Global biodiversity is threatened by human actions, including in urban areas. Urbanisation has removed and fragmented indigenous habitats. As one of the 25 biodiversity ’hot spots’, New Zealand is facing the problems of habitat loss and indigenous species extinction. In New Zealand cities, as a result of the land clearance and imported urban planning precepts, many urban areas have little or no original native forest remaining. Urbanisation has also been associated with the introduction of multitudes of species from around the world.
Two large earthquakes shook Christchurch in 2010 and 2011 and caused a lot of damage. Parts of the city suffered from soil liquefaction after the earthquakes. In the most damaged parts of Christchurch, particularly in the east, whole neighbourhoods were abandoned and later demolished except for larger trees.
Christchurch offers an excellent opportunity to study the biodiversity responses to an urban area with less intensive management, and to learn more about the conditions in urban environments that are most conducive to indigenous plant biodiversity.
This study focuses on natural woody plant regeneration of forested sites in Christchurch city, many of which were also surveyed prior to the earthquakes. By repeating the pre-earthquake surveys, I am able to describe the natural regeneration occurring in Christchurch forested areas. By combining this with the regeneration that has occurred in the Residential Red Zone, successional trajectories can be described under a range of management scenarios. Using a comprehensive tree map of the Residential Red Zone, I was also able to document minimum dispersal distances of a range of indigenous trees in Christchurch. This is important for planning reserve connectivity. Moreover, I expand and improve on a previous analysis of the habitat connectivity of Christchurch (made before the earthquakes) to incorporate the Residential Red Zone, to assess the importance for habitat connectivity of restoring the indigenous forest in this area. In combination, these data sets are used to provide patch scenarios and some management options for biodiversity restoration in the Ōtākaro-Avon Red Zone post-earthquake.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery.
Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
The National Science Challenge ‘Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities’ is currently undertaking work that, in part, identifies and analyses the Waimakariri District Council’s (WMK/Council) organisational practices and process tools. The focus is on determining the processes that made the Residential Red Zone Recovery Plan, 2016 (RRZRP) collaboration process so effective and compares it to the processes used to inform the current Kaiapoi Town Centre Plan - 2028 and Beyond (KTC Plan). This research aims to explore ‘what travelled’ in terms of values, principles, methods, processes and personnel from the RRZRP to the KTC planning process. My research will add depth to this research by examining more closely the KTC Plan’s hearings process, reviewing submissions made, analysing background documents and by conducting five semi-structured interviews with a selection of people who made submissions on the KTC Plan.
The link between community involvement and best recovery outcomes has been acknowledged in literature as well as by humanitarian agencies (Lawther, 2009; Sullivan, 2003). My research has documented WMK’s post-quake community engagement strategy by focusing on their initial response to the earthquake of 2010 and the two-formal plan (RRZRP and KTC Plan) making procedures that succeeded this response.
My research has led me to conclude that WMK was committed to collaborating with their constituents right through the extended post-quake sequence. Iterative face to face or ‘think communications’ combined with the accessibility of all levels of Council staff – including senior management and elected members - gave interested community members the opportunity to discuss and deliberate the proposed plans with the people tasked with preparing them. WMK’s commitment to collaborate is illustrated by the methods they employed to inform their post-quake efforts and plans and by the logic behind the selected methods. Combined the Council’s logic and methods best describe the ‘Waimakariri Way’.
My research suggests that collaborative planning is iterative in nature. It is therefore difficult to establish a specific starting point where collaboration begins as the relationships needed for the collaborative process constantly (re)emerge out of pre-existing relationships. Collaboration seems to be based on an attitude, which means there is no starting ‘point’ as such, rather an amplification for a time of a basic attitude towards the public.
