The purpose of this study is to understand the lessons to be learned from disaster relief operations from the “Kerala Flood Response 2018” -a southern state in the Indian Union.
The present study employed a qualitative approach, with thematic analysis and a purposive and convenience sampling method. Data was collected through fieldwork done in March 2019 and a follow-up visit in July 2019 from the Idukki and Wayanad Districts of Kerala, the federal state of India. Data were collected from 105 respondents through focused group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews, observation and document review. In-depth interviews with 25 respondents were randomly selected from the field locations. Twenty-four pre-selected key informants were interviewed. Seven FGDs (56 participants) were conducted. Twelve disaster-affected locations were visited to collect observation data.
The following themes have emerged from the study: (1) differential impact of the disaster on the population; (2) the critical role of volunteers in disaster mitigation; (3) the impact of the disaster on health still needs closer analysis; (4) the local administrator’s indifference to the people in crisis; (5) non-governmental organisation’s extensive partnership and goodwill with the local government and the district officials; (6) lack of compliance with building construction code; (8) lack of skilled human resources for building construction; (9) lack of opportunities for local-level problem-solving related to flood relief; (10) they need to heed the early warning; and (11) lack of facilities for crop insurance.
The data for this study was collected from representatives of various community groups involved in reconstructing the flood-affected areas. Sustainable recovery is a process that promotes democratic principles and good governance at all levels, as well as the development of more effective, accountable and transparent institutions and environmentally conscious policies and programmes. Therefore, the perspective presented in this study is skewed towards the opinion of civil society alone. This study does not reflect government officials’ and elected officials’ views.
The disaster response is confined to mitigating the immediate impact of the disasters, and policymakers did not feel the need for a robust theory-based reaction to disaster mitigation. Although social scientists questioned the validity of using the concept of resilience, building resilience is universally agreed upon as the direction of disaster mitigation efforts. Stability is concerned with coping with stress or, more precisely, returning to a reasonable condition after a period of stress. Resilience is often promoted as a boundary concept to integrate sustainability’s social and natural dimensions.
Despite being recognised as a meaningful paradigm among scholars and a few practitioners, achieving sustainable recovery following disasters was not widely applied in the recovery from the Kerala flood disasters, owing mainly to the current recovery model in use today. As a result, this paper aims to present a few lessons to be learned in achieving sustainable recovery.
Although considerable data about the “Kerala flood” and associated disasters has been generated, this study contributes to the lessons learned in developing sustainable disaster recovery. Flood relief is still an unfinished agenda. The disaster relief presented a long list of mismanagement and lost opportunities. The impact of the August disaster on upstream areas and downstream areas is different. The upstream regions were affected mainly by a landslide, mostly in Idukki and Wayanad districts. Many people who lost their houses are caught up in producing land ownership papers. Many are caught up in the interdepartmental labyrinth. There is a general perception in these districts that the classification as minor flood-affected was an excuse for distributing money to many intelligible, politically connected recipients. Reconstruction was an opportunity to create a discourse about appropriate building culture in Kerala. There needs to be more respect for building standards and inappropriate, environmentally unsustainable architectural designs. Rehabilitation has not taken into consideration promotion. There is a need to develop a recovery theory that helps clarify our understanding of how sustainable recovery can be achieved.
