The lived reality of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and its implications for the Waimakariri District, a small but rapidly growing district (third tier of government in New Zealand) north of Christchurch, can illustrate how community well-being, community resilience, and community capitals interrelate in practice generating paradoxical results out of what can otherwise be conceived as a textbook ‘best practice’ case of earthquake recovery. The Waimakariri District Council’s integrated community based recovery framework designed and implemented post-earthquakes in the District was built upon strong political, social, and moral capital elements such as: inter-institutional integration and communication, participation, local knowledge, and social justice. This approach enabled very positive community outputs such as artistic community interventions of the urban environment and communal food forests amongst others. Yet, interests responding to broader economic and political processes (continuous central government interventions, insurance and reinsurance processes, changing socio-cultural patterns) produced a significant loss of community capitals (E.g.: social fragmentation, participation exhaustion, economic leakage, etc.) which simultaneously, despite local Council and community efforts, hindered community well-being in the long term. The story of the Waimakariri District helps understand how resilience governance operates in practice where multi-scalar, non-linear, paradoxical, dynamic, and uncertain outcomes appear to be the norm that underpins the construction of equitable, transformative, and sustainable pathways towards the future.
1. INTRODUCTION. Earthquakes and geohazards, such as liquefaction, landslides and rock falls, constitute a major risk for New Zealand communities and can have devastating impacts as the Canterbury 2010/2011 experience shows. Development patterns expose communities to an array of natural hazards, including tsunamis, floods, droughts, and sea level rise amongst others. Fostering community resilience is therefore vitally important. As the rhetoric of resilience is mainstreamed into the statutory framework, a major challenge emerges: how can New Zealand operationalize this complex and sometimes contested concept and build ‘community capitals’? This research seeks to provide insights to this question by critically evaluating how community capitals are conceptualized and how they can contribute to community resilience in the context of the Waimakariri District earthquake recovery and regeneration process.
Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development.
The supply of water following disasters has always been of significant concern to communities. Failure of water systems not only causes difficulties for residents and critical users but may also affect other hard and soft infrastructure and services. The dependency of communities and other infrastructure on the availability of safe and reliable water places even more emphasis on the resilience of water supply systems. This thesis makes two major contributions. First, it proposes a framework for measuring the multifaceted resilience of water systems, focusing on the significance of the characteristics of different communities for the resilience of water supply systems. The proposed framework, known as the CARE framework, consists of eight principal activities: (1) developing a conceptual framework; (2) selecting appropriate indicators; (3) refining the indicators based on data availability; (4) correlation analysis; (5) scaling the indicators; (6) weighting the variables; (7) measuring the indicators; and (8) aggregating the indicators. This framework allows researchers to develop appropriate indicators in each dimension of resilience (i.e., technical, organisational, social, and economic), and enables decision makers to more easily participate in the process and follow the procedure for composite indicator development. Second, it identifies the significant technical, social, organisational and economic factors, and the relevant indicators for measuring these factors. The factors and indicators were gathered through a comprehensive literature review. They were then verified and ranked through a series of interviews with water supply and resilience specialists, social scientists and economists. Vulnerability, redundancy and criticality were identified as the most significant technical factors affecting water supply system robustness, and consequently resilience. These factors were tested for a scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 in Pukerua Bay in New Zealand. Four social factors and seven indicators were identified in this study. The social factors are individual demands and capacities, individual involvement in the community, violence level in the community, and trust. The indicators are the Giving Index, homicide rate, assault rate, inverse trust in army, inverse trust in police, mean years of school, and perception of crime. These indicators were tested in Chile and New Zealand, which experienced earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The social factors were also tested in Vanuatu following TC Pam, which hit the country in March 2015. Interestingly, the organisational dimension contributed the largest number of factors and indicators for measuring water supply resilience to disasters. The study identified six organisational factors and 17 indicators that can affect water supply resilience to disasters. The factors are: disaster precaution; predisaster planning; data availability, data accessibility and information sharing; staff, parts, and equipment availability; pre-disaster maintenance; and governance. The identified factors and their indicators were tested for the case of Christchurch, New Zealand, to understand how organisational capacity affected water supply resilience following the earthquake in February 2011. Governance and availability of critical staff following the earthquake were the strongest organisational factors for the Christchurch City Council, while the lack of early warning systems and emergency response planning were identified as areas that needed to be addressed. Economic capacity and quick access to finance were found to be the main economic factors influencing the resilience of water systems. Quick access to finance is most important in the early stages following a disaster for response and restoration, but its importance declines over time. In contrast, the economic capacity of the disaster struck area and the water sector play a vital role in the subsequent reconstruction phase rather than in the response and restoration period. Indicators for these factors were tested for the case of the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. Finally, a new approach to measuring water supply resilience is proposed. This approach measures the resilience of the water supply system based on actual water demand following an earthquake. The demand-based method calculates resilience based on the difference between water demand and system capacity by measuring actual water shortage (i.e., the difference between water availability and demand) following an earthquake.
