sustainability

Review
Challenges Faced by Marginalized Communities in a
Post-Disaster Context: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Kalindu Mendis 1, * , Menaha Thayaparan 1 , Yamuna Kaluarachchi 2 and Chaminda Pathirage 3

1 Department of Building Economics, Faculty of Architecture, University of Moratuwa,

Katubedda 10400, Sri Lanka; [email protected]
2 Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M15 6GX, UK;
[email protected]
3 School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Many international organizations embrace the ideals of resilience and inclusion in the
service of marginalized communities but neglect their inclusion in post-disaster settings. It is
imperative to explore the challenges faced by marginalized communities to increase their inclusion
in the post-disaster context. Therefore, this paper presents a systematic literature review of the
challenges facing marginalized communities in the post-disaster context. The study identified
57 challenges faced by children, women, people with disabilities, and older adults under six categories:
social, health, political, infrastructure, economic, and communication. The most common challenges
all four marginalized communities face are the development of post-traumatic stress disorder, the
struggle to acquire the necessities of life due to unequal distribution, the lack of income-generating
opportunities, and sexual and gender-based violence. Most studies focus on women’s challenges,
followed by those of children, older adults, and persons with disabilities. The study also explored
the challenges faced in terms of intersectionality, experienced by groups of people who fall under
more than one marginalized community. Finally, a conceptual framework was developed to improve
the inclusion of marginalized communities during the post-disaster context by incorporating the
Citation: Mendis, K.;
Thayaparan, M.; Kaluarachchi, Y.;
challenges as one of the key components of the framework.
Pathirage, C. Challenges Faced by
Marginalized Communities in a Keywords: challenges; inclusivity; marginalized communities; post-disaster context; systematic
Post-Disaster Context: A Systematic literature review
Review of the Literature.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151410754 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Mauro Sarrica
Globally, there has been an increase in disaster severity over the past decade, con-
tributing to a growing number of deaths [1]. The consequences of these recent disasters are
Received: 28 April 2023 significant and have severe repercussions on social life and the distribution of economic
Revised: 3 July 2023 power. Disaster management includes all activities, programs, and initiatives before, dur-
Accepted: 6 July 2023 ing, or after disasters to prevent and reduce their effects and to provide ways of healing
Published: 8 July 2023
from the consequences of disasters [2]. The post-disaster situation can be complex and
challenging, and perhaps the most critical challenge is determining the needs quickly to
provide crucial assistance to affected communities [3]. Furthermore, people affected by
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
disasters face daily challenges such as losing their routine, lacking social and domestic roles
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and leisure activities, and, more significantly, losing their purpose in life [4]. Among these
This article is an open access article
people, marginalized communities are exposed to relatively high risks and are consequently
distributed under the terms and more severely affected by disasters than others are [5]. Marginalization denies groups and
conditions of the Creative Commons individuals access to significant economic, religious, or political positions and symbols in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// a society [6,7]. Generally, each community has identified a group of people considered
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ vulnerable in mainstream society. These groups include children, women, disabled people,
4.0/). minorities, poor people, older adults, and low-income groups [8]. However, in the face of

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410754 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 2 of 22

natural disasters, it is mainly women, older adults, people with disabilities, and children
who are often affected by multilayered kinds of marginalization and are less resilient to
risk aversion [9,10].
Community involvement in post-disaster management programs is increasingly im-
portant and has received consideration from researchers, academics, policymakers, and
national and international organizations [11]. The community is the first to respond to
any disaster, and disaster management procedures would become ineffective without their
involvement [12]. Since marginalized communities are the ones most affected, it is essential
to engage them in any post-disaster program [13]. However, it is worrying that many of
these communities are usually invisible, and their participation in post-disaster activities
is not recognized. This unrecognition leads to higher fatalities, injuries, and economic
damage rates with a comparatively longer recovery time [8,14].
Disasters intensify socioeconomic disparities and wealth, making the marginalized
most likely to be left behind [15,16]. According to Zayas et al. [17], although inclusivity is a
buzzword for post-disaster management, its real challenges include deep-rooted obstacles
in various social organizations and governance procedures. Therefore, it is crucial to iden-
tify the challenges marginalized communities face in the post-disaster context to ensure the
equitable distribution of resources, improve the effectiveness of post-disaster management
efforts, reduce vulnerabilities, promote resilience, and foster inclusivity and social justice.
By identifying the specific needs of these communities, post-disaster management efforts
can tailor their response to address their unique challenges and promote their recovery
from the impact of a disaster.
Therefore, this paper first presents the adopted methodology for the systematic lit-
erature review, followed by an analysis of the challenges marginalized communities face
in post-disaster situations to develop a framework to improve their inclusion in the post-
disaster contexts.

2. Research Methodology
2.1. Scope of the Literature Review and Search Strategy
Following the PRISMA guidelines, forming the research question is the first step
in a systematic literature review [18]. The research question “What are the challenges
faced by marginalized communities in the post-disaster phases?” was developed using the
PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) approach. The PICO approach
provides a solid foundation for developing research questions and establishing keywords
for the literature review based on the terms of the research questions [19]. According to
Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt [20], “Comparison” is the only optional component in the
PICO approach. In this instance, the comparison component was excluded as there was
no comparison; an alternative is to compare the interventions in the research question. A
logic grid was created using the PICO approach, and a preliminary search was initiated
using the key terms. Subsequently, the title and abstract of the articles obtained during the
preliminary search were reviewed, and alternative key terms for building a comprehensive
logical grid were identified, as shown in Table 1.
The search strategy was developed using the terms identified in Table 1. There, quotation
marks (“”) were used to derive articles that matched the exact terms and wildcard characters
(* and ?) to identify different variations of a specific term. Subsequently, the identified terms
were combined using Boolean operators, “OR’” and “AND”, as shown in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 3 of 22

Marginalized communities, Marginalized commu-
nities, Marginalized population, Marginalized
population, Marginalized groups, Marginalized
Table 1. Logic grid for key terms with alternative terms.
Marginalized groups, Marginalisation, Marginalization, Gender,
I (Intervention)
PICO Elements Key Terms Communities Woman, Women,Terms
Alternative Children, Youth, Young adult/s,
Older adult/s, Older people,situations,
Post-disaster phase, Post disaster phase, Post disaster Elderly, Post-disaster
People with
disabilities,
period, Post disaster period, Post crisis,Persons with
Post-crisis, disabilities,
Disaster Disabled
response, Disaster
P (Population) Post-disaster Phases
recovery, Disaster rebuilding, Disaster
people, reconstruction,
Minorities, and Disaster
Minority rehabilitation,
groups
C (Comparison) - Disaster relief phase, and Disaster early - recovery
Marginalized communities, Marginalized
Challenges, communities,
Social exclusion/s, Marginalizedand
Experience/s,
O (Outcome) population,Challenges
Marginalized population, Marginalized groups, Marginalized
Marginalized
Barriers
groups, Marginalisation, Marginalization, Gender, Woman, Women, Children,
I (Intervention)
Communities Youth, Young adult/s, Older adult/s, Older people, Elderly, People with
The search strategy was developed
disabilities, using
Persons with the terms
disabilities, identified
Disabled in Table
people, 1. There,
Minorities, and quo-
tation marks (“”) were used to derive articlesMinority groupsthe exact terms and wildcard
that matched
C (Comparison) characters
- (* and ?) to identify different variations of - a specific term. Subsequently, the
O (Outcome)
identified
Challenges
terms were combined using Boolean operators, “OR’” and “AND”, as shown in
Challenges, Social exclusion/s, Experience/s, and Barriers
Figure 1.

