This case examines the role of hill-based residents in Napier, New Zealand, in supporting evacuees following a major earthquake and tsunami scenario. It explores residents’ willingness, preparedness, and capacity to host evacuees moving from low-lying coastal areas to higher ground, highlighting both social potential and practical constraints in community-led evacuation support.
Map
Ready or Not? Hill-based Residents’ Capacity to Support Evacuees after Earthquake and Tsunami
General Information
A qualitative study analysing how hill-based households in Napier could support tsunami evacuees after a major earthquake, focusing on social capital, preparedness, and informal hosting capacity.
Napier is exposed to significant seismic and tsunami risk due to its coastal location and tectonic setting. In a large earthquake-tsunami scenario, residents from low-lying coastal zones would need to evacuate rapidly to higher ground. Formal evacuation centres may be insufficient or inaccessible. The study investigates whether hill-based residents could provide informal shelter and support, and under what conditions this would be feasible.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
In a large earthquake and tsunami, evacuation from low-lying areas to higher ground would likely overwhelm formal emergency shelters. The research explores whether informal, community-based hosting by hill-based residents could realistically supplement official evacuation arrangements, and what barriers exist (preparedness, resources, risk perception, equity).
Evacuees from coastal zones may include elderly people, families with children, and individuals with mobility or health needs, requiring accessible shelter, medical support, and sustained care beyond immediate evacuation.
Evacuation planning in New Zealand is coordinated through Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Groups; yet, this case highlights the informal, community-led layer of response. Hill-based residents act independently but within the broader emergency management context, without formal agreements or guarantees of support.
Napier benefits from established CDEM planning and tsunami evacuation strategies. However, preparedness at household and neighbourhood level varies, particularly regarding hosting evacuated people for extended periods without external assistance.
Hill-based areas generally have housing, utilities, and road access suitable for sheltering people, but in the specific case of the identified stakeholders residents identified limits related to water supply, sanitation, power outages, and damage following a major earthquake.
The purpose of engagement was to investigate the residents of Napier hill’s willingness and capacity to host evacuees after earthquakes and tsunamis.
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with with hill-based residents, orbiting around scenario-based discussions (the scenarios being earthquake and tsunami evacuation)
Participants (hill residents) did not directly shape policies, emergency responses and risk management plans, but it supported institutional understanding of community resilience and readiness.
The study itself contributes to empowerment by making visible the limits of informal capacity and the need for clearer guidance, support, and communication if residents are expected to host evacuees.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
The main innovation lies in involving informal households rather than formal shelters, with attention paid to equity and burden-sharing with communities. What is examined is the willingness of houselholds, assessed against their actual capacity. Another element of innovation is the use of realistic disaster scenarios.
English
Researchers affiliated with New Zealand emergency management and disaster risk reduction institutions.
The authors are experienced researchers in disaster risk, evacuation behaviour, and emergency management, contributing regularly to national disaster risk management scholarship and practice.
- Hill-based residents
- Researchers
- Local emergency management context (CDEM-informed, but not operationally involved)
- Identification of hill-based neighbourhoods
- Recruitment of residents
- Scenario-based interviews
- Analysis of preparedness, willingness, and constraints
Resources for conducting the study are limited to research funding, but resources for establishing an emergency response plan based on community support are not declared
The phases of the study were sequential, with residents’ willingness to collaborate being assessed periodically over three weeks. There is no ongoing operational phrase.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Collaborative scenarios can catalyse agencies working with communities on complex, multi-scale response planning issues. Community-based planning is often a desired outcome in response planning. Shortcomings are two: hiatus between willingness and capacity is something to carefully address; informal hosting cannot replace formal shelters.
The study highlighted Napier hill residents’ high willingness to contribute, counterbalanced by their limited preparedness. Residents expressed concerns about the duration of hosting, safety, supplies and damaged infrastructures.
Risks include overburdening host households, inequitable support, and failure of utilities. Mitigation requires integrating informal hosting into formal planning, including guidance, supplies, and communication strategies.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
Sustainability would depend on the ability to incorporate residents into formal planning of emergency responses and on training programmes that build capacity alongside willingness. Findings from the study would need to be translated into actionable policy insights.
The findings are highly transferable to other coastal cities with vertical evacuation patterns, where informal hosting is implicitly assumed but rarely planned for explicitly.
No dedicated technology is explicitly mentioned.