Livelihood holds the key to a rapid recovery following a large-scale devastating disaster, building its resilience is of paramount importance. While much attention has been given to how to help people who are displaced from their jobs to regain employment, little research on livelihood resilience has been undertaken for those relocated communities following a disaster event. By studying five re-located villages post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar, Indonesia, this research has identified the indicators of livelihood resilience and the critical factors driving it for post-disaster relocated communities. A mixed approach, combining questionnaire surveys, semistructured interviews, and field observations, was used for the collection of data. Housing entitlement, the physical and mental health of residents, access to external livelihood support and the provision of infrastructure and basic services were identified as amongst the most critical indicators that represent the level of livelihood resilience. Early recovery income support, physical and mental health, availability and timeliness of livelihood support, together with cultural sensitivity and governance structure, are amongst the most important factors. Given the nature of resettlement, access to infrastructure, location of relocated sites, the safety of the neighbourhood and the ability to transfer to other jobs/skills also play an important role in establishing sustained employment for relocated communities in Indonesia. Those indicators and factors were synthesised into a framework which was further tested in the recovery of Christchurch, and Kaikoura, New Zealand during their recovery from devastating earthquakes. It is suggested that the framework can be used by government agencies and aid organisations to assess the livelihood resilience of post-disaster relocated communities. This will help better them plan support policies and/or prioritise resilience investment strategies to ensure that the recovery needs of those relocated are best met.
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
There is very little research on total house strength that includes contributions of non-structural elements. This testing programme provides inclusive stiffness and response data for five houses of varying ages. These light timber framed houses in Christchurch, New Zealand had minor earthquake damage from the 2011 earthquakes and were lateral load tested on site to determine their strength and/or stiffness, and to identify damage thresholds. Dynamic characteristics including natural periods, which ranged from 0.14 to 0.29s were also investigated. Two houses were quasi-statically loaded up to approximately 130kN above the foundation in one direction. Another unidirectional test was undertaken on a slab-on-grade two-storey house, which was also snapback tested. Two other houses were tested using cyclic quasi-static loading, and between cycles snapback tests were undertaken to identify the natural period of each house, including foundation and damage effects. A more detailed dynamic analysis on one of the houses provided important information on seismic safety levels of post-quake houses with respect to different hazard levels in the Christchurch area. While compared to New Zealand Building Standards all tested houses had an excess of strength, damage is a significant consideration in earthquake resilience and was observed in all of the houses. http://www.aees.org.au/downloads/conference-papers/2015-2/
