Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 03:47:34 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <1433008999.252.1711637254226@ucwiki3p.linux.canterbury.ac.nz>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_251_694049789.1711637254225"
------=_Part_251_694049789.1711637254225
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Flagship Leader (2017): Erica Seville =E2=80=93=
Resilient Organisations (erica.seville@resorgs.org.nz )<=
/p>
Flagship Leader (2018): David Johnston (Davi=
d.Johnston@gns.cri.nz )
Flagship Deputy: Tracy Hatton
Flagship Summar=
y
Our goal in Flagship 5 is to identify how societal decisions and choices=
affect the social, culture and economic resilience of communities, at loca=
l, regional and national scales. QuakeCoRE will bring together expertise fr=
om a range of disciplines, including tangata whenua knowledge to develop a =
holistic understanding of social, cultural and economic impacts from earthq=
uakes; thus, providing key input to policy decisions at all levels of gover=
nment and building a resilience community of practice.
The key thrust ar=
eas are:
- Addressing key knowledge gaps to improve our ability to holistically ev=
aluate impacts of earthquakes, to understand and model system effects, and =
to advance our capability to evaluate the case for investment.
- Analysis and sharing of current tools and methodologies used for the ev=
aluation of resilience-building policies and practices in order to identify=
opportunities for innovative cross-sectorial and organisational research c=
ollaboration.
- Development and evaluation of up to 6 Wellington case study activities =
which critically assess potential investment policies and practices to impr=
ove New Zealand=E2=80=99s resilience to earthquakes; and their use to provi=
de inventive recommendations and advice for practical implementation.
Thrust Areas |
Key tasks |
Start |
Finish |
FP5.1 Addressing key knowledge =
gaps [activities can occur in parallel and in any order] |
1. Developing new methods for evaluating soci=
o-economic impacts |
1/07/2017 |
31/12/2020 |
2. Improving our understanding and analysis o=
f system effects |
1/01/2017 |
31/12/2020 |
3. Exploring new ways to evaluate the case fo=
r investment and methods to building social, cultural and economic resilien=
ce |
1/01/2017 |
31/12/2020 |
FP5.2 Analysis of common method=
ologies, tools and knowledge |
1. Assessment of existing tools and alternati=
ve evaluation techniques |
1/01/2016 |
31/12/2017 |
2. Evaluation of stakeholder wants and needs<=
/p> |
1/01/2017 |
31/12/2017 |
3. Series of workshops for sharing new discov=
eries/learnings across teams for cross-pollination |
1/01/2017 |
31/12/2020 |
FP5.3 Development and evaluatio=
n of Wellington case study key activities |
1. Selection of Resilience Pathway key activi=
ties to be developed |
1/07/2017 |
01/01/2018 |
2. Resilience Pathway Activity 1 =E2=80=93 We=
llington Resilience Framing Exercise |
01/01/2018 |
31/12/2018 |
3. Resilience Pathway Activity 2 =E2=80=93 Wh=
akaoranga Iwi Whanui |
01/01/2018 |
31/12/2020 |
4. Resilience Pathway Task 3 =E2=80=93 Wellin=
gton Infrastructure Investment |
01/01/2019 |
31/12/2020 |
5. Resilience Pathway Task 4 =E2=80=93 Planni=
ng and Policy in a Dynamic Risk Environment |
01/01/2018 |
31/12/2018 |
6. Resilience Pathway Task 5 =E2=80=93 Unders=
tanding Community-Based Resilience |
01/01/2018 |
31/12/2020 |
This flagship focuses on determining=
how we decide where to invest attention and finances to improve NZ=E2=80=
=99s resilience to earthquakes.
Key research thrusts in this Flagshi=
p include:
- Review existing tools: Review of existing tools and ev=
aluation techniques to better understand their suitability and relevance fo=
r supporting different types of decisions about how best to improve NZ=E2=
=80=99s resilience to earthquakes.
- Evaluation of cases studies: Evaluation of real-world =
resilience investment decision case studies for New Zealand. Example =
topics include (but are not limited to) the following:
- What are the most effective forms of investment to support a community=
=E2=80=99s resilience and/or recovery? How do we make the business ca=
se for resilience investment? How might we differentiate betwee=
n public and private benefits and costs? Are there different ways to =
encourage and finance resilience investments?
- What are the implications of different recovery decisions? =
For example, what pace and sequencing of rebuild is desired to deliver an e=
ffective recovery? What are the implications of changes to codes or c=
onstruction practices? When are the use of cordons and/or demolition =
orders appropriate? How might we decide following future =
earthquake whether an area should or should not be rezoned?
- What are the barriers and enablers for effective resilience and recover=
y governance? How might we achieve better community engagement in res=
ilience and recovery decisions? Are there particular governance struc=
tures that work better for different contexts or scales of event?
- Address knowledge gaps: Research to address current kn=
owledge gaps, including: improving our ability to evaluate socio-economic i=
mpacts from earthquakes; improving our understanding and analysis of system=
effects; exploring new ways to evaluate the case for investment; or findin=
g new ways to communicate with and engage the public and key stakeholders t=
o invest in resilience.
What will success look like
- Key stakeholders (which stakeholders will depend on the Resilience Path=
way decision being evaluated) actively using the evaluations that emerge fr=
om the Resilience Pathways Decision teams to support their investment decis=
ion making.
- Tools and techniques for evaluating resilience investments become =E2=
=80=98mainstream=E2=80=99 in the sense that practitioners have the confiden=
ce to either use them directly, or to commission their use for evaluating r=
esilience investments as a matter of good practice.
- Practicality and relevance of research outcomes demonstrated by policy =
makers actively seeking out researchers to provide advice and input into fu=
ture resilience investment decisions.
Research Meetin=
g Schedule (link)
Flagship 5 Research=
Projects (2017)
2016 Projects
------=_Part_251_694049789.1711637254225--