The 4 September, 22 February, and 13 June earthquakes experienced in Canterbury, New Zealand would have been significant events individually. Together they present a complex and unprecedented challenge for Canterbury and New Zealand. The repetitive and protracted nature of these events has caused widespread building and infrastructure damage, strained organisations’ financial and human resources and challenged insurer and investor confidence. The impact of the earthquakes was even more damaging coming in the wake of the worst worldwide recession since the great depression of the 1930s. However, where there is disruption there is also opportunity. Businesses and other organisations will drive the physical, economic and social recovery of Canterbury, which will be a dynamic and long-term undertaking. Ongoing monitoring of the impacts, challenges and developments during the recovery is critical to maintaining momentum and making effective mid-course adjustments. This report provides a synthesis of research carried out by the Resilient Organisations (ResOrgs) Research Programme1 at the University of Canterbury and Recover Canterbury in collaboration with Opus Central Laboratories (part of Opus International Consultants). The report includes discussions on the general state of the economy as well as data from three surveys (two conducted by ResOrgs and one by Recover Canterbury) on business impacts of the earthquakes, population movements and related economic recovery issues. This research and report offers two primary benefits:
The urban environment influences the way people live and shape their everyday lives, and microclimate sensitive design can enhance the use of urban streets and public spaces. Innovative approaches to urban microclimate design will become more important as the world’s population becomes ever more urban, and climate change generates more variability and extremes in urban microclimatic conditions. However, established methods of investigation based upon conventions drawn from building services research and framed by physiological concepts of thermal comfort may fail to capture the social dynamics of urban activity and their interrelationship with microclimate. This research investigates the relationship between microclimate and urban culture in Christchurch, New Zealand, based upon the concept of urban comfort. Urban comfort is defined as the socio-cultural (therefore collective) adaptation to microclimate due to satisfaction with the urban environment. It involves consideration of a combination of human thermal comfort requirements and adaptive comfort circumstances, preferences and strategies. A main methodological challenge was to investigate urban comfort in a city undergoing rapid physical change following a series of major earthquakes (2010-2011), and that also has a strongly seasonal climate which accentuates microclimatic variability. The field investigation had to be suitable for rapidly changing settings as buildings were demolished and rebuilt, and be able to capture data relevant to a cycle of seasons. These local circumstances meant that Christchurch was valuable as an example of a city facing rapid and unpredictable change. An interpretive, integrative, and adaptive research strategy that combined qualitative social science methods with biophysical measures was adopted. The results are based upon participant observation, 86 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents, and microclimate data measurements. The interviews were carried out in a variety of urban settings including established urban settings (places sustaining relatively little damage) and emerging urban settings (those requiring rebuilding) during 2011-2013. Results of this research show that urban comfort depends on adaptive strategies which in turn depend on culture. Adaptive strategies identified through the data analysis show a strong connection between natural and built landscapes, combined with the regional outdoor culture, the Garden City identity and the connections between rural and urban landscapes. The results also highlight that thermal comfort is an important but insufficient indicator of good microclimate design, as social and cultural values are important influences on climate experience and adaptation. Interpretive research is needed to fully understand urban comfort and to provide urban microclimate design solutions to enhance the use of public open spaces in cities undergoing change.
This research examines a surprising partner in emergency management - a local community time bank. Specifically, we explain the role of the Lyttelton Time Bank in promoting community resiliency following the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. A time bank is a grassroots exchange system in which members trade services non-reciprocally. This exchange model assumes that everyone has tradable skills and all labour is equal in value. One hour of any labour earns a member one time bank hour, which can be used to purchase another member’s services. Before the earthquakes struck, the Lyttelton Time Bank (TB) had organised over 10% of the town’s residents and 18 local organisations. It was documenting, developing, and mobilising skills to solve individual and collective problems. This report examines the Lyttelton Time Bank and its’ role before, during, and after the earthquakes based on the analysis of over three and a half years of fieldwork, observations, interviews, focus groups, trading activity, and secondary data.
The magnitude 7.8 earthquake that struck North Canterbury, on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island on 14 November 2016 had significant impacts and implications for the community of Kaikōura and surrounding settlements. The magnitude and scope of this event has resulted in extensive and ongoing geological and geophysical research into the event. The current paper complements this research by providing a review of existing social science research and offering new analysis of the impact of the earthquake and its aftermath on community resilience in Kaikōura over the past five years. Results demonstrate the significant economic implications for tourism, and primary industries. Recovery has been slow, and largely dependent on restoring transportation networks, which helped catalyse cooperation among local hospitality providers. Challenges remain, however, and not all sectors or households have benefited equally from post-quake opportunities, and long-term recovery trajectories continue to be hampered by COVID-19 pandemic. The multiple ongoing and future stressors faced by Kaikōura require integrated and equitable approaches in order to build capability and capacity for locally based development pathways to ensure long-term community resilience.
On 15 August 1868, a great earthquake struck off the coast of the Chile-Peru border generating a tsunami that travelled across the Pacific. Wharekauri-Rekohu-Chatham Islands, located 800 km east of Christchurch, Aotearoa-New Zealand (A-NZ) was one of the worst affected locations in A-NZ. Tsunami waves, including three over 6 metres high, injured and killed people, destroyed buildings and infrastructure, and impacted the environment, economy and communities. While experience of disasters, and advancements in disaster risk reduction systems and technology have all significantly advanced A-NZ’s capacity to be ready for and respond to future earthquakes and tsunami, social memory of this event and other tsunamis during our history has diminished. In 2018, a team of scientists, emergency managers and communication specialists collaborated to organise a memorial event on the Chatham Islands and co-ordinate a multi-agency media campaign to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 1868 Arica tsunami. The purpose was to raise awareness of the disaster and to encourage preparedness for future tsunami. Press releases and science stories were distributed widely by different media outlets and many attended the memorial event indicating public interest for commemorating historical disasters. We highlight the importance of commemorating disaster anniversaries through memorial events, to raise awareness of historical disasters and increase community preparedness for future events – “lest we forget and let us learn.”
This thesis is a theoretical exploration of ‘remembrance’ and its production in the interactions between people/s and the landscape. This exploration takes place in the broad context of post earthquake Christchurch with a focus on public spaces along the Ōtākaro – Avon river corridor. Memory is universal to human beings, yet memories are subjective and culturally organized and produced - the relationship between memory and place therefore operates at individual and collective levels. Design responses that facilitate opportunities to create new memories, and also acknowledge the remembered past of human – landscape relationships are critical for social cohesion and wellbeing. I draw on insights from a range of theoretical sources, including critical interpretive methodologies, to validate subjective individual and group responses to memory and place. Such approaches also allowed me, as the researcher, considerable freedom to apply memory theory through film to illustrate ways we can re-member ourselves to our landscapes. The Ōtākaro-Avon river provided the site through and in which film strategies for remembrance are explored. Foregrounding differences in Māori and settler cultural orientations to memory and landscape, has highlighted the need for landscape design to consider remembrance - those cognitive and unseen dimensions that intertwine people and place. I argue it is our task to make space for such diverse relationships, and to ensure these stories and memories, embodied in landscape can be read through generations. I do not prescribe methods or strategies; rather I have sought to encourage thinking and debate and to suggest approaches through which the possibilities for remembrance may be enhanced.
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements? EUGENIE SAGE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government’s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac’s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters? PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms? COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?