Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly Updates1. INTRODUCTION
The need to develop a resilient community capable of recovering from disasters is of increasing concern in many countries. New Zealand especially is vulnerable to most forms of natural disasters, such as earthquake, volcanic activity, flood, fire, landslips and tsunami. New Zealand therefore has to prepare for the implementation of a robust response and recovery programme. Unfortunately the magnitude of its recent disaster events gives it a relatively limited experience. It has been suggested by Rolfe and Britton (1995) that these local events reflect on New Zealand's state of preparedness; and that major disasters could pose considerable economic, physical and social challenges that will make the task of recovery and reconstruction extensive (Hopkins et al., 1999).
In preparing for disasters there is often an emphasis on readiness and response, with poor understanding and little consideration given to the implications of recovery (Angus, 2005). Experience has shown that (Le Masurier et al., 2006) recovery is often carried out by modifying routine construction processes on an ad hoc basis following a disaster. Whilst this can work reasonably well for small-scale disasters, the effectiveness of reconstruction could be improved by modifying the legislative and regulatory framework in advance of a disaster. For larger scale disasters there is a greater imperative to have appropriate systems in place in advance, to accelerate the process of reinstatements through effective coordination and reconstruction delivery.
The current study shows that the achievement of reconstruction objectives will be positively influenced by planned and implemented viable policies in the form of enabling legislative and regulatory frameworks. In comparison to routine construction, there is little provision in several areas of legislation to cater for post-disaster reconstruction processes. Following a major disaster it is unlikely that coordinating authorities and regulatory bodies would be able to cope with the volume of work due to shortfalls in experienced personnel, thus the coordination and management of a major programme of reconstruction could become cumbersome and inefficient.
An important recovery objective is to resettle displaced persons as quickly as possible after a catastrophic event. This will help to stem the risks of permanent harm and other psychosocial losses. It is often the case that evacuees moved to temporary shelter and accommodation end up being permanently kept away from their homes for reasons traceable to their inability to build back their homes because of restrictive institutional policies or legislations. Studies allude to the fact that subsisting legislation have become impediments to the realisation of post disaster reconstruction objectives (Meese et al., 2005; Rotimi et al., 2006; Middleton, 2008).
There is therefore the tension between strictly applying re-development regulations which aim at preventing a recurrence of the previous community vulnerability; and on the other hand, to allow the affected community to move back to their former habitation. Clearly, the quicker communities return to habitability of as many of their homes as possible; the better it will be for restoring a sense of normality (recovery) although this is tempered with the need to decide whether building back in the same location is right for the community, especially if reduction in vulnerability is not embedded into the rebuilding process. However disaster management agencies will aim at a 'build back safer' situation. The paper highlights some of the issues that may arise from the implementation of a key piece of legislation, the Building Act (2004). It presents survey information on how the Act will either facilitate or hinder the achievement of reconstruction objectives in the event of a large scale reconstruction programme in New Zealand.
2. RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION
Recovery is an integral part of the comprehensive emergency management process (Sullivan, 2003). It refers to all activities that are carried out immediately after the initial response to a disaster situation. This will usually extend until the community's capacity for self-help has been restored. In other words, the end-state is when the assisted community reaches a level of functioning where it is able to sustain itself in the absence of further external intervention (Sullivan, 2003).
The effectiveness of the process will depend on how much planning has been carried out and what contingencies are provided for in preparing for the disaster. It is expected that recovery and reconstruction works will restore the affected community in all aspects of its natural, built, social and economic environment. The recovery process may present an opportunity for improvement in the functioning of the community, so that risk from future events can be reduced while the community becomes more resilient. The process will typically follows five key stages (Brunsdon and Smith, 2004).
Impact Assessment--which is the information gathering stage in the recovery process aimed at gaining knowledge on the impact of the disaster event on individuals, community and the environment. It involves all stakeholders as it is at this stage that the necessary inspections and surveys (needs assessment) are carried out that will form the basis for all reinstatements activities. The needs assessments will include building inspections, insurances, and health and safety assessments.
Restoration Proposal--this is the stage where decisions are made on whether to repair, replace or abandon affected properties. These decisions are reached based on the input of the impact assessment activities. Realistic proposals for meeting the anticipated recovery tasks are presented for the consideration of funding organisations.
Funding Arrangements--this is the stage in the recovery process where funds are sought for the rebuilding programme. Affected parties have access to two types of funds in New Zealand, these are funds from private insurance companies and from government.
Regulatory Process--design and regulatory approvals are sought for the reinstatement of damaged facilities at this stage. Processing of resource consents is usually painstaking and the target of approving authorities is to ensure that considerable level of resilience is incorporated in all developments. New knowledge gained on risk from hazards after the disaster will assist approving authorities to correct former design concepts to mitigate future disaster risks.
Physical Construction--this is the regeneration stage in the recovery process where every aspect of the community and its environment (natural, built, social and economic environments) return to normalcy. Experience has shown that it is difficult to return to the pre-event status quo but effort is made to restore the functions of the affected community.
The period from the damage assessments to the implementation of reconstruction programmes and complete recovery could take years to achieve. Prevailing legislation would either facilitate or hinder rebuilding efforts, thus shortening or elongating the recovery period. The effect of legislation was evident in recovery after the Northridge earthquake in the U.S.A. Changes made to recovery-related legislation (Phillips, 2005) positively influenced the rebuilding of damaged highways and other civil works after the event. Similar or even more proactive changes (either through legislative repeals or waivers) may be required to speed up recovery at New Orleans (Meese et al., 2005; Marano and Fraser, 2006). Meese et al. (2005) posit that some subsisting environmental regulations have become too restrictive and burdensome on recovery efforts.
In New Zealand, anecdotal evidences suggest that statutory building and resource application procedures may frustrate genuine reconstruction needs (WRLAWG, 2004; AELG, 2005); and with a corresponding loss of innovative solutions to real time problems. Residential property owners are particularly vulnerable to over-regulation and they may have to bear the burden of remaining in temporary shelter for longer periods than otherwise necessary.
3. THE PROBLEMS WITH LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Feast (1995) identified several issues in relation to planning and construction legislation that would impede reconstruction of Wellington, New Zealand following a major earthquake. His study suggests that much of the existing legislation was not drafted to cope with an emergency situation and was not developed to operate under the conditions that will inevitably prevail in the aftermath of a severe seismic event.
Middleton (2008) also provided a situation report of the housing situation after the Bay of Plenty storm in New Zealand in 2005. At 300 days after the event, 35 households still required permanent re-housing out of a total 300 compulsory evacuations. By the same period 9 households were still occupying temporary accommodation. Middleton (2008) suggests that this situation could be the result of a poor processing of consents for reconstruction work. Apparently there is clear gap between the process of identifying homes that are suitable or unsuitable to continue to be lived in and helping households to recover from a disaster so that they get back to their normal life.
Processing of building consents at the early stages of reconstruction and recovery are a potential bottleneck (WRLAWG, 2004). A shortage of qualified people and material resources to handle impact assessments, and consent processing is likely to cause further delays. A more flexible approach to the standard consent process might be necessary to expedite the process and help cope with the high volume of consent applications after a major disaster. Although MCDEM (2005a, 2005b) proposes a management structure that could obtain fast-track building consents at the immediate post-impact, such schemes only last as long as a declared state of emergency is in force. The reconstruction work would need to be carried out under current legislative requirements.
FEED