ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This paper provides a near-term reconnaissance of the economic and social impacts of the November 14th, 2016 Kaikōura earthquakes and tsunami. The effect of this event on the national economy is relatively minimal. The main impacts at the national scale include short-term falls in tax revenues from the affected regions and the Government's NZ$1 billion spending increase for reconstruction activities. Disruptions at the regional and industry-level are far more significant. Approximately 11 per cent of office space in the nation's capital of Wellington was closed in the week following the event and cordons were erected around several city blocks due to safety concerns. Damage to transport infrastructure is having the most significant economic impact, both in terms of the direct cost of repair and the indirect impacts on businesses whose supply chains have been disrupted. The Kaikōura District's two largest industries, tourism and primary production, lost important infrastructure and essential functions were hampered by transport disruptions. In the tourism industry, ongoing safety concerns and reduced amenities for tourists will reduce trade in the coming season. Primary production businesses face increased transportation and land remediation costs and the closure of fisheries while affected shellfish habitats recover. Communities in the districts most affected by the Kaikōura earthquakes experienced the loss of critical utility services, the loss of homes, and temporary isolation. The Kaikōura earthquake has starkly highlighted the vulnerability of key infrastructure and transportation routes to natural hazards. It is also a timely reminder of the need for New Zealand to be prepared and to continue efforts to build resilience.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
343
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 2, June 2017
1 Corresponding Author, Senior Analyst, Resilient Organisations, Christchurch, joanne.stevenson@resorgs.org.nz
2 Department Team Leader Social Sciences, GNS Science, Wellington
3 Senior Researcher Social Science, Landcare Research, Lincoln
4 Associate Professor, Massey University- School of Psychology, Wellington
5 Director/Professor, Massey University- School of Psychology and Joint Centre for Disaster Research, Wellington
6 Research Fellow/Deputy Director, University of Otago Centre for Sustainability, Dunedin
7 Director, Resilient Organisations Ltd., Christchurch
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RECONNAISSANCE:
KAIKŌURA EARTHQUAKE 2016
Joanne R. Stevenson, Julia Becker2, Nicholas Cradock-Henry3,
Sarb Johal4, David Johnston5, Caroline Orchiston6
and Erica Seville7
(Submitted March 2017; Reviewed April 2017; Accepted May 2017)
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a near-term reconnaissance of the economic and social impacts of the November 14th,
2016 Kaikōura earthquakes and tsunami. The effect of this event on the national economy is relatively
minimal. The main impacts at the national scale include short-term falls in tax revenues from the affected
regions and the Government’s NZ$1 billion spending increase for reconstruction activities. Disruptions at
the regional and industry-level are far more significant. Approximately 11 per cent of office space in the
nation’s capital of Wellington was closed in the week following the event and cordons were erected around
several city blocks due to safety concerns. Damage to transport infrastructure is having the most significant
economic impact, both in terms of the direct cost of repair and the indirect impacts on businesses whose
supply chains have been disrupted. The Kaikōura District’s two largest industries, tourism and primary
production, lost important infrastructure and essential functions were hampered by transport disruptions. In
the tourism industry, ongoing safety concerns and reduced amenities for tourists will reduce trade in the
coming season. Primary production businesses face increased transportation and land remediation costs and
the closure of fisheries while affected shellfish habitats recover. Communities in the districts most affected
by the Kaikōura earthquakes experienced the loss of critical utility services, the loss of homes, and
temporary isolation. The Kaikōura earthquake has starkly highlighted the vulnerability of key infrastructure
and transportation routes to natural hazards. It is also a timely reminder of the need for New Zealand to be
prepared and to continue efforts to build resilience.
INTRODUCTION
Preliminary estimates of the damage caused by the November
14th, 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent
aftershocks indicate that the event has been disruptive but not
catastrophic for the region’s people and economy. At the time
of writing, less than four months after the initial event,
significant uncertainty remains about the full extent of the
damage and the rate at which the economy will be able to
recapture lost productivity.
The Mw 7.8 earthquake was centred 15km north-east of the
North Canterbury town of Culverden at a depth of 15 km [1].
The rupture occurred just after midnight followed by
approximately two minutes of intense shaking. The
aftershocks, including four over Mw 6, occurred across a
complex connected series of faults in the Marlborough Fault
System [2]. Moderate shaking was felt as far north as
Whangarei (in the northern most region of New Zealand) and
as far south as Invercargill (Figure 1). The long-duration
shaking and subsequent tsunami warnings led to the
evacuation of several thousand residents from numerous
communities along the east coasts of the North and South
Islands. A tsunami was generated which had limited impact
but did cause damage to one property in Little Pigeon Bay
(about 200km south of Kaikōura) [3]. The earthquake caused
two deaths; one from a house collapse and another from a
heart attack [4], and 580 people had Kaikōura earthquake-
related injury claims accepted by the Accident Compensation
Corporation [5].
An estimated 80,000-100,000 landslides were generated by the
earthquake, with at least 12 damming rivers or lakes creating
the risk of break-out flooding [7]. Some dams breached soon
after the earthquake (e.g. one on the Clarence River north of
Kaikōura on 14 November), while others have taken longer to
fail [4]. The public was strongly advised by the Ministry of
Civil Defence and Emergency Management to stay away from
landslide-dam areas because of the high-risk they posed [7].
In the 48 hours following the event, some regions also
experienced severe weather (i.e. heavy rain and winds) which
added to the impacts in earthquake affected areas. For
example, the Wellington Region experienced flooding in the
Hutt Valley and Porirua on November 15th.
Resources had to be allocated to respond to flooding in
addition to the earthquake [4, 8, 9]. In some areas, the flooding
was severe enough to significantly disrupt road and rail travel
and at least two homes were evacuated due to land instability
[10]. This severe weather system also hampered evacuation
and response activities around Kaikōura in the days following
the earthquake.
