Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year.
Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha).
Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East.
Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.
The Canterbury earthquakes are unique in that the there have been a series of major earthquakes, each with their own subsequent aftershock pattern. These have extended from the first large earthquake in September 2010 to currently, at the time of writing, two years later. The last significant earthquake of over magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale was in May on 2012, and the total number of aftershocks has exceeded 12,000. The consequences, in addition to the loss of life, significant injury and widespread damage, have been far reaching and long term, with detrimental effects and still uncertain effects for many. This provides unique challenges for individuals, communities, organisations and institutions within Canterbury. This document reviews research-based understandings of the concept of resilience. A conceptual model is developed which identifies a number of the factors that influence individual and household resilience. Guided by the model, a series of recommendations are developed for practices that will support individual and household resilience in Canterbury in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 earthquakes.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 finds that, despite progress in disaster risk reduction over the last decade “evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in disaster losses” (p.4, UNISDR 2015). Fostering cooperation among relevant stakeholders and policy makers to “facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decisionmaking in disaster risk management” is required to achieve two priority areas for action, understanding disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness (p. 13, p. 23, UNISDR 2015). In other topic areas, the term science-policy interface is used interchangeably with the term boundary organisation. Both terms are usually used refer to systematic collaborative arrangements used to manage the intersection, or boundary, between science and policy domains, with the aim of facilitating the joint construction of knowledge to inform decision-making. Informed by complexity theory, and a constructivist focus on the functions and processes that minimize inevitable tensions between domains, this conceptual framework has become well established in fields where large complex issues have significant economic and political consequences, including environmental management, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change and public health. To date, however, there has been little application of this framework in the disaster risk reduction field. In this doctoral project the boundary management framework informs an analysis of the research response to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, focusing on the coordination role of New Zealand’s national Natural Hazards Research Platform. The project has two aims. It uses this framework to tell the nuanced story of the way this research coordination role evolved in response to both the complexity of the unfolding post-disaster environment, and to national policy and research developments. Lessons are drawn from this analysis for those planning and implementing arrangements across the science-policy boundary to manage research support for disaster risk reduction decision-making, particularly after disasters. The second aim is to use this case study to test the utility of the boundary management framework in the disaster risk reduction context. This requires that terminology and concepts are explained and translated in terms that make this analysis as accessible as possible across the disciplines, domains and sectors involved in disaster risk reduction. Key findings are that the focus on balance, both within organisations, and between organisations and domains, and the emphasis on systemic effects, patterns and trends, offer an effective and productive alternative to the more traditional focus on individual or organisational performance. Lessons are drawn concerning the application of this framework when planning and implementing boundary organisations in the hazard and disaster risk management context.
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: In relation to the proposed school closures in Christchurch, does she agree with Manning Intermediate head Richard Chambers that "The Minister promised us that we would have two years no matter what. It was a guarantee she made to our community repeatedly, it was unequivocal"?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: In the context of the Government's Christchurch schools announcement, what is the process going forward?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he believe that the contracting system currently used in the construction industry works appropriately and fairly in circumstances of insolvency; if so, why?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is being made on making the Christchurch city centre safe for rebuilding?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government focussing New Zealand's science funding investment, and encouraging Kiwis to get involved in science?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding government support for volunteering?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Local Government: Does he have any concerns about the Hawkes Bay Regional Council's forecast of 530 percent increase in its debt by 2021/22?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health; if so, why?
“One of the most basic and fundamental questions in urban master planning and building regulations is ‘how to secure common access to sun, light and fresh air?” (Stromann-Andersen & Sattrup, 2011). Daylighting and natural ventilation can have significant benefits in office buildings. Both of these ‘passive’ strategies have been found to reduce artificial lighting and air-conditioning energy consumption by as much as 80% (Ministry for the Environment, 2008); (Brager, et al., 2007). Access to daylight and fresh air can also be credited with improved occupant comfort and health, which can lead to a reduction of employee absenteeism and an increase of productivity (Sustainability Victoria, 2008). In the rebuild of Christchurch central city, following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, Cantabrians have expressed a desire for a low-rise, sustainable city, with open spaces and high performance buildings (Christchurch City Council, 2011). With over 80% of the central city being demolished, a unique opportunity to readdress urban form and create a city that provides all buildings with access to daylight and fresh air exists. But a major barrier to wide-spread adoption of passive buildings in New Zealand is their dependence on void space to deliver daylight and fresh air – void space which could otherwise be valuable built floor space. Currently, urban planning regulations in Christchurch prioritize density, allowing and even encouraging low performance compact buildings. Considering this issue of density, this thesis aimed to determine which urban form and building design changes would have the greatest effect on building performance in Central City Christchurch. The research proposed and parametrically tested modifications of the current compact urban form model, as well as passive building design elements. Proposed changes were assessed in three areas: energy consumption, indoor comfort and density. Three computer programs were used: EnergyPlus was the primary tool, simulating energy consumption and thermal comfort. Radiance/Daysim was used to provide robust daylighting calculations and analysis. UrbaWind enabled detailed consideration of the urban wind environment for reliable natural ventilation predictions. Results found that, through a porous urban form and utilization of daylight and fresh air via simple windows, energy consumption could be reduced as much as 50% in buildings. With automatic modulation of windows and lighting, thermal and visual comfort could be maintained naturally for the majority of the occupied year. Separation of buildings by as little as 2m enabled significant energy improvements while having only minimal impact on individual property and city densities. Findings indicated that with minor alterations to current urban planning laws, all buildings could have common access to daylight and fresh air, enabling them to operate naturally, increasing energy efficiency and resilience.
