Seismic Mitigation: Post-Recovery and Reconstruction - Coursework Example

Engineering and Construction SEISMIC MITIGATION: POST-RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION By ID Number Module and Number of Professor/ Tutor Date of Submission SEISMIC MITIGATION: POST-RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Introduction Annually, several parts of the world are inflicted with natural disasters of one type or the other. Earthquakes are reported from several regions, and they may range from mild tremors to devastating seismic unheavals of high magnitude, causing immense damage to life, the natural surroundings, the built environment and infrastructure. In recent years, there have been three highly destructive earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand; “a triple disaster in Japan involving an earthquake followed by a tsunami” (Edgington, 2011, p.v), catastrophic earthquakes that destroyed the capital city of Port-au-Prince in Haiti, and those in Kobe, Japan. Recovery is sometimes defined as a return to pre-disaster conditions; or the term may refer to a community resembling its own characteristics in the absence of the disaster occurrence, in terms of population size or economic output. Another definition of ‘recovery’ “recognises that after a disaster, a community often undergoes significant change, so that it may never return to either the pre-disaster or without-disaster states” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.201). This approach defnes ‘recovery’ as the post-disaster attainment of a stable state or condition. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the issue of post-recovery and reconstruction in regions severely devastated by earthquakes. Reconstruction and Recovery after Earthquakes The ‘Disaster Life Cycle’ model refers to the five time periods that comprise the life cycle of a disaster. These include the “pre-impact period, the impact period, the immediate post-impact period, the short-term recovery period, and the long-range recovery period” (Fischer, 1998, p.7). This theory assists in responding to natural as well as technological disasters, through the process of pre-disaster preparedness, emergency responses such as search and rescue operations, recovery and reconstruction, and mitigation against future calamities of a similar type (Mileti, 1999). “Post-disaster recovery is a critical component of the disaster cycle, because also provides significant opportunities for mitigation” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.201), and consequently helps to break the cycle. The reasons include the requirement for new construction, the flow of post-disaster funding, and the ‘window of opportunity’ of increased awareness created by the disaster. Smith and Wenger (2007) emphasize on the importance of developing an ethic of sustainable recovery. Stakeholders and their Role in Seismic Mitigation In present times, city planners prepare plans related to emergency response and preparedness issues, which were conventionally undertaken by civil defense or municipal emergency officers, states Edgington (2011). On the other hand, Meyer et al. (2010) and Sandnik and Fuller (2009) argue that planners do not take into consideration the likelihood of a major disaster, and that none of the stakeholders plan longer-term recovery and reconstruction procedures. Although planning for urgent emergency response and short-term repairs to housing and infrastructure following earthquakes, floods, and other disasters is important, longer term building of cities and regions subsequent to catastrophic disasters raises a completely different set of problems. In contemporary disaster recovery practices, the emphasis is on complex problems regarding decision-making by the stakeholders involved in long term recovery, which include households, different levels of governmental and international agencies, businesses and the broader community. Planning professionals work towards rebuilding the regions and communities affected by seismic devastation. They aim to reduce the losses, to accelerate the process, and to assist communities in becoming more resilient to the aftermath of earthquakes. Local governments hold primary responsibility for recovery, “regardless of the severity of the disaster, or the level of assistance from the outside world or higher levels of government” (Edgington, 2011, p.v). However, there are few guidelines available to local decision-makers and planners. The objective of sustainable and holistic post-disaster recovery and long-term reconstruction is for communities to emerge as safer and less vulnerable to future disasters. During the recovery phase, the mitigation measures that can be implemented include the incorporation of “improved building codes and construction standards, a well as more effective land-use regulations and community-planning arrangements” (Edgington, 2011, p.vi). Rubin (2009) argues that recovery and reconstruction constitute multifaceted social processes; they are based on physical conditions and socio-economic forces existing in the community both before and after the disaster. Reliency is an important goal for communities after the impact of a disaster such as a