(challenges OR “social exclusion*” OR experience* OR barriers) AND (marginali* OR

gender OR wom?n OR children OR youth OR “young adult*” OR “older adult*” OR
“older people” OR elderly OR “people with disabilit*” OR “persons with disabilit*” OR
“disabled people” OR minorit*) AND (“post disaster” OR “post crisis” OR “post-disas-
ter” OR “post-crisis” OR “disaster response” OR “disaster recovery” OR “disaster reha-
bilitation” OR “disaster rebuilding” OR “disaster reconstruction” OR “disaster relief”
OR “disaster early recovery”)

Figure 1. Final search strategy.

Figure 1. Final search strategy.
2.2. Literature Search and Article Filtering
2.2. Literature Search and Article Filtering
The literature search was conducted within three widely recognized databases; Web
The literature
of Science, Scopus, search was conducted
and Emerald within Science
Insight (Social three widely recognized
Citation Indexeddatabases; Web
[SSCI]). These
of Science, Scopus, and Emerald Insight (Social Science Citation Indexed
databases are known to contain highly ranked and indexed scholarly journals dealing with [SSCI]). These
databases
disaster are known[21].
management to contain highly
In addition, theranked
followingandinclusion
indexedconditions
scholarly were
journals dealing
considered
with disaster
during management
the literature search:[21]. In addition, the following inclusion conditions were con-
•sidered during the literature search:
Sources published in English; English is the universal language widely used in aca-
• Sources
demic published in
publications English;
and Englishthe
the language is authors
the universal language widely used in aca-
can comprehend.
• demic publications and the language the authors can comprehend.
Publication year since 2010: this duration was used to identify the challenges in the
• Publication
current year since 2010: this duration was used to identify the challenges in the
context.
• current context.
Document type: journal articles, articles on early access; journal articles that experts in
• Document
the type:
field have journal articles,
extensively reviewed articles
through on aearly
blindaccess;
reviewjournal
processarticles
comparedthatto
experts
other
in the fieldtypes
document haveas extensively reviewed
journal articles through
generally a blind
provide review
primary processfindings.
research compared to
other document
Sections 2.2.1 andtypes
2.2.2 as journal
present articles
the articlegenerally provide
identification andprimary
screeningresearch findings.
processes of the
Sections
literature 2.2.1
search and 2.2.2
following thepresent
PRISMA theguidelines.
article identification and screening processes of
the literature search following the PRISMA guidelines.
2.2.1. Article Identification
2.2.1.The
Article Identification
search identified 1012 articles, 414 from Web of Science, 493 from Scopus, and
105 from Emerald Insight databases.
The search identified Additionally,
1012 articles, 414 from Web 34 reports published
of Science, byScopus,
493 from recognized
and
authorities and key references not found in the three selected databases were
105 from Emerald Insight databases. Additionally, 34 reports published by recognized obtained
through a Google
authorities and keysearch. All identified
references records
not found were
in the imported
three into
selected the Mendeley
databases software
were obtained
(BibTeX format; *.bib file format) for further screening and systematic analysis.
through a Google search. All identified records were imported into the Mendeley software
(BibTeX format; *.bib file format) for further screening and systematic analysis.
2.2.2. Article Screening
The next step in the systematic review was screening. Before starting the screen-
ing process, 340 duplicate articles were removed. Figure 2 depicts the flow chart of the
screening process.
 2.2.2. Article Screening
The next step in the systematic review was screening. Before starting the screening
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 4 of 22
process, 340 duplicate articles were removed. Figure 2 depicts the flow chart of the screen-
ing process.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Study
Study selection
selection flow chart.
flow chart.

Figure 2,
Per Figure 2, the
thescreening
screeningprocess
processrefined
refinedthethe search
search forfor
thethe most
most relevant
relevant articles
articles for
for three
three reasons.
reasons. After After a screening
a screening of title,
of title, abstract,
abstract, andand keywords,
keywords, 439 439 articles
articles thatthat
werewere
not
not relevant
relevant to context
to the the context
werewere removed
removed (Reason(Reason
1), in1), in addition
addition to 26to 26 articles
articles that only
that had had
only abstracts
abstracts (Reason
(Reason 2) and2)180
andarticles
180 articles irrelevant
irrelevant to thetoresearch
the research question
question (Reason(Reason
3). 3).
At the end of the screening process, 61 (706–439–26–180) articles were retrieved for
the qualitative analysis and included 50 journal articles from databases, 7 reports were
from organizations
organizationsand andwebsites,
websites,and
and4 4journal
journalarticles
articleswere
werefrom
from outside
outsidethethe
databases.
databases.In
addition, twotwo
In addition, records
recordswere added
were to strengthen
added to strengthenthe the
conceptual
conceptualframework
framework to improve
to improvethe
inclusivity of marginalized
the inclusivity of marginalized communities
communities in the
in post-disaster
the post-disaster context (Reason
context 4). 4).
(Reason

2.3. Literature Search

2.3. Literature Search Results
Results
Figure 3, generated
Figure 3, generated fromfrom Tableau
Tableau 2021.4
2021.4 software,
software, summarizes
summarizes thethe number
number of studies
of studies
conducted
conducted in in various
various countries
countriesworldwide.
worldwide.TheThefrequency
frequencyofofthe
thearticles
articlesper
percountry varies
country var-
with
ies with the color density of the map points. Moreover, four articles obtained primary data
the color density of the map points. Moreover, four articles obtained primary data
from
from more
more than
than one
one country.
country.
Figure 3 shows that most articles (35) are from Asian countries. The World Bank [22]
has identified South Asia as one of the most vulnerable regions to disaster-induced con-
sequences. However, the United States (11 articles) has conducted the highest number of
studies, closely followed by Nepal (9 articles).
In addition, a “Treemap” was created to present the dispersion of different marginal-
ized communities involved in the systematic review (shown in Figure 4).
It is necessary to note that some articles described more than one type of marginalized
community. Figure 4 shows the percentages for each category based on the number of
articles specifically relating to each marginalized community segment. Most (34%) of the
articles discuss post-disaster challenges faced by women, followed by children (28%), older
adults (26%), and people with disabilities (20%). Intersectionality refers to articles that
describe more than one type of marginalized community. For example, a person with
disabilities can also be a woman, a child, or an older adult. In such situations, that person
becomes more vulnerable to disasters due to being oppressed/marginalized on multiple
levels. The intertwined features may contribute to more marginalization, inequality, or
problems in disaster situations [23]. However, only a few research articles explicitly focused
on intersectionality (3 out of 61).
Sustainability 2023,15,
Sustainability2023, 15,10754
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 22
20

Figure 3. Mapping of articles by origin country.

Figure 3 shows that most articles (35) are from Asian countries. The World Bank [22]
has identified South Asia as one of the most vulnerable regions to disaster-induced
consequences. However, the United States (11 articles) has conducted the highest number
of studies, closely followed by Nepal (9 articles).
In addition, a “Treemap” was created to present the dispersion of different
marginalized communities
Figure 3.3. Mapping
Figure Mapping involved
of articles
of articles originin
byorigin
by the systematic review (shown in Figure 4).
country.
country.

Figure 3 shows that most articles (35) are from Asian countries. The World Bank [22]
has identified South Asia as one of the most vulnerable regions to disaster-induced con-
sequences. However, the United States (11 articles) has conducted the highest number of
studies, closely followed by Nepal (9 articles).
In addition, a “Treemap” was created to present the dispersion of different margin-
alized communities involved in the systematic review (shown in Figure 4).

Figure 4. Dispersion
Figure of of
4. Dispersion different types
different of of
types marginalized communities
marginalized considered
communities forfor
considered the review.
the review.

3. Data Analysis
The code-based content analysis method was utilized to analyze the data gathered
from the systematic literature review [24]. The primary codes and sub-codes were derived
mainly to identify the challenges faced by marginalized communities, to develop the
conceptual framework, and to suggest future research directions to improve the inclusivity
Figure
of 4. Dispersion
marginalized of different types
communities in theofpost-disaster
marginalized context.
communities considered
All four forwere
authors the review.
engaged
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 6 of 22

in the coding process one after the other. This process was carried out in two rounds to
reduce the subjectivity of the identified codes.

