1. Introduction

The challenge of effective humanitarian response to disasters in towns and cities is set to increase, due to two key drivers. The first is rapid urban growth. By 2020, there were some 4.2 billion people living in towns and cities, which is over half the world’s total population [1]. The figure is expected to grow to some six billion people by 2045 [2]. While most of the growth will be in Africa and Asia, Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) are also fast-urbanising—the urban population is expected to double within the next 20 years [3]. Seven PICTs have over half of their respective populations living in urban areas. Matching fast urban growth is an increase in the number of those who are vulnerable—those living in poor-quality, low-income settlements, many of which are poorly built and are located very often on poor-quality land.

The second driver is the predicted increase in severity and frequency of natural hazards, in particular those fuelled by climate change. Windstorms are set to worsen, while sea-level rises will increase the risk of regular, sustained flooding in particular to coastally located cities and towns. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, for PICTs, current once-in-a-century extreme sea-level events in the region may become annual events by 2050 (IPCC, 2019). Heat waves are set to increase, as is the incidence of fires. Neighbouring Australia has also encountered some of the worst disasters in its history, including the 2019–2020 ‘Black Summer’ bushfires that killed 173 people and burned over 400,000 hectares of land [4] and subsequent widespread flooding.

As a result, disasters (defined as the consequence of a natural hazard meeting a vulnerable population) are on the increase. According to the IFRC, between 2008 and 2017 around two billion people have been affected by the consequences of natural hazards over the last 10 years, 95% of which were weather-related [5]. According to UNDRR, ‘In 2021, a total of 432 catastrophic events were recorded, which is considerably higher than the average of 357 annual catastrophic events for 2001–2020’ [6]. Of these, storms and floods were the most frequent hazard types and caused the highest levels of economic damage [7].

2. Responding to disasters and reducing disaster risk

How is responding to disasters understood, and how do we get better at reducing disaster risk? A long-standing and influential understanding of the sequence of disaster management is the ‘cycle of disaster’ (see Figure 1). The cycle presents a linear progression of activities after a rapid-onset disaster event. The first is relief, followed by recovery. Following this post-disaster phase, the cycle goes on to identify steps that can be taken in anticipation of the next disaster (assuming disaster threats repeat themselves). The cycle identifies mitigation, that is actions that can reduce or even prevent a disaster (building codes are a good example of mitigation measures). It then identifies preparedness, that is actions that ‘get ready’ for an impending disaster (fire exits are an example of preparedness measures, as are ambulances and first aid kits).

Figure 1.
The cycle of disaster (source: United Nations).

The understandings and terms that this model presents underpin how actions before and after a disaster and understood, and how many response and preparedness organisations are organised. Indeed, a fixed time frame is often provided by responding agencies and donors for the ‘relief’ and ‘recovery’ periods that range from weeks to months. The model however has its critics—disaster responses are not always linear, and many argue that ‘recovery starts from day one’. The model is, however, arguably coming under increased scrutiny, especially at a time of frequently repeating disasters, where there may be no time to recover, mitigate or prepare. Take the 2022 floods that have affected large parts of the Australian State of New South Wales. A number of smaller towns were inundated by widespread flooding several times in 2021 and 2022, which followed on from the especially devastating ‘Black Summer’ bushfires of 2019–2020. As one key informant stated in the NSW State Government’s 2022 Flood Enquiry, ‘we are not recovering. We are suffering. We are losing the will to do anything, too exhausted, too confused. We are stuck’ [8].

Complementing this broad sequence of actions, in recent years efforts at addressing disasters (from recovery to preparedness) have coalesced around the concept of resilience. The Rockefeller Foundation’s definition of urban resilience is, ‘the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience’ [9]. The concept of resilience has been adopted within a wide number of globally agreed frameworks and agreements, including the 2015–2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the UN Sustainable Development goals, notably Goals 9 (concerning infrastructure) and 11, commonly known as ‘the urban SDG’. The New Urban Agenda, agreed in Quito at HABITAT III in 2016 (UN, 2016) emphasis the need several times over to build resilience to hazards, disasters and climate change. In the Pacific, where many island nations are experiencing urban growth and increased disaster risk, the 2019 Fifth Pacific Urban Forum (PUF) Declaration includes ‘resilience’ and ‘resilient’ 10 times, concerning housing, infrastructure and design [10].

