After Christchurch's devastating earthquakes, whole areas of the city, particularly out East, are starting from scratch - Aranui is one of them. Today, Lianne Dalziel cut the ribbon on the suburb's new community centre.
A video of a keynote presentation by Dr Laurie Johnson, Project Scientist at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "The Trajectory of Post-disaster Recovery and Regeneration: Learning from other cities".The abstract for the presentation reads, "What does regeneration look like and how long does it take? A look at what we can learn about regeneration from other cities that have experienced disasters. An exploration of the innovation needed to fulfil the recovery vision, as well as the value of collaboration in the next five years."
A video of a presentation by André Lovatt, Chair of Regenerate Christchurch, during a panel at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The panel has three themes:A City on the Move: Collaboration and Regeneration: "'Christchurch is now moving rapidly from the recovery phase into a regeneration stage with Central and Local Government working with the wider community, including the business community to ensure we get optimal outcomes for greater Christchurch' (CECC)."Looking Back: Remembering and Learning: "What are the milestones? What are the millstones? What have we learnt? What have we applied?"Looking Forward: Visioning and Building: "What do we aspire to? What are the roadblocks? What is the way forward?"
A video of Dr Laurie Johnson of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre and Professor David Johnston, Senior Scientist at GNS Science, responding to questions from the floor during the keynote session at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The keynote session is titled, "The Trajectory of Post-disaster Recovery and Regeneration".
The light, 3.6-magnitude earthquake was centred 10km east of the city at a depth of 17km, and occurred at 5:45pm.
Sarah Johnston from Nga Taonga Sound & Vision was among over 8,000 people visiting the newly reopened Great Hall at the city's earthquake-damaged Arts Centre last weekend, and she's going to tell us about the connections between the Great Hall and some historic recordings in the sound archives.
A video of a panel discussion at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The panel is titled, "Engaging: Generating Community Input and Feedback".Leanne Curtis of Breakthrough Services, Evan Smith, Programme Manager of Eastern Vision, and André Lovatt, CEO of the Arts Centre, present case studies.The theme of the panel reads, "'Regenerate Christchurch must and will engage with the community around what will be done' (André Lovatt, Chair, Regenerate Christchurch). Learning from the past by tapping the wisdom of communities and applying the lessons to the future as we shape the new city."
A video of a panel discussion at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The panel is titled, "Engaging: Generating Community Input and Feedback".Leanne Curtis of Breakthrough Services, Evan Smith, Programme Manager of Eastern Vision, and André Lovatt, CEO of the Arts Centre, respond to questions from the floor. Brendon Burns, of Brendon Burns and Associates, facilitates the discussion.The theme of the panel reads, "'Regenerate Christchurch must and will engage with the community around what will be done' (André Lovatt, Chair, Regenerate Christchurch). Learning from the past by tapping the wisdom of communities and applying the lessons to the future as we shape the new city."
We present ground motion simulations of the Porters Pass (PP) fault in the Canterbury region of New Zealand; a major active source near Christchurch city. The active segment of the PP fault has an inferred length of 82 km and a mostly strike-slip sense of movement. The PP fault slip makes up approximately 10% of the total 37 mm/yr margin-parallel plate motion and also comprises a significant proportion of the total strain budget in regional tectonics. Given that the closest segment of the fault is less than 45 km from Christchurch city, the PP fault is crucial for accurate earthquake hazard assessment for this major population centre. We have employed the hybrid simulation methodology of Graves and Pitarka (2010, 2015), which combines low (f<1 Hz) and high (f>1 Hz) frequencies into a broadband spectrum. We have used validations from three moderate magnitude events (𝑀𝑤4.6 Sept 04, 2010; 𝑀𝑤4.6 Nov 06, 2010; 𝑀𝑤4.9 Apr 29, 2011) to build confidence for the 𝑀𝑤 > 7 PP simulations. Thus far, our simulations include multiple rupture scenarios which test the impacts of hypocentre location and the finite-fault stochastic rupture representation of the source itself. In particular, we have identified the need to use location-specific 1D 𝑉𝑠/𝑉𝑝 models for the high frequency part of the simulations to better match observations.
A video of a presentation by Professor David Johnston during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Johnston is a Senior Scientist at GNS Science and Director of the Joint Centre for Disaster Research in the School of Psychology at Massey University. The presentation is titled, "Understanding Immediate Human Behaviour to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, Implications for injury prevention and risk communication".The abstract for the presentation reads as follows: The 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequences have given us a unique opportunity to better understand human behaviour during and immediately after an earthquake. On 4 September 2010, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred near Darfield in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. There were no deaths, but several thousand people sustained injuries and sought medical assistance. Less than 6 months later, a magnitude 6.2 earthquake occurred under Christchurch City at 12:51 p.m. on 22 February 2011. A total of 182 people were killed in the first 24 hours and over 7,000 people injured overall. To reduce earthquake casualties in future events, it is important to understand how people behaved during and immediately after the shaking, and how their behaviour exposed them to risk of death or injury. Most previous studies have relied on an analysis of medical records and/or reflective interviews and questionnaire studies. In Canterbury we were able to combine a range of methods to explore earthquake shaking behaviours and the causes of injuries. In New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (a national health payment scheme run by the government) allowed researchers to access injury data from over 9,500 people from the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch (22 February 2011 ) earthquakes. The total injury burden was analysed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. From the injury data inferences into human behaviour were derived. We were able to classify the injury context as direct (immediate shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). A second study examined people's immediate responses to earthquakes in Christchurch New Zealand and compared responses to the 2011 earthquake in Hitachi, Japan. A further study has developed a systematic process and coding scheme to analyse earthquake video footage of human behaviour during strong earthquake shaking. From these studies a number of recommendations for injury prevention and risk communication can be made. In general, improved building codes, strengthening buildings, and securing fittings will reduce future earthquake deaths and injuries. However, the high rate of injuries incurred from undertaking an inappropriate action (e.g. moving around) during or immediately after an earthquake suggests that further education is needed to promote appropriate actions during and after earthquakes. In New Zealand - as in US and worldwide - public education efforts such as the 'Shakeout' exercise are trying to address the behavioural aspects of injury prevention.
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf