actions to be more ops and proceeds differently within local contexts, and resilient to future disasters. In addition to its use by dis- implementation must adapt to local institutional rules and aster stricken states, the recently adopted Sendai Frame- regulations. Second, although common themes and issues work for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 promotes in the rebuilding process have been identified, literature the concept of building back better as a key strategic ap- summarizing recovery principles is not readily available proach for mitigating disaster impact. Ideally, this strat- despite the need to articulate these themes and topics in egy will be widely used in the international development long-term rebuilding.

512 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.11 No.3, 2016 Roles of People, Community and Planning in Recovery After Mega-Disasters: A Symposium Synopsis

This paper reports on presentations and discussions ality, e.g., rebuilding homes involves individual as well as shared in the Second International Symposium on Recov- public effort. This tends to result in dispersed develop- ery after Mega-Disasters: People, Community, and Plan- ment, contradicting the goal of a compact city. Residents ning, held on March 16, 2015 as a public forum of the must also agree to public efforts to change the use of indi- Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, or- vidual land parcels, which hinders the goal of a complete ganized by UNISDR (the United Nations International land use change. While fair to individual landowners, the Strategy for Disaster Reduction). Sponsored by IRIDeS situation is not conducive to rebuilding compactly to en- and Tohoku University and cosponsored by the GFDRR, hance overall resilience against future disasters. World Bank, University of Illinois, and TU Dortmund, Karl Kim presented “Deliberating disaster recovery: the symposium brought together researchers and practi- faster, stronger, greener, and fairer,” highlighting key ap- tioners working on recovery with local communities to proaches for rebuilding better. “Faster” rebuilding, such share information, experiences, and insights, and come as the Rapid Repairs program implemented by New York to a consensus on basic principles and future research City after Hurricane Sandy, allowed residents to remain agendas for better recovery. The international partici- at home instead of in evacuation centers and led to faster pants shared hands-on experiences in recovery from Japan community restoration. Rebuilding “stronger” could mit- (2011 Great East Japan (GEJE) and igate future threats by reorganizing land use to place new and 2004 Chuetsu earthquake), the Philippines (2013 Ty- development in safer areas as was done in Hilo, Hawaii, phoon Haiyan), (2010 Mt. Merapi volcanic after the 1960 tsunami. “Greener” recovery could support eruption and 2006 Central Java earthquake), India (2004 living closer to nature, as in Greensburg, Kansas, which Indian Ocean tsunami), the United States (2005 Hurricane incorporated a renewable energy strategy to “make wind Katrina and 2012 Hurricane Sandy), and Germany (2002 our friend” after the 2007 . “Fairer” recovery pro- Elbe flood and 2013 Elbe and Danube floods). This sym- vides an opportunity for underprivileged populations to posium consisted of three sessions: Planning policies and take greater roles in their community rebuilding process, processes; Rebuilding regions using local resources; and as did the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio follow- People-centered relocation and housing. ing in 2005. Kim stressed, however, that understanding trade-offs regarding faster, stronger, greener, and fairer rebuilding is critical to making proper 2. Planning Policies and Processes choices in rebuilding. Robert Olshansky’s presentation discussed “Organiz- The opening session on planning policies and processes ing for recovery: plans, policies, and implementation,” shared key elements to be considered in community re- highlighting key rebuilding principles for planners from building. Kanako Iuchi presented “Post-earthquake reset- 20 years of recovery cases in countries such as the U.S., tlement policies, processes and outcomes,” addressing the Japan, China, India, Indonesia, and New Zealand. One question of relocating or rebuilding in place after a signif- of the most challenging aspects to recovering better is the icant disaster. Iuchi described how public policy should tension between speed and well-thought-out plans. Plan- support this decision, referencing her in-depth study in ners leading the process are given the daunting responsi- communities following the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake. Us- bility of managing funding, sharing information, and nur- ing qualitative methods, including semi-structured inter- turing collaboration between various stakeholders. The views with local government officers, community lead- challenge of leading better recovery under time pressure ers and local residents, Iuchi concluded that