The increase in urban population has required cities to rethink their strategies for minimising greenhouse gas impacts and adapting to climate change. While urban design and planning policy have been guided by principles such as walkability (to reduce the dependence on cars) and green infrastructure (to enhance the quality of open spaces to support conservation and human values), there have been conflicting views on what spatial strategies will best prepare cities for a challenging future. Researchers supporting compact cities based upon public Transit Oriented Development have claimed that walkability, higher density and mixed-uses make cities more sustainable (Owen, 2009) and that, while green spaces in cities are necessary, they are dull in comparison with shopfronts and street vendors (Speck, 2012, p 250). Other researchers claim that green infrastructure is fundamental to improving urban sustainability and attracting public space users with improved urban comfort, consequently encouraging walkability (Pitman and Ely, 2013). Landscape architects tend to assume that ‘the greener the better’; however, the efficiency of urban greenery in relation to urban comfort and urbanity depends on its density, distribution and the services provided. Green infrastructure can take many forms (from urban forests to street trees) and provide varied services (amended microclimate, aesthetics, ecology and so forth). In this paper, we evaluate the relevance of current policy in Christchurch regarding both best practice in green infrastructure and urban comfort (Tavares, 2015). We focus on the Christchurch Blueprint for rebuilding the central city, and critically examine the post-earthquake paths the city is following regarding its green and grey infrastructures and the resulting urban environment. We discuss the performance and appropriateness of the current Blueprint in post-earthquake Christchurch, particularly as it relates to the challenges that climate change is creating for cities worldwide.
After a disaster, cities experience profound social and environmental upheaval. Current research on disasters describes this social disruption along with collective community action to provide support. Pre-existing social capital is recognised as fundamental to this observed support. This research examines the relationship between sense of place for neighbourhood, social connectedness and resilience. Canterbury residents experienced considerable and continued disruption following a large and protracted sequence of earthquakes starting in September 2010. A major aftershock on 22 February 2011 caused significant loss of life, destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Following this earthquake some suburbs of Christchurch showed strong collective action. This research examines the features of the built environment that helped to form this cooperative support. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 key informants followed by 38 participants from four case study suburbs. The objectives were to describe the community response of suburbs, to identify the key features of the built environment and the role of social infrastructure in fostering social connectedness. The last objective was to contribute to future planning for community resilience. The findings from this research indicated that social capital and community competence are significant resources to be called upon after a disaster. Features of the local environment facilitated the formation of neighbourhood connections that enabled participants to cope, manage and to collectively solve problems. These features also strengthened a sense of belonging and attachment to the home territory. Propinquity was important; the bumping and gathering places such as schools, small local shops and parks provided the common ground for meaningful pre-existing local interaction. Well-defined geography, intimate street typology, access to quality natural space and social infrastructure helped to build the local social connections and develop a sense of place. Resourceful individuals and groups were also a factor, and many are drawn to live near the inner city or more natural places. The features are the same well understood attributes that contribute to health and wellbeing. The policy and planning framework needs to consider broader social outcomes, including resilience in new and existing urban developments. The socio-political structures that provide access to secure and stable housing and local education should also be recognised and incorporated into local planning for resilience and the everyday.
Christchurch City Council (Council) is undertaking the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in order to assess the effects of the earthquakes on flood risk to Christchurch. In the course of these investigations it has become better understood that floodplain management should be considered in a multi natural hazards context. Council have therefore engaged the Jacobs, Beca, University of Canterbury, and HR Wallingford project team to investigate the multihazards in eastern areas of Christchurch and develop flood management options which also consider other natural hazards in that context (i.e. how other hazards contribute to flooding both through temporal and spatial coincidence). The study has three stages: Stage 1 Gap Analysis – assessment of information known, identification of gaps and studies required to fill the gaps. Stage 2 Hazard Studies – a gap filling stage with the studies identified in Stage 1. Stage 3 Collating, Optioneering and Reporting – development of options to manage flood risk. This present report is to document findings of Stage 1 and recommends the studies that should be completed for Stage 2. It has also been important to consider how Stage 3 would be delivered and the gaps are prioritised to provide for this. The level of information available and hazards to consider is extensive; requiring this report to be made up of five parts each identifying individual gaps. A process of identifying information for individual hazards in Christchurch has been undertaken and documented (Part 1) followed by assessing the spatial co-location (Part 2) and probabilistic presence of multi hazards using available information. Part 3 considers multi hazard presence both as a temporal coincidence (e.g. an earthquake and flood occurring at one time) and as a cascade sequence (e.g. earthquake followed by a flood at some point in the future). Council have already undertaken a number of options studies for managing flood risk and these are documented in Part 4. Finally Part 5 provides the Gap Analysis Summary and Recommendations to Council. The key findings of Stage 1 gap analysis are: - The spatial analysis showed eastern Christchurch has a large number of hazards present with only 20% of the study area not being affected by any of the hazards mapped. Over 20% of the study area is exposed to four or more hazards at the frequencies and data available. - The majority of the Residential Red Zone is strongly exposed to multiple hazards, with 86% of the area being exposed to 4 or more hazards, and 24% being exposed to 6 or more hazards. - A wide number of gaps are present; however, prioritisation needs to consider the level of benefit and risks associated with not undertaking the studies. In light of this 10 studies ranging in scale are recommended to be done for the project team to complete the present scope of Stage 3. - Stage 3 will need to consider a number of engineering options to address hazards and compare with policy options; however, Council have not established a consistent policy on managed retreat that can be applied for equal comparison; without which substantial assumptions are required. We recommend Council undertake a study to define a managed retreat framework as an option for the city. - In undertaking Stage 1 with floodplain management as the focal point in a multi hazards context we have identified that Stage 3 requires consideration of options in the context of economics, implementation and residual risk. Presently the scope of work will provide a level of definition for floodplain options; however, this will not be at equal levels of detail for other hazard management options. Therefore, we recommend Council considers undertaking other studies with those key hazards (e.g. Coastal Hazards) as a focal point and identifies the engineering options to address such hazards. Doing so will provide equal levels of information for Council to make an informed and defendable decision on which options are progressed following Stage 3.
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for the Environment: Ki Te Minita mō Te Taiao: Ka tukua e ngā paerewa e whakaarohia akehia nei mō te pai ake o te wai i roto i te pūhera Wai Mā, te kaha kē atu, te iti kē iho rānei o te uru atu o te tūkinotanga ki roto i ō tātou awa wai, e ngā mea whakakapi?
Translation: Do the proposed standards for water quality in the Clean Water package allow more pollution or less to enter our waterways than the ones they will replace?
BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government committing to spend on infrastructure over the next 4 years?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Given his predecessor told the Pike River families, “I’m here to give you absolute reassurance we’re committed to getting the boys out, and nothing’s going to change that”, when, if ever, will he be announcing the re-entry of the drift?
STUART SMITH to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government’s commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Children: When was she first notified that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki, or its predecessor CYF, were placing children and younger persons in a hotel or motel for short-term care without a supervisor, and what was her first action, if any?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55,000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Dominion Post editorial that his Government has “singularly failed to answer the pressures of Auckland”; if not, why does he think they would write this?
ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: How do the latest reports on the level of building activity in Auckland and nationwide for the month, quarter, and year compare with 2016?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Why has the completion of the $2.4 billion Western Ring Route been delayed, and when can Aucklanders expect the new motorway to be open?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule?
Questions to Members
CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House, in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?
