• Lead disaster agency
• ICT specialists
• Agencies involved in reconstruction
• Project managers
  

• Information is the basis of effective decision making. Low- or no-cost access to reliable and accurate information is crucial after a disaster, as is the use of open, shared, and coordinated systems.
• Use of technology in post-disaster assessment, planning, monitoring, and implementation is rapidly advancing and improving both the speed and quality of agency interventions.
• The principles of information management and exchange in emergencies—accessibility, inclusiveness, interoperability, accountability, verifiability, relevance, objectivity, neutrality, humanity, timeliness, sustainability, and confidentiality—should always be adhered to.^[1]
• Interoperability ensures that data from various sources can be integrated and used by multiple stakeholders to enhance outcomes, monitoring, and evaluation.
• The quality of information and communications technology (ICT) systems in place before a disaster will affect response and reconstruction, yet awareness of the importance of strengthening ICT systems gained during the disaster response often fades once the disaster is over.
• Policies and systems for post-disaster information sharing should incorporate as wide a range of stakeholders as possible.
• ICT systems deployed in the field after a disaster must function in an environment of weak communications infrastructure and low bandwidth.

Patterns of critical information exchange during crisis situations are different than in normal business. Identifying and deploying appropriate public, private, and volunteer resources in a coordinated, timely manner depends on a commitment to addressing—in advance of a disaster—such concerns as interoperability and the use of common standards. Also, ICTs are only as good as their weakest link. So preparedness for disaster communications needs to anticipate scenarios in which any individual ICT element, including the “backbones”—broadcast radio, television, mobile telephony, electric power, database management, and Internet communications—are compromised.

Institutional knowledge and the supporting ICT infrastructure are as vital to the economy today as capital, energy, raw materials, labor, and transportation, and are ever-changing. The use of information technology in post-disaster situations, and the corresponding institutional arrangements for using it, are expanding possibly even more rapidly and continuously evolving. Consequently, this chapter is not meant to provide a definitive explanation of this topic, but rather is intended to point out broad directions and examples and to provide references to key organizations and initiatives, each of which will undoubtedly already have evolved since this handbook was published.

1. Government must decide on the lead agency to coordinate information management (IM). Although the agency will not control the use of ICTs in recovery and reconstruction, it may need to address constraints on their use. Local government may also designate an information management coordinator.
2. The information management agency, agencies involved in relief and reconstruction, and local communities should establish interagency relationships, and should sign agreements and protocols (if necessary) to share information and technology.
3. The information management agency and agencies involved in relief and reconstruction must define information needs for assessment and monitoring, including GIS data and maps, and must decide how to locate or procure it.
4. International organizations, in consultation with the information management agency, must decide on the types of ICT technology, equipment, and data to be deployed in the field, and on procurement procedures, if additional equipment is required.
5. The information management agency should work with agencies and communities involved in relief and reconstruction to establish the IM strategy: rules, protocols, procedures, and locations for the sharing, storing, and disclosure of information.
6. Agencies involved in relief and reconstruction should encourage the collaboration of local communities through the use of ICTs and work with communities to establish a system for monitoring joint ICT activities and to provide feedback during implementation.

ITU Framework for Cooperation in Emergencies. The ITU Framework for Cooperation in Emergencies (IFCE) seeks to deploy on-demand ICT applications and services anywhere, anytime in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and is organized around its technology, finance, and logistics clusters.^[5] The ITU is the leading United Nations (UN) agency for ICT issues and the global focal point for governments and the private sector in developing networks and services. The ITU addresses a range of issues related to the integration of telecommunications and ICT in disaster prediction, detection, and alerting.

International Charter on Space and Major Disasters. The International Charter on Space and Major Disasters aims to provide a unified system of space data acquisition and delivery to those affected by natural or man-made disasters.^[6] Users request the mobilization of space and ground resources of member agencies to obtain data and information on a disaster. The result is high-quality satellite imagery of the disaster location available to emergency responders, often within hours. A 24-hour operator verifies the request, an emergency officer prepares an archive and acquisition plan, and a project manager assists the user throughout the process. The services of the charter can be requested by a civil protection, rescue, defense, or security body of a charter member country. Authorities of other countries submit requests through charter members or international agencies. See Annex 1, How to Do It: A Primer on Acquiring Satellite Images, for guidance on using this and other sources of satellite data.

Telecommunications. Government policies on telecommunications can affect IM during response and reconstruction. If access to telecommunications services is at odds with national defense policy, for instance, then crucial post-disaster telecommunications deployment may be hampered. For example, following the 2005 North Pakistan earthquake, some NGOs reported that government restricted the use of cell phones in certain areas, hampering coordination and exchange of information. In these cases an appeal for application of international standards or lower-tech communications approaches may be required.

Equipment and software. Delays may be encountered if ICT equipment and software must be imported. Sources of delays can include customs regulations, license approval, frequency allocation, and restrictions on use of specific technologies. If equipment and software must be imported, agencies should make a best effort to comply with national requirements. To avoid delays, it may be necessary to seek assistance in navigating paperwork and procedures to comply with national requirements.

Data standards. Census, cadastres, and other government housing-related data may be maintained—even within a single country—using different media, standards, and definitions. Data are also held by private, commercial, and nongovernmental organizations that have their own protocols. Local laws may complicate the sharing and transmission of certain types of data as well. While technology is generally no longer a hurdle to information sharing, as Web-based applications, bandwidth capacity, and standardization of technology make data movement more efficient, differences in rules, media, and standards may still present barriers. Numerous initiatives are under way worldwide, both formal (commercial) and informal (user groups), to develop information standards.

Data security. Information security rules or cultural concerns may also have to be overcome. Users and borrowers of information should always respect reasonable privacy and security concerns, even in an emergency situation. A practical approach whereby the policies of each jurisdiction are quickly analyzed and common procedures transparently agreed to for the emergency should promote the free flow of the information needed for reconstruction purposes.

