**4.1 Area-based approaches**

A predominantly developmental approach in urban humanitarian recovery operations that consciously use assets/capital (and in particular social capital) to prioritise people/community-centred approaches is area-based approaches (ABAs). ABAs have gained particular traction in recent years as a people-centred approach to disaster recovery. The purpose of ABAs is to place decision-making about recovery priorities first and foremost with affected people and communities. ABAs also acknowledge and work with the complexity of the city, in particular the need to integrate separate sectoral priorities (such as water and sanitation, and healthcare) into one unified response. The purpose of ABAs therefore is to 'provide multisectoral support and include multiple stakeholders, considering the whole population living in a specific geographic area with high levels of need' [19].

A review of 30 case studies of ABAs undertaken by the Global Shelter Cluster Working Group [19] identified several commonalities across ABAs, including engaging with local actors, working with local authorities and better connecting both humanitarian and developmental priorities. Inevitably perhaps, ABAs can be difficult to enact. A 2017 study undertaken by the author of this chapter that interviewed several experienced ABA practitioners painted a picture of engaging in complex, 'messy' everyday realities. The conclusion, however, was that, if a genuine peoplecentred approach was the goal for effective post-disaster recovery (and therefore a contributor to increased resilience), then this was the price. As one interviewee stated, 'If there was a simpler approach then we'd be doing it!' In relation to 'usual' humanitarian practice (that may take less of a people-centred approach), another interviewee noted, 'the humanitarian aid system likes simplicity … urban life however is not [simple]!' [20].

The same study identified 10 principles for enacting effective ABAs that align with the traditional model of project management, that is, assessment, design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation (**Figure 2**).

Three of the principals are discussed here. The first (Principle two) concerns focusing on a particular location, such as a neighbourhood. The intent here is to limit a sectorally based approach (such as food, shelter or health) delivered by agencies which can lead to weak (if any) coordination between providers. The focus on location is also intended to elevate the voices of affected communities who are likely to have stronger community ties than dispersed groups.

The second (Principle three) is the critical need for realistic time frames. In almost all post-disaster recovery initiatives enacted by implementing agencies, time frames are usually to tight, rarely matching the paces at which recovery takes place. There may be reasons for this, not least the pressure by funders to demonstrate 'success'. This, however can often come at the expense of an effective recovery taking place.

A third, key principle (Principle four) is 'people-centred approaches – whose reality counts?' This means not focusing so much on the disaster, but in fact on community members. This may sound odd at first, but in fact too much recovery focuses on the disaster rather than affected communities. Examples for this can be drawn from

#### **Figure 2.**

*Ten principles for enacting area-based approaches [21].*

shelter after disaster, wherein many agencies continue to focus on temporary housing. When this happens, budgets are usually used up in overly expensive temporary housing 'solutions' that have the disaster (and recovery from it) in view, but does little to invest in people's long term needs. The provocative question used in this principle, 'whose reality counts?', was coined by aid-thinker Robert Chambers [22]. The question referred to the fact that too often outsider professionals' views were often prioritised over local populations' views, often leading to generalised 'cookie cutter' approaches, or perhaps worse still, approaches that were inappropriate. Again, many of the errors of inappropriate post-disaster recovery serve as an example of when the reality of those that matter most (i.e. affected populations) can be ignored.

The above-mentioned 30 case studies of ABAs provided by the Global Shelter Cluster did not include any studies from PICTs, many of which suffer regular windstorms and floods. To part-fill this gap, Australian National University (ANU) with the University of New South Wales (UNSW) undertook research in three Pacific Island Countries—Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Fiji—into the nature and effectiveness of the principles of ABAs following rapid-onset disasters. In-country researchers interviewed a total of 40 key informants drawn from local and national government (including National Disaster Management Offices, or NDMOs), international NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, local non-government and civil society organisations, and the private sector. The research focused on four principles of ABAs: people-centred responses, adaptive processes (i.e. the ability to be flexible and for a project to positively respond to changing circumstances according to community needs and priorities), multisector collaboration and reflective practice, that is the ability to learn during a programme's implementation and once it is completed.

#### *Identifying Opportunities to Build Resilience in Urban Disaster Recovery DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109475*

The findings, perhaps inevitably, are a combination of strengths and challenges. There was a strong commitment in each country to supporting local recovery and the better use of traditional knowledge and practice. Each country was strongly committed to implementing policies and practices that sought to prepare for and respond better to disaster threats, in planning and in practice. Key for all countries was the improvement in coordination between key actors, namely government at various levels, local and international NGOs and civil society actors.

Improving coordination also inevitably presents significant challenges, especially in urban areas where competing interests and the number of actors are greater than in non-urban areas. In Fiji, weak coordination among the numerous international and local NGOs that support the various informal settlement populations was reportedly contributing to a disjointed response with unnecessary duplications and gaps. Coordination between international and national organisations was also a challenge. As one government respondent from the Solomon Islands: 'Localisation – I am having difficulties, not really to have something bad to say about internationals coming in, but when people say localisation, I say: localisation for who?' For some international NGOs, localisation means consultations about predetermined interventions; for locals and this government respondent it should rather mean a partnership whereby external engagement processes adjust to local values, priorities and needs—'bottomup' planning. There were also concerns expressed by respondents in Vanuatu and in Fiji that dual-/multi-track systems can emerge when international NGOs rush to help communities and bypass local coordination institutions like the NDMO.
