Authors – Akshara Sobhanan & Jilsha A B
Issue No. 2, Volume : 3
About the authors – Akshara Sobhanan and Jilsha A B are postgraduates in MSW Disaster Management from Loyola College of Social Sciences, Trivandrum, Kerala.
Abstract
A disaster causes significant disturbance to human society. Because a society that has experienced a calamity must deal with intersecting vulnerabilities that adversely influence its capacity to cope. It aggravates pre-existing vulnerabilities. As a result, recovery plays a critical part in creating a sustainable society throughout the catastrophe management cycle. Among the different types of disasters, landslides are one of the devastating disasters which lead to the deformation of the entire landscape. Among the three phases of a disaster event, the post-disaster phase is the critical one which involves long-term processes called rehabilitation, recovery and reconstruction. Incomplete disaster rehabilitation and recovery is a threat to the right of human beings to live with dignity. This research aims to comprehend the rehabilitation process in the post–disaster scenario of the Kavalappara Landslide that occurred in the Malappuram District of the state of Kerala in 2019. In this paper, we primarily concentrate on the impact of landslides on housing, livelihood, and recovery for the local population in Kavalappara. The gaps in the recovery process are also a major emphasis of this paper.
The Kattu Paniya community of the Nilambur Tribal belt was the major tribal population which was impacted by the Kavalappara landslide. It is one of the major Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG) in the State of Kerala. The rehabilitation and recovery part of the Kavalappara landslide was entirely different for the tribal and non-tribal populations of the affected area. This paper deals with both of them.
Keywords
Kavalappara landslide, disaster recovery, housing recovery, livelihood recovery, Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG), Kattu Paniya.
Introduction
“The extensive damage and disruption that disasters can result in the breakup of neighbourhoods and in the loss of significant sources of social support for disaster survivors, some of them who may never be able to return to their homes, while others may never recover from the experiences.” – (Tierney, 2019)
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines disaster as ‘A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts’(UNISDR, 2009). Several types of disasters disrupt the normal life of affected communities. Landslides are one among them.
Recurring disasters in Kerala and the complex issue of rehabilitation of affected communities, especially those who have lost their houses and living environment is a serious issue. This is particularly in the case of people affected by landslides and coastal erosion. In the particular case of communities affected by the Kavalappara landslides of 2019, comprehensive rehabilitation has still not been ensured for all the affected households.
An essential step in the entire disaster management process is the landside recovery phase. People lose everything in a landslide, including their homes, the public infrastructure, and their possibilities for a living. In the case of landslides, rehabilitation from the calamity entails rebuilding every aspect of their lives. Because a landslide would completely wipe out a region, unlike other disasters, there is a remote possibility of recovering the land or the lives of the inhabitants to their pre-disaster state. As a result, it has impacted their ability to cope and increased vulnerability among people, particularly in the lowest socioeconomic parts of society. To reconstruct their lives, those who survived the landslide should receive adequate recovery measures. It will lessen additional effects and provide communities with the resilience to withstand future catastrophes.
This research paper explores the post-disaster phase of the Kavalappara landslide in 2019, giving prior focus on the ‘rehabilitation and recovery’ of the affected communities; both tribal and non-tribal.
Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection have been adopted for this research paper. The Extent of loss suffered was captured through the quantitative method whereas the experience of displacement and rehabilitation was captured through the qualitative method. The rehabilitation and recovery as well as the post-disaster vulnerabilities of the landslide-affected indigenous community is studied qualitatively and the sampling strategy was the purposive sampling.‘Purposive sampling may be used to select members of a difficult-to-reach, specialised population’ (Neumann et al, 2014). The qualitative research on the disaster-affected indigenous community was conducted with a case-study design and adopted a method of thematic analysis for the analysis of data. Since the total population was limited to 14 families; the sample selected was five families based on the criteria of the extent of vulnerability and their period of life in a rehabilitation centre and the resettlement site.
In the quantitative method, the researcher used a questionnaire to collect data from 58 respondents. The interview schedule contained a set of structured questions that have been prepared, to serve as a guide for the researcher in collecting information or data about a focus on the disaster recovery of the people who are affected by the Kavalappara landslide. The questionnaire was prepared based on the general and specific objectives of the research.