An effective humanitarian IM system can aggregate and disseminate information that will inform the recovery reconstruction process. IM can ensure that national information systems and standards are employed, can help build local capacities, and can assist government in establishing systems to manage long-term coordination of recovery and reconstruction. Proactive measures must be taken to ensure that key stakeholders can readily access and use the information and resources offered, for instance, by ensuring that the most sought-after information is available in local languages.

Examples of data that may be needed for response and planning in different sectors include:

• Local disaster plans, policies, and procedures
• Social, demographic, and economic data
• Contacts at community, local, regional, and national levels
• Land use plans and critical infrastructure inventories
• Property ownership records (cadastres)
• Building inventories, data on structures (e.g., housing, commercial, public, infrastructure)
• Cultural asset information, including age, construction technique/material, cultural significance, and condition
• Hazard maps and vulnerability data
• Safety and environmental standards and building codes

Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is an approach to Web site design that facilitates information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration. Examples of Web 2.0 include Web-based communities, hosted services, Web applications, social networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, and blogs. Assuming there is a functioning Internet service, a Web 2.0 site allows users to interact with other users or to change Web site content. For response and reconstruction, users could, for instance, report on local conditions, validate maps and other assessment data, report on materials delivery and availability, or coordinate assistance interventions.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has established a Web site called “Did You Feel It?” to collect data on earthquakes.^[7] Using questionnaire responses, USGS develops the “Community Internet Intensity Map” (CIIM) by U.S. postal zip code. For events from which they receive a large enough response, USGS can geo-code the surveys using house addresses to create a more accurate map. The CIIM system was recently expanded worldwide. After the 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake, USGS received more than 700 responses.

Humanitarian Information Centers (HICs), organized by UN OCHA on request, can establish a collaboration Web site for agencies involved in reconstruction. HICs can also promulgate standards for information collection, establish data warehouses, and disseminate information (see box). The terms of reference for a HIC are available from UN OCHA.^[8]  

Mobile telephones. Mobile telephones and smart phones are fast replacing radio and television as the best medium to communicate and coordinate with large populations and to manage digital transactions. Mobile technology includes everything from smart phone applications to simple text messaging and is becoming widely used in the developing world in health, banking, education, and community organizing. This technology can be used for warning populations about risks using common alerting protocol (CAP); communicating using short message service (SMS), Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds, or Twitter; transferring funds using mobile banking services; and many other purposes.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) used mobile banking to encourage donations to post-earthquake relief and reconstruction. ICBC opened free e-banking channels, such as Internet banking and mobile banking, exclusively for transferring donations and helped clients use the channels for the contributions, while ensuring the donors that all donations would be delivered promptly and safely. In the first two months after the 2008 earthquake, ICBC had transferred more than 200,000 donations to 175 charitable organizations across China, with the volume of donations reaching RMB72 million (US$10.5 million).^[9]

Ham radio. The “ham” radio community is an often-overlooked resource that has a long tradition of providing communications in times of disaster. In addition to voice, amateur radio can provide a robust, though very low bandwidth (1200 baud) digital medium with the addition of a legacy modem. For remote areas, this is often the normal mechanism for email and electronic bulletin board access. Including this group in disaster preparation and post-disaster communications is strongly advised.

All of these ICTs are useful in organizing communities and in strengthening community participation in reconstruction. For a discussion of a range of participation approaches in reconstruction, see Chapter 12, Community Organizing and Participation. 

Integrating spatial data in assessments. The DaLA methodology, developed by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and discussed in its Handbook for Estimating the Socio-economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters,^[10] provides a standardized (statistical) assessment of the direct and indirect effects of a disaster event and their consequences on the social well-being and economic performance of the affected country or area. The assessment is currently based on a variety of “analog” (paper) and digital information sources (documents and data from public authorities and agencies, press articles, personal communication with officials, etc.). Survey data is also collected and verified by expert teams sent to the field once the emergency phase is winding down.

DaLas are used to determine the value of damaged and lost assets and to define reconstruction requirements. One DaLA objective is to identify the affect of the disaster on a geographical basis and by sector, together with corresponding reconstruction priorities. While the handbook already emphasizes the potential of new tools available for use in a post-disaster DaLA, up to now the utilization of geospatial information and spatial analysis techniques is not included within the DaLA framework. Therefore, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the World Bank Spatial Team have been working to establish standards and to develop technical and training manuals for mission teams and GIS and IM operators for integrating spatial analysis into assessments.^[11] The case study, below, on the assessment process following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami describes how Earth Observation technology was used to estimate the extent of collapsed structures.

The following sections describe the key tools that are expected to be utilized in this new approach to damage assessment.

Geographical information systems. GIS are instruments for storing, retrieving, mapping, and spatially analyzing geographic data by associating spatial features, referenced on a particular place on the earth, with descriptive attributes in tabular form. The power of GIS comes from its ability to integrate spatial information with statistical and analytical processes to derive spatial patterns not apparent from statistics; in other words, to make data more “visual.” Maps inform the viewer about spatial patterns, trends, and correlations with other features, and are an important step toward more focused analyses. Hence, GIS is more than a map-making tool. Its power lies in its ability to query geographic information and its associated statistics databases. Information from various sources can be superimposed using GIS to identify risks and investment priorities and to establish baselines for reconstruction. See the case study on the Central American Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA), below, to see how a regional agency is working to provide risk information to local users using GIS technology.

The information on maps produced by GIS is displayed in thematic layers and spatially referenced (or “geo-referenced”) to the earth. Geospatial information enables analysts and decision makers to get information on the real-world situation instead of using only statistical information. Adding the spatial dimension to databases supports finding answers relevant for policy support, decision making, and risk management. It is important to have baseline data with which to analyze disaster impacts. GIS databases and remote sensing can be used to locate baseline data, as can other local, national, and (increasingly) international data sources. GIS databases may be proprietary, but are increasingly becoming publicly available. Options for accessing GIS data are described in Annex 2, A Primer on GIS and GIS Data Sources.

