A presentation by Dr Charlotte Brown (Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering) on "A Waste-Full Recovery: Managing waste after the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes".
A presentation by Dr Matthew Hughes (Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering) on "Liquefaction Impacts on Christchurch's Water and Wastewater Networks".
This report is the output of a longitudinal study that was established between the University of Auckland and Resilient Organisations, in conjunction with the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), to evaluate the ongoing resource availability and capacity for post-earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch.
Since September 2010 Christchurch, New Zealand, has experienced a number of significant earthquakes. In addition to loss of life, this has resulted in significant destruction to infrastructure, including road corridors; and buildings, especially in the central city, where it has been estimated that 60% of buildings will need to be rebuilt. The rebuild and renewal of Christchurch has initially focused on the central city under the direction of the Christchurch City Council. This has seen the development of a draft Central City Plan that includes a number of initiatives that should encourage the use of the bicycle as a mode of transport. The rebuild and renewal of the remainder of the city is under the jurisdiction of a specially set up authority, the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). CERA reports to an appointed Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who is responsible for coordinating the planning, spending, and actual rebuilding work needed for the recovery. Their plans for the renewal and rebuild of the remainder of the city are not yet known. This presentation will examine the potential role of the bicycle as a mode of transport in a rebuilt Christchurch. The presentation will start by describing the nature of damage to Christchurch as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. It will then review the Central City Plan (the plan for the rebuild and renewal for central Christchurch) focusing particularly on those aspects that affect the role of the bicycle. The potential for the success of this plan will be assessed. It will specifically reflect on this in light of some recent research in Christchurch that examined the importance of getting infrastructure right if an aim of transport planning is to attract new people to cycle for utilitarian reasons.
In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch (New Zealand) and its surroundings were hit by a series of strong earthquakes including six significant events, all generated by local faults in proximity to the city: 4 September 2010 (Mw=7.1), 22 February 2011 (Mw=6.2), 13 June 2011 (Mw=5.3 and Mw=6.0) and 23 December 2011 (M=5.8 and (M=5.9) earthquakes. As shown in Figure 1, the causative faults of the earthquakes were very close to or within the city boundaries thus generating very strong ground motions and causing tremendous damage throughout the city. Christchurch is shown as a lighter colour area, and its Central Business District (CBD) is marked with a white square area in the figure. Note that the sequence of earthquakes started to the west of the city and then propagated to the south, south-east and east of the city through a set of separate but apparently interacting faults. Because of their strength and proximity to the city, the earthquakes caused tremendous physical damage and impacts on the people, natural and built environments of Christchurch. The 22 February 2011 earthquake was particularly devastating. The ground motions generated by this earthquake were intense and in many parts of Christchurch substantially above the ground motions used to design the buildings in Christchurch. The earthquake caused 182 fatalities, collapse of two multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, collapse or partial collapse of many unreinforced masonry structures including the historic Christchurch Cathedral. The Central Business District (CBD) of Christchurch, which is the central heart of the city just east of Hagley Park, was practically lost with majority of its 3,000 buildings being damaged beyond repair. Widespread liquefaction in the suburbs of Christchurch, as well as rock falls and slope/cliff instabilities in the Port Hills affected tens of thousands of residential buildings and properties, and shattered the lifelines and infrastructure over approximately one third of the city area. The total economic loss caused by the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes is currently estimated to be in the range between 25 and 30 billion NZ dollars (or 15% to 18% of New Zealand’s GDP). After each major earthquake, comprehensive field investigations and inspections were conducted to document the liquefaction-induced land damage, lateral spreading displacements and their impacts on buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the ground motions produced by the earthquakes were recorded by approximately 15 strong motion stations within (close to) the city boundaries providing and impressive wealth of data, records and observations of the performance of ground and various types of structures during this unusual sequence of strong local earthquakes affecting a city. This paper discusses the liquefaction in residential areas and focuses on its impacts on dwellings (residential houses) and potable water system in the Christchurch suburbs. The ground conditions of Christchurch including the depositional history of soils, their composition, age and groundwater regime are first discussed. Detailed liquefaction maps illustrating the extent and severity of liquefaction across Christchurch triggered by the sequence of earthquakes including multiple episodes of severe re-liquefaction are next presented. Characteristic liquefaction-induced damage to residential houses is then described focussing on the performance of typical house foundations in areas affected by liquefaction. Liquefaction impacts on the potable water system of Christchurch is also briefly summarized including correlation between the damage to the system, liquefaction severity, and the performance of different pipe materials. Finally, the characteristics of Christchurch liquefaction and its impacts on built environment are discussed in relation to the liquefaction-induced damage in Japan during the 11 March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.
