Lyttelton Review 9 July 2012
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 9 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 9 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 3 October 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 4 October 2012 entitled, "Lovely Lotus".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 27 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 16 January 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 14 May 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 26 November 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 17 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 21 November 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 21 December 2011 entitled, "Summer Solstice".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 7 November 2011 entitled, "Retail Re-start".
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery. Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 11 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 20 June 2014 entitled, "Doctor's Discussion".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 December 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 14 January 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 5 December 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 3 October 2012 entitled, "Hopeful Hotel".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 02 May 2014 entitled, "Widespread Weariness".
Farming and urban regions are impacted by earthquake disasters in different ways, and feature a range of often different recovery requirements. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, most earthquake impact and recovery research is urban focused. This creates a research deficit that can lead to the application of well-researched urban recovery strategies in rural areas to suboptimal effect. To begin to reduce this deficit, in-depth case studies of the earthquake impacts and recovery of three New Zealand farms severely impacted by the 14th November 2016, M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake were conducted. The initial earthquake, its aftershocks and coseismic hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, surface rupture) affected much of North Canterbury, Marlborough and the Wellington area. The three case study farms were chosen to broadly represent the main types of farming and topography in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury. The farms were directly and indirectly impacted by earthquakes and related hazards. On-farm infrastructure (e.g., woolsheds, homesteads) and essential services (e.g., water, power), frequently sourced from distributed networks, were severely impacted. The earthquake occurred after two years of regional drought had already stressed farm systems and farmers to restructuring or breaking point. Cascading interlinked hazards stemming from the earthquakes and coseismic hazards continued to disrupt earthquake recovery over a year after the initial earthquake. Semi-structured interviews with the farmers were conducted nine and fourteen months after the initial earthquake to capture the timeline of on-going impacts and recovery. Analysis of both geological hazard data and interview data resulted in the identification of key factors influencing farm level earthquake impact and recovery. These include pre-existing conditions (e.g., drought); farm-specific variations in recovery timelines; and resilience strategies for farm recovery resources. The earthquake recovery process presented all three farms with opportunities to change their business plans and adapt to mitigate on-going and future risk.
On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly within the civil defence and emergency management literature and informed by recent work on community participation and social capital in the building of resilient cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes as well as the substantive role communities play in their own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or hinder community involvement also needs to be better understood. This paper interrogates the assumption that recovery agencies and officials are both willing and able to engage communities who are themselves willing and able to be engaged in accordance with recovery best practice. Case studies of three community groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated with becoming a community during the disaster recovery phase. Based on my own observations and experiences, combined with data from approximately 50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents and representatives from community groups, the Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies emerging communities may use in the early disaster recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to ‘participate’ in the recovery process.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 27 June 2012 entitled, "Permanent Pipes".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 17 February 2012 entitled, "Approaching Anniversary".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 25 March 2011 entitled, "Day 32, 6pm - in the red zone".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 8 April 2011 entitled, "Day 46 - Clearing Kilmore".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 7 August 2011 entitled, "Setting the Scene for Scape".
An entry from Roz Johnson's blog for 8 May 2013 entitled, "If our cottage is demolished ".
The Canterbury region of New Zealand experienced four earthquakes greater than MW 6.0 between September 2010 and December 2011. This study employs system dynamics as well as hazard, recovery and organisational literature and brings together data collected via surveys, case studies and interviews with organisations affected by the earthquakes. This is to show how systemic interactions and interdependencies within and between industry and geographic sectors affect their recovery post-disaster. The industry sectors in the study are: construction for its role in the rebuild, information and communication technology which is a regional high-growth industry, trucking for logistics, critical infrastructure, fast moving consumer goods (e.g. supermarkets) and hospitality to track recovery through non-discretionary and discretionary spend respectively. Also in the study are three urban centres including the region’s largest Central Business District, which has been inaccessible since the earthquake of 22 February 2011 to the time of writing in February 2013. This work also highlights how earthquake effects propagated between sectors and how sectors collaborated to mitigate difficulties such as product demand instability. Other interacting factors are identified that influence the recovery trajectories of the different industry sectors. These are resource availability, insurance payments, aid from central government, and timely and quality recovery information. This work demonstrates that in recovering from disaster it is crucial for organisations to identify what interacting factors could affect their operations. Also of importance are efforts to reduce the organisation’s vulnerability and increase their resilience to future crises and in day-to-day operations. Lastly, the multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the recovery and resilience of organisations and industry sectors after disaster, leads to a better understanding of effects as well as more effective recovery policy.
The recent Christchurch earthquakes provide a unique opportunity to better understand the relationship between pre-disaster social fault-lines and post-disaster community fracture. As a resident of Christchurch, this paper presents some of my reflections on the social structures and systems, activities, attitudes and decisions that have helped different Canterbury ‘communities’ along their road to recovery, and highlights some issues that have, unfortunately, held us back. These reflections help answer the most crucial question asked of disaster scholarship: what can recovery agencies (including local authorities) do - both before and after disaster - to promote resilience and facilitate recovery. This paper – based on three different definitions of resilience - presents a thematic account of the social recovery landscape. I argue that ‘coping’ might best be associated with adaptive capacity, however ‘thriving’ or ‘bounce forward’ versions of resilience are a function of a community’s participative capacity.