4.6 Article

Resilience and disaster governance: Some insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 321-331

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.017

Keywords

2015 Nepal Earthquake; Resilience; Disaster governance; Housing reconstruction; Community participation

Funding

  1. Mitsubishi Foundation Humanities Research Grant [17K12612]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the fact that a growing number of studies point out that resilience and disaster governance are closely linked, most studies tend to be conceptual discussions and fail to address the practical considerations. To further contribute to the knowledge of this subject, we study how resilience has been operationalized and implemented in the Nepal post-2015 earthquake context, with a focus on housing reconstruction projects. A mixed methodology was employed, including a policy analysis of the two main disaster recovery documents and extensive field study in two heavily earthquake-hit districts, Nuwakot and Dhading. We find that being resilient remains a largely conceptual and descriptive goal, and that the key components for good disaster governance are missing. Our study shows that the entire Nepal reconstruction process was characterized as one of low level community participation and vulnerable groups were excluded; this undermined the hope for building a resilient society. Learning from the Nepal lessons, we argue that resilience practice must focus on the empowering process. Intervention and particularly the decentralizing governance structure and flexible, inclusive and adaptive reconstruction policies will enhance local participation and collaboration which are the keys to building resilience. Without a local empowerment process, resilience will simply serve as a 'buzz word' or slogan, and its effectiveness is doomed to failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available