decisions on can be addressed by fostering mechanisms to “increase where and how to rebuild are related to several factors: citizen involvement, create information clearinghouses, (physical) community locations pre-disaster; pre-disaster broaden channels of communication, and support the for- community relations; and the decision making process. mation of emergent non-governmental organizations.” Resettlement outcomes therefore depended heavily on in- Ryo Matsumaru presented an overview of “Resettle- herent community characteristics. Communities with cer- ment in Aceh reconstruction,” after the 2004 Indian Ocean tain levels of bonding pre-disaster were likely to make tsunami, highlighting issues that emerged in the process. collective resettlement decisions in a collaborative pro- On-site rebuilding involved donors including the Indone- cess, and thus outcomes were likely to be more sustain- sian government, international agencies and INGOs, who able even after residents found permanent places to live. provided houses to residents with land titles. However, Michio Ubaura presented “Spatial plan for recovery this aid occurred without any consideration of hazards. and its planning processes after the Great East Japan The new houses were often rented out to non-residents Earthquake,” covering the current rebuilding progress in who did not have any experience or knowledge of tsunami the Tohoku region. Ubaura explained Japan’s system impacts, recreating rather than reducing local vulnerabil- of planning and policies including basic recovery prin- ity. Options to relocate were given to pre-tsunami renters ciples after the GEJE, land use patterns and programs and owners who lost land in the tsunami. However, the used to mitigate future tsunami impacts, and compact city area for relocation was far from original communities, and (re)development efforts emphasizing management for de- although the rebuilding policy provided free housing and clining populations. Rebuilding resiliently in Tohoku is land, residents could not voice location preferences, hin- straightforward in principle yet extremely complex in re- dering their ability to continue economic activities. This

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.11 No.3, 2016 513 Iuchi, K. and Maly, E.

situation emphasized the need for resettlement policies Ramawati Husein presented “Planning for the sustain- and processes to be well designed to avoid recreating vul- able livelihood recovery post-Merapi eruption,” sharing nerabilities. her experience working with several villages in the Sle- Stefan Greiving presented “Post-Elbe flooding land use man District of Yogyakarta, Indonesia as a leader of the risk control in Germany,” highlighting a shift in German Muhhammadiyah NGO. To regenerate economic income spatial planning for flood risk management after the June for households that lost all their assets, the organization 2013 Elbe and Danube floods. Typically, planning efforts worked to understand the needs and capacities of each do not consider hazards, continue to plan future develop- village to identify which available programs would best ment in flood prone areas, and assume that risk can be fit each community. Muhhammadiyah then tapped exist- managed by technical flood control systems. Ways to re- ing social networks to operate various programs such as a duce risks to existing residential areas are minimally con- fish farm, mushroom cultivation, tofu and tempeh produc- sidered and implemented. Regions with a history of se- tion, and cassava snacks. Engaging local networks helped vere flooding invest more in flood protection, while those these operations move swiftly and smoothly, and working with flood risks but without experience continue to en- with communities contributed to a faster and more locally gage less in such efforts. However, after the extensive appropriate recovery. 450 km2 inundation and long duration of the 2013 Elbe Margaret Arnold presented “Empowering the poor and and Danube floods, flood management has become more marginalized in recovery,” on the involvement of under- comprehensive and inclusive, and has used a communica- privileged populations in making their own decisions, tive planning approach. which continues to be a critical approach for sustainable recovery. Arnold shared key messages for empowering communities learned from her experiences with the World 3. Rebuilding Regions Using Local Resources Bank’s community-driven development (CDD) program in Madagascar and Indonesia. The objective of this pro- In the second session, experts working closely with gram is for “local development that gives control over communities for local and sustainable rebuilding shared planning decisions and investment resources to commu- planning experiences in recovery. Masahiro Sawada dis- nity groups, including local governments.” Arnold found cussed “Recovery in depopulation: Rebuilding process that communities using the CDD program recovered bet- post-Chuetsu earthquake of 2004.” Working with com- ter even though it was not specifically designed