The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 and subsequent re-organisation and rebuilding of schools in the region is initiating a rapid transitioning from traditional classrooms and individual teaching to flexible learning spaces (FLS’s) and co-teaching. This transition is driven by the Ministry of Education property division who have specific guidelines for designing new schools, re-builds and the five and ten year property plan requirements. Boards of Trustees, school leaders and teachers are faced with the challenge of reconceptualising teaching and learning from private autonomous learning environments to co-teaching in Flexible Learning Spaces provisioned for 50 to 180 children and two to six teachers in a single space. This process involves risks and opportunities especially for teachers and children. This research project investigates the key components necessary to create effective co-teaching relationships and environments. It explores the lessons learnt from the 1970’s open plan era and the views of 40 experienced practitioners and leaders with two or more years’ experience working in collaborative teaching and learning environments in sixteen New Zealand and Australian schools. The research also considers teacher collaboration and co-teaching as evidenced in literature. The findings lead to the identification of eight key components required to create effective collaborative teaching and learning environments which are discussed using three themes of student centeredness, effective pedagogy and collaboration. Six key recommendations are provided to support the effective co-teaching in a flexible learning space: 1. Situate learners at the centre 2. Develop shared understanding about effective pedagogy in a FLS 3. Develop skills of collaboration 4. Implement specific co-teaching strategies 5. Analyse the impact of co-teaching strategies 6. Strategically prepare for change and the future
Damage scenario and seismic risk analysis, along with the use of a GIS-environment to represent the results, are helpful tools to support the decision making for planning and prioritizing seismic risk management strategies. The common framework for developing seismic risk analysis and damage scenarios is based on the traditionally accepted definition of the seismic risk as a convolution of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. This paper focuses on the importance of an appropriate geotechnical hazard representation within a seismic risk analysis process. After an overview of alternative methods for geotechnical zonation available in literature, with a different level of refinement depending on the information available, examples of their implementation are provided with reference to a case study. Significant differences in terms of the resulting microzoning can be observed. It is worth noting that in such methods, the definition of the site effect amplifications does not account for the characteristics of the built environment, affecting the soil-structure interaction. Alternative methods able to account for either the soil conditions and the characteristics of the built environment have been recently proposed and are herein discussed. Within a framework for seismic risk analysis, different formulation would thus derive depending on both the intensity measure (i.e. macrose3ismic intensity or response spectra) and the vulnerability approach (i.e. macroseismic/observational or mechanical -based approach) adopted. In conclusion, an immediate visualization of the importance of the geotechnical hazard evaluation within a seismic risk analysis is provided in terms of the variation of the expected damage and consequence distribution.
The Global Earthquake Model’s (GEM) Earthquake Consequences Database (GEMECD) aims to develop, for the first time, a standardised framework for collecting and collating geocoded consequence data induced by primary and secondary seismic hazards to different types of buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and population, and relate this data to estimated ground motion intensity via the USGS ShakeMap Atlas. New Zealand is a partner of the GEMECD consortium and to-date has contributed with 7 events to the database, of which 4 are localised in the South Pacific area (Newcastle 1989; Luzon 1990; South of Java 2006 and Samoa Islands 2009) and 3 are NZ-specific events (Edgecumbe 1987; Darfield 2010 and Christchurch 2011). This contribution to GEMECD represented a unique opportunity for collating, comparing and reviewing existing damage datasets and harmonising them into a common, openly accessible and standardised database, from where the seismic performance of New Zealand buildings can be comparatively assessed. This paper firstly provides an overview of the GEMECD database structure, including taxonomies and guidelines to collect and report on earthquake-induced consequence data. Secondly, the paper presents a summary of the studies implemented for the 7 events, with particular focus on the Darfield (2010) and Christchurch (2011) earthquakes. Finally, examples of specific outcomes and potentials for NZ from using and processing GEMECD are presented, including: 1) the rationale for adopting the GEM taxonomy in NZ and any need for introducing NZ-specific attributes; 2) a complete overview of the building typological distribution in the Christchurch CBD prior to the Canterbury earthquakes and 3) some initial correlations between the level and extent of earthquake-induced physical damage to buildings, building safety/accessibility issues and the induced human casualties.
