Speaker 1: Kiota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. New
Speaker 1: Zealand has seen plenty of severe weather in recent years.
Speaker 1: Stories about towns flooding when hit with heavy rainfall have
Speaker 1: become commonplace. Just in the last month, towns like Nelson
Speaker 1: and Marlborough have been devastated, while other areas like Taranaki
Speaker 1: have been badly affected as this type of rainfall becomes
Speaker 1: the norm. But what are the long term solutions? Today
Speaker 1: on the Front Page, Doctor Tom Logan, senior lecturer at
Speaker 1: the University of Canterbury and Chief Technical Officer at Urban Intelligence,
Speaker 1: is with us to explore how we can better protect
Speaker 1: our towns from severe weather and if moving them should
Speaker 1: be on the cards. Tom, when you look at some
Speaker 1: of the extreme weather events we've had this year, does
Speaker 1: it seem that the risk of flooding and other climate
Speaker 1: impacts is becoming more of a reality.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the we're certainly seeing more of the
Speaker 2: impacts of climate change and definitely is feeling more real
Speaker 2: to everyone. I think over the last not even this year,
Speaker 2: but over the last maybe five years, it's just seemed
Speaker 2: like there's been another disaster all the time, and we've
Speaker 2: seen a lot of studies that attribute those weather events
Speaker 2: to climate change.
Speaker 1: What do you see is some of the common issues
Speaker 1: that come up whenever there is a major weather event.
Speaker 2: So the obvious one is flooding of homes, but I
Speaker 2: think it's we're starting to see a lot more nuance
Speaker 2: to what those impacts are. Like. Obviously homes and infrastructure
Speaker 2: that is affected, so people then get cut off or stranded,
Speaker 2: but a lot more disruption sort of what we would
Speaker 2: call cascading or domino effects, if you will, where the
Speaker 2: where the hazard has affected an infrastructure. But because we've
Speaker 2: designed society on what we describe as interdependent systems, so
Speaker 2: all of these connections, as soon as one domino falls,
Speaker 2: all of these others for and that's where we see
Speaker 2: these longer term outages or impacts, whether it's road or
Speaker 2: power or water, what have you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you often see the same thing around roads, flooding,
Speaker 1: rivers bursting their banks, power lines falling down, and all that.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's right. And it's those sort of physical
Speaker 2: impacts that then lead to the wider, perhaps less tangible impacts,
Speaker 2: and that's those ones that are actually more insidious. These
Speaker 2: are things that actually affect people. It's those disruptions to
Speaker 2: homes or businesses or supply chains.
Speaker 1: What do we get wrong at a local central government
Speaker 1: level around how we approach preparing for the future.
Speaker 2: I think the key one of the key challenges is
Speaker 2: that we still generally we recognize that climate changes is happening,
Speaker 2: but we haven't really embedded that into our design that
Speaker 2: we have to change and design for different conditions in
Speaker 2: ten or twenty years. It's not what we can't continue
Speaker 2: to design for the environment that we had ten twenty
Speaker 2: fifty years ago. And as a result, our planning and
Speaker 2: the system set up by the BI central government aren't equipped,
Speaker 2: aren't providing the resources for or even empowering local government
Speaker 2: to make the decisions that they need to be making.
Speaker 3: Really, the process we're preparing for a big event like
Speaker 3: that is decades in the making, or at least years
Speaker 3: in the making. Our pipes just simply can't handle that
Speaker 3: much water at one time, and that's how we drain
Speaker 3: our cities in our streets. What we need to look
Speaker 3: at is more nature based solutions, or we call sponge
Speaker 3: city approach to absorbing a lot of that water and
Speaker 3: lessening the impact.
Speaker 1: The Herald recently reported that Auckland Council has approved four
Speaker 1: thousand new homes in flood prone areas and that since
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Are you surprised by this?
Speaker 2: No. Analysis that we did in twenty nineteen showed that
Speaker 2: christ Church and I think christ Church and Denedan with
Speaker 2: some of the areas with the highest increases of new
Speaker 2: builds and that would have been a percentage of their
Speaker 2: total residential property. So I'm not surprised that Auckland as
Speaker 2: a total number would be up there as well. But
Speaker 2: then in terms of number of properties built in coastal
Speaker 2: flood zones, and that's just coastal, not including river and
Speaker 2: I think that's where that challenges is that we're still
Speaker 2: often counselors find themselves up being a rock and a
Speaker 2: hard place because they don't always have the resources or
Speaker 2: the mandate to prevent that development.
Speaker 1: What are some of the short term solutions that you
Speaker 1: think aren't working.
