Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Engineering
online 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294

7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy
7th
andInternational Conference
practice in disaster on Building
risk reduction, Resilience;
ICBR2017, 27Using scientific knowledge
– 29 November to inform
2017, Bangkok, policy
Thailand
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
Community level indicators of long term disaster recovery
Community level indicators of long term disaster recovery
S. Hettigeaa, R. Haighbb*, D. Amaratungabb
S. Hettige , R. Haigh *, D. Amaratunga
a
Department of Sociology, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
a
b Department
Global Disasterof Sociology,
Resilience University
Centre, of Colombo,
University Sri LankaUK
of Huddersfield,
b
Global Disaster Resilience Centre, University of Huddersfield, UK

Abstract
Abstract
The experience of individuals, families and communities affected by a major disaster is indicative of the nature of the diverse
The experience
effects of individuals,
of the disaster and how families and communities
various interventions, bothaffected
state andbynon-state,
a major disaster
help or isdoindicative of the nature
not help affected of the diverse
communities to
effects
recoverof the the
from disaster andeffects
adverse how various
of the interventions, both statestep
disaster. An important andinnon-state, help ordisaster
understanding do not recovery
help affected
is to communities to
define and measure it.
recover
However, from the adverse
no such effects of
wide-ranging, the disaster.
inclusive An important
and well step in understanding
accepted method disaster recovery
of measuring recovery is to define
at the community andcurrently
scale measure it.
However,
exists. Thisnopaper
such reports
wide-ranging,
on fieldinclusive
work carriedand well
out asaccepted
part of amethod of measuring
longer-term study aimedrecovery at the community
at developing scale currently
a more integrated, holistic
exists. This of
assessment paper reports on
the disaster field work
recovery carried
process. out qualitative
Using as part of adata
longer-term study aimed
from a sample at developing
of communities a more
in Sri Lankaintegrated,
affected byholistic
the
assessment
2004 IndianofOcean
the disaster
Tsunami, recovery process.
the study Using
refines qualitativea multidimensional
and validates data from a sampleassessment
of communities in Srifor
framework Lanka affectedand
monitoring by the
2004 Indianrecovery
evaluating Ocean Tsunami,
processesthe study
after refines An
a disaster. andearlier
validates a multidimensional
study assessment in
focused on ten communities framework for monitoring
Galle, Batticaloa and
and Ampara
evaluatingThis
districts. recovery processes
study adopts the after
sameamultidimensional
disaster. An earlier study focused
assessment on ten and
framework communities
indicators,inbut
Galle, Batticaloa
focuses on ten and Ampara
different
districts. Thisacross
communities study adopts
Matara,the same multidimensional
Batticaloa and Trincomalee assessment framework
districts. After and indicators,
examining the recoverybutprocess
focusesinona ten differentnumber
significant
communities
of communities across
overMatara, Batticaloa
a long period and and
of time, Trincomalee districts.
across twenty After examining
communities during twothe recovery
major fieldprocess in the
studies, a significant number
results suggest that
the assessment framework has captured the ten most important dimensions of recovery. Since post disaster recovery usually that
of communities over a long period of time, and across twenty communities during two major field studies, the results suggest
the assessment
involves framework
a process has captured
of resettlement the tenfamilies
of affected most important dimensions
and individuals, moreofattention
recovery.needs
Sincetopost disaster
be paid recovery
to more usually
vulnerable groups
involves
such a process
as children andofwomen,
resettlement of important
as well affected families
aspectsand individuals,
of well- moreasattention
being such needs
livelihoods, to be paid
housing, to more
social vulnerable
infrastructure andgroups
long-
such as
term children and
maintenance of women, as wellThe
infrastructure. important
frameworkaspects of well-capture
indicators being such
theseasaspects
livelihoods, housing,
but also social infrastructure
the determinants andand
of the nature long-
term maintenance of infrastructure. The framework indicators capture these aspects but also the determinants
level of recovery, indicating the possible precautionary measures to avoid significant shortfalls in recovery in the long term. of the nature and
level of recovery, indicating the possible precautionary measures to avoid significant shortfalls in recovery in the long term.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017
© 2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of of the
the scientific
scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Keywords: post disaster recovery; recovery measures, Sri Lanka
Keywords: post disaster recovery; recovery measures, Sri Lanka

*Corresponding author: Tel:+ 01484 473038

*Corresponding author: Tel:+ 01484 473038
Email: R.Haigh@hud.ac.uk
Email: R.Haigh@hud.ac.uk

