Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the Government has actively supported the filming of the Hobbit movies in New Zealand because of the enormous economic benefits they are bringing to the country, including the creation of around 3,000 jobs"?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements made in his prime ministerial speeches and in his Address in Reply speeches?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Government's economic programme in 2013?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "I am keen to see New Zealanders be able to afford to buy a home", given that the home ownership rate has continued to decline under his watch and home buying is becoming less affordable?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that anticipated Core Crown Revenue for the period 2012-2016 decreased by $13.2 billion between the October 2011 PREFU and the December 2012 HYEFU; if so, why has the Government lost $13.2 billion in projected revenue in little over a year?
COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting the number of people being trained in apprenticeships?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Why didn't he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government's priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Following his decision to appoint a new Minister of Housing, what new policies, if any, does he expect his new Minister to implement to address the growing housing affordability issues in New Zealand?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What progress has been made in the repair of homes in Canterbury by the EQR Repair Programme?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of State Services: What were the factors that contributed to the strained relations that resulted in the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree with the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend that the reconstruction of Canterbury following the earthquake requires someone "to co-ordinate and oversee" reconstruction?
2. COLIN KING to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to ensure the Earthquake Commission can meet claims arising from the Canterbury earthquake?
3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What was the earliest date that Treasury formed the conclusion that South Canterbury Finance could fail, and when and by whom was that first raised with him?
4. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Does he agree that "tikanga" as it is described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will differ in meaning from iwi to iwi and hapū to hapū?
5. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Health: Are doctors and nurses having more say in how the health system is run?
6. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received on responses to the Canterbury earthquake, particularly with respect to the region's flood and waste management systems?
7. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Attorney-General: What is the burden of proof under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in relation to applications for customary interests, and what type of evidence would the Crown be required to produce to prove that a customary interest had been extinguished?
8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: When he answered yesterday that "hopefully" the new foreshore and seabed bill "will settle the protracted controversy around the issues of the foreshore and seabed", was he aware that the Government's confidence and supply partner Hon Pita Sharples told TV3 that he was "not entirely happy" with the new bill?
9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How have Government social services been supporting the people of Canterbury?
10. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: Why did the Auckland Transition Agency award the $53.8 million contract for the Auckland Council's Enterprise Resource Planning computer system without a competitive tender?
11. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Why is the Ministry of Women's Affairs celebrating Suffrage Day?
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Women's Affairs: How will New Zealand's forthcoming report to the UN under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women explain the Government's decision to axe the Pay and Employment Equity Unit?
Background: We are in a period of history where natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and severity. They are having widespread impacts on communities, especially on vulnerable communities, those most affected who have the least ability to prepare or respond to a disaster. The ability to assemble and effectively manage Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) is critical to navigating the complexity and chaos found immediately following disasters. These teams play a crucial role in the multi-sectoral, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary, and inter-organisational response and are vital to ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable populations such as the young, aged, and socially and medically disadvantaged in disasters. Communication is key to the smooth operation of these teams. Most studies of the communication in IERTs during a disaster have been focussed at a macro-level of examining larger scale patterns and trends within organisations. Rarely found are micro-level analyses of interpersonal communication at the critical interfaces between collaborating agencies. This study set out to understand the experiences of those working at the interagency interfaces in an IERT set up by the Canterbury District Health Board to respond to the needs of the vulnerable people in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2010-11. The aim of the study was to gain insights about the complexities of interpersonal communication (micro-level) involved in interagency response coordination and to generate an improved understanding into what stabilises the interagency communication interfaces between those agencies responding to a major disaster. Methods: A qualitative case study research design was employed to investigate how interagency communication interfaces were stabilised at the micro-level (“the case”) in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury in 2010-11 (“the context”). Participant recruitment was undertaken by mapping which agencies