There are many things that organisations of any size can do to prepare for a disaster or crisis. Traditionally, the advice given to business has focused on identifying risks, reducing their likely occurrence, and planning in advance how to respond. More recently, there is growing interest in the broader concept of organisational resilience which includes planning for crisis but also considers traits that lead to organisational adaptability and ability to thrive despite adverse circumstances. In this paper we examine the policy frameworks1 within New Zealand that influence the resilience of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The first part of the paper focuses on the New Zealand context, including the prevailing political and economic ideologies, the general nature of New Zealand SMEs and the nature of New Zealand’s hazard environment. The paper then goes on to outline the key policy frameworks in place relevant to SMEs and hazards. The final part of the paper examines the way the preexisting policy environment influenced the response of SMEs and Government following the Canterbury earthquakes.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.
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.
During many years the analysis of some geophysical results of Charles Darwin was being carried out in Department. Darwin has connected almost 200 years ago results of catastrophic earthquakes with vertical movement of a surface of the Earth. Usually this movement less horizontal movement and its influence on destruction of cities is not considered. Earthquake hazard assessment studies were focused usually on the horizontal ground motion. Effects of the strong vertical motion were not, practically, discussed. The margins of safety against gravity-induced static vertical forces in constructed buildings usually provide adequate resistance to dynamic forces induced by the vertical acceleration during an earthquake. However, the earthquake in Christchurch is an example of the vertical seismic shock . The earthquake magnitude was rather small - nearby 6.3. However, the result was catastrophic. The same took place in 1835. It allowed to Darwin to formulate a few great ideas. Charles Darwin has explained qualitatively results of an interaction of huge seismic waves with volcanoes and the nature of volcanism and seismicity of our planet. These important data of Charles Darwin became very actual recently. It is possible to tell also the same about tsunami and extreme ocean waves described by Charles Darwin. Therefore this data were analyzed using modern mechanics, mathematics and physics in Department. In particular, the theory of catastrophic waves was developed based on Darwin's data. The theory tried to explain occurrence, evolution and distribution the catastrophic waves in various natural systems, since atoms, oceans, surfaces of the Earth and up to the very early Universe. Some results of the research were published in prestigious magazines. Later they were presented in two books devoted to Charles Darwin's anniversary (2009). Last from them was published in Russian (2011). We give here key ideas of this research which is a part of interdisciplinary researches of Department. Some ideas are discussed. Not less important purpose is very short historical review of some researches of Darwin. In particular, we underline Darwin' priority in the formulation of the bases of Dynamics Earth.
Previous earthquakes demonstrated destructive effects of soil-structure interaction on structural response. For example, in the 1970 Gediz earthquake in Turkey, part of a factory was demolished in a town 135 km from the epicentre, while no other buildings in the town were damaged. Subsequent investigations revealed that the fundamental period of vibration of the factory was approximately equal to that of the underlying soil. This alignment provided a resonance effect and led to collapse of the structure. Another dramatic example took place in Adapazari, during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake where several foundations failed due to either bearing capacity exceedance or foundation uplifting, consequently, damaging the structure. Finally, the Christchurch 2012 earthquakes have shown that significant nonlinear action in the soil and soil-foundation interface can be expected due to high levels of seismic excitation and spectral acceleration. This nonlinearity, in turn, significantly influenced the response of the structure interacting with the soil-foundation underneath. Extensive research over more than 35 years has focused on the subject of seismic soil-structure interaction. However, since the response of soil-structure systems to seismic forces is extremely complex, burdened by uncertainties in system parameters and variability in ground motions, the role of soil-structure interaction on the structural response is still controversial. Conventional design procedures suggest that soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response can be conservatively ignored. However, more recent studies show that soil-structure interaction can be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the soil-structure-earthquake scenarios considered. In view of the above mentioned issues, this research aims to utilise a comprehensive and systematic probabilistic methodology, as the most rational way, to quantify the effects of soil-structure interaction on the structural response considering both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. The goal is achieved by examining the response of established rheological single-degree-of-freedom systems located on shallow-foundation and excited by ground motions with different spectral characteristics. In this regard, four main phases are followed. First, the effects of seismic soil-structure interaction on the response of structures with linear behaviour are investigated using a robust stochastic approach. Herein, the soil-foundation interface is modelled by an equivalent linear cone model. This phase is mainly considered to examine the influence of soil-structure interaction on the approach that has been adopted in the building codes for developing design spectrum and defining the seismic forces acting on the structure. Second, the effects of structural nonlinearity on the role of soil-structure interaction in modifying seismic structural response are studied. The same stochastic approach as phase 1 is followed, while three different types of structural force-deflection behaviour are examined. Third, a systematic fashion is carried out to look for any possible correlation between soil, structural, and system parameters and the degree of soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response. An attempt is made to identify the key parameters whose variation significantly affects the structural response. In addition, it is tried to define the critical range of variation of parameters of consequent. Finally, the impact of soil-foundation interface nonlinearity on the soil-structure interaction analysis is examined. In this regard, a newly developed macro-element covering both material and geometrical soil-foundation interface nonlinearity is implemented in a finite-element program Raumoko 3D. This model is then used in an extensive probabilistic simulation to compare the effects of linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction on the structural response. This research is concluded by reviewing the current design guidelines incorporating soil-structure interaction effects in their design procedures. A discussion is then followed on the inadequacies of current procedures based on the outcomes of this study.
