School travel is a major aspect of a young person’s everyday activity. The relationship between the built environment that youth experience on their way to and from school, influences a number of factors including their development, health and wellbeing. This is especially important in low income areas where the built environment is often poorer, but the need for it to be high quality and accessible is greater. This study focusses on the community of Aranui, a relatively low income suburb in Christchurch, New Zealand. It pays particular attention to Haeata Community Campus, a state school of just under 800 pupils from year one through to year thirteen (ages 5-18). The campus opened in 2017 following the closure of four local schools (three primary and one secondary), as part of the New Zealand Government’s Education Renewal scheme following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010/11. Dedicated effort toward understanding the local built environment, and subsequent travel patterns has been argued to be insufficiently considered. The key focus of this research was to understand the importance of the local environment in encouraging active school travel. The present study combines geospatial analysis, quantitative survey software Maptionnaire, and statistical models to explore the features of the local environment that influence school travel behaviour. Key findings suggest that distance to school and parental control are the most significant predictors of active transport in the study sample. Almost 75% of students live within two kilometres of the school, yet less than 40% utilise active transport. Parental control may be the key contributing factor to the disproportionate private vehicle use. However, active school travel is acknowledged as a complex process that is the product of many individual, household, and local environment factors. To see increased active transport uptake, the local environment needs to be of greater quality. Meaning that the built environment should be improved to be youth friendly, with greater walkability and safe, accessible cycling infrastructure.
On 4 September 2010, people in Canterbury were shaken from their beds by a major earthquake. This report tells the story of the University of Canterbury (UC), its staff and its students, as they rose to the many challenges presented by the earthquake. This report however, is intended to do more than just acknowledge their hard work and determination; it also critically reflects on the things that worked well and the aspects of the response that, in hindsight, could have been done better. Luckily major events such as this earthquake do not happen every day. UC has benefited from the many universities around the world that have shared their experiences of previous disasters. We hope that this report serves to pass forward the favour and enables others to benefit from the lessons that we have learnt from this event.
Background The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks in New Zealand caused unprecedented destruction to the physical, social, economic, and community fabric of Christchurch city. The recovery phase in Christchurch is on going, six years following the initial earthquake. Research exploring how disabled populations experience community inclusion in the longer-term recovery following natural disasters is scant. Yet such information is vital to ensure that recovering communities are inclusive for all members of the affected population. This thesis specifically examined how people who use wheelchairs experienced community inclusion four years following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Aims The primary research aim was to understand how one section of the disability community – people who use wheelchairs – experienced community inclusion over the four years following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks. A secondary aim was to test a novel sampling approach, Respondent Driven Sampling, which had the potential to enable unbiased population-based estimates. This was motivated by the lack of an available sampling frame for the target population, which would inhibit recruitment of a representative sample. Methodology and methods An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, beginning with a qualitative phase (Phase One), which informed a second quantitative phase (Phase Two). The qualitative phase had two stages. First, a small sample of people who use wheelchairs participated in an individual, semi-structured interview. In the second stage, these participants were then invited to a group interview to clarify and prioritise themes identified in the individual interviews. The quantitative phase was a cross-sectional survey developed from the findings from Phase One. Initially, Respondent Driven Sampling was employed to conduct a national, electronic cross-sectional survey that aimed to recruit a sample that may provide unbiased population-based estimates. Following the unsuccessful application of Respondent Driven Sampling, a region-specific convenience sampling approach was used. The datasets from the qualitative and quantitative phases were integrated to address the primary aim of the research. Results In Phase One 13 participants completed the individual interviews, and five of them contributed to the group interview. Thematic analysis of individual and group interview data suggested that participants felt the 2010/11 earthquakes magnified many pre-existing barriers to community inclusion, and also created an exciting opportunity for change. This finding was encapsulated in five themes: 1) earthquakes magnified barriers, 2) community inclusion requires energy, 3) social connections are important, 4) an opportunity lost, and 5) an opportunity found. The findings from Phase One informed the development of a survey instrument to investigate how these findings generalised to a larger sample of individuals who use wheelchairs. In Phase Two, the Respondent Driven Sampling approach failed to recruit enough participants to satisfy the statistical requirements needed to reach equilibrium, thereby enabling the calculation of unbiased population estimates. The subsequent convenience sampling approach recruited 49 participants who, combined with the 15 participants from the Respondent Driven Sampling approach that remained eligible for the region-specific sample, resulted in the total of 64 individuals who used wheelchairs and were residents of Christchurch. Participants reported their level of community inclusion at three time periods: the six months prior to the first earthquake in September 2010 (time one), the six months following the first earthquake in September 2010 (time two), and the six months prior to survey completion (between October 2015 and March 2016, (time three)). Survey data provided some precision regarding the timing in which the magnified barriers developed. Difficulty with community inclusion rose significantly between time one and time two, and while reducing slightly, was still present during time three, and had not returned to the time one baseline. The integrated findings from Phase One and Phase Two suggested that magnified barriers to community inclusion had been sustained four years post-earthquake, and community access had not returned to pre-earthquake levels, let alone improved beyond pre-earthquake levels. Conclusion Findings from this mixed methods study suggest that four years following the initial earthquake, participants were still experiencing multiple magnified barriers, which contributed to physical and social exclusion, as well as fatigue, as participants relied on individual agency to negotiate such barriers. Participants also highlighted the exciting opportunity to create an accessible city. However because they were still experiencing barriers four years following the initial event, and were concerned that this opportunity might be lost if the recovery proceeds without commitment and awareness from the numerous stakeholders involved in guiding the recovery. To truly realise the opportunity to create an accessible city following a disaster, the transition from the response phase to a sustainable longer-term recovery must adopt a new model of community engagement where decision-makers partner with people living with disability to co-produce a vision and strategy for creating an inclusive community. Furthermore, despite the unsuccessful use of Respondent Driven Sampling in this study, future research exploring the application of RDS with wheelchair users is recommended before discounting this sampling approach in this population.
