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.
Background The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks in New Zealand caused unprecedented destruction to the physical, social, economic, and community fabric of Christchurch city. The recovery phase in Christchurch is on going, six years following the initial earthquake. Research exploring how disabled populations experience community inclusion in the longer-term recovery following natural disasters is scant. Yet such information is vital to ensure that recovering communities are inclusive for all members of the affected population. This thesis specifically examined how people who use wheelchairs experienced community inclusion four years following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Aims The primary research aim was to understand how one section of the disability community – people who use wheelchairs – experienced community inclusion over the four years following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks. A secondary aim was to test a novel sampling approach, Respondent Driven Sampling, which had the potential to enable unbiased population-based estimates. This was motivated by the lack of an available sampling frame for the target population, which would inhibit recruitment of a representative sample. Methodology and methods An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, beginning with a qualitative phase (Phase One), which informed a second quantitative phase (Phase Two). The qualitative phase had two stages. First, a small sample of people who use wheelchairs participated in an individual, semi-structured interview. In the second stage, these participants were then invited to a group interview to clarify and prioritise themes identified in the individual interviews. The quantitative phase was a cross-sectional survey developed from the findings from Phase One. Initially, Respondent Driven Sampling was employed to conduct a national, electronic cross-sectional survey that aimed to recruit a sample that may provide unbiased population-based estimates. Following the unsuccessful application of Respondent Driven Sampling, a region-specific convenience sampling approach was used. The datasets from the qualitative and quantitative phases were integrated to address the primary aim of the research. Results In Phase One 13 participants completed the individual interviews, and five of them contributed to the group interview. Thematic analysis of individual and group interview data suggested that participants felt the 2010/11 earthquakes magnified many pre-existing barriers to community inclusion, and also created an exciting opportunity for change. This finding was encapsulated in five themes: 1) earthquakes magnified barriers, 2) community inclusion requires energy, 3) social connections are important, 4) an opportunity lost, and 5) an opportunity found. The findings from Phase One informed the development of a survey instrument to investigate how these findings generalised to a larger sample of individuals who use wheelchairs. In Phase Two, the Respondent Driven Sampling approach failed to recruit enough participants to satisfy the statistical requirements needed to reach equilibrium, thereby enabling the calculation of unbiased population estimates. The subsequent convenience sampling approach recruited 49 participants who, combined with the 15 participants from the Respondent Driven Sampling approach that remained eligible for the region-specific sample, resulted in the total of 64 individuals who used wheelchairs and were residents of Christchurch. Participants reported their level of community inclusion at three time periods: the six months prior to the first earthquake in September 2010 (time one), the six months following the first earthquake in September 2010 (time two), and the six months prior to survey completion (between October 2015 and March 2016, (time three)). Survey data provided some precision regarding the timing in which the magnified barriers developed. Difficulty with community inclusion rose significantly between time one and time two, and while reducing slightly, was still present during time three, and had not returned to the time one baseline. The integrated findings from Phase One and Phase Two suggested that magnified barriers to community inclusion had been sustained four years post-earthquake, and community access had not returned to pre-earthquake levels, let alone improved beyond pre-earthquake levels. Conclusion Findings from this mixed methods study suggest that four years following the initial earthquake, participants were still experiencing multiple magnified barriers, which contributed to physical and social exclusion, as well as fatigue, as participants relied on individual agency to negotiate such barriers. Participants also highlighted the exciting opportunity to create an accessible city. However because they were still experiencing barriers four years following the initial event, and were concerned that this opportunity might be lost if the recovery proceeds without commitment and awareness from the numerous stakeholders involved in guiding the recovery. To truly realise the opportunity to create an accessible city following a disaster, the transition from the response phase to a sustainable longer-term recovery must adopt a new model of community engagement where decision-makers partner with people living with disability to co-produce a vision and strategy for creating an inclusive community. Furthermore, despite the unsuccessful use of Respondent Driven Sampling in this study, future research exploring the application of RDS with wheelchair users is recommended before discounting this sampling approach in this population.
