The Canterbury earthquakes, which started with the 7.1 magnitude event on September 4, 2010, caused significant damage in the region. The September 4 earthquakes brought substantial damage to land, buildings, and infrastructure, while the 6.3 magnitude earthquake on February 22, 2011 (and its subsequent aftershocks), brought even greater property damage, but also significant loss of life in addition to the region. Thousands were injured, and 185 persons died. A national State of Emergency was declared and remained in effect until April 30, 2011. A significant number of people required immediate assistance and support to deal with loss, injury, trauma experiences, and property damages. Many had to find alternate accommodation as their houses were too damaged to stay in. Of those affected, many were already vulnerable, and others had been too traumatized by the events to effectively deal with the challenges they were faced with. A number of human service organizations in the region, from both government and non-government sectors, joined forces to be able to more effectively and efficiently help those in need. This was the start of what would become known as the Earthquake Support Coordination Service. The aim of this report is to present an evaluation of the Earthquake Support Coordination Service and its collaborative organization, based on documentation and interviews with key stakeholders of the service. The aim is also to evaluate the service based on perspectives gathered among the clients as well as the coordinators working in the service. The final aim is to offer a reflection on the service model, and on what factors enabled the service, as well as recommendations regarding aspects of the service which may require review, and aspects which may be useful in other contexts.
This document reviews research-based understandings of the concept of resilience. A conceptual model is developed which identifies a number of the factors that influence individual and household resilience. Guided by the model, a series of recommendations are developed for practices that will support individual and household resilience in Canterbury in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 earthquakes.
The Canterbury earthquakes are unique in that the there have been a series of major earthquakes, each with their own subsequent aftershock pattern. These have extended from the first large earthquake in September 2010 to currently, at the time of writing, two years later. The last significant earthquake of over magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale was in May on 2012, and the total number of aftershocks has exceeded 12,000. The consequences, in addition to the loss of life, significant injury and widespread damage, have been far reaching and long term, with detrimental effects and still uncertain effects for many. This provides unique challenges for individuals, communities, organisations and institutions within Canterbury. This document reviews research-based understandings of the concept of resilience. A conceptual model is developed which identifies a number of the factors that influence individual and household resilience. Guided by the model, a series of recommendations are developed for practices that will support individual and household resilience in Canterbury in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 earthquakes.
Data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess and advance the current state of practice for evaluating liquefaction triggering. Towards this end, select case histories from the CES are used herein to assess the predictive capabilities of three alternative CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures: Robertson and Wride (1998); Moss et al. (2006); and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Additionally, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) framework for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is also used to assess the predictive capabilities of the liquefaction evaluation procedures. Although it is not without limitations, use of the LPI framework for this purpose circumvents the need for selecting “critical” layers and their representative properties for study sites, which inherently involves subjectivity and thus has been a point of contention among researchers. It was found that while all the assessed liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures performed well for the parameter ranges of the sites analyzed, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) yielded predictions that are more consistent with field observations than the other procedures. However, use of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure in conjunction with a Christchurch-specific correlation to estimate fines content showed a decreased performance relative to using a generic fines content correlation. As a result, the fines correction for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure needs further study.
