A measurement framework of community recovery to earthquake: a Wenchuan Earthquake case study
- 236 Downloads
This paper builds a measurement framework of community recovery to earthquake as a way to measure the recovery capacity and performance of local government. First, the paper examines and documents the concept of community recovery to summarize the evidence on dimensions and indicators of community recovery. And four dimensions of community recovery—population, economy, building, and infrastructure, are established on the basis of interviewing the organizational specialists on post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. Second, this paper extents the concept of the resilience triangle to propose a two-stage stochastic program for building a measurement framework of community recovery. Third, this measurement framework is demonstrated for Wenchuan Community, China, in the context of earthquake. The results illustrate that the four dimensions of Wenchuan Community achieve vastly different recovery levels, and the economy has the lowest recovery level, which provides a robust basis to prioritize dimensions of community recovery, and reinforces the vital role and position of local governments in improving the community recovery.
KeywordsCommunity Recovery indicator Measurement framework Earthquake China
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Project Nos. 71601042 and 71603062, the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China under the Project Nos. 16YJC630071 and 16YJC630040, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project No. 2016M601401. We are thankful to editorial support (Editor Peter Boelhouwer, Queena Qian, and Naveen Parthiban) for their useful comments on the manuscript and three anonymous reviewers of Journal of Housing and Built Environment for their valuable advice.
- Alesch, D. J., Arendt, L. A., & Holly, J. N. (2009). Managing for long-term community recovery in the aftermath of disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.Google Scholar
- Alesch, D. J., Holly, N., Mittler, E., & Nagy, R. (2001). Organizations at risk: What happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute Press.Google Scholar
- Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- FEMA. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles, themes, and pathways for action. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
- Jie, L., Zhenwu, S., Di, L., & Yongliang, W. (2017). Measuring and characterizing community recovery to earthquake: The case of 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Discussion paper.Google Scholar
- Mooney, G. (2009). Problem populations, problem places. In J. Newman & N. Yeates (Eds.), Social justice: Welfare, crime and society, Maidenhead (pp. 97–128). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- National Infrastructure Advisory Council. (2010). A framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals: Final report and recommendations by the council.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (2006). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Olshansky, R., & Chang, S. (2009). Planning for disaster recovery: Emerging research needs and challenges. Journal of Progress in Planning, 72, 200–209.Google Scholar
- Peacock, W. G., Kunreuther, H., Hooke, W. H., Cutter, S. L., Chang, S. E., & Berke, P. R. (2008). Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observatory network: RAVON. College Station, TX: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
- Tierney, K., & Bruneau, M. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring resistance: A key to disaster loss reduction. TR News, 250, 14–17.Google Scholar