Lyttelton Review 30 January 2012
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 30 January 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 30 January 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 20 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 18 June 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 6 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 13 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 November 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Roz Johnson's blog for 21 April 2012 entitled, "Demolition of a high story building in Christchurch".
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 6 July 2012
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 4 May 2012
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 2 November 2012
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 22 March 2012 entitled, "Lamenting the Loss".
Transcript of Leslie Llewellyn James Griffiths's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 26 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 19 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 2 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 3 September 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 26 November 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 14 September 2012
The scale of damage from a series of earthquakes across Christchurch Otautahi in 2010 and 2011 challenged all networks in the city at a time when many individuals and communities were under severe economic pressure. Historically, Maori have drawn on traditional institutions such as whanau, marae, hapu and iwi in their endurance of past crises. This paper presents research in progress to describe how these Maori-centric networks supported both Maori and non-Maori through massive urban dislocation. Resilience to any disaster can be explained by configurations of economic, social and cultural factors. Knowing what has contributed to Maori resilience is fundamental to the strategic enhancement of future urban communities - Maori and non-Maori.
Transcript of Kirstin Golding's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
Transcript of Liz Grant's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
There are many things that organisations of any size can do to prepare for a disaster or crisis. Traditionally, the advice given to business has focused on identifying risks, reducing their likely occurrence, and planning in advance how to respond. More recently, there is growing interest in the broader concept of organisational resilience which includes planning for crisis but also considers traits that lead to organisational adaptability and ability to thrive despite adverse circumstances. In this paper we examine the policy frameworks1 within New Zealand that influence the resilience of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The first part of the paper focuses on the New Zealand context, including the prevailing political and economic ideologies, the general nature of New Zealand SMEs and the nature of New Zealand’s hazard environment. The paper then goes on to outline the key policy frameworks in place relevant to SMEs and hazards. The final part of the paper examines the way the preexisting policy environment influenced the response of SMEs and Government following the Canterbury earthquakes.
The September and February earthquakes were terrifying and devastating. In February, 185 people were killed (this number excludes post earthquake related deaths) and several thousand injured. Damage to infrastructure above and below ground in and around Christchurch was widespread and it will take many years and billions of dollars to rebuild. The ongoing effects of the big quakes and aftershocks are numerous, with the deepest impact being on those who lost family and friends, their livelihoods and homes. What did Cantabrians do during the days, weeks and months of uncertainty and how have we responded? Many grieved, some left, some stayed, some arrived, many shovelled (liquefaction left thousands of tons of silt to be removed from homes and streets), and some used their expertise or knowledge to help in the recovery. This book highlights just some of the projects staff and students from The Faculty of Environment, Society and Design have been involved in from September 2010 to October 2012. The work is ongoing and the plan is to publish another book to document progress and new projects.
There is strong consensus in the civil defence and emergency management literature that public participation is essential for a 'good' recovery. However, there is a paucity of research detailing how this community-led planning should be carried out in the real world. There are few processes or timelines for communities to follow when wanting to plan for themselves, nor is there a great deal of advice for communities who want to plan for their own recovery. In short, despite this consensus that community involvement is desireable, there is very little information available as to the nature of this involvement or how communities might facilitate this. It is simply assumed that communities are willing and able to participate in the recovery process and that recovery authorities will welcome, encourage, and enable this participation. This is not always the case, and the result is that community groups can be left feeling lost and ineffective when trying to plan for their own recovery. In attempting to address this gap, my study contributes to a better understanding of community involvement in recovery planning, based on research with on particular a community group (SPRIG), who has undertaken their own form of community-led planning in a post-disaster environment. Through group observations and in-depth interviews with members of SPRIG, I was able to identify various roles for such groups in the post-disaster recovery process. My research also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the process a community group might follow to implement their own form of post-disaster recovery planning, with the main point being that any planning should be done side by side with local authorities. Finally, I discovered that a community group will face organisational, community and institutional challenges when trying to plan for their area; however, despite these challenges, opportunities exist, such as the chance to build a better future.