A video of a presentation by Jane Murray and Stephen Timms during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Land Use Recovery Plan: How an impact assessment process engaged communities in recovery planning".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed Environment Canterbury (Canterbury's regional council) to prepare a Land Use Recovery Plan that would provide a spatial planning framework for Greater Christchurch and aid recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a policy and planning framework necessary to rebuild existing communities and develop new communities. As part of preparing the plan, an integrated assessment was undertaken to address wellbeing and sustainability concerns. This ensured that social impacts of the plan were likely to achieve better outcomes for communities. The process enabled a wide range of community and sector stakeholders to provide input at the very early stages of drafting the document. The integrated assessment considered the treatment of major land use issues in the plan, e.g. overall distribution of activities across the city, integrated transport routes, housing typography, social housing, employment and urban design, all of which have a key impact on health and wellbeing. Representatives from the Canterbury Health in All Policies Partnership were involved in designing a three-part assessment process that would provide a framework for the Land Use Recovery Plan writers to assess and improve the plan in terms of wellbeing and sustainability concerns. The detail of these assessment stages, and the influence that they had on the draft plan, will be outlined in the presentation. In summary, the three stages involved: developing key wellbeing and sustainability concerns that could form a set of criteria, analysing the preliminary draft of the Land Use Recovery Plan against the criteria in a broad sector workshop, and analysing the content and recommendations of the Draft Plan. This demonstrates the importance of integrated assessment influencing the Land Use Recovery Plan that in turn influences other key planning documents such as the District Plan. This process enabled a very complex document with wide-ranging implications to be broken down, enabling many groups, individuals and organisations to have their say in the recovery process. There is also a range of important lessons for recovery that can be applied to other projects and actions in a disaster recovery situation.
Nature has endowed New Zealand with unique geologic, climatic, and biotic conditions. Her volcanic cones and majestic Southern Alps and her verdant plains and rolling hills provide a landscape as rugged and beautiful as will be found anywhere. Her indigenous fauna and flora are often quite different from that of the rest of the world and consequently have been of widespread interest to biologists everywhere. Her geologic youth and structure and her island climate, in combination with the biological resources, have made a land which is ecologically on edge. These natural endowments along with the manner in which she has utilized her land, have given New Zealand some of the most spectacular and rapid erosion to be found. It is quite evident that geologic and climatic conditions combine to give unusually high rates of natural erosion. Present topographic features indicate the past occurrence of large-scale flooding as well. Prior to the arrival of the Maori, it is very likely that most of the land mass of New Zealand below present bush lines was covered with indigenous bush or forest. Forest fires of a catastrophic nature undoubtedly occurred as a result of lightning, and volcanic eruptions. The exposed soils left by these catastrophes contributed to natural deterioration. While vast areas of forest cover were destroyed, they probably were healed by nature with forest or with grass or herbaceous cover. Further, it is probable that large areas in the mountains were, as they are now, subject to landslides and slipping due to earthquakes and excessive local rainfall. Again, the healing process was probably rapid in most of such exposed areas.
This thesis is about many things, not least of all the September 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011 earthquakes that shook Christchurch, New Zealand. A city was shaken, events which worked to lay open the normally invisible yet vital objects, processes and technologies which are the focus of inquiry: the sewers, pipes, pumps, the digital technologies, the land and politics which constitute the Christchurch wastewater networks. The thesis is an eclectic mix drawing together methods and concepts from Bruno Latour, John Law, Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Nigel Thrift, Donna Haraway and Patrick Joyce. It is an exploration of how the technologies and objects of sanitation perform the city, and how such things which are normally hidden and obscured, are made visible. The question of visibility is also turned toward the research itself: how does one observe, and describe? How are sociological visibilities constructed? Through the research, the encountering of objects in the field, the processes of method, the pedagogy of concepts, and the construction of risk, the thesis comes to be understood as a particular kind of social scientific artefact which assembles four different accounts: the first regards the construction of visibility; the second explores Christchurch city from the control room where the urban sanitary infrastructures are monitored; the third chapter looks at the formatted and embodied practices which emerge with the correlation of the city and sanitation; the fourth looks at the changing politics of a city grappling with severely damaged essential services, land and structures. The final chapter considers how the differences between romantic and baroque sensibilities mean that these four accounts elicit knowing not through smoothness or uniformity, but in partiality and non-coherence. This thesis is about pipes, pump stations, and treatment plants; about the effluent of a city; about the messiness of social science when confronted by the equally messy world of wastewater.
Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.
