Research Papers
A collection of conference papers reflecting my research in disaster recovery, community engagement, and resilient design. These works explore how theory can inform real-world solutions, with a strong focus on the “Build Back Better” approach and the role of recovery frameworks in post-disaster contexts. Full papers are available upon request.
‘An Evolving Methodology: The HIDECS Process’
Jun. 2023
Sendai, Japan
i-Rec Conference
The Hierarchical Decomposition HIDECS process was formulated by Christopher Alexander in 1962 and is a way of breaking down inter-connected variables/characteristics into a family tree structure. As such it is a unique method for breaking down “wicked problems’’ holistically which is the norm for the response, recovery and reconstruction phases following a disaster. We have computerised the process and have been using it to analyse and break down the structure within the work we are doing. This paper reports on a selected case study to highlight its usefulness with complicated relationships using this set theory approach. But at the same time how it manages to ‘’make sense’’ of such situations. And it is this sense making (through interrogation by the researcher) that produces useable material out of seemingly chaotic situations. In 1962 computers struggled with this decomposition approach however, with the computer power currently available this analysis takes seconds to produce outputs of a “family tree” structure. The case study was for logistics and warehouse designs in 5 locations for the Myanmar Red Cross Society MRCS, assisted by the NZ Red Cross NZRC and funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade MFAT. Three had existing warehouses, one a small warehouse and the 5th was bare land. Previous warehouse aid to Indonesia and the Philippines through MFAT (previously NZAid) resulted in the new warehouses being ‘repurposed’ after they were built and handed over to the respective country Red Cross Society. MFAT wanted to address this by ensuring that the design and construction of the 5 warehouses in Myanmar were designed appropriately. And a core part of this was done using HIDECS. The analysis of that HIDEC map, plus space design and warehouse workflow for the site resulted in the design of the 5 different warehouses at Yangon, Sittwe, Myitkyina, Mandalay, and Lashio. Each was a unique problem to be resolved.
‘Hierarchical importance in ‘Build Back Better’: an analysis of four key frameworks’
Jun. 2023
Sendai, Japan
i-rec conference
The ‘Sendai Framework’ in 2015 promoted ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB) in post-disaster recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The latest in a series of internationally recognised frameworks established to guide the actions and activities of those working in disasters risk reduction. These frameworks have compiled a suite of success indicators which are categorised and subcategorised then themed under respective principles in an effort of increased clarity. However, BBB frameworks rely on a holistic approach and consider all categories as interconnected and reliant on one another for success. To accomplish this requires understanding the relationship between indictors across these organisational divisions. As indictors can number in the hundreds, there are thousands of possible relationships and connections between them for practitioners in the field to consider. This is a fundamental weakness in the frameworks. The 2020 ‘Humanitarian Development Report’ noted that engagement with the wrong indicator will lead to the wrong diagnosis of a situation and therefore the wrong action undertaken. This concern was echoed in the 2022 Global Assessment Report that suggest one of the major roadblocks to success of the Sendai Frameworks goals is suboptimal decision making after a disaster. In 2022 a research paper conducted a hierarchical decomposition analysis (HIDECs) on the success indictors of the 2018 BBB framework. It showed that such an approach can unveil the nuanced interactions, dependencies and relationship between each indicator and produces a priority diagram to improve clarity in indicator selection while preserving the holistic foundation of the approach. This paper examines the results of a similar analysis on four globally used BBB frameworks. The finding present priority diagrams which reason that components may hold as much relevance as success indicators and concludes by highlighting the potential of implementing HIDECs.
Jun. 2023
Sendai, Japan
i-Rec Conference
The ‘2015-2030 Sendai Framework’, adopted at the ‘Third United Nation World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction’, will this year pass its midpoint. The frameworks aim was to improve the adverse effects of disasters by reducing the scale of people and infrastructure affected, proposing four priorities for action. However, the ‘Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction - 2022’ has highlighted that despite providing pathways and solutions, the frameworks goals are not on track to being achieved by 2030. The ‘Global Assessment Report’ identifies one of the reasons for failing as intended is that decision making after a disaster is suboptimal & therefore, human decisions about risk reduction during this phase must be addressed to accelerate effective action. This is a direct reflection of the Sendai Frameworks fourth priority for action in which the focus is on ‘Building Back Better’ (BBB) in recovery, rehabilitation, & reconstruction. This paper examines the decisions that cause success indictors in BBB frameworks to be prioritised over others. This is achieved by analysing the post-disaster recovery of three case studies. Each case study has been selected as they present unique disaster events, declared as state of emergency and requested international assistance. Furthermore, each country; Vanuatu, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, ranked in ‘The World at Risks’ top 15 most vulnerable nation to natural disaster in the year the events occurred respectively. Each event directly impacted many people and infrastructure and required a unique solution. Findings show that regardless of the Sendai Framework, when faced with a complex multifaceted holistic approach, the priority of indictors selected is weighted towards succeeding in principles of effective implementation and disaster risk reduction over community recovery. This results in those most vulnerable and affected by the disaster from gaining attaining ‘betterment’ from the actions & activities undertaken.