This paper provides a near-term reconnaissance of the
economic and social impacts of the Kaikōura earthquakes at
the national and then at industry-level, focusing on three
industries that were particularly disrupted in the affected
regions: transport and logistics, tourism, and primary
production. Throughout, sections are organised based on the
344
relationship of disruption and loss to earthquake-related
damage. Direct losses are the result of disaster-related damage,
and include stock losses (i.e. physical damage to property or
assets) and flow losses (i.e. business interruption or reduced
productivity resulting from disaster induced damage) [11].
Indirect loss covers all flow losses that are not directly linked
to damage, and do not necessarily cause a direct reduction in
output. Indirect losses, for example, include decreased
customer numbers or increased costs of labour or supplies
[11]. The paper then covers some early observations and
reflections on the social and psychological implications of the
earthquakes, particularly in Kaikōura, where residents were
isolated for extended periods of time. Finally, the paper
describes some of the response activities undertaken to reduce
the negative impacts of the earthquakes, and reflects on the
factors that will likely influence the economic recovery going
forward.
Figure 1: Shaking intensity (Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) reported by the public using GeoNet Felt Reports following the
Kaikōura earthquake [1].
EARTHQUAKE IMPACTS
Direct (Infrastructure and Building) Damage
Electricity and communications outages were relatively
contained. Despite nearly 7,000 homes and businesses being
without power and over 10 breaks in the fibre optic cable
along State Highway 1 in North Canterbury, nearly 90 per cent
of North Canterbury residents had power and almost all areas
had cell service within two days of the event [12]. Similarly,
power was restored to the estimated 55,000 affected homes in
the Wellington Region within 24 hours of the earthquake [13].
As of April 2017, the vast majority of homes and businesses
had water and sewerage supply, though certain areas continue
to have boil water notices and Kaikōura residents are being
encouraged to reduce the strain on sewerage services where
possible [14, 15]. There were four reported Norovirus cases in
Waiau, and two gastroenteritis cases in Kaikōura leading to
encouragement by public health for good hygiene and a
recommendation to boil water [16, 17].
Damage to transport infrastructure was the most severe impact
of the earthquake. Both roads and bridges in North
Canterbury and Marlborough were significantly damaged by
345
fault ruptures and shaking, liquefaction, and slumping induced
damage. Landslides created access issues throughout the
affected region [12]. Several large (100,000 500,000 m3)
landslides blocked both State Highway (SH) 1 and the South
Island main trunk railway to the north and south of the
Kaikōura district [18]. The town of Kaikōura was completely
cut off along both coastal and inland routes for two days until
access for military four wheel-drive vehicles was established
along SH 70 on 16 November for the delivery of critical
supplies. Full access for two-way traffic was reinstated 35
days after the main earthquake, and partial access during the
day along SH 1 took 37 days to reinstate [12]. Road access to
the small town and popular tourist destination, Hanmer
Springs was also temporarily cut off due to damage along SH
7 [19].
Sea and rail transport infrastructure also suffered significant
direct damage due to shaking and earthquake induced
liquefaction. The Kaikōura earthquake caused significant
liquefaction along the Wellington waterfront and seriously
damaged CentrePort infrastructure [20]. Notably, the
earthquakes disabled the port’s gantry (container dedicated)
cranes, causing an almost complete cessation of container
shipping from the port for nearly two months. Picton ferry
terminals were also damaged, but to a far lesser degree [21].
Both ports were functional within 24 hours of the earthquake
[21]. KiwiRail’s Main North Line linking Christchurch and
Picton disrupted the use of the route for freight transport and
KiwiRail’s Scenic Journey, the Coastal Pacific. As of May
2017, repairs are underway but commercial services have not
yet recommenced [22].
Unlike the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which
resulted in the loss of thousands of commercial and residential
buildings and resulted in two catastrophic building failures
that killed 115 people, known building losses are modest
relative to the magnitude of the Kaikōura earthquake. In the
northern South Island, early engineering assessments showed
moderate to severe non-structural damage to residential
buildings in Seddon, Hanmer Springs, and Waiau and
structural damage to at least four historic buildings in
Rotherham and Waiau [23]. In rural areas of the Hurunui and
Kaikōura Districts, there was significant damage to farm
infrastructure including milking and woolsheds, feed bins and
platforms, and fences as well as farmers’ and staff members’
houses.
Additionally, as of early December 2016, approximately 11
per cent of Wellington office space was closed. Three
buildings in Wellington and Lower Hutt were slated for
demolition due to damage resulting in disruption and
temporary loss of access for nearby businesses and residents
[24]. Shortly after the earthquake, cordons were also erected
around five city blocks in Wellington and two city blocks in
Lower Hutt due to safety concerns [25]. Four areas
surrounding damaged buildings were cordoned in Wellington
city through January 2017, and access continues to be
restricted in areas where demolitions need to occur [24]. While
no single industry bore the brunt of this disruption in
Wellington, the concentration of Government agencies in the
nation’s capital is an ongoing concern as detailed engineering
evaluations uncover further damage.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct Impacts
Preliminary estimates of the direct cost of the earthquakes are
between NZ$2 to $3 billion (less than a tenth of the estimated
direct costs of the 2010/11 Christchurch earthquakes) [26].
This figure includes institutional operating expenses (e.g., the
Earthquake Commission claims costs) and capital expenditure
(e.g., rebuilding infrastructure) [26]. The Government will
meet a large proportion of these costs through existing budget
allowances, funds, and insurance. Thus, the net cost of the
earthquakes is estimated at $1 billion, which will modestly
reduce the Governments operating balance before gains and
losses (OBEGAL) and increase net debt [26]. It is possible for
the direct cost estimates to increase if additional damage is
uncovered during ongoing assessments or further damage is
caused by subsequent aftershocks.
Indirect Impacts
At the time of the Kaikōura earthquake in November 2016, the
New Zealand economy was performing well with sustained
growth in recent years and an OBEGAL surplus expected for
the year ending in June 2017 [26]. There will be short- to
medium-term adverse effects on the affected districts and their
industries regionally; however, there is relatively little
disruption at the national scale [26]. The main impacts at the
national scale include short-term falls in goods and services
tax (GST), PAYE (income tax), and other tax revenues from
the region. These tax losses are likely to be mostly offset by
economic activity in the construction sector and the estimated
$1 billion spending increase for reconstruction activities [26].