3.1. Challenges Faced by Marginalized Communities in the Post-Disaster Phases

Post-disaster challenges are not borne equally among affected people. Disasters tend
to hit the poorest and most marginalized populations the hardest [25]. Although post-
disaster discussions emphasize the role of society in promoting resilience, the needs of
marginalized communities in recovering from a disaster have been overlooked [26]. The au-
thors identified 57 challenges faced by marginalized communities during the post-disaster
context based on the empirical evidence gathered from the 61 filtered articles. Appendix A
shows the horizontal and vertical frequency analysis of the challenges identified from the
systematic review of the literature. Each challenge identified is assigned a unique code,
such as C01, C02, and so on up to C57, to improve the clarity of analysis. Figure 5 presents
a graphical representation of these challenges.
As depicted in Figure 5, the 57 identified challenges were categorized into six main
categories: social, health, political, infrastructure, economic, and communication. Most of
the challenges fall under social challenges. Moreover, the most frequent and common chal-
lenges to women, people with disabilities, children, and older adults are the development
of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (C11), the struggle to acquire the necessities of
life due to unequal distribution (C51), the lack of income-generating opportunities (C29),
and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) (C48). Women experience most (53%) of
the 57 identified challenges (see Appendix A). When disasters occur, women face more
difficulties due to existing vulnerable living conditions, known as a “double vulnerability”
situation [27]. Women become more vulnerable in the aftermath of disasters due to social
imbalances and their lower socioeconomic status compared to that of men [28]. Fewer
challenges are recognized in terms of intersectionality than they are in individual com-
munities, as many literature sources have not explored the challenges encountered by
intersectionality (see Section 2.3). The study identified only three unique challenges faced
by intersectional communities: the inability to provide adequate self-care (C02) faced by
older women; the inability to deal with crowded shelters (C04) faced by disabled children;
decreased access to religious relationships (C09) faced by older adults with disabilities.
The following sections analyze the challenges faced by marginalized communities
under the six categories.

3.1.1. Social Challenges

Marginalized communities often face a disproportionate burden of social challenges in
the post-disaster context due to pre-existing inequalities and discrimination that make them
more vulnerable to the impact of disasters [17,29]. Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV)
(C48) is the most prevalent social problem experience after a disaster by this community
segment. Much sexual harassment and violence happens in shelter camps; many cases are
invisible or unreported [30]. Standing et al. [31] argue that SGBV after a disaster against
women shows that women are pre-existing victims of violence, and that this is exacerbated
by disasters and existing social and gender inequalities. Moreover, the Women’s Refugee
Commission [32] reported on SGBV in its research, with some disabled women and girls
reporting repeated and frequent sexual violence, including rape, by several perpetrators.
In addition, the study claimed that sexual violence, including rape, was widespread in men
and boys with disabilities but much lower in women and girls.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 7 of 22

Figure5.5.Key
Figure Keychallenges
challengesfaced
facedby
bymarginalized
marginalizedcommunities
communitiesininthe
thepost-disaster
post-disastercontext.
context.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 8 of 22

According to Witting et al. [30], prejudice towards widows manifests in various forms,
including sexual abuse, social stigma (e.g., the belief that widowed women bring bad
luck), and the belief that they are promiscuous and may threaten existing family units.
Therefore, widows may have limited mobility [31] and sometimes are compelled to hide
their widowhood from their children, and in Southeast Asia, there are little or no safe and
lucrative forms of employment they can attain or social gatherings [33] they can attend.
In some Southeast Asian countries, single women and widows are deemed “unwanted
insiders” in society [34]. While women are marginalized in the aftermath of a disaster,
widowed women face a critical stigma on religious, patriarchal, and social grounds [30].
In the aftermath of disasters, parents have expressed despair and concern that their
children had to “beg” for food and water at times [35]. Lord et al. [36] claimed that child
traffickers use this as an opportunity to persuade parents to give up their children by
promising food, education, and a better life for their children. It is significant to highlight
that young boys and girls may both be as vulnerable to trafficking, although there is only
limited data that focuses on the age and gender of children who are at risk or who were
rescued [31]. Children with disabilities such as autism are often uncomfortable in the
presence of crowds and the general environment of shelters. Therefore, a great deal of stress
exists for parents who must handle such situations in the post-disaster relief phase [37].

3.1.2. Health Challenges

The development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is considered the most
severe health problem affecting marginalized communities in the post-disaster context.
PTSD is a serious health problem that negatively influences a person’s mental and phys-
ical well-being [17,38–46]. Marginalized communities commonly experience waves of
irresistible solid negative feelings, anxiety, helplessness, insecurity, grief, and flashbacks
during the post-disaster context as symptoms of PTSD [1,4,31,43,47–52].
Menstrual hygiene management is a priority for women and girls, although it is often
neglected during the post-disaster relief phase [17,31,53]. Zayas et al. [17] reveal that there
are neither suitable sanitation facilities for females in shelter camps nor breastfeeding
areas. Disabled women reported that the late distribution of personal hygiene kits was a
problem they faced during the disaster relief phase. Additionally, hygiene kits were not
always appropriate to meet their needs (for example, women with disabilities and mobility
limitations preferred adult diapers over sanitary pads). Ensuring access to adequate water
for personal use, providing hygienic kits with essential medicines, first aid, and hygiene
pads, and ensuring the safety and dignity of women using toilets and washrooms are
fundamental rights of all women, and hence should be protected [31,53]. Additionally,
women in communities cannot talk freely about menstruation, indicating that menstruation
is still considered taboo. Similarly, several social restrictions, including religious rituals, are
practiced for menstruation in South Asia, primarily in India and Nepal [53], and this is a
common issue for women and girls in the post-disaster relief phase.
Similarly, pregnant women are uniquely vulnerable in a post-disaster setting. Many
disaster personnel do not have in-depth obstetric training, and there is tremendous pressure
on women to go for cesarean sections when no medical condition requires them. The
management of labor at birth with labor coaching, active labor management using Pitocin,
and a portable ultrasound unit to monitor the fetus can increase the likelihood of vaginal
delivery [53]. Therefore, there is a significant need to train disaster health personnel in
labor management and vaginal delivery.
After a disaster, people with disabilities and older adults may face significant chal-
lenges in accessing medical care and attention for their specific needs [42,54,55] due to
several factors, including damage to healthcare facilities, the limited availability of medical
personnel, and disruptions to transportation and communication systems [17]. Unfor-
tunately, in many post-disaster contexts, these needs are not adequately addressed, and
people with disabilities and older adults may not receive the care they require. This in-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 9 of 22

equality can lead to worsening health conditions, an increased risk of complications or

secondary health issues, and even death [17,36,56,57].

3.1.3. Political Challenges

In the aftermath of a disaster, political factors such as the unequal distribution of re-
sources and systemic inequalities can exacerbate the struggle for all marginalized communi-
ties to access the necessities of life (C51). The unequal distribution of resources is frequently
influenced by political power structures perpetuating discrimination and marginalization.
This behavior can lead to the inadequate distribution of resources, such as food, water, shel-
ter, and medical care, which are critical to survival and recovery [3,29,41,42,54,55,58–62].
Marginalized communities, especially women and people with disabilities, may expe-
rience political challenges such as a lack of representation in decision-making processes.
They may also experience corruption or an abuse of power, which can further marginalize
them [41,59]. The research found that when women expressed concern about the challenges
of forced tactics and corruption after the disaster, male committee leaders tried to silence
these women and intimidate them [43]. These problems significantly affect women due
to increased poverty and psychological suffering [29,41,43,63] when they cannot play the
traditional gender role of caring for children and others.
In some shelter camps, male-dominated committees controlling aid distribution force
women to negotiate using sexual favors to meet basic needs and access to food [1,41]. Simi-
larly, Thapa and Pathranarakul [58] revealed a significant lack of knowledge on identifying
barriers to gender inclusion rooted in the male-dominated social structure. Therefore,
women should distribute relief assistance so that they are not harassed and abused and
ensure that women and their families receive sufficient food. When women work as human-
itarians and front-line leaders, other women are empowered to report abuse in exchange
for help [1,31].

