Photograph captioned by Fairfax, "The old railway station clock seems to have stopped at the same time as the very first earthquake".
Recycling is often employed as part of a disaster waste management system. However, the feasibility, method and effectiveness of recycling varies between disaster events. This qualitative study is based on literature reviews, expert interviews and active participatory research of five international disaster events in developed countries (2009 Victorian Bushfires, Australia; 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy; 2005 Hurricane Katrina, United States; 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, New Zealand; 2011 Great East Japan earthquake) to answer three questions: What are the main factors that affect the feasibility of recycling post-disaster? When is on-site or off-site separation more effective? What management approaches improve recycling effectiveness? Seven disaster-specific factors need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of disaster waste recycling programmes: volume of waste; degree of mixing of waste; human and environmental health hazards; areal extent of the waste; community priorities; funding mechanisms; and existing and disaster-specific regulations. The appropriateness of on or off-site waste separation depends on four factors: time constraints; resource availability; degree of mixing of waste and human and public health hazards. Successful recycling programmes require good management including clear and well enforced policies (through good contracts or regulations) and pre-event planning. Further research into post-disaster recycling markets, funding mechanisms and recycling in developing countries is recommended.
Photograph captioned by Fairfax, "Emergency Co-ordination Centre in the Christchurch Art Gallery building. Staff at work with paintings in a gallery still on display".
Response 66 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 71 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 68 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 8 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 59 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 62 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 49 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 2 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 3 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Photograph captioned by Fairfax, "Anna Kaiser holding a sensor which connects to a PC and measures earthquakes. The data will be analysed by GNS".
Response 64 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 11 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 12 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 17 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 15 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 1 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 53 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 55 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 51 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 56 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 57 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 5 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 52 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 60 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 6 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 61 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.
Response 46 of 90 to a survey of members carried out by the Canterbury Branch of the TEU following the February 2011 earthquake.