I am conducting a research on evaluating the value of investment made in a post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction setting. Using the parameter of economic sustainability of normal development context seems to be 'unfair' as the political and social condition are different. Any ideas?
You question is very valid. Our view is that self-sustainability requires integrated inputs in Health, Education and Enterprise. Most often we see a silo mentality that creates disaster following disaster as we have seen in Haiti.
From a Rotary standpoint we look at three phases, Response, Relief, Rebuilding and Resilience. I recently attended the IDRC conference in Davos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUUnRCO2cA&feature=share&list=UUOHpuAl5lhC8eDF2ao8cTwQ)
This question is maybe best answered in terms of DEMS - Disaster & Emergency Management Systems. In this context, various government agencies and local authorities on the one hand and commerce & industry on the other already have legal obligations for emergency preparedness which, implicitly should be sustainable. There are also some duties to inform, and thus increase the awareness and self-help capabilities of the general population. The amount of resource put into this should be based on a risk assessmenrt methodology. In terms of disasters, we tend to think in terms of threat assessment.
A good example is flood risk assessment and this is especially pertinent of Humberside where the environment Agency has stated that it may not have the funding it needs to deal with the perceived threat of (especially) coastal flooding. Ultimately risk assessment is based on cost-benefit analysis - so how much do we spend to save Hull and Humberside from drowning? And we need to answer this one quickly because storm surges are increasingly frequent and climate-change induced sea level rise is accelerating.
Thank you very much for the responses.
The concerns lie in the use of disaster as opportunity for development/ use of build back better principle in the post-disaster reconstruction. When the fund is available, reconstruction tend to improve the affected area and infrastructure facilities better than the pre-disaster condition. However, in large infrastructure project, such as road projects, a full-scale feasibility study prior to construction may not be performed due to the limited time available. How can then we justify the investment made in the reconstruction, particularly in the developing world where long-term financial commitment for the required maintenance of the reconstructed may not be available. .
Clearly, Disasters do provide any opportunity for redevelopment. Sadly, in most cases this opportunity is not realized. In most disaster scenarios, it is better to be able to take a longer term view rather than the haphazard approach that we have seen in Haiti. From our experience, a twelve year window that includes developing the ability of local people to maintain infrastructure is vital. I would recommend that you speak with one of my CSPOC Board colleagues, Ian Stewart, who is the Elected Mayor of Salford
Hi Ezri.
I think you can have look in this website. It may have some information or suggestion helpful for your topic. in this page, they also provide some good project about reconstruction in disaster area.
http://www.design4disaster.org/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Civil Engineering
- Construction
- Construction Engineering