3.1.4. Infrastructure Challenges

The study identified 22 challenges encountered by people with disabilities and older
adults in the post-disaster setting. Among them, the most common challenge is limited
accessibility to transportation (C32), which they face throughout the post-disaster context.
People with mental or physical disabilities often depend on public transport when they
cannot drive. Stough et al. [62] state that disabled people with mobility issues may re-
quire transportation that is accessible, for example, taxis and buses that are accessible for
wheelchair users. In post-disaster situations, disabled people are only offered a limited
range of viable alternatives that meet their basic functional needs.
The lack of privacy in shelter camps (C31) for women and children, especially girls,
in the relief centers can be viewed as a significant challenge due to the lack of suitable
infrastructure services. When shelter camps are set up in the aftermath of a disaster, they
often lack adequate infrastructure, such as separate living spaces, gender-segregated toilets,
washing facilities, and adequate lighting and security measures to meet the basic needs
of displaced people [35,40,41,49,64,65]. Lord et al. and Moreno and Shaw [36,49] claimed
that these infrastructure challenges could exacerbate the lack of privacy for women and
children, increasing the risk of gender-based violence, harassment, and exploitation.

3.1.5. Economic Challenges

Marginalized communities may experience economic challenges such as a loss of
income, reduced access to resources, and increased poverty. They may have limited access
to financial resources or lack insurance coverage, making it difficult to recover from a
disaster [12,30,66]. One of the most severe economic challenges marginalized communities
experience in the post-disaster context is the lack of income-generating activities (C29).
According to Zayas et al. [17], most of the difficulties faced by people with disabilities are
due to their limited employment opportunities and the lack of support that reflects their
disabilities. This situation is more critical for them in the post-disaster recovery phase.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 10 of 22

In addition, a loss of livelihood and worsening living conditions can make it difficult for
many women to raise their children [43]. Additionally, in many cases, older adults may
have limited access to income-generating opportunities even before a disaster due to agism,
discrimination, and health challenges [59,60]. These challenges can become even more
pronounced in the aftermath of a disaster, as older adults may face increased difficulty
finding work or starting businesses [52]. Furthermore, a lack of income can lead to various
other challenges, including food insecurity, poor health outcomes, and reduced access to
education and other essential services [41,59,61].

3.1.6. Communication Challenges

Communication challenges can be particularly critical for people with disabilities and
older adults in post-disaster contexts. In such situations, communication is essential to
access information, support, and assistance. Communities affected by disasters, especially
older adults, face communication challenges due to the absence of hand-crank radios,
mobile phones, and personal emergency response systems. In addition, the lack of assistive
devices (C26) such as canes, wheelchairs, and hearing aids causes stress to families with dis-
abled people who already manage complex disaster-related situations [17,32,54]. Moreover,
people with disabilities and older adults may face challenges accessing the information
they need to make informed decisions about post-disaster efforts, such as the necessary
information regarding evacuation orders, shelter locations, medical services, and recovery
benefits [67]. According to Stough et al. [62], the reason behind most of the challenges faced
by people with disabilities following a disaster is the lack of information or, in some cases,
the communication of contradictory information by multiple agencies.

4. Discussion and Way Forward

The study collected 57 challenges faced by marginalized communities in the post-
disaster context under six main categories. It can be observed that these social, health,
economic, political, infrastructural, and communication challenges can all influence and
exacerbate each other. For example, social challenges such as discrimination and the
stigmatization of marginalized communities can impact their access to economic resources,
political power, and infrastructural support. This challenge, in turn, can further limit the
ability to communicate their needs and participate in decision-making processes related to
post-disaster recovery efforts. Therefore, addressing these challenges comprehensively and
in an integrated manner, recognizing their interconnectedness, is crucial to improve these
communities’ inclusion in the post-disaster context effectively.
While there are many challenges for women, Clissold et al. [29] claim that women
also support recovery by playing an essential role in providing and maintaining household
income after disasters, primarily through entrepreneurialism and income diversification.
Overlooking women’s roles and contributions at the local and national levels leads to a
lack of use of women’s abilities and the neglect of their specific needs and vulnerabilities,
undermining the possibility of recovery. Charan et al. and Ganapati [68,69] claimed that
engaging women and men should be at the heart of discussions, policies, and practices
about disaster response and recovery. They also stated that women enjoy being in public
after disasters and seem to benefit from the social support they receive when participating
in community reconstruction processes [43]. Similarly, McDonald-Harker et al. [70] claimed
that, despite their heightened vulnerability, children show resilience when confronted
with adversity and may serve as crucial change agents in their families and communities.
However, the relevant authorities exclude their needs in the decision-making processes
due to the dominance of the senior male leadership of the main political parties [13].
Crawford and Morrison [13] claimed that government organizations have largely
neglected older adults and people with disabilities in countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka.
Their lack of pre-existing advocacy groups may partly account for this neglect. However, a
study by Kako and Mayner [71] highlights the strength of older adults in rebuilding their
lives after a disaster in a new living area. Though older adults have revealed that they did
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 11 of 22

not want to recall their past experiences, they were happy to recall these later and even
share them with others since it felt optimistic that they survived the disaster. Therefore,
while addressing their challenges, highlighting their capabilities is crucial to improve
their inclusion in the post-disaster context. Moreover, collaboration among stakeholders,
policy refinement, and effective implementation are crucial to improving the inclusivity
of marginalized communities in the post-disaster context. Inclusive decision-making and
participatory processes must be prioritized to achieve sustainable recovery.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWFrom the findings obtained from the systematic literature review, the authors12devel-
of 20
oped a conceptual framework to enhance the inclusion of marginalized communities in the
post-disaster context (See Figure 6).

Figure 6.
Figure Conceptualframework
6. Conceptual framework
to to improve
improve thethe inclusion
inclusion of marginalized
of marginalized communities
communities in thein the
post-
post-disaster context.
disaster context.

The purpose of the conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 6 is to improve the

Policy gaps may exist when existing policies and regulations do not adequately ad-
inclusion of marginalized communities in the post-disaster context. The three main compo-
dress the specific needs of these communities, while implementation barriers may arise
nents contributing to exploring the gaps in achieving inclusivity are “the challenges faced
when policies or programs are not effectively implemented. Therefore, identifying policy
by marginalized communities”, “the development and implementation of policies related
gaps and implementation barriers is essential to improving the inclusion of marginalized
to post-disaster management and marginalization”, and the “stakeholder involvement of
communities during post-disaster management. In addition, stakeholders involved in
the post-disaster management”. This paper explored in detail one of the components of the
post-disaster management
conceptual framework, need to beIdentifying
i.e., challenges. studied viathedeveloping
challenges stakeholder mapping
facing marginalized to
com-
identify their levels of contribution towards enhancing the inclusion of marginalized
munities is crucial, as these challenges can significantly impact their ability to recover from com-
munities.
disasters. An analysis
If these of theseare
challenges three
notcomponents
identified andof addressed,
the conceptual framework
marginalized will lead to
communities
the ability to envisage the gaps associated with inclusivity, which in turn
may be left behind in the recovery process, leading to further inequities and disparities. will be consid-
ered Policy
to develop
gaps strategies.
may exist when In proposing
existing suitable strategies
policies and to enhance
regulations do notthe inclusionad-
adequately of
marginalized communities during the post-disaster context, the authors
dress the specific needs of these communities, while implementation barriers may arise have adopted the
four
whendimensions
policies or of inclusion
programs areintroduced by Inclusive
not effectively Community
implemented. Resilience
Therefore, for Sustain-
identifying policy
able Disaster Risk Management (INCRISD) [8]. As such, the main dimensions
gaps and implementation barriers is essential to improving the inclusion of marginalized for the pro-
posed strategies
communities willpost-disaster
during be the removal of challenges,
management. recognition
In addition, of diversity,
stakeholders participation
involved in post-
in decision-making,
disaster management and
needtailored approaches
to be studied [8,14]. By utilizing
via developing thesemapping
stakeholder four dimensions of
to identify
inclusion, more comprehensive and effective strategies can be developed for enhancing
the inclusion of marginalized communities in the post-disaster context.

