What Constitutes a Successful Livelihood Recovery: A Comparative Analysis Between China and New Zealand

Abstract

As damage from natural hazards has increased globally, governments and aid agencies must have practical tools for post-disaster livelihood recovery to foster self-sufficiency among affected populations. This study presents a framework of essential components for livelihood recovery, utilising a comparative case study with interviews from communities impacted by major earthquakes in Lushan, China, and Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand. Communities in both countries highly value housing, employment, well-being, and external assistance for livelihood recovery after disasters. However, people in China credit housing functionality and income resources more, while New Zealand people rely more on commercial insurance for their recovery. The insights from this comparative study can help governments and non-governmental organisations strengthen livelihood recovery efforts and enhance resilience to future disasters.

1. Introduction

Statistics obtained from EM-DAT indicate a substantial escalation in the frequency and magnitude of natural hazards over the past decade. In addition to the detrimental effects on the constructed environment, disasters frequently disrupt individuals’ livelihoods by obliterating essential resources [1,2,3] and displacing them from their employment [4,5,6,7]. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami profoundly impacted the fishery and aquaculture sectors within coastal regions of India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, resulting in the unemployment of 2.5 million individuals [8]. Likewise, approximately 1.52 million people, predominantly those who engaged in agricultural sectors, experienced loss of employment and land during the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China [9]. Although the implications are substantial, post-disaster interventions still prioritise physical aspects over socio-economic recovery [8]. Concurrently, the social science literature concerning individuals’ livelihoods and well-being has increasingly concentrated on the conditions following disasters, particularly in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian tsunami [7,10].

In post-disaster contexts, most livelihood scholars have analysed empirical evidence and insights to help displaced farmers regain basic income [11,12]. Others have explored how diverse livelihood capitals (natural, financial, social, physical, and human) influence livelihood results after a disaster [12,13,14]. While there is a demand for understanding the prerequisites for successful livelihood recovery [11], there is still limited knowledge regarding community perspectives on what constitutes effective recovery in livelihoods.

In China, research on post-disaster reconstruction has grown significantly following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [15]. Those studies encompass various topics, including policies [16,17], emergency response [18], non-government organisations [19,20], and disaster recovery [21,22]. It appears that research on disasters peaked in 2008, based on published studies from the CNKI database. A similar trend is evident in Scopus with the search term “disaster and China”, which yields approximately 10,000 peer-reviewed journal articles. However, when we refine the search for disaster recovery in China, only 1247 peer-reviewed articles remain. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable trend of growing studies on post-disaster recovery in China, with discussions on livelihoods attracting wider attention [23].

Disaster studies in New Zealand have achieved a wide variety of attention related to resilience thinking [23,24,25]. However, most studies related to social science predominantly discuss resilience, Build Back Better (BBB), and vulnerability, while very few address the topic of livelihood [23]. The concept of livelihood is mainly researched in developing countries, particularly for poverty reduction. Whether comparing livelihood recovery through case studies in different countries would enhance the overall livelihood discourse remains in question, and very few scholars are engaged in this branch of study [26].

Peripheral regions of New Zealand are highly vulnerable to natural hazards [27]. Over the last decade, New Zealand experienced three significant earthquakes, notably, the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and the Kaikōura earthquake in 2016. These disasters led to considerable losses in both the built environment and social structures, affecting and disrupting people’s livelihoods [28]. After the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the employment rate fell from 67% to 63% [29]. Five years later, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the small coastal region of Kaikōura, located in a transition zone along the east coast of Aotearoa/New Zealand [30]. This earthquake severely disrupted local transportation, resulting in a notable decline in tourism and the local production sectors [31].

This study draws on case studies from Lushan, Christchurch, and Kaikōura to clarify how communities conceptualise satisfactory livelihood recovery and identify strategies that effectively enhance livelihood outcomes. Such insights will inform agencies’ decision-making processes and enable them to provide interventions that better address the actual needs of communities on the ground. Current livelihood research is predominantly development-oriented and focuses more on rural contexts than on urban areas [32,33]. By comparing livelihood recovery components across rural and urban settings from an international perspective, this study aims to generate new insights into how different communities cope with livelihood disruptions and their perceptions of recovery “to what end and whose” [34].

2. Literature Review

2.1. Livelihood Recovery

Classic hazard–disaster traditions define disasters as hazard agents interacting with a human system [35]. More recently, there has been a consensus that disasters are social phenomena in which social units are disrupted [36], and they potentially withstand harmful consequences [37,38]. Furthermore, disaster has been considered an amplifier for everyday hardship for marginalised populations [39], marking the shift from a natural-agent paradigm to a more human-centred one [40].

Disaster phases usually include hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery [41]. Among all these phases, disaster recovery is often viewed as the least explored, with limited focus compared to other disaster management aspects [42,43,44,45,46]. Although defined stages of recovery progress are established, researchers argue that there is no official recovery timeline. Recovery at the individual level does not typically align with community recovery, as families and communities differ significantly in their ability to return to pre-disaster conditions [47].

A key question during the disaster recovery phase is how to define a successful or satisfying recovery outcome based on communities’ own perspectives. Is it sufficient to return to the pre-disaster level? How can we describe the dynamics of the outcome? In reality, the community will not remain the same as it was before the disaster [43]. Since there are no definitive indicators to measure recovery status, focusing on sustainability and resilience may be more relevant than merely reverting to the status quo to handle future extreme events [44,45].

In contrast to the well-established field of post-disaster physical recovery, livelihood recovery remains under-researched [48,49]. The livelihood discourse emphasises sustainable livelihoods, vulnerability, resilience, and the concept of livelihood itself; however, a precise definition of livelihood recovery in the aftermath of disasters is absent. Defining livelihood recovery may appear unnecessary, as the concepts of recovery and resilience are closely interconnected. Resilience emerges as actions that facilitate effective and efficient recovery [50]. Livelihood recovery seeks to enhance livelihood resilience. Tanner et al. defined livelihood resilience as the “capacity of all people across generations to sustain and improve their livelihood opportunities and well-being despite environmental, economic, social, and political disturbances” [51] (p. 23). This relates to individuals’ ability to choose their living conditions. Aligning with the core principle of the capability approach, the livelihood approach emphasises that risk assessments should go beyond the mere effects of hazards to encompass changes in individual capabilities [52].

