Governance in Shaky Societies: Experiences and lessons from Christchurch after the earthquakes

Abstract

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

Analyzing the Social Lead-Up to a Human-Induced Disaster: The Gas Extraction-Earthquake Nexus in Groningen, The Netherlands

“…Second, inappropriate governance responses can influence and exacerbate the movement from a hazard into a disaster [12,24,25]. To improve the governance response, resilience is increasingly used as a guiding principle for post-disaster recovery.…”

“…The social creation of disasters can also be examined from the perspective of the perceptions and human subjectivities vis-à-vis natural phenomena and their impact. On the one hand, different types of vulnerability, including location factors, imply that the socio-spatial impact of disasters is uneven [12]. On the other hand, people perceive and endure disasters in different ways, according to their own subjectivities, personal and cultural values and identities, among others [27].…”

“…Second, it shows how the institutions for dealing with the problems and controversies revolving around the gas extraction are installed without a proper societal debate and local support. Third, these human-induced earthquakes mirror the uneven way in which a disaster impacts a country and its population, including the mechanisms through which the governance system is part of both the cause and the consequence of the socially-created disaster [12].…”

Learning from the rubble: the case of Christchurch, New Zealand, after the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes

“…. 3 For a more extensive discussion of the institutional setup of CERA, see, for example, Hayward (2013) and Bakema et al (2017). 4 'Share an idea was a conversation with our community to gather ideas on how they wanted their Central City redeveloped following the devastating February 2011 earthquake'.…”

“…For a more extensive discussion of the institutional setup of CERA, see, for example, Hayward (2013) and Bakema et al (2017). …”