Building Back Better: Rethinking Disaster Damage Assessment
(Gaps in current methodologies- from the Kerala floods to Cyclone Fani-highlight the urgent need for a more inclusive and accurate framework)
When disasters strike, the immediate focus is on saving lives and restoring normalcy. But what follow are (a) how we assess damage, (b) quantify loss and (c) plan recovery. All these steps ultimately determines whether affected communities merely rebuild or truly recover. In an era of intensifying climate change, disaster assessment is no longer a technical exercise; it is a critical foundation for equity, resilience and sustainable development.
India has made significant strides in disaster preparedness and response, as seen during the 2018 Kerala floods and Cyclone Fani in Odisha in 2019 and many more. Early warnings, large-scale evacuations and coordinated response mechanisms have saved countless lives. Yet, when it comes to assessing the full extent of damage and loss, existing methodologies continue to fall short.
The Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), developed by the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations, remains the most comprehensive global framework for evaluating disaster impacts. It integrates damage and loss estimation with recovery needs assessment and has been applied across the world. In India, however, its use has been limited and, even where applied, important gaps persist.
The Kerala floods of 2018, the worst in nearly a century, affected over 5.4 million people and displaced 1.4 million. The PDNA estimated damages at over ₹10,500 crore and losses at more than ₹16,000 crore, with recovery needs exceeding ₹31,000 crore. Yet these figures told only part of the story. Critical dimensions like household-level losses, post-disaster health impacts, disruptions in education, and the erosion of cultural and environmental assets remained inadequately captured.
A similar pattern emerged in the aftermath of Cyclone Fani. Affecting over 16 million people across Odisha, the cyclone caused widespread destruction to housing, infrastructure, agriculture and livelihoods. Official assessments estimated damages at ₹16,465 crore and recovery needs at nearly ₹29,315 crore. However, the methodology overlooked several crucial aspects: the vulnerabilities of women, the elderly and persons with disabilities; the loss of ecosystem services from mangroves and forests; disruptions to informal livelihoods; and the intangible yet profound impacts on mental health, community cohesion and cultural identity.
These gaps are not incidental. They reflect deeper structural limitations in how disaster assessments are conducted in India.
First, there are sectoral omissions. Governance impacts, community infrastructure losses and private sector damages including those to schools, hospitals and small enterprises often receive inadequate attention. Ecosystem services, which play a critical role in buffering disasters, are rarely quantified. Similarly, the non-use value of cultural heritage and the psycho-social costs of disasters remain outside the ambit of conventional assessments.
Second, there are methodological constraints. Assessments are typically conducted by expert teams under tight timelines, leaving little scope for meaningful engagement with affected communities. This top-down approach risks missing ground realities. Reliance on secondary data provided by local officials can introduce biases: whether through overestimation to secure aid or underestimation due to data gaps. Simplistic estimation techniques further compromise accuracy.
Third, data limitations continue to undermine the robustness of assessments. India’s large informal economy, combined with outdated baseline data such as the 2011 Census, makes it difficult to generate reliable, disaggregated estimates. Private sector data is often excluded, and sector-specific information remains fragmented.
Perhaps the most significant blind spot is the persistent neglect of non-economic losses and damages (NELDs). These include the loss of cultural identity, sense of place, biodiversity, social cohesion and mental well-being- dimensions that cannot be easily monetised but are central to human recovery. Slow-onset impacts such as soil salinisation, coastal erosion and ecological degradation also remain largely unaccounted for.
If India is to truly “build back better,” disaster assessment frameworks must evolve to reflect these realities.
A reformed approach must begin by broadening the scope of assessment. This includes systematically capturing private sector losses, governance disruptions, community infrastructure damage, ecosystem services and cultural assets. Non-economic losses must be recognised as integral components of recovery planning.
Equally important is a shift towards bottom-up, participatory methodologies. Affected communities must be actively involved in assessing their own losses and needs. Such engagement not only improves accuracy but also enhances transparency and accountability.
Technological advancements offer new possibilities. Satellite imagery, drones, mobile-based surveys and real-time data platforms can significantly improve the precision and timeliness of assessments. Integrating these tools into standard practice can reduce dependence on outdated or incomplete data sources.
Finally, there is a need to move beyond the conventional “replacement cost” approach to one that incorporates the principles of resilient reconstruction. Recovery planning must factor in climate risks, sustainability and long-term vulnerability reduction. This is particularly relevant in the context of global initiatives such as the loss and damage fund agreed upon at COP27, which underscores the importance of credible and comprehensive assessments.
The experiences of Kerala and Odisha demonstrate that while India has made commendable progress in disaster response, assessment frameworks have not kept pace. Without accurate and inclusive assessments, recovery efforts risk being partial, inequitable and unsustainable.
Disasters do not just destroy infrastructure- they disrupt lives, livelihoods and identities. Counting losses is not enough; we must understand them in their full complexity. Only then can recovery efforts truly restore dignity, strengthen resilience and prepare communities for an uncertain climatic future.
Bishnupada Sethi
The author is an IAS Officer and presently serves as the Chairman of the Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) and continues as the Chief Administrator of the KBK districts.
