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.
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.
