Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Distasters

This Special Issue of Built Environment seeks to promote the work of inclusion-oriented interventions for recovery from disasters and support efforts to go beyond crises. While crisis-thinking increasingly dominates, we note how inclusionary practice has been a focus throughout Re-Start Europe (ECTP-CEU, 2020), Roadmap to Recovery (UN-HPF, 2022), and the International Participatory Charter (UN-HPF, 2024). Together these are part of a growing international policy agenda for a world shaped by a global poly-crisis (SAPEA, 2020). Recent shocks from climate change, wars, and pandemics helped trigger different forms of partnership and recovery efforts comprising both immediate emergency responses on the ground in the aftermath of disasters, and collective action for rebuilding lives and restoring built environments. But ‘inclusive recovery’ also raises hopes of more collaborative governance practices and building back better for socially just and sustainable places longer term. We explore how recovery work might lead towards such transformative change.

Definitions traced from revolutionary history (Koselleck and Richter, 2006) take crisis to be primarily about the actuality and awareness of suffering, and this was associated with transformation in the face of recurring disasters. Whereas liberal optimists saw economic crises as positive steps forwards, the reality of grinding poverty would influence Marx and Engels, ‘whose use of the concept of crisis alternated between revolutionary hope and economic analysis’ (Koselleck and Richter, 2006, p. 393). This is useful as, rather than viewing the current ‘poly-crisis’ predicament as an apocalyptic or judgement day scenario, it emphasizes quality of life impacts. Similarly, we call attention to the perspective of communities experiencing disasters and suffering personal losses, and the material destruction of home and living spaces. The causes of disasters may be natural or man-made, from military conflict to volcanic eruptions or iterative storms. They may trigger sudden dramatic violence and displace populations, and they may sow the seeds of creeping disintegration in urbanism or erosion of quality of life. In all cases, ‘inclusive recovery’ would orient response efforts towards people’s ability to thrive and respect diverse ways of living.

Responses to climate change require a range of knowledge (Visconti, 2023). Recovery efforts likewise require knowledge of how shocks to urban fabric reshape people’s lives, and must run alongside trauma healing. This requires an appreciation of the structural implications of (i) social formation and vested interests (hierarchies, systems, socio-economic flows) and (ii) the uneven distribution of risks within critical natural environments. Key to inclusive recovery then, is the inclusion of end-user stakeholders – the so-called ordinary residents of places – in recovery planning and decision-making. The unequal levels of resilience (Blaikie et al., 2003) whether to short-term shocks or longer-term vulnerabilities matter greatly, and recovery is a moment to address exclusions and social barriers. Importantly, engagement of grass-roots communities can work in ways that are both emancipatory and burdensome. For instance, self-help might be essential in immediate post-disaster recovery but this leans on those in greatest need, and there is often over-representation of women (Rivera, 2023).

Inter-disciplinary operations are needed to restore built environments and secure long-term resilience. This requires skills in collaborative governance that can shape and deliver policy (McNaught, 2024). Collaborative governance, however, is challenged under conditions of ‘polycrisis’, linked to the planetary-scale magnitude of disasters, interlocking global systems, and deeply capitalist international economic and security policies (Mackova, 2022; Fabbrini, 2025; Malik, 2024). However, there are inherent tensions in the project of nation states working at the supranational level (Fabbrini, 2025). That does not diminish the need to interrogate the here and now of post-disaster contexts, nor should it dampen aspirations of more fundamental transformations needed for sustainable development. Disasters reduce capacity and resources in an affected locality, but they have mobilizing power and can crystalize professional alliances and public sentiment around shared concerns (Kriesi et al., 2024; Oana et al., 2025). This matters because the growth of advocacy coalitions – particularly resilience networks – can produce transformative change (Fields et al., 2025).

In summary, the goal for inclusive recovery networks should be to create resilient liveable places. This means grappling with present impacts and having awareness of ongoing threats to places. The assumption is that a range of professional, governance and civic expertise can coalesce to rebuild and reform social processes as well as material infrastructures. That involves collective decisions, as well as participatory processes, for urbanism that works and has solidarity in the longer term. This ideal is yet to be realized, and the land that remains after disasters is very vulnerable to predatory investment from external interests. In the absence of protective governance, the post-disaster landscape becomes a site of extraction: speculative capital often moves faster than deliberation, and those most affected can be priced out of their own recovery.

