A video of a presentation by Hugh Cowan, General Manager of Reinsurance, Research and Education at EQC, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "Working Together Strengthens Understanding".The abstract for the presentation reads, "Hear how EQC led a collaborative research project in Canterbury that involved diverse stakeholders from government, council officials and insurers to homeowners, and why collaboration means that Canterbury's geotechnical data is now helping to inform research locally, nationally and around the world."
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.
A video of a presentation by Dr Lesley Campbell during the Community and Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration: An innovative response to family violence following the Canterbury earthquakes - successes, challenges, and achievements".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Across a range of international jurisdictions there is growing evidence that shows a high prevalence of family violence, child abuse and sexual violence over a number of years following natural disasters (World Health Organisation, 2005). Such empirical findings were also reflected within the Canterbury region following the earthquake events in 2010 and 2011. For example, in the weekend following the September 2010 earthquake, Canterbury police reported a 53% increase in call-outs to family violence incidents. In 2012, Canterbury police investigated over 7,400 incidents involving family violence - approximately 19 incidents each day. Child, youth and family data also reflect an increase in family violence, with substantiated cases of abuse increasing markedly from 1,130 cases in 2009 to 1,650 cases in 2011. These numbers remain elevated. Challenging events like the Canterbury earthquakes highlight the importance of, and provide the catalyst for, strengthening connections with various communities of interest to explore new ways of responding to the complex issue of family violence. It was within this context that the Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration (Collaboration) emerged. Operating since 2012, the Collaboration now comprises 45 agencies from across governmental and non-governmental sectors. The Collaboration's value proposition is that it delivers system-wide responses to family violence that could not be achieved by any one agency. These responses are delivered within five strategic priority areas: housing, crisis response and intervention, prevention, youth, and staff learning and development. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the experiences of the collaborative effort and lessons learnt by the collaborative partners in the first three years after its establishment. It will explore the key successes and challenges of the collaborative effort, and outline the major results achieved - a unique contribution, in unique circumstances, to address family violence experienced by Canterbury people throughout the period of recovery and rebuild.
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
This paper reports on a service-learning public journalism project in which postgraduate journalism students explore ways to engage with and report on diverse communities. Media scholars have argued that news media, and local newspapers in particular, must re-engage with their communities. Likewise, journalism studies scholars have urged educators to give journalism students greater opportunities to reflect on their work by getting out among journalism’s critics, often consumers or citizens concerned about content and the preparation of future journalists. The challenge for journalism educators is to prepare students for working in partnership with communities while also developing their ability to operate reflectively and critically within the expectations of the news media industry and wider society. The aim of this project has been to help students find ways to both listen and lead in a community, and also reflect on the challenges and critiques of community journalism practices. The project began in 2013 with stories about residents’ recovery following the devastating 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, and aimed to create stories that could contribute to community connection and engagement, and thereby resilience and recovery. The idea was inspired by research about post-disaster renewal that indicated that communities with strong social capital and social networks were more resilient and recovered more quickly and strongly. The project’s longer-term aim has been to explore community journalism practices that give greater power to citizens and communities by prioritising listening and processes of engagement. Over several months, students network with a community group to identify subjects with whom they will co-create a story, and then complete a story on which they must seek the feedback of their subject. Community leaders have described the project as a key example of how to do things “with people not to people”, and an outstanding contribution to the community-led component of Canterbury’s recovery. Analysis of student reflections, which are a key part of each year’s project, reveals the process of engaging with communities has helped students to map community dynamics, think more critically about source relationships, editorial choices and objectivity norms, and to develop a perspective on the diverse ways they can go about their journalism in the future. Each year, students partner with different groups and organisations, addressing different themes each time the project runs. For 2016, the programme proposes to develop the project in a new way, by not just exploring a community’s stories but also exploring its media needs and it aims to work with Christchurch’s new migrant Filipino community to develop the groundwork for a community media and/or communication platform, which Filipino community leaders say is a pressing need. For this iteration, journalism students will be set further research tasks aimed at deepening their ‘public listening’: they will conduct a survey of community members’ media use and needs as well as qualitative research interviews. It is hoped that the data collected will strengthen students’ understanding of their own journalism practice, as well as form the basis for work on developing media tools for minority groups who are generally poorly represented in mainstream media. In 2015, the journalism programme surveyed its community partners and held follow-up interviews with 13 of 18 story subjects to elicit further feedback on its news content and thereby deepen understanding of different community viewpoints. The survey and interview data revealed the project affected story subjects in a number of positive and interesting ways. Subjects said they appreciated the way student reporters took their time to build relationships and understand the context of the community groups with which they were involved, and contrasted this with their experience of professional journalists who had held pre-conceived assumptions about stories and/or rushed into interviews. As a direct consequence of the students’ approach, participants said they better trusted the student journalists to portray them accurately and fairly. Most were also encouraged by the positive recognition stories brought and several said the engagement process had helped their personal development, all of which had spin-offs for their community efforts. The presentation night that wraps up each year’s project, where community groups, story subjects and students come together to network and share the final stories, was cited as a significant positive aspect of the project and a great opportunity for community partners to connect with others doing similar work. Community feedback will be sought in future projects to inform and improve successive iterations.
