Our poster will present on-going QuakeCoRE-founded work on strong motion seismology for Dunedin-Mosgiel area, focusing on ground motion simulations for Dunedin Central Business District (CBD). Source modelling and ground motion simulations are being carried out using the SCEC (Southern California Earthquakes Center) Broad Band simulation Platform (BBP). The platform computes broadband (0-10 Hz) seismograms for earthquakes and was first implemented at the University of Otago in 2016. As large earthquakes has not been experienced in Dunedin in the time of period of instrumental recording, user-specified scenario simulations are of great value. The Akatore Fault, the most active fault in Otago and closest major fault to Dunedin, is the source focused on in the present study. Simulations for various Akatore Fault source scenarios are run and presented. Path and site effects are key components considered in the simulation process. A 1D shear wave velocity profile is required by SCEC BBP, and this is being generated to represent the Akatore-to-CBD path and site within the BBP. A 3D shear velocity model, with high resolution within Dunedin CBD, is being developed in parallel with this study (see Sangster et al. poster). This model will be the basis for developing a 3D shear wave velocity model for greater Dunedin-Mosgiel area for future ground motion simulations, using Canterbury software (currently under development).
This dissertation explores the advocacy for the Christchurch Town Hall that occurred in 2012-2015 after the Canterbury Earthquakes. It frames this advocacy as an instance of collective-action community participation in a heritage decision, and explores the types of heritage values it expressed, particularly social values. The analysis contextualises the advocacy in post-quake Christchurch, and considers its relationship with other developments in local politics, heritage advocacy, and urban activism. In doing so, this dissertation considers how collective action operates as a form of public participation, and the practical implications for understanding and recognising social value. This research draws on studies of practices that underpin social value recognition in formal heritage management. Social value is held by communities outside institutions. Engaging with communities enables institutions to explore the values of specific places, and to realise the potential of activating local connections with heritage places. Such projects can be seen as participatory practices. However, these processes require skills and resources, and may not be appropriate for all places, communities and institutions. However, literature has understudied collective action as a form of community participation in heritage management. All participation processes have nuances of communities, processes, and context, and this dissertation analyses these in one case. The research specifically asked what heritage values (especially social values) were expressed through collective action, what the relationship was with the participation processes, communities, and wider situation that produced them, and the impact on institutional rhetoric and decisions. The research analysed values expressed in representations made to council in support of the Town Hall. It also used documentary sources and interviews with key informants to analyse the advocacy and decision-making processes and their relationships with the wider context and other grassroots activities. The analysis concluded that the values expressed intertwined social and professional values. They were related to the communities and circumstance that produced them, as an advocacy campaign for a civic heritage building from a Western architectural tradition. The advocacy value arguments were one of several factors that impacted the decision. They have had a lasting impact on rhetoric around the Town Hall, as was a heritage-making practice in its own right. This dissertation makes a number of contributions to the discussion of social value and community in heritage. It suggests connections between advocacy and participation perspectives in heritage. It recommends consideration of nuances of communities, context, and place meanings when using heritage advocacy campaigns as evidence of social value. It adds to the literature on heritage advocacy, and offers a focused analysis of one of many heritage debates that occurred in post-quake Christchurch. Ultimately, it encourages practice to actively integrate social and community values and to develop self-reflexive engagement and valuation processes. Despite inherent challenges, participatory processes offer opportunities to diversify understandings of value, co-produce heritage meanings with communities, and empower citizens in democratic processes around the places they live with and love.
