GUIDANCE ON

Land Use
Planning

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

DISASTER
RECOVERY
TOOLKIT

Citation
2015, Disaster Recovery Toolkit, Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project
www.adpc.net/tgllp/drt
The Disaster Recovery Toolkit comprises of the following:
1) Handbook for Disaster Recovery Practitioners
2) Training Manual Learning Workshop on Recovery and Reconstruction
3) Guidance on Critical Facilities
4) Guidance on Housing
5) Guidance on Land Use Planning
6) Guidance on Livelihood
ISBN 978-1-942960-00-3
Copyright Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) for
the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project - Steering Committee, 2015
Published by the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project Steering Committee
(TGLLP-SC)
Dr. Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, Chair, TGLLP-SC
Mr. Satya S. Tripathi, Secretary, TGLLP-SC
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and any form for educational
or non-profit purposes without special permissions from the copyright holder, provided
acknowledgement of the source is made, ADPC on behalf of TGLLP-SC would appreciate
receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose
whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Asian Disaster Preparedness
Centre, SM Tower, 24th Floor 979/69 Paholyothin Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand.

GUIDANCE ON

Land Use
Planning

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

DISASTER
RECOVERY
TOOLKIT

FOREWORD

Ten years have passed since the Indian Ocean Earthquake

and Tsunami of December 2004. The consequences of this disaster
have continued to unfold in the minds of individuals, the collective
lives of affected families and communities, and within the framework
of nations and the region as a whole. Indeed, the memory of this great
tragedy is imprinted on the global mind. The loved ones of the more
than 228, 000 people who perished look back on this disaster every
day. For the rest of us, the 10th anniversary provides an opportunity
to reflect on the memory of these departed souls, and to think of
those who were left behind in devastated families, communities and
environments.
The recovery of the affected areas in the months and years since the
event itself is an affirmation of human resilience and creativity in
building solutions- and finding ways out- of the most challenging
situations. It is out of respect to those who perished or suffered that we
should take what lessons we can from such experiences, and use them
to design better strategies for disaster response and recovery in the
future.
With climate change proceeding apace, the notion of environmental
vulnerability is becoming increasingly broad and hard to pinpoint:
everybody is vulnerable, and because of this, our incentive to learn
from what came before should be heightened.
The Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project (TGLLP) was created
with a view to gathering, learning from and sharing experiences
relating to the 2004 earthquake and tsunami, and other disasters in
the region that occurred between 1993 and 2013. The project sought
to deliver three principle outcomes: a global lessons learned study, a
Discovery Channel documentary tracking the recovery, and a disaster
recovery toolkit for recovery practitioners.

Guidance on Land Use Planning

The first of these outcomes was a report entitled The Tsunami Legacy:
Innovations, Breakthroughs and Challenges which was officially released
on 24 April 2009 at a ceremony at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York. A few months later, in December 2009, a documentary on
lessons learned, produced independently, was aired on the Discovery
Channel.
At the launch of The Tsunami Legacy in 2009, an announcement
was made regarding the development of a suite of handbook and
guidance notes targeted specifically at recovery programme leaders
and practitioners. The Disaster Recovery Toolkit forms the third
deliverable, and it is this that has been developed by the Tsunami
Global Lessons Learned Project Steering Committee (TGLLP-SC) in
partnership with the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC).
The Toolkit is targeted at practitioners responsible for implementing
recovery programmes, its objective to provide a how to guide on
development, implementing and managing complex post-disaster
recovery programmes.
This document, Guidance on Land Use Planning, has been
framed as a reference document to provide strategic guidance on
incorporating DRR measures in land use planning during recovery
and reconstruction. It also aims to accompany the handbook and
the learning workshop module with key considerations on why
and how to bring DRR into land use planning during recovery and
reconstruction.
Introducing this guidance, the TGLLP Steering Committee hopes it
will help enhance the capacities of government agencies, especially
central level agencies engaged in policy and strategy formulation for
land use planning during recovery and reconstruction and supporting
local level agencies, in undertaking recovery and reconstruction
activities for the sector. The TGLLP-SC also hopes that the guidance
will serve as a reference tool for development partners who work
alongside the above agencies in land use planning during recovery and
reconstruction.
- Steering Committee of The Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

Guidance on Land Use Planning

CONTENT
FOREWORD
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
1
2
3
4

Background
Purpose of this Guidance
Structure of this Guidance
Target Audience

LAND USE AND POST-DISASTER R&R

1 Land Governance and Disaster Risk
2 Land Use Planning and Disaster Risk
3 Post-disaster Recovery and Land Use Planning

2
6

9
10
11
11
11

13
15
16
20

RATIONALE TO INTEGRATE DRR INTO LAND USE PLANNING R&R 27

1
2
3
4
5

Preventing New and Re-development in Hazardous Areas

Conditions for Re-development in Hazardous Areas
Developing Risk-based Planning Systems
Environmental Protection
Addressing Past Planning Deficits

KEY CONSIDERATIONS
1
2
3
4
5

Emphasising Land Use DRR in Policies

Identifying Vulnerability and Exposure
Using Disaster Risk Information in Land Use Planning
Factoring in Environmental Issues to Reduce Exposure
Integrating DRR in Land Use Planning Tools

REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

29
30
31
32
36

39
41
45
46
48
50
56
57

ABBREVIATIONS

AADMER

ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency

Response

ADRM

Aceh Disaster Risk Map

ARTF

Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BMTPC

Building Materials Technology Promotion Council

BRR NAD-Nias

Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi NAD-Nias (Indonesia)

(Agency for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Aceh and Nias)

CBA

Community Based-Assessment / Communication-based Assessment

CBO

Community-based Organization

CCA

Climate Change Adaptation

CFAN

Coordination Forum for Aceh and Nias

CSO

Civil Society Organization

CZMA

CZM Authority

DAD

Development Assistance Database

DALA

Damage and Loss Assessment

DRMS

Disaster Risk Management Strategy

DRR

Disaster Risk Reduction

DRR-A

Making Aceh Safer Through Disaster Risk Reduction in Development

ECHO

European Commission for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

ERRA

Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (Pakistan)

GFDRR

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

GIS

Geographic Information System

GoTN

Government of Tamil Nadu

GPS

Global Positioning System

GSDMA

Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (India)

HRNA

Human Recovery Needs Assessment

IASC

Inter-Agency Standing Committee

ICT

Information and Communication Technologies

IRP

International Recovery Platform

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

LIFT

Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund

MDF

Multi Donor Fund for Aceh and Nias

MDTF

Multi-Donor Trust Fund

Guidance on Land Use Planning

M&E

Monitoring and Evaluation

MHJ

Ministry of Health

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding

MPTF

Multi-Partner Trust Fund

NCRC

NGO Coordination and Resource Centre (Nagapattinam, India)

NDRF

National Disaster Response Force (India)

NDRF

National Disaster Response Framework (USA)

NWFP

North-Western Frontier Province

OCHA

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA

Official Development Assistance

OSD

Officer of Special Duty

OSDMA

Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority

PAK

Pakistan-Administered Kashmir

PDNA

Post Disaster Needs Assessments

PHC

Primary Health Centre (India)

PONJA

Post-Nargis Joint Assessment

PONREPP

Post-Nargis Recovery and Emergency Preparedness Plan

PR

Periodic Review

RADA

Reconstruction and Development Agency (Sri Lanka)

RAN

Recovery Aceh-Nias Database (Indonesia)

RIAS

Recovery Information and Accountability System

R&R

Recovery and Reconstruction

SAARC

SAARC South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation

SIFFS

South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies

SIM

Social Impact Monitoring

SLF

SL framework or SLA framework (according to IFAD)

SNEHA

Social Need Education and Human Awareness

TCCC

The Coca-Cola Company

TCG

Tripartite Core Group

TGLL

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned

TGLLP

TGLL Project (UNDP publications never wrote TGLLP)

TGLLP-SC

TGLL Project Steering Committee

TRIAMS

Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System

UN ECHA

United Nations Executive Committee for Humanitarian Affairs

UNF

United Nations Foundation

UNISDR

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNORC

United Nations Office of the Recovery Coordinator for Aceh and

Nias

USD

United States Dollar

VTC

Volunteer Technology Community

Guidance on Land Use Planning

INTRODUCTION

1 BACKGROUND
Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing trend in the
rate of disaster events. At the same time, there has been a series of high
impact disaster events (intensive risk events)1 during the first decade of
the 21st century across the world, notably in Asia.
It is commonly observed that, in addition to other vulnerability
factors, a poor understanding of hazards present in a given location
has compounded disaster risks, which could have potentially been
mitigated by planning and development, including land use planning
and development control regulations (e.g. building regulations). For
example, mitigation could have been undertaken for settlements along
flood plains, on steep slopes prone to landslides and in earthquake
prone zones. Failure to mitigate can be attributed to a disconnect
between development, scientific research, disaster management and
environmental communities, a lack of information and understanding of
hazards, weak governing capacities, and a lack of awareness on the role
of land use planning in reducing disaster risks through structural and
non-structural measures.
Past experience shows that post-disaster recovery and reconstruction
of many cities and communities has been at the original location, with
relocation only taking place during major disaster events.2 Considering
the repetitive exposure of communities to natural hazards, there is an
increasing awareness of disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures during
post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, which provides a window of
opportunity to enhance the safety of affected communities. The Build
Back Better principle during post-disaster recovery and reconstruction
should addresses underlying vulnerabilities and calls for avoiding adhoc reconstruction activities. Missing such opportunity exposes the
communities to future hazards and traps them in a cycle of disasters.
Depending on the nature of hazard and extent of damage, communities
have a choice to either reconstruct in the same area (in-situ) or resettle
in a new location. In the case of in-situ recovery and reconstruction,
planning should address the underlying risk factors that contributed to
the event. In the case of resettlement, planning should reduce exposure
1 Intensive Risk Events: The risk associated with the exposure of large concentrations of people and economic activities
to intense hazard events, which can lead to potentially catastrophic disaster impacts involving high mortality and asset
loss (UNISDR).
2 For example: San Francisco, U.S (earthquake) 1906; Tokyo, Japan (earthquake) 1923; Kobe, Japan (earthquake)1995;
Bhuj, India (earthquake) 2001; Aceh, Indonesia (earthquake and tsunami) 2004; New Orleans, U.S. (cyclone and floods)
2005; Kashmir, India and Pakistan (earthquake) 2005; Irrawady Delta, Myanmar (cyclone) 2008, were rebuilt in the same
area with only some resettlements.