for post munities in this region was a challenge due to severe pre- disaster recovery. Arnold underscored the points that: earthquake depopulation and the mountainous region’s i) disasters and different types of rebuilding programs isolation. Revitalizing the affected communities seemed are not equally helpful to all populations; ii) meaningful almost impossible; however, communities have regained community engagement is needed for sustainable rebuild- vitality over the last decade of recovery by re-identifying ing; and iii) inclusive approaches are incredibly important their unique local value. Such successes included sev- for an equitable process for different actors. eral strategies enabling communities to recover flexibly, Nadine M¨agdefrau presented “Experiences with reloca- including: i) rebuilding plans targeting “creative” recov- tion in Germany,” focusing on the case of R¨oderau-S¨ud’s ery, ii) recovery foundation allowing the “flexible” use of post-flood relocation. Traditionally, residents’ lives and funds for unique ideas; and iii) a new “recovery support- assets in flood-prone areas are protected through technical ers” program developed by Niigata Prefecture for support- flood controls, so relocation is only minimally considered. ers outside communities to identify previously untapped However, R¨oderau-S¨ud is an example of the successful re- local resources. location of 340 people away from flood-prone areas after Aging is a pressing issue in recovery, as elderly resi- the 2002 Elbe River flood, when the State of Saxony pro- dents are often left out of the recovery dialogue. Emi Kiy- vided either full financial compensation for houses and ota presented “Ibasho Caf´e: engaging elders for resilience land for relocation or 80% of repair costs to rebuild in the and inclusion,” which recounted a three-year effort by lo- same place with no future flood assistance. R¨oderau-S¨ud cal elders in disaster-hit areas of Ofunato following the community members discussed their options intensively GEJE and in Ormoc after 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the and voluntarily decided to move out of the area, mostly Philippines. With the objective of increasing resilience in to locations they chose individually, although some relo- elders’ post-disaster lives by creating a place they could cated collectively. belong, one key principle was to identify elders as valu- able community assets and empower them as active actors in establishing a more comfortable environment. Since 4. People-Centered Relocation and Housing its establishment in June 2013, elders of Ofunato’s Ibasho Caf´e organized around 70 events and welcomed more than The third and final session addressed issues of hous- 5,500 visitors in the first year. This activity was repli- ing recovery and relocation after disaster. Jennifer Duyne cated in Ormoc including a peer-to-peer learning process, Barenstein introduced “Cultural dimensions in post dis- bringing motivation to Ibasho’s elder leaders. Elders re- aster relocation,” introducing the importance of culture in identified their value in the community, minimizing the disaster recovery. In Tamil Nadu, India, after the 2004 risk of becoming socially isolated and depressed. Indian Ocean tsunami, reconstruction projects failed to

514 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.11 No.3, 2016 Roles of People, Community and Planning in Recovery After Mega-Disasters: A Symposium Synopsis

incorporate cultural factors, causing negative social im- rated at multiple scales. Based on a collective process pacts such as the deterioration in the quality of life, loss for decision-making, project management, and construc- of family and social connections, loss of heritage and lo- tion, the Rekompak program built on the strong culture of cal environment, marginalization of women, and wasted local residents working together collectively. Yet, it did resources. To ensure safe and culturally sensitive disaster not cover all affected people. Although new economic reconstruction, it is important to plan ahead so the value of opportunities have been developed in resettlement areas, local housing culture is recognized and the capacity of lo- the outcome of the long-term goal of relocating residents cal builders is strengthened. Communities are empowered away from hazardous areas remains to be seen. to rebuild their homes if owner-driven reconstruction is Cynthia Barton presented “A local solution to a global supported by: i) ensuring community participation in re- problem: the urban postdisaster housing prototype in New construction planning and policy development; ii) provid- York City.” In the urban context of (NYC), ing financial support in installments; iii) providing guide- a temporary housing prototype was designed to respond lines and technical guidance for local building technolo- to the challenge of sheltering millions of residents for a gies; and iv) training, monitoring, and quality control. certain period of time in case of a disaster. Since tem- Norio Maki discussed “Damage and