Recovery processes, different paces, different scales

The post-disaster recovery process takes place at different spatial scales, namely individual, community, village and national scale, at different temporal scales, and under different dimensions, such as physical, economic or social (Cash et al., 2006; Djalante et al., 2011; Gibson, Ostrom, & Ahn, 2000). The analysis of the growth, or evolution, of four villages in the post-disaster period, namely Davy Hill, Lookout, Cudjoe Head and Salem, highlights some major constraints towards leading a sustainable recovery process. It also illustrates the factors that affect the pace and trajectory of recovery in different places, and ultimately at the national scale.

5.1.5.1. Recovery constrained by the availability of resources and the pre-disaster system

While the post-disaster period is often presented as a “window of opportunity” to build-back-better and to take into consideration the lessons of the disaster, there are also a variety of challenges associated with this stage. The development of these four areas of Montserrat highlights how some major constraints prevent the creation of social cohesion between communities at the local and national scale, and thereby the sustainability of the recovery process. It also highlights that post-disaster recovery is not independent from the pre-disaster period. The dynamics already in place, such as the relationships between and within communities or the political situation of the territory, and the resources remaining available following the disaster strongly determine the shape and pathway of the post-disaster recovery.

The history and political condition of Montserrat, as a British Overseas Territory, a Small Island Developing State and a land of slavery in the past, affect in multiple ways the strategies of recovery of Montserrat and of its different neighborhoods. As explained previously, Davy Hill and Lookout have been developed due to support from external funding, and a lack of resources internally. Although rapid external support has enabled physical rebuilding, frequent complaints from residents have concerned the fact that the new settlements were not culturally adapted to the practices and habits in Montserrat (GoM, 2012b;

Pattullo, 2000). The strong situation of dependency of Montserrat therefore contributes to

determine the type of recovery process, notably the strong focus on the physical dimension of recovery and the relative negligence of its social aspects.

In the same vein, the traditional system of land division, in place for several generations and resulting essentially from its slavery history, also determines the recovery pathway. As we have seen previously, it constrains the growth of Lookout from private investments and limits the access to land in Cudjoe Head. The history and traditions of Montserrat, with large families and frequent emigration of some of their members, makes it difficult to sell land or use it for rapid investment, as land cannot be sold without the agreement of all members of the family.

That affects, by repercussion, the distribution of the population at the national scale, with areas comprising less than 10% of immigrants and some with almost half of their residents being immigrants, altering hence the possibilities of building social cohesion in a diversifying society.

That not only demonstrates the high interactions between different dimensions of the recovery process, but also that it is part of a long-term process, very connected to the pre-disaster situation.

5.1.5.2. Different paces and processes of recovery for different neighborhoods.

The analysis of the four neighborhoods highlights that the pace of recovery can differ highly from one place to another. It therefore prevents an examination of the post-disaster recovery at a specific time as an outcome, and requires instead to analyze the whole process.

In each village analyzed previously, one notes the emergence of various needs and socio-economic or physical conditions.

By comparing the situation of Davy Hill with Lookout or Cudjoe Head, one notices that it suffers from a relatively negative reputation. At the time of the study, it faces the adverse effects of unplanned and rapid development. However, this observation, by the inhabitants themselves, the social services and the Red Cross, leads to various initiatives at the local scale to counterbalance the situation. That includes for instance the construction of a community center, various works for an aesthetic improvement of the area, and since 2018 the increasing mobilization of the community action group. In the long-term, these efforts may therefore

improve the social situation of the neighborhood and favor social cohesion between communities. In Davy Hill, we observe therefore a succession of reactions potentially counterbalancing the cascading effects of the disaster and the lack of long-term planning.

A very different process is observed in Cudjoe Head and Salem, where the post-disaster development or redevelopment has been much more spontaneous. Although on the one hand, it appears to be smoother form of development; less artificial and culturally more adequate, there was no formal planning and multi-scale coordination of the needs and plans. This type of redevelopment tends to respond mainly to the short-term individual’s needs, especially physical and economic recovery at individual levels, depending on various constraints such as the availability of lands and their cost, and the time-compression (Olshansky et al., 2012). It makes coordination and consideration of the rapid demographic, economic and social change more difficult and fails to take into consideration the needs for long-term at national scale, including social recovery and inter-communities relationships.

Only Lookout benefited from the “window of opportunity” opened by the disaster as investments were rapidly made in order specifically to tackle the different dimensions of the recovery altogether, including building social cohesion, creating a sense of community, relocating people and rebuilding major infrastructures mainly. Although there is still place for improvement in terms of social cohesion between the inhabitants for instance, it demonstrates a faster pace of recovery at the local scale. That is essentially due to rapid investments, a more comprehensive approach of what recovery is, and a possibility of more coordination and planning as almost the whole neighborhood was built from the same funding and at the same time. It remains to see how this form of development affects the recovery process of the whole Island as it has so far contributed to a segregation of the population depending on whether they are Montserratian or not.

The development of the four neighborhoods therefore points out conflicts of spatial and time scales in the recovery process. It demonstrates how the physical aspect of the recovery takes priority over its social and human dimensions. The lack of coordination linked to the pressure for rapid solutions during the post-disaster period and due to the lack of resources can create favorable conditions to a downward spiral instead of an adaptive cycle (Bunce, Mee, Rodwell, & Gibb, 2009) which would enable resilience and reduction of the vulnerability to disaster. The development of each neighborhood demonstrates a willingness to reinforce

bonding social network among the Montserratian community especially instead of a bridging social network between the different groups. It demonstrates the willingness to “return to normal” and recreate the identity and the connectivity that existed in Montserrat before the crisis, while the society was more homogenous. That way, the recovery process of Montserrat fails to adapt to the new characteristics of the society and hence to build proactive resilience, characterized essentially by the adaptive capacities of a society (Djalante et al., 2011; Djalante, Holley, Thomalla, & Carnegie, 2013; Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003; Manyena, 2006).

The consequences of the development of bonding social network within the Montserratian community, being the majority community, may affect the sustainability of the development as the society becomes more diverse. Diverse studies have indeed shown the major importance of bridging social network for long-term recovery (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010, 2011) in order to support neighborhood and community revitalization. It has also been shown that strong internal bonds can compromise social cohesion, by excluding minority communities (Cheong et al., 2007; Leonard, 2004; Macnab et al., n.d.), contributing to marginalize them and hence to create conditions of vulnerability to disaster. In consequent, the development of Lookout, mainly based on the creation of a strong bonding social capital may compromise the opportunity to bridge the networks and build social cohesion.

5.2. Building-back-better: how that principle is implemented in the north of