The recent Christchurch earthquakes provide a unique opportunity to better understand the relationship between pre-disaster social fault-lines and post-disaster community fracture. As a resident of Christchurch, this paper presents some of my reflections on the social structures and systems, activities, attitudes and decisions that have helped different Canterbury ‘communities’ along their road to recovery, and highlights some issues that have, unfortunately, held us back.
These reflections help answer the most crucial question asked of disaster scholarship: what can recovery agencies (including local authorities) do - both before and after disaster - to promote resilience and facilitate recovery. This paper – based on three different definitions of
resilience - presents a thematic account of the social recovery landscape. I argue that ‘coping’ might best be associated with adaptive capacity, however ‘thriving’ or ‘bounce forward’ versions of resilience are a function of a community’s participative capacity.
Though there is a broad consensus that communities play a key role in disaster response and recovery, most of the existing work in this area focuses on the activities of donor agencies, formal civil defence authorities, and local/central government. Consequently, there is a paucity of research addressing the on-going actions and activities undertaken by communities and ‘emergent groups’ , particularly as they develop after the immediate civil defence or ‘response’ phase is over.
In an attempt to address this gap, this inventory of community-led recovery initiatives was undertaken approximately one year after the most devastating February 2011 earthquake. It is part of on-going project at Lincoln University documenting – and seeking a better understanding of -
various emergent communities’ roles in recovery, their challenges, and strategies for overcoming them. This larger project also seeks to better understand how collaborative work between informal and formal recovery efforts might be facilitated at different stages of the process.
This inventory was conducted over the December 2011 – February 2012 period and builds on Landcare Research’s Christchurch Earthquake Activity Inventory which was a similar snapshot taken in April 2011. The intention behind conducting this updated inventory is to gain a longitudinal perspective of how community-led recovery activities evolve over time.
Each entry is ordered alphabetically and contact details have been provided where possible. A series of keywords have also been assigned that describe the main attributes of each activity to assist searches within this document.This inventory was supported by the Lincoln University Research Fund and the Royal Society Marsden Fund.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the Canterbury Lifeline Utilities Group have collaborated to assemble documented infra- structure-related learnings from the recent Canterbury earthquakes and other natural hazard events over the last 15 years (i.e. since publication of Risks and Realities). The project was led by the Centre for Advanced Engineering (CAE) and was undertaken to promote knowledge sharing by facilitating access to diverse documents on natural hazard learnings, a matter of ongoing relevance and very considerable current interest.
For the people of Christchurch and its wider environs of Canterbury in New Zealand, the 4th of September 2010 earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks were daunting. To then experience a more deadly earthquake five months later on the 22nd of February 2011 was, for the majority, overwhelming. A total of 185 people were killed and the earthquake and continuing aftershocks caused widespread damage to properties, especially in the central city and eastern suburbs. A growing body of literature consistently documents the negative impact of experiencing natural disasters on existing psychological disorders. As well, several studies have identified positive coping strategies which can be used in response to adversities, including reliance on spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as developing resilience and social support. The lifetime prevalence of severe mental health disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurring as a result of experiencing natural disasters in the general population is low. However, members of refugee communities who were among those affected by these earthquakes, as well as having a past history of experiencing traumatic events, were likely to have an increased vulnerability. The current study was undertaken to investigate the relevance to Canterbury refugee communities of the recent Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) draft recovery strategy for Christchurch post-earthquakes. This was accomplished by interviewing key informants who worked closely with refugee communities. These participants were drawn from different agencies in Christchurch including Refugee Resettlement Services, the Canterbury Refugee Council, CERA, and health promotion and primary healthcare organisations, in order to obtain the views of people who have comprehensive knowledge of refugee communities as well as expertise in local mainstream services. The findings from the semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to identify common themes raised by the participants. The key informants described CERA’s draft recovery strategy as a significant document which highlighted the key aspects of recovery post disaster. Many key informants identified concerns regarding the practicality of the draft recovery strategy. For the refugee communities, some of those concerns included the short consultation period for the implementation phase of the draft recovery strategy, and issues surrounding communication and collaboration between refugee agencies involved in the recovery. This study draws attention to the importance of communication and collaboration during recovery, especially in the social reconstruction phase following a disaster, for all citizens but most especially for refugee communities.
The recent earthquakes in Canterbury have left thousands of Christchurch residents’ homeless or facing the possibility of homelessness. The New Zealand Government, so far, have announced that 5,100 homes in Christchurch will have to be abandoned as a result of earthquake damaged land (Christchurch City Council, 2011). They have been zoned red on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) map and there are another 10,000 that have been zoned orange, awaiting a decision (Christchurch City Council, 2011). This situation has placed pressures on land developers and local authorities to speed up the process associated with the development of proposed subdivisions in Christchurch to accommodate residents in this situation (Tarrant, 2011).
Since September 2010 Christchurch, New Zealand, has experienced a number of significant earthquakes. In addition to loss of life, this has resulted in significant destruction to infrastructure, including road corridors; and buildings, especially in the central city, where it has been estimated that 60% of buildings will need to be rebuilt. The rebuild and renewal of Christchurch has initially focused on the central city under the direction of the Christchurch City Council. This has seen the development of a draft Central City Plan that includes a number of initiatives that should encourage the use of the bicycle as a mode of transport. The rebuild and renewal of the remainder of the city is under the jurisdiction of a specially set up authority, the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). CERA reports to an appointed Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who is responsible for coordinating the planning, spending, and actual rebuilding work needed for the recovery. Their plans for the renewal and rebuild of the remainder of the city are not yet known. This presentation will examine the potential role of the bicycle as a mode of transport in a rebuilt Christchurch. The presentation will start by describing the nature of damage to Christchurch as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. It will then review the Central City Plan (the plan for the rebuild and renewal for central Christchurch) focusing particularly on those aspects that affect the role of the bicycle. The potential for the success of this plan will be assessed. It will specifically reflect on this in light of some recent research in Christchurch that examined the importance of getting infrastructure right if an aim of transport planning is to attract new people to cycle for utilitarian reasons.
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.
The Master of Engineering Management Project was sponsored by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and consisted of two phases: The first was an analysis of existing information detailing the effects of hazardous natural events on Canterbury Lifeline Utilities in the past 15 years. The aim of this “Lessons Learned” project was to produce an analysis report that identified key themes from the research, gaps in the existing data and to provide recommendations from these “Lessons Learned.” The Second phase was the development of a practical “Disaster Mitigation Guideline” that outlined lessons in the field of Emergency Sanitation. This research would build upon the first stage and would draw from international reference to develop a guideline that has practical implementation possibilities throughout the world.