recovery of reset- porary housing schemes in the U.S. are usually designed tlement sites after the Showa Sanriku tsunami” in 1933 for empty lots, solutions are needed for densely populated and the impact of the 2011 GEJE on these areas. Recovery locations such as . Through the consideration in 1933 included the relocation of fishing and farming vil- of various approaches, the final housing design used mul- lages to higher ground, with projects in 60 settlements in tistory buildings, leveraged the abilities of the construc- Miyagi Prefecture and 42 in Iwate Prefecture. Residents tion industry through universal performance criteria, and of these areas experienced tsunami due to the GEJE, and a conformed to the NYC building code. Design priorities damage survey revealed cases of areas that were safe and included accommodation of diverse family types, build- areas with partial or major damage. Examples included: ing material sustainability, durability, comfort, and recre- i) no damage to the Aneyoshi settlement, famous for a ating neighborhoods. By emphasizing urban design and a stone monument saying that villagers “should not live be- site location strategy that incorporates essential services, low it”; ii) slight damage at an area resettled after the 1896 the goal is to use the NYC housing prototype to create Meiji Sanriku tsunami; iii) major damage to lowland ar- lively urban communities even during the transitional pe- eas expanded after the Showa Sanriku resettlement; and riod. An occupancy study of a 3-story model that includes iv) damage to some highland resettlement areas because three units with various layouts is currently under way. of the GEJE’s unexpected scale. Tamiyo Kondo presented the “Variety of housing relo- cation after the GEJE: its characteristics and challenges.” 5. The Way Forward Kondo focused on individual self-help relocation with and without governmental buyout support. Research showed The “People, Community and Planning” symposium that new single-family houses in Higashimatsushima City provided a wealth of information on opportunities and are appearing in infill sites, including tsunami-inundated drawbacks of current rebuilding policies and processes, residential areas and previously vacant lots. Meanwhile, as well as basic principles and key factors for better re- Rikuzentakata City is experiencing sprawl due to indi- covery. Three major messages were derived from this vidual relocation to the suburbs. These differences sug- symposium. First, relocation, compact redevelopment, gest that Higashimatsushima is likely to achieve com- renewable energy, and flood controls are the key policy pact rebuilding, while Rikuzentakata will likely experi- focuses of recovery plans after large-scale disasters. De- ence sprawl and be expensive to administer. Individual signing and implementing these policies for better recov- relocation supports quicker action, as there is no need to ery is complex, yet possible with careful individual and develop a relocation consensus. This approach increases community involvement, planning design, and informa- the potential for haphazard development, however, which tion sharing. Second, identifying unique local resources is unsustainable for both individuals and the city in the is a key step toward successful recovery, and can help for- long run. Considering long-term impacts is therefore im- mulate innovative strategies. Negative macro social fac- portant, even if relocation occurs individually. tors such as depopulation, aging, poverty, and relocation Elizabeth Maly presented “People-centered post- discourage successful recovery. However, unique exam- disaster housing recovery in Yogyakarta,” addressing ples showcased the potential to recover differently, and housing recovery after the 2010 volcanic eruption of In- encourage communities and individuals to continue in- donesia’s Mt. Merapi, near Yogyakarta. With the con- volvement even after initial phases. Third, locally con- cept that people-centered housing recovery supports resi- sidered rebuilding aids in resilient recovery. Without the dents’ ability to recover their former lives, recovery must important dimensions of culture and history – often under- be holistic, tied to residents’ lifestyle and livelihoods, re- discussed in recovery – quality of life and social connec- sponsive to residents’ needs and desires, and result in suit- tions suffer. Because collective actions often emerge from able housing. In Merapi, the community-based housing existing groups, norms, and culture, the importance of reconstruction and relocation program Rekompak is an emphasizing local aspects is clear. Taking this into ac- excellent example of people–centered principles incorpo- count enables the fostering of faster, collaborative, em-