3. Situating resilience in the cycle of disaster

While the concept of resilience embodies all the stages identified in the cycle of disaster, in practice, within humanitarian response, enacting urban resilience is often situated in mitigation and preparedness activities before a disaster occurs and is much less discussed in relief and recovery actions. For example, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction’s (UNISDR) Making Cities Resilient campaign identifies ‘ten essentials’ that include pre-disaster building regulations and land use planning principles, education and training programmes on community-based disaster risk reduction [11]. The IFRC’s ‘characteristics of a disaster-resilient community’ identifies characteristics such as that communities are knowledgeable and healthy, are organised, have economic opportunities and are connected with external actors [12]. The City Resilience Index (CRI), developed by Rockefeller Foundation and Arup, identifies ‘eight functions of a resilient city’, including the delivery of basic needs, safeguards for human life, protecting, maintaining and enhancing assets (such as buildings and transport networks as well as natural systems, such as rivers and ground water), facilitating human relationships and identity, promoting knowledge, education and innovation, defending the rule of law, justice and equity, supporting livelihoods, and stimulating economic prosperity [13].

There may well therefore be opportunities for identifying and embedding resilience thinking within urban disaster relief and recovery actions; that is, to ‘get ahead’ of the (cycle of disaster) curve and not wait until later. The remainder of this chapter presents and discusses three opportunities for identifying actions that may build resilience in post-disaster urban recovery: ensuring people-centred approaches in recovery to prevent exclusion; seeing cities as systems (to navigate complexity); and improving collaboration for greater inclusion.

4. People-centred approaches to recovery

People-centred—or community-centred—approaches are considered ‘the gold standard’ in successful disaster recovery. This is emphasised regularly in research and also in policy of responding agencies. Gibbs et al. record that ‘community-based approaches … are regarded as the optimal approach to sustainable disaster recovery, fostering self-reliance and self-determination’ [14]. In Australia, the State-level agency Resilience NSW affirms that ‘successful recovery is community-centred, responsive and flexible, engaging with community and supporting them to move forward’ [15].

Taking a people/community-centred approach to recovery seeks to ensure that skills and abilities of affected people are used, built on, and not unduly eroded. This is emphasised because, too often, response actions can fail to adequately engage with affected populations, leading to wasted investments in relief and recovery, or worse still, actively damaging meaningful recovery actions. People themselves may find themselves excluded form decisions that affect them. Unfortunately, despite some recent advances (see below), an adequate people-centred approach can be lacking. Anderson et al.’s report, ‘Time to listen’, found that, of the 6000 or so people interviewed who were caught up in emergencies across the world, the overwhelming response was for humanitarian actors to listen better to what was actually needed [16]. Following the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, one survey of community satisfaction of response efforts found that ‘almost half of respondents feel they are not heard at all’; also that ‘When women were asked if their particular problems are being addressed, a resounding 73 per cent said “very little” or “not at all”’ [17].

There is a wealth of literature on people-centred approaches emerging from development practice [18]. One popular approach is an asset/capital-based understanding. Assets/capital can be tangible (such goods and belongings), and intangible, such as skills (human assets) and friends and networks (social assets). Social capital is a particularly powerful and important asset for post-disaster relief and recovery (see e.g. Archer and Boonyabancha, 2011). Social capital can be understood as relationships and acquaintances that people develop over time. As the adage in disaster management goes, it’s your neighbours that pull you out of the rubble. There has been considerable interest in the importance of social capital and its types. Three types of social capital often agreed on are bridging capital (creating new relationships), bonding capital (existing relationships that deepen over time) and linking capital (building relationships with those who hold power). It therefore follows, broadly speaking, that the more social capital people and communities possess, the less vulnerable they are to disasters. Conversely, people and communities with lower social capital are at greater risk.

