Access to clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental human requirement. However, in many areas of the world natural water sources have been impacted by a variety of biological and chemical contaminants. The ingestion of these contaminants may cause acute or chronic health problems. To prevent such illnesses, many technologies have been developed to treat, disinfect and supply safe drinking water quality. However, despite these advancements, water supply distribution systems can adversely affect the drinking water quality before it is delivered to consumers. The primary aim of this research was to investigate the effect that water distribution systems may have on household drinking water quality in Christchurch, New Zealand and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Water samples were collected from the source water and household taps in both cities. The samples were then tested for various physical, chemical and biological water quality parameters. The data collected was also used to determine if water samples complied with national drinking water quality standards in both countries. Independent samples t-test statistical analyses were also performed to determine if water quality measured in the samples collected from the source and household taps was significantly different. Water quality did not vary considerably between the source and tap water samples collected in Christchurch City. No bacteria were detected in any sample. However, the pH and total iron concentrations measured in source and tap water samples were found to be significantly different. The lower pH values measured in tap water samples suggests that corrosion may be taking place in the distribution system. No water samples transgressed the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ) MAVs. Monitoring data collected by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) was also used for comparison. A number of pH, turbidity and total iron concentration measurements collected by the CCC in 2011 were found to exceed the guideline values. This is likely due to structural damage to the source wells and pump-stations that occurred during the 2011 earthquake events. Overall, it was concluded that the distribution system does not adversely affect the quality of Christchurch City’s household drinking water. The water quality measured in samples collected from the source (LTP) and household taps in Addis Ababa was found to vary considerably. The water collected from the source complied with the Ethiopian (WHO) drinking water quality standards. However, tap water samples were often found to have degraded water quality for the physical and chemical parameters tested. This was especially the case after supply interruption and reinstatement events. Bacteria were also often detected in household tap water samples. The results from this study indicate that water supply disruptions may result in degraded water quality. This may be due to a drop in pipeline pressure and the intrusion of contaminants through the leaky and cross-connected pipes in the distribution network. This adversely affects the drinking water quality in Addis Ababa.
This article argues that active coordination of research engagement after disasters has the potential to maximize research opportunities, improve research quality, increase end-user engagement, and manage escalating research activity to mitigate ethical risks posed to impacted populations. The focus is on the coordination of research activity after the 22nd February 2011 Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake by the then newly-formed national research consortium, the Natural Hazards Research Platform, which included a social science research moratorium during the declared state of national emergency. Decisions defining this organisation’s functional and structural parameters are analyzed to identify lessons concerning the need for systematic approaches to the management of post disaster research, in collaboration with the response effort. Other lessons include the importance of involving an existing, broadly-based research consortium, ensuring that this consortium's coordination role is fully integrated into emergency management structures, and ensuring that all aspects of decision-making processes are transparent and easily accessed.
New Zealand is one of the most highly urbanised countries in the world with well over 87 per cent of us living in 138 recognised urban centres, yet the number of people residing in inner city areas is proportionally very low. Householders have been exercising their preference for suburban or rural areas by opting for low density suburban environments. It is widely agreed that productivity and sustainability increase when people aggregate in the inner city, however there is a perceived trade-off between the density and liveability of an area. Achieving liveability in the inner city is concerned with reducing the pressures which emerge from higher population densities. Promoting inclusive societies, revitalising underutilised cityscapes, ensuring accessibility and fostering sense of place, are all elements essential to achieving liveable communities. The rebuild following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes provides Christchurch with an opportunity to shape a more environmentally sustainable, economically vibrant and liveable city. This research involves undertaking a case study of current inner city liveability measures and those provided for through the rebuild. A cross-case analysis with two of the world’s most liveable cities, Melbourne and Vancouver, exposes Christchurch’s potential shortcomings and reveals practical measures the city could implement in order to promote liveability.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 finds that, despite progress in disaster risk reduction over the last decade “evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in disaster losses” (p.4, UNISDR 2015). Fostering cooperation among relevant stakeholders and policy makers to “facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decisionmaking in disaster risk management” is required to achieve two priority areas for action, understanding disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness (p. 13, p. 23, UNISDR 2015). In other topic areas, the term science-policy interface is used interchangeably with the term boundary organisation. Both terms are usually used refer to systematic collaborative arrangements used to manage the intersection, or boundary, between science and policy domains, with the aim of facilitating the joint construction of knowledge to inform decision-making. Informed by complexity theory, and a constructivist focus on the functions and processes that minimize inevitable tensions between domains, this conceptual framework has become well established in fields where large complex issues have significant economic and political consequences, including environmental management, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change and public health. To date, however, there has been little application of this framework in the disaster risk reduction field. In this doctoral project the boundary management framework informs an analysis of the research response to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, focusing on the coordination role of New Zealand’s national Natural Hazards Research Platform. The project has two aims. It uses this framework to tell the nuanced story of the way this research coordination role evolved in response to both the complexity of the unfolding post-disaster environment, and to national policy and research developments. Lessons are drawn from this analysis for those planning and implementing arrangements across the science-policy boundary to manage research support for disaster risk reduction decision-making, particularly after disasters. The second aim is to use this case study to test the utility of the boundary management framework in the disaster risk reduction context. This requires that terminology and concepts are explained and translated in terms that make this analysis as accessible as possible across the disciplines, domains and sectors involved in disaster risk reduction. Key findings are that the focus on balance, both within organisations, and between organisations and domains, and the emphasis on systemic effects, patterns and trends, offer an effective and productive alternative to the more traditional focus on individual or organisational performance. Lessons are drawn concerning the application of this framework when planning and implementing boundary organisations in the hazard and disaster risk management context.
The standard way in which disaster damages are measured involves examining separately the number of fatalities, of injuries, of people otherwise affected, and the financial damage that natural disasters cause. Here, we implement a novel way to aggregate these separate measures of disaster impact and apply it to two catastrophic events from 2011: the Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes and the Greater Bangkok (Thailand) flood. This new measure, which is similar to the World Health Organization's calculation of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to the burden of diseases and injuries, is described in detail in Noy [7]. It allows us to conclude that New Zealand lost 180 thousand lifeyears as a result of the 2011 events, and Thailand lost 2644 thousand lifeyears. In per capita terms, the loss is similar, with both countries losing about 15 days per person due to the 2011 catastrophic events in these two countries.
© This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Improving community resilience requires a way of thinking about the nature of a community. Two complementary aspects are proposed: the flows connecting the community with its surrounding environment and the resources the community needs for its ongoing life. The body of necessary resources is complex, with many interactions between its elements. A systems approach is required to understand the issues adequately. Community resilience is discussed in general terms together with strategies for improving it. The ideas are then illustrated and amplified by an extended case study addressing means of improving the resilience of a community on the West Coast of New Zealand to natural disasters. The case study is in two phases. The first relies on a mix of on-the-ground observations and constructed scenarios to provide recommendations for enhancing community resilience, while the second complements the first by developing a set of general lessons and issues to be addressed from observations of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.
