The 22nd February 2011, Mw 6.3 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand caused major damage to critical infrastructure, including the healthcare system. The Natural Hazard Platform of NZ funded a short-term project called “Hospital Functions and Services” to support the Canterbury District Health Board’s (CDHB) efforts in capturing standardized data that describe the effects of the earthquake on the Canterbury region’s main hospital system. The project utilised a survey tool originally developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) to assess the loss of function of hospitals in the Maule and Bío-Bío regions following the 27th February 2010, Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile. This paper describes the application of the JHU tool for surveying the impact of Christchurch earthquake on the CDHB Hospital System, including the system’s residual capacity to deliver emergency response and health care. A short summary of the impact of the Christchurch earthquake on other CDHB public and private hospitals is also provided. This study demonstrates that, as was observed in other earthquakes around the world, the effects of damage to non-structural building components, equipment, utility lifelines, and transportation were far more disruptive than the minor structural damage observed in buildings (FEMA 2007). Earthquake related complications with re-supply and other organizational aspects also impacted the emergency response and the healthcare facilities’ residual capacity to deliver services in the short and long terms.
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.
The Canterbury earthquakes are unique in that the there have been a series of major earthquakes, each with their own subsequent aftershock pattern. These have extended from the first large earthquake in September 2010 to currently, at the time of writing, two years later. The last significant earthquake of over magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale was in May on 2012, and the total number of aftershocks has exceeded 12,000. The consequences, in addition to the loss of life, significant injury and widespread damage, have been far reaching and long term, with detrimental effects and still uncertain effects for many. This provides unique challenges for individuals, communities, organisations and institutions within Canterbury. This document reviews research-based understandings of the concept of resilience. A conceptual model is developed which identifies a number of the factors that influence individual and household resilience. Guided by the model, a series of recommendations are developed for practices that will support individual and household resilience in Canterbury in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 earthquakes.
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?
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?
