HTML last revised 14 February, 2003.As Montserrat is recovering from its volcanic disaster, new towns are playing prominent roles in the recovery efforts. As most of the human settlements on the island were destroyed during the volcanic events of the late-1990s, a need was created for the construction of new towns to replace what was destroyed.
This paper will first provide some background on the island of Montserrat. Part one will provide and overview of the pre-disaster context of the island, and then the current situation on the island will be discussed. Following that background, part two of this paper will discuss the physical planning aspects of new town development on Montserrat. The new town concept will be described, the Caribbean context for new town development will be reviewed, and the application of post-disaster new towns for Montserrat’s disaster recovery will be considered. The final portion of this paper will consider some social factors which are influencing new town development. While social factors impacting Montserrat’s disaster recovery are more abstract than the physical planning factors, they are nonetheless important in contributing to the eventual success or failure of Montserrat’s new towns. By anticipating emerging physical and social issues surrounding new town development on Montserrat, it will be easier to recognize and avoid potential negative unintended consequences of the disaster recovery activities.
This section provides a brief introduction to the Island of Montserrat. Sources for this section include the Montserrat Volume of the World Bibliography Series (Berleant-Schiller, 1991), the Caribbean Island Handbook (Cameron & Box, 1994), the book, Montserrat: The History of a Caribbean Colony (Fergus, 1994), and the Montserrat section of the World Encyclopedia of Nations (Gale Research, 1995). This portion of the paper describes the island prior to the volcanic crisis beginning in 1995. While these conditions may not hold true in present day Montserrat, it is nonetheless useful to consider the pre-disaster context of the island.
Montserrat is an island located in the inner arc of the Leeward Island group in the Lesser Antilles of the Caribbean Sea. Physically the island is volcanic in origin and the terrain is dominated by extinct (and now active) volcanoes, lush green hills, villages along the coasts, and famous black sand clear water holiday beaches. The northern-one third of the island is not developed. The island’s area, of 39 square miles, is approximately 0.6 times the size of Washington D.C.
The island’s population base resides on the southern one-third of the island. The northern third of the island is relatively undeveloped. The island’s main cities are the Capital, Plymouth, and Harris on the East Side of the Island near the Bramble Airport. Both ferry and air services are the primary forms of transportation to the island. The coral island of Antigua (25 miles northeast or 12 air-minutes away) and the French Island of Gualdaloupe (about the same distance south) are the main points of international transit for Montserrat.
In July 1996, the island's population was 12,771 people. Since the 1960s the island’s population has dropped by about 2,000 people. This drop does not indicate that deaths exceeded births, but that out migration is a significant element in Montserrat’s demographic process. Average life expectancy for the population is 75 years.
Montserrat has seen changes in its racial and ethnic composition related to its history of sugar, and by implication the history of metropolitan exploitation and control. First, Salinoid archaic peoples inhabited the island, then Amerindian Caribs, Spanish, and French European settlers, and finally the English settled on Montserrat. British and Irish Catholics were the first permanent European settlers. Then, the sugar economy brought an influx of African slaves. Today, the population is mostly Black and European with some East Indians. There is no substantial native born population or native born white Creole elite. Similar to other islands of the Old Leeward Colonies, the population is mostly descended from slaves of African origin. Class and color stratify Montserrat, and the island’s prosperous white population is composed of resident foreigners who have arrived since the 1960s.
The literacy rate is 97% and over three-quarters of the native born population is literate, and almost all are diglossic, that is everyone speaks the primary language, English as well as the local variety of the mother tongue spoken everywhere in the formerly British Caribbean, Creole.
Politically, Montserrat is a British Legislative Colony, also known as British Dependent Territory (now know as an Overseas Territory). A locally elected government exists along with a resident governor who is a British Crown representative.
Montserrat is a developing country, but its citizens enjoy a creditable standard of living despite the insubstantial base of its externally oriented economy. The economy is small and open, with economic activity centered on tourism and related services. Tourism accounts for roughly one-quarter of Montserrat's national income. A light industrial base produces the island's most recent main export of electronic components that are mainly shipped to the United States. The agriculture sector is small; cabbages, carrots, cucumbers, limes, sea-island cotton, and onions are grown for the domestic market; additionally, some hot peppers and live plants are exported to the United States.
Natural hazards of severe hurricanes (during June to November) with associated floods/coastal surges, and volcanic eruptions (there are seven potentially active volcanoes on the island) with associated earthquakes have historically have threatened the island’s population.
Life on Montserrat is now very different from what has been described in the previous section. Every aspect of Montserrat’s physical, social, and economic life has been drastically altered due the recent volcanic activity. The Soufriere Hills Volcano began a recent eruptive period on July 18, 1995. The volcanic crisis has been catastrophic for Montserrat, as human settlements on two-thirds of the 39 square-mile island have been destroyed and approximately 70% of the island's population of 12,000 people has been evacuated under emergency conditions. During the eruptions, all of the island's critical infrastructure elements including the capital city of Plymouth, the main seaport facility, and the international airport were severely damaged and rendered useless. The volcanic crisis has now been ongoing for the past seven years. During the initial phases of the crisis, there were phased evacuations of the populated areas closest to the volcano. Many of these areas have been subsequently destroyed by pyroclastic flows. Pyroclastic flows are eruption clouds consisting of volatile fragments of ash, volcanic rock fragments, and gas. Driven by gravity, pyroclastic flows have traveled down ghauts at high speeds reaching the coast of the Caribbean Sea. These clouds of volcanic material destroy everything in their path. Unfortunately, pyroclastic flows have ravaged many of the island’s southern urbanized areas. Twenty-two settlement areas with a total population of 7,243 people have been evacuated and subsequently damaged or destroyed (GoM Physical Planning Unit, 1999). While the relocations of the population have been extensive, Due to phased evacuations of hazardous areas in close proximity to the volcano, this disaster has caused less than 25 casualties.
