@article {bnh-8112, title = {Disaster resilience in Australia: A geographic assessment using an index of coping and adaptive capacity}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {62}, year = {2021}, month = {08/2021}, abstract = {

This paper reports a national-scale assessment of disaster resilience, using the Australian Disaster Resilience Index. The index assesses resilience at three levels: overall capacity for disaster resilience; coping and adaptive capacity; and, eight themes of disaster resilience across social, economic and institutional domains. About 32\% of Australia{\textquoteright}s population (7.6 million people) live in an area assessed as having high capacity for disaster resilience. About 52\% of Australia{\textquoteright}s population (12.3 million people) live in an area assessed as having moderate capacity for disaster resilience. The remaining 16\% of Australia{\textquoteright}s population (3.8 million people) live in an area assessed as having low capacity for disaster resilience. Distribution of disaster resilience in Australia is strongly influenced by a geography of remoteness. Most metropolitan and inner regional areas were assessed as having high capacity for disaster resilience. In contrast, most outer regional, remote and very remote areas were assessed as having low capacity for disaster resilience, although areas of low capacity for disaster resilience can occur in metropolitan areas. Juxtaposed onto this distribution, themes of disaster resilience highlight strengths and barriers to disaster resilience in different communities. For example, low community capital and social cohesion is a disaster resilience barrier in many metropolitan areas, but higher community capital and social cohesion in outer regional and some remote areas supports disaster resilience. The strategic intent of a shared responsibility for disaster resilience can benefit from understanding the spatial distribution of disaster resilience, so that policies and programmes can address systemic influences on disaster resilience.

}, keywords = {Composite index, disaster resilience, indicators, National scale assessment, Systemic risk}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102422}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921003836?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Peter Hastings and Graham Marshall and Judith McNeill and Richard Stayner and Sonya Glavac} } @article {bnh-7995, title = {Local Government Capacity and Land Use Planning for Natural Hazards: A Comparative Evaluation of Australian Local Government Areas}, journal = {Planning Practice \& Research}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, abstract = {

Global and national strategy emphasises land use planning as a key mechanism for disaster risk reduction (DRR). The practice of planning for natural hazards is devolved to local levels, making the capacity of local government critical for achieving strategic DRR goals. This study assessed the capacity of local governments in Australia to plan for natural hazards. Many Local Government Areas (LGAs) had satisfactory or good hazard planning provision, but remoteness, land area and council size influence poor hazard planning provision. Strategic intent for land use planning as a DRR mechanism is unlikely to be successful in many LGAs without first addressing place-based capacity constraints on hazard planning.

}, keywords = {disaster resilience, Local government, plan evaluation, Risk assessment}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2021.1919431}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02697459.2021.1919431}, author = {James McGregor and Melissa Parsons and Sonya Glavac} } @article {bnh-7099, title = {The Australian Disaster Resilience Index: Volume I {\textendash} State of Disaster Resilience Report}, number = {492}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Australian communities face increasing losses and disruption from disasters. Disaster resilience is a protective characteristic that acts to reduce the effects of, and losses from, natural hazard events. Disaster resilience arises from the capacities of social, economic and government systems to prepare for, respond to and recover from a natural hazard event, and to learn, adapt and transform in anticipation of future natural hazard events. This assessment of disaster resilience estimates the status of these capacities and shows how they are spatially distributed across Australia.

Composite indices are frequently used to summarise and report complex relational measurements about a particular issue. The Australian Disaster Resilience Index measures disaster resilience as a set of coping and adaptive capacities. Coping capacity is the means by which available resources and abilities can be used to face adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster. Adaptive capacity is the arrangements and processes that enable adjustment through learning, adaptation and transformation. Eight themes of disaster resilience encapsulate the resources and abilities that communities have to prepare for, absorb and recover from natural hazards (social character, economic capital, emergency services, planning and the built environment, community capital, information access) or to adapt, learn and solve problems (social and community engagement, governance and leadership). Across the eight themes, 77 indicators were used to compute the Australian Disaster Resilience Index in 2,084 areas of Australia, corresponding to the Statistical Area Level 2 divisions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The Index was then used to undertake the first nationally standardised assessment of the state of disaster resilience in Australia. Disaster resilience is reported at three levels: an overall disaster resilience index, coping and adaptive capacity sub-indexes and themes of disaster resilience that encapsulate the resources and abilities that communities have to prepare for, absorb and recover from natural hazards and to adapt, learn and solve problems (social character, economic capital, emergency services, planning and the built environment, community capital, information access, social and community engagement, governance and leadership).

Volume I (this volume) assesses the state of disaster resilience in Australia, using the Australian Disaster Resilience Index. Volume I gives a brief overview of the design\ and computation of the index, then assesses the state of disaster resilience in\ Australia at different levels: overall disaster resilience, coping and adaptive\ capacity, and the eight themes of disaster resilience. Volume I also presents a\ typology of disaster resilience that groups areas across Australia that have similar disaster resilience profiles.

Readers interested in the results of the assessment of disaster resilience in\ Australia should focus on Volume I.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, disaster resilience, state of disaster resilience}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-1-9}, issn = {492}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7101, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 1: Design of the Index}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Section 1.1 Presents the conceptual basis of the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Section 1.2 Describes the structure of the index, including its hierarchical structure, and the themes of disaster resilience.

Section 1.3 Outlines the spatial resolution and areas of Australia included in the index.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7102, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 2: Indicators}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Section 2.1 Describes the method used to identify and select indicators for the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Section 2.2 Lists the indicators used in the index themes, including the source of each indicator and how it was calculated.

Section 2.3 Justifies the relationships between indicators and disaster resilience for each theme in the index, using a literature review.

Section 2.4 Describes the method used to disaggregate some of the indicators to an SA2 resolution.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design, indicators}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7103, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 3: Computation of the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Section 3.1 Reviews the development and use of composite indexes and methods for computing composite indexes.

Section 3.2 Describes the rationale for, and the statistical computation of, the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Section 3.3 Describes the methods used to compute the typology of groups of SA2s with similar disaster resilience profiles.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7104, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 4: Statistical outputs: ANDRI, coping capacity and adaptive capacity}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Section 4.1 Presents the statistical outputs and results for the overall Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Section 4.2 Presents the statistical outputs and results for the coping capacity index.

Section 4.3 Presents the statistical outputs and results for the adaptive capacity index.

}, keywords = {adaptive capacity, ANDRI, computation, coping capacity, disaster resilience, index design}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7105, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 5: Statistical outputs: disaster resilience themes}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Each section presents the statistical outputs and results of one disaster resilience theme.

Section 5.1 Social character.

Section 5.2 Economic capital.

Section 5.3 Emergency services.

Section 5.4 Planning and the built environment.

Section 5.5 Community capital.

Section 5.6 Information access.

Section 5.7 Social and community engagement.

Section 5.8 Governance and leadership.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design, statistical output}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7106, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Chapter 6: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this chapter

Section 6.1 Explains the role of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in composite index construction.

Section 6.2 Describes the uncertainty analysis applied to the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Section 6.2 Describes the sensitivity analysis applied to the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

}, keywords = {analysis, ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design, sensitivity, uncertainty}, isbn = { 978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7100, title = {The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Volume II {\textendash} Index Design and Computation}, number = {493}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Australian communities face increasing losses and disruption from natural disasters.\  Disaster resilience is a protective characteristic that acts to reduce the effects of, and losses from, natural hazard events.\  Disaster resilience arises from the capacities of social, economic and government systems to prepare for, respond to and recover from a natural hazard event, and to learn, adapt and transform in anticipation of future natural hazard events.\  This assessment of disaster resilience estimates the status of these capacities and shows how they are spatially distributed across Australia.

Composite indices are frequently used to summarize and report complex relational measurements about a particular issue.\  The Australian Disaster Resilience Index measures disaster resilience as a set of coping and adaptive capacities.\  Coping capacity is the means by which available resources and abilities can be used to face adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster.\  Adaptive capacity is the arrangements and processes that enable adjustment through learning, adaptation and transformation.\  Eight themes of disaster resilience encapsulate the resources and abilities that communities have to prepare for, absorb and recover from natural hazards (social character, economic capital, emergency services, planning and the built environment, community capital, information access) or to adapt, learn and solve problems (social and community engagement, governance and leadership).\  Across the eight themes, 77 indicators were used to compute the Australian Disaster Resilience Index in 2084 areas of Australia, corresponding to the Statistical Area Level 2 divisions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The index was then used to undertake the first nationally standardised assessment of the state of disaster resilience in Australia.\  Disaster resilience is reported at three levels: an overall disaster resilience index, coping and adaptive capacity sub-indexes and themes of disaster resilience that encapsulate the resources and abilities that communities have to prepare for, absorb and recover from natural hazards and to adapt, learn and solve problems (social character, economic capital, emergency services, planning and the built environment, community capital, information access, social and community engagement, governance and leadership).

