Operationalising resilience through a practice-science collaboration: A match made in heaven?
By Ellie Kay and Dr Joanne Stevenson
How can scientists and practitioners work together to improve the resilience of our communities? Researchers in the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Trajectories, Culture, and Economics Toolboxes have been collaborating with the Wellington Regional Emergency Management Office to develop indicators of resilience to measure the capabilities of the Wellington Region.
The Trajectories Toolbox team have been hard at work on the resilience “Warrant of Fitness” project, which is aimed at testing, refining, and enhancing the New Zealand Resilience Index. The project aims to provide a measure of resilience that incorporates the views of those living and working in the communities being measured, producing a more holistic understanding of resilience capabilities. The Trajectories team have partnered with the Wellington Regional Emergency Management Office (WREMO) to aid with the development of their Group Plan, connecting indicators of resilience to WREMO’s vision of a resilient community that is ready, connected, and capable of responding to and recovering from a disaster.
As well as developing indicators of resilience across a multi-capital model for the WREMO Group Plan, the project highlights the necessity of balancing the unique needs of both researchers and practitioners. This ensures everyone benefits from the collaboration, leading to better improvements for communities. Additionally, consultation with Disaster Risk Reduction and resilience practitioners led us to reconsider the types of indicators included in the New Zealand Resilience Index, demonstrating the importance of practice informing science, as well as science informing practice. These two-way conversations and collaborations are vital for pooling collective knowledge of a complex system like resilience.
The Warrant of Fitness is making important steps to bridging the gap between science and practice, with the aim of improving resilience in place-based communities. In line with the Sendai Framework, the team is producing actionable knowledge that can be used by different groups to address resilience issues in their communities.
Awkward first data: Giving the DIVE Platform a second chance
By Dr Joanne Stevenson
Despite many calls for the creation of a metadata catalogue and repository for disaster risk reduction and resilience data, engagement with the first prototype of the New Zealand Resilience Data Integration and Visualisation EnMasse (DIVE) Platform has been poor. The developers of the trial platform have recently received additional funding to increase engagement with DIVE and explore ways to deliver on the site’s promise to provide a place to make resilience data more visible.
The Resilience Challenge Trajectories Toolbox team has now launched the New Zealand Resilience Data Integration and Visualisation EnMasse (DIVE) Platform, and it is ready to start receiving data and information from researchers and stakeholders engaged in resilience and disaster risk reduction work across the country. The DIVE Platform provides a catalogue of research and information relevant to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and resilience in New Zealand. Anyone can view and login to the DIVE Platform web interface at: resiliencedata.org.nz.
This launched prototype exceeds the team’s initial expectations for what the “resilience digital information system” project under the Trajectories Toolbox workstream was meant to achieve. The concept for the DIVE Platform was drawn from wide-ranging consultation with researchers and potential stakeholders of DRR and resilience research. The team were always aware that it was going to be a hard sell to get busy researchers excited to enter metadata and share their resources for the greater good of the resilience researcher and practitioner community. The Trajectories team continues to explore avenues to incentivise and simplify engagement with the platform.
The Trajectories Toolbox recently secured additional funding from a Resilience Challenge contestable funding round to support the ongoing development of the platform, encourage engagement, and allow systematic evaluation of the engagement and development of the system. We have welcomed Becca Fraser, a master’s student at the University of Canterbury, to the team as a research assistant to help with this portion of the project.
Part of Becca’s role is to encourage and assist researchers across QuakeCoRE and Resilience to Nature’s Challenges, as well as any additional stakeholders, to input metadata, host unique datasets for others to see and use, and feature their initiatives on the DIVE platform.
There is an increasing flow of information from governmental sources, organisations, researchers, and the public. This information can help us answer some of society’s most pressing questions, but we need to be able to find, understand, and apply it in meaningful ways. Processes such as recording and sharing high quality metadata can increase the interoperability and reusability of the information being collected and shared. The DIVE Platform was created by the Resilience Challenge’s Trajectories Toolbox, but it needs to be ‘owned’ and maintained by New Zealand’s research community going forward. This additional funding will buy some time to map a path to a system that can deliver the data visibility and cross-pollination desired by people across the research and practitioner community.
