Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

“Build Back Better” Principles for Reconstruction

Sandeeka Mannakkara*, Suzanne Wilkinson and Tinu Rose Francis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Synonyms
BBB; Reconstruction; Recovery

Introduction
“Build Back Better” signifies an ideal reconstruction and recovery process that delivers resilient,
sustainable, and efficient recovery solutions to disaster-affected communities. The motivation
behind the Build Back Better concept is to make communities stronger and more resilient following
a disaster event. Statistics from the United Nations Environment Programme in 2008 show an
increase in the number of natural disasters over time attributing to growing populations, urban
growth in risk-prone areas due to scarcity of land, and global warming. Along with increasing
frequency, recent disasters show an increase in magnitude and resulting destruction according to
studies by the Red Cross. Both natural and technological/man-made disasters have seen nearly
exponential rises in the number of disasters over time.
Despite the increasing number of disaster experiences, post-disaster activities remain inefficient
and poorly managed and need to be improved according to Halvorson and Hamilton (2010).
Traditionally, post-disaster reconstruction consisted of simply repairing the physical damage that
has been induced by a disaster. However, Kennedy et al. (2008) pointed out that rebuilding the built
environment and infrastructure exactly as they were prior to a disaster often re-creates the same
vulnerabilities that existed earlier. If restored to pre-disaster standards, disaster-affected communi-
ties would face the same difficulties if exposed to another disaster event in the future. The
reconstruction and recovery period following a disaster poses an opportunity to address and rectify
vulnerability issues found in communities.
As a result of witnessing the ongoing impacts of disasters on communities, a concept started to
emerge where post-disaster reconstruction was to be taken as an opportunity to not only reconstruct
what was damaged and return the community to its pre-disaster state but to also seize the opportunity
to improve its physical, social, environmental, and economic conditions to create a new state of
normalcy that is more “resilient” (Boano 2009). This concept was termed “Build Back Better,”
suggesting that successful recovery of communities following disasters needs to amalgamate the
rehabilitation and enhancement of the built environment along with the psychological, social, and
economic climates in a holistic manner to improve overall community resilience. The phrase
“Building Back Better” became popular during the large-scale reconstruction effort following the
Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster in 2004 after which it became more officially embraced with the
creation of sets of BBB Guidelines to steer recovery and reconstruction activities toward achieving
this goal (Clinton 2006).

*Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

This chapter reviews what BBB entails and presents the key elements required to improve post-
disaster reconstruction and recovery practices to build back better. First, existing guidelines and
reports providing recommendations for BBB are introduced. Key information from the guidelines
and reports is used to then identify the key concepts which represent Building Back Better. Finally,
each concept and its importance for building back better are reviewed.

The Need for Building Back Better

The South Asia Disaster Report (DNS and PA 2005) states that disasters are produced due to the
weaknesses and vulnerabilities of communities, countries, and structures to withstand encountered
hazards. Wisner et al. (2004) defines vulnerability as the lack of capacity to anticipate, cope with,
resist, and recover from the impact of a hazard. The destruction and loss of human lives from the
2005 Kashmir Earthquake in Pakistan was primarily due to the collapse of inappropriately built
structures constructed on earthquake-prone land using substandard building materials and designed
with little earthquake resistance. Poorly planned and sometimes illegal developments and their
resulting impacts on the environment worsened the damage from the Mumbai Floods in 2005.
A similar situation was seen in Sri Lanka after the Indian Ocean Tsunami.
Restoration of the damaged physical, social, economic, and environmental impacts of disasters is
a complicated and drawn-out process. Reconstruction and recovery projects often focus on quick
restoration of affected communities which can replicate and worsen existing vulnerabilities faced by
the community. The Tsunami Evaluation Commission Synthesis Report in 2007 provided examples
where escalated pressures and the need for fast rebuilding and recovery processes following
a disaster can further increase the vulnerability of a community. Examples include: nonadherence
to design and construction policies for buildings and infrastructure, insufficient focus given to
certain aspects of the recovery process such as livelihood development programs and small business
support programs, overruling of local government agencies, and neglecting vulnerable groups of
people in the community.
Complete recovery requires attention to many different elements. BBB was defined by
Khasalamwa (2009) as a way to utilize the reconstruction process to improve a community’s
physical, social, environmental, and economic conditions to create a more resilient community,
where resilience is defined as “the capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event” (Twigg 2007).
Therefore, what the concept of BBB proposes is a broad holistic approach to post-disaster recon-
struction in order to address the wide range of prevalent issues including those mentioned above and
ensure that affected communities are regenerated in a resilient manner for the future.

