The role of belonging in post-disaster environments remains an under-theorised concept, particularly regarding refugee populations. This paper presents a qualitative study with 101 refugee-background participants from varying communities living in Christchurch, New Zealand, about their perspectives and responses to the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010–11. Participants spoke of how a sense of belonging as individuals and as a wider community was important in the recovery effort, and highlighted the multiple ways in which they understood this concept. Their comments demonstrate how belonging can have contextual, chronological and gendered dimensions that can help inform effective and resonant disaster responses with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This analysis also illustrates how the participants' perspectives of belonging shifted over time, and discusses the corresponding role of social work in supporting post-disaster recovery through the concepts of civic, ethno and ethnic-based belonging. AM - Accepted Manuscript
The Canterbury region experienced widespread damage due to liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the 4 September 2010 earthquake and the large aftershocks that followed, notably those that occurred on 22 February, 13 June and 23 December 2011. Following the 2010 earthquake, the Earthquake Commission directed a thorough investigation of the ground profile in Christchurch, and to date, more than 7500 cone penetration tests (CPT) have been performed in the region. This paper presents the results of analyses which use a subset of the geotechnical database to evaluate the liquefaction process as well as the re-liquefaction that occurred following some of the major events in Christchurch. First, the applicability of existing CPT-based methods for evaluating liquefaction potential of Christchurch soils was investigated using three methods currently available. Next, the results of liquefaction potential evaluation were compared with the severity of observed damage, categorised in terms of the land damage grade developed from Tonkin & Taylor property inspections as well as from observed severity of liquefaction from aerial photography. For this purpose, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) was used to represent the damage potential at each site. In addition, a comparison of the CPT-based strength profiles obtained before each of the major aftershocks was performed. The results suggest that the analysis of spatial and temporal variations of strength profiles gives a clear indication of the resulting liquefaction and re-liquefaction observed in Christchurch. The comparison of a limited number of CPT strength profiles before and after the earthquakes seems to indicate that no noticeable strengthening has occurred in Christchurch, making the area vulnerable to liquefaction induced land damage in future large-scale earthquakes.
Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes contains selected papers presented at the New Zealand – Japan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes (Auckland, New Zealand, 2-3 December 2013). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand and the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake in Japan have caused significant damage to many residential houses due to varying degrees of soil liquefaction over a very wide extent of urban areas unseen in past destructive earthquakes. While soil liquefaction occurred in naturally-sedimented soil formations in Christchurch, most of the areas which liquefied in Tokyo Bay area were reclaimed soil and artificial fill deposits, thus providing researchers with a wide range of soil deposits to characterize soil and site response to large-scale earthquake shaking. Although these earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan caused extensive damage to life and property, they also serve as an opportunity to understand better the response of soil and building foundations to such large-scale earthquake shaking. With the wealth of information obtained in the aftermath of both earthquakes, information-sharing and knowledge-exchange are vital in arriving at liquefaction-proof urban areas in both countries. Data regarding the observed damage to residential houses as well as the lessons learnt are essential for the rebuilding efforts in the coming years and in mitigating buildings located in regions with high liquefaction potential. As part of the MBIE-JSPS collaborative research programme, the Geomechanics Group of the University of Auckland and the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory of the University of Tokyo co-hosted the workshop to bring together researchers to review the findings and observations from recent large-scale earthquakes related to soil liquefaction and discuss possible measures to mitigate future damage. http://librarysearch.auckland.ac.nz/UOA2_A:Combined_Local:uoa_alma21151785130002091
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.
