Content uploaded by Wendy Saunders
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wendy Saunders on Jul 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
GNS Science Report 2014/28
October 2014
Analysis of natural hazard provisions in regional
policy statements, territorial authority plans, and
CDEM Group Plans
W. S. A. Saunders
M. A. Coomer
J. G. Beban
W. S. A. Saunders, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
J. G. Beban, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
M. A. Coomer, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE
Saunders, W. S. A.; Beban, J. G.; Coomer, M. A. 2014. Analysis of natural
hazard provisions in regional policy statements, territorial authority plans, and
CDEM Group Plans, GNS Science Report 2014/28. 72 p.
© Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014
ISSN 1177-2425 (Print)
ISSN 2350-3424 (Online)
ISBN 978-1-927278-52-9
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... VI
KEYWORDS ....................................................................................................................... VII
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES ................................................................................. 3
2.2 ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTS ................................................................................ 3
2.3 VALIDITY .......................................................................................................... 4
2.4 COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 5
2.5 BIAS, LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................. 5
3.0 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 7
3.1 THEME: PLAN DETAILS ................................................................................ 8
Q1. What type of plan is it? ............................................................................... 8
Qs2&4. What is the bibliographic reference for the plan and operative
date?........................................................................................................... 9
Q3. Is there a proposed plan?........................................................................... 9
3.2 THEME: LEGISLATIVE LINKAGES .............................................................. 10
Q122–126 Does the plan link with, or refer to the RMA? CDEM Act? Building
Act? Local Government Act? Land Information Memorandum? ..............10
3.3 THEME: SUSTAINABILITY VS RESILIENCE ............................................... 12
Q5–6. Does the plan discuss/address the need for sustainability or
resilience in a hazard context? .................................................................12
3.4 THEME: HAZARDS....................................................................................... 14
Q11. Does the plan include a definition of a natural hazard? ...........................14
Q11a. Is there a specific hazard chapter/section ................................................14
Q12–14. Does the plan state the natural hazards posing a risk to the area?
Describe the location and boundaries of hazardous areas.
Describe the magnitude of a potential hazard (i.e., intensity and/or
duration). ..................................................................................................15
Q15. Information on previous occurrences? (hazard history) ...........................16
Q16. Description/analysis of separate characteristics of the hazard? ..............16
Q17–23. Does the plan include specific information on earthquakes?
Tsunami? Landslides? Volcanoes? Flooding? Coastal erosion?
Climate change? ......................................................................................16
Q24. What parameters are included for climate change? ................................18
Q25. Does the plan include specific information on any other hazards? ..........18
3.5 THEME: CUMULATIVE AND CASCADING HAZARDS ................................ 20
Q26–27. Are cumulative and cascading hazards discussed? ................................20
GNS Science Report 2014/28 i
3.6 THEME: HAZARD PRIORITISATION AND VULNERABILITIES ................... 22
Q28. Are hazards prioritised in any way? .........................................................22
Q29. Does the plan outline how prioritization has occurred? ...........................22
Q30. Are numbers of people exposed to the hazard
discussed/assessed? ...............................................................................22
Q31. Are vulnerable populations discussed/assessed? ...................................22
Q32. Are vulnerable facilities discussed/assessed? .........................................23
Q33. Is information on systematic risk assessments included in the
plan? .........................................................................................................23
Q34. What is the nature of those risk assessments?........................................23
3.7 THEME: OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, RULES ................................................. 24
Q47–54. Does the plan have objectives regarding all hazards? Is there a
specific objective for Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide? Volcano?
Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change? .........................................24
Q55. Is there a specific objective for any other hazard? ...................................26
Q56. Does the plan promote having an awareness or knowledge of
hazards? ...................................................................................................27
Q57. Does the plan have policies regarding all hazards? Does the plan
include specific policies for Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide?
Volcano? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change? .........................27
Q65. Does the plan include specific policies for other hazards? ......................29
Q67–73. Does the plan include specific rules for Active faults? Tsunami?
Landslide? Volcano? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change? .......29
Q74. Does the plan include specific rules for other hazards? ..........................31
Q103. Is there a table (or similar) showing how objectives, policies and/or
rules are related? .....................................................................................32
Q75–76. Are other methods used to address natural hazards? .............................32
Q77. Specify the specific methods ....................................................................33
Q119–120. Are those responsible for implementation included and are their
roles identified? ........................................................................................33
Q121. Does the plan account for cross-boundary issues? .................................34
3.8 THEME: MAPPING ....................................................................................... 34
Q35. Are there any hazards mapped in the plan? ............................................35
Q36–42. Are the following hazards mapped: Active faults? Landslides?
Tsunami inundation extents? Coastal erosion zones? Volcanic
hazards? Flood extents? Climate change hazard? ..................................35
Q43. Are any other hazards mapped? ..............................................................36
Q44. What scale are the hazards mapped at? .................................................36
Q45. Do maps show uncertainty? .....................................................................37
3.9 THEME: ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES ........................... 38
Q78–84. Does the plan include specific anticipated environmental outcomes
for all hazard? Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide? Volcano?
Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change? .........................................38
Q86. Does the plan include specific anticipated environmental outcomes
for other hazards? ....................................................................................39
ii GNS Science Report 2014/28
3.10 THEME: MONITORING ................................................................................. 40
Q106. Does the plan have provision for monitoring of hazards
themselves? .............................................................................................40
Q107–113. Does the plan include monitoring for earthquakes? Tsunami?
Landslide? Volcano? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change? .......41
Q114. Does the plan include monitoring for other hazards? ..............................42
Q115–116. Does the plan make provision for, and identify parties responsible
for, monitoring the effectiveness of provisions in the plan? .....................43
Q117. Does the plan have processes for integrating or updating hazard or
risk information? .......................................................................................44
Q118. Does the plan have processes for reviewing the document and
making changes to hazard objectives, policies, rules, etc.? ....................45
3.11 THEME: RISK ............................................................................................... 46
Q87–88. Does the plan include the term and definition of 'risk'? ............................46
Q90–Q92. Does the plan include the terms 'consequence' and ‘likelihood’? Is
consequence defined? .............................................................................48
Q93. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of an
earthquake? .............................................................................................49
Q94. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a
tsunami? ...................................................................................................50
Q95. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a
landslide? .................................................................................................51
Q96. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a
volcanic eruption? ....................................................................................52
Q97. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a
flood? ........................................................................................................53
Q98. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of
coastal erosion? .......................................................................................54
Q99. Does the plan address the effect of climate change on the risks of
climate change? .......................................................................................55
Q100. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of any
other hazards? .........................................................................................57
Q101. Does the plan address residual risk? .......................................................57
Q102. Does the plan refer to a risk-based approach? ........................................57
3.12 THEME: THE 4 R’S ....................................................................................... 58
Q7. Does the plan discuss/address risk reduction and/or mitigation? ............59
Qs 8, 9, 10. Does the plan discuss/address Readiness? Response? Recovery? ......60
4.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................ 61
5.0 FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 63
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... 65
7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 65
GNS Science Report 2014/28 iii
FIGURES
Figure 1 Framework for project, linking mandate, plan quality, capacity, capability, context, and
influences (Saunders & Ruske, 2014, p. 3). ................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Reference to or links between plans and legislation. .................................................................. 11
Figure 3 Sustainability and resilience as discussed in the various plans. ................................................. 13
Figure 4 The various plans recognition of hazard relevance, location and magnitude. ............................ 15
Figure 5 The various plans recognition of specific hazard information for a variety of natural hazards. .......... 17
Figure 6 The identification of cumulative and cascading hazards within the various plan types. .............. 20
Figure 7 The identification of objectives for all hazards and specific hazards within the various
plan types. .................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 8 The identification of policies for all hazards and specific hazards within the various plan types ........ 28
Figure 9 The identification of hazard specific rules within the various plan types ..................................... 30
Figure 10 The identification of the plans with relationships between objectives, policies and rules. .......... 32
Figure 11 The mapping of hazards within the various council plans........................................................... 35
Figure 12 The identification of the specific Anticipated Environmental Outcomes with the various
council plans. .............................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 13 The identification of hazard monitoring provisions within the various council plans. .................. 41
Figure 14 The identification of specific monitoring provisions relative to specific natural hazards for
the various council plans. ........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 15 The effectiveness of monitoring provisions for natural hazards, and the identification of
the parties responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of natural hazards, for the
various council plans. ................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 16 The percentage of the various council plans which identify the process for integrating or
updating hazard and risk information. ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 17 The percentage of documents that identified the process for making changes to their
respective hazard content. ......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 18 The percentage of plans that include the term risk and provide a definition of risk. ................... 46
Figure 19 The percentage of plans that include the terms consequences and likelihood. .......................... 48
Figure 20 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from an earthquake. ................................................................ 49
Figure 21 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from a tsunami. ........................................................................ 50
Figure 22 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from a landslide. ...................................................................... 51
Figure 23 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from a volcanic eruption. ......................................................... 52
Figure 24 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from a flood. ............................................................................. 53
Figure 25 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from coastal erosion. ............................................................... 54
Figure 26 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the
consequences and likelihood of from climate change. ............................................................... 55
Figure 27 The percentage of plans that include risk reduction, mitigation, and both risk reduction
and mitigation. ............................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 28 The percentage of plans that discuss readiness, response and recovery. ................................. 60
iv GNS Science Report 2014/28
TABLES
Table 3.1 Breakdown of the types of operative plans assessed. .................................................................. 8
Table 3.2 Purposes of the RMA, Building Act, CDEM Act and LGA. .......................................................... 10
Table 3.3 Hazards identified in one or more of the relevant plans (number indicates frequency). ............. 19
Table 3.4 Other specific hazard identified in one or more district plan or RPS (number indicates
frequency). ................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 3.5 Other specific hazard policies identified in one or more district plan or RPS (number
indicates frequency) ................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3.6 Other hazards monitored in one or more of the various council plans (number indicates
frequency). ................................................................................................................................. 42
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Q4. WHAT IS THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE FOR THE PLAN
AND OPERATIVE DATE (Q2)? .................................................................. 69
GNS Science Report 2014/28 v
ABSTRACT
There is currently a heightened awareness of natural hazards in New Zealand, which is
reflected in the Government identifying that the Resource Management Act 1991 requires
several changes to better recognise natural hazards and their associated risk. This includes
prioritising natural hazard risk as a matter of national importance. It is therefore timely to
assess how natural hazard provisions are currently incorporated into regional policy
statements, territorial land use plans, and civil defence emergency management group plans.
This report provides an analysis of the data collected in Saunders & Ruske (2014) from plans
representing 94 authorities (11 regional councils, 67 territorial authorities (i.e., unitary, city
and district), and 16 Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups). This is the first study
that examines every regional policy statement, territorial authority plan and CDEM Group
plan in the New Zealand, with a total of 99 plans being assessed.
From the analysis presented, the following key findings and implications for natural hazard
planning are listed:
• CDEM plans appear to have better linkages to the legislation, monitoring provisions,
and hazard and risk information. To achieve effective risk reduction, we encourage that
these linkages are included within district plans and RPS’s. This will ensure a
consistency of approach and strengthen provisions between plans. Therefore, it is
extremely important that regional and district policy and consent planners discuss
natural hazard provisions and consent questions with their emergency management
team. Emergency managers may also benefit from discussing how their plans can be
better integrated into RPS’s and district plans.
• A high percentage of district plans contain all-hazard objectives, policies and
anticipated environmental outcomes, but several low likelihood/high consequence
hazards (volcanic and tsunami in particular) have very few rules.
• There is a strong bias within district plans and RPS’s towards flooding and landslide
hazards. This may be attributable to these being high likelihood hazards.
• District plans lead the mapping of natural hazards, with flood extents being mapped
most often. However, a wide range of scales, both ratio and ruler format, exist. Some
plans do not include scales, and this undermines their accuracy and practical use.
• For earthquake, 37.7% of the district plans had specific rules pertaining to active faults.
Given the tectonic environment of New Zealand, this suggests that there is a large
under representation of active fault rules within the district plans.
• Many plans only consider single hazard events, and not the subsequent hazards that
may occur from that single event. Further awareness and inclusion of cumulative
hazards should be made in the future.
• Only 68.8% of the RPS’s identified the parties responsible for implementing the
relevant provisions of this document. If RPS’s do not identify the parties’ responsibility,
there is a risk that no party will implement provisions, resulting in the outcomes
identified in the RPS not being achieved.
vi GNS Science Report 2014/28
• Overall, RPS’s and district plans rarely include monitoring provisions, with flood the
highest ranked monitored hazard amongst regional councils at 50%. Coastal erosion
and flooding (both at 27.5%) are the two hazards that include the highest frequency of
monitoring provisions within district plans, with tsunami and volcano monitoring the
least monitored hazards (both at 1.4%). There is also a lack of clarity around who is
responsible for monitoring, which could lead to some monitoring not being undertaken.
• Very few district plans (10.1%) and no RPS’s have a clear process for the inclusion of
new or updated hazard or risk information. This may lead to a considerable risk that a
council may not act on new information, and inappropriate development could continue.
• While nearly all plans include the term ‘risk’, it is often not defined. When it is defined,
there is no standard definition used, but there are common themes of likelihood (i.e.,
probability) and consequences (i.e., damage, potential effects). It is recommended that
the term ‘risk’ is defined if legislated within the RMA (as natural hazards are defined), to
ensure a consistent approach to assessing consequences.
The analysis untaken has been limited in scope, in that it has focused on comparisons
between the three types of plans. There is an opportunity in the future to undertake further
data mining within the data collected for this project, in order to analyse specific natural
hazard provisions within – and across – plans.
KEYWORDS
Regional policy statements; territorial authority plans; district plans; CDEM Group plans;
natural hazard provisions; content analysis.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In March 2014, a report was produced which presented the data from a review of every
district plan, unitary plan, regional policy statement (RPS) and civil defence emergency
management (CDEM) plan in New Zealand (Saunders & Ruske, 2014). Building on that
project, this report analyses the data in Saunders & Ruske (2014) and the implications of the
results outlined. Both reports present a baseline of the natural hazard provisions as they
stood at December 2013/January 2014 for New Zealand’s key local government planning
and civil defence and emergency management documents and policies.
This report forms the second stage of the first part of a four part project, as shown in
Figure 1. The purpose of the project is to assist in answering the question: How is the
purpose of the RMA being achieved for natural hazards? Based on the Stage 1 Saunders
and Ruske (2014) data report, this report presents the analysis of the tabulated data results,
which are provided in Section 3. This analysis will allow for the identification of potential gaps
in the management of natural hazards within the New Zealand planning framework.
