Mumita Tanjeela

Followers

Following

Co-authors

Public Views

rafiu salami

The University of Newcastle

Jason von Meding

University of Florida

Olotu Zakariyah

Giuseppe Forino

University of Salford

Mittul Vahanvati

RMIT University

Patrick Daly

Washington University in St. Louis

Professor Srinath Perera

Western Sydney University

Irina Shklovski

IT University of Copenhagen

sabeth abilawa

Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University

Cassidy Johnson

University College London

Uploads

Books by Mumita Tanjeela

Proceedings of the ANDROID Doctoral School in Disaster Resilience 2015

by Professor Srinath Perera, Mittul Vahanvati, Yan Chang, Mumita Tanjeela, sittimont kanjanabootra, Imelda Piri, Jennifer Woods, and Kern Qin

The Doctoral School initiative, set up by the ANDROID network with the aim to strengthen the nexu... more The Doctoral School initiative, set up by the ANDROID network with the aim to strengthen the nexus between the ‘disaster resilience’ research and teaching is a core element of the overall ANDROID project. The mixed teaching space developed as part of this project has encouraged and promoted the work of doctoral students in the area of disaster resilience.
The Doctoral School signifies the ongoing effort of the ANDROID network to continue the processes developed through the ANDROID project beyond the duration of original funding, demonstrating the commitment of the network to develop Doctoral education in the area of disaster resilience. The Residential Doctoral School (RDS) programme for 2015 aims to provide space and opportunity for doctoral students to engage, present, discuss and widely disseminate their research work in the area of disaster resilience. This involve (a) calling for submissions of original piece of doctoral research internationally, (b) providing feedback on the submissions through expert peer review process, (c) providing an opportunity to participate/present research work in a two-day workshop in which additional feedback is provided by a review panel, (d) providing an opportunity to network with experts in the field and (e) disseminate doctoral research work to a wider audience. For this purpose, the ANDROID network international conference (5th International Conference in Building Resilience) in Newcastle Australia ran parallel to the Residential Doctoral School.
This volume brings together the contributions of all the doctoral researchers. The papers collated here demonstrate the richness and interdisciplinary nature of the research topics and the theoretical and practical nature of challenges/opportunities addressed by disaster resilience researchers. The submissions cover a wide spectrum of topics including risk assessment and mitigation, post-disaster reconstruction, disaster governess, social/community resilience, and stakeholder engagement.
Given the growing need for evidence-based approaches to dealing with disaster situations created by increasing exposure to human/natural hazards and the need for development of research skills/expertise in this area of disaster resilience, the work of the doctoral researchers
in this volume is a valuable contribution to a body of knowledge.

$Table 4: Caste-based community hierarchy in the settlements of Orlaha and Puraini (1 = highest social status and 4= lowest) Usually, the households with higher-caste, such as Mandals, were also the ones who had financia power. One of the local social worker said that “with money came social power and voice” (Y ada\ 2014, p. personal interview). It was this power which seems to have played a significant role i1 discrepancy in beneficiary list. Some households pointed the finger at a local leader, the mukhiya who was argued to be corrupt by these same household’s and took advantage of this opportune moment to make money. The locals who were financially well-off could get more houses or get thei: names added to the beneficiary list, by paying money to the mukhiya. This example highlight: influence, power and corruption as part of the beneficiary selection process during an ODR, led tc household dissatisfaction. To investigate whether this discrepancy was based on the socio-economic condition of the locals, the researcher looked at the social-profile of the place. In both the settlements, people identified their communities based on their caste and status, with an established hierarchical structure. Table 4 presents the hierarchical structure in the villages under investigation, with ‘1’ as highest social status and ‘4’ as lowest. There was no evidence of social or caste-based discrepancy in beneficiary list. In fact, one of the widows who is Muslim (whose name was on the beneficiary list prepared by GoB), received housing assistance and land-purchase assistance due to support from the villagers. The evidence of no caste influence was also shows in the fact that no major social tension seems to have emerged amongst various caste-based communities due to the discrepancies in beneficiary list.$