Not all GIS data are fully compatible. Using international standards for data collection (e.g., International Standards Organization [ISO] 19115 or the standard being developed by users such as those of the Open Geospatial Consortium [OGC]^[12]) helps ensure the compatibility of data from various sources.^[13] In a recent pilot study, the GFDRR and the World Bank Spatial Team used GIS to map natural hazards and climate change risks in Dakar, Senegal. The study will be replicated in other regions.^[14]

Spatial analysis comprises analytical techniques and tools ranging from simple mapping to spatial econometrics and spatial process modeling. Spatial analysis applies techniques to interpret and analyze geographically-referenced data and their topological, geometric, or geographic properties to extract or generate new geographical information.

Within increasingly data-rich environments and information captured from different environmental monitoring systems and terrestrial networks, mobile devices in the field, or remotely sensed imagery, a GIS provides a state-of-the-art digital platform for storing and managing these data, analyzing the data employing spatial analytical techniques, and finally presenting and visualizing the analytical results using statistics or cartography. Thematic maps and other cartographic products created with GIS are valuable tools to show, at a glance, spatial patterns, relationships, and trends that would not become as obvious from alphanumeric tables.

Remote sensing is an information-gathering method of delivering geospatial information on real-world phenomena. This technique allows analysts to quickly determine the areas affected by a disaster, even in remote regions that are difficult to reach. With its newest sensor generation, remote sensing also provides high-resolution information on the impact on physical infrastructure and environmental assets. When tied to GIS, Earth Observation (EO) imagery can be used to identify damaged or destroyed structures and to correlate this information with socioeconomic, hazard, and other geo-referenced data, thereby providing a rapid estimate of damage for eventual verification on the ground.^[15] The International Charter on Space and Major Disasters is an example of a remote sensing system in use worldwide, as discussed in the case study, below, on the 2009 Namibia floods.

Satellite-based EO (an example of remote sensing) is an important, independent source of information proven in disasters around the world to assist in disaster prevention efforts, mitigation, and relief, as well as in damage assessments and reconstruction. Satellite mapping can support on-the-ground DaLA by providing pre- and post-disaster information. Satellite data can deliver relevant geospatial information that can be used to map the disaster or to provide input to DaLAs. See Annex 1, How to Do It: A Primer on Acquiring Satellite Images.

Remote sensing supports and complements, but is still no substitute for, a field-based assessment. Outputs should be validated with a second data source, preferably on the ground. Portable GPS devices and mobile phones can be deployed to collect, transmit, and upload information to central databases that supply information to GIS.

Information systems. Systems such as the Development Assistance Database (DAD) and project-level monitoring systems are used to monitor physical progress and expenditures.^[16] See Chapter 15, Mobilizing Financial Resources and Other Reconstruction Assistance, for more information on these systems. Databases developed by the British Red Cross Society after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Indonesia were used to manage beneficiary registrations and cash transfers, as described in the case study, below.

ICTs can be used to coordinate the business processes by which construction projects are approved, inspected, and maintained. Efficient and transparent permit processing and enforcement can not only increase taxation revenues, but can also address institutional corruption and reduce disaster risks. Particularly during the post-disaster construction "boom," ICTs can play an important control function.

Remote sensing and GIS. The same GIS data and spatial information described above as an input to assessments can also be used to plan reconstruction and to monitor the progress of reconstruction, the impact of reconstruction on ecosystems, and other effects of recovery. These data are critical to the success of the land use and site planning processes described in Chapter 7, Land Use and Physical Planning.

Data can be gathered through remote sensing over time and calibrated with data from the ground to establish visual indicators of reconstruction and recovery. Data gathered on the ground, for instance from Web 2.0 applications, can be geo-referenced and used to monitor reconstruction in GIS applications¹⁷.

Tradeoffs in acquiring data. The principal tradeoffs in data acquisition are quality, cost, and time. Consider the following when deciding on data requirements.

• Identify the most critical data needed for planning and implementation.
• Confirm the ready availability of data (including baseline data for maps).
• Determine whether available data adhere to a standard (if not, it may be an indicator that it is of poor quality, and not worth acquiring).
• Identify measures to improve the quality and accuracy of data (e.g., identity control, internal controls, and data analysis and verification).
• Determine the level of disaggregation needed (the more disaggregated, the higher the cost to collect and analyze).
• Consider alternative methods for data collection, map making, and monitoring, including hand-drawn maps and community data collection.
  

• Reliance on a single communication system, such as mobile phones, that may become overloaded or inoperable after a disaster.
• Failing to keep databases and systems current, backed up, and protected against hazards, which can result in the need to recreate them after a disaster.
• Delays in the delivery and operationalization of ICT post-disaster systems, and the failure to have a back-up plan in case the high-tech approach is not feasible.
• Failing to utilize up-to-date technologies that are available, or—conversely—insisting on using technologies beyond the capability of their intended users.
• Downplaying the importance of incorporating ICT specialists in post-disaster assessment, planning, and monitoring activities.
• Managing post-disaster information in an uncoordinated, ad hoc, and closely held manner, rather than consciously planning for and encouraging collaboration.
• Duplicating data collection because data are not shared and treated as a “public good” by agencies involved in reconstruction.
• Low levels of ICT interoperability due to lack of standards in system design and data collection.
  

1. Integrate ICT widely into disaster response while avoiding ad hoc systems or systems that require a high level of technical capacity.
2. Incorporate specialists with ICT experience in assessment and project teams to promote full use of emerging ICTs in recovery and reconstruction.
3. Ensure that ICT systems are compatible with existing government systems, particularly if they will continue to be used after the disaster.
4. Involve stakeholders in assessment, validation, monitoring, and other reconstruction-related activities by using accessible, collaborative technologies, such as Web 2.0.
5. Support the use of open systems and standards to ensure interoperability. Require developers to standardize and geo-reference information through specifications in contracts and terms of reference.
6. Collaborate with the UN system to evaluate the advisability of establishing a HIC. If established, fund it adequately and ensure all key agencies commit to standardizing and sharing information.
7. To quickly acquire satellite images and maps of a disaster area, activate the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters directly or through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).
8. Promote the use of field-level ICT systems that assist reconstruction project management, provide transparency to affected communities, and permit the unification of data.
9. Encourage government to develop resilient information systems that can be easily restored after a disaster, and to establish agreements with local and international ICT-related stakeholders that specify mechanisms for post-disaster cooperation.
10. Encourage governments to establish policies and laws that provide the right to information on hazards and risks, after a disaster and at other times, to support the incorporation of disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures in planning and construction.
    

