Coastal and river environments are exposed to a number of natural hazards that have the potential to negatively affect both human and natural environments. The purpose of this research is to explain that significant vulnerabilities to seismic hazards exist within coastal and river environments and that coasts and rivers, past and present, have played as significant a role as seismic, engineering or socio-economic factors in determining the impacts and recovery patterns of a city following a seismic hazard event. An interdisciplinary approach was used to investigate the vulnerability of coastal and river areas in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, which began on the 4th of September 2010. This information was used to identify the characteristics of coasts and rivers that make them more susceptible to earthquake induced hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, flooding, landslides and rock falls. The findings of this research are applicable to similar coastal and river environments elsewhere in the world where seismic hazards are also of significant concern. An interdisciplinary approach was used to document and analyse the coastal and river related effects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence on Christchurch city in order to derive transferable lessons that can be used to design less vulnerable urban communities and help to predict seismic vulnerabilities in other New Zealand and international urban coastal and river environments for the future. Methods used to document past and present features and earthquake impacts on coasts and rivers in Christchurch included using maps derived from Geographical Information Systems (GIS), photographs, analysis of interviews from coastal, river and engineering experts, and analysis of secondary data on seismicity, liquefaction potential, geology, and planning statutes. The Canterbury earthquake sequence had a significant effect on Christchurch, particularly around rivers and the coast. This was due to the susceptibility of rivers to lateral spreading and the susceptibility of the eastern Christchurch and estuarine environments to liquefaction. The collapse of river banks and the extensive cracking, tilting and subsidence that accompanied liquefaction, lateral spreading and rock falls caused damage to homes, roads, bridges and lifelines. This consequently blocked transportation routes, interrupted electricity and water lines, and damaged structures built in their path. This study found that there are a number of physical features of coastal and river environments from the past and the present that have induced vulnerabilities to earthquake hazards. The types of sediments found beneath eastern Christchurch are unconsolidated fine sands, silts, peats and gravels. Together with the high water tables located beneath the city, these deposits made the area particularly susceptible to liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, when an earthquake of sufficient size shook the ground. It was both past and present coastal and river processes that deposited the types of sediments that are easily liquefied during an earthquake. Eastern Christchurch was once a coastal and marine environment 6000 years ago when the shoreline reached about 6 km inland of its present day location, which deposited fine sand and silts over this area. The region was also exposed to large braided rivers and smaller spring fed rivers, both of which have laid down further fine sediments over the following thousands of years. A significant finding of this study is the recognition that the Canterbury earthquake sequence has exacerbated existing coastal and river hazards and that assessments and monitoring of these changes will be an important component of Christchurch’s future resilience to natural hazards. In addition, patterns of recovery following the Canterbury earthquakes are highlighted to show that coasts and rivers are again vulnerable to earthquakes through their ability to recovery. This city’s capacity to incorporate resilience into the recovery efforts is also highlighted in this study. Coastal and river areas have underlying physical characteristics that make them increasingly vulnerable to the effects of earthquake hazards, which have not typically been perceived as a ‘coastal’ or ‘river’ hazard. These findings enhance scientific and management understanding of the effects that earthquakes can have on coastal and river environments, an area of research that has had modest consideration to date. This understanding is important from a coastal and river hazard management perspective as concerns for increased human development around coastlines and river margins, with a high seismic risk, continue to grow.
