A public talk by Rob Jamieson, CEO at Orion. This talk, entitled 'Powering up through resilience, safety and teamwork', formed part of the Plenary Four session, ' Laying the foundations'.
Depicts huge elderly woman with 'CERA' on her dress scolding smaller adult dressed as schoolboy near bustop with sign 'CBD red zone tours' Text reads 'And don't talk to strangers and don't cross the road and remember to eat your lunch..' Context: After the 22 Feburary 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, the central business district (CBD) was marked as a red zone. Red zone areas were deemed unsuitable for habitation due to significant damage and at high risk of further damage from low levels of earth shaking. CERA (Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority) ran public bus tours of the Christchurch CBD from November to December 2011. For safety reasons the public was not allowed off the buses as it was a dangerous and active demolition site. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
This research attempts to understand whether community resilience and perceived livability are influenced by housing typologies in Christchurch, New Zealand. Using recent resident surveys undertaken by the Christchurch City Council, two indexes were created to reflect livability and community resilience. Indicators used to create both indexes included (1) enjoyment living in neighbourhood (2) satisfaction with local facilities (3) safety walking and (4) safety using public transport, (5) sense of community (6) neighbour interactions, (7) home ownership and (8) civic engagement. Scores were attributed to 72 neighbourhoods across Christchurch –and each neighbourhood was classified in one of the following housing typologies; (1) earthquake damaged, (2) relatively undamaged, (3) medium density and (4) greenfield developments. Spatial analysis of index scores and housing classifications suggest housing typologies do influence resident’s perceived livability and community bonds to an extent. It was found that deprivation also had a considerable influence on these indexes as well as residential stability. These additional influences help explain why neighbourhoods within the same housing classification differ in their index scores. Based on these results, several recommendations have been made to the CCC in relation to future research, urban development strategies and suburb specific renewal projects. Of chief importance, medium density neighbourhoods and deprived neighbourhoods require conscious efforts to foster community resilience. Results indicate that community resilience might be more important than livability in having a positive influence on the lived experience of residents. While thoughtful design and planning are important, this research suggests geospatial research tools could enable better community engagement outcomes and planning outcomes, and this could be interwoven into proactive and inclusive planning approaches like placemaking.
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is "the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment"? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the question "Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?" that "It may well be…"? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that unemployment is rising, exports are down, and house price inflation in Auckland and Canterbury is in double-digits, does he agree that after 5 years as Finance Minister he has failed to rebalance and diversify the economy; if not, why not? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Trade: What efforts is the Government making to deal with the market effects of the possible contamination of some Fonterra diary exports? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has he taken to ensure high value jobs are retained in Otago, Waikato, Northland, East Coast and Manawatu? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Exactly how many of the 21 recommendations to the Minister in the 2010 Public Health Advisory Committee Report The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing has he implemented? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received following the Government's announcement of a new earthquake-prone building policy? RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the regeneration of fish stocks in the Snapper 1 fishery? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull that "Central government needs to understand we can't have a … two-speed economy where Christchurch and Auckland are ripping ahead and the rest of the regions are withering"; if not, why not?
Disasters can create the equivalent of 20 years of waste in only a few days. Disaster waste can have direct impacts on public health and safety, and on the environment. The management of such waste has a great direct cost to society in terms of labor, equipment, processing, transport and disposal. Disaster waste management also has indirect costs, in the sense that slow management can slow down a recovery, greatly affecting the ability of commerce and industry to re-start. In addition, a disaster can lead to the disruption of normal solid waste management systems, or result in inappropriate management that leads to expensive environmental remediation. Finally, there are social impacts implicit in disaster waste management decisions because of psychological impact we expect when waste is not cleared quickly or is cleared too quickly. The paper gives an overview of the challenge of disaster waste management, examining issues of waste quantity and composition; waste treatment; environmental, economic, and social impacts; health and safety matters; and planning. Christchurch, New Zealand, and the broader region of Canterbury were impacted during this research by a series of shallow earthquakes. This has led to the largest natural disaster emergency in New Zealand’s history, and the management of approximately 8 million tons of building and infrastructure debris has become a major issue. The paper provides an overview of the status of disaster waste management in Christchurch as a case study. A key conclusion is the vital role of planning in effective disaster waste management. In spite of the frequency of disasters, in most countries the ratio of time spent on planning for disaster waste management to the time spent on normal waste management is extremely low. Disaster waste management also requires improved education or training of those involved in response efforts. All solid waste professionals have a role to play to respond to the challenges of disaster waste management.
