Recovery evaluation of villages reconstructed with concentrated rural settlement after the Wenchuan earthquake
- PDF / 941,447 Bytes
- 28 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 105 Downloads / 192 Views
Recovery evaluation of villages reconstructed with concentrated rural settlement after the Wenchuan earthquake Yi Peng1 · Xinbing Gu1 · Xiaoting Zhu2 · Fuyin Zhang2 · Yan Song3 Received: 25 September 2017 / Accepted: 20 August 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract As a rural development approach, concentrated rural settlement (CRS) was used for rural reconstruction when Wenchuan earthquake opened the opportunity window of quick and wide implementation. Although CRS has both proponents and critics, few studies have investigated the recovery success of villages reconstructed with CRS. This research gap has resulted in insufficient theoretical guidance for the practice of CRS and inefficient summarization and transfer of relevant experiences. This study therefore aims to measure the recovery success of three villages reconstructed with CRS located in the hardest-hit areas of the Wenchuan earthquake. Full-permutation polygon synthetic indicator method is adopted to evaluate the recovery success of the three case villages from the economic, social, environmental and disaster relief aspects. It is found that the three case villages have good overall recovery performances as economic, social, and environmental aspects improved a lot from 2008 to 2015, whereas the disaster relief recovery performance increased at the first several years but dramatically decreased at the later years. The implications inferred from the case studies are discussed in detail. This study provides a reference to local governments for monitoring CRS development and for improving recovery of villages reconstructed with CRS. Keywords Concentrated rural settlement (CRS) · Recovery evaluation · Full permutation polygon synthetic indicator (FPPSI) method · Wenchuan earthquake
1 Introduction Post-disaster recovery is critical in bringing a disaster area back to a level of routine social and economic activity (Quarantelli, 1999; Frazier et al. 2013a, b). According to the EM-DAT database (2019), natural disasters have caused USD 3.42 trillion in losses and displaced 174.40 million individuals from 1900 to 2018. Each huge disaster has damaged and disrupted the built environment, socioeconomic systems and institutions (Adger et al. 2005). Such damage and disruption have long-lasting effects on disaster * Yi Peng [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Natural Hazards
areas. Constrained by disrupted resources and networks, safety considerations, and victims’ eagerness to return home, the time for post-disaster recovery (PDR) is usually tight. Therefore, reactive policies and recovery projects, generated under urgent pressures, usually focus on quick restoration of affected areas (Ingram et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2006; Olshansky et al. 2012). Under pressure, recovery may fail to mitigate disaster and cause vulnerability in disaster areas. In the long term, unsuccessful recovery may even amplify the social, economic and environmental weaknesses that change natural hazards in
Data Loading...
