Gender the Neglected Dimension in Disaster Recovery An Overview of the Literature

Nicki Fraser

Gender the Neglected Dimension in Disaster RecoveryAn Overview of the Literature

Gender in Disaster Recovery 1

Introduction

In the 1990’s the field of disaster management recovery was a

nascent one. E.L. Quarantelli (1999) suggested the concept of

recovery might mean different things to different people, from

rebuilding, reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and

restitution. This review utilizes Brenda Phillips’ (2009)

definition from (Mileti 1999). Mileti stated, “Recovery is

putting a disaster stricken community back together” (p.22).

According to Gavin P. Smith and Dennis Wenger (2006) the field of

disaster recovery represented one of the least understood and

researched dimensions of disaster management. Compared to the

other dimensions of disaster research, preparedness, response,

and mitigation, 21st century scholars and practitioners have not

fully addressed or integrated fundamental frameworks or tools to

improve both short term and long-term disaster recovery outcomes

(Rubin 2009; Jordan and Javernick 2012). According to Gloria

Rubin (2009) “long term recovery was, and still is, the neglected

element of emergency management” (pg.2).


The neglect of short/long term recovery is especially

relevant when the dimension of gender is inserted into disaster

recovery. Socio-economically and politically insecure people

regardless of gender are the most vulnerable and resource

disadvantaged in the disaster recovery phase. Women are the most

affected, least visible in policies and left more impoverished

than before the disaster (Enarson, Fothergill, Peek 2007; Fordham

2012; Fothergill 2002; Reigner et al. 2008). The dearth in

disaster management and gender analysis led to the extensive

research and contributions produced by various scholars (Enarson

and Fordham 2002; Enarson, Fothergill and Peek 2007; Enarson and

Meyreles 2004; Fothergill 2002; McEntire 2010; Phillips 2009;

Quarantelli 1995). Their efforts broadened research perspectives

on the complexities of disaster gender vulnerability and expanded

the field of gender disaster social science (Enarson, Fothergill,

and Peek 2007; Enarson 2012). Despite these advances in gender

disaster research, within the dimension of disaster recovery,

research and policy regarding gender disaster recovery is

inadequate (Joshi and Bhatt 2007; Pike, Phillips, and Reeves


2006; Rubin 2009). The optimum approach to recovery is

participatory and inclusive, one that integrates quality of life,

economic vitality, social and intergenerational equity, gender

and sustainable environmental quality (Horton 2010; Phillips

2009; Seager 2006).

The disaster research literature shows that women are

differentially impacted by disasters, experience greater

difficulties in recovering from them, and may experience

relatively limited access to disaster relief aid primarily due to

gender-based inequities inherent in communities throughout the

world (Wisner et al., 2004;Rodriguez et al. 2008). Maureen

Fordham (2012) found, the use of words such as gender, women, and

men tend to trivialize the individual responses to recovery and

essentially weaken those experiences. Both women and men may

carry the burdens of societal expectations and suffer because of

them. Women have the triple burden of their (inside) reproductive

role, (outside) productive role, and (wider outside) community

role. Due to many patriarchal societal demands, men may tend to

engage in risk taking behaviors and place themselves in danger.


This behavior then leaves women more vulnerable as single mothers

and heads of households. Lynn Horton (2012) wrote, “Gender-based

exclusion may occur at multiple levels, ranging from

transnational policy formation to the ground-level implementation

of relief efforts”. Based on the subsequent literature analysis,

this paper posits the disaster recovery literature acknowledges

the aforementioned challenges but very few researchers promote

and produce gender specific recovery research.

This literature review attempts to highlight the need for

the expansion of research in gender disaster recovery, in the

short-term and long-term phases. Rodriguez, Wachtendorf, James,

&Trainor (2006) found in their post-tsunami research, “Changing

gender roles and their permanency (or lack thereof) warrants our

attention and further research initiatives. We must consider the

short- and long-term demographic and socio-economic

implications… and how they impact the population in general and

women in particular…” (p.163).

This review finds extensive gender scholarship regarding the

social, psychological, and housing dimensions of recovery, but a


scarcity of information in business recovery, debris management,

and environmental and cultural recovery dimensions. Phillips

(2009) wrote, “Emergency managers and researchers view recovery

as a process, defined by two stages short and long term , steps

and sequences that people, organizations, and communities move

through at varying rates” (p.22). According to Phillips (2009)

“recovery represents the least thought about phase, particularly

at the local level” (p.42).The short-term recovery phase,

transitions a community from response activities to recovery

efforts such as managing donations and volunteers, temporary

shelter and debris clearing (Brouwer et al. 2000; Horton 2012;

McEntire 2012; Phillips 2009). The long-term recovery phase

encompasses the dimensions of disaster recovery.

This literature review of 100 articles first, explains the

search methodology used, highlighting the literature on natural

disasters. Next, the review organizes the findings based on

Phillips’ (2009) eight dimensions of disaster recovery: debris

management, environmental recovery, historic and cultural

resources, housing, business recovery, infrastructure and


lifelines, social psychological recovery and public sector

recovery. Last, the author offers future opportunity for gender

recovery research.

Methodology

A systematic, extensive search was generated in four phases.

(the phases are found in the appendix) Article searches were

generated from the F.I.U. online library databases Medline, One

File, and Academic (gale), using the key words disaster, post-

disaster, hazards, and various combinations adding the words

gender, recovery, reconstruction, female and male, women and men.

The additional search parameters were subject, English, and peer-

reviewed from the years 2000-2014.When all the article abstracts

were sorted and read, 100 articles were deemed potentially

relevant to the initial concept of gender disaster recovery.

Disasters

There are different types of disasters, the main ones

researched are natural, technological (hazardous and waste) and


those caused by terrorism. This review focuses on natural

disasters, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes in both the United

States and globally. E. L. Quarantelli (1988, 1998)) described a

disaster as an event having human impact disruptive to a

community’s ability to function socially, economically,

politically, whereby damaged infrastructure displace the

community’s citizens. Mileti (1999) described a disaster as a

natural misfit between the built-environment and the natural

ecosystem. This review utilizes both definitions, which encompass

the recovery process from natural disasters.

The global field of Disaster Emergency Management brings

together governmental and non-governmental experts and

researchers from different disciplines. In 1978, the United

States National Governors Association identified a four-phase

model, which organized the activities that constituted “the life

cycle of emergency management” (Phillips, 2009, p. 30).Those

activities are Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.

The Mitigation phase reduces the impact of disasters whether

natural or manmade. The Preparedness phase constitutes the


planning, education and coordination of government citizens and

built environment. The Response phase encompasses the life safety

of groups, including first responders. The Recovery phase

attempts to bring communities “back to normal”. This over used

term “back to normal” is contested by many marginalized groups,

as normal would not improve their previous socio-economic

conditions (Dupuy 2010; Edmonds 2012; Padgett and Warnecke 2011).

In order for recovery to be successful, all actors should play

active roles in the process. Phillips (2009) wrote, “This

participatory process must address individual and community

quality of life, economic vitality, social and intergenerational

equity and a sustainable environmental quality” (p.51). In many

countries during the post-disaster recovery, women still cope

with male dominated relief agencies and bureaucratic

inefficiencies, which hinder women’s active participation (Horton

2012, Reigner et al. 2008).

Review Limitation

A strength of this review is the timeframe utilized. The

period from the year 2000 through 2014 was used because of the


major catastrophic events and increased human fatalities from

those events. According to the AonBenefield Global Climate and

Catastrophe Report (2013), the years 2003-2012 averaged 109,000

fatalities. In the last ten years, major singular events (such as

earthquakes in Haiti (2010), China (2008), and Indonesia (2004),

Cyclone Nargis’ landfall in Myanmar (2008), and the major

heatwave in Europe (2003) exacerbated and increased the prior ten

year average. The magnitude of the aforementioned events

generated hundreds of disaster related articles in various

fields. This same timeframe may also be viewed as a weakness

because the review incorporates limited disaster literature prior

to the year 2000.

