Vahanvati, M and Beza, B (2017) An owner-driven reconstruction in Bihar. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(3), pp. 306-319. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify “key processes” during the owner-driven reconstruction (ODR) process by implementing agencies, to enhance the long-term disaster-resilience of housing and community. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed methods methodology and “case-study” approach is adopted to compare good practice reconstruction projects in India in the past 15 years. This paper discusses findings from investigations conducted in two settlements of Bihar – Orlaha and Puraini, after major flooding in 2008. The sites were visited during 2012 and 2014. Findings: One of the key processes that lead to the success of the ODR process in terms of its effect on the long-term disaster-resilience in Bihar is community mobilisation it functions primarily as an information and communication device promoting the success (or otherwise) of the reconstruction project. Originality/value: The findings are based on empirical evidence gathered during in-field investigations and interviews to post-disaster reconstructed villages. While these findings represent a snapshot of diverse and complex disaster experiences in the Indian context, the comparison offers insight on how to turn the rhetoric surrounding “owner-driven” or “built back better” into positive long-term community outcomes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; India; owner driven; participatory approaches; post-disaster reconstruction; resilience |
| Index terms: | interview, participatory approach, flooding, methodology, evidence, agency, housing, reconstruction, mixed method, owner, good practice, post-disaster reconstruction, investigation, built environment, India |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, construction type, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards, building construction, sociology, Geography, performance measurement, research methods, post-disaster and reconstruction |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here