‘Built capital’ refers to the design, building and maintenance of physical infrastructure, including its functional and aesthetic value. This includes critical facilities and services, housing, vehicles, equipment, information technology, communications, water and energy infrastructure(1).
This page is part of the Guide to Disaster Recovery Capitals.
WHAT WE KNOW
Physical infrastructure can be crucial to preparedness, response and recovery (including telecommunications and transport)(2–4). Public gathering spaces are important to the social and economic function of local communities. Disasters can undermine this through physical damage or, in case of pandemics, closure of facilities, with negative impacts on wellbeing(5–7), sense of community (8), financial security(7,9) and business viability(9,10).
WHAT WE KNOW
Rebuilding is an important part of recovery from disasters that damage property, allowing those affected by disasters to re-establish routines, sense of place and identity(11–13). Rebuilding can also foster community resilience and enable economic activity, which in turn provides resources for further recovery(10).
However decisions and uncertainties about rebuilding shared spaces can be major stressors after disasters(7), and disagreements about rebuilding can damage the social environment(8). A range of strategies can enhance these processes, including effective community consultation and allowing time for reflection before making less urgent decisions(14).
Inaccessible housing is a barrier to recovery for people with disabilities(15). Poorly designed housing and accommodation arrangements can disrupt social connectedness and lead to isolation(16). By contrast, new or temporary accommodation arrangements can foster social connectedness if they enable people from the same area to live near each other(16).
WHAT WE KNOW
Choosing to live locally or relocate elsewhere is likely to alter the recovery experience, but not necessarily long-term personal wellbeing(8).
After Black Saturday, sense of community was enhanced for some by the shared processing of the disaster experience and rebuilding, and this supported wellbeing. For others, sense of community was lost through damage to property, disruption and disharmony, and they were more likely to leave. They had fewer opportunities to process the disaster, but benefited from being removed from the ongoing disruptions and challenges in a bushfire-affected community(8).
Decisions about relocation may be further complicated for Aboriginal peoples whose rights, interest and connection to Country remain specific to the disaster-affected area(17,18).
People with disabilities may also have less choice regarding relocation due to lack of accessible housing options(15).
WHAT WE KNOW
The location, density and design of buildings influence risk from hazards such as floods, fires, earthquakes and pandemics(19–21), including health risks(22) and financial impacts(23,24). The design of housing, emergency shelters and other buildings is often not inclusive of people with disabilities(15,25). Planning and building regulations can reduce these risks(26), but this can also create problems in recovery by raising the cost of rebuilding, resulting in shortfalls in insurance payouts and higher ongoing premiums(27,28).
WHAT WE KNOW
People experiencing homelessness face increased risk from disasters and barriers to recovery, and disasters can result in short and long term homelessness(29). Despite this, people experiencing homelessness are often not considered in recovery policy and practice(30,31).
This resource has been developed through the Recovery Capitals (ReCap) project.
Artwork on this page by Oslo Davis and Frances Belle Parker.
Please contact Phoebe Quinn with any comments or enquiries: (03) 8344 3097, phoebeq@unimelb.edu.au or info-beyondbushfires@unimelb.edu.au.
To stay updated about the project, you can subscribe below and follow Beyond Bushfires on Facebook and Twitter.
