A video of a keynote presentation by Professor Jonathan Davidson during the fifth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Resilience in People".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Resilience is the ability to bounce back or adapt successfully in the face of change, and is present to varying degrees in everybody. For at least 50 years resilience has been a topic of study in medical research, with a marked increase occurring in the past decade. In this presentation the essential features of resilience will be defined. Among the determining or mediating factors are neurobiological pathways, genetic characteristics, temperament, and environment events, all of which will be summarized. Adversity, assets, and adjustment need to be taken into account when assessing resilience. Different approaches to measuring the construct include self-rating scales which evaluate: traits and copying, responses to stress, symptom ratings after exposure to actual adversity, behavioural measures in response to a stress, e.g. Trier Test, and biological measures in response to stress. Examples will be provided. Resilience can be a determinant of health outcome, e.g. for coronary heart disease, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive status and successful aging. Total score and individual item levels of resilience predict response to dug and psychotherapy in post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that resilience is modifiable. Different treatments and interventions can increase resilience in a matter of weeks, and with an effect size larger than the effect size found for the same treatments on symptoms of illness. There are many ways to enhance resilience, ranging from 'Outward Bound' to mindfulness-based meditation/stress reduction to wellbeing therapy and antidepressant drugs. Treatments that reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety recruit resiliency processes at the same time. Examples will be given.
Disasters can create the equivalent of 20 years of waste in only a few days. Disaster waste can have direct impacts on public health and safety, and on the environment. The management of such waste has a great direct cost to society in terms of labor, equipment, processing, transport and disposal. Disaster waste management also has indirect costs, in the sense that slow management can slow down a recovery, greatly affecting the ability of commerce and industry to re-start. In addition, a disaster can lead to the disruption of normal solid waste management systems, or result in inappropriate management that leads to expensive environmental remediation. Finally, there are social impacts implicit in disaster waste management decisions because of psychological impact we expect when waste is not cleared quickly or is cleared too quickly. The paper gives an overview of the challenge of disaster waste management, examining issues of waste quantity and composition; waste treatment; environmental, economic, and social impacts; health and safety matters; and planning. Christchurch, New Zealand, and the broader region of Canterbury were impacted during this research by a series of shallow earthquakes. This has led to the largest natural disaster emergency in New Zealand’s history, and the management of approximately 8 million tons of building and infrastructure debris has become a major issue. The paper provides an overview of the status of disaster waste management in Christchurch as a case study. A key conclusion is the vital role of planning in effective disaster waste management. In spite of the frequency of disasters, in most countries the ratio of time spent on planning for disaster waste management to the time spent on normal waste management is extremely low. Disaster waste management also requires improved education or training of those involved in response efforts. All solid waste professionals have a role to play to respond to the challenges of disaster waste management.
On Tuesday 22 February 2011, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck Christchurch, New Zealand’s second largest city. The ‘earthquake’ was in fact an aftershock to an earlier 7.1 magnitude earthquake that had occurred on Saturday 4 September 2010. There were a number of key differences between the two events that meant they had dramatically different results for Christchurch and its inhabitants. The 22 February 2011 event resulted in one of New Zealand’s worst natural disasters on record, with 185 fatalities occurring and hundreds more being injured. In addition, a large number of buildings either collapsed or were damaged to the point where they needed to be totally demolished. Since the initial earthquake in September 2010, a large amount of building-related research has been initiated in New Zealand to investigate the impact of the series of seismic events – the major focus of these research projects has been on seismic, structural and geotechnical engineering matters. One project, however, conducted jointly by the University of Canterbury, the Fire Protection Association of New Zealand and BRANZ, has focused on the performance of fire protection systems in the earthquakes and the effectiveness of the systems in the event of post-earthquake fires occurring. Fortunately, very few fires actually broke out following the series of earthquake events in Christchurch, but fire after earthquakes still has significant implications for the built environment in New Zealand, and the collaborative research has provided some invaluable insight into the potential threat posed by post-earthquake fires in buildings. As well as summarising the damage caused to fire protection systems, this paper discusses the flow-on effect for designing structures to withstand post-earthquake fires. One of the underlying issues that will be explored is the existing regulatory framework in New Zealand whereby structural earthquake design and structural design for fire are treated as discrete design scenarios.