To explore the theme of ‘Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Disasters’, we brought together seven papers: one on the Charter from the UN Habitat Professionals Forum (Panayotopoulos-Tsiros et al., 2026); four case studies of recovery; and two reflective pieces. The first two case studies look at responses after disastrous volcanic eruptions (Córdoba Hernández et al., 2026) and flooding (Loescher Montal and Mazereeuw, 2026), the second two are focused efforts for displaced (Grelle, 2026) and marginalized peoples (Stein and Manns, 2026). The last two papers offer commentaries from the perspective of research (Hassan and Natarajan, 2026) and practice (Moore and Goodstadt, 2026) for inclusion in recovery contexts. The collection traces the significance and complexity of inclusive recovery efforts.

Using a participatory democracy lens Panayotopoulos-Tsiros et al. (2026), reviewed the production of participatory principles by an inter-disciplinary forum – consisting of national and international bodies – under the United Nations Habitat Professionals Forum (HPF) in work on their Roadmap to Recovery. These urbanists shared concerns aligned with ‘right to the city’ concepts and experiences as built environment professionals, which highlighted their role in ‘mediating between institutional structures, community needs, and the uncertainties of crisis’ (p. 21).

Córdoba Hernández et al. (2026) provide insights from the island of La Palma, Spain following the Tajogaite volcanic eruption of 2021. They explain the impacts on local housing, economy and landscape, and the reconstruction in Aridane Valley where both citizen participation and geological expertise were critical. This inclusive recovery work had to navigate vulnerabilities, and ultimately its success will hinge on ‘a delicate balance between human needs, such as housing reconstruction and economic revitalization, and the imperative to safeguard the integrity of the volcanic-induced new but fragile ecosystems’ (p. 46).

Loescher Montal and Mazereeuw (2026) investigate the issue of flood risk management and show how critical solidarity is to disaster recovery and long-term risk reduction. They explore the climate change resilience work in Boston, strategies of public space urban drainage in Copenhagen, and participatory flood evacuation planning in Tokyo. The findings demonstrate the inequality of flood impacts – storms surges affecting residents living at the ground level particularly badly – and reveal the link between land division and risk accumulation. People and water must both be able to flow safely, and critical infrastructures especially the ground floors of buildings are vital collective assets.

Grelle studies Ararat, a Kurdish socio-cultural centre in Rome’s Testaccio neighbourhood, which ‘stands out as a transformative component of the city’s reception system – a beacon of inclusivity, cultural reconnection, and grassroots innovation’ (Grelle, 2026). In looking at the details of this place – the certain ways of living, particular infrastructures, and the belonging and presence of certain groups – the wider impacts on the city are also clear. The work involved spaces that were empty or run down. This provision has immediacy but might be more strategic as ‘permanent, strategically planned spaces for temporary reception’ (p. 84), which suggests a new agenda around temporalities, not pop-up forms but ways to integrate crises-driven changes into future plans.

Stein and Manns (2026) consider the healing practices in Lethbridge, Alberta tackling impacts of settler colonialism on Indigenous peoples, and current inequalities in access to amenity that were the result of long-standing socio-spatial biases built into planning systems. A key shift was in representation of knowledges and voices of the four distinct Indigenous nations of the Siksikaitsitapi Territory – the Kainai, Siksika, Piikani, Amskapi Piikuni. The processes sought to counter the narrative erasure, which underscores the importance of integrating worldviews of local people into recovery plans.

Hassan and Natarajan (2026) offer reflections on community researcher training and a trauma recovery project in Gaza. This researcher commentary pays tribute to those ‘with whom our collaborations for research and resilience are currently and ominously paused’ (p. 111). The authors discuss inclusive ways of building knowledge with people in extreme circumstances, living with the effects of war and violence, and the methodologies needed. They conclude with a new articulation of ‘crisis research’, as a mode of inquiry grounded in shared humanity, relational ethics, and community-based sense-making in recovery from disasters.

The final piece from Moore and Goodstadt (2026) is a professional perspective on recovery policy. They underscore the holistic nature of landscape and ‘the powerful connection and dependence local communities have with their wider physical context, history and culture’ (p, 134). While being clear about the real systemic risk and providing data of repeated and highly consequential disasters globally, they present a coherent vision for a path out of the crises. They argue strongly that rebuilding must go beyond simply restoring what was lost and seek to reduce vulnerability, with processes that do not default to centralized bureaucracy, but follow the principles of the HPF charter to strengthen community agency.

