The term resilience‘’is increasingly being used in a multitude of contexts. Seemingly the latest buzz‘’word, it can mean many things to many people, in many different situations. In a natural hazard context, the terms sustainable planning‘’, and resilience‘planning are now’being used, often interchangeably. This poster provides an overview of resilience and sustainability within a land use planning and natural hazard context, and discusses how they are interrelated in the situation of the earthquake impacted city of Christchurch, New Zealand.
As a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, over 60% of the concrete buildings in the Christchurch Central Business District have been demolished. This experience has highlighted the need to provide guidance on the residual capacity and repairability of earthquake-damaged concrete buildings. Experience from 2010 Chile indicates that it is possible to repair severely damaged concrete elements (see photo at right), although limited testing has been performed on such repaired components. The first phase of this project is focused on the performance of two lightly-reinforced concrete walls that are being repaired and re-tested after damage sustained during previous testing.
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.