Following the analyses is a final section summarising the key findings and implications.
The analysis is ordered into 11 themes:
1. Plan details;
2. Legislative linkages;
3. Sustainability versus resilience;
4. Hazard;
5. Hazard prioritisation and vulnerability;
6. Objectives, policies and rules;
7. Mapping;
8. Anticipated environmental outcomes;
9. Monitoring and review;
10. Risk; and
11. The 4 R’s (Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery).
The objective of Part 2 is to determine best practice in local government plans in assessing
and managing natural hazards to meet the purpose of the RMA. This will be achieved by
identifying and analysing 10 plans (i.e., 2 x RPS, 3 x district plans, 3 x proposed district
plans, 2 x unitary plans) for examples of good planning practice with regard to natural
hazards.
Part 3 will involve an analysis of councils’ capability and capacity, in order to determine how
a national instrument (e.g., National Policy Statement (NPS) or National Environmental
Standard (NES)) could be developed, if it were deemed necessary, to meet the needs of
councils, while meeting the purpose of the RMA.
Part 4 will be integrating the findings from Parts 1–3 into a comprehensive report that
provides an overview of the state of land use planning for natural hazards.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This study involves analysing the data presented in Saunders & Ruske (2014), to assess
how natural hazards are being acknowledged and provided for within RPS’s, TA (district, city
and unitary plans), and CDEM group plans. This analysis also explores the relationships
between the plans and whether there is a consistent approach undertaken to the
management of natural hazards within New Zealand’s planning and emergency management
policy framework. In total, 99 documents were reviewed, which equates to 100% of all
operative district, RPS and CDEM plans. The following sections provide an overview of the
methodology used to analyse the Saunders & Ruske (2014) data.
2.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Two types of qualitative and quantitative analysis have been undertaken in this report, often
in combination:
1. Primarily descriptive, where the frequency of certain elements are counted and
compared with other elements (Sarantakos, 1998), e.g., to give percentages; and
2. To a lesser extent, contingency, a semantic communication analysis to make
inferences from the text (Sarantakos, 1998), e.g., specific policy wording.
To undertake the analysis, the following techniques were employed:
• Summarising the inferences from the three types of plans assessed, so that they are
easily understood and interpreted; and
• Assessing patterns and relationships within findings based on the questions asked
(Krippendorff, 2013).
In undertaking these two techniques, counts and cross tabulation of the data were the
primary methods.
Due to the large amount of data produced in the assessment of district plans, RPS’s and
CDEM plans (i.e., 127 questions of 99 plans equates to approximately 12,573 answers),
counting is a common technique to reduce high volume data into something more
manageable, yet still comprehensible. Counting is justified only when the resulting frequency
means something, can somehow be related to what a body of text means in the chosen
context, or whether it leads to answering a research question (Krippendorff, 2013). In this
project, counting is justified as the results are comparative and answer specific questions.
In some instances, the cross-tabulation of data was used to assess the frequency of several
variables.
2.2 ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCTS
A key part of analysis is the role of analytical constructs. According to Krippendorff
(2013, p. 170):
An analytical construct accounts for what the content analyst knows, suspects, or
assumes about the context of the text, and it operationalises that presumption
procedurally in order to produce inferences from that text.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 3
An analytical construct can also be described as a collection of ‘if-then’ statements that
define at least one path from available data and/or text to the answers sort (Krippendorff,
2013). If reliably executed, analytical constructs warrant the intended inferences, in that they
guide the analyst along a logical path. However, such inferences must be backed by
knowledge of the context of the analysed texts, to assure the analyst that the path leads to
valid conclusions (Krippendorff, 2013).
Analytical constructs are relevant for this project, as they rely on sources of certainty for the
analytical procedures, including:
• Expert knowledge and experience with a context (i.e., land use planning for natural
hazards), to argue for structural correspondences between the construct and the
context. In this case, the authors of this report have levels of expert knowledge, from 3
to 10 years in natural hazard planning; and
• Embodied practices, from a context (i.e., land use planning for natural hazards), to
argue for the representative nature of the inferences obtained from these practices.
As highlighted above, context is important to inferences. Therefore in the analysis presented,
themes have a contextual explanation as to why the theme is important and/or relevant.
Once texts have been recorded and analytical constructs applied, analytical techniques are
employed to represent results, as discussed in the following subsection.
2.3 VALIDITY
Validation provides the justification for accepting results as ‘true’. There are many types of
validity, however for this project the following three are acknowledged (Krippendorff, 2013):
1. Face validity – findings are accepted based on their ‘face’ value; because they make
sense and are believable.
2. Social validity – findings are accepted on account of their contribution to the public
discussion of important social concerns.
3. Empirical validity – the degree to which available evidence and established theory
support various stages of the research process and its results.
Of these three, empirical validity is considered the primary focus, to ensure that the results
are robust and transparent; only then can the results have face and social validity for
councils and policy makers. The initial data gathering process was undertaken using robust
methodologies outlined in Saunders & Ruske (2014), with coder accuracy being within the
acceptable limits of 30% (i.e., discrepancies ranged from 6 to 15.6%).
As the project involved assessing ALL operative plans, there is a 100% inference accuracy
(e.g., if only 30% of plans were assessed, inferences made to the remaining 70% of plans
could be inaccurate). The confidence levels are therefore high, particularly with the robust
methodology that was used. However, for some questions there are a small number of coder
inaccuracies (as acknowledged above), which may affect the statistical accuracy of some
results.
4 GNS Science Report 2014/28
2.4 COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS
The data was managed and queried using SPSS, a social science statistical software
package. Data was originally presented in raw tables (see Saunders & Ruske, 2014), and
then queried, graphed, and analysed.
2.5 BIAS, LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following points are acknowledged with regard to author bias, limitations of analysis, and
opportunities for future analysis.
• The authors of this report have pre-determined knowledge of the subject area. This
could be a benefit, but could also lead to bias in interpretation of data. To ensure this
knowledge has not biased any results or discussion, references have been used to
justify positions, and evidence was based on the data discussed.
• As this analysis is descriptive in nature, there is a limited level of statistical analysis.
However, this does provide an opportunity for further analysis to be undertaken. There
has also been limited cross tabulation of data and individual plan analysis, which is
recommended to be undertaken in the future.
• The data collected was from operative plans only. Proposed plans, plan changes or
rolling reviews were not considered as they were still subject to the consultation
process under the Resource Management Act 1991, and therefore subject to change
as a result of submissions and the hearing process. Furthermore, the scope of the
project and budget constraints meant that proposed plans, plan changes, and rolling
reviews were not included.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.0 ANALYSIS
This section will outline the descriptive analysis of the data presented in Saunders & Ruske
(2014). The analysis is based on the following themes, with relevant questions and numbers
included to allow for cross referencing to the data report. This format has resulted in some
questions not being in numerical order, and not all questions from the data report have been
included in this analysis. Certain questions have been excluded due to their similarity with
other questions, and their relevance. The exclusion of these questions does not affect the
analysis results or discussion within this report.
The 11 themes are:
1. Plan details;
2. Legislative linkages;
3. Sustainability versus resilience;
4. Hazard;
5. Hazard prioritisation and vulnerability;
6. Objectives, policies and rules;
7. Mapping;
8. Anticipated environmental outcomes;
9. Monitoring and review;
10. Risk; and
11. The 4 R’s (Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery).
This report does not analyse, identify (i.e., name), or investigate detailed information for
individual plans, for a number of reasons including:
• The data collected did not allow for detailed analysis of specific objectives, policies or
rules;
• The next stage of the project looks at plans that promote good practice in regards to
planning for natural hazards;
• The detailed analysis of individual plans was beyond the scope of this report; and
• The intent of this report was not to highlight individual councils that are undertaking
planning for natural hazards well or are poorly planning for natural hazards. This report
provides a descriptive analysis of the data presented in Saunders & Ruske (2014), and
provides a broad overview of the state of planning for natural hazards within
New Zealand.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 7
3.1 THEME: PLAN DETAILS
Q1. What type of plan is it?
Three types of plans were assessed: district plans (including city plans equated to 62 plans;
plus seven unitary plans), regional policy statements (RPS’s), and civil defence emergency
management group plans (CDEM plans).
Table 3.1 shows the breakdown (i.e., number and percentage) of the types of operative plans
assessed, which form the basis of this analysis.
Table 3.1 Breakdown of the types of operative plans assessed.
Count
Table N %
District/City/Unitary 69 69.7
RPS 16 16.2
CDEM Group 14 14.1
Total 99 100.0
District plans
Under the provisions of the RMA, district plans contain provisions governing the use of land
within the district. A district plan is required to state (section 75(1)):
• The objectives for the district
• Policies to implement the objectives
• Rules, if any, to be used to implement the policies
A district plan may also state (section 75(2):
• The significant resource management issues of the district
• Methods, other than rules, for implementing the policies
• Principle reasons for adopting the policies and methods
• Environmental results anticipated
• Procedures for monitoring
• Processes to deal with cross boundary issues
• The information to be submitted with an application for a resource consent
Documents, such as standards, design guides, and technical material, can be incorporated
into district plans by referring to them in the plan (First Schedule, Part 3).
Unitary plans
Unitary plans combine both district and regional provisions into one plan.
Regional Policy Statements
Regional policy statements must be prepared for each region, and must enable regional
councils to provide broad direction and a framework for resource management within their
regions.
8 GNS Science Report 2014/28
A regional policy statement is required to state (section 62):
• Significant resource management issues for the region
• Resource management issues of significance to iwi authorities
• Objectives sought to be achieved
• Policies in regards to significant issues and objectives
• Methods to be used to implement the policies
• Principle reasons for adopting the objectives, policies and methods
• Environmental results anticipated
• Processes to deal with cross boundary issues
• The local authority responsible for specifying objectives, policies and methods for land
use control in respect of natural hazards, hazardous substances and indigenous
biological diversity
• Procedures for monitoring.
A regional policy statement does not contain rules controlling the use of natural resources.
These are provided for in regional and district plans. Documents, such as standards and
technical material, can be incorporated into regional policy statements by referring to them in
the policy (First Schedule, Part 3).
CDEM Plans
Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEM Groups) are a core component of the
CDEM Act 2002. Sixteen CDEM Groups have been formed across New Zealand as
committees of elected councillors from each council within regional boundaries.
The Group delivers CDEM through the executives, planners and operational staff of the
many agencies involved in CDEM. Groups can be viewed as a consortium of the local
authorities in a region working in partnership with emergency services, lifeline utilities and
government departments, amongst other things, to identify and understand hazards and
risks; and to prepare CDEM Group plans and manage hazards and risks in accordance with
the 4R's (Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery) (MCDEM, n.d.).
Qs2&4. What is the bibliographic reference for the plan and operative date?
See Appendix for the full list of plans and their operative dates.
Q3. Is there a proposed plan?
The RMA requires regional policy statements and district plans to be reviewed once every
ten years. The CDEM Act also requires CDEM group plans to be reviewed once every ten
years. As such, 15.9% of district plans, 25% of regional policy statements and 7.1% of
CDEM plans are currently under review. The analysis undertaken for this report did not
include the proposed district plans, regional policy statements or CDEM plans with the
exception of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, which was reviewed. This means that the
results presented in this report represent the hazard provisions as at December 2013/
January 2014 and the results may change, as and when, these proposed plans become
operative.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 9
3.2 THEME: LEGISLATIVE LINKAGES
The management of natural hazards does not fall under one single piece of legislation;
rather, there are a number of key statutes that contribute to the management of natural
hazards: the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); Civil Defence Emergency
Management Act 2004 (CDEMA); Building Act 2002; Local Government Act 2002; and the
Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act 1987. Table 3.2 presents the common
and consistent purposes of each of the RMA, Building Act and CDEM Act.
Table 3.2 Purposes of the RMA, Building Act, CDEM Act and LGA.
Statute Purpose
Resource
Management Act
1991 (Part 2,
Section 5)
To promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable
management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and
physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide
for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety.
Building Act 2004
(Part 1, Section 3) To provide for the regulation of building work, the establishment of a licensing regime for
building practitioners, and the setting of performance standards for buildings, to ensure
that—
(a) people who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health; and
(b) buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical
independence, and well-being of the people who use them; and
(c) people who use a building can escape from the building if it is on fire; and
(d) buildings are designed, constructed, and able to be used in ways that promote
sustainable development.
CDEM Act 2002
(Part 1, Section 3) To improve and promote the sustainable management of hazards (as that term is defined
in this Act) in a way that contributes to the social, economic, cultural, and environmental
well-being and safety of the public and also to the protection of property
Local Government
Act 2002 (Part 1,
Section 3)
Provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic,
environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable
development approach
As shown in Table 3.2, sustainability, well-being (i.e., social, economic, cultural,
environmental), and health and safety are all common themes to these statutes. When
considered in a natural hazard context, this approach supports a consistent framework and
common goals for their management. The linkages between these statutes have been
extensively explored (Saunders & Beban, 2012; Saunders, Beban, & Kilvington, 2013;
Saunders, Forsyth, Johnston, & Becker, 2007a, 2007b).
Six questions were aimed to assess if the plans linked with, or referred to, these statutes:
Q122–126 Does the plan link with, or refer to the RMA? CDEM Act? Building Act?
Local Government Act? Land Information Memorandum?
CDEM plans were the best at acknowledging the role of other statutes in hazard
management, with 100% of plans referring to the RMA, CDEM Act, Building Act and LGA. In
contrast, only 7.2% of district plans and 25% of RPS’s referred to the CDEM Act (Figure 2). A
link to the CDEM Act is considered important, as risk reduction under the CDEM Act is
10 GNS Science Report 2014/28
considered an RMA issue in the CDEM National Strategy (refer Saunders, et al., 2007b). It is
important that there is a consistency between risk reduction measures between CDEM,
district plans and RPS’s, to ensure a common message is being communicated, and to
assist in justifying risk reduction measures (e.g., in a hearing).
Figure 2 Reference to or links between plans and legislation.
For the RMA plans, these linkages improve with 76.8% of district plans and 68.8% of RPS’s
referring to the Building Act. However, only 5.8% of district plans and 25% of RPS’s refer to
the LGA.
