A significant portion of economic loss from the Canterbury Earthquake sequence in 2010-2011 was attributed to losses to residential buildings. These accounted for approximately $12B of a total $40B economic losses (Horspool, 2016). While a significant amount of research effort has since been aimed at research in the commercial sector, little has been done to reduce the vulnerability of the residential building stock.
After the Christchurch earthquakes, the government declared about 8000 houses as Red Zoned, prohibiting further developments in these properties, and offering the owners to buy them out. The government provided two options for owners: the first was full payment for both land and dwelling at the 2007 property evaluation, the second was payment for land, and the rest to be paid by the owner’s insurance. Most people chose the second option. Using data from LINZ combined with data from StatNZ, this project empirically investigates what led people to choose this second option, and what were the implications of these choices for the owners’ wealth and income.
We measure the longer-term effect of a major earthquake on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and investigate whether insurance claim payments for damaged residential property affected the local recovery process. We focus on the destructive Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) 2010 -2011 as our case study. Uniquely for this event, more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance, but insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery and describe the recovery’s determinants. We also find that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of economic recovery after the earthquake, but delayed payments were less affective and cash settlement of claims were more effective than insurance-managed repairs in contributing to local recovery.
We measure the longer-term effect of a major earthquake on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and investigate whether insurance claim payments for damaged residential property affected the local recovery process. We focus on the destructive Christchurch earthquake of 2011 as our case study. In this event more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance, but insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery and describe the recovery’s determinants. We also find that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of economic recovery after the earthquake, but delayed payments were less affective and cash settlement of claims were more affective in contributing to local recovery than insurance-managed rebuilding.
Over 900 buildings in the Christchurch central business district and 10,000 residential homes were demolished following the 22nd of February 2011 Canterbury earthquake, significantly disrupting the rebuild progress. This study looks to quantify the time required for demolitions during this event which will be useful for future earthquake recovery planning. This was done using the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) demolition database, which allowed an in-depth look into the duration of each phase of the demolition process. The effect of building location, building height, and the stakeholder which initiated the demolition process (i.e. building owner or CERA) was investigated. The demolition process comprises of five phases; (i) decision making, (ii) procurement and planning, (iii) demolition, (iv) site clean-up, and (v) completion certification. It was found that the time required to decide to demolish the building made up majority of the total demolition duration. Demolition projects initiated by CERA had longer procurement and planning durations, but was quicker in other phases. Demolished buildings in the suburbs had a longer decision making duration, but had little effect on other phases of the demolition process. The decision making and procurement and planning phases of the demolition process were shorter for taller buildings, though the other phases took longer. Fragility functions for the duration of each phase in the demolition process are provided for the various categories of buildings for use in future studies.