It is difficult to quantify the impact of the earthquake on
organisational productivity or to tie job losses directly to the
effects of the earthquake. There are indications, however, that
organisations in the Hurunui District, Kaikōura, central
Wellington, and Lower Hutt have experienced losses in
productivity, profitability, and, in some cases, have had to lay
off staff. Event Cinemas in Lower Hutt, for example, had to
lay off 39 employees before the cinema building was
demolished in December 2016 [27]. Less clear are the losses
caused by relocations and decreased visitor numbers. Guest
nights in Kaikōura fell 80 percent (from 40,000 to 8,000) for
the month of December 2016 compared to December 2015
[28], which would have had serious negative impacts across
the local economy, including lost revenue and an inability to
retain staff for tourism operators, retailers, and hospitality
businesses. In Wellington, at least nine buildings housing
Government agencies and several other buildings housing
private companies required closure and temporary or
permanent relocation of thousands of staff [29]. Many of those
organisations would have lost productive output while
relocating, and as much of the vacant buildings into which
organisations moved are lower quality, there may be ongoing
challenges to optimal organisational performance [30].
Impacts on Industries and Organisations
Kaikōura and the Hurunui districts make up around 0.4 per
cent of all households nationally, and their largest industries
are tourism and primary production (seafood, dairy, beef, and
lamb) [31]. In Kaikōura, 15% of businesses and 26% of
employees are engaged in accommodation and food sector
businesses (5% and 13% respectively in the Hurunui District).
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing account for approximately
27% of businesses and 10% of employees in the Kaikōura
District, and 45% of businesses and 38% of employees in the
Hurunui District [32].
The most costly and widespread impacts throughout the region
were caused by disruptions to transportation infrastructure.
Therefore, we begin this section with a summary of the
disruptions to the freight and transport logistics industry
across New Zealand as a result of the Kaikōura earthquakes,
and then discuss the more localised impacts on the tourism
and primary production sectors in North Canterbury.
346
Freight and Transport Logistics
The extensive damage to rail and road networks had
significant repercussions for the safe and efficient transport of
people and goods throughout the affected regions. While SH 1
was closed to non-essential traffic, cars and trucks were
rerouted on SH7 via Lewis Pass, increasing the length of the
journey from Christchurch to the port town of Picton (the
entry point to the South Island by ferry/car) from 330km to
580km, effectively doubling the time required to move freight
through the South Island. This necessarily increased transport
costs for affected businesses. There is some evidence that
businesses along the busier SH7, SH63, and SH70 routes
benefited from increased custom, yet road degradation caused
by the increased traffic will later create disruptions for these
same businesses when the damage is repaired [19].
Freight and transport companies themselves have also been
affected by the earthquakes. KiwiRail (a State-Owned
Enterprise) reported reduced revenue and an increased cost of
$3 million due to earthquake damage [22]. Domestic freight
was worst affected due to the closure of the Main North Line,
however, the cancellation of passenger services on the Scenic
Journeys’ Coastal Pacific route has also caused an estimated
loss of $1 million [22].
Sea transport was also affected by the earthquakes.
Wellington’s CentrePort is small but regionally important,
handling just over four percent of container traffic in New
Zealand [33]. Due to damage at CentrePort and the loss of the
gantry crane, ships needed to divert to other ports, increasing
costs and causing delays. Although crane repairs will take an
estimated six months, CentrePort has partnered with a
company with a geared ship that can drop off and pick up
containers with its own cranes on a weekly basis to retain or
recapture market share in a highly competitive shipping
environment [34].
Backlogs created by disruption to CentrePort in Wellington
and road transport in the South Island have led to increased
coastal shipping through other ports to meet freight demand.
Ports of Auckland and Lyttelton Port of Christchurch
increased container capacity and are collaborating with
KiwiRail to increase rail services to inland hubs [35]. Napier
Port handled the majority of imports that had to be rerouted
from ports in Wellington and Palmerston North [36] and a
smaller amount was being rerouted through Port of Tauranga
as needed [37].
Tourism
Approximately 1,200 tourists were evacuated from Kaikōura
in the days following the event. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade fielded enquiries via embassies from
overseas relatives of people in New Zealand that they could
not contact following the earthquakes, and helped locate
missing foreign nationals [9].
The tourism industry in Kaikōura and the Hurunui districts
account for less than one per cent of tourist spending
nationally, or $250M in 2016 [31]. SH1, which runs along the
Kaikōura coast is an important tourist corridor, linking the
Picton ferry terminal and the North Island with Christchurch
and the rest of the South Island. The popular TranzCoastal
railway also runs parallel with SH1 along the Kaikōura coast.
The closure of SH 1 and the rail network, both north and south
of Kaikōura, and the inland route (SH 70), changed patterns of
travel across the northern South Island. Visitors were unable to
reach Kaikōura by road, and were diverted to the alternative
routes of SH 63 via Blenheim and SH6 via Nelson. SH 63
quickly became congested with heavy traffic transporting fast
moving consumer goods and tourist vehicles. Tourists
traveling through the country, like the transport and logistics
industries, faced additional cost and travel delays cause by this
diversion of traffic.
Tourism operators in Kaikōura are facing significant ongoing
challenges as a result of the earthquake. In the months
following the quakes, apart from the positive inflow of
response personnel, Kaikōura has experienced an
unprecedented drop in visitor numbers due to road closures
and the negative perceptions of travel during a period of high
seismicity. The southern and inland routes reopened just
before Christmas, however the township’s ability to host
visitors was compromised due to sewerage and potable water
disruptions.