Land Information Memorandums (LIMs) are administered under the Local Government
Official Information & Meetings Act 1987, and are an important tool for educating the public
about natural hazards. LIMs are normally obtained at time of land purchase, and should
contain all relevant information the council may hold on the site that is not included in the
district plan. In contrast to the previous results, district plans referred to LIM’s the most (at
49.3%), with RPS’s at 37.5%, and CDEM plans at 21.4%.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 11
3.3 THEME: SUSTAINABILITY VS RESILIENCE
Questions 5 and 6 were asked of the plans in order to assess whether sustainability or
resilience is the focus, based on the purpose of the RMA & CDEM Act. The purpose of the
RMA is to:
Promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources …
managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources
in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their
social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety (emphasis
added)
Likewise, the purpose of the CDEM Act is to:
Improve and promote the sustainable management of hazards in a way that
contributes to the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being and
safety of the public and also to the protection of property (emphasis added).
However, the vision of the National CDEM Strategy is a “Resilient New Zealand” (MCDEM,
2008, p. 6).
Q5–6. Does the plan discuss/address the need for sustainability or resilience in a
hazard context?
Based on the two purposes outlined above and the CDEM vision, one would assume that
sustainability would be a primary influence in any discussion around natural hazards in all
three plan categories. However, less than half the district plans (i.e., 43.5%) discuss or
address the need for sustainability in a hazard context, with a similar response for RPS’s
(i.e., 43.8% include sustainability). CDEM plans tip the balance, with 57.1% including
sustainability (Figure 3).
Question 6 asks a similar question in regards to resilience, as the extended vision for CDEM
in New Zealand is “Resilient New Zealand – communities understanding and managing their
hazards” (MCDEM, 2008, p. 6). As such, it is to be expected that 100% of CDEM plans
discuss resilience. In contrast, 7.2% of district plans include resilience, and 4% of RPS’s. As
the focus of RMA plans is on sustainability, this is expected.
In order to improve the consistency between plans, particularly in regards to risk reduction,
resilience should be included in all plans (Saunders, et al., 2007b). However, care needs to
be taken that the terms sustainability and resilience are not used interchangeably, as a
resilient community/land use may not be sustainable in the long term; but a sustainable
community should also be a resilient community.
12 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Figure 3 Sustainability and resilience as discussed in the various plans.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 13
3.4 THEME: HAZARDS
Q11. Does the plan include a definition of a natural hazard?
63.8% of the District Plans and 81.2% of the RPS’s contain a definition of a natural hazard,
which is high considering that a natural hazard is defined under the RMA as being:
…any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence (including earthquake,
tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip, subsidence,
sedimentation, wind, drought, fire, or flooding) the action of which adversely
affects or may adversely affect human life, property, or other aspects of the
environment.
This definition is very broad and covers all potential natural hazards. As such, there is no
requirement for district plans or RPS’s to include a definition of a natural hazard as they
could rely on the definition within the Resource Management Act 1991. There is a risk that
the council’s natural hazard definition may be inconsistent with the definition of the Resource
Management Act, which could create procedural issues or loopholes.
42.9% of CDEM plans contain a definition of a natural hazard. The CDEM Act defines a
hazard as “… something that may cause, or contribute substantially to the cause of, an
emergency”. This definition is also very broad and encompasses both human induced
hazards and natural hazards (which is needed as CDEM plans address both human induced
hazards and natural hazards). Given this broad definition, CDEM plans do not need to
include their own definition.
Q11a. Is there a specific hazard chapter/section
76.8% of District Plans have their own specific natural hazards chapter/section. The RMA
does not require district plans to have their own specific chapter (just requires hazards to be
addressed). However, by having their own chapter, it helps facilitate a consistent approach to
the management of natural hazards across all zones. While this does not infer that having
the hazards provisions sitting in individual zones is poor practice, it does increase the chance
for an inconsistent approach to the management of natural hazards across different zones or
the creation of unforeseen loopholes.
93.8% of RPS’s have their own natural hazards chapter. Section 62 (1)(i) of the RMA
requires RPS’s to address:
The local authority responsible in the whole or any part of the region for
specifying the objectives, policies, and methods for the control of the use of land
– (i) to avoid or mitigate natural hazards or any group of hazards.
Given this, it is expected that these documents have a natural hazard specific chapter or
section.
All CDEM plans have a specific natural hazards chapter/section. As CDEM plans address
both human induced and natural hazards, it is expected that all of these plans have a specific
natural hazard section.
14 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q12–14. Does the plan state the natural hazards posing a risk to the area? Describe
the location and boundaries of hazardous areas. Describe the magnitude of
a potential hazard (i.e., intensity and/or duration).
Figure 4 identifies that there is a high recognition of natural hazards, with all CDEM and
RPS’s identifying the relevant hazards posing a risk to their respective jurisdiction. While
91.3% of district plans also identified the natural hazards to their district, it is surprising that
8.7% did not. The district plans that do not identify the relevant natural hazards have the
potential to be inconsistent with their relevant RPS, and there is the potential for there to be
gaps in land use planning for natural hazards, particularly if there are no objectives, policies
or rules pertaining to natural hazards within the district plans.
Figure 4 The various plans recognition of hazard relevance, location and magnitude.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 15
Q15. Information on previous occurrences? (hazard history)
New Zealand has a long history of natural hazard events, with all regions in the country
having experienced a natural hazard event at some point in its history. It is therefore
surprising that only 47.8% of district plans refer to previous events. It was thought that this
percentage would have been higher, as outlining previous events assists with setting the
scene for the management of natural hazards, and helps provide context and justification for
objectives, policies and rules. However, previous hazard information is not required to be
provided within district plans, and this information may have been located within the s.32
analysis for the district plan (which was not assessed as part of this project).
A slightly higher percentage of RPS’s (56.2%) identified previous natural hazard events.
However, the percentage is lower than expected as previous natural hazard events can be
used to set the regional scene for natural hazards and the risk that they present.
A CDEM plan is required to identify the hazards, and rank these hazards based on the risk
they present to the region. Despite this requirement, only 85.7% of CDEM plans provide
information on previous natural hazard events.
Q16. Description/analysis of separate characteristics of the hazard?
New Zealand is subject to a wide variety of natural hazards, with most regions susceptible to
multiple natural hazards. This section will explore whether district plans provide more
information on some hazards when compared to others. This information will then be
compared and contrasted with results for the following analysis:
• Hazard specific objectives
• Hazard specific policies
• Hazard specific rules
This analysis assists with identifying whether there is a bias in district plans, RPS’s and
CDEM plans towards particular hazards. All RPS’s and CDEM plans describe the separate
characteristics of hazards, with 84.1% of district plans providing a description. The hazards
included are outlined in the following questions.
Q17–23. Does the plan include specific information on earthquakes? Tsunami?
Landslides? Volcanoes? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change?
Figure 5 details the percentage of plans that have specific information on natural hazards. It
shows that generally, a greater percentage of CDEM plans provide specific information on
the various natural hazards, with the exception of climate change. This is followed by RPS’s
with district plans generally having the lowest percentage of plans providing specific
information on various natural hazards.
16 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Figure 5 The various plans recognition of specific hazard information for a variety of natural hazards.
It is expected that a greater percentage of the CDEM plans would have specific information
on the various natural hazards, as these plans are required to rank hazards relatively to their
risk to the region. To be able to undertake this assessment requires specific information on
the various hazards. As such, 100% of CDEM plans included information on earthquakes,
tsunami and flooding, followed by landslides (86.7%), coastal erosion (85.7%), and
volcanoes (78.6%). The hazard with the least information in CDEM plans was climate
change (50%), the impacts of which may be included within information provided with other
hazards (i.e., flooding, landslides). This contrasted with RPS’s, where climate change
information is included in 87.5% of statements.
Generally, a greater percentage of RPS’s contain specific information on the various natural
hazards compared to the district plans. The reasons for this could be as follows:
• Some of the hazards identified in the RPS are localised and therefore not all district
plans needs to provide specific information on them;
• The specific information on the hazards was contained in the s.32 report and therefore
is not represented within the district plan. This has the implication of hazard information
not being represented in the district plan;
• The district or city council may not have detailed information regarding all the hazards
in their jurisdiction and therefore the district plan contains no specific information for
some of the hazards; or
• The RPS’s identify non-regulatory approaches to the management of natural hazards
and therefore the district plan may not be required to address the natural hazard.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 17
Figure 5 illustrates that flooding is the hazard most commonly recognised within these three
documents, with volcanoes the least commonly identified hazard. These results are of no
surprise as flooding is the hazard most commonly experienced in New Zealand and is able to
be accurately modelled. Conversely, volcanoes principally affect the central and northern
portions of New Zealand and therefore the number of regions and cities that need to actively
plan for natural hazards is less (although all CDEM groups should be considering volcanic
hazards, as ash fall could potentially affect the entire country).
Q24. What parameters are included for climate change?
District plans, RPS’s and CDEM plans included parameters on climate change, with district
councils including parameters the most. These ranged from general statements like “climate
change is likely to exacerbate severe storm effects” (from a CDEM plan), to specific
parameters such as “a 20% increase in rainfall intensity by the 2080s, and a 0.5m increase in
sea level by 2100” (from a district plan). Other examples of parameters include:
• Over the next 70–100 years, temperatures could be up to 3 degrees warmer, the
climate could be up to 20% wetter with more varied rainfall patterns, and flooding is
likely to become more frequent and severe (RPS).
• Increase in global temperatures of 2 degrees from 1990 to 2100, an increase in global
sea level of 0.49 metres by 2100 (district plan)
• Over the next 100 years, the average sea level off the coast of NZ is expected to
increase by approximately 40cm.
From the parameters listed in the Saunders & Ruske (2014) report, there is not a consistent
approach taken to parameters, as shown by the last two bullet points above, where one
refers to 0.49 m increase in sea level globally, and the other 0.40m for New Zealand. One
district plan states: “effects arising from sea level rise are not known with any certainty at this
stage and will therefore continue to be monitored to enable a change to the plan if
necessary”, negating the need for parameters.
Numerous plans reference reports within their parameters, including (note full references
have not been included):
• Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1995, 1996 plus some undated
• Royal Society of New Zealand 1990 report on Climate Change
• Ministry for the Environment, 1993, 2008 & 2012
• New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
• Hannah, 1988
• NIWA (no details provided)
Most parameters are not referenced; however, those that are often quote the IPCC, from
general statements to specific e.g., IPCC 1995 IS92a scenario of 0.49m by 2100.
Q25. Does the plan include specific information on any other hazards?
Table 3.3 presents the other hazards also provided for in one or more relevant plans. The
number represents the frequency of plans that specific information on that hazard appears.
18 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Table 3.3 Hazards identified in one or more of the relevant plans (number indicates frequency).
Hazard
District Plan
RPS
CDEM Plan
Debris flows 3 1
Drought 6 5 12
Fire 13 5 10
Snowstorms 1 2 3
Wind 6 3 5
Storm surge 1
Lahar 1
Over exposure to the sun 1
Hydrothermal eruptions 1
Extreme weather
(i.e., cyclones, storms, tornados, heat waves) 4 2 5
Subsidence 2 2
Geothermal 2 1
Avalanche 1
Large space debris i.e., meteor 1
Fire was the most commonly listed other hazard, followed by drought and wind. Other
commonly listed other hazards included snow storms and other extreme weather.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 19
3.5 THEME: CUMULATIVE AND CASCADING HAZARDS
Cumulative hazards are defined as those hazards that are independent of each other, but
impact at the same location. For example, an area might be susceptible to riverine flooding,
fault rupture, and coastal erosion – three hazards that are not related to each other, but need
to be considered in their own right, and the combined risk appropriately assessed. In
contrast, cascading hazards have one trigger hazard which results in many hazards. For
example, a fault rupture may not only rupture the surface with associated ground shaking,
but may also result in liquefaction, landslides (including cliff collapse, boulder roll), lateral
spread, and tsunami. Further information on cumulative and cascading hazards can be found
in Saunders, Beban & Kilvington (2013).
Two questions were asked on cumulative and cascading risks. These were deemed
important as it has been the experience of the authors that often these two groups of hazards
are not addressed within plans.
In the questions below (i.e., Q26–27), it is the relationship that was assessed within the
plans. That is, the terms ‘cumulative’ and ‘cascading’ did not need to be included; rather, the
acknowledgement of the two types of multiple hazard sources.
Q26–27. Are cumulative and cascading hazards discussed?
One quarter of RPS’s refer to cumulative hazards, the highest of the types of plans, followed
by CDEM plans (21.4%). Only 11.6% of district plans acknowledged cumulative hazards
(Figure 6).
Figure 6 The identification of cumulative and cascading hazards within the various plan types.
20 GNS Science Report 2014/28
In contrast to Question 26 on cumulative hazards, 87.5% of RPS’s and 85.7% of CDEM
plans refer to cascading hazards, with 65.2% of district plans also referring to them. This is a
much higher recognition than for cumulative hazards (i.e., 50 to 60% higher).
One possible reason for this result between Questions 26–27 is that plans are only
considering single hazard events, and not the subsequent hazards that may occur. Further
awareness and inclusion of cumulative hazards should be made in the future.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 21
3.6 THEME: HAZARD PRIORITISATION AND VULNERABILITIES
Within CDEM plans is a risk profile section. The purpose of this risk profile section is “To
characterise the risk environment and provide an evidence base for sound prioritisation of
resources and effort in risk management-based CDEM planning” (MCDEM, 2009, p. 11). The
components of the risk profile section should include (MCDEM, 2009, p. 11):
• A comprehensive summary of the natural, social, built and economic environments of
the CDEM Group area;
• Descriptions of all hazards that could impact upon the CDEM Group and
characterisation of their likelihood and consequences;
• A qualitative assessment of the risks in the CDEM Group area, through risk analysis
and evaluation; and
• An evaluation of the current and potential decisions and actions across the 4Rs in
relation to the CDEM Group’s prioritised risks.
A robust risk profile will also provide a snapshot in time of the CDEM Group area’s hazards,
vulnerabilities and risks, and key trends. While Questions 28–34 are CDEM focused, the
authors were interested to know if hazard prioritization (as opposed to risk prioritisation,
based on the current focus in the RMA on hazards rather than risk) is included in RMA plans,
along with recognition of the vulnerabilities that could influence land use planning decisions.
Q28. Are hazards prioritised in any way?
100% of CDEM plans prioritise hazards. This is not a surprising result, as CDEM plans are
required to prioritise hazards for their risk profile, as outlined above. In comparison, 7.2% and
12.5% of district plans and RPS’s respectively prioritise hazards. Ideally, it would be good to
see the hazard prioritisation outlined in the CDEM group plan also included in the RPS and
district plans, to ensure consistency in hazard management via policies and work plans.
