Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/74824
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorElizabeth Malyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMittul Vahanvatien_US
dc.contributor.authorTitaya Sarariten_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-16T06:50:50Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-16T06:50:50Z-
dc.date.issued2022-10-15en_US
dc.identifier.issn22124209en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85137743909en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103234en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85137743909&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/74824-
dc.description.abstractAlthough scholars recognize the importance of long-term recovery outcomes for disaster risk reduction and community empowerment, even within the limited research on long-term housing recovery, cross-national and temporal comparisons of multiple reconstruction projects are rare. Drawing on a systematic literature review and case-study approach, this paper explores two case studies of post-disaster housing reconstruction projects, each from three countries in Asia– India, Thailand, and Japan. The cases are post-disaster housing reconstruction after the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake and 2008 Kosi River floods in Bihar in India, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and 2014 Chiang Rai Earthquake in Thailand, and the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake and 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan. Comparisons across cases found consistency as well as change in each country. Analysis of reconstruction policies, programs, and governance systems led to several key findings, identifying housing reconstruction processes that led to beneficial longer-term outcomes in social, economic, technical and environmental aspects in the three countries. In contrast to government-driven housing recovery programs in Japan, housing recovery programs in both India and Thailand included crucial support from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) integrated with and complementing official support from the government. Able to translate government policies into practice in ways that community needs could be met in increasingly people-centered ways, CSOs played significant roles in the provision of needed housing units and beyond, in facilitating increased flexibility of housing recovery options, filling gaps as an intermediary between the government and the needs of the people.en_US
dc.subjectEarth and Planetary Sciencesen_US
dc.subjectEngineeringen_US
dc.titlePeople-centered disaster recovery: A comparison of long-term outcomes of housing reconstruction in Thailand, India, and Japanen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Reductionen_US
article.volume81en_US
article.stream.affiliationsRMIT Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsTohoku Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.