International leaders in disaster recovery are lining up to learn the lessons New Zealand has gained from the Christchurch earthquakes.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 19 October 2011 entitled, "Rain, Rain, Rain!".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 16 April 2011 entitled, "Pledging to Participate".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 6 March 2011 entitled, "Day 13, 8am - inside the Christchurch cordon.".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 16 March 2011 entitled, "Day 23, 6pm - still inside the red zone".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 5 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 15 January 2013 entitled, "Golf in the Gap".
The Regenerate Christchurch board has been confirmed this morning, as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's (CERA) time comes to an end in the recovery process.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 24 October 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The Law Society is criticising the Government for rushing its Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation through Parliament under urgency.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 6 March 2011 entitled, "We're in the Red!".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 26 July 2013 entitled, "Royal Restoration".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 06 February 2014 entitled, "Losing Luneys".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 5 January 2012 entitled, "Sunny Seaside".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 13 May 2013 entitled, "Restored Roadsigns".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 10 March 2013 entitled, "Flattened Flats".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 28 November 2011 entitled, "Shunned streets".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 7 November 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Roz Johnson's blog for 23 February 2012 entitled, "Helping Hands".
People have written messages and signed their names on the stones
The chairman of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission, Murray Sherwin, joins us for the morning in our Wellington studio.
Meanwhile, the Government has made concessions on its Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation after complaints from the Labour Party.
Damaged properties, water, sewerage and the demolition of buildings in the city centre are first on the list for the new man in charge of the recovery operation in Canterbury.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 27 March 2011 entitled, "Day 34 inside the red zone".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 6 April 2011 entitled, "Day 44 - Freedom is in sight!".
On November 14 2016 a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the south island of New Zealand. The earthquake lasted for just two minutes with severe seismic shaking and damage in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. Although these are predominantly rural areas, with scattered small towns and mountainous topography, they also contain road and rail routes that are essential parts of the national transport infrastructure. This earthquake and the subsequent recovery are of particular significance as they represent a disaster following in close proximity to another similar disaster, with the Canterbury earthquakes occurring in a neighboring district five years earlier. The research used an inductive qualitative case study to explore the nature of the Kaikōura recovery. That recovery process involved a complex interplay between the three parties; (a) the existing local government in the district, (b) central government agencies funding the recovery of the local residents and the national transport infrastructure, and (c) recovery leaders arriving with recent expertise from the earlier Canterbury disaster. It was evident that three groups: locals, government, and experts represented a multi-party governance debate in which the control of the Kaikōura earthquake recovery was shared amongst them. Each party had their own expertise, adgenda and networks that they brought to the Kaikōura recovery, but this created tensions between external expertise and local, community leadership. Recent earthquake research suggests that New Zealand is currently in the midst of an earthquake cluster, with further seismic disasters likely to occur in relatively close succession. This is likely to be compounded by the increasing frequency of other natural disasters with the effects of climate change. The present study investigates a phenomenon that may become increasingly common, with the transfer of disaster expertise from one event to another, and the interface between those experts with local and national government in directing recoveries. The findings of this study have implications for practitioners and policy makers in NZ and other countries where disasters are experienced in close spatial and temporal proximity.
This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
The world experiences a number of disasters each year. Following a disaster, the affected area moves to a phase of recovery which involves multiple stakeholders. An important element of recovery is planning the rebuild of the affected environment guided by the legislative framework to which planning is bound to (March & Kornakova, 2017). Yet, there appears to be little research that has investigated the role of planners in a recovery setting and the implications of recovery legislative planning frameworks. This study was conducted to explore the role of the planner in the Canterbury earthquake recovery process in New Zealand and the impact of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CER Act) on planners’ roles and how they operated. The methodology comprised a combination of document analysis of legislation and related recovery material and 21 semi-structured interviews with key planners, politicians and professionals involved in the recovery. The results suggest that the majority of planners interviewed were affected by the CER Act in their role and how they operated, although institutional context, especially political constraints, was a key factor in determining the degree of impact. It is argued that planners played a key role in recovery and were generally equipped in terms of skills needed in a recovery setting. In order to better utilise planners in post-disaster recovery or disaster risk management, two suggestions are proposed. Firstly, better promote planners and their capabilities to improve awareness of what planners can do. Secondly, educate and build an understanding between central government politicians and planners over each others role to produce better planning outcomes.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 13 March 2013 entitled, "Time for Tourists".
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 22 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.