Q29. Does the plan outline how prioritization has occurred?
There is a CDEM process for prioritizing hazards and risks (outlined in MCDEM, 2009), so it
is somewhat interesting that one CDEM plan did not include an explanation of how
prioritisation occurred. One district plan outlined how prioritization occurred; no RPS’s did.
Q30. Are numbers of people exposed to the hazard discussed/assessed?
The purpose of this question was to see if there was an acknowledgement of the number of
people exposed to hazards, for example ‘10,000 people live in the flood plain’. Only one
district plan and one CDEM group plan made an acknowledgment of people’s exposure. The
benefit of including information like this into a plan is that one can then plan for emergency
response, recovery and readiness, as well as land use planning initiatives that will be
effective for the population exposed. For example, are 10 or 10,000 people exposed to a
particular hazard?
Q31. Are vulnerable populations discussed/assessed?
Vulnerability can be defined as the diminished capacity of an individual or group to anticipate,
cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural or man-made hazard (International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, n.d.). An individual's vulnerability
22 GNS Science Report 2014/28
affects the way that they prepare, respond and recover from a natural hazard event. Factors
that can contribute to this vulnerability include the deprivation of the community, and/or the
age and health of the intended occupants. Every city and town contains vulnerable
communities. Regardless of this, only 2.9% of the district plans discuss and assess
vulnerable communities within their respective jurisdiction and no RPS’s undertake this
assessment. No analysis has been undertaken as to why there is a very low consideration of
vulnerability in the key planning documents. However, it is suspected that this low recognition
of vulnerable populations in the district plans and RPS’s is a reflection of current planning
practice, where vulnerability of a community is just starting to be considered in relation to
natural hazards.
The CDEM plans had a higher consideration of vulnerable populations, with 57.1% of plans
discussing or assessing vulnerable populations.
Q32. Are vulnerable facilities discussed/assessed?
Similar to question 31, there is a low recognition of vulnerable facilities within the district
plans and the RPS’s (11.6% and 18.8% respectively). CDEM plans again have the higher
recognition at 64.3%. It is likely that CDEM plans have a high recognition of vulnerable
facilities as these plans need to detail response actions during a natural hazard event and
vulnerability facilities are likely to present their own evacuation challenges.
Q33. Is information on systematic risk assessments included in the plan?
Schedule 4 of the RMA outlines matters that should be included in an assessment of effects
on the environment. Included in matters that should be considered is ‘any risk to the
neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards’. While
acknowledging this requirement, this question was aimed at determining whether information
on systematic risk assessments was included in the plans.
All of the CDEM plans included information on systematic risk assessments. This is due to
these plans having to contain a risk profile section for the various hazards that affect their
respective jurisdiction. The district plans and the RPS’s had very low or no information on
systematic risk assessments within their plan (4.3% and 0% respectively).
Q34. What is the nature of those risk assessments?
No RPS’s included a description of risk assessments. Three district plans did:
• one for coastal hazard zones and flooding, which included specific details;
• one with a general description:
Risk assessment is an important aspect of natural hazards management. It
concerns identifying the probability of an outcome and estimating the magnitude
(the severity and likely impact) of the event; and
• the other for flooding – the depth and speed of floodwaters, the threat to life, the
difficulty and danger of evacuating people and their property, the potential damage to
property, and social disruption.
Fourteen of the 16 CDEM plans included a description of risk assessments, which included
information on how risks have been assessed and evaluated.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 23
3.7 THEME: OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, RULES
Objectives and policies set the framework for the outcomes that the document is seeking to
achieve. Objectives are a statement of what is trying to be achieved, and policies are the
course of action that is being undertaken to achieve the stated objective. Rules can then be
used to achieve the stated objectives and policies. In the case of the documents analysed as
part of this project, the district plans have clear objectives, policies and rules sections. RPS’s
and group plans however do not contain rules. Due to the nature of these documents, the
outcomes that they are seeking to achieve are set through objectives and policies.
This section of the report will analyse the objectives, policies, and rules as presented in the
data report (Saunders & Ruske, 2014). The purpose of this analysis to see whether there are
any particular hazards that councils address, and also whether there are any hazards that
are underrepresented, or poorly addressed in the district plans, RPS’s and CDEM plans. This
analysis will also see whether the objectives for various hazards are supported by policies
and rules. Alternatively, this analysis may demonstrate that there is an inconsistent approach
within the various documents with objectives not being supported by policies and rules or
there may be policies and rules that have no supporting objectives.
Q47–54. Does the plan have objectives regarding all hazards? Is there a specific
objective for Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide? Volcano? Flooding?
Coastal erosion? Climate change?
All of the CDEM plans and the RPS’s, and 97.1% of the district plans have objectives that
apply to all hazards (Figure 7). The main advantage of this all hazard approach is that nearly
all of the main local government natural hazard documents set a consistent framework for
the natural hazard outcomes they are seeking to achieve, irrespective of the natural hazard.
However, there are potential disadvantages associated with this approach. These include:
• A council may not have sufficient information on a natural hazard to be able to make a
determination on the consequences, likelihood and risk that the hazard presents (for
example tsunami). As such, the objective may not be fulfilled in respect to some natural
hazards.
• If the objective is poorly constructed, weak, or open to interpretation, then there is a
risk that the council is unable to implement effective risk reduction measures for all of
their relevant natural hazards, as they are bound by the wording of the objective. The
process to address this issue (i.e., the plan change process) is time consuming, can be
costly, and has potential political risks. Any issues with the hazards objectives may not
be addressed until either a rolling review is undertaken or the district plan is reviewed.
This may expose the council to ten years or greater of a poorly worded objective
pertaining to natural hazards, and in that time the risk to the community from natural
hazards may increase in that time.
Generally, the district plans, and RPS’s have very few hazard specific objectives. The
exception to this being landslides, where 56% of the RPS’s have a landslide specific
objective. It is noted that while only a small number of district plans and RPS’s have hazard
specific objectives, when compared to the other hazards, tsunami, volcano and earthquake
hazards have the least number of specific objectives. There are no hazard specific objectives
within any of the CDEM plans (Figure 7).
24 GNS Science Report 2014/28
The advantage of hazard specific objectives is that they allow for the development of
targeted objectives that addresses the risks associated with the natural hazards specific to a
council jurisdiction. These targeted objectives would be supported by a set of specific hazard
policies, which should provide the council with a strong policy direction for the consideration
of that hazard. However, there are also potential disadvantages associated with this specific
hazard approach, including:
• Some hazards may not have any specific objectives, and as such there is no policy
framework present to support councils in the consideration of natural hazards at the
land use planning stage;
• There could be an inconsistent approach to the management of natural hazards within
a council due to variation on the wording of the objectives pertaining to the specific
natural hazards. While some variation may be deliberate, there is also an increased
chance of unintended outcomes as a result of wording variation;
• If the objective is poorly constructed, weak, or open to interpretation, then there is a
risk that the council is unable to implement effective risk reduction measures for that
specific natural hazard, as they are bound by the wording of the objective. The process
to address this issue (i.e., the plan change process) is time consuming, can be costly,
and has potential political risks and any issues with the specific hazard objective may
not be addressed until either a rolling review is undertaken or the district plan is
reviewed. This may expose the council to ten years or greater of a poorly worded
objective pertaining to a specific natural hazard, and in that time the risk to the
community from the natural hazard may increase in that time.
There is a strong reliance within the district plans, RPS’s and CDEM plans towards all hazard
objectives. This approach ensures that there is a consistent outcome being sought for all
hazards. However, in taking this approach, there is a need to ensure objectives are
reinforced with policies and rules where appropriate.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 25
Figure 7 The identification of objectives for all hazards and specific hazards within the various plan types.
Q55. Is there a specific objective for any other hazard?
Table 3.4 presents the other hazards also provided for in one or more relevant plans. The
number indicates the frequency of plans that contain specific objectives for that hazard.
Table 3.4 Other specific hazard identified in one or more district plan or RPS (number indicates frequency).
Hazard
District Plan
RPS
Fire 4 1
Wind 1 3
Erosion/subsidence 2 2
Over exposure to the sun 1
Liquefiable soils 1
The unique objective pertaining to over-exposure to the sun was present in one district plan.
It was worded: "To avoid or mitigate adverse health effects on people from over-exposure to
the sun". This does meet the definition of a natural hazard, being “any atmospheric … related
occurrence … the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life...”.
Sun exposure, and the resulting rates of skin cancer1, can adversely affect people’s health,
and so can be considered a natural hazard. The recommended policy actions to reduce skin
1 Refer to: http://www.cancernz.org.nz/reducing-your-cancer-risk/sunsmart/about-skin-cancer/skin-cancer-facts-
and-figures/
26 GNS Science Report 2014/28
cancer include covering exposed parts of the body and applying sunscreen – which is not a
land use issue. Other associated land use policies are limited to planting of trees for shade in
public areas (refer Q65). A hazard such as this has limited planning opportunities i.e.,
shading in public places, and would also require public education and personal responsibility
to ‘slip slop slap wrap’ to reduce the risk of overexposure to sun.
Q56. Does the plan promote having an awareness or knowledge of hazards?
All of the CDEM group plans, 93.8% of the RPS’s and 76.8% of the district plans promote the
need to be aware or have knowledge regarding natural hazards. This high percentage
reflects the need to have an awareness or knowledge of natural hazards to assist in
addressing the risks associated with natural hazards. For instance, you may be unable to
take corrective actions to address risks unless you have the awareness and knowledge of
the natural hazard – this assists in making sure the measures you implement are effective. It
is also important so that people can make informed decisions; can assess their personal risk
(e.g., life, property, economic); and can adapt as required.
Q57. Does the plan have policies regarding all hazards? Does the plan include
specific policies for Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide? Volcano?
Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change?
Policies are the course of action to achieve or implement the objective (i.e., the path to be
followed to achieve a certain, specified, environmental outcome) (Quality Planning, n.d.-c).
Policies are an important component of the district plan and regional policy framework as
they are used in the planning process to determine the acceptability or otherwise of
developments or plan changes.
Of the plans analysed, only district plans and RPS’s contain policies. Due to the nature of
CDEM plans, they do not do not contain policies and therefore these have been excluded
from further analysis regarding the use of policies to address various natural hazards (i.e.,
Q57–64).
GNS Science Report 2014/28 27
Figure 8 The identification of policies for all hazards and specific hazards within the various plan types
The vast majority of district plans (98.6%) and all of the RPS’s have policies that apply to all
hazards (Figure 8). All hazard policies have the advantage in that they equally apply to all
natural hazards and do not have a bias towards or away from any particular hazard. This all-
hazard approach for policies is consistent with the strong preference towards all-hazard
objectives as previously identified. This helps to ensure that the course of action being
undertaken to achieve the intended outcomes of the objectives is consistent regardless of
the natural hazard.
When considering hazard-specific policies, flooding, landslides and coastal erosion have the
greatest representation (noting that in Q48–54 landslides had the highest number of
objectives within RPS’s). Conversely, tsunami and volcano have the lowest representation of
hazard-specific policies with the district plans and RPS’s (Figure 8). Given an analysis of the
policy wording has not been undertaken, it is difficult to determine whether the lower
recognition of tsunami and volcano in hazard specific policies is due to these hazards being
addressed in the all hazard policies. Alternatively, this discrepancy in the number of district
plans and regional policy with volcano and tsunami hazard-specific policies may be a
reflection of a bias away from land use planning for these hazards (though with regard to
volcano it is recognised that there is only a limited number of territorial authorities which need
to land use plan for this hazard). Assuming that there is a bias away from these hazards,
then this should not affect the ability to land use plan for these hazards. This is due to the
high number of RPS’s and district plans which have all-hazard policies. These all-hazard
policies should provide a sufficient framework to allow for the consideration of the tsunami
and volcanic hazards (where relevant) as well as the other hazards which have a greater
percentage of documents with hazard specific policies.
28 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Half of RPS’s (i.e., 50%) and 36.2% of district plans had hazard specific policies for climate
change and earthquakes (Figure 8). As with the tsunami and volcanic policies it is difficult to
make inferences as to whether these low values represent a bias away from the hazards or
whether Councils are relying on the all hazard policies to provide the policy framework upon
which these hazards are to be assessed.
Q65. Does the plan include specific policies for other hazards?
Table 3.5 presents the other hazard policies provided for in one or more relevant plans. The
number indicates the frequency of plans that contains specific objectives for that hazard. Fire
is the most commonly referred to ‘other’ hazard within district plans.
Table 3.5 Other specific hazard policies identified in one or more district plan or RPS (number indicates
frequency)
Hazards District/City/
Unitary Plan Regional Policy
Statement
Avalanche 1
Debris Flow 1
Drought 1
Fire 11 1
Geothermal Activity 1
Hot Ground Hazard 1
Lahar 1
Land subsidence 1
Liquefaction 4
Over Exposure to the sun 1
Snow 1
Soil Erosion 1 1
Storm Surge 1 1
Wind Erosion 1
Following from Q55 on objectives, the last of this list – over exposure to the sun – is unique.
As mentioned previously (Q55), the policies are: "To retain and enhance natural shade, such
as trees, in public areas such as reserves and parks; to erect structures to provide shade in
public areas where there is no shade from natural features; To encourage the use of
protective measures such as hats and sunscreen." These policies are restricted to public
areas only; and the last policy is not considered to be a response that can be implemented
through land use planning.
Q67–73. Does the plan include specific rules for Active faults? Tsunami? Landslide?
Volcano? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change?
Of the plans analysed, only district plans contain rules. Due to the nature of RPS’s and
CDEM plans, these documents do not contain rules and therefore these have been excluded
from further analysis (for Q66–74).
GNS Science Report 2014/28 29
All district plans contained rules which address specific natural hazards. However, when
individual hazards are considered, there is a strong bias towards flooding and landslides
where 97.1% and 89.9% of the district plans respectively contains rules to address these
hazards. This contrasts with tsunami and volcano where 7.2% and 4.3% of the District Plans
had rules to address these hazards (Figure 9). It is recognised that for all councils, tsunami
and volcano are a low priority hazard and there are other hazards which have the potential to
be more disruptive and damaging to their community and which need addressing first.
However, even making allowance for this, tsunami and to a lesser degree volcano hazards
are underrepresented in the rules sections of the district plans.
Figure 9 The identification of hazard specific rules within the various plan types
For earthquake, 37.7% of the district plans had specific rules pertaining to active faults.