his poster presents the ongoing development of a 3D Canterbury seismic velocity model which will be used in physics-based hybrid broadband ground motion simulation of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Velocity models must sufficiently represent critical aspects of the crustal structure over multiple length scales which will influence the results of the simulations. As a result, numerous sources of data are utilized in order to provide adequate resolution where necessary. Figure 2: (a) Seismic reflection line showing P-wave velocities and significant geologic horizons (Barnes et al. 2011), and (b) Shear wave profiles at 10 locations (Stokoe et al. 2013). Figure 4: Cross sections of the current version of the Canterbury velocity model to depths of 10km as shown in Figure 1: (a) at a constant latitude value of -43.6˚, and (b) at a constant longitude value of 172.64˚. 3. Ground Surface and Geologic Horizon Models Figure 3: (a) Ground surface model derived from numerous available digital elevation models, and (b) Base of the Quaternary sediments derived from structural contours and seismic reflection line elevations. The Canterbury region has a unique and complex geology which likely has a significant impact on strong ground motions, in particular the deep and loose deposits of the Canterbury basin. The Canterbury basin has several implications on seismic wave phenomena such as long period ground motion amplification and wave guide effects. Using a realistic 3D seismic velocity model in physics-based ground motion simulation will implicitly account for such effects and the resultant simulated ground motions can be studied to gain a fundamental understanding of the salient ground motion phenomena which occurred during the Canterbury earthquakes, and the potential for repeat occurrences in the Canterbury region. Figure 1 shows the current model domain as a rectangular area between Lat=[-43.2˚,-44.0˚], and Lon=[171.5˚,173.0˚]. This essentially spans the area between the foot of the Southern Alps in the North West to Banks Peninsula in the East. Currently the model extends to a depth of 50km below sea level.
Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence that his Ministers are ethical and competent?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on building momentum in the New Zealand economy and how this is supporting jobs?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Has he checked his files yet regarding whether Hon John Banks declared a potential conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill while still a Minister; if so, was any conflict declared?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the performance of Health Benefits Ltd; if so, why?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent progress has been made on the anchor projects in the Christchurch Central recovery plan?
ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Conservation: Has he received any reports on the environmental impact of seismic surveying in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of State Services: Has he asked the State Services Commissioner for reports on recent failures of state sector agencies to carry out their functions according to the law; if not, why not?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on boosting innovation in the primary sector through the Primary Growth Partnership?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received on the state of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made to support the victims of serious financial crime?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Conservation: Why did he tell the House on 24 September "the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before" when as he stated on 17 October "The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department's role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management"?
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he explain, given the latest projection of New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions is around 90 million tonnes in 2040, how the Government can conceivably reach its own emissions reduction target of 30 million tonnes by 2050?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy – and especially on further signs of economic momentum in the regions and among manufacturers?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much did the Government's share sales in Mighty River Power, Meridian, and Air New Zealand raise, given that the Supplement to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand projected that those sales would raise $5.18 billion?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for ACC: How much did ACC invest in Pike River Coal Limited and in New Zealand Oil and Gas Limited over the last eight years, and how much has it made or lost in total on its investment in each company, taking into account share purchases, subscriptions and sales, dividends, and current share prices?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement "I know Māori want to talk about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution, and how our legal and political systems can reflect tikanga Māori."; if so, why?
Hon SHANE JONES to the Associate Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with his performance in regard to his delegations as Associate Minister of Finance?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received regarding the state of the building and construction sector?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for the Environment: Did the Environmental Protection Authority assess the full version of Anadarko's Discharge Management Plan and Emergency Response Plan as part of its evaluation of the company's Environmental Impact Assessment for the Deepwater Taranaki Well; if not, why not?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: When, if at all, did Cabinet approve the timing of the Air New Zealand sell-down and what directions did Cabinet give the shareholding Ministers?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Housing: What steps is the Government taking to rebuild Christchurch's housing stock damaged or destroyed by the earthquakes?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his statement "The opportunity, and challenge, for our meat producers now is to add value to different cuts of meat and continue to sell the New Zealand story"; if so, why?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Local Government: How is the Government improving councils' financial reporting?
DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he stand by his statement that "I am especially keen to hear what affected parties have to say on the Part 6A proposals in the Bill, and will carefully consider their submissions and the recommendations of the select committee"?
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
The city of Ōtautahi/Christchurch experienced a series of earthquakes that began on September 4th, 2010. The most damaging event occurred on February 22nd, 2011 but significant earthquakes also occurred on June 13th and December 23rd with aftershocks still occurring well into 2012. The resulting disaster is the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history with 185 deaths. During 2011 the Canterbury earthquakes were one of the costliest disasters worldwide with an expected cost of up to $NZ30 billion.
Hundreds of commercial buildings and thousands of houses have been destroyed or are to be demolished and extensive repairs are needed for infrastructure to over 100,000 homes. As many as 8,900 people simply abandoned their homes and left the city in the first few months after the February event (Newell, 2012), and as many as 50,000 may leave during 2012. In particular, young whānau and single young women comprised a disproportionate number of these migrants, with evidence of a general movement to the North Island.
Te Puni Kōkiri sought a mix of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the social and economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes on Māori and their whānau. The result of this work will be a collection of evidence to inform policy to support and assist Māori and their whānau during the recovery/rebuild phases. To that end, this report triangulates available statistical and geographical information with qualitative data gathered over 2010 and 2011 by a series of interviews conducted with Māori who experienced the dramatic events associated with the earthquakes.
A Māori research team at Lincoln University was commissioned to undertake the research as they were already engaged in transdisciplinary research (began in the May 2010), that focused on quickly gathering data from a range of Māori who experienced the disaster, including relevant economic, environmental, social and cultural factors in the response and recovery of Māori to these events.
Participants for the qualitative research were drawn from Māori whānau who both stayed and left the city. Further data was available from ongoing projects and networks that the Lincoln research team was already involved in, including interviews with Māori first responders and managers operating in the CBD on the day of the February event. Some limited data is also available from younger members of affected whānau.
Māori in Ōtautahi/Christchurch City have exhibited their own culturally-attuned collective responses to the disaster. However, it is difficult to ascertain Māori demographic changes due to a lack of robust statistical frameworks but Māori outward migration from the city is estimated to range between 560 and 1,100 people.
The mobility displayed by Māori demonstrates an important but unquantified response by whānau to this disaster, with emigration to Australia presenting an attractive option for young Māori, an entrenched phenomenon that correlates to cyclical downturns and the long-term decline of the New Zealand economy. It is estimated that at least 315 Māori have emigrated from the Canterbury region to Australia post-quake, although the disaster itself may be only one of a series of events that has prompted such a decision.
Māori children made up more than one in four of the net loss of children aged 6 to 15 years enrolled in schools in Greater Christchurch over the year to June 2011. Research literature identifies depression affecting a small but significant number of children one to two years post-disaster and points to increasing clinical and organisational demands for Māori and other residents of the city.
For those residents in the eastern or coastal suburbs – home to many of the city’s Māori population - severe damage to housing, schools, shops, infrastructure, and streets has meant disruption to their lives, children’s schooling, employment, and community functioning. Ongoing abandonment of homes by many has meant a growing sense of unease and loss of security, exacerbated by arson, burglaries, increased drinking, a stalled local and national economy, and general confusion about the city’s future.
Māori cultural resilience has enabled a considerable network of people, institutions, and resources being available to Māori , most noticeably through marae and their integral roles of housing, as a coordinating hub, and their arguing for the wider affected communities of Christchurch.
Relevant disaster responses need to be discussed within whānau, kōhanga, kura, businesses, communities, and wider neighbourhoods. Comprehensive disaster management plans need to be drafted for all iwi in collaboration with central government, regional, and city or town councils.
Overall, Māori are remarkably philosophical about the effects of the disaster, with many proudly relishing their roles in what is clearly a historic event of great significance to the city and country. Most believe that ‘being Māori’ has helped cope with the disaster, although for some this draws on a collective history of poverty and marginalisation, features that contribute to the vulnerability of Māori to such events.
While the recovery and rebuild phases offer considerable options for Māori and iwi, with Ngāi Tahu set to play an important stakeholder in infrastructural, residential, and commercial developments, some risk and considerable unknowns are evident. Considerable numbers of Māori may migrate into the Canterbury region for employment in the rebuild, and trades training strategies have already been established.
With many iwi now increasingly investing in property, the risks from significant earthquakes are now more transparent, not least to insurers and the reinsurance sector. Iwi authorities need to be appraised of insurance issues and ensure sufficient coverage exists and investments and developments are undertaken with a clear understanding of the risks from natural hazards and exposure to future disasters.
