Analysis of the Social Nature: The Bam Housing Reconstruction Organisation

  • Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


A participatory reconstruction programme blurs boundaries between the programme’s organisational society and society as a whole. Therefore, the dynamics of society as a whole or its representatives mixes with the way of doing things and the culture of all other participant organisations towards influencing the way the sociotechnical delivery system of the reconstruction programme works. This identifies social dynamics as an area for examination of the sociotechnical delivery system of the reconstruction programme. This chapter analyses the major social dynamics of the housing reconstruction programme in Bam that influenced the programme approaching its objectives through influences on system formation and implementation. The case of Bam interestingly presents an unintentional yet strong social learning in housing reconstruction programme and dynamisms behind that are examined. Informal social interactions facilitated by a common physical place contributed to longer-term improvements after reconstruction activities. This was despite a technocratic approach to the housing reconstruction programme system formation. The sociotechnical delivery system of reconstruction programme itself was vulnerable. Such vulnerability had physical implications and was linked to operational loophole that also was linked to inconsistencies in the initial system’s formation and implementation, and broader economic and social contexts.


  1. Curado C (2006) Organisational learning and organisational design. Learn Organ 13(1):25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ekhlaspour R (2009) Bam, review of society and economic conditions of Bam during the last two centuries. Iran History, Tehran. (in Persian)Google Scholar
  3. Fallahi A (2007) Lessons learned from the housing reconstruction following the Bam earthquake in Iran. Aust J Emerg Manage 22:26–35Google Scholar
  4. Gharaati Kopaei, M (2009) Knowledge transfer in post-disaster reconstruction; the problem of post-post-disaster reconstruction. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal. Accessed 21 Aug 2014
  5. HFIR (2005) Guidance for reconstruction, residential, retail and public units of Bam, Baravat and surrounding villages, 2nd edn. Housing Foundation Islamic Revolution, Bam. (in Persian)Google Scholar
  6. Morgan G (1989) Creative organization theory: a resource book. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Morgan G (2006) Images of organization, updated edition (first edition 1997). Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D (2008) Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environ Plann 40(4):867–884. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Quzai U (2010) Pakistan: implementing people-centred reconstruction in urban and rural areas. In: Lyons M, Schilderman T, Boano C (eds) Building back better: delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. Practical Action Pub., Warwickshire, UK, pp 113–134Google Scholar
  10. Roosli R, O’Brien G (2011) Social learning in managing disasters in Malaysia. Disaster Prev Manage Int J 20:386–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sull DN (2007) Closing the gap between strategy and execution. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 48(4). Accessed 19 Jan 2011
  12. The Municipality of Bam (2007) Move again (Report of the Bam Municipality-December 2003 to the End of March 2006). The Municipality of Bam, Kerman. (in Persian)Google Scholar
  13. Wisner B (2004) Chapter 9, Towards a safer environment. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London, pp 321–376Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silk Cities, The Bartlett Development Planning UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations