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 Eastern Humps and Leader faults, situated in the Mount Stewart Range in North Canterbury, are two of the ≥17 faults which ruptured during the 2016 MW7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake. The earthquake produced complex, intersecting ground ruptures of these faults and the co-seismic uplift of the Mount Stewart Range. This thesis aims to determine how these two faults accommodated deformation during the 2016 earthquake and how they interact with each other and with pre-existing geological structures. In addition, it aims to establish the most likely subsurface geometry of the fault complex across the Mount Stewart Range, and to investigate the paleoseismic history of the Leader Fault. The Eastern Humps Fault strikes ~240° and dips 80° to 60° to the northwest and accommodated right- lateral – reverse-slip, with up to 4 m horizontal and 2 m vertical displacement in the 2016 earthquake. The strike of the Leader Fault varies from ~155 to ~300°, and dips ~30 to ~80° to the west/northwest, and mainly accommodated left-lateral – reverse-slip of up to 3.5 m horizontal and 3.5 m vertical slip in the 2016 earthquake. On both the Eastern Humps and Leader faults the slip is variable along strike, with areas of low total displacement and areas where horizontal and vertical displacement are negatively correlated. Fault traces with low total displacement reflect the presence of off-fault (distributed) displacement which is not being captured with field measurements. The negative correlation of horizontal and vertical displacement likely indicates a degree of slip partitioning during the 2016 earthquake on both the Eastern Humps and Leader faults. The Eastern Humps and Leader faults have a complex, interdependent relationship with the local bedrock geology. The Humps Fault appears to be a primary driver of ongoing folding and deformation of the local Mendip Syncline and folding of the Mount Stewart Range, which probably began prior to, or synchronous with, initial rupture of The Humps Fault. The Leader Fault appears to use existing lithological weaknesses in the Cretaceous-Cenozoic bedrock stratigraphy to rupture to the surface. This largely accounts for the strong variability on the strike and dip of the Leader Fault, as the geometry of the surface ruptures tend to reflect the strike and dip of the geological strata which it is rupturing through. The Leader Fault may also accommodate some degree of flexural slip in the Cenozoic cover sequence of the Mendip Syncline, contributing to the ongoing growth of the fold. The similarity between topography and uplift profiles from the 2016 earthquake suggest that growth of the Mount Stewart Range has been primarily driven by multiple (>500) discrete earthquakes that rupture The Humps and Leader faults. The spatial distribution of surface displacements across the Mount Stewart Range is more symmetrical than would be expected if uplift is driven primarily by The Humps and Leader faults alone. Elastic dislocation forward models were used to model potential sub-surface geometries and the resulting patterns of deformation compared to photogrammetry-derived surface displacements. Results show a slight preference for models with a steeply southeast-dipping blind fault, coincident with a zone of seismicity at depth, as a ‘backthrust’ to The Humps and Leader faults. This inferred Mount Stewart Fault accommodated contractional strain during the 2016 earthquake and contributes to the ongoing uplift of the Mount Stewart Range with a component of folding. Right-lateral and reverse shear stress change on the Hope Fault was also modelled using Coulomb 3.3 software to examine whether slip on The Humps and Leader faults could transfer enough stress onto the Hope Fault to trigger through-going rupture. Results indicate that during the 2016 earthquake right-lateral shear and reverse stress only increased on the Hope Fault in small areas to the west of the Leader Fault, and similar ruptures would be unlikely to trigger eastward propagating rupture unless the Hope Fault was close to failure prior to the earthquake. Paleoseismic trenches were excavated on the Leader Fault at four locations from 2018 to 2020, revealing near surface (< 4m depth) contractional deformation of Holocene stratigraphy. Three of the trench locations uncovered clear evidence for rupture of the Leader Fault prior to 2016, with fault displacement of near surface stratigraphy being greater than displacement recorded during the 2016 earthquake. Radiocarbon dating of in-situ organic material from two trenches indicate a date of the penultimate earthquake on the Leader Fault within the past 1000 years. This date is consistent with The Humps and Leader faults having ruptured simultaneously in the past, and with multi-fault ruptures involving The Humps, Leader, Hundalee and Stone Jug faults having occurred prior to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. Overall, the results contribute to an improved understanding of the Kaikōura earthquake and highlight the importance of detailed structural and paleoseismic investigations in determining controls on earthquake ‘complexity’.
