Crisis and Disaster Management

Question: Discuss about the Crisis and Disaster Management. Answer: Build back better The phrase build back better can be defined as a model reconstruction as well as a plan for recovery which assists in the attainment of better resilience. This has been in use since the tsunami hit in 2004 and became officially recognized after Clinton created the guidelines for BBB in 2006(Moore, 2013). The concept of BBB focuses on a holistic improvement of the environmental, economic, social and physical circumstances of a community along with following the disasters in order to improve the resilience of the whole community. The earliest known document which was formerly authorized on the subject was by Clinton named Key Propositions for BBB, published in 2006(Brent, 2004). The other guidelines which are in support of the concept have been noted down below: Principles for Settlement and Shelter by the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization. Post Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Strategy and Build Back Better Guiding Principles by the Government of Sri Lanka. Mondays Holistic Recovery. Recovery and Reconstruction Framework by Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority. Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authoritys Recovery Strategy. The pre-existing notion of BBB has been modified through conducting researches on case studies belonging to multi-nations. The findings, hence, obtained aided in the creation of the BBB Framework which can be well represented and defined by the following diagram: Diagram showing: Build Back Better Framework (source: Christine, H. (2012).) The major concepts which have recognized in the framework for BBB are risk reduction, community recovery and implementation. As evident form the above diagram, community recovery has been subdivided into economic and social recovery. Social recovery focuses on the involvement and support in the community. The major tools which have been proposed to be furnished to the communities in times of trauma due to disasters are engaging, educating and encouraging the community (Hayes Kotwica, 2013). Following activities have been recommended for recovering the communities from psycho-social factors: Arrangement of particularized assistance. Connecting social programs with housing programs. Organization of group activities for the well-being of the community. Evaluation of affected community. Recovery policies on local requirements. Ensuring that the whole community participates in bearing responsibility for the recovery activities. According to the guidelines, measures should be utilized to strengthen as well as rejuvenate the economy of the community that has been affected (Semerciz et.al. 2015). These measures include, providing counseling services, business support along with specific fast tracked allowances in order to reconstruct businesses. Principles of Christchurch earthquake recovery This serves as reference guide for the Canterbury recovery which bloomed with consulting the community and strategic partners. It provides the efforts for recovery with direction, confidence and coordination. The RS is a collective approach for the government as well as the stakeholders so that they can integrate with plans for developing the community. Information regarding cultural, economic and social recovery along with the built as well as natural environment is integrated with perfect leadership. The aim of CERA is to make the church invest, visit and work for the upcoming generations. CERA places the community as the center of focus and addresses issues such regarding housing, planning, land zoning and risks posed by disasters (Steve et.al. 2008). The recovery effort is divided into 3 phases by CERA. They are: Immediate phase an urgent repair is initiated and the action plan is formulated. Short term phase the affected sites are rebuilt, reconstructed or replaced. Medium/long term phases comprises of activities such as improving, constructing and restoration. The aim of RS is to make the built environment cost-effective, resilient, and accessible as well as integrate the housing, buildings, infrastructure and the transportation. The land zoning to make the future resilient is comprised of urban design that is innovative and the investment for infrastructure should be prioritized so that greater Christchurch could be supported. It also considers the risks possessed due to changes in climate and current seismic contractions (Tugba Tugce 2015). Research methodology Greater Christchurch was affected by earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. This paper inspects the case of the same. Since, the process of recovery is in continuation, the role of propositions of land use in BBB can be investigated in accordance to the reduction of risk after a disaster strikes (Jeffery, 2016). The research design used in this case study is a mixed-methods one and has been accomplished by conducting interviews with officials from CERA as well as city councils along with reviewing pertinent literatures. Quantitative and qualitative sources have been used for gathering data. There had been direct participation by the interviewees in the process of recovery which aided the author to have a clear understanding of the process. The timing for every semi-structured interview was 1 hour. Research trip Interviewee Description Research trip 1 April 2014May 2014 P1 Visits and Relations Advisor, CERA P2 Structural Engineer, CERA P3 Manager, Utilities and Roading, Waimakariri District Council P4 Recovery Manager, Waimakariri District Council Research trip August 2015 P5 General Manager, Constructions, CERA P6 Chief Advisor, Insurance, CERA P7 General Manager, Community Resilience, CERA P8 Former Recovery Manager, Waimakariri District Council P9 Manager, Central City Development, CERA P10 Senior Advisor, Communication Central City Rebuild, CERA P11 Service Centre Manger, Waimakariri District Council P12 Earthquake Support Service, Waimakariri District Council P13 Recovery Manager, Waimakariri District Council P14 Utility Manager, Waimakariri District Council P15 Visits and Relations Advisor, CERA P16 Head, Strategy and Planning Group, Christchurch City Council P17 Manager, Residential Red Zone Operations Port Hills (CERA) P18 Former Financial Advisor,, CERA Table showing: Data collection from case study Case study: Greater Christchurch earthquake 2010-2011 Christchurch, New Zealand was hit by two massive earthquakes in the years 2010-2011. The first one (Darfield earthquake) had a magnitude of 7.1 took place on 4th September 2010 and the subsequent aftershock hit on 22nd February 2011 and had a magnitude of 6.3. Several residential regions were hugely devastated and it was difficult to liquefy the eastern regions. The gross economic loss was amounted up to NZ$40 billion which amount up to 19 per cent of the GDP. In the central part of the city, around 627 commercial buildings were to be demolished and another 220 were to be partially demolished along with 47% of the buildings being declared uninhabitable. In order to repair or recover the residential buildings, the amount estimated was NZ$13 billion approximately (Tomer, 2015). The Pyne Gould Corporation and the Canterbury Television collapsed and resulted into the deaths of 18 and 115 people, respectively. The number of deaths in suburban locations and central city were found to be 12 and 28, respectively along with 8 individuals being killed in a city bus. The total number of deaths was accounted up to 185(Joshua, 2016). The Waimakariri district is a part of greater Christchurch along with the eastern suburbs was hugely impacted by the Darfield earthquake and lateral spreading along with liquefaction occurred after the aftershock. Disturbances to daily life, services, activities and basic facilities were caused and businesses were disrupted due to the destruction of buildings, non-availability of products and services(Christine, 2012). Around 1200 buildings in Kairaki and Pines Beach were destroyed and 1048 were classified into the red zone, which prohibited rebuilding. Severe destruction was caused to public infrastructure as well as disruption in potable water. Fifteen sewer pump stations, gravity sewers of around 18 km and 12 kilometers of water mains were damaged. Infrastructure for local transports were impacted which amounted up to 2 foot bridges, 16 approaches to bridges and 16 kilometers of roads were damaged severely (Hayes Kotwica, 2013). Since the disaster had large magnitude, it led to the formation of CERA which aimed to support the government by rebuilding and managing the recovery. Around 67,468 houses were repaired by Earthquake Commission by the end of March in 2016 (Moore, 2013). The land use was severely affected by liquefaction and rock falls along with an increase in floods. Several historical buildings and community facilities were impacted by the aftershocks. While buildings with light timber frames were least affected, old masonry buildings were hugely affected and the chimneys collapsed. References Moore, S. (2013). Disaster's future: the prospects for corporate crisis management and communication, Volume 47, Issue 1, JanuaryFebruary 2004, Pages 29-36 Brent, R. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry.Volume 25, Issue 6, December 2004, Pages 669683 Christine, H. (2012). Crisis Information Management. Communication and Technologies, A volume in Chandos Information Professional Series, 2012 Hayes, B. Kotwica, K. (2013). Crisis Management at the Speed of the Internet, Trend Report, 2013 Semerciz, F. et.al (2015). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 207, 20 October 2015, Pages 149-156 Steve M, et.al. (2008). Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 159, Issue 1, 15 November 2008, Pages 92104 Tugba, F. Tugce, C. (2015). Leadership in Crisis Management: Separation of Leadership and Executive Concepts, Volume 26, 2015, Pages 695-701 Jeffery S. (2016). Business Horizons, Volume 59, Issue 4, Pages 359-450 (JulyAugust 2016) Tomer, S. (2015). Socializing in emergenciesA review of the use of social media in emergency situations, Volume 35, Issue 5, October 2015, Pages 609619 Joshua, A. (2016). Journal of International Money and Finance, Volume 66, Pages 1-170 (September