Community Response 163

According to the literature review, the community was given preliminary information and ignored as active partners. Davidson's study (2006) proved that there existed variation in community participation among different countries. As a result, community participation have been inconsistent in disaster recovery due to different types of influence/power relationships from ad hoc to empowerment. Bolin (2006) noted that local community agencies were forced to help find temporary housing for low-income residents, who may or may not be impacted in the 1989 Loma Prieta’s earthquake when the government could not provide assistance. In another example during the Hurricane Katrina in 2011, Bretherton (2011) stated that people responded as families saving other families, then groups of volunteers with cars, trucks and boats rescuing strangers. Similarly during the Hurricane Sandy in 2015, the first weeks after Hurricanes Sandy struck, volunteers and community members became the rescuers, caretakers and the final comforting companions to the dying. They were the first and often remain the sole line of response for weeks (Brennan, 2005).

Interviewee information gives a different dynamics of community response from San Francisco and Christ Church. One should not ignore the literature review because of the

- 164 -

case studies selected. San Francisco and Chrish Church disaster recovery were based on lessons learned. Strengths in number, power recognition, working knowledge of government processes, community networks, thinking SMART, and hiker analogy are community responses to stressors and disasters in San Francisco. For the community to be heard they must be recognized by the Project Manager, government and funding agencies. Strengths of community when responding to disasters is based on being large in number (see Section 4.3.2.5) and act in uniform and consistent manner. Strength in numbers, network and reliable information has made the community been recognized as a major stakeholder in the project through a power relationship with the government so that the way they respond is of one unified voice. The power recognition (see Section 4.3.2.4) is established when the government acknowledges the community.

The emphasis was on community prior experience which is shaped by community residents who lived in the community for a period of time (see Section 4.3.2.2). How the community interacts is impacted by such activities as by street design, neighborhood layout, stores, schools, community centers, parks and recreation centers. Such interactions helps the way community respond during a disaster. What works and does not work is the insight that community members can offer to Project Managers and governments.

Prior experience (see Section 4.3.2.2, 4.4.1.1) with the government indicates the community has limiting power. Limiting power is based upon the funds accessible by the community through direct funds or funds matching. The funders, such as the government and International Banks, have final say. As shown with FEMA future directions, the first 72 hours the community is on its own; the community must take care of itself. The original philosophy that government takes care of its people is limited by available money and resources through taxes.

The capacity of the community to respond was based on the community's coping, response and adaptive capacities (Cretney, 2016). The importance of social participation as an avenue to build relationships between community organizations and higher-level governance institutions allow for communities to take some level of ownership and control.

- 165 -

This reinforces the importance of moving away from the command and control approach that has focused on an intensive role of State and governance actors, relegating individuals and communities to passive roles in response and recovery (Singh-Peterson, 2015; Prior, 2013).

Interviewee SF_P_1 used the Hiker analogy (see Section 4.3.2.3) to explain how

community members can effectively respond and work after a disaster: “Make do

(repurpose and use things smartly) such as a hole in can serve many purposes. Educate the smart things to repurpose items: other ways to achieve the goals. Resources are smartly effectively used”. The hiker analogy is applicable for short term needs within the disaster relief and disaster recovery phases. On a longer-term basis for the community members, finances and economics need to be addressed.

Community response is shaped by previous historical experience (see Section 4.4.1.1) on the frequencies of disasters and the community’s historical past. In the case of Christ Church public recorded history goes back a couple of hundred years. In the case of Christ Church, the emphasis how to recover from the damages from the disaster through work groups (see Section 4.4.1.3) on addressing issues that have not been covered by the

government. Community work groups proved to be very effective and received

international recognition for their work.

In Christ Church, the emphasis was on community input which is shaped by community residents who lived in the community for a period of time. How the community interacts is impacted by such activities as by street design, neighborhood layout, stores, schools, community centers, parks and recreation centers. Such interactions helps the way community respond during a disaster. What works and does not work is the insight that community members can offer to Project Managers and governments. In addition to input is community access to fund-raising (see Section 4.4.1.2) and community work groups (see Section 4.4.1.3) helping in the recovery. Therefore the community members and businesses within the community provided funding in addition to the government. Providing funding makes the community a very important stakeholder in disaster recovery projects.

- 166 -

In summary, historical experience of disasters, community work groups, community funding initiatives and community residents were identified community responses in Christchurch. In the case of San Francisco, strengths in number, power recognition, working knowledge of government processes, community networks, thinking SMART, and hiker analogy are community responses to stressors and disasters in San Francisco.