What gets measured gets done: The New Zealand Resilience Index
By Dr Joanne Stevenson, Chris Bowie, Ellie Kay and Dr John Vargo
The New Zealand Resilience Index will help decision-makers stay on track as we find ways to build disaster resilience in our communities, environments, and economies. This index, developed by the Resilience to Natures’ Challenges Trajectories Toolbox, is part of the holistic national strategy to ensure long-term community wellbeing despite inevitable disruption and environmental change.
Measuring resilience helps make an abstract concept visible. Once resilience is visible, we can do something about it. As noted in theNational Disaster Resilience Strategy (NDRS) currently out for public consultation, “Holding ourselves to account is paramount,” and part of this accountability is systematically measuring and monitoring progress (NDRS 2018, p.30). The Trajectories Toolbox team, led by Dr Joanne Stevenson, a principal consultant with Resilient Organisations Ltd., has worked along-side the development of the NDRS to create a composite indicator of resilience that conceptually aligns with the multi-capital approach laid out in the strategy.
The New Zealand Resilience Index (NZRI) uses quantitative indicators to assess place-based communities’ resilience across the six ‘capitals’ that compose society: social, cultural, economic, built, natural environment, and governance/ institutional capital.
To enable comparisons between places and across time, the data for the NZRI needed to be quantitative, consistently available at a standard geographic area, and collected at regular time intervals. To make the index manageable and cost effective in the long-term, the researchers decided to aim for cost-free secondary data (i.e., data collected for another purpose like the Census) that is published publicly. Repeatability allows researchers, decision makers, and communities to track progress, assess whether interventions are making a difference, and check with the indicators can predict post-disaster outcomes.
The data for the New Zealand Resilience Index needed to be available at the territorial authority or census area unit (CAU) level. CAUs were selected as the preferred ‘place’ as they are likely to best reflect a community of people and organisations at a local level. CAUs generally coincide with suburbs and have a population of 3,000 to 5,000 people. These areas are also small enough to identify the many differences between places and groups of people that shape the community’s resilience to disruptions and could be addressed by community-based interventions. After a rigorous selection process, including the development of a ‘bank’ of over 1,000 indicators drawing on indices from around the world, we identified a number of common resilience concepts to focus the NZRI indicators within. The concepts are as follows: community networks and sense of belonging, economic sector diversity, household capacity to cope with economic disruption, networked infrastructure resilience, functionality and safety of buildings following a disruption, household emergency preparedness, community access to shelters and welfare centres, heritage and culture is valued and preserved, resilience capacity of individuals, quality of legislation and planning addressing hazards, health system response capacity, and availability of natural buffers to hazards. Selecting indicators that measure each of these concepts using available data and then combining these into a single composite indicator allows us to create a relative resilience ‘score’.
Not all indicators are created equal. We realised that some indicators will have a more significant impact on a communities’ ability to survive and thrive in the face of disaster than others. As a result, the team employed an approach called conjoint analysis, which allowed us to determine weights for the different indicators of resilience using expert knowledge. To do this, we employed a novel survey software developed in New Zealand called 1000 Minds. Experts in New Zealand’s disaster resilience across theory and practice engaged in the 1000 Minds exercise making trade-offs between various indicators to reveal their ‘preferences’ for certain indicators over others. Research over the last 30 years has shown that people generally have a poor understanding of how they make trade-offs during decision making, making it useful to have a structured way to help us make consistent judgements when considering multiple objectives or criteria. 1000 Minds provides such a structure, using the PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) method to rank all pairs of of the criteria being considered. 89 experts from across New Zealand with extensive knowledge across a range of specialist areas from social science to engineering completed the 1000 Minds exercise.