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.11 No.3, 2016 515 Iuchi, K. and Maly, E. powered processes and enables sustainable movement for- ward from crises. Name: The symposium’s consensus was that “building back Kanako Iuchi better” requires tailor-made planning designs and convey- Affiliation: ing of processes to key actors in rebuilding for sustainable International Research Institute of Disaster Sci- recovery. A need remains, however, for continued recov- ence, Tohoku University ery research. This includes recognition of a recovery di- vide in the global north and south, of regions needing or declining international assistance, of areas growing and shrinking, and of areas both urban and rural. Recovery Address: can only be successful by working with affected people 468-1 Aramaki Aza Aoba, Aoba Ward, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan and communities, as well as with local political, cultural, Brief Career: and historic systems, so an understanding of overarching 1994- Pacific Consultants International 2004- Teaching Assistant, Cornell University differences in varied conditions is indispensable. 2006- Research Assistant, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 2010- Urban Specialist, the World Bank 2013- Associate Professor, Tohoku University Acknowledgements Selected Publications: • K. Iuchi, “Planning resettlement after disasters,” Journal of the American The authors wish to thank Tohoku University for financial sup- Planning Associations, Vol.80, pp. 413-425, 2014. port. They would also like to express deep gratitude to all those • K. Iuchi, L. A. Johnson, and R. B. Olshansky, “Securing Tohoku’s who shared their valuable knowledge, insights, and time through Future: Planning for Rebuilding in the First Year Following the presentations and participation in this symposium. Any inaccura- Tohoku-Oki Earthquake and Tsunami,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.29, pp. cies or omissions are solely the responsibility of the authors. S479-S499, 2013. Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: • American Planning Association (APA) • City Planning Institute of Japan (CPIJ) References: • Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) [1] CRED, “The Human Cost of Natural Disasters 2015: A global Per- • Institute of Social Safety Science (ISSS) spective,” Brussels: CRED, 2015. [2] UNISDR, “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- 2030,” 2015. [3] G. Smith, “Involving Land Use Planners in Pre-Event Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery,” Jounal of the American Planning Associ- ations, Vol.80, pp. 306-307, 2014. Name: [4] K. Kim and R. B. Olshansky, “The theory and practice of building Elizabeth Maly back better,” Journal of American Planning Association, Vol.80, pp. 289-292, 2014. Affiliation: [5] R. B. Olshansky and S. Chang, “Planning for disaster recov- International Research Institute of Disaster Sci- ery:emerging research needs and challenges,” Progress in Planning, Vol.72, pp. 200-209, Nov., 2009. ence, Tohoku University [6] A. C. Nelson and S. P. French, “Plan Quality and Mitigating Dam- age from Natural Disasters: A Case Study of the Northridge Earth- quake with Planning Policy Considerations,” Journal of the Ameri- can Planning Association, Vol.68, pp. 194-207, 2002. [7] R. J. Burby and S. P. French, “Coping With Floods: The Land Use Address: Management Paradox,” Journal of the American Planning Associa- tions, Vol.47, pp. 289-300, 1981. 468-1 Aramaki Aza Aoba, Aoba Ward, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan [8] R. Fella, J. Corominas, C. Bonnardc, L. Cascinid, E. Leroie, and W. Brief Career: Z. Savagef, “Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk 2009- Assistant Researcher, International Recovery Platform, Kobe zoning for land use planning,” Engineering , Vol.102, pp. 2012- Researcher, Disaster Reduction Institute (DRI), Kobe 85-98, 2008. 2014- Assistant Professor, Tohoku University [9] J. Forester, “The Deliberative Practitioner : Encouraging Participa- Selected Publications: tory Planning Processes,” Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999. • E. Maly, “People centered housing recovery in Tohoku.” in C. Hobsen [10] J. E. Innes, “Planning through consensus building,” Journal of the and P. Bacon (Eds), “Human Security and Disasters” (Chapter 2, pp. American Planning Association, Vol.62, pp. 460-472, Autumn, 33-62), Tokyo: Routledge, 2015. 1996. • E. Maly and T. Kondo, “From Temporary to Permanent: Mississippi [11] P. R. Berke, J. Kartez, and D. Wenger, “Recovery After Disaster – Cottages After Hurricane Katrina.” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.8 Achieving Sustainable Development, Mitigation and Equity,” Dis- asters, Vol.17, pp. 93-109, June, 1993. No.3, 2013. [12] P. Davidoff, “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,” Journal of Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: American Institute of Planners, Vol.31, pp. 103-114, 1965. • Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) • [13] L. Pyles, “Community organizing for post-disaster social develop- Institute of Social Safety Science (ISSS) ment: Locating social work,” International Social Work, Vol.50, pp. • Japan Housing Council (Nihon Juutaku Kaigi) 321-333, May, 2007.

516 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.11 No.3, 2016