This study explores the impact post-earthquake images from Christchurch, New Zealand inserted into a task requiring sustained attention or vigilance have on performance, selfreports of task-focus, and cerebra activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The images represent the current state of Christchurch; a city struggling to recover from devastating earthquakes that peaked in February, 2011, killing 185 people, injuring hundreds more and causing widespread and massive damage to infrastructure, land and building in the region. Crowdsourcing was used to gather a series of positive and negative photos from greater Christchurch to be employed in the subsequent experiment. Seventy-one Christchurch resident participants (51 women, 20 men) then took part in a vigilance task with the sourced images embedded to assess possible cognitive disruptions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: embedded positive pictures, embedded negative pictures, or embedded scrambled image controls. Task performance was assessed with signal detection theory metrics of sensitivity A’ and β’’. Individuals viewing the positive images, relating to progress, rebuild, or aesthetic aspects within the city, were overall more conservative or less willing to respond than those in the other conditions. In addition, positive condition individuals reported lower task focus, when compared to those in the control condition. However, indicators of cerebral activity (fNIRS) did not differ significantly between the experimental groups. These results combined, suggest that mind wandering events may be being generated when exposed to positive post-earthquake images. This finding fits with recent research which indicates that mind-wandering or day dreaming tends to be positive and future oriented. While positive recovery images may initiate internal thoughts, this could actually prove problematic in contexts in which external attention is required. While the actual environment, of course, needs to recover, support agencies may want to be careful with employing positive recovery imagery in contexts where people actually should be paying attention to something else, like operating a vehicle or machinery.
We present preliminary observations on three waters impacts from the Mw7.8 14th November 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake on wider metropolitan Wellington, urban and rural Marlborough, and in Kaikōura township. Three waters systems in these areas experienced widespread and significant transient ground deformation in response to seismic shaking, with localised permanent ground deformation via liquefaction and lateral spreading. In Wellington, potable water quality was impacted temporarily by increased turbidity, and significant water losses occurred due to damaged pipes at the port. The Seaview and Porirua wastewater treatment plants sustained damage to clarifier tanks from water seiching, and increased water infiltration to the wastewater system occurred. Most failure modes in urban Marlborough were similar to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence; however some rural water tanks experienced rotational and translational movements, highlighting importance of flexible pipe connections. In Kaikōura, damage to reservoirs and pipes led to loss of water supply and compromised firefighting capability. Wastewater damage led to environmental contamination, and necessitated restrictions on greywater entry into the system to minimise flows. Damage to these systems necessitated the importation of tankered and bottled water, boil water notices and chlorination of the system, and importation of portaloos and chemical toilets. Stormwater infrastructure such as road drainage channels was also damaged, which could compromise condition of underlying road materials. Good operational asset management practices (current and accurate information, renewals, appreciation of criticality, good system knowledge and practical contingency plans) helped improve system resilience, and having robust emergency management centres and accurate Geographic Information System data allowed effective response coordination. Minimal damage to the wider built environment facilitated system inspections. Note Future research will include detailed geospatial assessments of seismic demand on these systems and attendant modes of failure, levels of service restoration, and collaborative development of resilience measures.
Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) play acrucial role in times of disasters. Therefore it is crucial to understand more thoroughly the communication roles and responsibilities of interagency team members and to examine how individual members communicate within a complex, evolving, and unstable environment. It is also important to understand how different organisational identities and their spatial geographies contribute to the interactional dynamics. Earthquakes hit the Canterbury region on September, 2010 and then on February 2011 a more devastating shallow earthquake struck resulting in severe damage to the Aged Residential Care (ARC) sector. Over 600 ARC beds were lost and 500 elderly and disabled people were displaced. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) set up an interagency emergency response team to address the issues of vulnerable people with significant health and disability needs who were unable to access their normal supports due to the effects of the earthquake. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive study is to focus on the case study of the response and evacuation of vulnerable people by interagencies responding to the event. Staff within these agencies were interviewed with a focus on the critical incidents that either stabilised or negatively influenced the outcome of the response. The findings included the complexity of navigating multiple agencies communication channels; understanding the different hierarchies and communication methods within each agency; data communication challenges when infrastructures were severely damaged; the importance of having the right skills, personal attributes and understanding of the organisations in the response; and the significance of having a liaison in situ representing and communicating through to agencies geographically dispersed from Canterbury. It is hoped that this research will assist in determining a future framework for interagency communication best practice and policy.