Implementing seismic risk mitigation is a major challenge in many earthquake prone regions. The objective of this research is to investigate how property investment market practices can be used to enhance building owners’ decisions to improve seismic performance of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs). A case study method adopted, revealed the impacts of the property market stakeholders’ practices on seismic retrofit decisions. The findings from this research provide significant new insights on how property market-based incentives such as such as mandatory disclosure of seismic risks in all transactions in the property market, effective awareness seismic risk program and a unified earthquake safety assessment information system, can be used to enhance EPBs owners seismic retrofit decisions. These market-based incentives offer compelling reasons for the different property market stakeholders and the public at large to retain, care, invest, and act responsibly to rehabilitate EPBs. The findings suggest need for stakeholders involved in property investment and retrofit decisions to work together to foster seismic rehabilitation of EPBs.
For 150,000 Christchurch school students, the 12.51 pm earthquake of 22 February 2011 shattered their normal lunch time activities and thrust their teachers into the role of emergency first responders. Whether helping students (children) escape immediate danger, or identifying and managing the best strategies for keeping children safe, including provision of extended caregiving when parents were unable to return to school to retrieve their children, teachers had to manage their own fears and trauma reactions in order to appear calm and prevent further distress for the children in their care. Only then did teachers return to their families. Eighteen months later, twenty teachers from across Christchurch, were interviewed. At 12.51pm, the teachers were essentially first responders. Using their usual methods for presenting a calm and professional image, the teachers’ emotion regulation (ER) strategies for managing their immediate fears were similar to those of professional first responders, with similar potential for subsequent burnout and negative emotional effects. Teachers’ higher emotional exhaustion and burnout 18 months later, were associated with school relocation. Lower burnout was associated with more emotional awareness, ER and perceived support. Consistent with international research, teachers’ use of cognitive reappraisal (re-thinking a situation) was an effective ER strategy, but this may not prevent teachers’ emotional resources from eventually becoming depleted. Teachers fulfill an important role in supporting children’s psychosocial adjustment following a natural disaster. However, as also acknowledged in international research, we need to also focus on supporting the teachers themselves.
Questions to Ministers 1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets, and what are the implications for New Zealand? 2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she still agree, as she did on 13 July 2011, with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that "I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good"? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is "just plain wrong" in relation to skills training? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for the Environment: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims' families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not? 6. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs, and we share the chief executive's concern"? 7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress is being made on the Government's goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas? 9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the "red zone" area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a "green space" for memorial and recreational public purposes? 10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders? 11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits? 12. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday?
1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree that the test of practicability in the Health and Safety in Employment (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999 is likely to result in different mines having different safety standards, in contrast to the regulations in place until 1992? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: In light of his comment that "New Zealand is to be congratulated because, at least in terms of the gender pay gap, ours is the third lowest in the OECD", does that mean he is satisfied with the 10.6 percent gap between men's and women's pay in our country? 4. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit numbers? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he consider the allocation of the value of the land within the rating valuation process to be robust, when it has produced such variable outcomes, leaving many in the red zone with insufficient funds to buy a section to take advantage of the replacement option in their insurance policy? 6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for the Environment: What work is his Ministry doing to help New Zealand take up the opportunity from green growth following the OECD May 2011 report on the high expected global demand for such products and services? 7. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many human resources contracts, if any, were let by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade without tenders being invited in 2010/2011, and what criteria were used to assess non-tendered contractors? 8. PAUL QUINN to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve Wellington's commuter rail network? 9. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "there is no question in my mind - someone would be better off in paid employment than on welfare. If they were not, that is a real indictment on the welfare system"? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Finance: When he said that "I did visit the Chinese Investment Corporation … They are very pleased with New Zealand's economic policy", was one of the policies he discussed with this foreign sovereign wealth fund his plan for privatising state assets? 11. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement to the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee that "we may need to take some tough choices regarding the scope and range of services the public health system can provide to New Zealanders"?
TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister responsible for Novopay: Does he stand by his statement of 11 February 2014, "education payroll is the most complex in New Zealand and more work remains to be done to simplify the business processes to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible each year"? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the true builders of that future are the millions of New Zealanders working in the homes, the businesses, the industries of our country"? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its share offer programme, which is freeing up money for reinvestment in new public assets without having to increase Government debt? ANDREW LITTLE to the Attorney-General: Will he release all correspondence between the Christchurch Crown Solicitor or any other solicitor acting for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and counsel for Peter Whittall on the decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Whittall under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 relating to conditions at the Pike River Mine that lead to the deaths of 29 miners; if not, why not? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: When were Ministry of Health officials first informed that the dispute between the Southern District Health Board and South Link Health involved allegations of the misuse of public funding, and when were they first informed that this alleged misuse was suspected to involve elements that could be fraud? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has the Government made on the Tertiary Education Strategy for New Zealand? Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he stand by his statement made yesterday in the House with regard to Canterbury Labour Members of Parliament that they "have made no more than five requests for assistance through the Earthquake Commission"; if not, when will he be correcting his statement and apologising? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: How is the Government's Information and Communication Technology programme improving New Zealanders' access to improved technology and better connectivity? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: On what date did she receive an invitation to visit the Shanghai office of Oravida Ltd during her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013, and what actions did she take to ensure this visit met her obligations under the Cabinet Manual? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Associate Minister of Education: Did the communities in Christchurch, Auckland and Queenstown, where four schools are to be built using a public-private partnership (PPP) model, ask the Government for private sector management of their school buildings? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Health: What investment is the Government making in improving nutrition and exercise for pre-schoolers? JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Corrections: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to alcohol and drug treatment for prisoners?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: What recent reports has he received on the impact of rising prices on families in light of his statement that "no one is worse off"? 2. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government supporting the earthquake recovery effort in Canterbury? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his plan to sell public assets would give "New Zealanders a fantastic opportunity to invest in this country's future"? 4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made in using technology to improve public safety and reduce costs in the criminal justice system? 5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "each of us can do something that could save someone's job, create a new job for another person or help someone else find a new job as soon as possible"? 6. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What benefits will ultra-fast broadband services bring to education in New Zealand? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that there is a $156 million gap between the amount the Ministry of Health has advised was necessary to meet population and demographic growth in Vote Health for 2011/12 and the amount of new spending allocated for Vote Health in the 2011 Budget? 8. KEVIN HAGUE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on Breakfast yesterday that "we're constantly changing aquaculture laws, or fishing laws, or whatever it might be. I mean in the case of Sky City, that particular licence is site specific"? 9. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "it is New Zealanders … that create new jobs and opportunities - not the Government"? 10. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made about the Government's response to the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group report? 11. DARIEN FENTON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on proposed labour law changes "we are not talking dramatic changes"? 12. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent initiatives has the Government undertaken to help New Zealanders control the cost of their power bills?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Is he still committed to "ensuring our schools are working for all students", and is he satisfied his Government has done enough to ensure that every child has equal access to a low-cost public education? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to turn around the Treasury's forecast net Government debt? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Infometrics that after the Canterbury rebuild peaks, the New Zealand economy will experience a "hangover" with slow income and GDP growth? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What justice initiatives has she announced to address family violence in New Zealand? DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: When did he first become aware of allegations that led to a Malaysian diplomat being charged with assault with the intent to commit rape and burglary, and what actions did he take? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on how technology can be used to better protect victims of domestic violence? JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was he made aware of the wishes, if any, of the woman at the centre of the assault with intent to rape charges laid against a Malaysian diplomat, regarding his return to Malaysia; if so, when? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Health: What investments has the Government made in health services for Taranaki? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand curriculum? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has she made regarding food labelling? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Earthquake Commission in the settlement or disposition of all claims in respect of multi-unit dwellings, arising from the Canterbury earthquake; if so, why?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that Hon John Banks has behaved in a manner that “upholds, and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards” as required by the Cabinet Manual? BARBARA STEWART to the Prime Minister: Did Mr Banks explain to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff that he would use “obfuscation” in his dealings with the media over the “anonymous” donations from Kim Dotcom? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How does the Government intend to strengthen the Public Finance Act 1989 in the Budget this month? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In the most recent World Economic Outlook published by the IMF in April 2012, which of the 34 advanced economies listed is forecast to have a worse current account deficit (as a percentage of GDP) than New Zealand in 2013? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 4 yesterday? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What action is the Government taking to improve co-ordination of the business growth agenda? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What damage, if any, has been done to staff confidence and retention by the change proposals for his Ministry announced on 23 February 2012, and does he intend to announce on 10 May 2012 a reversal of many of the proposals? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Labour: What steps is the Government taking to improve workplace health and safety? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Does her proposed extension of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary for Maui’s dolphins allow the use of set nets, drift nets, and trawl nets within the sanctuary? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about trade training within prisons? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Has he required that all his Ministers involved in the Canterbury earthquake recovery read the briefing paper dated 10 May 2011 prepared by Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, into the psychosocial consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes; if not, why not? NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen of excellent achievement in scholarship exams?
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
It is not a matter of if a major earthquake will happen in New Zealand, it is when. Earthquakes wreak havoc, cut off power and water supply, lines of communication, sewer, supply chains, and transport infrastructure. People get injured and whole communities can get cut off the rest of the country for extended periods of time. Countries taking measures to increase the population's preparedness tend to suffer less severe consequences than those that do not. Disaster management authorities deliver comprehensive instructions and preparation guidance, yet communities remain grossly underprepared. There are multiple factors that influence motivation for preparedness. Personal experience is one of the most significant factors that influence preparedness motivation. Not many people will experience a severe and damaging earthquake in their lifetime. A serious game (SG) that is a computer simulation of an earthquake is a tool that can let participants experience the earthquake and its aftermath from the safety of their computer. The main result of this research is a positive answer to the question: Can a serious game motivate people to prepare for earthquakes at least just as good as a personal experience of at least a moderate earthquake? There are different levels of immersion this serious game can be implemented at. In this thesis the same earthquake experience scenario – SG “ShakeUp” is implemented as a desktop application and a virtual reality (VR) application. A user study is conducted with the aim of comparing the motivation level achieved by the two versions of the SG “ShakeUp”. In this study no benefits of using VR over traditional desktop application were found: participants trying both versions of the SG “ShakeUp” reported similar levels of motivation to prepare for earthquakes immediately after the experiment. This means that both versions of the experience were equally effective in motivating participants to prepare for earthquakes. An additional benefit of this result is that the cheaper and easier to deliver desktop version can be widely used in various education campaigns. Participants reported being more motivated to prepare for earthquakes by either version of the SG “ShakeUp” than by any other contributing factor, including their previous earthquake experience or participation in a public education campaign. Both versions of the SG “ShakeUp” can successfully overcome personal bias, unrealistic optimism, pessimism, lack of perceived control over one’s earthquake preparation actions, fatalism, and sense of helplessness in the face of the earthquakes and motivate the individual to prepare for earthquakes. Participants without the prior earthquake experience benefit most from the SG “ShakeUp” regardless of the version tried, compared to the participants who had experienced an earthquake: significantly more of them will reconsider their current level of earthquake preparedness; about 24% more of them attribute their increased level of motivation to prepare for earthquakes to the SG “ShakeUp”. For every earthquake preparation action there is about 25% more people who felt motivated to do it after trying the SG “ShakeUp” than those who have done this preparation action before the experiment. After trying either version of the SG “ShakeUp”, people who live in a free standing house and those who live in a rental property reported highest levels of intent to carry on with the preparation actions. The proposed application prototype has been discussed with the University of Canterbury Earthquake Centre and received very positive feedback as having potential for practical use by various disaster management authorities and training institutions. The research shows that the SG “ShakeUp” motivates people to prepare for earthquakes as good as a personal earthquake experience and can be successfully used in various education campaigns.