Literature Review Findings

The Dimensions of Disaster Recovery

The dimensions of recovery are Debris Management,

Environmental Recovery, Historic and Cultural Resources, Housing

Recovery, Business Recovery, Infrastructure and Lifelines, Social

Psychological Recovery and Public Sector Recovery; sub-dimensions


are briefly reviewed. The dimensions of disaster recovery seek to

rebuild or build anew the the various social, political, and

economic capital of stakeholders in a community (Aldrich 2010;

Brouwer et al. 2000; Cutter et al. 2003; George 2013: Quarantelli

et al. 2006).

Debris Management

Phillips (2009) wrote, “Debris management is more than the

removal of trash or destroyed buildings, it becomes a critical

part of the process of managing public health, both the

psychological and physical aspects, across the disaster affected

community” (p.101). The process of debris removal, demolition,

and clearing allows stakeholders the opportunity to recycle,

reuse, and restore their environment. The short and long-term

strategies for debris management pave the way for other recovery

dimensions, without it, residents can’t rebuild, and businesses

can’t reopen. Many debris removal and clearing activities were

initiated and facilitated by community grass-roots organizations

during hurricane Katrina (David 2010; Nigg et al. 2006;

Katz ),the Indonesian tsunami, the flood in Pakistan (Kirsch,


Wadhwani, Sauer, Doocy and Catlett 2014) and the earthquake in

Haiti ( McEntire & Gupta 2012).

A crucial short-term strategy in disaster management, also

used in Mass-Fatality Management (MFM) is the recovery of bodies

and personal effects. Debris management and MFM are inseparable

activities when clearing debris. McEntire, Sadiq & Gupta (2012)

in their MFM literature review asserted, “There are many

challenges associated with mass-fatality incidents and body

removal. Lack of resources needed, decomposing bodies viewed as

health risks (contrary to the truth), lack of local expertise in

MFM, non-existing pre-death data (racial and gender issues

(Aguirre & Quarantelli 2008), badly disfigured bodies and list of

deceased unavailable”(p.7). There seems to be a knowledge gap in

this disaster recovery dimension, gender is rarely mentioned

except when quantifying death tolls. Women are still hidden

actors in this dimension.

Environmental, Historic, and Cultural Resources Recovery

Phillips refers to environmental recovery, “as the

activities that salvage, restore, and replenish community


resources” (p.135). Liz Gordon (2013) found after the 2012

Christchurch earthquake, women worked to beautify their

surroundings and create cohesive communities.

The preservation of a community’s historic and unique attributes

is an important concept in the recovery process. Phillips (2009)

cited (Hummon 1986) when she wrote, “places are environmental

contexts with real consequences for people, creating a sense of

community identity and shared heritage” (p.162). Emmanuel David

(2011) examined cultural trauma during the recovery period after

the 2005 Katrina hurricane and found residents suffered a great

sense of loss. This loss comprised historical, community, and

individual sense of “belonging”. David (2008) also discovered as

part of the recovery process, women’s groups modified place –

based practices related to ritual acts of mourning and

remembrance and incorporated disaster related symbols into their

collective consciousness.

Housing Recovery


“Housing is the single greatest component of all disaster

losses in terms of economic value and buildings damaged” (Comerio

1997) used by Phillips (2009) page 176. Although many researchers

address housing recovery (Fothergill 2004; Finch, Emrich and

Cutter 2010; Shah 2013; Yau, Tsa and Yulita 2014) gender issues

are not always considered. In the review of the housing

literature, the typology used was found in Quarantelli (1982)

research and case studies on sheltering and housing. Housing

recovery is sub divided into emergency shelter, temporary

shelter, temporary and permanent housing. According to

Quarantelli (1982), the phases are not linear, communities,

organizations and affected individuals may be in two phases

simultaneously.