In the aftermath of disasters, the reconstruction phase often creates new job opportunities, allowing many affected individuals to benefit from increased workforce demand and heightened consumption driven by aid agencies [53]. However, once this phase concludes, the situation shifts, and victims must rely primarily on themselves to navigate the ongoing recovery process [53]. They might face challenges of unfamiliar economic transitions and newly built infrastructure, and their livelihood transformation might be hindered due to a shift of governance [54].

This study adopts a livelihood notion to explore the components of livelihood recovery. With its rich history dating back to Sen’s classic work on the capabilities approach [55] and actor-oriented approach [56], the livelihood perspective captures the insight that the poor, farmers, or slum-dwellers can also have their voices and the power to shape their future proactively [57]. The emphasis is on local perspectives, household dynamics, and access or entitlements to resources instead of resources themselves, power relations, and social networks. Still, assets are at the centre of livelihood thinking. As Bebbington [58] concluded, people use assets to make a living and to make a living meaningful. However, the five capitals from the sustainable livelihood framework overlook the relational, socially embedded nature of assets [59,60]. Such a view acknowledges assets as objective truth [61], and it gives credit to the normative position of capitalism [62,63]. As the central theme of the livelihood notion is to empower marginalised populations, there should not be any pre-determined theoretical discourse to set a boundary for livelihood analysis. As such, this study set the asset pentagon aside and focused explicitly on the “to what end” question of livelihood research.

2.2. Livelihood Recovery Components

Table 1. Summary of livelihood recovery components from the literature.

Category	Component	Source
Housing/Sheltering	Housing condition	[12,65]
	Safety and robustness of a house	[65,66]
Employment	Income resources	[67,68,69,70,71]
	Education and skills	[72,73,74,75,76]
Personal well-being	Physical health	[67,77,78]
	Mental health	[67,79]
External assistance	Social networks	[80]
	Government policies	[81,82,83]

summarises livelihood key categories and the various components of livelihood recovery in the context of disasters from the literature. Using content analysis [64], the components are grouped into four major categories: housing, employment, personal well-being, and external assistance, as discussed below.

Housing or sheltering is a fundamental category that intersects livelihood and disaster research. Some studies classify housing as a crucial form of physical capital essential for household security [67,84]. Others have examined the relationship between housing and livelihood recovery, revealing that after disasters, households might prioritise restoring their livelihoods over repairing damaged homes, given the urgency of generating income. Housing quality and living conditions are closely tied to socioeconomic well-being, as households often invest a significant portion of their income into improving their homes [12,65,85]. Secure and structurally sound housing provides shelter and creates a stable environment for self-supporting livelihoods, mitigating the risk of losing critical resources [66]. Government officials have also considered the structural integrity of houses as a key indicator of a household’s capacity to withstand future disasters [65].

As Scoones has noted, livelihood can be viewed as a more technocratic term for “employment”, describing how people strive to earn a living [29]. Beyond development-oriented livelihood frameworks, post-disaster research has adopted a more holistic perspective on employment [12,75]. Disasters disrupt existing employment opportunities and may create short-term labour demands, particularly in the reconstruction sector [86]. In agricultural communities, such as those in Aceh, following the 2004 Asian tsunami, many farmers and fishers temporarily shifted to reconstruction-related work [69,87].

This transformation of employment is closely connected to housing and land reconstruction. When disaster damage renders land unusable, traditional agricultural livelihoods may no longer be viable, forcing households to seek alternative sources of income [12]. For some, the loss of land equates to losing everything [88]. Others, such as those in post-tsunami Aceh, were unwilling to farm inherited land, preferring non-agricultural work [69]. Land-acquisition policies have similarly influenced livelihood strategies [68], and once households lose their land, they struggle to return to previous livelihood levels [70]. Besides land, other resources, such as farming tools, livestock, and market access, have also featured prominently in livelihood studies.

Education and skill development further shape livelihood recovery. According to Scoones [89], education forms part of the human capital required to pursue diverse livelihood strategies. Higher education levels expand non-traditional employment opportunities, enhancing resilience in the face of uncertainties [72,74,75]. For instance, in flood-prone regions of India, those with higher education levels were less likely to rely on cash-based coping strategies [76].

Another widely recognised category is personal well-being, encompassing physical and psychological health [89]. The original sustainable livelihood framework positioned personal well-being as an outcome extending beyond material resources [90]. After disasters, addressing health concerns often precedes livelihood or housing reconstruction [28]. From a long-term perspective, access to health insurance, psychological services, and other supportive facilities is essential for sustainable livelihood recovery [67,77,78]. Similarly, the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) includes health as a key domain, with sub-domains, such as illness, disaster exposure, and exercise time, used to measure vulnerability [91].

Other factors, such as social networks [80], effective governance [81,82,83], and basic demographics [92,93], have been examined in relation to livelihood recovery after disasters. Cannon and Twigg underscored the importance of integrating vulnerability reduction into the sustainable livelihood framework and providing sufficient resources [84]. Recognising and addressing these varied livelihood components could guide more effective allocation of limited resources and foster resilience through self-provisioning strategies.

Based on the literature and using content analysis [64], four primary categories—housing/sheltering, employment, external assistance, and personal well-being—were identified (see Table 1). This categorisation offers a structured approach to understanding and supporting the complex process of livelihood recovery in the aftermath of disasters.

3. Research Methods

On 20 April 2013, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, known as the Lushan earthquake, struck Lushan County in Ya’an City, Sichuan Province. According to the Chinese National Strong Motion Network Centre, ground motion was recorded at over 80 seismic monitoring stations in neighbouring provinces. By 22 April, the earthquake had caused 203 fatalities, injured more than 11,000 people, and affected over 1.5 million individuals [94]. Direct economic losses were estimated at USD 3.2 billion by May 2013. Lushan County is a predominantly agricultural, mountainous rural area that was still recovering from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [95]. Due to its proximity to the epicentre, Lushan County experienced the most significant impact, accounting for approximately 62% of deaths and nearly 40% of injuries [96]. The 2013 Sichuan Statistical Yearbook indicated slowed GDP growth in Lushan County that year, with the tourism sector mainly affected, experiencing an 11% decline in visitor numbers [97].

