TERM POST - DISASTER RECOVERY
5.3. Conclusion: Recovery processes, as multi-time and scale processes
If in theory the recovery process aims to build a resilient society and prevent the creation of factors of vulnerability to disaster, the post-disaster period spotlights a number of challenges to the learning process. The (re)development of the north of Montserrat during and after the crisis plays a major role in determining the trajectory of the recovery process and its sustainability. New town development presupposes a conscious policy development and strategical plan (Rozdilsky, 2003). Gawronski & Olson (2013) qualifies the change being made during this period as a “critical juncture” as they trigger specific trajectories for development.
Once decisions are made, a trajectory is defined making more difficult to return to the stage of
“window of opportunity” (Birkmann et al., 2010) where several different trajectories for learning and improving were still available.
The redevelopment of the four neighborhoods illustrates the complexity of the recovery process. The first difficulty results from the emergency of rebuilding to relocate the displaced population, qualified as “time-compression” of the decision-making for recovery (Olshansky et al., 2012). This period is marked by the necessity to decide and act quickly to respond to the emergency. However if the rebuilding can go fast, some other dimensions of the recovery process such as the regeneration of social capital and cultural identity takes more time. Yet the emergency of the situation and the limited resources have prevented the adoption of an approach that considers all the dimensions of the recovery process and their interactions, both in the short and long-term (McEntire, Fuller, Johnston, & Weber, 2002; Natural Hazards Center, 2001; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008). The physical and social differences between Lookout and Davy Hill, two neighborhoods developed in similar conditions but in different ways, highlight the long-term issues arising from a lack of early planning. While Lookout benefited from longer-term planning, the other neighborhoods studied here lacked a planned strategy for recovery, being rather the outcome of a succession of reactive decisions and changes. This contributes to make them more dependent on the financial, human and social resources becoming gradually available, or not, and to postpone the consideration of long-term issues such as social cohesion and disaster risk reduction. It refers to the notion of “reactive resilience”, that “approaches the future by strengthening the status quo and making the present system resistant to change” (Dovers and Handmer, 1992, in Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003, p.39).
The resistance to change is not only due to the emergency of the decision-making but also to a conscious decision linked to the influence of the representation of what Montserrat used to be. Among decision-makers and Montserratian citizens, there is a strong willingness to restore what is seen as the past identity of the Island. It generates efforts for bonding the social networks among Montserratians, highly disrupted during the crisis. In that sense, it corresponds to a vision where recovery is considered as the rehabilitation of the pre-disaster
“normalcy”, or more exactly of the collective representation of what was the normalcy. The post-disaster change, including the demographic change and the new drivers of vulnerability to disaster, are not seen as part of the new identity of the Island, nor part of the characteristics to consider for adaptation. The role of social networks and social reorganization is often seen as a coping mechanism after a disaster instead as a major factor to build resilience on long-term (Djalante et al., 2011). In the meantime the rebuilding is also seen mainly as a way to cope with the lack of infrastructure rather than a way to determine the recovery strategies (Rozdilsky, 2003). In Montserrat, it seems that the decisions made to determine further development are essentially reactive to cope to the destruction, and shaped on the collective representation of what the past was and aimed to create this ideal. Not only has it prevented proactive decision-making for recovery, it also appears to deliberately ignore the post-disaster change that does not fit this this past identity.
It demonstrates a gap between the recommendations of the recent research on recovery and the implementation of the post-disaster measures by policy-makers and affected people.
Research has shown the importance of adopting pro-active measures taking into account the post-disaster change (Bassett & Fogelman, 2013; Djalante et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2003;
Manyena, 2006; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008), and the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach that does not focus only on the physical reconstruction (Hayashi, 2007; Hettige & Haigh, 2016; Lawther, 2016; Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). Yet in Montserrat, the recovery management fails to understand the complexity of the interactions between spatial scales, in other words between the development of neighbourhood and the recovery process at the national scale, between different network levels, and between temporal scales, in the sense that it focuses mainly on short-term (Cash &
Moser, 2000).
The reactive measures implemented in Montserrat threaten the sustainability of the recovery process and the resilience of the society. A system is considered resilient when it has the capacity to “self-organize, learn and adapt” (Djalante et al., 2011, p.3). Self-organization implies the “ability to maintain and recreate its identity and to buffer itself from outside impacts”, while the ability to learn and adapt corresponds to the ability “to achieve its management objectives better over time and adjust those control measures should the context change” (Djalante et al., 2011, p.3). Montserrat on the contrary expresses a resistance to the context change and a focus only on the recreation of its identity. I have demonstrated in this chapter that little is done to encourage bridging social networks, at the scale of the neighbourhood or at the national scale. That prevents the building of social cohesion between communities. Yet other research, particularly based on Putnam’s work, have emphasized the greater importance of bridging social networks on the long-term recovery rather than the bonding social network (Cheong et al., 2007; Djalante et al., 2011; Hawkins & Maurer, 2010, 2011; Leonard, 2004; Macnab et al., n.d.). It enables better relationships, coordination of the activities and broader scope of actions. As bonding social networks among the Montserratian community tends to be exclusive (Macnab et al., n.d.) towards the non-Montserratian, it contributes to marginalize the latter, already in a vulnerable situation due to their immigrant status (Guadagno, 2015; Guadagno et al., 2017). The recovery pathway of Montserrat therefore tends to create new drivers of vulnerability, failing to learn from the past disaster and to build-back-better.
In Chapter Six, I will further explore the process of marginalization of the immigrant communities, in spite of their major role in the recovery process. In Chapter Seven, I will examine the role of the memory and collective representation in the risk management and risk communication strategies.