Study Area at Pothukal
The research site of the present study includes the rehabilitation centre at Pothukal and the resettlement area in Anakkallu, Bhoodan colony and Nettikulam (The rest of the non-tribal people were resettled in various places based on their convenience) in Pothukal Panchayat, Nilambur, Malappuram district, Kerala. The rehabilitation centre at Pothukal and the resettlement area in Anakkallu are the two locations that house the Kattu Paniya households displaced by the Kavalappara landslide. The rehabilitation centre at Pothukal is a two-storey building in which the Kattu Paniya families affected by the Kavalappara landslide have resided for the past 3 years. It is opposite the Pothukal Panchayath office, near the private bus stand. The resettlement area in Anakkallu is between Nilambur town and Pothukal town. There is no tarred access road to the resettlement area.
Google Earth Image of Study Area
The disaster event
Since the past couple of years, landslides have been a common hazard in the geographical areas of the state of Kerala. August 8 2019; was a night in the lives of the people of Kavalappara. On that dreadful day, around 7.30 p.m. a large landslide brought on by torrential monsoon rain destroyed a small hamlet residing beneath Muthappan hill at Kavalappara, a section of the Western Ghats in the Nilambur assembly constituency in Malappuram, burying 59 persons alive.
This landslide affected 81 homes either completely or partially. Out of these, 46 settlements were just slightly impacted, while 35 settlements and their residents completely vanished. Additionally, the geological department stated that the area was unsafe for habitation. More than 100 families were forced to relocate as a result.
In 2019, compared to other districts, Malappuram got unprecedented rainfall. The average rainfall they experienced that year was 392.7mm. This excessive rainfall increased the pressure in the area through high infiltration, causing a sudden landslide. In 2019, landslides predominantly damaged the northern districts, whereas in 2018. (Rajesh, Kumar& etal,2021)
More than 100 households were affected by this disaster. In the case study titled; Post-landslide Investigation of a Shallow Landslide, they said 81 houses were partially and wholly affected due to this disaster. However many news reports are showing various data regarding housing losses. During primary data collection, researchers also inquire about the exact number of losses. However, due to some constraints, researchers cannot access the data. Now the victims of the Kavalappara Landslide are scattered in various places. This also creates a complication in obtaining the exact data regarding housing loss.
Most of them belong to the OBC category (74.14%). Only a few populations are included in the SC (6.90%) &ST (3.45%) category. The general category of this area is only 15.52%. They engage in agricultural-related works such as farming, tapping and coolie works.
Impacts of Housing and Livelihood – quantitative data
In the case of housing loss, it affected less than half the population among the respondents of this research. Among the people who lost their houses due to the landslide, most of them lost them fully. Which means 30 households were destroyed directly by the landslide. However, more than 100 households were indirectly affected by the disaster. Because respondents said that, their place was declared uninhabitable by geological department.
Figure 1: House Loss
43.10% of the people had lost their houses due to the landslide. The rest of the respondents’ houses are inhabitable.
Figure 2: Degree of Housing Loss
Among people who lost their houses due to landslides, 80% of houses were fully destroyed and 20% of houses were partially affected.
In the case of livelihood, most of them lost their livelihood opportunities because of the disaster. Because most of them depended on agriculture as their livelihood. Tapping and coolies are other major income-earning sources for the people. Among the people who lost their livelihood, some tried to find an alternative job, but it’s not adequate for them to meet their daily expenses. The livelihood opportunities were mainly lost due to the loss of livelihood assets. Many of them have their livelihood assets such as cattle, goats, poultry, rubber and other agricultural assets. This loss creates livelihood vulnerability among the people who were affected by the landslide. Because agricultural land and livelihood assets are the people’s primary sources of income.
Figure 3: Livelihood Loss
In the case of livelihood, 53.45% of the families lost their livelihood. 46.55% of the family did not lose their livelihood.
Figure 4: Loss of Livelihood Asset
70.69% of the respondents lost their livelihood assets and 29.31% of the respondents did not lose their livelihood assets.
Housing Recovery and Livelihood Recovery
Figure 2: New House
96.55% of the people who lost their houses due to the landslide got a new house and 3.45% of people still did not get a new house.
