On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011
the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by
two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly
within the civil defence and emergency management
literature and informed by recent work on community
participation and social capital in the building of resilient
cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise
both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes
as well as the substantive role communities play in their
own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or
hinder community involvement also needs to be better
understood. This paper interrogates the assumption
that recovery agencies and officials are both willing
and able to engage communities who are themselves
willing and able to be engaged in accordance with
recovery best practice. Case studies of three community
groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap
Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated
with becoming a community during the disaster
recovery phase. Based on my own observations and
experiences, combined with data from approximately
50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents
and representatives from community groups, the
Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission
and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies
emerging communities may use in the early disaster
recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to
‘participate’ in the recovery process.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery.
Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
Today there is interest in building resilient communities. Identifying and managing the risks of natural hazards with communities who face compounding hazards is challenging. Alpine ski areas provide a unique context to study this challenging and complex process. The traditional approach taken to manage natural hazards is discipline-centric and focuses on common (e.g. high probability low consequence) natural hazards such as avalanches. While this thesis acknowledges that the common approach is rational, it argues that we can extend our communities of practice to include rare (e.g. low probability / high consequence) natural hazards such as earthquakes. The dynamically complex nature of these ‘rare’ hazards limits our understanding about them, but by seeking and using the lived experiences of people in mountain communities some knowledge can be gained to help improve our understanding of how to adapt. This study focuses on such an approach in the context of alpine ski areas prone to earthquakes as a first step toward identifying key policy opportunities for hazard mitigation in general.
The contributions can be broken down into methodological, contextual, and theoretical pursuits, as well as opportunities for improving future research. A development mixed method triangulated approach was justified because the research problem (i.e. earthquakes in ski areas) has had little consideration. The context provided the opportunity to test the integration of methods while dealing with the challenges of research in a novel context. Advancement to fuzzy cognitive mapping was achieved through the use of unsupervised neural networks (Self-organizing Maps or Kohonen Maps). The framework applied in the multi-site case study required a synthesis of current approaches, advances to methods and a functional use of cultural theory. Different approaches to participatory policy development were reviewed to develop a research protocol that was accessible.
Cultural theory was selected as a foundation for the thesis because of its’ preference for plural rationalities from five ways of organizing. Moreover, the study undertook a shift away from the dichotomy of ‘methodological individualism’ and ‘methodological collectivism’ and instead chose the dividual (i.e. social solidarities that consist of culural biases, behavioral strategies and social relations) as a consistent unit of analysis despite three different methodologies including: field studies, qualitative interviews, and fuzzy cognitive maps. In this sense, the thesis sought to move away from ‘elegant solutions’ from singular solidarities or methods toward a research philosophy that sustains requisite variety and clumsy solutions. Overall the approach was a trandisciplinary framework that is a step toward sustainable hazards mitigation.
The results indicate that the selections of risks and adaptation strategies associated with the in-situ hazards are driven by roles that managers, workers, and riders play in the context. Additionally, fuzzy cognitive maps were used as an extension of qualitative interviews and demonstrated the potential for power struggles that may arise between participant groups when considering strategies for preparation, response and recovery. Moreover, the results stress that prolonged engagement with stakeholders is necessary to improve the policy development process. Some comments are made on the compatibility condition of congruence between cultural biases, behavioural strategies, and social relations. As well, inclusion of the hermit/autonomous solidarities is stressed as a necessary component of future applications of cultural theory. The transdisciplinary mixed-method framework is an approach that can be transferred to many other vital areas of research where integration is desirable.
Implementing seismic risk mitigation is a major challenge in many earthquake prone regions. The objective of this research is to investigate how property investment market practices can be used to enhance building owners’ decisions to improve seismic performance of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs). A case study method adopted, revealed the impacts of the property market stakeholders’ practices on seismic retrofit decisions. The findings from this research provide significant new insights on how property market-based incentives such as such as mandatory disclosure of seismic risks in all transactions in the property market, effective awareness seismic risk program and a unified earthquake safety assessment information system, can be used to enhance EPBs owners seismic retrofit decisions. These market-based incentives offer compelling reasons for the different property market stakeholders and the public at large to retain, care, invest, and act responsibly to rehabilitate EPBs. The findings suggest need for stakeholders involved in property investment and retrofit decisions to work together to foster seismic rehabilitation of EPBs.
There is a critical strand of literature suggesting that there are no ‘natural’ disasters (Abramovitz, 2001; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Hinchliffe, 2004). There are only those that leave us – the people - more or less shaken and disturbed. There may be some substance to this; for example, how many readers recall the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centred in Fiordland in July 2009? Because it was so far away from a major centre and very few people suffered any consequences, the number is likely to be far fewer than those who remember (all too vividly) the relatively smaller 7.1 magnitude Canterbury quake of September 4th 2010 and the more recent 6.3 magnitude February 22nd 2011 event.
One implication of this construction of disasters is that seismic events, like those in Canterbury, are as much socio-political as they are geological. Yet, as this paper shows, the temptation in recovery is to tick boxes and rebuild rather than recover, and to focus on hard infrastructure rather than civic expertise and community involvement. In this paper I draw upon different models of community engagement and use Putnam’s (1995) notion of ‘social capital’ to frame the argument that ‘building bridges’ after a disaster is a complex blend of engineering, communication and collaboration. I then present the results of a qualitative research project undertaken after the September 4th earthquake. This research helps to illustrate the important connections between technical rebuilding, social capital, recovery processes and overall urban resilience.