The results of the 1000 Minds analysis show that networked infrastructure resilience along with community (inter-personal) networks and long-term residency, used as a proxy for place-attachment, are likely to have the biggest influence on a place’s disaster resilience. The smallest influence on disaster resilience is attributed to heritage preservation. The results revealed, however, that all of the indicators will have some influence on resilience.
The research team has spent considerable time and effort considering other datasets and exploring ways to assess other dimensions of disaster resilience. For example, two indicators were included in the 1000 Minds exercise that are not included in the current baseline calculation of the NZRI. The proportion of total commercial prone buildings that are considered “earthquake prone” was considered an important indicator of resilience of the built environment, but the best dataset available does not have adequate coverage for the entire country. Similarly, we asked experts to rate the importance of sheltering and welfare centre data availability as a proxy for local civil defence and emergency management preparedness and resourcing. This dataset has been omitted from the calculation of the NZRI due to incompleteness and significantly different policy approaches to the provisioning of civil defence centres by local and regional authorities.
There are many high-quality datasets collected and maintained by local and regional authorities, and the team is exploring ways to integrate additional datasets into the national NZRI baseline.
Going forward we will finalise the statistical analysis of the index, circulate the initial results to our co-creation partners at MCDEM, Wellington Regional Emergency Management Office, and the Auckland Emergency Management – Auckland Council. We will then work with these co-creation partners to understand how the calculated NZRI aligns with their experiences, and plan how we can better integrate local data into the national baseline. A wider release of the results will be coordinated with MCDEM in 2019.
The New Zealand Resilience Index will be a useful addition to New Zealand’s resilience building took kit, but we must be careful about how we interpret and use it. It will not, for example, be a good tool for making definitive choices about funding allocations. It is, however, a useful tool for ensuring that we think beyond buildings and consider the way our communities, institutions, and the natural environment contribute to resilience. Taking a holistic view of resilience will improve our chance of delivering resilience building programmes that account for the many interactions that make up our society.
Behind the scenes: Chris Bowie and Ellie Kay on resilience measurement in New Zealand
This profile features two up-and-coming young researchers who have been working in the Trajectories Toolbox.
A bit about Chris and Ellie
Chris Bowie is a geographer with a keen interest in the role of our urban environments in creating vibrant and engaging communities. At WSP Opus his research and advisory work is focused on exploring the levers we have for unlocking the potential of our cities to meet the needs and aspirations of our people and communities. Since moving north to Wellington from Christchurch Chris has taken up freediving and spearfishing around the local coastline, though he still tries to get back down south to ski when the opportunity arises.
Having spent the last 14 years in Christchurch, Ellie Kay has a background in Social Psychology, Anthropology, and Community Engagement, completing her study at the University of Canterbury. Ellie is a researcher with Resilient Organisations Ltd. and in her spare time enjoys roaming around the Canterbury hills on her bike and relaxing at the beach on a nice Christchurch day.
An overview of their contributions to the Trajectories Toolbox
Chris has been involved with the Trajectories Toolbox since its inception in 2015. He’s focusing on assisting with the development of the New Zealand Resilience Index (NZRI) to benchmark and monitor community trajectories of resilience to Natural Hazards. The NZRI is a multi-capital index integrating indicators of resilience across multiple domains: built environment, social, economic, cultural, institutional and governance, and environmental. He has enjoyed engaging with resilience researchers and practitioners during this project, all of whom have a slightly different take on what can/should be considered when measuring the resilience of an area. In Chris’s words, “It has been a challenge trying to combine all of this input into a manageable index with a limited number of individual indicators, but it has also shown us the importance of ensuring that the NZRI can adapt over time as new priorities and better sources of data emerge.”
Ellie started with Resilient Organisations in February 2018 and jumped straight into the Trajectories Toolbox; working on the development of the New Zealand Resilience Index and how to enhance the measurement of community resilience by using locally available data. Ellie’s currently working in collaboration with the Wellington Regional Emergency Management Office (WREMO) to integrate indicators of resilience into their Group Plan. By supplementing the national indicators of resilience with locally available datasets, Ellie’s work will provide a rich view of place based resilience.