Emergency sheltering is usually based on situational factors

such as available evacuation access routes and number of

vulnerable residents. Due to the perceived short time frame

(usually 1-5 days), affected individuals accept conditions such

as limited space and privacy in emergencies, which they would

otherwise not accept. Emergency shelters may consist of schools,


libraries, or arenas. (Quarantelli E. , 1982, p. 278) Temporary

sheltering such as hotels, school gymnasiums, and church

auditoriums (Lindell 2013) as well as friend and family homes

serve as options for those affected by natural disasters. Studies

show that disaster impacted residents utilize larger venues as

communication centers, as well as food and medical service

distribution centers (Nigg, Burnshaw,Torres 2006).

Internal Displacement Camps fall between temporary shelter

and temporary housing, (Cullen and Ivers; Horton 2012) these

camps may be set up by governments or spontaneously resurrected

by displaced residents. Addressing gender issues of safe housing

and personal safety are critical in this setting (Blimn- Pike,

Phillips, & Reeves, 2006). Temporary housing facilities such as

trailers and mobile homes encompass the reestablishment of

households and routines. Studies show (Tobin, Bell, Montz, &

Whiteford, 2006) rental communities are adversely affected more

so than homeowners are. Permanent housing is often related to pre

disaster housing conditions (Shah, 2012), the availability of

housing stock, business reinvestment, and available land are


factors that influence rebuilding opportunities. Phillips

contended (2009) “gender distinctions along with age, income, and

cultural divisions make housing recovery challenging”

(p.193).Chakraborty, Tobin and Montz (2011) recommended careful

consideration be given to the characteristics of local

populations when rebuilding. Once again, scant mention of female-

headed households or women in general is found in the available

research.

Business Recovery

This dimension of disaster recovery is thin as far as the

scholarship available. Researchers tend to focus on organized

business concerns of both large and small companies, yet exclude

the various ways women generate revenue to support their

families. Women tend to have home-based businesses (Enarson 2002)

such as beauty salons, daycare, and babysitting assistance that

disappear once a disaster strikes and the family dwelling no

longer exists. Julie Goldscheid (2007) noted major discrepancies

in financial recovery assistance in how women survivors were

compensated when she compared the simple financially rewarding


process utilized after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the arduous

and less generous one after Hurricane Katrina. Credit

opportunities or business loans for women are often inaccessible.

Women then organize and formulate small micro lending

opportunities among themselves (Hossein 2013; Padgett and

Warnecke 2011).

Research (Regnier et al. 2008) drawn from several coastal

fishing villages in India that employed women, successfully used

micro strategies designed for sustainable growth. Women in

Montserrat created cooperative centers where women were taught to

sew, embroider, and learn computer skills. The women’s goals were

the meaningful rebuilding of their communities by “rebuilding

themselves” (Soares & Mullings, 2009).

Social Psychological Recovery

Psychological Recovery

Psychologists tell us that massive events with extensive

loss of life are more likely to lead to personal trauma. Post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most commonly occurring

mental health disorder after natural disasters (Chen et al.


2014). In their study after the Wenchaun earthquake Chen et al.

(2014) found being female was a risk factor for PTSD symptoms.

This may be because when faced with disasters, women tend to show

their vulnerability more and to be more inclined to express their

true feelings compared with men. Women are more likely to view

the world as dangerous, to blame themselves for the trauma, and

to have a more negative self-image (Tolin & Foa, 2006). Aloudat

and Christensen (2012) wrote, “Often pre disaster experiences

determine post disaster reactions of the individual, family and

the community, surviving or witnessing disasters may produce

different biological stress reactions” (p.570).

Cerda, Paczkowski, Galea, Nemethy, Pean, and Desvarieux

(2012) tested survivors in different levels of displacement in

Haiti during the post 2010 earthquake recovery phase. Job loss

among women accounted for higher levels of PTSD, the women felt

that lack of resources impeded their ability to care for their

children. The pre-environmental factors of poverty, food, and

shelter insecurity also set the stage for post disaster

psychological challenges.


