Search

found 71 results

Images for Harbours; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph submitted by Andy Palmer to the QuakeStories website. The description reads, "Door of the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre?. 25 Feb 2012.".

Research Papers, Lincoln University

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.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Small, tight-knit communities, are complex to manage from outside during a disaster. The township of Lyttelton, New Zealand, and the communities of Corsair Bay, Cass Bay, and Rapaki to the east, are especially more so difficult due to the terrain that encloses them, which caused them to be cut-off from Christchurch, the largest city in the South Island, barely 10 km away, after the Mw 7.1 Darfield Earthquake and subsequent Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Lyttelton has a very strong and deep-rooted community spirit that draws people to want to be a part of Lyttelton life. It is predominantly residential on the slopes, with retail space, service and light industry nestled near the harbour. It has heritage buildings stretching back to the very foundation of Canterbury yet hosts the largest, modern deep-water port for the region. This study contains two surveys: one circulated shortly before the Darfield Earthquake and one circulated in July 2011, after the Christchurch and Sumner Earthquakes. An analytical comparison of the participants’ household preparedness for disaster before the Darfield Earthquake and after the Christchurch and Sumner Earthquakes was performed. A population spatiotemporal distribution map was produced that shows the population in three-hourly increments over a week to inform exposure to vulnerability to natural hazards. The study went on to analyse the responses of the participants in the immediate period following the Chrsitchurch and Sumner Earthquakes, including their homeward and subsequent journeys, and the decision to evacuate or stay in their homes. Possible predictors to a decision to evacuate some or all members of the household were tested. The study also asked participants’ views on the events since September 2010 for analysis.