Given the tectonic environment of New Zealand, this suggests that there is a large under
representation of active fault rules within the district plans (Figure 9).
52.2% and 20.3% of the district plans respectively contained rules for coastal erosion and
climate change. Coastal councils in New Zealand place a greater emphasis on developing
rules for coastal erosion as opposed to tsunami. This may be due to coastal erosion being
more likely to occur, although tsunami does have higher consequences (Figure 9).
These results show that while all district plans contain rules for natural hazards, there is a
strong bias towards planning for landslides and flooding as opposed to other hazards. Given
the broad definition of natural hazards under the Resource Management Act 1991, councils
need to be addressing all relevant hazards within their jurisdiction. These results
30 GNS Science Report 2014/28
demonstrate that some hazards are underrepresented within the district plans. The potential
implications of under representing hazards within the rules is that developments may
proceed in hazardous areas with little or no ability for councils to prevent these activities from
occurring (particularly if the activity is a permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary
activity under the district plan, and the plan has not extended its control or discretion to
natural hazards). This in turn can result in an increase to the economic, social, and health
and safety risk to the local community, and may have implications on the CDEM plans (in
particular the planning requirements for response and recovery provisions).
Flooding is the most commonly occurring natural hazard in New Zealand (MCDEM, 2007),
and is relatively easy to model and map to a high degree of accuracy. This ability to model
and map flooding makes it easier to defend the inclusion of rules into the district plan as the
degree of uncertainty with this modelling and mapping is less than what might be the case for
other hazards (for example tsunami).
In terms of landslide, the district plans contain rules to address earthworks within their
respective jurisdiction. Often site stability is one of the matters that must be considered when
earthworks rules are breached. It is for this reason that it is thought that there is a high
recognition of landslide hazards within the district plans.
Earthquake and tsunami are potentially the most damaging and disruptive hazards in New
Zealand (MCDEM, 2007). However, few district plans have rules to address these hazards
(37.7% and 7.2% respectively (Figure 9). This low representation of rules exists even though
there have been a number of recent international examples of tsunami (Boxing Day Sumatra
2004 Tsunami, Samoa Tsunami 2009 and the Japanese Tsunami 2011), which have
graphically demonstrated the damage that a large tsunami can do. Furthermore, the
Canterbury earthquake sequence has demonstrated the need to plan for a variety of
earthquake induced hazards (liquefaction, lateral spreading, fault rupture and slope instability
(i.e., rock fall, boulder roll).
In respect of active faults, landslide, flooding, climate change, liquefaction and tsunami,
guidelines have been developed which provide assistance to planners regarding the
inclusion of these hazards within their district plans (e.g., Kerr et al., 2003; Ministry for the
Environment, 2008, 2009, 2010; Saunders, et al., 2013; Saunders & Berryman, 2012;
Saunders & Glassey, 2007; Saunders, Prasetya, & Leonard, 2011). It appears that even with
the variety of hazard examples and the availability of guidance, barriers exist which limit the
inclusion of earthquake and tsunami rules within the district plans.
Q74. Does the plan include specific rules for other hazards?
Fire hazard was the most common hazard outside those identified above, with 15 of 20
district plans (75% of those with additional hazard rules) including fire. Other hazards that
were addressed with rules included: hot ground hazards, liquefaction, peat lakes and wind.
Interestingly, wind is also addressed as part of the building consent processes, with buildings
requiring appropriate bracing relative to their wind zone. As such, the one district plan that
includes rules for wind may be doubling up on how they address this hazard.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 31
Q103. Is there a table (or similar) showing how objectives, policies and/or rules
are related?
Objectives, policies, and rules need to relate to one another to ensure that they achieve the
intended outcomes. While the legislation does not require a table or chart to show how
objectives, policies, rules relate to one another, the provision of such a feature can provide
clarity to the reader on how the various components of the plan interact. Figure 10 shows
that 50% of RPS’s contain a table or chart to show how the objectives and policies relate to
one another. However, only 17.4% of district plans and 7.1% of CDEM plans have a table or
chart to show how the objectives and policies (and rules, if applicable) relate to one another.
Figure 10 The identification of the plans with relationships between objectives, policies and rules.
Q75–76. Are other methods used to address natural hazards?
CDEM plans and RPS’s do not contain rules and therefore it is not surprising that all of these
documents identify other methods to address natural hazard risk. 92.9% of CDEM plans
promote a non-regulatory approach to the management of natural hazards, whereas 100% of
the RPS’s promote a mix or regulatory and non-regulatory measures to address natural
hazards. 85.5% of district plans identify other methods to address natural hazards. The vast
majority of these promote a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods. However, 11.6%
promote just a regulatory approach and 2.9% promote a non-regulatory approach.
Regulation is just one way to address the risks associated with natural hazards. Non-
regulatory measures such as public education also have an important role in addressing
natural hazard risk. If a council only adopts a regulatory or non-regulatory approach to the
32 GNS Science Report 2014/28
management of natural hazard risk, there is the potential for gaps in the management of
natural hazards to be created, and for the measures that are implemented to be not as
effective as if they had been combined with other methods. It is therefore considered
important that a regulatory and non-regulatory approach be undertaken to the management
of natural hazards risk. This ensures a holistic approach.
Q77. Specify the specific methods
A variety of other methods were included in each type of plan. An example of those provided
was:
• Fencing off erosion prone areas from stock and planting trees where appropriate
• Mapping
• LIM’s and PIM’s
• Hazard register
• Community awareness, preparedness and education
• Structural works
• Local response plans
• Warning systems
• Information gathering
• Building Act controls.
District plans provided the greatest frequency of ‘other methods’.
Q119–120. Are those responsible for implementation included and are their roles
identified?
All of the CDEM group plans identified the parties responsible for implementing the relevant
provisions of this document. CDEM group plans, by definition, include the actions that need
to be undertaken in reducing the risks from natural hazards, as well as the readiness,
response and recovery actions. The nature of these various actions means that specific
parties need to complete specific tasks. As such, the results for these plans are what would
be expected.
For RPS’s, 68.8% of the plans identified the parties responsible for implementing the relevant
provisions of this document. RPS’s typically identify the parties responsible for implementing
the objectives, policies and methods of the document. It is therefore very surprising that only
68.8% of these documents do this. The documents that do not identify the parties relevant to
implementing the various components of the RPS carry a considerable risk that no party will
implement the provisions, resulting in the outcomes identified under the RPS not being
achieved.
For district plans, 20.3% of the documents identify the parties responsible for implementing
outcomes. However, district plans are a different document when compared to CDEM group
plans and RPS’s, in the sense that they are rule based and all parties need to comply with
the rules. These documents do not generally identify parties who need to implement
objectives, policies and rules as these are enforced by the council, and everyone needs to
comply with these provisions. As such, while the number of district plans identifying the
parties responsible for implementing outcomes is low, it is considered that this does not
GNS Science Report 2014/28 33
create significant issues in the management of natural hazards. However, it would be useful
for applicants and users of the district plans to know who holds the key information on natural
hazards. This information would allow for users of the district plans to be easily able to
contact the relevant party(ies) to ensure that they have the most recent natural hazards
information to help inform them when they are designing their developments or are making
decisions on consent applications.
For all three document types, where the document identified the parties responsible for
implementation, the role of that party (i.e., what they do) was also identified.
Q121. Does the plan account for cross-boundary issues?
Natural hazards do not respect jurisdiction boundaries and can often affect many different
communities in different councils at the same time (for example fault rupture, tsunami or
flooding). It is therefore important that plans have the ability to take into account cross
boundary issues when addressing natural hazards. 92.9% of CDEM group plans, 68.8% of
RPS’s and 62.3% of district plans have provisions to take into account cross boundary issues
associated with natural hazards. For these councils, it is easier for them to take a consistent
approach to the management of natural hazards where they cross different jurisdictional
boundaries. This allows for the ability for there to be a more holistic approach to the
management of natural hazard risk.
There are advantages to different councils taking a common approach to the management of
natural hazards. These include:
• Reduced costs, as councils can pool their financial resources to ensure that the
necessary research is undertaken to inform the relevant document without the need for
them to undertake their own separate piece of work. There are also potential cost
savings associated with officers’ time, the use of commissioners (if required), and
administrative costs.
• It makes it easier for developers and communities to understand the rules relating to
the management of risk associated with natural hazards, as there is a common
approach across the different councils (as opposed to there being different objectives,
policies and rules); and
• It helps promote a holistic approach to the management of natural hazards across the
various councils, rather than each council having to ‘reinvent the wheel’, which creates
the potential for there to be significant inconsistencies with the management of natural
hazards.
3.8 THEME: MAPPING
Maps associated with regional or district plans, along with rules and definitions, are amongst
the parts of the plan that are most commonly referred to. Accuracy in what maps portray and
how they portray it is very important – they indicate where certain plan provisions will apply
and in some cases, actually form part of a plan rule. The content of planning maps will vary
according to their purpose and the existence (or otherwise) of supplementary maps that may
provide more detailed information. Planning maps should show a variety of features,
including natural hazards (Quality Planning, n.d.-a). In contrast, maps are not required (i.e.,
optional) in CDEM plans, and typically RPS’s do not contain maps, as they are policy-based
plans. The following questions are in regard to what hazards are mapped, at what scale, and
if uncertainty is factored into the maps.
34 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q35. Are there any hazards mapped in the plan?
84.1% of district plans include natural hazards within their maps, compared to 21.4% of
CDEM Plans and 12.5% of RPS’s.
Q36–42. Are the following hazards mapped: Active faults? Landslides?
Tsunami inundation extents? Coastal erosion zones? Volcanic hazards?
Flood extents? Climate change hazard?
As reflected in Q35, district plans have a higher frequency of including hazards in maps. Of
these, flood extents are the most common hazard to be mapped, with 76.8% of district plans
mapping them. Active faults (34.8%) and coastal erosion (33.8%) follow, with tsunami being
the least mapped hazard in district plans (at 1.5%). Of the RPS’s, only flood extents and
coastal erosion zones are mapped (12.5% and 6.2% respectively). Within CDEM plans,
active faults (14.3%) and flood extents (7.1%) are included in maps (Figure 11).
Figure 11 The mapping of hazards within the various council plans.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 35
Q43. Are any other hazards mapped?
Some district plans included other hazards within their maps. These additional natural
hazards included:
• wind zones;
• fire;
• ground shaking and liquefaction susceptibility;
• hot ground; and
• inundation from storm surge.
Q44. What scale are the hazards mapped at?
Map scales will vary, according to the level of detail that needs to be shown on maps, but
may also be dictated by the base data used to produce the maps. Scales can be shown in
both numeric ratio and ruler format, noting that standardising a few scales across all maps is
preferable to each map having a different scale (Quality Planning, n.d.-a).
Where local authorities have the ability to choose their map scales, a common key
determinant of what scale to use will be lot or section size, and the type of information that is
to be shown on the smallest lot or section. If a small section has some form of boundary
running through it (an edge of a hazard area or riparian margin setback for example) the
scale should be sufficient to indicate clearly where that boundary lies. Generally, larger-scale
maps can be used in rural areas, while smaller-scale maps should be used for urban areas
or other situations where there is fine detail. Based on an evaluation of planning maps
around New Zealand, and the detail shown on them, guidance on the Quality Planning2
website suggest the following scales or ranges for district plans(Quality Planning, n.d.-a):
• Index maps: A scale that allows the whole district or city to be shown on one map (in
the range 1:50,000 to 1: 500,000 for example)
• Rural areas, or other areas of predominantly large lot or section sizes: 1:10,000 to
1:25,000 (noting that supplementary diagrams or maps can be used if a small area
needs to be shown in more detail)
• Urban areas: 1:5,000 to 1:10,000
• Hazard maps, and policy areas: 1:1,500 to 1:5,000 (it is also useful to show the actual
dimensions of these areas on the map itself)
• Fine-detail maps (for example those for inner city designations) 1:1,500 to 1:5,000 (it is
also useful to show the actual dimensions of features such as designations on the map
itself).
Based on this guidance, Question 44 was aimed at seeing if there was a consistent approach
to the scale of maps produced that show natural hazards. In summary, there is a wide variety
of scales in use, from a ratio (e.g., 1:10,000) to ruler format (e.g., 2.6cm = 1km).
2 The Quality Planning (QP) website (http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/) promotes good planning practice by
sharing knowledge about all aspects of practice under the RMA. The QP website is the primary tool for
delivering robust information on RMA processes and environmental policy to resource management
practitioners.
36 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Within district plans, scales included:
• 1:2,500
• 1:30,000
• 2.6cm = 1km
• 1:5,000
• 1:42,325
• 3.5cm = 20km
• 1:5,325
• 1:50,000
• 7cm = 900m
•
1:6,000
•
1:60,000
• 1:7,500 • 1:65,000
•
1:8,000
•
1:75,000
• 1:9,000 • 1:77,000
•
1:10,000
•
1:100,000
• 1:14,000 • 1:200,000
•
1:15,000
•
1:225,000
Some maps did not include a scale. Of the CDEM plans that provided maps, none included a
scale. Within RPS’s, one council had their maps available on GIS (which allows for zooming),
but no scale was provided. Another RPS included a scale of 2cm = 100m.
Q45. Do maps show uncertainty?
Mapping uncertainty is important to ensure that there is awareness that a mapped hazard
boundary may not be certain, and so policy (and subsequent rules) can reflect this
uncertainty. Uncertainty around natural hazards can be mapped (e.g., Kerr, et al., 2003;
Saunders & Glassey, 2007; Saunders, et al., 2011), so this question was aimed at assessing
how many (and what) plans do include uncertainty within their maps.
Due to RPS’s and CDEM Plans not generally having maps (as they are policy based plans,
(refer to Q35)), it is not surprising that neither of these two types of plans include uncertainty
within their maps. In contrast, 39.7% of district plans do include uncertainty within their maps
(which hazards these uncertainties are for have not been included).
GNS Science Report 2014/28 37
3.9 THEME: ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
District plans and RPS’s generally include anticipated environmental outcomes – these being
the environmental outcomes that the district plans or RPS are seeking to achieve through
their respective objectives, policies, rules (district plans), and methods (RPS’s). These
anticipated environmental outcomes can form the basis upon which the effectiveness of the
district plan or RPS is monitored.
Due to the nature of CDEM plans, they do not contain anticipated environmental outcomes;
this was never their aim. It is for this reason the CDEM plans have been excluded from
further anticipated environmental outcomes analysis (i.e., Q78–86).