A video of a presentation by Professor David Johnston during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Johnston is a Senior Scientist at GNS Science and Director of the Joint Centre for Disaster Research in the School of Psychology at Massey University. The presentation is titled, "Understanding Immediate Human Behaviour to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, Implications for injury prevention and risk communication".The abstract for the presentation reads as follows: The 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequences have given us a unique opportunity to better understand human behaviour during and immediately after an earthquake. On 4 September 2010, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred near Darfield in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. There were no deaths, but several thousand people sustained injuries and sought medical assistance. Less than 6 months later, a magnitude 6.2 earthquake occurred under Christchurch City at 12:51 p.m. on 22 February 2011. A total of 182 people were killed in the first 24 hours and over 7,000 people injured overall. To reduce earthquake casualties in future events, it is important to understand how people behaved during and immediately after the shaking, and how their behaviour exposed them to risk of death or injury. Most previous studies have relied on an analysis of medical records and/or reflective interviews and questionnaire studies. In Canterbury we were able to combine a range of methods to explore earthquake shaking behaviours and the causes of injuries. In New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (a national health payment scheme run by the government) allowed researchers to access injury data from over 9,500 people from the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch (22 February 2011 ) earthquakes. The total injury burden was analysed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. From the injury data inferences into human behaviour were derived. We were able to classify the injury context as direct (immediate shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). A second study examined people's immediate responses to earthquakes in Christchurch New Zealand and compared responses to the 2011 earthquake in Hitachi, Japan. A further study has developed a systematic process and coding scheme to analyse earthquake video footage of human behaviour during strong earthquake shaking. From these studies a number of recommendations for injury prevention and risk communication can be made. In general, improved building codes, strengthening buildings, and securing fittings will reduce future earthquake deaths and injuries. However, the high rate of injuries incurred from undertaking an inappropriate action (e.g. moving around) during or immediately after an earthquake suggests that further education is needed to promote appropriate actions during and after earthquakes. In New Zealand - as in US and worldwide - public education efforts such as the 'Shakeout' exercise are trying to address the behavioural aspects of injury prevention.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.
On 4 September 2010 the Magnitude 7.1 'Darfield' Earthquake marked the beginning of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The Darfield earthquake produced strong ground shaking throughout the centralCanterbury Plains, affecting rural areas, small towns and the city of Christchurch. The event produced a 29km long surface rupture through intensive farmland, causing localised flooding and liquefaction. The central Canterbury plains were subjected to a sustained period of thousands of aftershocks in the months after the Darfield earthquake. The primary sector is a major component of the in New Zealand economy. Business units are predominantly small family-run farm organisations, though there are increasing levels of corporate farming. The agribusiness sector contributes 20 per cent of real GDP and 47 per cent of total exports for New Zealand. Of the approximately 2,000 farms that are located in the Canterbury Plains, the most common farming sectors in the region are Mixed farming (mostly comprised of sheep and/or beef farming), Dairy farming, and Arable farming (cropping). Many farms on the Canterbury Plains require some form of irrigation and are increasingly capital intensive, reliant on built infrastructure, technology and critical services. Farms are of great significance to their local rural economies, with many rural non-farming organisations dependent on the health of local farming organisations. Despite the economic significance of the sector, there have been few, if any studies analysing how modern intensive farms are affected by earthquakes. The aim of this report is to (1) summarise the impacts the Darfield earthquake had on farming organisations and outline in general terms how farms are vulnerable to the effects of an earthquake; (2) identify what factors helped mitigate earthquake-related impacts. Data for this paper was collected through two surveys of farming and rural non-farming organisations following the earthquake and contextual interviews with affected organisations. In total, 78 organisations participated in the study (Figure 1). Farming organisations represented 72% (N=56) of the sample.
Over 6.3 million waste tyres are produced annually in New Zealand (Tyrewise, 2021), leading to socioeconomic and environmental concerns. The 2010-11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence inflicted extensive damage to ~6,000 residential buildings, highlighting the need to improve the seismic resilience of the residential housing sector. A cost-effective and sustainable eco-rubber geotechnical seismic isolation (ERGSI) foundation system for new low-rise buildings was developed by the authors. The ERGSI system integrates a horizontal geotechnical seismic isolation (GSI) layer i.e., a deformable seismic energy dissipative filter made of granulated tyre rubber (GTR) and gravel (G) – and a flexible rubberised concrete raft footing. Geotechnical experimental and numerical investigations demonstrated the effectiveness of the ERGSI system in reducing the seismic demand at the foundation level (i.e., reduced peak ground acceleration) (Hernandez et al., 2019; Tasalloti et al., 2021). However, it is essential to ensure that the ERGSI system has minimal leaching attributes and does not result in long-term negative impacts on the environment.
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government’s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac’s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters?
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010?
Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting?
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme supporting stronger regional job growth? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Commerce: Is he aware of demands being made by the Countdown supermarket group for retrospective payments from New Zealand suppliers, with threats Countdown will not stock their products? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister for Economic Development: Why is the Government holding up economic development in Auckland's CBD, according to Auckland City officials, by delaying the opening of the City Rail Link until 2025? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the state of the nation in relation to social outcomes? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he aware of any proposals to transport asbestos-contaminated material from the Christchurch rebuild to sub-standard landfills? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied New Zealanders are receiving timely and affordable healthcare? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on positive progress being advanced on the Government's housing agenda? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on the minimum wage that "I think we've been pretty fair in what we've done in the past and we probably will be in the future"? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How are the National Science Challenges bringing together the best scientific talent across New Zealand? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister for Economic Development: Will he commit to spending the $41m on reducing child poverty, after signalling that he might not now give that money to Team New Zealand to compete in the next America's Cup? Dr RAJEN PRASAD to the Minister of Immigration: When he said in response to an oral question on 29 January 2014 that it was "a pretty simple process…to alert immigration authorities", what was his understanding of the process a complainant would go through? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"; if so, why has the number of children living in material hardship grown under his watch?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support vulnerable New Zealanders through the aftermath of the domestic recession and global financial crisis?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: When he said "we don't want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don't get to make choices, they're often the victim of circumstance" does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don't suffer because of circumstances beyond their control?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Compared to 2012, does the Reserve Bank forecast the New Zealand dollar (as measured by the Trade Weighted Index) to strengthen or weaken in the next two years, and does he believe this will make New Zealand exporters more competitive or less competitive?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and grow the economy?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the state of children's health in New Zealand; if not, why not?
COLIN KING to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society in relation to freshwater that "failure to act with decisiveness and urgency risks further environmental degradation and erosion of our international environmental reputation"; if not, why not?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Building and Construction: How quickly will he respond to the building performance, assessment and construction recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing in response to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission's full report?
CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children?
ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms?
COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan?
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that Hon John Banks has behaved in a manner that “upholds, and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards” as required by the Cabinet Manual?
BARBARA STEWART to the Prime Minister: Did Mr Banks explain to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff that he would use “obfuscation” in his dealings with the media over the “anonymous” donations from Kim Dotcom?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How does the Government intend to strengthen the Public Finance Act 1989 in the Budget this month?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In the most recent World Economic Outlook published by the IMF in April 2012, which of the 34 advanced economies listed is forecast to have a worse current account deficit (as a percentage of GDP) than New Zealand in 2013?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 4 yesterday?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What action is the Government taking to improve co-ordination of the business growth agenda?
Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What damage, if any, has been done to staff confidence and retention by the change proposals for his Ministry announced on 23 February 2012, and does he intend to announce on 10 May 2012 a reversal of many of the proposals?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Labour: What steps is the Government taking to improve workplace health and safety?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Does her proposed extension of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary for Maui’s dolphins allow the use of set nets, drift nets, and trawl nets within the sanctuary?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about trade training within prisons?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Has he required that all his Ministers involved in the Canterbury earthquake recovery read the briefing paper dated 10 May 2011 prepared by Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, into the psychosocial consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes; if not, why not?
NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen of excellent achievement in scholarship exams?
