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.
At 00:02 on 14 November, 2016 a destructive 7.8 Mw earthquake struck the North Canterbury region of New Zealand’s South Island. Prior to and following the earthquake, natural and social scientists conducted a significant amount of research on the resilience processes and recovery efforts in North Canterbury. This thesis examines community resilience in Kaikōura, a small town and district greatly impacted by the earthquake. Community resilience has been widely used in disaster risk reduction research, policy, and practice to describe how a group of individuals within a boundary respond to events, hazards, and shifts in their everyday life. Using exploratory inquiry, this thesis adopts qualitative research methods including document analysis, 24 semi-structured interviews, and participant observation to explore the idea that the recent scholarly emphasis on resilience has come at the expense of critical engagement with the complexities of communities. I draw on the idea of ‘collectives’ (comprising community-based organisations or less formal social networks with a shared purpose) as a lens to consider how, when unexpected life events happen, collectives can be regarded as a resource for change or constancy. The examination of collectives following a disaster can lend insight into the many elements of community as they bring people together in collaboration or drive them apart in conflict. This thesis therefore contributes to an enhanced practical and theoretical understanding of both community and resilience.