Q78–84. Does the plan include specific anticipated environmental outcomes for all
hazard? Earthquake? Tsunami? Landslide? Volcano? Flooding? Coastal
erosion? Climate change?
Figure 12 shows that 82.6% of district plans and 100% of RPS’s have anticipated
environmental outcomes for all hazards. Regardless of the natural hazard, these documents
are seeking to achieve the same environmental outcome. In terms of the RPS this common
anticipated environmental outcome is being sought through the objectives, policies and other
methods (both regulatory and non-regulatory) detailed within these documents. However, as
identified in questions 66–73, there is an inconsistent approach within the district plans in
terms of the rules that exist for natural hazards. While some hazards such as flooding and
landslide have a high representation of rules within the district plans, other hazards such as
tsunami have very few district plans with rules. This means that in order for district plans to
achieve the same anticipated environmental outcomes, there is a strong reliance on non-
regulatory measures. Alternatively, it is more likely that given the lack of rules for some
hazards, a consistent environmental outcome across all hazards is not being achieved.
Those hazards that are underrepresented within rules are then susceptible to not achieving
the anticipated outcomes sought under the district plan.
38 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Figure 12 The identification of the specific Anticipated Environmental Outcomes with the various council plans.
When considering individual hazards, it is apparent that landslides appear in the greatest
number of RPS’s with specific anticipated environmental outcomes followed by flooding and
coastal erosion. For district plans, flooding has the greatest number with specific anticipated
environmental outcomes, followed by landslides and coastal erosion. Tsunami and volcano
have the lowest number of specific anticipated environmental outcomes within RPS’s and
district plans.
Q86. Does the plan include specific anticipated environmental outcomes for
other hazards?
Other hazards listed in RPS’s were fire and wind erosion. Within district plans, additional
hazards included fire, wind and avalanche.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 39
3.10 THEME: MONITORING
The Resource Management Act (RMA) requires local authorities to monitor the efficiency and
effectiveness of policies, rules, or other methods in its policy statements or plans; to take
appropriate action when monitoring indicates that this is necessary, and to prepare a report
at least every five years on the results. Policy and plan effectiveness monitoring helps
determine the need for further action, and possible changes and improvements in policy
statements and plans, or in actions taken to implement them.
Monitoring closes the loop in the 'plan – do – monitor – review' cycle and informs decision-
makers of the consequences of actions and changes in the environment. Policy and plan
effectiveness monitoring provides a means for determining how well plans are working in
practice. It both builds on and provides information for state of the environment monitoring,
and can be assisted by monitoring resource consents, compliance and complaints. It is
important to have an integrated approach (Quality Planning, n.d.-b)
However, it can be difficult to monitor natural hazard provisions, with typical issues including:
• What do you measure natural hazard provisions against? For example, the
consequences of a natural hazard event occurring?
• How do you assess whether or not the natural hazard provisions made a difference to
the consequences?
As such, questions were asked regarding monitoring provisions for hazards.
Q106. Does the plan have provision for monitoring of hazards themselves?
Figure 13 shows that 92.9% of CDEM group plans, 73.3% of RPS’s and 66.7% of district
plans contain provisions for the monitoring of natural hazards. These results show that,
generally, the majority of the documents attempt to monitor natural hazards. However, as
previously identified, this is difficult to do, and there are a number of issues associated with
monitoring natural hazards. This project did not evaluate effectiveness of any monitoring
undertaken.
40 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Figure 13 The identification of hazard monitoring provisions within the various council plans.
Q107–113. Does the plan include monitoring for earthquakes? Tsunami? Landslide?
Volcano? Flooding? Coastal erosion? Climate change?
CDEM plans included provisions for monitoring hazards the most, particularly for flooding
(85.7%) and tsunami (78.6%), followed by volcano (50%) and earthquake (35.7%)
(Figure 14). The percentage for volcano is quite high (50%) considering the relatively low
number of CDEM groups that have active volcanoes within their jurisdiction; however this
may be the recognition of the consequences of ash fall from active volcanoes This high
percentage for CDEM plans may be due to their operational focus i.e., readiness, response
and recovery planning. Also, monitoring for earthquake, volcano and tsunami is undertaken
nationally via the Geonet3 project and in partnership with MCDEM (for tsunami in particular).
As such, Geonet is a key provider of monitoring activities.
3 GeoNet is a project to build and operate a modern geological hazard monitoring system in New Zealand. It
comprises a network of geophysical instruments, automated software applications and skilled staff to detect,
analyse and respond to earthquakes, volcanic activity, large landslides, tsunami and the slow deformation that
precedes large earthquakes (http://geonet.org.nz/).
GNS Science Report 2014/28 41
Figure 14 The identification of specific monitoring provisions relative to specific natural hazards for the various
council plans.
Overall, RPS’s and district plans rarely include monitoring provisions, with flooding the
highest hazard to be monitored amongst regional councils at 50%. Coastal erosion and
flooding (both at 27.5%) are the two hazards that include the highest frequency of monitoring
provisions within district plans, with tsunami and volcano monitoring the least monitored
hazards (both at 1.4%).
Q114. Does the plan include monitoring for other hazards?
Table 3.6 presents the other hazards monitored in one or more of the various plan types. The
number represents the frequency of plans that include monitoring for the hazard. Fire is the
most frequently monitored other hazard.
Table 3.6 Other hazards monitored in one or more of the various council plans (number indicates frequency).
Hazard
District plan
RPS
CDEM plan
Drought
2
2
Fire
2
1
5
High winds
2
Snowfall
1
Severe weather*
4
Volcanic ash
1
Storm surge/swells
1
* Note that this may include the previous two (wind, snowfall). Thus, CDEM plans potentially include all of these
other hazard types.
42 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q115–116. Does the plan make provision for, and identify parties responsible for,
monitoring the effectiveness of provisions in the plan?
Monitoring the effectiveness of plan provisions rates highly amongst all three plan types, with
100% of CDEM plans, 93.8% of RPS’s, and 79.9% of district plans including provisions
(Figure 15). In contrast, not as many plans identify who is responsible for monitoring and
evaluation, with 92.2% of CDEM plans, 62.5% of RPS’s, and 29% of district plans outlining
who is responsible (Figure 15).
Figure 15 The effectiveness of monitoring provisions for natural hazards, and the identification of the parties
responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of natural hazards, for the various council plans.
This lack of clarity around who is responsible for monitoring, could lead to some of it (and
therefore improvement of plans if review should be required) not being undertaken, due to a
lack of direction as to who should be monitoring what.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 43
Q117. Does the plan have processes for integrating or updating hazard or risk
information?
Figure 16 shows that very few of the district plans (10.1%) and none of the RPS’s has a clear
process for the inclusion of new hazard information. Similarly, only 35.7% of the CDEM plans
had a process for the inclusion of hazard information. The implication of this is that new
hazard research may be undertaken, which requires a land use planning or CDEM response.
However, as there is no clear process for the inclusion of this information (such as a district
plan or CDEM group plan review) there is a considerable risk that the council will not act on
the information and include it in the relevant document until the ten year review is being
undertaken. As such, development could be undertaken in the preceding years in areas
which increase the risk to the local community. This could have CDEM implications,
particularly in regards to response and recovery if a natural hazard event should occur.
If a clear process was included in these plans for the inclusion of new hazard information, it
would provide a pathway for the use of the information and also provide strong justification to
the political arms of council as to why this new information needs to be acted upon.
Figure 16 The percentage of the various council plans which identify the process for integrating or updating
hazard and risk information.
44 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q118. Does the plan have processes for reviewing the document and making
changes to hazard objectives, policies, rules, etc.?
While 85.7% of CDEM plans did include a process for reviewing and changing the plan, only
15.9% and 18.8% of district plans and RPS did (Figure 17). This suggests that councils are
relying on the 10 year review provisions of the RMA and CDEM Act to update the relevant
plans with any new hazard information that they obtain.
Figure 17 The percentage of documents that identified the process for making changes to their respective
hazard content.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 45
3.11 THEME: RISK
Risk is currently not included or defined within the RMA. However, risk is defined under the
CDEM Act, as the likelihood and consequence of a hazard. With current RMA reforms
(Ministry for the Environment, 2013a, 2013b), these questions were aimed at assessing the
current usage of the term risk within a natural hazard context.
Q87–88. Does the plan include the term and definition of 'risk'?
As risk is an integral part of the CDEM Act, it was expected that 100% of CDEM plans would
include the term ‘risk’. It is rather surprising (but positive) that 100% of RPS’s and 98.6% of
district plans include risk, given that is yet to be included in the RMA (Figure 18). However,
many of these could be examples where the terms ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’ are being used
interchangeably. There is an opportunity for future research to look into more detail about the
inclusion of risk in plans.
Figure 18 The percentage of plans that include the term risk and provide a definition of risk.
While 100% of both RPS’s and CDEM plans included the term risk, only 31.2% and 64.3%
respectively included a definition (Figure 18). However, as CDEM plans are mandated under
the CDEM Act, they default to the definition provided in the CDEM Act (likelihood and
consequences of a hazard). Of those CDEM plans that did provide a definition, they were
consistent with the definition under the CDEM Act. Of those RPS’s that defined risk, common
46 GNS Science Report 2014/28
descriptors included probability (i.e., likelihood) and vulnerability (i.e., related to consequence).
In one case, risk was defined rather simplistically as ‘any potential adverse effect’.
Although 21.7% (or 15) of district plans define risk, six of these are in relation to hazardous
substances (Figure 18). For example, risk is defined as:
The likelihood of occurrence of an adverse effect from a substance combined
with the magnitude of the consequences of that event.
Those remaining (i.e., nine) district plans defined risk in the following ways (emphasis added):
• The risk that these hazards pose is not just a reflection of the frequency of these
events, rather it is made up of a number of factors including the: size and nature of the
hazard; likelihood of the hazard occurring; exposure and vulnerability of elements at
risk (people, buildings, infrastructure.
• The combined effect of the probability that an event will occur and the damage it might do.
• The concept of risk includes: the physical characteristics of natural events, the
probability of the event occurring, the existence of something of value that is under
threat from the event, the vulnerability of that value to damage or destruction.
• The probability of an event occurring and the extent of likely damages caused by that
event: Individual Risk – maximum probability that an individual person, object or
function, if present in a certain location for a certain period, would be harmed by the
cumulative risk from all the hazards from one or more sources. Societal Risk –
maximum probability that a group of a certain maximum size may get simultaneously
killed by the cumulative risk from all the hazards from one or more sources.
• The risk involves a number of elements including – the physical characteristics of the
event; and the probability of the event occurring; and the magnitude of the event; and
the potential for damage to infrastructure, property and people in the area likely to be
affected.
• The risk is defined by the probability of occurrence combined with the potential effects
of that occurrence.
• When assessing the "risk" of natural hazards, two aspects are considered. Firstly, the
nature of the hazard. For example, an earthquake may occur infrequently but cause
widespread damage; whereas, a river flood may be frequent but cause damage to a
localised area. Secondly, the vulnerability of the community to a particular hazard. For
example, intensive development in a floodable area increases the vulnerability of the
community to a flood.
One plan also noted that:
Acceptable risk is generally permitted, allowing people to manage the risk
themselves. Tolerable risk generally requires a resource consent to mitigate the
risk to life and property, including neighbouring properties. Intolerable risk is
generally not provided for. The activity needs to be relocated or redesigned to
lower the risk.
However, this is not a definition of risk, but an explanation of how levels of risk are provided for.
While there are a variety of definitions included in district plans, there are common themes of
likelihood (i.e., probability) and consequences (i.e., damage, potential effects) as highlighted.
Vulnerability was also mentioned twice.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 47
Consequence and likelihood
As previously discussed, risk is the result of both consequence and likelihood. Consequence
can be defined in many ways (e.g., a single consequence such as life safety, or multiple
consequences such as economic, social, cultural, environmental, infrastructural, etc.).
A definition of consequence can therefore be useful for certainty and clarity. For example,
Saunders et al (2013) define consequences in terms of social, cultural, built, economic, and
health and safety impacts.
Q90–Q92. Does the plan include the terms 'consequence' and ‘likelihood’? Is
consequence defined?
All CDEM plans included the term ‘consequence’, compared to 87.5% of RPS’s and 66.7% of
district plans (Figure 19). Of these, no district plans defined consequence. Similarly, no
CDEM plans specifically defined consequence, but three did include how consequences
were rated e.g., it describes an insignificant consequence as one with: "No Injuries, little or
no damage, low financial loss."
One RPS did define consequence, being:
[t]he effects on the community of a natural hazard event including injury or loss of
life, damage to land, buildings and property, financial costs, and general business
and social disruption.
Figure 19 The percentage of plans that include the terms consequences and likelihood.
Of the CDEM plans, 92.9% included the term ‘likelihood’, compared to 68.8% of RPS’s and
78.3% of district plans (Figure 19). These results show that, in general, there is a higher
48 GNS Science Report 2014/28
recognition of consequences of natural hazards in RPS’s and CDEM plans, with district plans
referring to likelihood more than consequence. This is not surprising as the general approach
for planning for natural hazards involves the consideration of the hazard and not the
likelihood. Current land use practices tend to plan for a natural hazard event of a certain
return period, such as the 1:100 event, with little consideration of the associated
consequences of that, or of a larger event.
Q93. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of an
earthquake?
Other terminology was considered for ‘consequence’ and ‘likelihood’ that reflected the intent
of this question. For example, terms such as impact and damage were included for
consequence, and probability for likelihood.
Figure 20 shows that all the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for an
earthquake. For district plans 17.6% identify only the consequences of an earthquake, 7.4%
identify only the likelihood of an earthquake, and 13.2% identify both the consequences and
likelihood of an earthquake. These values show that there is a low identification of
consequences and/or likelihood of earthquakes within the district plans, with 61.8% of district
plans containing no description of either the consequences and/or the likelihood of
earthquakes.
Figure 20 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from an earthquake.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 49
For RPS’s, 25% identify only the consequences of an earthquake, 18.8% identify both the
likelihood of an earthquake, and the consequences and likelihood of an earthquake. These
values show that there is a low identification of consequences and/or likelihood of
earthquakes within the RPS’s, with 37.5% of RPS’s containing no description of either the
consequences and/or the likelihood of earthquakes.
Q94. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a tsunami?
Figure 21 shows that 71.4% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for
a tsunami. 14.3% and 7.1% of the CDEM plans respectively identify the consequences and
the likelihood of a tsunami.
Figure 21 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from a tsunami.