Social Capital

David Aldrich (2010) wrote, “Given the growing evidence that

social capital serves as a core component in recovery, increasing

stocks of it in vulnerable communities, such as the Gulf Coast of

the United States and rural fishing villages in India may prove

to be a more efficient use of private and public sector

resources. The variation in recovery is a function of the quality

and quantity of multiple types of social connections…” (p. 62).

Emel Ganapati (2012) argued that social networks offered benefits

therapeutic in nature, helping women survivors gain empowerment,

attain civic consciousness, and avoid the stigma of charity. Lynn

Horton (2010) wrote, “The post-earthquake period in Haiti saw a

new surge in grassroots, often ad hoc, networks of women. They

drew on the Haitian tradition of “one helping the other”, and

collective work groups. They were a response to the necessity and

crisis of the moment by women who in the first days after the

earthquake in particular, received limited or no assistance from

the Haitian state and NGOs” (p.304).


Nicole George (2013) researched the importance of social

networks in the recovery and reconstruction of communities. In

her research of post Katrina recovery, she proposed various

networks such as faith based, sporting and workplace

relationships may overlap and enhance an individual’s capacity to

weather the process, these same networks may exclude others based

on gender, race, or class. The activist organization, Women of

Montserrat (Soares and Mullings 1998) after the disaster there

decided they would not build a new community, but instead build

“a new woman”. A woman empowered through grass-root efforts

politically, socially and economically. Joshi and Bhatt (2009)

investigated women run organizations in post-tsunami Sri Lanka

that used multi-level interventions and created cross-sector

service linkages and partnerships to promote a culture of safety

and protect women’s rights.

Gender Based Violence

Researchers (Aldrich 2011; Cullen and Ivers 2010; Enarson,

Fothergill and Peek 2007; Fisher 2009; Goldscheid 2007; Seager

2006; Weber and Messias 2012; Zahran Shelley, Peek and Brady


2009) attributed the rise of post disaster domestic and gender-

based violence to stress, loss and trauma. Disaster events

further weaken vulnerable communities and or populations, whereby

the residents are unable to regulate increased violence. Men are

more likely to express anger and emotional suffering

destructively leading to increased socially dysfunctional

behaviors such as alcoholism and gender based violence.

Overcrowded shelters or temporary housing facilities put women at

greater risk from males (Zahran, Shelley, Peek, and Brady 2009).

The loss of community, familial support, and protection

exacerbate already precarious conditions.

Horton (2012) found, “After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti,

Women have had to cope with male-dominated relief agencies, loss

of medical and other services, increases in sexual and gender-

based violence, and complex bureaucratic processes in post-

disaster periods. Often men receive recognition for their roles

in search and rescue and reconstruction, while women’s roles as

caretakers and organizers of informal networks remain invisible

and undervalued” (p.299).


Public Sector Recovery

Recovery can become an opportunity for public officials to

lay new foundations for a better community and prove their worth

as public sector leaders. Rubin (2009) wrote, “Effective

intergovernmental relationships are essential to an efficient

recovery. The processes and relationships are important, but the

actual outcomes and results produced are the critical aspects”

(p.2). Governmental leaders must weigh the challenges while

remaining positive for their staff and the community at large.

Public accountability of recovery funds through Performance

Auditing is a critical aspect in order for the recovery process

to be successful for all stakeholders (Labadie 2008). Fisher

(2009) proposed, when officials cease to view women as helpless

victims their skills and talents can be utilized in the recovery

process. Recovery, also seen as a participatory process through

accountability engenders individual and community ownership and

lends credibility to program funds usage and outcomes. In this

recovery dimension women as Managers or political leaders are

nearly invisible in recovery literature. When local and national


officials overcome conventional hierarchal attitudes and

inequitable gendered policies, post disaster recovery can become

successful developmental interventions (Lund and Veaux (2009);

Soares and Mullings 2009; Yonder et al. 2009).