were involved within the IERT and approaching representatives from each of these agencies. Data was collected via individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and was based on the “Critical Incident Technique”. Subsequently, data was transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive analysis. This was underpinned theoretically by Weick’s “Interpretive Approach” and supported by Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. Results: 19 participants were interviewed in this study. Out of the inductive analysis emerged two primary themes, each with several sub-factors. The first major theme was destabilising/disruptive factors of interagency communication with five sub-factors, a) conflicting role mandates, b) rigid command structures, c) disruption of established communication structures, d) lack of shared language and understanding, and e) situational awareness disruption. The second major theme stabilising/steadying factors in interagency communication had four sub-factors, a) the establishment of the IERT, b) emergent novel communication strategies, c) establishment of a liaison role and d) pre-existing networks and relationships. Finally, there was a third sub-level identified during inductive analysis, where sub-factors from both primary themes were noted to be uniquely interconnected by emergent “consequences” arising out of the disaster context. Finally, findings were synthesised into a conceptual “Model of Interagency Communication at the Micro-level” based on this case study of the Canterbury earthquake disaster response. Discussion: The three key dimensions of The People, The Connections and The Improvisations served as a framework for the discussion of what stabilises interagency communication interfaces in a major disaster. The People were key to stabilising the interagency interfaces through functioning as a flexible conduit, guiding and navigating communication at the interagency interfaces and improving situational awareness. The Connections provided the collective competence, shared decision-making and prior established relationships that stabilised the micro-level communication at interagency interfaces. And finally, The Improvisations i.e., novel ideas and inventiveness that emerge out of rapidly changing post-disaster environments, also contributed to stabilisation of micro-level communication flows across interagency interfaces in the disaster response. “Command and control” hierarchical structures do provide clear processes and structures for teams working in disasters to follow. However, improvisations and novel solutions are also needed and often emerge from first responders (who are best placed to assess the evolving needs in a disaster where there is a high degree of uncertainty). Conclusion: This study highlights the value of incorporating an interface perspective into any study that seeks to understand the processes of IERTs during disaster responses. It also strengthens the requirement for disaster management frameworks to formally plan for and to allow for the adaptive responsiveness of local teams on the ground, and legitimise and recognise the improvisations of those in the role of emergent boundary spanners in a disaster response. This needs to be in addition to existing formal disaster response mechanisms. This study provides a new conceptual model that can be used to guide future case studies exploring stability at the interfaces of other IERTs and highlights the centrality of communication in the experiences of members of teams in the aftermath of a disaster. Utilising these new perspectives on stabilising communication at the interagency interfaces in disaster responses will have practical implications in the future to better serve the needs of vulnerable people who are at greatest risk of adverse outcomes in a disaster.
Museums around the world are often affected by major catastrophes, and yet planning for these disasters is an often neglected aspect of museum practice. New Zealand is not immune from these events, as can be seen in the recent series of serious earthquakes in Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. This dissertation considers how prepared the New Zealand museum sector is to handle unexpected events that negatively affect its buildings, staff, operations and treasured collections. The central research question was: What is the overall state of emergency planning in the New Zealand museum sector? There was a significant gap in the literature, especially in the local context, as there has been only one other comparable study conducted in Britain, and nothing locally. This dissertation makes a valuable contribution to the field of museum studies by drawing on theory from relevant areas such as crises management literature and by conducting original empirical research on a topic which has received little attention hitherto. The research employed a number of methods, including a review of background secondary sources, a survey and interviews. After contextualising the study with a number of local examples, Ian online survey was then developed an which enabled precise understanding of the nature of current museum practices and policies around emergency planning. Following this I conducted several interviews with museum professionals from a variety of institutional backgrounds which explored their thoughts and feelings behind the existing practices within the industry. The findings of the research were significant and somewhat alarming: almost 40% of the museum and galleries in New Zealand do not have any emergency plan at all, and only 11% have what they considered ‘complete’ plans. The research revealed a clear picture of the current width and depth of planning, as well as practices around updating the plans and training related to them. Within the industry there is awareness that planning for emergencies is important, but museum staff typically lack the knowledge and guidance needed to conduct effective emergency planning. As a result of the analysis, several practical suggestions are presented aimed at improving emergency planning practices in New Zealand museums. However this study has implications for museum studies and for current museum practice everywhere, as many of the recommendations for resolving the current obstacles and problems are applicable anywhere in the world, suggesting that New Zealand museums could become leaders in this important area.
