Transcript of Andrew Oxenburgh's earthquake story
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
A pdf transcript of Andrew Oxenburgh's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
A pdf transcript of Andrew Oxenburgh's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
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.
A pdf transcript of Rae Willis's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 29 October 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 27 August 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Summary of oral history interview with Mary Hobbs about her experiences of the Canterbury earthquakes.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 27 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 5 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 9 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Summary of oral history interview with Jenny May about her experiences of the Canterbury earthquakes.
A pdf transcript of Participant number EG138's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 26 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 2 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Increasingly, economic, political and human crises, along with natural disasters, constitute a recurrent reality around the world. The effect of large-scale disaster and economic disruption are being felt far and wide and impacting libraries in diverse ways. Libraries are casualties of natural disasters, from earthquakes to hurricanes, as well as civil unrest and wars. Sudden cuts in library budgets have resulted in severe staff reductions, privatization and even closures. The presenters share their experiences about how they have prepared for or coped with profound change.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 3 December 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Transcript of McKenzie's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 8 October 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 23 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 13 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 28 May 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 11 June 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A pdf transcript of participant number LY191's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 20 February 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 18 June 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
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.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 22 March 2012 entitled, "Lamenting the Loss".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 3 September 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
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.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 12 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.