Recovery from Disaster

878 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
878
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
87
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Recovery from Disaster

  1. 1. ...and recentRecovery from Disaster events inThe LAquila, Padang and EmiliaChristchurch earthquakes David Alexander University College London
  2. 2. Causes of disaster natural geophysical, technological, social RESILIENCE History Human Adaptation single and cultures to risk cumulative constraints impact and of pastopportunities disasters IMPACTS
  3. 3. Physical Environment Social (including natural, (including cultural, built, technological) Liabilities political, economic Risk SusceptibilityAttributes VULNERABILITY Capabilities Resistance Resilience Source: McEntire 2001
  4. 4. The process ofdisaster risk + • utilised Disasterreduction • adopted risk(DRR) • learned reduced Analysis Pastevents Lessons • registered - • • archived forgotten Vulnerability maintained • ignored
  5. 5. We need an evidence-based approach to:-• the performance of structures in earthquakes status of knowledge: systematic • the behaviour of people in earthquakes status of knowledge: unorganised • the economics of seismic risk and impact status of knowledge: patchy • the epidemiology of injuries in earthquakes status of knowledge: haphazard • the nature and remediation of multi- faceted vulnerability to earthquakes status of knowledge: unsystematic .
  6. 6. What was this absurd structure doing in a seismic zone?SantAgostino di Ferrara (FE), 20-5-2012
  7. 7. ...and this? Dosso (FE), 20-5-2012
  8. 8. LAquilacentral Italy6 April 2009magnitude 6.3308 dead Christchurch New Zealand 22 February 2011 Padang magnitude 6.3 Sumatra, Indonesia 185 dead 30 September 2009 magnitude 7.6 1,115 dead
  9. 9. The LAquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 • magnitude 6.3, duration 25 seconds • acceleration on hard rock 0.3g, on soft sediments 0.7-1.0g • part of an earthquake swarm that has lasted many months • the first earthquake with epicentre very near a major urban centre in Italy since 1915.
  10. 10. Impact of the LAquila earthquake• 308 deaths• 1,500 injuries: 202 serious, 550 moderate, 750 light• 67,000 homeless survivors• 100,000 buildings seriously damaged• 16 towns devastated, 33 damaged.
  11. 11. Government policy on shelter• 22,000 people in hotels: common solution - unsuccessful in Irpinia, 1980• 21,000 people in tents for 6-8 months: radical departure• transitional accommodation ready for 65% of survivors in 8 months: major achievement, but controversial.
  12. 12. Goodbye to the container home...
  13. 13. • 4,600 apartments in 184 buildings on 19 sites - for 15,500 residents • €280,607 per apartment (€3,875 per square meter of living space).C.A.S.E. - Complessi Antisismici Sostenibili ed Ecocompatibili
  14. 14. €1,427 per base isolator, €55,000 per building
  15. 15. M.A.P. - Moduli abitativi provvisori• standard prefabs without base isolation• 54 sites, half of them in LAquila city• 8,500 people accommodated.
  16. 16. Problems with CASE and MAP sites• social fragmentation leads to depression, isolation and marginalisation• total lack of services and transportation• induced dependence on private transport without infrastructure improvement• exclusion of single person families.
  17. 17. Problems with LAquila recovery policy• stagnation of reconstruction through lack of funds and planning• political paralysis and intimidation by central government• massive rise in unemployment plus severe economic deflation• local inflation, especially of house rents• loss of basic services.
  18. 18. SpontaneousSome publicstakeholders Individualin disaster citizensresponse Kinship groups Disaster Workplace subcultures groups Citizens Emergent organisations Charitable groups Schools NGOsOrganised Established
  19. 19. Western Sumatra earthquake• magnitude 7.6• 1,115 dead, 1,250,000 affected• 2,902 injured: 1,214 grave, 1,688 slight• 75 public buildings destroyed• 279,000 houses damaged: 135,000 severe, 65,000 moderate, 79,000 light.
  20. 20. Prevailing style of public buildings• heavy structure but weak frame• poor column-beam joints, soft ground floor• high vulnerability to total collapse• possible high death toll• certain loss of critical functions.
  21. 21. ...giving rise to characteristic patterns of collapse.
  22. 22. Serious damage put Pariaman town hall out of action.
  23. 23. 10 hospitals and 205 clinics damaged.
  24. 24. • rapid deployment of transitional shelter• robust plans to progress to permanent housing• clear objectives for reconstruction generally followed.
  25. 25. New rural clinic and donated ambulance.
  26. 26. Visible evidence of tsunami preparedness.
  27. 27. Build Back BetterSchools, hospitals and administrative bldgs must be reconstructed quickly but well.
  28. 28. Liquefaction andlateral spreading zone Rockfall hazard area Central Business District (part demolished)Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand
  29. 29. Heavy emphasis on demolition rather than recovery of buildings is being driven by insurance constraints - there is no inherent reason why this has to be so.
  30. 30. This building cost US$800,000 to demolish and it was not beyond recovery.
  31. 31. Demolition ofmajor buildingsis costly,technicallydemanding andposes the questionof what to putin their place:we trust thatplanning will besufficiently wellco-ordinated.
  32. 32. Even rubble management is expensive and challenging.
  33. 33. Tabula rasa - the "clean slate"approach poses the planning challenge ofhow to recreate a city with a good levelof services and a strong sense of place.
  34. 34. 80 historic buildings weredemolished in Christchurchcentre within one year: manyothers are at severe risk.
  35. 35. Although some heritage buildings will be saved, the building protection legislation has been made subordinate to planningdecisions based on short-term economics.
  36. 36. Christchurch Cathedral is scheduled for demolition: it is a major world heritagebuilding designed by George Gilbert Scott.
  37. 37. Some damage could have been avoided by internal buttressing after the September 2010 earthquake. There is no technicalreason why this building need be demolished.
  38. 38. The Catholic Cathedral lost its towers and dome: it is a unique building in the southern hemisphere.
  39. 39. Use of redundant shipping containers, eachfilled with 20 tonnes of ballast, to buttressthe building: ugly but cheap and expedient.
  40. 40. Use of redundant shippingcontainers for temporaryurban regeneration in theretail sector: successful.
  41. 41. Conclusions
  42. 42. Government Satisfaction paternalism Social Inclusive ...or... exclusion outcomes Public participation in Discontent decision making Discontent(must be informed)
  43. 43. What is welfare?The provision ofcare to a minimumacceptable standardto people who areunable adequatelyto look afterthemselves.But we also needto focus on whatwelfare is NOT...
  44. 44. Hazards and risks: disaster preparedness Uncertain future:Governance: long-term democratic Livelihoods: trendsparticipation diversity climate in decision and security change making capacity to adapt RESILIENCE: managing risks adapting to change securing resources
  45. 45. Good Amelioration (functionality maintained) Suff- Reco- ering Transitional veryEarth- Permanent housing and quake reconstruction settlement Public image Bad of politicians (functional National problems)Political Political impact Regional Electionsresponse on reconstruction Local A reconstruction model
  46. 46. Five key messagesProvision of welfare should not inhibitprocesses of recovery and growth.Resilience is multi-faceted: are inter-connections more important than facets?Sustainability applies to disasterrisk reduction as well as daily life.Governance and protection oflivelihoods are the root of DRR.Common sense logic doesnt necessarilydrive the politics of disaster recovery.
  47. 47. The creation of a culture of civil protection HABIT INSTRUMENTS OF DISSEMINATION MASS • mass media EDUCATION CULTURE • targeted campaign PROGRAMME • social networks • internet SOCIAL CAPITAL Augmentation
  48. 48. Sustainable development and livelihoodsPublic and Sustainable political funding support Sustainable civil protection programmes
  49. 49. Grazie per la vostra attenzione! david.alexander@grforum.orgemergency-planning.blogspot.comwww.slideshare.net/dealexander

×