A video of a presentation by Dr Sarah Beaven during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Leading and Coordinating Social Recovery: Lessons from a central recovery agency".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
A video of a presentation by Jane Morgan and Annabel Begg during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Monitoring Social Recovery in Greater Christchurch".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
After calls for an inquiry into Christchurch home repairs, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee joins Checkpoint.
Christchurch is expected to learn today who will be leading the next stage of its earthquake recovery.
International leaders in disaster recovery are lining up to learn the lessons New Zealand has gained from the Christchurch earthquakes.
The Regenerate Christchurch board has been confirmed this morning, as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's (CERA) time comes to an end in the recovery process.
Kaikoura is now in a recovery phase as the HMNZ Canterbury returns with supplies.
A story submitted by David Hopkins to the QuakeStories website.
A video of Dr Laurie Johnson of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre and Professor David Johnston, Senior Scientist at GNS Science, responding to questions from the floor during the keynote session at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The keynote session is titled, "The Trajectory of Post-disaster Recovery and Regeneration".
In this dissertation it is argued that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority were both necessary and inevitable given the trends and traditions of civil defence emergency management (CDEM) in New Zealand. The trends and traditions of civil defence are such that principles come before practice, form before function, and change is primarily brought about through crisis and criticism. The guiding question of the research was why were a new governance system and law made after the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011? Why did this outcome occur despite the establishment of a modern emergency management system in 2002 which included a recovery framework that had been praised by international scholars as leading edge and a model for other countries? The official reason was the unprecedented scale and demands of the recovery – but a disaster of such scale is the principle reason for having a national emergency management system. Another explanation is the lack of cooperation among local authorities – but that raises the question of whether the CDEM recovery framework would have been successful in another locality. Consequentially, the focus of this dissertation is on the CDEM recovery framework and how New Zealand came to find itself making disaster law during a disaster. Recommendations include a review of emergency powers for recovery, a review of the capabilities needed to fulfil the mandate of Recovery Managers, and the establishment of a National Recovery Office with a cadre of Recovery Managers that attend every recovery to observe, advise, or assume control as needed. CDEM Group Recovery Managers would be seconded to the National Recovery Office which would allow for experience in recovery management to be developed and institutionalised through regular practice.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is no more but questions remain about the future of Christchurch.
Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee has announced two early involvement contracts for Christchurch's new Metro Sports Facility.
An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 19 February 2016 entitled, "Five Years".The entry was downloaded on 2 November 2016.
A video of a presentation by Matthew Pratt during the Resilience and Response Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Investing in Connectedness: Building social capital to save lives and aid recovery".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Traditionally experts have developed plans to prepare communities for disasters. This presentation discusses the importance of relationship-building and social capital in building resilient communities that are both 'prepared' to respond to disaster events, and 'enabled' to lead their own recovery. As a member of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Community Resilience Team, I will present the work I undertook to catalyse community recovery. I will draw from case studies of initiatives that have built community connectedness, community capacity, and provided new opportunities for social cohesion and neighbourhood planning. I will compare three case studies that highlight how social capital can aid recovery. Investment in relationships is crucial to aid preparedness and recovery.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery portfolio is no longer, with Prime Minister John Key announcing a new Canterbury portfolio to replace it.
A paper published in the Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2016, Vol. 1, No. 2, 88-93, which outlines the importance of asset registers and level of service in the wake of a disaster.
A Christchurch red zone resident is helping train Nepalese teams to safely demolish buildings damaged in the Nepal earthquake.
A video of a presentation by Ross Butler, Chair of Otakaro Limited, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "Anchors Aweigh".The abstract for the presentation reads, "A review and preview of the development of the city's anchor projects once the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is disbanded in April."
A video of a keynote presentation by Dr Laurie Johnson, Project Scientist at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "The Trajectory of Post-disaster Recovery and Regeneration: Learning from other cities".The abstract for the presentation reads, "What does regeneration look like and how long does it take? A look at what we can learn about regeneration from other cities that have experienced disasters. An exploration of the innovation needed to fulfil the recovery vision, as well as the value of collaboration in the next five years."
Regenerate Christchurch takes over come Monday, leaving behind the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), which has overseen the rebuild since the devastating 2011 quakes.
A pdf copy of a PowerPoint presentation made for the Water Services Association of Australia conference, about SCIRT's approach to asset investigation after the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.
A video of a presentation by Leanne Curtis, Spokesperson for Breakthrough Services, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "Articulating the Issues of Earthquake-affected Citizens".The abstract for the presentation reads, "How CanCERN actively participated in the recovery by finding and implementing solutions through cross-sector relationship building."
