The greater Wellington region, New Zealand, is highly vulnerable to large earthquakes. While attention has been paid to the consequences of earthquake damage to road, electricity and water supply networks, the consequences of wastewater network damage for public health, environmental health and habitability of homes remain largely unknown for Wellington City. The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes have highlighted the vulnerability of sewerage systems to disruption during a disaster. Management of human waste is one of the critical components of disaster planning to reduce faecal-oral transmission of disease and exposure to disease-bearing vectors. In Canterbury and Kaikōura, emergency sanitation involved a combination of Port-a-loos, chemical toilets and backyard long-drops. While many lessons may be learned from experiences in Canterbury earthquakes, it is important to note that isolation is likely to be a much greater factor for Wellington households, compared to Christchurch, due to the potential for widespread landslides in hill suburbs affecting road access. This in turn implies that human waste may have to be managed onsite, as options such as chemical toilets and Port-a-loos rely completely on road access for delivering chemicals and collecting waste. While some progress has been made on options such as emergency composting toilets, significant knowledge gaps remain on how to safely manage waste onsite. In order to bridge these gaps, laboratory tests will be conducted through the second half of 2019 to assess the pathogen die-off rates in the composting toilet system with variables being the type of carbon bulking material and the addition of a Bokashi composting activator.
Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observationsfrom seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable. Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key. Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expertdominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.
Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observations from seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable.
Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key.
Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expert dominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.
