Community Resilience, Capitals, and Power Relations

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Community Resilience, Capitals, and Power relations: Stories from the Waimakariri District about the aftermath of the 2010-2011Canterbury Earthquakes in New Zealand. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Resource and Environmental Planning at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand. Martín García Cartagena 2019 ABSTRACT Situated on the southern Pacific Rim, New Zealand’s seismic profile has long posed risks for New Zealand communities. In this geological context, fostering community resilience to natural hazards is vital and resilience is beginning to be mainstreamed into New Zealand’s planning and emergency management systems. However, a challenge emerges: how can the complex and contested concept of community resilience be operationalised in practice? This thesis addresses this question by critically evaluating how community resources and assets can be framed as community capitals, and exploring how these were mobilised in the Waimakariri District; an area affected by the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A novel conceptual framework, the Community Resilience Capitals Framework, is developed on the basis of a literature review on resilience and capitals integrating Social-Ecological Systems theory, community resilience theory, and multi-capital frameworks. The research was underpinned by social constructionism, framed by a critical inquiry perspective and conducted using a Community-Based Participatory design. A mixed-methods approach was applied to explore the breadth and depth of Waimakariri post-Canterbury earthquake recovery stories. Purposive and snowballing methods were used to identify and recruit 51 research participants. Data collection methods included a pilot study, case studies, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Data were subjected to content and narrative analyses; informed by the theories of Bourdieu, Foucault, and Harré. Research findings show that capitals tend to be theorised as a variety of compartmentalised static concepts. However, physical capitals, such as built and economic capitals, and metaphysical capitals, such as symbolic, cultural, social, political and moral capitals, are accrued, assembled, and mobilised by actors shaping complex capital networks. Those who have or are able to mobilise the largest assemblages of capitals position themselves and others who have accrued less capital within the hierarchically structured fields of disaster response, recovery and regeneration. It is an actor’s position within the fields that gives them the legitimacy (symbolic capital) to influence matters (central position), or be subjected to dominant actors (marginal positions). Multiple exemplars to illustrate capital accrual and field positioning are explored in this thesis such as central governments’ reliance on the insurance and reinsurance sectors’ economic capital to stabilise New Zealand’s iii financial markets. Consequently, insurance-related stakeholders were imbued with significant political capital and able to determine the priorities for earthquake recovery, while local communities’ priorities were marginalised. Key findings of this research indicate that physical and metaphysical capitals are selectively accrued as well as mobilised by actors positioned in the fields of disaster risk reduction, in order to influence negotiations pertaining to well-being and resilience priorities. Imbalances in capital accrual by actors fuel inequities in community resilience building processes. This research has identified that the complex nature of capitals and the ways they are mobilised to facilitate community wellbeing are not adequately acknowledged in prevailing emergency management and planning practices. The Community Resilience Capitals Framework reveals the complex nature of capital interactions and can be used to reveal how equitable and inclusive local community resilience building processes are in practice, in a place- and context-sensitive manner. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I would like to acknowledge and thank my family in Uruguay, especially my mother, sister and two nieces who have always provided endless love and support encouraging and inspiring me to grow personally and professionally despite of the physical distance. This research was co-funded by the Massey University Doctoral Scholarship and the Quake CoRE Plus Doctoral Scholarship. Without this funding, this thesis simply would not exist. Futhermore, Quake CoRE provided a funded six-month extension which made the final stage of thesis submission significantly less stressfull and challenging. I will be eternally grateful to Massey University and Quake CoRE for choosing to financially support this research and to their staff for providing the administrative support to operationalise the scholarships and the research. I would also like to thank my main supervisor Professor Bruce Glavovic with whom I have worked for the past five years. In designing, implementing and completing this Ph.D. we have encountered numerous challenges, yet in collaboration we have always found ways to not only overcome the challenges, but also turn them into opportunities. Bruce has always encouraged me to stretch my abilities beyond