4.1 Area-based approaches

A predominantly developmental approach in urban humanitarian recovery operations that consciously use assets/capital (and in particular social capital) to prioritise people/community-centred approaches is area-based approaches (ABAs). ABAs have gained particular traction in recent years as a people-centred approach to disaster recovery. The purpose of ABAs is to place decision-making about recovery priorities first and foremost with affected people and communities. ABAs also acknowledge and work with the complexity of the city, in particular the need to integrate separate sectoral priorities (such as water and sanitation, and healthcare) into one unified response. The purpose of ABAs therefore is to ‘provide multisectoral support and include multiple stakeholders, considering the whole population living in a specific geographic area with high levels of need’ [19].

A review of 30 case studies of ABAs undertaken by the Global Shelter Cluster Working Group [19] identified several commonalities across ABAs, including engaging with local actors, working with local authorities and better connecting both humanitarian and developmental priorities. Inevitably perhaps, ABAs can be difficult to enact. A 2017 study undertaken by the author of this chapter that interviewed several experienced ABA practitioners painted a picture of engaging in complex, ‘messy’ everyday realities. The conclusion, however, was that, if a genuine people-centred approach was the goal for effective post-disaster recovery (and therefore a contributor to increased resilience), then this was the price. As one interviewee stated, ‘If there was a simpler approach then we’d be doing it!’ In relation to ‘usual’ humanitarian practice (that may take less of a people-centred approach), another interviewee noted, ‘the humanitarian aid system likes simplicity … urban life however is not [simple]!’ [20].

The same study identified 10 principles for enacting effective ABAs that align with the traditional model of project management, that is, assessment, design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Ten principles for enacting area-based approaches [21].

Three of the principals are discussed here. The first (Principle two) concerns focusing on a particular location, such as a neighbourhood. The intent here is to limit a sectorally based approach (such as food, shelter or health) delivered by agencies which can lead to weak (if any) coordination between providers. The focus on location is also intended to elevate the voices of affected communities who are likely to have stronger community ties than dispersed groups.

The second (Principle three) is the critical need for realistic time frames. In almost all post-disaster recovery initiatives enacted by implementing agencies, time frames are usually to tight, rarely matching the paces at which recovery takes place. There may be reasons for this, not least the pressure by funders to demonstrate ‘success’. This, however can often come at the expense of an effective recovery taking place.

A third, key principle (Principle four) is ‘people-centred approaches – whose reality counts?’ This means not focusing so much on the disaster, but in fact on community members. This may sound odd at first, but in fact too much recovery focuses on the disaster rather than affected communities. Examples for this can be drawn from shelter after disaster, wherein many agencies continue to focus on temporary housing. When this happens, budgets are usually used up in overly expensive temporary housing ‘solutions’ that have the disaster (and recovery from it) in view, but does little to invest in people’s long term needs. The provocative question used in this principle, ‘whose reality counts?’, was coined by aid-thinker Robert Chambers [22]. The question referred to the fact that too often outsider professionals’ views were often prioritised over local populations’ views, often leading to generalised ‘cookie cutter’ approaches, or perhaps worse still, approaches that were inappropriate. Again, many of the errors of inappropriate post-disaster recovery serve as an example of when the reality of those that matter most (i.e. affected populations) can be ignored.

The above-mentioned 30 case studies of ABAs provided by the Global Shelter Cluster did not include any studies from PICTs, many of which suffer regular windstorms and floods. To part-fill this gap, Australian National University (ANU) with the University of New South Wales (UNSW) undertook research in three Pacific Island Countries—Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Fiji—into the nature and effectiveness of the principles of ABAs following rapid-onset disasters. In-country researchers interviewed a total of 40 key informants drawn from local and national government (including National Disaster Management Offices, or NDMOs), international NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, local non-government and civil society organisations, and the private sector. The research focused on four principles of ABAs: people-centred responses, adaptive processes (i.e. the ability to be flexible and for a project to positively respond to changing circumstances according to community needs and priorities), multisector collaboration and reflective practice, that is the ability to learn during a programme’s implementation and once it is completed.

