This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
Welcome to the Recover newsletter Issue 6 from the Marine Ecology Research Group (MERG) of the University of Canterbury. Recover is designed to keep you updated on our MBIE-funded earthquake recovery project called RECOVER (Reef Ecology, Coastal Values & Earthquake Recovery). This 6th instalment features the ‘new land’ created by the earthquake uplift of the coastline, recreational uses of beaches in Marlborough, and pāua survey work and hatchery projects with our partners in Kaikōura.
Welcome to the Recover newsletter Issue 6 from the Marine Ecology Research Group (MERG) of the University of Canterbury. Recover is designed to keep you updated on our MBIE-funded earthquake recovery project called RECOVER (Reef Ecology, Coastal Values & Earthquake Recovery). This 6th instalment features the ‘new land’ created by the earthquake uplift of the coastline, recreational uses of beaches in Marlborough, and pāua survey work and hatchery projects with our partners in Kaikōura
The University of Canterbury’s RECOVER project (Reef Ecology and Coastal Values, Earthquake Recovery) is a research programme funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and supported by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). It has been evaluating recovery from the 7.8 Mw Kaikōura earthquake in the coastal environment between Oaro in the south and Marfells Beach in the north. The project has documented a wide range of biological and physical impacts in the coastal environment over the past four years. These include the widespread mortality of habitat-forming species that support characteristic ecosystems and natural resources on the coast (Alestra et al. 2021; Schiel et al. 2019; Tait et al. 2021). Due to the popularity of the coast for recreational use, interactions between people and the recovering environment are an important influence on recovery processes. These interactions may include threats to the natural environment but also the potential for positive interventions that could help to restore natural ecosystems and resources – including those that have been degraded in the past. Physical effects of uplift at the coastline include the seaward movement of shorelines and creation of new land above the reach of the tide, leading to a widening of beaches (Orchard et al. 2020; Orchard et al. in press). This has also provided a greater opportunity for off-road vehicle access to sections of the coast previously protected by headlands that were impassable at high tide (Marlborough District Council 2019; Orchard 2020). MDC management responses have included the development of a proposed bylaw to reduce the impacts of motor vehicle use in the area (Marlborough District Council 2021). Changes in the position of the sea-level on the landscape also affect the location of characteristic ecosystems such as sand dunes and storm beaches as they recover to a new norm. Notable changes include the establishment of new dunes closer to the sea which could potentially lead to the degradation of old dune systems that may experience reduced sand supply as a result. Wildlife habitat has also been affected by these uplift and re-assembly effects although the specific impacts remain largely unknown. This report contributes to a collaborative project between the Marlborough District Council (MDC) and University of Canterbury (UC) which aims to help protect and promote the recovery of native dune systems on the Marlborough coast. It is centred around the mapping of dune vegetation and identification of dune protection zones for old-growth seed sources of the native sand-binders spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and pīngao (Ficinia spiralis). Both are key habitat-formers associated with nationally threatened dune ecosystems (Holdaway et al. 2012), and pīngao is an important weaving resource and Ngāi Tahu taonga species. The primary goal is to protect existing seed sources that are vital for natural regeneration following major disturbances such as the earthquake event. Several additional protection zones are also identified for areas where new dunes are successfully regenerating, including areas being actively restored in the Beach Aid project that is assisting new native dunes to become established where there is available space.
This report contributes to a collaborative project between the Marlborough District Council (MDC) and University of Canterbury (UC) which aims to help protect and promote the recovery of native dune systems on the Marlborough coast. It is centred around the mapping of dune vegetation and identification of dune protection zones for old-growth seed sources of the native sand-binders spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and pīngao (Ficinia spiralis). Both are key habitat-formers associated with nationally threatened dune ecosystems, and pīngao is an important weaving resource and Ngāi Tahu taonga species. The primary goal is to protect existing seed sources that are vital for natural regeneration following major disturbances such as the earthquake event. Several additional protection zones are also identified for areas where new dunes are successfully regenerating, including areas being actively restored in the Beach Aid project that is assisting new native dunes to become established where there is available space.
This study explores the nature of smaller businesses’ resilience following two major earthquakes that severely disrupted their place of doing business. Data from the owners of ten smaller businesses are qualitative and longitudinal, spanning the period 2011 through 2018, providing first-hand narrative accounts of their responses in the earthquakes’ aftermath. All ten owners showed some individual resilience; six businesses survived through to 2018, of which three have recovered strongly. All three owned their premises; operated business-tobusiness models; and were able to adapt and continue to follow path-extension strategies. All the other businesses had direct business-to-customer models operating from leased premises, typically in major retail malls. Four eventually recognised path-exhaustion at different times and so did not survive through to 2018. We conclude however that post-disaster recovery is best explained in terms of business model resilience. Even the most resilient of individual owners will struggle to survive if their business model is either not resilient or cannot be made so. Individual resilience is necessary but not sufficient.
