Filtering by
- All Subjects: disaster
- All Subjects: Floods
- Creators: Brundiers, Katja
- Status: Published
The research entailed the creation of a theoretical framework, synthesizing literature from disaster studies and sustainability transition studies, to enable cross-case comparison and the appraisal of sustainability outcomes (Chapter 1). The framework was applied to two empirical case studies of post-disaster recovery: the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia (Chapter 2), and the 2010-2012 series of earthquakes in the greater Christchurch area, New Zealand (Chapter 3).
The research revealed no systemic change towards sustainability in either case, although change towards sustainability was pursued in various areas, such as housing, educating, caring, and engaging in governance. Opportunities for sustainability emerged at different points following the disaster; change processes are ongoing. The sustainability changes were supported by “Sustainability Change Agents” (SCAs): people who were able to see and seize opportunities for change towards sustainability in the midst of disaster. SCAs were characterized as individuals with various attributes, starting with an ability to perceive opportunities, catalyze others to support this risk-taking endeavor, and stay in the endurance race. The study concludes with some recommendations for interventions to inform pre-disaster sustainability planning. These avenues include a toolbox and a curricular approach that would educate and enable students as future professionals to see and seize opportunities for change towards sustainability in disaster contexts (Chapter 4).
Restoration of riverine ecosystems is often stated as a management objective for regulated rivers, and floods are one of the most effective tools for accomplishing restoration. The National Re- search Council (NRC 1992) argued that ecological restoration means re- turning "an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance" and that "restoring altered, damaged, O f destroyed lakes, rivers, and wetlands is a high-priority task." Effective restoration must be based on a clear definition of the value of riverine resources to society; on scientific studies that document ecosystem status and provide an understanding of ecosystem processes and resource interactions; on scientific studies that predict, mea- sure, and monitor the effectiveness of restoration techniques; and on engineering and economic studies that evaluate societal costs and benefits of restoration.
In the case of some large rivers, restoration is not a self-evident goal. Indeed, restoration may be impossible; a more feasible goal may be rehabilitation of some ecosystem components and processes in parts of the river (Gore and Shields 1995, Kondolfand Wilcock 1996, Stanford et al. 1996). In other cases, the appropriate decision may be to do nothing. The decision to manipulate ecosystem processes and components involves not only a scientific judgment that a restored or rehabilitated condition is achievable, but also a value judgment that this condition is more desirable than the status quo. These judgments involve prioritizing different river resources, and they should be based on extensive and continuing public debate.
In this article, we examine the appropriate role of science in determining whether or not to restore or rehabilitate the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon by summarizing studies carried out by numerous agencies, universities, and consulting firms since 1983. This reach of the Colorado extends 425 km between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir (Figure 1). Efforts to manipulate ecosystem processes and components in the Grand Canyon have received widespread public attention, such as the 1996 controlled flood released from Glen Canyon Dam and the proposal to drain Lake Powell reservoir.