The 2013 Seddon earthquake (Mw 6.5), the 2013 Lake Grassmere earthquake (Mw 6.6), and the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake (Mw 7.8) provided an opportunity to assemble the most extensive damage database to wine storage tanks ever compiled worldwide. An overview of this damage database is presented herein based on the in-field post-earthquake damage data collected for 2058 wine storage tanks (1512 legged tanks and 546 flat-based tanks) following the 2013 earthquakes and 1401 wine storage tanks (599 legged tanks and 802 flat-based tanks) following the 2016 earthquake. Critique of the earthquake damage database revealed that in 2013, 39% and 47% of the flat-based wine tanks sustained damage to their base shells and anchors respectively, while due to resilience measures implemented following the 2013 earthquakes, in the 2016 earthquake the damage to tank base shells and tank anchors of flat-based wine tanks was reduced to 32% and 23% respectively and instead damage to tank barrels (54%) and tank cones (43%) was identified as the two most frequently occurring damage modes for this type of tank. Analysis of damage data for legged wine tanks revealed that the frame-legs of legged wine tanks sustained the greatest damage percentage among different parts of legged tanks in both the 2013 earthquakes (40%) and in the 2016 earthquake (44%). Analysis of damage data and socio-economic findings highlight the need for industry-wide standards, which may have socio-economic implications for wineries.
There is strong consensus in the civil defence and emergency management literature that public participation is essential for a 'good' recovery. However, there is a paucity of research detailing how this community-led planning should be carried out in the real world. There are few processes or timelines for communities to follow when wanting to plan for themselves, nor is there a great deal of advice for communities who want to plan for their own recovery. In short, despite this consensus that community involvement is desireable, there is very little information available as to the nature of this involvement or how communities might facilitate this. It is simply assumed that communities are willing and able to participate in the recovery process and that recovery authorities will welcome, encourage, and enable this participation. This is not always the case, and the result is that community groups can be left feeling lost and ineffective when trying to plan for their own recovery.
In attempting to address this gap, my study contributes to a better understanding of community involvement in recovery planning, based on research with on particular a community group (SPRIG), who has undertaken their own form of community-led planning in a post-disaster environment. Through group observations and in-depth interviews with members of SPRIG, I was able to identify various roles for such groups in the post-disaster recovery process. My research also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the process a community group might follow to implement their own form of post-disaster recovery planning, with the main point being that any planning should be done side by side with local authorities. Finally, I discovered that a community group will face organisational, community and institutional challenges when trying to plan for their area; however, despite these challenges, opportunities exist, such as the chance to build a better future.
Initial recovery focus is on road access (especially the inland SH70) although attention also needs to be focussed on the timelines for reopening SH1 to the south. Information on progress and projected timelines is updated daily via NZTA (www.nzta.govt.nz/eq-travel ). Network analyses indicate potential day trip access and re-establishment of the Alpine Pacific triangle route. When verified against ‘capacity to host’ (Part 2 (15th December) there appears to potential for the reestablishment of overnight visits. Establishing secure road access is the key constraint to recovery.
In terms of the economic recovery the Kaikoura District has traditionallyattracted a large number of visitors which can be grouped as: second home (and caravan) owners, domestic New Zealand and international travellers. These have been seen through a behaviour lens as “short stop”, ‘day” (where Kaikoura is the specific focal destination) and overnight visitors. At the present restricted access appears to make the latter group less amenable to visiting Kaikoura, not the least because the two large marine mammal operators have a strong focus on international visitors. For the present the domestic market provides a greater initial pathway to recovery.
Our experiences in and reflections on Christchurch suggest Kaikoura will not go back to what it once was. A unique opportunity exists to reframe the Kaikoura experience around earthquake geology and its effects on human and natural elements. To capitalise on this opportunity there appears to be a need to move quickly on programming and presenting such experiences as part of a pathway to re-enabling domestic tourists while international visitor bookings and flows can be re-established. The framework developed for this study appears to be robust for rapid post disaster assessment. It needs to be regularly updated and linked with emerging governance and recovery processes.