In Aotearoa/New Zealand’s Canterbury region, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck on 4 September 2010, with its epicentre 40 km from Christchurch City [25]. This event caused no deaths and few injuries. However, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake on 22 February 2011 directly struck Christchurch City, causing 185 deaths and widespread damage [24]. The 2010 event severely disrupted business activities in Kaiapoi, where 89% of businesses reported serious operational challenges [98]. Interviews noted that one-third of houses in Kaiapoi and 60% of buildings on Lyttelton’s main street were damaged [99]. A landslide had isolated Lyttelton from Christchurch City, and citizens within the areas needed to provide most of the services themselves [100].

Five years later, on 14 November 2016, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck near Kaikōura, located in a coastal zone of the South Island. Transportation, logistics, tourism, and primary production were the most severely disrupted sectors [27]. According to Fisheries New Zealand [101], the earthquake adversely affected marine life along the coastline from Marfell’s Beach to Conway River. Fishing restrictions were imposed to support ecological recovery [102]. Kaikōura, known for its fish and horticultural resources, faced extended road closures on State Highway 1 for nearly a year [103], forcing reliance on inland routes that were frequently closed [25]. Although helicopters provided some supply access, increased transport costs hindered the recovery of local businesses.

This study used semi-structured interviews and focus groups to collect qualitative data. In contrast to the experimental methods, a qualitative comparative survey examined social phenomena through cultural, historical, and geographical lenses, a perspective that multivariate techniques fail to capture [104]. This cross-cultural examination enhances the philosophy of the exchange of experiences among policymakers and practitioners involved in recent recovery initiatives [105]. Livelihood studies, recognised as a multi-dimensional framework, require comparative analysis across diverse fields.

Table 2. Summary of field trips for data collection and coding for respondents.

Time	Location	Number of Interviewees	Interviewee Code	Location	Occupations
15 July	Lushan County	5	B1–B5	Baihuo	2 migrant workers, 3 farmers
		5	W1–W5	Wanghuo	2 migrant workers, 2 farmers, 1 self-employed
		5	WN1–WN5	Zhanghuo	2 migrant workers, 2 farmers, 1 self-employed
		5	Z1–Z5	Fujiaying	2 migrant workers, 1 farmer, 2 self-employed
18 June	Christchurch and Kaikōura	6	KP1-KP6	Kaiapoi	3 employees, 2 shop owners, 1 work in real estate
		3	L1-L3	Lyttelton	2 employees, 1 shop owner
		14	K1-K14	Kaikōura	7 employees, 6 shop owners, 1 work in real estate

summarises significant field trips conducted in Lushan County, Christchurch, and Kaikōura. It comprises the coding of key interviewees of the study.

As shown in Table 2, fieldwork was conducted in three phases—2015, 2017, and 2018—across four villages in Longmen Township, Lushan County: Wanghuo, Baihuo, Zhanghuo, and Fujiaying (see Figure 1). These villages were severely affected by the 2013 Lushan earthquake, suffering substantial damage and casualties. Agriculture was the primary livelihood sector in all four villages. Notably, Baihuo and Fujiaying were pre-existing villages that underwent recovery, while Wanghuo and Zhanghuo were newly established in different locations following the earthquake. The researcher, who had previously spent six months in Ya’an City during undergraduate studies and was proficient in the Sichuan dialect, conducted additional field visits in April 2017 and April 2018 to further investigate the conditions in Lushan County.

Regarding the field trip to New Zealand, three doctoral candidates served as a research team to conduct interviews and focus group discussions. Field observations occurred in the vicinity of Christchurch and the township of Kaikōura. A total of nine in-depth interviews were conducted in Kaiapoi and Lyttelton in Christchurch, as illustrated in Figure 2. Furthermore, data collection included fourteen in-depth interviews in Kaikōura and one focus group discussion with the Kaikōura Council. Secondary data were sourced from documents released by the Christchurch and Kaikōura Councils, as well as from museum materials. The first interviewee was selected based on convenience sampling related to their business location. Subsequently, existing interviewees provided recommendations to identify additional participants through the snowball sampling technique. Ethics approval for data collection was secured from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (ethics approval reference number 014782).

Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis with NVivo 12 software. This exploratory study adopted an inductive approach, making thematic analysis appropriate for identifying key themes within the text [106]. A pilot study conducted in 2015 in Lushan expanded the framework by introducing nine additional components: housing functionality, housing ownership, access to employment opportunities, need for work–life balance, assistance from extended family and NGOs, quality of life, livelihood satisfaction, and feeling of security. These components were organised under four overarching themes, as detailed in

Table 3. A summary of livelihood recovery components identified from the pilot study and the literature.

Category	Component	Source
Employment	Income resources	[67,68,69,70,71]
	Education and skills	[72,73,74,75,76]
	Access to employment opportunities	Pilot study
	Need for work–life balance	Pilot study
Housing/Shelter	Housing conditions	[12,65]
	Safety and robustness of a house	[65,66]
	Housing functionality	Pilot study
	Housing ownership	Pilot study
External assistance	Social networks	[80]
	Government policies	[81,82,83]
	Assistance from extended families	Pilot study
	NGOs’ assistance	Pilot study
Personal well-being	Physical health	[67,77,78]
	Mental health	[67,79]
	Quality of life	Pilot study
	Livelihood satisfaction	Pilot study
	Sense of security	Pilot study

.

