We present the initial findings from a study of adaptive resilience of lifelines organisations providing essential infrastructure services, in Christchurch, New Zealand following the earthquakes of 2010-2011. Qualitative empirical data was collected from 200 individuals in 11 organisations. Analysis using a grounded theory method identified four major factors that aid organisational response, recovery and renewal following major disruptive events. Our data suggest that quality of top and middle-level leadership, quality of external linkages, level of internal collaboration, ability to learn from experience, and staff well-being and engagement influence adaptive resilience. Our data also suggest that adaptive resilience is a process or capacity, not an outcome and that it is contextual. Post-disaster capacity/resources and post-disaster environment influence the nature of adaptive resilience.
None
Since the early 1980s seismic hazard assessment in New Zealand has been based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). The most recent version of the New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model, a PSHA model, was published by Stirling et al, in 2012. This model follows standard PSHA principals and combines a nation-wide model of active faults with a gridded point-source model based on the earthquake catalogue since 1840. These models are coupled with the ground-motion prediction equation of McVerry et al (2006). Additionally, we have developed a time-dependent clustering-based PSHA model for the Canterbury region (Gerstenberger et al, 2014) in response to the Canterbury earthquake sequence. We are now in the process of revising that national model. In this process we are investigating several of the fundamental assumptions in traditional PSHA and in how we modelled hazard in the past. For this project, we have three main focuses: 1) how do we design an optimal combination of multiple sources of information to produce the best forecast of earthquake rates in the next 50 years: can we improve upon a simple hybrid of fault sources and background sources, and can we better handle the uncertainties in the data and models (e.g., fault segmentation, frequency-magnitude distributions, time-dependence & clustering, low strain-rate areas, and subduction zone modelling)? 2) developing revised and new ground-motion predictions models including better capturing of epistemic uncertainty – a key focus in this work is developing a new strong ground motion catalogue for model development; and 3) how can we best quantify if changes we have made in our modelling are truly improvements? Throughout this process we are working toward incorporating numerical modelling results from physics based synthetic seismicity and ground-motion models.
None