The purpose of this research is to investigate men’s experiences of the 2016 7.8 magnitude Kaikōura earthquake and Tsunami. While, research into the impacts of the earthquake has been conducted, few studies have examined how gender shaped people’s experiences of this natural hazard event. Analysing disasters through a gender lens has significantly contributed to disaster scholarship in identifying the resilience and vulnerabilities of individuals and communities pre- and post-disaster (Fordham, 2012; Bradshaw, 2013). This research employs understandings of masculinities (Connell, 2005), to examine men’s strengths and challenges in responding, recovering, and coping following the earthquake. Qualitative inquiry was carried out in Northern Canterbury and Marlborough involving 18 face-to-face interviews with men who were impacted by the Kaikōura earthquake and its aftermath. Interview material is being analysed using thematic and narrative analysis. Some of the preliminary findings have shown that men took on voluntary roles in addition to their fulltime paid work resulting in long hours, poor sleep and little time spent with family. Some men assisted wives and children to high ground then drove into the tsunami zone to check on relatives or to help evacuate people. Although analysis of the findings is currently ongoing, preliminary findings have identified that the men who participated in the study have been negatively impacted by the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. A theme identified amongst participants was an avoidance to seek support with the challenges they were experiencing due to the earthquake. The research findings align with key characteristics of masculinity, including demonstrating risky behaviours and neglecting self or professional care. This study suggests that these behaviours affect men’s overall resilience, and thus the resilience of the wider community.
The purpose of this research is to investigate men’s experiences of the 2016 7.8 magnitude Kaikōura earthquake and Tsunami. While, research into the impacts of the earthquake has been conducted, few studies have examined how gender shaped people’s experiences of this natural hazard event. Analysing disasters through a gender lens has significantly contributed to disaster scholarship in identifying the resilience and vulnerabilities of individuals and communities pre- and post-disaster (Fordham, 2012; Bradshaw, 2013). This research employs understandings of masculinities (Connell, 2005), to examine men’s strengths and challenges in responding, recovering, and coping following the earthquake. Qualitative inquiry was carried out in Northern Canterbury and Marlborough involving 18 face-to-face interviews with men who were impacted by the Kaikōura earthquake and its aftermath. Interview material is being analysed using thematic and narrative analysis. Some of the preliminary findings have shown that men took on voluntary roles in addition to their fulltime paid work resulting in long hours, poor sleep and little time spent with family. Some men assisted wives and children to high ground then drove into the tsunami zone to check on relatives or to help evacuate people. Although analysis of the findings is currently ongoing, preliminary findings have identified that the men who participated in the study have been negatively impacted by the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. A theme identified amongst participants was an avoidance to seek support with the challenges they were experiencing due to the earthquake. The research findings align with key characteristics of masculinity, including demonstrating risky behaviours and neglecting self or professional care. This study suggests that these behaviours affect men’s overall resilience, and thus the resilience of the wider community.
Disasters, either man-made or natural, are characterised by a multiplicity of factors including loss of property, life, environmental degradation, and psychosocial malfunction of the affected community. Although much research has been undertaken on proactive disaster management to help reduce the impacts of natural and man-made disasters, many challenges still remain. In particular, the desire to re-house the affected as quickly as possible can affect long-term recovery if a considered approach is not adopted. Promoting recovery activities, coordination, and information sharing at national and international levels are crucial to avoid duplication. Mannakkara and Wilkinson’s (2014) modified “Build Back Better” (BBB) concept aims for better resilience by incorporating key resilience elements in post-disaster restoration. This research conducted an investigation into the effectiveness of BBB in the recovery process after the 2010–2011 earthquakes in greater Christchurch, New Zealand. The BBB’s impact was assessed in terms of its five key components: built environment, natural environment, social environment, economic environment, and implementation process. This research identified how the modified BBB propositions can assist in disaster risk reduction in the future, and used both qualitative and quantitative data from both the Christchurch and Waimakariri recovery processes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key officials from the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority, and city councils, and supplemented by reviewing of the relevant literature. Collecting data from both qualitative and quantitative sources enabled triangulation of the data. The interviewees had directly participated in all phases of the recovery, which helped the researcher gain a clear understanding of the recovery process. The findings led to the identification of best practices from the Christchurch and Waimakariri recovery processes and underlined the effectiveness of the BBB approach for all recovery efforts. This study contributed an assessment tool to aid the measurement of resilience achieved through BBB indicators. This tool provides systematic and structured approach to measure the performance of ongoing recovery.
New Zealand has a long tradition of using light timber frame for construction of its domestic dwellings. After the most recent earthquakes (e.g. Canterbury earthquakes sequence), wooden residential houses showed satisfactory life safety performance. However, poor performance was reported in terms of their seismic resilience. Although numerous innovative methods to mitigate damage have been introduced to the New Zealand community in order to improve wooden house performance, these retrofit options have not been readily taken up. The low number of retrofitted wooden-framed houses leads to questions about whether homeowners are aware of the necessity of seismic retrofitting their houses to achieve a satisfactory seismic performance. This study aims to explore different retrofit technologies that can be applied to wooden-framed houses in Wellington, taking into account the need of homeowners to understand the risk, likelihood and extent of damage expected after an event. A survey will be conducted in Wellington about perceptions of homeowners towards the expected performance of their wooden-framed houses. The survey questions were designed to gain an understanding of homeowners' levels of safety and awareness of possible damage after a seismic event. Afterwards, a structural review of a sample of the houses will be undertaken to identify common features and detail potential seismic concerns. The findings will break down barriers to making improvements in the performance of wooden-framed houses and lead to enhancements in the confidence of homeowners in the event of future seismic activity. This will result in increased understanding and contribute towards an accessible knowledge base, which will possibly increase significantly the use of these technologies and avoid unnecessary economic and social costs after a seismic event.
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
