Wider meanings for Design & Development

Figures 1-3: Notes on wider meanings for Disaster, Design and Development

When dealing with disasters, recovery and reconstruction naturally need skills in and an understanding of design and development. Design and development are more than plans on a paper, however. Good design prioritises empathy with clients as well as form and function. I would also argue that form and function are born out of empathy in the first place.

In the context of Disaster Design and Development (DDD), a wider meaning and practice of design and development is adopted. The field of development and design in the west has often become a practice where it is predominantly a practice about the architect, theorised by architects, designed by architects, engineers and designers often exclusively so without any significant engagement with the end-users.

This engagement is argued by most theories for disaster recovery, reconstruction and frameworks for dealing with disaster. In Blakely’s 7-step framework, for example, all steps of recovery are emphasized as having the community and end-users at the core. Engaging with the community throughout the entire process is essential.

In the Build Back Better concepts, the community is a core part of building resilience through recovery and reconstruction. The concept of Build Back Better (BBB) is said to have been significantly spurred by the 2004 Tsunami (Cosgrave, 2007; Kennedy et al. 2008) and its effects in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India; a few of the most affected countries. In BBB, development and design is considered through 8 main principles (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2013) which fall under three main categories:

Figure 4: Table illustrating the structure of ‘Build Back Better’ key components and principles as explained by Mannakkara and Wilkinson (2013)

Build Back Better principles put into action the recognition that community recovery is essential for increased resilience. It is interesting and essential to consider the cases where due to organisations not understanding community dynamics and ways of living, even more tension was created between community groups and risk/health hazards were created.

This illustrates a recurring point: One cannot simply consider how structurally sound or perfectly design a building is in isolation of the context it will be embedded within. This is partly why Disaster Risk Reduction is a ‘wicked’ problem, and design that aims to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability must first understand vulnerability through many different ways, measurements, dimensions and points of view.

References:

Cosgrave, J. (2007). Synthesis Report: Expanded Summary. Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Tsunami Evaluation Centre.

Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E., & Kelman, I. (2008). The Meaning of “Build Back Better”: Evidence From Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00529.x

Mannakkara, S., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Build Back Better: Lessons from Sri Lanka’s recovery from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. International Journal of Architectural Research, 7, 108-121. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v7i3.52