Melancholy, memories and six nostalgias: Postquake Christchurch and the pr…

Research Papers, Lincoln University

The city of Christchurch, New Zealand, was until very recently a “Junior England”—a small city that still bore the strong imprint of nineteenth-century British colonization, alongside a growing interest in the underlying biophysical setting and the indigenous pre-European landscape. All of this has changed as the city has been subjected to a devastating series of earthquakes, beginning in September 2010, and still continuing, with over 12,000 aftershocks recorded. One of these aftershocks, on February 22, 2011, was very close to the city center and very shallow with disastrous consequences, including a death toll of 185. Many buildings collapsed, and many more need to be demolished for safety purposes, meaning that over 80 percent of the central city will have gone. Tied up with this is the city’s precious heritage—its buildings and parks, rivers, and trees. The threats to heritage throw debates over economics and emotion into sharp relief. A number of nostalgic positions emerge from the dust and rubble, and in one form is a reverse-amnesia—an insistence of the past in the present. Individuals can respond to nostalgia in very different ways, at one extreme become mired in it and unable to move on, and at the other, dismissive of nostalgia as a luxury in the face of more pressing crises. The range of positions on nostalgia represent the complexity of heritage debates, attachment, and identity—and the ways in which disasters amplify the ongoing discourse on approaches to conservation and the value of historic landscapes.

Liquefaction features produced by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequ…

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Liquefaction features and the geologic environment in which they formed were carefully studied at two sites near Lincoln in southwest Christchurch. We undertook geomorphic mapping, excavated trenches, and obtained hand cores in areas with surficial evidence for liquefaction and areas where no surficial evidence for liquefaction was present at two sites (Hardwick and Marchand). The liquefaction features identified include (1) sand blows (singular and aligned along linear fissures), (2) blisters or injections of subhorizontal dikes into the topsoil, (3) dikes related to the blows and blisters, and (4) a collapse structure. The spatial distribution of these surface liquefaction features correlates strongly with the ridges of scroll bars in meander settings. In addition, we discovered paleoliquefaction features, including several dikes and a sand blow, in excavations at the sites of modern liquefaction. The paleoliquefaction event at the Hardwick site is dated at A.D. 908-1336, and the one at the Marchand site is dated at A.D. 1017-1840 (95% confidence intervals of probability density functions obtained by Bayesian analysis). If both events are the same, given proximity of the sites, the time of the event is A.D. 1019-1337. If they are not, the one at the Marchand site could have been much younger. Taking into account a preliminary liquefaction-triggering threshold of equivalent peak ground acceleration for an Mw 7.5 event (PGA7:5) of 0:07g, existing magnitude-bounded relations for paleoliquefaction, and the timing of the paleoearthquakes and the potential PGA7:5 estimated for regional faults, we propose that the Porters Pass fault, Alpine fault, or the subduction zone faults are the most likely sources that could have triggered liquefaction at the study sites. There are other nearby regional faults that may have been the source, but there is no paleoseismic data with which to make the temporal link.