A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 30 November 2012
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
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 Jennifer Middendorf's blog for 20 September 2010 entitled, "25 hours and 58 minutes".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 21 November 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The 1995 book, “Wellington after the quake: the challenge of rebuilding cities”, is reviewed in light of the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes. Lessons are drawn related to the difficulties of recovery of complex infrastructure systems after disasters.
As damage and loss caused by natural hazards have increased worldwide over the past several decades, it is important for governments and aid agencies to have tools that enable effective post-disaster livelihood recovery to create self-sufficiency for the affected population. This study introduces a framework of critical components that constitute livelihood recovery and the critical factors that lead to people’s livelihood recovery. A comparative case study is employed in this research, combined with questionnaire surveys and interviews with those communities affected by large earthquakes in Lushan, China and in Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand. In Lushan, China, a framework with four livelihood components was established, namely, housing, employment, wellbeing and external assistance. Respondents considered recovery of their housing to be the most essential element for livelihood diversification. External assistance was also rated highly in assisting with their livelihood recovery. Family ties and social connections seemed to have played a larger role than that of government agencies and NGOs. However, the recovery of livelihood cannot be fully achieved without wellbeing aspects being taken into account, and people believed that quality of life and their physical and mental health were essential for livelihood restoration. In Christchurch, New Zealand, the identified livelihood components were validated through in-depth interviews. The results showed that the above framework presenting what constitutes successful livelihood recovery could also be applied in Christchurch. This study also identified the critical factors to affect livelihood recovery following the Lushan and Kaikōura earthquakes, and these include community safety, availability of family support, level of community cohesion, long-term livelihood support, external housing recovery support, level of housing recovery and availability of health and wellbeing support. The framework developed will provide guidance for policy makers and aid agencies to prioritise their strategies and initiatives in assisting people to reinstate their livelihood in a timely manner post-disaster. It will also assist the policy makers and practitioners in China and New Zealand by setting an agenda for preparing for livelihood recovery in non-urgent times so the economic impact and livelihood disruption of those affected can be effectively mitigated.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery. Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
A pdf transcript of Ian's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Josie Hepburn.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 19 March 2011 entitled, "Day 26, 8am - Termination of Trees & Proliferation of Permits".
Admiral Thad Allen was the principal federal official in charge after Hurricane Katrina battered the US Gulf Coast in 2005, killing more than 1,700 people and displacing many more. Prime Minister John Key says the structure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was decided upon after an examination of the way other governments responded to disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
Admiral Thad Allen was the principal federal official in charge after Hurricane Katrina battered the US Gulf Coast in 2005, killing more than 1,700 people and displacing many more. Prime Minister John Key says the structure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was decided upon after an examination of the way other governments responded to disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
A story submitted by Anonymous to the QuakeStories website.
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 16 August 2013
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 December 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's "Community Earthquake Update" bulletin, published on Friday 12 August 2011.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 15 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 22 April 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 27 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 17 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 20 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 15 February 2013
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 20 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 2 May 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 9 May 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 18 April 2014
A copy of the CanCERN online newsletter published on 4 October 2013
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 6 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 13 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 14 January 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.