A video of a presentation by Hon. Nicky Wagner, Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, during a panel at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The panel has three themes:A City on the Move: Collaboration and Regeneration: "'Christchurch is now moving rapidly from the recovery phase into a regeneration stage with Central and Local Government working with the wider community, including the business community to ensure we get optimal outcomes for greater Christchurch' (CECC)."Looking Back: Remembering and Learning: "What are the milestones? What are the millstones? What have we learnt? What have we applied?"Looking Forward: Visioning and Building: "What do we aspire to? What are the roadblocks? What is the way forward?"
Five years after being created the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, commonly known as CERA, will officially close its doors on Monday.
A video of a presentation by Jane Murray and Stephen Timms during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Land Use Recovery Plan: How an impact assessment process engaged communities in recovery planning".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed Environment Canterbury (Canterbury's regional council) to prepare a Land Use Recovery Plan that would provide a spatial planning framework for Greater Christchurch and aid recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a policy and planning framework necessary to rebuild existing communities and develop new communities. As part of preparing the plan, an integrated assessment was undertaken to address wellbeing and sustainability concerns. This ensured that social impacts of the plan were likely to achieve better outcomes for communities. The process enabled a wide range of community and sector stakeholders to provide input at the very early stages of drafting the document. The integrated assessment considered the treatment of major land use issues in the plan, e.g. overall distribution of activities across the city, integrated transport routes, housing typography, social housing, employment and urban design, all of which have a key impact on health and wellbeing. Representatives from the Canterbury Health in All Policies Partnership were involved in designing a three-part assessment process that would provide a framework for the Land Use Recovery Plan writers to assess and improve the plan in terms of wellbeing and sustainability concerns. The detail of these assessment stages, and the influence that they had on the draft plan, will be outlined in the presentation. In summary, the three stages involved: developing key wellbeing and sustainability concerns that could form a set of criteria, analysing the preliminary draft of the Land Use Recovery Plan against the criteria in a broad sector workshop, and analysing the content and recommendations of the Draft Plan. This demonstrates the importance of integrated assessment influencing the Land Use Recovery Plan that in turn influences other key planning documents such as the District Plan. This process enabled a very complex document with wide-ranging implications to be broken down, enabling many groups, individuals and organisations to have their say in the recovery process. There is also a range of important lessons for recovery that can be applied to other projects and actions in a disaster recovery situation.
Listening to that has been Gerry Brownlee -- he was the Earthquake Recovery Minister but is now the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration.
The Christchurch couple told they can't use part of their property because the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) might need access to it.
There has not been substantial research conducted in the area of fraud and natural disasters. Therefore, this study sought to examine the perceptions of Canterbury residents toward the recovery process following the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes and whether residents felt as though contractor fraud occurs in Canterbury. A questionnaire was developed to gauge information about Canterbury residents’ self-reports involving the earthquakes, specific contractors involved, parties involved with the recovery process in general, and demographic information. Participants included a total of 213 residents from the Canterbury region who had been involved with contractors and/or insurance companies due to the recovery process. Results indicated that a high percentage of the participants were not satisfied with the recovery process and that almost half of the participants reported feeling scammed by contractors in Canterbury after the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. Moreover, the results indicate that participants neither agreed with the assessments made about their property losses nor the plans made to recover their properties. In many cases, participants felt pressured and even reluctant to accept these assessments and/or plans. The present study does not seek to explain why contractor fraud exists or what motivates scammers. Conversely, it attempts to demonstrate the perceptions of contractor fraud and satisfaction that have taken place in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes.
A Christchurch couple has been told they can't use a driveway that no longer leads to any houses because the Earthquake Recovery Authority may need access to it.
We’ll never know why the thirteen people whose corpses were discovered in Pompeii’s Garden of the Fugitives hadn’t fled the city with the majority of the population when Vesuvius turned deadly in AD79. But surely, thanks to 21st century technology, we know just about everything there is to know about the experiences of the people who went through the Canterbury Earthquakes. Or has the ubiquity of digital technology, combined with seemingly massive online information flows and archives, created a false sense that Canterbury’s earthquake stories, images and media are being secured for posterity? In this paper Paul Millar makes reference to issues experienced while creating the CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive (www.ceismic.org.nz) to argue that rather than having preserved all the information needed to fully inform recovery, the record of the Canterbury earthquakes’ impacts, and the subsequent response, is incomplete and unrepresentative. While CEISMIC has collected and curated over a quarter of a million earthquake-related items, Millar is deeply concerned about the material being lost. Like Pompeii, this disaster has its nameless, faceless, silenced victims; people whose stories must be heard, and whose issues must be addressed, if recovery is to be meaningful.
