This thesis revisits the topic of earthquake recovery in Christchurch City more than a decade after the Canterbury earthquakes. Despite promising visions of a community reconnected and a sustainable and liveable city, significant portions of the city’s core – the Red Zone – remain dilapidated and “eerily empty”. At the same time, new developments in other areas have proven to be alienated or underutilised. Currently, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s plans for the rebuilding highlight the delivery of more residential housing to re-populate the city centre. However, prevalent approaches to housing development in Christchurch are ineffective for building an inclusive and active community. Hence, the central inquiry of the thesis is how the development of housing complexes can revitalise the Red Zone within the Christchurch city centre. The inquiry has been carried out through a research-through-design methodology, recognising the importance of an in-depth investigation that is contextualised and combined with the intuition and embodied knowledge of the designer. The investigation focuses on a neglected site in the Red Zone in the heart of Christchurch city, with significant Victorian and Edwardian Baroque heritage buildings, including Odeon Theatre, Lawrie & Wilson Auctioneers, and Sol Square, owned by The Regional Council Environment Canterbury. The design inquiry argues, develops, and is carried through a place-assemblage lens to housing development for city recovery, which recognizes the significance of socially responsive architecture that explores urban renewal by forging connections within the social network. Therefore, place-assemblage criteria and methods for developing socially active and meaningful housing developments are identified. Firstly, this thesis argues that co-living housing models are more focused on people relations and collective identity than the dominant developer-driven housing rebuilds, as they prioritise conduits for interaction and shared social meaning and practices. Secondly, the adaptive reuse of derelict heritage structures is proposed to reinvigorate the urban fabric, as heritage is seen to be conceived as and from a social assemblage of people. The design is realised by the principles outlined in the ICOMOS charter, which involves incorporating the material histories of existing structures and preserving the intangible heritage of the site by ensuring the continuity of cultural practices. Lastly, design processes and methods are also vital for place-sensitive results, which pay attention to the site’s unique characteristics to engage with local stakeholders and communities. The research explores place-assemblage methods of photographic extraction, the drawing of story maps, precedent studies, assemblage maps, bricolages, and paper models, which show an assembly of layers that piece together the existing heritage, social conduits, urban commons and housing to conceptualise the social network within its place.
Recent global tsunami events have highlighted the importance of effective tsunami risk management strategies (including land-use planning, structural and natural defences, warning systems, education and evacuation measures). However, the rarity of tsunami means that empirical data concerning reactions to tsunami warnings and tsunami evacuation behaviour is rare when compared to findings about evacuations to avoid other sources of hazard. To date empirical research into tsunami evacuations has focused on evacuation rates, rather than other aspects of the evacuation process. More knowledge is required about responses to warnings, pre-evacuation actions, evacuation dynamics and the return home after evacuations. Tsunami evacuation modelling has the potential to inform evidence-based tsunami risk planning and response. However to date tsunami evacuation models have largely focused on timings of evacuations, rather than evacuation behaviours. This Masters research uses a New Zealand case study to reduce both of these knowledge gaps. Qualitative survey data was gathered from populations across coastal communities in Banks Peninsula and Christchurch, New Zealand, required to evacuate due to the tsunami generated by the November 14th 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake. Survey questions asked about reactions to tsunami warnings, actions taken prior to evacuating and movements during the 2016 tsunami evacuation. This data was analysed to characterise trends and identify factors that influenced evacuation actions and behaviour. Finally, it was used to develop an evacuation model for Banks Peninsula. Where appropriate, the modelling inputs were informed by the survey data. Three key findings were identified from the results of the evacuation behaviour survey. Although 38% of the total survey respondents identified the earthquake shaking as a natural cue for the tsunami, most relied on receiving official warnings, including sirens, to prompt evacuations. Respondents sought further official information to inform their evacuation decisions, with 39% of respondents delaying their evacuation in order to do so. Finally, 96% of total respondents evacuated by car. This led to congestion, particularly in more densely populated Christchurch city suburbs. Prior to this research, evacuation modelling had not been completed for Banks Peninsula. The results of the modelling showed that if evacuees know how to respond to tsunami warnings and where and how to evacuate, there are no issues. However, if there are poor conditions, including if people do not evacuate immediately, if there are issues with the roading network, or if people do not know where or how to evacuate, evacuation times increase with there being more bottlenecks leading out of the evacuation zones. The results of this thesis highlight the importance of effective tsunami education and evacuation planning. Reducing exposure to tsunami risk through prompt evacuation relies on knowledge of how to interpret tsunami warnings, and when, where and how to evacuate. Recommendations from this research outline the need for public education and engagement, and the incorporation of evacuation signage, information boards and evacuation drills. Overall these findings provide more comprehensive picture of tsunami evacuation behaviour and decision making based on empirical data from a recent evacuation, which can be used to improve tsunami risk management strategies. This empirical data can also be used to inform evacuation modelling to improve the accuracy and realism of the evacuation models.
Farming and urban regions are impacted by earthquake disasters in different ways, and feature a range of often different recovery requirements. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, most earthquake impact and recovery research is urban focused. This creates a research deficit that can lead to the application of well-researched urban recovery strategies in rural areas to suboptimal effect. To begin to reduce this deficit, in-depth case studies of the earthquake impacts and recovery of three New Zealand farms severely impacted by the 14th November 2016, M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake were conducted. The initial earthquake, its aftershocks and coseismic hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, surface rupture) affected much of North Canterbury, Marlborough and the Wellington area. The three case study farms were chosen to broadly represent the main types of farming and topography in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury. The farms were directly and indirectly impacted by earthquakes and related hazards. On-farm infrastructure (e.g., woolsheds, homesteads) and essential services (e.g., water, power), frequently sourced from distributed networks, were severely impacted. The earthquake occurred after two years of regional drought had already stressed farm systems and farmers to restructuring or breaking point. Cascading interlinked hazards stemming from the earthquakes and coseismic hazards continued to disrupt earthquake recovery over a year after the initial earthquake. Semi-structured interviews with the farmers were conducted nine and fourteen months after the initial earthquake to capture the timeline of on-going impacts and recovery. Analysis of both geological hazard data and interview data resulted in the identification of key factors influencing farm level earthquake impact and recovery. These include pre-existing conditions (e.g., drought); farm-specific variations in recovery timelines; and resilience strategies for farm recovery resources. The earthquake recovery process presented all three farms with opportunities to change their business plans and adapt to mitigate on-going and future risk.
Organisations locate strategically within Business Districts (CBDs) in order to cultivate their image, increase their profile, and improve access to customers, suppliers, and services. While CBDs offer an economic benefit to organisations, they also present a unique set of hazard vulnerabilities and planning challenges for businesses. As of May 2012, the Christchurch CBD has been partially cordoned off for over 14 months. Economic activity within the cordoned CBD, which previously contained 6,000 businesses and over 51,000 workers, has been significantly diminished and organisations have been forced to find new ways of operating. The vulnerabilities and resilience of CBDs not only influences outcomes for CBD organisations, but also the broader interconnected (urban/regional/national) system. A CBD is a hub of economic, social, and built infrastructure within a network of links and nodes. When the hub is disrupted all of the people, objects, and transactions that usually flow into and out of the hub must be redirected elsewhere. In an urban situation this means traffic jams in peripheries of the city, increased prices of commercial property, and capital flight; all of which are currently being faced in Canterbury. This report presents the lessons learned from organisations in CBDs affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Here we focus on the Christchurch CBD; however, several urban town centres were extensively disrupted by the earthquakes. The statistics and discussion presented in this report are based on the results of an ongoing study conducted by Resilient Organisations (www.resorgs.org.nz). The data was captured using two questionnaire surveys of Canterbury organisations (issued November 2010 and May 2011), interviews with key informants, and in-depth case studies of organisations. Several industry sectors were sampled, and geographic samples of organisations in the Christchurch CBD, Lyttelton, and the Kaiapoi town centre were also collected. Results in this report describing “non-CBD organisations” refer to all organisations outside of the Christchurch CBD, Lyttelton, and Kaiapoi town centres.
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you go and have a look at the tax cuts, they literally were neutral” and, if so, what is the projected net cost of the first four years of the 2010 tax package?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: How will young New Zealanders receive better mental health services under the new Government package announced by the Prime Minister today?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms, and if so, is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application?
NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not, why not?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Overseas Investment Office and his Ministers, Hon Jonathan Coleman and Hon Maurice Williamson over the issue of the latest Crafar farms deal; if so, why?
CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: What did he mean when he told the NZ Herald and other media last week that “We are comfortable with the current arrangements we have” with regards to Chinese telco Huawei’s involvement in our national broadband infrastructure, given that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said last week that “We’ve taken a decision in the national interest” to ban Huawei from even tendering for its broadband network?
Questions to Members
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is it his intention to call the Treasury to appear before the committee to comment on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on The Treasury: Implementing and managing the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme; if not, why not?
This report provides an initial overview and gap analysis of the multi-hazards interactions that might affect fluvial and pluvial flooding (FPF) hazard in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. As per the terms of reference, this report focuses on a one-way analysis of the potential effects of multi-hazards on FPF hazard, as opposed to a more complex multi-way analysis of interactions between all hazards. We examined the relationship between FPF hazard and hazards associated with the phenomena of tsunamis; coastal erosion; coastal inundation; groundwater; earthquakes; and mass movements. Tsunamis: Modelling research indicates the worst-case tsunami scenarios potentially affecting the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment are far field. Under low probability, high impact tsunami scenarios waves could travel into Pegasus Bay and the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai, reaching the mouth and lower reaches of the Heathcote catchment and river, potentially inundating and eroding shorelines in sub-catchments 1 to 5, and temporarily blocking fluvial drainage more extensively. Any flooding infrastructure or management actions implemented in the area of tsunami inundation would ideally be resilient to tsunami-induced inundation and erosion. Model results currently available are a first estimate of potential tsunami inundation under contemporary sea and land level conditions. In terms of future large tsunami events, these models likely underestimate effects in riverside sub-catchments, as well as effects under future sea level, shoreline and other conditions. Also of significance when considering different FPF management structures, it is important to be mindful that certain types of flood structures can ‘trap’ inundating water coming from ocean directions, leading to longer flood durations and salinization issues. Coastal erosion: Model predictions indicate that sub-catchments 1 to 3 could potentially be affected by coastal erosion by the timescale of 2065, with sub-catchments 1-6 predicted to be potentially affected by coastal erosion by the time scale of 2115. In addition, the predicted open coast effects of this hazard should not be ignored since any significant changes in the New Brighton Spit open coast would affect erosion rates and exposure of the landward estuary margins, including the shorelines of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. Any FPF flooding infrastructure or management activities planned for the potentially affected sub-catchments needs to recognise the possibility of coastal erosion, and to have a planned response to the predicted potential shoreline translation. Coastal inundation: Model predictions indicate coastal inundation hazards could potentially affect sub-catchments 1 to 8 by 2065, with a greater area and depth of inundation possible for these same sub-catchments by 2115. Low-lying areas of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment and river channel that discharge into the estuary are highly vulnerable to coastal inundation since elevated ocean and estuary water levels can block the drainage of inland systems, compounding FPF hazards. Coastal inundation can overwhelm stormwater and other drainage network components, and render river dredging options ineffective at best, flood enhancing at worst. A distinction can be made between coastal inundation and coastal erosion in terms of the potential impacts on affected land and assets, including flood infrastructure, and the implications for acceptance, adaptation, mitigation, and/or modification options. That is, responding to inundation could include structural and/or building elevation solutions, since unlike erosion, inundation does not necessarily mean the loss of land. Groundwater: Groundwater levels are of significant but variable concern when examining flooding hazards and management options in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment due to variability in soils, topographies, elevations and proximities to riverine and estuarine surface waterbodies. Much of the Canterbury Plains part of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment has a water table that is at a median depth of <1m from the surface (with actual depth below surface varying seasonally, inter-annually and during extreme meteorological events), though the water table depth rapidly shifts to >6m below the surface in the upper Plains part of the catchment (sub-catchments 13 to 15). Parts of Waltham/Linwood (sub-catchments 5 & 6) and Spreydon (sub-catchment 10) have extensive areas with a particularly high water table, as do sub-catchments 18, 19 and 20 south of the river. In all of the sub-catchments where groundwater depth below surface is shallow, it is necessary to be mindful of cascading effects on liquefaction hazard during earthquake events, including earthquake-induced drainage network and stormwater infrastructure damage. In turn, subsidence induced by liquefaction and other earthquake processes during the CES directly affected groundwater depth below surface across large parts of the central Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. The estuary margin of the catchment also faces increasing future challenges with sea level rise, which has the potential to elevate groundwater levels in these areas, compounding existing liquefaction and other earthquake associated multi-hazards. Any increases in subsurface runoff due to drainage system, development or climate