“At its heart I think the NZRI is a prompt for discussion and not just a metric assigned to individual areas. The NZRI is intended to be used by decision makers and leaders to better understand the resilience of their community, and identify opportunities for investment, growth and training, among other things,” Chris notes. This work will continue to be refined and developed by the team and their many co-creation partners going forward. This includes Ellie Kay’s work, which going forward will include developing a framework to help other communities across the country to measure their own resilience. This will allow for stakeholders to identify their resilience strengths and weaknesses and define priority areas for intervention, as well as assessing their progress towards improved resilience.
I was born and raised in Auckland with five other siblings, and with strong ties to rural family in the South Island.
My interest in disasters began as I was nearing the end of my undergraduate degree in geology and anthropology at The University of Auckland. I have always been driven towards understanding how communities and people connect to each other, and how a deeper understanding of what makes up a community contributes to the wider picture of resilience. While I love the physical science aspect of geology, I think the anthropological modus operandi of collecting the narratives of people and communities is valuable in exploring the dynamic intersections between disasters and humans.
Moving to Christchurch to study in the Master of Disaster, Risk and Resilience programme was a way of combining these interests, allowing me to explore the impacts of hazards on people and places. Through this programme I was given the exciting opportunity to work on an internship with Tom Wilson (University of Canterbury) and Nick Cradock-Henry (Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research) aimed at improved understandings of rural resilience through geospatial data visualisation, leading into a thesis in 2019.
My project is focused on building a geospatial atlas describing and visualising aspects of disaster resilience in New Zealand’s rural communities. New Zealand’s rural communities are an essential part of our national identity, but face a variety of natural hazards which can cause a range of social and economic impacts. We are beginning to understand what factors can increase and decrease disaster resilience within our rural communities. Some are simple, such as remaining connected to friends and family (support networks), and some are complex. Recovery potential for example is often reliant on a business’ health prior to a disaster. But this information can form a powerful communication and decision-support tool for pre- and post-disaster planning by rural households and other disaster decision makers. My project is attempting to visualise some of these types of data in the form of informatics and maps, with the intention of empowering individuals and organisations to make better resilience decisions.
The questions my study aims to answer are:
What is rural New Zealand? – Where are rural communities located; what is their gender, ethnic and demographic makeup; what jobs do they have; and how has this changed over time? Has this been affected by policy, social and economic changes? And if so, how?
How might rural New Zealand be affected by natural hazard disasters? – Where are natural hazards in New Zealand; what are the short and long term impacts of disasters for rural NZ, including drought, snow, storm, earthquake; and what might be the potential impacts of future climate variations?
Can we assess rural resilience?– Utilising geospatial data sets to track temporal change in rural communities and the state of rural resilience currently. These datasets include population, demographic change such as median workforce age change over time, economic indicators and even land use changes
I have drawn on the Resilience Challenge Trajectories Toolbox work to frame and develop this project and its future outputs. Trajectories research on resilience indicators, and how these contribute to the development of rural New Zealand as well as the work that has gone into building effective resilience data within the New Zealand specific context continues to guide the direction and scope of my project.
My project ties in with the Resilience Challenge Rural Co-Creation Laboratory, which is dedicated to finding solutions to enhance and understand the resilience of rural New Zealand, and to better protect and enable these communities to thrive. The project serves as a complementary link between the two research programmes and allows me to draw on many different researchers for expertise and assistance.
In relation to my project, I am currently working on increasing engagement with the Data Integration and Visualisation en masse (DIVE) platform. The DIVE Platform is aimed at facilitating online data cataloguing, sharing and collaboration of New Zealand resilience data, and is intended to enable integrated and engaged research that will enhance New Zealand’s resilience to hazards. This ties in closely with my Rural Resilience/Indicators project. I am currently working on developing valuable and effective data visualisations to help build a Rural Resilience atlas.