Damage to critical tourism infrastructure continues to hamper
the recovery of tourism businesses in Kaikōura. Uplift of the
coastline resulted in shallowing of the marina and channel
area, which stopped whale-watching and dolphin encounter
business activity. The inability to provide these experiences
has had negative flow-on consequences for other tourism and
hospitality operators in the township, including the 44
accommodation providers in Kaikōura [31].
At the time of writing, the impact of the earthquakes on
traveller motivations to return to Kaikōura is unknown.
Research in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake
sequence suggests there are likely to be long term implications
on visitor demand, particularly from international tourists [38].
The Kaikōura Earthquake Tourism Action Group (KE-TAG),
a multi-agency tourism coordination group, alongside the
Kaikōura Tourism Recovery Group, a local tourism recovery
initiative, are working to lobby for tourism to be prioritised
during the recovery effort. The summer season of 2016/17 was
predicted to be one of the busiest on record, with tourism
booming around New Zealand over the previous two years
[39].
Kaikōura must now reconsider its future, given potentially
negative long-term visitor perceptions of safety following the
earthquake, and the challenging process of reinstating critical
tourism infrastructure in the township. The Canterbury
earthquakes (2010/2011) caused a prolonged reduction in
international visitor arrivals, with the Australian market still
not back to pre-quake levels [40]. Fortunately, the natural
marine resources of the Kaikōura district, particularly the
whale and dolphin populations, have remained in the local
area. A government support package ($870,000) was
announced in late February 2017 to support tourism promotion
for the 2017/18 summer season [29]. Communication efforts
will need to focus on rebuilding the reputation of Kaikōura as
a safe destination, to accelerate the return of domestic and
international tourists to the Kaikōura coast.
Primary Production
The Hurunui and Kaikōura District’s other major industry,
primary production, have also been affected by transport
disruption and land damage. Pastoral farmers in North
Canterbury have already been under considerable stress due to
long-term (> 3 years) drought conditions. Impacts of the
earthquake have compounded existing stresses relating to
personal well-being, animal health, productivity, and yield.
The earthquake response prioritised human welfare, making
sure famers and families were looking after one another, and
their communities, animal welfare and restoring water
supplies.
The earthquake resulted in immediate farm infrastructure and
housing losses, which were compounded by lack of road
access. It took over three weeks to resume milk collection
from 22 farms in the Kaikōura District, which were disposing
of several hundred thousand litres of milk daily [41]. In other
earthquake-affected regions, collection resumed relatively
quickly. Fonterra’s milk tankers were unable to collect from
347
farms in North Canterbury for three days, after the quake,
while farms supplying Synlait had their milk collected two
days after the quake [42]. Cows needed to be milked
continuously, regardless of collection, otherwise they go dry
and farmers would lose almost a season’s worth of production.
Slips and crevasses made moving stock much harder and
slower. Stock water infrastructure (pipes, storage and some
irrigation and reticulation schemes) and effluent systems were
also badly affected, and a priority for recovery. Because of the
drought, few natural springs or ponds were available and so
farms relied on tankers to top up reservoirs. Power outages
meant electric fences were not working. Landslips and surface
faulting are affecting farms throughout the area [43].
Extensive remediation will be needed to minimise erosion and,
where possible, restore some land to productive agriculture.
Furthermore, due to the loss of road access, farms that
produced fodder crops could not harvest because contractors
were unable to get into the district. Breeding programmes
were disrupted, as farms without bulls were in the middle of
the artificial breeding season and technicians were unable to
gain access. Limited road access also meant that sale and
finishing stock were travelling longer distances at higher
transport costs.
In addition to immediate financial and productivity losses,
there are longer-term implications for sheep, beef, and dairy
farmers. The earthquake happened at a crucial time in the
production cycle, only three weeks into dairy cow mating.
Technicians need to travel between farms to artificially
inseminate the cows and if they cannot get access to farms on
time it jeopardises next season’s production. Feed shortages
combined with the need to reduce animal stress necessary to
get them into calf, meant farmers dropping from twice- to
once-a-day milking, reducing total output. Additionally,
livestock farmers unable to shift animals to the meat works or
finishing farms struggled to keep animals sufficiently well-fed.
Without feed, stock live weights drop daily, reducing farm
returns. Decreased productivity is difficult to recoup in the
primary sector, and lower breeding rates of breeding success
can take several years to recover from.
The bee keeping industry in the region is also expected to be
disrupted for several months. Apiarists are reliant on hives
located on farms and in the high country, however many
public roads and farm tracks are still inaccessible. Hives
toppled over in the quake, and a cool spring and summer
meant many were reliant on supplemental feeding. A lack of
road access has compounded these issues, and hives have
suffered.
The Kaikōura earthquake also caused extensive damage to the
Marlborough wine growing region, with an estimated loss of
5.3 million litres of wine and a loss of 60 million litres, or 20
percent of total wine tank storage capacity [44]. In
Marlborough, the district that account for approximately 70
percent of New Zealand’s wine industry, the immediate effects
of severe ground movement also included plant and equipment
failure, damage to vines, structural damage to buildings and
other infrastructure [45].
Disruptions to transport infrastructure have also affected the
wine industry. Individual wineries roads were damaged
making it difficult to access, assess and repair damaged
vineyards and damage to state highways disrupted wineries’
conveyance routes to Christchurch and the port in Wellington.
As an export-dependent industry, wineries were concerned
about delays in servicing markets, as well as being unable to
receive supplies of dry goods needed for packaging:
transferring glass from the port to wine bottling companies,
and bottled wine from those businesses back to the port.
For several wineries, the damage to transport infrastructure
has also impacted on tourist visitation, which is an important
distribution channel for wine and for building brand
recognition and loyalty. Many Marlborough wineries receive
significant portions of their revenue from self-drive tourists,
passing through on their way from Picton towards the lower
South Island. The ongoing closure of SH1 north of Kaikōura
continues to affect those traffic flows, and there is little
opportunity for these providers to reorganize for this by
diversifying - at least in the short term.
