The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Disaster
Managing resources in disaster recovery projects
recovery projects
Yan Chang and Suzanne Wilkinson
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
557
Regan Potangaroa
School of Architecture (ScALA), UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Erica Seville
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis for the construction professionals and
stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post-disaster
situation. The study reported in this paper is part of ongoing research concerned with developing a
methodology to improve the outcomes of resource availability for projects in post-disaster
environments. This study attempts to address the following questions: what factors impinge upon the
availability of resources in a disaster recovery project and what are the common resource availability
determinants across different recovery environments?
Design/methodology/approach – The method of analysis in this investigation is a comparative
case study. The researchers took part in disaster field trips to Indonesia, China and Australia during
their recovery from natural disasters. By using case studies and a triangulation method, critical factors
that affected resource availability in the three examined countries were identified and compared.
Findings – A comparative analysis shows that specific cultural elements, the socio-economic
environment and the political agenda in the three countries influenced their resourcing problems and
the solutions they adopted. Despite different resourcing approaches in the three cases, competence of
construction professionals, and government response and intervention were identified as common
determinants to resourcing disaster recovery projects.
Research limitations/implications – The research findings contribute to the project management
methodology to post-disaster reconstruction.
Practical implications – From this research, decision makers and construction practitioners can
have a clearer direction for improving their resourcing effort in a post-disaster situation. This study
provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors
influencing resource availability in a post-disaster situation, with a view to enhancing their capability
of managing disaster recovery projects.
Social implications – A comparative analysis of three cases provides a multi-perspective view of the
resourcing issues in a post-disaster situation. As many problems are faced in disaster recovery
projects, resource availability intrinsically links to chronic conditions of vulnerability in existence in
the broader social system prior to a disaster. The five aspects of resourcing discussed in the paper
show the key areas of recovery planning in relation to resource availability.
Originality/value – In large and complex disaster recovery operations, the availability of resources is
bound to be limited. Identified resourcing problems are likely to be universal and can be anticipated
and pre-planned for, irrespective of the environment when a disaster happens. The paper provides a
basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
resource availability in a post-disaster situation. Vol. 19 No. 5, 2012
Keywords Indonesia, China, Australia, Disasters, Resource management, pp. 557-580
Disaster recovery projects, Resource availability, Large-scale disaster, Post-disaster reconstruction r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/09699981211259621
ECAM 1. Introduction
19,5 Resource availability and management is one of the key constituents to construction
project success (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Chua et al., 1999; Korde et al., 2005). Research
on resource management in construction projects mainly deals with resource
limitations and its impact on project delivery from such perspectives as dynamic
modelling (Padilla and Carr, 1991; Park, 2005), logistical optimization (Agapiou et al.,
558 1998a; Voordijk, 2000), and supply chain reengineering (Arbulu et al., 2003; Cheng
et al., 2006). In disaster recovery projects, however, where the operational environment
is uncertain, complex, and dynamic, the “business as usual” way of managing
resources may not be fully applicable (Soderlund, 2002; Winter et al., 2006; Shenhar and
Dvir, 2008). Evidence shows that post-disaster recovery projects are more likely to
suffer resource shortages (UN-Habitat, 2005; Steinberg, 2007; Kennedy et al., 2008) and
supply disruption (Jayasuriya and McCawley, 2008; Zuo and Wilkinson, 2008). These
resourcing problems contribute to final recovery project failures such as cost overruns
(Koria, 2009; Chang et al., 2010) and deferred delivery (Nazara and Resosudarmo,
2007; Boen, 2008). Subsequent problems as a result of scarcity of resources after an
event, including “Cost Surge” (Rodriguez et al., 2007), profiteering (Nazara and
Resosudarmo, 2007), and “Dutch Disease”[1] (Corden, 1984; Adam and Bevan, 2004)
have a longer term adverse impact on the sustainability of local economy in the
disaster-affected areas.
For disaster recovery projects, according to the Project Management Institute (2005),
there is no instance “fix”, but order and progress can be achieved if parities involved in
reconstruction have the appropriate knowledge and tools for managing these projects.
Masurier et al. (2006) note that the disaster reconstruction differs from routine
construction in terms of interrelated reconstruction challenges such as allocation of
responsibility for coordination, scarcity of resources, and the application of legislation
and regulations that were written for routine construction rather than post-disaster
reconstruction. Despite this distinction, past experience has, however, demonstrated
that disaster recovery is often carried out by modifying routine construction processes
on an ad hoc basis (Zuo et al., 2006; Ahmed, 2008; Lyons, 2009). While this can work
reasonably well for small-scale disasters, a continuum of studies by the “Resilient
Organisations” (2006) revealed that the conventional construction management may
not be able to cope with challenges in large-scale disaster recovery. Among these
challenges, lack of resources and difficulties in resourcing have been recognized as
being one of the most prominent issues confronting project participants and stakeholders
(Russell, 2005; Singh and Wilkinson, 2008; Zuo et al., 2009). An understanding of critical
factors that affect post-disaster resource availability is needed for construction
practitioners to enhance their capability of managing disaster recovery projects.
The study reported in this paper is part of ongoing research concerned with
developing a methodology to improve the outcomes of resource availability for projects
in post-disaster environments. The researchers took part in disaster field trips to
Indonesia, China, and Australia during their recovery from natural disasters. By using
case studies and a triangulation method, this study attempts to address the following
questions:
. What factors impinge upon the availability of resources in a disaster recovery
project?
. What are the common resource availability determinants across different
recovery environments?
The paper is structured as follows. A literature review on factors that affect resource Disaster
availability in conventional construction projects is presented, followed by an analysis recovery projects
of factors affecting resource availability for recovery projects in disaster situations. A
comparative case study using a triangulation data collection method is introduced in
research methodology. The results of the questionnaire survey and a comparative
analysis are then presented. Both common resource availability factors and the factors
specific to each case are discussed around five components. This paper concludes by 559
summarizing key findings and suggesting the implications of sharing the lessons
learned from different disaster recovery projects. This study provides a basis for
recovery managers and construction practitioners to understand potential resourcing
vulnerabilities and opportunities in other disaster contexts.

2. Literature review
2.1 Factors affecting resource availability for conventional construction projects
Many factors that may contribute to resource availability in a construction project were
identified. These determinants can be broadly classified into three groups: factors
related to the construction project and its management, factors related to project
stakeholders, and factors related to the project operational environment.
Factors related to the construction project. Project conditions and the specific
characteristics inherent in construction management have a great impact upon the
effectiveness of resource procurement. With regard to a construction project, project
location (EI-Rayes and Khalafallah, 2005), and site layout planning techniques (Chan
and Lu, 2008) influence the efficacy of materials handling system. Factors pertaining to
project operations such as resourcing plans (Faniran et al., 1999; Tserng et al., 2006; Li
et al., 2009) and material inventory management (Liu and Wang, 2007) are considered
to have a bearing on resource availability in terms of material transportation time and
cost. As such, theories in relation to logistics have been widely used in resource
procurement to plan and control the stock and flow of materials on the construction
site (Said and EI-Rayes, 2010). Yeo and Ning (2002) recognized that closer cooperation
between procurement and other functions in construction management enables direct
receipt of materials from suppliers to a construction site. Further, Ala-Risku and
Karkkainen (2006) illustrated the positive correlation between pro-active resource
procurement methods and their delivery results. Walker and Rowlinson (2008)
reinforced this point by comparing the varied impact that resource procurement
alternatives have on project delivery. Design specifications and drawings (Tatum,
2005), project type (EI-Rayes and Kandil, 2005) along with its construction method and
techniques (Spence and Mulligan, 1995) also determine how the project team is
mobilized and how resources are procured.
Factors related to project stakeholders. Research and practice indicate that
integration of different organizations in the supply chain is fundamental to successful
project procurement. In examining the relationships between stakeholders in
construction projects, Dey (2002) and Gadde and Dubois (2010), identified the
particular benefit of strategic partnering with material suppliers for project resourcing
performance. Selection of material suppliers and increasing their involvement in the
project planning process helps to decrease deviation and attain resource procurement
improvement (Tserng et al., 2006). Koch (2005) and Eom et al. (2008) suggested a
client-contractor-supplier relationship to enhance overall productivity within the
construction supply chain. Shi and Halpin (2003) and Bansal and Pal (2009) advocated
that construction businesses establish a robust resource database to facilitate project
ECAM resource planning. Additionally, Pryke (2004) underlined the important role of the
19,5 social network of project practitioners, especially the significance of the competence of
contractors in resource procurement. On account of purchasing power, however, large
contractors are able to deal directly with manufacturers and wholesalers and thus
acquire resources more easily than small and medium units (Agapiou et al., 1998b).
More well-established contractors are also capable of handling such issues as
560 organizational weakness, supplier default, and transportation delays to achieve timely
and cost-effective resource delivery (Manavazhi and Adhikari, 2002).
Factors related to the project operational environment. Project operational
environment in this study refers to the external environment of a project including
social, political, technological, legal, and economic factors and their implications on the
project. Likely changes in these environments during the life of a project will certainly
influence decisions and activities with respect to resource procurement (Pheng and
Chuan, 2006). Morris and Hough (1987) illustrated that increasing material alternatives
for construction without damage to the natural environment requires political
involvement in promoting innovative technology, design, and construction practices.
In response to natural resource conservation and utilization, government’s stringent
regulation and controls serve as catalysts to sustainable development in the
construction materials industries (Spence and Mulligan, 1995). Further, Belassi and
Tukel (1996) advocate economic and social stimulus for developing material
alternatives in order to address resource constraints for complex and large
construction projects. Above all, specific cultural elements such as architecture,
construction type, and techniques play an essential role in utilizing and selecting
building materials and have a corresponding effect on project resourcing practice
(Fewings, 2005).

