combinations of the previously described movements). Along with the different types of fault earthquakes, volcanic related earthquakes are also significant. These are caused by the movement of magma beneath the Earth’s surface which can lead to earthquake swarms as well as more violent earthquakes. Such earthquake activity is often an indicator of potential eruptions, as in the case of Mount St Helens (Foxworthy & Hill, 1982) or Mount Etna (Martini & Platania, this volume)
Unlike many other types of disasters, earthquakes have the capacity to generate other deadly disasters other than those arising from ground shaking, liquefaction, building collapse and falling masonry, including tsunamis and landslides, as well as those arising from their effects on chemical, oil and nuclear facilities, such as nuclear meltdown in Fukushima as a result of a tsunami (Hasegawa, 2012; Rangel & Lévêque, 2014). Very often there is no early warning which makes it impossible to precisely anticipate the location and intensity of the earthquake (Tsai & Chen, 2010). Typically earthquakes are treated as acute events with relatively short periods of impact and response that transform in the recovery phase (Becker et al., 2019). However, this is somewhat misleading as not only may an earthquake sequence last for a considerable length of time, even years, as was the case of the Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand. Similarly, the rebuild, insurance and psychological impacts of earthquakes can last for many years, as was also the case of the Christchurch earthquakes (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Hall et al., 2016; Amore et al., 2017; Amore, this volume).
Disasters are human, environmental and economic tragedies (Rose, 2011). The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2015: 25) defines ‘disaster recovery in terms of livelihoods, health, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets, systems and activities’. Earthquakes impact communities in different ways. In terms of the physical environment, earthquakes can cause changes in landform, vegetation and soils, and alterations of hydrological conditions (Migon & Pijet-Migon, 2019). Although subsequent natural processes themselves act towards erasing traces of natural disasters, human interventions can also speed up this process. The physical impacts depend on the hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness practices of the community (Russell et al., 1995; Geschwind, 2001). Both of these, can reduce the physical impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003). However, they can also induce a number of social impacts that can last for years and decades. The greatest physical impacts relate often to the number of casualties and extent of damage to property and lifeline infrastructures. The extent of the physical impacts is often difficult to assess as casualties may be an indirect consequence of the mainshock or aftershocks. Losses of structures, animals and crops are also important measures of physical impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003). As argued by Whitman et al. (2013), earthquakes have different impacts on rural and urban areas and studies tend to suggest that the latter recovers faster (Frazier et al., 2013; Cui et al., 2018). Earthquake damage to the built environment can be classified broadly as affecting residential, commercial, industrial, infrastructure or community services sectors (Lindell & Prater, 2003). One way to reduce the physical impacts is to adopt hazard mitigation practices such as avoiding or changing construction in areas that are susceptible to hazard impact. Building construction practices can also make structures less vulnerable (Palm, 1998; Godshalk 2003; Lindell & Prater, 2003; Sengezer & Koç, 2005).
Earthquakes can severely impact organizations in the form of direct physical damage to structures and property, inventory, non-structural damage to premises, changes in cash flow, halted or slowed production, changes in suppliers and customers, staff attrition and psychosocial effects on staff and family (Corey & Deitch, 2011; Whitman et al., 2013). Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Brown et al. (2015) found that ‘customer issues’ impacts were the most disruptive for organizations. The disruption of critical services and organizational size work hand in hand with sector-specific organizational vulnerabilities to maximize negative impacts of disasters on organizations (Whitman et al., 2013). Thus, analysing the effects of earthquakes on organizations from a spatial, organizational characteristics and sectoral perspective is a necessary step in improving mitigation strategies that can better inform policy decisions, but also improve organization and community resilience (Whitman et al., 2014).
Earthquakes, Social Impacts and Well-being
The social impacts of disasters can take various forms and includes socio-demographic, socioeconomic, sociopolitical and psychosocial impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003; Amini Hosseini et al., 2013; Potter et al., 2015; Van der Voort & Vanclay, 2015). One of the most significant socio-demographic impacts of an earthquake-related disaster on a community is the destruction of household dwellings (Mileti & Passerini, 1996). This causes direct economic losses that can be thought of as a loss in asset value but the emotional impacts of losing one’s dwelling can be even harder on individuals (Wu & Lindell, 2004; Yi & Yang, 2014; Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). There is also evidence that disaster impacts can cause social activism resulting in political disruption, especially when disaster recovery seems to take longer than what the community anticipates and/or when some interests and groups are excluding from decision-making (Lindell & Prater, 2003; Hall et al., 2016; Amore et al., 2017), while earthquake recovery and rebuilding process can also be an opportunity for some interests to implement new political structures and advanced particular ideological agendas (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2017).
Those affected by earthquake disasters often experience a significant decrease in quality of life. Psychosocial impacts are often manifested by psychophysiological effects such as fatigue and tics but also cognitive signs such as confusion, impaired concentration and attention deficits (Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). Emotional signs such as anxiety, depression and grief, as well as behavioural effects such as sleep and appetite changes, ritualistic behaviour and substance abuse are also common (Lindell & Prater, 2003). The earthquake and subsequent nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan had not only physical and socioeconomic impacts such as income and job losses, but also psychological and physiological impacts in terms of health impairments such as fear and anxiety related to mental distress from fatalities, injuries or radioactive contamination (Rehdanz et al., 2015). There are also psychosocial impacts with long-term adaptive consequences such as changes in risk perceptions and increased hazard intrusiveness (Lindell & Prater, 2003). Often stories around the recovery of communities following an earthquake emphasize how they overcame physical impacts, paying less attention to psychosocial recovery. In fact, the disaster management literature often portrays well-being of communities as something secondary to the management of physical impacts of earthquakes (Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). However, from a destination and place perspective, both are equally important and deeply intertwined.
The psychological impacts, including well-being, are often understated but require greater attention in disaster management models. Yet, there is no consistency in the literature neither on the extent to which community well-being can be affected nor on the length of time it takes for communities to recover (Prayag et al., 2019a). For example, a study on the psychological adaptation of those affected by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995 in Japan, shows that 16 years later, residents with at least one immediate family member who died in the earthquake reported lower life satisfaction, more negative effects and more health problems (Oishi et al., 2015). While it is well established that victims tend to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms, there are also stories of personal growth over time (Lowe et al., 2013). Strong evidence exists to suggest that life satisfaction and well-being decreases substantially in places closer to the disaster (Rehdanz et al., 2015). However, culture has a significant role to play in both recovery of individuals and communities (Palm, 1998) as well as future risk perceptions. Rehdanz et al. (2015) found that residents’ evaluation of their overall quality of life after the Fukushima disaster was marginally lower and they attributed this to the Buddhism and Daoism philosophical traditions, emphasizing the dialectical nature of things. East Asians, for example, display a high degree of equanimity in the face of negative emotions and events (Rehdanz et al., 2015). However, in a contrary study on the well-being of elderly survivors from the same disaster, Sugano (2016) suggested that psychological well-being and health of survivors changed little compared to pre-disaster levels arguing that the state of the Japanese economy is potentially