During the past seven years, the disaster response and recovery efforts have varied with the intensity of the volcanic crisis. The new Montserrat Physical Development Plan noted, "Under disaster conditions physical planning on the island has been reactive and decisions have been made in response to the urgent needs of the crisis situation" (GoM Physical Planning Unit, 1999). Rapid relocation of infrastructure elements and the shifting of human activity from unsafe to safe zones has been commonplace. With the planning documents developed in 1999, Montserratian's have begun the process of planning on a proactive basis for the post-disaster urbanization of the island’s northern zone. This planning is guided by three documents prepared by the government of Montserrat and the United Kingdom government. The Montserrat Country Policy Plan 1998-2001 focuses on general development and redevelopment of the island outlining both major policy objectives and program implementation targets. The Sustainable Development Plan: Montserrat Social and Economic Recovery Programme - A Path to Sustainable Development 1998 to 2002 describes the general policy for social and economic recovery during the next five years. The Physical Development Plan for North Montserrat 1999-2008 is the comprehensive physical plan for redevelopment in the northern portion of the island where volcanic risk is minimal. Montserrat's governing entities have taken an approach to development planning based on the fundamental principle of attracting people back to the island and encouraging population growth. (GoM Physical Planning Unit, 1999) While it is not possible to predict the specific rates of population growth and the exact geographic distribution for new population, an overall target of 10,000 persons has been stated and physical plans have been developed for seven new activity centers (or new towns) in northern Montserrat. A population of 10,000 persons roughly equals the island's population prior to the volcanic crisis. Planners have determined that the carrying capacity of northern Montserrat is adequate to support the activity of 10,000 persons.
The current state of affairs finds Montserrat's land area divided into three zones. The southern two-thirds of the island is an exclusion zone that remains extremely dangerous for any type of occupation and it is strictly off-limits. In this zone, damage to the infrastructure is complete and a very high risk of injury from volcanic activity exists. All entry into this zone is illegal except for the purposes of scientific monitoring and national security.
On the fringe of the exclusion zone, a small area on the central western coast of the island has been opened up as a daytime entry zone. This area is safe for daytime entry only when conditions permit. In the daytime entry zone, many villa-style homes are buried in ash, there are no electric or water services, and damage to the infrastructure is moderate to severe. No persons are allowed to permanently reside in the daytime entry zone. At the time of writing, recent volcanic events including the high risk of a dome collapse have caused the exclusion zone boundaries to expand into areas previously considered as the daytime entry zone.
In fact, the conference at which this paper is to be presented has been affected by the volcanic situation. With the risk of a volcanic dome collapse pending, the conference has been moved from the Vue Point Hotel in the vicinity of the Belham River Valley, to the Police Headquarters in Brades. The Vue Point Hotel currently lies in an area which may be at risk from the volcano, while the conference location in Brades is well within the safe zone. This location of the original site has changed from safe to unsafe just two weeks before the conference. Such changes, while commonplace on Montserrat, are illustrative of the difficulties faced as the island continues to deal with the active volcano. Seven years after the initial volcanic activity the situation on some portions of the island still remains fluid.
The northern one-third of the island is a safe zone where approximately 5,000 people reside. This zone is rapidly being developed, as all needs of the island's residents must be met in this area. All aspects of livelihood, including the recovery and reconstruction activities are taking place in the northern safe zone.
Observations of the current events on the island indicate that a flexible approach is being used with respect the to the hazard zone boundaries. A specialist group of advisors known as the Volcanic Executive Group, along with staff from the Montserrat volcano observatory continually monitor the risks associated with occupying various zones of the island and advise the government on taking steps to protect the population. While it is not currently the case, ongoing volcanic risk assessments may indicate that at some point in the future it will become safe to reoccupy areas within the daytime entry zone or areas on the fringes of the exclusion zone. At this point, the author speculates that it is safe to assume that the redevelopment of the island will continue to take place in the Northern Safe Zone for the most part unobstructed by volcanic activity (except for dealing with occasional airborne ash fallout) and the exclusion zone will remain dangerous and not suitable for resettlement for the foreseeable future.
The terms new communities, planned communities, satellite cities, overspill cities, new cities, greenbelt cities, garden cities, model cities, and new urbanism have all been used to describe new towns. While the names that are used to describe new towns suggest an experimental and unique form of urban development, new town development has been practiced for centuries. Besides being an old concept, the new towns are also an international concept with examples of new towns in many nations including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States. A wide range of factors influences the development of new towns. Factors such as underlying societal beliefs, political systems, history, and land availability/population density constraints have shaped approaches to new town development. In Montserrat, new town development is based on the need to create human settlements to both absorb and support the built environment that was lost on the southern two-thirds of the island during the volcanic disaster of the late 1990s.
At the point of initial settlement, a town can be considered as a new town. Therefore, by default all towns are new towns at one point in time. However, the term “new town” refers to a specific type of urban settlement. New towns have two fundamental elements that make them different from other places. These elements are the establishment of the town for pre-determined purposes and a pre-planning process that takes place before the town is physically built (Clapp, 1971). A new town is established on a strong basis of forethought and conscious policy development. Characteristics such as size, location, and composition of land-uses are often determined by the purpose of the new town.
The new town’s sponsor has input concerning the shape of the city. Usually the new town’s sponsor also holds some form of single ownership or control during the development process. This ownership allows for a direct relationship between the planning and development of the town during the build-up phases. Often, due to the large-scale and complexity of new town projects, the sponsors are some unit of government.
