New Zealand's devastating Canterbury earthquakes provided an opportunity to examine the efficacy of existing regulations and policies relevant to seismic strengthening of vulnerable buildings. The mixed-methods approach adopted, comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, revealed that some of the provisions in these regulations pose as constraints to appropriate strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. Those provisions include the current seismic design philosophy, lack of mandatory disclosure of seismic risks and ineffective timeframes for strengthening vulnerable buildings. Recommendations arising from these research findings and implications for pre-disaster mitigation for future earthquake and Canterbury's post-disaster reconstruction suggest: (1) a reappraisal of the requirements for earthquake engineering design and construction, (2) a review and realignment of all regulatory frameworks relevant to earthquake risk mitigation, and (3) the need to develop a national programme necessary to achieve consistent mitigation efforts across the country. These recommendations are important in order to present a robust framework where New Zealand communities such as Christchurch can gradually recover after a major earthquake disaster, while planning for pre-disaster mitigation against future earthquakes AM - Accepted Manuscript
During the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill (RCFMI) buildings were subjected to significant lateral loads. A survey conducted by Christchurch City Council (CCC) and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) documented 10,777 damaged buildings, which included building characteristics (building address, the number of storeys, the year of construction, and building use) and post-earthquake damage observations (building safety information, observed damage, level of damage, and current state of the buildings). This data was merged into the Canterbury Earthquake Building Assessment (CEBA) database and was utilised to generate empirical fragility curves using the lognormal distribution method. The proposed fragility curves were expected to provide a reliable estimation of the mean vulnerability for commercial RCFMI buildings in the region http://www.13thcms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Symposium-Info-and-Presentation-Schedule.pdf VoR - Version of Record
Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole
Livelihood holds the key to a rapid recovery following a large-scale devastating disaster, building its resilience is of paramount importance. While much attention has been given to how to help people who are displaced from their jobs to regain employment, little research on livelihood resilience has been undertaken for those relocated communities following a disaster event. By studying five re-located villages post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar, Indonesia, this research has identified the indicators of livelihood resilience and the critical factors driving it for post-disaster relocated communities. A mixed approach, combining questionnaire surveys, semistructured interviews, and field observations, was used for the collection of data. Housing entitlement, the physical and mental health of residents, access to external livelihood support and the provision of infrastructure and basic services were identified as amongst the most critical indicators that represent the level of livelihood resilience. Early recovery income support, physical and mental health, availability and timeliness of livelihood support, together with cultural sensitivity and governance structure, are amongst the most important factors. Given the nature of resettlement, access to infrastructure, location of relocated sites, the safety of the neighbourhood and the ability to transfer to other jobs/skills also play an important role in establishing sustained employment for relocated communities in Indonesia. Those indicators and factors were synthesised into a framework which was further tested in the recovery of Christchurch, and Kaikoura, New Zealand during their recovery from devastating earthquakes. It is suggested that the framework can be used by government agencies and aid organisations to assess the livelihood resilience of post-disaster relocated communities. This will help better them plan support policies and/or prioritise resilience investment strategies to ensure that the recovery needs of those relocated are best met