Most of them received new homes. Due to some accountability and transparency problems in government, many still fight to get a house, even if only a small portion of the population still struggles to find a safe shelter and lives in rental housing and rehabilitation facilities. Additionally, it is simpler to get to the institutions, but they are still lacking resources like wood, water, and the abundance of nature.
Public-Private Partnership in Housing Recovery
In the housing recovery process, one can see the collaboration of the government and private funds. This kind of initiative is very good in the recovery process. However, the private funds should be allocated through the hands of the government. However, according to the information gathered from the respondents, the fund did not directly assist those affected by the disaster. Because of this activity, people do not have any idea about how much the real compensation is. This calls into question the transparency of the governance when dealing with the recovery process. Among the people who got new houses, 33 houses were built by the Lulu group, 2 houses were built by the Varun group, and some of the religious organisations also helped to construct the houses.
Figure 6: Compensation from the government
Gaps in Recovery
- Absence of an equitable distribution of livelihood compensation As a result of this, people are still struggling for their livelihood. The government gave 34.38% of the respondent’s compensation for livelihood asset loss and 65.63% of the respondents did not get any compensation for the livelihood asset from the government.
- The government did not take any action to restore the agricultural land. Due to this action, people lose the opportunity to do agriculture on their land. Due to this poor implementation, Kerala High Court expressed dissatisfaction towards the government. “It noted that the government has done nothing to restore land to its previous form and that it cannot continue as a mute spectator anymore” (July 17 2022, Times of India)
- In the housing recovery, every house is constructed alike. This is not adequate for every family.
- During the construction process, they excluded family members, especially women in decision-making. This suggests that male authority prevails inside the families. But women do the majority of our household duties. In this scenario, it is the responsibility of the planning team and other family members to involve women in the decision-making process for building a home.
- Authorities are responsible for getting the consent of the people before buying land for them.
From this data, it is evident government concentrates more on housing rather than livelihood recovery. In a recovery process, both are important for living. Otherwise, this livelihood vulnerability creates high risk among the people and they cannot cope with future disaster risk. So, the government should be responsible for avoiding additional vulnerabilities.
The Kattu Paniya community
Among the affected people by this disaster, was a major indigenous community, that suffered much because of the intersection of their pre-existing vulnerabilities with the vulnerability to this hazardous event; The Kattu Paniyas. Paniyas are one of the indigenous communities residing in the tribal belt of Kerala. Paniyans were bonded labourers. The welfare measures of the government have made the tribes dependent on others even for daily needs. In Malappuram, the Paniyan are known as Kattu Paniyans/Kurinhi Paniyan and they are different from the other Paniyan of the state (Rachel Santhosh, 2008). Kattu Paniya is a subgroup seen in the forest region of Nilambur (Malappuram District) leading a lifestyle of primitive tribes (Scheduled Tribes in Malappuram District, n.d.).
Tribals face intersectionality of vulnerability in the form of reduced access to health, education, housing vulnerability, land alienation and marginalisation. This intersectionality of vulnerabilities is also associated with the lesser participation of tribal communities in the decision-making process. Tribals are not homogenous. Some groups enjoy a high status, are more assertive and may have a larger share of development funds. PVTGs are more vulnerable among the tribal groups. The Kattu Paniya community of the Nilambur tribal belt belong to the PVTG category.
The Kattu Paniya of the Nilambur tribal belt is spread in different settlements including Kavalappara, Irulikunnu and Ambumala. In the landslides and floods of 2019, it was the Kattu Paniyas of Kavalappara settlement affected the most. The community has been living in a rehabilitation centre at Pothukal Panchayath for the past 3 years.
Life in rehabilitation centre
The auditorium opposite the Pothukal Panchayath Office, near the Pothukal private bus station is the rehabilitation centre. The researcher first visited the place in December 2021. The Kattupaniya families were rehabilitated to this shelter a couple of weeks after the landslide. Before shifting the families to this auditorium, they were sheltered at the Bhoodanam school. The researcher again visited the rehabilitation centre in August 2022. It was after the 3rd anniversary of the disaster event (August 8th 2019). The families have been living in the rehabilitation centre for the past 3 years.
The rehabilitation centre is almost 18 kilometres from the Nilambur main town and it takes almost one and a half hours of travel by bus/jeep from Nilambur to Pothukal. There is no public transport facility to Pothukal. The auditorium comprising a two-storeyed building houses the rehabilitation camp. The ground floor of the building was occupied by a grocery shop and a meat-selling shop. The entrance to the rehabilitation centre was through a congested path, between two shops.
The two-storeyed – auditorium has been the rehabilitation centre for 14 Kattu Paniya families for the past 3 years, affected by the Kavalappara landslide of 2019. Soon after the landslide, about 32 families (180 people) came to the rehabilitation centre. Many have left and now about 55 people live there consisting of 23 men, 20 women and 12 children. These people live in an area of about 2000 square feet. On one corner, outside the building, there is a small open space where families used to cook. They cook outside as there is not enough cooking space inside the hall. The hall, which is on the first floor, consisted of 2 toilets at one corner and the rest of the space was fully occupied by the families.
As the researcher entered the rehabilitation centre which is on the first floor of the building, a wash area could be observed on the right side and water was spread up all across the tiled floor. The air they breathed was full of odour from the toilet. Many people were sitting on the floor. Clothes were hung in the hall, by randomly tying ropes. There was a gas stove, which belonged to one of the families. This is the space where 14 families (about 43 people) have been cooking, eating and sleeping, for the past 3 years! This leaves a question mark to the right of a human being to live with dignity.
As with any other disaster which leaves a shadow on multiple aspects of human life, the Kavalappara landslide and the resulting life in the rehabilitation centre left vacant spaces in the lives of the indigenous community in terms of their livelihood, social connections, cultural practices etc. ― After the disaster, 32 families came into this rehabilitation centre…almost 180 people and they were accommodated in the two storeys of this building. Many families left this place and started living in rented houses. People with no other choices remained in the camp. “I couldn‘t afford one. I remained here with the rest of the 14 families. We received food items via ITDP and ration shops, but if somebody gets ill…. we are unable to take them to the hospital since we lack enough money for medicines” – said one of the survivors of the disaster who has lived in the rehabilitation centre for the past 3 years.
The reconstruction site – Anakkallu
Anakkallu is located between Nilambur main town and Pothukal town, almost 15 kilometres away from Nilambur. Anakkallu is almost 7-8 kilometres away from the actual Paniya settlement in Kavalappara. The researcher visited the reconstruction site in August 2022. The way to the new settlement area is almost one to two kilometres away from the main road. The path is not tarred. Both sides of the narrow path are surrounded by different kinds of vegetation including areca palm. Only private bus transportation is available at Anakkallu, which is also not frequent. To settle the Anakkallu bus stop people have to either walk or hire an auto rickshaw and pay 40 to 50 rupees. The resettlement area is located in a bit elevated area. The reddish soil in the area reminded the researcher of the disaster area, which was visited earlier in April 2021.
As the researcher reached the area where houses for almost 32 Kattu Paniya families are being constructed, it was clear that the majority of the houses remain incomplete. Despite incomplete construction, 5 families had shifted to the houses from the rehabilitation centre. Electricity connection is still not available in many houses. The houses are arranged in a top-to-bottom fashion on sloping terrain. House plots have been levelled off the sloping terrain. By standing at the entry point to the settlement, the researcher could see houses right at the bottom of the valley. All the houses are single-storeyed terrace buildings. Only limited space is available in between each house. Even though there were many houses remained incomplete in construction, a couple of Kattu Paniya families have already shifted to the Anakkallu and started living in even uncompleted houses, with no electricity supply. This is all because they had no choices and life in the rehabilitation centre was too tough.
There were no trees or greenery in this new area, while Kavalappara was a green place. Residents reported that it was much warmer here at the new site. Even during August, the researcher could find people sitting outside the house for a cool breeze. By standing at the top of the hill, the researcher could observe green hills on the four sides of the area. The researcher could realise the fact that this indigenous community which lived close to the outer edges of the forest is now supposed to live the rest of their life in a comparatively dry area.
The Drinking Water
Drinking water was another serious issue in the rehabilitation centre. ―The drinking water we get is of very poor quality. Many members of our family suffered from frequent stomach problems and vomiting. We were happy and healthy during the times we had drinking water from our chola” – says one among the Paniya community. Chola refers to a forest spring, where fresh water is available in plenty. This forest spring they used to depend on was situated near the Kattu Paniya settlement in the Kavalappara – Muthappan Kunnu region. In the rehabilitation camp, drinking water is provided from a bore well. Initially, the community faced health issues including stomach pain and vomiting after consuming this water at the camp. It took some time to get adjusted to this new ‗taste‘ of water‘ – he concluded.
The situation in Anakkallu is also not much better. Ever since the community left their original place – Kavalappara, the availability of good quality drinking water has become a major problem. Though they face issues related to drinking water at the rehabilitation centre at Pothukal, the real problems are yet to be faced at the Anakkallu where the resettlement is planned and carried out at a slow pace.
The drinking water availability at Anakkallu is a question mark in front of these indigenous people. At present, water is available from one bore well almost 200 metres away from the resettlement area. But for almost 32 families to live…this bore well is not an adequate source of drinking water. One of the rehabilitated family members in Anakkallu remarked about the ongoing case at the Manjeri court on the issue of drinking water availability at the resettlement area.
Cultural Alienation
The disaster-led displacement left this indigenous community alienated and losing their social connections left them in desolation and they remained in a situation in which they felt too embarrassed to seek help from others who lived in the Pothukal town. The cultural practices of this indigenous community are also affected by life in a rehabilitation centre. The temple where the community practises their rituals is situated at the Kavalappara, near the landslide area and is unaffected. Paniya still visits their old environment once in a while, which is slowly converting into a forest and is frequently visited by elephants. The shift to the rehabilitation centre affected their community practices since the distance to the temple increased.
Similar issues are prevailing in the resettlement area as well. The Anakkallu resettlement area lacks the space to perform the rituals of the community. “Still we go to Kavalappara to perform our rituals. It is very difficult to visit Kavalappara especially if it rains. We are afraid that another disaster may occur, if it rains heavily at Kavalappara. We need a place to worship our deity, close to our settlement. Here, there is no place for the same. Also it is our need to have our own space for cremating our people after death. Here very limited space is allocated for each family and no such facilities are available. This need was raised at the Ooru Koottam, last time”- said one of the women from the community.
The disaster recovery of the tribal community
The recovery phase of any disaster is one of the long-term and crucial phases in the post-disaster section of the overall disaster management cycle. Recovery is a broader term which includes the physical as well as the psychological aspects. It covers the broader aspects of socio-economic and cultural recovery. It is a clear-cut fact that disasters like landslides lead to the displacement of communities from a specific area since it is geographically highly vulnerable and the deformation of landform in the aftermath of the landslide makes it less eligible to inhabit. Hence unlike disasters like floods, landslides compel the communities to be displaced from their original surroundings. In the case of indigenous communities whose socio-cultural beliefs and practices are rooted within the area of living, it is a tough task to relocate as part of recovery. ‘When the Adivasis live in the forests, they have access to different kinds of vegetables, tubers, and fish and forest products. Once they are displaced from the forests, their food habits and diet change drastically. This is applicable even for the educated individuals. Also when they move out of their ‘Ooru’, they experience a language barrier. They have their dialect and language for communication in their Ooru for which they are ridiculed. When they live in towns, they get alienated from their language and their cultural values. The tribals consider the forest and their cultural values imbibed in it as sacred and when they move out of the forest they cannot preserve it’ (Chithra, 2019).
The Kavalappara landslide survivors who belong to the Kattu Paniya community face an incomplete housing recovery mainly because of the mismatches in the communication of information. Information communication is one of the major aspects in the post-disaster phase, especially during the recovery and rehabilitation process. The significance of providing accurate information regarding relief funds to the marginalised sections of society who lack access to information on their own is something that must be discussed. Here the Kattu Paniya community affected by the Kavalappara disaster is such a marginalised community who lack access to information unless the concerned authorities provide the same, that too in a language without jargon. Here what happened was the clear-cut illustration of a lack of access to information which led the families to incomplete housing. The families weren‘t informed about the fund for housing provided along with other monetary aids like the MP fund. Without knowing the fact, many families spent the money on other needs, which was provided for house construction.
The recovery from the Kavalappara disaster is still incomplete in the case of the Kattu Paniya tribal community. Recovery and rehabilitation without considering the peculiarities of an indigenous community like Kattu Paniyas who lived closer to the edges of forest land is more dangerous than the Kavalappara disaster which affected their lives.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Rehabilitation is the longest and most expensive phase of disaster management and should be accessible to all disaster survivors (Amatya et.al, 2020). Rehabilitation is defined as “a set of interventions designed to optimise functioning and reduce disability in individuals with health conditions in interaction with their environment (WHO, 2021). In the case of landslide-affected communities, the process of rehabilitation includes housing with proper sanitation and drinking water availability, access roads to the settlements and so on.
Authorities and decision-makers need to be aware of the problems that displaced families undergo when they reside in temporary shelters for long periods.
(a) Proper community – participation should be ensured in the rehabilitation and resettlement activities in a post-disaster scenario. It emerged that the tribal communities were not consulted while selecting the site for rehabilitation.
(b) District administration needs to take proactive measures to restore livelihoods. This is especially the case when the community displaced is indigenous and is considered particularly vulnerable. Their access to daily wage work depends on their social networks which get disrupted with displacement. Hence measures need to be taken to restore their livelihoods.
(c) The rehabilitation and resettlement activities should be carried out concerning the peculiarities of the affected community. Especially when it comes to the case of indigenous communities like Kattu Paniya, rehabilitation without giving priority to their community beliefs and way of life eventually affects their community life. This is clear from this study conducted among them.
(d) Information communication is one of the major aspects in the post-disaster phase, especially during the recovery and rehabilitation process. The significance of providing accurate information regarding relief funds to the marginalised sections of society who lack access to information on their own is something that must be discussed. Here in the case of Kattu Paniyas of Kavalappara, they weren’t informed about the fund for housing provided along with other monetary aids like the MP fund. Without knowing the fact, many families spent the money on other needs, which was provided for house construction. Therefore, proper information communication to marginalised sections like tribal communities is the need of the hour, so that post-disaster phases including resettlement can be completed.
Emerging frameworks on post-disaster vulnerability and post–disaster recovery reveal that post-disaster vulnerability is a major hindrance to successful post–disaster recovery.
- For housing rehabilitation, enough facilities and infrastructure must be offered. Authority must guarantee a clean, safe environment for everyone, especially for women.
- Equal distribution and recovery measures must be offered concurrently, particularly in the case of housing. Don’t discriminate solely based on a person’s class or caste.
- To guarantee that resources are given evenly to all of the individuals affected by a crisis, governance needs to be more transparent and accountable to the populace.
This study focuses purely on the post-disaster phase; especially the rehabilitation and recovery part of the Kavalappara landslide 2019. Post-disaster recovery is an important element in the disaster management cycle. When a disaster hits a community, response and recovery are the important parts, and people and authorities give attention to that area. But that attention slowly started to fade for some reason. Response is the immediate action taken within 2–3 days after a disaster. But in the case of recovery, it will take a long time. Because recovery is more than just rebuilding buildings, it must ensure that all aspects of physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets are restored and that their recovery can cope with future disaster risks. Examine how much loss occurs in housing and livelihood, how they recover in these two aspects, and what gaps occurred in the recovery process on the topic “post-disaster recovery: Kavalappara landslide.” From this study, the researcher understood, that they lost their houses, public infrastructure, livelihood opportunities and assets. In the case of housing and infrastructure, they partially recovered. However, in the cases of livelihood and assets, they are still struggling to recover. Hence, it is evident they are still vulnerable economically and physically. This vulnerability also affects other aspects of their lives, such as education, health, and social level. Even if a disaster hits the community, their situation is even worse than the previous one. A landslide occurred 3 years ago in Kavalappara, and the affected people are still in a haunting situation.
The findings of the study revealed that even after 3 years of the landslide event, the Kattu Paniya families remain in the rehabilitation centre, which is in the middle of a town. They are forced to live a life in an environment which is entirely different from their actual one. Also, the community face livelihood vulnerability mainly due to alienation from their social connections. They also face housing vulnerability due to a lack of proper information communication in the post-disaster phase regarding the relief fund allocations. The study also reveals that the rehabilitation process is conducted without properly understanding the cultural peculiarities of the community and without clearly understanding the actual needs of the community. In brief, there is a lack of proper community participation in the entire process of resettlement. The rehabilitation process can be successful if and only if it properly addresses the community’s needs. Otherwise, the post-disaster vulnerabilities will haunt the affected communities for a long period. Hence, disaster recovery should be more effective, which can ensure the coping capacity of the people to avoid future disaster risks.
