A photograph of Fred Mecoy, the Wellington City Council's Emergency Preparedness Manager, speaking at a graduation ceremony for more than 40 new civil defence volunteers in the Wellington Town Hall. Members of the Wellington Emergency Management Office team were presented certificates of appreciation during this event. The certificates were presented to the members to honour their involvement in the emergency response to the 22 February 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch.
An entry from Jennifer Middendorf's blog for 24 February 2011 entitled, "Checking in".
On 4 September 2010, a 7.1 magnitude earthquake struck near Darfield, 40 kilometres west of Christchurch, New Zealand. The quake caused significant damage to land and buildings nearby, with damage extending to Christchurch city. On 22 February 2011, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck Christchurch, causing extensive and significant damage across the city and with the loss of 185 lives. Years on from these events, occasional large aftershocks continue to shake the region.
Two main entomological collections were situated within close proximity to the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes. The Lincoln University Entomology Research Collection, which is housed on the 5th floor of a 7 storey building, was 27.5 km from the 2010 Darfield earthquake epicentre. The Canterbury Museum Entomology Collection, which is housed in the basement of a multi-storeyed heritage building, was 10 km from the 2011 Christchurch earthquake epicentre. We discuss the impacts of the earthquakes on these collections, the causes of the damage to the specimens and facilities, and subsequent efforts that were made to prevent further damage in the event of future seismic events. We also discuss the wider need for preparedness against the risks posed by natural disasters and other catastrophic events.
A video of a presentation by Matthew Pratt during the Resilience and Response Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Investing in Connectedness: Building social capital to save lives and aid recovery".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Traditionally experts have developed plans to prepare communities for disasters. This presentation discusses the importance of relationship-building and social capital in building resilient communities that are both 'prepared' to respond to disaster events, and 'enabled' to lead their own recovery. As a member of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Community Resilience Team, I will present the work I undertook to catalyse community recovery. I will draw from case studies of initiatives that have built community connectedness, community capacity, and provided new opportunities for social cohesion and neighbourhood planning. I will compare three case studies that highlight how social capital can aid recovery. Investment in relationships is crucial to aid preparedness and recovery.
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.
