Search

found 488 results

Images for The National; more images...

Images, Canterbury Museum

One landscape colour digital photograph taken on 18 March 2011 showing the crowd gathered in Hagley Park for the National Memorial Service. On 18 March 2011, the National Christchurch Memorial Service was held as an official remembrance to those who lost their lives during the 6.3 magnitude earthquake on 22 February 2011. As well as being atten...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Survivors of our biggest national disasters say new guidelines will better supporting families in the wake of future tragedies. The new "Public Service Commission Model Standards" - to be released at parliament today - addresses what survivors say have been consistent shortcomings in the treatment by government agencies of those most closely affected by disaster. The standards were co-authored by the Pike River Families Group after consulting with families of survivors caught up with events such as the earthquake and mosque shootings in Christchurch, the Aramoana massacre, the Cave Creek platform collapse and the Whakaari White Island eruption. Sonya Rockhouse, who lost her son Ben in the Pike River mine explosion 12 years ago, spoke to Corin Dann.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observationsfrom seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable. Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key. Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expertdominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.