Transformations for Resilient Rural Futures: The Case of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand

Abstract

On 14 November 2016, a magnitude (M w ) 7.8 earthquake struck the small coastal settlement of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand. With an economy based on tourism, agriculture, and fishing, Kaikōura was immediately faced with significant logistical, economic, and social challenges caused by damage to critical infrastructure and lifelines, essential to its main industries. Massive landslips cut off road and rail access, stranding hundreds of tourists, and halting the collection, processing and distribution of agricultural products. At the coast, the seabed rose two metres, limiting harbour-access to high tide, with implications for whale watching tours and commercial fisheries. Throughout the region there was significant damage to homes, businesses, and farmland, leaving owners and residents facing an uncertain future. This paper uses qualitative case study analysis to explore post-quake transformations in a rural context. The aim is to gain insight into the distinctive dynamics of disaster response mechanisms, focusing on two initiatives that have emerged in direct response to the disaster. The first examines the ways in which agriculture, food harvesting, production and distribution are being reimagined with the potential to enhance regional food security. The second examines the rescaling of power in decision-making processes following the disaster, specifically examining the ways in which rural actors are leveraging networks to meet their needs and the consequences of that repositioning on rural (and national) governance arrangements. In these and other ways, the local economy is being revitalised, and regional resilience enhanced through diversification, capitalising not on the disaster but the region's natural, social, and cultural capital. Drawing on insights and experience of local stakeholders, policy-and decision-makers, and community representatives we highlight the diverse ways in which these endeavours are an attempt to create something new, revealing also the barriers which needed to be overcome to reshape local livelihoods. Results reveal that the process of transformation as part of rural recovery must be grounded in the lived reality of local residents and their understanding of place, incorporating and building on regional social, environmental, and economic characteristics. In this, the need to respond rapidly to realise opportunities must be balanced with the community-centric approach, with greater recognition given to the contested nature of the decisions to be made. Insights from the case examples can inform preparedness and recovery planning elsewhere, and provide a rich, real-time example of the ways in which disasters can create opportunities for reimagining resilient futures.

Food for People in Place: Reimagining Resilient Food Systems for Economic Recovery

“…Montana was thus able to keep staff employed, and food was able to be distributed to those who needed it through the volunteer service's existing community networks. This example reflects other actions taken after natural disasters in New Zealand where infrastructure and labour within the for-profit market was quickly adapted through public funding and relationships to address community food insecurity and response [51].…”

Transformation Is ‘Experienced, Not Delivered’: Insights from Grounding the Discourse in Practice to Inform Policy and Theory

“…Figure 1 builds on social practice theory to represent some of the key insights of our research. Its purpose is to generate discussion on the role of science and research in transformation and to think about the potential interactions between decision-makers and researchers in building "transformational capacity" [62,63] (p. 1) through practice [65]; see also [86].…”

“…It was identified at our workshop that who and what influences practices extends well beyond individuals that directly use land and water, to policy-makers and the institutions that structure how land and water are managed and used through, for example, council planning schemes, licences, regulations, infrastructure, trade agreements, and international branding (see also [86]). The perspectives we collated on transformation can be used with social practice theory to significantly widen the field of vision on what and who influences (intentionally or not) what happens on land and in water (see Figure 1).…”

Reviewing qualitative research approaches in the context of critical infrastructure resilience

“…At a management level, this result calls for a reconsideration of the connection between schools’ evacuation plans and cities’ civil protection plans (Bandecchi et al 2019 ). Risk awareness and learning-oriented approach are essential for communities who face natural hazards continuously, and have to deal with improvised means (Mavhura 2017 ; Cradock-Henry et al 2018 ). As an example, a research on the Appalachian community proved their resilience based on faith and spirituality, cultural values and heritage, and social support despite stressors like poverty, rural isolation, low educational level (Banks et al 2016 ).…”

“…From a different threat, Cradock-Henry et al ( 2018 ) analyse the emergence of new networks, agents, and institutions after the 2016 earthquake, for the small coastal settlement of Kaikōura in New Zealand. The paper utilises a qualitative method based on 12 semi-structured interviews and two focus groups, supported by literature review and document analysis.…”