Disaster Recovery Processes: Analysing the Interplay Between Communities and Authorities in Chennai, India
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Research Collection Conference Paper Disaster recovery processes: Analysing the interplay between communities and authorities in Chennai, India Author(s): Jörin, Jonas; Steinberger, Franziska; Krishnamurthy, Ramasamy R.; Scolobig, Anna Publication Date: 2018 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000291427 Originally published in: Procedia Engineering 212, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.083 Rights / License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect ScienceDirect AvailableProcedia online Engineering at www.sciencedirect.com 00 (2017) 000–000 Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 643–650 7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy 7thand International practice in disaster Conference risk reduction, on Building ICBR2017, Resilience; 27 Using – 29 November scientific knowledge2017, Bangkok, to inform Thailand policy and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand Disaster recovery processes: Analysing the interplay between communities and Disaster recovery processes:authorities Analysing in Chennai, the interplay India between communities and authorities in Chennai, India a a b a Jonas Joerina0F*, Franziska Steinbergera, Ramasamy R. Krishnamurthyb, Anna Scolobiga Jonas Joerin 0F*, Franziska Steinberger , Ramasamy R. Krishnamurthy , Anna Scolobig aETH Zurich, Department of Enviromental Systems Science, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland bUniversityaETH Zurich, of Madras, Department Department of Enviromental of Applied Geology,Systems Scienc Guindye, Campus,Universitaetstrasse Sardar Patel 16, Road, 8092 Zurich,Chennai Switzerland 600 025, India bUniversity of Madras, Department of Applied Geology, Guindy Campus, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai 600 025, India Abstract Abstract This paper analyses the underlying factors of a disaster ‘recovery process’. Based on a household survey, conducted ten months afterThis thepaper 2015 analyses South theIndian underlying floods in factors two affected of a disaster constituencies ‘recovery (Mylapore process’. andBased Velachery) on a household of Chennai survey, residents, conducted were tenasked months how longafter thethey 2015 took South to recover Indian from floods the in floods two affected and whether constituencies they took (Mylapore actively part and in Velachery) the recovery of Chennai process., rTheesidents results were highlight asked howthat residentslong they from took theto recovermore affected from the constituency floods and (Velachery) whether they took took significantly actively part longer in the to recoveryrestore physical process. aspects The results (e.g. energy,highlight water, that roads,residents etc.), from but the only more partially affected longer constituency for social (Velachery) and economic took significantly aspects. Aspe longercts ofto restoresocial capitalphysical (leadership, aspects (e.g. communication, energy, water, ownershiproads, etc.), and but trust) only werepartially rated longer equall fory low social in both and communities.economic aspects However. Aspe, ctsindividual of social actions capital to (leadership,help others orcommunication, participate in volunteerownership groups and trust) increased were morerated significantlyequally low in theboth constituency communities. that However was more, individual affected. Theactions findings to help from others this caseor participate study point in- outvolunteer that flood groups disaster increased events more trigger significantly residents to in become the constituency more solidary that wasand activemore affected.to help others, The findings but have from little this impact case on study triggering point- aout more that activeflood disaster interplay events between trigger communities residents to and become authorities more solidary. This highlights and active that to help flood others, disaster but eventshave little do impactnot change on triggering inherent structurala more active and institutionalinterplay between relationships communities between and key authorities actors (local. This government, highlights communities,that flood disaster private events sector, do academia not change and inherent NGOs) involvedstructural in and disaster institutional recovery relationships processes. between key actors (local government, communities, private sector, academia and NGOs) involved in disaster recovery processes. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. PeerPeer-review-review under responsibility of the scientific committeecommittee ofof thethe 7th7th InternationalInternational ConferenceConference onon BuBuildingilding ResilienceResilience.. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. Keywords: disaster recovery process, community-authority interplay, floods, Chennai Keywords: disaster recovery process, community-authority interplay, floods, Chennai * Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-44-6323240 * ECorresponding-mail address: author. [email protected] Tel.: +41-44-6323240 E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer1877--review7058 © under 2017 responsibilityThe Authors. ofPublished the scientific by Elsevier committee Ltd. of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. 1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.083 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.083 1877-7058 644 Jonas Joerin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 643–650 2 Joerin et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 Joerin et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3 1. Introduction leadership of different members of a community need to be considered in the disaster recovery process [37]. Thus, leaders of communities may interact directly with the authorities and integrate their members’ needs and expectations The aftermath of a disaster often poses great challenges to communities to recover from the damages and losses into the planning of the recovery process [11, 37, 38]. [1]. Public and private infrastructure need to be restored and communities rebuilt. This process is commonly referred Finally, flexible approaches are needed to ensure communities and authorities interact effectively with each other as ‘recovery’. Within the disaster theory, the aspect of ‘recovery’ is widely seen as the least understood [1-4]. So far in the recovery process [38]. Thus, ‘top-down’ and ‘command-and-control’ approaches may rather create conflicts little is known about what is needed to achieve successful recovery outcomes [3, 5] and whether people and authorities between communities and authorities than support the recovery process [38]. Thus, a common understanding of how in affected areas respond to such an event with increased interplay and coordination. Thus, the underlying factors of to engage and conduct ‘recovery’ requires open communication channels and trust between communities, authorities what enables recovery is still controversially discussed [6], and few quantitative approaches exist to identify possible and other actors involved in the recovery process [39-41]. linkages [3, 5, 7, 8]. A key reason which is considered to be responsible for failed or unsatisfactory recovery processes is a missing or 3. Methods distorted interaction between communities and authorities [9]. Thus, a failed community-authority interplay may result in disaster recovery activities to either not occur at all, to be slow or to be not adequate for the particular context [10- 3.1. Case study location: Chennai 14]. For example, in a comparative analysis about post-disaster housing projects in Colombia, El Salvador and Turkey, [15] highlight the need to involve communities from the beginning into the process of designing new housing concepts. Chennai was badly affected by the 2015 South Indian floods. An estimated 301 people died and damages of around Another study about the 1994 Northridge Earthquake revealed that needs of communities were not sufficiently USD 3 billion were recorded. During an extensive period of heavy rainfall in November and December 2015 water addressed in the provision of adequate relief and required NGOs to provide support [16]. According to [17], the catchment bodies outside of Chennai gradually filled-up until the water had to be released to avoid breaching of the interplay between communities and authorities during a disaster recovery is characterised by joint leadership, dams. Ineffective communication to warn residents during the night about an upcoming flood wave after the dams communication, ownership and trust. These factors are considered to be essential in triggering participatory- and were opened caused this disaster. The city stopped functioning for several days including the