Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development.
<b>New Zealand has experienced several strong earthquakes in its history. While an earthquake cannot be prevented from occurring, planning can reduce its consequences when it does occur. This dissertation research examines various aspects of disaster risk management policy in Aotearoa New Zealand.</b>
Chapter 2 develops a method to rank and prioritise high-rise buildings for seismic retrofitting in Wellington, the earthquake-prone capital city of New Zealand. These buildings pose risks to Wellington’s long-term seismic resilience that are of clear concern to current and future policymakers. The prioritization strategy we propose, based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, considers a variety of data on each building, including not only its structural characteristics, but also its location, its economic value to the city, and its social importance to the community around it. The study demonstrates how different measures, within four general criteria – life safety, geo-spatial location of the building, its economic role, and its socio-cultural role – can be operationalized into a viable framework for determining retrofitting/demolition policy priorities.
Chapter 3 and chapter 4 analyse the Residential Red Zone (RRR) program that was implemented in Christchurch after the 2011 earthquake. In the program, approximately 8,000 homeowners were told that their homes were no longer permittable, and they were bought by the government (through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority).
Chapter 3 examines the subjective wellbeing of the RRR residents (around 16000 people) after they were forced to move. We consider three indicators of subjective wellbeing: quality of life, stress, and emotional wellbeing. We found that demographic factors, health conditions, and the type of government compensation the residents accepted, were all significant determinants of the wellbeing of the Red Zone residents. More social relations, better financial circumstances, and the perception of better government communication were also all associated positively with a higher quality of life, less stress, and higher emotional wellbeing.
Chapter 4 concentrates on the impact of this managed retreat program on RRR residents’ income. We use individual-level comprehensive, administrative, panel data from Canterbury, and difference in difference evaluation method to explore the effects of displacement on Red Zone residential residents. We found that compared to non-relocated neighbours, the displaced people experience a significant initial decrease in their wages and salaries, and their total income. The impacts vary with time spent in the Red Zone and when they moved away. Wages and salaries of those who were red-zoned and moved in 2011 were reduced by 8%, and 5.4% for those who moved in 2012. Females faced greater decreases in wages and salaries, and total income, than males. There were no discernible impacts of the relocation on people’s self-employment income.