5. Conclusions
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 12 of 22

their levels of contribution towards enhancing the inclusion of marginalized communities.

An analysis of these three components of the conceptual framework will lead to the ability
to envisage the gaps associated with inclusivity, which in turn will be considered to develop
strategies. In proposing suitable strategies to enhance the inclusion of marginalized com-
munities during the post-disaster context, the authors have adopted the four dimensions
of inclusion introduced by Inclusive Community Resilience for Sustainable Disaster Risk
Management (INCRISD) [8]. As such, the main dimensions for the proposed strategies will
be the removal of challenges, recognition of diversity, participation in decision-making,
and tailored approaches [8,14]. By utilizing these four dimensions of inclusion, more
comprehensive and effective strategies can be developed for enhancing the inclusion of
marginalized communities in the post-disaster context.

5. Conclusions
Through a systematic and comprehensive literature review, this study has established
sound knowledge and understanding of the challenges encountered by marginalized
communities during the post-disaster phases. The systematic review adhering to PRISMA
guidelines identified 57 challenges faced by women, people with disabilities, children,
older adults, and intersectional groups in the post-disaster context. The challenges were
identified to fall under six categories: social, health, political, economic, infrastructural,
and communication. Most of the challenges come under the social category. The common
challenges for all marginalized communities are the development of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), the struggle to acquire the necessities of life due to unequal distribution,
lack of income-generating opportunities, and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV).
The research reveals that most of the challenges are experienced by women. Based on
several combinations of marginalized communities, this paper attempted to derive the
intersectionality of and unveil the complexity of the challenges. However, only limited
sources have explicitly recognized the challenges faced by intersectional groups compared
to other marginalized communities.
Having identified the challenges marginalized communities face, this paper intro-
duced a pathway to enhance their inclusivity in the post-disaster context by developing
a conceptual framework. Challenges, policy gaps, policy implementation barriers, and
stakeholder involvement in the context of the inclusion of marginalized communities in
post-disaster management are the main components of the conceptual framework that can
lead to a visualization of the gaps associated with inclusivity. The framework adopted
four dimensions of inclusion to devise suitable strategies to improve the inclusivity of
marginalized communities in post-disaster situations. This comprehensive approach can
help ensure that these communities are not left behind and have the support they need to
rebuild their lives more equitably and justly.
In summary, as social implications, the study highlights the existing social inequality
and injustice that marginalized communities face and the need for inclusive post-disaster
management efforts that address their unique needs and vulnerabilities. It also emphasizes
the importance of community resilience and social networks in mitigating the negative
impacts of natural disasters. In terms of policy implications, the study stresses the need
for targeted support and interventions to address the specific challenges faced by different
marginalized communities. In addition, the study can inform the development of policies
and guidelines for disaster responses and recovery efforts that promote the inclusivity
and empowerment of marginalized communities. From a theoretical perspective, the
study contributes to the literature on disaster resilience and community empowerment by
identifying the challenges faced by marginalized communities and highlighting the need
for a more inclusive approach to disaster response and recovery. Finally, the developed
conceptual framework can serve as a basis for future empirical research and theoretical
developments in the field of disaster resilience and community empowerment.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 13 of 22

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.M., M.T. and Y.K.; methodology, K.M. and M.T.; formal
analysis, K.M. and M.T.; investigation, K.M., M.T., Y.K. and C.P.; resources, M.T., Y.K. and C.P.;
data curation, K.M., M.T. and Y.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.; writing—review and
editing, M.T., Y.K. and C.P.; visualization, K.M. and M.T.; supervision, M.T., Y.K. and C.P.; project
administration, M.T. and Y.K.; funding acquisition, C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted under the ethics code requirements
of University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, and was approved by University Ethics Review Committee
(UERC) with ethics declaration /clearance number ERN/2022/003 and 24 November 2022 as the
date of approval.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 14 of 22

Appendix A

Table 1. In-depth analysis of the challenges faced by marginalized communities in the post-disaster context.

Marginalized Communities
Post-Disaster Phases Literature Sources Number of Citations Rank
Intersectionality

Older Adults with Disabilities

People with Disabilities

Older Disabled Women

Disabled Children

Disabled Women
Older Adults

Disabled Girls

Rehabilitation
Older Women
Women

Children
Categorization
Challenges

Recovery

Quantity
of Challenges

Relief
Girls
%

C48. Sexual and gender-based [3,17,29–

X X X X X X X X X X X 13 21% 4
violence (SGBV) 32,35,36,49,51,54,65,72]
C28. Lack of equal access to education X X X X X X [3,40,41,51,54,58,73–75] 9 15% 5
C14. Discrimination and negligence in
X X X X X X X [13,32,49,56,59–61,76] 8 13% 7
the social system
C35. Loss of community support and
X X X X X [12,30,32,36,42,57,62,66] 8 13% 7
protection mechanisms
C10. Decreased access to
X X X X X X X X [17,32,42,54,55,67] 6 10% 12
social relationships

Social C15. Increase in domestic violence X X X X [31,35,41,49,65] 5 8% 15

C37. Loss of status and dignity X X X X X [30,41,47,59] 4 7% 17
C19. Forced/early marriage X X X X X [31,35,51] 3 5% 24
C01. Unfavorable working conditions X X [45,58] 2 3% 29
C05. Changes to the daily routine X X X [74,77] 2 3% 29
C18. Family commitments X X [41,58] 2 3% 29
C34. Losing intimacy with education X X [50,78] 2 3% 29
C52. Trafficking X X X X X X [31,36] 2 3% 29
C54. Unavailability of leisure and free
X X X [42,74] 2 3% 29
time activities
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 15 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Marginalized Communities
Post-Disaster Phases Literature Sources Number of Citations Rank
Intersectionality

Older Adults with Disabilities

People with Disabilities

Older Disabled Women

Disabled Children

Disabled Women
Older Adults

Disabled Girls

Rehabilitation
Older Women
Women

Children
Categorization
Challenges

Recovery

Quantity
of Challenges

Relief
Girls
%

C55. Unplanned pregnancies X X [49,63] 2 3% 29

C56. Unwanted pregnancies X X X X X [32,65] 2 3% 29
C57. Welfare stigma X X X [57,59] 2 3% 29
C02. Being unable to provide
X X [56] 1 2% 45
adequate self-care
C03. Bullying-related behavior in the
X X [75] 1 2% 45
school environment
Social
C04. Unable to deal with many
X X X [37] 1 2% 45
crowds in shelters
C08. Cultural resistance X X [58] 1 2% 45
C09. Decreased access to
X X [54] 1 2% 45
religious relationships
C16. Drug addiction and alcoholism X X X X [79] 1 2% 45
C46. Reluctance to adopt
X X [12] 1 2% 45
innovative ways
[1,4,12,17,29–32,35,36,38–
C11. Development of post-traumatic
X X X X X X X X X X 52,54,59,62,63,66,70– 42 69% 1
stress disorder (PTSD)
72,74,75,77–83]
C43. Not receiving required attention
Heath X X X X X X [17,36,42,54–57] 7 11% 9
to medical conditions
C47. Separation from parents X X X X [35,38,77,80,83] 5 8% 15
C25. Lack of access to, or absence of,
X X X X X X [17,51,63,65] 4 7% 17
sexual reproductive health services
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 16 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Marginalized Communities
Post-Disaster Phases Literature Sources Number of Citations Rank
Intersectionality