As cities evolve, change and grow, the need and desire for adaptable architecture becomes evident across the nation. Architecture needs to undertake techniques that are flexible in order to adapt and align with the development of future generations in New Zealand. The Education industry is a primary example of a sector which requires flexibility within both classroom architectural form and interior configuration. This is a resultant of the recently updated Ministry of Education requirements; which state that every new classroom built or renovated nationwide, must implement the MoE classroom design standards for Innovative Learning Environments. ILE teaching spaces are configured as an open plan interior, supporting flexibility in classroom arrangement and teaching techniques. ILE classrooms are capable of evolving and adapting as educational practices evolve and change, allowing schools to remain modern and future focused. As part of this movement to ILE, the Ministry of Education has also recently made an attempt to improve the quality of temporary classrooms. This has been done by looking into the initiation of a programme that utilizes relocatable classroom buildings. Relocatable classrooms have been selected for multiple reasons, primarily flexibility. Flexibility is key for a school environment as it allows the school to actively respond to fluctuating school rolls. It is anticipated that the programme will provide a faster delivery process with a standardised design that allows the classrooms to be relocated from one school to another with relative ease. Following the devastating February 2011 earthquake the Greater Christchurch Region, the Education sector is in the midst of the Canterbury Schools Rebuild Programme. As a repercussion of this natural disaster, the majority of Christchurch schools have redevelopment or rebuild projects in progress, with preliminary design phases already in action for a small group of select schools regarded as high priority. The primary funding for these projects are sourced from insurance money, implementing tight budget restrictions, affecting the architectural design, quality and speed of the construction and repair works. The available funding limits the affordable classroom options to basic teaching spaces that have been stripped back to simple architectural forms, dictating not only the re-design, but also how our future generations will learn. Thus causing the development of the new student-led learning ILE concept to become controlled by existing construction techniques and the Rebuild Programmes budget restrictions. This thesis focuses on the future proofing of New Zealand schools by providing an affordable and time efficient alternative option to the current static, traditional construction, an option that has the ability to cater to the unpredictable fluctuating school rolls across the nation. This has been done by developing a prefabricated system for standalone classroom blocks. These blocks have the ability to be relocated between different school sites, dynamically catering to the unpredictable school roll numbers experienced across New Zealand. This site flexibility is reflected with the interior flexibility in the classrooms, enhancing the internal teaching space composition and challenges the existing design standards set by the Ministry of Education for Innovative Learning Environments. This system is called “Flexi-Ed”. Flexibility has been a key driver for this thesis, as the prefabricated structure is have to be flexible in three ways; first in the sense of being easy to assemble and disassemble. Second by offering flexible interior learning environments and thirdly the joints of the structure are designed with the ability to be flexible in order to cope with seismic activity. These three principles will provide schools with long term flexibility, minimal on-site interruption and heighten the standard of ILE across the nation. I strive to provide schools with long term flexibility and minimal site interruption, whilst heightening the standard of Innovative Learning Environments across New Zealand.
Research report N. 2016-2This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
The potential for a gastroenteritis outbreak in a post-earthquake environment may increase because of compromised infrastructure services, contaminated liquefaction (lateral spreading and surface ejecta), and the presence of gastroenteritis agents in the drinking water network. A population in a post-earthquake environment might be seriously affected by gastroenteritis because it has a short incubation period (about 10 hours). The potential for a gastroenteritis outbreak in a post-earthquake environment may increase because of compromised infrastructure services, contaminated liquefaction (lateral spreading and surface ejecta), and the presence of gastroenteritis agents in the drinking water network. A population in a post-earthquake environment might be seriously affected by gastroenteritis because it has a short incubation period (about 10 hours). The aim of this multidisciplinary research was to retrospectively analyse the gastroenteritis prevalence following the February 22, 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The first focus was to assess whether earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction, and gastroenteritis agents spatially explained the recorded gastroenteritis cases over the period of 35 days following the February 22, 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The gastroenteritis agents considered in this study were Escherichia coli found in the drinking water supply (MPN/100mL) and Non-Compliant Free Associated Chlorine (FAC-NC) (less than <0.02mg/L). The second focus was the protocols that averted a gastroenteritis outbreak at three Emergency Centres (ECs): Burnside High School Emergency Centre (BEC); Cowles Stadium Emergency Centre (CEC); and Linwood High School Emergency Centre (LEC). Using a mixed-method approach, gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors were quantitatively analysed. The qualitative analysis involved interviewing 30 EC staff members. The data was evaluated by adopting the Grounded Theory (GT) approach. Spatial analysis of considered factors showed that highly damaged CAUs were statistically clustered as demonstrated by Moran’s I statistic and hot spot analysis. Further modelling showed that gastroenteritis point prevalence clustering could not be fully explained by infrastructure damage alone, and other factors influenced the recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence. However, the results of this research suggest that there was a tenuous, indirect relationship between recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors: earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction and FAC-NC. Two ECs were opened as part of the post-earthquake response in areas with severe infrastructure damage and liquefaction (BEC and CEC). The third EC (CEC) provided important lessons that were learnt from the previous September 4, 2010 earthquake, and implemented after the February 22, 2011 earthquake. Two types of interwoven themes identified: direct and indirect. The direct themes were preventive protocols and indirect themes included type of EC building (school or a sports stadium), and EC staff. The main limitations of the research were Modifiable Areal Units (MAUP), data detection, and memory loss. This research provides a practical method that can be