Conclusion

The field of gender disaster recovery is the least explored

and written about phase of the four phases of disaster management

mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. Although the

dimensions of psychology, housing, and social psychological are

adequately researched, the knowledge gaps in the other dimensions

afford researchers the opportunity to investigate and integrate

gender into the scholarship. The infrastructure, utilities,

communication networks, information systems, and public

transportation are interconnected lifelines necessary to the

recovery process of communities small and large. Information

systems and communication can slow down or speed up the recovery

process, yet women as critical actors are missing in pertinent

literature. Research shows the recovery experience is not


homogeneous it is messy and uncertain encompassing factors such

as race, power, class and gender (Smith and Wenger 2006).

Unfortunately, gender remains the least researched factor in the

recovery dimension. Women are still invisible actors in the long-

term recovery process. Until women are brought out of the shadows

and touted as active, politically viable stakeholders, the

recovery process remains an inequitable one. Yonder et al. (2009)

wrote, “Post disaster situations can be empowerment opportunities

for women” (p.209).


References

Aldrich, D. P. (2011). Ties that Bond, Ties that Build: Social Capital and Governments in Post Disaster Recovery. Studies in Emergent Order Vol. 4, 58-68.

Aloudat, T., & Christensen, l. (2012). Psycho-social Recovery. InB. Wisner, J. Gaillard, & I. Kelman, Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (pp. 569-579). London, N.Y.:Routledge.

AonBenefield. (2013). Global and Catastrophe Report. AonBenefield.

Blimn- Pike, L., Phillips, B., & Reeves, P. (2006). Shelter Life After Katrina: Visual Analysis of Evacuee Perspectives. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaasters, 303-330.


Bloem M.D., C., & Miller M.D., A. (2013). Disasters and Women's Health: Reflections from 2010 Earthquake in Haiti. Prehospitaland Disater Medicine.

Cerda, M., Paczkowski, M., & Galea, S. (2012). Psychotherpy in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake ,Poulation Study of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression.

Chen, H., Chen, Y., Au, M., Ling Feng, & Qian Chen. (2014). , Thepresence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in earthquake survivors one month after a mudslide in southwestChina. Nursing and Health Sciences, 39-45.

Cullen, K., & Ivers, L. C. (2010). Human Rights Assessment in Parc Jean Marie Vincent, Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Health and Human Rights12 (2), 61-72.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 2, 242-260.

Cutter, S., Emrich, C., Webb, J., & Morath, D. (2009). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change Variability Hazards: A Review of the Literature. Columbia: University of South Carolina Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute.

David, E. (2008). Cultural Trauma, Memory and Gendered Collectve Action: The Case of Women of the Storm Following Hurricane Katrina. NWSA Journal Vol.20 No.3, 138-162.

David, E. (2010). "Studying Up" On Women and Disaster: An Elite Women's Group Following Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 246-269.

Dupuy, A. (2010, July/August). Report on Haiti.

Edmonds PhD., K. (2012). Beyond Good Intentions-The Structural Limitations of NGOs in Haiti. Journal of Critical Sociology, 404-424.


Elliott, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, Class and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research 35, 295-321.

Enarson, E., & Chakrabarti, P. D. (2009). Women, Gender and Disaster- Global Issues and Initiatives. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

Enarson, E., & Fordham, M. (2001). From Women's Needs to Women's Rights. Environmental Hazards Vol.3, 134-136.

Enarson, E., Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2007). Gender and Disaster: Foundations and Directions. In S. Science, Handbook of Disaster Research (pp. 130-146). New York: Springer.

Finch, C., Emrich, Christopher, & Cutter, S. (2010). Disaster disparities and differential recovery in New Orleans. Popul Ennviron 31, 179-202.

Fisher, S. (2009). Srilankan Women's Organizations- Responding toPost-Tsunami Violence. In E. Enarson, & P. D. Chakrabarti, Women, Gender and Disaster- Global Issues and Inititiatives (pp. 232-249).Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Fordham, M. (2012). Gender , Sexuality and Disaster. In B. Wisner, J. Gaillard, & I. Kelman, Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (pp. 424-435). London, N.Y.:Routledge.

Fothergill, A. (2002). The Neglect of Gender in Disaster Work: AnOverview of the LIterature. Perspectives on Gnder and Disaster, 12-24.

