Prior to the devastating 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, the University of Canterbury (UC) was renowned for its graduates’ academic preparation and its staff’s research outputs. The town/gown relationship was aloof and strained due to UC’s move from the CBD in the 1970s and students being seen as troublemakers. Despite its vision of people prepared to make a difference, the University’s students and staff were not seen as making a difference in the local community or as being engaged citizens.
This changed when over 9,000 UC students mobilized themselves into the Student Volunteer Army to provide immediate relief across Christchurch following the four major quakes of 2010 and 2011. Suddenly, UC students were seen as saviors, not miscreants and a focus on citizenship education as part of the University’s strategic direction began to take shape.
Based on qualitative and quantitative research conducted at UC over the past four years, this interactive presentation will highlight the findings, conclusions, and implications of how the University has been transformed into a recognized, international leader in citizenship education. By integrating students’ community service into their academic studies, the University has changed its persona while students have gained academically, civically, and personally.
Using greater Christchurch as a case study, this research seeks to understand the key drivers of residential choice of families with children who live in recently developed, low-density greenfield subdivisions. In particular, the research examines the role that transport-related implications play in families’ choice of residence and location. It also explores the lived experience of the quotidian travel of these households, and the intrinsic value of their time in the car. While the research is situated in one particular location, it is designed to gain an understanding of urban processes and residents’ experiences of these as applicable to broader settings. Concerns about the pernicious environmental, fiscal, and wellbeing effects of sprawling urban form have been growing over the past few decades, inciting many cities including Christchurch to start shifting planning policies to try and achieve greater intensification and a denser development pattern. The 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake sequence and its destruction of thousands of homes however created huge pressure for housing development, the bulk of which is now occurring on greenfield sites on the peripheries of Christchurch City and its neighbouring towns. Drawing on the insights provided by a wide body of both qualitative and quantitative literature on residential choice, transport and urban form, and mobilities literature as a basis, this research is interested in the attraction of these growing neighbourhoods to families, and puts the focus firmly on the attitudes, values, motivations, decisions, and lived experience of those who live in the growing suburbs of Christchurch.
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