Apart from the qualitative analysis, quantitative data were collected to rank livelihood components in Lushan during the field trip in 2015. Out of 307 households in the four villages approached by the researchers, only 150 agreed to participate in the questionnaire survey. From these 150 households, individuals aged 18 or older who could represent their household were invited to complete the survey. Among them, 76 questionnaires (50.6%) were fully answered. In New Zealand, quantitative data were not collected regarding livelihood components. To rank those components for the analysis, content analysis was used to count the frequency of the nodes mentioned by the interviewees. The livelihood components were coded into thematic nodes. After comprehensive reading and re-reading of the transcripts, the frequency of the nodes was counted and validated. A detailed ranking of the components was identified. The insights from each case study will be synthesised into a comprehensive discourse, offering valuable information and recommendations to support decision-making for stakeholders involved in post-disaster recovery efforts.

4. Results and Discussions

Based on the quantitative data from Lushan and the content analysis from Christchurch and Kaikōura, the ranking of livelihood components in the two countries is presented in

Table 4. The ranking of livelihood components in two countries.

		Lushan, China		Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand
		Ranking Within the Category	Overall Ranking	Ranking Within the Category	Overall Ranking
Housing	Housing functionality	1	3	3	16
	Housing condition	2	4	2	11
	Safety and robustness of a house	3	9	1	9
	Housing ownership	4	15	3	17
Employment	Income resources	1	1	1	3
	Access to employment opportunities	2	6	2	4
	Education and skills	3	8	4	15
	Work–life balance	4	17	3	14
Personal well-being	Quality of life	1	7	4	10
	Livelihood satisfaction	2	10	5	18
	Physical health	3	11	3	8
	Mental health	4	13	1	6
	Feeling of security	5	16	2	7
External assistance	Assistance from external families	1	2	3	12
	Social networks	2	5	1	2
	Government’s assistance	3	12	2	5
	NGOs’ assistance	4	14	4	13
Other components	Insurance policies			1	1

.

Based on the results from Table 4, a detailed summary of the critical components is presented in

Table 5. Different types of insurance following the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake.

Insurance Type	Interviewees	Descriptions
Business interruption insurance	KP2, K1, K9, k14	The insurnace covered the expenditures for 12 weeks with NZD 400–500 each week (K1).
Content insurance/replacement insurance (EQC)	KP5, KP6, L2, K3, K12	Everything related to insurance needs to be well documented (KP6); it was hard to claim the insurance, NZD 5000–6000 (L2).
Employment insurance	L3	Individual insurance covered NZD 500 for 6 weeks (L39).
Life and sickness insurance	L3, K5	The paperwork took lots of time.

. The critical components in both countries include income resources, access to employment opportunities, social networks, and the safety and robustness of a house. Critical components that receive high rankings in China but are frequently discussed in New Zealand encompass assistance from external families, housing functionality, housing conditions, education and skills, and quality of life. Interestingly, components that frequently arise in interviewees’ conversations in New Zealand while receiving low rankings in China consist of insurance policies, government assistance, mental health, feelings of security, and physical health. Furthermore, the four components that receive the least attention in both countries are housing ownership, work–life balance, livelihood satisfaction, and NGOs’ assistance.

4.1. Housing

4.1.1. Housing Functionality

The functionality of housing emerged as a vital livelihood component after the 2013 Lushan earthquake. Interviewee B1 highlighted the central importance of housing in livelihood recovery, reflecting a traditional viewpoint commonly adopted among rural villagers: housing is perceived as the single greatest asset in their lives and livelihoods. Field observations revealed that most villagers in the studied sites used parts of their rebuilt or restored houses as grocery stores, places to store production tools, areas to feed their livestock or poultry, and other self-employed business purposes. After a disaster, rebuilding houses into multi-functional physical assets was particularly important for those without skills [7,107]. In comparison, residents from Christchurch and Kaikōura did not prioritise housing functionality, likely due to their reliance on tourism and non-agricultural employment rather than agriculture.

Following the 2013 Lushan earthquake, the government introduced varying housing subsidy amounts tailored to family size for affected households. The subsidies provided were RMB 26,000, 29,000, and 32,000. (It was equivalent to approximately USD 4320, 4718, and 5206, respectively, based on the 2013 exchange rate.) The allocation of financial aid to villagers was determined by assessments of family size and housing damage. However, some interviewees claimed that these assessments were less influenced by the level of poverty or the extent of damage and more by connections with government officials.

Previous studies on livelihood and housing have mainly focused on allocating limited resources for housing construction and livelihood promotion [28,108]. In developing countries, most resources were allocated for housing reconstruction [109], as housing recovery is the most valuable asset prima facie following a disaster [110]. For agriculture-based households, like those in Lushan, China, most livelihood resources depend on their houses’ functionality. For some households who lived in temporary dwellings when the reconstruction projects were still in progress, their income resources were seriously affected.

4.1.2. Housing Condition

Both communities placed significant importance on housing conditions during the recovery process. Improved housing was closely associated with enhanced quality of life and personal well-being [111,112]. Conversely, as noted by WN1 from Lushan, inadequate housing conditions had a profound negative impact on their family’s living standards. For example, homes in better condition often provided more space, fostering a greater sense of freedom and comfort.

4.1.3. The Safety and Robustness of Housing

The safety and robustness of housing were acknowledged by respondents from both countries, though their perspectives differed. In Lushan, when asked why her family had left their damaged house unrepaired three years after the earthquake, one respondent explained that they lacked the financial means to make repairs and used the building to sell goods to neighbouring villages (W2). This highlights a practical challenge faced by some households: without sufficient funds, addressing housing safety becomes a secondary concern, overshadowing other aspects of livelihood recovery, such as “to make a life meaningful”.

We wanted to start a new business by using one front room for a tea shop. It leaks a lot, and if it rains, it will prevent us from opening the shop.

W1

The safety and robustness of housing impacted villagers’ well-being by not only making their living conditions worse off compared with pre-earthquake levels but also worsening their business conditions.

In contrast, when asked about the most critical lesson learned from the Christchurch earthquake, respondent KP4 emphasised the importance of housing safety and self-sufficient features, like spacious gardens to store food and access to water. The extensive damage to homes created significant stress during recovery, as noted by L2 in Lyttelton, who explained that the pressure of meeting building standards often led them to compromise on the quality and robustness of housing. The situation was aggravated by the difficulty of claiming housing insurance, which added to the existing challenges.

