SB10 New Zealand Page 1 of 11

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DESIGN FOR NATURAL HAZARD RISK REDUCTION

WENDY SAUNDERS

GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Student Paper

ABSTRACT
In order for a community to be resilient, it must be designed so that the risk and impact of natural
hazards is reduced to a tolerable level. The management of natural hazard risk relies on balancing
three key risk reduction strategies: (1) land-use planning and building codes; (2) effective early
warning systems; and (3) natural process modification (e.g. engineering solutions such as stopbanks).
Recent research has combined these components into a framework which includes elements of risk
assessment; district plan and Building Act provisions; appropriate urban design and construction;
warning systems; education; and consultation with key stakeholders (communities, researchers, urban
designers, etc).

While the Building Code aims to provide protection from the environmental actions on buildings, it
cannot eliminate all risk. For example, one can design adequate strengthening to resist the loadings of
wind, snow, and earthquake ground shaking; but the application of hazard risk reduction strategies
through land use planning my be required for other hazards such as flooding. This paper will outline
the role of land use planning in stipulating certain building design criteria for flooding. District plan
provisions for buildings will be presented, which may stipulate possible floor levels, construction
materials, and height for residential buildings in areas of high hazard risk. Two examples of urban
design incorporating hazard mitigation are provided, followed by a more extensive assessment of how
tsunami hazard can be incorporated into urban design and construction.

This paper will present a framework for sustainable risk reduction, followed by an outline of the role
of land use planning in urban design. Two examples of urban design incorporating hazard mitigation
are provided, followed by a more extensive assessment of how tsunami hazard can be incorporated
into urban design and construction. The result will be an appreciation of the role of urban design and
construction in providing sustainable, resilient communities.

KEYWORDS
Risk reduction; urban design; sustainability; land use planning; natural hazard.

INTRODUCTION
A sustainable community is a resilient one; it is a community that seeks to understand and live with
the physical and environmental forces present at its location. Sustainability represents a powerful
theoretical framework through which to understand land use and hazards. Creating sustainable
communities means creating places that are far less vulnerable to natural forces and events, and more
resilient to these events (Beatley, 1998). Sustainability means being able to tolerate and overcome
damage, diminished productivity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event without
significant outside assistance. To achieve sustainability, communities must take responsibility for
choosing where and how development proceeds. This includes evaluating its environmental resources
and hazards, deciding what future losses are acceptable, and ensuring that development and other
community actions and policies adhere to those goals (Mileti, 1999).

To achieve sustainability in the face of a hazard or disaster threat, a community must choose where
and how its development proceeds. Each locality or community must evaluate its environmental
resources and hazard risks, choose the future it is willing to tolerate, define the losses that are
unacceptable, and ensure that all community development decisions and actions adhere to these goals
(Schneider, 2006). A sustainability approach ought to reduce, or at minimum not increase,
SB10 New Zealand Page 2 of 11

community vulnerability and disaster recovery costs to levels that do not compromise other public
objectives nor burden future generations (Puszkin-Chevlin et al., 2006).

Sustainable development is being generally accepted within the planning profession as a valid
framework with respect to both planning policies and planning process (Jepson, 2004). Planning for
sustainable communities is directly connected to community planning, linking social, economic, and
environmental concerns to the process of natural hazard risk reduction. Risk reduction, in turn,
includes the promotion of sustainability as a key component (Schneider, 2006). Potentially
controversial and difficult to implement, land use approaches are considered a sustainable solution,
because they reduce vulnerability by limiting asset exposure rather than insuring risk (Puszkin-
Chevlin et al., 2006). The challenge is to anticipate change and shape it for sustainability in a manner
that does not lead to a loss of future options (Folke et al., 2003).

This paper will present a framework for sustainable risk reduction, followed by an outline of the role
of land use planning in urban design. Two examples of urban design incorporating hazard mitigation
are provided, followed by a more extensive assessment of how tsunami hazard can be incorporated
into urban design and construction. The result will be an appreciation of the role of urban design and
construction in providing sustainable, resilient communities.

A FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE RISK REDUCTION

The management of natural hazard risk relies on balancing three key risk reduction strategies: (1)
land-use planning and building codes; (2) effective early warning systems; and (3) natural process
modification (e.g. engineering solutions such as stopbanks) (Leonard et al., 2008). A framework has
been developed which incorporates the elements leading to risk reduction. Holistic in nature, the
framework (Figure 1) includes the requirements of the Building Act 2004, Resource Management Act
1991, and Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. As Leonard et al. (2008) outlined, often
land use change and building codes are the last to be implemented in the suite of tools due to
perceived difficulties of process. The framework shown in Figure 1 provides a tool for integrating
land use planning, building regulation/construction, and emergency management.

The framework has been guided by the risk reduction principles from the 1994 World Conference on
Natural Disaster Reduction in Yokohama (cited in ISDR, 2004, p10). Six of these risk reduction
principles are relevant to this research: 1) risk assessment; 2) disaster prevention and preparedness; 3)
policy and planning at national and regional levels; 4) early warnings; 5) participation at all levels,
from the local community through to national government; and 6) property design and patterns of
development. The framework shown in Figure 1 reflects these six principles, and includes two other
steps based on the Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard 31000:2009 communicate
and consult, and monitor and review. Other factors, such as insurance, are also being used as risk
reduction tools in some countries (e.g. USA, Australia), but in New Zealand the potential for
insurance to be used in this way has yet to be realised.
SB10 New Zealand Page 3 of 11

1. Risk Assessment

Between researchers (i.e. scientists, academics); national, regional, and

Based on AS/NZ Risk Management Standard 4360. Open

district levels of governance; with communities and key stakeholders

communication with the community and agencies about
opportunities, constraints, future growth, policies, risk, and
community outcomes.

Monitor & Review - with reporting requirements

2. Institutional Frameworks
Documenting and regulating for land use planning,
emergency management planning and preparedness, and
building regulation; hazard maps, planning policies, consent
Communicate & Consult

conditions, building requirements, thresholds, evacuation

routes and maps.

3. Urban Design & Construction

Designing to avoid hazards if possible, otherwise taking a
risk-based approach (design and build to mitigate risk).
Building in the natural environment (CAUTION: often
increases the risk), possibly reinstating the natural
environment/process in areas of pre-existing development).
Restricted by planning and building requirements.

4. Early Warning System

Forecasting, dissemination of warnings, preparedness
measures and reaction capabilities.

5. Education & Participation

National, regional, and community and public education, staff
training, maps, and signs (designed with the community),
exercises.

Figure 1: Factors that contribute to innovative natural hazard risk reduction (ISDR, 2004, Standards
Australia/New Zealand, 2009).

Figure 1 has five key elements: (1) Risk Assessment, which includes open communication with the
community and agencies about future growth, hazard risk, and community outcomes.
Communication channels also need to include land use and emergency management planners, which
represents a rational-comprehensive planning approach (Randolph, 2004); (2) Institutional
Frameworks reflects the integrated role the planning, emergency management and building legislation
(Resource Management Act 1991, Civil Defence & Emergency Management Act 2002, and Building
Act 2004) should have for hazard management; as well as the importance of documentation and
regulation to ensure any knowledge is not lost; (3) Urban Design and Construction includes the
design and physical process of building within both established (brownfield) and new (greenfield)
development sites. As such, it may involve modifying the natural process system with structural (e.g..
stopbanks) and non-structural (e.g. dune restoration) approaches. In the first instance, avoiding an
area subject to a hazard is promoted; if the area is already developed, a risk-based approach should be
taken (see Kerr et al., 2003, Saunders and Glassey, 2007, Ministry for the Environment, 2008); (4)
Early Warning System includes hardware; planning for evacuation; co-operation, discussion and
communication between central and local government, scientists and the media; research and science
advice; and evaluation (Leonard et al., 2008); (5) Education and Participation involves warning
response staff and the public, including exercises (Leonard et al., 2008). This step represents a
participatory planning approach, which aims to inform and involve the public in planning and
decision making (Randolph, 2004).

Two sidebars are also included - Monitor & review is consistent with the monitoring and reporting
requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the risk management process (as
stipulated in the Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard 31000:2009). This standard
outlines the risk management steps of communicate and consult; establish context; identify risks;
SB10 New Zealand Page 4 of 11

analyse risks; evaluate risks; treat risks; and monitor and review. Communicate & consult needs to
take place at every stage of the model, and includes (but is not limited to) research and science
providers, local authority planners, building officers and emergency management officers; developers;
communities; and environmental agencies. This sidebar represents a communicative planning
approach, where the planners primary function is to listen to peoples stories, and assist them to
arrive at a consensus in an environment of differing views (Fainstein, 2003). While risk reduction can
involve any of the five factors shown in Figure 1, the focus of this paper is on the Urban Design and
Construction part of the framework.

THE ROLE OF LAND USE PLANNING IN URBAN DESIGN

A district plan is prepared under Part 5 of the Resource Management Act to control the use of land
within the district of a territorial or unitary authority. Through the district plan, it is common for
certain criteria to be placed on buildings. While district plans are land use orientated, they can and do
include requirements and constraints for buildings. For example, floor levels for buildings within a
flood hazard area can be stipulated (see Information Box 1); as can building materials and visual
appearance (see Information Box 2).

Information Box 1: Thames- Coromandel District Plan, Natural Hazard provisions for flooding
(TCDC., 2007)
Section 4.53 Natural Hazards - Standards
Floor levels of all houses and all habitable rooms shall meet the following standards:
1. In areas covered by flood management plans:
(a) Primary overland flow areas: Not less than one metre above natural ground level;
(b) Secondary overland flow areas: Not less than 0.5 metres above natural ground level;
(c) Ponding areas: Not less than 0.5m above the flood datum level stated on the planning map;
(d) Overland flow and ponding areas: Not less than one metre above natural ground level.

Section 457 Non-complying activity assessment criteria and protocols

1. Buildings in floodways protocols:
(b) The following are not permitted under existing use rights on any such site:
(i) Any increase in the ground coverage of any building;
(ii) Any raising of the natural ground level;
(iii) The erection of any fences or walls on or abutting any such site;
(iv) Lowering the floor level of any existing habitable room in any existing building;
(v) Converting any existing non-habitable room in any existing building;
(vi) Converting any existing non-habitable room into a habitable room;
(vii) Any new building;
(viii) Any garden amenity which is above natural ground level;
(ix) On any such site, any works or development or activity which would further impede flood
flows or increase the susceptibility of the site or any other site to flooding or flood damage.
(c ) Activities other than houses and their accessory buildings which are non-complying activities in
the zone are subject to the same existing use right constraints as houses (as set out above).
SB10 New Zealand Page 5 of 11

Information Box 2: Queenstown Lakes District Plan (Partially Operative) (QLDC, 2009)

Objective 3 - Residential Amenity (Chapter 7, p4-5)

Pleasant living environments within which adverse effects are minimised while still providing the
opportunity for individual and community needs.

Policies:
3.3 To ensure the external appearance of buildings reflects the significant landscape values and enhance a
coherent urban character and form as it relates to the landscape.

Implementation Methods
Objective 3 and associated policies will be implemented through a number of methods including:
(i) District Plan: (a) Rules relating to building height, sunlight and outlook for neighbours, street scene,
separation from neighbours and outdoor living space.

Assessment Matters Arrowtown (Chapter 7, p48)

(d) Exterior Materials and Finishes
The extent to which the exterior materials and finishes reflects the following:
Building materials and their finishes generally shall be:
schist with lime mortar with or without a low percentage of cement for walls and chimneys, with a
natural finish or finished with a lime, sand plaster and/or a natural limewash;
painted timber rusticated or shiplap weatherboards for walls;
painted corrugated steel or uncoated timber shingles for roofs;
painted timber for roof and wall coverboards, baseboards, and cornerboards;
painted timber windows, glazing bars, sills, and frames;
painted timber door panels, stiles, mullions, rails, glazing bars, sills, and frames;
natural or limewashed bricks for chimneys;
painted timber architraves to doors and windows for timber clad houses;
lime-sand rendered architraves may be applied to schist buildings;
painted corrugated steel for walls;
painted timber framing to verandahs.

Thus, district plans can regulate both building requirements and design criteria to meet outcomes
agreed to by the community. A discussion of the specific role of the Building Act 2004 and Building
Code in hazard management can be found in the research report published for Ministry for the
Environment in 2006 (Tonkin & Taylor, 2006). The following section discusses how urban design,
while conforming to district plans, can contribute to risk reduction.

EXAMPLES OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN DESIGN FOR MANAGING NATURAL HAZARD

RISK
Urban design provides an opportunity to incorporate natural hazard risk reduction initiatives into
developments. While there are reports, guidelines, supporting documents and discussion around a
National Policy Statement on urban design, only the non-statutory NZ Urban Design Protocol
includes reference to natural hazards (this appears under the heading of Custodianship, in that
quality urban design avoids or mitigates the effects of natural and man-made hazards (MfE, 2005,
p23)). However, urban design can and does contribute to hazard risk reduction, as the examples below
illustrate.