While there are many definitions of new towns, in general new towns differ from large subdivisions by being more self-contained with commercial, educational, social, and cultural opportunities within the town unit. This type of development is opposed to the random pattern of urban development that is characteristic of United States style suburban sprawl. New towns are envisioned as multi-purpose communities that provide for working, living, and recreating within the community (Campbell, 1976). Ideally, new towns are socially balanced in terms of their demographic composition and physically balanced in terms of their land-use composition in relation to the community’s natural and built infrastructure.
The first widely recognized examples of new towns were British in origin. In the late Nineteenth & early Tentieth Century Ebenezer Howard conceived his ideas of merging the city and county in his “garden cities” outside of London. New towns such as Welwyn Garden City and Letchworth demonstrated the feasibility of developing new towns in the vicinity of a metropolitan area. Ebenezer Howard became known as the father of new town movement (Clapp, 1971). In the United Kingdom, the New Town Act of 1946 was passed as it offered reasonable solutions urban problems of the time and it led to national policy. As new towns were developed and built out, due to the intensive government involvement some people thought that new town planning was becoming outmoded in the same way as the rigid governmental structures of Eastern Europe. However, in any comparison of new towns to other places one must consider the question “in comparison to what?” Undoubtedly, the new towns had succeeded better than the long series of policy initiatives for rehousing citizens and attracting new manufacturing industry into the old cities themselves (Ward, 1993). Perhaps, as Montserrat is a British overseas territory it can draw on some of the British new town experiences to inform urban development on the island.
Looking beyond the British new town experiments, there are many reasons why new towns are built. New towns are formed for a variety of purposes including the establishment of new capitals (Brasilia, Brazil & Canberra, Australia); for military or strategic purposes (Los Alamos New Mexico, USA); in connection with public works projects (Norris, Tennessee, USA); to exploit natural resources (Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada); as demonstration projects (Greenbelt, Maryland, USA), to relieve urban congestion (Stevanage, UK); as educational centers (University City, California, USA), and as private land development enterprises (Reston, Virginia, USA). Other reasons new towns have been formed include colonization, relocations of existing populations, or as planned extensions of existing towns (Clapp, 1971). On Montserrat, the reason for new town development is post-disaster mitigation.
In the Caribbean, a few examples of new towns exist. These examples illustrate how new town development has been applied in the vicinity of Montserrat. These examples include Nineteenth century developments in Grenada and Puerto Rico and Twentieth century developments in Jamaica, Cuba, Guyana, and the Bahamas.
In Grenada, St. George serves as an example of a new town that was constructed when the old St. George was destroyed by fire in the early 1800s. During that time period, it was common for cities in the Caribbean to be constructed entirely of timber. The new St. George was rebuilt of brick and stone to avoid the reoccurrence of fire. In 1810 it was written, “The new town, which was destined to rise upon the ashes of the old one laid they out on a plan of greater regularity and extent, and raised the walls of the houses with brick …” (Coke, 1810) While this new town served the purpose of recovering from the disaster, by the mid-eighteenth century the town began to show strains from an increasing population and developing technologies. By the early-nineteenth century urban problems were exacerbated by the decline of sugar plantations encouraging migration in cities such as St. George. The city had difficultly providing for its own residents, and its systems could not handle any new population. While no-one could foresee future technological development and population trends, St. George is an example of a town rebuilt after a disaster which proved inadequate to meet long-term needs. In the mid-twentieth century the situation was reversed as the British Government developed policies that tied together approval of grant and loans for its dependencies to the preparation of local development plans (St. Vincent Central Planning Division, 1986). It is interesting to note that to this day, the attractive character of the town is due to new town development that took place about 200 years ago (Hudson, 1989).
The development of new towns in Puerto Rico was influenced by migrations caused by governmental policy changes concerning immigration. In this case, in 1815 the Spanish Crown (which governed the island at the time) instituted a set of liberalizing measures such as tax incentives, land grants, and fewer trade restrictions. The impact of these policy changes was to stimulate a new influx of Catholics immigrants from the Americas, and the economy was transformed from subsistence to commercial agriculture. In the 1850s, when an island-wide highway system was developed to facilitate the agriculture, new towns quickly grew along the islands highway networks (de Alburquerque and McElory, 1989).
Moving to new town developments in the twentieth century, during the past 25 years Jamaica has constructed overspill cities to provide dwellings for workers serving metropolitan areas. The new town of Portmore was constructed by private contractors for the purpose of providing housing for employees working in the Kingston Metropolitan Area. This new town reached a population of approximately 72,000 (Clarke, 1989).
In Cuba, new towns have been built as a result of both ideological policies, and a need to provided urban services to the under-developed interior. New towns in Cuba were based on the ‘comunidad’ policy of urbanizing the countryside. The objectives of the policy were to gradually concentrate urban dwellers in new centers equipped with basic urban services. The new towns were formed with the purpose of achieving an overall nucleation of rural settlement, for providing urban-type facilities to underserved regions, to stabilize the workforce, and to reduce urban-rural migration (Hall, 1989). Arguments were made that urban services such as power, water, health services and education could all be provided much more efficiently in clustered settlements. Experiences in Cuba indicate that some of the towns were hastily assembled and poorly planned resulting in many new towns facing difficulties during periods of economic instability. Most Cuban new towns were related to specific economic development projects; with a third having been established in relationship to sugar cane production, a quarter for livestock development, and about a sixth based on multi-purpose schemes (Barkin, 1980). By 1980, about 360 new towns had been created. In the late 1980’s it was argued that it would take up to thirty years to provide all of the infrastructure needed and services required for farmers through a system of new towns. In order to stabilize the population in the underpopulated central provinces, and emphasis was placed not only on new town development but on self-build housing with government loan made available for housing materials (Hall, 1989).
