Indigenous Peoples retain traditional coping strategies for disasters despite the marginalisation of many Indigenous communities. This article describes the response of Māori to the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2012 through analyses of available statistical data and reports, and interviews done three months
and one year after the most damaging event. A significant difference between Māori and ‘mainstream’ New Zealand was the greater mobility enacted by Māori
throughout this period, with organisations having roles beyond their traditional catchments throughout the disaster, including important support for non-Māori.
Informed engagement with Indigenous communities, acknowledging their internal diversity and culturally nuanced support networks, would enable more efficient
disaster responses in many countries.
As a result of the Christchurch Earthquake that occurred on 22nd February 2011 and the resultant loss of life and widespread damage, a Royal Commission of Enquiry was convened in April 2011. The Royal Commission recommended a number of significant changes to the regulation of earthquake prone building in New Zealand. Earthquake prone buildings are buildings that are deemed to be of insufficient strength to perform adequately in a moderate earthquake. In response to the Royal Commission recommendations the New Zealand Government carried out a consultative process before announcing proposed changes to the building regulations in August 2013. One of the most significant changes is the imposition of mandatory strengthening requirements for earthquake prone buildings on a national basis. This will have a significant impact on the urban fabric of most New Zealand towns and cities. The type of traditional cost benefit study carried out to date fails to measure these impacts and this paper proposes an alternative methodology based on the analysis of land use data and rating valuations. This methodology was developed and applied to a small provincial town in the form of a case study. The results of this case study and the methodology used are discussed in this paper.
The coordination of actors has been a major focus for much of the research in the disaster relief humanitarian logistics discipline. While much of this literature focuses on the initial response phase, little has been written on the longer term recover phase. As the response phase transitions into the longer term recover phase the number and types of actors change from predominantly disaster relief NGOs to more commercial entities we argue that humanitarian values should still be part of the rebuild phase. It has been noted that humanitarian actors both cooperate and compete at the same time (Balcik, Beamon, Krejci, Muramatsu and Ramirez, 2010), in a form of behavior that can be described as ‘co-opetition’ (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1996). We use a case study approach to examine an organizational model used to coordinate civil and commercial actors for the rebuild of the civil infrastructure for Christchurch, New Zealand following a series of devastating earthquakes in 2010/11. For the rebuild phase we argue that ‘co-opetition’ is a key behaviour that allows the blending of humanitarian and commercial values to help communities rebuild to a new normal. While at this early stage our contribution is limited, we eventually hope to fully elaborate on an organisational model that has been created specifically for the tight coordination of commercial actors and its relevance to the rebuild phase of a disaster. Examining the behaviour of co-opetition and the structures that incentivise this behaviour offers insights for the humanitarian logistic field.
This thesis is a theoretical exploration of ‘remembrance’ and its production in the interactions between people/s and the landscape. This exploration takes place in the broad context of post earthquake Christchurch with a focus on public spaces along the Ōtākaro – Avon river corridor. Memory is universal to human beings, yet memories are subjective and culturally organized and produced - the relationship between memory and place therefore operates at individual and collective levels. Design responses that facilitate opportunities to create new memories, and also acknowledge the remembered past of human – landscape relationships are critical for social cohesion and wellbeing. I draw on insights from a range of theoretical sources, including critical interpretive methodologies, to validate subjective individual and group responses to memory and place. Such approaches also allowed me, as the researcher, considerable freedom to apply memory theory through film to illustrate ways we can re-member ourselves to our landscapes. The Ōtākaro-Avon river provided the site through and in which film strategies for remembrance are explored. Foregrounding differences in Māori and settler cultural orientations to memory and landscape, has highlighted the need for landscape design to consider remembrance - those cognitive and unseen dimensions that intertwine people and place. I argue it is our task to make space for such diverse relationships, and to ensure these stories and memories, embodied in landscape can be read through generations. I do not prescribe methods or strategies; rather I have sought to encourage thinking and debate and to suggest approaches through which the possibilities for remembrance may be enhanced.
Planning in New Zealand in 2014 has largely been dominated by housing and urban development, potential local government and legislative reforms, and water issues. This volume’s peer reviewed research, which combines Issues 1 and 2, focuses on these issues, but with perspectives and issues that are outside the mainstream. In our lead research article, John Ryks and his co-authors review the opportunities from Treaty settlements and legislative provisions and challenges for Māori participation in urban development, such as the balancing of matawaka and mana whenua perspectives. Water issues are picked up by Ronlyn Duncan and Phil Holland who each take constructively critical views toward some currently well-regarded approaches to resolutions. We have reflective and somewhat contrasting contributions from two highly respected semi-retired planners, Malcolm Douglass (FNZPI) and Derek Hall, that challenge aspects of New Zealand’s current approach to planning. In our outreach part of this Volume we include the response of some political parties to questions put to them about planning by LPR team member Nicole Read. Finally, Lincoln University appears to have turned a corner after the earthquakes, at least in the planning programmes.