Finally, fisheries have been significantly affected by land
disruptions. Just over four percent of businesses and only one
percent of employees in the Kaikōura District are in the
commercial fishing sector [32]. Crayfish is, however, one of
the most valuable stock animals in the area, with an annual
harvest value of around $23 million and pāua around $1.5
million, which does not account for people coming to the area
to participate in recreational fishing [46]. The earthquake
uplifted the seabed several metres, exposing previously
submerged pāua and rock lobster fishery habitats. The shaking
also initiated enormous underwater mudslides that have
devastated marine life in the Kaikōura Canyon marine reserve
[47]. Rock lobster fisheries were closed for a month while
impacts were assessed and have since reopened. The Ministry
of Primary Industries has extended the closure of other
shellfish (excluding rock lobster and scampi) and seaweed
species for a further nine months to facilitate the recovery of
these fisheries [48]. An estimated 20 per cent of adult pāua
habitat in the closed portion of the fishery was lost. Some
fishing quota owners and holders of allowable catch
entitlements in the affected areas may lose income over the
next year.
SOCIAL AND PSYCHO-SOCIAL IMPACTS
Social Infrastructure Disruption
Early estimates indicated that approximately 600 people
needed emergency relocation or shelter in the first 24 hours
from Hurunui District, primarily from Hanmer Springs and
Amberley [4]. People were also evacuated from Kaikōura.
Communities in the districts most affected by the Kaikōura
earthquakes experienced the loss of critical utility services, the
loss of homes, and temporary isolation due to loss of road
access (e.g. Kaikōura, Hanmer Springs). Access was by air
and sea due to damage from road and rail networks [4].
Key health services in affected areas remained operational
throughout the event and response, including the hospitals in
Kaikōura and Marlborough Districts. Aged care facilities in
the affected areas were also able to manage without
evacuating residents [4]. Some pharmacies did experience
damage (e.g., in Kaikōura) but were still available to dispense
medications [16].
Reports indicated that following the earthquake on November
14th more than 100 schools were closed in Wellington, 91 in
the Nelson-Marlborough region, and 81 in Canterbury. All six
schools in the Kaikōura District were closed [49]. Closures
facilitated initial building assessments. Following initial
assessment, most schools opened the following day except for
schools where more detailed building assessments needed to
be carried out or where essential services were not available
(e.g., water and sewerage in Kaikōura). Most educational
facilities were open approximately one week after the
earthquake [50].
Community Support Response
A total of 449 people from Kaikōura were evacuated via ship
to Lyttelton Port on November 15th and 16th [51]. A further
363 people were evacuated from Kaikōura by helicopter on
348
the same dates [51]. Further requests for evacuation from
Kaikōura occurred in the following days [7, 50], and
approximately 100 people chose to evacuate privately [50, 16].
As of the 20th November, approximately one week after the
earthquake, a total of 1,264 people had been evacuated by sea,
air, or other private means [17].
Shortly after the event, a welfare centre opened at Takahanga
Marae in Kaikōura [4]. An estimated 700 people spent the
night of the 13/14th in the evacuation centre at Kaikōura, and
approximately 200 people (mainly tourists) also spent the
following night (14/15th) in the evacuation centre [9]. By
Wednesday night around 35 tourists and residents remained at
the marae evacuation centre [7]. The evacuation centre closed
one week after the earthquake.
On November 17th, it was also necessary to open a welfare
centre in Wellington to accommodate those evacuated from
central Wellington buildings deemed unsafe [50]. Other self-
evacuations occurred in coastal areas in response to the
tsunami in districts such as Christchurch, Selwyn, Ashburton,
and Timaru. Many of these evacuees did not require long term
shelter and could go back to their homes after the tsunami
threat had passed.
Early situation reports from Civil Defence indicated that
isolated communities had critical needs for water, fuel, food
and other essential household items [4]. Items, including over
1000 portable toilets, were delivered to Kaikōura a few days
after the earthquake from Christchurch [50].
Within days of the earthquake the MBIE temporary
accommodation team began identifying accommodation stock
in Christchurch to house evacuees [52]. Further individual
needs assessments were carried out in the week following the
earthquake with some success [16]. Federated farmers assisted
with contacting isolated rural households [17].
Longer-Term Psychosocial Impacts
Looking to the future, as with the Canterbury earthquake
sequence in 2010-11, there is a risk that those affected by the
earthquakes may experience psycho-social consequences,
though the majority will recover without complications. The
Kaikōura and Hurunui Districts, however, can be
distinguished from the greater Christchurch City area by
relatively few road and rail routes in and out of the area. This
differentiates the vulnerabilities of these populations from
those in the greater Christchurch area. The relative isolation as
roads were cleared and stabilized meant that people could not
move in and out of the region freely, if at all. This meant that
one of the major coping and mitigating factors reported for
those involved in the earthquakes - the ability to leave the area
for respite [53]- was not available for residents in the Kaikōura
District.
Psychosocial impacts may differ according to where people
experienced the earthquakes. For example, the evacuations
and cascade of building damage being revealed as time
progresses in the Wellington region may have the consequence
of eroding confidence in the built environment. There may
also be a growing sense of complacency associated with the
fact that those that have been identified as ‘earthquake-prone’
by the city council were not damaged as badly as some people
anticipated.
In addition to the earthquake impacts, the long-duration
shaking and subsequent tsunami warnings led several
thousand residents from numerous communities along the east
coasts of the North and South Islands to evacuate.
Communities experienced confusion and anxiety associated
with a lack of clarity around the risk and appropriate
responses. Community-based research is underway to explore
the range of tsunami warning responses at an individual and
community level. Initial analysis of the data collected so far
shows the positive response to the “natural warning” in many
locations, but highlights confusion generated by the later
“official warnings” in some communities [54].
The complex nature of the earthquake and its impact on the
built environment in different regions is still being examined
by engineers and scientists and has not been easy to explain to
affected populations. The challenge of communicating the
ongoing risks without increasing anxiety and further lowering
trust in the built environment and decision-making institutions
remains a difficult task.