In Guyana, the impetus for new town development was to create settlements to support bauxite mining operations. The new town of Mackenzie, and two associated villages, Wismar and Christianburg were established to house mine workers. The amalgamation of these thee communities had created a town with approximately 27,000 inhabitants, with a layout that was a hybrid of indigenous community structures and imported structures (Strachan, 1989). The town of Mackenzie was developed to meet 1950s British design standards and as a result the imported design pattern was much more formalized. It stood out when compared to the more informal nature urban patterns of Wismar and Christianburg. These villages became distressed during declines in bauxite production. New Amsterdam was another new town that developed to meet the needs for port and service center to serve the needs plantations located on the eastern bank of the Berbice River. The development pattern of New Amsterdam clearly showed each phase of economic development related to the development of the port, the administrative services needed to support the growing industry, and a gradation of workers’ housing ranging from larger management owned homes to smaller workers cottages (Strachen, 1989). Again with the decline in bauxite exports, living and housing standards in the new town have fallen and there is little prospect of work for newcomers.
In the Bahamas, Freeport-Lucaya was a new town which was populated by shifting internal populations due to Bahamianization Programmes of the 1970s. The Bahamianization Programmes created restrictions on immigration as a reaction to the uncertainties caused by independence in 1973 and the early-1970s downturn in the United States economy. When in-migration was restricted and officials encouraged Bahamian citizens to fill positions which were once held by outsiders, many residents migrated to the Freeport-Lucaya new town for employment (Boswell and Biggs, 1989).
What if any lessons do these Caribbean new towns imply for Montserrat. First, as evidenced by St. George, Grenada, new towns have been constructed in the Caribbean for the purposes of post-disaster recovery. Second, it is clear the government policy greatly influences new town development programs. As shown in Cuba, government policy was a driving force behind new town development programs. Third, as evidenced in Guyana, with Mackenzie and New Amsterdam, economic development can be a reason for constructing new towns. In the case of Jamaica, new town construction took place to support economic development in the Kingston Metropolitan area. On Montserrat, as natural resources are limited, economic development associated with tourism would be the likely driving force behind private sector large-scale new town development. However, such plans can prove risky as they are tied to the fate of the industries which support them. In both the cases of the Bahamas and Puerto Rico, some type of migration, either internal or external, drove new town development. Population movements may also play a role in the future of Montserrat’s new towns as changes in immigration policies may cause the rapid repatriation of many of those people who evacuated, creating the demand for new towns. New town development on Montserrat has started with the need to recover from the disaster. Over time as the disaster recovery becomes completed, it is an open question of what circumstances will continue to drive new town development for the long-term.
Before the volcanic events of the late 1990s, it did not seem likely that new town development would ever need to be considered for Montserrat. The island had a functioning critical infrastructure, an international airport and a deep water sea port, and its primary urban center on all on the southern portion of the island. In terms of Eastern Caribbean destinations, Montserratians prided themselves on not being overwhelmed with large scale tourist developments that are common on other nearby islands. Montserrat tourism officials advertised the island as ‘the Caribbean the way it used to be’. While some development existed on the northern portion of the island, the island’s needs appeared to be adequately served by the pre-volcanic disaster levels of urban development. However, that situation has changed for the foreseeable future as Plymouth was destroyed and exclusion zones were established. While settlements on Montserrat developed in a certain pattern over a period of hundreds of years, that pattern become undone in a few short years during the Soufriere Hills Volcanic eruptions. Historically speaking, virtually overnight, Montserrat has become ripe for new town development due to its catastrophic disaster.
Looking at disaster recovery, Montserrat has faced a specific disaster which was geological in origin. Large scale disasters which are geological in origin have the capacity to physically alter land forms or to make land too hazardous for inhabitation. Natural disasters such as volcanoes, floods, or earthquakes can both physically alter land and create hazardous zones which are not suitable for establishing permanent settlements. These types of disasters will fundamentally change the disaster recovery process.
For example, after Montserrat was impacted by hurricane Hugo in 1989, the disaster recovery began with clearing of debris and the restoration of normalcy, and then damaged structures were rebuilt. While the damage was extensive, there was no need to relocate the actual physical location of the settlements. This type of disaster recovery is entirely different from what happened during the volcanic disaster of the late-1990s, when not only the structures were destroyed, but the entire landscape was altered in some cases and in other cases while the damage to areas was not catastrophic the proximity to an active volcano made the land too hazardous for any type of human activity. As the southern portion of Montserrat, became under risk, was evacuated, and most human settlements were catastrophically destroyed, it quickly became apparent that simply rebuilding in place would not be possible. If any sort of disaster recovery was to take place, it would have to take place by rebuilding from scratch at entirely new physical locations.
The situation of new towns being created after catastrophic disasters is not unique to Montserrat. As previously mentioned, St. George Grenada was rebuilt as a new town after a fire. In other rare circumstances, geological hazards such as floods have led to disaster recovery involving relocations and new town construction. One recent United States example of this phenomenon also took place in the 1990s. After the catastrophic 1993 Mississippi River flooding, a village in southwestern Illinois voluntarily relocated to the top of a nearby bluff. This village, Valmeyer, will never again face flooding. While the steps in creating the new town were somewhat similar to Montserrat, the combination of the active volcano, the sheer amount of destruction, and the limited land base gave Montserratian little choice in the matter. For the island to remain inhabited, the only option was to create new towns in zones facing lesser volcanic risks. In the case of the flooded village in the Midwestern United States after the flood, the village’s residents could have rebuilt their flooded homes in the floodplain (again) and take the chance of risking future floods. While such a decision is not likely the wisest, once the water receded, while some erosion would have occurred, but the immediate risk of inhabiting the land would not be high (until the next periodic flood). The floodplain did not have to be declared an exclusion zone. The situation is much different on Montserrat, where the catastrophic destruction of the high speed, superheated pyroclastic flows, followed by the massive debris flows, and the continued high risks of being in the proximity to the active volcano make areas in the exclusion both unrecognizable to its former inhabitants and extremely dangerous.
