Fuzzy Boundaries Between Post-Disaster Phases: The Case of L’Aquila, Italy

Abstract

A number of indices have been developed for measuring vulnerability to disasters, but little attention has been paid to recovery indices. Post-disaster periods are usually divided into four phases. The terms established by the United Nations Development Programme for post-disaster phases—relief, early recovery, recovery, and development—are used in this article. This research examines the hypothesis that the boundaries between post-disaster recovery phases are fuzzy and should be defined by the progress achieved in the recovery process, rather than by the amount of time elapsed since the event. The methodology employed involved four steps: fieldwork, mapping, identification of indicators, and assessment. The case study area was the city of L’Aquila in the Abruzzo region of central Italy, which was struck by an earthquake in April 2009. For each phase of the recovery process in L’Aquila a score was calculated based on the progress observed in 2016, 7 years after the earthquake. The highest score went to the early recovery phase (14 points), followed by the recovery phase (13 points), the development phase (12 points), and the relief phase (4 points). The results demonstrate the possibility of defining post-disaster recovery phases in an affected area based on measuring achievements through indicators rather than defining recovery phases in terms of elapsed time after a disaster.

Keywords

Disaster recovery / Earthquakes / Geographical information system (GIS) / L’Aquila / Post-disaster phases / Spatial indicators

References

[1] Aldrich D. Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery, 2012, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

[2] Alexander D. Alexander D, Davidson CH, Fox A, Johnson C, Lizzaralde G. “From rubble to monument” revisited: Modernised perspectives on recovery from disaster. Post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests, 2006, Florence: Firenze University Press 13-22.

[3] Alexander D. The L’Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian government policy on disaster response. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2010, 2(4): 325-342

[4] Alexander D. An evaluation of medium-term recovery processes after the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, central Italy. Environmental Hazards, 2012, 12(1): 60-73

[5] Arens, R. 2014. The dispersion of L’Aquila (Die Zerstreung L’Aquilas). Salzburger Nachrichten, 5 April 2014, IX, Wochenende.

[6] BBC. 2014. L’Aquila quake: Scientists see convictions overturned. BBC News, 10 November 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29996872. Accessed 27 Jul 2016.

[7] Brown C, Milke M, Seville E. Disaster waste management: A review article. Waste Management, 2011, 31(6): 1085-1098

[8] Brown, D., S. Platt, and J. Bevington. 2010. Disaster recovery indicators: Guidelines for monitoring and evaluation. Cambridge University Centre for Risk in the Built Environment, University of Cambridge.

[9] Chang SE. Urban disaster recovery: A measurement framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Disasters, 2009, 34(2): 303-327

[10] Ciorra, P. 2014. L’Aquila: Five years after the earthquake. The Architectural Review, 28 July 2014. http://www.architectural-review.com/laquila-five-years-after-the-earthquake/8666396.article. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.

[11] Contreras, D. 2009. Designing a spatial planning support system for rapid building damage survey after and earthquake: The case of Bogota D.C., Colombia. Master's thesis. International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.

[12] Contreras, D. 2015. Spatial indicators of recovery after earthquakes. Doctoral thesis, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.

[13] Contreras, D., and T. Blaschke. 2016. Measuring the progress of a recovery process after an earthquake: The case of L’Aquila—Italy. Presentation at the 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC Davos 2016, 28 August–01 September, Davos, Switzerland.

[14] Contreras D, Blaschke T, Kienberger S, Zeil P. Spatial connectivity as a recovery process indicator: The L’Aquila earthquake. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2013, 80(9): 1782-1803

[15] Contreras D, Blaschke T, Kienberger S, Zeil P. Myths and realities about the recovery of L’Aquila after the earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2014, 8: 125-142

[16] Contreras D, Blaschke T, Tiede D, Jilge M. Monitoring recovery after earthquakes through the integration of remote sensing, GIS, and ground observations: The case of L’Aquila (Italy). Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 2016, 43(2): 115-133

[17] Donadio, R., and E. Povoledo. 2009. Italians comb through ruble after quake. New York Times, 6 April 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/world/europe/07italy.html?_r=0. Accessed 27 Jul 2016.

[18] Esposito S, Giovinazzi S, Elefante L, Iervolino I. Performance of the L’Aquila (central Italy) gas distribution network in the 2009 (M_w 6.3) earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 11(6): 2447-2466

[19] Forino G. Disaster recovery: Narrating the resilience process in the reconstruction of L’Aquila (Italy). Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 2014, 115(1): 1-13

[20] Geipel R. Socio-geografical aspects of a seismic catastrophe [Aspetti sociogeografici di una catas-trofesismica], 1979, Milan: Franco Angeli

[21] Gigantesco A, Mirante N, Granchelli C, Diodati G, Cofini V, Mancini C, Carbonelli A, Tarolla E, Minardi V, Salmaso S, D’Argenio P. Psychopathological chronic sequelae of the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2013, 148(2–3): 265-271

[22] Hogg SJ. Reconstruction following seismic disaster in Venzone, Friuli. Disasters, 1980, 4(2): 173-185

[23] Honjo Y. Implementation of the Kobe City recovery plan. Japan Social Innovation Journal, 2011, 1(1): 1-11

[24] Karatani, Y., and H. Hayashi. 2004. Verification of recovery process under the great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster based on the recovery index (RI). In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1–6, Vancouver, Canada. Paper No. 1381. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_1381.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2016.

[25] Karatani Y, Hayashi H. Quantitative evaluation of recovery process in disaster-stricken areas using statistical data. Journal of Disaster Research, 2007, 2(6): 453-464

[26] Kates RW, Pijawka DJ. Haas JE, Kates RW, Bowden MJ. From rubble to monument: The pace of reconstruction. Reconstruction following disaster, 1977, Cambridge: MIT Press 1-23.

[27] Murai, M. 2008. Recovery assessment expert hearing sessions. In Joint research project on the assessment methodology for recovery community development, ed. ADRC, DRI, IRP, and UNCRD, 55–59. Hyogo: United Nations.

[28] SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) Training manual for mental health and human services workers in major disasters, 2000, Washington, DC: SAMHSA

[29] Shaw, R. 2004. Earthquake risk perception, community interactions and reconstruction experiences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Hazard Preparedness, Rescue and Recovery, 33–50. 5–9 January 2004, Taipei.

[30] Shohei, B. 2007. The evaluation of the status of disaster areas by using recovery indicators (in the case of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, 27–29 November 2007, Taipei.

[31] UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2008. UNDP policy on early recovery. http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/UNDP_2008_Policy_early_recovery.pdf. Accessed 27 Jul 2016.

[32] UNIFI (Università degli Studi di Firenze). 2009. Integrated health, social and economic impacts of extreme events: Evidence, methods and tools. In Annex 2—Proposal Part B. Florence: Università degli Studi di Firenze.

[33] Vale LJ, Campanella TJ. Vale LJ, Campanella TJ. Conclusion: Axioms of Resilience. The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster, 2005, New York: Oxford University Press 335-355.

[34] Venturini F, Verlinghieri E. Scarcity, post-scarcity and local community: L’Aquila as a case study. Planum II, 2014, 29: 51-69.

[35] Wisner B. Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. Mapping vulnerability, 2004, London: Earthscan 183-193.