This research attempts to understand how the Christchurch rebuild is promoting urban liveability in the Central City, focussing on the influence of communities and neighbourhoods in this area. To do this, gathering the perceptions of Christchurch residents through surveys, a focus group and semi-structured interviews was carried out to see what aspects they believe contribute to creating more liveable places. These methods revealed that there are pockets of neighbourhoods and communities in the inner-city, but no overall sense of community. Results from the semi-structured interviews reinforced this; the current buyers of inner-city property are in the financial position to be able to do this, and they seem to be purchasing in this area due to convenience and investment rather than to join the existing communities in the area. Analysing the survey responses from Central City residents revealed contrasting results. Those currently living in the area felt there is a sense of community in the inner-city, but these are found in pockets of neighbourhoods around the Central City rather than in the overall area. The focus group revealed that community is further prioritised later in life, and that many of the community groups in the inner-city predominantly consist of those who have lived there since before the Christchurch Earthquake Series. However, participants of all three methods believed that the Central City is slowly becoming a lively and vibrant place. To improve urban liveability in the inner-city, it seems that prioritisation of the needs of current inner-city residents is required. Improving these neighbourhoods, whether it be through the implementation of services or providing more communal spaces, is needed to create stronger communities. The feelings of place, connectedness, and belonging that arise from being part of a community or well-connected neighbourhood can improve mental health and wellbeing, ultimately enhancing the overall health of the population as well as the perceived urban liveability of the area.
Post-earthquake cordons have been used after seismic events around the world. However, there is limited understanding of cordons and how contextual information of place such as geography, socio-cultural characteristics, economy, institutional and governance structure etc. affect decisions, operational procedures as well as spatial and temporal attributes of cordon establishment. This research aims to fill that gap through a qualitative comparative case study of two cities: Christchurch, New Zealand (Mw 6.2 earthquake, February 2011) and L’Aquila, Italy (Mw 6.3 earthquake, 2009). Both cities suffered comprehensive damage to its city centre and had cordons established for extended period. Data collection was done through purposive and snowball sampling methods whereby 23 key informants were interviewed in total. The interviewee varied in their roles and responsibilities i.e. council members, emergency managers, politicians, business/insurance representatives etc. We found that cordons were established to ensure safety of people and to maintain security of place in both the sites. In both cities, the extended cordon was met with resistance and protests. The extent and duration of establishment of cordon was affected by recovery approach taken in the two cities i.e. in Christchurch demolition was widely done to support recovery allowing for faster removal of cordons where as in L’Aquila, due to its historical importance, the approach to recovery was based on saving all the buildings which extended the duration of cordon. Thus, cordons are affected by site specific needs. It should be removed as soon as practicable which could be made easier with preplanning of cordons.
The affect that the Christchurch Earthquake Sequence(CES) had on Christchurch residents was severe, and the consequences are still being felt today. The Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) was particularly impacted, a geographic zone that had over 7,000 homes which needed to be vacated and demolished. The CES demonstrated how disastrous a natural hazard can be on unprepared communities. With the increasing volatility of climate change being felt around the world, considering ways in which communities can reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards is vital. This research explores how communities can reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards by becoming more adaptable, and in particular the extent to which tiny homes could facilitate the development of adaptive communities. In doing so, three main themes were explored throughout this research: (1) tiny homes, (2) environmental adaptation and (3) community adaptability. To ensure that it is relevant and provides real value to the local community, the research draws upon the local case study of the Riverlution Tiny House Village(RTHV), an innovative community approach to adaptable, affordable, low-impact, sustainable living on margins of land which are no longer suitable for permanent housing. The main findings of the research are that Christchurch is at risk of climate change and natural hazards and it is therefore important to consider ways in which communities can stay intact and connected while adapting to the risks they face. Tiny homes provide an effective way of doing so, as they represent a tangible way that people can take adaptation into their own hands while maintaining a high-quality lifestyle.
The question of whether forced relocation is beneficial or detrimental to the displaced households is a controversial and important policy question. After the 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, the government designated some of the worst affected areas as Residential Red Zones. Around 20,000 people were forced to move out of these Residential Red Zone areas, and were compensated for that. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, we aim to estimate the impact of relocation on the displaced households in terms of their income, employment, and their mental and physical health. Second, we evaluate whether the impact of relocation varies by the timing of to move, the destination (remaining within the Canterbury region or moving out of it) and demographic factors (gender, age, ethnicity). StatisticsNZ’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) from 2008 to 2017, which includes data on all households in Canterbury, and a difference-in-difference (DID) technique is used to answer these questions. We find that relocation has a negative impact on the income of the displaced household group. This adverse impact is more severe for later movers. Compared to the control group (that was not relocated), the income of relocated households was reduced by 3% for people who moved immediately after the earthquake in 2011, and 14% for people who moved much later in 2015.
