The M7.8 Kaikoura Earthquake in 2016 presented a number of challenges to science agencies and institutions throughout New Zealand. The earthquake was complex, with 21 faults rupturing throughout the North Canterbury and Marlborough landscape, generating a localised seven metre tsunami and triggering thousands of landslides. With many areas isolated as a result, it presented science teams with logistical challenges as well as the need to coordinate efforts across institutional and disciplinary boundaries. Many research disciplines, from engineering and geophysics to social science, were heavily involved in the response. Coordinating these disciplines and institutions required significant effort to assist New Zealand during its most complex earthquake yet recorded. This paper explores that effort and acknowledges the successes and lessons learned by the teams involved.
© 2017 The Royal Society of New Zealand. This paper discusses simulated ground motion intensity, and its underlying modelling assumptions, for great earthquakes on the Alpine Fault. The simulations utilise the latest understanding of wave propagation physics, kinematic earthquake rupture descriptions and the three-dimensional nature of the Earth's crust in the South Island of New Zealand. The effect of hypocentre location is explicitly examined, which is found to lead to significant differences in ground motion intensities (quantified in the form of peak ground velocity, PGV) over the northern half and southwest of the South Island. Comparison with previously adopted empirical ground motion models also illustrates that the simulations, which explicitly model rupture directivity and basin-generated surface waves, lead to notably larger PGV amplitudes than the empirical predictions in the northern half of the South Island and Canterbury. The simulations performed in this paper have been adopted, as one possible ground motion prediction, in the ‘Project AF8’ Civil Defence Emergency Management exercise scenario. The similarity of the modelled ground motion features with those observed in recent worldwide earthquakes as well as similar simulations in other regions, and the notably higher simulated amplitudes than those from empirical predictions, may warrant a re-examination of regional impact assessments for major Alpine Fault earthquakes.
At 00:02 on 14th November 2016, a Mw 7.8 earthquake occurred in and offshore of the northeast of the South Island of New Zealand. Fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and co-seismic landslides caused severe damage to distributed infrastructure, and particularly transportation networks; large segments of the country’s main highway, State Highway 1 (SH1), and the Main North Line (MNL) railway line, were damaged between Picton and Christchurch. The damage caused direct local impacts, including isolation of communities, and wider regional impacts, including disruption of supply chains. Adaptive measures have ensured immediate continued regional transport of goods and people. Air and sea transport increased quickly, both for emergency response and to ensure routine transport of goods. Road diversions have also allowed critical connections to remain operable. This effective response to regional transport challenges allowed Civil Defence Emergency Management to quickly prioritise access to isolated settlements, all of which had road access 23 days after the earthquake. However, 100 days after the earthquake, critical segments of SH1 and the MNL remain closed and their ongoing repairs are a serious national strategic, as well as local, concern. This paper presents the impacts on South Island transport infrastructure, and subsequent management through the emergency response and early recovery phases, during the first 100 days following the initial earthquake, and highlights lessons for transportation system resilience.
At 00:02 on 14th November 2016, a Mw 7.8 earthquake occurred in and offshore of the northeast of the South Island of New Zealand. Fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and co-seismic landslides caused severe damage to distributed infrastructure, and particularly transportation networks; large segments of the country’s main highway, State Highway 1 (SH1), and the Main North Line (MNL) railway line, were damaged between Picton and Christchurch. The damage caused direct local impacts, including isolation of communities, and wider regional impacts, including disruption of supply chains. Adaptive measures have ensured immediate continued regional transport of goods and people. Air and sea transport increased quickly, both for emergency response and to ensure routine transport of goods. Road diversions have also allowed critical connections to remain operable. This effective response to regional transport challenges allowed Civil Defence Emergency Management to quickly prioritise access to isolated settlements, all of which had road access 23 days after the earthquake. However, 100 days after the earthquake, critical segments of SH1 and the MNL remain closed and their ongoing repairs are a serious national strategic, as well as local, concern. This paper presents the impacts on South Island transport infrastructure, and subsequent management through the emergency response and early recovery phases, during the first 100 days following the initial earthquake, and highlights lessons for transportation system resilience.