2.2 Factors affecting resource availability in a post-disaster situation

The success of resourcing for disaster recovery projects tends to depend upon different
factors from conventional projects. Following a large-scale disaster, the disaster impact
on the local economy, infrastructure, and the natural environment influence the
initiation of a recovery project (Brunsdon and Smith, 2004). Changed circumstances in
the aftermath of a disaster shape the level of resource availability and the ability to
procure essential resources for reconstruction. The likely factors that may impinge on
resource availability for disaster recovery projects can be classified into five categories,
namely: factors related to the construction market, factors related to transportation,
factors related to the reconstruction project, factors related to project stakeholders,
and factors related to the project operational environment.
Factors related to the construction market. The construction market conditions
following a major disaster, mainly manifested by resource price fluctuation, were
recognized by Albu (2010) as being a dominant factor affecting resource availability for
recovery projects. The impacts of the resource price volatility after the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami on disaster recovery resourcing are well documented by (Jayasuriya
and McCawley, 2008). After a major disaster, the markets and procurement systems
tend to be disrupted (Koria, 2009), and the existing local production system tend to be
insufficient to cope with recovery requirements (Brunsdon and Smith, 2004; Jayasuriya
et al., 2005). For post-disaster reconstruction projects in developing countries, there
are a large number of recovery stakeholders such as aid agencies, construction
companies, and the affected community, competing for limited resources (Nazara and
Resosudarmo, 2007; Koria, 2009). Existing construction projects and programmes
in other industries before the occurrence of a disaster are disrupted and can affect Disaster
resource requirements for recovery projects (Freeman et al., 2003). recovery projects
Factors related to transportation. The transport network including roads, airports,
port, and railways provides essential access to available resources needed for a
country’s rapid and successful recovery (Hanaoka and Qadir, 2005). Many studies, such
as Cho et al. (2001), Seville and Metcalfe (2005), Litman (2006), and Orabi et al. (2009),
highlighted the vulnerability of transport system during a natural disaster and its 561
pivotal role in resourcing recovery. Research looking into post-disaster logistics shows
that the high cost of resource transportation (Limoncu and Celebioglu, 2006) and
lack of transport alternatives (Singh, 2007) were major barriers to post-disaster
reconstruction. Singh and Wilkinson (2008) also discussed the importance of location
of depot when procuring resources from outside of the recovery region or further afield.
As illustrated by the Asian Development Bank (2007), after the Indian Ocean tsunami,
the Aceh Territory of Indonesia experienced a shortage of cement, which, coupled with
price speculation, drove up cement prices in Aceh by 63 per cent. A significant portion
of this price gap is attributed to high transportation costs as a result of the limited
port and shipping capacity along with lengthy resource procurement times.
Factors related to the disaster recovery project. Following a large-scale natural
disaster, resourcing bottlenecks for disaster recovery projects are largely created by a
sudden increase in demand on construction services. Koria (2009) stressed the fact that
large, complex disaster projects usually call for extensive quantity of resources which
are beyond the existing supply capacity. The urgency of rebuilding, especially for
housing projects, according to Dercon (2007) and Boen (2008), adds to the difficulty in
acquiring most commonly used materials. Additionally, in line with recovery objectives
in a disaster impacted country, most recovery projects are required to be more
culturally and environmentally sensitive (Barenstein and Pittet, 2007; O’Brien et al.,
2008) and disaster-resistant (Berke et al., 1993; Winchester, 2000; Pribadi et al., 2003;
Schilderman, 2004). Varied project types consequently pose special requirements for
availability of compatible resources. The housing reconstruction approach, as
concluded by Barenstein (2006a), has influenced how outside assistance is targeted and
materials and techniques are selected. In comparing varied reconstruction approaches
between the developing countries and developed nations, both Comerio (1998) and
Fengler et al. (2008) showed that the type of reconstruction approach is highly related
to project funding mechanisms in which the major funding body is likely to play a lead
role in resourcing disaster recovery projects.
Factors related to project stakeholders. Davidson (2010) identified that an
appropriate organizational design and the in-house competence of procurement
personnel have a major impact on procurement of disaster recovery projects. Both
Steinberg (2007) and Zuo et al. (2009) observed resourcing frustrations encountered by
the implementing organizations in Indonesia after the tsunami as a result of lack of
coordination among those recovery agencies and lack of effective communication with
local authorities. Consistent support and assistance from the governments, such as
regulating construction markets (McGee, 2008), providing training and education for
practitioners (Auckland Engineering Lifelines Group (AELG), 2005), and facilitating
logistics (Brunsdon et al., 1996), could significantly improve the overall project resource
availability.
Factors related to the project operational environment. In most cases of a large-scale
disaster, availability of resources is governed by the policies and strategies put in place
by the authorities to deal with the reconstruction phase (Singh and Wilkinson, 2008).
ECAM As illustrated by Zuo et al. (2009), the new timber administration rules issued by the
19,5 Indonesian government in 2007 significantly reduced the possibility of donors
procuring local timber for their tsunami reconstruction projects in Indonesia.
Resourcing constraints challenge the recovery agencies in countries where the local
economy is severely impacted by the disaster (Makhanu, 2006). Steinberg (2007) and
Kennedy et al. (2008) illustrated the impact of the changed political and socio-economic
562 conditions on construction industry capacity in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami.
Due to decades of civil war, there were shortages of qualified construction labour for
tsunami reconstruction in Aceh Province of Indonesia. However, the need to hire
personnel from Sumatra and Java contributed to escalation of construction costs for
housing recovery projects (Steinberg, 2007).

