Σχεδιασμός του χώρου και αντισεισμική προστασία στην Ελλάδα

Abstract

Earthquake disaster reduction has to respond to long and short term pressures that generate vulnerability and risk. It therefore relates to an array of fields in their spatial and temporal dynamics and involves many disciplines. The thesis examines earthquake protection in Greece as regards its comprehensiveness and the range of sectors and disciplines it engages. To do this it examines the relation of earthquake protection with spatial planning. In addition the thesis explores the hypothesis "disaster as a window of opportunity" for comprehensive interventions towards reconstruction. For this it looks into the reconstruction of Kalamata city (S. Peloponnese) after the 1986 earthquake disaster - that is considered a successful case in Greece - in order to identify conditions and circumstances that contributed to success. To tackle these issues the thesis first exhausts relevant bibliographic, statistical and other written sources. Taking into account the outcome it then proceeds to research with interviews based on open ended questions to key informants. At a second stage the thesis utilizes in depth interviews to informants that played a key role in the reconstruction of Kalamata city. The thesis is structured as follows. First it studies the state of the art both in theory and policies. It discusses core concepts and theoretical approaches in the field of hazards and disasters. It brings up the relation of the field of natural hazards with those of development and of the environment, climate change especially. It touches on current dynamics between the sectors of safety and security and on research and policies concerning disasters and crises. It explores the issue of risk governance. It then discusses disaster geography and the influence of geographical tools and systems in understanding better the spatial dimensions of risk and disaster. Furthermore it examines policies and practices of the UN, USA, Japan and the EU in order to identify current trends and to draw the international context within which earthquake protection in Greece develops. Next, the thesis focuses in earthquake protection in Greece especially in the last 30 years. Looking into a series of earthquake disasters of this period it attempts to trace how the present system of earthquake protection was gradually put in place. Moreover it examines the institutional framework, policies and practices that form it and outlines its main features and future trends. The relation of spatial planning with earthquake protection then comes into focus. An outline of the current state of spatial planning in Greece is attempted and its links with earthquake protection are investigated. In order to better explore this relationship interviews are conducted with key informers. These were selected so as to have experience from different phases of an earthquake disaster, to have assumed various roles in the academia and research, in decision making, in the administration, in the private sector and in professional chambers and from the disciplines of planners, civil engineers and geoscientists. Finally the reconstruction of Kalamata after the 1986 earthquakes is studied starting from the pre-disaster situation to emergency response and aid provision, recovery and reconstruction till today. Substantial steps forward in earthquake protection policies and practices in Greece as well as in the reconstruction of Kalamata itself are identified, as well as drawbacks. Furthermore, opinions and experiences of key persons were utilized in order to pinpoint the fundamental conditions allowing a comprehensive approach to reconstruction. Earthquake protection has been recognized as a priority for Greece about thirty years ago. Step by step a framework for earthquake protection was developed including an administrative structure mainly under the responsibility of what is called today Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works, legislation referring to all phases of an earthquake disaster, policies, practices and experience. Although started with a broad comprehensive approach, earthquake protection was eventually attuned targeting on the one hand seismic safety of buildings and infrastructure and on the other emergency response, aid provision and the restoration of damaged building stock and infrastructure. For the most part earthquake mitigation is focused on buildings and their owners and employs building codes as the main tool, primarily the seismic design code. This approach could reduce earthquake risk to the built environment in the long run depending on a number of factors such as the rate of building renewal and under uncertainties related with the seismic design code itself as a tool for mitigation. Crucial links with other sectors, such as development, public administration, tourism, transport and even spatial planning seem feeble. Spatial planning is weakly linked with earthquake protection although both are in the responsibility of the same Ministry. The main institutional link is the mandatory geological study of soil suitability that should be taken into account in urban planning. Gateways towards more converge can be detected though in the legislation concerning both building design (seismic and other) and spatial planning. Yet those are fractional and some never reach application. Planners, civil engineers and geoscientists are involved in earthquake protection at different extent and in different domains, with civil engineers dominating and geologists claiming their specific part. Planners see their role as holistic and overall and earthquake protection as a task that primarily relates with geology and the ground. Other topics relating with earthquake risk at an area or city level are left out with the exception of emergency evacuation that is considered part of urban planning at an abstract level but it is normally not part of spatial plans. Earthquake protection is seen relevant mainly at the level of urban planning. Opting for seismic safety at a building level is somehow considered sufficient and therefore not a key task for spatial planning especially when it has to meet a vast spectrum of challenges in Greece. Nor formal education of planners or their practice later support concerns for disaster reduction. Nonetheless, opportunities for building up awareness and develop connections with other disciplines, formally or informally, can be identified. Some of the means mentioned are news about earthquake disasters, personal networking, research programs, participation in earthquake disaster response and the experience from urban planning in the '80s that compel specifications concerning disaster protection. The prospects for a more multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach to earthquake mitigation do not seem positive. Having previously set a system in place earthquake protection is no longer a national priority. Starting with the establishment of the National Secretariat of Civil Protection there is a shift from a sole-hazard approach focusing on earthquakes and tackling all phases of a disaster to a multi-hazard approach that for the time been is focusing on the emergency phase. Experience and knowledge gathered in the field of earthquake protection currently affects disaster protection in various ways. Even so disaster reduction does not seem to infiltrate sectoral policies or to attract the concern of other disciplines, including planners. Environmental protection offers a basis for a more comprehensive approach to disaster protection through policies and measures pushed by the EU and incorporated in the Greek legislation. Although sustainable development is a platform for bringing together disaster reduction with spatial planning this is presently invalidated by administrative drawbacks, segregation of disciplines, lack of awareness and certainties as regards adequacy of seismic design of buildings to prevent earthquake disasters. Even so there were cases of more comprehensive reconstruction integrating urban planning, development programming, social concerns and earthquake risk mitigation. The most known is this of Kalamata city after the 1986 earthquakes. Earthquake protection was up in the national agenda at this time. Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization of Greece was established with a unanimous decision of the Greek Parliament only three years earlier and had already started to take earthquake protection forward. Kalamata itself was in the course of transformation before the event. The Municipality was in attendance, dynamic and inclusive and the central government was promoting changes at a local level as regards, among others, decentralization of government, environment, planning and culture. The urban plan of Kalamata was passed shortly before the earthquake and was elaborated by a group of planners working together with the Municipality for many years. The plan was closely linked with developmental programming and had a farseeing social edge. The 1986 earthquake disaster happened in this context. Earthquake response, recovery and reconstruction toned with previous local and national dynamics. The Municipality of Kalamata assumed a core role in the reconstruction putting into effect previous planning and capacity building. The central government bet on effectively applying the fresh earthquake protection approach and the not long acquired knew-how. Placement of strong personalities in decision making positions, technical and scientific support and inspired practitioners played a significant role after the earthquake, but this condition was not initiated by the disaster. In the case under examination it seems that pre-disaster dynamism and overall circumstances were the base supporting a successful reconstruction. A more comprehensive approach towards economic development, urban planning and protection of cultural assets were already in place and was not triggered by the disaster; rather it was expressed during the reconstruction. All the above considered the "window of opportunity" hypothesis does not seem to be supported in the case of Kalamata. But then again could a disaster alone generate multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approaches? Disasters are not unique situations that radically alter long- standing processes and socio-economic dynamics to create change but the outcome of a combination of nature and society. There are no magic solutions; The way ahead towards disaster reduction should be searched in transforming the underlying intertwining social and economic processes that generate vulnerabilities.