Volume II (this volume) describes in detail the computation of the Australian Disaster Resilience Index. This includes resilience concepts, literature\ review, index structure, data collection, indicators, statistical methods, detailed\ statistical outputs, sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analyses.

Readers interested in the technical aspects of the Australian Disaster\ Resilience Index should also consider Volume II. Volume II is comprised of six\ chapters:

Chapter 1: Design of the Australian Disaster Resilience Index

Chapter 2: Indicators

Chapter 3: Computation of the Australian Disaster Resilience Index

Chapter 4: Statistical outputs: ADRI, coping capacity and adaptive\ capacity

Chapter 5: Statistical outputs: disaster resilience themes

Chapter 6: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis

}, keywords = {ANDRI, computation, disaster resilience, index design}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-2-6}, issn = {493}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-6994, title = {Disasters and economic resilience: the effects of the Black Saturday bushfires on individual income}, number = {580}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In an era when the reality of climate change is creating an uncertain future, it is imperative to consider the lasting impact this will have on Australia, which is historically prone to natural disasters. The increased possibility of more frequent and intense natural disasters present a number of issues for Australians, ranging from the impact on vulnerable communities to broader economic consequences.

In an effort to tackle this global phenomenon at a local level, we must turn our attention towards not only the actions required to support our businesses and communities but also to ensuring Australia is ready to adapt and become more economically disaster resilient in an ever changing environment. The urgency and delicacy of the matter is exacerbated when we consider that the average annual total economic cost of natural disasters in Australia is forecast to reach $39 billion per year by 2050 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017) and that fiscal constraints will be imposed on government disaster expenditure due to Australia{\textquoteright}s aging population.

When a natural disaster strikes, the damages incurred are readily assessable in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. While this information is vital to the economic dimension of disaster resilience policy, it provides little integrity to analysing the direct impact such disasters have on the Australian people and, more specifically, communities and workforces that are more vulnerable to disaster.

To that end, the Disasters and Economic Resilience: The Effects of the Black Saturday Bushfires on Individual Income {\textendash} A Case Study explores the impact of the Black Saturday bushfires (BSBs) on the income trajectory of individuals in the labour force and residents of the disaster-hit Statistical Area-2s (SA2s). These areas are depicted in red and orange in FIGURE 1.

The 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires were some of the worst bushfire conditions ever recorded globally; equivalent to 1500 of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima going off (SMH, 2009). One hundred and seventy-three people died; over 2,100 houses and 3,500 structures were destroyed, and thousands more suffered damage (Parliament of Victoria, 2010). The total area destroyed was around 400,000 hectares (CFA, 2009). The toll was estimated to be $3.1 billion in tangible damages and $3.9 billion in intangible costs (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first in the economics literature to examine the impact of a bushfire on individual income, considering demographic and sectoral heterogeneities at very fine units.

The report makes a unique assessment of economic resilience at an individual level (measured through changes in the income stream), and explores the effects of disaster-induced economic shocks transmitted to individuals through income-earning channels. In turn, this provides a deeper understanding of how income costs of disasters are borne by different areas of the workforce and assists policymakers in understanding the socioeconomics of natural disasters to better formulate public policies.

In an effort to assist policymakers contextualise our assessment at a broader social and economic level, this report amplifies the socioeconomic and disaster-resilience profiles of the disaster hit SA2s.

The findings of the report provide a distinctive variation from research to date by focusing on the way disasters such as the BSB affect individuals within a particular workforce and community, as well as their ability to economically cope with the ongoing effects of the disaster.

The report attempts to pinpoint the income effects observed in the BSB by using a difference-in-differences modelling approach. This approach compares the income changes of individuals living in the disaster-hit SA2s (treatment group) with those neighbouring SA2s that were not directly hit by the bushfires (control group). Because of their comparability, it is the control group that provides us with the income path that would have occurred for disaster-hit residents that were reported to be in the labour force in 2006, had the bushfires not happened, and thus enables us to compute any income deviations (losses or gains) arising from the bushfires. \ 

The report utilises the Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset (ACLD)[1], which provides a unique opportunity to robustly examine the bushfire{\textquoteright}s impacts across a longer timeframe (across 2006, 2011 and 2016) and across multiple dimensions (demographic and economic). All results we report are net results, post any disaster relief and recovery efforts; are relative to our baseline year (2006); and are compared to our control group. We define short-term results as changes over 2006{\textendash}11, and medium-term results as changes over 2006{\textendash}16.

