Lyttelton Review 10 October 2011
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 10 October 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 10 October 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A story submitted by Sarndra to the QuakeStories website.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 4 July 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A story submitted by Secretary to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 3 April 2011 entitled, "Day 41 - Fraction Liquefaction".
An entry from Jennifer Middendorf's blog for 2 March 2011 entitled, "Random things".
A story submitted by Peter Seager to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Marian Young to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Katie to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 3 March 2011 entitled, "Kia Kaha...".
A story submitted by Scott to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Jennifer Middendorf's blog for 16 May 2011 entitled, "I'm back!".
A story submitted by Dee Dawson to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 24 March 2011 entitled, "Day 31 in the red zone".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 1 April 2011 entitled, "Day 39 - inside the red zone".
People gathering in the Botanic Gardens after the 22 February 2011 earthquake. For many nearby businesses and organisations, the gardens were the meeting point during an emergency. To the right, the Peacock Fountain can just be seen with scaffolding around it.
A story submitted by Ali to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Michelle Paterson to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 26 March 2011 entitled, "Day 33, 7am - in the red zone".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 1 March 2011 entitled, "Day 8, 6pm - inside the Christchurch cordon".
A news item titled, "Cool Store Relocation Causes Controversy", published on the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's website on Thursday, 13 October 2011.
A story submitted by Tracy to the QuakeStories website.
The cartoon shows an arm clothed in a blue shirt which is covered with the printed names of all the people and organisations who have provided assistance to the people of Christchurch since the earthquake of 22 February 2011. The include 'neighbours', 'charities', 'communities', 'church groups etc. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
Disaster recovery is significantly affected by funding availability. The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are not only impacted by the extent of the funding but also the mechanisms with which funding is prioritised, allocated and delivered. This research addresses the impact of funding mechanisms on the effectiveness and efficiency of post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. A qualitative assessment of the impacts on recovery of different funding sources and mechanisms was carried out, using the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake as well as other recent international events as case studies. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness, environmental, economic and social impacts. Of the case studies investigated, the Canterbury Earthquake was the only disaster response to rely solely on a privatised approach to insurance for debris management. Due to the low level of resident displacement and low level of hazard in the waste, this was a satisfactory approach, though not ideal. This approach has led to greater organisational complexity and delays. For many other events, the potential community wide impacts caused by the prolonged presence of disaster debris means that publicly funded and centrally facilitated programmes appear to be the most common and effective method of managing disaster waste.
The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are impacted by the organisation and human resourcing of the physical works. This research addresses the suitability of different resourcing strategies on post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. This qualitative analysis primarily draws on five international case studies including 2010 Canterbury earthquake, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, 2009 Samoan Tsunami, 2009 Victorian Bushfires and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The implementation strategies are divided into two categories: collectively and individually facilitated works. The impacts of the implementation strategies chosen are assessed for all disaster waste management activities including demolition, waste collection, transportation, treatment and waste disposal. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness of projects; and environmental, economic and social impacts. Generally, the case studies demonstrate that detritus waste removal and debris from major repair work is managed at an individual property level. Debris collection, demolition and disposal are generally and most effectively carried out as a collective activity. However, implementation strategies are affected by contextual factors (such as funding and legal constraints) and the nature of the disaster waste (degree of hazardous waste, geographical spread of waste etc.) and need to be designed accordingly. Community involvement in recovery activities such as demolition and debris removal is shown to contribute positively to psychosocial recovery.