INTERVENTIONS TO MITIGATE THE COSTS OF
THE EARTHQUAKE
Drawing on strategies developed in the aftermath of the
Canterbury earthquakes, the Government almost immediately
offered an Earthquake Support Subsidy for small businesses
affected by earthquakes. The $7.5 million ESS package is
paid to employers at a rate of $500 gross per week for full-
time employees and $200 gross per week for part-time
employees and is intended to help small businesses retain staff
while the region recovers [55].
Tourism and primary production businesses have also been
offered targeted support from the Ministry of Business,
Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry of
Primary Industries (MPI) respectively. MBIE allocated
$350,000 for tourism operators in Hanmer Springs and the
Hurunui District - $250,000 of which will pay for marketing
primarily geared at domestic tourists and $100,000 of which
will support regional tourism organisations to employ extra
staff where needed [56]. Hanmer Springs had very little direct
damage from the earthquake, but was affected by a sharp
downturn in visitors in the immediate aftermath [56].
The Primary Industries Earthquake Relief Fund of
approximately $4 million was made available to affected
businesses in the Hurunui, Kaikōura, and Marlborough
Districts. Priority was given to those that needed to cover
repairs to uninsurable infrastructure that supports essential
business functions (e.g., fencing, access tracks, and stock
water supplies). Funds can also be used to restore or re-
establish uninsurable pasture, crops, and forestry and to clean
up silt [57].
KEY ISSUES FOR RECOVERY
The effects of the earthquake are geographically widespread,
with each region experiencing effects in different ways. Each
region has its own recovery arrangements, and distinct
differences in terms of size, and therefore, financial and
resource bases from which to draw.
Kaikōura’s recovery trajectory will likely be dominated by
three key issues: the restoration time and eventual reliability of
transportation routes into and out of the area; the restoration
time for key tourism; and the degree and nature of impacts the
earthquake and coastal uplift have had on the local fisheries.
For the rural farming areas, the Kaikōura earthquakes have
come on the back of three years of drought for the region. The
compounding impacts of the earthquake on top of already
strained financial resources may create challenging dynamics
during the recovery, with high debt servicing costs, repair
requirements, and the potential of reduced
productivity. Wellington’s recovery is likely to be dominated
by issues associated with damage to some tall buildings and
those located on poor soils, and potential loss of confidence in
the performance of the city’s building stock in future large
earthquakes.
It is not possible to know at this stage how those three issues
will unfold. Previous experience, however, indicates that four
349
important ‘levers’ will influence the pace and cost of recovery.
These levers include the:
Extent of the reconstruction work required,
Availability of labour and materials,
Availability of Government funding, and
Public perceptions and business confidence.
First, the extent of the work required will unfold as
investigations reveal the amount of the damage, and insurers
and asset owners gauge the need for asset replacements and
upgrades. Additionally, aftershocks are expected to continue
in the coming months and could cause further damage and
delays.
Second, the availability of labour will partly be determined by
the extent of the reconstruction work required and rates of
training and skilled labour immigration. Additionally, there
are competing demands for construction labour throughout the
country. For example, the Auckland residential building value
is projected to grow by approximately $3.3 billion in 2017,
representing 53 per cent of the total national construction
growth [58].
Third, the availability of materials will also be affected by
construction demand. A 2015 report stated that construction
sub-contractors were concerned about critical shortages of
materials including bitumen and asphalt, caused by the
Canterbury rebuild [59]. There are also concerns that current
shortages of building supplies are already causing contractors
to substitute sub-standard materials with far-reaching
implications for building longevity and safety going forward
[60].
Finally, the rate and capacity of government spending can
determine the quality and speed of reconstruction. Following
the Canterbury earthquakes, public spending was split
approximately 60/40 between the Crown and local
governments respectively. As of May 2015, however, the
Crown had only spent $16.5 billion or 40 per cent of the
estimated $40 billion cost of reconstruction following the
Canterbury earthquakes [26]. Canterbury earthquake claims to
the Earthquake Commission also almost exhausted the
insurance levy-supported Natural Disaster Fund and thus, it
is possible that claims resulting from the Kaikōura earthquakes
will be borne by the government [61]. The cost of the
Kaikōura earthquakes is only a fraction of the cost of the
Canterbury earthquakes, and funds are already being
committed to the rebuild.
From a broader New Zealand perspective, the Kaikōura
Earthquake has starkly highlighted the vulnerability of key
infrastructure and transportation routes to natural hazards. It is
also a timely reminder of the need for our nation to be
prepared and to build resilience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Resilience to
Nature’s Challenge National Science Challenge and
QuakeCoRE for their support of our ongoing research. We
also extend sincere thanks to Wayne Tyson from the
Geospatial Research Institute at the University of Canterbury,
Toni Wi from Resilient Organisations Ltd., and contributing
staff from GNS Science for their support in the preparation of
this manuscript. This is QuakeCoRE publication number 0175.
REFERENCES
1 GeoNet (2016). New Zealand Earthquake Report:
Magnitude 7.8, Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 12:02:56 am
(NZDT). GeoNet.
http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/canterbury/2016p
858000 (Accessed 23/01/2017).
2 Bradley BA, Razafindrakoto HNT and Nazer MA (2017).
“Strong ground motion observations of engineering
interest from the 14 November 2016 Mw7.8 Kaikōura,
New Zealand earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 85-93.
3 Little C (2016). More info on the impact of Monday’s
tsunami. GeoNet.
http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/tsunami/2016/11/18/More
+info+on+the+impact+of+Monday’s+tsunami (Accessed
27/02/2017).
4 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). Situation Report 002. Hanmer Springs
Earthquake and Tsunami, National Crisis Management
Centre (NCMC).
5 ACC (2017). “14 November 2016 Earthquake Claims.
Internal Memo: Operations Services, Analytics Reporting
(23/03/2017) Ref: 41510.
6 Balfour N (2016). Landslides and Landslide Dams cause
by the Kaikōura Earthquake. GeoNet.
http://info.geonet.org.nz/x/2YA5AQ (Accessed 27/02/17).