changes are also of concern for the loess covered hill slopes due to the potential to enhance mass movement hazards. Earthquakes: Earthquake associated vertical ground displacement and liquefaction have historically affected, or are in future predicted to affect, all Ōpāwaho Heathcote sub-catchments. During the CES, these phenomena induced a significant cascades of changes in the city’s drainage systems, including: extensive vertical displacement and liquefaction induced damage to stormwater ‘greyware’, reducing functionality of the stormwater system; damage to the wastewater system which temporarily lowered groundwater levels and increased stormwater drainage via the wastewater network on the one hand, creating a pollution multi-hazard for FPF on the other hand; liquefaction and vertical displacement induced river channel changes affected drainage capacities; subsidence induced losses in soakage and infiltration capacities; changes occurred in topographic drainage conductivity; estuary subsidence (mainly around the Ōtākaro Avon rivermouth) increased both FPF and coastal inundation hazards; estuary bed uplift (severe around the Ōpāwaho Heathcote margins), reduced tidal prisms and increased bed friction, producing an overall reduction the waterbody’s capacity to efficiently flush catchment floodwaters to sea; and changes in estuarine and riverine ecosystems. All such possible effects need to be considered when evaluating present and future capacities of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment FPF management systems. These phenomena are particularly of concern in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment since stormwater networks must deal with constraints imposed by stream and river channels (past and present), estuarine shorelines and complex hill topography. Mass movements: Mass movements are primarily a risk in the Port Hills areas of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment (sub-catchments 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, 21), though there are one or two small but susceptible areas on the banks of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River. Mass movements in the form of rockfalls and debris flows occurred on the Port Hills during the CES, resulting in building damage, fatalities and evacuations. Evidence has also been found of earthquake-triggered tunnel gully collapsesin all Port Hill Valleys. Follow-on effects of these mass movements are likely to occur in major future FPF and other hazard events. Of note, elevated groundwater levels, coastal inundation, earthquakes (including liquefaction and other effects), and mass movement exhibit the most extensive levels of multi-hazard interaction with FPF hazard. Further, all of the analysed multi-hazard interactions except earthquakes were found to consistently produce increases in the FPF hazard. The implications of these analyses are that multihazard interactions generally enhance the FPF hazard in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. Hence, management plans which exclude adjustments for multi-hazard interactions are likely to underestimate the FPF hazard in numerous different ways. In conclusion, although only a one-way analysis of the potential effects of selected multi-hazards on FPF hazard, this review highlights that the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment is an inherently multi- hazard prone environment. The implications of the interactions and process linkages revealed in this report are that several significant multi-hazard influences and process interactions must be taken into account in order to design a resilient FPF hazard management strategy.
Questions to Ministers
1. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: How many claims does the Earthquake Commission expect to receive as a result of the earthquakes in Canterbury since 4 September 2010?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "rebuilding Christchurch is a key priority for the Government this year"; if so, what rebuilding plans are currently in place?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that state support is for "people to fall back on when they really need it"?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealanders were "more than compensated" for last year's increase in GST?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is her Ministry responding to support the Christchurch recovery following last month's earthquake?
6. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question number one on 8 March 2011; if not, why not?
7. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Corrections: What support has the Department of Corrections provided to the people of Christchurch following last month's earthquake?
8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Finance: How much has he budgeted to raise from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal and has this figure been revised in light of the Japanese earthquake?
9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What work will the New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue team be carrying out in Japan?
10. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that the $300 million bill for restoring the Christchurch road network won't be causing any "dramatic issues" and what is his timeframe for the completion of this work?
11. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What work has been done to repair and reopen Christchurch's roads and highways following the 22 February earthquake?
12. Hon STEVE CHADWICK to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Has he had any discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery about heritage buildings or recovering cultural artefacts from buildings damaged by the earthquake on 22 February; if so, what did he say to the Minister?
1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no-one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not, which groups are worse off?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that due to inflation, no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms?
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending, when the Prime Minister said just three days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero?