Totara Park, Upper Hutt

Located within the Upper Hutt City Council boundaries, the 1960s development Totara Park provides
an early, but rather isolated, example of planning that successfully incorporated the active Wellington
Fault into its design. An article by Stevens (2005) provides an overview of how the design of the
development changed in light of information on the location of the fault.
SB10 New Zealand Page 6 of 11

The subdivision was designed so that no critical facilities, houses or services were located on the fault
line, and a building setback of 20m was required. The area where the fault line passes through the
subdivision was utilised for a two lane road with a wide grassed median strip. While the results of
ground shaking cannot be avoided, the design
mitigates against casualties or injury from
building and service damage during a major fault
rupture. If designed today, this median strip
could be modified to incorporate a grass swale
for stormwater discharge. The remainder of the
area covered by the fault was utilised as
recreational reserve, with an educational
walkway with different features of the fault
signposted. Figure 2 shows the subdivision,
with the Wellington Fault highlighted.

It is clear that good design, that takes into

Figure 2: Totara Park with the Wellington Fault
highlighted. Source: GNS Photo library.
account a natural hazard, has been occurring in
New Zealand. In terms of the framework shown
in Figure 1, this example shows how a risk
assessment affected the final design. While the
institutional arrangements of the time did not
take account of/recognise the Wellington Fault,
today the city plans of Wellington, Lower Hutt
and Upper Hutt all include the fault. Through
good urban design, there are no structures
located directly on the fault in Totara Park. The
fault scarp has been unmodified through the
reserve, becoming an educational resource for
the community and beyond.

Totara Park was in its time, and is still today, an example of creative urban design emphasising
innovative and imaginative solutions, and building a strong and distinctive local identity. As the
uptake of the Active Fault Guidelines (Kerr et al., 2003) that were published in 2004 continues, more
examples of this type of innovative urban design should, and is occurring (e.g. Bishopdale subdivision
in Nelson).

New Plymouth Coastal Walkway

The coastal walkway in New
Plymouth is a 7km path that forms an
expansive sea-edge promenade
stretching almost the entire length of
New Plymouth city. Originally built
in the early 1900s as part of the citys
reclamation, the seawall also
provided valuable protection for the
railway and road (now a state
highway) which accesses the port.
Prior to the walkway project, the
coastal strip (which had a small
unattractive gravel path and no
amenities) was not well used.

The rebuilding of the original seawall

began in 1999, and has resulted in a
walkway that compliments the Figure 3: New Plymouth coastal walkway. Source: P Hook.
SB10 New Zealand Page 7 of 11

greater coastal landscape (see Figure 3). The promenade is designed without a hard edge, to
accentuate the sense of being on the edge of the sea (New Plymouth District Council, 2009). In
designing the walkway, a compromise was required between raising the walkway above the waves,
and setting it back. Once the wave climate was assessed (it is expected that large waves could require
parts of the walkway to be closed approximately six times a year), a setback of 3m was considered
appropriate, resulting in 3m of coastal engineering works between the sea and the walkway (Porteous,
2009, pers comm). The curved seawall and location of the path provide protection from all but the
largest of waves, and the design uses robust and simple materials with strong lines and textures to
stand up to, and reflect upon, the character of the west coast. The seawall is also punctuated by finger
piers, which are designed so people can view and enjoy the open coastline (New Plymouth District
Council, 2009).

The walkway provides an excellent example of how a highly engineered coastal protection structure
can be designed in a way which meets its immediate protection purpose, while benefiting the
community by providing access, recreational opportunities, and linking the CBD to the foreshore.
During heavy seas, there is an alternative pathway for recreational users, to provide a safer route free
from wave splash. Art, sculpture and landscaping have ensured that this coastal protection structure is
valued by the community.

Current research on tsunami

Research currently underway by the author is investigating how tsunami hazard and risk can be
incorporated into land use planning in New Zealand. Using the latest tsunami modelling techniques,
different greenfield development options (i.e. low-density rural residential; traditional residential;
medium density residential; and mixed use) and urban design features (e.g. layout of buildings;
building height) are being assessed. When coupled with tsunami-specific planning requirements in
high tsunami-risk areas, options will be available for planners and urban designers to incorporate
tsunami risk into development (this research is still in progress, please contact the author for further
information).