3. Research methodology
The method of analysis in this investigation is a comparative case study. Between 2008
and 2010, a series of field trips were made by the researchers from the “Resilient
Organisations”[2] to the disaster-affected areas of Banda Aceh in Indonesia, Mianzhu
in China, and Marysville and Kinglake in Australia during their recovery from
disasters. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, and the
2009 Victorian bushfires had significant impact on local communities. Comparing
these three jurisdictions helps to show how the resource availability determinants vary
across the three events and whether common resource availability factors exist under
varied disaster reconstruction environments. Table I shows the background data of the
three case studies.
The quantitative evidence was collected through the pilot study and questionnaire
survey to identify critical factors that impinged upon project resource availability in
each disaster-affected area. A total of 33 attributes identified from the literature were
included in the questionnaire. By using the content analysis method (Krippendorff,
1980), these factors were grouped into five major headings: construction market-related
factors, transportation-related factors, reconstruction project-related factors, project
stakeholders’-related factors, and operational environment-related factors. A pilot
study was conducted in each case[3] to supplement the catalogue of factors in the
questionnaire and enhance its suitability to the targeted area. Four factors, for instance,
including pre-existing market structure, contractor inventory, supplier inventory, and
community influence and participation were proposed, during the pilot study in
Indonesia, to be added in the questionnaire. Some variations in questionnaire were
made to the different cases as some of the questions apply to the specific country.
Following the Indonesian case study, additional adjustments were made to data
collection instruments for cases of China and Australia, allowing the researchers to
probe emergent issues arising in a given situation.
The survey population within each case was selected according to informants’
experience and knowledge in project resourcing and their role in disaster recovery. The
professional and educational attainment levels of the informants in each case also vary.
In Indonesia, the selected sample comprised participants representing the international
aid agencies and governmental constituencies involved in post-tsunami housing
reconstruction in Banda Aceh. Specifically, in addition to the survey with resourcing-
related professionals and decision makers in China, in December 2008 a focus group
with 12 contractor representatives in Mianzhu city was also conducted. Apart from
the representatives from the local government, the development and regulatory
agencies, and the professional bodies, the selected sample in Australia also included
representatives from trade associations and the relevant trade unions, who had been Disaster
involved in the Victorian bushfire recovery and reconstruction. Table II outlines recovery projects
the survey information and the basic profile[4] of informants who participated in the
questionnaire surveys.
By using statistical calculation, the results of data analysis in terms of the
significance of factors generated from the questionnaire surveys in the three cases
are tabulated in Appendix 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Qualitative data on perspectives of 563
the participants was captured in interviews in order to clarify and provide depth to the
information yielded in the questionnaire. The qualitative data such as interview
recordings and observation notes were managed using NVivo qualitative data analysis
software. In the remainder of the paper, a comparative analysis is presented of the
critical resource availability factors identified in the three examined cases.

4. Result and discussion

The interrelated factors affecting resource availability in three examined cases are
presented in Figure 1. Those factors that were identified as very important by the
respondents are discussed in this section. In Figure 1, legislation and policy as a

Country Occurrence time Disaster Casualties Economic loss

Indonesia 26 December 2004 Earthquake and tsunami 126,900 US$4.5 billion

China 12 May 2008 Earthquake 69,266 US$123.66 billion
Australia 7 February 2009 Bushfires 173 US$4 billiona
Note: aThe exact economic cost is still not clear, but the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission
estimated it to be more than AUD$4 billion, which in this paper is seen as approximately equivalent to Table I.
USD$4 billion Background data on
Sources: RMS (2006), Paterson et al. (2008), State Planning Group of Post-Wenchuan Earthquake the studied disasters and
Restoration and Reconstruction (2008), VBBRA (2009), VBRC (2010) their impacts

Country Survey time City Questionnaire informants

Indonesia March-May Banda 12 project managers from 6 NGOsa

2008 Aceh 4 donor representatives/reconstruction coordinators
4 governmental officials from BRRb
China December 2008- Mianzhu 16 construction managers and project managers
January 2009 5 academic researchers in construction sustainability
and procurement
5 governmental officials in disaster recovery
Australia May-July 2010 Marysville 1 rebuilding manager and 4 rebuilding advisors from
Kinglake VBRRAc
5 governmental officials from VBRRA
6 volume builders
4 construction material and product manufacturers
2 officials from Building Commission Table II.
Basic profile of the
Notes: aIFRC, CARE, Canadian Red Cross, UNDP, Australian Red Cross, and British Red Cross. questionnaire informants
b in Indonesia, China,
BRR is the Agency for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction for Aceh and Nias in Indonesia.
c and Australia
VBRRA is the Victorian Bushfires Recovery and Reconstruction Authority in Australia
ECAM Indonesia
19,5
• NGO competence of resource procurement (2)
• Housing culture and customs (5)
• Housing type(5)
• Community influence and participation (5)

564 • Resource procurement • Competition for resources

lead time (3) among recovery projects (2)
• Transportation (3) • Production capacity (2)
• Competence of • Material price
• Quantity of resources contractor (4) fluctuation (2)
required (5)
• Project schedule (4) • Government response • Project budget (5)
and intervention (1) • Project location (5)
• Project resourcing plan (4)
• Decision making of local affected (5)
• Economic environment (2)
Figure 1. • Competition for resources from existing
• Competence of resourcing manager (4)
Factors that affect construction projects (2)
resource availability for
disaster recovery projects China Australia

leading factor in cases of China and Australia, together with government support and
assistance recognized as being significant in cases of Indonesia and Australia fall into
one factor government response and intervention.
Figure 1 demonstrates that the factors that affected resource availability in disaster
recovery projects vary from one case to another. In general, apart from NGOs
competence of resource procurement, community-related housing features in Aceh,
Indonesia, including housing type, housing culture and customs, and community
influence and participation, played a predominant role in resource procurement.
Factors relating to project control and management including project schedule, project
resourcing plan, competence of construction professionals, and resource procurement
lead time, were more dominant for resourcing management in China, whereas,
market-related factors including material price fluctuation, material production capacity,
competition for resources from existing construction projects, and competition for resources
among rebuilding projects largely affected resource availability in bushfire recovery in
Australia. The generic factors identified across the three countries include competence of
contractor/builder, and government response and intervention. Moreover, the cases of
Indonesia and China share similarity in two factors namely resource procurement lead
time and transportation; whereas the cases of Indonesia and Australia overlap in two
factors: competition for resources among recovery projects and production capacity.
According to the actual content and internal features of the identified variables
shown in Figure 1, content analysis research tool which contains a conceptual analysis
and a relational analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was applied to categorize these factors
into five principal groups with the following headings:
(1) resourcing facilitator: government response and intervention;
(2) resourcing platform: the construction market;
(3) resourcing access: transportation system;
(4) resourcing implementer: construction professionals; and
(5) resourcing catalyst: specific local conditions.
Figure 1 shows how each factor falls into these five categories, and how the five Disaster
principal components, to a varying degree, contribute to successful resourcing practice recovery projects
post-disaster. The parallels and disparities in these resource availability determinants
between the studied countries are, therefore, discussed around these five aspects.
Management of these five resourcing components could reduce the impacts of resource
availability on disaster recovery projects and recovery outcomes.
565
4.1 Resourcing facilitator: government response and intervention
Government response and intervention is critical to recovery with respect to resource
availability and management. In Indonesia, local government assistance and support
was important for reconstruction resource availability, whereas legislation and
policy played a significant role in determining recovery resourcing success in China.
Likewise, compliance with building code, legislation and policy, as well as government
support and assistance were regarded as the first three most important factors in
affecting post-bushfire resource availability for recovery projects in Australia.
Field observations and interviews explain that China’s post-quake mandates and
policies were primarily constituted by the deployment of available resources for
recovery priority at a macro-level and “hard” market interventions for containing
inflation at a micro-level. These mandatory measures, according to Wang and Dong
(2009), had a great impact on resource supply and flow in the earthquake stricken
areas. The “hard” interventions focused on the supply side to contain directly material
price, placing a major disincentive to other suppliers to engage actively in earthquake
recovery resource supply. Therefore, the trade-off between levels of directive control
and market self-regulation posed a challenge to Chinese policy makers to satisfy the
different and conflicting interests of stakeholders in the disaster-affected region.
A similar high degree of mandating, to expedite bushfire recovery-related activities
and decisions, was also observed in Australia. New building standards were
introduced immediately after the bushfires for rebuilding fire-resistant houses. In
response to the amendments to the building standards, as our interviews revealed, the
practitioners in the construction sector including consultants, suppliers, and specialist
builders were subjected to a different set of problems and challenges. For instance, the
new standards require the houses in the most extreme flame zone to use upgraded
external cladding materials. Prolonged lead time to manufacture, test, certify, and
release these new materials into market had a significant corresponding flow on effect
of delays in housing reconstruction.
In contrast, however, this seems to be not the case in Indonesia. The reason,
according to our interviews, can be traced back to the lack of consistency of mandates,
operations, and leadership from the Indonesian authorities during tsunami recovery.
Without adequate government response and intervention, the donor society and aid
agencies played a lead role in resourcing for their rebuilding housing projects (Pandya,
2006). The importance of NGO’s competence for resource procurement thus came to
fore as shown in the survey. These results and field observations reinforce the
argument in studies of (Masurier et al., 2008; Rotimi et al., 2009) that regardless of
country context, the regulatory framework of the recovery process is a cornerstone to
successful post-disaster project procurement. The impact of mandates on the various
aspects of reconstruction in a post-disaster situation should be well considered by
concerned decision makers and recovery managers at a national level before
commencement of recovery. Other institutional changes should be promoted within
the government to prepare themselves in response to disasters and recovery.
ECAM These facilitative initiatives could include revising legislative and regulatory systems,
19,5 optimizing market coping mechanisms, and partnerships with recovery participants.

