Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-2
Transforming Governance: How National Policies and Organizations for Managing Disaster Recovery Evolved following the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes
Large-scale disasters simultaneously deplete capital stock and services which then requires many complex rebuilding and societal activities to happen in a compressed time period; one of those is governance. Governments often create new institutions or adapt existing institutions to cope with the added demands. Over two years following the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, governance transformations have increasingly centralized recovery authority and operations at the national level. This may have helped to strengthen coordination among national agencies and expedite policy and decision making; but the effectiveness of coordination among multiple levels of government, capacity building at the local and regional levels, and public engagement and deliberation of key decisions are some areas where the transformations may not have been as effective. The Canterbury case offers many lessons for future disaster recovery management in New Zealand, the United States, and the world.
BirklandT., 2006. Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 240 pp.
6.
BollardA., and RachhodS., 2011. Economic impacts of seismic risk: Lessons for Wellington, presented at the Organisational Effectiveness in Times of Seismic Risk Conference, Rotary Club and Victoria University, October 18, Wellington, NZ.
7.
BrittonN., and ClarkG. J., 2000. Non-regulatory approaches to earthquake risk reduction: The New Zealand experience, in the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, NZ.
8.
BrookieR., 2012. Governing the Recovery from the Canterbury Earthquakes 2010–2011: The Debate over Institutional Design, Working Paper 12/01, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University, Wellington, NZ.
ChandrasekharD., and OlshanskyR. B., 2007. Managing Development after Catastrophic Disaster: A Study of Organizations That Coordinated Post-Disaster Recovery in Aceh and Louisiana, presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Milwaukee, WI.
24.
ChisolmJ., 2012. Independent Fisheries Limited et al. vs. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, NZHC 1909, High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry.
DixonJ., EricksenN., CrawfordJ., and BerkeJ., 1997. Planning under a cooperative mandate, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management40, 603–614.
30.
New Zealand Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (DPMC), 1999. Recovery Plan: Natural Disasters and Emergencies within New Zealand.
31.
New Zealand Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), 2001. The New Principles of Emergency Management, Wellington, NZ.
32.
DrabekT. E., 2007. Community processes: Coordination, Chapter 13 in Handbook of Disaster Research, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, Springer, New York, 217–233.
Earthquake Commission (EQC), 2013c. Canterbury Earthquakes, available at http://www.eqc.govt.nz/.
39.
EricksenN., BerkeP., CrawfordJ., and DixonJ., 2003. Planning for Sustainability: New Zealand Under the RMA, International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ.
JohnsonL. A., and OlshanskyR. B., 2013. The road to recovery: Governing post-disaster reconstruction, Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, July 2013, 14–21.
48.
KingdonJ. W., 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Longman Higher Education, 280 pp.
49.
LeonardH. B., and HowittA. M., 2010. Advance recovery and the development of resilient organisations and societies, in Integrative Risk Management: Advanced Disaster Recovery, Risk Dialogue, Swiss Reinsurance Company, 28 May 2010, http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/crm/Integrative_Risk_Management.html.
Mamula-SeadonL., 2009. CDEM, Integrated Planning and Resilience: What Is the Connection?TEPHRA 22, Community Resilience: Research, Planning and Civil Defence Emergency Management (July), 3–8.
52.
MayP. J., and WilliamsW., 1986. Disaster Policy Implementation: Managing Programs Under Shared Governance, Plenum Press, New York.
53.
Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM), 2004. Recovery Planning: Information for CDEM Groups, IS 5/04, Wellington, NZ.
OlshanskyR. B., HopkinsL. D., and JohnsonL. A., 2012. Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time, Natural Hazards Review13, 173–178.
75.
OramR., 2012. Breaking free: Recreating urban New Zealand, Keynote Address presented at the New Zealand Planning Institute, Blenheim, NZ.
76.
ReissC. L., 2012. Introduction to the special issue on disaster recovery, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters30, Special Issue on Theory of Disaster Recovery (August), 120–122.
77.
RubinC., 1985. Community Recovery from a Major Natural Disaster, Monograph No. 41, Program on Environment and Behavior, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
78.
RubinC., 2012. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010 (2nd Edition), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 312 pp.
79.
SmithG., and BirklandT., 2012. Building a theory of recovery: Institutional dimensions, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters30, Special Issue on Theory of Disaster Recovery (August), 147–170.
TaylorJ. E., ChangS. E., ElwoodK. J., SevilleE., and BrunsdonD., 2012. Learning from Christchurch: Technical Decisions and Societal Consequences in Post-Earthquake Recovery, Preliminary Research Findings, August 2012, Resilient Organisations Research Report 2012/08, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ.
TierneyK., 2007. From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads, Annual Review of Sociology33, 503–525.
85.
U.S. House of Representatives, 2006. A Failure of Initiative, Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigation the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html.