Wellington is located on a fault line which will inevitably, one day be impacted by a big earthquake. Due to where this fault line geographically sits, the central city and southern suburbs may be cut off from the rest of the region, effectively making these areas an ‘island’. This issue has absorbed a lot of attention, in particular at a large scale by many different fields: civil engineering, architecture, infrastructure planning & design, policymaking. Due to heightened awareness, and evolved school of practice, contemporary landscape architects deal with post-disaster design – Christchurch, NZ has seen this. A number of landscape architects work with nature, following increased application of ecological urbanism, and natural systems thinking, most notably at larger scales. To create parks that are designed to flood, or implement projects to protect shorelines. A form of resilience less often considered is how design for the small scale - people’s 1:1 relationship with their immediate context in exterior space - can be influential in forming a resilient response to the catastrophe of a major earthquake. This thesis intends to provide a response to address the shift of scales, as a paradigm for preparation and recovery. After a large-scale earthquake, state and civic policies and agencies may or subsequentially not go into action. The most important thinking and acting will be what happens in the minds, and the immediate needs, of each and every person; and how they act communally. This is considered in general social terms in state and civic education programmes of civil defence, for example, but much less considered in how the physical design of the actual spaces we inhabit day-to-day can educate us to be mentally prepared to help each other survive a catastrophe. Specifically, the identification of design of typologies can provide these educative functions. Typology inherently a physical form or manipulation of a generic and substantial prototype applicable in contexts is something that exists in the mind. Working with the physical and social appearance and experience of typologies can also/will change people’s minds. Socially, and economically driven, the community-building power of community gardening is well-proven and documented, and a noticeably large part of contemporary landscape architecture. The designs of this thesis will focus on community gardening specifically to form typologies of resilience preparation and response to disaster. The foundation will remain at the small scale of the local community. The specific question this thesis poses: Can we design local typologies in landscape architecture to integrate community gardens, with public space by preparing for and acting as recovery from a disaster?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: "The inquiry team, itself, did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs" and does he think it should have?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt, to build schools and hospitals, to fund irrigation projects, to rebuild Christchurch, or to fund Auckland transport projects?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with The Economist that "inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time"; if so, what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that "Continued accreditation beyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment" and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui's dolphins contained in the report of this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not, why not
Questions to Members
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time, if any, did he receive the Minister for Social Development's written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education, if so, did he receive any advice about the Minister's willingness to appear again?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?
STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
Millions of urban residents around the world in the coming century will experience severe landscape change – including increased frequencies of flooding due to intensifying storm events and impacts from sea level rise. For cities, collisions of environmental change with mismatched cultural systems present a major threat to infrastructure systems that support urban living. Landscape architects who address these issues express a need to realign infrastructure with underlying natural systems, criticizing the lack of social and environmental considerations in engineering works. Our ability to manage both society and the landscapes we live in to better adapt to unpredictable events and landscape changes is essential if we are to sustain the health and safety of our families, neighbourhoods, and wider community networks.
When extreme events like earthquakes or flooding occur in developed areas, the feasibility of returning the land to pre-disturbance use can be questioned. In Christchurch for example, a large expanse of land (630 hectares) within the city was severely damaged by the earthquakes and judged too impractical to repair in the short term. The central government now owns the land and is currently in the process of demolishing the mostly residential houses that formed the predominant land use. Furthermore, cascading impacts from the earthquakes have resulted in a general land subsidence of .5m over much of eastern Christchurch, causing disruptive and damaging flooding. Yet, although disasters can cause severe social and environmental distress, they also hold great potential as a catalyst to increasing adaption. But how might landscape architecture be better positioned to respond to the potential for transformation after disaster?
This research asks two core questions: what roles can the discipline of landscape architecture play in improving the resilience of communities so they become more able to adapt to change? And what imaginative concepts could be designed for alternative forms of residential development that better empower residents to understand and adapt the infrastructure that supports them?
Through design-directed inquiry, the research found landscape architecture theory to be well positioned to contribute to goals of social-ecological systems resilience. The discipline of landscape architecture could become influential in resilience-oriented multi disciplinary collaborations, with our particular strengths lying in six key areas: the integration of ecological and social processes, improving social capital, engaging with temporality, design-led innovation potential, increasing diversity and our ability to work across multiple scales. Furthermore, several innovative ideas were developed, through a site-based design exploration located within the residential red zone, that attempt to challenge conventional modes of urban living – concepts such as time-based land use, understanding roads as urban waterways, and landscape design and management strategies that increase community participation and awareness of the temporality in landscapes.
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she accept her Ministry's advice that the value of New Zealand's onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion overall with $80 billion estimated in Schedule 4 land; if so, what plans does the Government have to allow their development?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: What advice has the Prime Minister, the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 been given on Christchurch's ability to host Rugby World Cup matches later this year?
3. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy's prospects after New Zealand meets the immediate challenges of the Christchurch earthquake?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Would he indicate his agreement to a further extension, if it were required, to the report back date for the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
5. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he concerned to learn that New Zealand's first majority Māori-owned dairy company, Miraka, has reportedly stated that there is a serious risk that Fonterra's proposed Trading Among Farmers exchange will be illiquid, volatile and unstable; if so, what assurances can he give Miraka and other dairy processors and industry groups, that anti-competitive behaviour will not be tolerated?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister whether his appointment as Acting Minister for Economic Development is temporary or expected to carry on to the election?
7. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on re-opening Christchurch schools and early childhood education centres since the 22 February earthquake?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he favour the sale of any public hospitals in New Zealand; if so, which one or ones?
9. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister for Building and Construction: What advice has he received from the Department of Building and Housing regarding last month's Christchurch earthquake?
10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What factors did she consider in deciding to increase the minimum wage by 25 cents from 1 April in her latest review?
11. CHRIS TREMAIN to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on roading projects in the Hawke's Bay region?
12. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, is he taking to reduce New Zealand's economic vulnerability that stems from dependence on oil?
Questions to Members
1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submissions have been received so far on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill have requested an oral hearing?
3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is he aware of any complaints about times allocated to submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
With origins in the South Bronx area of New York in the early 1970s, hip-hop culture is now produced and consumed globally. While hip-hop activities can be varied, hip-hop is generally considered to have four forms or “elements”: DJing, MCing, b-boying/b-girling, and graffiti. Although all four elements of hip-hop have become a part of many youth work initiatives across the globe, public debate and controversy continue to surround hip-hop activities. Very little research and literature has explored the complexities involved in the assembling of hip-hop activities in youth work sites of practice using these hip-hop elements. This study attends to the gap in hip-hop and human service literature by tracing how hip-hop activities were assembled in several sites of youth work activity in Christchurch, New Zealand. Actor-network theory (ANT) is the methodological framework used to map the assemblage of hip-hop-youth work activities in this study. ANT follows how action is distributed across both human and non-human actors. By recognising the potential agency of “things”, this research traces the roles played by human actors, such as young people and youth workers, together with those of non-human actors such as funding documents, social media, clothing, and youth venue equipment. This ethnographic study provides rich descriptions or “snapshots” of some of the key socio-material practices that shaped the enactment of hip-hop-youth work activities. These are derived from fieldwork undertaken between October 2009 and December 2011, where participant observation took place across a range of sites of hip-hop-youth work activity. In addition to this fieldwork, formal interviews were undertaken with 22 participants, the majority being youth workers, young people, and youth trust administrators. The ANT framework reveals the complexity of the task of assembling hip-hop in youth work worlds. The thesis traces the work undertaken by both human and non-human actors in generating youth engagement in hip-hop-youth work activities. Young people’s hip-hop interests are shown to be varied, multiple, and continually evolving. It is also shown how generating youth interest in hip-hop-youth work activities involved overcoming young people’s indifference or lack of awareness of the hip-hop resources a youth trust had on offer. Furthermore, the study highlights where hip-hop activities were edited or “tinkered” with to avoid hip-hop “bads”. The thesis also unpacks how needed resources were enlisted, and how funders’ interests were translated into supporting hip-hop groups and activities. By tracing the range of actors mobilised to enact hip-hop-youth work activities, this research reveals how some youth trusts could avoid having to rely on obtaining government funds for their hip-hop activities. The thesis also includes an examination of one youth trust’s efforts to reconfigure its hip-hop activities after the earthquakes that struck Christchurch city in 2010 and 2011. Working both in and on the world, the text that is this thesis is also understood as an intervention. This study constitutes a deliberate attempt to strengthen understandings of hip-hop as a complex, multiple, and fluid entity. It therefore challenges traditional media and literature representations that simplify and thus either stigmatise or celebrate hip-hop. As such, this study opens up possibilities to consider the opportunities, as well as the complexities of assembling hip-hop in youth work sites of practice.
Many contemporary urban communities are challenged by increased flood risks and rising temperatures, declining water quality and biodiversity, and reduced mental, physical, cultural and social wellbeing. The development of urban blue-green infrastructure (BGI), defined as networks of natural and semi-natural blue-green spaces which enable healthy ecosystem processes, has been identified as one approach to mitigate these challenges and enable more liveable cities. Multiple benefits associated with urban BGI have been identified, including reduced flood risk and temperatures, improved water quality and biodiversity, enhanced mental and physical wellbeing, strengthened social cohesion and sense of place, and the facilitation of cultural connections and practices. However, socio-cultural benefits have tended to be neglected in BGI research and design, resulting in a lack of awareness of how they may be maximised in BGI design. As such, this research sought to understand how BGI can best be designed to enable liveable cities. Four questions were considered: (i) what benefits are associated with urban BGI, (ii) how does the design process influence the benefits achieved by BGI, (iii) what challenges are encountered during BGI design, and (iv) how might the incorporation of communities and Indigenous knowledge into BGI research and design enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI? To address these questions, a mixed methods case study approach was employed in Ōtautahi Christchurch and Kaiapoi. The four selected case studies were Te Oranga Waikura, Wigram Basin, Te Kuru and the Kaiapoi Honda Forest. The cases are all council owned urban wetlands which were primarily designed or retrofitted to reduce urban flood risks following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. To investigate BGI design processes in each case, as well as how communities interact with, value and benefit from these spaces. BGI projects were found to be designed by interdisciplinary design teams driven by stormwater engineers, landscape architects and ecologists which prioritised bio-physical outcomes. Further, community and Indigenous engagement approaches closely resembled consultation, with the exception of Te Kuru which employed a co-design approach between councils and Indigenous and community groups. This co-design approach was found to enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI, while uncovering multiple socio-cultural values to be incorporated into design, such as access to cultural healing resources, increased community connections to water, and facilitating cultural monitoring methodologies and citizen science initiatives. Communities frequently identified the opportunity to connect with natural environments and enhanced mental and physical wellbeing as key benefits of BGI. Conversely, strengthened social cohesion, sense of place and cultural connections were infrequently identified as benefits, if at all. This finding indicates a disconnect between the bio-physical benefits which drive BGI design and the outcomes which communities value. As such, there is a need for future BGI design to more fully consider and design for socio- cultural outcomes to better enable liveable cities. To better design BGI to enhance urban liveability, this research makes three key contributions. First, there is a need to advance current approaches to transdisciplinary design to better account for the full scope of perspectives and values associated with BGI. Second, there is a need to transition towards relational co-design with Indigenous and community groups and knowledge. Third, it is important to continue to monitor, reflect on and share both positive and negative BGI design experiences to continually improve outcomes. The incorporation of social and cultural researchers, knowledges and perspectives into open and collaborative transdisciplinary design teams is identified as a key method to achieve these opportunities.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) was the most devastating catastrophe in New Zealand‘s modern history. Fortunately, in 2011 New Zealand had a high insurance penetration ratio, with more than 95% of residences being insured for these earthquakes. This dissertation sheds light on the functions of disaster insurance schemes and their role in economic recovery post-earthquakes. The first chapter describes the demand and supply for earthquake insurance and provides insights about different public-private partnership earthquake insurance schemes around the world. In the second chapter, we concentrate on three public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand. The chapter examines what would have been the outcome had the system of insurance in Christchurch been different in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). We focus on the California Earthquake Authority insurance program, and the Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance scheme. Overall, the aggregate cost of the earthquake to the New Zealand public insurer (the Earthquake Commission) was USD 6.2 billion. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received only around USD 1.6 billion and USD 0.7 billion from the Japanese and Californian schemes, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive aspects of these scenarios and discuss some of the policy questions that emerge from this comparison. The third chapter measures the longer-term effect of the CES on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and focus on the role of insurance payments for damaged residential property during the local recovery process. Uniquely for this event, more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance and almost all incurred some damage. However, insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery; and that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of local economic recovery after the earthquake. Yet, delayed payments were less affective in assisting recovery and cash settlement of claims were more effective than insurance-managed repairs. After the Christchurch earthquakes, the government declared about 8000 houses as Red Zoned, prohibiting further developments in these properties, and offering the owners to buy them out. The government provided two options for owners: the first was full payment for both land and dwelling at the 2007 property evaluation, the second was payment for land, and the rest to be paid by the owner‘s insurance. Most people chose the second option. Using data from LINZ combined with data from Stats NZ, the fourth chapter empirically investigates what led people to choose this second option, and how peer effect influenced the homeowners‘ choices. Due to climate change, public disclosure of coastal hazard information through maps and property reports have been used more frequently by local government. This is expected to raise awareness about disaster risks in local community and help potential property owners to make informed locational decision. However, media outlets and business sector argue that public hazard disclosure will cause a negative effect on property value. Despite this opposition, some district councils in New Zealand have attempted to implement improved disclosure. Kapiti Coast district in the Wellington region serves as a case study for this research. In the fifth chapter, we utilize the residential property sale data and coastal hazard maps from the local district council. This study employs a difference-in-difference hedonic property price approach to examine the effect of hazard disclosure on coastal property values. We also apply spatial hedonic regression methods, controlling for coastal amenities, as our robustness check. Our findings suggest that hazard designation has a statistically and economically insignificant impact on property values. Overall, the risk perception about coastal hazards should be more emphasized in communities.
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.