Our framework was developed to capture income effects following the bushfires. Data limitations impede our ability to confirm some of the assumptions of our modelling approach, but we have taken a number of steps to alleviate the likely impact of these limitations on the reliability of our findings.

Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, our report is the first one utilizing three ABS Censuses to explore income effects of bushfires more comprehensively. Our findings offer compelling insights on how disasters like the BSB affect local economies, individuals within the community, and in turn their ability to economically cope with the ongoing effects of the disaster.

}, keywords = {Black Saturday, bushfires, disaster resilience, economic resilience, income}, issn = {580}, author = {Mehmet Ulubasoglu and Yasin Onder} } @article {bnh-6796, title = {Reimagining program monitoring and evaluation for disaster resilience outcomes}, number = {549}, year = {2020}, month = {03/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Resilience is an approach to living with, managing, and adapting to aspects of change, complexity and uncertainty, including that arising from emergencies and disasters. A resilient community has the capacities and opportunities to: identify risk; absorb disruptive events and return to a functioning state; and, adapt or transform in anticipation of, or in response to, disruptive events. Community resilience arises from the ways that these capacities are valued, prioritised and addressed by community, government, business, and individual actions and activities - a so-called system of resilience.\ 

Disaster resilience is a new organising principle\ for the work that Australian emergency agencies\ undertake with communities. Agency programs\ directly or indirectly seek to enhance the capacities\ of communities to survive, thrive and adapt within a landscape of bushfires, floods, storms\ and cyclones. Yet agencies are also required to\ demonstrate the contribution that their programs\ make to disaster resilience.

A suite of monitoring and evaluation (M\&E)\ frameworks and techniques are available to track\ the effectiveness of community engagement, and\ other programs. Many emergency management\ agencies in Australia, and other disaster-related\ organisations such as insurers, adopt these\ frameworks and techniques. Yet the challenge\ heard from practitioners is how to monitor\ and evaluate the contributions of programs\ to disaster resilience. Traditional measures\ of disaster resilience include preparedness,\ recovery and mitigation, but disaster resilience\ also encompasses aspects of communities such\ as connectedness, social capital, co-learning,\ participation, access, adaptation, behaviour\ change, diversity, governance and networks.\ Monitoring and evaluating therefore needs\ to address the impacts of programs on these\ aspects of disaster resilience. This endeavour is\ not unique to emergency management agencies: practitioners in climate change adaptation,\ international development, community\ development and environmental science are also\ developing ways to monitor and evaluate resilience\ outcomes.

There is no easy answer to the challenge of monitoring and evaluating programs for disaster resilience outcomes. This is partly because the adoption of resilience concepts into policy and programs is in its early stages, and partly because resilience thinking requires fundamental transformation in the design and implementation of community engagement programs, and the collection of data to track effectiveness. In essence, emergency agency practitioners and the communities they work with are themselves generating the new monitoring and evaluation frameworks, techniques, program designs and governance structures required to progress towards disaster resilience goals.

Emergency management agencies face the challenge of monitoring and evaluating the contribution of their programs for disaster resilience. However, given the diversity of legislative and strategic environments in Australia, the implementation of monitoring and evaluation frameworks will be unique to each agency.

This report is a self-reflective guide for taking program evaluation for disaster resilience outwards to examine progress and tracking towards goals of disaster resilience.\ 

Resilience is an approach to living with, managing,and adapting to aspects of change, complexityand uncertainty, including that arising fromemergencies and disasters. A resilient communityhas the capacities and opportunities to: identifyrisk; absorb disruptive events and return to afunctioning state; and, adapt or transform inanticipation of, or in response to, disruptive events.Community resilience arises from the waysthat these capacities are valued, prioritised andaddressed by community, government, business,and individual actions and activities {\textendash} a so-calledsystem of resilience.Disaster resilience is a new organising principlefor the work that Australian emergency agenciesundertake with communities. Agency programsdirectly or indirectly seek to enhance the capacitiesof communities to survive, thrive and adaptwithin a landscape of bushfires, floods, stormsand cyclones. Yet agencies are also required todemonstrate the contribution that their programsmake to disaster resilience.