The findings, perhaps inevitably, are a combination of strengths and challenges. There was a strong commitment in each country to supporting local recovery and the better use of traditional knowledge and practice. Each country was strongly committed to implementing policies and practices that sought to prepare for and respond better to disaster threats, in planning and in practice. Key for all countries was the improvement in coordination between key actors, namely government at various levels, local and international NGOs and civil society actors.

Improving coordination also inevitably presents significant challenges, especially in urban areas where competing interests and the number of actors are greater than in non-urban areas. In Fiji, weak coordination among the numerous international and local NGOs that support the various informal settlement populations was reportedly contributing to a disjointed response with unnecessary duplications and gaps. Coordination between international and national organisations was also a challenge. As one government respondent from the Solomon Islands: ‘Localisation – I am having difficulties, not really to have something bad to say about internationals coming in, but when people say localisation, I say: localisation for who?’ For some international NGOs, localisation means consultations about predetermined interventions; for locals and this government respondent it should rather mean a partnership whereby external engagement processes adjust to local values, priorities and needs—‘bottom-up’ planning. There were also concerns expressed by respondents in Vanuatu and in Fiji that dual-/multi-track systems can emerge when international NGOs rush to help communities and bypass local coordination institutions like the NDMO.

5. Seeing cities as complex systems

ABAs, discussed above, are intended as an approach that is people-centred, while acknowledging the complexities of city life. This section further develops this theme, that an understanding that builds resilience in recovery is one that indeed embraces and works with complexity—when an overly simplistic approach to recovery is taken that does not recognise complexity, then affected people’s agency, ownership and ability can be eroded, which ultimately harms resilience.

Cities are inevitably complex—infrastructure, density, verticality, diversity, scale, commerce, culture, markets, inequality and entrepreneurship are just some of the words associated with ‘urban’. As noted above, the humanitarian system prefers simplicity. Derived mostly from providing goods and services to affected populations mostly in poor, rural settings, the ‘urbanisation’ of humanitarian aid itself has been a journey of some decades, and one which has gathered momentum in humanitarian circles, in particular since the 2010 Haiti earthquake [23].

In recent years, seeing cities in terms of systems has also gained popularity (see e.g. the work of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities programme). Systems can be defined as ‘an interconnected collection of things organised in a pattern or structure that changes frequently’ [24, 25]. There are different interpretations for classifications of urban systems. Campbell [24] identifies five interconnected urban systems: politics and governance; economy and livelihoods; infrastructure and services; space and settlements; and, social and cultural systems [24, 25]. UN-Habitat identifies five attributes of urban systems—functions (such as governance and social processes), organisations, space, physicality and change over time [26]. A systems view of the city—if used as a basis for recovery planning—can help to avoid overly simplistic approaches that provide little help in the long run. If a water supply is needed, does an implementing agency pay water vendors to provide water, dig bore holes, mend pipes and/or support the reconstruction of a municipal water supply? Whichever option or options an implementing agency chooses, in collaboration with others, a better understanding of the strategic impact of their efforts through a systems lens should help.

A further example is health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) emphasises the need to understand urban healthcare in terms of systems, comprising six inter-related subsystems—governance, health financing, health workforce, service delivery, essential medicines and technology and health information systems [27]. Providing immediate and longer-term health provision post-disaster is often vital, but a risk for agencies is ignoring the existing health systems—hospitals, doctors, nurses, health centres—that already exist and who need to be engaged with, and not ignored. A wide-ranging review of good practice in urban disaster recovery undertaken by the author concluded that good practice in health response ‘includes prioritising working through, rebuilding or improving pre-existing healthcare systems as early as possible. Health interventions must be sustainable, and must not be seen purely as short-term life-saving measures built in parallel, as they then undercut existing systems. This can be as devastating as the disaster itself, taking years to recover’ [28].

Perhaps one of the most effective approaches in disaster recovery that builds people’s agency (and therefore contributes to resilience) is cash-based programming, that is providing cash to disaster-affected people. Cash as a programming approach has grown rapidly over the last few years. Cash gives agency to people to prioritise their own needs. It supports urban systems such as local markets, supporting traders and commerce. Cash programming also has low transaction costs (sending money is much cheaper than sending food). Cash has obvious resonance in urban areas where markets exist—it has been argued that cash transfers should be the primary response in urban areas [29].

