This report provides an understanding of the nature of Canterbury subcontracting businesses operating in the space of earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch. It offers an in-depth look at the factors that influence the development of their capacity and capability to withstand the impact of volatile economic cycles, including the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes. There have been significant changes to the business models of the 13 subcontracting businesses studied since the earthquakes. These changes can be seen in the ways the case study subcontractors have adapted to cope with the changing demands that the rebuild posed. Apart from the magnitude of reconstruction works and new developments that directly affect the capacity of subcontracting businesses in Canterbury, case studies found that subcontractors’ capacity and capability to meet the demand varies and is influenced by the: subcontractors’ own unique characteristics, which are often shaped by changing circumstances in a dynamic and uncertain recovery process; and internal factors in relation to the company’s goal and employees’ needs
Following the devastation of the Canterbury earthquake sequence a unique opportunity exists to rebuild and restructure the city of Christchurch, ensuring that its infrastructure is constructed better than before and is innovative. By installing an integrated grid of modern sensor technologies into concrete structures during the rebuild of the Christchurch CBD, the aim is to develop a network of self-monitored ‘digital buildings’. A diverse range of data will be recorded, potentially including parameters such as concrete stresses, strains, thermal deformations, acoustics and the monitoring of corrosion of reinforcement bars. This procedure will allow an on-going complete assessment of the structure’s performance and service life, both before and after seismic activity. The data generated from the embedded and surface mounted sensors will be analysed to allow an innovative and real-time health monitoring solution where structural integrity is continuously known. This indication of building performance will allow the structure to alert owners, engineers and asset managers of developing problems prior to failure thresholds being reached. A range of potential sensor technologies for monitoring the performance of existing and newly constructed concrete buildings is discussed. A description of monitoring work conducted on existing buildings during the July 2013 Cook Strait earthquake sequence is included, along with details of current work that investigates the performance of sensing technologies for detecting crack formation in concrete specimens. The potential market for managing the real-time health of installed infrastructure is huge. Civil structures all over the world require regular visual inspections in order to determine their structural integrity. The information recorded during the Christchurch rebuild will generate crucial data sets that will be beneficial in understanding the behaviour of concrete over the complete life cycle of the structure, from construction through to operation and building repairs until the time of failure. VoR - Version of Record
Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes contains selected papers presented at the New Zealand – Japan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes (Auckland, New Zealand, 2-3 December 2013). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand and the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake in Japan have caused significant damage to many residential houses due to varying degrees of soil liquefaction over a very wide extent of urban areas unseen in past destructive earthquakes. While soil liquefaction occurred in naturally-sedimented soil formations in Christchurch, most of the areas which liquefied in Tokyo Bay area were reclaimed soil and artificial fill deposits, thus providing researchers with a wide range of soil deposits to characterize soil and site response to large-scale earthquake shaking. Although these earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan caused extensive damage to life and property, they also serve as an opportunity to understand better the response of soil and building foundations to such large-scale earthquake shaking. With the wealth of information obtained in the aftermath of both earthquakes, information-sharing and knowledge-exchange are vital in arriving at liquefaction-proof urban areas in both countries. Data regarding the observed damage to residential houses as well as the lessons learnt are essential for the rebuilding efforts in the coming years and in mitigating buildings located in regions with high liquefaction potential. As part of the MBIE-JSPS collaborative research programme, the Geomechanics Group of the University of Auckland and the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory of the University of Tokyo co-hosted the workshop to bring together researchers to review the findings and observations from recent large-scale earthquakes related to soil liquefaction and discuss possible measures to mitigate future damage. http://librarysearch.auckland.ac.nz/UOA2_A:Combined_Local:uoa_alma21151785130002091
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