devastating earthquake (Bruneau et al., 2003). Building resilience in a community or region is vital because it helps people recover from the next disaster more easily (Olshansky and Chang, 2009). Thus, Godschalk et al. (2003) argue that resilience enhances a community’s coping with the uncertainties of hazards. Berke and Campanella (2006, p.192) state that “resiliency is the ability to survive future natural disasters with minimum loss of life and property”, together with the capability to produce a greater sense of place among the community members. There are secondary or ripple effects of disasters on a city, which go beyond the damage to infrastructure and urban lifelines, extending to social and economic impacts. Hence, planning for recovery has to take into consideration people as well as buildings. Diversity of residents’ and workers’ cultural, ethnic and social background creates diverse needs, and social impacts of disasters are often centred on issues of equity. Disadvantaged groups such as the poor and the elderly lack the resources to recover readily from losses, while reconstruction after disasters cannot provide adequate numbers of affordable housing for those most in need. It is evident that while rebuilding is an essential part of any reconstruction plan, “the provision of adequate non-market housing for displaced residents will be a particular challenge” (Edgington, 2011, p.vi). The Process of Seismic Mitigation Sustainable disaster mitigation combines structural with non-stuctural methods. It has a broad basis of public support, it is compatible with sustainable development, it stands the test of time, it adapts to new circumstances, and the disaster mitigation processes do not harm the environment. Successful reconstruction plans have self-protective redundancy, a healthy diversity, mutually reinforcing components, ability to efficiently reduce waste and waiting times, and accountability, but can function independently of outside control. They adapt flexibly to changed circumstances, and exploit new opportunities by fostering collaboration and teamwork (Alexander, 2010). Reconstruction subsequent to an earthquake is a complex process involving “political, economic and social issues as well as geo-technical considerations” (Platt, 2012, p.54). However, it is also an opportunity to change the development model in the method of reconstruction and the specific issues taken into consideration. The main characteristic of post-disaster planning is the “urgency and seriousness of the situation” (Platt, 2012, p.54), as compared to normal development projects. Three choices for land use planning include rebuilding in the original place, partial shift to a safer adjacent neighbourhood, or relocation to a new place. The decision would depend on the degree of damage, the willingness of the inhabitants to move, the difficulty of mitigating future risk, and the economic implications of the move. In the post-disaster period of recovery and reconstruction, economic recovery is considered as the most serious issue facing most communities, and as the key issue in every major disaster. In both the developing as well as developed countries, recovering livelihoods is highly relevant, together with “providing enhanced livability and urban amenity, and reducing vulnerability to future risk” (Platt, 2012, p.54). In earthquake and risk management in China, the focus is on sustainable development based on “people-oriented rule, to create value-added, resource-saving, and environment-friendly social units” (Olson and Wu, 2010, p.491), through urban, rural, regional, economic and social development, besides promoting harmonious development of man and nature, the social, regional, economic, administrative, and ecological environments, as well as the legal system within quake areas. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) can be used to guide the post-earthquake construction and recovery process. Enterprise Risk Management is a systematic, combined approach to managing all risks confronted by an organisation. Contingency management has been established in the military; similarly systematic organisational planning includes the preparation of reaction plans for unexpected contingencies. Disasters take place suddenly, causing great damage, destruction and loss of lives. Governments are required to have emergency management strategies ready, to cope with unexpected calamities (Olson and Wu, 2010). According to the Govt. of Haiti (2012), first it is important to define early on the best institutional strategy to lead the recovery process. Secondly, during the disaster relief effort, clarity on leadership and division of labour should be established, which has a record of successful implementation in recent years. Thirdly, monthly decision meetings with international partners should be established. Fourth, it is essential to encourage development partners to establish and contribute to a Multi Donor Trust Fund. Fifth, the government should establish a monitoring system that keeps track of money and outputs. Sixth, while core fiduciary principles apply, financing for post disaster projects is different from undertaking regular development projects (Govt. of Haiti, 2012). Platt (2011) states that the key issues in reconstruction planning includes relocation which is usually considered to be a last resort, due to obstacles such as issues of land ownership and tenure. Post-disaster planning is required to be timely, to permit but not deter population and activities recovery. Urban dynamics should be taken into consideration when reconsidering the current framework. Public participation is essential, though regarded as an obstacle to reconstruction and development. Crucially, reactivating local economies is important, through state intervention (Platt, 2011). Major Hurdles Hindering the Process of Reconstruction Recovery and reconstruction planning creates distinctive challenges for both practitioners and researchers, with limited time, increased stakes, flow of additional resources, and greater public interest. Lasting change can be brought about by suitable recovery measures. A major challenge relates to local government’s effective management of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, in fulfilling the time-constrained requirements for housing, economic and social recovery, while “maximising the opportunity for social betterment” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.200). Post-disaster recovery is dependent on the skills of planners. All the challenges of urban planning are combined in the microcosm of recovery. These include developing land use and economic opportunities to increase people’s quality of life; taking action in the absence of sufficient information; trading off deliberation for expediency; and maneuvering local politics, besides “engaging the public, and identifying funding sources to supplement inadequate local resources” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.201). Additional resources are usually made available for the new post-disaster environment, offering opportunities to improve the conditions from those that existed before. Thus, some difficult challenges are also posed by post-disaster recovery. “The local planner plays a key role in trying to best use those resources, while coping with the added stresses inherent to recovery” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.201). Five hurdles experienced during the post-earthquake construction and recovery in Sichuan include the economic aspects, with lack of clarity in the market, high cost of resuming production, and issues of property rights The social aspects after the earthquakes, several services were needed to include different aspects of reconstruction, community renewal and management of particular geographical, ethnic and cultural needs. Natural impacts on the ecological environment, resulting in the rebuilding of sites, restoration of ecological environment, and preservation of ruins. Administrative issues such as disruption of existing administrative divisions. In the process of rebuilding, immigration policy becomes an issue, along with those related to financial, fiscal, taxation, land and industrial sector, as well as disaster relief laws. These hurdles related to “economic, social, political, legal, cultural, and natural environmental factors” (Olson and Wu, 2010, p.490), require to be resolved using approaches that combine systematic planning and design. After three consecutive hurricanes at Haiti, the nation was already severely incapacitated. When this was followed by the devastating earthquake in January 2010, there was nearly total institutional collapse of the government of Haiti. The urgent strategies put into action included the implementation of a humanitarian relief operation, “providing security for the immediate future with U.N. peacekeepers, and finally rebuilding for the future” (Forman, 2010, p.7). According to Edgington (2011), disaster reconstruction has to overcome hurdles of governmental redtape and lack of resources to address the problem of providing adequate local housing for disaster survivors. The reconstruction process should make use of this opportunity to upgrade infrastructure to safer constructions, and to mitigate hazardous situtations. This can be done for example, by relocating the development projects away from unsafe regions. Further, the reconstruction period should undertake improvements to urban design, while enabling social equity and environmental goals (Edgington, 2011). Role of the Seismic Engineer in Aiding the Reconstruction Effort The seismic engineer plays a major role in planning and implementing recovery and reconstruction after a seismic event, as well as mitigation efforts to reduce the impact of future earthquakes. is required to coordinate efforts with the decision makers, and implement an integrated framework for earthquake consequences management. The proposed framework. Socio-economic and economical model dealing with the situation in the region devastated by seismic cataclysms has to be considered, “in order to determine the community resilience for disasters such as earthquakes” (Momani, 2011, p.317). This will help in identifying mitigation and preparedness priorities to facilitate response and recovery from future earthquakes. The Earthquake Consequences Model (ECM) is used to measure potential earthquake consequences. The engineer’s approach to reduce earthquake consequences, will help political decision makers to reduce earthquake consequences through establishing policies, plans and procedures. The value analysis for mitigation options provided to the decision makers presents them with an “overall picture of potential earthquake consequences for the study area” (Momani, 2011, p.317), and the determination of options to be implemented to manage earthquake risk. Mitigation and preparedness procedures are dependent on the time available, allocated finances, and human as well as monetary resources; which need to be conserved. The dynamic integration model is related to web based shared information by the engineer and other decision makers including political and governmental officials such as civil defence, police department, water authority, etc, for reducing earthquake losses (Momani, 2011, p.317). Conclusion This paper has investigated the issue of post-recovery and reconstruction in regions devastated by earthquakes. The main stakeholders include the local government, city planners, engineers, service providers, and the community affected by the catastrophe. Each of the stakeholders has been found to play an important role in recovery and reconstruction post-disaster, as well as in mitigation efforts to prevent similar destruction in future. The process of seismic mitigation has been explored, the major hurdles hindering the process of reconstruction have been identified, and the role of the seismic engineer has been examined. The evidence indicates that all the subdisciplines of urban planning are encompassed in post-disaster recovery, applied to a more extreme environment. Olshansky and Change (2009) support this view, and add that rebuilding after catastrophic events challenges planners’ skills to a great extent. At the same time, however, “disasters also provide unique opportunities to improve people’s lives for the future” (Olshansky and Chang, 2009, p.209). Disasters are bound to occur across the world, hence there is a profound need for planning research to improve seismic mitigation and post-disaster management strategies and. There is a crucial need for implanting adequate disaster risk management measures in relation to mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, to prevent and reduce loss of life and assets. It is concluded that the dynamic aspects of earthquake mitigation require an integrated model for its management, which includes earthquake risk, socio-economic conditions, and values analysis to implement strategies, plans and procedures. Bibliography Alexander, D. (2010). Post-disaster reconstruction: Planning and sustainability. University of Florence. Berke, P.R. and Campanella, T.J. (2006). Planning for postdisaster resiliency. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604 (1), pp.192- 207. Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A., Shinozuka, M., et al. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. EERI Spectra Journal, 19 (4), pp.733-752. Edgington, D.W. (2011). Reconstruction after natural disasters: The opportunities and constraints facing our cities. The Town Planning Review, 82 (6), pp.v-xii. Fischer, H.W. (1998). Response to disaster: Fact versus fiction & its perpetuation: The sociology of disaster. Edition 2. The United States of America: University Press of America. Forman, J.M. (2010). A security and development dilemma. Journal of International Peace Operations, 5 (5), pp.7-8. Godschalk, D.R., Brody, S.D. and Raymond, B. (2003). Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46 (5), pp.733-754. Govt. of Haiti (2012). Haiti earthquake reconstruction. Knowledge Notes from DRM Global Expert Team for the Government of Haiti. Meyer, S., Henry, E., Wright, R.E. and Palmer, C.A. (2010). Post-disaster redevelop- ment planning: Local capacity building through pre-event planning. Journal of Disaster Research, 5, pp.552-564. Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. New York: National Academies Press. Momani, N.M. (2011). Integrated framework for earthquake consequences management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 20 (3), pp.314-333. Olshanksky, R.B. and Chang, S. (2009). Planning for disaster recovery: Emerging research needs and challenges. Progress in Planning, 72 (4), pp.200-209. Olson, L. and Wu, D.D. (2010). Earthquakes and risk management in China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 16 (3), pp.478-493. Platt, S. (2011). Reconstruction in Chile post 2010 earthquake. ReBuilDD Field Trip September 2011. Platt, S. (2012). Reconstruction in New Zealand post 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes. ReBuilDD Field Trip February 2012. Rubin, C.B. (2009). Long-term recovery from disasters: The neglected component of emergency management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6, pp.1-17. Sandnik, D. and Fuller, C. (2009). Planning for disasters, climate change, and sustainable development. Municipal World. http://www.iclr.org/images/Muni_world_sustainable_devel.pdf [Accessed 5 February 2013]. Smith, G.P. and Wenger, D. (2007). Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. Handbook of Sociology and Social Research. New York: Springer, pp.234-257. Read More