The increase of the world's population located near areas prone to natural disasters has given rise to new ‘mega risks’; the rebuild after disasters will test the governments’ capabilities to provide appropriate responses to protect the people and businesses. During the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes (2010-2012) that destroyed much of the inner city, the government of New Zealand set up a new partnership between the public and private sector to rebuild the city’s infrastructure. The new alliance, called SCIRT, used traditional risk management methods in the many construction projects. And, in hindsight, this was seen as one of the causes for some of the unanticipated problems. This study investigated the risk management practices in the post-disaster recovery to produce a specific risk management model that can be used effectively during future post-disaster situations. The aim was to develop a risk management guideline for more integrated risk management and fill the gap that arises when the traditional risk management framework is used in post-disaster situations. The study used the SCIRT alliance as a case study. The findings of the study are based on time and financial data from 100 rebuild projects, and from surveying and interviewing risk management professionals connected to the infrastructure recovery programme. The study focussed on post-disaster risk management in construction as a whole. It took into consideration the changes that happened to the people, the work and the environment due to the disaster. System thinking, and system dynamics techniques have been used due to the complexity of the recovery and to minimise the effect of unforeseen consequences. Based on an extensive literature review, the following methods were used to produce the model. The analytical hierarchical process and the relative importance index have been used to identify the critical risks inside the recovery project. System theory methods and quantitative graph theory have been used to investigate the dynamics of risks between the different management levels. Qualitative comparative analysis has been used to explore the critical success factors. And finally, causal loop diagrams combined with the grounded theory approach has been used to develop the model itself. The study identified that inexperienced staff, low management competency, poor communication, scope uncertainty, and non-alignment of the timing of strategic decisions with schedule demands, were the key risk factors in recovery projects. Among the critical risk groups, it was found that at a strategic management level, financial risks attracted the highest level of interest, as the client needs to secure funding. At both alliance-management and alliance-execution levels, the safety and environmental risks were given top priority due to a combination of high levels of emotional, reputational and media stresses. Risks arising from a lack of resources combined with the high volume of work and the concern that the cost could go out of control, alongside the aforementioned funding issues encouraged the client to create the recovery alliance model with large reputable construction organisations to lock in the recovery cost, at a time when the scope was still uncertain. This study found that building trust between all parties, clearer communication and a constant interactive flow of information, established a more working environment. Competent and clear allocation of risk management responsibilities, cultural shift, risk prioritisation, and staff training were crucial factors. Finally, the post-disaster risk management (PDRM) model can be described as an integrated risk management model that considers how the changes which happened to the environment, the people and their work, caused them to think differently to ease the complexity of the recovery projects. The model should be used as a guideline for recovery systems, especially after an earthquake, looking in detail at all the attributes and the concepts, which influence the risk management for more effective PDRM. The PDRM model is represented in Causal Loops Diagrams (CLD) in Figure 8.31 and based on 10 principles (Figure 8.32) and 26 concepts (Table 8.1) with its attributes.