Natural Hazards

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 1287–1301 | Cite as

Disaster recovery as participation: lessons from the Shaky Isles

  • Suzanne Vallance
Original Paper


Despite broad scholarly consensus that public participation in disaster recovery is highly desirable, in practice, appropriate and effective forms of community involvement are difficult to achieve. Drawing on both non-disaster participatory planning theory and disaster recovery literature, this paper explores a possible relationship between participation in specific activities (the ‘substance’ of recovery) and participation in decision-making (the ‘processes’ framing recovery activities). This raises questions about a possible connection between ‘token’ forms of participation and a similarly ‘token’ recovery and indicates a need to better understand how ‘successful’ recoveries are measured. In addressing these questions, this paper documents some different forms of participation witnessed in Canterbury, New Zealand—the so-called Shaky Isles—following an extended earthquake sequence. I conclude that recovery as participation requires a more nuanced understanding that recognizes the co-constitutional nature of procedural and substantial aspects.


Disaster recovery Public participation Community resilience Canterbury earthquakes Co-production New Zealand 



I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Royal Society’s Marsden Fund and Geological and Nuclear Sciences/Natural Hazards Platform for providing funding support for this research.


  1. Agamben G (2005) State of exception. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Agyeman J, Briony A (2003) The role of civic environmentalism in the pursuit of sustainable communities. J Environ Plan Manage 46:345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allmendinger P (2002) Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Plan Theory 1:77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. APA J35:216–224Google Scholar
  5. Beck U (1992) Risk society; towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Benight C (2004) Collective efficacy following a series of natural disasters. Anxiety Stress Coping 17:401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergman J (2014) 52 Places to go in 2014. Accessed Feb 2014
  8. Brookie R (2012) Governing the recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes 2010–2011: the debate over institutional design. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns D (2007) Systemic action research. A strategy for whole system change. The Policy Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  10. Cairns L (2013) Gerry Brownlee and CCC back on track. Accessed Feb 2014
  11. Campanella T (2006) Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. APA J 72:141–146Google Scholar
  12. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2013) Recovery strategy for greater Christchurch. Accessed Feb 2014
  13. Carlton S, Vallance S (2013) An inventory of community-led and non-governmental organisations and initiatives in post-earthquake canterbury. Lincoln University, PO Box 85084. Accessed March 2014
  14. Chamlee-Wright E, Storr V (2011) Social capital as collective narratives and post-disaster community recovery. Soc Rev 59:262–288Google Scholar
  15. Chandrasekhar D (2010) Setting the stage: how policy institutions frame participation in post-disaster recovery. J Disaster Res 5:130–137Google Scholar
  16. Christchurch City Council (2012) Perceptions of quality of life in Christchurch. Accessed June 2014
  17. Conway G (2014) Dalziel’s speech raises heckles. Accessed Feb 2014
  18. Davidson C, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, Dikmen N, Sliwinski A (2007) Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int 31:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganapti E, Ganapti S (2008) Enabling participatory planning after disasters: a case study of the World Bank’s housing reconstruction in Turkey. APA J 75:41–59Google Scholar
  20. Irvin R, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision-making: is it worth the effort? Public Admin Rev 64:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein N (2007) The shock doctrine. Victoria, PenguinGoogle Scholar
  23. Kweit M, Kweit R (2004) Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. The Am Rev Public Admin 34:354–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lane S, Odoni N, Landström C, Whatmore S, Ward N, Bradley S (2011) Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method. Trans Inst of Br Geogr 36:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawther P (2009) Community involvement in post disaster re-construction—a case study of the British Red Cross Maldives recovery program. Int J Strateg Prop Manage 13:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard H, Howitt A (2010) Advance recovery and the development of resilient organisations and societies. In: Integrative risk management: advanced disaster recovery. Risk dialogue. Swiss Reinsurance Company, pp 45–58. Accessed June 2014
  27. Lorenz D (2011) The diversity of resilience: contributions from a social science perspective. Nat Hazards 67:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorimer H (2005) Cultural geography: the busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’. Prog Human Geog 29:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McClennen S (2012) Neoliberalism as terrorism; or state of disaster exceptionalism. In: Di Leo F, Mehan U (eds), Terror, theory and the humanities, pp 178–195. Open Humanities Press: University of Michigan Library, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  30. McCrone J (2014) Blueprint hangs in the balance. Accessed Feb 2014
  31. Murphy B (2007) Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Nat Hazards 41:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olshansky R, Johnson L (2010) Clear as mud: planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans. APA Planners Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Olshansky R, Lewis D, Johnson L (2012) Disaster and recovery: processes compressed in time. Nat Hazards Rev 13:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Owens S (2000) Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environ- mental policy. EPA 32:1141–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pestoff V, Brandsen T, Vershuere B (2012) New public governance; the third sector and co-production. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Pretty J, Guijt I, Thompson J, Scoones I (1995) Participatory learning and action. A trainer guide. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Sci Public Policy 33:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shaw R (2014) Community practices for disaster risk reduction in Japan. In Shaw R (ed) Disaster risk reduction and community approaches. Springer, Tokyo, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  40. Unger C (2007) The fall of the house of bush. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Vallance, S (2013) The Waimakariri District Council’s Integrated, Community-based Recovery Framework, Accessed March 2013
  42. Ward J, Becker J, Johnston D (2008) Community participation in recovery planning: a case study from the 1998 Ohura flood. GNS Science, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  43. Waugh W, Streib G (2006) Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Admin Rev 66:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whatmore S, Landström C (2011) Flood apprentices: an exercise in making things public. Econ Soc 40:582–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson P (2009) Deliberative planning for disaster recovery: re-membering New Orleans. J Public Delib 5:1–25Google Scholar
  46. Wolch J (2007) Green urban worlds. Ann Ass Am Geog 97:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lincoln UniversityChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations