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

在尼泊尔，政府主导和捐助者支持的主要住房重建项目在近六年后未能为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，“重建更好”（Build Back Better）和灾后恢复弹性思维的兴起，影响了尼泊尔的重建工作。从事灾害工作的国际社会越来越多地将“复原力”作为政策和规划的框架，并将“复原力”作为对受影响人群的描述。在实践中，弹性思维导致了对业主（而不是捐助者）驱动的重建、新的重建工具（如重建融资）和新的数字技术的更加重视。我的研究难题是：为什么尼泊尔的住房重建经历与其他灾后国家的糟糕结果相似，尽管在重建政策和实践上“吸取了教训”？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的政治和政策影响是什么？我将通过三个附属问题来探讨这个问题：a)使用创新工具和越来越多地使用“弹性”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在创新、适应力和性别问题上相互交叉并共同制定政策？

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?