Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1211–1222 | Cite as

Long-term recovery narratives following major disasters in Southeast Asia

  • Frank Thomalla
  • Louis Lebel
  • Michael Boyland
  • Danny Marks
  • Ham Kimkong
  • Sinh Bach Tan
  • Agus Nugroho
Original Article

Abstract

Most studies of major disasters focus on the impacts of the event and the short-term responses. Some evaluate the underlying causes of vulnerability, but few follow-up events years later to evaluate the consequences of early framings of the recovery process. The objective of this study was to improve understanding of the influence that recovery narratives have had on how decisions and actions are undertaken to recover from a disaster, and what influence this has had in turn, on long-term resilience. The study drew on comparisons and insights from four case studies in Southeast Asia: (1) local innovations that led to new policies for living with floods in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam following the 2001 Mekong River floods; (2) livelihood and infrastructure responses in Prey Veng, Cambodia, after the 2001 and 2011 Mekong River floods; (3) the role of the Panglima Laot, a traditional fisheries management institution, in the recovery process following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh province, Indonesia; and (4) the challenges faced by small and medium enterprises in a market area following the 2011 floods in Bangkok, Thailand. This study identified alternative narratives on the purpose and means of ‘recovery’ with implications for who ultimately benefits and who remains at risk. The study also found both formal and informal loss and damage systems were involved in recoveries. The findings of this study are important for improving the performance of loss and damage systems, both existing and planned, and, ultimately, supporting more climate resilient development that is inclusive.

Keywords

Disasters Long-term recovery Narratives Loss and damage Resilience Southeast Asia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Asia Pacific Network for Global Environmental Change Research (APN) for supporting the research presented in this report. Thanks also to many individuals who helped with data collection in the field or agreed to be interviewed or provide information to the project. Special thanks, in particular, to Suttirak San-ngah, Dton Siriwan, Dr. Nguyen Duy Can, Nguyen Quynh Anh and Do Thuy Ngan.

Supplementary material

10113_2017_1260_MOESM1_ESM.docx (161 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 161 kb)

References

  1. Audet F (2015) From disaster relief to development assistance: why simple solutions don’t work. Int J: Can J Glob Policy Anal 70(1):110–118.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702014562595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkmann J, Buckle P, Jaeger J, Pelling M, Setiadi N, Garschagen M, Fernando N, Kropp J (2010) Extreme events and disasters: a window of opportunity for change? Analysis of organizational, institutional and political changes, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters. Nat Hazards 55(3):637–655.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9319-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd E, James RA, Jones RG, Young HR, Otto FEL (2017) A typology of loss and damage perspectives. Nat Clim Chang 7(10):723–729.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyland M, Nugroho A, Thomalla F (2017) The role of the Panglima Laot customary institution in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery in Aceh. In: Djalante R, Thomalla F, Garschagen M (eds) Disaster risk reduction in Indonesia: progress, challenges, and issues, disaster risk reduction. Springer, pp 357–376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54466-3_14
  5. Cardona, O.D., Van Aalst, M.K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., Sinh, B.T., 2012. Chapter 2: determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability, in: Decamps, H., Keim, M. (Eds.), Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge, U.K. and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65–108Google Scholar
  6. Christoplos, I., 2006. Links between relief, rehabilitation and development in the tsunami response. Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. CRED, Guha-Sapir, D., 2017. EM-DAT: the emergency events database—Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) [WWW Document]. URL http://www.emdat.be (accessed 6.7.17)
  8. Daly P (2015) Embedded wisdom or rooted problems? Aid workers’ perspectives on local social and political infrastructure in post-tsunami Aceh. Disasters 39(2):232–257.  https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan, L., 2013. Disaster as opportunity? Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti. Overseas Development InstituteGoogle Scholar
  10. Gotham KF (2008) From 9/11 to 8/29: post-disaster recovery and rebuilding in New York and New Orleans. Soc Forces 87(2):1039–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunewardena N, Schuller M (eds) (2008) Capitalizing on catastrophe: neoliberal strategies in disaster reconstruction. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobor G (2015) New Orleans’ remarkably (un)predictable recovery: developing a theory of urban resilience. Am Behav Sci 59(10):1214–1230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215591180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingram JC, Franco G, Rio CR, Khazai B (2006) Post-disaster recovery dilemmas: challenges in balancing short-term and long-term needs for vulnerability reduction. Environ Sci Pol 9(7-8):607–613.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IOB, 2013. Linking relief and development: more than old solutions for old problems? Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. James R, Otto F, Parker H, Boyd E, Cornforth R, Mitchell D, Allen M (2014) Characterizing loss and damage from climate change. Nat Clim Chang 4(11):938–939.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joakim EP, Wismer SK (2015) Livelihood recovery after disaster. Dev Pract 25(3):401–418.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.1020764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khasalamwa S (2009) Is “build back better” a response to vulnerability? Analysis of the post-tsunami humanitarian interventions in Sri Lanka. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskr Nor J Geogr 63(1):73–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950802712152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, N., 2007. The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism, 1 ed. Knopf Canada, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewenstein, A., 2015. Disaster capitalism: making a killing out of catastrophe. Verso Books, London; New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Marks D (2015) The urban political ecology of the 2011 floods in Bangkok: the creation of uneven vulnerabilities. Pac Aff 88(3):623–651.  https://doi.org/10.5509/2015883623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marks D, Lebel L (2016) Disaster governance and the scalar politics of incomplete decentralization: fragmented and contested responses to the 2011 floods in Central Thailand. Habitat Int Decentralizing Disaster Gov Spec Issue 52:57–66Google Scholar
  22. Marks D, Thomalla F (2017) Responses to the 2011 floods in Central Thailand: perpetuating the vulnerability of small and medium enterprises? Nat Hazards 87(2):1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2813-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mosel, I., Levine, S., 2014. Remaking the case for linking relief, rehabilitation and development. How LRRD can become a practically useful concept for assistance in difficult places. Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pelling M, Dill K (2010) Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of sociopolitical regimes. Prog Hum Geogr 34(1):21–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509105004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanderson D, Sharma A, Kennedy J, Burnell J (2014) Lost in transition: principles, practice and lessons from Haiti for urban post-disaster shelter recovery programs. Asian J Environ Disaster Manag 6(02):131–151.  https://doi.org/10.3850/S1793924014000362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK (2011) Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Stud J 39(3):535–561.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00420.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Surminski S, Lopez A (2014) Concept of loss and damage of climate change—a new challenge for climate decision-making? A climate science perspective. Climate Dev 0(3):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.934770 Google Scholar
  29. Telford, J., Cosgrave, J., 2006. Tsunami evaluation coalition—joint evaluation of the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami (synthesis report). Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomalla F, Larsen RK (2010) Resilience in the context of tsunami early warning systems and community disaster preparedness in the Indian Ocean Region. Environ Hazards 9(3):249–265.  https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.0051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UN (2006) Key Propositions for Building Back Better: A Report by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, William J. Clinton. New York: United NationsGoogle Scholar
  32. UN General Assembly (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (No. A/CONF.224/CRP.1). UN, Sendai, JapanGoogle Scholar
  33. UNFCCC, 2015. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 (No. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1. 1–32). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  34. UNFCCC, 2013. Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts (No. Decision 2/CP.19). United National Framework Convention on Climate Change, Standing Committee on FinanceGoogle Scholar
  35. UNGA, 2016. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction (No. A/71/644). United Nations General AssemblyGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank (2006) Aceh Public Expenditure Analysis Spending for Reconstruction and Poverty Reduction. Washington DC: World BankGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment Institute - Asia CentreChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Unit for Social and Environmental ResearchChiang Mai University School of Public PolicyChiang MaiThailand
  3. 3.Stockholm Environment Institute - Asia CentreBangkokThailand
  4. 4.Department of Asian and International StudiesCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong
  5. 5.Center for Social Development StudiesChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  6. 6.Department of Natural Resource Management and DevelopmentRoyal University of Phnom PenhPhnom PenhCambodia
  7. 7.Research Centre of Science and Technology Policy, National Institute for Science and Technology Policy and Strategy Studies (NISTPASS)Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)HanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations