Gasseloğlu, M A and Gonçalves, J E (2026) Reframing disaster recovery through spatial justice: An integrated framework. Buildings & Cities, 7(1), pp. 196-214. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Post-disaster recovery is widely regarded as the least understood, yet highly consequential, phase of disaster management, shaping both short consequences and long-term trajectories of affected communities. Recovery efforts tend to prioritise physical reconstruction, often deepening socio-spatial inequalities. This paper argues for a reconceptualisation of recovery through the lenses of spatial justice, highlighting three interrelated dimensions: distributive justice (equitable allocation of resources in space), procedural justice (inclusive and participatory spatial governance) and recognition justice (valuing lived spatial experiences and human dignity). While these dimensions are often present in critiques of recovery practices, they have been approached in a fragmented manner. To address this gap, a systematic literature review (n = 68) examines how recovery practices reproduce socio-spatial inequalities, how governance structures shape recovery processes and how spatial justice can offer a transformative opening in disaster recovery. Understandings of, and responses to, disaster are reframed through the spatial justice lens, proposing an integrated conceptual framework for spatial justice in disaster recovery as a scaffold for critical analysis in research and practice. This provides a useful starting point for more detailed, case-based and methodologically innovative studies that can test and extend the framework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; disaster reconstruction; distributive justice; planning; post-disaster recovery; procedural justice; recognition justice; risk reduction; spatial justice; transformative change |
| Index terms: | inequality, justice, disaster recovery, disaster management, risk reduction, critique, systematic literature review, conceptual framework, recovery, dimension, reconstruction, built environment, post-disaster recovery, governance |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, legal systems, research evaluation and metrics, health monitoring assessment and metrics, operations management, financial risk, theoretical framing, sociology, evaluation and assessment methods, emergency and crisis management, post-disaster and reconstruction, building construction, business |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Governance, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Ethics, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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