For district plans, 8.7% identify only the consequences of a tsunami, 7.2% identify only the
likelihood of a tsunami, and 1.4% identify both the consequences and likelihood of a tsunami.
These values show that there is a low identification of consequences and/or likelihood of
tsunami within the district plans, with 82.6% of district plans containing no description of
either the consequences and/or the likelihood of tsunami.
50 GNS Science Report 2014/28
For RPS’s, 25% identify only the consequences of a tsunami, 18.8% identify the likelihood of
a tsunami, and 12.5% identify the consequences and likelihood of a tsunami. These values
show that there is a low identification of consequences and/or likelihood of tsunami within the
RPS’s, with 43.8% of RPS’s containing no description of either the consequences and/or the
likelihood of tsunami.
Q95. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a landslide?
Figure 22 shows that 50% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood of a
landslide, with 28.6% of the CDEM plans identifying just the consequences from a landslide.
None of the CDEM plans identified just the likelihood of a landslide.
Figure 22 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from a landslide.
For district plans, 20.3% identify only the consequences of a landslide, 7.2% identify only the
likelihood of a landslide, and 2.9% identify both the consequences and likelihood of a
landslide. 69.6% of district plans contained no description of either the consequences and/or
the likelihood of landslide.
For RPS’s, 37.5% identify only the consequences of landslides, and 12.5% identify the
consequences and likelihood of landslides. There was no identification of the likelihood of
landslides within the RPS’s. 50% of RPS’s contained no description of either the
consequences and/or the likelihood of a landslide.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 51
It is not surprising that there is a low recognition of likelihood for landslides within the various
council plans. This is because landslides can be triggered by a number of mechanisms
(storms, earthquakes, and infrastructure failure), and as such it can be difficult to assign a
return period to these natural hazards.
Q96. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a volcanic
eruption?
Figure 23 shows that 71.4% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for
a volcanic eruption, with. 14.3% identifying the consequences from a volcanic eruption. None
of the CDEM plans identified just the likelihood of a volcanic eruption.
Figure 23 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from a volcanic eruption.
For district plans, 4.3% identify only the consequences of a volcanic eruption, 2.9% identify
only the likelihood of a volcanic eruption, and 7.2% identify both the consequences and
likelihood of a volcanic eruption. 85.5% of district plans contained no description of either the
consequences and/or the likelihood of volcanic eruption.
For RPS’s, 6.2% identify only the consequences of volcanic eruptions, 6.2% identify the
likelihood of a volcanic eruption and 18.8% identify the consequences and likelihood of
volcanic eruptions. 68.8% of RPS’s contained no description of either the consequences
and/or the likelihood of a volcanic eruption.
52 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Unlike a number of other natural hazards, volcanic eruptions are relatively confined within the
country to the North Island. While a large eruption could potentially affect the entire country
(hence the high recognition of volcanic eruptions on the CDEM plans), in terms of land use
planning for these hazards, only a limited number of councils would need to consider this
hazard. This assists with explaining the low number of district plans and RPS’s that describe
the likelihood and/or consequences from volcanic eruptions.
Q97. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of a flood?
Figure 24 shows that 85.7% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for
a flood. 14.3% of the CDEM plans identify the consequences from a flood. None of the
CDEM plans identified just the likelihood of a flood.
Figure 24 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from a flood.
For district plans, 26.1% identify only the consequences of a flood, 31.9% identify only the
likelihood of a flood, and 23.2% identify both the consequences and likelihood of a flood.
18.8% of district plans contained no description of either the consequences and/or the
likelihood of floods.
For RPS’s, 31.2% identify only the consequences of floods, 25% identify the likelihood of a
flood and 12.5% identify the consequences and likelihood of floods. 31.2% of RPS’s
contained no description of either the consequences and/or the likelihood of a flood.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 53
Q98. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of coastal
erosion?
Figure 25 shows that 50% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for
coastal erosion. 14.3% of the CDEM plans identify the consequences from coastal erosion.
None of the CDEM plans identified just the likelihood of coastal erosion.
Figure 25 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from coastal erosion.
For district plans, 20.3% identify only the consequences of coastal erosion, 11.6% identify
only the likelihood of coastal erosion, and 7.2% identify both the consequences and
likelihood of coastal erosion. 60.9% of district plans contained no description of either the
consequences and/or the likelihood of coastal erosions.
For RPS’s, 12.5% identify only the consequences of coastal erosion, 6.2% identify only the
likelihood of coastal erosion and 12.5% identify the consequences and likelihood of coastal
erosion. 68.8% of RPS’s contained no description of either the consequences and/or the
likelihood of coastal erosion.
54 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q99. Does the plan address the effect of climate change on the risks of climate
change?
Figure 26 shows that 8.7% of the CDEM plans outlined the consequences and likelihood for
climate change. 23.1% of the CDEM plans identify the consequences from climate change.
7.7% of the CDEM plans identified just the likelihood of climate change.
Figure 26 The percentage of plans that identify the consequences, the likelihood, and the consequences and
likelihood of from climate change.
For district plans, 21.7% identify only the consequences of climate change, 10.1% identify
only the likelihood of climate change, and 8.7% identify both the consequences and
likelihood of climate change. 59.4% of district plans contained no description of either the
consequences and/or the likelihood of climate change.
For RPS’s, 25% identify only the consequences of climate change, 6.2% identify only the
likelihood of climate change and 25% identify the consequences and likelihood of climate
change. 53.8% of RPS’s contained no description of either the consequences and/or the
likelihood of climate change.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 55
Discussion Questions 93–99
As identified by the results of questions 93–99, CDEM plans generally have a greater
identification of the consequences and/or the likelihood of the various natural hazards than
do the district plans and RPS’s. However, unlike CDEM plans, the contents of district plans
and RPS’s are justified in s.32 analysis reports. These s.32 analysis reports were not
reviewed as part of this proposal, and it is possible that these reports contain information
regarding the consequences and/or likelihood of natural hazards as background information
for justification of the policy framework that the respective district plan undertakes.
Nevertheless, it would be useful if the consequences and/or the likelihood of the various
natural hazards were included within the district plans and RPS’s as this information assists
with demonstrating the potential risks that these hazards present within any one council
jurisdiction.
The results show that the consequences and/or the likelihoods of floods are identified the
most in district plans and RPS’s (and had the second highest identification with CDEM
plans). Conversely the consequences and/or the likelihood of tsunami and volcanic eruptions
were identified in the least number of district plans and RPS’s. These results support the
objectives, policy and rules analysis that was previously undertaken within this report and
reinforce that land use planning practices are more strongly favoured towards flood hazards
as opposed to tsunami and volcanic hazards (even when allowing for the more limited
distribution of these hazards).
The CDEM plans had the greatest description of the consequences and/or the likelihoods of
earthquakes. Conversely, the consequences and/or the likelihood of climate change were
identified in the least number of CDEM plans. This lower recognition of the consequences
and likelihood of climate change is probably due to this hazard:
• Being gradual (i.e., sea level rise);
• Influencing other hazards that are already addressed (for example the frequency of
flood events); and/or
• Having uncertainty around the complexity and unpredictability of effects and outcomes.
However, given the ability for climate change to result in more extreme weather events, it is
surprising that the CDEM plans do not qualify this by explaining the difference that climate
change can make to the likelihood and consequences from extreme weather events.
56 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q100. Does the plan outline the consequences and/or likelihood of any other
hazards?
Nine district plans identified the consequences or likelihood of other hazards. The most
commonly identified of these was fire, followed by hydrothermal and drought. Five RPS’s
identified the consequences or likelihood of other hazards. The most commonly identified
other hazard was fire, followed by drought.
Fourteen CDEM plans identified the consequences and/or likelihood of other hazards. The
most commonly identified other hazard was fire, followed by drought. Other hazards with
consequences and likelihoods identified included swell, snow, tornados, hailstorms, and
lightning strikes.
Q101. Does the plan address residual risk?
Residual risk is the risk remaining after risk treatment (ISO., 2009). Risk treatment could
include avoidance, as well as mitigation. An example of residual risk is flood protection,
where stop banks have been built, and development has proceeded behind the stopbanks.
However, if the stopbanks are breached or damaged, the development behind them is at risk
from flooding. Residual risk is important to acknowledge and consider, as it can lead to very
high consequences in the event of failure of mitigation measures.
Given this, only 18.8% of district plans and RPS’s, and 28.6% of CDEM plans address
residual risk.
Q102. Does the plan refer to a risk-based approach?
Proposed reforms of the RMA recommend that the management of significant risks from
natural hazards is included in s.6 (matters of national importance) (Ministry for the
Environment, 2013b). If this recommendation is realised, risk-based planning will have an
important role to play. Currently, only 2.0% of district plans, 12.5% of RPS’s and 35.7% of
CDEM plans refer to a risk-based approach. If the RMA does include reference to natural
hazard risk then we are likely to see these percentages increase over time, as councils adopt
a risk-based approach.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 57
3.12 THEME: THE 4 R’S
This section asks questions around the 4 R’s that underpin the CDEM Act and associated
policies and plans, being Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery. The definitions of
the 4 R’s are provided below (MCDEM, 2008, p. 5):
Reduction Identifying and analysing long term risks to human life and property from
hazards; taking steps to eliminate these risks if practicable, and, if not,
reducing the magnitude of their impact and the likelihood of their occurring;
Readiness Developing operational systems and capabilities before a civil defence
emergency happens; including self-help and response programmes for the
general public, and specific programmes for emergency services, lifeline
utilities and other agencies;
Response Actions taken immediately before, during or directly after a civil defence
emergency to save lives and protect property, and to help communities
recover;
Recovery The coordinated efforts and processes to bring about the immediate, medium-
term and long-term holistic regeneration of a community following a civil
defence emergency.
Of these, risk reduction is of most importance to land use planning, as it is considered to be
managed under the RMA (see Saunders et al., 2007b for a further discussion on this).
However, risk reduction, and in particular natural hazard risk (i.e., consequence and
likelihood), is not included in the RMA – only natural hazard mitigation is included. This has
led to mitigation under the RMA not needing to result in a reduction of risk – only mitigation
from the hazard, which may increase the risk. For example, a development on a flood plain
may mitigate the flood hazard by structural works (to reduce the flood plain), while not
considering the risk of damage to property, life safety, etc. if an event occurs above the
design standard of those works.
Questions 7–10 were asked to assess how well integrated risk reduction under the CDEM
Act is under the RMA, with a comparative assessment to the other three R’s. As expected
(as required under the CDEM Act), all CDEM plans (i.e., 100%) included reduction,
readiness, response and recovery.
58 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Q7. Does the plan discuss/address risk reduction and/or mitigation?
All CDEM plans included both risk reduction and mitigation (Figure 27). Based on the
legislative requirements under the CDEM Act this is somewhat expected, although it is
outstanding that all CDEM plans address both risk reduction and mitigation. In contrast,
72.5% of district plans and 81.2% of RPS’s include reference to both terms, which is
reassuring for consistency between CDEM risk reduction requirements and RMA hazard
mitigation (Figure 27). Only one district plan did not include reference to either mitigation or
risk reduction. No plans referred to risk reduction only.
Figure 27 The percentage of plans that include risk reduction, mitigation, and both risk reduction and
mitigation.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 59
Qs 8, 9, 10. Does the plan discuss/address Readiness? Response? Recovery?
Based on the definition of readiness as outlined above (i.e., being operationally based), it is
somewhat surprising that a quarter of district plans include readiness, along with 43.8% of
RPS’s (Figure 28).
Figure 28 The percentage of plans that discuss readiness, response and recovery.
In contrast to Q8, 40.6% of district plans refer to response, as well as 68.8% of RPS’s
(Figure 28). Response is also very operationally focused, however land use planning is a key
part of recovery, as it provides a unique opportunity to reassess land use provisions and
zoning (Becker, Saunders, Hopkins, Wright, & Johnston, 2010; Burby, 1998). Therefore
recovery should have a higher inclusion/acknowledgement rate than readiness and
response.
60 GNS Science Report 2014/28
4.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
From the themed analysis presented in Section 3, the following key findings and implications
for natural hazard planning are listed:
• CDEM plans appear to have the best linkages to the legislation, monitoring provisions,
and hazard and risk information. To achieve effective risk reduction, we encourage that
these linkages are included within district plans and RPS’s. This will ensure a
consistency of approach and strengthen provisions between plans. Therefore it is
extremely important that regional and district policy and consent planners discuss
natural hazard provisions and consent questions with their emergency management
team. Emergency managers may also benefit from discussing how their plans can be
better integrated into RPS’s and district plans.
• A high percentage of district plans contain all-hazard objectives, policies and
anticipated environmental outcomes, but several low likelihood/high consequence
hazards (volcanic and tsunami in particular) have very few rules.
• There is a strong bias within district plans and RPS’s towards flooding and landslide
hazards. This may be attributable to these being high likelihood hazards.
• District plans lead in the mapping of natural hazards, with flood extents being mapped
most often. However, a wide range of scales, both ratio and ruler format, exist. Some
plans do not include scales, and this undermines their accuracy and practical use.
• For earthquake, 37.7% of the district plans had specific rules pertaining to active faults.
Given the tectonic environment of New Zealand, this suggests that there is a large
under representation of active fault rules within the district plans.
• Many plans only consider single hazard events, and not the subsequent hazards that
may occur from that single event. Further awareness and inclusion of cumulative
hazards should be made in the future.
• Only 68.8% of the RPS’s identified the parties responsible for implementing the
relevant provisions of this document. If RPS’s do not identify the parties’ responsible,
there is a risk that no party will implement provisions, resulting in the outcomes
identified in the RPS not being achieved.
• Overall, RPS’s and district plans rarely include monitoring provisions, with flood the
highest ranked monitored hazard amongst regional councils at 50%. Coastal erosion
and flooding (both at 27.5%) are the two hazards that include the highest frequency of
monitoring provisions within district plans, with tsunami and volcano monitoring the
least monitored hazards (both at 1.4%). There is also a lack of clarity around who is
responsible for monitoring, which could lead to some monitoring not being undertaken.
• Very few district plans (10.1%) and no RPS’s have a clear process for the inclusion of
new or updated hazard or risk information. This may lead to a considerable risk that a
council may not act on new information, and that inappropriate development could
continue.