This author suggests that the volcanic disaster on Montserrat provides an example of what happens when a catastrophic volcanic eruption impacts a small-island states. Other small island states in the Atlantic, Pacific, or Caribbean may also eventually face catastrophic volcanic eruptions causing the relocation of populations and the creation of new towns. By observing what has taken place on Montserrat, other small-island states can use the Montserrat’s experiences as a basis to help themselves prepare for natural disasters.
At the time of writing, new towns are in various stages of development at eight locations in Montserrat’s northern safe zone. In 1998 and 1999, this author performed field work consisting of reconnaissance surveys of the existing conditions of the new town sites and observations of the level of development as compared to the plans outlined in draft versions of the Physical Development Plan for North Montserrat 1999-2008. These observations have allowed this author to determine some of the emerging issues which may influence new town development. Two of the main issues are the form of the emerging urban patterns, and the situation where temporary structures may become permanent.
In the Eastern Caribbean, the urban forms are representative of English and French colonizers of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Most Eastern Caribbean capital cities are laid out on a grid plan, however an interesting exception was Montserrat’s capital, Plymouth. The street pattern for Plymouth was based on a convergence of the island’s three main roads, and the islands topography (Hudson, 1989). Prior to some of the post-disaster developments of the late 1990s, the grid pattern was rarely used as an urban form on Montserrat. Field observations of older housing in the vicinity of the northern city of St. John's have indicated that development patterns followed the placement of the main highway, the characteristics of the specific site (i.e., slope, stability, etc), and the positioning of structures to take advantage of scenic views. The newer structures created as a part of the disaster recovery were created by first altering the terrain to meet the needs of the urban grid and then placing high density housing developments on that grid. A potential issue that may need to be considered is as new towns are developed at a higher density than what previously existed on Northern Montserrat, is that some of the new larger rectilinear urban developments may prove to be unfamiliar those people used to inhabiting the pre-volcano urban settings. While the new construction clearly meets western engineering standards, it may be difficult for residents to adapt to the new urban patterns. It is likely that few people in Montserrat have ever lived in a community based on a grid pattern. This author suggests that efforts need to be made to consider the local context in which new towns are developed so that new urban patterns can be appropriate for their residents.
Another emerging issue is the transition from temporary to permanent structures. While in the immediate period following the disaster this author observed all sorts of temporary living quarters, businesses operating out of cargo containers, and many other adaptations. A danger that exists is that after the immediacy of the disaster fades, some of the temporary structures may become permanent features of the landscape as redevelopment priorities shift over time. While the temporary structures will likely meet the needs of their users for the short-term, unless they are built to standards ensuring their long-term functionality they may be problematic to maintain. As northern Montserrat physically redevelops, occasional surveys may have to be made to ensure that temporary structures do not become permanent by default leading to a lower quality of life for the new town inhabitants. While resources for the recovery may become limited, in some cases in may be possible to employ adaptive reuse of all types of commercial and residential structures to best make use of existing resources. In any case, the unplanned conversion of temporary to permanent structures should be avoided.
These two issues facing new town development on Montserrat are by no means insurmountable or unexpected. While observing disaster recovery in developed nation’s with many more resources, this author has observed many of the same dynamics that have been observed on Montserrat. For Montserrat to recovery from the crisis and repatriate a majority of those who have evacuated during the crisis, it will be likely that both the physical development patterns and density of development in the north will need to change. This change should not necessarily be perceived as negative, as it will be quite an accomplishment when Montserrat is fully able to recreate the physical infrastructure and urban functions that were destroyed during the volcanic crisis.
While social factors are more difficult to grasp in considering how they may influence new town development, this author would be remiss in not attempting to consider how social circumstances will impact Montserrat’s post-disaster new towns. This consideration will start with looking at some social theories such as dependency theory, center-periphery relationships, globalization, and deterritorialization and their relevance to the Caribbean. This section will conclude with the ironic observation that while coping with the disaster, in some ways Montserratians may be asserting a high degree of self-reliance and independence while at the same time being more dependent than ever before. In conclusion, it is suggested that attempts be made to consider how to adapt new town developments to changing social circumstances in order to insure the viability of the new urban centers.
Dependency theory has been used to describe the relationship of dependent Caribbean states to European state metropolitan powers. Dependency theory had it origins in the failure the economic and development policies of the 1950s and 1960s, which tried to expand the industrial sector of third world countries in order to reduce the inequities between developing and developed societies (Baker, 1994). A classic definition of dependency was given by Theotonio Dos Santos in the article “The Structure of Dependence”:
By dependency we mean a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and between these and world trade assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can expand and be self-sustaining, while other countries (the dependent ones) can do this only as reflection of that expansion, which can either have a positive or negative effect on their immediate development (Dos Santos, 1993).
Proponents of dependency theory have argued that the development pathway for underdeveloped countries would be blocked unless there was either a crisis of capitalism or a delinking of under-developed nations from the global economy. Instead of a dichotomy between modern and traditional, it posited a dichotomy between developed and under-developed, center and periphery (James, 1997).