This thesis considers the presence and potential readings of graffiti and street art as part of the wider creative public landscape of Christchurch in the wake of the series of earthquakes that significantly disrupted the city physically and socially. While documenting a specific and unprecedented period of time in the city’s history, the prominence of graffiti and street art throughout the constantly changing landscape has also highlighted their popularity as increasingly entrenched additions to urban and suburban settings across the globe. In post-quake Christchurch, graffiti and street art have often displayed established tactics, techniques and styles while exploring and exposing the unique issues confronting this disrupted environment, illustrating both a transposable nature and the entwined relationship with the surrounding landscape evident in the conception of these art forms. The post-quake city has afforded graffiti and street art the opportunity to engage with a range of concepts: from the re-activation and re-population of the empty and abandoned spaces of the city, to commentaries on specific social and political issues, both angry and humorous, and notably the reconsideration of entrenched and evolving traditions, including the distinction between guerrilla and sanctioned work. The examples of graffiti and street art within this work range from the more immediate post-quake appearance of art in a group of affected suburbs, including the increasingly empty residential red-zone, to the use of the undefined spaces sweeping the central city, and even inside the Canterbury Museum, which housed the significant street art exhibition Rise in 2013-2014. These settings expose a number of themes, both distinctive and shared, that relate to both the post-disaster landscape and the concerns of graffiti and street art as art movements unavoidably entangled with public space.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea. Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
Globally, the maximum elevations at which treelines are observed to occur coincide with a 6.4 °C soil isotherm. However, when observed at finer scales, treelines display a considerable degree of spatial complexity in their patterns across the landscape and are often found occurring at lower elevations than expected relative to the global-scale pattern. There is still a lack of understanding of how the abiotic environment imposes constraints on treeline patterns, the scales at which different effects are acting, and how these effects vary over large spatial extents. In this thesis, I examined abrupt Nothofagus treelines across seven degrees of latitude in New Zealand in order to investigate two broad questions: (1) What is the nature and extent of spatial variability in Nothofagus treelines across the country? (2) How is this variation associated with abiotic variation at different spatial scales? A range of GIS, statistical, and atmospheric modelling methods were applied to address these two questions. First, I characterised Nothofagus treeline patterns at a 15x15km scale across New Zealand using a set of seven, GIS-derived, quantitative metrics that describe different aspects of treeline position, shape, spatial configuration, and relationships with adjacent vegetation. Multivariate clustering of these metrics revealed distinct treeline types that showed strong spatial aggregation across the country. This suggests a strong spatial structuring of the abiotic environment which, in turn, drives treeline patterns. About half of the multivariate treeline metric variation was explained by patterns of climate, substrate, topographic and disturbance variability; on the whole, climatic and disturbance factors were most influential. Second, I developed a conceptual model that describes how treeline elevation may vary at different scales according to three categories of effects: thermal modifying effects, physiological stressors, and disturbance effects. I tested the relevance of this model for Nothofagus treelines by investigating treeline elevation variation at five nested scales (regional to local) using a hierarchical design based on nested river catchments. Hierarchical linear modelling revealed that the majority of the variation in treeline elevation resided at the broadest, regional scale, which was best explained by the thermal modifying effects of solar radiation, mountain mass, and differences in the potential for cold air ponding. Nonetheless, at finer scales, physiological and disturbance effects were important and acted to modify the regional trend at these scales. These results suggest that variation in abrupt treeline elevations are due to both broad-scale temperature-based growth limitation processes and finer-scale stress- and disturbance-related effects on seedling establishment. Third, I explored the applicability of a meso-scale atmospheric model, The Air Pollution Model (TAPM), for generating 200 m resolution, hourly topoclimatic data for temperature, incoming and outgoing radiation, relative humidity, and wind speeds. Initial assessments of TAPM outputs against data from two climate station locations over seven years showed that the model could generate predictions with a consistent level of accuracy for both sites, and which agreed with other evaluations in the literature. TAPM was then used to generate data at 28, 7x7 km Nothofagus treeline zones across New Zealand for January (summer) and July (winter) 2002. Using mixed-effects linear models, I determined that both site-level factors (mean growing season temperature, mountain mass, precipitation, earthquake intensity) and local-level landform (slope and convexity) and topoclimatic factors (solar radiation, photoinhibition index, frost index, desiccation index) were influential in explaining variation in treeline elevation within and among these sites. Treelines were generally closer to their site-level maxima in regions with higher mean growing season temperatures, larger mountains, and lower levels of precipitation. Within sites, higher treelines were associated with higher solar radiation, and lower photoinhibition and desiccation index values, in January, and lower desiccation index values in July. Higher treelines were also significantly associated with steeper, more convex landforms. Overall, this thesis shows that investigating treelines across extensive areas at multiple study scales enables the development of a more comprehensive understanding of treeline variability and underlying environmental constraints. These results can be used to formulate new hypotheses regarding the mechanisms driving treeline formation and to guide the optimal choice of field sites at which to test these hypotheses.
