Tree mortality is a fundamental process governing forest dynamics, but understanding tree mortality patterns is challenging
because large, long-term datasets are required. Describing size-specific mortality patterns can be especially difficult, due to
few trees in larger size classes. We used permanent plot data from Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortioides (mountain beech)
forest on the eastern slopes of the Southern Alps, New Zealand, where the fates of trees on 250 plots of 0.04 ha were
followed, to examine: (1) patterns of size-specific mortality over three consecutive periods spanning 30 years, each
characterised by different disturbance, and (2) the strength and direction of neighbourhood crowding effects on sizespecific
mortality rates. We found that the size-specific mortality function was U-shaped over the 30-year period as well as
within two shorter periods characterised by small-scale pinhole beetle and windthrow disturbance. During a third period,
characterised by earthquake disturbance, tree mortality was less size dependent. Small trees (,20 cm in diameter) were
more likely to die, in all three periods, if surrounded by a high basal area of larger neighbours, suggesting that sizeasymmetric
competition for light was a major cause of mortality. In contrast, large trees ($20 cm in diameter) were more
likely to die in the first period if they had few neighbours, indicating that positive crowding effects were sometimes
important for survival of large trees. Overall our results suggest that temporal variability in size-specific mortality patterns,
and positive interactions between large trees, may sometimes need to be incorporated into models of forest dynamics.
On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011
the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by
two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly
within the civil defence and emergency management
literature and informed by recent work on community
participation and social capital in the building of resilient
cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise
both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes
as well as the substantive role communities play in their
own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or
hinder community involvement also needs to be better
understood. This paper interrogates the assumption
that recovery agencies and officials are both willing
and able to engage communities who are themselves
willing and able to be engaged in accordance with
recovery best practice. Case studies of three community
groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap
Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated
with becoming a community during the disaster
recovery phase. Based on my own observations and
experiences, combined with data from approximately
50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents
and representatives from community groups, the
Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission
and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies
emerging communities may use in the early disaster
recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to
‘participate’ in the recovery process.
There is a critical strand of literature suggesting that there are no ‘natural’ disasters (Abramovitz, 2001; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Hinchliffe, 2004). There are only those that leave us – the people - more or less shaken and disturbed. There may be some substance to this; for example, how many readers recall the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centred in Fiordland in July 2009? Because it was so far away from a major centre and very few people suffered any consequences, the number is likely to be far fewer than those who remember (all too vividly) the relatively smaller 7.1 magnitude Canterbury quake of September 4th 2010 and the more recent 6.3 magnitude February 22nd 2011 event.
One implication of this construction of disasters is that seismic events, like those in Canterbury, are as much socio-political as they are geological. Yet, as this paper shows, the temptation in recovery is to tick boxes and rebuild rather than recover, and to focus on hard infrastructure rather than civic expertise and community involvement. In this paper I draw upon different models of community engagement and use Putnam’s (1995) notion of ‘social capital’ to frame the argument that ‘building bridges’ after a disaster is a complex blend of engineering, communication and collaboration. I then present the results of a qualitative research project undertaken after the September 4th earthquake. This research helps to illustrate the important connections between technical rebuilding, social capital, recovery processes and overall urban resilience.