Response and early recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Societal resilience and the role of governance

Abstract

This paper examines changes to governance introduced during the response and the recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes and discusses how post-disaster “time compression” can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of disaster management processes and governance frameworks. The paper focuses on some of the fundamental principles of sustainable risk management and societal resilience, namely integrated planning and creation of empowering settings for affected communities, and analyses the effectiveness of the newly introduced arrangements in respect to those principles. The paper concludes that large scale disasters challenge decentralised, integrated planning environments based on bottom-up approaches. Disasters can overwhelm local capacity whilst putting intense pressure on central government to deliver. This may generate creative solutions for known weaknesses, but at the same time the need for immediacy can jeopardise practice that fosters resilience. The paper concludes that the question of central control versus local empowerment remains as yet unanswered in New Zealand. Understanding the implications of large scale disasters on devolved, bottom-up approaches based on integrated planning merits further study. In particular, understanding the mechanisms for integration and empowerment of local communities is essential for effective recovery and resilience.

Introduction

In the last few decades disaster management practice has been challenged by an ever increasing complexity of risks, both those caused by natural hazards and those induced by humans. Interdependencies of production and consumption, urban sprawl, economic volatility, rapid social and demographic changes and infrastructure complexities are some of the factors that have magnified exposure and vulnerabilities in modern societies [1], [2]. Coupled with severity and a higher frequency of hazards, this has created a risk-scape that requires new approaches to risk and disaster management [3], [4], [5]. The practice has also been influenced by demands for sustainable development and sustainable risk management [6], [7].

Response to those pressures has brought to prominence the concept of societal resilience and integrated and comprehensive, all-hazards approaches, supported by frameworks and structures based upon a shared system of governance and policy making [8], [9]. New Zealand was one of the first countries to develop such a framework, based on principles of sustainable management and deliberative planning, and apply it to risk and disaster management [7], [8], [9], [10]. The framework has a tiered and integrated governance system and takes a comprehensive approach across the four Rs of risk Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery [11], [12].

In the period between 2010 and 2012 an earthquake sequence devastated central Christchurch. On September 4, 2010 an earthquake with magnitude 7.1 occurred 40 km from the Christchurch city centre. The earthquake did not directly cause loss of life, but damage to infrastructure and built environment was substantial. The quake was followed by thousands of aftershocks, some strong enough to cause further damage to the city. On February 22, 2011, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake with epicentre only 6 km from the Christchurch CBD severely impacted Christchurch City. One hundred and eighty-five people died and the Government declared a state of National Emergency for the first time in New Zealand's history. Christchurch City and the surrounding districts suffered heavy damage to dwellings, businesses, infrastructure and community facilities. The shaking caused significant damage from the secondary hazards of liquefaction and rockfall. Further aftershocks caused additional damage, ground failures and building and infrastructure damage. The February 22 2011 shock is the largest disaster New Zealand has experienced since the early twentieth century when a powerful earthquake destroyed another New Zealand city, Napier in 1931. The Canterbury earthquakes prompted central government to introduce significant changes to the pre-existing national and local risk and emergency management arrangements.

This paper considers some of the implications that the transformation of governance during the response and early recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes may have for sustainable risk management and societal resilience in New Zealand. Specifically, the paper provides: an overview of the principles of integrated, comprehensive and decentralised, bottom-up approaches to disaster management and corresponding governance, and their relevance for societal resilience (1); introduces the New Zealand disaster management governance framework and compares this framework with the arrangements established following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes (2); and discusses potential implications of the newly introduced changes for integrated, comprehensive and decentralised approaches to risk management and societal resilience (3).

Since 1990s it has been accepted within the risk management community that the appraisal of risks should involve different types of rationality and knowledge, conducted in an open and pluralistic fashion and allowing for critical discourse as an essential part not only of the regulatory process, but also of the options themselves [5], [13], [14]. This followed the trend of public participation in environmental decision-making in general, that had become gradually institutionalised at federal, state and local levels in the United States and Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand [15], [16]. The movement to involve citizens in environmental policy has spread to other countries as well through international forums such as the United Nations and the World Bank [17], [18], [19]. In analysing key principles of sustainable development, scholars summarise them as [20], [21]:

• achievement of national goals through integrated planning (rather than single-purpose mandates);

• cooperation between national and local governments (rather than coercion);

• regulation of environmental outcomes (consequences or effects) of activities, (rather than the activities themselves);

• national (and state) efforts at building local capability (rather than hoping local implementation will occur on its own); and

• empowered citizen participation in setting the agenda and determining decision-making outcomes (rather than bureaucratic decision making).

In New Zealand, sustainable risk and emergency management are based on these same premises and the policy and planning frameworks closely reflect the above principles [7], [22].

Delivery on these principles requires integrated, comprehensive and effects-based frameworks with decentralised, bottom-up approaches to management, supported by corresponding governance [7], [21], [22]. Extensive coordination and cooperation among all levels of government, the private sector, community groups and other stakeholders is necessary. The degree of coordination and integration, as well as the capacity and capability of the multitude of actors, are some of the key factors that determine the effectiveness of the approach [7], [21], [22]. Stakeholder input is commonly managed through a rational-adaptive approach to planning, with consultation at every stage of policy and plan development [23].

It is of interest that efforts to define and frame concepts of sustainability have typically stressed the principles of support, persistence, balance, and, most importantly, resilience [24], [25]. Furthermore, it has been argued that sustainability is best viewed as a socially instituted process of adaptive change, thus closely linking it with adaptive capacity in societies and resilience [26], [27].

The origins of the theoretical application of resilience can be found in a number of disciplines leading to multiple definitions of the concept [28], [29]. This paper adopts a view of resilience that emphasise adaptation and the strengthening of community bonds [29], [30]. The paper adopts a definition of societal resilience as one characterised by a community's adaptive capacity. This is demonstrated by the community's competence and society's ability to be self-organising and capable of learning, innovation and creativity [29], [31]. Norris et al. [29] and Paton and Johnston [32] identified not only potential sources of adaptive capacity, such as social capital, but also discussed conditions that most effectively integrate individual, community and institutional factors to develop societal adaptive capacity. These conditions involve competent and empowered individuals and communities and high levels of trust and engagement between them and civic agencies [31], [32], [33], [34]. However, it is important to note that, for the social component of the system to learn and evolve, there are certain key requirements. These requirements include an institutional context which promotes empowerment and sharing knowledge and the well-developed, strong social capital, interpreted as networks of relationships among people in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively [28], [29].

In this context, governance, as an overarching approach to creation of empowering settings [31] can be seen as an institutional enabler of meaningful engagement and strengthening of social capital. Governance is broadly defined as interrelated sets of norms (such as laws and regulations, frameworks, standards), organisational and institutional arrangements and practices - across the 4Rs of risk reduction, readiness, response and recovery - designed to reduce the impacts of disasters [35].

Framing disaster resilience as adaptive capacity emphasises a positive interpretation of resilience that opens up opportunities and is a catalyst for development and improvement, for not only “doing it better”, but also for change and innovation by “doing it differently” [33], [34]. This is particularly relevant in disaster recovery. Recent scholarship clearly links the effectiveness of the recovery process to levels of trust between stakeholders, the strength of social networks and ties, the degree of political prowess and organisation and the degree to which social networks are embedded into recovery processes [36].

Closely observing post-disaster recovery following a number of major events, researchers suggested that decisive action and substantial resources required to rebuild structures and services and assist in social recovery often challenge governments and put them under considerable political pressures [37], [38], [39], [40]. Consequently, governments adapt existing or establish new institutions, often leading to new governance arrangements [41]. Understanding the implications of those pressures and changes for long-term risk management and societal resilience is necessary if sustainable solutions are to be implemented.

The Canterbury earthquakes, and the February 22 2011 quake in particular, provide an example of governance changes introduced by central government in the wake of a major disaster. The changes occurred in an environment characterised by strong community self-mobilisation and community led action, where thousands of local residents took action and spontaneously organised themselves to undertake response and recovery activities.