Water projects triggered by disaster reconstruction processes are inherently unique and warrant a specialized approach. Thus, the objective of this article is to guide reconstruction actors toward the establishment of more culturally and environmentally sensitive water arrangements by providing a framework of key points to consider. Water infrastructure introduced after disasters differs from “normal” water infrastructure in several distinct ways: nature and needs of the subjects, expectations of recovery and rehabilitation, scale, funding and organizational structure, resettlement, and temporal constraints. Acknowledging these differences, a framework is presented to more aptly manage water sector reconstruction. The framework—informed by fieldwork in post-tsunami South India, the literature, and gaps therein—seeks to minimize project failures that have surfaced across space, time, and disaster.
AlexanderC. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
ArnsteinS. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 216-224.
3.
BarakatS. (2003). Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster. London, England: Overseas Development Institute.
4.
BaxterJ.EylesJ. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, 505-525.
5.
BolinR.StanfordL. (1991). Shelter, housing and recovery: A comparison of U.S. disasters. Disasters, 15(1), 24-34.
6.
BrunsB. (2003, July). Water tenure reform: Developing an extended ladder of participation. Presented at Politics of the Commons: Articulating Development and Strengthening Local Practices, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
7.
CerneaM. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling dislocated people. World Development, 25, 1569-1587.
8.
CerneaM. (2000). Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: A model for population displacement and resettlement. Economic & Political Weekly, 35, 3659-3678.
9.
CerneaM. (2007). IRR: An operational risks reduction model for population resettlement. Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment, 1(1), 35-39.
10.
ChangS. E.SvelkaW. D.ShinozukaM. (2002). Linking infrastructure and urban economy: Simulation of water-disruption impacts in earthquakes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 281-301.
11.
ChoguillM. B. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International, 20, 431-444.
12.
ClasenT.SmithL.AlbertJ.BastableA.FesseletJ. F. (2006). The drinking water response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, including the role of household water treatment. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15, 190-201.
13.
CoburnA. W.LeslieJ.TabbanA. (1984). Reconstruction and resettlement 11 years later: A case study of Bingol Province, Turkey. In SchupisserS.StuderJ. (Eds.), Earthquake relief in less industrialized areas (pp. 49-58). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A. A. Balkema Press.
14.
CunyF. (1983). Disasters and development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
DavisI. (1978). Shelter after disaster. Oxford, UK: Oxford Polytechnic Press.
16.
EzellB. C.FarrJ. V.WieseI. (2000). Infrastructure risk analysis of municipal water distribution system. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 6, 118-122.
17.
GauthamadasU. (2005). Disaster and psychosocial response: A handbook for community counselors. Chennai, India: Academy for Disaster Management, Education, Planning and Training.
18.
Government of Nagapattinam. (2007). Minutes of the shelter weekly review meeting: January 2007-December 2007. Nagapattinam, India: Author.
19.
GriggN. S. (2003). Water utility security: Multiple hazards and multiple barriers. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 9, 81-88.
20.
HaighR.AmaratungaD. (2010). An integrative review of the built environment discipline’s role in the development of society’s resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1, 11-24.
21.
HederraR. (1987). Environmental sanitation and water supply during floods in Ecuador (1982-1983). Disasters, 11, 297-309.
22.
HirschR. M.AlexanderR. B.SmithR. A. (1991). Selection methods for the detection and estimation of trends in water quality. Water Resources Research, 27, 803-813.
23.
IngramJ. C.FrancoG.Rumbaitis-del RioC.KhazaiB. (2006). Post-disaster recovery dilemmas: Challenges in balancing short-term and long-term needs for vulnerability reduction. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 607-613.
24.
JohnsonC.LizarraldeG.DavidsonC. (2004, April). Learning oriented evaluation of reconstruction projects. Paper presented at second International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Planning for Reconstruction, Coventry Centre for Disaster Management, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
25.
JuranL. (2012). Churning the water after the wave: Water components of housing reconstruction in post-tsunami South India (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City.
26.