Ganapati, N. E. (2012). In Good Company: Why Social Capital matters For Women During Disaster Recovery. Public Administartion Review Vol. 72 Iss.3, 419-427.

George, N. (2013). It was a town of friendship and mud. Australian Journal of Communication 40.1, 41-56.


Goldscheid, J. (2007). Women and Disaters: Imagining Recovery Programs from the Victm's Perspective. Women Rights Law Reporter Vol.28 No. 1, 15-19.

Gordon, L. (2013). Preserving family and community: women's voices from the Christchurch earthquakes. Disaster Prevention andManagement, 22.

Green, R., Havelin, T., & Zitleman, K. (2011). NGO's Address Structural Racism After the Storm in New Orleans. Springer Science and Business Media.

Harada, T. (2000). Space, Materials and the Social. Environment andPlanning Vol. 18, 205-212.

Horton, L. (2012). After the Earthquake: Gender Inequality and Transformation in Postdisaster Haiti. Gender & Development, 20:2, 295-308.

Hossein, C. S. (2013). The Black Social Economy-Perseveranve of Banker Ladies in the Slums. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 423-442.

Jigyasu, R. (2012). Socio-Economic Recovery. In B. Wisner, J. Gaillard, & I. Kelman, The Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (pp. 580-590). London, N.Y.: Routledge.

Joshi, C., & Mihir, B. (2009). Engendering Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka- The Role of UNIFEM and its Partners. In E. Enarson, & P. D. Chakrabarti, Women, gender and Disaster- Global Issues and Initiatives (pp. 303-319). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Labadie, J. R. (2008). Auditing of Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction Acivities. Disaster Prevention and Management : An International Journal Vol.17 Iss. 5, 575-586.

Luft, R. E. (2008). Looking for Common Ground: Relief Work in Post-Katrina New Orleans as an American Parable of Race and


Gender Violence. NWSA Journal Vol.20 No.3, 5-31.

Lund, F, & Vaux, T. (2009). Work Focused Responses to Diasters- India's Self-Employed Women's Association. In E. Enarson, & P. D. Chakrabarti, Women, Gender and Disaster- Global Issues and Initiaives (pp. 212-223). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

McEntire, D. (2001). Triggering Agents, Vulnerabilities and Disaster Reduction Towards a Holistic Paradigmn. Disaster Prevention and Management, 189-196.

McEntire, D. (2012). Understanding and Reducing Vulnerability from the Approach of Liabilities and Capabilities. Disaster Prevention and Management vol.21, 206-225.

McEntire, D., Sadiq, A.-A., & Gupta, K. (2012). Unidentified Bodies and Mass-Fatality Management in Haiti: A Case Study of the 2010 Earthquake with a Cross-Cultural Comparison. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters (Vol.30, NO.3), 1-43.Retrieved from http://ijmed.org/articles/608/

Nigg, J., Burnshaw, J., & Torres, M. R. (2006). Hurricane Katrinaand the Flooding of New Orleans: Emergent Issues in Sheltering and Temporary Housing. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 113-128.

Numayer, E., & Plumper, T. (2007). The Gendered Nature of NaturalDisasters-The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the gender Gap in Life Expectancy 1981-2002. Annals of Association of American Geographers, 551-566.

Padgett, A., & Warnecke, T. (2011). Diamonds in the Rubble:The Women of Haiti, Institutions, Gender Equity and Human Development in Haiti. Journal of Economic issues, 527-557.

Peek, L., & Fothergill, A. (2009). Using Focus Groups: Lessons from Studying Daycare Centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research, 31-59.


Phillips, B. D. (2009). Disaster Recovery. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.

Quarantelli, E. (1982). General and Particular Observations on Sheltering and Housing in American Disasters. Shelter and Housing in American Disasters Vol.6 No.4, 277-281.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1999). The Disaster Recovery Process, What We Know and Do Not Know from Research. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.

Quarantelli, E. P. (2006). A Hueristic Approach to Future Disasters and Crisis: New, Old and In-Between Types.” Pp. 16-. In H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes, Handbook ofDisater Research (pp. 16-41). Springer.