4.1.4. Housing Ownership

Housing ownership plays a crucial role in both regions. Interviews conducted in Christchurch highlighted the extensive damage caused by the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, particularly in Kaiapoi and Lyttelton. KP6 reported that one-third of the homes in Kaiapoi were affected, while 60% of the buildings on Lyttelton’s main street suffered severe damage [99]. Three participants from Kaiapoi (KP1–KP3) emphasised that homeownership was a key factor in disaster recovery, as homeowners generally had better economic stability compared to renters. These findings are consistent with a study from India on flood-affected communities, which found that housing ownership is often tied to personal identity and socioeconomic status, significantly influencing livelihood decisions and overall well-being [107].

In comparison, respondents in Lushan were not concerned about their housing ownership, and most interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with newly built houses. In Christchurch, most respondents were tenants, lacking control and authority for structural improvements, and they usually did not have the same benefits as homeowners. In Lushan, while some villagers chose to retrofit or repair their damaged houses, most of them lacked technical support or financial resources. For other respondents who migrated to the concentrated rural settlements (CRS) areas, the newly built houses lacked satisfying conditions, and there was no way to seek maintenance after the reconstruction project was finished. Most villagers cared more about their livelihood rehabilitation, with the potential sacrifice of their houses’ safety, robustness, and condition. Government officials and aid agencies cannot perceive such an attitude or motivation behind normal people’s “hard choices” during the post-disaster recovery process.

4.2. Employment

4.2.1. Income Resources

The land acquisition policy implemented by the Lushan government sought to shift local households from agricultural livelihoods to ecotourism-based ones. However, field observations indicated that farmers without farmland were reluctant to adopt tourism as their primary livelihood choice. Instead, they either continued combining temporary and contract work with migration or preferred migration work in urban areas if they no longer had access to farmland. Guided by the Sichuan Provincial Government and counterpart aid policies, Longmen Ancient City was developed to incorporate ecotourism with cultural heritage. Yet, due to the lack of verified historical authenticity, local villagers lacked the motivation, skills, or knowledge to promote tourism, resulting in minimal tourist interest in the newly constructed “ancient city”.

In contrast, respondents in New Zealand were primarily from urban areas and heavily reliant on the tourism sectors. Their perception of “income resources” was closely tied to “tourism capital”—whether tourists were incentivised to visit or not if towns like Lyttelton had established national or international recognition. For example, KP6 mentioned that Enterprise Northern Canterbury collaborated with the local council to offer business training, start-up courses, and promotional efforts to position Kaiapoi as a new tourism destination. KP6 noted significant progress in recent years, expressing growing confidence in Kaiapoi’s development alongside other business owners. Similar to the concept of “cultural capital” in Lushan County, income resources in Kaiapoi were linked to attracting potential tourists. Following the 2010/2011 earthquakes, Christchurch’s tourism sector initially declined due to damaged accommodation facilities [113]. However, by the 2017 field trip, tourism had not only recovered but appeared to surpass pre-disaster levels.

4.2.2. Access to Employment Opportunities

Both communities emphasised the importance of access to employment opportunities during the recovery process. APEC (2013) noted that the Canterbury Earthquake Support Coordination Service (CETAS) was the key stakeholder in advising residents about new job opportunities. One respondent from Lyttelton (L3) highlighted that communities also supported self-employed businesses by prioritising purchases from local suppliers. A business survey conducted in Kaiapoi by the Waimakariri District Council revealed that 78% and 71.2% of respondents were satisfied with the business training programs and the efforts of Enterprise North Canterbury to promote the district as a tourism destination [114].

In Lushan, individuals received short-term employment assistance, but the information provided by the government and NGOs often remained inaccessible to most villagers. Although NGOs had become more collaborative and organised compared to their role in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, and the government had granted them greater autonomy, there was still a lack of effective coordination between NGOs and local officials [115]. Additionally, challenges arose from the vertical and horizontal coordination among government departments. Tasks assigned to lower-level governments were often impractical to implement, leading to the failure of goals set by higher-level authorities [22].

4.2.3. Education and Skills

China was experiencing rapid agricultural transformation, a process that became even more prominent following disasters, presenting both challenges and opportunities for affected populations. It is widely recognised that targeted education and training can help reduce income inequality [69,87], and an effective educational program could have supported local communities in navigating the difficulties of the transformative period. The use of advanced technologies could offer innovative and impactful methods for delivering such training [116]. For example, after the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake, KP2 identified skills and training as the third most critical component of livelihood recovery, following government policies and infrastructure conditions.

Even though we know that education is important, it is too late for us to start learning now.

WN3

Although most interviewees considered education and skills the main obstacles to seeking more livelihood opportunities, the interviews revealed that social structures and networks resulted in a shortage of working opportunities. The discursive power was prevalent and implicitly embedded in the social arena [60], and poor and marginalised populations were mostly excluded from livelihood opportunities [117]. Social exclusion was reinforced following major disasters, especially in developing countries. Lushan’s case showed that the intended objective of livelihood policies was hardly achieved, and the marginalised population seemed deprived of their original livelihood resources, leaving them with fewer choices than those with pre-disaster status. The case in New Zealand could not provide valuable insights, as the contexts between the two countries differ significantly.

4.2.4. Work–Life Balance

Both communities viewed work–life balance as a vital component of livelihood recovery. In Lushan, residents often had to extend their working hours during leisure time to secure their livelihoods (WN3). After the Christchurch earthquakes and the Kaikōura earthquake, affected individuals filed claims from insurance companies or received government subsidies to compensate the disruptions. While many expressed satisfaction with the post-disaster business policies, some interviewees noted that they enjoyed their work and saw it as an integral part of their lives (L3).

In Lushan, villagers faced the choice of working long hours in local industries or migrating to urban areas for slightly higher wages, often with increased expenses, such as housing rent and food costs. Migration also meant leaving their children behind due to restrictions imposed by the household registration system. As a result, some migrants returned to their villages in search of local work opportunities, even if it meant less income. During the second field trip to Lushan, one interviewee returned from Chengdu to seek work closer to home, prioritising reuniting with her primary-school-aged children over financial opportunities.