Older Adults with Disabilities

People with Disabilities

Older Disabled Women

Disabled Children

Disabled Women
Older Adults

Disabled Girls

Rehabilitation
Older Women
Women

Children
Categorization
Challenges

Recovery

Quantity
of Challenges

Relief
Girls
%

C49. Spread of infection and health

diseases (viruses, waterborne diseases,
X X X X [35,63,65,77] 4 7% 17
HIV, and other sexually
transmitted infections)
C20. Receiving poor nutrition X X X [40,73,80] 3 5% 24
C24. Issues related to sanitary napkins
and tampons (late distribution, not
always appropriate, feeling shy to
request them, the unavailability of a
X X X X [17,31,53] 3 5% 24
safe, private space for changing, the
lack of a proper place to dispose of
these products safely, and
Heath cultural issues)
C44. Poor sanitation X X X X [35,41,63] 3 5% 24
C38. Maternal complications
X X X [63,65] 2 3% 29
and death
C21. Increased frequency of illnesses X X X X X [17,59] 2 3% 29
C22. Increased mortality X X X [54,67] 2 3% 29
C45. Reduced concentration
X X [77,78] 2 3% 29
and energy
C07. Complaints of deteriorating
X X [59] 1 2% 45
vision and hearing
C27. Lack of confidentiality and the
X X X [32] 1 2% 45
resulting stigmatization
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 17 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Marginalized Communities
Post-Disaster Phases Literature Sources Number of Citations Rank
Intersectionality

Older Adults with Disabilities

People with Disabilities

Older Disabled Women

Disabled Children

Disabled Women
Older Adults

Disabled Girls

Rehabilitation
Older Women
Women

Children
Categorization
Challenges

Recovery

Quantity
of Challenges

Relief
Girls
%

C51. Struggle to acquire the

necessities of life due to unequal [1,3,12,17,29,31,32,40–
X X X X X X X X X X 24 39% 2
distribution (e.g., of housing, food, 42,47,51,54–63,66,73]
water, health care)
C39. Negligence of the voices
X X X X X [17,29,43,57,59,67] 6 10% 12
and desires
C06. Coercive tactics, nepotism,
X X X X X X X [13,41,57,59] 4 7% 17
and corruption
Political
C33. Limited scope of exercising
X X X [3,43,76] 3 5% 24
power, in making plans and decisions
C17. Exclusion from rehabilitation
programs, particularly micro-credit X X X [54,57] 2 3% 29
and skill training
C40. Negligence of their capabilities X X X [30,59] 2 3% 29
C41. Lack of priority lanes X X [17] 1 2% 45
C31. Lack of privacy in the [17,31,35,36,40,41,49,64,
X X X X X X X 9 15% 5
shelter camps 65]
C32. Limited accessibility
X X X X X X [17,32,36,42,54,59,62] 7 11% 9
of transportation
Infrastructure
C12. Difficulties in coping with
X X X [40,73–75] 4 7% 17
schooling and tertiary education
C53. Unable to access rescue services
X X X X X [31,54,55,67] 4 7% 17
and shelter on time
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 18 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Marginalized Communities
Post-Disaster Phases Literature Sources Number of Citations Rank
Intersectionality

Older Adults with Disabilities

People with Disabilities

Older Disabled Women

Disabled Children

Disabled Women
Older Adults

Disabled Girls

Rehabilitation
Older Women
Women

Children
Categorization
Challenges

Recovery

Quantity
of Challenges

Relief
Girls
%

C29. Lack of income-generating [3,17,27,32,35,36,41,42,51,

X X X X X X X X X 19 31% 3
opportunities 57–59,61,62,74,83–86]
C36. Loss of financial support X X X X X [12,30,42,57,62,66,75] 7 11% 9
Economic
C23. Increased property loss X X [67] 1 2% 45
C50. Stereotypical
X X [29] 1 2% 45
income-generating activities
C26. Lack of available
X X X X [17,32,42,54,56,67] 6 10% 12
assistive devices
C42. Not receiving
X X X X X X X [17,36,54,60] 4 7% 17
adequate information
Communication
C13. The difficulty of paperwork and
X X [42,62] 2 3% 29
“run-around.”
C30. Lack of pre-existing
X X [13] 1 2% 45
advocacy groups
Count 30 22 18 22 11 8 3 8 14 3 0 36 33 34
Challenges
% 53% 39% 32% 39% 19% 14% 5% 14% 25% 5% 0% 63% 58% 60%
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 19 of 22

References
1. Arora, S. Intersectional vulnerability in post-disaster contexts: Lived experiences of Dalit women after the Nepal earthquake,
2015. Disasters 2022, 46, 329–347. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Khan, H.; Vasilescu, L.G.; Khan, A. Disaster Management Cycle—A Theoretical Approach. J. Manag. Mark. 2008, 6, 43–50.
3. Alam, K.; Rahman, M.H. Post-disaster recovery in the Cyclone Aila affected Coastline of Bangladesh: Women’s role, challenges
and opportunities. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 1067–1090. [CrossRef]
4. Miyadera, H.; Kawamata, H.; Tanimura, A.; Ishidai, T.; Kobayashi, N. Efficacy of a program to address older adults’ challenges of
daily living after disasters. Educ. Gerontol. 2020, 46, 816–827. [CrossRef]
5. Sharma, A. Disaster Risk Management: Inclusive; INCRICD South Asia: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014. Available online: https://reliefweb.
int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/actionaid_inclusion_paper_final_170614_low.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2022).
6. Scott, J.; Marshall, G. A Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN 9780199533008.
7. Chumo, I.; Kabaria, C.; Shankland, A.; Mberu, B. Unmet needs and resilience: The case of vulnerable and marginalized
populations in nairobi’s informal settlements. Sustainability 2023, 15, 37. [CrossRef]
8. Ferretti, S.; Khamis, M. Inclusive Disaster Risk Management; INCRICD South Asia: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014. Available online:
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/submissions/44425_incrisdframeworktoolkit.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2022).
9. CORDAID. Step-by-Step Guide to Inclusive Resilience; CORDAID: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2020. Available online: https:
//www.preventionweb.net/files/71675_716542020marchpfrinclusiontoolkit.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2022).
10. Steele, P.; Knight-John, M.; Rajapakse, A.; Wickramasinghe, K.S.K. Disaster Management Policy and Practice: Lessons for Gov-
ernment, Civil Society, and the Private Sector in Sri Lanka; Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2007;
ISBN 9789558708507.
11. Chandrasekhar, D.; Zhang, Y.; Xiao, Y. Nontraditional participation in disaster recovery planning: Cases from China, India, and
the United States. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2014, 80, 373–384. [CrossRef]
12. Pathak, S.; Emah, I.E. Gendered approach towards disaster recovery: Experiences from 2011 floods in Pathumthani province,
Thailand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 24, 129–134. [CrossRef]
13. Crawford, G.; Morrison, C. Community-led reconstruction, social inclusion and participation in post-earthquake Nepal. Dev.
Policy Rev. 2021, 39, 548–568. [CrossRef]
14. Patri, A. Inclusive Framework and Toolkit for Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction in Myanmar; Yangon, Myanmar, 2015. Available
online: www.actionaid.org (accessed on 25 January 2023).
15. Mendis, A.P.K.D.; Thayaparan, M.; Kaluarachchi, Y. Gender and disability inclusion in post-disaster rebuilding ‘Build Back Better’
programmes in Sri Lanka: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 13th FARU International Research Conference, Homagama,
Sri Lanka, 6–9 November 2020; University of Moratuwa: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2020; pp. 81–88.
16. Mendis, A.P.K.D.; Disaratna, V.; Thayaparan, M.; Kaluarachchi, Y. Policy-level consideration on marginalized communities in the
post-disaster context: A desk study. In Proceedings of the 10th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 24–26 June
2022; Sandanayake, Y., Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S., Eds.; pp. 668–681.
17. Zayas, J.; Garcia, J.C.; Lacsamana, L.; Garcia, F.D.; Alburo-Canete, K.Z. Build Back Better: Making Inclusion Work in Disaster Recovery in the
Aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan; Women with Disability Leap to Economic and Social Progress: Rizal, Philippines, 2017. Available online: https://
www.preventionweb.net/files/submissions/65859_buildbackbettermakinginclusionworkindisasterrecoveryintheaftermathoftyphoonhaiyan.
pdf (accessed on 25 February 2022).
18. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89.
[CrossRef]
19. Geekiyanage, D.; Fernando, T.; Keraminiyage, K. Assessing the state of the art in community engagement for participatory
decision-making in disaster risk-sensitive urban development. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101847. [CrossRef]
20. Melnyk, B.M.; Fineout-Overholt, E. Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice; Wolters
Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011.
21. Lettieri, E.; Masella, C.; Radaelli, G. Disaster management: Findings from a systematic review. Disaster Prev. Manag. An Int. J.
2009, 18, 117–136. [CrossRef]
22. World Bank. Inclusive Resilience: Inclusion Matters for Resilience in South Asia; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available
online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35220 (accessed on 10 February 2023).
23. Bennett, D. Five years later: Assessing the implementation of the four priorities of the sendai framework for inclusion of people
with disabilities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2020, 11, 155–166. [CrossRef]
24. Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [CrossRef]
25. Zhu, X.; Sun, B. Recognising and promoting the unique capacities of the elderly. Int. J. Emerg. Manag. 2018, 14, 137–151. [CrossRef]
26. Hsu, M. Lost, Found and troubled in translation: Reconsidering imagined indigenous “communities” in post-disaster Taiwan
settings. Altern. Int. J. Indig. Peoples 2016, 12, 71–85. [CrossRef]
27. Pongponrat, K.; Ishii, K. Social vulnerability of marginalized people in times of disaster: Case of Thai women in Japan Tsunami
2011. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 27, 133–141. [CrossRef]
28. Kantamaneni, K.; Panneer, S.; Sudha Rani, N.N.V.; Palaniswamy, U.; Bhat, L.D.; Jimenez-Bescos, C.; Rice, L. Impact of coastal
disasters on women in urban slums: A new index. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3472. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 20 of 22

