Search

found 1960 results

Images for disaster; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Effective management of waste and debris generated by a disaster event is vital to ensure rapid and efficient response and recovery that supports disaster risk reduction (DRR). Disaster waste refers to any stream of debris that is created from a natural disaster that impacts the environment, infrastructure, and property. This waste can be problematic due to extensive volumes, environmental contamination and pollution, public health risks, and the disruption of response and recovery efforts. Due to the complexities in dealing with these diverse and voluminous materials, having disaster waste management (DWM) planning in place pre-event is crucial. In particular, coordinated, interagency plans that have been informed by estimates of waste volumes and types are vital to ensure management facilities, personnel, and recovery resources do not become overwhelmed. Globally, a priority when formulating DWM plans is the robust estimation of disaster waste stream types and volumes. This is a relatively under-researched area, despite the growing risk of natural disasters and increasingly inadequate waste management facilities. In Aotearoa New Zealand, a nation-wide DWM planning tool has been proposed for local government use, and waste amounts from events such as the Christchurch Earthquakes have been estimated. However, there has been little work undertaken to estimate waste types and volumes with a region-specific, multi-hazard focus, which is required to facilitate detailed regional DWM planning. This research provides estimates of potential disaster waste volumes and types in the Waitaha-Canterbury region of the South Island (Te Waipounamu) for three key hazard scenarios: a M8.0 Alpine Fault earthquake with a south-to-north rupture pattern, a far-sourced tsunami using a maximum credible event model for a Peru-sourced event, and major flooding using geospatial datasets taken from available local government modelling. Conducted in partnership with Environment Canterbury and Canterbury CDEM, this estimation work informed stakeholder engagement through multi-agency workshops at the district level. This research was comprised of two key parts. The first was enhancing and extending a disaster waste estimation model used in Wellington and applying it to the Canterbury region to quantify waste volumes and types. The second part was using this model and its estimates to inform engagement with stakeholders in multi-agency, district-level workshops in Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Waimakariri. In these workshops, the waste estimates were used to catalyse discussion around potential issues associated with the management of disaster waste. Regionally, model estimates showed that the earthquake scenario would generate the highest total volume of disaster waste (1.94 million m³), compared to the tsunami scenario (1.89 million m³) and the flood scenario (173,900 m³). Flood waste estimates are likely underrepresented due to limited flood modelling coverage, but still provide a valuable comparison. Whilst waste estimates differ significantly between districts, waste volumes were shown to be not solely dependent on building/population density. The district-level workshops showed that DWM challenges revolved around logistical constraints, public concerns, governance complexities, and environmental issues. Future work should further enhance this estimation model and apply it to other regions of Aotearoa New Zealand, to help develop a set of cohesive DWM plans for each region. The waste estimation model could also be adapted and applied internationally. The findings from this research provide a foundation for advancing DWM planning and stakeholder engagement in the Waitaha-Canterbury region. By offering region-specific waste estimates across multiple hazard scenarios, this work supports district councils and emergency managers in developing informed, proactive strategies for disaster preparedness and response. The insights gained from district-level workshops highlight key challenges that must be addressed in future planning. These outcomes contribute to a broader research agenda for DWM in Aotearoa New Zealand, and offer a framework adaptable to international contexts.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in the region of Canterbury, New Zealand caused widespread damage and the deaths of 185 people. Suburbs on the eastern side of Christchurch and in the satellite town of Kaiapoi, 20 kilometres north of Christchurch, were badly damaged by liquefaction. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), a government organisation set up in the wake of the earthquakes, began to systematically zone all residential land in 2011. Based on the possibility for land remediation, 7860 houses in Christchurch and Kaiapoi were zoned red. Those who were in this zone were compensated and had to buy or build elsewhere. The other zone examined within this research – that of TC3 – lies within the green zone. Residents, in this zone, were able to stay in their houses but land was moderately damaged and required site-specific geotechnical investigations. This research sought to understand how residents’ senses of home were impacted by a disaster and the response efforts. Focusing on the TC3 and red zone of the eastern suburbs and the satellite town of Kaiapoi, this study interviewed 29 residents within these zones. The concept of home was explored with the respondents at three scales: home as a household; home as a community; and home as a city. There was a large amount of resistance to the zoning process and the handling of claims by insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) after the earthquakes. Lack of transparency and communication, as well as extremely slow timelines were all documented as failings of these agencies. This research seeks to understand how participant’s sense of home changed on an individual level and how it was impacted by outside agencies. Homemaking techniques were also focused on showing that a changed sense of home will impact on how a person interacts with a space.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This thesis examines how 18 University of Canterbury students based in Christchurch experienced housing insecurity during the three years after a series of major earthquakes from late 2010 and throughout 2011. I adopted a qualitative exploratory approach to gather students’ accounts and examine their experiences which were analysed using constructivist grounded theory methods. Three core categories were identified from the data: mobility, recreating security, and loss. Mobility included the effects of relocation and dislocation, as well as how the students searched for stability. Recreating security required a renewed sense of belonging and also addressed the need to feel physically safe. Lastly, loss included the loss of material possessions and also the loss of voice and political representation. The theory that emerged from these findings is that the extent to which students were able to control their mobility largely explained their experiences of housing insecurity. When students experienced a loss of control over their mobility they effectively addressed this by being resourceful and drawing on existing forms of capital. This resourcefulness generated a new form of capital, here called security capital, which represents a conceptual contribution to existing debates on students’ experiences of homelessness in a disaster context.

