{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019417475728155338, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.067226890756302, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Adaptive strategies of urban disaster recovery planning

When disaster impacts cities, planners are required to address two central aims: on the one hand, cities need to recover after disaster, and on the other, urban development that existed before disaster is supposed to continue afterwards. For both aims, forms of planning exist: recovery planning and urban planning. How similar and how different are they? How do they complement or contradict each other in the case of urban disaster? What role do existing conditions as well as the scale of disaster play, and how can planning adapt to these situations? Is it possible to plan for the rebuilding of existing structures and necessary improvements at the same time?