5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made re-opening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake?
6. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: To date, how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners?
7. HONE HARAWIRA to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law?
8. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What impact, if any, will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government's employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April?
9. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal?
11. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the "Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand's public transport networks" and "will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan"?
12. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake?
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: In stating that "this Government introduced a balanced package of tax cuts" was he saying that his tax changes and the tax system are fair to all New Zealanders?
2. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main objectives of Budget 2011 tomorrow?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: When he said "in most cases the tax switch more than compensated people for the increase in GST", in which cases hadn't people been fully compensated?
4. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement he made in his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday that "Everyone needs to understand that what Don Brash is talking about is hardcore"; if so why?
5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What is the total impact on the operating balance, over the forecast period, of the fiscal impact of the tax changes in Budget 2010 according to page 70 of the 2010 Budget and Economic Fiscal Update, and how does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that "National's tax plan 2010…was fiscally neutral"?
6. ALLAN PEACHEY to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about the first year of container units being used in New Zealand prisons?
7. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What was the motivation behind the decision to remove regulatory forbearance from the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to Christchurch that "it looks like the residential rebuild alone will require up to 12,500 full-time workers", if not, how many full-time workers does he believe will now be needed?
9. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made to support community social services?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What is the best estimate of the additional cost to the Crown of the change he announced to the ultrafast broadband network this morning?
11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund?
12. GARETH HUGHES to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What is her response to the statement of leading scientist and NASA director Dr James Hansen, currently touring New Zealand, that "coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet" and we should leave it in the ground?
1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree that the test of practicability in the Health and Safety in Employment (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999 is likely to result in different mines having different safety standards, in contrast to the regulations in place until 1992?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: In light of his comment that "New Zealand is to be congratulated because, at least in terms of the gender pay gap, ours is the third lowest in the OECD", does that mean he is satisfied with the 10.6 percent gap between men's and women's pay in our country?
4. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit numbers?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he consider the allocation of the value of the land within the rating valuation process to be robust, when it has produced such variable outcomes, leaving many in the red zone with insufficient funds to buy a section to take advantage of the replacement option in their insurance policy?
6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for the Environment: What work is his Ministry doing to help New Zealand take up the opportunity from green growth following the OECD May 2011 report on the high expected global demand for such products and services?
7. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many human resources contracts, if any, were let by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade without tenders being invited in 2010/2011, and what criteria were used to assess non-tendered contractors?
8. PAUL QUINN to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve Wellington's commuter rail network?
9. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "there is no question in my mind - someone would be better off in paid employment than on welfare. If they were not, that is a real indictment on the welfare system"?
10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Finance: When he said that "I did visit the Chinese Investment Corporation … They are very pleased with New Zealand's economic policy", was one of the policies he discussed with this foreign sovereign wealth fund his plan for privatising state assets?
11. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement to the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee that "we may need to take some tough choices regarding the scope and range of services the public health system can provide to New Zealanders"?
Questions to Ministers
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: What is the cost impact for the Earthquake Commission following Friday's High Court decision, and what now is the total cost to the Crown of the Canterbury earthquakes?
2. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to build a more competitive, export-focused economy?
3. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "New Zealand simply can't afford a future where 20 percent of our workforce does not have the skills necessary for modern jobs"?
4. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Health: What was the average annual increase in elective discharges from 2000/2001 to 2007/2008, and how does this compare to the average annual increase in elective discharges over the last three financial years?
5. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to part-privatisation of State-owned assets that "there will be some wholesale investors from overseas who will want to buy a little bit of these shares"?
6. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Defence: Was he briefed as to the presence of United States personnel at the Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Bamiyan and their duties; if so, what are the duties of the United States personnel at Bamiyan?
7. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No 1 on 16 August 2011?
8. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on improving Auckland's commuter rail network?
9. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: If he expects at least 85 to 90 percent of the State-owned assets he intends to privatise would remain in New Zealand's ownership, including the Crown's holding, what percent of the shares he plans to sell would be bought by foreign buyers?
10. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding trades academies?
11. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by the Government's decision to require Meridian Energy to sell some of its hydro-electricity dams on the Waitaki River to Genesis Energy, and how have the proceeds of the sale been used?
12. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about efforts to cut re-offending rates and rehabilitate offenders?