4.2 Resourcing platform: the construction market

The construction market-related factors such as competition for resources among aid
agencies and local production capacity were raised by the Indonesian respondents as
566 being key determinants in recovery resourcing in Aceh. A significant correlation
between market-related factors and project resource availability was also found in
questionnaire responses in Australia. In comparison, market conditions were less
problematic due to China’s government-led recovery operations. One prominent issue
emerged after the Wenchuan earthquake in China was the 2008 global financial crisis
which came during the earthquake recovery and impacted on the supply of non-
localized materials such as cement and steel to the disaster areas. According to the
China Iron and Steel Association (2009), in the second half of 2008, steel manufacturers
in China were cutting production due to declining demand for steel and falling prices
nationwide. Nonetheless, most of these manufacturers were reluctant to supply their
steel stocks at a lower price to the population for earthquake recovery and
reconstruction. This made steel supply a problem in the earthquake-affected areas.
In a more developed country like Australia, however, it is the construction market
that generally directs the balance between resource demand and supply (Comerio,
1998; Zhang, 2006). The market in Australia generated competition between
reconstruction projects in the bushfire-affected areas and other construction work
outside of the recovery region. Our interviews show that resource availability for
bushfire rebuilding houses seems to be determined by relativity of risk and profit
margin between reconstruction in bushfire areas and construction in the fast growing
fringe suburbs of Melbourne. Contractors/builders preferred more profitable alteration
and extension projects in the established areas. This added difficulty to the bushfire-
affected house owners in finding qualified builders. In addition, the inconvenience of
travelling to, and being accommodated in, the affected areas, and lack of government
incentives to do so, were also contributory factors to the shortfall of building services
for bushfire recovery.
In comparison with the Australian case, competition among the recovery aid
agencies had a great impact on resource shortage in the Indonesian construction
market. This result relates to the importance of coordination among the implementing
agencies involved in Aceh’s post-tsunami reconstruction and the need to seek a
collaborative procurement strategy for post-disaster resourcing. The reality, according
to our interviews, was that with available funding at the initial stage of reconstruction,
the potential threat of resource shortages for long-term rebuilding was largely
overlooked by the involved NGOs. As was also observed by the researchers, the
quantity, and schedule pressure of housing programmes from off-site donors
intensified the resource competition among those recovery projects. Barenstein
(2006b) and Bailey and Pavanello (2009) suggested that more fundamental resource
mapping and assessment across the market in a disaster country be encouraged and
undertaken during the “early recovery” stage. This input should be integrated into
broader national or regional recovery plans for medium- and longer-term
reconstruction. To reduce the likelihood of competition for resources in Indonesia, a
collaborative approach should be advocated within recovery aid agencies and
incorporated into their organization culture, together with effective dialogs between
them. In Australia, incentives from the government agencies or industry associations
are needed to increase participation of construction professionals into post-disaster Disaster
recovery and reconstruction. recovery projects
4.3 Resourcing access: transportation system
Transportation for post-disaster resourcing was identified in both cases of Indonesia
and China as being significant factors. In the Australian case, however, transportation
capacity was not seen as important in relation to resource availability for bushfire 567
recovery. A possible explanation, according to the interviews, could be the relative
robustness of transport networks in Australia. Critical roading systems only suffered
minor damage in the bushfires without causing major transport disruption during the
recovery.
The resource transportation bottleneck encountered by NGOs in Banda Aceh, as
observed by the researchers, resided with its poor infrastructure before the tsunami
and lack of key requirements for infrastructure such as roading connected to the
housing system after the event. NGOs appeared to over-invest in post-tsunami
housing reconstruction and overlook infrastructure development. As was observed by
the researchers, apart from a few infrastructure rehabilitation works conducted by
the local government, the United States Agency for International Development was the
sole agency tasked with the reconstruction of the Banda Aceh to Meulaboh road
linking Aceh Province with the rest of North Sumatra and Indonesia.
Moreover, the lead time of timber resource for housing reconstruction also had an
impact on the performance of post-tsunami reconstruction projects in Indonesia. The
“Green Aceh” timber administration rules issued by the Indonesian government
reduced the possibility for donors to procure timber locally in Indonesia (Yusuf, 2007).
According to our interviews, importing legal timber from donor countries such as
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with lead times of three to four months had
consequences such as construction suspension and idle resources.
In contrast, the transportation problems in China were related to a large number of
secondary hazards such as landslides, landslips, mud-rock flow, and “quake lakes”
after the Wenchuan earthquake. Due to the lack of access, delivery of required
resources to earthquake recovery projects was, to a large extent, delayed. The
unavoidable costs related to logistics because of lack of consistency in delivery and
price fluctuations of fuel, accounted for a large fraction of resource sourcing expenses.
As was observed by the researchers in Mianzhu City, all kinds of transport including
human and pack animal carrying methods were applied for delivering building
materials to construction sites in the remote mountainous areas where road access was
severely disrupted by the earthquake. This research finding, however, warrants
attention from the national recovery planners. Rapid restoration and recovery of
critical infrastructure systems is a priority. A more integrated reconstruction approach
with priority given to the overall development of the built environment is required.
To increase the resilience of transport systems, vulnerabilities in transport networks
and their potential impact on local communities and on post-disaster recovery should
be identified through pre-event scenarios and accordingly considered in urban
development plans.

4.4 Resourcing implementer: construction professionals

In spite of the varied resourcing approaches in Indonesia, China, and Australia,
competence of contractors was concertedly regarded in three cases as being significant
in deciding on project resource availability. One observation in Indonesia was that,
ECAM during the tsunami recovery period, nearly 95 per cent of contractors, materials, and
19,5 expertise were imported, mainly from Java. Interviews in Aceh revealed that decades
of civil conflict[5] largely contributed to the poor competence and capacity of local
construction sector. The low level of construction capacity in Indonesia, combined
with such issues within the recovery aid agencies as lack of procurement expertise and
lack of adequate construction planning made recovery resourcing especially difficult
568 in tsunami housing programmes (Pheng et al., 2006; Lakshmi and Bau, 2007). In
comparison, the Chinese participants gave similar significance to the credentials of
construction contractors with respect to project resource availability. In China, building
professionals were inclined to rely on public policies for resource deployment.
Moreover, in a fragmented and competitive sector environment, there was few strategic
alliances spanning the industry or in co-operation with other stakeholders.
In Australia, however, the primary industry issue linked to resource availability
in bushfire recovery projects was the cooperation of parties in construction.
A number of disputes regarding material selection and procurement were recorded by
the researchers due to contractual problems between the house owners and builders.
The competence of contractors/builders for bushfire recovery and rebuilding was
found to be mainly contingent upon their ability to deal with traumatized bushfire
victims. The interviews show that, in the wake of the bushfires, the affected population
was traumatized and unable to take on home rebuilding tasks or to address
construction issues during recovery. This situation, however, was compounded by lack
of understanding from construction professionals the population’s needs, leading to
further impediments to reconstruction progress. Participating builders with country
businesses had a stronger association with communities. The sense of community and
close ties with the country people provided assurance for these builders to take more
sensitive approaches in engaging in housing reconstruction.
Apart from the concern about construction capability for recovery projects, the
interviews also showed that the construction industry in the three countries was
highly marginalized from the course of disaster management. The lack of industry
engagement in disaster events is also found in many other countries, such as UK
(Bosher et al., 2007; Haigh et al., 2007) and Singapore (Dulaimi et al., 2001; Ofori, 2002).
There should be effective integration of the construction industry into disaster risk
management, preparedness, and planning. Engagement and cooperation,
understanding the local conditions, as well as adequate training for professionals
with regard to housing rebuilding are important for post-disaster recovery and future
resilience.

