between the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (CDEM) Plans and resource .... The Great Southern California ShakeOut: Lessons for New Zealand.
Surviving future disasters in New Zealand D.M. Johnston, J.S. Becker, W. Saunders, K. Wright, M. Coomer & G. Leonard Joint Centre for Disaster Research, Massey University/GNS Science, Wellington. 2009 NZSEE Conference
D. Paton University of Tasmania.
ABSTRACT: Despite experiencing on-going small events such as floods, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions, New Zealand has had a relatively calm period over the past 78 years, with no overwhelming disaster since the 1931 Napier Earthquake. The fact that few New Zealanders have experienced disastrous hazard events is a good thing. The downside however, is the resulting complacency and limited understanding of natural hazard risk. There are a number of opportunities to improve New Zealand‟s capacity to respond to future disasters, requiring a mix of land-use planning, public education, social policy, training, and empowerment strategies. There is a compelling and urgent need to develop more effective strategies for surviving future disasters in New Zealand. 1 INTRODUCTION New Zealand is vulnerable to a wide range of potentially devastating impacts from diverse natural hazard phenomena. Although New Zealanders have been subject to significant earthquakes in the distant past (e.g. 1931 Napier earthquake) we have had a relatively calm period over the past 78 years. The fact that few New Zealanders have experienced disastrous hazard events is a good thing. The downside, however, is the resulting complacency and limited understanding of natural hazard risk. The benefits of improved risk awareness include: increased support for risk reduction activities, increased readiness and response capacity and a capability to recover from events in an efficient manner and in a way that contributes to the future social capital of the country. Furthermore, building these capabilities at individual and community levels can reduce our economic exposure to future natural hazard events. 2 STRATEGIES FOR SURVIVING FUTURE DISASTERS 2.1 Improved policy and planning There is strong research evidence that disaster losses can be reduced in communities that have sound planning and decision-making (Burby et al. 2000; Lindell & Prater 2003). Over the past two decades the role of land-using planning, as a tool for disaster risk reduction, has received increased attention in New Zealand (Britton & Lindsay 1995), but not always achieved the desired results. For example, planning guidelines for dealing with earthquake hazards are available but have had only limited uptake by local government (Becker & Johnston 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Becker et al. 2005). Work by Britton & Lindsay (1995) discusses “a compelling need for a closer integration between disaster and city planning”. 2.1.1.1 The need to improve the links between planners and emergency managers has been recognised by Saunders et al. (2007), who present a framework to assist in strengthening linkages between the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (CDEM) Plans and resource management plans, with the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) being the critical link. They conclude “only when these linkages are strengthened, can issues, objectives, policies and methods in regional and district
Paper Number 02
plans be improved and focused on reducing the effects of natural hazards on communities”. Over the next 10 or more years the country‟s RPS‟s are due to be reviewed, which provides an opportunity for planners to incorporate emergency management principles into their plans for risk reduction. This will ensure consistency between policies from emergency management and land use plans – from National Policy Statements through to city and district plans. This integration also needs to take place when CDEM Group plans a revised in the coming years. Since the enactment of the Building Act 2004, councils have been required to identify buildings at-risk from earthquakes. There has been a varied response from councils, ranging from a passive acknowledgement of their requirements, to those who have taken proactive steps to reduce the identified risk. Despite the requirements of the 2004 Building Act, further guidance and practical steps are required to assist Councils to achieve the desired outcomes of reducing earthquake risk. Throughout the upcoming review process, there is legal requirement for the public to be engaged. This provides an opportunity for wider public participation in building resilient communities. 2.2 Building community resilience Resilience is an „adaptive capacity‟ - that is, society‟s capability to draw upon its individual, collective and institutional resources & competencies to cope with, adapt to, and develop from the demands, challenges and changes encountered during and after a disaster (Paton 2006). The active involvement of formal and informal community networks in hazard education and other mitigation activities has been shown to be a key predictor of preparedness. Research has shown that a number of community, individual and institutional attributes can be used as indicators of resilience (Paton 2006). Broadly these indicators can be grouped into three areas: 1. Making a Difference: where people need to know that the small things they do can make a difference for themselves, their families and their neighbours; 2. Participation and Empowerment: where communities are directly involved in identifying their risks and determining solutions for themselves; and 3. Leadership and Trust: where communities are supported by institutions who encourage community-lead initiatives and where mutual trust and respect exist. By working to develop these characteristics within a community, we can influence the way our communities prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. It is possible to measure the indicators mentioned above, and link this information to current community resilience levels (Paton 2007a,b; Paton 2008; Paton & Johnston 2008). To date, these indicators have been measured by undertaking