}, keywords = {disaster resilience, Evaluation, program monitoring, resilience outcomes}, issn = {549}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Holly Foster} } @article {bnh-6988, title = {A typology of disaster resilience in Australia - annual report 2018-19}, number = {576}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The themes that influence disaster resilience in different locations in Australia are summarised using a typology.\  A typology identifies SA2s (Statistical Area 2 divisions of the ABS) that have similar characteristic patterns of theme sub-index values, and places these SA2s together into groups.\  Thus, the SA2s within a group are similar to each other, but each group has a different disaster resilience profile.\  The profile associated with each group can then be used to understand disaster resilience in local communities and the strengths and opportunities for enhancing or improving disaster resilience.

Cluster analysis revealed five disaster resilience profiles in Australia.\  The SA2s within a group all have a similar profile {\textendash} that is, they have similar disaster resilience strengths and constraints.\  Most SA2s fall into Group 4, and these are largely in metropolitan Australia.\  In comparison to other groups, areas within Group 4 are best placed overall to cope with and adapt to complex change associated with natural hazards.\  Areas in Group 3 are largely in regional and remote areas.\  Areas with this disaster resilience profile have an enhanced pro-social setting, but face constraints from economic capital, planning and the built environment, emergency services, information access and governance and leadership.\  Areas with the Groups 1 and the Group 5 disaster resilience profile are constrained by community capital and social character.\  Areas with the Group 2 disaster resilience profile are largely inner regional areas with reduced access to information and telecommunications services.\  Variation in the strengths and constraints on disaster resilience suggests that place-based strategies need to be applied to support the different dimensions of disaster resilience.

}, keywords = {ANDRI, annual report, disaster resilience}, issn = {576}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Sonya Glavac and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Graham Marshall and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-7234, title = {A novel framework for owner driven reconstruction projects to enhance disaster resilience in the long term}, journal = {Disaster Prevention and Management}, volume = {27}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, pages = {421-446}, abstract = {

Purpose

Post-disaster reconstruction poses a double-edged sword to its implementers as it demands addressing survivors{\textquoteright} need for speed as well as meeting the growing expectation to trigger resilience. While an owner-driven housing reconstruction (ODHR), inter-disciplinary and long-term approach has been promoted internationally; however, there is limited research focussed on the long-term impacts (\>10 years after a disaster) of ODHR. Furthermore, there is no one accepted framework for practitioners to guide through the process of ODHR projects to carve pathways for disaster resilience. The purpose of this paper is to assimilate findings{\textemdash}contingent and generalisable{\textemdash}into a novel framework for future change in practice.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper deployed a mixed methods methodology with a comparative case study research method. Two case study projects were from the Indian state of Gujarat, 13 years after the 2001 earthquake and the other two from Bihar, 6 years since the 2008 Kosi river floods. Due to multi-disciplinary nature of research, empirical data collection relied on a mix of social sciences methods including 80 semi-structured interviews, and architectural research methods including the visual analysis of photographs and sketches. Three sample groups of agency members, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were purposively selected. Thematic content analysis was used for the data analysis.

Findings

The paper provides empirical insights on how ODHR projects in Indian states of Gujarat and Bihar succeeded at enhancing disaster resilience of communities. It suggests that the civil society organisations acted as {\textquotedblleft}enablers{\textquotedblright} at four stages: envisioning strategically based on systemic understanding, building soft assets including community trust and dignity for social mobilisation prior to, proposing minor modifications to construction technology for its multi-hazard safety as well as cultural relevance, and sustaining capacity building efforts beyond reconstruction completion or beyond one project life-cycle.

Research limitations/implications

The author of this paper cautions that the spiral framework needs further development to make it flexibility and customisable to suit the specifics of a particular context.

Originality/value

The implications of the findings discussed in this paper are primarily for practitioners involved in disaster recovery and development sector. Since prevailing models or frameworks neither incorporate multi-disciplinary approach (demanded by socio-ecological systems resilience concept), nor represent project scale, a novel, four-pronged framework for ODHR has been proposed in this paper for strategic success. The framework has been illustrated in spiral and tabular forms, and has been kept abstract to provide practitioners the much-needed flexibility for adapting it to suit the specifics of a particular context.

}, keywords = {Capacity building; post-disaster reconstruction, disaster resilience, framework, owner-driven reconstruction, project management}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-11-2017-0285}, url = {https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DPM-11-2017-0285/full/html}, author = {Mittul Vahanvati} }