An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 24 September 2015 entitled, "Journalists at Work {Part 3(3) COMS 304}".The entry was downloaded on 3 November 2016.
A story submitted by Kerry Grant Donnelly to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Nicky to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 9 July 2013 entitled, "Sometimes the memories just come....".
A story submitted by Frank Hardy to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Rebecca to the QuakeStories website.
A story submitted by Mary Browne to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 28 March 2011 entitled, "This week...".
A story submitted by Catherine to the QuakeStories website.
An entry from Deb Robertson's blog for 10 December 2011 entitled, "A quilt from recycled shirts and other bits and pieces...".
This thesis investigates life-safety risk in earthquakes. The first component of the thesis utilises a dataset of earthquake injuries and deaths from recent earthquakes in New Zealand to identify cause, context, and risk factors of injury and death in the 2011 MW6.3 Christchurch earthquake and 2016 MW7.8 Kaikōura earthquake. Results show that nearly all deaths occurred from being hit by structural elements from buildings, while most injuries were caused by falls, strains and being hit by contents or non-structural elements. Statistical analysis of injured cases compared to an uninjured control group found that age, gender, building damage, shaking intensity, and behaviour during shaking were the most significant risk factors for injury during these earthquakes. The second part of the thesis uses the empirical findings from the first section to develop two tools for managing life-safety risk in earthquakes. The first tool is a casualty estimation model for health system and emergency response planning. An existing casualty model used in New Zealand was validated against observed data from the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and found to underestimate moderate and severe injuries by an order of magnitude. The model was then updated to include human behaviour such as protective actions, falls and strain type injuries that are dependent on shaking intensity, as well as injuries and deaths outside buildings. These improvements resulted in a closer fit to observed casualties for the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The second tool that was developed is a framework to set seismic loading standards for design based on fatality risk targets. The proposed framework extends the risk-targeted hazard method, by moving beyond collapse risk targets, to fatality risk targets for individuals in buildings and societal risk in cities. The framework also includes treatment of epistemic uncertainty in seismic hazard to allow this uncertainty to be used in risk-based decision making. The framework is demonstrated by showing how the current New Zealand loading standards could be revised to achieve uniform life-safety risk across the country and how the introduction of a new loading factor can reduce risk aggregation in cities. Not on Alma, moved and emailed. 1/02/2023 ce
Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development.
A video of a presentation by Dr Scott Miles during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "A Community Wellbeing Centric Approach to Disaster Resilience".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: A higher bar for advancing community disaster resilience can be set by conducting research and developing capacity-building initiatives that are based on understanding and monitoring community wellbeing. This presentation jumps off from this view, arguing that wellbeing is the most important concept for improving the disaster resilience of communities. The presentation uses examples from the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes to illustrate the need and effectiveness of a wellbeing-centric approach. While wellbeing has been integrated in the Canterbury recovery process, community wellbeing and resilience need to guide research and planning. The presentation unpacks wellbeing in order to synthesize it with other concepts that are relevant to community disaster resilience. Conceptualizing wellbeing as either the opportunity for or achievement of affiliation, autonomy, health, material needs, satisfaction, and security is common and relatively accepted across non-disaster fields. These six variables can be systematically linked to fundamental elements of resilience. The wellbeing variables are subject to potential loss, recovery, and adaptation based on the empirically established ties to community identity, such as sense of place. Variables of community identity are what translate the disruption, damage, restoration, reconstruction, and reconfiguration of a community's different critical services and capital resources to different states of wellbeing across a community that has been impacted by a hazard event. With reference to empirical research and the Canterbury case study, the presentation integrates these insights into a robust framework to facilitate meeting the challenge of raising the standard of community disaster resilience research and capacity building through development of wellbeing-centric approaches.
As damage and loss caused by natural hazards have increased worldwide over the past several decades, it is important for governments and aid agencies to have tools that enable effective post-disaster livelihood recovery to create self-sufficiency for the affected population. This study introduces a framework of critical components that constitute livelihood recovery and the critical factors that lead to people’s livelihood recovery. A comparative case study is employed in this research, combined with questionnaire surveys and interviews with those communities affected by large earthquakes in Lushan, China and in Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand. In Lushan, China, a framework with four livelihood components was established, namely, housing, employment, wellbeing and external assistance. Respondents considered recovery of their housing to be the most essential element for livelihood diversification. External assistance was also rated highly in assisting with their livelihood recovery. Family ties and social connections seemed to have played a larger role than that of government agencies and NGOs. However, the recovery of livelihood cannot be fully achieved without wellbeing aspects being taken into account, and people believed that quality of life and their physical and mental health were essential for livelihood restoration. In Christchurch, New Zealand, the identified livelihood components were validated through in-depth interviews. The results showed that the above framework presenting what constitutes successful livelihood recovery could also be applied in Christchurch. This study also identified the critical factors to affect livelihood recovery following the Lushan and Kaikōura earthquakes, and these include community safety, availability of family support, level of community cohesion, long-term livelihood support, external housing recovery support, level of housing recovery and availability of health and wellbeing support. The framework developed will provide guidance for policy makers and aid agencies to prioritise their strategies and initiatives in assisting people to reinstate their livelihood in a timely manner post-disaster. It will also assist the policy makers and practitioners in China and New Zealand by setting an agenda for preparing for livelihood recovery in non-urgent times so the economic impact and livelihood disruption of those affected can be effectively mitigated.