Organisations locate strategically within Business Districts (CBDs) in order to cultivate their image, increase their profile, and improve access to customers, suppliers, and services. While CBDs offer an economic benefit to organisations, they also present a unique set of hazard vulnerabilities and planning challenges for businesses. As of May 2012, the Christchurch CBD has been partially cordoned off for over 14 months. Economic activity within the cordoned CBD, which previously contained 6,000 businesses and over 51,000 workers, has been significantly diminished and organisations have been forced to find new ways of operating. The vulnerabilities and resilience of CBDs not only influences outcomes for CBD organisations, but also the broader interconnected (urban/regional/national) system. A CBD is a hub of economic, social, and built infrastructure within a network of links and nodes. When the hub is disrupted all of the people, objects, and transactions that usually flow into and out of the hub must be redirected elsewhere. In an urban situation this means traffic jams in peripheries of the city, increased prices of commercial property, and capital flight; all of which are currently being faced in Canterbury. This report presents the lessons learned from organisations in CBDs affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Here we focus on the Christchurch CBD; however, several urban town centres were extensively disrupted by the earthquakes. The statistics and discussion presented in this report are based on the results of an ongoing study conducted by Resilient Organisations (www.resorgs.org.nz). The data was captured using two questionnaire surveys of Canterbury organisations (issued November 2010 and May 2011), interviews with key informants, and in-depth case studies of organisations. Several industry sectors were sampled, and geographic samples of organisations in the Christchurch CBD, Lyttelton, and the Kaiapoi town centre were also collected. Results in this report describing “non-CBD organisations” refer to all organisations outside of the Christchurch CBD, Lyttelton, and Kaiapoi town centres.
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government’s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac’s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters?
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010?
Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting?
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?
On 4 September 2010 the Magnitude 7.1 'Darfield' Earthquake marked the beginning of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The Darfield earthquake produced strong ground shaking throughout the centralCanterbury Plains, affecting rural areas, small towns and the city of Christchurch. The event produced a 29km long surface rupture through intensive farmland, causing localised flooding and liquefaction. The central Canterbury plains were subjected to a sustained period of thousands of aftershocks in the months after the Darfield earthquake. The primary sector is a major component of the in New Zealand economy. Business units are predominantly small family-run farm organisations, though there are increasing levels of corporate farming. The agribusiness sector contributes 20 per cent of real GDP and 47 per cent of total exports for New Zealand. Of the approximately 2,000 farms that are located in the Canterbury Plains, the most common farming sectors in the region are Mixed farming (mostly comprised of sheep and/or beef farming), Dairy farming, and Arable farming (cropping). Many farms on the Canterbury Plains require some form of irrigation and are increasingly capital intensive, reliant on built infrastructure, technology and critical services. Farms are of great significance to their local rural economies, with many rural non-farming organisations dependent on the health of local farming organisations. Despite the economic significance of the sector, there have been few, if any studies analysing how modern intensive farms are affected by earthquakes. The aim of this report is to (1) summarise the impacts the Darfield earthquake had on farming organisations and outline in general terms how farms are vulnerable to the effects of an earthquake; (2) identify what factors helped mitigate earthquake-related impacts. Data for this paper was collected through two surveys of farming and rural non-farming organisations following the earthquake and contextual interviews with affected organisations. In total, 78 organisations participated in the study (Figure 1). Farming organisations represented 72% (N=56) of the sample.
