This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
This research attempts to understand whether community resilience and perceived livability are influenced by housing typologies in Christchurch, New Zealand. Using recent resident surveys undertaken by the Christchurch City Council, two indexes were created to reflect livability and community resilience. Indicators used to create both indexes included (1) enjoyment living in neighbourhood (2) satisfaction with local facilities (3) safety walking and (4) safety using public transport, (5) sense of community (6) neighbour interactions, (7) home ownership and (8) civic engagement. Scores were attributed to 72 neighbourhoods across Christchurch –and each neighbourhood was classified in one of the following housing typologies; (1) earthquake damaged, (2) relatively undamaged, (3) medium density and (4) greenfield developments. Spatial analysis of index scores and housing classifications suggest housing typologies do influence resident’s perceived livability and community bonds to an extent. It was found that deprivation also had a considerable influence on these indexes as well as residential stability. These additional influences help explain why neighbourhoods within the same housing classification differ in their index scores. Based on these results, several recommendations have been made to the CCC in relation to future research, urban development strategies and suburb specific renewal projects. Of chief importance, medium density neighbourhoods and deprived neighbourhoods require conscious efforts to foster community resilience. Results indicate that community resilience might be more important than livability in having a positive influence on the lived experience of residents. While thoughtful design and planning are important, this research suggests geospatial research tools could enable better community engagement outcomes and planning outcomes, and this could be interwoven into proactive and inclusive planning approaches like placemaking.
Recognising that informal (also termed family, whānau, aiga or unpaid) caregivers/carers are a vital part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system, providing care and support for loved ones, whānau, friends and neighbours, this study aimed to explore the experiences of older informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Priority research questions were: how did informal caregivers experience caregiving during the pandemic, and how might we support them during another pandemic, disaster, or national emergency? To our knowledge, this is the first exploration of such experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. We wanted to understand the unprecedented challenges and barriers informal caregivers faced during the pandemic and highlight the resilience and mana (power, strength) of informal caregivers in overcoming them. To explore the lived experiences of informal caregiving during the pandemic, the research team travelled across New Zealand between May 2023 and February 2024 to conduct 81 in-depth interviews, with 73 completed face-to-face, four via Zoom and four by phone. A total of 34 male and 47 female informal caregivers were interviewed, including 35 Māori and 46 non-Māori. The mean age of participants was 66 years old. Thirty-nine rural and 42 urban-dwelling informal caregivers were interviewed, and the study covered both the North and South Islands. A Kaupapa Māori researcher and a Māori adviser oversaw appropriate tikanga (processes), kōrero (discussion) and manaakitanga (care and support) for all the Māori participants interviewed. The COVID-19 pandemic placed significant strain on older informal caregivers in Aotearoa New Zealand, exacerbating existing challenges and exposing critical gaps in support systems. Many participants experienced heightened emotional and psychological distress due to increased caregiving demands, social isolation, and the disruption of formal and informal support networks. The closure of essential services meant that informal caregivers in this study had to navigate complex healthcare systems with little guidance, often facing bureaucratic hurdles and limited access to respite care. Financial strain further compounded these difficulties, with some participants struggling to meet the rising costs associated with informal caregiving while experiencing reduced income or employment instability. For Māori participants, the inability to engage in kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) interactions with whānau and communities disrupted cultural traditions such as whanaungatanga, tangihanga (funeral practices), and communal caregiving, intensifying feelings of isolation and distress. Despite these challenges, participants demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, drawing on their life experiences (or "resilience in older people") and existing support systems to navigate the pandemic. Many participants relied on self-sufficiency, using strategies learned from past crises and disasters such as the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and the 1940s/1950s polio epidemics to manage caregiving responsibilities and everyday challenges with limited external assistance. Strengthened relationships with care recipients and an increased sense of community support were positive outcomes for some participants, who found solace in tighter family bonds and mutual aid from neighbours and local groups. Māori participants, in particular, emphasised the importance of cultural and community-based networks, with iwi and extended whānau playing crucial roles in providing informal support. These findings underscore the need for policies that recognise and support the diverse needs of informal caregivers, including tailored caregiving assistance, clearer communication about available services, and culturally responsive caregiving frameworks that strengthen resilience in future health crises. Findings from this study highlight the need for: 1) tailored, context-specific support systems: Formal support services must be more flexible to accommodate the diverse needs of informal caregivers, particularly those in rural and Māori communities; 2) Improved access to information and services: Many participants were unaware of available support, pointing to the need for clearer, caregiver-specific communication and helplines; 3) Enhancing emotional and social support mechanisms: Regular check-ins from healthcare providers and community groups could alleviate the emotional burden of caregiving; and 4) Resilience-based and bicultural approaches to caregiving support: Policies should integrate Māori perspectives on informal caregiving and strengthen social capital among informal caregivers. It is clear from this research that no one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate for supporting informal caregivers. This research provides a critical evidence base for improving the support structures available to informal caregivers, ensuring they are better prepared for future pandemics, disasters, and national emergencies.