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? WILLOW-JEAN PRIME to the Minister of Finance: Will this Government’s policies help transition the economy; if so, how? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the purpose of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in answer to Oral Question No 8 on Tuesday that “The member is alluding to the offender I referred to in a question last week, relating to the pinching of a prison officer’s bottom”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future? Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Minister for Women: Is it her responsibility to stand up for and improve the outcomes for women in New Zealand? PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN to the Minister for Social Development: Will low- and middle-income families be better off because of the Families Package; if so, how? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements, actions, and legislative drafting instructions on matters to do with fuel taxes? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: Is the Government assisting the primary sector and regional councils in measuring nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions; if so, how? Hon ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her Ministry’s policies and actions in finding caregivers for children in care? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: Are the statements in the Onehunga Community News that “The Office of Ethnic Communities is moving into premises in Onehunga, which will be shared with list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan” and the quote by her parliamentary under-secretary saying, “We’ve boosted support that we’re providing in terms of connecting with ethnic communities, so we have more staff members working in our ethnic communities’ outreach teams” correct? MARK PATTERSON to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade with the European Union?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Education: Is it still her strategy in education to "focus on teaching and learning quality" and "transparent accountabilities"? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in supporting jobs and economic growth? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that, "My preference will always be for all our sites to be safe for swimming"? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Attorney-General: Who, other than himself and the Prime Minister, was present at the discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau's unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the outlook for increased employment opportunities in the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to give honest answers? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: How will employers know whether a job applicant aged 18 or 19 has been receiving a benefit for 6 months or more in order to pay the Government's starting-out wage? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the new Children's Teams which form part of the Government's White Paper for Vulnerable Children? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that Government computer systems "can't actually support radical changes from Government"? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Customs: How successful has SmartGate technology been at processing passengers at the border? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to close or merge in Christchurch have to consult with their local communities before they are required to provide feedback to her ahead of a final decision? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement to schools, about their obligation under the Official Information Act 1982, that, "New Zealand is an open and transparent democracy. They [schools] are required to release this information. You are public entities."?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the privatisation of New Zealand State-owned power companies? 2. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made in making the tax system fairer? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: At recent meetings he has had with Grey Power, have they raised with him their concerns about the sell-off of state assets? 4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports on the rate of escape from New Zealand prisons? 5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why doesn't his Budget's net debt track take into account lost dividends from SOEs and sales costs arising from his policy of privatising state assets? 6. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Is underground mining safe in New Zealand? 7. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Road of National Significance following the earthquakes in the city? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many of the 5,100 properties in the red zone have been deemed to be uneconomic to repair by the insurer and how many of those, approximately, had unimproved land valuations of less than $150,000? 9. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all of his recent statements? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday on the purchase of state assets by foreigners, what percentage of Contact shares are currently held by foreigners or corporations? 11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the statement in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that "direct infusion of indigenous values into mainstream environmental regulation may well be unique in the world"; if so, how will he advance the opportunities for Māori to take more positive and proactive roles in environmental decision-making? 12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the Canterbury unemployment figures?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard's assessment that the economic recovery is proving to be "slow and fragile"? 2. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Economic Development: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister of Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about the stakeholder engagement carried out by the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he support my recommendation to set up an advocacy support service to provide earthquake-affected residents with help in dealing with their private insurers to prevent them being shunted between these insurers and the Earthquake Commission? 6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, is she taking to protect the unique, rare and threatened Nevis "Gollum galaxiid", a native fish species found only in the Nevis River in Central Otago? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making in improving New Zealand's freshwater management? 9. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 10. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully's Newsletter Update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Is she satisfied with the process to shortlist Whānau Ora providers? 12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept the BNZ statement that New Zealand’s increasing current account is “a very clear risk for New Zealand’s credit rating with Standard and Poor’s”? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for ACC: Can she confirm that staff in ACC’s Recovery Independence Service teams receive more or less remuneration dependent on whether the proportion of people receiving weekly compensation is less or more than specified duration targets? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his recent statements? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Police: What actions has the Government taken against illegal street racers? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports or correspondence regarding the Community Pharmacy Services Agreement with District Health Boards and if he has, have they caused him any concern? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: How is the Justice sector contributing to the Government’s better public services programme? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the statement made by the Minister for the Environment, Hon Amy Adams in Rio, that, “Money spent on fossil fuels is money that could be spent on other sustainable development priorities”, and will the Government re-allocate the $889 million for ETS credits in Budget 2012 towards sustainable projects and a green economy? MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Immigration: What reports has he received on the benefits to New Zealand of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all the statements she made to the Law and Order Committee yesterday? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made regarding court services for Christchurch? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he still believe that the best way to deal with the price increase in home rentals in Christchurch is to leave it to the market?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on all aspects of the Canterbury earthquake recovery? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police investigation of alleged sexual violation against young women and underage girls in West Auckland? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the National-led Government made in building a more productive and competitive economy capable of supporting more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Police: When was she first advised that Police had received a complaint from a girl who alleged she had been raped by members of a group calling themselves the Roast Busters? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government enforce its broadband contract with Chorus? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made in relation to the national policy statement for freshwater? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the effect of loan-to-value restrictions on the housing market? Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does women's participation rate of 1 percent in building and construction industry training assist with the Christchurch rebuild? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to strengthen the status of the teaching profession? EUGENIE SAGE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health that increasing nitrate levels in Canterbury groundwater are a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and babies; if not, why not? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Finance: What is his budget plan, if any, to immediately address growing poverty in New Zealand, which has got so bad that charitable organisations have today said they are expecting an influx of more than 40,000 struggling families for Christmas dinner because they can't afford to put food on the table?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other politician here could have”; if so, in what ways, if any, does he think the housing situation for New Zealanders has improved under Hon Nick Smith? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve productivity in the public service? MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with counsellor Andrew Hopgood, regarding P addicts, that “… a lack of detox and live-in rehabilitation centres limits options for addicts seeking help”; if so, what is he doing to address this shortage? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Economic Development: What update can he give on ways the Government is supporting economic development in the Gisborne region? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: How many schools across the country are currently using libraries, halls, and other areas not intended for regular teaching as temporary classrooms? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding phase two of the anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regime? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he put a moratorium on bottled water exports, in response to a 15,000 strong petition and nationwide rallies on water issues taking place today? KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he have confidence that his leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri and its programmes are resulting in the best outcomes for Māori? MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about the Government’s education-related Better Public Services targets? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister of Health: How much did the Canterbury District Health Board receive from the Government for mental health and addiction services support in response to the Kaikōura earthquake, after paying off the debt of Kaikōura’s health centre? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why? Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding a nationwide transformation of the disability support system?
Research on human behaviour during earthquake shaking has identified three main influences of behaviour: the environment the individual is located immediately before and during the earthquake, in terms of where the individual is and who the individual is with at the time of the earthquake; individual characteristics, such as age, gender, previous earthquake experience, and the intensity and duration of earthquake shaking. However, little research to date has systematically analysed the immediate observable human responses to earthquake shaking, mostly due to data constraints and/or ethical considerations. Research on human behaviour during earthquakes has relied on simulations or post-event, reflective interviews and questionnaire studies, often performed weeks to months or even years following the event. Such studies are therefore subject to limitations such as the quality of the participant's memory or (perceived) realism of a simulation. The aim of this research was to develop a robust coding scheme to analyse human behaviour during earthquake shaking using video footage captured during an earthquake event. This will allow systematic analysis of individuals during real earthquakes using a previously unutilized data source, thus help develop guidance on appropriate protective actions. The coding scheme was developed in a two-part process, combining a deductive and inductive approach. Previous research studies of human behavioral response during earthquake shaking provided the basis for the coding scheme. This was then iteratively refined by applying the coding scheme to a broad range of video footage of people exposed to strong shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The aim of this was to optimise coding scheme content and application across a broad range of scenarios, and to increase inter-coder reliability. The methodology to code data will enhance objective observation of video footage to allow cross-event analysis and explore (among others): reaction time, patterns of behaviour, and social, environmental and situational influences of behaviour. This can provide guidance for building configuration and design, and evidence-based recommendations for public education about injury-preventing behavioural responses during earthquake shaking.
