The author followed five primary (elementary) schools over three years as they responded to and began to recover from the 2010–2011 earthquakes in and around the city of Christchurch in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. The purpose was to capture the stories for the schools themselves, their communities, and for New Zealand’s historical records. From the wider study, data from the qualitative interviews highlighted themes such as children’s responses or the changing roles of principals and teachers. The theme discussed in this article, however, is the role that schools played in the provision of facilities and services to meet (a) physical needs (food, water, shelter, and safety); and (b) emotional, social, and psychological needs (communication, emotional support, psychological counseling, and social cohesion)—both for themselves and their wider communities. The role schools played is examined across the immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term response periods before being discussed through a social bonding theoretical lens. The article concludes by recommending stronger engagement with schools when considering disaster policy, planning, and preparation http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence was extremely damaging to structures in Christchurch and continues to have a large economic and social impact on the city and surrounding regions. In addition to strong ground shaking (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE), extensive liquefaction was observed, particularly in the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Cubrinovski et al. 2010 BNZSEE; 2011 SRL). Large observed vertical ground motion amplitudes were recorded in the events in this sequence, with vertical peak ground accelerations of over 2.2g being observed at the Heathcote Valley Primary School during the Christchurch earthquake, and numerous other vertical motions exceeding 1.0g (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE; Fry et al 2011 SRL). Vertical peak ground accelerations of over 1.2g were observed in the Darfield earthquake.
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē?
Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists?
JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence?
STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?
A video of a presentation by Professor David Johnston during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Johnston is a Senior Scientist at GNS Science and Director of the Joint Centre for Disaster Research in the School of Psychology at Massey University. The presentation is titled, "Understanding Immediate Human Behaviour to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, Implications for injury prevention and risk communication".The abstract for the presentation reads as follows: The 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequences have given us a unique opportunity to better understand human behaviour during and immediately after an earthquake. On 4 September 2010, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred near Darfield in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. There were no deaths, but several thousand people sustained injuries and sought medical assistance. Less than 6 months later, a magnitude 6.2 earthquake occurred under Christchurch City at 12:51 p.m. on 22 February 2011. A total of 182 people were killed in the first 24 hours and over 7,000 people injured overall. To reduce earthquake casualties in future events, it is important to understand how people behaved during and immediately after the shaking, and how their behaviour exposed them to risk of death or injury. Most previous studies have relied on an analysis of medical records and/or reflective interviews and questionnaire studies. In Canterbury we were able to combine a range of methods to explore earthquake shaking behaviours and the causes of injuries. In New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (a national health payment scheme run by the government) allowed researchers to access injury data from over 9,500 people from the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch (22 February 2011 ) earthquakes. The total injury burden was analysed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. From the injury data inferences into human behaviour were derived. We were able to classify the injury context as direct (immediate shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). A second study examined people's immediate responses to earthquakes in Christchurch New Zealand and compared responses to the 2011 earthquake in Hitachi, Japan. A further study has developed a systematic process and coding scheme to analyse earthquake video footage of human behaviour during strong earthquake shaking. From these studies a number of recommendations for injury prevention and risk communication can be made. In general, improved building codes, strengthening buildings, and securing fittings will reduce future earthquake deaths and injuries. However, the high rate of injuries incurred from undertaking an inappropriate action (e.g. moving around) during or immediately after an earthquake suggests that further education is needed to promote appropriate actions during and after earthquakes. In New Zealand - as in US and worldwide - public education efforts such as the 'Shakeout' exercise are trying to address the behavioural aspects of injury prevention.
