Resilience outcomes for rural New ZealandNick Cradock-Henry, MWLR

and RNC Rural

Rural regions face complex challenges

- low-frequency, high-magnitude

- slow-onset, creeping hazards

- geo-climatic, socio-economic

Compounding and cascading effects

Unique risk profiles across scales

Jun

e 1

9M

AN

AA

KI

WH

EN

UA

–L

AN

DC

AR

E R

ES

EA

RC

HP

AG

E 2

Spector, S., Cradock-Henry, N.A., Beaven, S., Orchiston, C., 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1418-3

Co-produce and broker innovative solutions for enhancing the resilience of rural New Zealand

RESILIENCE OUTCOMES

CO-CREATION

PEOPLE, VALUES

AND VISION

SYSTEMS VIEW

OPTIONS AND

ACTIONS

SCIENCE-BASED

EFFECTING CHANGE

Research Partners

Co-creationPartners

(eg Mana Whenua, Rural Trust, Local/Regional

Govt, MPI, MCDEM)

Coordinating team

Project teams

Research Partners

Co-creationPartners

focused on relevant project or initiative

Resilience solutions for rural NZ

MultilevelResilience

Resilience toWildfire Challenges

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Resilience to Nature’s Challenge AFFILIATED Toolboxes/LaboratoriesFor example: Mātauranga Māori and

Living at the Edge co-creation

laboratories, Infrastructure, Hazards

and Resilient TrajectoryToolboxes.

Affiliated research partners

Aligned research programmes

and researchers, workingwith

key co-creation partners

Affiliatedco-creation partners

Aligned organisations/groups wishing

to be informed about programme

progress and outcomesContestable

Funding

Projects 4/5

CO-CREATION MODEL

• Trusted cooperation

• Feedback and reflective learning embedded in design

• Flexibility and adaptability while remaining accountable to RNC/MBIE

Structure and function: collaborative, inclusive, reconcile science and policy

CO-CREATION MODEL

July 2016

Stakeholders’ roles and connections valued

PEOPLE, VALUES AND VISION

• Transparent stakeholder engagement processes, accountable to ethical criteria (post-disaster settings)

• Systems understanding of social context and stakeholder relationships

• Capacity for exploring logically and creatively about desirable futures, and needed change

• Greater appreciation of diverse perspectives (i.e. assumptions about how things work)

• Understanding cause and effect enhanced, how risks and resilience unfold, and where to intervene

• Clarity on where to build resilience – where to intervene – to meet needs and aspirations

SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVES

Dynamics, thresholds, feedbacks

Cradock-Henry, N.A., Fountain, J., 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.015

Simmons, D. Wilson, J. 2019. Building resilience in transient rural communities: guidelines for councils, RNC Rural.

Tyler Barton (UC), Rural disaster risk reduction

SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVES

• Trust and confidence in decisions and actions

• Changed practices (e.g. what to do in an emergency) and institutions (rules and policies)

• Greater resilience, and evidence of progress towards aspirations

OPTIONS AND ACTIONS

Interactions, interventions and uncertainties

Laura Tilley (UC), Agent-based tsunami evacuation

Hamish Rennie (LU) and Louise Gibson (FFNZ), Farm resilience planning

OPTIONS AND ACTIONS

SUMMARY

• Targeted research on rural resilience

• Process of participating, appreciating, learning

• Move beyond recovery• Resilience, adaptation and/or transformation

• Responding to collective drivers of change

• Policy performance and flexibility

• Resilient rural futures*