Climate change and population growth will increase vulnerability to natural and human-made disasters or pandemics. Longitudinal research studies may be adversely impacted by a lack of access to study resources, inability to travel around the urban environment, reluctance of sample members to attend appointments, sample members moving residence and potentially also the destruction of research facilities. One of the key advantages of longitudinal research is the ability to assess associations between exposures and outcomes by limiting the influence of sample selection bias. However, ensuring the validity and reliability of findings in longitudinal research requires the recruitment and retention of respondents who are willing and able to be repeatedly assessed over an extended period of time. This study examined recruitment and retention strategies of 11 longitudinal cohort studies operating during the Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake sequence which began in September 2010, including staff perceptions of the major impediments to study operations during/after the earthquakes and respondents’ barriers to participation. Successful strategies to assist recruitment and retention after a natural disaster are discussed. With the current COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal studies are potentially encountering some of the issues highlighted in this paper including: closure of facilities, restricted movement of research staff and sample members, and reluctance of sample members to attend appointments. It is possible that suggestions in this paper may be implemented so that longitudinal studies can protect the operation of their research programmes.<br /><br /><jats:bold>Key messages</jats:bold><br /><ul><li>Recruitment and retention of longitudinal study participants is challenging following a natural disaster.</li><br /><li>The long-lasting, global effects of the Covid 19 pandemic will increase this problem.</li><br /><li>Longitudinal study researchers should develop protocols to support retention before a disaster occurs.</li><br /><li>Researchers need to be pragmatic and flexible in the design and implementation of their studies.</li></ul>
This thesis examines the opportunities for young citizens in Christchurch to be engaged in city planning post-disaster. This qualitative study was conducted eight years after the 2010-2011 earthquakes and employed interviews with 18 young people aged between 12-24 years old, 14 of whom were already actively engaged in volunteering or participating in a youth council. It finds that despite having sought out opportunities for youth leadership and advocacy roles post-disaster, young people report frustration that they are excluded from decision-making and public life. These feelings of exclusion were described by young people as political, physical and social. Young people felt politically excluded from decision-making in the city, with some youth reporting that they did not feel listened to by decision-makers or able to make a difference. Physical exclusion was also experienced by the young people I interviewed, who reported that they felt excluded from their city and neighbourhood. This ranged from feeling unwelcome in certain parts of the city due to perceived social stratification, to actual exclusion from newly privatised areas in a post-quake recovery city. Social exclusion was reported by young people in the study in regard to their sense of marginalisation from the wider community, due to structural and social barriers. Among these, they observed a sense of prejudice towards them and other youth due to their age, class and/or ethnicity. The barriers to their participation and inclusion, and their aspirations for Christchurch post-disaster are discussed, as well as the implications of exclusion for young people’s wellbeing and sense of belonging. Results of this study contribute to the literature that challenges the sole focus on children and young peoples’ vulnerability post-disaster, reinforcing their capacity and desire to contribute to the recovery of their city and community (Peek, 2008). This research also challenges the narrative that young people are politically apathetic (Norris, 2004; Nissen, 2017), and adds to our understandings of the way that disasters can concentrate power amongst certain groups, in this case excluding young people generally from decision-making and public life. I conclude with some recommendations for a more robust post-disaster recovery in Christchurch, in ways that are more inclusive of young people and supportive of their wellbeing.
Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.
In 2010/2011, Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand, suffered a devastating series of earthquakes and aftershocks that resulted in loss of life and significant damage to infrastructure and housing. This created an opportunity to re-build and regenerate a city ready to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. This paper examines the effectiveness of cross sector collaboration to deliver a more resilient, sustainable, and healthy city. Drawing on case studies focused on a proposed innercity housing project, we highlight the challenges and barriers to alternative healthier development. We found a series of barriers to an urban recovery and rebuild that included a lack of skills to transact between the private and public sector, a lack of cooperation and shared drivers, and a lack of bold leadership and workable relationships. This paper underlines some of the failures to support regeneration that in turn highlights what is needed for regeneration approaches and processes to foster innovation and deliver healthier and more sustainable urban living.