Central America is highly vulnerable to a wide variety of natural hazards that present a serious challenge to the region’s sustainable social and economic development. In response, the region has taken a proactive stance on risk prevention and mitigation. The CAPRA platform represents a strategic opportunity to strengthen and consolidate methodologies for hazard risk evaluations supporting this stance and existing initiatives.

Led by the Center for Coordination for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America (Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América Central [CEPREDENAC]), in collaboration with Central American governments, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank, CAPRA provides a set of tools to communicate and support decisions related to disaster risk at local, national, and regional levels in Central America. It provides a GIS platform and a methodology based on probabilistic risk assessment to support decisions in such sectors as emergency management, land use planning, public investment, and financial markets. Current CAPRA applications use data for (1) the creation and visualization of hazard and risk maps, (2) cost-benefit analysis tools for risk mitigation investments, and (3) the development of financial risk transfer strategies. Future applications by CAPRA partners may include real-time damage estimates, land use planning scenarios, and climate change studies.

Sources: CAPRA, http://www.ecapra.org/en/; and CEPREDENAC, http://www.sica.int/cepredenac/.

Databases were developed by a number of organizations to track the flow of assistance funds after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The British Red Cross Society (BRCS) database in Aceh, Indonesia, involved a significant investment in design (three consultant-months) and was developed principally to track program resources. But the BRCS Aceh team found that the database was also extremely useful for tracking and managing beneficiary cash transfers for shelter. The database linked all stages of the post-disaster assistance process, from registration of beneficiaries to instructing banks to disburse progress payments. The BRCS database could also link the various sectoral elements of the BRCS program: shelter, livelihoods recovery grants, registration for land title, and so on. The lack of an adequate database for food relief programs was a significant weakness, particularly because it was the initial contact with most beneficiaries and could have been the foundation for the registration of all sectoral programs. The capacity to cross-reference data between different agency databases proved vital.

Source: Lesley Adams, 2007, “Learning from Cash Responses to the Tsunami: An HPG Background Paper, Final Report,” Humanitarian Policy Group, http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/Cash_vouchers_tsunani.html.

In early 2009, the north-central and northeastern regions of Namibia experienced torrential rains that caused flooding along most of Namibia’s northern borders. The water levels of the Cunene, Chobe, Zambezi, and Kavango rivers increased dramatically due to the combined effects of rain and water from tributaries originating in Angola and Zambia. The floods affected 350,000 people (nearly 17 percent of the country’s population), caused the death of 102 people, and displaced more than 13,500 people.

On March 20, 2009, the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters was activated by UNOOSA on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Namibia. This map illustrated satellite-detected increases in flood water extent along the Chobe River in the period between March 17 and 25, 2009 in the Caprivi Region, Namibia. Flood analysis was made using Radarsat & ENVISAT-ASAR data. Because of the difference in satellite sensors, there was some uncertainty about the flood extent change over time. This flood detection was a preliminary analysis that was later validated in the field.

In May 2009, government, the UN, and the World Bank conducted a PDNA. While almost all families in the areas of Oshana, Oshikoto, Ohangwena, and Omusati had returned home, inundations in Caprivi and Kavango delayed the return of those relocated to camps. By the end of June, government reported 28,103 people displaced in the Caprivi and Kavango regions and relocation camps remained open. Families that had returned home still required humanitarian assistance due to the loss of property, livestock, and crops, and limited access to basic services.

After the deadly tsunamis generated by the December 26, 2004, earthquake near Sumatra devastated the island of Sri Lanka off the southeastern tip of India, the waves continued westward and slammed into southeastern India, along a stretch of coastline called the Coromandel Coast. Cities, towns, and fishing villages up and down the coast of the state of Tamil Nadu were victims of the waves. These images taken before and after the tsunami from the IKONOS satellite show the city of Chennai, a harbor city on the southeastern Indian coast, located about 350 kilometers north of the Palk Strait, which separates Sri Lanka and India.

Source: NASA Earth Observatory, “Earthquake Spawns Tsunami,” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=14412.

EO technology was deployed to estimate the collapsed structures after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami struck Indonesia. By defining a Primary Impact Zone (PIZ), and using observations of available before and after satellite imagery (QuickBird, LandSat7, ETM+, and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission [SRTM] data), an estimate of collapsed structures was obtained. The first step was to estimate the range of heavily damaged structures in the PIZ. Pre- and post-event QuickBird imagery was available for a limited area. All observable existing structures pre-event were counted in specific areas, and an estimate was reached of 5.6 structures per hectare. For areas outside of the available QuickBird coverage, estimates were based on interpretation of available LandSat imagery and low elevation areas defined by SRTM. Where pre-event images were not available, an estimated density of 4 structures per hectare was applied. The resulting analysis led to an estimate that 82 percent of structures had collapsed­—a total of 29,545 collapsed structures in the PIZ.

GIS software can be proprietary or “open source.” Open source software is written with source code that is freely accessible, allowing the software to be customized and new applications to be developed.^[27] A number of free GIS software programs are available.^[28] GIS data are sometimes available for free and sometimes are available for a price.

Metadata is information that describes the data in the GIS. Seven entries are usually associated with geospatial metadata: (1) identification, (2) data quality, (3) spatial data organization, (4) spatial reference, (5) entity and attribute information, (6) distribution, and (7) metadata reference.^[30]

• provided for free from public web portals with high-quality reference documentation;
• in GIS-ready format following international standards on data formats (ESRI ArcGIS compatible formats) and metadata (e.g., International Organization for Standardization [ISO] 19115);
• up to date and/or regularly updated in sufficient time intervals; and
• provided with appropriate resolution, precision, and accuracy conforming to the requirements of the area and topic of investigation.

