Research Engagement after Disasters: Research Coordination before, during, and after the 2011–2012 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand

This article argues that active coordination of research engagement after disasters has the potential to maximize research opportunities, improve research quality, increase end-user engagement, and manage escalating research activity to mitigate the ethical risks posed to impacted populations. We focus on the coordination of research activity after the 22 February 2011 Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake by the then newly formed national research consortium, the Natural Hazards Research Platform, which included a social science research moratorium during the declared state of national emergency. Decisions defining this organization's functional and structural parameters are analyzed to identify lessons concerning the need for systematic approaches to the management of post-disaster research, in collaboration with the response effort. Other lessons include the importance of involving an existing, broadly based research consortium, ensuring that this consortium's coordination role is fully integrated into emergency management structures, and ensuring that all aspects of decision-making processes are transparent and easily accessed.

[1]  Bartel Van de Walle,et al.  Decision support for emergency situations , 2008, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[2]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Nick Rogers,et al.  Geotechnical Aspects of Disaster Recovery Planning in Residential Christchurch and Surrounding Districts Affected by Liquefaction , 2014 .

[4]  Suzanne Wilkinson,et al.  Organizational Networks and Recovery following the Canterbury Earthquakes , 2013 .

[5]  Pilar Villamor,et al.  Surface rupture during the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: Implications for fault rupture dynamics and seismic-hazard analysis , 2012 .

[6]  Giandomenico Majone,et al.  The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications , 1985 .

[7]  E. McNie Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature , 2007 .

[8]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE , 2011 .

[9]  Sarb Johal,et al.  Insurance: Its Role in Recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence , 2014 .

[10]  Thomas A. Birkland,et al.  Disasters, Lessons Learned, and Fantasy Documents , 2009 .

[11]  P. Albrito Local level implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 , 2017, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.

[12]  Dale Dominey-Howes,et al.  Process, practice and priorities – key lessons learnt undertaking sensitive social reconnaissance research as part of an (UNESCO-IOC) international tsunami survey team , 2011 .

[13]  C. Brun A geographers’ imperative? Research and action in the aftermath of disaster , 2009 .

[14]  Aasim Ahmad,et al.  Ethical Issues in Post-Disaster Clinical Interventions and Research: A Developing World Perspective. Key Findings from a Drafting and Consensus Generation Meeting of the Working Group on Disaster Research and Ethics (WGDRE) 2007 , 2011 .

[15]  Richard Black,et al.  Ethical codes in humanitarian emergencies: from practice to research? , 2003, Disasters.

[16]  David W. Cash,et al.  Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes , 2000 .

[17]  T. Birkland Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting , 1998, Journal of Public Policy.

[18]  Erica Seville,et al.  Urban Disaster Recovery in Christchurch: The Central Business District Cordon and Other Critical Decisions , 2014 .

[19]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations , 2007 .

[20]  B. Pfefferbaum,et al.  Ethical and Methodological Issues in Academic Mental Health Research in Populations Affected by Disasters: The Oklahoma City Experience Relevant to September 11, 2001 , 2002, CNS Spectrums.

[21]  Peter Gluckman,et al.  Policy: The art of science advice to government , 2014, Nature.

[22]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Ground Motion and Seismic Source Aspects of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence , 2014 .

[23]  Laurie A. Johnson,et al.  Transforming Governance: How National Policies and Organizations for Managing Disaster Recovery Evolved following the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes , 2014 .

[24]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury , 2014, Natural Hazards.

[25]  Ernest P. Schloss A dynamic framework for planning under simple, complicated, and complex conditions , 2014 .

[26]  R. Few,et al.  Societal impacts of natural hazards: A review of international research funding , 2011 .

[27]  Sanjay Jain,et al.  Editors' Introduction , 2005, ALT.

[28]  A. Sumathipala,et al.  Research and clinical ethics after the tsunami: Sri Lanka , 2005, The Lancet.

[29]  J. D. Bray,et al.  Assessment of Liquefaction-Induced Land Damage for Residential Christchurch , 2014 .

[30]  Stefan Verweij,et al.  Institutional Interventions In Complex Urban Systems: Coping With Boundary Issues In Urban Planning Projects , 2014 .

[31]  CounTry AssessmenT Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands , 2010 .

[32]  P. Helm,et al.  Integrated risk management for natural and technological disasters , 1996 .

[33]  Beatrice Crona,et al.  On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university , 2012 .

[34]  G. Quick A paradigm for multidisciplinary disaster research: the Oklahoma City experience. , 1998, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[35]  G. Skogstad Who Governs? Who Should Govern?: Political Authority and Legitimacy in Canada in the Twenty-First Century , 2003, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[36]  S. Hove,et al.  Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces , 2014 .