The center and periphery theory is at the core of the dependency concept. The center and periphery as defined by Johan Galtung (Galtung, 1971) takes its point of departure from what he terms the two most glaring facts in the world: the tremendous inequality within and between nations, in almost all aspects of human living conditions; and the resistance of this inequity to change. Galtung states, the world consists of center and periphery nations; and each nation in turn has its centers and peripheries. Imperialism is then defined as the way in which a center nation has power over the periphery nation, so as to bring about a condition of disharmony of interests between them. Imperialism is a relation between a center and periphery nation so that:
Based on the center and periphery theory, Immanuel Wallerstein and his associates have developed a world-system theory (Wallerstein, 1974). They argue that there is a world system in which societies participate. This system has boundaries, structures, rules, coherence, and involves a competitive structure between member groups, each seeking its own advantage. Like an organism, the characteristics change over time. Centers develop through impoverishing the periphery and a capitalist economic structure links the developed and underdeveloped worlds. Competition over extraction of resources creates a political processes called “imperium” and economic processes called “peripheralization” through which capitalists expand their operations and control and thereby accumulate. Viewed in this way Caribbean states are only partial societies, whose internal structures are fully understandable within a worldwide stratification system conceived in terms of exploitative capitalism (Baker, 1994).
Development theory advanced the idea that the development pathway was blocked for under-developed countries unless there was either a crisis of capitalism or a delinking of these countries from the global economy. However, as we enter into the Twenty-First century, global capitalism is not fading and delinking from the global economy is becoming increasingly difficult. A new type of dependency is no longer predominately based upon the old lines of imperial exploitation and subjection. Global capitalism, not classical imperialism, now frames the various forms of dependency and exploitation (James, 1997). In his article, “Postdependency? The Third World in an Era of Globalism and late Capitalism”, Paul James explains the transition:
Classical imperialism, from the ancient and traditional empires to early 20th century colonialism and mid-century neocolonialism, was based largely upon a control of territory (however uneven that might have been) and the relatively direct exploitation of the production and trading of material commodities. It entailed forms of agency expansion; that is the presence on the ground of agents of the empire. With the development of electronic trading, computerized storage of information, and an exponentially increasing movement of capital there has been an abstraction of the possibilities of control and exploitation, and abstraction of the relationship between territory and power, and an abstractions of the dominant level of integration.” (James, 1997)
A phenomenon called globalization has been affecting both the internal and external decisions that define the social structure of nations. This phenomenon can be characterized by a series of paradigmatic shifts in societal organization. They include the globalization of high technology production, the globalization of economic diplomacy, innovation-mediated production driven by incessant technological change, global production shifts, and ecological crisis. Existing conceptual frameworks cannot adequately account for these factors that affect individuals, groups, classes, nations, and geography as a whole. Issues of globalization in the Caribbean center on pivotal questions of nation, nation-state, sovereignty, hegemony, theoretical construction, and the capacity of the nation-state to manage domestic and global change (Watson, 1993).
The pressures of globalization effect events ranging from the forming of regional units of cooperation to internal political affairs in the Caribbean. These pressures are manifested in the unexpected ability of labor and capital to range freely across the globe, a capacity to move rapidly or erratically across political, economic, and social borders, and as a new situation of temporal and spatial volatility in which events happening in one part of the globe have an instantaneous impact elsewhere. Under these circumstances locality seems not only to disappear, but locals feel the need to invent a new geographic imaginary (Yaeger, 1996). In his book Modernity at Large – Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Argun Appadurai takes a new approach to the general theory of global cultural processes. He sees the central problem of today’s global interactions as the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization. For polities of smaller scale there is always a fear of cultural absorption by polities of larger scale. The new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot be any longer understood in terms of center-periphery models (even those that might account for multiple centers and peripheries). He states the world we now live – in which modernity is at large, irregularity self-conscious, and unevenly experienced – surely does involve a general break with all sorts of past. Electronic media and mass migration are named as two important forces affecting the modern world:
Electronic media and mass migration mark the world of the present, not as technically new forces but as ones that seem to impel (and sometime compel) the work of imagination. Together they create specific irregularities because both viewers and images are in simultaneous circulation. Neither images or viewers fit into circuits of audiences that are easily bound within local, national, or regional spaces. This mobile and unforeseeable relationship between mass mediated events and migratory audiences defines the core of the link between globalization and the modern (Appadurai, 1996).
In the current phase of modernity, the previous ways of socially constructing reality through center and periphery relationships of classical dependency may not really apply. In order for global cultural interactions predicated on disjunctive flows to have any force greater that a mechanical metaphor, Appadurai thinks they will have to move into something like a human version of the theory some scientists are calling chaos theory. That is, we will need to ask not how these complex, overlapping, fractal shapes constitute a simple stable system (even if large-scale), but to ask what its dynamics are for example, Why do ethnic riots occur where and when they do? Why are some states exiting the global stage while others are clamoring to get in? (Appadurai, 1996)
One of Appadurai’s key concepts for understanding the current chaotic global situation is the deterritorialization. Deterritorialization is one of the central forces of the modern world because it brings with it laboring populations into the lower class sectors of relatively wealthy societies, while sometimes creating exaggerated and intensified senses of criticism or attachment to politics in the home state (Appadurai, 1996). Deterritorialization not only applies to obvious examples of transnational corporations and money markets but also to ethnic groups, sectarian movements, and political formations which increasingly operate in ways which transcend specific territorial boundaries and identities. Deterritorialization effects the loyalties of groups (especially in the context of a complex diaspora) their transnational manipulations of currencies and other forms of wealth and investment, as well as in the strategies of state (Appadurai, 1996). This loosening of hold between people, wealth, and territories fundamentally alters the basis of cultural reproduction.