4.5 Resourcing catalyst: specific local conditions

Figure 1 demonstrates that the factors associated with the local disaster affected
community played a dominant role in Indonesia and Australia, but this was not the
case in China. Housing culture and community characteristics were perceived as being
key factors contributing to resourcing outcomes in post-tsunami Indonesia. The
housing culture of Aceh traditionally utilized organic building materials such as
timber, thatched grasses, and bamboo (O’Brien et al., 2008). Community influence and
participation in early decisions, such as selecting construction materials and
techniques, had a major influence in the final resourcing practice in Indonesia. As
was recorded by the researchers, the majority of beneficiaries in Banda Aceh
expressed their preference for a “modern” westernized house which symbolizes
solidity and social status. The new housing types introduced by the international aid
agencies matched this local aspiration. Local capacity for producing the industrialized Disaster
materials, such as cement, steel, concrete, and mass-produced products, however, recovery projects
was unable to meet the large-scale requirements for masonry and concrete
construction. A variety of resourcing problems during post-tsunami reconstruction
thus arose.
In contrast, in Australia, the house owner’s ability and resilience seem to determine
the pace of recovery. One of the main reasons for housing reconstruction delays 569
in Australia was concerned with house owners’ decision making of whether to stay
and rebuild, or leave and move to another place. This is consistent with the findings
by Comerio (1998) who recognized that housing repair and reconstruction in
developed nations is fundamentally concerned with the ability of house owners to
undertake the repairs/reconstruction. Evidence in this research suggested that the
socio-psychological aspect of the affected populations was a significant factor that
slowed the progress of housing recovery in Australia. When faced with great distress
after bushfires, people habitually looked to economic recovery for the potential of
revival and the prosperity of the communities. However, a “dead lock” was observed in
the affected areas between economic recovery and housing recovery. In Marysville for
instance, without seeing household rebuilding and recovery, businesses delayed their
recovery; conversely, without seeing recovery progress of business sectors, households
hesitated about rebuilding their houses.

5. Conclusions
Past disaster recovery and reconstruction practice shows that there is a need to study
factors that impinge upon resource availability in post-disaster situations. Based on
in-field surveys in countries of Indonesia, China, and Australia during their recovery
from major disasters, this study identified the critical factors that affected resource
availability for disaster recovery projects. Acknowledging the differences in resourcing
approach between the three cases, this paper has focused on comparing the identified
resource availability determinants in order to gain insights into how they vary
between different disaster environments.
The research findings show that the variations in resourcing problems and
outcomes exist in their differing socio-economic environment, culture, and overall
political agenda in the three countries. Despite disparities, two factors namely
competence of construction professionals (contractors and builders), and government
response and intervention in terms of legislation and policy, and government support
and assistance, were identified as common constraints to the resourcing of disaster
recovery projects. Moreover, the cases of Indonesia and China share similarity in two
factors of resource procurement lead time and transportation; whereas the cases of
Indonesia and Australia bear resemblance in two factors including competition for
resources among recovery projects and production capacity.
A comparative analysis of three cases provides a multi-perspective view of the
resourcing issues in a post-disaster situation. As many problems faced in disaster
recovery projects that relate to housing, resource availability intrinsically links to
chronic conditions of vulnerability in existence prior to the disaster. As this paper
reveals, the fundamental resourcing challenges across different disaster recovery
environments are not unique but universal. The five components of successful
resourcing practice thus has the potential to guide decision makers and construction
practitioners to understand, visualize, coordinate, and effectively manage post-disaster
housing resourcing issues.
ECAM It is suggested that successful resourcing implementation in disaster recovery
19,5 projects in the wake of a catastrophe requires a multi-stakeholder approach, incorporating
capacity building in the construction sector, and facilitation from government. This
study provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand
the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post-disaster situation with a
view to enhancing their capability of managing disaster recovery projects. The research
570 results highlighted the importance of capacity building in the construction industry and
of government response and intervention to disaster recovery and reconstruction. In
large and complex disaster recovery operations, the availability of resources is bound to
be limited. Identified resourcing problems are likely to be universal and can be anticipated
and pre-planned for irrespective of the environment when a disaster happens.
Notes
1. Whenever a particular sector in a particular economy experiences a marked boom, the
demand for inputs used in that sector tends to increase. This increased demand, in turn,
tends to cause negative impacts for other industries that compete for the inputs used in
the booming sector. The increased prices of inputs raise costs and reduce profitability in the
competing (non-booming) industries. The resulting negative impact on the non-booming
sectors is known as “Dutch Disease”, named after the experience in the Netherlands of
de-industrialization in the wake of large inflows of export revenues from North Sea Oil in the
last 1970s.
2. For more information about “Resilient Organisations” research programme, see www.
resorgs.org.nz
3. The people in the pilot study consist of three NGOs construction coordinators of post-
tsunami housing reconstruction programme in Indonesia; two academic researchers in
reconstruction procurement at Sichuan University, China and three project managers in
charge of resource procurement in post-Wenchuan earthquake rebuilding projects; two
government officials from The Victorian Bushfire Recovery and Reconstruction Authority
(VBRRA), one rebuilding advisor from VBRRA, three project managers involved in bushfire
housing reconstruction and one researcher from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre
in Australia.
4. Prior to the survey, each potential participant was advised by the researchers to subscribe
the Participant Consent Form through which a number of the interviewees chose to be
unidentified by the name, gender, position, and status.
5. Known as the “Free Aceh Movement”.