surveys. Measurements of the indicators can be taken before hazard education and intervention strategies are employed, to get a baseline set of data about a community‟s current resilience, and an understanding of where intervention strategies should be focussed. Once the intervention strategies have been employed, it is then possible to again measure these indicators at a later stage, to see whether resilience has increased. By doing ongoing measurements, intervention strategies can be assessed for their effectiveness and adjusted if necessary. Much inherent strength lies within communities and this can and should be harnessed to improve resilience. Understanding what drives a community‟s resilience helps to come up with better risk communication strategies and practical tools for working with the community - once you have an understanding of the resilience factors that are important in your community, how they interact, and to what level they currently exist, you can develop programmes that target them (Paton 2006; Finnis et al. 2007; Ronan & Johnston 2005). 2.3 Effective warnings Due to the relatively long return period of many damaging hazard events and a strong public desire to live and use at-risk locations, regulations and land-use planning are unlikely to provide effective mitigation for the entire natural hazard risk. Warning systems for earthquakes are currently not used in
2
New Zealand; however there may be opportunities in the future. For other hazards such as earthquake-generated tsunami, an effective integrated warning system is required to address the residual risk. This has been split into five components (Leonard et al. 2008): (1) effective early warning systems; (2) planning; (3) co-operation, discussion, and communication; (4) public education; and (5) exercises. In recent years improved warning systems and warning protocols have been developed for certain hazards, such as tsunami and volcanic hazards (Becker et al. 2008; Leonard et al. 2008; Johnston et al. 2008). 2.4 Developing emergency management capacity Internationally the importance of emergency management education has emerged over the last two decades, promoted by international governmental development agencies (e.g. UNDP, World Bank and Asian Development Bank). In New Zealand, emergency management has matured from an ad-hoc, practice-based approach into a discipline in its own right. The current “Capability Framework”, developed by MCDEM, is a good example of this evolution. However, recent disasters, as well as exercises, have highlighted the need to improve the capability and capacity in certain key areas. Exercise Capital Quake‟06 report (MCDEM 2007) highlights that: “…. the need to involve the private sector to a greater extent in future exercises thereby provides greater clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities between the government response and the private sector response.”
The volcanic „Exercise Ruaumoko‟ report (MCDEM 2008) recommends that: “All CDEM Groups should establish training programmes and acquire training resources for their Group and local Emergency Operations Centres to ensure that capacity is built over time, the interest and commitment of existing personnel is maintained, new staff are inspired to join, and that interoperability between CDEM Groups is achieved, in line with section 17 (1) (b) of the CDEM Act. Selection for key roles in Emergency Operations Centres should be on the basis of skills and experience rather than agency and business – as - usual position”.
With increasingly sophisticated networks of technological warning systems, emergency management officers frequently have to make decisions with incomplete or inaccurate information derived from unfamiliar data. They do so under considerable time pressure and in rapidly evolving and complex situations involving atypical inter-agency circumstances. To develop the skills to effectively operate in this environment it is critically important to further develop the skill base of the sector. There is a clear need for continuing research, education and training. While New Zealand has had emergency exercises around specific hazard scenarios, involving multiple agencies (e.g. Capital Quake‟06 and Exercise Ruaumoko), we have not had full participation from all sectors of community in the events. In November 2008 an earthquake drill called the Great California Southern ShakeOut was held (http://www.shakeout.org/) in southern California, USA, involving over five million participants. In a review of the exercise, Becker (2009) concluded: “An event such as ShakeOut could be run in New Zealand drawing upon experience from previous New Zealand exercises and the ShakeOut drill. For the event to be a success, it would require leadership to drive it and collaboration with a variety of national, regional and local partners.” Exercises, such as ShakeOut, can act as a conduit for emergency response and preparedness activities however sustained household preparedness will still be most likely adopted when supported by community-based programmes (Finnis et al. 2007). Attention must be paid to developing and running such programmes in a sustained and on-going way. 2.5 Improved disaster recovery Effective survival and recovery from disasters depends not just on physical impacts of the event but also on how the social environment supports the complex and protracted processes of recovery (Coles
3