adapted to assess gastroenteritis risk in a post-earthquake environment. Thus, this mixed method approach can be used in other disaster contexts to study gastroenteritis prevalence, and can serve as an appendage to the existing framework for assessing infectious diseases. Furthermore, the lessons learnt from qualitative analysis can inform the current infectious disease management plans, designed for a post-disaster response in New Zealand and internationally Using a mixed-method approach, gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors were quantitatively analysed. A damage profile was created by amalgamating different types of damage for the considered factors for each Census Area Unit (CAU) in Christchurch. The damage profile enabled the application of a variety of statistical methods which included Moran’s I , Hot Spot (HS) analysis, Spearman’s Rho, and Besag–York–Mollié Model using a range of software. The qualitative analysis involved interviewing 30 EC staff members. The data was evaluated by adopting the Grounded Theory (GT) approach. Spatial analysis of considered factors showed that highly damaged CAUs were statistically clustered as demonstrated by Moran’s I statistic and hot spot analysis. Further modelling showed that gastroenteritis point prevalence clustering could not be fully explained by infrastructure damage alone, and other factors influenced the recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence. However, the results of this research suggest that there was a tenuous, indirect relationship between recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors: earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction and FAC-NC. Two ECs were opened as part of the post-earthquake response in areas with severe infrastructure damage and liquefaction (BEC and CEC). The third EC (CEC) provided important lessons that were learnt from the previous September 4, 2010 earthquake, and implemented after the February 22, 2011 earthquake. The ECs were selected to represent the Christchurch area, and were situated where potential for gastroenteritis was high. BEC represented the western side of Christchurch; whilst, CEC and LEC represented the eastern side, where the potential for gastroenteritis was high according to the outputs of the quantitative spatial modelling. Qualitative analysis from the interviews at the ECs revealed that evacuees were arriving at the ECs with gastroenteritis-like symptoms. Participants believed that those symptoms did not originate at the ECs. Two types of interwoven themes identified: direct and indirect. The direct themes were preventive protocols that included prolific use of hand sanitisers; surveillance; and the services offered. Indirect themes included the EC layout, type of EC building (school or a sports stadium), and EC staff. Indirect themes governed the quality and sustainability of the direct themes implemented, which in turn averted gastroenteritis outbreaks at the ECs. The main limitations of the research were Modifiable Areal Units (MAUP), data detection, and memory loss. It was concluded that gastroenteritis point prevalence following the February 22, 2011 earthquake could not be solely explained by earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction, and gastroenteritis causative agents alone. However, this research provides a practical method that can be adapted to assess gastroenteritis risk in a post-earthquake environment. Creating a damage profile for each CAU and using spatial data analysis can isolate vulnerable areas, and qualitative data analysis provides localised information. Thus, this mixed method approach can be used in other disaster contexts to study gastroenteritis prevalence, and can serve as an appendage to the existing framework for assessing infectious diseases. Furthermore, the lessons learnt from qualitative analysis can inform the current infectious disease management plans, designed for a post-disaster response in New Zealand and internationally.
Following devastating earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch, there is an opportunity to use sustainable urban design variables to redevelop the central city in order to address climate change concerns and reduce CO₂ emissions from land transport. Literature from a variety of disciplines establishes that four sustainable urban design variables; increased density, mixed-use development, street layout and city design, and the provision of sustainable public transport, can reduce car dependency and vehicle kilometres travelled within urban populations- widely regarded as indicators of the negative environmental effects of transport. The key question for the research is; to what extent has this opportunity been seized by NZ’s Central Government who are overseeing the central city redevelopment? In order to explore this question the redevelopment plans for the central city of Christchurch are evaluated against an adapted urban design matrix to determine whether a reduction in CO₂ emissions from land transport is likely to be achieved through their implementation. Data obtained through interviews with experts is used to further explore the extent to which sustainable urban design variables can be employed to enhance sustainability and reduce CO₂ emissions. The analysis of this data shows that the four urban design variables will feature in the Central Government’s redevelopment plans although the extent to which they are employed and their likely success in reducing CO₂ emissions will vary. Ultimately, the opportunity to redevelop the central city of Christchurch to reduce CO₂ emissions from land transport will be undermined due to timeframe, co-ordination, and leadership barriers.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm he plans to increase net core Crown debt from $59.5 billion as at 30 June 2017 to $67.6 billion by 2022; and can he confirm debt will not increase by any more than that? MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Conservation: What has been the Department of Conservation’s biggest recent success in predator control to better protect our native plants and wildlife? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his Government’s intention to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over the next 15 years; if so, how? KIERAN McANULTY to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports commissioned under the previous Government that show the value of investment in rail? Hon JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What was the expected date, prior to the General Election, that the Residential Advisory Service would cease operations, and what steps has she taken since becoming Minister to ensure the service continues for people affected by the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes? BRETT HUDSON to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by her statement in Parliament yesterday that this will be “the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had”; if so, how? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Children: Is she committed to implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in full? TAMATI COFFEY to the Associate Minister of Finance: How is the Government preserving the right of New Zealanders to own land in New Zealand? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Local Government: What steps will she take to support the local government sector to achieve greater efficiency and control spending?