Free, global data sources are useful in GIS for general information and orientation. Baseline mapping is usually done by simply overlaying various spatial datasets and does not involve any specialized mapping or analysis procedures. Baseline maps employing global datasets can be reproduced for the entire globe. Local assessment baseline mapping relies on information about local facilities, premises, and infrastructure, such as water supply systems, power plants, cultural heritage assets, educational premises, and more.

Virtual globes vary in the quantity, quality, and timeliness of the information they display, and whether their code is open source. Nearly all have a freeware version and a for-purchase version that has additional functionality. They can be used for observing and mapping typography and development patterns (including time-lapse maps), and some allow the importation of data. A few popular virtual globes are listed below.

Google Earth: http://earth.google.com/

NASA World Wind: http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/

Bing Maps: http://www.bing.com/maps/

^Return to Top^

• Lead disaster agency
• Agencies involved in reconstruction
• Project managers
• Affected communities
  

• As with assessments, monitoring and evaluation can take place at whatever level is relevant to the organization seeking the information, which will be similar levels to those at which assessments are conducted.
• Define and agree with stakeholders what will be monitored and evaluated early in project development.
• A mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches is likely to be the most useful for monitoring and evaluation in a post-disaster situation. Participatory performance monitoring and households surveys are two especially useful qualitative tools.
• Assessment data are a critical source of baseline information for evaluation, another reason to promote the sharing of this information among agencies.
• Government can simplify the task of tracking reconstruction if it provides agencies with guidance on the indicators it wishes to be monitored at the project level. The indicators to be monitored should be based on the reconstruction policy.
• Good monitoring and evaluation principles are not different in a post-disaster situation, but to apply them may require more flexibility and imagination.
• If government is not prepared to aggregate data collection from multiple agencies to monitor reconstruction, agencies in one sector or region should consider coordinating the monitoring among themselves.

There are countless audiences for the information that comes from the monitoring and evaluation of post-disaster projects, including funders, government, executing agencies, the general public, and—of course—the affected community.

In Chapter 2, Assessing Damage and Setting Reconstruction Policy, it is suggested that information gathered and produced in a post-disaster assessment might be looked at as a “public good.” A similar case can be made for monitoring and evaluation results, given the large number of stakeholders for most reconstruction projects.

Yet monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian and development activities, while often attempted, are not always that effective as tools to communicate results. Monitoring and evaluation can be even more difficult for disaster-related projects: project assessments and designs may have been hastily prepared, baselines are often not established, and the necessary data might be hard to collect. But good monitoring and evaluation not only improve project outcomes for stakeholders, they have the potential to contribute to international understanding of what “works” in reconstruction—knowledge that is still in somewhat short supply.

Many good tools and resources are available for monitoring and evaluation under “normal conditions.” However, few methodologies have been adapted specifically to the disaster environment. Even so, this chapter argues for a rigorous, yet participatory and flexible approach to monitoring and evaluation in all aspects of housing and community reconstruction.

1. The lead disaster agency should decide how monitoring and evaluation will be carried out within the reconstruction program.
2. The lead disaster agency, in consultation with agencies involved in reconstruction, should decide how information on expenditures and progress at the project level will be tracked and reported, in order to facilitate consolidation.
3. Agencies involved in reconstruction should jointly define protocols for collecting and consolidating sector information, in the absence of government guidance.
4. Agencies involved in reconstruction should decide how they can involve affected communities in monitoring and evaluation activities.
5. Agencies involved in reconstruction should decide how the results of monitoring and evaluation activities will be shared with the affected community and the general public.
6. Affected communities should demand that monitoring and evaluation provide objective project results, which may imply contracting third-party evaluators to conduct them.
   

Monitoring, like assessments, may be an area where there are efficiencies in collaboration, but not necessarily the right incentives. Government should consider establishing protocols for the collection and reporting of post-disaster data, in order to facilitate collection, consolidation, and analysis at the national level. Rules may also be needed to establish minimum parameters for the M&E of projects and to require the disclosure of results. With these rules in place, government can track the progress and the effectiveness of all expenditures related to the disaster and of all the projects being carried out.

• Monitoring: to assess whether a program is being implemented as was planned. A program monitoring system enables continuous feedback on the status of program implementation, identifying specific problems as they arise.
• Process evaluation: to analyze how the program operates. Focuses on problems in service delivery.
• Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness evaluation: to assess program costs (monetary or non-monetary), in particular their relation to alternative uses of the same resources and to the benefits being produced by the program.
• Impact evaluation: to determine whether the program had the desired effects on individuals, households, and institutions, and whether those effects are attributable to the program intervention. (A detailed discussion of impact evaluation is found inAnnex 1, How to Do It: Conducting an Impact Evaluation of a Reconstruction Project.)
  

In an evaluation of the 1998 Armenia, Colombia, earthquake reconstruction,^[3] Gonzalo Lizarralde proposes the following as the aspects of post-disaster housing project to evaluate:

• National reconstruction program (multi-sectoral) M&E
• Housing and community sector-level M&E
• Program or project-level M&E for a specific reconstruction project (not an assessment level)
• Household-level M&E (generally collected using household surveys) (see thecase study, below, on the unexpected results of a household survey following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami reconstruction in Indonesia)

The following table compares the separate characteristics of M&E at each level and shows the responsible party.

The results framework. Monitoring and evaluation take place in the context of a strategic dialogue among development agencies and their governmental clients about “aid effectiveness.” Many development agencies, including the World Bank, have in the past few years oriented their development interventions to conform and contribute to the “Managing for Development Results” agenda. This approach combines a coherent framework for development effectiveness with practical tools for strategic planning, risk management, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation. For maximum effect, it requires:

• objectives that are clearly stated in terms of expected outcomes and beneficiaries;
• intermediate and higher-order outcome indicators and targets;
• systematic monitoring and reporting;
• demand for results by partner countries and development agencies alike;
• an effective and continuous dialogue on results; and
• strengthening of country capacity to manage for results.

These principles were endorsed in the Rome Declaration on Harmonization in February 2003 and further developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in various reference materials.^[10]

As a result of these agreements, a number of agencies, including the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development, now use the “results framework” to organize and report on project processes and outcomes. Results-based management and results frameworks are similar to logical frameworks (discussed below), but they take a broader look at the context of the project in an organization. While often used for strategic planning, these resources are useful for project-level design as well.