Compared to respondents in New Zealand, individuals in Lushan struggled to balance income and family time. Field observations revealed that left-behind children and elderly family members often relied on each other for care when younger adults migrated to cities. Developing sustainable tourism that complements existing livelihood activities could create local employment opportunities, fostering gradual transformation within the village [118].

4.3. External Assistance

4.3.1. Family Assistance

Family ties held significant importance for Chinese families, particularly during difficult periods. Interviews in Lushan indicated that support from extended families—whether in the form of goods or money—was more readily accepted and appreciated than assistance from the government or NGOs. The role of social support from both immediate and extended family members proved essential in aiding recovery efforts after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [119,120]. In China, family ties were identified as the primary source of financial support for meeting emergency needs among most households [121]. However, emotional support emerged as the most valued form of assistance for the majority of respondents. During the recovery process, as family members migrated to urban areas for work—returning only during holidays—left-behind children and the elderly often had to rely on each other for care. Despite government efforts to promote ecological, cultural, and earthquake-related tourism, many families were hesitant to transition away from their pre-disaster livelihood patterns, which predominantly involved migrant work and caregiving for left-behind family members.

Following the Christchurch earthquake, families also played an indispensable role in helping each other. One interviewee (L1) revealed that she flew from Napier to Lyttelton to care for her injured daughter shortly after the earthquake and has lived in the town ever since.

4.3.2. Social Networks

Both communities widely mentioned social networks. In Lushan, a typical information-sharing technique within social networks was a traditional card game called mahjong. Villagers gathered to play and talk. Compared with formal social networks, like the self-management Village Council, informal networks reinforce the intangible capacity within the community. The transformation of farmlands to a combination of pick-your-own orchards, ancient cities, and unified exterior-design houses was not equal to creating livelihood opportunities. If we introduce Bourdieu’s field theory [121], social actors within the field adopt specific rules and norms to compete for limited resources and access to those resources. When socio-ecological transformation occurred following disasters, the redistribution of resources related to the pre-disaster access. In this case, the building of Longmen Ancient City marked the government’s intention to provide more opportunities for local villagers. However, those policies did not pay much attention to the existing power relationship within social networks. As a result, the marginalised populations were deprived of existing resources and had limited access to the newly introduced tourism resources.

Similar to the mutual support observed in Lushan, Project Lyttelton was created as a community-driven recovery initiative, leveraging the strengths and skills of local residents [100]. As L7 explained, the project included a Facebook page, a fundraising program, and a second-hand shop designed to serve the community. Following the destruction of the tunnel connecting Lyttelton to the outside, residents depended heavily on local support. KP7 noted that a Facebook page was set up to assist those in need when external aid was inaccessible. Volunteers also used Facebook to recruit new members and communicate with residents to identify post-earthquake needs. This “student volunteer army” continued its social services for over two and a half years [122]. This active and volunteer-driven assistance reflected the community’s shared ethos, which is encapsulated in the slogan: “You, me, we, us” (KP6).

4.3.3. Government Assistance

Government subsidies were identified as the most beneficial form of short-term support for both communities. KP1 shared with the researchers that she received NZD 500 weekly for six weeks following the earthquake, which covered the majority of her expenses during that time. Additionally, the local government in Kaiapoi collaborated closely with Enterprise Northern Canterbury to boost the town’s economy. As KP6 noted, the local council prioritised rebuilding efforts based on resident feedback, including the development of recreational services, a new museum, and other infrastructure projects. She also highlighted that local business confidence had steadily increased over the past few years following the two earthquakes.

Housing subsidies from Lushan also helped families through the most difficult times. However, livelihood interventions were regarded by most interviewees as poorly suited to local conditions. The government had limited ways to hear villagers’ voices. Besides, local officials were already exhausted from meeting the goals set by their upper-level departments [9]. As such, residents’ livelihood recovery goals often did not align with the overall economic recovery objectives at the township level [22].

Government policies were disconnected from local communities, as there was no effective communicative mechanism between communities and different levels of government officials. Additionally, there is a lack of disaster-risk communication between residents and the government [123]. Most of the time, residents within specific areas rely more often on their social relationships to shape their risk perceptions. This was the case for why insurance could not be effectively applied in most disaster-prone areas in Sichuan Province [124].

4.3.4. NGO Assistance

In Lushan, when asked whether they had received aid from NGOs, one respondent told the researcher they got the information from a villager in their neighbourhood but never participated in the programme. When the reconstruction ended, most NGOs left the site with long-term recovery problems unsolved. Livelihood recovery in the long run was oftentimes ignored by most NGOs [125]. Extensive research found that the relationship between the government and NGOs following the Lushan earthquake had improved compared with the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [115]. Those improvements included increased funding, better communication mechanisms between government and NGOs, and a more advanced policy environment.

Following the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes, respondents also claimed that NGOs played a pivotal role in helping them during the recovery process.

NGO came at the right time to provide advice.

KP2

The Canterbury Earthquake Support Coordination Service (CETAS) facilitates collaboration between government agencies and NGOs to assist residents through information sharing, recovery plan documentation, and other essential services to promote recovery [126]. Organisations like the New Zealand Red Cross (NZRC) regularly visited households to determine if residents required assistance [127]. According to the NZRC, approximately 22% of Christchurch’s residents have received support from their programs [128].

4.3.5. Insurance Policies

In contrast to Lushan, insurance companies were a central pillar in aiding businesses and individuals in rebuilding their livelihoods. As shown in Table 5, most interviewees from Kaiapoi, Lyttelton, and Kaikōura highlighted the significance of various insurance types in their recovery process.

Everything needs to be documented: funds, person, and employment, in case such information must be provided to the government. This will enhance efficiency in getting the claim and aim.

KP6

“Everything” encompassed insurance claims and government assistance programs. Properly documented paperwork also helped ease the burden on insurers after a disaster. In Lushan, rural medical insurance functioned similarly to life insurance, offering limited compensation for asset losses following disasters. Residents lacked insurance coverage for assets or employment, leading them to rely heavily on social networks and government support for financial and employment recovery.