Climate change and population growth will increase vulnerability to natural and human-made disasters or pandemics. Longitudinal research studies may be adversely impacted by a lack of access to study resources, inability to travel around the urban environment, reluctance of sample members to attend appointments, sample members moving residence and potentially also the destruction of research facilities. One of the key advantages of longitudinal research is the ability to assess associations between exposures and outcomes by limiting the influence of sample selection bias. However, ensuring the validity and reliability of findings in longitudinal research requires the recruitment and retention of respondents who are willing and able to be repeatedly assessed over an extended period of time. This study examined recruitment and retention strategies of 11 longitudinal cohort studies operating during the Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake sequence which began in September 2010, including staff perceptions of the major impediments to study operations during/after the earthquakes and respondents’ barriers to participation. Successful strategies to assist recruitment and retention after a natural disaster are discussed. With the current COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal studies are potentially encountering some of the issues highlighted in this paper including: closure of facilities, restricted movement of research staff and sample members, and reluctance of sample members to attend appointments. It is possible that suggestions in this paper may be implemented so that longitudinal studies can protect the operation of their research programmes.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Recruitment and retention of longitudinal study participants is challenging following a natural disaster.</li><br /><li>The long-lasting, global effects of the Covid 19 pandemic will increase this problem.</li><br /><li>Longitudinal study researchers should develop protocols to support retention before a disaster occurs.</li><br /><li>Researchers need to be pragmatic and flexible in the design and implementation of their studies.</li></ul>
Following the 2010-2011 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, the University of Canterbury (UC) was faced with the need to respond to major challenges in its teaching and learning environment. With the recognition of education as a key component to the recovery of the Canterbury region, UC developed a plan for the transformation and renewal of the campus. Central to this renewal is human capital – graduates who are distinctly resilient and broadly skilled, owing in part to their living and rebuilding through a disaster. Six desired graduate attributes have been articulated through this process: knowledge and skills of a recognized subject, critical thinking skills, the ability to interpret information from a range of sources, the ability to self-direct learning, cultural competence, and the recognition of global connections through social, ethical, and environmental values. All of these attributes may readily be identified in undergraduate geoscience field education and graduate field-based studies, and this is particularly important to highlight in a climate where the logistical and financial requirements of fieldwork are becoming a barrier to its inclusion in undergraduate curricula. Fieldwork develops discipline-specific knowledge and skills and fosters independent and critical thought. It encourages students to recognize and elaborate upon relevant information, plan ways to solve complicated problems, execute and re-evaluate these plans. These decisions are largely made by the learners, who often direct their own field experience. The latter two key graduate attributes, cultural competence and global recognition of socio-environmental values, have been explicitly addressed in field education elsewhere and there is potential to do so within the New Zealand context. These concepts are inherent to the sense of place of geoscience undergraduates and are particularly important when the field experience is viewed through the lens of landscape heritage. This work highlights the need to understand how geoscience students interact with field places, with unique implications for their cultural and socio-environmental awareness as global citizens, as well as the influence that field pedagogy has on these factors.
Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year. Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha). Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East. Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.
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.
Questions to Ministers 1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the issues the Government will consider to meet the expected fiscal cost of the Christchurch earthquake? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that, in Christchurch, "up to 10,000 houses will need to be demolished and over 100,000 more could be damaged? 3. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Attorney-General: What changes, if any, is he proposing to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and why? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: How much of the cumulative $15 billion drop in GDP over the next 4 years, as identified in the Treasury's February Monthly Economic Indicators report, is a result of the "weaker [economic] outlook we were seeing prior to the February earthquake" in Christchurch? 5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that there is enough coordination between central government agencies, local council, and non-government organisations in the response to the earthquake? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Is it his intention to further progress the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill this week? 7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What changes has the Government made under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act to facilitate recovery and the processing of resource consents to enable Christchurch to rebuild as quickly as possible? 8. Hon JIM ANDERTON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by his comment in the House yesterday that "there is a period in which insurance companies will not provide cover", and if so, what will the Government do to assist people who have already signed purchase contracts and are seeking insurance cover? 9. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What has been the response of the New Zealand Police and their counterparts in other countries to the Christchurch earthquake? 10. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the cost of after-hours medical treatment? 11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is available for people who require emergency housing following the earthquake on 22 February? 12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Who made the decision to defer MediaWorks' payment of $43 million to the Crown?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"; if so, why has the number of children living in material hardship grown under his watch? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support vulnerable New Zealanders through the aftermath of the domestic recession and global financial crisis? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: When he said "we don't want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don't get to make choices, they're often the victim of circumstance" does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don't suffer because of circumstances beyond their control? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Compared to 2012, does the Reserve Bank forecast the New Zealand dollar (as measured by the Trade Weighted Index) to strengthen or weaken in the next two years, and does he believe this will make New Zealand exporters more competitive or less competitive? DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and grow the economy? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the state of children's health in New Zealand; if not, why not? COLIN KING to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society in relation to freshwater that "failure to act with decisiveness and urgency risks further environmental degradation and erosion of our international environmental reputation"; if not, why not? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Building and Construction: How quickly will he respond to the building performance, assessment and construction recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing in response to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission's full report? CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his answer on Tuesday regarding jobs "I think that the number of 170,000 may come from the initial Budget forecast for 2009, perhaps. I cannot remember the year exactly."? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Given the recent loss of Māori Party support for his Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, will he consider working with opposition parties on amendments to improve it? LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's infrastructure programme contributing to building a more competitive economy? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the NZIER shadow board that "the growth outlook for the second half of 2012 looks weak and unemployment remains stubbornly high."? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made to review Child Youth and Family's complaints process? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in the delivery of the Prime Minister's Youth Mental Health Project announced in April of this year with an extra $11.3 million provided to support it? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has she received on the time taken for decisions on notified consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why did New Zealand pull out of a joint proposal with the United States to create a marine reserve in Antarctica's Ross Sea? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the answers he gave yesterday to supplementary question 5 on Oral Question No 7 and supplementary question 3 on Oral Question No 12? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress has the Government made to support repairing damaged houses and infrastructure following the Canterbury earthquakes? SUE MORONEY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 3News last night, on the subject of Business New Zealand's assertion that women need retraining when returning to employment after extended parental leave that "no. It wouldn't be my view"? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Immigration: What is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealanders have first priority for jobs in the Canterbury rebuild?
Questions to Ministers 1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets, and what are the implications for New Zealand? 2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she still agree, as she did on 13 July 2011, with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that "I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good"? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is "just plain wrong" in relation to skills training? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for the Environment: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims' families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not? 6. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs, and we share the chief executive's concern"? 7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress is being made on the Government's goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas? 9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the "red zone" area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a "green space" for memorial and recreational public purposes? 10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders? 11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits? 12. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services? 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, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms? COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?
TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, that joint decision-making with the Minister for Energy and Resources on mining the conservation estate undermines the role of the Minister of Conservation as guardian of that estate, and how will he respond to her advice to Parliament that conservation should take precedence? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "for most New Zealanders an indicator of how well the economy is doing is whether or not they can keep up with the cost of living"; if so, is he satisfied that they currently can? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on inequality in New Zealand, and how do recent changes in trends compare to other countries? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with BERL that "outside of dairy and forestry, export receipts have effectively flatlined since April 2009" and that "The risks inherent in such a narrowing of our export base should be of concern to all"; if not, why not? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has he made about the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's decisions? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Housing: What progress has he made with local government in securing Housing Accords under the legislation passed last year, and how are they increasing the supply and affordability of housing? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What was the original forecast cost for Health Benefits Limited and what is the revised forecast cost now, if any? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on the Government's $359 million investment to raise student achievement? Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How much has the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority spent on legal fees in the last 3 years? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister of Transport: When will the Government provide a comprehensive and integrated land transport plan for New Zealand? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Revenue: What is the objective of the Government's recently announced Taxpayer's Simplification Panel?
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.
Advanced seismic effective-stress analysis is used to scrutinize the liquefaction performance of 55 well-documented case-history sites from Christchurch. The performance of these sites during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence varied significantly, from no liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface (in any of the major events) to severe liquefaction manifestation in multiple events. For the majority of the 55 sites, the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures, which are conventionally used in engineering practice, could not explain these dramatic differences in the manifestation. Detailed geotechnical characterization and subsequent examination of the soil profile characteristics of the 55 sites identified some similarities but also important differences between sites that manifested liquefaction in the two major events of the sequence (YY-sites) and sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either event (NN-sites). In particular, while the YY-sites and NN-sites are shown to have practically identical critical layer characteristics, they have significant differences with regard to their deposit characteristics including the thickness and vertical continuity of their critical zones and liquefiable materials. A CPT-based effective stress analysis procedure is developed and implemented for the analyses of the 55 case history sites. Key features of this procedure are that, on the one hand, it can be fully automated in a programming environment and, on the other hand, it is directly equivalent (in the definition of cyclic resistance and required input data) to the CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. These features facilitate significantly the application of effective-stress analysis for simple 1D free-field soil-column problems and also provide a basis for rigorous comparisons of the outcomes of effective-stress analyses and simplified procedures. Input motions for the analyses are derived using selected (reference) recordings from the two major events of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A step-by-step procedure for the selection of representative reference motions for each site and their subsequent treatment (i.e. deconvolution and scaling) is presented. The focus of the proposed procedure is to address key aspects of spatial variability of ground motion in the near-source region of an earthquake including extended-source effects, path effects, and variation in the deeper regional geology.