On the second day of teaching for 2011, the University of Canterbury (UC) faced the most significant crisis of its 138-year history. After being shaken severely by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on 4 September 2010, UC felt it was well along the pathway to getting back to ‘normal’. That all changed at 12:51pm on 22 February 2011, when Christchurch city was hit by an even more devastating event. A magnitude 6.3 (Modified Mercalli intensity ten – MM X) earthquake, just 13km south-east of the Christchurch city centre, caused vertical peak ground accelerations amongst the highest ever recorded in an urban environment, in some places more than twice the acceleration due to gravity. The earthquake caused immediate evacuation of the UC campus and resulted in significant damage to many buildings. Thankfully there were no serious injuries or fatalities on campus, but 185 people died in the city and many more suffered serious injuries. At the time of writing, eighteen months after the first earthquake in September, Christchurch is still experiencing regular earthquakes. Seismologists warn that the region may experience heightened seismicity for a decade or more. While writing this report we have talked with many different people from across the University. People’s experiences are different and we have not managed to talk with everyone, but we hope that by drawing together many different perspectives from across the campus that this report will serve two purposes; to retain our institutional memory of what we have learnt over the past eighteen months, and also to share our learnings with other organisations in New Zealand and around the world who, we hope, will benefit from learning about our experience.
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.
The devastating earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 have without question upset the Christchurch City way of life for all. Families and businesses, as well as the natural and built environments have been directly affected, and our social landscapes have since evolved to accommodate the visible changes. Though not perhaps seen as a priority, the Christchurch nightlife has been profoundly altered by the quakes and the once popular CBD clubbing scene has ceased to exist. The concern highlighted in this article is the way in which this has put pressure on suburban bars and the the implications of this for local residents.
An emerging water crisis is on the horizon and is poised to converge with several other impending problems in the 21st century. Future uncertainties such as climate change, peak oil and peak water are shifting the international focus from a business as usual approach to an emphasis on sustainable and resilient strategies that better meet these challenges. Cities are being reimagined in new ways that take a multidisciplinary approach, decompartmentalising functions and exploring ways in which urban systems can share resources and operate more like natural organisms. This study tested the landscape design implications of wastewater wetlands in the urban environment and evaluated their contribution to environmental sustainability, urban resilience and social development. Black and grey water streams were the central focus of this study and two types of wastewater wetlands, tidal flow (staged planning) and horizontal subsurface flow wetlands were tested through design investigations in the earthquake-affected city of Christchurch, New Zealand. These investigations found that the large area requirements of wastewater wetlands can be mitigated through landscape designs that enhance a matrix of open spaces and corridors in the city. Wastewater wetlands when combined with other urban and rural services such as food production, energy generation and irrigation can aid in making communities more resilient. Landscape theory suggests that the design of wastewater wetlands must meet cultural thresholds of beauty and that the inclusion of waste and ecologies in creatively designed landscapes can deepen our emotional connection to nature and ourselves.
Earthquake events can be sudden, stressful, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events in which an individual’s internal and external assumptions of their environment may be disrupted. A number of studies have found depression, and other psychological symptoms may be common after natural disasters. They have also found an association between depression, losses and disruptions for survivors. The present study compared depression symptoms in two demographically matched communities differentially affected by the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes. Hypotheses were informed by the theory of learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978). A door-to-door survey was conducted in a more physically affected community sample (N=67) and a relatively unaffected community sample (N=67), 4 months after the February 2011 earthquake. Participants were again assessed approximately 10 months after the quake. Measures of depression, acute stress, anxiety, aftershock anxiety, losses, physical disruptions and psychological disruptions were taken. In addition, prior psychological symptoms, medication, alcohol and cigarette use were assessed. Participants in the more affected community reported higher depression scores than the less affected community. Overall, elevated depressive score at time 2 were predicted by depression at time 1, acute stress and anxiety symptoms at time 2, physical disruptions following the quake and psychosocial functioning disruptions at time 2. These results suggest the influence of acute stress, anxiety and disruptions in predicting depression sometime after an earthquake. Supportive interventions directed towards depression, and other psychological symptoms, may prove helpful in psychological adjustment following ongoing disruptive stressors and uncontrollable seismic activity.
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?