The 4 September, 22 February, and 13 June earthquakes experienced in Canterbury, New Zealand would have been significant events individually. Together they present a complex and unprecedented challenge for Canterbury and New Zealand. The repetitive and protracted nature of these events has caused widespread building and infrastructure damage, strained organisations’ financial and human resources and challenged insurer and investor confidence. The impact of the earthquakes was even more damaging coming in the wake of the worst worldwide recession since the great depression of the 1930s. However, where there is disruption there is also opportunity. Businesses and other organisations will drive the physical, economic and social recovery of Canterbury, which will be a dynamic and long-term undertaking. Ongoing monitoring of the impacts, challenges and developments during the recovery is critical to maintaining momentum and making effective mid-course adjustments. This report provides a synthesis of research carried out by the Resilient Organisations (ResOrgs) Research Programme1 at the University of Canterbury and Recover Canterbury in collaboration with Opus Central Laboratories (part of Opus International Consultants). The report includes discussions on the general state of the economy as well as data from three surveys (two conducted by ResOrgs and one by Recover Canterbury) on business impacts of the earthquakes, population movements and related economic recovery issues. This research and report offers two primary benefits:
The earthquake sequence has resulted in significant physical and reputational damage to the Canterbury tourism industry. Eighteen months after the earthquakes inbound tourism data is still below pre-earthquake levels, with Canterbury operators reporting that the industry has not bounced back to where it was before September 2010. Outcomes of the earthquakes on business performance highlight there were winners and losers in the aftermath. Recovery of inbound tourism markets is closely tied to the timeframe to rebuild the CBD of Christchurch. Reinstating critical tourism infrastructure will drive future tourism investment, and allow tourism businesses to regenerate and thrive into the future. A blueprint for rebuilding the CBD of Christchurch was released by the Christchurch City Council in July 2012, and has been well received by tourism stakeholders in the region. The challenge now is for city officials to fund the development projects outlined in the blueprint, and to rebuild the CBD as quickly as possible in order to help regenerate the tourism industry in Christchurch, Canterbury and the rest of the South Island
Members of a King Country iwi occupying one of the Crafar farms near Benneydale say they fear the Government may offer them back Landcorp farms, which have absolutely no connection to the iwi; The Chairman of Bay of Plenty's Economic Development organisation wants to see concrete results in two to three years, from a strategy which aims to develop Maori assets in the region; The Minister of Maori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, says he pushed to have a Maori presence at the Rugby World Cup - because tangata whenua didn't even get a look in during the America's Cup in 2000; Almost a year since the Christchurch earthquake, the Nagi Tahui leader is urging locals to continue sticking together.
Members of a King Country iwi occupying one of the Crafar farms near Benneydale say they fear the Government may offer them back Landcorp farms, which have absolutely no connection to the iwi; The Minister of Maori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, says he pushed to have a Maori presence at the Rugby World Cup - because tangata whenua didn't even get a look in during the America's Cup in 2000; The Chairman of Bay of Plenty's Economic Development organisation wants to see concrete results in two to three years, from a strategy which aims to develop Maori assets in the region; and Almost a year since the Christchurch earthquake, the Nagi Tahui leader is urging locals to continue sticking together.
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.