A results-based approach aims to improve management effectiveness and accountability by defining realistic expected results, monitoring progress toward the achievement of expected results, integrating lessons learned into management decisions, and reporting on performance. Inputs and the activities that transform them into outputs reflect the process of implementing projects and program rather than desirable end results in themselves. The results framework presents project objectives and indicators in the following format.

This matrix is accompanied by a second matrix that describes in detail the baseline data for key indicators, the target values, and the data collection and reporting arrangements.

The logical framework matrix. The logical framework matrix (LFM) is a project “snapshot” that is still used by a number of international agencies. It is an instrument for arranging the 10 questions listed above in a logical, succinct way, to define project, program, or policy objectives, and to identify expected causal links (the “program logic”), outcomes, and impact. It also helps identify indicators for M&E at each stage, as well as potential risks.

The case study, below, on the reconstruction in Colombia following the 1999 Armenia earthquake, shows how the results of the project were reported using an LFM.

Availability of monitoring and evaluation data. M&E should cover processes, costs and benefits, and impacts. The project’s design and results framework or logical framework will help define what specifically should be monitored and evaluated. “Output” and “activity” data will be generated by the project’s own monitoring and financial systems; the project should be set up to facilitate the collection of these data. Other data may come from the national-level tracking system and/or surveys and data-gathering exercises that government and donors may conduct jointly. The following table shows some potential sources of baseline and M&E data.

The disaster environment. Above all, the disaster environment itself may be what makes M&E so difficult. The World Bank states that an impact evaluation is intended to determine whether a program had the desired effects on individuals, households, communities, and institutions, and whether those effects are attributable to the program intervention. But when there are multiple agencies implementing multiple interventions in the same locality, it may be difficult to attribute impact to any one project. In addition, some of the results sought from post-disaster projects are qualitative or difficult to measure (“commitment to building back better” or even “greater community participation”). Disaster projects are sometimes designed rapidly with insufficient information, necessitating adjustments during implementation, and making agencies reticent to have their work “judged.” And, there is apt to be turnover and inexperience in the executing agency and higher priorities in government than providing census or other data to donors. Therefore, project designers should be practical when identifying indicators and means of verification for post-disaster projects. Third parties may be needed to collect the data or run the monitoring program altogether. But government should not hesitate to establish rules for monitoring and to send the message that agencies must be accountable for the resources they are spending. For a detailed discussion of post-disaster impact evaluation, see Annex 1, How to Do It: Conducting an Impact Evaluation of a Reconstruction Project.

• the legality and regularity of project expenditures and income, in accordance with laws, regulations, and contracts, such as loan contracts and accounting rules;
• the efficiency of the use of project funds measured against accepted financial practices; and
• the effectiveness of the use of project funds, that is, whether they were used for the intended purposes.

SeeChapter 19, Mitigating the Risk of Corruption, for a discussion of the purposes of audits and the types that may be useful in post-disaster reconstruction projects.

Social audits. Social audits are a special form of audit that is used for “participatory performance monitoring” purposes. With social audits, the public and the affected community oversee and report on an organization’s activities or a reconstruction project. With proper supervision, participatory performance monitoring can be used to collect either qualitative or quantitative information for M&E. For details on conducting a social audit and a summary of other participatory performance monitoring mechanisms, seeAnnex 2, How to Do It: Conducting a Social Audit of a Reconstruction Project.

• Poor coordination within the housing sector or with government prevents data from being aggregated across the sector.
• Assessment data are not shared among agencies, government, and others stakeholders, causing inconsistencies and excess data collection costs.
• Lack of baseline data for projects or insufficient time to develop baselines.
• Project staff lacks commitment to monitoring, leading to delays in the implementation and limited availability of M&E information by project managers.
• Participatory M&E methods are not employed because of limited capacity or lack of commitment.
• Multiple baselines are developed and multiple monitoring indicators are used.
• Evaluations are conducted “in-house” and don’t convey actual project results.
• Information from M&E systems is not shared so learning about which reconstruction interventions are effective does not take place.

1. Take M&E seriously in housing and community reconstruction, in spite of the complexities of the post-disaster environment.
2. At the same time, be realistic about the challenges and design a monitoring system that is easily manageable while producing reliable results.
3. Consider conducting an impact evaluation using qualitative methods, alone or in combination with quantitative methods.
4. Take advantage of the knowledge gained during assessment when designing the M&E processes and establishing the project baseline.
5. Work with government and other donors to harmonize M&E indicators, so that information on project results can be compared and aggregated.
6. To avoid bias when conducting program evaluations, use objective, experienced evaluators. It is most likely that this will entail hiring outside evaluation experts.
7. Don’t just monitor the affected community. Involve them in project M&E, using social audits or other participatory monitoring methods, and make sure the community receives the results.

The Indonesian organization Urban Poor Linkage Indonesia (UPLINK) is a national coalition of NGOs and community-based organizations that focuses on urban poor issues. UPLINK provided emergency help and housing reconstruction assistance to 25 villages in one of the coastal areas that was most affected by the 2004 tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia. The project completed more than 3,300 houses using a participatory approach. The reconstruction work of UPLINK won an international award and was recognized by various national and international technical evaluations for the outstanding quality of the new houses.

While expressing general satisfaction with UPLINK’s work, people voiced some reservations about its high quality. In fact, a survey carried out in 2007 revealed that a significant number of people considered such factors as size, number of rooms, provision of a kitchen or a porch and furniture, and an overall “modern” house more important than quality or protection from future disasters. Houses with inferior quality but with free furniture were more appreciated than the high-quality, unfurnished houses provided by UPLINK. In addition, people expressed a willingness to forgo the participatory process used by UPLINK if a contractor-built house was bigger and looked more modern! This indicates that in evaluating housing assistance options, people evaluate numerous features, including size, design, and amenities of the housing package, and that important considerations for funding agencies, such as the quality and safety of construction, are not necessarily a priority for the homeowners and accordingly are unlikely to be considered when families begin expanding their homes. In the case of UPLINK, people surveyed considered the quality as “excessive” and would have preferred a more standard quality in exchange for a little extra space, a kitchen, or a porch.

