Creative temporary or transitional use of vacant urban open spaces is
seldom foreseen in traditional urban planning and has historically been
linked to economic or political disturbances. Christchurch, like most
cities, has had a relatively small stock of vacant spaces throughout
much of its history. This changed dramatically after an earthquake and
several damaging aftershocks hit the city in 2010 and 2011; temporary
uses emerged on post-earthquake sites that ran parallel to the “official”
rebuild discourse and programmes of action. The paper examines
a post-earthquake transitional community-initiated open space (CIOS)
in central Christchurch. CIOS have been established by local community
groups as bottom-up initiatives relying on financial sponsorship,
agreements with local landowners who leave their land for temporary
projects until they are ready to redevelop, and volunteers who build
and maintain the spaces. The paper discusses bottom-up governance
approaches in depth in a single temporary post-earthquake community
garden project using the concepts of community resilience and social
capital. The study analyses and highlights the evolution and actions of
the facilitating community organisation (Greening the Rubble) and the
impact of this on the project. It discusses key actors’ motivations and
values, perceived benefits and challenges, and their current involvement
with the garden. The paper concludes with observations and recommendations about the initiation of such projects and the challenges for those wishing to study ephemeral social recovery phenomena.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea.
Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
Recycling is often employed as part of a disaster waste management system. However, the feasibility, method and effectiveness of recycling varies between disaster events. This qualitative study is based on literature reviews, expert interviews and active participatory research of five international disaster events in developed countries (2009 Victorian Bushfires, Australia; 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy; 2005 Hurricane Katrina, United States; 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, New Zealand; 2011 Great East Japan earthquake) to answer three questions: What are the main factors that affect the feasibility of recycling post-disaster? When is on-site or off-site separation more effective? What management approaches improve recycling effectiveness? Seven disaster-specific factors need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of disaster waste recycling programmes: volume of waste; degree of mixing of waste; human and environmental health hazards; areal extent of the waste; community priorities; funding mechanisms; and existing and disaster-specific regulations. The appropriateness of on or off-site waste separation depends on four factors: time constraints; resource availability; degree of mixing of waste and human and public health hazards. Successful recycling programmes require good management including clear and well enforced policies (through good contracts or regulations) and pre-event planning. Further research into post-disaster recycling markets, funding mechanisms and recycling in developing countries is recommended.
