L’Aquila, central Italy, and the “disaster cycle”, 2009-2017

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical examination of the aftermath of the L’Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009. It considers the elements of the recovery process that are unique or exceptional and endeavours to explain them. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on a survey and synthesis of the abundant literature on the disaster, coupled with observations from the author’s many visits to L’Aquila and personal involvement in the debates on the questions raised during the aftermath. Findings Several aspects of the disaster are unique. These include the use of large, well-appointed buildings as temporary accommodation and the efforts to use legal processes to obtain justice for alleged mismanagement of both the early emergency situation and faults in the recovery process. Research limitations/implications Politics, history, economics and geography have conspired to make the L’Aquila disaster and its aftermath a multi-layered event that poses considerable challenges of interpretation. Practical implications The L’Aquila case teaches first that moderate seismic events can entail a long and difficult process of recovery if the initial vulnerability is high. Second, for processes of recovery to be rational, they need to be safeguarded against the effects of political expediency and bureaucratic delay. Social implications Many survivors of the L’Aquila disaster have been hostages to fortune, victims as much of broader political and socio-economic forces than of the earthquake itself. Originality/value Although there are now many published analyses of the L’Aquila disaster, as the better part of a decade has elapsed since the event, there is value in taking stock and making a critical assessment of developments. The context of this disaster is dynamic and extraordinarily sophisticated, and it provides the key to interpretation of developments that otherwise would probably seem illogical.

The mechanism of disaster capitalism and the failure to build community resilience: learning from the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy

“…The recovery process has been severely criticised by numerous analysts (Frisch, 2010;Alexander, 2010Alexander, , 2013Alexander, , 2019Ozerdem and Rufini, 2013;Calandra, 2016;Contreras, Blasche, and Hodgson, 2017;Imperiale and Vanclay, 2019b). Furthermore, a European Parliament inquiry (Søndergaard, 2013) convened to consider misuse of the EUR 493.7 million provided under the European Union Solidarity Fund.…”

Shealing: Post‐disaster slow healing and later recovery

“…Similarly to the disaster process and the vulnerability process (Carrigan, 2015;Lewis, 1999), shealing through space and time recognises and includes the uneven but essential interconnectedness of people, places, environments, infrastructure, and services. The conceptual models of stages, phases, and cycles, often used to depict disasters, are less applicable (also shown by Alexander, 2019). Hazards and vulnerabilities are ever-present and vulnerabilities ought to be tackled as part of daily life to avoid them leading to a disaster when a hazard manifests (Hewitt, 1983;Lewis, 1999;Wisner et al, 2004).…”

“…Remaking of one's dwelling and consequently one's sense of self is an integral part of slow healing. For instance, remaking the structure of a house after disaster damage does not necessarily mean that livelihoods, services such as electricity and water, or feelings of dignity and security are present – nor does it mean that they were present before the disaster (Alexander, ; Davis, ; Davis & Alexander, ; Lewis, ).…”

Structural and Green Infrastructure Mitigation Alternatives Prevent Ciliwung River from Water-related Landslide

“…The challenges to disaster response and management are currently increasing [47]. Generally, the disaster risk management cycle has four stages, namely, prevention/mitigation, preparedness in the pre-disaster stage, emergency intervention, and recovery and reconstruction [48]. In the prevention/mitigation phase, efforts are made to prevent or mitigate damage.…”