Existing Guidelines for Building Back Better

Clinton’s (2006) “Key Propositions for Building Back Better” was the earliest known official
document to be published which attempted to provide a comprehensive guideline for implementing
BBB practices in post-disaster environments. The report was based on and aimed at the Indian
Ocean Tsunami disaster. He introduced ten propositions for building back better.
Clinton’s propositions were:

• Proposition 1: Governments, donors and aid agencies must recognize that families and commu-
nities drive their own recovery.

Page 2 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

• Proposition 2: Recovery must promote fairness and equity.

• Proposition 3: Governments must enhance preparedness for future disasters.
• Proposition 4: Local Governments must be empowered to manage recovery efforts, and donors
must devote greater resources to strengthening Government recovery institutions, especially at
the local level.
• Proposition 5: Good recovery planning and effective coordination depend on good information.
• Proposition 6: The UN, World Bank, and other multilateral agencies must clarify their roles and
relationships, especially in addressing the early stages of a recovery process.
• Proposition 7: The expanding role of NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement carries
greater responsibilities for quality in recovery efforts.
• Proposition 8: From the start of recovery operations, Governments and aid agencies must create
the conditions for entrepreneurs to flourish.
• Proposition 9: Beneficiaries deserve the kind of agency partnerships that move beyond rivalry and
unhealthy competition.
• Proposition 10: Good recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risks and building
resilience.

Several other guidelines directly and indirectly proposing BBB-based recovery and reconstruc-
tion operations include:

• United Nations Disaster Relief Organization’s “Principles for Settlement and Shelter” in 1982
which addresses stakeholder role allocation, needs-based provision of resources to the commu-
nity, and risk reduction
• The Government of Sri Lanka’s “Post-Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Strategy” and
“Build Back Better Guiding Principles” in 2005 which include needs-based resource allocation
and provision of locally appropriate solutions, community participation and consultation in
recovery activities, equity, transparency between stakeholders, risk reduction and consideration
of future sustainability, and livelihood support
• Federal Emergency Management Agency’s “Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An
Operational Framework” in 2005 which mentions role allocation and coordination of stake-
holders, community-centered recovery operations, and hazard-based sustainable risk reduction
practices
• Monday’s “Holistic Recovery Framework” in 2002 which addresses enhancing the quality of life
in the community, economic vitality, and the quality of the environment, risk reduction, and
participatory decision-making in recovery activities
• Bam’s Reconstruction Supreme Supervisory and Policymaking Association’s “Bam’s Recon-
struction Charter” in 2010 which includes policies for reconstruction management; community
participation, employing suitable construction technology and materials; preserving cultural and
architectural heritage; and ensuring stability of construction
• Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority’s “Recovery and Reconstruction
Framework” in 2011 which focuses on the safety and well-being of the community, needs-
based resource allocation, community engagement, equity, and tailored solutions
• Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s “Recovery Strategy” in 2013 which entails lead-
ership and integration to manage recovery activities using a participatory approach, regenerating
the economy, restoring and enhancing the community, reconstruction of the built environment,
and restoring natural and healthy ecosystems

Page 3 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Key Concepts
The concepts proposed to achieve BBB during reconstruction and recovery in the various guidelines
in the previous section feature similarities. Aspects such as role allocation of stakeholders, commu-
nity participation, and risk reduction appeared in most of the guidelines. The key concepts intro-
duced in the guidelines for improving reconstruction and recovery efforts and building back better
include: risk reduction, psychosocial recovery, economic recovery, effective implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation. The next few subsections describe these key concepts in further detail.

Risk Reduction
Risk reduction identifies all actions taken toward reducing disaster risks in communities to improve
the physical resilience in the built environment. Previous post-disaster experiences have emphasized
the need to identify prevalent hazards and determine solutions to be undertaken to reduce risks
imposed on people. The Red Cross’s World Disaster Report in 2010 disclosed that the risks seen in
cities are due to a number of reasons such as: growth in informal or illegal settlements, inadequate
infrastructure, and building on sites at risk from hazards. The report also stated that many past
disasters could have been anticipated and avoided with proper planning, design, and construction
methods. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Final Report in 2010 recommended the
amendment of the Australian Building Code following the Victorian Bushfires ensuring greater
safety standards. The Royal Commission suggested identifying bushfire-prone areas and adopting
suitable building and planning controls.
The National Mitigation Strategy produced in Turkey following the Kocaeli and Duzce earth-
quakes of 1999 also stated the need for site-specific hazard identification before reconstruction as
well as retrofitting and updating structural codes and the use of tax incentives to encourage
mitigation work (Bakir 2004). The 2008 South Asia Disaster Report by the nongovernmental
organizations Duryog Nivaran and Practical Action recommended producing hazard and vulnera-
bility maps and enforcing building codes to avoid development-related disasters in the future. The
two primary ways of risk reduction are through improving structural designs and through better
land-use planning.
The importance of reviewing and changing building designs and codes to improve the structural
integrity of buildings and infrastructure following a disaster is widely understood but is however less
frequently attained successfully in practice due to a range of common issues. Poor regulative powers
and the lack of strict enforcement can lead to building code changes being disregarded resulting in
substandard structures in the rebuild. When the Indian Ocean Tsunami struck, enforcement of
building codes was mainly restricted to urban and suburban areas in Sri Lanka. The rural and coastal
areas were the main victims of the disaster, where the lack of strict structural standards resulted in
magnified damage (Pathiraja and Tombesi 2009). Extra costs incurred by adopting new technologies
and materials to improve structural resilience also discourage compliance of new building codes
worldwide (Batteate 2006).
The experiences of post-disaster reconstruction efforts worldwide have provided lessons which
can be adopted when implementing structural changes to avoid the abovementioned issues and build
back better. BBB theory suggests that hazard-based building regulations should be created using
multi-hazard assessments in areas chosen for redevelopment and reconstruction. Consistent regula-
tions and a strong legal framework are necessary to assist the adoption of building codes and
regulations and ensure that structural changes improve the built environment (Clinton 2006). As
structural improvements are expensive and unaffordable especially in post-disaster settings, long-
term funding needs to be made available to cover extra costs for structural improvements and

Page 4 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

promote adoption. Quality of reconstruction can be maintained by arranging inspections during

construction by local governmental authorities. Stakeholders involved in the rebuild such as
builders, engineers, and architects should be trained on revised building codes and other specific
requirements to avoid inconsistencies and produce good quality results in order to build back better.
A land-use planning strategy was used in the post-disaster recovery efforts following the Indian
Ocean Tsunami and the Samoan Tsunami, resulting in the relocation of coastal communities further
inland to prevent future impacts of coastal hazards (Kennedy et al. 2008). The mandatory
resettlement operations in Sri Lanka and Samoa were problematic due to the lack of consideration
given to the lifestyles of the local people which led to the loss of their sea-dependent livelihoods,
dissatisfaction with their new settlements, and illegal return of people to the original coastal lands
(Kennedy et al. 2008). A recurring issue with relocation is the focus given to moving communities
away from a certain hazard resulting in exposing communities to new unanticipated hazards. Well-
intended land-use planning measures can also fail due to the lack of knowledge and awareness of
local people who do not conform to new regulations and the lack of experience and knowledge of
local governing authorities who do not enforce new regulations (Kennedy et al. 2008).
Therefore, it was recommended by Baradan (2006) that hazard assessments of current land sites
and possible new land sites should be carried out, after which risk zone maps are to be created which
divide the land into zones based on the level of risk. Appropriate land uses and new planning and
building regulations based on the risk zone maps are to be created. The risk zone maps should be
legislated and included in council development plans and approval permit procedures to ensure
compliance. Examples, such as Taiwan’s Mitigation Plans, the Philippines Municipal Maps, and the
Christchurch City Plan in New Zealand following the Canterbury earthquakes, display successful
application of BBB measures to create safer developments. If resettlement to lower-risk lands is
opted for, Mannakkara and Wilkinson (2012b) recommend that a comprehensive resettlement
strategy should be created with community consent which takes into account risk levels of new
lands, community preferences, and livelihood and lifestyle opportunities offered in the new loca-
tions for resettlement to be a success.
DN and PA (2008) encourage educating communities about risks and the importance of risk
reduction measures and engaging them in collective risk reduction efforts. The Participatory Flood
Risk Communication Support System (Pafrics) developed in Japan to educate locals and other
stakeholders including NGOs and local governments on flood risks and risk management strategies
is an example of a participatory tool.

Psychosocial Recovery
Supporting psychosocial recovery of affected communities has been identified as essential for
building back better (Davidson et al. 2007). Post-disaster recovery often focuses on providing fast
solutions in an attempt to reestablish a sense of normality in affected communities as soon as
possible (Khasalamwa 2009). The focus on speed results in overlooking the real needs of commu-
nities. The community is often not consulted to provide their input on reconstruction and recovery
(Boano 2009). The lack of community consultation and participation leads to the provision of
recovery solutions that are not suitable. For example, some of the new houses constructed in Sri
Lanka by humanitarian agencies during the Indian Ocean Tsunami rebuild featured bathrooms made
with half-heighted walls and shared bathrooms for males and females which were culturally
unacceptable (Ruwanpura 2009). Locals were unhappy with the reconstruction of homes following
the 1999 Marmara Earthquake in Turkey as their local life, culture, and aesthetics were not
considered. Khasalamwa (2009) stated that insufficient attention to social, cultural, and ethnic facets
of communities during recovery can exacerbate preexisting vulnerabilities. Separation during

Page 5 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

disasters and resettlement operations disrupt community cohesion and psychological recovery
(Florian 2007).
Social issues arising in post-disaster environments are primarily related to social/cultural/reli-
gious/ethnic factors, and psychological factors. Reconstruction is a chaotic and stressful time for
individuals who are also experiencing trauma. These communities require various forms of assis-
tance as part of building back better. Personalized advice and one-on-one support provided to
families in Columbia during the 1999 earthquake recovery were a success. Similar forms of personal
assistance were provided during the Victorian Bushfire recovery in Australia as well. James Lee Witt
Associates (2005) recommended arranging specialized assistance for vulnerable communities.
Providing psychological support and counseling are essential during recovery. The establishment
of information centers which offer easy access to recovery-related information for the community is
also recommended. Upholding a sense of community spirit and improving community cohesion
through organizing group activities are recommended for social recovery. The Canterbury Earth-
quake Recovery in Christchurch proposed sports, recreation, arts, and cultural programs to engage
the community and provide a sense of normality.
One of the first steps to be taken in post-disaster recovery efforts in order to build back better is to
understand the local context of the affected community through needs assessments and surveys in
order to provide appropriate assistance to satisfy the community (Khasalamwa 2009). The recon-
struction and recovery policies must then be developed based on local requirements to support and
preserve the local culture and heritage. Batteate (2006) stated that maintaining community involve-
ment throughout recovery is integral for BBB success. The importance of decentralization to
empower disaster-affected communities by enabling them to take responsibility of the recovery
effort and become involved in decision-making has been stressed by literature. The establishment of
community consultation groups is an effective way to communicate with the community. Commu-
nity consultation groups consisting of community leaders from preexisting community groups and
reputed members of the community to liaise between the wider community and governmental
authorities have been successful in Sri Lanka and India. Existing community groups can also be
called upon to assist with recovery activities.

Economic Recovery
Supporting economic recovery of the community and supporting livelihood regeneration and
entrepreneurship are also an important part of recovery. Disasters cause damage to the economy
of communities with the disruption of businesses and income-generating industries leading to issues
such as high inflation rates and poverty. The adverse effects of disasters on the economy can also
impede the overall recovery of a city. Hurricane Katrina displayed a disaster’s long-term impacts on
higher education and health care in New Orleans, which were the foundations of the city’s economy,
eventually leading to a decline in population numbers as people moved away in search of better
opportunities.
Post-disaster recovery efforts to date have shown support for economic recovery with strategies
such as: “cash-for-work” programs, provision of business grants, “asset replacement” programs to
provide industries with necessary resources, and training programs to up-skill locals and help them
find work. In Aceh, Indonesia, tsunami-affected people were trained and employed in reconstruction
to provide them with a source of income alongside the opportunity to become involved in their own
recovery (Kennedy et al. 2008). In Japan following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, the govern-
ment decided to consolidate smaller fishing markets into large fishing centers to enable fishermen to
support each other (Okuda et al. 2011). The Christchurch City Council’s Central City Plan proposes
fast-tracking of building consents for businesses to allow faster repair and construction work.