‘Identifying the Validity of Success Indicators in the ‘Build Back Better’ Approach’
Nov. 2022
Melbourne, Australia
AUBEA Confrence
‘Build Back Better’ is an ethics-based approach in humanitarian-led post disaster recovery yet, the ‘Global Humanitarian Overview’(GHO) published in 2022 called attention to ever-increasing number of internally displaced people following disasters. This suggests that despite humanitarian delegates consistently reporting on success, outcomes of their deployments are not resulting in long term sustainable solutions. It has been well established that in knowing the indicators of success (or the components of a successful indicator), the probability of relief efforts continuing to be effective after humanitarian assistance ends increases expediently. Therefore based in the findings of the GHO, ‘Build Back Better’ indicators are either not sufficient suggesting the need for new indicators to be uncovered or, current indicators are sufficient but are not being used to guide activities to achieving outputs in a BBB approach. This papers aim is to explores these statements by first clarifying and introducing ‘Build Back Better’, its principles, and intended application. Secondly, highlight the impacts of a poorly executed ‘Build Back Better’ approach by exploring implications of the ‘No-Build-Zone’ policies in the Philippines following typhoon Haiyan in 2013, and analyse the most recently identified indicators of success from the latest ‘Build Back Better’ framework using hierarchical structural programming. This papers findings identify a new way to prioritise the existing indicators and suggest a better way to interpret and action the ‘Build Back Better’ framework for long term sustainable solutions.
‘Identifying indicators of success from end-of-deployment reports’
Jun. 2022
Auckland, New Zealand
World Building Congress
'Better’ is not currently measured with any great authenticity in the ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB) framework. This gap significantly limits the effectiveness of humanitarian aided post-disaster recovery. As natural disasters increase in both frequency and severity the number of displaced people continues to rise. This has caused recovery following an unexpected event to be at the forefront of international aid. Yet identifying the indicators (or the components of an indicator) to effectively measure success beyond output-based deliverables remains elusive. This is evident in several well-known cases where a gap between the intent and the outcome has resulted in a negative impact. This paper focuses specifically on the BBB framework to advance the currently prescribed industry standard and improving existing practices. By identifying indicators of success, a more effective and sustainable approach to aid assistance can be expected, reducing negative outcomes and positively impacting the lives of millions of the most vulnerable. This can be accomplished by conducting a thematic analysis on 40 end-of-deployment reports that have been provided for this study by a leading INGO. In these documents the delegates comment on the progress of their deployment in their own words. These reports cover Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and the Pacific engaging with United Nations, National Disaster Management Offices (NDMO) and governmental offices. These reports all consider BBB as a primary directive and therefore offer key insights and themes from practitioners.
‘Seismic Resilience of Indonesian Vernacular Architecture in a New Zealand Context’
Jul. 2016
Auckland, New Zealand
Annual Building Resilience Conference
Innovative solutions to improve seismic resilience of New Zealand buildings can be found in the exploration of traditional Indonesian construction techniques. Currently, Indonesia’s vernacular architecture sits on the verge of extinction after a cultural shift towards the masonry bungalow forced a rapid decline in their occupation and construction. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami illustrated the bungalows poor performance in the face of catastrophic seismic activity, outperformed by traditional structures. This has been particularly evident of the Rumah Aceh in Aceh province in Northern Sumatra. Although there have been attempts to adopt a semi-modern concept between the two styles, the majority of vernacular modernisations are an imitation of form. This negates any construction techniques beneficial to the buildings resilience which has ensured their structural integrity for generations. Within a New Zealand context, an adaptation and modernisation of Indonesian vernacular construction will generate an architectural response not currently accepted under the scope of NZS 3604:2011. The standards most recent revision arose from discussion of timber-based seismic performance following the Canterbury earthquake of 2010. This exploration will further address light timber structures and their components, sustainability and seismic resilience. Improving new builds durability as New Zealand move away from our own, previously promoted bungalow model.