Insurance is vital in New Zealand’s recovery process [129]. L2 from Lyttelton noted that meeting insurance standards for home repairs was stressful, and individuals often resorted to substandard fixes. Additionally, filing housing insurance claims proved challenging. Temporary income loss was common in both regions after the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Insurance and government subsidies provided crucial short-term compensation, lasting several weeks to months. As KP6 emphasised, livelihood preparedness should include understanding how to navigate insurance claims and government assistance programs.

In China, a study by Xu et al. on earthquake disaster insurance following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake found that 34.44% of households in the surveyed area were willing to purchase such insurance [124]. The development of earthquake disaster insurance policies in China accelerated significantly after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [130]. Financial status and risk perception influenced the willingness to buy insurance in rural areas [131].

4.4. Personal Well-Being

4.4.1. Quality of Life

In Lushan, quality of life was considered the most critical component of personal well-being. Enhancing quality of life often leads to better livelihood outcomes, such as increased resilience [132,133] and sustainability [8]. While the interviewees from Christchurch and Kaikōura did not explicitly mention quality of life, they frequently discussed physical and mental well-being when reflecting on their post-earthquake experiences. Field observations indicated that quality of life had improved compared to pre-earthquake conditions. In Lyttelton, businesses attracted more customers, and the town gained recognition as a tourist destination beyond Christchurch. In Kaiapoi, where the earthquake caused severe damage, residents reported a strong recovery, supported by the local council and other institutions.

4.4.2. Livelihood Satisfaction

In Lushan, dissatisfaction primarily stemmed from the farmland appropriation policy, which deprived residents of their primary livelihood assets. After the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, dissatisfaction with recovery efforts was linked to the level of community participation during the reconstruction period [134]. In Christchurch, Prayag and Spector [132] used life satisfaction to measure subjective well-being among business owners and employees. They found that individuals with higher psychological resilience reported greater life satisfaction post-disaster. Higher life satisfaction at work often correlates with increased efficiency and commitment, which employers value [135].

4.4.3. Physical Health

During fieldwork in Lushan, one interviewee in Wanghuo New Village shared that she lost her ability to farm due to a hand injury sustained during the earthquake. With limited education, she struggled to find alternative employment. Limited access to disability services and a reluctance to purchase disaster insurance further exacerbated financial challenges for low-income families.

In Christchurch and Kaikōura, the New Zealand Red Cross (NZRC) prioritised physical health assistance [128]. Interviewee L1 recounted her daughter’s severe injuries and the trauma they endured. She expressed frustration with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), which urged her to return to work within weeks, leaving her overwhelmed by stress and slow recovery. This highlights the need for coordinated efforts across agencies to address physical health during recovery.

4.4.4. Mental Health

Following the earthquake in Lushan, family support played a crucial role in assisting individuals during the recovery process by providing a form of “psychological capital”, which significantly contributed to their well-being. However, institutional support for psychological well-being covered occasional counselling services that had little positive impact as long as the main livelihood concerns had not been addressed properly. For instance, some individuals residing in temporary housing reported experiencing mental health issues due to the substandard living conditions and the financial strain of securing new accommodation. They also expressed anxiety about the uncertainties of relocation and acclimatising to a new environment. The water leakage problem in Z1’s newly relocated house had depleted their savings and left them with substantial debt to the bank and relatives.

In Lushan, one respondent noted that the earthquake triggered memories of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, but she showed little distress, focusing instead on her new business in Longmen town. Many villagers downplayed mental health concerns, often denying issues due to fear of stigma or social isolation [136].

Studies on the Wenchuan earthquake highlighted the neglect of mental health services. Zhang et al. advocated for mental health education and support programs [137], while Liang and Wang [9] noted that mental health was often overlooked compared to material aid. Addressing mental health is crucial, especially for those who lost jobs or income [138,139]. While traditional views suggest that employment resolves mental health issues, poor psychological well-being can hinder job-seeking efforts [140]. Governments should integrate mental health support into social programs.

4.4.5. Feeling of Security

Both communities valued a feeling of security, though their concerns differed. In Lushan, residents expressed a strong willingness to relocate to safer housing after the 2008 Wenchuan and 2013 Lushan earthquakes, with 93% and 78% of surveyed households favouring relocation [141]. However, financial constraints prevented many from reinforcing or repairing their homes (W2, W3). A study in southwestern China found that the willingness to purchase earthquake insurance was influenced by financial and physical resources [124].

In Christchurch, KP2 and KP3 emphasised the importance of security for mental health. KP5 described a “quantum shift” in his mindset, becoming hyper-vigilant and keeping car keys close at hand. KP4 prepared a self-sufficient kit, including a garden and water stream, to enhance his sense of security. According to CERA, anxiety, hyper-vigilance, and sleep deprivation were common stress symptoms post-earthquake [142].

While rural residents in Lushan worried about unsafe housing due to financial limitations, Christchurch residents faced secondary stressors, like insurance disputes and rebuilding challenges [143]. Long-term poverty reduction is essential for improving living conditions in Lushan, whereas in New Zealand, addressing both primary and secondary stressors is critical for recovery.

4.5. Summary

As shown in

Table 6. Summary of critical livelihood components in two countries.

Components in Both Countries	Components in China not in New Zealand	Components in New Zealand not in China	Non-Critical Components in Both Countries
Income resources	Assistance from external families	Insurance policies	Housing ownership
Access to employment opportunities	Housing functionality	Government’s assistance	Work–life balance
Social networks	Housing condition	Mental health	Livelihood satisfaction
Safety and robustness of a house	Education and skills	Feeling of security	NGOs’ assistance
	Quality of life	Physical health

, compared with the cases of the two countries, three components were identified as critical in the Lushan case study but not emphasised in Christchurch: education and skills, access to income resources, and housing functionality. In contrast, interviewees frequently mentioned insurance in Christchurch and Kaikōura. In China, villagers of poorer communities often rely on social networks to secure migrant jobs in urban areas [144]. Labour migration is influenced by education, skills, and access to resources. Villagers whose income sources were disrupted by natural disasters often migrated to larger cities in search of alternative livelihoods. This pattern contrasts sharply with Christchurch and Kaikōura, where migration was rarely chosen as a livelihood option. However, labour migration can negatively impact well-being due to family separation [11]. Additionally, it may lead to poor education for migrant children, perpetuating intergenerational poverty and creating a poverty trap.