10

Guidance on Land Use Planning

and vulnerability to existing and future risk factors. In this context, land
use planning can be a powerful disaster risk management tool.

2 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE

This guidance is a practical reference tool for incorporating DRR
measures into land use planning in the post-disaster recovery and
reconstruction context. It draws lessons from past disaster recovery and
reconstruction operations, particularly the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
and other recovery and reconstruction processes in Asia. This guidance
emphasises the need for adopting a participatory and flexible approach
to support the aspirations of the affected people, ensure a smooth
recovery process, and support long-term development.

STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDANCE

This guidance aims to:

Explore the nexus between land governance, land use planning and
disaster risks, and current practices in land use planning during postdisaster recovery and reconstruction.
Provide a rationale for integrating DRR into land use planning during
post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.
Outline key DRR considerations in land use planning during postdisaster recovery and reconstruction at the level of both policy and local
level planning to support the broader goal of build back better.

4 TARGET AUDIENCE
The guidance serves as a reference for a wide variety of stakeholders,
including government agencies and development partners. However it
is primarily targeted at central level government agencies engaged in
recovery and reconstruction, land use planning, strategy formulation,
and who are supporting local level agencies in undertaking recovery
and reconstruction. In addition, the guidance serves as a reference tool
for development partners who work alongside the above agencies in
supporting recovery and reconstruction.

11

Guidance on Land Use Planning

LAND USE AND

POST-DISASTER R&R

LAND GOVERNANCE AND DISASTER RISK

Disasters are intimately connected to development choices made by

individuals, communities and nations, which can pave the way for
unequal distributions of disaster risk (UNDP, 2004). Disaster risks are
historically constructed through human activities. Physical exposure
to natural hazards is much higher in Asian countries than in the rest of
the world (UNDP, 2004).
About 75 percent of the worlds population lives in areas affected at
least once between 1980 and 2000 by earthquake, tropical cyclone,
flood or drought.
UNDP, 2004

Recent studies on disaster risk trends and patterns reveal that disaster
risks are increasing, highly concentrated geographically and unevenly
distributed (GAR 2009). While there has been an upward trend in the
number of disaster events and the number of people affected, there
has been a decline in the number of people killed, which reflects a
decrease in certain vulnerability factors as countries develop. However,
the decrease in vulnerability has not been enough to compensate for
the increase in exposure through population growth. In addition,
underlying risk drivers, such as poor governance, ineffective land use
planning, weak and inadequate infrastructure, vulnerable livelihoods
and declining ecosystems contribute to a disaster scenario after an
extreme natural hazard event (GAR 2009, UN Habitat 2009, UNDP
2004).
Land governance3 plays an important role in shaping overall
development patterns as well as disaster risk. Vulnerability to
natural disaster risks stems from unsustainable land use, poor urban
planning, landlessness, weak land administration and land-related
discrimination, which reflect weak land governance (UN Habitat
2010). The table on the next page highlights the land characteristics
and nature of vulnerability.
3 Land governance concerns the rules, processes and structures through which decisions are made about the use of
and control over land, the manner in which the decisions are implemented and enforced, and the way that competing
interests in land are managed (UN FAO and UN Habitat 2009).

14

Guidance on Land Use Planning

LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND THE NATURE OF VULNERABILITY

Characteristics

Nature of disaster vulnerability

Unsustainable land use

Land/coastal zone degradation

Severe erosion/landslides or landslips
Flooding/inundation
Marginal or unsafe settlements

Poor urban planning

Unsafe settlements
Inappropriate and unaffordable zoning
building codes and standards
Weak institutional capacity

Landlessness

Lack of access to shelter solutions

Lost livelihoods
Social conflict

Weak land administration

Incomplete/lost/fraudulent/out-of-date land data

Insecurity of land tenure
Weak institutional capacity

Land-related discrimination

Insufficient access to land services and

institutions of justice
Insecurity of land tenure
Lack of access to land
Eviction/land grabbing

SOURCE: UN- Habitat 2010

15

While the scope of these Guidelines include the integration of DRR

measures into land use planning during post-disaster recovery and
reconstruction, it also equally emphasises related land issues so as to
improve land governance and enhance the resilience of communities.

2 LAND USE PLANNING AND DISASTER RISK

Land use planning is a public policy exercise that designates and
regulates the use of land in order to improve a communitys physical,
economic and social efficiency and well-being.4 Land use planning
decision-making takes place at national, regional or state levels, as well
as city or local levels through centralised and decentralised planning
systems. Policy provisions set by the national level guide the subnational planning process in line with national development goals.
More detailed land use planning takes place at the city or local level
through the local government (with greater detail at lower levels).
Local land use planning is generally developed in cities and towns,
while rural areas are covered by regional plans. These guidelines focus
on cities and towns while touching on some aspects of rural areas.
In the past very little consideration was given to the effects of natural
hazards on the built environment at the time of planning, due to a
lack of knowledge and understanding of hazards (discussed in the
previous chapter). Though there are instances of communities having
been sensitive to hazard risks through indigenous knowledge, thereby
avoiding high-risk areas or adapting settlement and construction
patterns to the local environment, factors such as rapid economic
growth, scarcity of land, inadequate or nonexistent land use
planning and weak enforcement mechanisms have led to unplanned
development that does not take into account natural hazards and risks.
Success and failures in land use policies can be directly observed in
urban areas in most countries. According to International Federation
of Surveyors (FIG 2010), over 70% of growth currently occurs outside
the formal planning process, and 30% of the urban population in
developing countries lives in slums or informal settlements.

4 Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, The World Bank, 2010

16

Guidance on Land Use Planning

Contemporary land use planning cuts across various sectors such as urban
development, coastal zone management, natural resource management,
environmental management, and agricultural and water resources. While
land use planning concepts have changed from single objectives to multiple
objectives, legal and policy frameworks have not been adequately flexible to
incorporate changing planning goals or feedback in the development process.
Inconsistencies between various sectoral polices and regulations, as well as
their links to broader socio-economic development plans (land, agriculture,

THE COASTAL REGULATION ZONE IN INDIA

With population growth, poor development planning, and exploitation of natural resources
along the Indian coast leading to significant degradation of coastal resources, in order to
protect and conserve coastal resources and the environment, the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF) issued the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification in 1991 under the
Environment (Protection) Act of 1986. Prior to the CRZ notification, two other notifications
were made: the Prime Ministers directive in 1981 to restrict developmental activities within
500m from the coast line, and the Environmental Guidelines for Development of Beaches
(1984) from the Department of Environment and Forests (DoEF), mandating environmental
impact assessments (EIAs) for construction 500m and beyond from the high tide line.
However, these two regulations were not followed by state governments, which have local
authority.
The CRZ Notification of 1991 and several later amendments attempted to regulate
developmental activities by prohibiting certain activities along the CRZ area. However,
the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and its implementation through the Coastal
Zone Management Authority (CZMA) were weak in most coastal states, leading to largescale violations. In addition, significant constraints and problems were found by an expert
committee, including the application of uniform regulations for diverse coastal environment,
ambiguities and lack of clarity of terminologies in the notification, poor structuring of
additional notifications, lack of awareness, lack of enforcement, lack of funding and an
attitude of resistance. Acting on the expert committee report, the MoEF amended the Coastal
Regulation Zone in 2011 to address the above-mentioned issues.
SOURCE
Report of the Expert Committee on Coastal Regulation Zone Notification-1991, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, 2005. http://tnenvis.nic.in/images/mssrf_report.pdf

17

urban development, environment, coastal zone management) have led to

fragmented implementation of conflicting policies. The box on page 13
illustrates the case of the Coastal Regulation Zone. Its implementation in
India represents many of the issues faced by developing nations.
With an increasing frequency of recurrent disaster events and
with improved understanding and knowledge of hazards and their
characteristics, hazard and vulnerability assessments on the built
environment are currently being undertaken in many urban areas.
Vulnerability can be reduced through structural changes (developing
hazard resistant buildings, dykes and drainage systems) and nonstructural measures (improving emergency preparedness and response
capabilities, early warning systems, land use planning, building codes
and design, evacuation shelters, contingency plans and emergency
response teams). While the above measures minimise vulnerability,
they have a limited impact on reducing disaster risk if there is weak
enforcement and capacity. It is also costly to retrofit once development
has taken place without DRR considerations (WB 2011). The case
of Jakarta is discussed in the box on the next page, describing how
disaster risk increased (from extensive risk to intensive risks) as the city
expanded rapidly, and explaining the measures taken to mitigate the
hazards.
Legal and policy frameworks need to incorporate DRR into land use
planning, as part of broader efforts in both development planning
and recovery planning. A few Asian countries such as the Philippines,
Indonesia and India have taken steps to address DRR. The California
(U.S.) code incorporates natural hazard safety in the land use planning
process. It has demonstrated that a combination of education, outreach,
and mutually supporting policies linked to state-designated natural
hazard zones can form an effective framework for enhancing the role of
land use planning in reducing future losses from natural disasters.5

5 Charles R. Real, Californias Natural Hazard Zonation Policies for Land-Use Planning and Development, Journal of
Disaster Research, 2010

18

Guidance on Land Use Planning

EXTENSIVE RISK TO INTENSIVE RISK EVENTS JAKARTA CITY

Greater Jakarta, one of Asias megacities, is home to approximately 29 million people.
Around 40% of the city lies 1m to 1.5 m below sea level, and large parts of the city
experience regular floods every year during the monsoon season. The citys population
has tripled since 1970 with rapid growth, rural to urban conversion, and uncontrolled
development leading to housing shortages and the expansion of squatter settlements. Rapid
growth of the city also led to encroachment on lakes and other bodies of water, as well as
shrinkage in water retention capacities. Vulnerability to flooding was further compounded
by a lack of maintenance of the canal system, poor urban planning, and ground subsidence
due to excessive ground water exploitation, resulting in an increased flood risk of 1:25 years
and a return period of more than 1:5 years. Over the past several years, flood mitigation
projects were implemented to improve the drainage capacities of the canals. However, over
time, an extensive risk of yearly floods of the city reconfigured into an intensive risk of
flood events.
The floods of 2002 and 2007 are considered to be two of the most severe events in the recent
history of Jakarta. The 2007 floods inundated 70% of the city, causing severe disruption to
day-to-day life and resulting in an estimated loss of USD 900 million.
While past structural mitigation measures had reduced risk, the city still faced a serious
challenge. Land use planning and water management were not well connected within the
overall planning process. Recognising the underlying vulnerabilities and multiplicity of
issues including climate change-associated risks such as sea level rise, the Jakarta Flood
Risk Management plan addresses both structural and non-structural measures. The Spatial
Planning Law 26/2007 stipulates the requirements of open space and provides authority to
the local government (provincial and district), to control zoning, planning of permits and
implementation of incentives and disincentives.
SOURCES
1 Cities and Flooding A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century, GFDRR 2012
2 http://www.mlit.go.jp/kokudokeikaku/international/spw/general/indonesia/index_e.html
3 Akinobu Murakamia et.al.(2005); Trends in urbanisation and patterns of land use in the Asian mega cities
Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila, Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 251259

19

3 POST-DISASTER RECOVERY AND LAND USE PLANNING

HB

Post-disaster recovery planning starts immediately after a disaster event.

Among other factors, the scale of recovery efforts depends on the nature
of disaster, and the damage and the sectors affected. Sectoral recovery
strategies need to establish close links and collaboration with other sectors.
(For more details on recovery planning, please see Chapter 2 of the
Handbook for Disaster Recovery Practitioners).
Land-related issues, in particular, have significant impact on other sectoral
strategies, from transitional shelter to recovery and reconstruction to
overall outcomes. The table below summarises the potential impacts on
sectors and associated land issues during the recovery process.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL DISASTER IMPACTS ON LAND AND

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH LAND
Disaster impacts

Areas affected

Associated land issues

Destruction

Land
Housing
Infrastructure
Land records

New suitable land for shelter, livelihoods

and infrastructure
Tenure security for house reconstruction
Land and property disputes
Hazardous land, risk reduction

Displacement

Shelter
Protection
Livelihoods

Site selection, planning and management

Secure access to land for vulnerable
groups
Secure access to land for livelihoods
Housing, land and property rights for
displaced persons

Deaths

Shelter
Protection

Secure access to land for durable shelter

solutions
Secure access and rights to land for
widows and orphans
Degraded Government response capacity

SOURCE: UN-Habitat, 2010

20

Guidance on Land Use Planning

Pre-existing land related issues such as land use, land tenure and
vulnerability (see the table on the previous page) are further magnified
by disaster events and have significant impact on the overall recovery
process. The central dilemma during the recovery phase is whether to
rebuild in the same location or to relocate to a safer location. Settlement
planning that is responsive to the wide range of needs and values for
resettled or returning populations after disasters is a complex task. The
decision of whether and what to relocate should be made fast, before
ad hoc reconstruction overtakes the situation (Lundin 2011 and World
Bank 2012). In a state of flux, governments and communities most often
look at short-term needs while deciding between in-situ reconstruction
or relocation, thus overlooking long-term ramifications. The section
below further explores current practices of recovery and reconstruction.
IN-SITU RECONSTRUCTION
In-situ reconstruction remains the preferred approach for rebuilding
damaged housing and restoring infrastructure and services, as it often
represents the cheaper, simpler and faster option for rebuilding affected
houses while maintaining vital social, cultural and economic connections
with the original site and neighbourhood (WRC 2011). In the case of
cities, rebuilding occurs at the same location and with the same general
form following all but the most catastrophic disasters, due to economic
and social networks that are more resilient than buildings. The economic
functions of the city will usually continue after the disaster and residents
will try to locate their homes in a way that maintains pre-disaster social
networks (Olshansky et al 2006). However, in practice, almost all urban
housing reconstruction programmes involve at least some resettlement
due to disaster risk mitigation considerations (such as site-specific
vulnerabilities), loss of inhabitable land, serious urban management and
land use issues, slum upgrading, and insecure or temporary tenures for
residents in illegal pre-disaster squatter settlements (WRC 2011).

21

In general, most major post-disaster reconstruction efforts focus on

rebuilding with a new or updated master plan with structural and
non-structural mitigation measures, or with only structural mitigation
measures. For example Aceh, Indonesia and Bhuj City, India developed
new master/development plans after their respective tsunamis and
earthquakes, whereas in Kobe the recovery plan was adapted from
the citys 1995-2005 General Plan, approved four days prior to impact
(Balachandran, B.R, ADB).
Planning restrictions on land use are common after natural disasters,6
among various criteria in recovery planning. Cost-benefit analysis on
the various risk reduction options will influence decisions on structural
and non-structural mitigation measures. However, structural measures
through enhanced building codes have been a primary means to mitigate
the impact of future hazards. Hazard-resistant structures have been
synonymous with the introduction of new materials and construction
techniques during reconstruction, including reinforced concrete
structures to replace traditional materials and practices. Without use
of those materials, as well as proper training and proper construction
practices, safety is often compromised. For example in Ghaen, Iran,
building models promoted as earthquake resistant after the 1980
earthquake were inadequate and collapsed during the 1998 earthquake,
as the buildings were deficient both in design and construction quality
(ALNAP, 2008).
While many affected communities are susceptible to multiple hazards,
risk reduction through hazard-resistant structures often focuses on
the most recent incident, while ignoring other risk factors (including
environmental risks). For example, it is not sufficient to only build
earthquake-resistant structures in a community that is also prone
to flooding, and which requires other structural and non-structural
measures such as improved drainage systems.

6 (ALNAP 2008)

22

Guidance on Land Use Planning

In addition, planners are constrained by social, political, and

economic issues. With reconstruction pressure and weak regulations
enforcement during recovery processes, growth continues in high-risk
areas. For example in Aceh, land issues posed a significant challenge
not only due to damage to land records and changes in topography and
boundaries, but also due to the reconstruction of permanent houses
that began in many communities without a land use plan. Though
land use planning is a powerful tool to address DRR, it has been
underutilised during the recovery process (Smith 2009).
Most reconstruction programmes still occur with non-existent
or inadequate land tenure records. With population growth and
urbanisation there has been a significant increase since the 1980s of
people occupying lands and buildings without tenure. People without
land tenure are reluctant to invest in better construction, which
contributes to unsafe construction (UN OCHA). Failure to address
land tenure and security, particularly regarding tenants and squatters,
tends to prolong the recovery progress (ADB 2008).
Since the priority during reconstruction is housing, many donors and
NGO-funded reconstruction programmes tend to ignore associated
infrastructure and services such as water supply, drainage, sanitation,
power and lighting, roads, and solid waste disposal (ADB 2011; WB
2005). In recent years, there have been renewed calls for a multi-hazard
approach and coordination among various stakeholders to address the
gaps in recovery and reconstruction (see the Handbook for Disaster
Recovery Practitioners).

HB

23

24

Guidance on Land Use Planning

25

RESETTLEMENT / RELOCATION
Post-disaster resettlement is often reactive, characterised by short lead
times for planning and consultation (UN Habitat). Mindful of the
physical safety of the affected, most governments resettle communities
to safer places, both voluntarily and involuntarily. For example, the
post-tsunami setback notification resulted in a mixed response from
communities in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu, India and Aceh, Indonesia.
Some favoured resettlement due to fears for physical safety, while others
preferred to return to the same place where they had economic, social
and cultural links.
Resettlement may also magnify pre-disaster patterns of socioeconomic
vulnerability, as relocation may have a negative impact on livelihoods.
Tenants and squatters, who are the most vulnerable after a disaster, are
often left behind during resettlement programmes.
Disaster risk management objectives require more complex initiatives in
urban areas, particularly if relocation of communities is planned (WRC
2011). Options for resettlement should be based on reliable multi-hazard
risk assessments and on available social support systems. Hazards such
as an earthquake or cyclonic winds can affect broad areas and relocation
may not be a valid option unless the specific site is very high risk.
Studies on post-disaster resettlement suggest that resettlement should
be considered as a last resort when there are less viable risk reduction
options to future hazards (ADB 2008, WB 2012, ALNAP 2008). For
example, after the 1992 earthquake and tsunami in Flores, Indonesia
people returned to their original location after resettlement, and the only
people left in the resettled sites were the ones who did not own any land
(ADB 2008).

26

Guidance on Land Use Planning

RATIONALE TO
INTEGRATE DRR INTO
LAND USE PLANNING R&R

27

Land use planning during the reconstruction phase offers a

unique opportunity to rebuild differently, while addressing exposure
and vulnerability to current and future hazard risks as well past
planning deficits (WB 2011). In the context of DRR during recovery
and reconstruction, land use planning offers a tangible risk reduction
opportunity and can support the overall recovery process. It is
summarised broadly in the following areas and further discussed in this
chapter:
Prevent new and redevelopment in hazardous areas
(exposure prevention).
Allow new and redevelopment in hazardous areas with higher
safety standards (exposure/vulnerability reduction/enhancing
emergency response functions).
Develop a risk-based planning system to address current and
future risks, including climate change (risk reduction/climate change
adaptation).
Environmental protection (vulnerability reduction).
Address past planning deficits to facilitate building back better
and resilient communities (risk reduction).
The first day of the post-disaster period is also the first day of the predisaster planning period that should precede the next event.
American Planners Association
Extensive risk of today can become the intensive risk of tomorrow.
GAR 2011

HB

28

It is important to note that changes in land use planning during recovery

and reconstruction will have negative impacts on the affected community
and overall recovery if there is lack of community participation and buy
in. It is important to have close consultation with the community and
other relevant stakeholders during recovery planning (see Handbook for
Disaster Recovery Practitioners).

Guidance on Land Use Planning

1 PREVENTING NEW AND RE-DEVELOPMENT IN

HAZARDOUS AREAS

Post-disaster events provide an opportunity to restrict development

and reconstruction in high-risk areas, thereby mitigating exposure to
future hazards and risk. However this is often difficult with limited
information on the number of people affected, the resources required
for resettlement, public opinion, risk reduction options and future risk.
Restriction can be contentious and will have serious impacts on the
community that has already been affected by a disaster.
The prevention of redevelopment will effectively cause the resettlement
of affected communities, which should be carried out as a last resort only.
Prevention can also lead to compensation issues and claims, decline in
land value, and additional pressure on land catering to development needs.
Prevention of new and redevelopment should be carried out based on
damage, hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment information. Hazards
such as earthquakes and cyclones are regional, affecting large areas,
whereas hazards such as tsunamis, river floods, storm surges, liquefaction
and landslides are confined to narrow or specific areas. Restrictions
should be based on the specific context and return period of the hazard.
Prevention or restriction of new and redevelopment is a viable option only
when there are no practical, cost-effective mitigation measures. However,
restricting development in hazard prone areas where mitigation is not
possible, such as areas prone to liquefaction, pyroclastic flow, landslides
and on those located on or near fault lines, can improve overall risk
reduction measures. For example, in Aceh, around 12,000 families lost
their land due to land subsidence, and reclaiming the hazardous land
needed significant investment that was not economically viable. Therefore,
resettlement was required.
While the primary focus is on future safety, poorly conceived or ad-hoc
preventive measures without adequate or complete information adversely
can affect the overall recovery process.

29

In the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, to ensure

the safety of communities against future tsunamis, a buffer zone was
introduced in most of the affected countries, which later become
highly contentious (India: 500m from high tide line; Sri Lanka: 100m
no-build zone for the western and southern coasts and 200m for the
northern and eastern coasts; and Indonesia: 2km). Due to practical
difficulties and pressure, restrictions were removed in Indonesia and
Sri Lanka and partially lifted in India.

2 CONDITIONS FOR RE-DEVELOPMENT IN

HAZARDOUS AREAS

During post-disaster reconstruction, it might not be possible to restrict

new and redevelopment in areas prone to hazards on a regional scale such
as cyclones and earthquakes, or to hazards with long recurrence intervals
(return periods), except in the case of fault zones, liquefaction zones and
landslide prone areas. In the given circumstances, new safety measures
through structural mitigation and non-structural mitigation measures should
be assessed, adopted and enforced.
Addressing DRR through land use planning in post-disaster recovery has
not historically gained much attention, although it addresses exposure,
vulnerability and past development-induced risk factors. Further, addressing
DRR only through structural mitigation measures is a one-sided attack
on the problem. It suffers from two major deficiencies: first, the design
requirements may exceed cost effective engineering solutions and, second,
it provides a false sense of security in which more development occurs
(American Planners Association 2005).
In addition, risk reduction through structural measures alone, such as hazard
resistant buildings (which are often resource intensive), can reduce structural
vulnerability. However these measures might not reduce the overall exposure
to all hazards and changing risk patterns due to unplanned development
both pre- and post-disaster (see box on page 15, Extensive Risk to Intensive
Risk Jakarta City). This condition is noticeable in many megacities and
rapidly expanding cities, where investment in risk reduction has improved
preparedness, resulting in reduced loss of life when compared to previous
events. Conversely, the number of people affected, scale of disruption to
services and economic costs are rising, as seen in the floods in Jakarta.

30

Guidance on Land Use Planning

3 DEVELOPING RISK-BASED PLANNING SYSTEMS

While land use planning concepts have undergone changes from single
objectives to multiple objectives, legal and policy frameworks have not
been adequately flexible to the complex, changing environment nor in
incorporating feedback in the planning process. Most of the planning
systems in developing countries are still weak in terms of how to deal
with major challenges of urban sustainability in the 21st century: climate
change, resource depletion, rapid urbanisation, poverty and informality
(UN Habitat 2009).
For example, many of the planning systems in developing countries do
not address disaster risk management. However, with the increasing
recognition of the role of land use planning in DRR, countries in the
region are taking proactive steps to mainstream risk reduction into land
use planning through legal frameworks and through the development
of technical guidelines. For example, in the Philippines the DRR and
Management Act of 2010 puts an emphasis on mainstreaming DRR and
including climate change in the development process, including land use
and urban planning. The National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), with support from the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and the European Commission for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO),
developed guidelines for Mainstreaming DRR in Sub-National
Development and Land Use/Physical Planning in the Philippines. The
guide is intended to enhance regional and provincial planning analysis
by recognising risks posed by natural hazards to vulnerable populations,
the economy and the environment. Central to the plan is conducting risk
analysis to identify areas prone to disaster risks, finding proper locations
for development and identifying appropriate mitigation measures.
Further, in the context of recovery, hazard mapping information is rarely

31

integrated into the planning process, as it is perceived to be a specialised

activity undertaken separately. Risk reduction is often compromised by
hastily planned and executed programmes (UN OCHA). With increasing
frequencies of disaster events and climate change posing a significant
threat, land use planning is gaining significance in supporting both
climate change adaptation (CCA) and mitigation. Given the limited
success of traditional approaches to mitigate the impacts of natural
disasters, comprehensive disaster risk management frameworks continue
to evolve, addressing development, DRR, environmental management
and climate change adaptation. Post-disaster recovery and reconstruction
should adequately address efforts to reduce exposure to hazards and future
challenges imposed by climate change. Land use planning can be a key
tool to address current and future disaster risks.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
It is commonly felt that urban planning systems have changed very little in
many parts of the world, especially in developing countries, and that they are
often de facto contributors to urban problems rather than functioning as tool
for human and environmental improvement. For example, rapid urbanisation
modifies the environment and generates new hazards, including deforestation
and slope instability, which can result in landslides and flash floods (UN
Habitat, 2009). Currently, there is no formal field of planning among
development, environment and disaster risk management communities.
Instead the DRR approach is based on addressing specific issues. There is,
however, an increasing recognition among the three communities of the role
of land use planning as well as environmental protection. (UNEP 2010).
Disaster events can cause adverse effects and impacts on the environment and
ecosystems that support lives and livelihoods. Specific actions undertaken
during the emergency response and recovery phase, such as debris clearance,
allocation of land for transitional shelters and for new and redevelopment,
raw materials, and certain hazard mitigation measures often overlook basic
environmental issues and can, therefore, further damage the environment
(WRC 2011). The box on the next page, is a case study on the role of the
environment and ecosystems in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami in Tamil Nadu, India, highlighting the issues and challenges
presented.

32

Guidance on Land Use Planning

ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEMS IN

MITIGATING NATURAL HAZARDS
After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, countries in the region undertook studies to identify
different options for coastal protection measures such as bio-shields (restoration of mangroves,
coral and coastal forestation) and structural protection measures (seawalls, breakwaters
and groynes). In the state of Tamil Nadu, India, immediately after the tsunami, there were
proposals by the provincial government to construct seawalls along its 1000-km coastline. The
neighbouring state, Kerala, which had previously built seawalls along 386 km of its coastline,
was in the process of securing additional funding to build another 92 km of seawall.
While there were mixed reactions, experts pointed out that coastal engineering construction
often lacked scientific studies, was based on inadequate understanding of beach dynamics
and in most cases was poorly designed with no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
to gauge adverse impacts along the coast. Proposals received mixed responses from
communities, as well. In one district of Tamil Nadu, fishermen were not positive about
building seawalls as it might hinder their fishing activities, whereas residents in the
Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu were in favor of seawalls (prior to the tsunami they had
opposed it). In neighbouring Kerala, communities supported construction as it protected
them from coastal erosion. Agricultural communities were concerned that the seawall might
prevent rainwater runoff and lead to inundation of agricultural land and soil degradation.
While there were concerns on the structural measures, in general, there was broad
support for natural protection measures such as mangroves and bio-shields. The recovery
programme funded by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank encouraged
soft options such as bio-shields as a primary defense while recommending studies for
structural measures. Though bio-shields likes mangroves, coastal reefs and sea grass beds
were recognised as important costal ecosystems, shoreline stabilisers, such as sandy beaches
and sand dunes, did not receive adequate attention. A study conducted by Praxis in 2005
in tsunami-affected communities noted that many coastal villages along Tamil Nadu were
protected by the presence of sand dunes. Coastal dunes act as natural bio-shields. However
there has been wide spread damage to coastal dunes due to development along the coast,
including settlements, tourism, ports and mining.
REFERENCES
1 Namboothri, et. al 2008. Beyond the Tsunami: Coastal Sand Dunes of Tamil Nadu, India- An Overview
2 Sudarshan Rodriguez et. al, Policy Brief: Seawalls.

33

ECONOMIC VALUE OF ECOSYSTEMS IN MITIGATING HAZARDS

Ecosystem

Hazard

Hazard mitigation value in USD

Coral reefs (global)

Coastal

189,000 per hectare/year

Coastal wetlands (U.S.)

Hurricane

8,240 per hectare/year

Luz ice floodplain (Czech Republic)

Floods

11,788 per hectare/year

Muthurajawela marsh (Sri Lanka)

Floods

1,750 per hectare/year

SOURCE: PEDRR, 2010

34

Guidance on Land Use Planning

The table on the previous page provides information on the economic

value of ecosystems in mitigating hazards and the potential benefits
where land use planning can safeguard the environment.
While structural measures are resource intensive and
their secondary impacts on coastal ecosystems remain poorly
understood, developed countries such as Japan, which have
experienced tsunamis in the past, have built seawalls along their
coast to protect it from tsunami and other coastal hazards. During
the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, the seawall
which was extensively built along the coast line offered little
protection. The recovery policy of the government (June 2011)
notes [The Great East Japan earthquake] taught us of the existence
of tsunami that are physically impossible to defend against. It has
become clear that frontline defenses alone, focused on tsunami
breakwaters, coastal dikes, and tide barriers cannot provide
protection from a tsunami of this magnitude. DRR planning should
not be based on the premise that a large-scale natural disaster can
be completely contained, but rather that the damage from such
a natural disaster should be minimised. Future countermeasures
against tsunamis will have to be transformed from lines of defense,
such as coastal dikes and tide barriers, to multiple defenses that
are area-based, encompassing rivers, roads and urban planning.
While the tsunami showcased the effectiveness of natural bioshields in mitigating impacts and the economic benefits of hazard
mitigation, the lesson from Japan is that solely relying on structural
measures needs careful consideration.

The nexus between natural hazards, environment, and development

provides a strong case for promoting environmental protection in land
use planning during recovery and reconstruction and for vulnerability
reduction.

35

5 ADDRESSING PAST PLANNING DEFICITS

Contemporary urban planning systems in most parts of the world have
been shaped by 19th-century planning methods (master planning) and
many developing countries still continue to adopt this planning process.
Currently, much rapid urban growth is taking place in countries that are
the least able to cope in terms of the ability of governments to provide
or facilitate the provision of urban infrastructure; in terms of the ability
of urban residents to pay for such services; and in terms of resilience to
natural disasters. Also, current forms of urbanisation are pushing the
lowest-income people into locations that are prone to natural hazards,
such that four out of every ten non-permanent houses in the developing
world are located in areas threatened by floods, landslides and other
natural disasters. If planning is to play a role in addressing the major issues
facing urban areas, then current approaches to planning in many parts of
the world will have to change (UN HABITAT 2009).
Disaster recovery is much more effective where land institutions have
adequate capacity and where the rules and processes for making decisions
about access to land and land use are clear and applied without political
interference or corruption (FAO 2011). Where planning processes did
not work before a disaster, it is unlikely that they will work at the time of
recovery, when planning decisions ought to be made (WRC 2011).
Post-disaster recovery and reconstruction provides an opportunity to
address and change previous planning and development decisions that
have exacerbated land system vulnerabilities, such as inadequate planning,
policy provisions, enforcement mechanisms, building codes and standards,
environmental degradation, unsafe settlements, or inappropriate and
unaffordable zoning. Not addressing planning deficits exacerbates
preexisting vulnerabilities and hampers the recovery process.

36

Guidance on Land Use Planning

AN APPROACH FOR PRE-EVENT LAND USE RECOVERY PLANNING

IN NEW ZEALAND
Pre-disaster planning is essential to achieve effective coordination among agencies
and ensure a smooth transition between response and recovery activities. By working
through issues and solutions before an event occurs, the process of recovery can be
greatly improved, resulting in quicker and appropriately targeted reinstatement of
affected areas. Furthermore, pre-planning for land-use recovery means that:
Recovery is proactive, rather than reactive which can lead to poor decision making.
Recovery incorporates principles of sustainability.
Recovery begins without the need to think about and/or plan for land use changes.
Future hazard risks can be reduced during recovery.
Ideas and plans can be developed and discussed by communities and options
analysed before an event.
Landowners are provided with options for reducing hazard impacts.
Consent can be gained in advance for disposal sites, including for contaminated
materials (e.g. road slip material, building debris, volcanic ash disposal).
Plans are developed proactively to reduce the impact of a hazard event.
SOURCE
Becker, J.; Kerr, J.; Saunders, W., GNS Science Report 2006.

Currently, in order to address disaster recovery issues effectively, preevent land use recovery planning is gaining significance.
(see box on the next page)
As the disaster event highlights, the need for safety standards among
affected people, planners and relevant stakeholders need to make
pragmatic decisions on integrating DRR into land use during recovery
policy, planning and reconstruction. The following chapter discusses
the ways in which DRR measures can be integrated into land use
planning during recovery and reconstruction.

37

38

Guidance on Land Use Planning

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

39

It is important to seize the short window of opportunity during

post-disaster recovery to integrate DRR measures into Build Back Better
efforts. The World Bank Handbook emphasises the following guiding
principles for land use and physical planning during post-disaster
recovery and reconstruction (see box below). This chapter discusses
key considerations for integrating DRR into land use planning during
recovery and reconstruction, both at policy and local levels.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LAND USE AND PHYSICAL PLANNING

Laws, regulations, plans and institutional frameworks should form the basis of
reconstruction planning. If existing instruments are not realistic, or are contributing to
informality, use the reconstruction process as an opportunity to improve them.
The planning process should incorporate active collaboration among the
reconstruction agencies, the affected community, the private sector, and other
stakeholders, thereby engendering their ownership of the planning process.
The planning process should respond to issues of land rights and titling and to
discrepancies in the administration of land records, address the needs of informal
occupiers of land and work with them to identify viable alternatives.
While addressing long-term development and DRR goals, land use and physical
plans should be flexible and offer choices, rather than static master plans.
Land use and physical plans integrated with strategic planning can address
reconstruction, DRR, and long-term development, yet be readily translated into action
plans and investment proposals, including those that promote private investment.
The planning process needs high-level support, active leadership from the
government agencies that will actually implement the plans, and involvement from
local communities.
SOURCE
Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters,
The World Bank 2010

40

Guidance on Land Use Planning

1 EMPHASISING LAND USE DRR IN POLICIES

A recovery policy and framework provides the basis for recovery and
reconstruction planning and implementation in affected areas. It is
important to ensure that the recovery policy should include DRR
considerations in land use planning and that this is done in conjunction
with existing policies. If required, suitable amendments should be made
to address DRR concerns (see Chapter 3 of the Handbook for Disaster
Recovery Practitioners).