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1877-7058
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of
Published by Elsevier
the scientific Ltd. of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
committee
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.166
1288 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294
2 Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

This paper reports on field work carried out as part of a longer-term study aimed at developing a more integrated,
holistic assessment of the disaster recovery process. Using qualitative data from a sample of communities affected
by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, this field study seeks to further refine and validate a multidimensional
assessment framework for monitoring and evaluating recovery processes after a disaster. The earlier study [1]
focused on ten communities in Galle, Batticaloa and Ampara districts. This study adopts the same multidimensional
assessment framework and indicators, but focuses on ten different communities across Matara, Batticaloa and
Trincomalee districts, as shown in Appendix A. In doing so, it seeks to further validate the framework and associated
indicators, but also provide a wider insight into the effectiveness of post-disaster recovery across Sri Lanka. The
field study on which this paper is based was conducted between May and September, 2017 in ten new settlements
established in Eastern and Southern Sri Lanka after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.

1.1. Background to the study

Recovery is understood to be a complex process that is non-linear and multi-dimensional [2]. Several studies
have attempted to examine the impacts of interventions on communities [3], but recovery is often cited as the most
poorly understood phase of the disaster cycle [e.g., 4, 5].
A vital first step in understanding disaster recovery is to define and measure it. Unfortunately, and as highlighted
in the background to Hettige and Haigh’s earlier study [1], no such wide-ranging, inclusive and well accepted
method of measuring recovery at the community scale currently exists. Indicators are usually recognised as
beneficial for developing a knowledge base, testing hypotheses, validating models, and informing policy [2].
However, their development is not straightforward, in part due to the complexities associated with the long-time
frame of recovery, the wide geographic area that may need to be assessed, the breath of issues to be considered, and
the varying availability of data [1]. It is therefore recognised that indicators should be used together with other forms
of qualitative and quantitative information to develop better understandings of recovery outcomes, trajectories, and
processes. Chang [2] suggests the need for a more systematic, holistic framework that can be used to measure
disaster recovery at the community scale.
As is well documented, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami is the largest natural disaster to affect the region in
recent history. In the case of Sri Lanka, over 100,000 families were directly affected by it and over 40,000 died with
many more people sustaining injuries [6]. Nearly two thirds of the country’s coastline was affected by the Tsunami,
forcing people to run away from their habitats to safety. Yet given low lying nature of the terrain in the coastal
regions, many vulnerable groups such as women with small children, the elderly and the disabled failed to reach
higher ground and, as a result, succumbed to Tsunami waves.
It is against this background that the authorities declared a buffer zone along the coast to prevent the affected
families from setting down again near the coast. Many new settlements were built away from the coast but restoring
their social, economic and personal lives in new settlements proved to be a challenge. Despite large scale external
assistance, concerns were raised regarding the transparency, equity, communication and coordination of the
recovery effort [7]. Nevertheless, many families and individuals were resettled, and have, to varying degrees,
adapted to their new living environment. Some some have found it extremely difficult to survive in the new
environment due to diverse circumstances. Many of them have left their new settlements and returned to their
former residential areas along the coast despite the risk of facing a similar disaster in the future.
This research is intended to capture the present state of recovery of people who have settled down in a number of
newly established communities. The experience of people in resettled communities over the last decade provides
useful insights to researchers, planners, policy makers, civil society organisations and development assistance
agencies.

2. Methods and data

The overall research strategy replicates that of the 2015 study, including the ten indices of recovery identified
within the original framework [1]: Settlement plan; Quality of construction of house; Land rights; Social
 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294 1289
Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

infrastructure; Maintenance of physical infrastructure; Land disputes; Livelihood opportunities; Community