In China, sustainable tourism was more predominantly injected by the government for an efficient recovery process. The government acquired land to develop an ecological and cultural tourism sector, compensating households with CNY 1600 (USD 260 in 2013) per year per Chinese Mu (1/15 hectare). However, this amount was far less than previous farming income. While households were allowed small plots (0.1–0.2 Mu) for personal food production, these were insufficient, forcing many to seek alternative livelihoods. Post-Lushan earthquake, eco-tourism initiatives, like fishponds, greenhouses, orchards, and tea gardens, were introduced to boost collective income.

Yet, many were reluctant to engage in tourism efforts due to a lack of pre-disaster experience and knowledge in eco-tourism, mirroring challenges after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Effective recovery requires better collaboration between institutions and individuals to build skills and knowledge. Despite government efforts to revive tourism, poor communication and knowledge-sharing between communities and aid providers hindered participation and progress. After the Lushan earthquake, many stakeholders showed reluctance to sustain long-term livelihood recovery plans for local communities once the “zhibiao” (performance targets) for the regional or counterpart government were achieved.

On the other hand, even though tourism was the predominant sector in the selected areas in New Zealand, the sustainability of tourism was still lacking due to the lack of targeted intervention from the government on the vulnerable tourism sectors. In the aftermath of the earthquake, the Kaikōura District Council initiated eco-tourism and strategic planning into its recovery framework. Despite these efforts, a comprehensive long-term strategy to assist individuals with vulnerable livelihood patterns, especially those heavily dependent on the tourism sector, was lacking. This was evident in the interviews, such as with a souvenir shop owner (K13), who highlighted the limited support for their recovery. Self-employed artists (K12) also reported to the researcher that their livelihoods had not received substantial long-term assistance. Field observations during the initial visit in June 2018 further confirmed that several souvenir shops had shut down. While construction initiatives led by NCTIR (North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery) and NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency) benefited local businesses, such as restaurants, hostels, and grocery stores, tourism-reliant sectors, like souvenir shops and whale-watching operations, continued to struggle throughout the extended recovery period.

5. Recommendations and Conclusions

This study offers a comparative analysis of the similarities and differences in critical components that constitute livelihood recovery between China and New Zealand. It highlights that the housing category, a central pillar of livelihood recovery in China, warrants greater attention from disaster recovery practitioners and policymakers, particularly in contexts where homes serve as income-generating assets. To optimise limited resources and strengthen livelihoods, it is essential to identify all the potential ways households utilise their homes for income generation. As Tafti and Tomlinson emphasised, livelihood interventions must address people’s needs, particularly housing and livelihood requirements [28].

While employment was considered crucial in both countries, communities in Lushan firmly embraced traditional income resources. They were not willing to lean into “cultural capital” provided by the government. Similarly, communities in Christchurch and Kaikōura also relied on traditional “cultural capital” to recover their employment.

Furthermore, few studies have explored the impact of individual well-being on livelihood recovery. This study underscores the importance of understanding the psychological and mental effects of job loss due to disasters and the stress associated with rebuilding livelihoods. Poor mental health can hinder affected populations from pursuing new employment opportunities and restoring their livelihoods.

A notable issue in both countries was the lack of communication between communities and governments, which hindered policymaking and the effectiveness of livelihood interventions. Establishing a comprehensive mechanism that fosters communication between individuals, local governments, and central authorities is crucial. In Lushan, livelihood transformation efforts must align with local needs. Many rural residents adopted diversified livelihood strategies, combining farming and migrant work. Top-level decision-makers must encourage these individuals to transition to new livelihood portfolios; otherwise, investments in eco-tourism may be wasted. In contrast, communities in Christchurch and Kaikōura exhibited a strong sense of belonging, particularly in nature-based tourism sectors, and were reluctant to abandon traditional livelihood practices [145]. Transitioning to socio-technical systems could provide insights into supporting sustainable livelihoods and enabling transformative changes.

In Lushan, despite government efforts to promote eco-tourism as a novel livelihood strategy, residents were hesitant to abandon traditional practices. A more effective knowledge transfer process should be integrated into training programs. While local officials and media praised self-management groups formed after the earthquake [146], community-focused education sessions could encourage residents to adapt their livelihood practices in response to socio-economic growth and urbanisation. Technology could also be vital in enhancing knowledge sharing during recovery efforts [116].

In New Zealand, the Kaikōura District Council [102] reported that 50.4% of employment is directly tied to tourism, with an additional 35% indirectly linked. Expanding the tourism sector beyond wildlife viewing and diversifying into areas like food and beverage exports could create new employment opportunities [25].

A key difference between China and New Zealand lies in the level of government involvement in post-disaster recovery [124,147]. In China, the government played a central role, whereas in New Zealand, recovery was more influenced by insurance, and community participation was significantly more substantial. Insurance played a central role in recovery efforts following the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake, whereas in Lushan, its impact was minimal compared to government subsidies and family support. The Chinese government should recognise the importance of insurance, not only for post-disaster recovery but also for long-term livelihood transformation, ensuring coverage for assets and employment. According to Xu et al., educating people about risk perception can increase their willingness to purchase disaster-related insurance [128]. These components are interconnected, and long-term emergency education can enhance overall livelihood resilience in disasters.

The findings of this study are based on cases from China and New Zealand, and their applicability to other contexts requires further testing. In Lushan, the limited educational level of the participants necessitated researcher assistance in completing questionnaires, resulting in a smaller sample size. Additionally, many community members worked as migrant labourers in other cities, leading to a participant pool dominated by women and the elderly. In Christchurch and Kaikōura, constraints on time and resources limited longitudinal observations of livelihood changes over time.