Page 6 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Despite the implementation of such initiatives, post-disaster economic recovery is reportedly slow
and below pre-disaster levels. The lack of success in economic recovery initiatives can be attributed
to insufficient backing from policies and legislation for employment creation and lack of consider-
ation given to the needs of affected communities.
Clinton (2006) said in his BBB propositions that “a sustainable recovery process depends on
reviving and expanding private economic activity and employment and securing diverse livelihood
opportunities for affected populations.” Thus, the uniqueness of BBB comes from the integrated
approach it proposes by giving economic recovery as much importance as reconstruction and aiming
to provide solutions to suit local dynamics and preferences.
Monday (2002) stated that one of the first steps needed for effective economic recovery is to
obtain accurate information about the local population through data collection and consultation with
local governmental authorities, and a comprehensive economic recovery strategy must be created
that is tailor-made to suit each different community based on data obtained. Where applicable,
attractive and flexible low-interest loan packages, business grants, and resources should be provided
to support the livelihoods of the disaster-affected. Training programs should be held to support
people in improving their existing livelihoods or acquire new skills. Mannakkara and Wilkinson
(2012a) propose that business support and counseling services should be provided to assist with the
economic recovery. Rebuilding of businesses must also be facilitated through special fast-tracked
permit procedures. Incentives such as subsidized accommodation must be provided to attract
builders from other areas to participate in rebuilding.

Effective Implementation
A successful recovery effort requires effective and efficient recovery solutions as part of building
back better. Two ways in which the efficiency and effectiveness of post-disaster recovery can be
improved are through better management of stakeholders and through the use of appropriate post-
disaster legislation and regulation.
One of the most common issues with post-disaster environments is the difficulty in coordinating
between stakeholders to produce a unified outcome. Initially, there is often no organization in charge
of the overall recovery effort. The lack of guidance leads different stakeholders to participate
disjointedly promoting personal agendas which conflict with the interests of the local community
(Batteate 2006). For example, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who operated in Sri Lanka
following the Indian Ocean Tsunami constructed homes which were unsuitable for locals and were
largely abandoned. The pressure for fast results during recovery also prevents well-intentioned
stakeholders from considering community needs. Ambiguity about the roles of different stake-
holders is another issue. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission report, 2010, stated that the
roles of personnel involved in the recovery effort were unclear which led to the duplication of some
activities. Many stakeholders involved in recovery have no previous experience in post-disaster
environments leading to ad hoc responses (Kennedy 2009). Often post-disaster interventions are
governed by the national government without sufficient consultation or power given to local
councils (Clinton 2006). Local-level organizations with useful local knowledge lack the capacity
to operate to their full extent when impacted by disasters and are therefore excluded from recovery
efforts. The lack of proper role allocation, coordination, and involvement of local-level stakeholders
is a common issue found in post-disaster reconstruction environments.
A step taken to improve the management of large numbers of stakeholders in major disasters in
order to build back better is the creation of a separate body to act as a recovery authority. Examples of
recovery authorities created to manage reconstruction include: the Bureau of Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction (BRR) in Indonesia following the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Bam’s Reconstruction

