Search

found 17 results

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Civil Defense understanding of the role of radio in disaster tends to focus on its value in providing essential information during and after the event. However this role is compromised when a station’s premises are destroyed, or rendered inaccessible by official cordons. The Radio Quake study examines how radio stations in Christchurch managed to resume broadcasting in the aftermath of the earthquake of February 22, 2011. In New Zealand’s heavily networked and commercialised radio environment there is a significant disparity between networked and independent stations’ broadcast commitments and resourcing. All Christchurch radio broadcasters were forced to improvise new locations, complex technical workarounds, and responsive styles of broadcasting after the February 22 earthquake, but the need to restore, or maintain, a full on air presence after the earthquake, rested entirely on often financially tenuous, locally owned and staffed independent radio: student, Iwi, community access, and local commercial stations. This paper will explore the resourcefulness and resilience of broadcasters riding out the aftershocks in hotels, motels, bedrooms, and a horse truck, using digital technologies in new ways to reimagine the practice of radio in Christchurch.

Videos, UC QuakeStudies

A video of an interview with James Jameson about the lack of access to his apartment in the Victoria Apartments. Many of Jameson's possessions have been trapped in the building since the 22 February 2011 earthquake, including irreplaceable art and book collections. After the earthquake, Jameson was given a couple of hours to retrieve his computer and other essentials, but he has not been allowed in since. Jameson talks about the lack of communication from the authorities , the likelihood that his possessions have been ruined, and his inability to make an insurance claim until he knows he definitely cannot retrieve his possessions.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.