To conclude, the theme of this publication – inclusive recovery from crises and disasters – is inspired by the UN Habitat Professionals Forum’s International Participatory Charter and global alliances for transformative action. Across the diverse cities, communities, and governance contexts affected by disasters, the importance of long-term risk reduction is clear. However, a tension is revealed in the studies of disasters, between the desire to return places to their previous state and the need to deal strategically with long-term exposure to risks. Nonetheless, inclusive practices are broadly accepted as critical. They underpin relationships between citizens, civil society, and professional stakeholders who need to collaborate over the longer term for strategic goals of recovery, including societal healing. The driving logics are that (1) in the short term, the detail of social and environmental matters are likely to be in flux and thus open information and collaborations are vital, and (2) over the long-term, interventions based on solidarity can help to align the repair of urban fabric with resilience goals. Ultimately, in moments of crisis, when we expand the knowledge, worldviews, and methodologies used for decision-making for inclusive recovery, it opens a window of opportunity to shift practices into more equitable ways forward.

REFERENCES

• Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability & Disasters. London: Routledge.
• Córdoba Hernández, R., Pemán Gavín, I., Morán Uriel, J. and Camerin, F. (2026) Participation and urban resilience in post-disaster recovery: lessons from the 2021 volcanic eruption in La Palma (Spain). Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 29–50.
• ECTP-CEU (2020) Re-Start Europe Manifesto: ECTP-CEU 2020 declaration for an inclusive and just post-covid future for all communities. Available at: https://ectp-ceu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ECTP-CEU-RESTART-Declaration-Manifesto-2020-final.pdf.
• Fabbrini, S. (2025) Monnet reversed: the intergovernmental solutions of the poly‐crises. Journal of Common Market Studies, 63, pp. 52–64.
• Fields, B., Ray, R.S. and Tolford, T. (2025) The politics of paradigm shift: examining advocacy coalitions and the shift towards resilient streets in New Orleans. Built Environment, 51(3), pp. 367–388.
• Hassan, S. and Natarajan, L. (2026) Making sense of researching crises: reflections on work in Gaza. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 111–124.
• Grelle, A. (2026) Planning with migrations to overcome crisis: the Case of Ararat, Rome, Italy. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 71–87.
• Koselleck, R. and Richter, M.W. (2006) Crisis. Journal of the History of Ideas, 67(2), pp. 357–400.
• Kriesi, H., Bojar, A., Altiparmakis, A. and Oana, I.-E. (2024) Coming to Terms with the European Refugee Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Loescher Montal, A. and Mazereeuw, M. (2026) Flows and fragmentations: collective strategies for managing water and protecting people in the face of climate change. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 51–70.
• Mackova, D. (2022) EU as proponent of sustainable development: convergences and divergences in times of crisis. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 15(Suppl), pp. 25–34.
• McNaught, R. (2024) The application of collaborative governance in local level climate and disaster resilient development – a global review. Environmental Science and Policy, 151, 103627.
• Malik, S. (2024) From traditional to humane security challenges: analysing Pakistan’s response to the poly crisis of Covid 19. Strategic Studies, 44(1).
• Moore, K. and Goodstadt, V. (2026) The challenges and opportunities of community participation in disaster recovery. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 125–139.
• Oana, I.E., Kriesi, H. and Altiparmakis, A. (2025) Dynamics of protest mobilisation in the European poly-crisis. Journal of European public policy, 32(8), pp. 1874–1905.
• Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., Lancrenon, D. and Natarajan, L. (2026) Participation in Crisis: Professional Lessons from the International Participatory Charter. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 10–28.
• Rivera, L.G. (2023) Responding with care: women community leaders’ care pactices in gang-controlled neighbourhoods in Medellín, Colombia. Built Environment, 49(4), pp. 614–632.
• SAPEA (2022) Strategic Crisis Management in the European Union. Available at: https://sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/crisis-management-report.pdf.
• Stein, P. and Manns, T. (2026) The practice of healing: urban planning and policy case studies from Lethbridge, Alberta. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 88–110.
• UN HPF (2022) Roadmap to Recovery. Working together for just & regenerative recovery. The contributions of the professions. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/04/final_hpf_roadmap_220426.pdf.
• UN-HPF (2024) The International Participatory Charter for Urban and Territorial Development to Deliver the New Urban Agenda. The United Nations Habitat Professionals Forum. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/10/hpf_ipc_2024_-_wuf12_lowres_1.pdf.
• Visconti, C. (2023) Co-production of knowledge for climate-resilient design & planning in Naples, Italy. Habitat International, 135, 102748.