6. Improving collaborations

If opportunities for identifying and building resilience exist within taking a people-centred approach and embracing the complexity of cities through a systems lens, then a third, vital area concerns improving collaborations between the vast range of actors involved in disaster recovery—and, in particular, engaging those who are often excluded from traditional decision-making processes.

Local actors include local governments, local NGOs and community groups, private sector businesses, community neighbourhood groups and faith-based organisations. Groups often less engaged with include gangs. According to Hagedorn (2014), ‘while most gangs are unsupervised teenage peer groups, many are institutionalised in ghettos, barrios and favelas across the world’ [30].

Disaster recovery operations involving international humanitarian organisations have a poor track record when it comes to collaborating with local actors. Local actors such as local authorities and local NGOs can feel excluded from coordination meetings—usually held in English—that are dominated by cash-rich international NGOs, UN agencies and others. One study of the response of 13 INGOs following Typhoon Haiyan found that, across the track of the typhoon that struck the central region of the Philippines, local government was largely bypassed by aid agencies, which worked directly at the community level [31].

The system for agency coordination that has been in place since 2005 is known as ‘the cluster system’, which essentially convenes meetings between agencies delivering assistance along sectoral lines (such as health, protection and education). The system though has come in for criticism in relation to urban response: as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) states, ‘the current cluster system is structured around sectors of expertise and sectorial coordination, while in a context of urban crises there might be a need to identify and respond holistically to multi-sectorial needs in a given territory, requiring stronger inter-cluster linkages and coordination at city-level’ [32]. Also, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) notes, ‘The traditional cluster system does not lend itself to the complexity of needs, services and systems across an urban landscape with humanitarian agencies struggling to deal with the complexity, density and built environment of towns and cities or [un]able to take full advantage of the potential a city has to offer’ [33].

A large opportunity therefore for building resilience in recovery concerns improving collaboration between actors. This in particular means international agencies supporting local actors. Collaboration, ranging from information exchange, negotiation, discussion and possible coordination, with a number of actors, despite the Cluster approach, is vital. Gangs, who are often gatekeepers to lower-income settlements, need to be engaged with. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (ICRC) notes that it is important to gain acceptance from gang leaders, that there needs to be a benefit accrued to gang leaders, and to avoid undermining the status and position of gangs in recovery efforts relief [34].

Better collaboration of course also means sharing—or sometimes reversing—power, something which is very difficult indeed for those who hold the power. This essentially was at the core of the outcomes of the first-ever World Humanitarian Summit (WHS), held in 2016. Some 8000 delegates from across the world attended, including UN agencies, donors, Northern and Southern NGOs and others. The resulting ‘Grand Bargain’, negotiated at the conference, identified nine thematic work streams, which among other things called for greater transparency (such as in in decision-making and prioritisation of support) and more support and funding tools to local and national responders.

7. Conclusions

There are substantial opportunities for humanitarian response actions to identify, articulate and prioritise relief and recovery actions in ways that meet immediate relief needs, but also contribute to the building of resilience. The three actions identified in this chapter—people-centred approaches, using a systems perspective for engaging in complexity, and improving collaboration with local actors—are three critical areas for achieving this.

There may well be critics of these arguments who might argue that highlighting resilience building opportunities is a form of ‘mission creep’ for agencies solely focused on response and recovery; also that the aid sector has enough jargon already, and no more is needed, especially in relief and recovery work—after all, the term ‘resilience’ has its critics. Whatever the most useful terms to employ are, however, the reality is that, given the confluence of urban growth and worsening disasters, many of which are fuelled by climate change, the need for better humanitarian response is set to increase. Relief and recovery actions need to consider the future as much as they do the immediate present, in order that those investments are not wasted when the next, and possibly worse, disaster strikes.

Leonid Poretsky

Chapters authored

Related collaborators

Vladimir Jakus

Mykola Khalangot

Mykola Tronko

Sabita Soedamah-Muthu

Bruno Vergès

Jana Kostolanska

Dagmar Michalkova

Michal Sapak

Monika Toeller

Suzanne Abbring