Science education research shows that a traditional, stand-and-deliver lecture format is less effective than teaching strategies that are learner-centred and that promote active engagement. The Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) has used this research to develop resources to improve learning in university science courses. We report on a successful adaptation and implementation of CWSEI in the New Zealand university context. This two-year project at Massey University and the University of Canterbury began by using perception and concept surveys before and after undergraduate science courses to measure students’ attitudes towards science as well as their knowledge. Using these data, and classroom observations of student engagement and corroborating focus groups, the research team worked with lecturers to create interventions to enhance student engagement and learning in those courses. Results show several positive changes related to these interventions and they suggest several recommendations for lecturers and course coordinators. The recommendations include:1. Make learning outcomes clear, both for the lecturer and the students; this helps to cull extraneous material and scaffold student learning. 2. Use interactive activities to improve engagement, develop deeper levels of thinking, and improve learning. 3. Intentionally foster “expert-like thinking” amongst students in the first few semesters of the degree programme. 4. Be flexible because one size does not fit all and contextual events are beyond anyone’s control.In addition to these recommendations, data collected at the Canterbury site during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes reinforced the understanding that the most carefully designed teaching innovations are subject to contextual conditions beyond the control of academics.
This paper describes part of an extensive experimental programme in progress at the University of Canterbury to develop Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) structural systems and connections for multistorey timber buildings in earthquake-prone areas. The higher mechanical properties of LVL, when compared to sawn timber, in addition to its low mass, flexibility of design and rapidity of construction, create the potential for increased use of LVL in multi-storey buildings. The development of these innovative ductile connections in LVL, proposed here for frame systems, have been based on the successful implementation of jointed ductile connections for precast concrete systems, started in the early 1990s with the PRESSS Program at the University of California, San Diego, further developed in Italy and currently under further refinement at the University of Canterbury. This paper investigates the seismic behaviour of the so-called “hybrid” connection, characterised by the combination of unbonded post-tensioned tendons and either external or internal energy dissipaters passing through the critical contact surface between the structural elements. Experimental results on hybrid exterior beam-to-column and column-to-foundation subassemblies under cyclic quasi-static unidirectional loading are presented. The proposed innovative solutions exhibit a very satisfactory seismic performance characterised by an appreciable energy dissipation capacity (provided by the dissipaters) combined with self-centring properties (provided by the unbonded tendons) and negligible damage of the LVL structural elements.
Live monitoring data and simple dynamic reduced-order models of the Christchurch Women’s Hospital (CWH) help explain the performance of the base isolation (BI) system of the hospital during the series of Canterbury earthquakes in 2011-2012. A Park-Wen-Ang hysteresis model is employed to simulate the performance of the BI system and results are compared to measured data recorded above the isolation layer and on the 6th story. Simplified single, two and three degree of freedom models (SDOF, 2DOF and 3DOF) show that the CWH structure did not behave as an isolated but as a fixed-base structure. Comparisons of accelerations and deflections between simulated and monitored data show a good match for isolation stiffness values of approximately two times of the value documented in the design specification and test protocol. Furthermore, an analysis of purely measured data revealed very little to no relative motion across the isolators for large events of moment magnitude scale (Mw) 5.8 and 6.0 that occurred within 3 hours of each other on December 23, 2011. One of the major findings is that the BI system during the seismic events on December 23, 2011 did not yield and that the superstructure performed as a fixed-base building, indicating a need to reevaluate the analysis, design and implementation of these structures.
This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
Despite their good performance in terms of their design objectives, many modern code-prescriptive buildings built in Christchurch, New Zealand had to be razed after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes because repairs were deemed too costly due to widespread sacrificial damage. Clearly a more effective design paradigm is needed to create more resilient structures. Rocking, post-tensioned connections with supplemental energy dissipation can contribute to a damage avoidance designs (DAD). However, few have achieved all three key design objectives of damage-resistant rocking, inherent recentering ability, and repeatable, damage-free energy dissipation for all cycles, which together offer a response which is independent of loading history. Results of experimental tests are presented for a near full-scale rocking beam-column sub-assemblage. A matrix of test results is presented for the system under varying levels of posttensioning, with and without supplemental dampers. Importantly, this parametric study delineates each contribution to response. Practical limitations on posttensioning are identified: a minimum to ensure static structural re-centering, and a maximum to ensure deformability without threadbar yielding. Good agreement between a mechanistic model and experimental results over all parameters and inputs indicates the model is robust and accurate for design. The overall results indicate that it is possible to create a DAD connection where the non-linear force-deformation response is loading history independent and repeatable over numerous loading cycles, without damage, creating the opportunity for the design and implementation of highly resilient structures.