I am excited about the future direction of this project using contemporary and emerging information techniques to help tell a story and making a positive contribution toward the understanding of rural resilience.
Locally-augmented resilience measurement in New Zealand
By Ellie Kay and Dr Joanne Stevenson
The Trajectories Toolbox team are working to extend the New Zealand Resilience Index (NZRI) for specific regions and urban areas using local datasets. Expanding the NZRI can help local and regional authorities better understand their community’s capacity to survive and thrive in the face of disaster.
Trajectories Toolbox researchers are investigating how to incorporate local datasets and community insights to build on the New Zealand Resilience Index. In its current form, the index includes several high-level indicators of resilience. These cover a multi-capital model incorporating social, economic, built environment, natural environment, cultural, and institutional resilience. However, there are many concepts that the index cannot currently capture due to a lack of quality, nationally available data. The Trajectories team is working to expand the NZRI to provide a better understanding of holistic community resilience. Working with co-creation partners in Wellington, they are identifying regional datasets that can be integrated into the NZRI and helping to provide insight into datasets that may be repurposed to make the picture of community resilience clearer. In undertaking this process, they are also highlighting where the collection of additional primary data will aid in filling gaps in our ability to benchmark and monitor disaster resilience.
The Wellington case study will allow the Trajectories team to create a guide for local and regional based governments to help steer them through the resilience measurement journey. The guide will showcase the usefulness of the NZRI, explaining the indicators that are included and the uses and limitations of the tool. Following this, an example of how additional datasets can be incorporated into the index will help users understand the flexibility of the tool. Furthermore, the overlaying of hazard data will expand the understanding of both communities’ strengths and areas for improvements.
The work that the Trajectories team is currently undertaking with their Wellington partners is aimed at both starting resilience measurement conversations and providing a guideline for resilience measurement in place-based communities in New Zealand. Incorporating local and regionally available datasets will help us see the rich landscape of community capacity, allowing for the discovery of opportunities for targeted interventions to build resilience.
Government strategy developed in a vacuum is bound to fail. That is why the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) has gone to extraordinary efforts to engage stakeholders across many facets of New Zealand life in the development of their National Disaster Resilience Strategy (NDRS): Ruataki Manawaroa Aituā-ā-Motu. This includes drawing on experts and scientific knowledge across the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges National Science Challenge. The NDRS includes a Monitoring and Evaluation section which has been co-created with the Resilience Challenge’s Trajectories Toolbox.
Readers of the Draft National Disaster Resilience Strategy, which is currently out for public consultation, may be inclined to skip the seemingly banal section on “Measuring and monitoring progress” (pp.31-32). If they did, they would miss the opportunity to give feedback on two critically important questions: How do we know if we are getting more or less resilient? How do we start to make links between where we want to go and what we need to do to get there?
This section of the Strategy draws on a Theory of Change developed by Dr Joanne Stevenson, the co-leader of the Resilience Challenge Trajectories Toolbox. The Theory of Change notes that the desired impact of government policy in New Zealand is to enhance the intergenerational wellbeing of New Zealanders, even in the face of acute and chronic shocks like earthquakes and climate change. That means that everything we track should ultimately be connected to this goal. For example, measuring the outcomes of resilience interventions, such as the rate of development in flood or liquefaction prone areas, clearly shows the number of households governments are avoiding putting in harms way. Similarly, we should be tracking whether the inputs allocated to resilience building initiatives are adequate, assessing things such as the per capita staff levels of first responder organisations and the number of publicly-funded mental health professionals available per capita. The New Zealand Resilience Index, also developed by the Trajectories Toolbox, will be part of the national resilience monitoring strategy.
The section discusses monitoring and evaluation in fairly broad terms, but there will be accountability systems developed for the NDRS itself, and these will tie to local and regional CDEM monitoring and evaluation. Progress on the delivery of the NDRS will be reported biennially by the MCDEM. MCDEM will be responsible for telling the public how they are progressing toward their goals and objectives, how New Zealand’s resilience is tracking, and will quantify the impacts of disasters.