29. Clissold, R.; Westoby, R.; McNamara, K.E. Women as recovery enablers in the face of disasters in Vanuatu. Geoforum 2020,
113, 101–110. [CrossRef]
30. Witting, A.B.; Barrow, B.H.; Lambert, J.; Whiting, J.; Hartshorn, R.; Marks, L.; Wickrama, T.; Thanigaseelan, S. ‘We have lost our
lives already’: Loss and coping among Sri Lankan women. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma 2020, 29, 1222–1243. [CrossRef]
31. Standing, K.; Parker, S.; Bista, S. Grassroots responses to violence against women and girls in post-earthquake Nepal: Lessons
from the field. Gend. Dev. 2016, 24, 187–204. [CrossRef]
32. Women’s Refugee Commission. I See That It Is Possible Building Capacity for Disability Inclusion in Gender-Based Violence Programming
in Humanitarian Settings; Women’s Refugee Commission: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
33. Surkan, P.J.; Broaddus, E.T.; Shrestha, A.; Thapa, L. Non-disclosure of widowhood in Nepal: Implications for women and their
children. Glob. Public Health 2015, 10, 379–390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. UN Women. Empowering Widows: An Overview of Policies and Programmes in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka; UN Women: New York, NY,
USA, 2014. Available online: https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/pub%0Alications/2015/09/empowering-
widows (accessed on 19 January 2023).
35. Krishna, R.N.; Ronan, K.R.; Alisic, E. Children in the 2015 south Indian floods: Community members’ views. Eur. J. Psychotrauma-
tol. 2018, 9, 1486122. [CrossRef]
36. Lord, A.; Sijapati, B.; Baniya, J.; Chand, O.; Ghale, T. Disaster, Disability, & Difference: A Study of the Challenges Faced by Persons with
Disabilities in Post-Earthquake Nepal; UNDP: Lalitpur, Nepal, 2016.
37. Ducy, E.M.; Stough, L.M. Psychological effects of the 2017 California wildfires on children and youth with disabilities. Res. Dev.
Disabil. 2021, 114, 103981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Adeback, P.; Schulman, A.; Nilsson, D. Children exposed to a natural disaster: Psychological consequences eight years after 2004
Tsunami. Nord. J. Psychiatry 2018, 72, 75–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Heid, A.R.; Christman, Z.; Pruchno, R.; Cartwright, F.P.; Wilson-Genderson, M. Vulnerable, but why? Post-traumatic stress
symptoms in older adults exposed to Hurricane Sandy. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2016, 10, 362–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Hirani, S.A.A. Vulnerability of internally displaced children in disaster relief camps of Pakistan: Issues, challenges, and way
forward. Early Child Dev. Care 2014, 184, 1499–1506. [CrossRef]
41. Horton, L. After the Earthquake: Gender inequality and transformation in post-disaster Haiti. Gend. Dev. 2012, 20, 295–308.
[CrossRef]
42. Stough, L.M.; Ducy, E.M.; Holt, J.M. Changes in the social relationships of individuals with disabilities displaced by disaster. Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 24, 474–481. [CrossRef]
43. Villarreal, M.; Meyer, M.A. Women’s experiences across disasters: A study of two towns in Texas, United States. Disasters 2020,
44, 285–306. [CrossRef]
44. Bourke, J.A.; Nichols-Dunsmuir, A.; Begg, A.; Dong, H.; Schluter, P.J. Understanding the longer-term health, well-being, and
sense of community for disabled people following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes: A Repeated cross-sectional study. Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 67, 102649. [CrossRef]
45. Parkinson, D.; Kaur, A.D.J.; Archer, F.; Spencer, C. Gendered aspects of long-term disaster resilience in Victoria, Australia. Aust. J.
Emerg. Manag. 2022, 37, 59–64. [CrossRef]
46. Adeback, P.; Lundh, L.; Nilsson, D. Children or adolescents who lost someone close during the Southeast Asia Tsunami 2004—The
Life as Young. Brain Behav. 2022, 12, e2563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Ardalan, A.; Mazaheri, M.; Naieni, K.H.; Rezaie, M.; Teimoori, F.; Pourmalek, F. Older people’s needs following major disasters:
A Qualitative study of Iranian elders’ experiences of the Bam earthquake. Ageing Soc. 2010, 30, 11–23. [CrossRef]
48. Ardalan, A.; Mazaheri, M.; Mowafi, H.; VanRooyen, M.; Teimoori, F.; Abbasi, R. Impact of the 26 December 2003 Bam earthquake
on activities of dailyliving and instrumental activities of daily living of Older People. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2011, 26, 99–108.
[CrossRef]
49. Moreno, J.; Shaw, D. Women’s empowerment following disaster: A longitudinal study of social change. Nat. Hazards 2018,
92, 205–224. [CrossRef]
50. Mutch, C. “Sailing through a river of emotions”: Capturing children’s earthquake stories. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2013, 22, 445–455.
[CrossRef]
51. Robles, C.P.Q. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Disaster Recovery; GFDRR: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. Available
online: https://www.gfdrr.org/recovery-hub (accessed on 24 October 2022).
52. Kim, E.-M.; Kim, G.S.; Kim, H.; Park, C.G.; Lee, O.; Pfefferbaum, B. Health-related quality of life among older adults who
experienced the Pohang earthquake in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2022, 20, 37. [CrossRef]
53. Budhathoki, S.S.; Bhattachan, M.; Castro-Sanchez, E.; Sagtani, R.A.; Rayamajhi, R.B.; Rai, P.; Sharma, G. Menstrual hygiene
management among women and adolescent girls in the aftermath of the earthquake in Nepal. BMC Womens Health 2018, 18, 33.
[CrossRef]
54. Bakera, S.; Brownb, T.; Calebc, N.; Iakavaid, J.; Marellaa, M.; Morrise, K.; Nasakd, M.; Reevea, M.; Roubinf, D.; Pryor, W. Disability
Inclusion and Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences of People with Disabilities in Vanuatu during and after Tropical Cyclone Pam and
Recommendations for Humanitarian Agencies; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. Available online: https://mspgh.unimelb.edu.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2567576/WEB-DIDRR-Report-14112017.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 21 of 22