what I thought was possible. His patience and flexibility created nourishing learning conditions which were essential to take ownership of my own research and complete this thesis in a creative and meaningful way. Furthermore, Bruce and his whānau offered their hospitality in numerous occasions and welcomed me (and my dog) in Palmerston North and Ashhurst always with open arms, meaningful conversations, and amazing food, wine, and coffee. I will always be grateful to Bruce and his whānau for their ever present emotional and professional support. In addition, I would like to acknowledge and thank my co-supervisors Assistant Professor Christine Kenney, Professor Iain White, and Dr. Corrina Tucker. Christine’s constant, unparalleled, and deeply caring support made me feel safe while navigating through the world of qualitative research which was novel to me. Her patience to explain and provide detailed feedback on the evolving chapters was of essential importance for my learning process. The extensive amount of time and effort Christine devoted to this Ph.D. process deserves a special debt of gratitude. Furthermore, through her active role and connections to Quake CoRE, and the Joint Centre for Disaster Research she facilitated opportunities to connect with the broader community of emerging and senior disaster vresearchers in New Zealand. I will be always in debt with Christine for her support and care. Iain’s timely participations were always challenging me to think more broadly about complexity and the ‘messiness’ of the world. His contributions were key to acknowledge the limitations of this humble piece of research whilst also improving its quality. I am very grateful to have counted with Iain as part of the supervisory team. Finally, Corrina provided extremely valuable advice during the construction of the conceptual framework. Her warm and gentle delivery of strong comments and observations was exceptional and allowed to progress work with confidence. Together, this supervisory team provided an inspirational and safe learning environment that both enabled and challenged me to move beyond my comfort zone into unknown intellectual territories. I am and will always be eternally grateful to all of them for their support and encouragement. I am deeply grateful to the people of the Waimakariri for receiving me so warmly in their communities and for sharing their experiences in such an open way through-out the course of the fieldwork. To respect privacy and anonymity, I will not provide names, but I would like to give a special thanks to the Waimakariri District Council staff members who helped with the participant recruitment process, their dedication and generosity should be specially acknowledged. In addition, I would like to express a very special thanks to the local mana whenua, Ngāi Tūāhuriri who also received me with generosity and meaningful interactions at multiple levels. Joining in conversations and sharing experiences with doctoral and post-doctoral colleagues provided an important feeling of belonging to a broader disasters research community which was important to frame this thesis as a small part of a broader national whole of ongoing and complementary disaster research efforts. This is why I would like to thank many of my Ph.D. colleagues such as; Lisa McLaren, Marion Lara Tan, Sara Harrison, Ashleigh Rushton and Syed Yasir Imtiaz from the Joint Centre for Disaster Research at Massey University; and Shakti Raj Shrestha and David Wither from the Centre for Sustainability at University of Otago; and many others with whom I have had deep conversations and exchange of creative and critical ideas. Spaces like the Quake CoRE Annual Meetings, the Quake CoRE Flagship 5 monthly meetings, and the Disastrous Doctorates Workshops were also key spaces for these interactions to unfold and develop. Additionally, I would like to thank some post-doctoral fellows who have also provided meaningful conversational spaces to discuss the multiple dimensions and layers of disasters; Dr. Paul Schneider, Dr. Shinya Uekusa, and Dr. Maria Kornakova. I will always be grateful for the time spent together and their critical perspectives. vi Thanks to my international colleagues Dr. Gabriela Alonso-Yanes from University of Calgary and Dr. Lily House-Peters from California State University at Long Beach who have given me so much love and confidence. Gabriela and Lily have been incredibly patient and supportive of my Ph.D. endeavors while collaborating on a number of other research projects and publications. I will be forever in debt with them and can only hope that our research collaborations continue to blossom as they have to date. Thanks to the researchers from Centro Interdisciplinario de Respuesta al Cambio y Variabilidad Climática from Universidad de la República in Uruguay for providing financial aid to travel to Uruguay and the space to present preliminary results of my research to a wide audience in my home country. I owe a great deal of gratitude to this research center and words will never suffice to express how much I appreciate the support they provided over the years. Having emotional support networks outside from the academic world was essential to find much needed reinvigoration and motivation outside of the Ph.D. work and academic life. This is why I would also like to thank my very dear friends from Uruguay Andrés, Mariana, Amanda, Seba and Patri (and their whānau), and Cami and Lisi (and their whānau), and Tincho who have always encouraged me to follow my dreams, and have taught me and continue to teach me the ways of freedom and love. Without their help and constant communications and support from afar I would simply not be able to be in New Zealand. I would also like to thank all my friends in New Zealand. I’d like to thank Myrtha, who provided so much support during the transition from Uruguay to New Zealand and was always there through the beginning of this process. I would also like to give a special thanks to my dear friend ‘Gilly’ and his whānau without whom I would not have a roof over my head just around the corner from perfect surf breaks, and a supportive environment that saw me through some very tough times. I would also like to thank Adam, Jacopo and ‘Bea’, and the whole ‘Wavehaven crew’ for always managing to lure me out of my Ph.D. cave into the world for some climbing, surfing, music, dancing and late nights at Ian’s. It is important to also acknowledge and thank my friends Andrew and Gemma Mantala (and their entire whānau) from Rangiora who hosted me during my fieldwork in Waimakariri. The ‘White Street Crew’ (Andrew, Gemma, Simon, Charles, and Link) also provided important emotional support, endless laughter, and alcohol infused weekend nights to unwind, energize, and continue on with the Ph.D. work. And penultimately, I’d like to thank Nicole, whose company, encouragement, perspective, and love saw me through the last and hardest part of the entire Ph.D. process. Without the emotional and spiritual support of all these people, this thesis would not have been completed. vii And last, but perhaps most importantly, I would like to express my eternal debt of gratitude to Chicha. I would not be who I am, I would not be where I am, and I would have definitely not have completed this Ph.D. if it wasn’t for her and her way of teaching me on a daily basis that everything and anything is possible with love, commitment, and hard work. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS <a href="#4_0">ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................iii </a><a href="#6_0">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... v </a><a href="#10_0">TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................ix </a><a href="#16_0">LIST OF TABLE</a><a href="#16_0">S</a><a href="#16_0">.</a><a href="#16_0">..................................................................................................................................xv </a><a href="#17_0">LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................xvi </a><a href="#19_0">LIST OF ACRONYM</a><a href="#19_0">S</a><a href="#19_0">.</a><a href="#19_0">.......................................................................................................................</a><a href="#19_0">.</a><a href="#19_0">x</a><a href="#19_0">viii </a><a href="#23_0">CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 </a> <a href="#23_1">1.1. Overview</a><a href="#23_1"> </a><a href="#23_1">............................................................................................................................. 1 </a><a href="#23_2">1.2. Research</a><a href="#23_2"> </a><a href="#23_2">context and justification...................................................................................... 1 </a><a href="#27_0">1.3. Aims</a><a href="#27_0"> </a><a href="#27_0">and objectives ............................................................................................................ 5 </a><a href="#28_0">1.4. Chapter outline ........................................................................................................................ 6 </a> <a href="#28_1">1.4.1. Literature review: Community resilience and capitals (Chapter 2) .................................. 6 </a><a href="#28_2">1.4.2. The 2010/2011Canterbury earthquake sequence and its social-ecological implications </a><a href="#28_2">(Chapter 3) .................................................................................................................................. 6 </a><a href="#29_0">1.4.3. Methodological framework (Chapter 4) ........................................................................... 7 </a><a href="#29_1">1.4.4. Capitals in the field of immediate response (Chapter 5) .................................................. 7 </a><a href="#30_0">1.4.5. Capitals in the field of recovery (Chapter 6) ..................................................................... 8 </a><a href="#0_0">1.4.6. Capitals in the field of regeneration (Chapter 7) .............................................................. 9 </a><a href="#0_1">1.4.7. Conclusion (Chapter 8</a><a href="#0_1">)</a><a href="#0_1">.</a><a href="#0_1">................................................................................................... 10 </a> <a href="#0_2">CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW: COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND CAPITALS ................................. 12 </a> <a href="#0_3">2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 12 </a><a href="#0_4">2.2. Key concepts .......................................................................................................................... 