HB

HOW TO DO IT
Keeping in mind the long-term sustainable development of affected
communities, land use planning in the recovery policy should emphasise
Build Back Better with a focus on risk reduction along with other
prospective DRR tools. The people involved in land use planning issues
and other recovery issues should try to include DRR into the policy
statements as part of the broader development objectives in the aftermath
of disaster.
Land use planning should:
Prevent new and redevelopment in hazardous areas when there are no
viable mitigation options.
Allow new and redevelopment in hazardous areas with higher safety
standards (both structural and non-structural measures) through a risk
based land use planning system.
Put a temporary or permanent moratorium on reconstruction and
redevelopment in high risk areas.7
Offer directives on dealing with nonconforming structures.
Promote environmental protection such as natural buffer zones and
restrict reconstruction and development in ecologically sensitive areas.
Address land tenure and rights which in turn improve the land
governance and resilience of communities.
Strengthen the land governance capacity of institutions.
Create synergies between other sectoral strategies including livelihoods,
infrastructure, environmental protection, and disaster risk management.
7 The Moratorium should be relaxed based on the assessments findings and validated through risk and environmental
assessments

41

LEVELS OF VILLAGE LEVEL PLANNING IN ACEH AND NIAS, AGENCY FOR THE
REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ACEH AND NIAS (BRR)
Rapid
Site Plan

Minimum
Settlement Plan

Better
Settlement Plan

Community-driven process

Community land mapping

Activity

Community profile

Topographical survey

Land reuse planning

House plots

Disaster mitigation

Infrastructure planning

Environmental analysis and plan

SOURCE: ADB

42

Guidance on Land Use Planning

In general, a recovery policy should provide broad principles through

a flexible DRR approach. For example, the Master Plan for Tsunami
Recovery and Reconstruction in Aceh and Nias (2005) provided polices,
strategies and draft spatial plans for the district level (see the box on the
next page). Local governments were requested to build on the drafts
in consultation with communities during the development of detailed
spatial plans.
Recognising the importance of appropriate spatial planning
for village level reconstruction, the Agency for the Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction of Aceh and Nias (BRR) issued guidelines on
village level planning in 2005, and an amended version in 2006 with
three levels of planning in accordance with the size and complexity
of reconstruction projects: Rapid Site Plan (less than 20 houses),
Minimum Settlement Plan (20 to 150 houses), and Better Settlement
Plan (more than 150 houses), and with specific levels of activities (see
table on the previous page). The broad objective of the village plans
was to restore original conditions with disaster mitigation. The plans
consisted of house location and basic infrastructure such as clean
water, access roads, escape routes, sanitation and drainage, green
belts, communications, and power.

Similarly, in the case of the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, the
recovery plan provided recommendations with a mix of structural and
non-structural mitigation measures for five types of regions.8

It is important to have broad consultations on policy decisions regarding

land and land use with relevant stakeholders and the affected communities
while framing the policy and further consultations during reconstruction.
Though it may not be possible for the government to consult with all
affected people, it is important to include outreach and consultation
through various stakeholders such as NGOs and civil society organizations
(CSOs) to receive feedback while framing policy.
Any particular decision on land use during post-disaster recovery will have
significant impacts on vulnerable groups, namely the landless, tenants, and
marginal land holders, as well as on land tenure in the case of resettlement.
8 This is a shift from the previous approach of protection from tsunami through structural measures such as tsunami
breakwaters, coastal dikes and tide barriers. The report calls for harmonious coexistence between humanity and
nature through disaster reduction.

43

SPATIAL PLANNING TSUNAMI MASTER PLAN, INDONESIA

Spatial planning in Aceh posed one of the most significant challenges to recovery and
reconstruction. Chapter 5 on spatial structuring in the Master Plan (2005) emphasised
reconstructing cities, regions and settlements, as well as enabling community members
to conduct their activities under safe and improved conditions. The Master Plan
provided broad policy principles (listed below) with strategies and specific activities
that were, in turn, to be adapted and developed by the local government, district and
city level authority in consultation with local communities.
Restoring and rehabilitating Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province spatial structure
and pattern.
Giving residents the freedom of choice for settlement.
Participatory spatial structuring approach.
Anticipating disaster mitigation in disaster areas and making areas safe from disaster.
Involving community members and using social institutions in disaster and
development activities.
Highlighting cultural and religious characteristics.
Spatial structuring as a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Restoring local governments role.
Protecting citizens civil rights.
Accelerating the land administration process.
Providing fair and affordable compensation.
Revitalising natural resource-based public economic activities.
Restoring environmental supporting capacity and anticipating natural disaster
threats.
Reconstruction of disaster-affected cities by restoring them to their initial state of
order.
Given the scope and scale of the recovery and reconstruction phases, challenges,
delays, and setbacks were encountered in many of the sectors due to delays of new
spatial maps, issues related to land tenure, compensation, policy conflicts and weak
governance. As the reconstruction work progressed, BRR took a flexible approach in
addressing land issues.
SOURCE
Master plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the regions and communities of the province of
Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam and the Islands of Nias, Province of North Sumatera, Government of Indonesia,
April 2005

44

Guidance on Land Use Planning

Lessons from past disasters highlight the importance of addressing land

tenure and the needs of vulnerable groups.
Recovery policy is mostly drafted in the post-disaster phase under time
pressure. As a result, issues of land and land use are often overlooked.

2 IDENTIFYING VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE

It is important to make use of damage assessment reports and risk
assessment studies to understand and identify specific, underlying
elements of vulnerability that have configured disaster risk.
The early use of available information allows planners to identify issues
to be addressed through the recovery policy or plan, as well as issues
which might require a closer look at the time of local level planning
during recovery and reconstruction. Planners need to look beyond
traditional development planning issues and should apply the DRR lens
to identify elements in particular. For example:
Damage patterns of various structures including housing, lifeline
buildings, and critical infrastructure.
Land needs and availability of safe areas for transitional shelter
requirements and reconstruction (in-situ and resettlement).
Risk areas and the need for temporary moratoriums.
Requirements for hazard, risk and environmental assessments of the
affected areas for local level planning.
Identification of appropriate land for debris disposal.9
Relevance of various existing land and land use policies and other
regulations in the context of the disaster event.10
Relevance of existing building codes and implementation.
Non-conformity issues based on existing regulations and their impact
during the reconstruction phase with new regulations (if any).
Requirements for in-situ reconstruction or relocation needs, which
may arise based on the above issues.
The national disaster management agency or its equivalent should
coordinate with relevant city authorities, planning agencies and
9 Improper handling and disposal of debris and solid waste can create a crisis within a crisis. Hence there is a need to
identify appropriate land for disposal of debris.
10 Inconsistencies among various policies and regulations (regarding land, agriculture, urban development, the environment, and coastal management) can delay the overall recovery planning process.

45

sectoral departments to analyse the findings from damage assessment

reports and provide very specific recommendations from the damage
assessment findings. It is also important to engage universities and
professional bodies to provide their technical expertise during the
process.
Assessments should capture explicit information on vulnerable groups,
in order to identify issues early and provide targeted interventions.
Identifying the land related issues of vulnerable groups can also
minimise uncertainty and bottlenecks during the implementation stage.
Analysing damage assessment findings in order to provide specific
recommendations is a challenging task. Available information might
be incomplete. In addition, competing priorities and lack of time and
human resources to undertake assessments during recovery policy
formulation has been a major challenge.

3 USING DISASTER RISK INFORMATION IN

LAND USE PLANNING

Risk information is crucial for DRR integration in land use planning

during post-disaster recovery planning. If no prior risk assessment
has been carried out, findings from the damage and environmental
assessment, along with basic topographical, geological or relevant
maps should guide land use planning. For example, in Aceh, Indonesia,
settlement planning and housing reconstruction were carried out based
on hazard risk mapping developed through community participation.
Multi-hazard risk maps and coastal protection measures such as
the DRR-Aceh (DRR-A) programme and Aceh Nias Sea Defence,
Flood Protection, Escapes and Early Warning Project were developed
as long-term interventions to support development. In the case of
relocation, multi-hazard risk assessments and Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIA) for the proposed sites should be carried out to
identify appropriate structural and non-structural mitigation measures
to reduce future exposure to hazards.
In general, undertaking a technical risk assessment study requires the
involvement of professionals from various disciplines, which are often

46

Guidance on Land Use Planning

lacking in many countries. It also takes a considerable amount of time

and resources to develop a comprehensive risk assessment. In the
post-disaster context, it might not be technically feasible to carry out a
study to guide recovery planning (in-situ and for resettlement) within
the time frame of the recovery and reconstruction interventions. Hence
initial land use planning can be based on available past risk assessments
and scientific studies (all hazards), damage (including from spacebased information such as satellite images) environmental assessment
findings, and through community-based maps. A comprehensive
risk assessment can be initiated in parallel, linked with long-term
development planning (see the case of Aceh prior).
As it might not be possible to prevent or mitigate all risk, determining
an acceptable level of risk for various hazards is central for planning
and allocation of resources, housing, infrastructure development and
DRR. Caution should be exercised when defining the acceptable level
of risk for hazards. Long-term risks such as climate change have direct
cost implications. Land use planning and risk information can guide the
application of land use planning tools such as zoning, density control,
setbacks, acquisition, easement, open space, road width and access,
along with other structural and non-structural measures to reduce
vulnerability to future hazards. Potential application of each of the tools
for specific hazards is further discussed in the following section.
As described, risk assessment is a multi-disciplinary effort at various
levels. Applying risk information for land use planning should
be undertaken at the local level in consultation with respective
communities through participatory planning, since risk assessments
in land use planning will create both positive and negative impacts on
different aspects of recovery planning.
It is important to engage vulnerable groups during the risk assessment
process at the community level to identify specific needs and issues
that affect their livelihoods and safety. Further, any risk assessment and
information (such as maps and reports) should have explicit reference
to and adequate information on vulnerable groups for better recovery
planning.

47

Risk assessment is currently an evolving area and there is limited

expertise in many countries. In addition, decision makers and
planners will require risk information in the appropriate scale and
form. However, in many situations there is a disconnect between
the scientific community and planners. Also, a comprehensive
risk assessment during recovery may not be possible due to time
constraints.