References
Adam, C.S. and Bevan, D.L. (2004), Aid, Public Expenditure and Dutch Disease. Growth, Poverty
Reduction and Human Development in Africa, St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford,
Oxford.
Agapiou, A., Clausen, L.E., Flanagan, R., Norman, G. and Notman, D. (1998a), “The role of
logistics in the material flow control process”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 131-7.
Agapiou, A., Flanagan, R., Norman, G. and Notman, D. (1998b), “The changing role of builders
merchants in the construction supply chain”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 351-61.
Ahmed, K.I. (2008), “Challenges and opportunities of post-disaster shelter reconstruction: the
Asian context”, I-Rec 2008 International Conference on “Building Resilience: Achieving
Effective Post-Disaster Reconstruction”, 30 April-2 May, Christchurch.
Ala-Risku, T. and Karkkainen, M. (2006), “Material delivery problems in construction projects: a Disaster
possible solution”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
recovery projects
Albu, M. (2010), Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit, Practical Action Publishing
Ltd, Rugby, Warwickshire.
Arbulu, R.J., Tommelein, I.D., Walsh, K.D. and Hershauer, J.C. (2003), “Value stream analysis of a
re-engineered construction supply chain”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 161-71. 571
Asian Development Bank (2007), Proposed Loan for the Reconstruction of the Cement Production
Facility in Aceh, Asian Development Bank, Tokyo.
Auckland Engineering Lifelines Group (AELG) (2005), Resources Available for Response and
Recovery of Lifelines Utilities. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Council
Technical Publication, Auckland.
Bailey, S. and Pavanello, S. (2009), “Untangling early recovery”, HPG Policy Brief No. 38,
Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Bansal, V.K. and Pal, M. (2009), “Construction schedule review in GIS with a navigable 3D
animation of project activities”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 532-42.
Barenstein, J.D. (2006a), “Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat”, Network Paper
No. 54, Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Barenstein, J.D. (2006b), “Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat: a comparative
analysis”, Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Barenstein, J.D. and Pittet, D. (2007), Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Current Trends and
Sustainable Alternatives for Tsunami-Affected Communities in Coastal Tamil Nadu,
ISAAC, University of Applied Science of Southern Switzerland, Lugano.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/
failure factors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 141-51.
Berke, P.R., Kartez, J. and Wenger, D. (1993), “Recovery after disaster: achieving sustainable
development, mitigation and equity”, Disasters, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 94-109.
Boen, T. (2008), “Reconstruction of houses in Aceh, three years after the December 26, 2004
tsunami”, International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation,
14-15 April, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Jakarta, available at: http://know.brr.go.id/
dc/reports/20080408 (accessed 17 May 2009).
Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P., Glass, J. and Price, A. (2007), “Integrating disaster risk
management into construction: a UK perspective”, Building Research and Information,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 163-77.
Brunsdon, D. and Smith, S. (2004), “Summary notes from the infrastructure workshop”,
New Zealand Recovery Symposium, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management,
Wellington (accessed 12-13 July).
Brunsdon, D.R., Charleson, A.W., King, A.B., Middleton, D.A., Sharpe, R.D., Shephard, R.B. and
Smith, E.G.C. (1996), “Post-earthquake co-ordination of technical resources: the need for a
unified approach”, Bulletin of the NZ National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 280-3.
Chan, W.H. and Lu, M. (2008), “Materials handling system simulation in precast viaduct
construction: modeling, analysis, and implementation”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 4, pp. 300-10.
Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R. and Seville, E. (2010), “Resourcing challenges for post-
disaster housing reconstruction: a comparative analysis”, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 247-64.
ECAM Cheng, M.-Y., Tsai, M.-H. and Xiao, Z.-W. (2006), “Construction management process
reengineering: organizational human resource planning for multiple projects”, Automation
19,5 in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 785-99.
China Iron and Steel Association (2009), 2008 Report if China’s Steel Industry, China Iron and
Steel Association, Beijing.
Cho, S., Gordon, P., Moore, J.E., Richardson, H.W., Shinozuka, M. and Chang, S. (2001),
572 “Integrating transportation network and regional economic models to estimate the costs of
a large urban earthquake”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 39-65.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh, P.K. (1999), “Critical success factors for different project
objectives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 142-50.
Comerio, M.C. (1998), Disaster Hits Home: New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery, University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
Corden, M.W. (1984), “Booming sector and Dutch disease economics: survey and consolidation”,
Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 359-80.
Davidson, C. (2010), “Multi-actor arrangements and project management”, in Lizarralde, G.,
Johnson, C. and Davidson, C. (Eds), Rebuilding after Disasters: From Emergency to
Sustainability, Spon Press, London and New York, NY, pp. 88-109.
Dercon, B. (2007), “Two years of settlement recovery in Aceh and Nias: what should the planners
have learned?”, 43rd ISOCARP Congress “Urban Trialogues – Co-Productive Ways to
Relate Visioning and Strategic Urban Projects’, Antwerp, 19-23 September.
Dey, P.K. (2002), “Supply chain management in construction through partnership”, 46th Annual
Meeting of AACE International, Portland, OR, 23-26 June.
Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Ofori, G. (2001), Building a World Class Construction Industry:
Motivators and Enablers, Singapore University Press (Pte) Ltd, Singapore.
EI-Rayes, K. and Kandil, A. (2005), “Time-cost-quality trade-off analysis for highway construction”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 4, pp. 477-86.
EI-Rayes, K. and Khalafallah, A. (2005), “Trade-off between safety and cost in planning
construction site layouts”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131
No. 11, pp. 1186-95.
Eom, C.S.J., Yun, S.H. and Paek, J.H. (2008), “Subcontractor evaluation and management
framework for strategic partnering”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 134 No. 11, pp. 842-51.
Faniran, O.O., Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (1999), “Optimal allocation of construction planning resources”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 5, pp. 311-19.
Fengler, W., Ihsan, A. and Kaiser, K. (2008), “Managing post-disaster reconstruction finance:
International experience in public financial management”, the policy working paper,
East Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (EASPR) & PREM Public Sector
(PRMPS) Units, Washington, DC.
Fewings, P. (2005), Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach, Taylor &
Francis, London.
Freeman, P.K., Keen, M. and Mani, M. (2003), “Being prepared: Natural disasters are becoming
more frequent, more destructive, and deadlier, and poor countries are being hit the
hardest”, Finance and Development, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 42-5.
Gadde, L.E. and Dubois, A. (2010), “Partnering in the construction industry-problems
and opportunities”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 254-63.
Haigh, R., Kerimanginaye, K. and Amaratunga, D. (Eds) (2007), An Exploration of the
Construction Industry’s Role in Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery,
Collaborative Relationships in Construction, Hedley Blackwell, Oxford.
Hanaoka, S. and Qadir, F.M. (2005), “Logistics problems in recovery assistance of Indian Ocean Disaster
earthquake and tsunami disaster”, Scientific Forum on The Tsunami, Its Impact and
Recovery, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok. recovery projects
Jayasuriya, S. and McCawley, P. (2008), “Reconstruction after a major disaster: lessons from the
post-tsunami experience in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand”, ADB Institute Working
Paper No. 125, ADB Institute, Tokyo.
Jayasuriya, S., Steele, P., Weerakoon, D., Knight-John, M. and Arunatilake, N. (2005), 573
“Post-tsunami recovery: issues and challenges in Sri Lanka”, ADB Institute research
paper, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo.
Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E. and Kelman, I. (2008), “The meaning of ‘build back better’:
evidence from post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 24-36.
Koch, C. (2005), “Failures in combined knowledge and material supply chains”, 2005 IEEE
International Engineering Management Conference, September 11-13, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, IEEE, Vol. 2, September, pp. 818-21.
Korde, T., Li, M. and Russell, A.D. (2005), “State-of-the-art review of construction performance
models and factors”, Broadening Perspectives: Construction Research Congress 2005,
The American Society of Civil Engineers, San Diego, CA, 5-7 April.
Koria, M. (2009), “Managing for innovation in large and complex recovery programmes: Tsunami
lessons from Sri Lanka”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-30.
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Lakshmi, A. and Bau, M. (2007), “Project management needs in disaster situations: lessons learnt
from the Boxing Day Tsunami”, 2007 PMI Global Congress, Hong Kong, 29-31 January.
Li, H., Chan, N., Huang, T., Guo, H.L., Lu, W. and Skitmore, M. (2009), “Optimizing construction
planning schedules by virtual prototyping enabled resource analysis”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 912-18.
Limoncu, S. and Celebioglu, B. (2006), “Post-disaster sustainable housing system in Turkey”,
I-Rec 2006 International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction: “Meeting
Stakeholder Interests”, Florence, 17-19 May.
Litman, T. (2006), “Lessons from Katrina and Rita: what major disasters can teach transportation
planners”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 86-95.
Liu, S.-S. and Wang, C.-J. (2007), “Optimization model for resource assignment problems of linear
construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 460-73.
Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to
reconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 385-98.
Makhanu, S.K. (2006), “Resource mobilization for reconstruction and development projects in
developing countries: case of Kenya”, I-Rec 2006 International Conference on Post-Disaster
Reconstruction: “Meeting Stakeholder Interests”, Florence, 17-19 May.
Manavazhi, M.R. and Adhikari, D.K. (2002), “Material and equipment delays in highway projects
in Nepal”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 627-32.
Masurier, J.L., Rotimi, J. and Wilkinson, S. (2006), “A comparison between routine construction
and post-disaster reconstruction with case studies from New Zealand”, 22nd ARCOM
Conference on Current Advances in Construction Management Research, Birmingham,
4-6 September.
Masurier, J.L., Wilkinson, S., Zuo, K. and Rotimi, J. (2008), “Building resilience by focusing on
legal and contractual frameworks for disaster reconstruction”, International Workshop on
Post-Earthquake Reconstruction and Safe Buildings, Sichuan University & Sichuan
Post-Disaster Reconstruction Support and Research Centre, Chengdu, Sichuan, 12-14 November.
ECAM McGee, R.W. (2008), “An economic and ethical analysis of the Katrina disaster”, International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 546-57.
19,5
Morris, P.W. and Hough, G.H. (1987), The Anatomy of Major Projects, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Nazara, S. and Resosudarmo, B.P. (2007), Aceh-Nias Reconstruction and Rehabilitation: Progress
and Challenges at the End of 2006, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo.
574 O’Brien, D., Ahmed, I. and Hes, D. (2008), “Housing reconstruction in Aceh: relationships
between house type and environmental sustainability”, Building Abroad: Procurement of
Construction and Reconstruction Projects in the International Context, Montreal Group de
Recherche IF, grif, Universite de Montreal, Montreal.
Ofori, G. (2002), “Construction industry development for disaster prevention and response”, I-Rec
2002 International Conference on Post-disaster Reconstruction: “Improving Post-Disaster
Reconstruction in Developing Countries”, Montreal, 23-25 May.
Orabi, W., EI-Rayes, K., Senouci, A.B. and AL-Derham, H. (2009), “Optimizing post-disaster
reconstruction planning for damaged transportation networks”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 10, pp. 1039-48.
Padilla, E.M. and Carr, R.I. (1991), “Resource strategies for dynamic project management”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 279-93.
Pandya, C. (2006), “Private authority and disaster relief: the cases of post-tsunami Aceh and
Nias”, Critical Asian Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 298-308.
Park, M. (2005), “Model-based dynamic resource management for construction projects”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 585-98.
Paterson, E., Re, D.D. and Wang, Z. (2008), “The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: risk management
lessons and implications”, in Ericksen, S. (Ed.), RMS Publications, Risk Management
Solutions (RMS), Newark, CA, avaliable at: www.rms.com/Publication/2008
WenchuanEarthquake.pdf (accessed 12 February 2009).
Pheng, L.S. and Chuan, Q.T. (2006), “Environmental factors and work performance of project
managers in the construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 24-37.
Pheng, L.S., Raphael, B. and Kit, W.K. (2006), “Tsunamis: some pre-emptive disaster planning
and management issues for consideration by the construction industry”, Structural Survey,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 378-96.
Pribadi, K., Hoedajanto, D. and Boen, T. (2003), “Earthquake disaster mitigation activities in
Indonesia Jan 1999-Nov 2003”, the 3rd WSSI International Workshop, Bangkok, The
University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Project Management Institute (2005), Project Management Methodology for Post Disaster
Reconstruction, Project Management Institute Inc, Newtown Square, PA.
Pryke, S.D. (2004), “Analysing construction project coalition: exploring the application
of social network analysis”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 787-97.
Resilient Organisations (2006), “Barriers to post-disaster reconstruction”, Resilient Organisations
Research Report, Resilient Organisations, Wellington.
RMS (2006), “Managing Tsunami Risk in the Aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake
and Tsunami”, in Fehr, I., Grossi, P. and Hernandez, S. et al. (Eds), Risk Management
Solutions Inc, Newark, CA, avaliable at: www.rms.com/Publication/indian
oceantsunamireport.pdf (accessed 5 September 2009).
Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (2007), Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer,
New York, NY.
Rotimi, J.O., Wilkinson, S., Zuo, K. and Myburgh, D. (2009), “Legislation for effective post-disaster Disaster
reconstruction”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 143-52. recovery projects
Russell, T.E. (2005), “The humanitarian relief supply chain: analysis of the 2004 South East Asia
earthquake and Tsunami”, Master thesis, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Said, H. and EI-Rayes, K. (2010), “Optimizing material logistics planning in construction 575
projects”, Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction
Practice, ASCE, Banff Alberta, 8-10 May.
Schilderman, T. (2004), “Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction:
experiences with community-based approaches”, Building Research and Information,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 414-26.
Seville, E. and Metcalfe, J. (2005), “Developing a hazard risk assessment framework for the
New Zealand State Highway Network”, Land Transport New Zealand Research Report
No. 276, New Zealand Transport Agency, Canterbury.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2008), “Project management research – the challenge and opportunity”,
Engineering Management Review, IEEE, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 112-21.
Shi, J.J. and Halpin, D.W. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning for construction business
management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 2,
pp. 214-21.
Singh, B. (2007), Availability of Resources for State Highway Reconstruction: A Wellington
Earthquake Scenario Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, The University of
Auckland, Auckland.
Singh, B. and Wilkinson, S. (2008), “Post-disaster resource availability following a Wellington
Earthquake: aggregates, concrete and cement”, I-Rec 2008 Building Resilience: Achieving
Effective Post-Disaster Reconstruction, Christchurch, 30 April-2 May.
Soderlund, J. (2002), “Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the
future”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 183-91.
Spence, R. and Mulligan, H. (1995), “Sustainable development and the construction industry”,
Habitat International, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-92.
State Planning Group of Post-Wenchuan Earthquake Restoration and Reconstruction (2008), The
State Overall Planning for Post-Wenchuan Earthquake Restoration and Reconstruction,
National Development and Reform Committee, Beijing.
Steinberg, F. (2007), “Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia –
rebuilding lives”, Habitat International, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 150-66.
Tatum, C.B. (2005), “Building better: technical support for construction”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Tserng, H.P., Yin, S.Y.L. and Li, S. (2006), “Developing a resource supply chain planning system
for construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132
No. 4, pp. 393-407.
UN-Habitat (2005), “Post-conflict, natural and human-made disasters assessment and
reconstruction”, Pre-session document HSP/GC/20/5, Governing Council of the United
Nations Human Settlements Programme Twentieth session, UN-Habitat, Nairobi.
VBBRA (2009), Rebuilding Together: A State-Wide Plan for Bushfire Reconstruction and
Recovery, Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, Melbourne.
(The) 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) (2010), “The 2009 Victorian Bushfires
Royal Commission Final Report”, Parliament of Victoria, 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal
Commission, Melbourne.
ECAM Voordijk, H. (2000), “The changing logistical system of the building materials supply
chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
19,5 pp. 823-41.
Walker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (Eds) (2008), Procurement Systems: A Cross-Industry Project
Management Perspective, Taylor & Francis and Routledge, New York, NY.
Wang, X. and Dong, W. (2009), “Price control for construction materials following Wenchuan
576 earthquake”, Reform of Economic System, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 178-81.
Winchester, P. (2000), “Cyclone mitigation, resource allocation and post-disaster reconstruction in
South India: lessons from two decades of research”, Disasters, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 18-37.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006), “Directions for future research in project
management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 638-49.
Yeo, K.T. and Ning, J.H. (2002), “Integrating supply chain and critical chain concepts in Engineer-
Procure-Construct (EPC) projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 253-62.
Yusuf, I. (2007), “Aceh green: green economic development and investment strategy for Aceh,
Indonesia”, The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Bali, 6 July.
Zhang, Y. (2006), “Modeling single family housing recovery after Hurricane Andrew in Miami-
dade County, FL”, PhD, A&M University, Collage Station, TX.
Zuo, K. and Wilkinson, S. (2008), “Supply chain and material procurement for post disaster
construction: the Boxing Day Tsunami reconstruction experience in Aceh, Indonesia”,
CIB W89 International Conference on Building Education and Research BEAR 2008,
Heritance, Kandalama, 11-15 February.
Zuo, K., Potangaroa, R., Wilkinson, S. and Rotimi, J.O.B. (2009), “A project management
prospective in achieving a sustainable supply chain for timber procurement in Banda
Aceh, Indonesia”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 386-400.
Zuo, K., Wilkinson, S., Masurier, J.L. and Zon, J.V.D. (2006), “Reconstruction procurement
systems: the 2005 Matata flood reconstruction experience”, I-Rec 2006 International
Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction: “Meeting Stakeholder Interests”, Florence,
17-19 May.
Appendix 1 Disaster
recovery projects