Questions to Members
1. CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has he requested any submissions of evidence about the petition to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee signed by nearly 14,000 people calling on the Government to retain the Hillside and Woburn workshops?
On 14 November 2016, a magnitude (Mw) 7.8 earthquake struck the small coastal settlement of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand. With an economy based on tourism, agriculture, and fishing, Kaikōura was immediately faced with significant logistical, economic, and social challenges caused by damage to critical infrastructure and lifelines, essential to its main industries. Massive landslips cut offroad and rail access, stranding hundreds of tourists, and halting the collection, processing and distribution of agricultural products. At the coast, the seabed rose two metres, limiting harbour-access to high tide, with implications for whale watching tours and commercial fisheries. Throughout the region there was significant damage to homes, businesses, and farmland, leaving owners and residents facing an uncertain future. This paper uses qualitative case study analysis to explore post-quake transformations in a rural context. The aim is to gain insight into the distinctive dynamics of disaster response mechanisms, focusing on two initiatives that have emerged in direct response to the disaster. The first examines the ways in which agriculture, food harvesting, production and distribution are being reimagined with the potential to enhance regional food security. The second examines the rescaling of power in decision-making processes following the disaster, specifically examining the ways in which rural actors are leveraging networks to meet their needs and the consequences of that repositioning on rural (and national) governance arrangements. In these and other ways, the local economy is being revitalised, and regional resilience enhanced through diversification, capitalising not on the disaster but the region's natural, social, and cultural capital. Drawing on insights and experience of local stakeholders, policy- and decision-makers, and community representatives we highlight the diverse ways in which these endeavours are an attempt to create something new, revealing also the barriers which needed to be overcome to reshape local livelihoods. Results reveal that the process of transformation as part of rural recovery must be grounded in the lived reality of local residents and their understanding of place, incorporating and building on regional social, environmental, and economic characteristics. In this, the need to respond rapidly to realise opportunities must be balanced with the community-centric approach, with greater recognition given to the contested nature of the decisions to be made. Insights from the case examples can inform preparedness and recovery planning elsewhere, and provide a rich, real-time example of the ways in which disasters can create opportunities for reimagining resilient futures.
Rising disaster losses, growth in global migration, migrant labour trends, and increasingly diverse populations have serious implications for disaster resilience around the world. These issues are of particular concern in New Zealand, which is highly exposed to disaster risk and has the highest proportion of migrant workers to national population in the OECD. Since there has been no research conducted into this issue in New Zealand to date, greater understanding of the social capital used by migrant workers in specific New Zealand contexts is needed to inform more targeted and inclusive disaster risk management approaches. A New Zealand case study is used to investigate the extent and types of social capital and levels of disaster risk awareness reported by members of three Filipino migrant workers organisations catering to dairy farm, construction and aged care workers in different urban and rural Canterbury districts. Findings from (3) semi-structured interviews and (3) focus groups include consistently high reliance on bonding capital and low levels of bridging capital across all three organisations and industry sectors, and in both urban and rural contexts. The transitory, precarious residential status conveyed by temporary work visas, and the difficulty of building bridging capital with host communities has contributed to this heavy reliance on bonding capital. Social media was essential to connect workers with family and friends in other countries, while Filipino migrant workers organisations provided members with valuable access to industry and district-specific networks of other Filipino migrant workers. Linking capital varied between the three organisations, with members of the organisation set up to advocate for dairy farm workers reporting the highest levels of linking capital. Factors influencing the capacity of workers organisations to develop linking capital appeared to include motivation (establishment objectives), length of time since establishment, support from government and industry groups, urban-rural context, income levels and gender. Although aware of publicity around earthquake and tsunami risk in the Canterbury region, participants were less aware of flood risk, and expressed fatalistic attitudes to disaster risk. Workers organisations offer a valuable potential interface between CDEM Group activities and migrant worker communities, since organisation leaders were interested in accessing government support to participate (with and on behalf of members) in disaster risk planning at district and regional level. With the potential to increase disaster resilience among these vulnerable, hard to reach communities, such participation could also help to build capacity across workers organisations (within Canterbury and across the country) to develop linking capital at national, as well as regional level. However, these links will also depend on greater government and industry commitment to providing more targeted and appropriate support for migrant workers, including consideration of the cultural qualifications of staff tasked with liaising with this community.