Such information will be relevant to a wider international community committed to the seven global targets outlined in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030). New Zealand is one of the 148 countries that have committed to report on their progress toward reaching the global targets, which include significantly reducing mortality and injury caused by disasters, significantly reducing damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, and increased access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments.
The National Disaster Resilience Strategy sets the tone for both the holistic way in which New Zealand is approaching disaster resilience and the commitment to accountability and transparency in the process. It will offer important guidance for local and regional authorities, businesses, and households as they develop their plans to thrive through future disruptions.
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) governs all of our land use and natural resource planning efforts. Aspirations of the community for development, growth, and preservation of natural values are expressed through policies and rules in regional and district planning documents. So, what if the community’s aspiration is to retreat from an area facing increasing risk of inundation from the sea or exacerbated coastal erosion, and purposefully avoid growth and development in this area? Is the RMA up to giving effect to this aspiration?
Research is currently underway to investigate the ability of the RMA to enable managed retreat. Specifically, this research is focused on how the ‘rights’ of existing and established uses can be managed under the RMA to reduce risk. The research team is made up of Emily Grace, a natural hazards planning researcher at GNS Science, Ben France-Hudson, a law lecturer from the University of Otago, and Margaret Kilvington, and independent social researcher based in Lyttleton. The strength of the research is in this combination of disciplines: planning, legal, and social.
Findings to date suggest that, in certain circumstances, the RMA is able to proactively manage existing uses to reduce risk, especially when the community is supportive of the approach taken. However, investigations are currently focusing on an aspect of the RMA and property law that may limit Council options to remove an existing use right and facilitate managed retreat where this does not accord with the community’s wishes.
Investigations into the responsibilities the RMA places on regional and district levels of government are also underway. Generally, the role of regional councils is to manage the natural environment (e.g. water quality and allocation, biodiversity, air quality etc.), while district and city councils are primarily responsible for land use planning (growth and development). However, as an anomaly, the RMA gives regional councils the ability to use rules to manage existing and established land uses in hazard areas, rather than city and district councils. Interviews with city/district and regional council staff are highlighting the barrier this anomaly, and the uncertainty surrounding it, poses. Interviews with unitary authorities suggest that the combined function of these councils (who have both regional and city/district functions) is not enough to overcome the barrier.
Implementation under the RMA is also being considered. Options for rules that proactively manage existing and established uses to reduce risk are being investigated, from requiring raised floor levels when houses are rebuilt following significant flooding events, through to prohibiting residential activities altogether. How consent terms and conditions of consent can be used are also being looked at, as well as what is necessary in the RMA policy hierarchy to achieve an outcome of reduced risk.
The research project is due to conclude in June 2019, with practical guidance for councils on how existing and established uses can currently be managed under the RMA, and suggestions for ways to improve the ability of the system to provide for this function.
Operationalising resilience: A heuristic framework for analysis
By Professor Iain White, Professor Bruce Glavovic, Dr Judy Lawrence and Dr Gail Adams-Hutcheson
The question of how to build the resilience of places and organisations is attracting great interest. However, the term resilience is defined in diverse and contested ways. This raises important questions around how resilience is understood, what it is designed to achieve, and how this may translate into practice. The Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Operationalising Resilience project is examining what kinds of resilience are being delivered in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The concept of resilience encompasses three paths of action – to cope, adapt, or transform. Each of these may be necessary depending on the severity of stresses and shocks and the need for stability or change. Significantly, research shows that each of these objectives puts differing demands on our governance systems, from relatively simple policy changes to more complex and contested public processes that incorporate divergent values and a wide range of possible futures. Because of this, some types of resilience are not just easier to deliver than others, but governance processes and practices may also exert hidden pressures that favour stability outcomes over more challenging transformative measures.