Page 7 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Supreme Supervisory and Policymaking Association (BRSSPA) in Iran following the 2003 Bam
Earthquake, the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority (VBRRA) in Australia
following the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(CERA) following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand. The recovery
agencies contributed to the success of recovery to differing extents. Clinton (2006) said that
stakeholders must operate with a common set of standards, approaches, and goals in order for
recovery to be a success. Twigg (2007) proposes that the recovery authority should be responsible
for establishing clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders to divide recovery tasks
based on resources and skills and avoid duplication.
Functional partnerships and linkages established between organizations can enhance reconstruc-
tion projects. Post-disaster recovery is a unique environment which requires deviation from normal
procedures. Information sharing between organizations is one such deviation. The Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency in the United States advocates the sharing of information, contacts,
resources, and technical knowledge between organizations to help recovery activities (FEMA 2000).
Knowledge from past disasters should be retained and transferred to the government and other
relevant organizations who will be involved in future post-disaster efforts. Twigg (2007) recom-
mends that local government should be included as a key stakeholder in the recovery effort and also
given the responsibility to manage local-level activities.
Another obstacle preventing successful BBB-centered recovery is the absence of proper controls
to enforce BBB principles. Having BBB knowledge and producing recovery plans in-line with these
principles are futile without proper legislation and regulations in place to ensure they are
implemented. A common challenge in post-disaster environments is the sudden increased work
load, especially in the building industry, along with a drop in the workforce across local organiza-
tions which slow down and impede recovery activities. Post-disaster reconstruction requires time-
consuming activities such as hazard analysis, land selection, infrastructure development, and
rebuilding to be done in a relatively short period of time. It is important to facilitate recovery-
related activities by simplifying, fast-tracking, and exempting certain rules and regulations using
special legislation.
Post-disaster legislation can be used to ensure compliance with BBB-based activities as well as to
facilitate normal operations to improve the efficiency of recovery efforts. The lack of enforcement of
hazard-related laws and adequate risk-based building controls contributed to the large-scale devas-
tation caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (DNS and PA 2005). The same was seen in
countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Samoa, and Haiti. Enforcing updated risk-based building design
standards through the use of compulsory building codes and maintaining construction standards
through careful inspections is an important regulatory requirement in reconstruction (James Lee Witt
Associates 2005). Lack of awareness and understanding of new legislation can also lead to
noncompliance. In the post-tsunami recovery effort in Sri Lanka, external nongovernmental orga-
nizations (NGOs) who took part did not comply with local standards due to unawareness (Boano
2009). The National Post-Tsunami Lessons Learned and Best Practices Workshop held in Sri Lanka
in 2005 highlighted the importance of training stakeholders (especially external NGOs) about
existing and newly introduced legislation and regulations. The community’s support can also be
obtained by educating them about legislation and regulations that must be adhered to in reconstruc-
tion and recovery.
Post-disaster legislation can also be used to simplify and assist recovery activities to speed up the
recovery process. Legislation that is customarily used to impose security and safety controls (such as
building consents) can become an obstacle in high-pressure post-disaster environments. Time-
consuming procedures, insufficient resources to process permits, and the lack of fast-tracked

Page 8 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

methods delay reconstruction. Delays in permits were a major reason for the holdup in housing
repair and rebuilding following the 2005 Bay of Plenty storm in New Zealand (Middleton 2008).
Fast-tracked consenting procedures, collaboration with other local councils, and open access to
information between stakeholders can help speed up recovery.
Legislation can be used to remove unnecessary red tape to facilitate recovery activities. Meese III
et al. (2005) reported a good example in the recovery following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake,
USA, where legislative suspensions and emergency powers greatly reduced highway reconstruction
time. The construction work provided employment and opening up the highways soon after the
disaster helped boost the economy.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The effectiveness and efficiency of post-disaster reconstruction and recovery activities is crucial to
the success of a community’s restoration following the impact of a disaster event. Having the
knowledge of Build Back Better concepts in designing recovery programs is insufficient without
systems in place to overlook and monitor implementation. The creation of a recovery strategy to
assist in conducting post-disaster reconstruction and recovery activities is a common response
following disaster events. Despite having recovery strategies and revisions in legislation and
regulation to improve recovery activities, the findings by Tas (2010) indicated that compliance
was not monitored in the respective recovery efforts in Sri Lanka and Turkey, leading to poorly
executed recovery projects. The lack of properly trained professionals who were competent in post-
disaster environments and disaster management activities poorly affects the outcome of recovery
efforts. The shortage of effective information and knowledge sharing and dissemination are also
reasons for unsatisfactory disaster management practices. Findings from the Business Civic Lead-
ership Center in 2012 on “What a Successful Recovery Looks Like” raised concerns that long-term
recovery beyond reconstruction often does not take place due to the lack of mechanisms and
expertise which prevents affected communities from satisfactorily “building back better” in the
long run.
Recommendations to improve post-disaster recovery efforts through monitoring and evaluation
have been provided in many sources of literature. The role of monitoring and evaluation is twofold:
(1) to monitor and ensure compliance of recovery activities in accordance with the recovery strategy
in place and relevant guidelines and regulations (Clinton 2006) and (2) to obtain lessons for the
future and improve future disaster management and post-disaster reconstruction and recovery efforts
(Monday 2002).
The 2003 Bam earthquake reconstruction provided a good example where rebuilding was
monitored by providing construction supervision which assisted in assuring the quality of the
rebuild. Clinton (2006) stated that the Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring
System (TRIAMS) was put in place during the Indian Ocean Tsunami recovery for the most affected
countries. The recovery strategy in Christchurch, New Zealand, has also been equipped with
monitoring mechanisms. Clinton (2006) suggested that long-term recovery should be monitored
through continued data collection to ensure that recovery efforts do not leave communities with
residual issues.
Monday (2002) pointed out that monitoring can be used to identify problems with post-disaster
interventions and establish lessons learnt. Lessons learnt should be incorporated into revising policy
and procedures for future disaster management practices. Bakir (2004) recommends that public
education campaigns should be run on lessons learnt, including the community in participatory
disaster management. Public seminars have been held and advice notes have been distributed in
Australia during the Victorian Bushfires recovery to keep the community informed about revised