One of the great challenges facing human systems today is how to prepare for, manage, and adapt successfully to the profound and rapid changes wreaked by disasters. Wellington, New Zealand, is a capital city at significant risk of devastating earthquake and tsunami, potentially requiring mass evacuations with little or short notice. Subsequent hardship and suffering due to widespread property damage and infrastructure failure could cause large areas of the Wellington Region to become uninhabitable for weeks to months. Previous research has shown that positive health and well-being are associated with disaster-resilient outcomes. Preventing adverse outcomes before disaster strikes, through developing strengths-based skill sets in health-protective attitudes and behaviours, is increasingly advocated in disaster research, practise, and management. This study hypothesised that well-being constructs involving an affective heuristic play vital roles in pathways to resilience as proximal determinants of health-protective behaviours. Specifically, this study examined the importance of health-related quality of life and subjective well-being in motivating evacuation preparedness, measured in a community sample (n=695) drawn from the general adult population of Wellington’s isolated eastern suburbs. Using a quantitative epidemiological approach, the study measured the prevalence of key quality of life indicators (physical and mental health, emotional well-being or “Sense of Coherence”, spiritual well-being, social well-being, and life satisfaction) using validated psychometric scales; analysed the strengths of association between these indicators and the level of evacuation preparedness at categorical and continuous levels of measurement; and tested the predictive power of the model to explain the variance in evacuation preparedness activity. This is the first study known to examine multi-dimensional positive health and global well-being as resilient processes for engaging in evacuation preparedness behaviour. A cross-sectional study design and quantitative survey were used to collect self-report data on the study variables; a postal questionnaire was fielded between November 2008 and March 2009 to a sampling frame developed through multi-stage cluster randomisation. The survey response rate was 28.5%, yielding a margin of error of +/- 3.8% with 95% confidence and 80% statistical power to detect a true correlation coefficient of 0.11 or greater. In addition to the primary study variables, data were collected on demographic and ancillary variables relating to contextual factors in the physical environment (risk perception of physical and personal vulnerability to disaster) and the social environment (through the construct of self-determination), and other measures of disaster preparedness. These data are reserved for future analyses. Results of correlational and regression analyses for the primary study variables show that Wellingtonians are highly individualistic in how their well-being influences their preparedness, and a majority are taking inadequate action to build their resilience to future disaster from earthquake- or tsunami-triggered evacuation. At a population level, the conceptual multi-dimensional model of health-related quality of life and global well-being tested in this study shows a positive association with evacuation preparedness at statistically significant levels. However, it must be emphasised that the strength of this relationship is weak, accounting for only 5-7% of the variability in evacuation preparedness. No single dimension of health-related quality of life or well-being stands out as a strong predictor of preparedness. The strongest associations for preparedness are in a positive direction for spiritual well-being, emotional well-being, and life satisfaction; all involve a sense of existential meaningfulness. Spiritual well-being is the only quality of life variable making a statistically significant unique contribution to explaining the variance observed in the regression models. Physical health status is weakly associated with preparedness in a negative direction at a continuous level of measurement. No association was found at statistically significant levels for mental health status and social well-being. These findings indicate that engaging in evacuation preparedness is a very complex, holistic, yet individualised decision-making process, and likely involves highly subjective considerations for what is personally relevant. Gender is not a factor. Those 18-24 years of age are least likely to prepare and evacuation preparedness increases with age. Multidimensional health and global well-being are important constructs to consider in disaster resilience for both pre-event and post-event timeframes. This work indicates a need for promoting self-management of risk and building resilience by incorporating a sense of personal meaning and importance into preparedness actions, and for future research into further understanding preparedness motivations.