The Operationalising Resilience project aims to use a heuristic framework to address the critical issues of resilience delivery and gauge the effect of governance processes on enabling or inhibiting differing resilience outcomes. Resilience governance is the range of governance interactions that enable society to navigate stresses and shocks in the face of complexity and contestation. It is an ongoing process of public decision-making and action to chart resilience development. The heuristic will help facilitate a distinctive ‘fit-for-purpose’ approach to resilience outcomes, helping us match and understand governance interactions to the types of problem faced, given the interplay of facts and values and how they shape with resilience outcomes.
The Resilience Governance heuristic shows that fit-for-purpose resilience governance varies according to the type of problem faced. It can be described as:
Absorption: Competitive interactions can resolve simple and uncontested problems; and build absorptive capacity when stresses and shocks are mild and maintaining stability is the focus, e.g., private car insurance.
State-led adaptation: Authoritarian interactions can address uncontested but technically complex problems; and build state-led absorptive capacity when stresses and shocks are moderate to severe, and maintaining stability or incremental change is required. An example is state-led relocation of people facing imminent danger due to a significant natural hazard.
Network-based adaptation: Collaborative interactions can resolve relatively simple but politically contested problems; and build network-based adaptive capacity when stresses and shocks are mild to moderate, and flexibility and change are necessary. Collaborative planning processes to improve water resource management is a salient example.
Transformation: Emancipatory interactions can address deeply complex and contested problems; and build transformative capacity when stresses and shocks are severe and systems require or undergo systemic change. Conventional modes of governance, and associated problem-solving approaches, are ill-equipped to deal with wicked problems. Governance innovations are therefore necessary, e.g., to transition from unsustainable fossil fuel dependency to climate resilient development pathways.
The heuristic can be used to examine what kind of governance interaction and associated decision-making responses might be best suited to address the resilience problem faced. In so doing, the links between resilience strategy, project goals and issues of concern can be critically reflected upon and addressed in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner.
The first phase of the Operationalising Resilience project looked at capturing a range of resilience policies, plans and projects that have been initiated across Aotearoa by focusing on strategies relating to Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities in Wellington and Christchurch. This phase soon uncovered some pressing problems. First, many projects lacked a clear definition of what resilience is or might look like, consistent with the findings of the C2C Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing Network. Second, as existing institutions (Councils, government agencies, housing developers, community organisations) are designing the projects, there was a noticeable focus on creating data/indicators for monitoring risk. This, however, had the effect of steering projects down existing institutional structures/pathways and so we can see a focus on resilience as absorption over other forms of resilience. Third, the balance of the portfolio of responses tended towards economic objectives, such as with regard to business continuity or self-sufficiency to ‘cope’.
Some of the things we learned by tabling Wellington and Christchurch projects were:
This work helps us look across the portfolio of resilience projects and understand who is privileged in policy more than others.
Christchurch and Wellington resilience projects are a mix of initiatives that evolve over time, including projects centred on risk acceptance and management, adaptation, resilience building and recovery.
The second phase of the Operationalising Resilience project responds to and builds upon the outcomes of the scoping phase. Interviews will be conducted with governance actors from government, tangata whenua, civil society, the private sector, science, local and indigenous knowledge holders and media – including project proponents, stakeholders and other relevant governance actors and key informants. This will help us better understand how problems are framed, by whom, and the influences of governance networks on the types of resilience we are delivering, and what aspects of resilience governance need more attention. By analysing the impact of the ways we make decisions and the dimension of resilience we are focusing on, we can better match the most appropriate response to the type of problem being addressed.
Corridor Forums: Working together for a more resilient transport network
By Dr Vivienne Ivory
How can we make decisions affecting the long-term resilience of our transport network when key players are siloed into regions, modes, and organisations and the future is uncertain? Multi-modal, multi-regional ‘Corridor Forums’ are being piloted as a governance tool to increase New Zealand’s capacity to adapt and potentially transform our transport infrastructure to be more resilient to the many shocks and stresses ahead of us.