Page 9 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

guidelines and standards. Workshops have been held in the Philippines, Japan, and California
involving the community in vulnerability identification which have been successful (Batteate 2006).

Summary
“Build Back Better” is an important concept for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, signify-
ing the need to use reconstruction as an opportunity to not only recover from the encountered
disaster but to improve the resilience of communities to face and withstand future disaster events.
BBB represents adopting a holistic approach toward recovery by addressing risk reduction of the
built environment, psychosocial recovery of affected people, and rejuvenation of the economy in an
effective and efficient manner. Risk reduction can be achieved primarily through the improvement of
structural designs in buildings and infrastructure and through better risk-based land-use planning.
BBB requires improved building codes and land-use plans to be enforced using a strong legal
framework along with financial backing to encourage adoption. Quality assurance of the rebuild is
also integral for building back better.
Psychosocial recovery needs to be addressed to assist communities with moving forward with
their lives as an important part of overall community recovery. Psychosocial recovery of affected
people needs to be assisted through the provision of support services such as personal case
management, counseling, and social activities. Inclusion of community members in recovery
activities is another way to support psychosocial recovery and provide recovery solutions that are
in-line with community needs as part of building back better.
Economic recovery is essential for the recovery of communities. An informed economic strategy
to address and support community-specific issues is the first step toward BBB-based economic
recovery. Financial assistance, training, and business rebuilding support need to be provided to assist
with economic recovery.
Reconstruction and recovery requires effective management of stakeholders and the use of post-
disaster legislation and regulation in order to build back better. The creation of a recovery authority
to allocate roles and coordinate and manage stakeholders is recommended. Successful recovery
requires local-level partnerships and contribution to provide locally viable recovery solutions.
Compliance of BBB-based concepts in recovery needs to be ensured through the use of appropriate
post-disaster legislation and regulation to enforce risk reduction and community recovery initiatives.
Legislation and regulation can also be used to facilitate post-disaster recovery activities by fast-
tracking and exempting normal procedures.
The effective implementation of risk reduction and community recovery initiatives concurrently
will result in building back better. Recovery efforts also need to be monitored continuously through
short-term and long-term recovery to ensure compliance with BBB concepts and to obtain lessons to
improve future disaster management efforts.

Build Back Better: The Way Forward

Understanding and implementing the concept of Building Back Better is integral to improving a
community’s resilience following a disaster event in order to achieve positive changes for affected
communities. The elements required to build back better which are; risk reduction, psychosocial
recovery, economic recovery, effective implementation and monitoring and evaluation, have been
introduced and discussed in this chapter. This understanding can be used to create practical

Page 10 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

guidelines to design future reconstruction and recovery efforts including all these key facets to
effectively build back better. Further comprehension of how these strategies for building back better
can be more successfully implemented in different environments can be gained by studying different
disaster events in the future. It is also suggested that criteria for measuring levels of resilience should
be established which can serve as indicators to measure progress and effectiveness of build back
better practices.
The long-term sustainability of resilience in communities instilled by using BBB concepts
depends on how they are linked with on-going developmental strategies. It is therefore important
for the key concepts identified in this chapter to be incorporated into local and national government
policies for community planning and development even during non-disaster periods.