Due to the nature of tsunamis (i.e. low frequency, high impact/consequence), guiding development in
areas at risk of tsunami inundation poses severe problems for regulators and land use planners.
Difficulties arise from identifying the threat (uncertainty), probability of occurrence, and recurrence
intervals (Eisner, 2005). Until recently, tsunami hazard has been one of the least included natural
hazards in land use planning, policy, design and construction despite being mentioned specifically
in the definition of a natural hazard in the Resource Management Act 1991 (emphasis added):
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.

However, television coverage from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami has shown the severe impacts that
result from tsunami, and this has boosted the public profile of tsunami. In New Zealand the
Government funded two tsunami reviews as a consequence of the 2004 tsunami one on New
Zealands hazard and risk, and the other on New Zealands preparedness (Berryman, 2005, Webb,
2005). Tsunami modelling for New Zealand has advanced as a result of the risk report. However,
land use planning has not taken advantage of this new knowledge for various reasons (e.g. format of
information incompatible with planning needs). Limited guidance is available from the U.S., in
particular the guideline Designing for tsunamis (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program,
2001). The guideline is discussed in the following section, and could provide a basis for New Zealand
land use planning, design, and construction practices for tsunami.

Designing for tsunamis

Designing for Tsunamis: seven principles for planning and designing for tsunami hazards (National
Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 2001) is intended as a guide for local politicians, building and
land use planning regulators, and for those responsible for community (re)development. It focuses on
SB10 New Zealand Page 8 of 11

mitigation via land use and development policy, building design, and site planning (Eisner, 2005). An
expert advisory panel assisted in the drafting of the publication, which included a building code
consultant, and civil and environmental engineers.

The seven principles outlined within the publication are:

1. Know your communitys tsunami risk: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure;
2. Avoid new development in tsunami run-up areas to minimize future tsunami losses;
3. Locate and configure new development that occurs in tsunami run-up areas to minimize future
tsunami losses;
4. Design and construct new buildings to minimize tsunami damage;
5. Protect existing development from tsunami losses through redevelopment, retrofit, and land reuse
plans and projects;
6. Take special precautions in locating and designing infrastructure and critical facilities to minimize
tsunami damage; and
7. Plan for evacuation.

Current research undertaken by the author focuses on Principles 3 and 4. Principle 3 states that the
physical configuration of structures and uses on a site can reduce potential loss of life and property
damage. This includes the strategic location of structures and open space areas, interaction of uses and
landforms, design of landscaping, and the erection of barriers (although hard structures are not
recommended for New Zealand).

To reduce tsunami damage, the layout of new subdivisions in coastal areas can include:
Providing maximum spacing between buildings. This approach can decrease strong currents
between closely-spaced buildings, which minimises the possibility of scouring at the corner of
buildings. This in turn reduces the risk of possible collapse of the structure. If the gap between
buildings is narrow, the tsunami surge is confined, raising the water level which increases the
dynamic pressure on buildings (Prasetya, 2010, pers comm);
Elevating buildings above inundation levels;
Placing houses behind a tsunami control forest or larger, strengthened buildings; and
Siting primary access roads outside inundation areas and secondary access roads perpendicular to
the shore.

Principle 4 focuses on design and construction. The

most effective mitigation technique is to locate new
buildings away from potential inundation areas. But
where buildings are constructed in a tsunami hazard
area, their design and construction including
construction materials, building configuration, and
tsunami-specific design features can reduce loss of
life and property damage (see Figure 4).

The design of a building to achieve a particular

performance level involves a set of decisions that
begins with determining the importance of the
building and understanding the consequences of
damage to the building. Hospitals, fire stations, and
schools should be assigned higher performance
objectives than those assigned to tourist
accommodations. Designing for Tsunamis
recommends four performance levels that can be
considered for buildings:
1. Buildings located, designed, and constructed to
the minimum level should withstand water Figure 4: Design and construction of buildings
with tsunami specific features (National Tsunami
Hazard Mitigation Program, 2001, p30-31)
SB10 New Zealand Page 9 of 11

forces without being moved off their foundations or sites, but they could still be damaged by
debris, flooding, ground failures, or other effects;
2. Buildings constructed to perform at a safety level should withstand water forces, debris and
wave-break impacts, earthquake shaking, ground failure, and fire without significant structural
damage. People in taller buildings would be able to evacuate vertically above the level of wave
action resulting from a locally generated tsunami;
3. Buildings constructed to a reoccupancy level should meet the safety level of performance, but
additionally they should be able to be reoccupied within a few days to weeks after cleanup, minor
repairs, and the restoration of utilities. This level requires the careful choice of the building
location and the use of flood-resistant materials; and
4. Designing buildings to meet the operational level of performance. These buildings should be
capable of resisting all expected forces and hazards. They must also have backup emergency
systems and utilities so they can be used immediately following a tsunami.

