Project Prioritisation Management Plan
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
A document which describes SCIRT's framework, principles and process of defining projects and the process of prioritising those projects.
A document which describes SCIRT's framework, principles and process of defining projects and the process of prioritising those projects.
Website of Canterbury CDEM Group, which is a partnership of local authorities, emergency services and other organisations tasked with providing effective and comprehensive management of major hazards and their consequences anywhere in Canterbury. Includes community preparedness information, information for emergency managers and CDEM Group plan.
This report is the output of a longitudinal study that was established between the University of Auckland and Resilient Organisations, in conjunction with the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), to evaluate the ongoing resource availability and capacity for post-earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch.
Within four weeks of the September 4 2010 Canterbury Earthquake a new, loosely-knit community group appeared in Christchurch under the banner of “Greening the Rubble.” The general aim of those who attended the first few meetings was to do something to help plug the holes that had already appeared or were likely to appear over the coming weeks in the city fabric with some temporary landscaping and planting projects. This article charts the first eighteen months of Greening the Rubble and places the initiative in a broader context to argue that although seismic events in Christchurch acted as a “call to palms,” so to speak, the city was already in need of some remedial greening. It concludes with a reflection on lessons learned to date by GTR and commentary on the likely issues ahead for this new mini-social-environmental movement in the context of a quake-affected and still quake-prone major New Zealand city. One of the key lessons for GTR and all of those involved in Christchurch recovery activities to date is that the city is still very much in the middle of the event and is to some extent a laboratory for seismic and agency management studies alike.
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
There are many things that organisations of any size can do to prepare for a disaster or crisis. Traditionally, the advice given to business has focused on identifying risks, reducing their likely occurrence, and planning in advance how to respond. More recently, there is growing interest in the broader concept of organisational resilience which includes planning for crisis but also considers traits that lead to organisational adaptability and ability to thrive despite adverse circumstances. In this paper we examine the policy frameworks1 within New Zealand that influence the resilience of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The first part of the paper focuses on the New Zealand context, including the prevailing political and economic ideologies, the general nature of New Zealand SMEs and the nature of New Zealand’s hazard environment. The paper then goes on to outline the key policy frameworks in place relevant to SMEs and hazards. The final part of the paper examines the way the preexisting policy environment influenced the response of SMEs and Government following the Canterbury earthquakes.
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.
The September and February earthquakes were terrifying and devastating. In February, 185 people were killed (this number excludes post earthquake related deaths) and several thousand injured. Damage to infrastructure above and below ground in and around Christchurch was widespread and it will take many years and billions of dollars to rebuild. The ongoing effects of the big quakes and aftershocks are numerous, with the deepest impact being on those who lost family and friends, their livelihoods and homes. What did Cantabrians do during the days, weeks and months of uncertainty and how have we responded? Many grieved, some left, some stayed, some arrived, many shovelled (liquefaction left thousands of tons of silt to be removed from homes and streets), and some used their expertise or knowledge to help in the recovery. This book highlights just some of the projects staff and students from The Faculty of Environment, Society and Design have been involved in from September 2010 to October 2012. The work is ongoing and the plan is to publish another book to document progress and new projects.
A worried Hekia Parata, Minister of Education, tells John Key, the Prime Minister, that schools in Canterbury are resisting being merged. John Key replies that the government will go through a 'consultation process' and then 'do what we like'. However the schools are claiming marae status and thus protection under the Treaty of Waitangi. The 'Hui report' which the Prime Minister is holding confirms this fear. The Ministry of Education, given the excuse of the Canterbury earthquakes, announced that many schools there will be merged or closed. Threatened schools, particularly the two Maori language schools, lodged complaints with the Waitangi Tribunal. 'Hui reports' refers to the claims and resulting hui over the water rights of the proposed partial privatisation of state assets. Colour and black and white versions available Quantity: 2 digital cartoon(s).
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that the Ministry of Social Development can keep private information it holds confidential? KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What are the main features of the Government's plan to build a more competitive economy based on more savings, higher exports and less debt? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has the Ministry of Social Development competently managed the private information in its charge? Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What children will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children be targeting? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: What specific criteria were used to determine whether a school in Christchurch was identified for restoration, consolidation or rejuvenation? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: What were the dates of the three cases that the Government Communications Security Bureau audit highlighted, because they could not assure him "that the legal position is totally clear", as referred to in his statement of 3 October 2012? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to my Question for Written Answer 3326 (2012)? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why did he reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management earthquake review's recommendation, which was made in response to the finding that duplication of control was "not only inefficient but put people and property at risk", and that "the same situation could arise in a number of different parts of New Zealand"? MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: What is the Government doing to improve the support and recognition given to veterans? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon John Banks; if so, why? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What is the objective of the Government review of the EQC?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “I’m not going to go and relitigate every comment I’ve made prior to this point because I don’t think that would actually be helpful”? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: How has the Government balanced the need for responsible fiscal management with its continued support for New Zealand families? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka whakatau a ia i te kōrero i whakaputaina māna, arā, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”? Translation: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent announcements has the Government made around the rebuild of the Christchurch city centre? Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Health: Has any progress been made on the Zero Fees for Under Sixes scheme taking coverage over and above the 70 percent of children covered in 2008 achieved by the previous Government? Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Associate Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the charter schools policy? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the release of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children? CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement in his press release of 24 May 2012 that “KiwiRail has successfully undertaken a significant investment programme over the previous two years, including: New locomotives and wagons, and refurbishment of the current locomotive fleet”? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that there are no plans to sell KiwiRail? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What reports has she received about the Office of Ethnic Affairs working with the Red Cross? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What alternatives did the Government investigate before committing itself to the Road of National Significance between Puhoi and Wellsford, which is now projected to cost $1.76 billion up from $1.69 billion two years ago?