Factors affecting project

resource availability W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
No. in post-disaster reconstruction 100 80 60 40 20 Score Rank
577
(I) Construction Market-related factors 4 6 10 1,080 III
1. Resource price fluctuation in market 4 2 1 9 4 1,060 14
2. Local production capacity 5 4 4 3 4 1,260 10
3. Pre-existing market structure 6 6 3 5 1,060 14
Competition for resources from other
4. industries 8 5 7 820 20
Competition for resources from among aid
5. agencies 11 8 1 1,800 1
(II) Transportation-related factors 1 3 4 12 660 V
1. Local transportation capacity 10 10 1,800 1
2. Transportation method 2 9 9 1,060 14
3. Transportation cost 4 10 6 1,160 12
4. Location of depot 20 400 25
5. Resource procurement lead time 10 4 1 5 1,580 4
(III) Reconstruction project-related factors 2 2 7 5 4 1,060 IV
1. Project design drawings 4 4 4 6 1 1,220 11
2. Project type 12 4 3 1 1,740 3
3. Quantity of resources required 4 4 2 4 720 21
4. Resource procurement method 1 2 1 1 3 420 24
5. Construction technique/technologies 1 1 140 31
6. Project resourcing plan 1 5 180 30
7. Housing reconstruction approach 2 80 33
8. Project schedule/urgency 2 4 4 4 4 1,000 17
9. Construction funding 1 1 2 2 280 27
10. Project location 3 1 1 240 28
(IV) Project stakeholders-related factors 13 5 1 1 1,800 I
1. Competence of contractor 8 1 7 1 1 1,360 8
2. Selection of material suppliers 1 40 34
3. Partnership and supplier management 1 4 120 32
4. Contractor resource database system 1 20 36
5. Contractor inventory 1 40 34
6. Supplier inventory 0 37
7. Cooperation of parties in construction 1 2 5 6 520 23
8. Coordination among aid agencies 2 3 1 7 5 880 18
9. Communication with local authorities 2 2 2 240 28
10. Local government support and assistance 4 10 3 2 1,460 7
11. NGOs competency of resource procurement 6 5 5 1 1,320 9
(V) Operational environment-related factors 5 8 3 4 1,400 II
1. Legislation and policy 4 8 6 2 1,160 12
2. General economic environment 1 1 2 4 8 620 22
3. Social and political stability 1 2 7 300 26
4. Physical impact of the tsunami 2 3 3 5 3 880 18 Table AI.
5. Local housing culture and customs 7 7 5 1,560 5 Questionnaire response
6. Community influence and participation 6 8 2 3 1,480 6 rates and ranking
hierarchy in case
Notes: W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5 symbolize the weights 100, 80, 60, 40, 20, respectively of Indonesia
ECAM Appendix 2
19,5
Factors affecting project resource availability Significance
No. in post-disaster reconstruction Mean t-value SD (2-tailed)

