Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during earthquakes poses a significant hazard to the built environment, as observed in Christchurch during the 2010 to 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). It is critical that geotechnical earthquake engineers are able to adequately predict both the spatial extent of lateral spreads and magnitudes of associated ground movements for design purposes. Published empirical and semi-empirical models for predicting lateral spread displacements have been shown to vary by a factor of <0.5 to >2 from those measured in parts of Christchurch during CES. Comprehensive post- CES lateral spreading studies have clearly indicated that the spatial distribution of the horizontal displacements and extent of lateral spreading along the Avon River in eastern Christchurch were strongly influenced by geologic, stratigraphic and topographic features.
Natural catastrophes are increasing worldwide. They are becoming more frequent but also more severe and impactful on our built environment leading to extensive damage and losses. Earthquake events account for the smallest part of natural events; nevertheless seismic damage led to the most fatalities and significant losses over the period 1981-2016 (Munich Re). Damage prediction is helpful for emergency management and the development of earthquake risk mitigation projects. Recent design efforts focused on the application of performance-based design engineering where damage estimation methodologies use fragility and vulnerability functions. However, the approach does not explicitly specify the essential criteria leading to economic losses. There is thus a need for an improved methodology that finds the critical building elements related to significant losses. The here presented methodology uses data science techniques to identify key building features that contribute to the bulk of losses. It uses empirical data collected on site during earthquake reconnaissance mission to train a machine learning model that can further be used for the estimation of building damage post-earthquake. The first model is developed for Christchurch. Empirical building damage data from the 2010-2011 earthquake events is analysed to find the building features that contributed the most to damage. Once processed, the data is used to train a machine-learning model that can be applied to estimate losses in future earthquake events.
The lived reality of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and its implications for the Waimakariri District, a small but rapidly growing district (third tier of government in New Zealand) north of Christchurch, can illustrate how community well-being, community resilience, and community capitals interrelate in practice generating paradoxical results out of what can otherwise be conceived as a textbook ‘best practice’ case of earthquake recovery. The Waimakariri District Council’s integrated community based recovery framework designed and implemented post-earthquakes in the District was built upon strong political, social, and moral capital elements such as: inter-institutional integration and communication, participation, local knowledge, and social justice. This approach enabled very positive community outputs such as artistic community interventions of the urban environment and communal food forests amongst others. Yet, interests responding to broader economic and political processes (continuous central government interventions, insurance and reinsurance processes, changing socio-cultural patterns) produced a significant loss of community capitals (E.g.: social fragmentation, participation exhaustion, economic leakage, etc.) which simultaneously, despite local Council and community efforts, hindered community well-being in the long term. The story of the Waimakariri District helps understand how resilience governance operates in practice where multi-scalar, non-linear, paradoxical, dynamic, and uncertain outcomes appear to be the norm that underpins the construction of equitable, transformative, and sustainable pathways towards the future.
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