Moving people and goods around New Zealand requires infrastructure that crosses regional boundaries, uses multiple modes (sea and air transport, as well as land), and includes public and private organisations. The decisions we make in this area will affect our communities long into the future. Despite this, our systems analysis of the transport infrastructure networks following November 2016 Kaikōura earthquakes identified silos of information and decision-making that may ultimately hinder resilience efforts. Adding to this, transport decisions tend to favour the repair and protection of existing infrastructure rather than adapting for future shocks and stresses.
Given the network nature of transport infrastructure, it is not surprising that making long-term decisions about change is challenging. Natural hazard events amplify this challenge, so it is important that we develop the capacity to make decisions before a crisis, rather than be forced to make them during one. Knowing there is uncertainty about future technology and social and economic changes, transport stakeholders have identified the value in developing the networks and ‘practising’ making difficult decisions. And doing so before shocks occur. The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum is a pilot to trial a multi-modal, multi-regional forum as a governance tool. It will bring together players from across a transport system that includes public and private organisations, and local and national interests. The pilot is a collaboration between the Governance, Infrastructure and Economics Toolboxes of the Resilience Challenge.
Corridor Forums are being used in the European Union to bring together interests and expertise from diverse stakeholders across countries seeking to develop and improve the performance of the corridor (transport network in a given area) over the long-term. Benefits include removing information silos, establishing effective relationships that ‘bridge’ organisations before crises, and capacity building to think strategically about future challenges.
The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum pilot is a series of four facilitated structured workshops based in Whanganui. It is being attended by decision-makers from across regional and national-level bodies, bringing transport operators alongside users (e.g., freight, tourism, community, civil defence) and investors (e.g., policy makers, regional authorities). The corridor is of national significance, has road, rail, air and shipping ports, and is exposed to multiple natural hazards. Challenges being addressed include the significant changes transport is undergoing with both social and technological disruptions changing how people and goods move around, and what that might mean for how we plan for natural hazards (known and emerging).
Two aspects of this pilot study are particularly novel. The first is in bringing together people and organizations from across the transport system, an initiative often acknowledged, but less frequently practiced in resilience governance. Not only do the workshops bring together transport investors and operators, they also include the users such as tourism and freight. These users are not always involved in decision-making conversations, yet can provide invaluable insights into an area’s strengths and vulnerabilities and values. Including such a range of local participants will result in a wealth of local and national knowledge and technical expertise present at each workshop, as well as varied perspectives on future management prioritisation.
The second novel aspect if this research is in its use of foresight techniques. The Forum uses hypothetical crisis examples (rather than existing known threats) developed using foresight techniques and state of the art hazard scenario processes so participants can experience working with uncertainty and different values and priorities. We are also using foresight thinking techniques to ‘stretch’ people’s imagination about what our transport and wider society could be like in the future (such as with demographic and technological change), and how that interacts with the known sources of shocks (such as floods) as well as the less certain stresses from forces such as climate change.
The combination of these two innovative approaches will provide participants with the opportunity to share local and technical knowledge and perspectives about the corridor vulnerabilities and strengths, as well as what counts as a ‘severe’ shock, how ‘good’ decisions get made, and ultimately what matters the most. The Forum is very much about developing capacity to have challenging conversations about the uncertainties we face and our collective understanding of risk and resilience.
Following the pilot completion in early 2019, lessons will be gathered for the value of corridor forums for New Zealand’s transport infrastructure, including the opportunities and governance arrangements for ongoing forums.
The Manawatu – Whanganui – Taranaki Corridor Forum pilot provides transport stakeholders with the opportunity to
establish system-wide relationships prior to a major shock or stress event
encourage more adaptive and transformative thinking about the future
practice making decisions where there is uncertainty, where there is conflict
work towards future focused solutions to challenging problems and the implementation pathways to achieve them
Multi-modal, multi-regional Corridor Forums can complement existing collaborative initiatives within regions and/or modes, and hazard-based scenario exercises, by developing a broader capacity and appetite to work together across the transport system. In New Zealand, we think they can allow us to collectively consider natural hazards in our future thinking, and thus make informed decisions about how we plan for and manage our transport networks going forward.