This is a joint Resilience Framework undertaken by the Electrical, Computer and Software Engineering Department of the University of Auckland in association with West Power and Orion networks and partially funded by the New Zealand National Science Challenge and QuakeCoRE. The Energy- Communication research group nearly accomplished two different researches focusing on both asset resilience and system resilience. Asset resilience research which covers underground cables system in Christchurch region is entitled “2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence Impact on 11KV Underground Cables” and system resilience research which covers electricity distribution and communication system in West Coast region is entitled “NZ Electricity Distribution Network Resilience Assessment and Restoration Models following Major Natural Disturbance“. As the fourth milestone of the aforementioned research project, the latest outcome of both projects has been socialised with the stakeholders during the Cigre NZ 2019 Forum.
Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observationsfrom seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable. Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key. Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expertdominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.