Source: Jennifer Duyne Barenstein et al., 2008, People-Driven Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in Aceh: A Review of Uplink’s Concepts, Strategies and Achievements (Aachen: Misereor).

Damages from the 1999 Armenia, Colombia, earthquake were estimated at US$1.6 billion dollars. Some 560,000 people suffered direct earthquake losses, and 1.5 million more residing in 5 departments (provinces) and 28 municipalities in the region were affected indirectly.

The development objective for the World Bank’s Earthquake Recovery Project for reconstruction after the earthquake was “to assist project beneficiaries to normalize economic and social activities through the restoration of essential housing and basic infrastructure built according to adequate seismic standards.” Components of the project included (1) grants of up to US$6,000 for shelter assistance to homeowners who met established criteria and for new houses for renters in vulnerable groups, (2) rehabilitation and retrofitting of social infrastructure, (3) rehabilitation of public infrastructure, (4) capacity building for natural disaster management, (5) social capital restoration, and (6) project management. The project was approved on March 21, 2000, and closed on August 20, 2002.

The reconstruction program was under permanent control, monitoring, and auditing by public entities, such as the General Controller’s Office, as well as private entities and citizen oversight groups, which permitted a guarantee from all stakeholders that the projects were being properly executed both physically and financially. Official project monitoring responsibility was contracted to a consortium of universities. Bank staff conducted nine monitoring missions to Colombia during execution of the loan.

The project was given a highly satisfactory rating in the Implementation Completion and Results Report dated January 10, 2003.^[13] The following were the results of the project.

Source: World Bank, 2003, “Implementation Completion Report (FSLT-70090), Colombia Earthquake Recovery Project,” http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?menuPK=51447259&pagePK=51351007&piPK=64675967&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=51351213&theSitePK=40941&entityID=000094946_0301300401260&searchMenuPK=51351213&theSitePK=40941.

Catley, Andrew, et al. 2008. Participatory Impact Assessment—A Guide for Practitioners. Boston: Feinstein International Center at Tufts University. https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Participatory+Impact+Assessment--+a+Guide+for+Practitioners.

Field, Erica and Michael Kremer. 2006. Impact Evaluation for Slum Upgrading Interventions. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTISPMA/Resources/383704-1146752240884/Doing_ie_series_03.pdf.

Goicoechea, Ana. 2008. “Preparing Surveys for Urban Upgrading Interventions: Prototype Survey Instrument and User Guide.” http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1169585750379/UP-6_Surveys.pdf.

Molund, Stefan, and Göran Schill. 2007. Looking Back, Moving Forward: SIDA Evaluation Manual. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Agency. http://www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp?d=118&a=3148&language=en_US.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/12/2755284.pdf.

ProVention Consortium. n.d. M&E Sourcebook. Geneva: ProVention Consortium Secretariat IFRC. http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=62.

UN-HABITAT. 2001. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Post Disaster Programmes: A Resource Guide. Nairobi: UNCHS (UN-HABITAT). http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=1264&catid=286&typeid=16&subMenuId=0.

World Bank. 1996. Performance Monitoring Indicators: A Handbook for Task Managers. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/html/opr/pmi/pmi.pdf.

World Bank. 2000. Key Performance Indicator Handbook. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/library/view_p.asp?lprogram=3&objectid=38956.  

World Bank. 2004. Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/InterLandingPagesByUNID/A5EFBB5D776B67D285256B1E0079C9A3.

World Bank. 2004. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://go.worldbank.org/C5TSRIQPR0.

World Bank. “Impact Evaluation,” http://go.worldbank.org/2DHMCRFFT2. Contains extensive tools and resources on impact evaluation. 

The elements of a comprehensive project evaluation are the following.

• Monitoring: to assess whether a program is being implemented as was planned. A program monitoring system enables continuous feedback on the status of program implementation, identifying specific problems as they arise.
• Process evaluation: to analyze how the program operates. Focuses on problems in service delivery.
• Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness evaluation: to assess program costs (monetary or non- monetary), in particular their relation to alternative uses of the same resources and to the benefits being produced by the program.
• Impact evaluation: to determine more broadly whether the program had the desired effects on individuals, households, and institutions, and whether those effects are attributable to the program intervention.
  

The additional effort and resources required for conducting impact evaluations are best mobilized when the project is innovative and replicable, involves substantial resource allocations, and has well-defined interventions. Impact evaluations can also explore unintended consequences, whether positive or negative, on beneficiaries.

Before carrying out an impact evaluation, it must be determined whether one is warranted. The costs and benefits should be assessed, and consideration should be given as to whether another approach, such as monitoring of key performance indicators or a process evaluation, would be adequate or more appropriate. An impact evaluation requires:

• a need and desire to assess the causality associated with the project;
• strong political and financial support; and
• an ability to “net out” the effect of the interventions from other factors through the use of comparison or control groups.

Qualitative techniques are also used for carrying out impact evaluation, without attempting to make a causal connection. The focus is on understanding processes, behaviors, and conditions as they are perceived by the individuals or groups being studied. There are risks associated with using qualitative methods alone to evaluate impact, including subjectivity in data collection, the lack of statistical robustness, and generally small sample sizes, which make it difficult to generalize to a larger, representative population. The validity and reliability of qualitative data are very dependent on the skill of the evaluator and field staff in interpreting the information they collect.

However, there are benefits from using qualitative information that might be especially relevant in the post-disaster context, where a quantitative impact evaluation may be impossible. Qualitative assessments are flexible, can be carried out using rapid techniques, and can employ novel data collection approaches. They can also enhance other elements of the impact evaluation by providing an understanding of stakeholder perceptions and priorities that may in turn have affected program impact. The affected population can even play a role in qualitative evaluation, using such tools as participatory monitoring. Three participatory monitoring techniques are described in this chapter in Annex 2, How to Do It: Conducting a Social Audit of a Reconstruction Project.

