A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 13 April 2012
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 9 December 2011
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 5 November 2011
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 26 August 2011
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 25 January 2013
A page banner promoting an article titled, "Quakes and ladders disaster recovery game".
The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes of Canterbury have had a serious and ongoing effect on Maori in the city (Lambert, Mark-Shadbolt, Ataria, & Black, 2012). Many people had to rely on themselves, their neighbours and their whanau for an extended period in 2011, and some are still required to organise and coordinate various activities such as schooling, health care, work and community activities such as church, sports and recreation in a city beset by ongoing disruption and distress. Throughout the phases of response and recovery, issues of leadership have been implicitly and explicitly woven through both formal and informal investigations and debates. This paper presents the results of a small sample of initial interviews of Maori undertaken in the response and early recovery period of the disaster and discusses some of the implications for Maori urban communities.
This study followed two similarly affected, but socio-economically disparate suburbs as residents responded to and attempted to recover from the devastating 6.3 magnitude earthquake that struck Christchurch, New Zealand, on February 22, 2011. More specifically, it focuses on the role of local churches, community-based organisations (CBOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), here referred to broadly as civil society, in meeting the immediate needs of local residents and assisting with the longer-term recovery of each neighbourhood. Despite considerable socioeconomic differences between the two neighbourhoods, civil society in both suburbs has been vital in addressing the needs of locals in the short and long term following the earthquake. Institutions were able to utilise local knowledge of both residents and the extent of damage in the area to a) provide a swifter local response than government or civil defence and then help direct the relief these agencies provided locally; b) set up central points for distribution of supplies and information where locals would naturally gather; c) take action on what were perceived to be unmet needs; and d) act as a way of bridging locals to a variety of material, informational, and emotional resources. However the findings also support literature which indicates that other factors are also important in understanding neighbourhood recovery and the role of civil society, including: local leadership; a shared, place-based identity; the type and form of civil society organizations; social capital; and neighbourhood- and household-level indicators of relative vulnerability and inequality. The intertwining of these various factors seems to influence how these neighbourhoods have coped with and taken steps in recovering from this disaster. It is recommended that future research be directed at developing a better understanding of how this occurs. It is suggested that a model similar to Yasui’s (2007) Community Vulnerability and Capacity model be developed as a useful way to approach future research in this area.
A video of a keynote presentation by Professor David Johnston, Senior Scientist at GNS Science, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "The Trajectory of Post-disaster Recovery and Regeneration: The social dimension".The abstract for the presentation reads, "A consideration of social regeneration and what that means for Canterbury moving forward plus current recovery trajectories and ways of measuring progress."
A paper published in the Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2016, Vol. 1, No. 2, 88-93, which outlines the importance of asset registers and level of service in the wake of a disaster.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 08 January 2014 entitled, "Touring the Town".
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 31 May 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 3 May 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 10 May 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 17 May 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 23 August 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 24 May 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 19 April 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 5 April 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 15 March 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 22 March 2013
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 27 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 28 March 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 4 April 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 28 February 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 17 January 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 16 May 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 14 March 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 27 September 2013
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 29 November 2013