After the magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck Canterbury on 4 September 2010, most media reports claimed that no lives had been lost. But In fact, this first earthquake killed at least 3000 chickens, eight cows, one dog, a lemur and 150 aquarium fish. University of Canterbury associate professor Annie Potts, along with co-author Donelle Gadenne, wrote Animals in Emergencies: Learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes, revealing what happened to the animals during and after the series of quakes. Annie Potts will give a public lecture, 'Animals and natural disasters: Learning from recent earthquakes', on Thursday 16 March, 7pm at UC Ilam campus, Christchurch. Register to attend free at: www.canterbury.ac.nz/ucconnect
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s trade exports?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for Land Information: Has he asked Land Information New Zealand to withdraw the 997-hectare Riversdale Flats from the proposed sale of Mt White Station pastoral lease; if not, why not?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Social Housing: Will she confirm that as of 30 June the Government has only delivered 323 of the additional 1,400 emergency beds they promised at the start of November last year?
STUART SMITH to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on the reinstatement of State Highway 1 following the Kaikōura earthquakes?
STEFFAN BROWNING to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority’s review of glyphosate?
Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister of Health: Does he support the establishment of a cross-agency working group with Canterbury District Health Board on their finances, funding, and facilities?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 6 on 6 June regarding intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer?
BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made in relation to immigration settings?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he believe that the signing of the Pare Hauraki Collective Settlement with the inclusion of redress disputed by Tauranga Moana iwi is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements have the Government made on school property in the Wellington region?
PITA PARAONE to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?
JENNY SALESA to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the Government is doing all that it can to ensure an adequate supply of teachers, particularly in Auckland?
We present preliminary observations on three waters impacts from the Mw7.8 14th November 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake on wider metropolitan Wellington, urban and rural Marlborough, and in Kaikōura township. Three waters systems in these areas experienced widespread and significant transient ground deformation in response to seismic shaking, with localised permanent ground deformation via liquefaction and lateral spreading. In Wellington, potable water quality was impacted temporarily by increased turbidity, and significant water losses occurred due to damaged pipes at the port. The Seaview and Porirua wastewater treatment plants sustained damage to clarifier tanks from water seiching, and increased water infiltration to the wastewater system occurred. Most failure modes in urban Marlborough were similar to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence; however some rural water tanks experienced rotational and translational movements, highlighting importance of flexible pipe connections. In Kaikōura, damage to reservoirs and pipes led to loss of water supply and compromised firefighting capability. Wastewater damage led to environmental contamination, and necessitated restrictions on greywater entry into the system to minimise flows. Damage to these systems necessitated the importation of tankered and bottled water, boil water notices and chlorination of the system, and importation of portaloos and chemical toilets. Stormwater infrastructure such as road drainage channels was also damaged, which could compromise condition of underlying road materials. Good operational asset management practices (current and accurate information, renewals, appreciation of criticality, good system knowledge and practical contingency plans) helped improve system resilience, and having robust emergency management centres and accurate Geographic Information System data allowed effective response coordination. Minimal damage to the wider built environment facilitated system inspections. Note Future research will include detailed geospatial assessments of seismic demand on these systems and attendant modes of failure, levels of service restoration, and collaborative development of resilience measures.
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a “social disgrace”, that the market cannot sort out this problem, and that real leadership and intestinal fortitude is needed now?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on real after-tax wages rising in New Zealand?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Will she apologise on behalf of the Government for the flawed handling of the Canterbury school mergers and closures after the 2011 earthquakes; if not, why not?
ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has the Government made in improving the tenancy laws and guidance for dealing with the problem of methamphetamine testing and contamination?
CARMEL SEPULONI to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand, and how much has this cost?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult?
MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Corrections: How is Budget 2017 investing in rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes for offenders?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was “about local government performance and overseeing ratepayer-funded assets whose purpose is to deliver clean and healthy water to its local people. The extensive inquiry into that incident was warranted by widespread illness in the area ... it is about local body performance in overseeing their clean water system”?
BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington’s resilience to natural hazards?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years?
STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she have any concerns about any of the results of the New Zealand Police Workplace Survey 2017; if so, what in particular?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to improve school infrastructure in the Wairarapa?
In September 2010 and February 2011, the Canterbury region experienced devastating earthquakes with an estimated economic cost of over NZ$40 billion (Parker and Steenkamp, 2012; Timar et al., 2014; Potter et al., 2015). The insurance market played an important role in rebuilding the Canterbury region after the earthquakes. Homeowners, insurance and reinsurance markets and New Zealand government agencies faced a difficult task to manage the rebuild process. From an empirical and theoretic research viewpoint, the Christchurch disaster calls for an assessment of how the insurance market deals with such disasters in the future. Previous studies have investigated market responses to losses in global catastrophes by focusing on the insurance supply-side. This study investigates both demand-side and supply-side insurance market responses to the Christchurch earthquakes. Despite the fact that New Zealand is prone to seismic activities, there are scant previous studies in the area of earthquake insurance. This study does offer a unique opportunity to examine and document the New Zealand insurance market response to catastrophe risk, providing results critical for understanding market responses after major loss events in general. A review of previous studies shows higher premiums suppress demand, but how higher premiums and a higher probability of risk affect demand is still largely unknown. According to previous studies, the supply of disaster coverage is curtailed unless the market is subsidised, however, there is still unsettled discussion on why demand decreases with time from the previous disaster even when the supply of coverage is subsidised by the government. Natural disaster risks pose a set of challenges for insurance market players because of substantial ambiguity associated with the probability of such events occurring and high spatial correlation of catastrophe losses. Private insurance market inefficiencies due to high premiums and spatially concentrated risks calls for government intervention in the provision of natural disaster insurance to avert situations of noninsurance and underinsurance. Political economy considerations make it more likely for government support to be called for if many people are uninsured than if few people are uninsured. However, emergency assistance for property owners after catastrophe events can encourage most property owners to not buy insurance against natural disaster and develop adverse selection behaviour, generating larger future risks for homeowners and governments. On the demand-side, this study has developed an intertemporal model to examine how demand for insurance changes post-catastrophe, and how to model it theoretically. In this intertemporal model, insurance can be sought in two sequential periods of time, and at the second period, it is known whether or not a loss event happened in period one. The results show that period one demand for insurance increases relative to the standard single period model when the second period is taken into consideration, period two insurance demand is higher post-loss, higher than both the period one demand and the period two demand without a period one loss. To investigate policyholders experience from the demand-side perspective, a total of 1600 survey questionnaires were administered, and responses from 254 participants received representing a 16 percent response rate. Survey data was gathered from four institutions in Canterbury and is probably not representative of the entire population. The results of the survey show that the change from full replacement value policy to nominated replacement value policy is a key determinant of the direction of change in the level of insurance coverage after the earthquakes. The earthquakes also highlighted the plight of those who were underinsured, prompting policyholders to update their insurance coverage to reflect the estimated cost of re-building their property. The survey has added further evidence to the existing literature, such as those who have had a recent experience with disaster loss report increased risk perception if a similar event happens in future with females reporting a higher risk perception than males. Of the demographic variables, only gender has a relationship with changes in household cover. On the supply-side, this study has built a risk-based pricing model suitable to generate a competitive premium rate for natural disaster insurance cover. Using illustrative data from the Christchurch Red-zone suburbs, the model generates competitive premium rates for catastrophe risk. When the proposed model incorporates the new RMS high-definition New Zealand Earthquake Model, for example, insurers can find the model useful to identify losses at a granular level so as to calculate the competitive premium. This study observes that the key to the success of the New Zealand dual insurance system despite the high prevalence of catastrophe losses are; firstly the EQC’s flat-rate pricing structure keeps private insurance premiums affordable and very high nationwide homeowner take-up rates of natural disaster insurance. Secondly, private insurers and the EQC have an elaborate reinsurance arrangement in place. By efficiently transferring risk to the reinsurer, the cost of writing primary insurance is considerably reduced ultimately expanding primary insurance capacity and supply of insurance coverage.