cohesion; Child welfare; and, Opportunities for Women.
The initial field research on long term disaster recovery was conducted in ten new settlements in eastern and
southern Sri Lanka in 2010 [1]. This follow up research, conducted in the same two provinces in 2017, covered the
same number of settlements equally divided between the two provinces. A profile of the communities used as field
sites is given in Table 1. One of the main considerations in selecting the new settlements for field research in the
validation phase was the geographical coverage in the two provinces. An additional consideration in the eastern
province was the ethnic mix of the population. In the southern province, the field research was extended to a new
district, namely, Matara, while in the eastern province, the field work was extended into Trincomalee district, in
addition to Batticoloa district. This has ensured the representation of both Tamil and Muslim communities. Since the
southern province is mostly inhabited by Sinhalese, this was not an important consideration in the selection of
communities in Matara. However, the distance of the new settlements from the coast was considered important. In
the earlier study, this had already been observed as an important factor that influenced the recovery process,
particularly with regard to livelihood restoration.
A combination of several qualitative methods was used for data collection. Since the study involves a series of
community level assessments, qualitative methods were considered to be more appropriable to collect data on
various aspects of disaster recovery. Key informant interviews, focus group discussions, case studies, brief
household surveys and field observations are the key techniques used to collect data not only from disaster affected
families but also from other informants such as public officials, civil society activists, teachers, women, youth and
the elderly.
Some of the data collected is of a qualitative nature. Field observations and informal discussions with informants
are a vital source of qualitative information on a range of phenomena such as quality of housing, nature and type of
social infrastructure, intra- community and inter- community social relations. On the other hand, factual information
regarding household composition, availability and accessibility of social infrastructure services, type and place of
employment, is derived from household interviews conducted using interview schedules. Field observations and
interviews were conducted by trained research assistants which enabled them to make their own qualitative
assessments of the social, economic, physical and environmental conditions at household and community levels.
The nature and extent of recovery at both household and community level could only be determined after careful
consideration of data from multiple sources. For instance, subjective assessments of informants are verified with the
help of field observations and information from other sources. So, the final determination of the level of recovery
with respect to different aspects is not based on a simple statistical calculation. It is done following careful
consideration of both household data and qualitative information derived from multiple sources.

Table 1. Profile of field sites.

District Community Distance to nearest town (km) Distance from original village (km) Ethnic group No. of households
Matara, Labeemwatta 4 4-6 Sinhalese 99
Southern
Pangiriwatta 5 7-15 Sinhalese 119
Province
Naotunna 7 8-11 Sinhalese 72
Loardstar village 7 7-13 Sinhalese 56
Turkey village 1 7-11 Sinhalese 450
Batticaloa, Palamunai 3 Same village Muslim 71
Eastern
Onthachimadam 1 Same village Tamil 36
Province
Kalkudah 2 4 Tamil 121
Trincomalee, Naduvuthu 2 12 Muslim 160
Eastern
Sudaikudha 20 2 Tamil
Province 108
1290 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294
4 Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

3. Results

Qualitative assessment of the recovery process in each of the settlements investigated is presented by way of a set
of indicators that measure recovery on a scale of 1 to 5. While 1 indicates the lowest level of satisfaction, 5
represents the highest level.
The above indicators can be used either singly or together as a composite indicator covering all aspects. The latter
is indicative of the level of overall recovery at a community level. On the other hand, each individual indicator can
be used to assess recovery across communities, find out the relative standing of different dimensions at a macro
level covering all communities in the analysis. The results of the analysis are presented below and the findings are
discussed against the overall objective of the study.
As the results of the data analysis on different indicators show, there are significant differences both within and
across communities with respect to settlers' satisfaction on different indicators. While no community has done well
with all ten indicators, there are no communities that have done badly on all indicators. Yet, some communities have
done well on a majority of indicators, some have done poorly on a majority of indicators. In general, communities in
southern Sri Lanka have performed better on a majority of indicators, while many in eastern Sri Lanka have not
done as well. There are exceptions in both the south as well as in the east. A summary of each community’s
recovery against each of the ten recovery indices is given in Appendix B.

Figure 1: Overall satisfaction with recovery among communities

The differences among communities have been the result of a range of factors. First and foremost, the ethnic war
in the north and east of Sri Lanka had already affected communities before the Tsunami in that region, making their
situation worse. On the other hand, resettlement and related activities were supported by a whole range of agencies,
both local and foreign and they did not have the same kind of involvement in the resettlement and reconstruction
process. Recovery outcomes have been significantly influenced by the above differences. These agencies varied
widely in terms of their financial technical and other capacities and the construction consultants and contractors they
employed did not perform in an identical manner. For instance, quality of construction has varied considerably
across the communities as a result. Moreover, the nature of involvement of state agencies in the resettlement process
 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294 1291
Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

has not been uniform everywhere in terms of providing guidelines, supervision and monitoring. Construction
contractors have not maintained similar standards either. Many states agencies have not taken an active interest in
following up on construction and rehabilitation plans and as a result, many issues persist and after the resettled
families in numerous ways.
Figure 1 shows the relative standing of the resettled population covered by the study. It is significant that the
status of women shows the lowest level of recovery while social cohesion, livelihoods and land disputes display an
above average level of recovery. Other areas that are not satisfactory are quality of house construction, land rights,
social infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure.
Figure 2 provides a broad picture of the resettled communities in terms of recovery based on a composite
indicator. As is evident, a majority of the communities have achieved an above average recovery level, while three
communities remain at a below average level, namely below 2.5. It is noteworthy that all three of the latter category
are in the East of the Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the highest level of recovery is evident in Palmunai, a
community in the East.

