During 2010 and 2011, a series of major earthquakes caused widespread damage in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand. The magnitude 6.3 quake in February 2011 caused 185 fatalities. In the ensuing months, the government progressively zoned residential land in Christchurch on the basis of its suitability for future occupation (considering damage from these quakes and future earthquake risk). Over 6,000 homes were placed in the ‘red-zone’, meaning that property owners were forced to sell their land to the Crown. This study analysed patterns of residential mobility amongst thirty-one red-zone households from the suburb of Southshore, Christchurch. Drawing on interviews and surveys, the research traced their experience from the zoning announcement until they had moved to a new residence. The research distinguished between short (before the zoning announcement) and long term (post the red zone ‘deadline’) forms of household relocation. The majority of households in the study were highly resistant to short term movement. Amongst those which did relocate before the zoning decision, the desire to maintain a valued social connection with a person outside of the earthquake environment was often an important factor. Some households also moved out of perceived necessity (e.g. due to lack of power or water). In terms of long-term relocation, concepts of affordability and safety were much more highly valued by the sample when purchasing post-quake property. This resulted in a distinct patterning of post-quake housing location choices. Perceived control over the moving process, relationship with government organisations and insurance companies, and time spent in the red-zone before moving all heavily influenced participants’ disaster experience. Contrary to previous studies, households in this study recorded higher levels of subjective well-being after relocating. The study proposed a typology of movers in the Christchurch post-disaster environment. Four mobility behaviours, or types, are identified: the Committed Stayers (CSs), the Environment Re-Creators (ERCs), the Resigned Acceptors (RAs), and the Opportunistic Movers (OMs). The CSs were defined by their immobility rather than their relocation aspirations, whilst the ERCs attempted to recreate or retain aspects of Southshore through their mobility. The RAs expressed a form of apathy towards the post-quake environment, whereas, on the other hand, the OMs moved relative to pre-earthquake plans, or opportunities that arose from the earthquake itself. Possibilities for further research include examining household adaptability to new residential environments and tracking further mobility patterns in the years following relocation from the red- zone.
Cultural heritage is a dynamic concept, incorporating the ideas and values of many different organisations and individuals; it is heavily dependent on the context of the item or site being conserved, and transforms something from an old article into a historically significant object. A formal definition of cultural heritage did not appear in the Antarctic Treaty System until 1995, however Antarctic heritage value has been applied to various sites and monuments since the inception of the Treaty, from Shackleton’s Nimrod Hut to a heavy tractor. This report examines a number of case studies to determine the various ways in which heritage items and sites can be managed – such as the removal of the South Pole Dome – as well as their conservation after natural disasters, for instance the Christchurch earthquakes.
Christchurch has experienced a series of over 13,500 earthquakes between September 2010 and January 2012. Some children who have been exposed to earthquakes may experience post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD) including difficulty concentrating, feeling anxious, restlessness and confusion. Other children may be resilient to the effects of disaster. Western models of resilience relate to a child’s social support and their capacity to cope. The Māori model of wellbeing relates to whanau (family), wairua (spiritual connections), tinana (the physical body) and hinengaro (the mind and emotions). Children’s concepts of helping, caring and learning may provide insight into resilience without introducing the topic of earthquakes into the conversation, which in itself may provoke an episode of stress. Many researchers have studied the effects of earthquakes on children. However, few studies have examined positive outcomes and resilience or listened to the children’s voices. The objective of this study was to listen to the voices of children who experienced the Canterbury earthquake period in order to gain a deeper understanding of the ideas associated resilience. Individual interviews were conducted with 17 five-year-old participants during their first term of primary school. After the interviews, the teacher shared demographic information and reports on the children’s stress and coping. Six children were identified as New Zealand European and eleven children identified as New Zealand Māori. Children had different views of helping, caring and learning. Themes of resilience from Western and Kaupapa Māori models were identified in transcripts of the children's voices and drawings. Māori children voiced more themes of resilience associated with the Western model, and in the Tapa Whā model, Māori children's transcripts were more likely to be inclusive of all four components of well-being. How five-year-old children, having experienced an earthquake disaster during their preschool years, talk or draw pictures about helping, caring and learning can provide insight into resilience, especially in situations where it is not advisable to re-traumatise children by discussing the disaster event. Future research should interview parents/caregivers and whānau to gain further insights. Considering information from both a Western and a Tapa Whā perspective can also provide new insights into resilience in young children. A limitation of this study is that qualitative studies are not always free from a researcher’s interpretation and are, therefore, subjective.
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