This research attempts to understand how the Christchurch rebuild is promoting urban liveability in the Central City, focussing on the influence of communities and neighbourhoods in this area. To do this, gathering the perceptions of Christchurch residents through surveys, a focus group and semi-structured interviews was carried out to see what aspects they believe contribute to creating more liveable places. These methods revealed that there are pockets of neighbourhoods and communities in the inner-city, but no overall sense of community. Results from the semi-structured interviews reinforced this; the current buyers of inner-city property are in the financial position to be able to do this, and they seem to be purchasing in this area due to convenience and investment rather than to join the existing communities in the area. Analysing the survey responses from Central City residents revealed contrasting results. Those currently living in the area felt there is a sense of community in the inner-city, but these are found in pockets of neighbourhoods around the Central City rather than in the overall area. The focus group revealed that community is further prioritised later in life, and that many of the community groups in the inner-city predominantly consist of those who have lived there since before the Christchurch Earthquake Series. However, participants of all three methods believed that the Central City is slowly becoming a lively and vibrant place. To improve urban liveability in the inner-city, it seems that prioritisation of the needs of current inner-city residents is required. Improving these neighbourhoods, whether it be through the implementation of services or providing more communal spaces, is needed to create stronger communities. The feelings of place, connectedness, and belonging that arise from being part of a community or well-connected neighbourhood can improve mental health and wellbeing, ultimately enhancing the overall health of the population as well as the perceived urban liveability of the area.
The 2013 Seddon earthquake (Mw 6.5), the 2013 Lake Grassmere earthquake (Mw 6.6), and the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake (Mw 7.8) provided an opportunity to assemble the most extensive damage database to wine storage tanks ever compiled worldwide. An overview of this damage database is presented herein based on the in-field post-earthquake damage data collected for 2058 wine storage tanks (1512 legged tanks and 546 flat-based tanks) following the 2013 earthquakes and 1401 wine storage tanks (599 legged tanks and 802 flat-based tanks) following the 2016 earthquake. Critique of the earthquake damage database revealed that in 2013, 39% and 47% of the flat-based wine tanks sustained damage to their base shells and anchors respectively, while due to resilience measures implemented following the 2013 earthquakes, in the 2016 earthquake the damage to tank base shells and tank anchors of flat-based wine tanks was reduced to 32% and 23% respectively and instead damage to tank barrels (54%) and tank cones (43%) was identified as the two most frequently occurring damage modes for this type of tank. Analysis of damage data for legged wine tanks revealed that the frame-legs of legged wine tanks sustained the greatest damage percentage among different parts of legged tanks in both the 2013 earthquakes (40%) and in the 2016 earthquake (44%). Analysis of damage data and socio-economic findings highlight the need for industry-wide standards, which may have socio-economic implications for wineries.
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Is it still a fundamental purpose of his Government to narrow the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In dollar terms, what is the shortfall in the tax-take for the nine months to March revealed in yesterday’s Financial Statements compared to October’s pre-election update? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much has been raised to date by the Earthquake Kiwi Bonds and, at this rate, how many years will it take to cover the Government’s estimated $5.5 billion liability resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2012 provide greater support for young people most at risk of long-term welfare dependency? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding asset sales that “We are not going to do anything tricky there”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Associate Minister of Health: How is the Government expanding its programme to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his comments regarding housing? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What is the plan to pay for the Government’s transport expenditure given that the Ministry of Transport’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister warns of a funding shortfall of $4.9 billion if high oil prices and low GDP growth continue? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government improving value for money in its procurement of services for the public sector? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that “I do not want to see unnecessary change for change’s sake. Rather I am looking to put in place pragmatic solutions as we implement our manifesto commitments and let employers, employees and business focus on what they do best.”? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and the Associate Ministers for Social Development; if so, why?