JuranL.MacDonaldM. C. (2014). An assessment of boiling as a method of household water treatment in South India. Journal of Water and Health, 12, 791-802.
27.
KennedyJ.AshmoreJ.BabisterE.KelmanI.ZairnsJ. (2009). Disaster mitigation lessons from “build back better” following the26December2004 tsunamis’. In FeyenJ.ShannonK.NevilleM. (Eds.), Water and urban development paradigms (pp. 297-302). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
28.
LizarraldeG. (2002, May). Organizational design, performance and evaluation of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Paper presented at Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
29.
LonghurstR. (2010). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In CliffordN.FrenchS.ValentineG. (Eds.), Key methods in geography (2nd ed., pp. 103-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
LongleyP. A.GoodchildM. F.MaguireD. J.RhindD. W. (2010). Geographic information systems and science (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
31.
LyonsM. (2009). Building back better: The large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to reconstruction. World Development, 37, 385-398.
32.
McCluskeyJ. (2001). Water supply, health and vulnerability in floods. Waterlines, 19(3), 14-17.
33.
McEntireD.CrockerC.PetersE. (2010). Addressing vulnerability through an integrated approach. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), 50-64.
34.
MiletiD.PasseriniE. (1996). A social explanation of urban relocation after earthquakes. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14(1), 97-110.
35.
MoeT. L.GehbauerF.SenitzS.MuellerM. (2007). Balanced scorecard for natural disaster management projects. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16, 785-806.
36.
MukherjeeM. (2005). The SusTLE—A sustainable approach to enhance the contributions of disaster mitigation in settlement development. International Journal of Emergency Management, 2, 163-175.
37.
NaraindasH. (2010, October). “Build back better” and the psychic economy of want. Paper presented at Workshop on Natural Disasters and Public Memory in South Asia, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
38.
Oliver-SmithA. (1982). Here there is life: The social and cultural dynamics of successful resistance to resettlement in post-disaster Peru. In HansenA.Oliver-SmithA. (Eds.), Involuntary migration and resettlement: The problems and responses of dislocated peoples (pp. 85-104). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
39.
Oliver-SmithA. (1991). Success and failures in post-disaster resettlement. Disasters, 15, 12-23.
40.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Pan American Health Organization. (1998). Natural disaster mitigation in drinking water and sewerage systems: Guidelines for vulnerability analysis. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
Pan American Health Organization, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations Children’s Fund, & International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2006). The challenge in disaster reduction for the water and sanitation sector: Improving quality of life by reducing vulnerabilities. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
43.
PartridgeW. (1989). Involuntary resettlement in development projects. Journal of Refugee Studies, 2, 373-384.
44.
PasseriniE. (2000). Disasters as agents of social change in recovery and reconstruction. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 67-72.
45.
PetalM.GreenR.KelmanI.ShawR.DixitA. (2008). Community-based construction for disaster risk reduction. In BosherL. (Ed.), Hazards and the built environment: Attaining built-in resilience (pp. 191-217). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
46.
PrinceS. H. (1920). Catastrophe and social change: Based upon a sociological study of the Halifax disaster (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.
47.
ScudderT.ColsonE. (1982). From welfare to development: A conceptual framework for the analysis of dislocated people. In HansenA.Oliver-SmithA. (Eds.), Involuntary migration and resettlement: The problems and responses of dislocated people (pp. 267-287). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
SobseyM. D.PfaenderF. K. (2002). Evaluation of the H2S method for detection of fecal contamination of drinking water. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
49.
Sphere Project. (2011). Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response. Hampshire, UK: Practical Action.
50.
WhiteG. F. (1974). Role of geography in water resources management. In JamesL. (Ed.), Man & water: The social sciences in management of water resources (pp. 102-121). Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
51.
World Health Organization. (2002). Environmental health in emergencies and disasters: A practical guide. Malta: World Health Organization.
52.
World Health Organization. (2013). Technical notes on drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene in emergencies. Leicestershire, UK: Water, Engineering and Development Centre, Loughborough University.
