A video of an interview with Michael Ardagh, Professor of Emergency Medicine at Christchurch Hospital. Ardagh talks about the challenges the emergency department at the Christchurch Hospital faced following the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
Website of Canterbury CDEM Group, which is a partnership of local authorities, emergency services and other organisations tasked with providing effective and comprehensive management of major hazards and their consequences anywhere in Canterbury. Includes community preparedness information, information for emergency managers and CDEM Group plan.
A video of an address by John Vale, Chief Executive of Vynco, at the 2012 Seismics and the City forum. The talk covers how business continuity planning proved to be crucial to the Vynco's survival, and how the company's employees were able to work in new ways to keep export channels open and flowing.
A video of an address by Peter Davie, Chief Executive of Lyttelton Port Company, at the 2012 Seismics and the City forum. The talk is about how, in today's technological and economic environment, the ability to prevent, prepare for, or quickly recover from a disaster is a critical success factor. The seismic simulations that the Port of Lyttelton ran as part of its long term development plan became a key part of the Port's emergency response, and meant that cargo kept flowing with minimal downtime.
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.
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.
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that the Ministry of Social Development can keep private information it holds confidential? KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What are the main features of the Government's plan to build a more competitive economy based on more savings, higher exports and less debt? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has the Ministry of Social Development competently managed the private information in its charge? Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What children will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children be targeting? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: What specific criteria were used to determine whether a school in Christchurch was identified for restoration, consolidation or rejuvenation? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: What were the dates of the three cases that the Government Communications Security Bureau audit highlighted, because they could not assure him "that the legal position is totally clear", as referred to in his statement of 3 October 2012? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to my Question for Written Answer 3326 (2012)? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why did he reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management earthquake review's recommendation, which was made in response to the finding that duplication of control was "not only inefficient but put people and property at risk", and that "the same situation could arise in a number of different parts of New Zealand"? MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: What is the Government doing to improve the support and recognition given to veterans? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon John Banks; if so, why? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What is the objective of the Government review of the EQC?
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.