Following exposure to trauma, stress reactions are initially adaptive. However, some individuals’ psychological response can become maladaptive with long-lasting impairment to functioning. Most people with initial symptoms of stress recover, and thus it is important to distinguish individuals who are at risk of continuing difficulties so that resources are allocated appropriately. Investigations of predictors of PTSD development have largely focused on relational and combat-related trauma, with very limited research looking at natural disasters. This study assessed the nature and severity of psychological difficulties experienced in 101 people seeking treatment following exposure to a significant earthquake that killed 185 people. Peritraumatic dissociation, posttraumatic stress symptoms, symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of depression, and social isolation were assessed. Descriptive analyses revealed the sample to be a highly impaired group, with particularly high levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. Path analysis was used to determine whether the experience of some psychological difficulties predicted experience of others. As hypothesised, peritraumatic dissociation was found to predict posttraumatic stress symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. Posttraumatic stress symptoms then predicted symptoms of anxiety and symptoms of depression. Depression and anxiety were highly correlated. Contrary to expectations, social isolation was not significantly related to any other psychological variables. These findings justify the provision of psychological support following a natural disaster and suggest the benefit of assessing peritraumatic dissociation and posttraumatic stress symptoms soon after the event to identify people in need of monitoring and intervention.
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.
A linear and non-linear model are developed to analyze the structural impact and response of two single degree of freedom structures, representing adjacent buildings or bridge sections. Different impact coefficients of restitution, normalized distances between structures and a range of different structural periods are considered. The probability of impact and the displacement changes that can result from these collisions are computed. The likelihood of an increase in displacement is quantified in a probabilistic sense. A full matrix of response simulations are performed to individually investigate and delineate the effects of inter-structure gap-ratio, period ratios, structural non-linearity and impact elasticity. Column inelasticity is incorporated through the use of a Ramberg-Osgood type hysteresis rule. The minimum normalized distance, or gap-ratio, required between two structures to ensure that the likelihood of increased displacement of more than 10% for either structure for 90% of the given earthquake ground motions is assessed as one of many possible design risk bounds. Increased gap ratio, defined as a percentage of spectral displacement, is shown to reduce the likelihood of impact, as well as close structural periods. Larger differences in the relative periods of the two structures were seen to significantly increase the likelihood of impact. Inclusion of column inelasticity and higher plasticity of impact reduce displacement increases from impact and thus possible further damage to the structures. Such information can be used as a guideline to manage undesirable effects of impact in design - a factor that has been observed to be very important during the recent Canterbury, New Zealand Earthquakes.
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that the Ministry of Social Development can keep private information it holds confidential?
KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What are the main features of the Government's plan to build a more competitive economy based on more savings, higher exports and less debt?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has the Ministry of Social Development competently managed the private information in its charge?
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What children will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children be targeting?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: What specific criteria were used to determine whether a school in Christchurch was identified for restoration, consolidation or rejuvenation?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: What were the dates of the three cases that the Government Communications Security Bureau audit highlighted, because they could not assure him "that the legal position is totally clear", as referred to in his statement of 3 October 2012?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to my Question for Written Answer 3326 (2012)?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why did he reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management earthquake review's recommendation, which was made in response to the finding that duplication of control was "not only inefficient but put people and property at risk", and that "the same situation could arise in a number of different parts of New Zealand"?
MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: What is the Government doing to improve the support and recognition given to veterans?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon John Banks; if so, why?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What is the objective of the Government review of the EQC?
This thesis is about many things, not least of all the September 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011 earthquakes that shook Christchurch, New Zealand. A city was shaken, events which worked to lay open the normally invisible yet vital objects, processes and technologies which are the focus of inquiry: the sewers, pipes, pumps, the digital technologies, the land and politics which constitute the Christchurch wastewater networks. The thesis is an eclectic mix drawing together methods and concepts from Bruno Latour, John Law, Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Nigel Thrift, Donna Haraway and Patrick Joyce. It is an exploration of how the technologies and objects of sanitation perform the city, and how such things which are normally hidden and obscured, are made visible. The question of visibility is also turned toward the research itself: how does one observe, and describe? How are sociological visibilities constructed? Through the research, the encountering of objects in the field, the processes of method, the pedagogy of concepts, and the construction of risk, the thesis comes to be understood as a particular kind of social scientific artefact which assembles four different accounts: the first regards the construction of visibility; the second explores Christchurch city from the control room where the urban sanitary infrastructures are monitored; the third chapter looks at the formatted and embodied practices which emerge with the correlation of the city and sanitation; the fourth looks at the changing politics of a city grappling with severely damaged essential services, land and structures. The final chapter considers how the differences between romantic and baroque sensibilities mean that these four accounts elicit knowing not through smoothness or uniformity, but in partiality and non-coherence. This thesis is about pipes, pump stations, and treatment plants; about the effluent of a city; about the messiness of social science when confronted by the equally messy world of wastewater.
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept the BNZ statement that New Zealand’s increasing current account is “a very clear risk for New Zealand’s credit rating with Standard and Poor’s”?
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for ACC: Can she confirm that staff in ACC’s Recovery Independence Service teams receive more or less remuneration dependent on whether the proportion of people receiving weekly compensation is less or more than specified duration targets?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Police: What actions has the Government taken against illegal street racers?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports or correspondence regarding the Community Pharmacy Services Agreement with District Health Boards and if he has, have they caused him any concern?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: How is the Justice sector contributing to the Government’s better public services programme?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the statement made by the Minister for the Environment, Hon Amy Adams in Rio, that, “Money spent on fossil fuels is money that could be spent on other sustainable development priorities”, and will the Government re-allocate the $889 million for ETS credits in Budget 2012 towards sustainable projects and a green economy?
MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Immigration: What reports has he received on the benefits to New Zealand of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?
KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all the statements she made to the Law and Order Committee yesterday?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made regarding court services for Christchurch?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he still believe that the best way to deal with the price increase in home rentals in Christchurch is to leave it to the market?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"; if so, why has the number of children living in material hardship grown under his watch?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support vulnerable New Zealanders through the aftermath of the domestic recession and global financial crisis?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: When he said "we don't want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don't get to make choices, they're often the victim of circumstance" does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don't suffer because of circumstances beyond their control?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Compared to 2012, does the Reserve Bank forecast the New Zealand dollar (as measured by the Trade Weighted Index) to strengthen or weaken in the next two years, and does he believe this will make New Zealand exporters more competitive or less competitive?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and grow the economy?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the state of children's health in New Zealand; if not, why not?
COLIN KING to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society in relation to freshwater that "failure to act with decisiveness and urgency risks further environmental degradation and erosion of our international environmental reputation"; if not, why not?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Building and Construction: How quickly will he respond to the building performance, assessment and construction recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing in response to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission's full report?
CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Is it still a fundamental purpose of his Government to narrow the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In dollar terms, what is the shortfall in the tax-take for the nine months to March revealed in yesterday’s Financial Statements compared to October’s pre-election update?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much has been raised to date by the Earthquake Kiwi Bonds and, at this rate, how many years will it take to cover the Government’s estimated $5.5 billion liability resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes?
Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2012 provide greater support for young people most at risk of long-term welfare dependency?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding asset sales that “We are not going to do anything tricky there”?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Associate Minister of Health: How is the Government expanding its programme to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his comments regarding housing?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What is the plan to pay for the Government’s transport expenditure given that the Ministry of Transport’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister warns of a funding shortfall of $4.9 billion if high oil prices and low GDP growth continue?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government improving value for money in its procurement of services for the public sector?
DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that “I do not want to see unnecessary change for change’s sake. Rather I am looking to put in place pragmatic solutions as we implement our manifesto commitments and let employers, employees and business focus on what they do best.”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and the Associate Ministers for Social Development; if so, why?