Figure 2: Composite index of recovery by location

4. Discussion and conclusion

The study was conducted in a number of selected post-Tsunami resettled communities in the South and the East
of Sri Lanka in order to develop a set of validated indicators to measure the nature and extent of long term recovery
at a community level after a major natural disaster. The nature and extent of recovery depends on a whole range of
factors such as the nature and the effects of the disaster itself, the nature and extent of state and other interventions
following the disaster, and the capacity of the affected communities and individuals to adapt to the post-disaster
situation. This study involved a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis that involved a range of data
sources.
In the first phase of our research, significant similarities and variations were observed across settlements
surveyed. What is significant is that, while such variations and similarities were observed between the earlier set of
settlements on one hand and the new set of settlements on the other, the validity of the indicators that were used
have selected remain robust across settlements and over time. Some of the indicators show consistently low or high
1292 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294
6 Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

values over time, indicating their validity to be used for measuring long term recovery. For instance, women's life
chances, quality of housing, maintenance of infrastructure, and provision of social infrastructure have remained low
over time, indicating the need to pay special attention to them in planning and implementing recovery programs.
Conversely, community cohesion, livelihoods, the status of children and land issues appeared to have been more
effectively addressed in the recovery process over time. However, there are significant variations across
communities in terms of level of overall recovery during both phases of the research, and this indicates a need to
ensure equal opportunities for recovery through policies, programs and quality assurance. While some communities
have done well in terms of almost all indicators, there are others that have lagged behind in almost all indicators.
Such variations can be explained in terms of several key variables, for example the role of the donor agency, the role
of local institutions, the type of contractors used, the socio-economic status of new settlers, and the nature and role
of local community organisations.
There are many dimensions to the recovery process. After examining the recovery process in a significant
number of communities over a long period of time, and across twenty communities during two major field studies,
the results suggest that the assessment framework has captured the ten most important dimensions of recovery.
The results also suggest that since post disaster recovery usually involves a process of resettlement of affected
families and individuals, more attention needs to be paid to more vulnerable groups such as children and women as
well important aspects of well- being such as livelihoods, housing, social infrastructure and long-term maintenance
of infrastructure. The framework indicators capture these aspects but also the determinants of the nature and level of
recovery, indicating the possible precautionary measures that could be taken to avoid significant shortfalls in
recovery in the long term.

Appendix A. Location of study sites in Sri Lanka

W E

# S tu d y S it es - 2 0 1 4
# S tu d y S it es - 2 0 1 7

S el e ct e d D i s tr i ct
D is t ri c t B o u n d a ry

N ad u #vu ttu
#
S u d ai ku d ah

K a iku d a G T Z villa ge
#

T# h ir a in m ad u
# N a v a la d y

#
#
P alm un a i F O R U T v illa g e
O n th a ch c h im a d am I C R C villag e

#
M a r u th a m u n a i
# S a in tha m ar u th u

#
M a n d an a i

K o s go d a#
G a la g od a w atta#

K u r un d u w a tta##
P ily ad ig a m a # U n a w atu n a L a b ee m w a tta
# #
# N a o tu nn a
30 0 30 Km
T u r k e y v illa g e # #

L o a ds ta r v illa ge P an g ir iw a tta
 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294 1293
Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Appendix B. Community indicators

1294 S. Hettige et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 1287–1294
8 Hettige, Haigh, Amaratunga/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

References

[1] S. Hettige, R. Haigh, An integrated social response to disasters: the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami in Sri Lanka, Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 (2016), Issue: 5, pp.595-610, https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-11-2015-0263
[2] S. E. Chang, Urban disaster recovery: a measurement framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Disasters, Vol. 34 (2010)
No. 2, pp. 303–327.
[3] D. Alexander, Mainstreaming disaster risk management, Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining built in resilience. Londres: Taylor &
Francis, pp. 20-36, 2008.
[4] J. E. Haas, R. W. Kates, M. J. Bowden, Reconstruction Following Disaster, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1977.
[5] D. Mileti, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1999.
[6] Department of Census and Statistics Sri Lanka, Socio-economic data 2006, available at: www.statistics.gov.lk/ (accessed March 10, 2016).
[7] H. Ratnasooriya, S. Samarawickrama, and F. Imamura, Post tsunami recovery process in Sri Lanka, Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.
29 (2007) No. 1, pp. 21-28.