Régnier, P., Neri, B., Scuteri, S., & Miniati, S. (2008). From Emergency Relief to Livelihood Recovery. Disaster Prevention and Management Vol. 17 #3, 410-429.

Rodriguez, H., Trainor, J., & L., Q. E. (n.d.). Rising to the Challenges of a Catastrophe: The Emergent and Prosocial Behavior following Hurricane Katrina. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol. 604, 82-101.

Rodriguez, H., Wachtendorf, T., James, K., & Trainor, J. (2006). A snapshot of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: Societal Impacts and Consequences. Prevention and Management Vol.15 #1, 163-177.

Rubin, C. B. (2009). Long Term Recovery from Disaters- The Neglected Component of Emergency Management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Vol.6 No.1.

Seager, J. (2005). Geoforum-Noticing Gender(or not) in disasters. Retrieved from Elsevier.com: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum.retrieved 9/29/2014

Shah, S. A. (2012). Gender and Building Homes in Disaster in Sindh, Pakistan. Gender and Development Vol.20 No.2, 249-264.


Smith, G., & Wenger, D. (2006). Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing an Exisitng Agenda. In H. Rodfiguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes, Handbook of Disaster Research (pp. 234-257). New York: Springer.

Soares, J., & Mullings, A. (2009). We Run Things- Women Rebuilding Montserrat. In E. Enarson, & P. D. Chakrabarti, Women, Gender and Disaster-Global Issues and Initiatives (pp. 250-260). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Tobin, G. A., Bell, H. M., Montz, B., & Whiteford, L. M. (2006). Vulnerability of Displaced Persons: Relocation Park Residents in the Wake of Hurricane Charley. International Journalof Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 77-109.

Weber, L., & Messias, D. K. (2012). Mississippi front-line recovery work after Katrina: Analysis of the intersections of gender, race and class in advocacy, power relations and health. Social Science and Medicine Vol.74 Iss.11, 1833-1841.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2005). At Risk. London: Routledge.

Yonder, A., Akcar, S., & Gopalan, P. (2009). Women's Participation in Disaster Relief. In E. Enarson, & P. D. Chakrabarti, Women, Gender and Disaster-Global Issues and Initiatives (pp. 189-211). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Zahran, S., Shelley, T. O., Peek, L., & Brady, S. D. (2009). Natursl Disasters and Social Order: Modeling Crime Outcomes in Florida. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters Vol. 27 No.1, 26-52.

Appendix


Phase I: Thirty-two searches were generated from the F.I.U.

online library databases Medline, One File, and Academic (gale),

using the key words disaster, post-disaster, hazards, and various

combinations adding the words gender, recovery, reconstruction,

female and male, women and men. The additional search parameters

were subject, English, and peer-reviewed from the years 2000-

2014.When the search word disaster was used: 2,093 articles were

found, whereas a specific content search with various

combinations of the words disaster, disaster recovery, and gender

yielded only 38 articles. Phase II: Article searches using the

words post-disaster produced 752 articles and the concise

combination of post-disaster recovery and gender produced only

two articles. The search word, hazard yielded 6,549 articles,

hazard, and gender only 1. Phase III: Nine additional searches

were generated from the ProQuest Gender Watch database using the

same parameters used in the above searches, except the search

words were generated from the abstracts. The word disaster

produced 66 articles, disaster and gender, 14, post disaster

generated 10, and utilizing post disaster yielded zero articles.


Phase IV: Seventy-seven searches were generated from all 37

ProQuest databases using the aforementioned Gender Watch

parameters. The word disaster produced 42,249 articles, disaster

and gender-1,041, disaster recovery and female=28, disaster

recovery and male=15 disaster and women 1358, disaster recovery

and women 112. The words Disaster and man 100, disaster recovery

and man 2. Post disaster-4,857 articles, post disaster, and

gender-246.

Gender the Neglected Dimension in Disaster Recovery An Overview of the Literature

Documents