BRENDAN HORAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to Hon John Banks, “The law may be very loose as I’ve said before, and the law may well need reforming and that’s something we’ll consider in due course but I’m comfortable with what he’s done”? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the international economic situation and its impact on New Zealand? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, are the numbers of people leaving New Zealand from the regions being replaced by people moving into the regions from elsewhere in New Zealand or overseas? Hon TARIANA TURIA to the Minister of Finance: Did the Minister of Māori Affairs discuss with him how the Crown would meet its Treaty obligation with respect to the Mixed Ownership Model? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What advice, if any, has he received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has he received on renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: What was discussed at the three meetings she has had with Australian company Taylor Fry, known for its actuary services to the insurance industry? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What investments are planned for improving health facilities in Wairoa? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that “The asset sales programme remains on track”? LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Labour: What advice has she received regarding the implementation of the new adventure activities regulations? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports has he received on housing in the Aranui area of Christchurch?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is "the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment"? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the question "Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?" that "It may well be…"? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that unemployment is rising, exports are down, and house price inflation in Auckland and Canterbury is in double-digits, does he agree that after 5 years as Finance Minister he has failed to rebalance and diversify the economy; if not, why not? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Trade: What efforts is the Government making to deal with the market effects of the possible contamination of some Fonterra diary exports? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has he taken to ensure high value jobs are retained in Otago, Waikato, Northland, East Coast and Manawatu? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Exactly how many of the 21 recommendations to the Minister in the 2010 Public Health Advisory Committee Report The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing has he implemented? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received following the Government's announcement of a new earthquake-prone building policy? RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the regeneration of fish stocks in the Snapper 1 fishery? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull that "Central government needs to understand we can't have a … two-speed economy where Christchurch and Auckland are ripping ahead and the rest of the regions are withering"; if not, why not?
NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s growing economy and the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management mean New Zealand is well-placed to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to relevant Ministers about the lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes to ensure people affected by the recent earthquakes have an easier and faster recovery? STUART SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: What update can he provide about the Government’s response to the Kaikōura earthquake? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Can he update the House on the situation in quake-affected areas in the South Island? JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Is he committed to all his Government’s policies? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that following the Valentine’s Day earthquake this year in Canterbury, “it was timely to review whether any additional mental health and wellbeing support was needed”; if so, will he consider reviewing whether any additional support is needed for Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards as a result of the recent earthquakes? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake? JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is his response to yesterday’s call from members of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles for the Government to “immediately right this historic wrong and implement the JWG principles”? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Economic Development: When is he likely to announce a recovery or support package for small businesses in earthquake-affected areas? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Police: What are New Zealand Police doing to support the Kaikōura community? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: When did she first discuss the potential impact of Monday’s 7.5 earthquake on NCEA and Scholarship exams with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the impact of the recent earthquakes on the primary sector?
The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 caused significant damage and disruption to the city of Christchurch, New Zealand. A Royal Commission was established to report on the causes of building failure as a result of the earthquakes as well as look at the legal and best-practice requirements for buildings in New Zealand Central Business Districts. The Royal Commission made 189 recommendations on a variety of matters including managing damaged buildings after an earthquake, the adequacy of building codes and standards, and the processes of seismic assessments of existing buildings to determine their earthquake vulnerability. In response the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the agency responsible for administering building regulation in New Zealand, established a work programme to assist with the Canterbury rebuild and to implement the lessons learned throughout New Zealand. The five primary work streams in the programme are: • Facilitating the Canterbury Rebuild • Structural Performance and Design Standards • Geotechnical and structural guidance • Existing Building Resilience • Post Disaster Building Management This paper provides more detail on each of the work streams. There has been significant collaboration between the New Zealand Government and the research community, technical societies, and engineering consultants, both within New Zealand and internationally, to deliver the programme and improve the resilience of the New Zealand built environment. This has presented major challenges for an extremely busy industry in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes. The paper identifies the items of work that have been completed and the work that is still in progress at the time of writing.
Research in the governance of urban tourist spaces is characterized by a lack of argumentative inquiry and scant use of critical theory. This is evident, particularly, in the study of tourism and post-disaster urban recovery, with very few contributions assessing the phenomenon from a social theory perspective. This thesis examines the complex phenomenon of planning and governance for urban tourism spaces in contexts facing physical recovery from natural disasters. It does so by looking at the governance dynamics and the mechanism of decision- making put in place before and after triggering events like earthquakes and tsunamis. This thesis provides evidence from Christchurch, New Zealand, by focusing on the policies and strategies for the regeneration of the city centre put in place before and after the disruptive earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. The thesis looks at power relations, structures and ideologies through a Lukesian appraisal of pre-and-post disaster governance from two relevant urban tourist spaces located in the Christchurch central city area: the Arts Centre of Christchurch and the Town Hall and Performing Arts Precinct. The research strategy adopted for the study combined archival research, interviews with key stakeholders and fieldwork notes over a period of two years. The research deployed a comparative case study methodology that focuses on projects taking place within a spatially defined area of the city centre where special legislation was enacted as result of the earthquakes. The findings from the interviews and their triangulation with documents retrieved from national and local authorities suggest that the earthquakes affected the engagement among stakeholders and the mechanisms of decision-making. Also, the findings show patterns of disaster capitalism in post-earthquake governance for urban tourist spaces in the Christchurch CBD, with episodes of exclusion, lobbying and amendment of rules and legislation that directly benefited the interests of a narrow group of privileged stakeholders. Overall, the study shows that the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 accelerated neoliberal practices of site development in Christchurch, with the seismic events used as a pretext to implement market-oriented site projects in the CBD area.
There is strong consensus in the civil defence and emergency management literature that public participation is essential for a 'good' recovery. However, there is a paucity of research detailing how this community-led planning should be carried out in the real world. There are few processes or timelines for communities to follow when wanting to plan for themselves, nor is there a great deal of advice for communities who want to plan for their own recovery. In short, despite this consensus that community involvement is desireable, there is very little information available as to the nature of this involvement or how communities might facilitate this. It is simply assumed that communities are willing and able to participate in the recovery process and that recovery authorities will welcome, encourage, and enable this participation. This is not always the case, and the result is that community groups can be left feeling lost and ineffective when trying to plan for their own recovery. In attempting to address this gap, my study contributes to a better understanding of community involvement in recovery planning, based on research with on particular a community group (SPRIG), who has undertaken their own form of community-led planning in a post-disaster environment. Through group observations and in-depth interviews with members of SPRIG, I was able to identify various roles for such groups in the post-disaster recovery process. My research also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the process a community group might follow to implement their own form of post-disaster recovery planning, with the main point being that any planning should be done side by side with local authorities. Finally, I discovered that a community group will face organisational, community and institutional challenges when trying to plan for their area; however, despite these challenges, opportunities exist, such as the chance to build a better future.
Recovery from disasters is a significant issue faced by all countries in the world at various times. Governments, including central and local governments, are the key actors regarding post-disaster recovery because they have the authority and responsibility to rescue affected people and recover affected areas (Yang, 2010). Planning is a critical step in the recovery process and provides the basis for defining a shared vision for recovery, clear objectives and intended results. Subsequently, the concept of collaborative planning and ‘build back better’ are highly desirable in recovery planning. However, in practice, these concepts are difficult to achieve. A brief description of the recovery planning in Christchurch City following the Canterbury earthquakes 2011 is provided as an example and comparison. This research aims to analyse the planning process to develop a post-disaster recovery plan in Indonesia using Mataram City’s recovery plan following the Lombok Earthquakes 2018 as the case study. It will emphasise on the roles of the central and local governments and whether they collaborate or not, and the implications of decentralisation for recovery planning. The methodology comprised a combination of legislation analysis and semi-structure interviews with the representatives of the central and local governments who were involved in the planning process. The results indicate that there was no collaboration between the central and local governments when developing the recovery plan, with the former tend to dominate and control the planning process. It is because there are regulatory and institutional problems concerning disaster management in Indonesia. In order to improve the implementation of disaster management and develop a better recovery plan, some recommendations are proposed. These include amendments the disaster management law and regulations to provide a clear guideline regarding the roles and responsibilities of both the central and local governments. It is also imperative to improve the capacity and capability of the local governments in managing disaster.
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.
A Line of Best Fit explores weakness and disconnection in the city. Weakness: There are over 600 earthquake prone buildings in Wellington. The urgency to strengthen buildings risks compromising the aesthetic integrity of the city through abrasive strengthening techniques, or losing a large portion of our built environment to demolition. The need for extensive earthquake strengthening in Wellington, Christchurch and other New Zealand cities provides an exciting opportunity for architecture. Disconnection: In Wellington pedestrian activity is focused around three main routes: Cuba Street, Lambton Quay and Courtney Place. The adjacent areas are often disconnected and lack vibrancy due to large building footprints, no-exit laneways and lack of public spaces. The Design proposes a strategy for earthquake strengthening, preserving and upgrading the built environment, and expanding and connecting the pedestrian realm. The site is two earthquake prone buildings on the block between Marion Street and Taranaki Street in central Wellington. A cut through the centre of the Aspro and Cathie Buildings ties the buildings together to strengthen and create a new arcade as public space. The cut aligns with existing pedestrian routes connecting the block with the city. The Design is divided into three components: Void, Curve, and Pattern and Structure. Void investigates the implications of cutting a portion out the existing buildings and the opportunities this provides for connection, urban interaction, and light. Curve discusses the unusual form of The Design in terms of scale, the human response and the surrounding spaces. Pattern and Structure considers the structural requirements of the project and how a void enveloped in perforated screens can strengthen the earthquake prone buildings. The importance of connection, providing strength in the city, a dialogue between old and new, and engagement with the unexpected are evaluated. Opportunities for further development and research are discussed, with particular reference to how the principles of The Design could be implemented on a larger scale throughout our cities. A Line of Best Fit is an architectural proposal that creates strength and connection.