55. Lieberman-Cribbin, W.; Gillezeau, C.; Schwartz, R.M.; Taioli, E. Unequal social vulnerability to Hurricane Sandy flood exposure.
J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2021, 31, 804–809. [CrossRef]
56. Astill, S. Ageing in remote and cyclone-prone communities: Geography, policy, and disaster relief. Geogr. Res. 2017, 55, 456–468.
[CrossRef]
57. Duggan, S.; Deeny, P.; Spelman, R.; Vitale, C.T. Perceptions of older people on disaster response and preparedness. Int. J. Older
People Nurs. 2010, 5, 71–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Thapa, V.; Pathranarakul, P. Gender inclusiveness in disaster risk governance for sustainable recovery of 2015 Gorkha earthquake,
Nepal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 34, 209–219. [CrossRef]
59. Joseph, J.; Jaswal, S. Elderly and disaster mental health: Understanding older persons’ vulnerability and psychosocial well-being
two years after Tsunami. Ageing Int. 2021, 46, 235–252. [CrossRef]
60. Mendez, M.; Flores-Haro, G.; Zucker, L. The (in)visible victims of disaster: Understanding the vulnerability of undocumented
latino/a and indigenous immigrants. Geoforum 2020, 116, 50–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Qi, H.D.; Gu, X. Older people and placemaking in post-disaster community rebuilding: An interdisciplinary action research in
Sichuan, China. Action Res. 2020, 18, 48–68. [CrossRef]
62. Stough, L.M.; Sharp, A.N.; Resch, J.A.; Decker, C.; Wilker, N. Barriers to the long-term recovery of individuals with disabilities
following a disaster. Disasters 2016, 40, 387–410. [CrossRef]
63. Goodman, A.; Black, L.; Briggs, S. Obstetrical care and women’s health in the aftermath of disasters: The first 14 days after the
2010 Haitian earthquake. Am. J. Disaster Med. 2014, 9, 59–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Espina, E.A.; Canoy, N.A. Unpacking the post-Haiyan disaster resettlement narratives of young Filipino women informal settlers
in Tacloban City, Philippines. Disasters 2021, 45, 107–125. [CrossRef]
65. Alburo-Canete, K.Z.K. Bodies at risk: “Managing” sexuality and reproduction in the aftermath of disaster in the Philippines.
Gend. Technol. Dev. 2014, 18, 33–51. [CrossRef]
66. Alpass, F.; Keeling, S.; Stevenson, B.; Allen, J.; Stephens, C. Ripples of recovery and resilience: Tracking the effects of the
Canterbury earthquakes on older New Zealanders. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 2016, 20, 117–124.
67. Griego, A.L.; Flores, A.B.; Collins, T.W.; Grineski, S.E. Social vulnerability, disaster assistance, and recovery: A Population-based
study of Hurricane harvey in Greater Houston, Texas. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101766. [CrossRef]
68. Ganapati, N.E. In Good company: Why social capital matters for women during disaster recovery. Public Adm. Rev. 2012,
72, 419–427. [CrossRef]
69. Charan, D.; Kaur, M.; Singh, P. Indigenous Fijian women’s role in disaster risk management and climate change adaptation.
Pacific Asia Inq. 2016, 7, 106–122.
70. McDonald-Harker, C.; Drolet, J.; Sehgal, A. A Strength-based approach to exploring factors that contribute to resilience among
children and youth impacted by disaster. Br. J. Soc. Work 2021, 51, 1897–1916. [CrossRef]
71. Kako, M.; Mayner, L. The experience of older people in Japan four years after the Tsunami. Collegian 2019, 26, 125–131. [CrossRef]
72. Basnet Bista, S.; Sharma, S. Violence against women and girls with disabilities during and after the 2015 Nepal earthquake:
Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Lancet Glob. Health 2019, 7, S45. [CrossRef]
73. Seballos, F.; Tanner, T.; Tarazona, M.; Gallegos, J. Children and Disasters: Understanding Impact and Enabling Agency; Institute of
Development Studies: Falmer, UK, 2011.
74. Aneelraj, D.; Kumar, C.N.; Somanathan, R.; Chandran, D.; Joshi, S.; Paramita, P.; Kasi, S.; Bangalore, R.N.; Math, S.B. Uttarakhand
Disaster 2013: A report on psychosocial adversities experienced by children and adolescents. Indian J. Pediatr. 2016, 83, 316–321.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Gibbs, L.; Block, K.; Harms, L.; MacDougall, C.; Baker, E.; Ireton, G.; Forbes, D.; Richardson, J.; Waters, E. Children and young
people’s well-being post-disaster: Safety and stability are critical. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 14, 195–201. [CrossRef]
76. Phibbs, S.; Good, G.; Severinsen, C.; Woodbury, E.; Williamson, K. What about us? Reported experiences of disabled people
related to the Christchurch Earthquakes. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 190–197. [CrossRef]
77. Berger, E.; Maybery, D.; Carroll, M. Children’s perspectives on the impact of the Hazelwood mine fire and subsequent smoke
event. Child Youth Care Forum 2020, 49, 707–724. [CrossRef]
78. Moreton, M. After the Disaster: Recovery for Australian Children; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.
unicef.org.au/our-work/unicef-in-australia/bushfire-response/after-the-disaster (accessed on 20 October 2022).
79. Maclean, J.C.; Popovici, I.; French, M.T. Are natural disasters in early childhood associated with mental health and substance use
disorders as an adult? Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 151, 78–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Arbour, M.; Murray, K.A.; Yoshikawa, H.; Arriet, F.; Moraga, C.; Vega, M.A.C. Emotional, physical, and social needs among
0–5-Year-old children displaced by the 2010 Chilean earthquake: Associated characteristics and exposures. Disasters 2017,
41, 365–387. [CrossRef]
81. Cherry, K.E.; Sampson, L.; Nezat, P.F.; Cacamo, A.; Marks, L.D.; Galea, S. Long-term psychological outcomes in older adults after
disaster: Relationships to religiosity and social support. Aging Ment. Health 2015, 19, 430–443. [CrossRef]
82. Cox, R.S.; Scannell, L.; Heykoop, C.; Tobin-Gurley, J.; Peek, L. Understanding youth disaster recovery: The vital role of people,
places, and activities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 22, 249–256. [CrossRef]
83. Freeman, C.; Nairn, K.; Gollop, M. Disaster impact and recovery: What children and young people can tell us. Kōtuitui New Zeal.
J. Soc. Sci. Online 2015, 10, 103–115. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10754 22 of 22

84. Eadie, P.; Atienza, M.E.; Tan-Mullins, M. Livelihood and vulnerability in the wake of Typhoon Yolanda: Lessons of community
and resilience. Nat. Hazards 2020, 103, 211–230. [CrossRef]
85. Pakjouei, S.; Aryankhesal, A.; Kamali, M.; Seyedin, H.; Heidari, M. Positive effects of earthquake from the perspective of people
with physical disability in Iran. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2021, 12, 157–169. [CrossRef]
86. Silva, K.D.; Jayathilaka, R. Gender in the context of disaster risk reduction; A case study of a flood risk reduction project in the
Gampaha district in sri lanka. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 873–881. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.