Resilient Disaster Recovery: A Critical Assessment of the 2006 Yogyakarta, Indonesia Earthquake using a Vulnerability, Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami devastated coastal areas of several countries in South East Asia, there has been renewed interest in disaster recovery operations. Although governments and aid organizations have increasingly focused on improving living conditions and reducing vulnerability to future disaster events during the recovery period, there has been limited understanding of what effective disaster recovery entails, and a lack of empirical assessments of longer-term recovery initiatives. Researchers, governments and aid organizations alike have increasingly identified the need for a systematic, independent, and replicable framework and approach for monitoring, evaluating and measuring the longer-term relief and recovery operations of major disaster events. \nWithin this context, the research contends that a conceptualization of effective disaster recovery, referred to as ‘resilient disaster recovery’, should be built upon the holistic concepts of vulnerability, resilience and sustainable livelihoods. Using the resilient disaster recovery framework, the research aimed to develop an evaluative strategy to holistically and critically assess disaster recovery efforts. Using a case study of the 2006 Yogyakarta, Indonesia earthquake event, the research examined one long-term recovery effort in order to develop and test the usefulness and applicability of the resilient disaster recovery conceptualization and assessment framework. The research results further contributed to disaster recovery knowledge and academic literature through a refined conceptualization of resilient disaster recovery and further understanding of recovery as a process. \nThe research used qualitative research approaches to examine the opinions and experiences of impacted individuals, households, and communities, as well as key government, academic and humanitarian stakeholders, in order to understand their perceptions of the long-term recovery process. Using the resilient disaster recovery approach, the research found that the recovery programming after the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake contributed to reductions in visible manifestations of vulnerability, although the root causes of vulnerability were not addressed, and many villagers suffer from ongoing lack of access to assets and resources. While some aspects of resilience were improved, particularly through earthquake-resistant housing structures, resilience in other forms remained the same or decreased. Furthermore, livelihood initiatives did not appear to be successful due to a lack of a holistic approach that matched the skill and capital levels of impacted populations. \nUsing the evidence from the 2006 Yogyakarta recovery effort, the research furthered knowledge and understanding of disaster recovery as a complex and highly dynamic process. The roles of a variety of actors and stakeholders were explored, particularly highlighting the role of civil society and the private sector in facilitating response and recovery. Furthermore, issues of conflict, the context and characteristics of place and scale, and the impact of disasters on income equality were explored. Through this research, an improved understanding of disaster resilient recovery and long-term recovery processes has been highlighted in order to facilitate improved and resilient recovery for future disaster events.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle