Imagined landscapes find their form in utopian dreaming. As ideal places, utopias are set up according to the ideals of their designers. Inevitably, utopias become compromised when they move from the imaginary into the actual. Opportunities to create utopias rely largely on a blank slate, a landscape unimpeded by the inconveniences of existing occupation – or even topography. Christchurch has seen two utopian moments. The first was at the time of European settlement in the mid-nineteenth century, when imported ideals provided a model for a new city. The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 provided a second point at which utopian dreaming spurred visions for the city. Christchurch’s earthquakes have provided a unique opportunity for a city to re-imagine itself. Yet, as is the fate for all imaginary places, reality got in the way.
As a result of the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Canterbury Earthquake Swarm of 2010-2011 the New Zealand Government has introduced new legislation that will require the mandatory strengthening of all earthquake-prone buildings in New Zealand. An earthquake prone building is currently defined as a building that is less than one third the seismic strength of a new building. If an owner does not wish to strengthen their buildings then they must demolish them. Seismic retrofitting of buildings is a form of property development and as such, the decision to retrofit or not should be based on a robust and soundly conducted feasibility study. Feasibility studies on seismic retrofitting can be particularly challenging for a number of reasons thus making it difficult for owners to make informed and sound decisions relating to their earthquake prone buildings. This paper considers the concept and process of feasibility analysis as applied to earthquake prone buildings and discusses the current challenges posed by such feasibility studies. A number of recommendations are made in an attempt to help develop a best practice model for decision making relating to earthquake prone buildings."
This report presents research on the affects of the Ōtautahi/Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 to 2012 on the city’s Tangata Whaiora community, ‘people seeking health’ as Māori frame mental health clients. Drawing on the voices of 39 participants of a Kaupapa Māori provider (Te Awa o te Ora), this report presents extended quotes from Tangata Whaiora, their support staff (many of whom are Tangata Whaiora), and managers as they speak of the events, their experiences, and support that sustained them in recoveries of well-being through the worse disaster in Aotearoa/New Zealand in three generations. Ōtautahi contains a significant urban Māori population, many living in suburbs that were seriously impacted by the earthquakes that began before dawn on September 4th, 2010, and continued throughout 2011 and 2012. The most damaging event occurred on February 22nd, 2011, and killed 185 people and severely damaged the CBD as well as many thousands of homes. The thousands of aftershocks delayed the rebuilding of homes and infrastructure and exacerbated the stress and dislocation felt by residents. The tensions and disorder continue for numerous residents into 2014 and it will be many years before full social and physical recovery can be expected. This report presents extended excerpts from the interviews of Tangata Whaiora and their support staff. Their stories of survival through the disaster reinforce themes of community and whānau while emphasising the reality that a significant number of Tangata Whaiora do not or cannot draw on this supports. The ongoing need for focused responses in the area of housing and accommodation, sufficiently resourced psycho-social support, and the value of Kaupapa Māori provision for Māori and non-Māori mental health clients cannot be overstated. The report also collates advice from participants to other Tangata Whaiora, their whānau, providers and indeed all residents of places subject to irregular but potentially devastating disaster. Much of this advice is relevant for more daily challenges and should not be underestimated despite its simplicity.
The standard way in which disaster damages are measured involves examining separately the number of fatalities, of injuries, of people otherwise affected, and the financial damage that natural disasters cause. Here, we implement a novel way to aggregate these separate measures of disaster impact and apply it to two recent catastrophic events: the Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes and the Greater Bangkok (Thailand) floods of 2011. This new measure, which is similar to the World Health Organization’s calculation of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost from the burden of diseases and injuries, is described in detail in Noy (2014). It allows us to conclude that New Zealand lost 180 thousand lifeyears as a result of the 2011 events, and Thailand lost 2,644 thousand years. In per capita terms, the loss is similar, with both countries losing about 15 days per person due to the 2011 catastrophic events in these two countries. We also compare these events to other potentially similar events.
The standard way in which disaster damages are measured involves examining separately the number of fatalities, of injuries, of people otherwise affected, and the financial damage that natural disasters cause. Here, we implement a novel way to aggregate these separate measures of disaster impact and apply it to two catastrophic events from 2011: the Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes and the Greater Bangkok (Thailand) flood. This new measure, which is similar to the World Health Organization's calculation of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to the burden of diseases and injuries, is described in detail in Noy [7]. It allows us to conclude that New Zealand lost 180 thousand lifeyears as a result of the 2011 events, and Thailand lost 2644 thousand lifeyears. In per capita terms, the loss is similar, with both countries losing about 15 days per person due to the 2011 catastrophic events in these two countries.
© This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