Table 1 provides a summary of the tsunami effects and solutions that can be incorporated into
planning, urban design and construction (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 2001, p35).

Event Effect Planning and Design Solutions

Inundation Flooded basements
Flooding of lower floors
Fouling of mechanical, electrical, and
communication systems and
equipment
Damage to building materials,
furnishings and contents (supplies,
inventories, personal property)
Contamination of affected area with
waterborne pollutants
Hydrostatic forces (pressure on walls
caused by fluctuations in water depth
on opposite sides)
Buoyancy (flotation or uplift forces
caused by buoyancy)
Saturation of soil causing slope
instability and/or loss of bearing
capacity
Currents Hydrodynamic forces (pushing forces
caused by the leading edge of the
wave on the building; drag caused by
flow around the building; and
overturning forces that result)
Choose sites at higher elevations
Raise the building above the flood elevation
Do not store or install vital material and
equipment on floors or basements lying below
tsunami inundation levels
Protect hazardous material storage facilities
that must remain in tsunami hazard areas
Locate mechanical systems and equipment at
higher locations in the building
Use concrete and steel for portions of the
building subject to inundation
Evaluate bearing capacity of soil in a saturated
condition
Elevate buildings above flood level
Anchor buildings to foundations
Provide adequate openings to allow water to
reach equal heights inside and outside of
buildings
Design for static water pressure on walls
Elevate buildings
Anchor buildings to foundations
Evaluate bearing capacity and a shear strength
of soils that support building foundations and
embankment slopes under conditions of
saturation
Avoid slopes or provide setback from slopes
that may be destabilized when inundated
Elevate buildings
Design for dynamic water forces on walls and
building elements
Anchor building to foundations

Debris impact Elevate buildings

Design for impact loads
Scour Use deep piles or piers
Protect against scour around foundations
Wave Hydrodynamic forces Design for breaking wave forces
break and
SB10 New Zealand Page 10 of 11

bore
Debris impact Elevate buildings
Design for impact loads
Scour Use deep piles or piers
Protect against scour around foundations
Drawdown Embankment instability Design waterfront walls and bulkheads to
resist saturated soils without water in front
Provide adequate drainage
Scour Design for scour and erosion of the soil
around foundations and piles
Fire Waterborne flammable materials and Use fire-resistant materials
ignition sources in buildings Locate flammable material storage outside of
high-hazard areas

Some of these design solutions could be incorporated into the district plan, similar to those shown in
Information Boxes 1 and 2. For example, by requiring buildings to be elevated above tsunami levels,
as for flooding, damage and recovery time can be reduced.

While the U.S. guideline has been in place since 2001, its acceptance and implementation by
communities is questionable, and further research is required on how the guideline has been
incorporated into new developments.

CONCLUSION
Creating sustainable, resilient communities requires innovative risk reduction. This can be at many
levels ranging from national standards and protocols, through grass-roots community involvement, to
technical and engineering solutions. All successful methods need communication between the
stakeholders, who include researchers, planners, urban designers, engineers, developers, emergency
managers, residents, businesses, councils, environmental agencies and politicians. Monitoring and
review are also essential in order to understand whether the innovative methods are working. Three
examples show how sustainable urban design can incorporate these principles. At Totara Park,
geological research informed a greenfield urban development, with longer-term consequences of
improving subsequent planning in the wider region, and enhancing education about earthquake risk.
At New Plymouth, a replacement for an ageing coastal protection structure was adapted to include
cultural and recreational functions, although monitoring of this relatively recent development is still
needed. In the case of tsunami risk, researchers and communities have recently become much more
aware of this natural hazard, and are in the process of formulating methods to reduce damage and loss
of life in future events.