7 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). Situation Report 009. Kaikōura Earthquake and
Tsunami, National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC).
8 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). “Situation Report 003”. Hanmer Springs
Earthquake and Tsunami, National Crisis Management
Centre (NCMC).
9 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). “Situation Report 004”. Hanmer Springs
Earthquake and Tsunami, National Crisis Management
Centre (NCMC).
10 RNZ (2016a). Rain brings commuter chaos to capital
highways. Radio New Zealand News.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/318094/rain-
brings-commuter-chaos-to-capital-highways (Accessed
30/01/2017).
11 Rose A (2004). “Economic Principles, Issues, and
Research Priorities in Hazard Loss Estimation” in
Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters”.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1336.
12 Liu Y, Nair N, Renton A and Wilson S (2017). “Impact of
the Kaikōura earthquake on the electrical power system
infrastructure”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 300-305.
13 RNZ (2016b). Earthquake: What you need to know.
Radio New Zealand News.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/318005/earthquak
e-what-you-need-to-know (Accessed 23/01/2017).
14 Hurunui District Council (2017). Hurunui District
Council: Community partnership in growth and
wellbeing. http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/services/water-
and-sewerage-services/earthquake-related-updates/
(Accessed 23/04/2017).
15 Kaikōura District Council (2017). Kaikōura District
Council: Latest News.
https://www.Kaikōura.govt.nz/latest-news/earthquake-
update/ (Accessed 23/04/2017).
16 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). “Situation Report 0011”. Kaikōura Earthquake
and Tsunami, National Crisis Management Centre
(NCMC).
17 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). Situation Report 012”. Kaikōura Earthquake and
Tsunami, National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC).
350
18 Little C (2016a). Landslides and Landslide dams caused
by the Kaikōura Earthquake. GeoNet.
http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/slide/2016/12/02/Landslid
es+and+Landslide+dams+caused+by+the+Kaikōura+Eart
hquake (Accessed 24/01/2017).
19 NZTA (2017). Kaikōura Earthquake Response. New
Zealand Transport Authority.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/Kaikōura-earthquake-
response/ (Accessed 25/04/2017).
20 Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, de la Torre C, Olsen MJ,
Bradley BA, Chiaro G, Stocks E and Wotherspoon L
(2017). “Liquefaction effects and associated damages
observed at the Wellington Centreport from the 2016
Kaikōura earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 152-173.
21 Cooper E (2016). First look Quake-damaged
Wellington port riddled with cracks and liquefaction.
One News Now, Sunday 20th November 2016.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/first-look-
quake-damaged-wellington-port-riddled-cracks-and-
liquefaction (Accessed 24/01/2017).
22 KiwiRail (2017). KiwiRail Media News and Press
Releases. http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media.html
(Accessed 23/04/2017).
23 Dizhur D and Giaretton M (2016). Preliminary update -
Mw 7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake: Upper Part of South
Island. Kaikōura, New Zealand Earthquake
Clearinghouse. http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2016-11-
13-Kaikōura/files/2016/11/Prelim-observations-_-overall-
PART-2.pdf (Accessed 23/04/2017).
24 Wellington City Council (2017). Earthquake Recovery
Map.
http://wcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?a
ppid=d511e3019f5f44ecb33871d3e02b2951&webmap=69
2c4e14f4d44bc988ddb934521fc9b3 (Accessed
24/01/2017).
25 Henry RS, Dizhur D, Elwood KJ, Hare J and Brunsdon D
(2017). “Damage to concrete buildings with precast floors
during the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake”. Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 174-
186.
26 The Treasury (2016). Budget Economic and Fiscal
Update 2016. The Treasury: Kaitohutohu Kaupapa
Rawa,Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2016
(Accessed 30/01/2017).
27 Nightingale M (2016). Queensgate Cinema staff to lose
their jobs. New Zealand Herald, Monday November
28th, 2016, 7:11pm.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/earthquakes/news/article.cfm?c
_id=184&objectid=11756446
28 Statistics New Zealand (2017a). Kaikōura guest nights
down 80 percent in December as accommodation halved.
6 March 2017.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sector
s/accommodation/AccommodationSurvey_MR-
dec16_2.aspx (Accessed 26/04/2017).
29 MBIE (2017). New Zealand earthquake. Ministry of
Business, Innovation, and Employment. Wellington, New
Zealand. http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/nz-govt-
procurement-and-property/government-property-
group/new-zealand-earthquake (Accessed 26/04/2017).
30 CBRE (2017). Wellington is still in a state of ambiguity
as a result of the 14th of November Earthquake. CBRE
Research. Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.cbre.com/research-and-reports (Accessed
26/04/2017).
31 Statistics New Zealand (2016a). Key tourism statistics for
Kaikōura and Hurunui districts.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-
industries/tourism/tourism-research-data/key-tourism-
statistics-for-Kaikōura-and-hurunui-districts (Accessed
14/02/2017).
32 Statistics New Zealand (2017b). NZ.Stat: Datahub Table
Viewer. Wellington, New Zealand.
http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/index.aspx (Accessed
26/04/2017).
33 Champion Freight (2015). New Zealand’s Largest Ports.
Freight News, 25 March 2015.
http://www.championfreight.co.nz/20150325 (Accessed
30/01/2017).
34 CentrePort Wellington (2017). CentrePort Wellington:
News.
http://www.centreport.co.nz/index.php/information-
library/news (Accessed 25/04/2017).
35 LPC (2017). Ports of Auckland, Lyttelton and KiwiRail
join forces to keep South Island supplied. Lyttelton Port
of Christchurch News. www.lpc.co.nz (Accessed
27/02/2017).
36 Napier Port (2017). Extended Import Demurrage Relief.
http://www.napierport.co.nz/news/2016/december-16,-
extended-import-demurrage-relief/ (Accessed
25/04/2017).
