Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Ethical Dimensions of Humanitarian Aid for Infrastructure & Land…

- - - - Weak local systems 📉
      - Long-term reliance 🔄
    - - Not enough aid 📉
      - Need prioritization 🎯
    - - Ethical responsibility ⚖️
      - Beneficiary focus 👥
  - - - Govt + NGO roles 🤝
      - Housing + water 🚰
      - Reconstruction model 🏗️
      - About 200 houses :house:
    - - Spatial issues 📍
        
        No privacy 🚫
        
        No livelihood space 🌾
        
        High density 🏢
      - Flood risk 🌊
        
        Poor drainage 🚧
        
        Repeated flooding 🔄
      - Poor design ⚠️
        
        Poor materials 🧱
        
        Climate discomfort 🌡️
        
        Too small 📏
    - - Quality concerns ⚠️
        
        Contamination risk 🚫
        
        Unsafe water 🦠
      - Social conflict ⚠️
        
        Time burden ⏳
        
        Competition for water ⚔️
      - Supply problems 🚱
        
        Intermittent access ⏳
        
        Public tap reliance 🚰
        
        Low pressure 📉
  - - - Cultural barriers 🌍
        
        Space use priorities 📦
        
        Preference open defecation 🌾
      - Economic barriers 💰
        
        Emptying cost 🚫
        
        High maintenance cost 💸
      - Infrastructure failure 🚫
        
        Flooded systems 🌊
        
        Broken toilets ⚠️
    - - Participation essential 🤝
        
        Stakeholder involvement 🗣️
        
        Co-design solutions ✏️
      - Learn from failure 📚
        
        Improve practice 📈
        
        Feedback loops 🔁
      - Context matters 📍
        
        Local needs first 👥
        
        Adapt solutions 🔄
    - - Infrastructure unused ⚠️
        
        No responsibility ❌
        
        Institutional gaps 🏛️
        
        No connections 🚧
      - RO system failure 🚫
        
        No maintenance 🔧
        
        Short lifespan ⏳
        
        High cost 💰
- - - - 25 households 🏠
      - 6 stakeholders 🏛️
      - Interviews 👥
      - Focus group 🗣️
      - Qualitative study 📚
      - Field observation 👀
    - - Cultural mismatch 🌍
        
        Ignored traditions ⚠️
        
        Land attachment 🏞️
      - Political issues ⚠️
        
        Low trust 🚫
        
        Politicized decisions 🏛️
      - Livelihood mismatch 🌾
        
        Lost income 💰
        
        Poor agriculture land 🚫
      - Implementation delay ⏳
        
        Slow construction 🏗️
        
        Incomplete delivery 🚫
      - Participation failure 🚫
        
        Top-down planning 📉
        
        No real engagement ❌
      - Outcome failure ❌
        
        Abandoned housing 🏚️
        
        Return to risk 🌊
    - - Cyclone flooding 🌧️
      - Community relocation 🚚
      - New settlements 🏘️
      - Return migration 🔄
  - - - Stakeholder survey 👥
      - 165 participants 📈
      - Literature review 📚
      - Conceptual model 🧠
      - Mixed methods 📊
    - - Stakeholder issues 🤝
        
        Low participation 🚫
        
        Weak communication 📢
        
        Limited empowerment 🔑
      - Strategy mismatch 📍
        
        Ignored local needs 🚫
        
        No maintenance 🔧
        
        Weak long-term planning ⏳
      - Implementation gaps ⚙️
        
        Weak logistics 📦
        
        Inadequate assessment 📏
        
        Poor quality control 🚧
      - Outcome failure ❌
        
        Housing abandonment 🏚️
        
        User dissatisfaction 😡
      - Institutional failure ⚠️
        
        Poor transparency 🚫
        
        Limited support 📉
        
        Weak governance 🏛️
    - - Housing destruction 🏠
      - Reconstruction variation ⚖️
      - Tsunami damage 🌊
      - Low satisfaction ⚠️
- - - - System unused 🚫
      - Pipe clogging 🚧
      - Reuse failure 🔄
    - - Collection 🚚
      - Transport 🚛
      - Treatment 🧪
      - Disposal 🚫
      - Reuse ♻️
    - - Material use 🧻
      - Cultural norms 🎭
      - Cleaning practices 🚿
    - - Maintenance needs 🔧
      - Community preference 👥
      - Construction cost 💰
  - - - Social scientists 🧠
      - Economists 💰
      - Engineers ⚙️
      - Community reps 🧑‍🤝‍🧑
    - - Preference identification 🎯
      - Feasible alternatives 📊
      - Community consultation 🗣️
- - - - Hazard identification 📍
      - Flood-prone areas 🌊
      - Risk mapping 🗺️
    - - Multi-stakeholder work 👥
        
        NGOs 🌍
        
        Communities 🧑‍🤝‍🧑
        
        Government 🏛️
      - Shared decision-making 🗣️
      - Coordination needed 🔄
  - - - Avoid flood zones 🌊
      - Zoning regulations 📜
      - Safe site selection ✔️
    - - Community needs 👥
      - Local adaptation 🔄
      - Cultural considerations 🎭
    - - Zoning enforcement 📏
      - Development control 🏗️