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.
Disaster recovery is significantly affected by funding availability. The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are not only impacted by the extent of the funding but also the mechanisms with which funding is prioritised, allocated and delivered. This research addresses the impact of funding mechanisms on the effectiveness and efficiency of post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. A qualitative assessment of the impacts on recovery of different funding sources and mechanisms was carried out, using the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake as well as other recent international events as case studies. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness, environmental, economic and social impacts. Of the case studies investigated, the Canterbury Earthquake was the only disaster response to rely solely on a privatised approach to insurance for debris management. Due to the low level of resident displacement and low level of hazard in the waste, this was a satisfactory approach, though not ideal. This approach has led to greater organisational complexity and delays. For many other events, the potential community wide impacts caused by the prolonged presence of disaster debris means that publicly funded and centrally facilitated programmes appear to be the most common and effective method of managing disaster waste.
The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are impacted by the organisation and human resourcing of the physical works. This research addresses the suitability of different resourcing strategies on post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. This qualitative analysis primarily draws on five international case studies including 2010 Canterbury earthquake, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, 2009 Samoan Tsunami, 2009 Victorian Bushfires and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The implementation strategies are divided into two categories: collectively and individually facilitated works. The impacts of the implementation strategies chosen are assessed for all disaster waste management activities including demolition, waste collection, transportation, treatment and waste disposal. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness of projects; and environmental, economic and social impacts. Generally, the case studies demonstrate that detritus waste removal and debris from major repair work is managed at an individual property level. Debris collection, demolition and disposal are generally and most effectively carried out as a collective activity. However, implementation strategies are affected by contextual factors (such as funding and legal constraints) and the nature of the disaster waste (degree of hazardous waste, geographical spread of waste etc.) and need to be designed accordingly. Community involvement in recovery activities such as demolition and debris removal is shown to contribute positively to psychosocial recovery.
The 4th of September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake had generated significant ground shaking within the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). Despite the apparently significant shaking, the observed structural damage for pre-1970s reinforced concrete (RC) buildings was indeed limited and lower than what was expected for such typology of buildings. This paper explores analytically and qualitatively the different aspects of the "apparent‟ good seismic performance of the pre-1970s RC buildings in the Christchurch CBD, following the earthquake reconnaissance survey by the authors. Damage and building parameters survey result, based on a previously established inventory of building stock of these non-ductile RC buildings, is briefly reported. From an inventory of 75 buildings, one building was selected as a numerical case-study to correlate the observed damage with the non-linear analyses. The result shows that the pre-1970s RC frame buildings performed as expected given the intensity of the ground motion shaking during the Canterbury earthquake. Given the brittle nature of this type of structure, it was demonstrated that more significant structural damage and higher probability of collapse could occur when the buildings were subjected to alternative input signals with different frequency content and duration characteristics and still compatible to the seismicity hazard for Christchurch CBD.
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.