It is the opinion of the author that within the Resource Management Act and Building Act, there are
tools available which allow for hazard management while ensuring risk reduction is achieved for
future generations. However, how these various tools are used to their full potential across New
Zealand requires further research. In particular, future research is required to audit city and district
council plans on their hazard management (i.e. hazard timeframes, activity status of different land use,
integration with CDEM Group Plans etc), to establish best practice examples. Beyond the scope of
this project, future research is also required to assess the impacts of salt water on building materials.

This paper forms part of a larger research project on innovative land use planning for natural hazard
risk reduction. As part of this research, the use of tsunami modelling as a decision making aid for
land use options, design, and associated district plan provisions is also being investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper and subsequent PhD research was only possible with the support of my employers (GNS
Science) and the Foundation and Research, Science and Technology Hazards & Society research
programme; and the contribution from the ZONTA/BRANZ PhD Scholarship Award. Thanks to
SB10 New Zealand Page 11 of 11

GNS Science staff Jane Forsyth, (Dunedin), Maureen Coomer and Julia Becker (Lower Hutt), and an
anonymous reviewer for their peer review and feedback.

REFERENCES

Beatley, T. 1998. The vision of sustainable communities. IN Burby, R. J. (Ed.) Cooperating with Nature -
Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington
D.C., Joseph Henry Press.
Berryman, K. 2005 Review of tsunami hazard and risk in New Zealand. Client Report 2005/104. Lower Hutt,
GNS Science.
Eisner, R. K. 2005. Planning for tsunami: reducing future losses through mitigation. Natural Hazards, 35, 155-
162.
Fainstein, S. S. 2003. New directions in planning theory. IN Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. S. (Eds.) Readings in
planning theory: second edition. 2nd ed. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Folke, C., Colding, J. & Berkes, F. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-
ecological systems. IN Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (Eds.) Navigating social-ecological systems:
building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press.
Isdr 2004. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives, United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Jepson, E. J., Jnr 2004. Human nature and sustainable development: a strategic challenge for planners. Journal
of Planning Literature, 19, 3-15.
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.
Leonard, G., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D., Christianson, A., Becker, J. & Keys, H. 2008. Developing effective
warning systems: ongoing research at Ruapehu volcano, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, 172, 199-215.
Mfe 2005. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, Wellington, Ministry for the Environment.
Mileti, D. S. 1999. Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States, Washington,
D.C., Joseph Henry Press.
Ministry for the Environment 2008. Natural hazards guidance note. Ministry for the Environment Available
from: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/plan-topics/natural-hazards.php [Accessed 5 June 2009]
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program 2001 Designing for tsunamis: seven principles for planning and
designing for tsunami hazards. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.
New Plymouth District Council 2009. Coastal Walkway. Available from:
http://www.newplymouthnz.com/VisitingNewPlymouth/Attractions/CoastalWalkway.htm [Accessed
14 October 2009]
Porteous, G. 2009 New Plymouth District Council.
Prasetya, G. 2010 Email explaining by spacing between buildings in important for tsunami. Lower Hutt.
Puszkin-Chevlin, A., Hernandez, D. & Murley, J. 2006. Land use planning and its potential to reduce hazard
vulnerability: current practices and future possibilities. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40, 7-15.
Qldc 2009 Queenstown Lakes District Plan. Queenstown, Queenstown Lakes District Council.
Randolph, J. 2004. Environmental land use planning and management, Island Press.
Saunders, W. S. A. & Glassey, P. 2007 Guidelines for assessing planning policy and consent requirements for
landslide-prone land. GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 7. Lower Hutt, GNS Science.
Schneider, R. O. 2006. Hazard mitigation: a priority for sustainable communities. IN Paton, D. & Johnston, D.
(Eds.) Disaster Resilience - an integrated approach. Charles C Thomas.
Standards Australia/New Zealand 2009. AS/NZS ISO 31000: Risk management - principles and guidelines,
Sydney and Wellington, Standards Australia/New Zealand.
Stevens, G. 2005. The Totara Park planning tribunal 1964: living with an active fault. Geological Soceity of New
Zealand Newsletter, 137, 26-34.
Tcdc. 2007 Thames-Coromandel District Plan. Thames, Thames Coromandel District Council.
Tonkin & Taylor 2006 Natural hazard management research report. Wellington, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd.
Webb, T. 2005 Review of New Zealand's preparedness for tsunami hazard, comparison to risk and
recommendations for treatment. GNS Science Client Report 2005/162. Wellington, GNS Science.