References
- Ali, Fukkar (2006) Developmental Issues among the Paniyans of Nilambur: An Ethno HistoricalAnalysis. Indian History Congress Stable.
- Amatya, Bhasker; Lee, Su Yi; Galea, Mary; Khan, Fary (2020) Disaster Rehabilitation ResponsePlan Now or Never. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
- Andrew Simon, Arlikatti, Long Laurie and Kendra James, 2013, The effect of housing assistance arrangements on household recovery: an empirical test of donor-assisted and owner-driven approaches, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 28, No. 1.
- Anil Kumar, Raghunath Rajesh, Sarun S, Sheela A M and Vineetha P, 2021, Post Landslide Investigation On Shallow Landslide; A Case Study From Southern Western Ghats; India, Disaster Advances, Volume 14(7) July 2021
- Bhatt Mihir, 2012, Disaster Response Preparedness in India and China, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 47, No. 1
- Bhandari, 2013, Challenges of the Devastating Indian Landslides, Current Science Association, Vol. 105, No. 5
- Bryman Alan, 2012, Social Research Methods, Oxford University
- Busch Natan and Givens Austen, 2013, Achieving Resilience in Disaster Management: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships, Journal of Strategic Security, Vol. 6, No. 2
- Comerio Mary, 2014, Disaster Recovery and Community Renewal: Housing Approaches, Cityscape, Form Follows Families: Evolution of U.S. Affordable Housing Design and Construction, Vol. 16, No. 2
- Cook Nancy and Butz David, 2013, The Atta Abad Landslide and Everyday Mobility in Gojal, Northern Pakistan, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 33, No. 4
- Crittenden Kathleen, Lamug Corazon and Nelson Gloria, 2003, Socioeconomic Influences on Livelihood Recovery of Filipino Families Experiencing Recurrent Lahars, Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 51
- Food security cluster, 2013, livelihood recovery appraisal of households affected by flooding in 2010 and 2011 in Sindh and Balochistan, FAO
- Hsu Minna, Howitt Richard & Miller Fiona, 2015, Procedural Vulnerability and Institutional Capacity Deficits in Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction, Human Organization, Vol. 74, No. 4
- Jauhola Marjeena and Mishra Niti, 2021, Disaster Recovery (After Catastrophes), Helsinki University Press.
- Joakim Erin and Wismer Susan, 2015, livelihood recovery after disaster, Taylor &Francis Group, Vol. 25, No. 3
- Khan Amir, 2001, IMPACT OF LANDSLIDE HAZARDS ON HOUSING AND RELATED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN MURREE (PAKISTAN), Department of Economics, University of the Punjab, Vol. 39, No. 1 58
- Khattri Prashant, 2017, Rural Livelihoods and Natural Disasters: Observations from Flood Affected Bahraich District of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 47, No. 2
- Khera, Reetika (2008) Starvation Deaths and ‘Primitive Tribal Groups’. Economic and Political Weekly.
- Nambudiri Sudha, 2021, Rare phenomena in Kerala caused 2019 floods, Times of India
- Neuman, Lawrence (2014) Basics of Social Research: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches – 3rd edition. Pearson Education Limited.
- Nilambur, Chithra (2019) Dreaming of Forests of Freedom. The Research Collective
- Phelps Priscilla, Akbar Tahir and Mercadante Jared, 2006, Disaster recovery guidance series- Housing and settlements recovery, GFDRR
- Rovai Eugenie, 1994, The Social Geography of Disaster Recovery: Differential Community Response to the North Coast Earthquakes, Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, Vol. 56
- Samir, 2013, Community Vulnerability to Floods and Landslides in Nepal, Resilience Alliance Inc., Vol. 18, No. 1
- Sara Garcia, 2017, The role of public-private partnerships in economic disaster recovery and economic resiliency, International Economic Development Council,
- Sliwinski Alicia, 2020, Post-disaster Recovery, Brill
- Tianchi Li, 1994, Landslide Disasters and Human Responses in China, International Mountain Society, Vol. 14, No. 4
- Tierney, Kathleen (2019) Disasters: A Sociological Approach. Polity Press
- Wilson Bruce and Wyn Johana, 1985, Livelihood and Social Division, Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Vol. 6, No.
