Massey Documents by Type

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/294

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Emergency management, New Zealand

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The application of risk analysis tools in Civil Defence Emergency Management Planning in New Zealand : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Philosophy in Emergency Management at Massey University
    (Massey University, 2006) Cunningham, Deborah Joy
    Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Groups were formed in New Zealand in response to the introduction of the CDEM Act in 2002. These Groups were required to prepare CDEM Group Plans within two years of their formation. These Group Plans were to be based on a risk management approach, and be consistent with a Director's Guideline issued by the Ministry of CDEM at the time the legislation was passed (MCDEM, 2002). The Director's Guideline recommended a process of risk analysis called the SMUG (Seriousness Manageability, Urgency and Growth) risk analysis tool. The tool was to provide CDEM Groups with a mechanism for a more detailed risk analysis process than a simple likelihood and consequence assessment as described in the Australian and New Zealand Risk Management Standard (AS/NZS 4360:1999). Most CDEM Groups in New Zealand implemented the SMUG (Seriousness, Manageability, Urgency & Growth) risk analysis technique, or adapted the model to suit their own requirements. The reported benefits of using the risk analysis technique included greater engagement of a range of agencies with a role in Civil Defence Emergency Management, and greater understanding of the risks faced by each CDEM Group. However the limitations of the technique included overreliance on the numerical rating system, inconsistencies of application of the model, lack of risk evaluation criteria, and difficulty of application. CDEM Groups must revise their CDEM Group Plans by 2010 and it is recommended that future approaches allow flexibility for the purpose of risk analysis to acknowledge different levels of understanding of risk in different parts of New Zealand, and continue to involve a large range of agencies in the analysis process. The focus of future risk analysis processes should be on the consequences of hazard events, rather than the hazards themselves. Also, future risk analysis processes should remain qualitative if this is necessary to prevent CDEM Groups becoming over-reliant on numerical rating systems which convey a sense of accuracy often not proportional to the data upon which the analysis was conducted. Measurements of community vulnerability and resilience should also be incorporated into future CDEM Group risk analysis processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Resilence planning for natural hazards in New Zealand : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Resource and Environmental Planning at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
    (Massey University, 2015) Belgrave, Briar
    We live in times with a heightened sense of uncertainty and constant reminders of the risk of extreme natural hazard events, as evidenced by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake series. Resilience planning is rapidly gaining salience as a promising approach for dealing with the complex challenge of uncertainty and escalating natural hazard risk. Yet, it is not clear what resilience planning means, beyond the assumption that it is good to be resilient and that we should plan to build resilience in practice. Despite the lack of clarity, there is a growing number of scholars exploring the approach, its potential and benefits. It is, however, in its conceptual stage and has yet to be widely adopted in planning practice, in New Zealand or elsewhere. This begs the question that this thesis aims to explore: What are the barriers and opportunities for effectively institutionalising resilience planning and how can it be operationalised in planning practice in New Zealand? This question is explored through a case study analysis of experiences in the Waimakariri District in Canterbury after the 2010-2011 earthquake events. The key findings of this research show there are nine barriers to institutionalising resilience planning (community priorities; cost versus benefit; high vulnerability; knowledge; leadership; responsibilities; time/timing; the legislative setting; and silos). The research revealed that each of these barriers will challenge resilience planning and its institutionalisation at different stages of the planning process. The barriers must first be overcome to allow for the operationalisation of the resilience planning characteristics through actions for practice. Opportunities for institutionalising resilience planning so as to overcome the barriers and allow it to become a reality in practice were explored. The opportunities included, for example, the following: the earthquake experiences; heightened awareness and interest in resilience planning; the recovery and rebuild period; relationships and connections made; ensuring a concerted effort and focus on resilience planning; undertaking vulnerability assessment; and placing focus on the culture of resilience planning. Six resilience planning characteristics required for operationalisation in practice were identified (leadership; social capital; social learning; community; reflection; and innovation). Based on these findings, a framework is proposed to institutionalise and operationalise resilience planning in New Zealand. The application of this framework will assist in shaping current thinking and planning practice and enable choices that will ultimately build more resilient, sustainable communities in the face of uncertainty and escalating natural hazard risks.