The focus of this paper is to identify potential benefits of community involvement in master planning in the post-earthquake recovery context in Christchurch; and to identify considerations for planners involved in the design of master planning processes that involve the community. Findings are based on the results of an information sharing event on these topics convened by The Habitat Project in December 2011, and a review of the relevant literature.
There is strong consensus in the civil defence and emergency management literature that public participation is essential for a 'good' recovery. However, there is a paucity of research detailing how this community-led planning should be carried out in the real world. There are few processes or timelines for communities to follow when wanting to plan for themselves, nor is there a great deal of advice for communities who want to plan for their own recovery. In short, despite this consensus that community involvement is desireable, there is very little information available as to the nature of this involvement or how communities might facilitate this. It is simply assumed that communities are willing and able to participate in the recovery process and that recovery authorities will welcome, encourage, and enable this participation. This is not always the case, and the result is that community groups can be left feeling lost and ineffective when trying to plan for their own recovery.
In attempting to address this gap, my study contributes to a better understanding of community involvement in recovery planning, based on research with on particular a community group (SPRIG), who has undertaken their own form of community-led planning in a post-disaster environment. Through group observations and in-depth interviews with members of SPRIG, I was able to identify various roles for such groups in the post-disaster recovery process. My research also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the process a community group might follow to implement their own form of post-disaster recovery planning, with the main point being that any planning should be done side by side with local authorities. Finally, I discovered that a community group will face organisational, community and institutional challenges when trying to plan for their area; however, despite these challenges, opportunities exist, such as the chance to build a better future.
In 2010 and 2011, Aotearoa New Zealand was hit by a number of major disasters involving loss of human life and severe disruption to social, ecological and economic wellbeing. The Pike River mine explosions were closely followed by a sequence of major earthquakes in Christchurch, seismic events that have permanently altered the lives of thousands of people in our third largest city, the closure of the central business district and the effective abandonment of whole residential areas. In early October 2011, the ship, Rena, grounded on a reef off the port of Tauranga and threatened a major oil spill throughout the Bay of Plenty, where local communities with spiritual and cultural connections to the land depend on sea food as well as thrive on tourism. The Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand (CSWEANZ), representing all the Schools of Social Work in New Zealand, held a ‘Disaster Curriculum’ day in November 2011, at which social workers and Civil Defence leaders involved in the Christchurch earthquakes, the Rena Disaster, Fiji floods and the Boxing Day tsunami presented their narrative experience of disaster response and recovery. Workshops discussed and identified core elements that participants considered vital to a social work curriculum that would enable social work graduates in a range of community and cultural settings to respond in safe, creative and informed ways. We present our core ideas for a social work disaster curriculum and consider a wide range of educational content based on existing knowledge bases and new content within a disaster framework. http://www.swsd-stockholm-2012.org/
