Assessing non-metro recovery across two continents: issues and limitations

Abstract

Rural and remote areas of countries such as Australia and the United States are less well-resourced and often poorer than their city counterparts. When a disaster strikes, therefore, their long-term recovery can be impeded by being situated ‘over the horizon'. Nonetheless, they are likely to enjoy higher social capital, with ‘locals’ banding together to help restore economic and social life in the wake of a calamitous incident. At the same time, a repeat of extreme events, springing in part from alteration to the landscape through intense human occupation, threatens to derail sustainable recovery processes everywhere, suggesting that renewed emphasis needs to be placed on preparedness. Improved metrics are also required, spanning both pre- and post-disaster phases, to determine effectiveness. Moreover, a focus on the ‘hardening’ of towns offers a better return in limiting damage and potentially hastens the speed of recovery should these places later fall victim to extreme events.