4 FACTORING IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO

REDUCE EXPOSURE

The risk assessment and EIA are carried out separately in many
countries. However it is important to integrate these two frameworks
to address deficits in the planning process. Adequate considerations
should be made to restoring ecosystems during the recovery and
reconstruction process while also minimising negative impacts on the
overall environment. Considering the potential long-term benefits
offered by ecosystems and the environment, land use planning should
adequately include environmental protection measures through
existing and new protection measures so as to reduce the exposure
and vulnerability of communities not only to current risk but also
future risks including climate change. In addition to environmental
protection and conservation, these efforts should be linked to broader
recovery initiatives as well as the promotion of alternative livelihoods
for communities which are heavily reliant on natural resources.
In order to address environmental considerations as part of the
early recovery process, UNEP has developed the Environmental
Needs Assessment in Post-Disaster Situations A Practical Guide
for Implementation (see box on the next page). Findings from the
environmental assessment should provide inputs for overall recovery
and reconstruction. At the time of local level planning, planners and
environmental managers need to identify the key issues that can be
addressed through land use planning.

48

Guidance on Land Use Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN POST-DISASTER

SITUATIONS A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Until very recently, post-disaster needs assessments were being carried out
primarily to identify immediate and life-saving needs. In order to address
environmental considerations as part of the recovery process, and in a bid to
highlight the many ways in which environmental issues need to be considered
during early recovery, UNEP developed the Guide to:
Identify environmental impacts and risks caused by the crisis and relief
operations as well as potential environmental pressures from recovery
Identify the negative response related activities or coping mechanisms
resulting from an emergency that can impact the environment or create new
environmental risks.
Assess institutional capacities at the national and local levels to mitigate
environmental risks and manage environmental recovery.
Provide a forward-looking plan that aims to build back better by integrating
environmental needs within early recovery programming and across the
relevant relief and recovery clusters.
Provide a standard reference point for future environmental assessments
in the post-crisis setting, in spite of the fact that this tool is expected to be
modified to suit the needs of different situations.
SOURCE: UNEP 2008

It is important to engage local communities in environmental

protection and restoration measures through complementary awareness
and outreach programmes on safeguarding the environment and
ecosystems.
Environmental considerations are often overlooked during
developmental interventions. Hence, existing legal and policy
frameworks related to DRR and recovery should recognise the
importance of environmental protection and conservation, including
thorough stronger coordination and enforcement mechanisms at all
levels, as well as adequate safeguards and community ownership.

49

INTEGRATING DRR IN LAND USE PLANNING TOOLS

As discussed in the previous section, land use planning tools can help
reduce exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards. The post-disaster
recovery phase offers a limited window to intervene with land use
planning before ad-hoc reconstruction takes place. Hence Building
Back Better should focus on addressing the underlying risk factors
including those associated with exposure.
The array of existing land use planning tools listed in the table on
the next page can potentially be used to integrate DRR into land use
planning during the recovery and reconstruction process11. Other
tools have been discussed in the previous sections and can ensure
complementary linkages. While the tools mentioned, though not an
exhaustive list, are part of regular planning, they can also be applied
in specific post-disaster contexts guided by reliable risk assessment
information to reduce exposure and vulnerability to hazards during
new or redevelopment, in the case of in-situ reconstruction or in
resettlement areas.
It is important to use these tools in the context of risk information
(such as maps) for multi-hazards rather than only for the specific
hazards connected to recent events. Careful consideration is required
when choosing different planning tools. Some mitigation measures can
exacerbate other hazards, influence environmental degradation or have
a direct effect on community land, livelihoods and housing. It is equally
important that the tools support the priorities of other sectors, such as
the environment and livelihoods. The section following discusses the
application of these tools with some case studies.

50

Guidance on Land Use Planning

PROSPECTIVE TOOLS FOR DRR IN LAND USE PLANNING

TOOLS BY CATEGORY

Flood

Cyclone

Earthquake

Landslides

Tsunami

Damage Assessment

Development Moratorium

Temporary Repair Permits

Nonconformity Uses

Density Controls

Setbacks

Height Regulations

Coastal Zone Management

Regulations

Subdivision Regulations

Road Width / Access

Open Space Requirements

Trees and Vegetation

Building Codes

Emergency Tools

Zoning Tools

Subdivision Controls

Design Control

11 A few tools have been listed based on functional purpose- zoning, subdivision, site specific. For more tools see
PAS Report 483/484.

51

EMERGENCY TOOLS
As discussed, damage assessments (see section 1 of this Chapter) provide
insights on the vulnerability and risk of the built environment, and
can offer guidance on the application of specific tools during recovery
and reconstruction planning. A development moratorium can be
carefully applied in severely affected areas, or in high-risk areas based
on the damage assessment in order to review the existing land use
plan in relation to current and future hazards, address past planning
deficits and restrict ad-hoc reconstruction activities. Temporary repair
permits can be used to allow communities to repair and reoccupy their
houses so they can restart their lives. Experience from the Kobe and
Los Angeles earthquakes shows that in cases of low levels of building
damage, it is better to repair than to rebuild. Repair is usually more
cost-effective and less disruptive (Robert Olshansky et al. 2006).
The above tools are significant during the recovery phase, since this
phase establishes the basis for carrying out land use in relation to other
recovery interventions. Caution should be exercised when applying
the above tools, as application might directly affect communities and
recovery efforts. One of the important lessons learned from tsunamiaffected countries, particularly Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka, is
that initial restrictions on affected areas, such as a blanket ban on
reconstruction based on buffer zones, causes confusion and setbacks to
the recovery process.
ZONING TOOLS
Zoning tools offer the benefit of addressing both exposure and
vulnerability to hazards and risks for in-situ reconstruction and
resettlement. It is important to assess the relevance of past zoning
practices in the disaster recovery context and also plan to address
future developmental needs. Zoning modifications should be based on
damages, available risk maps (technical or community based) and
future risks such as climate change. A few zoning tools are discussed
with some case studies in the following.

52

Guidance on Land Use Planning

Non-conforming uses and structures are a major issue within the

development context. Post-disaster, there is a great level of uncertainty
on how regulations will be dealt with. Non-conforming uses and
structures arise when structures, buildings or areas do not conform
to the existing zoning regulations due to changes in policies or other
factors. The post-disaster situation provides an opportunity to address
non-confirming structures through relocation or retrofitting.
Density controls can facilitate development in high-risk areas during
reconstruction with higher structural safety standards, thus offering to
reduce exposure to natural hazards, certain vulnerability factors and
overall risks. Density reduction can displace people, livelihoods and
businesses and have a negative impact on economic recovery. Conversely,
it can improve the overall living environment, disaster response
capabilities and services. Densities can be increased in areas that are
deemed safe to accommodate population needs. Setbacks can reduce
the exposure of communities and individual households from hazards
such as floods and fault lines, and can offer environmental protection.
Setbacks and buffer zones were widely promoted in the areas prone to
tsunamis. However, implementation faced significant challenges during
reconstruction and in many cases regulations were relaxed. Regulations
on buildings height can also reduce exposure and vulnerability to
hazards in areas with a high risk of cyclones, as well as earthquake
hazards from soft soil and fault lines proximity.
SUBDIVISION CONTROLS
Subdivision regulations, such as plot size and layout, road width and
layout, open spaces and storm water facilities, can support and improve
development at the site-specific level. In addition, they can enhance
emergency response by addressing elements such as road access and
open space for emergency evacuations, along with the overall character
and standards of the area. For example, Kobe, Japan undertook a
land readjustment project for road-widening, open spaces and other
public facilities, to improve road access (perpendicular to the sea) for
emergency or evacuation shelters. Similarly Bhuj, Gujarat, India engaged
in sub-divisional planning, as discussed in the box on the next page.

53

BHUJ PRE- AND POST-EARTHQUAKE TOWN PLANNING

The development plan for Bhuj was devised in 1976, covering 20 km2. Weak enforcement led to haphazard
growth of the city. For example, through non-compliance with building control regulations, plot density was
more than 100 plots in a hectare of land four times more than the allowable FSI. There was a lack of open
spaces and margins for buildings, and no proper street network. This posed significant challenges during
post-earthquake rescue operations.
The city base map was outdated. In order to reconstruct Bhuj, the government, under the Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Act of 1976, undertook the development plan for Bhuj with an area
of 56sqkm, as well as another three cities. One of the key features of this plan was a set of development
control regulations to guide and regulate the reconstruction and future growth of the city. Technical studies
on the following were conducted during plan preparation on land suitability, demographics, land market,
development regulations, infrastructure status and needs, intensity of damage and seismic vulnerability.
Particularly related to DRR, the government undertook a vulnerability assessment of buildings and graded them
from G0 to G5, with G5 being the most severely damaged category. Soil studies were conducted based on three
categories: good, fair and poor.
Under the following policy, subdivision control was undertaken to improve the plot layout, road network,
open space, parking and markets through land readjustments.
Plots less than 30m2, no deduction
30 to 100m3, 10 percent
100 to 200m3, 20 percent
200 to 500m3, 30 percent
More than 500m3, 35 percent
Standing buildings would be spared from deduction unless they were affected by proposed road alignments
Readjustment of land and sub-divisional zoning led to improved city planning (figure below).
Bhuj Before and Post-Earthquake Town Planning:

SOURCE
1. B.R. Balachandran. The Reconstruction of Bhuj- Case Study: Integration of Disaster Mitigation into
Planning and Financing Urban Infrastructure after an Earthquake,
2. Bhuj Area Development Authority www.bhujada.com
3. Reconstruction & Renewal of Bhuj City: The Gujarat Earthquake Experience - Converting Adversity into an
Opportunity Rajesh Kishore(ppt)
54
Guidance on Land Use Planning

