This report forms part of a research project examining rural community resilience to natural hazard events, with a particular focus on transient population groups. A preliminary desktop and scoping exercise was undertaken to examine nine communities affected by the Kaikoura earthquake and to identify the variety of transient population groups that are commonly (and increasingly) found in rural New Zealand (see Wilson & Simmons, 2017). From this, four case study communities – Blenheim, Kaikoura, Waiau and St Arnaud – were selected to represent a range of settlement types.
These communities varied in respect of social, economic and geographic features, including the presence of particular transient population groups, and earthquake impact. While the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake provided a natural hazard event on which to focus the research, the research interest was in long-term (and broad) community resilience, rather than short-term (and specific) response and recovery actions which occurred post-earthquake.
Farming and urban regions are impacted by earthquake disasters in different ways, and feature a range of often different recovery requirements. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, most earthquake impact and recovery research is urban focused. This creates a research deficit that can lead to the application of well-researched urban recovery strategies in rural areas to suboptimal effect. To begin to reduce this deficit, in-depth case studies of the earthquake impacts and recovery of three New Zealand farms severely impacted by the 14th November 2016, M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake were conducted. The initial earthquake, its aftershocks and coseismic hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, surface rupture) affected much of North Canterbury, Marlborough and the Wellington area. The three case study farms were chosen to broadly represent the main types of farming and topography in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury. The farms were directly and indirectly impacted by earthquakes and related hazards. On-farm infrastructure (e.g., woolsheds, homesteads) and essential services (e.g., water, power), frequently sourced from distributed networks, were severely impacted. The earthquake occurred after two years of regional drought had already stressed farm systems and farmers to restructuring or breaking point. Cascading interlinked hazards stemming from the earthquakes and coseismic hazards continued to disrupt earthquake recovery over a year after the initial earthquake. Semi-structured interviews with the farmers were conducted nine and fourteen months after the initial earthquake to capture the timeline of on-going impacts and recovery. Analysis of both geological hazard data and interview data resulted in the identification of key factors influencing farm level earthquake impact and recovery. These include pre-existing conditions (e.g., drought); farm-specific variations in recovery timelines; and resilience strategies for farm recovery resources. The earthquake recovery process presented all three farms with opportunities to change their business plans and adapt to mitigate on-going and future risk.