Cross-References
▶ Building Codes and Standards
▶ Building Earthquake Resiliency through Disaster Risk Management Master Planning
▶ Land-use following Earthquake Disaster
▶ Community Recovery following Earthquake Disasters
▶ Psycho-social Recovery following Earthquake Disasters
▶ Economic Recovery following Earthquake Disasters
▶ Legislation changes following Earthquake Disaster

References
Bakir PG (2004) Proposal of a national mitigation strategy against earthquakes in Turkey. Nat
Hazards 33(3):405–425
Baradan B (2006) Analysis of the post-disaster reconstruction process following the Turkish
earthquakes, 1999. In: GROUP IR (ed) International conference on post-disaster reconstruction
meeting stakeholder interests, University de Montreal, Florence
Batteate C (2006) Urban disaster risk reduction and regeneration planning: an overview. Focus
J City Reg Plan Dep 3(1):11–17
Boano C (2009) Housing anxiety and multiple geographies in post-tsunami Sri Lanka. Disasters
33(4):762–785
Clinton WJ (2006) Lessons learned from tsunami recovery: key propositions for building back
better. Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, New York
Davidson CH, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, Dikmen N, Sliwinski A (2007) Truths and myths about
community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int 31(1):100–115
DN & PA (2008) Disaster and development in South Asia: connects and disconnects, South Asia
disaster report. Duryog Nivaran & Practical Action, Colombo
DNS & PA (2005) Tackling the tides and tremors: South Asia disaster report 2005. Duryog Nivaran
Secretariat & Practical Action – South Asia Programme, Colombo
FEMA (2000) Rebuilding for a more sustainable future: an operational framework. FEMA report.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
Florian S (2007) Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias,
Indonesia – Rebuilding lives. Habitat Int 31(1):150–166

Page 11 of 12
Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_343-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Halvorson SJ, Hamilton JP (2010) In the aftermath of the Qa’yamat: the Kashmir earthquake
disaster in northern Pakistan. Disasters 34(1):184–204
James Lee Witt Associates (2005) Building back better and safer: private sector summit on post-
tsunami reconstruction. James Lee Witt Associates, Washington, DC
Kennedy J (2009) Disaster mitigation lessons from “build back better” following the 26 December
2004 Tsunamis. In: Ashmore J, Babister E, Kelman I, Zarins J (eds) Water and Urban Develop-
ment Paradigms, Taylor and Francis Group, London
Kennedy J, Ashmore J, Babister E, Kelman I (2008) The meaning of ‘build back better’: evidence
from post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. J Conting Crisis Manag 16(1):24–36
Khasalamwa S (2009) Is ‘build back better’ a response to vulnerability? Analysis of the post-
tsunami humanitarian interventions in Sri Lanka. Nor J Geogr 63(1):73–88
Mannakkara S, Wilkinson S (2012a) Build back better principles for economic recovery: the
Victorian bushfires case study. J Bus Contin Emerg Plan 6(2):164–173
Mannakkara S, Wilkinson S (2012b) Build back better principles for land-use planning. Urban Des
Plan 166(5):288–295
Meese E III, Butler SM, Holmes KR (2005) From tragedy to triumph: principled solutions for
rebuilding lives and communities, Heritage special report. The Heritage Foundation, Washington,
DC
Middleton D (2008) Habitability of homes after a disaster. In: 4th international i-REC conference on
building resilience: achieving effective post-disaster reconstruction. International Council for
Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Christchurch
Monday JL (2002) Building back better: creating a sustainable community after disaster. Natural
Hazards Informer [Online], 3. Available http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/
infrmr3/informer3b.htm. Accessed 27 Feb 2013
Okuda K, Ohashi M, Hori M (2011) On the studies of the disaster recovery and the business
continuity planning for private sector caused by Great East Japan earthquake. Commun Comput
Inf Sci 219:14–21
Pathiraja M, Tombesi P (2009) Towards a more “robust” technology? Capacity building in post-
tsunami Sri Lanka. Disaster Prev Manag 18(1):55–65
Ruwanpura KN (2009) Putting houses in place: rebuilding communities in post-tsunami Sri Lanka.
Disasters 33(3):436–456
Tas M (2010) Study on permanent housing production after 1999 earthquake in Kocaeli (Turkey).
Disaster Prev Manag 19(1):6
Twigg J (2007) Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community – a guidance note. DFID Disaster
Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group, London
Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and
disasters. Routledge, New York

Page 12 of 12