Resilience and post-disaster recovery: A critical reassessment of capacity building, anticipatory strategies and 'build back better'

Type: Panel
Theme: Hazards, Geography, and GIScience
Sponsor Groups: Hazards, Risks, and Disasters Specialty Group
Poster #:
Day: 4/12/2018
Start / End Time: 5:20 PM / 7:00 PM
Room: Napoleon B3, Sheraton 3rd Floor
Organizers: Annabelle Moatty, Edwige Dubos-Paillard, Reghezza Magali
Chairs: Reghezza Magali


Within the “hazards, geography and GIS science” theme, the panel will deal with the concept of resilience in a critical perspective. It will assess the practicality of the concept. Drawing upon specific case-studies from both the North and the Global South, the panel will examine how practitioners implement resilience in their strategies (proactive and anticipatory resilience), as well as their in-crisis and post-crisis management (reactive resilience). The presenters will explore and unfold the various uses of the concept.
The first paper will introduce the notion of “capability” in the Caribbean context to address the coping capacity building at the individual scale. This communication addresses the links between the ability to cope, vulnerability and resilience based on an investigation realized in Haïti in 2016. If scientific literature and professionals frequently refer to “coping capacities”, the term is rarely defined and most likely not/never formalized. Hence, this communication aims to establish how these capacities can exist and rise, how they are used by individuals and what are the conditions needed for their full expression. We assumed here that coping capacities are related to capabilities, as defined by A. Sen and M. Nussbaum.
The second paper will reflect on the urban climate resilience policy in Vietnam. Drawing upon field research in Lao Cai, the paper will first examine the failures of the implementation of such policies. It will then shift the focus towards the vulnerable communities and will discuss the social outcomes of risks management policies, which involve (among other) the resettlement of exposed groups.
The third paper will compare disaster planning of Seattle and Paris, in attempts to uncover the contextual factors that influence political implications (positive or negative) resilience. Resilience’s emphasis on self-sufficiency of decentralized components can be associated with neoliberal governance where the environmental risk and responsibilities are “societalized” or individualized. However, the localized understanding of resilience does draw attention on agency and contextually competent knowledge (therefore positive). By comparing the case of Seattle and Paris, this paper presents the current status of “what kind of political/social implications that the use of resilience concept (in disaster planning) can have” — especially in the context where resilience is now pursued as an international consensus (backed by leading international organizations such as United Nations or World Bank).
The fourth paper will investigate the “build-back-better” imperative in the case of critical network recovery in case of a centennial flood in Paris, France. This paper proposes to analyze both the resilience of the urban system of the Paris metropolis and the one of the sanitation network as a critical network, considering their vulnerabilities and intrinsic capacities to resist and restart after the flood. This study assumes that the management of sanitation networks can be a potential risk for the urban system, but also a lever of recovery. Our objective is therefore to evaluate the conditions to transform this risk into a resource.
The last paper will examine the use of long-term feedback in learning process in New Zealand. Using New Zealand case studies, to understand recovery from the perspective of continuity and change, in regards to individuals, households’ and communities’ long-term recovery trajectories i.e decades after disasters. Attention toward identifying and anticipating various challenges and pathways in fostering sustainable disaster recovery is essential when embedding recovery into “disaster risk reduction” policies, to kick-start long-term recovery processes quickly, following disaster events.


Type Details Minutes
Panelist Benitez Fanny GRED-CERES ENS 20
Panelist Ihnji Jon University of Washington 20
Panelist Annabelle Moatty Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne 20
Panelist Anthony Gampell The University of Auckland 20
Panelist Gwenn Pulliat Univ of Toronto / CNRS 20

To access contact information login