Speaker 2: I think there's this pressure that we have to act
Speaker 2: quickly and visibly, but what we've seen from international research
Speaker 2: is that these what we would call disaster driven responses
Speaker 2: can be inefficient or even now adaptive. So for example,
Speaker 2: there'll be a drive following a wildfire, for example, to
Speaker 2: increase burnoffs, but we know that burnoffs actually can maybe
Speaker 2: they suppress frequent fires, but make the impacts of bigger
Speaker 2: fires much worse. And similarly we would see somelar. We
Speaker 2: would see the same thing happening with postal or river
Speaker 2: protection in some cases, where where protective structures can reduce
Speaker 2: the impacts of those regular but smaller events but make
Speaker 2: the rest worse from bigger ones. And partially that can
Speaker 2: be due to people thinking that the problem is fixed
Speaker 2: and then their behavior not shifting. So essentially what we're
Speaker 2: doing is decision makers are wanting to be seen to
Speaker 2: do something useful and immediately after. But sometimes when that's
Speaker 2: not thought out well enough, it can be either inefficient
Speaker 2: or not effective at all.
Speaker 1: Right, so what sort of long term solutions should we
Speaker 1: be looking at instead?
Speaker 2: That's essentially when we need to be much more proactive
Speaker 2: in terms of is this the right place for us
Speaker 2: to be investing development? What's the We will need some
Speaker 2: hard we will need things like sea walls or harder
Speaker 2: infrastructure protective measures in some areas, but we can't afford
Speaker 2: to do that everywhere in the country, so we need
Speaker 2: to be very strategic around where we do that. Ultimately,
Speaker 2: what we need to see around the country a risk estments,
Speaker 2: that multi hazard risk assessment, so understand our risk from
Speaker 2: not just flooding but also fire and landslide, even earthquakes,
Speaker 2: groundwater as well, groundwater rise, which could be a major
Speaker 2: problem for us. And then say, let's make sure that
Speaker 2: we don't avoid one area, I need to make us
Speaker 2: more at risk from a different area. And ultimately, what
Speaker 2: we're wanting to do is not take like disproportionate action,
Speaker 2: but saying let's have a plan or have a series
Speaker 2: of plans. That's that says, once the risk becomes intolerable
Speaker 2: in this area, here are some things that we could
Speaker 2: do to reduce them. So plan A, B and C.
Speaker 1: Are there any communities that you think are leading the
Speaker 1: way on long term adaptations?
Speaker 2: Think so, christ Church has just finished an adaptation plan
Speaker 2: for the Diamond Harbor area and that's one of that's
Speaker 2: probably the best example of that in the country and
Speaker 2: possibly worldwide. Actually equally, Bullet District Council has a plan
Speaker 2: to relocate the town of Westport, and that's not saying
Speaker 2: everyone like pack your bags tomorrow. That's saying, look, if
Speaker 2: there's a if there's another major disaster, this is an
Speaker 2: option for us, so that we're not basically sitting ducks
Speaker 2: with no plan of action. So I think that's where
Speaker 2: where there's a challenge, and often we get a lot
Speaker 2: of Often we'll see vocal pushback in the community, but
Speaker 2: it's not saying, look, this is what we have to do,
Speaker 2: and we have to do it immediately. It's saying there's
Speaker 2: a plan in place if we need it. South Dondan
Speaker 2: is also another area that's been doing some really proactive
Speaker 2: work in this.
Speaker 1: In this space, well, I feel like a lot of
Speaker 1: towns in the South Island, especially like you look at Tasman,
Speaker 1: Marlborough and Nelson always make the headlines for flooding when
Speaker 1: there's a major storm. Could we be looking at having
Speaker 1: to move entire communities at some point? So there's one
Speaker 1: thing to have a plan, but I feel like how
Speaker 1: soon will it be to be? Like right, the cost
Speaker 1: of moving an entire town is actually more feasible than
Speaker 1: the adaptation.
Speaker 2: Efforts that'll surely happen in the next few decades. The
Speaker 2: challenges is going to be around insurance as well, because
Speaker 2: at the moment our properties are still largely insured and
Speaker 2: ideally we'd want to move them following when there is
Speaker 2: still insurance in place. Once we lose the insurance, that
Speaker 2: means that the resources available to us to do that
Speaker 2: it will become obviously significantly less. But realistically there are
Speaker 2: going to be some areas that because we've built so
Speaker 2: many towns and communities in floodplains for history reasons, but yeah,
Speaker 2: we will we will likely have to move some of them.
Speaker 2: Figuring out how to do that in a way that's
Speaker 2: as best for the residents and for a sense of
Speaker 2: community and all of those aspects is going to be
Speaker 2: as a massive challenge for local government, central government and
Speaker 2: is a big focus of a lot of social science
Speaker 2: research as well.
Speaker 1: Where do you move a down to?
Speaker 4: Like, what what do you do?
Speaker 1: How do you start that process?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that's the conversation that Westport is having at
Speaker 2: the moment is first off, where would you go? And
Speaker 2: then starting to think about essentially anchor projects that that
Speaker 2: would incentivize or or attract other development. Often, I think
Speaker 2: what we'll see is that there could be a huge
Speaker 2: number of co benefits or other benefits to relocating if
Speaker 2: it's well, we can design the new space and not
Speaker 2: just in somewhere that has less risk from hazards, but
Speaker 2: also maybe it is designed more for walking and cycling
Speaker 2: so it's easier to get around or to get things
Speaker 2: that you want to want to go to, or what
Speaker 2: have you, or just having nicer, you know, nicer homes
Speaker 2: rather than all of our cold, cold, classic buildings. But
Speaker 2: it's really going to have to be a conversation that
Speaker 2: include it's going to be a long process to talk
Speaker 2: to the talk to the communities, see what their their preferences.
