Search

found 520 results

Images for disaster response; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key preparing for a photograph with Al Dwyer, the leader of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), and members of DART, outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. Latimer Square was set up as a temporary headquarters for emergency managements personnel after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key talking to Al Dwyer, and members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. John Key is visiting to thank DART for their efforts in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Tim Manning, briefing members of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) upon their arrival in Christchurch to assist with search and rescue efforts.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Tim Manning, briefing members of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) upon their arrival in Christchurch to assist with search and rescue efforts.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key talking to Al Dwyer, the leader of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. John Key is visiting to thank DART for their efforts in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key talking to Al Dwyer, and members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. John Key is visiting to thank DART for their efforts in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Prime Minister John Key talking to Al Dwyer, and members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) outside the US headquarters in Latimer Square. John Key is visiting to thank DART for their efforts in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how