In the Rubble of Resilience: Housing Reconstruction after Nepal's 2015 Earthquake

废墟中的复原力：2015 年尼泊尔地震后的住房重建

• 批准号: 2646371
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: The Open University
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2022
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2022 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2646371
• 关键词: Rubble; Resilience; Housing; Reconstruction; after

In Nepal the main government-led and donor-supported housing reconstruction programme hasfailed to 'build back better' homes for the majority of the 800,000 earthquake-affected households nearly six years later. Reconstruction in Nepal has been shaped by the rise, since 2004, of Build Back Better and resilience-thinking in disaster recovery. Internationals working on disasters increasingly use 'resilience' as a framework for policy and planning and 'resilient' as a description of affected people. In practice resilience-thinking has led to a greater emphasis on owner (not donor) driven reconstruction, new reconstruction tools (e.g. in rebuilding finance), and new digital technologies.My research puzzle is: Why has Nepal's housing reconstruction experience been similar to poor results in other post-disaster countries, despite 'lessons learnt' in reconstruction policy and practice? I seek to answer this with a larger question: What are the political and policy implications of changing development and humanitarian practices? I will explore this through three subsidiary questions: a) What changes in development and humanitarian practice emerged from the use of innovation tools, and increasing use of 'resilience' as a policy framework? b) How did these changing practices impact policies in Nepal's 'owner-driven' housing reconstruction? c) How did the state and internationals intersect and co-produce policies on innovation, resilience and gender?

在尼泊尔，由政府主导和捐助者支持的主要住房重建计划在近六年后未能为80万受地震影响的家庭中的大多数“重建更好的”住房。自2004年以来，尼泊尔的重建工作受到了重建得更好和灾后恢复中的理性思维的影响。从事灾害工作的国际组织越来越多地使用“复原力”作为政策和规划的框架，并使用“复原力”作为对受灾民众的描述。在实践中，服从性思维导致人们更加重视业主（而非捐助者）驱动的重建、新的重建工具（例如重建金融）和新的数字技术。我的研究难题是：尽管在重建政策和实践中吸取了教训，但为什么尼泊尔的住房重建经验与其他灾后国家的糟糕结果相似？我试图用一个更大的问题来回答这个问题：不断变化的发展和人道主义做法在政治和政策方面有什么影响？我将通过三个附属问题来探讨这一点：a）创新工具的使用和越来越多地使用“复原力”作为政策框架，在发展和人道主义实践中产生了哪些变化？B）这些不断变化的做法如何影响尼泊尔“业主驱动”的住房重建政策？c）国家和国际社会如何交叉并共同制定关于创新、复原力和性别的政策？