Disasters are often followed by a large-scale stimulus supporting the economy through the built environment, which can last years. During this time, official economic indicators tend to suggest the economy is doing well, but as activity winds down, the sentiment can quickly change. In response to the damaging 2011 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, the regional economy outpaced national economic growth rates for several years during the rebuild. The repair work on the built environment created years of elevated building activity. However, after the peak of the rebuilding activity, as economic and employment growth retracts below national growth, we are left with the question of how the underlying economy performs during large scale stimulus activity in the built environment. This paper assesses the performance of the underlying economy by quantifying the usual, demand-driven level of building activity at this time. Applying an Input–Output approach and excluding the economic benefit gained from the investment stimulus reveals the performance of the underlying economy. The results reveal a strong growing underlying economy, and while convergence was expected as the stimulus slowed down, the results found that growth had already crossed over for some time. The results reveal that the investment stimulus provides an initial 1.5% to 2% growth buffer from the underlying economy before the growth rates cross over. This supports short-term economic recovery and enables the underlying economy to transition away from a significant rebuild stimulus. Once the growth crosses over, five years after the disaster, economic growth in the underlying economy remains buoyant even if official regional economic data suggest otherwise.
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.
Knowing how to rapidly rebuild disaster-damaged infrastructure, while deciding appropriate recovery strategies and catering for future investment is a matter of core interest to government decision makers, utility providers, and business sectors. The purpose of this research is to explore the effects of decisions and outcomes for physical reconstruction on the overall recovery process of horizontal infrastructure in New Zealand using the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes as cases. A mixed approach including a systematic review, questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews is used to capture perspectives of those involved in reconstruction process and gain insights into the effect of critical elements on infrastructure downtime. Findings from this research will contribute towards advancements of a systems dynamics model considering critical decision-making variables across phases of the reconstruction process to assess how these variables affect the rebuild process and the corresponding downtime. This project will improve the ability to explore alternative resilience improvement pathways and test the efficacy of alternative means for facilitating a faster and better reconstruction process.
During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’.
The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments.
The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments.
The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.