DESIGN CONTROLS
Design controls can have significant positive effects by reducing
vulnerability and mitigating natural hazards at the site-specific level.
Carefully designed vegetation cover can protect the built environment
from hazards such as cyclonic winds and storm surges, building codes
with higher performance standards, along with land use planning
can enhance structural safety, particularly in critical infrastructures.
Performance standards can be used to provide site-specific development,
and critical infrastructures such as hospitals and schools can be
designed to higher safety standards for multi-hazard and environmental
factors, as compared to other structures. For example, in Sri Lanka,
the National Housing Development Authority issued guidelines on the
design standards for structures built 500m to 2km along the eastern
coastline or less than 3m from mean sea level. Similar design standards
were issued in Indonesia and India.
With a need to address the competing demands of various sectors and
in particular those associated with land and land use issues applying
land use planning tools during in-situ reconstruction takes extensive
consultation with local communities, in addition to those who will be
affected by the changes and other stakeholders involved in recovery and
reconstruction. It is important to have clear strategy on the application
of such tools during the local level planning process with adequate
incentives and compensation for the communities who will be affected.
As discussed in previous chapters, the application of land use
planning tools to enhance safety and resiliency during recovery and
reconstruction is often the most challenging task. It needs a concerted
effort at all levels, from policy formulation to implementation. Often the
policy guidelines are challenging to implement without participation
and buy in from local stakeholders.

55

REFERENCES
ALNAP, Responding to earthquakes: Learning from earthquake relief and recovery operations, 2008.
ALNAP, Responding to urban disasters: Learning from previous relief and recovery operations, 2009
American Planning Association, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction,
PAS Report No. 483/484; September 2005.
ADB Note: International Experiences and Suggestions on Post-Disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, 2008.
ADB, Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Project (ETESP), Indonesia, 2010.
http://216.109.65.20/Projects/ETESP/default.asp
Benny, Hasanuddin Z. et al., Post-Tsunami Land Parcel Reconstruction in Aceh: Aspects, Status and Problems, Shaping the
Change, XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany, October 8-13, 2006.
Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystems-based Management for DRR, Partnership for Environment and DRR (PEDRR), 2010.
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, Disaster Waste Management Guidelines, 2011.
Environmental Needs Assessment in Post-Disaster Situations A Practical Guide for Implementation,
http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_PDNA_draft.pdf.
Gavin Smith, A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning for Recovery,
Disasters Roundtable Workshop (ppt), 2009.
ISDR, Global Assessment Report on DRR, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
ISDR, Global Assessment Report on DRR, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
Master plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the regions and communities of the province of Nanggroe Aceh
Darussalam and the Islands of Nias, Province of North Sumatera, Government of Indonesia, April 2005.
McGranahan G. et al., The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal
zones, Environment And Urbanization Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Pages: 17-37, April 2007.
Namboothri, N., D. Subramanian, B. Muthuraman, A. Sridhar, S. Rodriguez and K. Shanker, Beyond the Tsunami:
Coastal Sand Dunes of Tamil Nadu, India, 2008. http://www.dakshin.org/DOWNLOADS/SAND%20DUNES%20REPORT.pdf
Lizarralde G., Johnson C., and Davidson C., Rebuilding after disasters: from emergency to sustainability, 2008.
Responding to earthquakes, Learning from earthquake relief and recovery operations, ALNAP and Provention
Consortium, 2008.
Robert B. Olshansky, Laurie A. Johnson And Kenneth C. Topping, Rebuilding Communities Following Disaster:
Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles, Built Environment Vol 32 No 4-2006.
Sudarshan Rodriguez, Devi Subramanian, Aarthi Sridhar, Manju Menon and Kartik Shanker, Policy Brief: Seawalls,
http://www.dakshin.org/DOWNLOADS/Sea%20Walls_Policy%20Brief.pdf
The World Bank, Rebuilding a Better Aceh and Nias Stocktaking of the Reconstruction Effort, Brief for the Coordination
Forum Aceh and Nias (CFAN) October 2005.
The World Bank, Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, January 2010.
The World Bank and the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Land Governance in Support of the Millennium
Development Goals, 2010.
UN FAO and UN-HABITAT, Towards Improved Land Governance, Land Tenure Working Paper 11, 2009.
Towards Reconstruction Hope beyond the Disaster, Report to the Prime Minister of the Reconstruction Design Council in
response to the Great East Japan Earthquake, 25 June 2011.
UNEP, Opportunities in Environmental Management for DRR: Recent progress, A practice area review in contribution to the
Global Assessment Report on DRR.
UN-HABITAT, Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Human Settlements, 2009.
UN OCHA, Exploring key changes and developments in post-disaster settlement, shelter and housing, 19822006
Walter E. Lundin, Land Use Planning after a Natural Disaster, University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations, 2011.
World Reconstruction Conference Proceedings, 2011.

56

Guidance on Land Use Planning

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of this toolkit comprising of the Handbook,

the Training Manual and the Technical Guidelines was made possible
by the invaluable guidance, contribution and support of:
Budi A.A.
Shahid Abdullah
Viraj Abeyruwan
Emma Allen
Hanef Are
Charlie Ayco
Amara Bains
H.K. Balachandra
A. Balasooriya
Brittany Benson
Francis Bon
Slamet C.
U.W.L Chandradasa
G.M. Chandramohan
Gothami Chandratne
H.M.U. Chularathna
M.D.N. Cooray
Rohan Cooray
Philipp Danao
John C. David
Erik Davies
Rathika De Silva
John Devaram
M. Dirhamsyah

Trevor Dhu
Narayanan Edadan
Nigel Ede
Lowil Espada
Yuzid Fadhli
Said Faisal
Colin Fernandes
W.B.J. Fernando
Annie George
Biju Jacob George
Mahesh Gunasekara
Tendy Gunawan
Maggy H.
Suprayoga Hadi
Jonath Har
Maharani Hardjoko
Hasma
Mukhlis Hawid
Vajira Hettige
Eunice Ho
Julia Hoeffmann
Eivind S. Homme
MHJ Miao Hongjun
Moritz Horn

57

Ikaputra
Thamara Illeperuma
Nishani Jayamaha
Wathsala Jayamanna
Hemantha Jayasundara
J.K. Jayawardena
Sunil Jayaweera
Luke Juran
H. Muhammad Jusuf Kalla
Adelina Kamal
Nishantha Kamaladasa
Geethi Karunarathne
Angela Kearney
Tessa Kelly
Nalini Keshavaraj
Shukuko Koyama
Wolfgang Kubitski
Sathish Kumar
Sudhir Kumar
Nilantha Kumara
Shriji Kurup
Ahana Lakshmi
Parissara Liewkeat
Lucky Ferdinand Lumingkewas
Dammika Mahendra
Ashok Malhotra
Kuntoro Mangkusubroto
Ruby Mangunsong
Mia Marina
Suresh Mariyaselvam
A.P.B. Melder
Bob McKerrow
C.M. Muralidharan
Jaiganesh Murugesan
Jimmy Nadapdap
Hideto Namiki
Nuly Nazila
Federico Negro
Ann-Kathrin Neureuther

58

Guidance on Land Use Planning

Bill Nicol
Nina Nobel
Joe ODonnel
G. Padmanabhan
Samantha Page
Al Panico
Jonathan Papoulidis
Togu Pardede
K.M. Parivelan
C. Parthasarathi
Parwoto
John Paterson
C. J. Paul
Prema Paul
Sugandika Perera
Ashok Peter
Poemvono
S. K. Prabhakar
Heru Prasetyo
Firliana Purwanti
Eddy Purwanto
Nanang Puspito
Usman Qazi
Felicity Le Quesne
Dyah R
J. Radhakrishnan
Susana Raffalli
Irman Raghman
P. Joseph Victor Raj
Prema Rajagopal
S. Ranasinghe
Eng. Sujeewa Ranawaka
Bhichit Rattakul
Loy Rego
Jesu Rathinam
Nugroho Retro
Marqueza L. Reyes
Alfa Riza
Arghya Sinha Roy

Rudiyanto
William Sabandar
Nirarta Samadhi
Prof. Santhakumar
Trihadi Saptoadi
Umadevi Selvarajah
C.V. Shankar
P.S. Shankar
Keerthi Sri Senanayake
Kristanto Sinandang
Kiran Singh
Arghya Sinha Roy
Chitawat Siwabowon
Pieter Smidt
Soesmakyanto
R.M.B. Somarathna
Pannawadee Somboon
Uditha M. De Soysa
Dave Stomy
Amin Subekti
Bambang Sudiatmo
Kishan Sugathapala
Ravee Supanimitwisetkul

Agus Susanto
Syihabuddin T
Jerry Talbot
Temmy Tanubrata
Teampakasare
R. Rajkumar Thambu
V. Thirrupugazh
Ahmad Tochson
Beate Trankmann
Satya S. Tripathi
Sugeng Triutomo
Archida ul-Aflaha
Wayne Ulrich
Coco Ushiyama
Peter van Rooij
Lorna Victoria
V. Vivekanandan
James Waile
Buddhi Weerasinghe
Hnin Nwe Win
Weniza
Wisnubroto
Kirk Yates

59

Strategic Partners

GUIDANCE ON

Land Use
Planning

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

Tsunami Global Lessons Learned Project

DISASTER
RECOVERY
TOOLKIT