Road networks are highly exposed to natural hazard events, which can lead to significant economic and social consequences. In New Zealand, events such as the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, and the Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 have demonstrated the severe consequences of road network disruptions. Traditional post event economic assessments often focus solely on clean-up and repair costs, neglecting the broader and more enduring impacts these events can have. Furthermore, business cases for resilience investments usually fail when quantifying the economic benefits of mitigation strategies, due to the underestimation of road disruption consequences. Importantly, not all road link disruptions contribute equally to these consequences, making the identification of critical road links a key step in resilience focused investment prioritization. Furthermore, traditional transportation asset management typically evaluates the life cycle of roads under normal conditions, such as traffic loads and standard environmental factors, while neglecting the influence of natural hazards. However, these events can significantly alter road deterioration and increase maintenance costs, emphasizing the need for integrating risk and resilience into transportation asset management approaches. This thesis presents a methodology to evaluate road criticality by assessing the economic consequences of road disruptions in combination with a hazard model in a prioritization index. Initially, the consequences are quantified through increased travel time, higher vehicle operating costs, and increased gas emissions. Thereafter, a new consequence model is introduced to estimate the increase in maintenance costs on alternative routes that absorb diverted traffic following a disruption. These consequence models are initially applied in a 'full-scan' analysis approach, where each road link is removed in turn to quantify its potential impact and, therefore, its criticality. Subsequently, a hazard model is integrated to develop a road prioritization index that combines the expected impacts of road disruptions, the individual road link criticality, and the probability of occurrence of natural hazard events. This index is designed to help road agencies in prioritizing mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the proposed methodology can also be applied to quantify the indirect economic impacts of natural hazard events. The methodology is demonstrated using New Zealand’s South Island inter-urban network as a case study, incorporating an earthquake-induced landslide model, with Python based simulations, providing road agencies a valuable tool to quantify the economic benefits of resilience investments.
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