A logical framework or results framework can provide the basis for identifying the goals of the project and the information needs for the evaluation. If either of these has been prepared during project preparation, it should serve as the starting point for defining objectives and issues for the evaluation. If not, it can be developed in preparation for the evaluation. Reviewing other evaluation components, such as cost-effectiveness or process evaluations, may also be important objectives of a study and can complement the impact evaluation. A process evaluation can assess the procedures, dynamics, norms, and constraints under which a particular program is carried out. Qualitative and participatory methods can also be used to assess impact.

No evaluation technique or set of techniques is perfect. The evaluator must make decisions about the tradeoffs for each method chosen during the planning of the evaluation.

Although each impact evaluation will have unique characteristics requiring different approaches, a best practice impact evaluation should include:

• an estimate of the counterfactual by (1) using random assignment to create a control group (experimental design), and (2) appropriately and carefully using other methods, such as matching to create a comparison group (quasi-experimental design);
• to control for pre- and post-program differences in participants, and to establish program impacts, relevant data collected at baseline and follow-up (including sufficient time frame to allow for program impacts);
• sufficiently sized treatment and comparison groups to establish statistical inferences with minimal attrition;
• cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to measure project efficiency; and
• qualitative techniques to allow for the triangulation of findings.

Identifying a control group is challenging under ordinary circumstances; for a post-disaster project, it may be considerably harder. This may be due to the fact, for instance, that the project takes place only in a specific location (where the disaster occurred), that those who participate have special characteristics (all members of the affected population whose houses were destroyed), or that it may not be ethical to withhold assistance from some who were affected. Selecting the control group can be accomplished using methodologies that fall into two broad categories: experimental designs (randomized) and quasi-experimental designs (nonrandomized).

1. During Project Identification and Preparation
2. Clarify objectives of the evaluation
3. Explore data availability
4. Design the evaluation
5. Form the evaluation team
6. If data will be collected:
   1. Select sample design
   2. Develop data collection instrument
   3. Staff and train fieldwork personnel
   4. Pilot test
   5. Data collection
   6. Data management and access

During Project Implementation

1. Collect data on an ongoing basis
2. Analyze the data
3. Write up the findings and discuss them with policy makers and other stakeholders
4. Incorporate the findings in project design

According to the World Bank,^[15] slum upgrading consists of physical, social, economic, organizational, and environmental improvements within neighborhoods. These projects may be undertaken by citizens, community groups, businesses, and local and national authorities. Typical actions include:

• regularizing security of tenure through property mapping, titling and registration;
• installing or improving basic infrastructure, including water, waste collection, storm drainage, electricity, security lighting, and public telephones;
• removal or mitigation of environmental hazards;
• providing incentives for community management and maintenance;
• constructing or rehabilitating community facilities, such as nurseries, health posts, and community centers;
• home improvement, including material upgrading, new construction, and expansion of existing structures;
• improving access to health care and education and programs to address community issues, such as crime and substance abuse;
• enhancement of income-earning opportunities through training and micro-credit; and
• crime control.

Some of the challenges faced in slum upgrading evaluations that are relevant to evaluations of housing and community projects are discussed below.

There are multiple data sources that may help reduce data collection costs for an impact evaluation, such as administrative data, household survey data, census data, facility survey data, industry data, specialized survey data, participatory assessments, and geographic information system and global positioning system data.

Household surveys are essential analysis tools for collecting information on satisfaction and other project results at the household level. A census covers the whole population in the country. A survey covers only a subset—generally a small fraction—of all households. Common survey types include single-topic surveys, multi-topic surveys, demographic and health surveys, employment surveys, rapid monitoring surveys, service satisfaction surveys, and specialized surveys. ^[19]

The use of household surveys has become increasingly widespread around the world, as has the effort to standardize survey design and survey indicators. Government may be able to supply survey data for an impact evaluation. There are also a number of online sources of survey data, as shown below.

An impact evaluation should be carried out only by evaluation experts. The team may include a combination of international and national consultants. A proposed evaluation design should be provided to the consultants or should be developed by them and approved by the agency contracting the consultancy.

A basic impact evaluation team includes an impact evaluation manager, a lead researcher and a research assistant, field supervisors, and interviewers.

• The manager clarifies the objectives of the evaluation, taking into account the client’s needs, drafting the terms of reference for the team members, reaching agreement among the team members and the client about implications of the implementation of the evaluation, and coordinating the field work.
• The lead researcher, usually an economist, selects the evaluation methodology; defines and supervises the data collection strategy. including survey and sampling design; supervises the field work; conducts the quantitative analysis; and writes the evaluation report.
• The research assistant gives support to the lead researcher, especially when it comes to designing the data entry programs and processing data to produce basic results for the qualitative analysis.
• Field supervisors oversee the interviewees and other data collection in the field. Use of national consultants to carry out the field work is a common practice to overcome language and cultural barriers.
  

Some evaluation teams include a sociologist and/or an anthropologist to ensure community participation and to perform the qualitative analysis. A fieldwork manager may be needed to supervise data collection, including scheduling the field supervisors and interviewers. The team should coordinate its work with government officials in relevant sectors. Examples of terms of reference for an impact evaluation are available from the World Bank. ^[20]

 Annex 3: Conducting a Construction Audit

The nature of the construction project will determine the details of the auditor’s scope of work. The focus of this guidance is on audit procedures for a single capital improvement project, although a construction audit may be ordered for an entire program consisting of multiple sites or projects, with minor adjustments in scope.

1. To determine that construction contracts were awarded in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.
2. To determine that all revisions to the original contract were justified and properly approved.
3. To ensure that payments to the contractor were made in accordance with the contract, properly approved, transferred to the contractor using approved procedures, and received by the contractor in full.
4. To determine that the project was accounted for in accordance with proper accounting procedures and that the completed project was properly transferred to the responsible entity.

Payment of the auditor, especially for the concurrent audit, should never be based on the value of the construction contract or create an incentive for delays, because of the inherent conflicts of interest such compensation schemes create.

^Return to Top^

 ^Return to Top^