When an “I thought I was going to die quake” occurs amidst four additional major earthquakes and 15,000 aftershocks during a sixteen-month period, it challenges people’s ability to cope and recover. Residents of Canterbury, New Zealand endured this extended, chaotic state in 2010/11; and continue to deal with lingering effects on their devastated central city, Christchurch. Stress and coping theory suggests that finding meaning in such situations can help people recover, and that religion and spirituality often play a role in post-disaster resilience. Despite this, there is very little research literature examining this phenomenon and even less that considers spirituality separate from religion. This research focuses on this underrepresented area by considering the personal spiritual or meaningful experiences of people in post-earthquake Canterbury. Data from sixteen in-depth, minimally directed interviews were thematically analyzed to understand each individual’s meaning construction and coping/recovery process and identify connective themes and patterns amongst their experiences. Four core elements of acceptance, clarity and choice, connection, and transcendence emerged from the thematic analysis to conceptualize a model of transcendent coping. Transcendent coping represents an additional type of coping in the transactional model of stress and coping, which serves to support the previous denoted problem-, emotion-, and meaning-focused coping approaches. Transcendent coping offers openness, empowerment, comfort and expansion not necessarily reliant upon theistic or religious beliefs and practices. Rather, this secular spiritual coping is inherent in everyday, mundane practices such as being in the moment, aligning to and acting from personal values, connecting to that and those who bring comfort, and experiencing transcendence in moments of awe and expansion. This research contributes to the growing interest in spirituality as an important facet of human nature that can support wellbeing in the face of stress.
During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’.
The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments.
The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments.
The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.