Migration has always been a part of Montserrat’s cultural identity. Appandurai explains the effects of deterritorialization on families as a type of trauma:
As families move to new locations, or as children move before older generations, or as grown sons and daughters return from time spent in strange parts of the world, family relationships can collide, new commodity patterns are negotiated, debts and obligations are recalibrated, and rumors and fantasies about the new settings are maneuvered into existing repertoires of knowledge and practice. The task of cultural representation, even in its most intimate arenas such as husband-wife and parent-child relations, become both politicized and exposed to the traumas of deterritorialization as family members pool and negotiate their mutual understanding and aspirations in sometime fractious spatial environments. At larger levels, such as community, neighborhood, and territory, this politicization is often the emotional fuel for more explicitly violent politics of identity, just as these larger politics sometimes penetrate and ignite domestic politics (Appadurai, 1996).
We can observe some of the factors involved with the establishment of new towns and conclude that new town development can be a rather uncertain and complex process. However, the physical establishment of these new towns may be a comparatively simple task when compared with the process of establishing viable human communities within this new built environment.
This author suggests that first some understanding of the Montserrat’s place in the historical context of dependency, center-periphery relationships, globalization, and deterritorialization is necessary to consider Montserrat’s new post-disaster cultural territory. Second, this author suggests that Montserrat’s new cultural territory has been formed by the deterritorialization process. Deterrritorialization refers to the process of losing the natural relationship between culture and social territory, including the relocalizations of old and new forms of symbolic production. This author argues that during the volcanic crisis the Montserratian milieu was disrupted. Milieu refers to the relatively stable configuration of action and meaning in which the individual maintains a distinctive degree of familiarity, competence, and normalcy based on the continuity and consistency of personal disposition (Durrschmidt, 2000). The state of normalcy was lost on Montserrat during the volcanic crisis. The social process by which normalcy was lost was deterritorialization.
On Montserrat, the volcanic crisis has brought to the forefront the relationship of social group boundaries to individual identity. Social group boundaries deal with social categorization, group formation, and membership while individual identity deals with belongingness, identity, and attachment (Greene, 1993). It was interesting to note that during 1999 fieldwork, while interacting with persons who have relocated from the exclusion zone to the safe zone, residents of the new towns would still refer to themselves by the city from which they were evacuated. For example, residents of areas like of Plymouth or Harris would still refer to those places as being their home as opposed to the new developments they were living in like Lookout or Davy Hill. This author would also speculate that people would continue to self-select themselves into groups by the pre-volcano communities in which they once lived, even though they now had new homes and their former communities no longer physically existed. The volcanic crisis has served to divide the population into units of common attachment which did not exist prior to 1995.
During the disaster, most resident tourists were able to flee as the volcanic crisis intensified. A core of islanders consisting of a mixture of peoples of Afro-Caribbean descents, expatriates, Montserrat and British Nationals supporting Governmental services, and more recently guest workers have remained despite the destruction of much of the island. While much of the remaining population was not able to remain in their original geographic locations in proximity to volcano, they were delocalized as they relocated to the northern safe zone. This relocation can be considered as a type of deterritorialization in which senses of identity would be obscured – old identities would mix with new identities. Those who remained on the island would rather face the risks of living with the volcano than the risk of being deterritorialized into a globalized mixing pot, with it being uncertain how and when they would be able to return to their island home. Those people who have evacuated southern Montserrat to an off-island location and then returned to new communities in the northern safe zone can be considered as a double-deterritiorilized group – once deterritorialized off the island during emergency evacuations and then deterritorialized again from southern Montserrat to northern Montserrat upon their return. The volcanic crisis has made it clear that a certain segment of the Montserratian population has asserted their preference to remain on their homeland and they rejected the modern system of mass migration, even during a natural disaster.
In a situations of a relatively calm state of affairs on the island, these issues of social boundaries and individual identity probably would not have had to been openly dealt with, as the small island would be viewed as place not having to consider the ramifications of migrations and their subsequent social impacts during day-to-day life. The survivors and rebuilders of the island have formed a collective consciousness or attachment to the island, and then in turn they asserted a new social group boundary by refusing leave, even in what was close to the worst case scenario. In the current state of affairs, continued British aid is now essential to the recovery of the island, as Montserrat does not have a financial resource base on which to draw funds to the recovery. Ironically, as coping with the crisis has forced all Montserratians to become more independent and self-sufficient, at the same time the island is now more dependent on outside aid than ever before.
A question one can ask is, what these social dynamics have to do with the establishment of new towns as part of the disaster recovery? The new towns will be the site on which actions of social cohesiveness or actions of social conflict take place. While the social dynamics may be difficult to gauge, clearly there exists perceptions of pre-volcano disaster Montserrat and perceptions of post-volcano disaster Montserrat. There are also many people who find themselves living in between these worlds. Residents of Montserrat, find themselves morning the recent losses due to the disaster, and coping with the newest volcanic event, while at the same time looking towards the future by building and inhabiting the new towns. During the course of the volcanic disaster, Montserratians have developed a high degree of resiliency which is remarkable. Residents of Montserrat who were forced off-island during the volcanic crisis are, for the time being, making their livelihoods elsewhere while monitoring the situation on Montserrat to determine if, how, and when to return to the island. The eventual success or failure of the new towns will serve as a key indicator for drawing these people back to island or keeping them away. As new towns are planned and constructed, the eventual success or failure of these human settlements as viable communities will depend on how post-disaster planning can be adaptive to changing social dynamics. While it may be difficult to gauge how concrete physical planning can be adapted to abstract social circumstances, an awareness of varied social influences on the island along with a rigorous public participation program for the planning process would assist in positively resolving contentious social issues.