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the Government has actively supported the filming of the Hobbit movies in New Zealand because of the enormous economic benefits they are bringing to the country, including the creation of around 3,000 jobs"? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements made in his prime ministerial speeches and in his Address in Reply speeches? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Government's economic programme in 2013? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "I am keen to see New Zealanders be able to afford to buy a home", given that the home ownership rate has continued to decline under his watch and home buying is becoming less affordable? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that anticipated Core Crown Revenue for the period 2012-2016 decreased by $13.2 billion between the October 2011 PREFU and the December 2012 HYEFU; if so, why has the Government lost $13.2 billion in projected revenue in little over a year? COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting the number of people being trained in apprenticeships? JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Why didn't he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government's priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Following his decision to appoint a new Minister of Housing, what new policies, if any, does he expect his new Minister to implement to address the growing housing affordability issues in New Zealand? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What progress has been made in the repair of homes in Canterbury by the EQR Repair Programme? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of State Services: What were the factors that contributed to the strained relations that resulted in the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
The effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) have been a topic of discussion amongst the structural and geotechnical community for many decades. The complexity of the mechanisms, as well as the need for inter-disciplinary knowledge of geotechnical and structural dynamics has plagued the advancement and the consequent inclusion of SFSI effects in design. A rigorous performance-based design methodology should not just consider the performance of the superstructure but the supporting foundation system as well. Case studies throughout history (eg. Kobe 1995, Kocaeli 1999 and Christchurch earthquakes 2010-2011) have demonstrated that a poor performance at the foundation level can result in a full demolition of the structure and, in general terms, that the extent of damage to, and repairability of, the building system as a whole, is given by the combination of the damage to the soil, foundation and superstructure. The lack of consideration of the modifying factors of SFSI and an absence of intuitive performance levels for controlling foundation and soil behaviour under seismic loads has resulted in inadequate designs for buildings sited on soft soil. For engineers to be satisfied that their designs meet the given performance levels they must first, understand how SFSI affects the overall system performance and secondly have tools available to adequately account for it in their design/assessment. This dissertation presents an integrated performance-based design procedure for buildingfoundation systems that considers all of the major mechanisms of SFSI. A new soil-foundation macro-element model was implemented into a nonlinear finite element software and validated against several experimental tests. The numerical model was used to provide insights in to the mechanisms of SFSI and statistical analysis on the results yielded simple expressions that allow the behaviour to be quantified. Particular attention was paid to the effects of shear force on the foundation response and the quantification of the rocking mode of response. The residual deformations of the superstructure and distribution of forces up the structure were also investigated. All of the major SFSI mechanisms are discussed in detail and targeted numerical studies are used to explain and demonstrate concepts. The design procedure was validated through the design and assessment of a series of concrete buildings that were designed to account for the effects of SFSI.
For the people of Christchurch and its wider environs of Canterbury in New Zealand, the 4th of September 2010 earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks were daunting. To then experience a more deadly earthquake five months later on the 22nd of February 2011 was, for the majority, overwhelming. A total of 185 people were killed and the earthquake and continuing aftershocks caused widespread damage to properties, especially in the central city and eastern suburbs. A growing body of literature consistently documents the negative impact of experiencing natural disasters on existing psychological disorders. As well, several studies have identified positive coping strategies which can be used in response to adversities, including reliance on spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as developing resilience and social support. The lifetime prevalence of severe mental health disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurring as a result of experiencing natural disasters in the general population is low. However, members of refugee communities who were among those affected by these earthquakes, as well as having a past history of experiencing traumatic events, were likely to have an increased vulnerability. The current study was undertaken to investigate the relevance to Canterbury refugee communities of the recent Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) draft recovery strategy for Christchurch post-earthquakes. This was accomplished by interviewing key informants who worked closely with refugee communities. These participants were drawn from different agencies in Christchurch including Refugee Resettlement Services, the Canterbury Refugee Council, CERA, and health promotion and primary healthcare organisations, in order to obtain the views of people who have comprehensive knowledge of refugee communities as well as expertise in local mainstream services. The findings from the semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to identify common themes raised by the participants. The key informants described CERA’s draft recovery strategy as a significant document which highlighted the key aspects of recovery post disaster. Many key informants identified concerns regarding the practicality of the draft recovery strategy. For the refugee communities, some of those concerns included the short consultation period for the implementation phase of the draft recovery strategy, and issues surrounding communication and collaboration between refugee agencies involved in the recovery. This study draws attention to the importance of communication and collaboration during recovery, especially in the social reconstruction phase following a disaster, for all citizens but most especially for refugee communities.
