Livelihood holds the key to a rapid recovery following a large-scale devastating disaster, building its resilience is of paramount importance. While much attention has been given to how to help people who are displaced from their jobs to regain employment, little research on livelihood resilience has been undertaken for those relocated communities following a disaster event. By studying five re-located villages post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar, Indonesia, this research has identified the indicators of livelihood resilience and the critical factors driving it for post-disaster relocated communities. A mixed approach, combining questionnaire surveys, semistructured interviews, and field observations, was used for the collection of data. Housing entitlement, the physical and mental health of residents, access to external livelihood support and the provision of infrastructure and basic services were identified as amongst the most critical indicators that represent the level of livelihood resilience. Early recovery income support, physical and mental health, availability and timeliness of livelihood support, together with cultural sensitivity and governance structure, are amongst the most important factors. Given the nature of resettlement, access to infrastructure, location of relocated sites, the safety of the neighbourhood and the ability to transfer to other jobs/skills also play an important role in establishing sustained employment for relocated communities in Indonesia. Those indicators and factors were synthesised into a framework which was further tested in the recovery of Christchurch, and Kaikoura, New Zealand during their recovery from devastating earthquakes. It is suggested that the framework can be used by government agencies and aid organisations to assess the livelihood resilience of post-disaster relocated communities. This will help better them plan support policies and/or prioritise resilience investment strategies to ensure that the recovery needs of those relocated are best met.
On November 14 2016 a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the south island of New Zealand. The earthquake lasted for just two minutes with severe seismic shaking and damage in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. Although these are predominantly rural areas, with scattered small towns and mountainous topography, they also contain road and rail routes that are essential parts of the national transport infrastructure. This earthquake and the subsequent recovery are of particular significance as they represent a disaster following in close proximity to another similar disaster, with the Canterbury earthquakes occurring in a neighboring district five years earlier. The research used an inductive qualitative case study to explore the nature of the Kaikōura recovery. That recovery process involved a complex interplay between the three parties; (a) the existing local government in the district, (b) central government agencies funding the recovery of the local residents and the national transport infrastructure, and (c) recovery leaders arriving with recent expertise from the earlier Canterbury disaster. It was evident that three groups: locals, government, and experts represented a multi-party governance debate in which the control of the Kaikōura earthquake recovery was shared amongst them. Each party had their own expertise, adgenda and networks that they brought to the Kaikōura recovery, but this created tensions between external expertise and local, community leadership. Recent earthquake research suggests that New Zealand is currently in the midst of an earthquake cluster, with further seismic disasters likely to occur in relatively close succession. This is likely to be compounded by the increasing frequency of other natural disasters with the effects of climate change. The present study investigates a phenomenon that may become increasingly common, with the transfer of disaster expertise from one event to another, and the interface between those experts with local and national government in directing recoveries. The findings of this study have implications for practitioners and policy makers in NZ and other countries where disasters are experienced in close spatial and temporal proximity.
This report forms part of a research project examining rural community resilience to natural hazard events, with a particular focus on transient population groups. A preliminary desktop and scoping exercise was undertaken to examine nine communities affected by the Kaikoura earthquake and to identify the variety of transient population groups that are commonly (and increasingly) found in rural New Zealand (see Wilson & Simmons, 2017). From this, four case study communities – Blenheim, Kaikoura, Waiau and St Arnaud – were selected to represent a range of settlement types.
These communities varied in respect of social, economic and geographic features, including the presence of particular transient population groups, and earthquake impact. While the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake provided a natural hazard event on which to focus the research, the research interest was in long-term (and broad) community resilience, rather than short-term (and specific) response and recovery actions which occurred post-earthquake.
This thesis examines the opportunities for young citizens in Christchurch to be engaged in city planning post-disaster. This qualitative study was conducted eight years after the 2010-2011 earthquakes and employed interviews with 18 young people aged between 12-24 years old, 14 of whom were already actively engaged in volunteering or participating in a youth council. It finds that despite having sought out opportunities for youth leadership and advocacy roles post-disaster, young people report frustration that they are excluded from decision-making and public life. These feelings of exclusion were described by young people as political, physical and social. Young people felt politically excluded from decision-making in the city, with some youth reporting that they did not feel listened to by decision-makers or able to make a difference. Physical exclusion was also experienced by the young people I interviewed, who reported that they felt excluded from their city and neighbourhood. This ranged from feeling unwelcome in certain parts of the city due to perceived social stratification, to actual exclusion from newly privatised areas in a post-quake recovery city. Social exclusion was reported by young people in the study in regard to their sense of marginalisation from the wider community, due to structural and social barriers. Among these, they observed a sense of prejudice towards them and other youth due to their age, class and/or ethnicity. The barriers to their participation and inclusion, and their aspirations for Christchurch post-disaster are discussed, as well as the implications of exclusion for young people’s wellbeing and sense of belonging. Results of this study contribute to the literature that challenges the sole focus on children and young peoples’ vulnerability post-disaster, reinforcing their capacity and desire to contribute to the recovery of their city and community (Peek, 2008). This research also challenges the narrative that young people are politically apathetic (Norris, 2004; Nissen, 2017), and adds to our understandings of the way that disasters can concentrate power amongst certain groups, in this case excluding young people generally from decision-making and public life. I conclude with some recommendations for a more robust post-disaster recovery in Christchurch, in ways that are more inclusive of young people and supportive of their wellbeing.