The author wishes to acknowledge financial support to present this paper at Montserrat provided by the Urban Affairs Program at Michigan State University.
The author also wishes to acknowledge dissertation advisor Dr. Ger Schultink (Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University) for supporting and advising this research. Dr. Ruth Hamilton (Department of Sociology – Urban Studies, Michigan State University) also assisted in developing ideas concerning social impacts.
The author wishes to thank officials in the Government of Montserrat, Governor’s Office – Her Majesty's Government (U.K.), the Montserrat Volcano Observatory, and residents of Montserrat who have assisted the author with his field research.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily express the views his university affiliates or funding agencies.
Portions of this paper are based on the following previously published works:
Rozdilsky, J. L. 1996. 'Flood-related relocation of Valmeyer: Implications for the development of sustainable cities.' American Planning Association Environmental Planning Newsletter, 3(1).
Rozdilsky, J.L. 1997. “The Post-Volcano Social Reconstruction of Montserrat: Factors of Race, History, Politics, and Identity that Inform the Discourse” Michigan State University African Diaspora Program: Compilation of Papers on Race, Politics, and Social Structure, 1997.
Rozdilsky, J. L. 1999. 'Disaster Recovery in an On-Going Hazard Situation on Montserrat: The July 20, 1999 Volcanic Dome Collapse.' Quick Response Report #121, National Science Foundation Grant No. CMS-632458 / Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Rozdilsky, J.L. 2001. “Post-Disaster New Cites for Montserrat: What happens when cities are catastrophically destroyed during volcanic events” Published Abstract in Stewart, C (ed.) 2001. Proceedings of the Cities on Volcanoes 2 Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 12-14 February 2001. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Information Series 49. 158 pp. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Ltd.
Rozdilsky, J.L. 2001. “Second Hazards Assessment and Sustainable Hazards Mitigation: Disaster Recovery on Montserrat.” Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 2, No, 2: 64-71.
Rozdilsky, J.L. 2002. “Closure to Second Hazards Assessment and Sustainable Hazards Mitigation: Disaster Recovery on Montserrat.” Natural Hazards Review, May 2002.
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Baker, P.L. 1994. Centering the Periphery: Chaos, Order, and the Ethnohistory of Dominica. Montreal: McGill Queen's University Press.
Barkin, D. 1978. “Confronting the Separation of the Town and Country in Cuba” Antipode, 12 (3) 31-40.
Berleant-Schiller, R. 1991. Montserrat. World Bibliography Series, ed. R. Neville and e. al. Vol. 134. Oxford, UK: Clio Press.
Boswell, T. and Biggs, J. 1989. “The Bahamas” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
Cameron, S. and B. Box, eds. 1994. Caribbean Islands Handbook. Passport Books: Chicago.
Campbell, C. C. 1976. New Towns: Another Way to Live. Reston, Virginia, Reston Publishing Company.
Clapp, J. A. 1971. New Towns and Urban Policy: Planning Metropolitan Growth. New York, Dunellen Publishing Company.
Clarke, Colin. 1989. “Jamaica” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
Coke, T. 1810. A History of the West Indies. Vol. 2. 191 facsim. Edn., London: Frank Cass and Company.
de Alburquerque, K and McElroy, J. 1989. “Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
Dos Santos, T. 1993. The Structure of Dependence, in Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality, M. Seligson and J. Passe-Smith, Editors. Lynne Rienner: Boulder, CO.
Durrschmidt, J. 2000. Everyday Lives in the Global City: The Delinking of Locale and Milieu. London, Routledge.
Fergus, H.A. 1994. Montserrat: History of a Caribbean Colony. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Gale Research. 1995. World Encyclopedia of Nations: Americas. Gale Research: Detroit.
Galtung, J. 1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”. Journal of Peace Research, 1971, 2: 81-119.
Government of Montserrat (GoM) Physical Planning Unit, et al. 1999. Physical Development Plan for North Montserrat 1999–2008 (Final Draft—April 1999), Ministry of Trade, Agriculture, and the Environment-Physical Planning Unit, Palm Loop, Montserrat.
Government of Montserrat (GoM) and Her Majesty’s Government (HMG). 1997. Sustainable development plan, Montserrat social and economic recovery programme—a path to sustainable development 1998–2002, HMG Office of the Governor, Olveston, Montserrat.
Greene, E.J., ed. 1993. Race, Class, and Gender in the Future of the Caribbean. University of the West Indies: Kingston, Jamiaca.
Hall, Derek, R. 1989. “Cuba” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
Hudson, Brian. 1989. “The Eastern Caribbean Commonwealth” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
James, P. 1997. “Postdependency? Third World in an Era of Globalism and Late-Capitalism” Alternatives, 22 (Apr.-June 1997).
Strachan, Alan. 1989. “Guyana” in Potter, Robert B. ed. 1989. Urbanization and Planning and Development in the Caribbean. London: Mansell Publishing Ltd.
St. Vincent Central Planning Division. 1986. St. Vincent and the Grenadines Development Plan 1986-1988. Kingston: Ministry of Finance and Planning.
Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. 1974, New York: Academic Press.
Ward, Colin. 1993. New Town, Home Town. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Watson, H.A. 1993. “Globalization, Liberalism and the Caribbean: Deciphering the Limits of Nation, Nation-State, and Sovereignty Under Global Capitalism”. Caribbean Studies, 26(3-4): 213-265.
Yaeger, P. 1996. “Introduction: Narrating Space” in The Geography of Identity, P. Yaeger, Editor. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.
© Jack Rozdilsky, 2003.
HTML last revised 14 February, 2003.
Return to Conference Papers.