Speaker 2: We saw in Japan actually that after the Tsunamis, they
Speaker 2: really located a lot of their coastal coastal communities or
Speaker 2: coastal towns, but they did it in a really really
Speaker 2: top down way, which meant that a lot of people
Speaker 2: just left. So now so they put all this infrastructure in,
Speaker 2: but there was no one, no one stuck around to
Speaker 2: live there because they missed the step of actually asking
Speaker 2: the residents what they wanted. So we can't. Yeah, we
Speaker 2: need to. That's the reason why we still have to
Speaker 2: this with the technical side in terms of way is safe,
Speaker 2: and then the social side of well there's no point
Speaker 2: of moving away from all of the For example, if
Speaker 2: you're in Japan, if it's a fishing village, there's no
Speaker 2: point of moving on to the top of the hill
Speaker 2: where you can't easily exiss your livelihood.
Speaker 4: Today, the physical scars of the tsunami have been all
Speaker 4: but erased from resent Takata. Massive sea walls over forty
Speaker 4: feet high have been erected, but that's just the first
Speaker 4: line of defense. In an elaborate effort to the tsunami proof
Speaker 4: the city represent Takata literally moved mountains, using nearly two
Speaker 4: mile long conveyor belts to carry in enough gravel and
Speaker 4: rock to build the Great Pyramids of Egypt. In an
Speaker 4: extraordinary civil works undertaking to lift the downtown commercial district
Speaker 4: out of harm's way. And here's the final result. A
Speaker 4: city that was once at sea level has elevated itself
Speaker 4: by thirty feet. It's a controversial that's cost Japanese taxpayers
Speaker 4: more than one billion dollars.
Speaker 1: It sounds like there's a real opportunity for New Zealand
Speaker 1: to be a world leader almost in this in this area.
Speaker 1: Given the fact that you said, what we will have
Speaker 1: to start having serious conversations about this within the next
Speaker 1: few decades.
Speaker 2: I think so. I think especially if we can consider
Speaker 2: it in terms of an opportunity rather than just a
Speaker 2: big problem. But I think that comes from being able
Speaker 2: to have that proactive rather than response like post disaster response,
Speaker 2: being able to say, what is it that we want
Speaker 2: from from the community, What is it that we value?
Speaker 2: Is that is that something that we can still achieve
Speaker 2: or even enhance by moving down the road or so. Yes,
Speaker 2: I do think that there's a big opportunity to be
Speaker 2: world leaders and think about what is how can we
Speaker 2: make everyone's lives better as we do this, and by
Speaker 2: the way, and reduce our rescue natural hazards well.
Speaker 1: One of the criticisms of the adaptation approach is that
Speaker 1: it can feel like we're giving up when it comes
Speaker 1: to climate change, preparing to live in this new world
Speaker 1: of extreme weather, rather than trying to avoid sea levels
Speaker 1: and temperatures rising. Where do you see adaptation fitting in
Speaker 1: with the fight against climate change?
Speaker 2: So they have to be joined up. Yeah. Clarifying those terms,
Speaker 2: what when we talk about mitigation, we're talking about actions
Speaker 2: that we can take to stop climate change and adaptation
Speaker 2: actions we can take to protect against climate change that's
Speaker 2: already happening, and those terms are such a pain in
Speaker 2: the butt because mitigation and adaptation meant nothing to real people.
Speaker 2: We can't just prepare for climate change and continue to
Speaker 2: let it get worse, because essentially they're saying is we
Speaker 2: have to manage the unavoidable. So we have to manage
Speaker 2: what we've locked them, and we have to avoid the unmanageable.
Speaker 2: And that's where we still really urgently have to do
Speaker 2: everything we can to to ensure that climate change doesn't
Speaker 2: get worse, because if it continues to get worse, it
Speaker 2: we'll get to a point where we can't where we
Speaker 2: can't protect against it. The IBCC has some pretty severe
Speaker 2: impacts that would make life very difficult for for all
Speaker 2: of us. So it's definitely a hand in hand kind
Speaker 2: of approach. We can both future proof our communities in
Speaker 2: terms of natural hazards also do that in a way
Speaker 2: that reduces emissions, builds builds community cohesion and economic vibrancy.
Speaker 2: So to me, it's it is a big opportunity, but
Speaker 2: it's also something that we have to have to start
Speaker 2: thinking about proactively.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Tom, Thank you, it's great that's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
Speaker 1: read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
Speaker 1: enzadherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is produced
Speaker 1: by Ethan Seals and Richard Martin, who is also our
Speaker 1: sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 1: in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.