• While nearly all plans include the term ‘risk’, it is often not defined. When it is defined,
there is no standard definition used, but there are common themes of likelihood (i.e.,
probability) and consequences (i.e., damage, potential effects). It is recommended that
the term ‘risk’ is defined if legislated within the RMA (as natural hazards are defined), to
ensure a consistent approach to assessing consequences.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 61
The analysis untaken has been limited in scope, in that it has focussed on comparisons
between the three types of plans. There is an opportunity in the future to undertake further
data mining within the data collected for this project, in order to analyse specific natural
hazard provisions within – and across – plans.
62 GNS Science Report 2014/28
5.0 FUTURE RESEARCH
There is a large amount of data associated with this project, with a wide range of research
possibilities available. Further analysis of the data will provide greater understanding of the
state of planning for natural hazards within New Zealand, and the implications of the differing
approaches undertaken by the various councils. Such research could include (and is not
limited to):
• A review of the definitions of natural hazards provided in the district plans, RPS’s and
CDEM group plans to see how they vary from the definitions within the legislation, and
the implications of this.
• A review of the all hazard objectives and policies from various council plans to see
whether they would effectively address natural hazard risk not covered by a specific
natural hazard objective with hazard specific policies.
• A review of district plan rules to see how uncertainty associated with natural hazards,
as shown on planning maps, is taken into account by these rules. This review would
need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of how uncertainty is represented
by the relevant rules.
• A review of the monitoring provisions with the CDEM group plans, RPS’s and district
plan to see how effective they are, and the benchmarks that they use to undertake this
monitoring. This could include interviews with a sample of councils to get an
understanding of what percentage undertake monitoring of natural hazards in
accordance with the provisions of the relevant council plans. The challenges, barriers
and opportunities associated with monitoring natural hazards, as identified by the
councils, could be explored.
• The tracking of specific RPS policies through district plans within the region, to see how
successfully policies are being applied at a district level. This could also be linked to
the CDEM plans.
• Analysis of how the findings relate to the age of the plans, to assess if there is a trend
toward more recent plans having a higher ‘score’.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 63
This page is intentionally left blank
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible without the support from the Natural Hazards
Research Platform, GNS Science, and the Ministry for the Environment. The authors would
like to thank Fiona Coyle and Levi Timar of GNS Science for their review.
7.0 REFERENCES
Becker, J. S., Saunders, W. S. A., Hopkins, L., Wright, K., & Johnston, D. M. (2010). Preplanning for
recovery. In D. S. Miller & J. D. Rivera (Eds.), Community disaster recovery and resiliency:
exploring global opportunities and challenges (pp. 525–550). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis
Group.
Burby, R. J. (Ed.). (1998). Cooperating with nature: confronting natural hazards with land-use planning
for sustainable communities. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (n.d.). What is vulnerability?
Retrieved 11 April, 2014, from http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-
disasters/what-is-a-disaster/what-is-vulnerability/
ISO. (2009). Guide 73: Risk management – vocabulary. Switzerland: ISO.
Kerr, J., Nathan, S., Van Dissen, R., Webb, P., Brunsdon, D., & King, A. (2003). Planning for
development of land on or close to active faults. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology (Third ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
MCDEM. (2007). National Hazardscape Report: Officials' Committee for Domestic & External Security
Coordination, Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet.
MCDEM. (2008). National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy 2007. Wellington:
Department of Internal Affairs.
MCDEM. (2009). CDEM Group Plan Review – Director's guidelines for Civil Defence Emergency
Management (CDEM) Groups [DGL 09/09]. Wellington: Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency
Management.
MCDEM. (n.d.). CDEM Groups. Retrieved March, 2014, from
http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/For-the-CDEM-Sector-CDEM-
Groups-Index?OpenDocument
Ministry for the Environment. (2008). Natural hazards guidance note. Retrieved 5 June 2009, from
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/plan-topics/natural-hazards.php
Ministry for the Environment. (2009). Preparing for coastal change: A guide for local government in
New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Ministry for the Environment. (2010). Preparing for future flooding: A guide for local government in
New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
GNS Science Report 2014/28 65
Ministry for the Environment. (2013a). Improving our resource management system. A discussion
document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Ministry for the Environment. (2013b). Resource management summary of reform proposals.
Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Quality Planning. (n.d.-a). Ideas of planning maps. Retrieved March, 2014, from
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-steps/structuring-plans/plan-structure-ideas-
for-useability/10-useful-links/388-ideas-for-planning-maps
Quality Planning. (n.d.-b). Policy and plan effectiveness monitoring. Retrieved March, 2014, from
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/monitor/policy-and-plan-effectiveness
Quality Planning. (n.d.-c). Writing issues, objectives and policies. Retrieved February, 2014, from
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-steps/writing-plans/writing-issues-objectives-
and-policies
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social Research (Second ed.): MacMillian Education Australia Pty Ltd.
Saunders, W. S. A., & Beban, J. G. (2012). Putting R(isk) in the RMA: Technical Advisory Group
recommendations on the Resource Management Act 1991 and implications for natural
hazards planning. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.
Saunders, W. S. A., Beban, J. G., & Kilvington, M. (2013). Risk-based land use planning for natural
hazard risk reduction. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.
Saunders, W. S. A., & Berryman, K. R. (2012). Just add water: When should liquefaction be
considered in land use planning? (Vol. 47). Lower Hutt: GNS Science.
Saunders, W. S. A., Forsyth, J., Johnston, D. M., & Becker, J. (2007a). Acting Accordingly: using the
RMA & CDEM Act to improve community resilience. Paper presented at the The Politics of
Planning – do you know the rules of the game?, Palmerston North.
Saunders, W. S. A., Forsyth, J., Johnston, D. M., & Becker, J. (2007b). Strengthening linkages
between land-use planning and emergency management in New Zealand. Australian Journal
of Emergency Management, 22(1), 36–43.
Saunders, W. S. A., & Glassey, P. (2007). Guidelines for assessing planning policy and consent
requirements for landslide-prone land. Lower Hutt: GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 7,
GNS Science.
Saunders, W. S. A., Prasetya, G., & Leonard, G. (2011). New Zealand's Next Top Model:
incorporating tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.
Saunders, W. S. A., & Ruske, M. (2014). Tabulated results from review of natural hazard provisions in
regional policy statements, territorial authority plans, and CDEM group plans: GNS Science.
66 GNS Science Report 2014/28
APPENDICES
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1: Q4. WHAT IS THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE FOR THE
PLAN AND OPERATIVE DATE (Q2)?
* Carterton, Masterton and South Wairarapa District Councils have a combined plan. Each
are noted on the table below, however are only counted once within the data.
Council Plan name/Bibliographic reference Operative date
Ashburton District Council Ashburton District Council – Proposed District Plan:
Decision Version November 2012 *partially operative –
notified 21/4/201
Auckland CDEM Group Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Plan 2011–2016 30/06/2011
Auckland Council The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan *not operative – notified
30/9/2013
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Part 1:
Chapter B) *not operative – notified
30/9/2013
Banks Peninsula District
Plan Banks Peninsula District Plan 15/10/2012
Bay of Plenty CDEM Group Bay of Plenty Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group Plan 2012–2017 1/08/2012
Bay of Plenty Regional
Council Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement 1/12/1999
Buller District Council Buller District Plan 28/01/2000
Canterbury CDEM Group Canterbury Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group CDEM Group Plan 2005–2010 1/01/2005
Carterton District Council* Wairarapa Combined District Plan 25/05/2011
Central Hawke's Bay District
Council Operative Central Hawkes Bay District Plan 1/05/2003
Central Otago District
Council Central Otago District Plan 1/04/2008
Chatham Islands Council Chatham Islands Resource Management Document 24/01/2001
Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Plan 21/11/2005
Clutha District Council Clutha District Council District Plan 30/06/1998
Dunedin City Council Dunedin City District Plan 3/07/2006
Environment Canterbury Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2014 16/01/2013
Environment Southland Regional Policy Statement for Southland 15/12/1997
Far North District Council Far North District Plan 27/08/2009
Gisborne CDEM Group Gisborne District: Civil Defence Emergency
Management Plan 01/12/2009
Gisborne District Council Gisborne District Council Combined Regional Land
& District Plan 31/01/2006 (Partially
operative)
Gisborne District Council Operative Regional Policy
Statement 10/08/2002
GNS Science Report 2014/28 69
Council Plan name/Bibliographic reference Operative date
Gore District Council Gore District Plan 1/07/2006
Greater Wellington Regional
Council Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington
Region: Quality for Life 24/04/2013
Grey District Council Grey District Plan: NatuREALLY Amazing – The
Grey District 18/03/2005
Hamilton City Council Hamilton City Operative District Plan 28/07/2012
Hastings District Council Hastings District Plan 10/06/2003
Hauraki District Council Partially Operative Proposed Hauraki District Plan
(November 2012) – "Appeals Version" 14/09/2012
Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group Plan: March 2005–30 June
2010
14/03/2005
Hawke's Bay Regional
Council Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan
(RRMP) 28/08/2006
Horizons Regional Council One Plan * not yet operative
Horowhenua District Council Horowhenua District Plan 13/09/1999
Hurunui District Council Hurunui District Plan 7/08/2003
Hutt City Council District Plan – City of Lower Hutt 18/03/2004
Invercargill City Council Invercargill City District Plan 4/02/2005
Kaikoura District Council Kaikoura District Plan 23/06/2008
Kaipara District Council Operative Kaipara District Plan 1/11/2013
Kapiti Coast District Council Kapiti Coast District Plan 30/07/1999
Kawerau District Council Kawerau District Plan 1/05/2012
Mackenzie District Council Mackenzie District Plan 24/05/2004
Manawatu / Wanganui
Region CDEM Group Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan
2009–2014: Manawatu-Wanganui Emergency
Management Group
5/12/2009
Manawatu District Council Manawatu District Plan 1/12/2002
Marlborough District Council Marlborough Regional Policy Statement 28/08/1995
Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan 28/02/2003
Wairau/Awatere Resource Management Plan 9/03/2009
Masterton District Council* Wairarapa Combined District Plan 25/05/2011
Matamata-Piako District
Council Matamata-Piako Operative District Plan 25/07/2005
Napier City Council City of Napier District Plan 21/11/2011
Nelson City Council Nelson Regional Policy Statement 10/03/1997
Nelson Resource Management Plan 1/09/2004
Nelson Tasman CDEM
Group Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group Plan 2012 01/08/2012
New Plymouth District New Plymouth District Plan 15/08/2005
70 GNS Science Report 2014/28
Council Plan name/Bibliographic reference Operative date
Council
Northland CDEM Group Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management
Plan 1/3/2010
Northland Regional Council Regional Policy Statement for Northland 31/03/1999
Opotiki District Council Opotiki District Council District Plan 22/09/2005
Otago CDEM Group Otago Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Plan 2012–2017 9/12/2011
Otago Regional Council Regional Policy Statement for Otago 1/10/1998
Otorohanga District Council Otorohanga District Plan: Decisions Version 6
March 2012 6/03/2012
Palmerston North City
Council Palmerston North City Council District Plan 18/12/2000
Porirua City Council Porirua City District Plan 1/11/1999
Queenstown Lakes District
Council Queenstown Lakes District Plan 10/12/2009
Rangitikei District Council Operative District Plan – Rangitikei District Council:
2013 3/10/2013
Rotorua District Council Rotorua District Plan 20/09/2000
Ruapehu District Council Ruapehu District Plan 1/10/2013
Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Plan 10/06/2008
South Taranaki District
Council Operative South Taranaki District Plan (December
2004) 17/12/2004
South Waikato District
Council South Waikato District Council Operative District
Plan 30/06/1998
South Wairarapa District
Council* Wairarapa Combined District Plan 25/05/2011
Southland CDEM Group Southland Group Plan 20/02/2012
Southland District Council Southland District Plan 27/06/2001
Stratford District Council Stratford District Plan 22/10/2009
Taranaki CDEM Group Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan
for Taranaki 01/09/2012
Taranaki Regional Council Taranaki Regional Council Regional Policy
Statement for Taranaki 1/01/2010
Tararua District Council Operative Tararua District Plan 1/09/2012
Tasman District Council Tasman Regional Policy Statement 1/07/2001
Tasman Resource Management Plan 1/11/2008
Taupo District Council Taupo District Plan 11/10/2007
Tauranga City Council Tauranga City Plan 9/09/2013
Thames-Coromandel District
Council Thames-Coromandel District Plan 30/04/2010
GNS Science Report 2014/28 71
Council Plan name/Bibliographic reference Operative date
The Hauraki Gulf & Islands
Plan Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf
Islands Section 7/10/2013
Timaru District Council Timaru District Plan 8/03/2005
Upper Hutt City Council Upper Hutt District Plan 1/09/2004
Waikato CDEM Group Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Plan 2011–2015 1/11/2011
Waikato District Council Waikato District Plan 5/04/2013
Waikato District Plan – Franklin Section 29/02/2000
Waikato Regional Council Waikato Regional Policy Statement 8/11/2002
Waimakariri District Council Waimakariri District Plan 28/11/2005
Waimate District Council Waimate District Plan 8/08/2011 – *proposed
date*
Waipa District Council Waipa District Plan 1/12/1997
Wairoa District Council Wairoa District Plan 25/06/2005
Waitaki District Council Waitaki District Plan 23/08/2010
Waitomo District Council Waitomo District Plan 1/03/2009
Wanganui District Council Wanganui District Plan 27/02/2004
Wellington CDEM Group Wellington Regional Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group Plan 2013–2018 1/07/2013
Wellington City Council Wellington City District Plan 27/07/2000
West Coast CDEM Group West Coast Civil Defence Emergency Management
Group Plan 13/09/2010
West Coast Regional
Council West Coast Regional Policy Statement 10/03/2000
Western Bay of Plenty
District Council Western Bay of Plenty District Plan 16/06/2012
Westland District Council Westland District Council District Plan: For the Wild
at Heart 1/06/2002
Whakatane District Council Operative Whakatane District Plan 15/10/2010
Whangarei District Council Whangarei District Plan 3/05/2007
72 GNS Science Report 2014/28
1 Fairway Drive
Avalon
PO Box 30368
Lower Hutt
New Zealand
T +64-4-570 1444
F +64-4-570 4600
Dunedin Research Centre
764 Cumberland Street
Private Bag 1930
Dunedin
New Zealand
T +64-3-477 4050
F +64-3-477 5232
Wairakei Research Centre
114 Karetoto Road
Wairakei
Private Bag 2000, Taupo
New Zealand
T +64-7-374 8211
F +64-7-374 8199
National Isotope Centre
30 Gracefield Road
PO Box 31312
Lower Hutt
New Zealand
T +64-4-570 1444
F +64-4-570 4657
Principal Location
www.gns.cri.nz
Other Locations
