How long does it take to recover from a typical disaster? This question is prompted by reading the following article about the sluggardly recovery in Nepal, which is a bit shocking: http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-nepal-quake-aftermath-20160124-story.html

Now Nepal has some problems which don't affect those of us in more developed countries, but from the time the tornado, flood, EQ, or whatever strikes, how long might the survivors anticipate needing unusual coping measures before things return to "normal." (it could be argued that returning to normal may not be possible in some disasters.

According to FEMA, there were 95 disaster declarations by government entities in 2013,84 in 2014, 79 in 2015, and so far six in this year. Statistically, there should be some sort of average recovery time, perhaps refined by type of disaster, but I couldn't find any such (and besides, I thought it would be a fun question for the gang).

So what insights do ETS gurus have on this question?

I've been to all kinds of disasters in all kinds of places. Every disaster is different, every person and the impacts they incurred is different, and people define "recovery" differently.

As a stab in the dark, I'd say that a typical person would probably feel like they'd recovered when they have returned to stable employment and permanent housing, even if they aren't the same as before, the roads are passable and debris is being dealt with, public utilities are mostly restored, most shops and businesses are re-opened and the usual goods and services are once again generally available from the local economy. And I'd say that when most people feel that way, then the local community or region has probably recovered. But the time it takes for all that to happen varies extremely widely, and, of course, some people and communities never really recover.

I would say you have given a very reasonable definition of recovery. And of course recovery varies considerably with the situation and the person- especially the point that some never truly recover.

The question is asked, because assuming that recovery is attainable for a particular type of disaster, then that has definite implications for the sorts of preparations one should make for disaster preparedness?

Perhaps it would help to be more specific? How long did it take Anchorage to recover from the 1964 EQ? San Francisco from the 1906 event? Joplin, MO from their recent tornado (if that has happened yet)?

Reading about the Nepal EQ and the massive aid that ran their way, I and many others assumed that recovery, at least in terms of basic needs would be relatively speedy. This, of course, if fairly naive - just look at Haiti....

I think it depends largely on the infrastructure in the area surrounding the affected area. In the U.S. the disaster recovery would be faster and people affected would not need to go so far to get relief. In your example of Nepal, the geography alone is a severe hindrance, not to mention the lack of infrastructure in the unaffected areas.

Haiti recovered faster than Nepal because of proximity to the U.S. Just finding a usable airstrip in Nepal after the quake was difficult, not to mention one that could handle large cargo aircraft. The land routes through the mountains from India were largely blocked and needed to be cleared. Once a support base was established that could bring in large cargo aircraft, the land routes from there to the rest of the country were difficult even before the quake.

So many variables. Geography, infrastructure around the area, the level of destruction, number of casualties, health and sanitary conditions, endemic diseases. All will have an impact on the time to recovery. Even culture can either help or hinder.