13 </a> <a href="#0_5">2.2.1. Resilience......................................................................................................................... 14 </a><a href="#0_6">2.2.2. Social-ecological resilience.............................................................................................. 15 </a><a href="#0_7">2.2.3. Community resilience...................................................................................................... 18 </a><a href="#0_2">2.2.4. Community resilience models and community capitals ................................................. 25 </a> <a href="#0_8">2.3. The ‘capitals’ concept: a critical review </a><a href="#0_8">................................................................................. 27 </a>ix <a href="#0_9">2.3.1. Capital.............................................................................................................................. 28 </a><a href="#0_10">2.3.2. The core capitals ............................................................................................................. 29 </a><a href="#0_11">2.2.3. Integrated multi-capital frameworks .............................................................................. 37 </a><a href="#0_12">2.2.4. Emerging forms of capitals.............................................................................................. 40 </a> <a href="#0_10">2.4. Community Resilience Capital Framework ............................................................................ 45 </a><a href="#0_13">2.5. Conclusio</a><a href="#0_13">n</a><a href="#0_13">.</a><a href="#0_13">............................................................................................................................. 49 </a> <a href="#0_2">CHAPTER 3 - THE 2010/2011 CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE AND ITS SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL </a><a href="#0_2">IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 51 </a><a href="#0_14">3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 51 </a><a href="#0_15">3.2. The Shaky Isles: A New Zealand earthquake prone contex</a><a href="#0_15">t</a><a href="#0_15">.</a><a href="#0_15">................................................. 52 </a><a href="#0_16">3.3. Canterbury demographic and economic context .................................................................. 53 </a><a href="#0_17">3.4. The September 4</a>th 2010 Darfield earthquake........................................................................ 54 <a href="#0_18">3.4.1. The September 4th 2010 Darfield earthquake: CDEM Act 2002 and immediate response </a><a href="#0_18">in the Greater Christchurch Area .............................................................................................. 54 </a><a href="#0_2">3.4.2. The Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002, Canterbury </a><a href="#0_2">Earthquake Response and Recovery (CERR) Act 2010, and recovery in the Greater </a><a href="#0_2">Christchurch Area following the September 4th 2010 Darfield earthquake ............................ 57 </a><a href="#0_19">3.5. The February 22</a>nd 2011 Christchurch Earthquake................................................................. 63 <a href="#0_20">3.5.1. The February 22</a><a href="#0_20">nd </a>2011 Christchurch earthquake: CDEM Act 2002 and responses in the <a href="#0_20">Greater Christchurch Area ........................................................................................................ 65 </a><a href="#0_20">3.5.2. The February 22nd 2011 Christchurch earthquake: CDEM Act 2002, CER Act 2011 and </a><a href="#0_20">recovery in the Greater Christchurch Area ............................................................................... 67 </a><a href="#0_21">3.6. The 2017 Greater Christchurch Post-Earthquake Situation................................................... 76 </a><a href="#0_22">3.7. Conclusio</a><a href="#0_22">n</a><a href="#0_22">.</a><a href="#0_22">............................................................................................................................. 80 </a> <a href="#0_2">CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK. .............................................................................. 82 </a> <a href="#0_3">4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 82 </a><a href="#0_23">4.2. Epistemolog</a><a href="#0_23">y</a><a href="#0_23">.</a><a href="#0_23">......................................................................................................................... 82 </a><a href="#0_6">4.3. Theoretical influence</a><a href="#0_6">s</a><a href="#0_6">.</a><a href="#0_6">........................................................................................................... 83 </a> <a href="#0_7">4.3.1. Pierre Bourdieu ............................................................................................................... 84 </a><a href="#0_5">4.3.2. Michel Foucaul</a><a href="#0_5">t</a><a href="#0_5">.</a><a href="#0_5">.............................................................................................................. 86 </a><a href="#0_2">4.3.3. Rom Harré ....................................................................................................................... 88 </a> <a href="#0_24">4.4. Methodolog</a><a href="#0_24">y</a><a href="#0_24">.</a><a href="#0_24">......................................................................................................................... 88 </a> <a href="#0_2">4.4.1. Community Based Participatory Researc</a><a href="#0_2">h</a><a href="#0_2">.</a><a href="#0_2">..................................................................... 89 </a>x <a href="#0_25">4.4.2. Mixed-method</a><a href="#0_25">s</a><a href="#0_25">.</a><a href="#0_25">.............................................................................................................. 90 </a> <a href="#0_26">4.5. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 91 </a> <a href="#0_27">4.5.1. Pilot study........................................................................................................................ 91 </a><a href="#0_28">4.5.2. Case studies..................................................................................................................... 92 </a><a href="#0_29">4.5.3. Snowball recruitment...................................................................................................... 94 </a><a href="#0_1">4.5.4. Semi-structured interview</a><a href="#0_1">s</a><a href="#0_1">.</a><a href="#0_1">............................................................................................ 94 </a><a href="#0_29">4.5.5. Focus grou</a><a href="#0_29">p</a><a href="#0_29">.</a><a href="#0_29">.................................................................................................................... 95 </a><a href="#0_30">4.5.6. Coding.............................................................................................................................. 95 </a><a href="#0_10">4.5.7. Content Analysis.............................................................................................................. 96 </a><a href="#0_31">4.5.8. Narrative analysi</a><a href="#0_31">s</a><a href="#0_31">.</a><a href="#0_31">........................................................................................................... 96 </a> <a href="#0_4">4.6. Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 97 </a> <a href="#0_32">4.6.1. Privacy ............................................................................................................................. 97 </a><a href="#0_5">4.6.2. Informed and voluntary consent..................................................................................... 98 </a><a href="#0_33">4.6.3. Anonymity and confidentialit</a><a href="#0_33">y</a><a href="#0_33">.</a><a href="#0_33">....................................................................................... 98 </a><a href="#0_25">4.6.4. Minimisation of potential harm to participants.............................................................. 99 </a><a href="#0_34">4.6.5. Challenges for the researcher ....................................................................................... 100 </a><a href="#0_28">4.6.6. Inconvenience and hazards........................................................................................... 101 </a> <a href="#0_35">4.7. Conducting research ............................................................................................................ 101 </a> <a href="#0_36">4.7.1. Participant recruitment: Snowball ................................................................................ 101 </a><a href="#0_37">4.7.2. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews and focus group...................................... 104 </a><a href="#0_2">4.7.3. Data processing: Transcription...................................................................................... 105 </a><a href="#0_28">4.7.4. Data interpretation and analysis: Coding, content analysis, and narrative analysis .... 105 </a><a href="#0_0">4.7.5. Research limitation</a><a href="#0_0">s</a><a href="#0_0">.</a><a href="#0_0">..................................................................................................... 110 </a> <a href="#0_2">4.8. Trustworthiness and reliability............................................................................................. 112 </a><a href="#0_38">4.9. Credibility and Fittingness.................................................................................................... 112 </a><a href="#0_39">4.10. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 113 </a> <a href="#0_2">CHAPTER 5 - CAPITALS IN THE FIELD OF IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ................................................... 115 </a> <a href="#0_40">5.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 115 </a><a href="#0_2">5.2. People and immediate response in the ‘Waimak’ </a><a href="#0_2">............................................................... 116 </a><a href="#0_2">5.3. </a><a href="#0_2">Kururú’s </a><a href="#0_2">narrative................................................................................................................. 120 </a> <a href="#0_41">5.3.1. Waimakariri Police and metaphysical capitals in the field of immediate response ..... 121 </a>

Community Resilience, Capitals, and Power Relations

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support