Research papers, Victoria University of Wellington

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to highlight the role of not-for-profit (NFP) organisations in enhancing disaster preparedness. The authors set out to understand their perspectives and practices in regard to disaster preparedness activities to support people who live precarious lives, especially those who live as single parents who are the least prepared for disasters.Design/methodology/approachThe research draws on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 staff members, either in a group setting or individually, from seven NFP organisations, who were located in Ōtautahi (Christchurch) and Kaiapoi in Aotearoa New Zealand. These participants were interviewed eight years after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake.FindingsFour key narrative tropes or elements were drawn from across the interviews and were used to structure the research results. These included: “essential” support services for people living precarious lives; assisting people to be prepared; potential to support preparedness with the right materials and relationships; resourcing to supply emergency goods.Originality/valueThis research contributes to disaster risk reduction practices by advocating for ongoing resourcing of NFP groups due to their ability to build a sense of community and trust while working with precarious communities, such as single parents.

Research papers, Victoria University of Wellington

The standard way in which disaster damages are measured involves examining separately the number of fatalities, of injuries, of people otherwise affected, and the financial damage that natural disasters cause. Here, we implement a novel way to aggregate these separate measures of disaster impact and apply it to two catastrophic events from 2011: the Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes and the Greater Bangkok (Thailand) flood. This new measure, which is similar to the World Health Organization's calculation of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to the burden of diseases and injuries, is described in detail in Noy [7]. It allows us to conclude that New Zealand lost 180 thousand lifeyears as a result of the 2011 events, and Thailand lost 2644 thousand lifeyears. In per capita terms, the loss is similar, with both countries losing about 15 days per person due to the 2011 catastrophic events in these two countries. © This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key preparing for a photograph with members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. Canterbury Recovery Minister Jerry Brownlee is standing behind him.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) photographed with their team leader, Al Dwyer, Prime Minister John Key, and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee, outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) being briefed after their early-morning arrival from Los Angeles. The 80-person DART team arrived in Christchurch to assist local authorities after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue breaking through the floor of a building which was severely damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Al Dwyer, and members of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) outside their headquarters in Latimer Square. Latimer Square was set up as a temporary headquarters for emergency management personnel after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the New Zealand Fire Service and USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) shaking hands outside the Christchurch City Fire Station on Kilmore Street. DART travelled to Christchurch after the 22 February 2011 earthquake to help out in the relief efforts.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) hoisted on the platform of a crane, next to the Forsyth Barr Building on the corner of Armagh and Colombo Streets. Some of the windows below have been broken open by Urban Search and Rescue workers looking for trapped people.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

An edited copy of the pdf transcript of Michelle's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. At the participant's request, parts of this transcript have been redacted. Interviewer: Jennifer Middendorf. Transcriber: Josie Hepburn.