Consider the following questions and share your response with your peers:
- What are some of the issues that would have come from the lack of a standardised approach to response or recovery in the Canterbury earthquake context?
The issues that arose due to a lack of a standardised approach to response and recovery in the Christchurch Earthquake include:
The lack of a clear direction and leadership, leading to confusion and a lack of coordination.
The abandonment of the standard model resulting increased costs and delays, then a huge backwards step when the original model was reinstated.
The tendency of people to want to do business as usual increased the risks and caused delays.
The lack of standardisation would have caused communication breakdowns, disputes and delays.
The lack of a clear direction and leadership, leading to confusion and a lack of coordination.
The abandonment of the standard model resulting increased costs and delays, then a huge backwards step when the original model was reinstated.
The tendency of people to want to do business as usual increased the risks and caused delays.
The lack of standardisation would have caused communication breakdowns, disputes and delays.
With the lack of a standardized approach to the response and recovery would have meant different organizations doing different things that could unnecessarily duplicate efforts. It would have caused delays in getting things done when it was unclear who was responsible. With the community not fully prepared for the consequences of the earthquake there was more confusion and reluctance to being told they would not be allowed back to their properties. This would have also been compounded by the lack of a consistent message, or delays in getting this to the communities.
I think the lack of a standardised approach to the recovery led to:
A loss of confidence in the whole system by the Minister.
This led to a new structure put in place that then undermined all of the agencies involved in the recovery - especially after September.
Then of course, the Minister knew best model didn't work either, and the return to the standard model increased delay, increased costs, and created a community that had things done to them rather than things done with them.
Examples of this, include the mass demolition of historic buildings in late 2010 and early 2011, including the public viewing of the demolitions and potential exposure to asbestos..., the botched reorganisation of the schooling system, including allocating colour dots to the name tags of the school leaders attending the meeting and those of you with red dots, your school is closing etc
Again, too much of the recovery was managed from Wellington creating an us and them situation
And the ability to communicate effectively was removed.
On top of that, rapid changes and developments such as the removal of chimneys and the push to cleaner fuel was possibly too much change for people in a state of shock, sleep deprived due to after shocks, and limited professional intervention to mental health recovery - especially for young children and teenagers.
At the same time, the dismantling of long-term communities undermined social cohesion, social networks and the informal support networks that many people would have used. The lack of community facilities to come together and recharge all compounded and reduced an effective recovery.
A loss of confidence in the whole system by the Minister.
This led to a new structure put in place that then undermined all of the agencies involved in the recovery - especially after September.
Then of course, the Minister knew best model didn't work either, and the return to the standard model increased delay, increased costs, and created a community that had things done to them rather than things done with them.
Examples of this, include the mass demolition of historic buildings in late 2010 and early 2011, including the public viewing of the demolitions and potential exposure to asbestos..., the botched reorganisation of the schooling system, including allocating colour dots to the name tags of the school leaders attending the meeting and those of you with red dots, your school is closing etc
Again, too much of the recovery was managed from Wellington creating an us and them situation
And the ability to communicate effectively was removed.
On top of that, rapid changes and developments such as the removal of chimneys and the push to cleaner fuel was possibly too much change for people in a state of shock, sleep deprived due to after shocks, and limited professional intervention to mental health recovery - especially for young children and teenagers.
At the same time, the dismantling of long-term communities undermined social cohesion, social networks and the informal support networks that many people would have used. The lack of community facilities to come together and recharge all compounded and reduced an effective recovery.
I agree with Gary's comment "With the lack of a standardized approach to the response and recovery would have meant different organizations doing different things that could unnecessarily duplicate efforts" this lead to some people getting help and others not getting as much as they needed, sometimes wasting time and resources.
A standardised approach could have saved the trauma of the break up of communities and the way the handling of school closures was dealt with.
A standardised approach would have ensure all staff and volunteers in welfare centers were offering the same support, services etc. Now there is a standardised training across the region.
It must have been confusing having three models in such a short time for people to know what was happening, who ease doing what, who was responsible for what, where things were going.
A standardised approach would have meant the same level of service was provided across the area in such things as professionalism of insurance inspectors.
A standardised approach might have meant a more efficient response and recovery was delivered for each after shock so their was cohesion, clarity and possibly more calmness.
A standardised approach would have seen homes - rebuilds and repairs treated equally and given priority across the region over sporting venues.
A standardised approach would have seen better communication, consistent messages and openness could have prevented issues arises, reduced stress and delays.
A standardised approach could have saved the trauma of the break up of communities and the way the handling of school closures was dealt with.
A standardised approach would have ensure all staff and volunteers in welfare centers were offering the same support, services etc. Now there is a standardised training across the region.
It must have been confusing having three models in such a short time for people to know what was happening, who ease doing what, who was responsible for what, where things were going.
A standardised approach would have meant the same level of service was provided across the area in such things as professionalism of insurance inspectors.
A standardised approach might have meant a more efficient response and recovery was delivered for each after shock so their was cohesion, clarity and possibly more calmness.
A standardised approach would have seen homes - rebuilds and repairs treated equally and given priority across the region over sporting venues.
A standardised approach would have seen better communication, consistent messages and openness could have prevented issues arises, reduced stress and delays.