578 (I) Construction market-related factors

1. Resource price fluctuation in market 3.97 6.009 0.865 0.000
2. Local production capacity 4.24 9.040 0.739 0.000
Competition for resources from other reconstruction
3. projects 4.07 8.844 0.651 0.000
Competition for resources from other existing
4. construction projects 3.59 3.829 0.825 0.001
5. Competition for resources from other industries 3.34 1.625 1.143 0.115
(II) Transportation-related factors
1. Local transportation capacity 4.38 9.581 0.775 0.000
2. Transportation method 4.48 12.602 0.634 0.000
3. Transportation cost 4.55 12.183 0.686 0.000
4. Resource procurement lead time 4.59 12.520 0.682 0.000
5. Location of depot 4.10 7.697 0.772 0.000
(III) Reconstruction project-related factors
1. Project design drawings 4.21 8.401 0.774 0.000
2. Quantity of resources required 4.59 13.607 0.628 0.000
3. Project type 4.00 5.203 1.035 0.000
4. Project schedule/urgency 4.66 18.427 0.484 0.000
5. Project budget/construction funding 3.90 5.617 0.860 0.000
6. Type and method of construction 3.66 4.118 0.857 0.000
7. Resource procurement method 4.00 6.075 0.886 0.000
8. Resource procurement contract type 3.52 3.057 0.911 0.005
9. Project resourcing plan 4.59 9.034 0.946 0.000
10. Project location 4.38 11.945 0.622 0.000
(IV) Project stakeholders-related factors
1. Competence of contractor 4.59 10.360 0.825 0.000
2. Selection of material suppliers 3.41 2.268 0.983 0.031
3. Partnership and supplier management 4.14 8.250 0.743 0.000
4. Contractor resource database system 4.48 13.899 0.574 0.000
5. Supplier inventory 3.97 7.112 0.731 0.000
6. Contractor inventory 4.14 7.353 0.833 0.000
7. Cooperation of parties in construction 3.86 5.073 0.915 0.000
8. Coordination among parties in construction 3.69 4.170 0.891 0.000
9. Communication with local authorities 4.34 6.717 1.078 0.000
10. Contractor top management commitment 3.62 3.186 1.049 0.004
11. Competency of resourcing manager 4.59 9.855 0.867 0.000
(V) Operational environment-related factors
1. Legislation and policy 4.83 25.601 0.384 0.000
2. General economic environment 4.55 13.229 0.632 0.000
3. Local pre-event economic environment 4.10 7.697 0.772 0.000
4. Physical impact of the earthquake 4.14 8.250 0.743 0.000
5. Social public attitude 3.21 1.099 1.013 0.281
6. Community influence 2.62 2.262 0.903 0.032
Table AII.
Questionnaire response Notes: Scale ranges from 1 ¼ “not important at all” to 5 ¼ “very important”. The null hypothesis is
rates and ranking H0: m ¼ m0 and the alternative hypothesis is H1: m4m0, where m is the population mean, m0 is the
hierarchy in case of China critical rating at 3. The level of significance for the one-tailed test is 0.05
Appendix 3 Disaster
recovery projects

Factors affecting project resource availability W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

No. in post-disaster reconstruction 100 80 60 40 20 Score Rank
579
(I) Construction market-related factors 8 8 2 3 1 1,700 II
1. Resource price fluctuation in market 3 6 5 5 3 1,340 9
2. Local production capacity 5 6 5 4 2 1,480 6
Competition for resources from other existing
3. construction projects 7 5 6 2 2 1,580 4
Competition for resources from other rebuilding
4. projects 7 5 1 8 1 1,500 5
5. Competition for resources from other industries 1 1 4 3 13 800 15
(II) Transportation-related factors 1 3 19 560 V
1. Local transportation capacity 0 31
2. Transportation method 0 31
3. Transportation cost 4 3 360 24
4. Location of depot 2 160 28
5. Material procurement lead time 3 3 5 1 640 21
(III) Reconstruction project-related factors 1 4 10 6 1 1,280 IV
1. Project design drawings 1 2 4 1 2 580 22
2. Quantity of resources required 1 4 180 27
3. Resource procurement method 1 2 140 29
4. Construction type and method 1 4 2 2 2 660 20
5. Resource plan 1 1 1 120 30
6. Project schedule/urgency 2 1 2 200 26
7. Project budget/construction funding 6 2 5 4 3 1,280 10
8. Project location 4 4 3 6 7 1,280 10
9. Compliance with new building codes 10 9 1 1,780 1
(IV) Project stakeholders-related factors 5 4 4 7 2 1,380 III
1. Competence of contractor/builder 2 4 4 1 8 960 14
2. Selection of material suppliers 2 1 6 2 3 780 17
3. Partnership and supplier management 1 3 5 2 580 22
4. Cooperation of parties in construction 5 4 5 7 1,400 8
5. Communication with local authorities 2 3 6 3 3 980 13
6. Government support and assistance 10 6 3 2 1,640 3
7. Competency of resourcing manager 1 1 1 4 260 25
(V) Operational environment-related factors 8 6 5 3 1,700 I
1. Legislation and policy 12 2 4 2 1 1,700 2
2. General economic environment 2 2 10 4 760 18
3. Local pre-event economic environment 3 3 4 6 760 18
4. Community demography 1 8 3 3 6 1,160 12 Table AIII.
5. Decision making ability of the affected people 4 7 6 2 1 1,420 7 Questionnaire response
6. Physical impact of the bushfires 2 3 4 1 4 800 15 rates and ranking
hierarchy in case
Note: W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5 symbolize the weights 100, 80, 60, 40, 20, respectively of Australia
ECAM About the authors
Yan Chang is a PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
19,5 University of Auckland. She holds a BE (Hons) degree in Civil Engineering and a Master’s degree
in Management Science and Engineering from Central South University in China. Under the
“Resilient Organisations” Research Programme, her doctoral research focuses on resourcing for
post-disaster reconstruction, providing a cross-comparison analysis of resourcing approaches
580 applied in Indonesia, China and Australia during their recovery from catastrophic disasters. Yan
Chang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ycha233@aucklanduni.ac.nz
Suzanne Wilkinson is Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at The University of Auckland. She obtained her BE (Hons) and PhD in
Construction Management from Oxford Brookes University, UK. Her research interests focus on
construction contract administration and relationship management for construction projects.
Over the last six years she has co-led “Resilient Organisations” research, working and
supervising PhD students in the area of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.
Regan Potangaroa is Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at Unitec, Auckland.
He has a Bachelor and a Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from The University of
Canterbury, a Master in Architecture from Victoria University, and a Master in Business
Administration and a PhD in Architectural Engineering from James Cook University,
Townsville, Australia. Despite this academic background, his professional experience has been
as a consulting structural engineer of more than 25 years experience gained in 13 different
countries. In the last seven years he has worked as a RedR Engineer to the United Nations in
various disaster situations throughout the world, such as in Aceh (following the 2004 tsunami
disaster), Pakistan (following the Afghanistan conflict and again for the 2005 earthquake), Syria
(at the time of the Iraq conflict), West Timor (at the establishment of a separate Timor), West
Darfur (at the initial onset of internal conflict) and Geneva (with UNHCR).
Erica Seville is a Research Fellow in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Canterbury. She obtained her PhD in Risk Assessment and BE (Hons) from the University of
Canterbury. She is currently a member of the New Zealand Society for Risk Management and a
director of Risk Strategies Research and Consulting. Over the last six years, she has led the
“Resilient Organisations” Research Programme, considering the resilience assessment and
improvement of organizations across New Zealand, in response to emergency situations, with
further details available at: www.resorgs.org.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints