The overwhelming impact that disasters have on societies is fed by socio-economic vulnerabilities and political-institutional factors. Disasters are, therefore, increasingly regarded as partially created by humans instead of as purely natural events. Although the “social creation” of disasters is assumed to occur “above the ground” and triggered by extreme natural events, this article explores several dimensions to the social creation of disasters, including technological and institutional dimensions from both “above” and “below the ground”. It furthers the understanding of disaster governance by investigating processes that generate the social lead-up to a human-induced disaster, and that are installed to deal with its consequences. Focusing on the case of Groningen, the Netherlands, where gas extraction leads to earthquakes, the article looks in particular at the interrelationships between different state and non-state actors in the governance dynamics that structure the processes to deal with the earthquake issues. Based on in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders, we found that public-private institutional structures, the nature of the disaster and societal (dis)trust are entangled and influence disaster governance processes mediating resilience and sustainability. The article concludes by arguing that both the causes of (human-induced) disasters and the approaches to disaster mitigation lie in these political-institutional and governance fundaments.

Disasters have the potential to shake societies and their governance systems not only temporarily, but often for years afterwards as well. Studying disaster governance through lenses of social–ecological systems can provide essential insights in disaster contexts, as disasters occur through the interactions between nature and societies. Drawing upon debates on environmental governance, we examine the interactions between different spatial and temporal levels of governance in the face of disasters. Our analysis is based on an in‐depth case study of Christchurch, New Zealand, in the aftermath of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. International experts usually regard Christchurch as an exemplary recovery process. However, frustration is widespread among people in the city as they call for a more socially inclusive process. These diverging views can be explained by the variety of challenges that the earthquakes pose on the society and the consequent different needs and wishes related to different temporal stages and geographical areas. Homogenous governance approaches for post‐disaster recovery for all stages and areas are therefore inadequate, calling for hybrid, more flexible and sustainable governance constellations. A social–ecological approach highlights the dynamic and complex interactions between nature and society, and the hybrid, multi‐level character of governance, which both shapes and is shaped by the behaviour and responses of citizens. Regarding hybrid governance as a social–ecological system can therefore help to better understand post‐disaster realities and support the design of tailored, time‐ and place‐specific governance systems aiming for enhanced resilience and sustainability. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

No abstract