Coastal margins are exposed to rising sea levels that present challenging circumstances for natural resource management. This study investigates a rare example of tectonic displacement caused by earthquakes that generated rapid sea-level change in a tidal lagoon system typical of many worldwide. This thesis begins by evaluating the coastal squeeze effects caused by interactions between relative sea-level (RSL) rise and the built environment of Christchurch, New Zealand, and also examples of release from similar effects in areas of uplift where land reclamations were already present. Quantification of area gains and losses demonstrated the importance of natural lagoon expansion into areas of suitable elevation under conditions of RSL rise and showed that they may be necessary to offset coastal squeeze losses experienced elsewhere. Implications of these spatial effects include the need to provide accommodation space for natural ecosystems under RSL rise, yet other land-uses are likely to be present in the areas required. Consequently, the resilience of these environments depends on facilitating transitions between human land-uses either proactively or in response to disaster events. Principles illustrated by co-seismic sea-level change are generally applicable to climate change adaptation due to the similarity of inundation effects. Furthermore, they highlight the potential role of non-climatic factors in determining the overall trajectory of change. Chapter 2 quantifies impacts on riparian wetland ecosystems over an eight year period post- quake. Coastal wetlands were overwhelmed by RSL rise and recovery trajectories were surprisingly slow. Four risk factors were identified from the observed changes: 1) the encroachment of anthropogenic land-uses, 2) connectivity losses between areas of suitable elevation, 3) the disproportionate effect of larger wetland vulnerabilities, and 4) the need to protect new areas to address the future movement of ecosystems. Chapter 3 evaluates the unique context of shoreline management on a barrier sandspit under sea-level rise. A linked scenario approach was used to evaluate changes on the open coast and estuarine shorelines simultaneously and consider combined effects. The results show dune loss from a third of the study area using a sea-level rise scenario of 1 m over 100 years and with continuation of current land-uses. Increased exposure to natural hazards and accompanying demand for seawalls is a likely consequence unless natural alternatives can be progressed. In contrast, an example of managed retreat following earthquake-induced subsidence of the backshore presents a new opportunity to restart saltmarsh accretion processes seaward of coastal defences with the potential to reverse decades of degradation and build sea-level rise resilience. Considering both shorelines simultaneously highlights the existence of pinch-points from opposing forces that result in small land volumes above the tidal range. Societal adaptation is delicately poised between the paradigms of resisting or accommodating nature and challenged by the long perimeter and confined nature of the sandspit feature. The remaining chapters address the potential for salinity effects caused by tidal prism changes with a focus on the conservation of īnanga (Galaxias maculatus), a culturally important fish that supports New Zealand‘s whitebait fishery. Methodologies were developed to test the hypothesis that RSL changes would drive a shift in the distribution of spawning sites with implications for their management. Chapter 4 describes a new practical methodology for quantifying the total productivity and spatiotemporal variability of spawning sites at catchment scale. Chapter 5 describes the novel use of artificial habitats as a detection tools to help overcome field survey limitations in degraded environments where egg mortality can be high. The results showed that RSL changes resulted in major shifts in spawning locations and these were associated with new patterns of vulnerability due to the continuation of pre-disturbance land-uses. Unexpected findings includes an improved understanding of the spatial relationship between salinity and spawning habitat, and identification of an invasive plant species as important spawning habitat, both with practical management implications. To conclude, the design of legal protection mechanisms was evaluated in relation to the observed habitat shifts and with a focus on two new planning initiatives that identified relatively large protected areas (PAs) in the lower river corridors. Although the larger PAs were better able to accommodate the observed habitat shifts inefficiencies were also apparent due to spatial disparities between PA boundaries and the values requiring protection. To reduce unnecessary trade-offs with other land-uses, PAs of sufficient size to cover the observable spatiotemporal variability and coupled with adaptive capacity to address future change may offer a high effectiveness from a network of smaller PAs. The latter may be informed by both monitoring and modelling of future shifts and these are expected to include upstream habitat migration driven by the identified salinity relationships and eustatic sea-level rise. The thesis concludes with a summary of the knowledge gained from this research that can assist the development of a new paradigm of environmental sustainability incorporating conservation and climate change adaptation. Several promising directions for future research identified within this project are also discussed.
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.