& Buckle 2004). Research following the 2004 floods in the Manawatu and Whakatane, and the 2005 debris flow in Matata, has highlighted complex nature of the recovery processes and the need for improved understanding of recovery by both local and central government agencies (Hudson & Hughes 2007; Gordon 2008; Spee 2008). These findings are consistent with recent and larger scale international disasters, such as the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes (Olshansky et al. 2006) and Hurricane Katrina (Campanella 2006). International research also highlights the importance of not only strong local government capacity, but also of a cohesive system of public, private and volunteer groups integrated into the community (Mileti, 1999; Rubin, 2000, Norman and Coles, 2002; Dynes, 2003; Coles and Buckle, 2004; Gordon, 2004). Community recovery from disasters can be greatly enhanced by ensuring that the existing social environment supports the recovery process. Effective engagement within the community must take place to determine physical, social and psychological needs. 3 CONCLUSION Much inherent strength lies within communities and this can and should be harnessed to improve resilience. The active involvement of formal and informal community networks in hazard education and other mitigation activities has been shown to be a key predictor of preparedness. The increasing complexity of our society will require improved capacity and capability across all areas of emergency management. There is a compelling and urgent need to develop more effective strategies for surviving future disasters in New Zealand. REFERENCES: Becker. J. 2009. The Great Southern California ShakeOut: Lessons for New Zealand. Article in press in Impact. Becker, J. & Johnston, D.M. 2000a. District plans and regional policy statements: How do they address natural hazards? Planning Quarterly September 2000: 22-23. Becker, J. & Johnston, D. 2000b. Planning and Policy for Earthquake Hazards in New Zealand. Lower Hutt. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited Science Report 2000/28, 34p. Becker, J.S. & Johnston, D.M. 2002. Planning for earthquake hazards in New Zealand: A study of four regions. Australian Journal of Emergency Management Autumn 2002: 2-8. Becker, J., Saunders, W.S.A. & Van Dissen, R.J. 2005. Planning for the development of land on or close to active faults: a study of the adoption and use of the Active Fault Guidelines. Lower Hutt. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Science Report 2005/16. 63p. Becker, J., Manville, V., Leonard, G. & Saunders, W. 2008. Managing lahars the New Zealand way: A case study from Mount Ruapehu volcano. Natural Hazards Observer 32(5): 4-6. Britton N.R. & Lindsay J. 1995. Integrating city planning and emergency preparedness: Some of the reasons why. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13(1): 93-106. Burby, R.J., Deyle, R.E., Godschalk, D.R., Olshansky, R.B. 2000. Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review 1(2): 99-106. Campanella, T.J. 2006. Urban resilence and the recovery of New Orleans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 141-146. Coles, E. & Buckle, P. 2004. Developing community resilience as a foundation for effective disaster recovery. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management 19(4): 6-15. Dynes, R. 2003. Finding order in disorder: continuities in the 9-11 response. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaster 21(3): 9-23. Finnis, K., Johnston, D., Becker, J., Ronan, J. & Paton, D. 2007. School and community-based hazards education and links to disaster resilient communities. In I. Kelman (ed.), "School Safety", Regional Development Dialogue (RDD) 28(2): 99-1008. Gordon, R. 2004. The social system as site of disaster impact and resource for recovery. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management 19(4): 16-22.
4
Gordon, R. 2008. A "Social Biopsy" of social process and personal responses in recovery from natural disaster, GNS Science Report 2008/09, 14 p. Hudson, J. & Hughes, E. 2007. The role of marae and Maori communities in post-disaster recovery: A case study, GNS Science Report 2007/15. 51 p. Johnston, D., Pettersson, R., Gownes, G., Paton, D., Leonard, G., Pishief, K., Bell, R. 2008. Developing an effective tsuanami warning system: lessons from the 1960 Chile earthquake tsunami for New Zealand coastal communities. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Science 3:105-120. Leonard, G.S., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D., Christianson, A., Becker, J. & Keys, H. 2008 Developing effective warning systems: Ongoing research at Ruapehu volcano, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172: 199-215. Lindell, M.K. & Prater, C. 2003. Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review 4(4): 176-185. MCDEM 2008. Exercise Ruaumoko „08 Final Exercise Report . Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. MCDEM 2007. Final Report on Exercise Capital Quake 06 Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. Mileti, D.1999. Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C. 351p. Norman, S., Coles, E. 2002. Order out of chaos? A critical review of the role of central regional and local government in London. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaster 20: 347-367. Olshansky, R.B., Johnson, L.A., & Topping, K.C. 2006. Rebuilding communities following disaster: lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles. Built Environment 32(4), 354-374. Paton, D. 2006. Disaster Resilience: Integrating individual, community, institutional and environmental perspectives. In D. Paton & D. Johnston (eds.), Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach. Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas. Paton, D. 2007a. Preparing for natural hazards: the role of community trust. Disaster Prevention and Management 16(3):370-379. Paton, D. 2007b. Measuring and monitoring resilience in Auckland, GNS Science Report 2007/18. 88 p. Paton, D. 2008. Modelling societal resilience to pandemic hazards in Auckland, GNS Science Report 2008/13. 23 p. Paton, D. & Johnston, D.M. 2008. A means-end chain theory analysis of hazard cognitions and preparedness, GNS Science Report 2008/19. 33 p. Ronan, K.R. & Johnston, D. M. 2005. Promoting community resilience in disasters: the role for schools, youth, and families. New York, NY: Springer, 210p. Rubin, C. 2000. Emergency management in the 21st century: coping with Bill Gates, Osama bin-Laden and Hurricane Mitch. University of Colorado Natural Hazards Research Centre Working Paper #99. Saunders, W., Forsyth, J., Johnston, D., & J. Becker. 2007. Strengthening linkages between land-use planning and emergency management in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 22:36-43. Spee, K. 2008. Community recovery after the 2005 Matata disaster: long-term psychological and social impacts, GNS Science Report 2008/12. 40 p.
5