37 Fryburg E (2016). Cargo delayed as ports under strain.
Radio New Zealand, 2 December 2016.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/319429/cargo-
delayed-as-ports-under-strain (Accessed 25/04/2017).
38 Orchiston C and Higham JES (2016). Knowledge
management and tourism recovery (de) marketing: the
Christchurch earthquakes 20102011. Current Issues in
Tourism, 19(1): 64-84.
39 Statistics New Zealand (2016b). International visitor
arrivals to New Zealand: December 2016.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Mig
ration/international-visitor-arrivals-dec-16.aspx (Accessed
14/02/2017).
40 Smith N, Orchiston C, Harvey E, Kim J and Brown C
(2016). Scoping Tourism Dynamics Post-quake: A
Module for MERIT. NZTA QuakeCoRE Research
Report.
41 Malthus N (2017). Future up in the air in Kaikōura”.
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/item/11359-future-up-
in-the-air-in-Kaikōura (Accessed 15/02/2017).
42 Malthus N (2016). Tankers roll into Kaikōura”.
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/item/11252-tankers-roll-
into-Kaikōura (Accessed 15/02/2017).
43 Morton J (2017). Kaikōura Earthquake: 100,000
Landslides.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&o
bjectid=11747915 (Accessed 15/02/2017).
44 Nicholson T (2017). Five million litres of wine lost in
Kaikōura Earthquake.
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/item/11510-five-
million-litres-of-wine-lost-in-Kaikōura-earthquake
(Accessed 24/02/2017).
45 Joyce S and Guy N (2016). Govt working with wine
industry to secure 2017 Marlborough vintage. The
official website of the New Zealand Government:
Releases, 29 November 2017.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-working-wine-
industry-secure-2017-marlborough-vintage (Accessed
26/04/2017).
46 Guy N (2016). Temporary fishery closures around
Kaikōura”. Press Release: New Zealand Government, 21
351
November 2016.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1611/S00368/temporar
y-fishery-closures-around-Kaikōura.htm (Accessed
26/04/2017).
47 NIWA (2017). Massive mudslides in Kaikōura Canyon
destroy seabed life.
https://www.niwa.co.nz/news/massive-mudslides-in-
kaikōura-canyon-destroy-seabed-life (Accessed
06/03/2017).
48 MPI (2017). Proposed extension of the shellfish and
seaweed emergency fishing closure along the Kaikōura
and Cape Campbell coastline: Update 20 February
2017.
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/newsandresources/consultations/p
roposed-extension-of-emergency-fishing-closure-
Kaikōura/ (Accessed 6/03/2017).
49 New Zealand Herald (2016). Most schools to open
Tuesday following deadly earthquake. Monday
November 14th, 2016, 4:48pm.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&o
bjectid=11747833
50 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). Situation Report 010”. Kaikōura Earthquake and
Tsunami, National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC).
51 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). Situation Report 008”. Kaikōura Earthquake and
Tsunami, National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC).
52 Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(2016). “Situation Report 005”. Hanmer Springs
Earthquake and Tsunami, National Crisis Management
Centre (NCMC).
53 Johal S, Mounsey Z, Brannelly P and Johnston D (2016).
Nurse perspectives on the practical, emotional and
professional impacts of living and working in post-
earthquake Canterbury, New Zealand. Prehospital and
Disaster Medicine, 31(1): 2-7.
54 Johnston D (2017). Tsunami response behaviour during
and following the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, New
Zealand. Manuscript in preparation.
55 MSD (2016). Earthquake Support Subsidy. Ministry of
Social Development: Work and Income.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-
services/eesp/index.html (Accessed 30/01/2017).
56 MBIE (2016b). Tourism support package for Hurunui
Announced. Ministry of Business, Innovation, and
Employment, 14 December 2016.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats-
happening/news/2016/tourism-support-package-for-
hurunui-announced (Accessed 30/01/2017).
57 Marlborough District Council (2016). Primary
Industries’ Earthquake Relief Fund”.
http://www.marlborough.govt.nz/Services/Emergency-
Management/Emergency-Events/EQ2016/PIERF.aspx
(Accessed 30/01/2017).
58 MBIE (2016a). “National Construction Pipeline Report
2016: A Forecast of Building and Construction Activity,
4th Ed”. Ministry of Business, Innovation, and
Employment, Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-
research/research/construction-sector-
productivity/national-construction-pipeline-report-
2016.pdf (Accessed 30/01/2017).
59 Chang-Richards A, Wilkinson S, Seville E and Brunsdon
D (2015). “Resourcing the Canterbury rebuild: Emerging
issues facing subcontracting businesses”. Resilient
Organisations Research Report 2015/03.
60 Ryan H (2017). Building supply shortage resulting in
some substandard products. New Zealand Herald, 10th
January 2017.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id
=3&objectid=11779499 (Accessed 30/01/2017).
61 Wood A, Noy I and Parker M (2016). The Canterbury
rebuild five years on from the Christchurch earthquake".
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, 79(3).
... In most cases, employers and employees alike were required to bear the cost of recovering lost productivity through wage cuts because certain costs could not be passed to the consumer (Sampson et al. 2017). Similarly, 5.3 million litres of wine and 20% of the total wine storage capacity was lost in the Marlborough region an area that accounted for 70% of New Zealand total wine production Dizhur et al. (2019); Stevenson et al. (2016) and employs at least 4% of the Marlborough region workforce (Infometrics 2019). Nonetheless, the disruption of transportation infrastructure was perhaps the greatest impact of the earthquake on individual livelihoods, especially in Kaikōura. ...
... In addition to the destruction of other basic infrastructure (power, water, communication and sewage facilities), Kaikōura was isolated from the rest of the country both from land and the sea for the first two days (Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management 2017). Subsequently, the disruption to the easy flow of people, goods and services affected the hospitality and tourism industry as well as primary industries (Stevenson et al. 2016). These employ over 50% of Kaikōura workforce (Infometrics 2018). ...
... Tourist in Kaikōura at the time of the earthquake had difficulty returning to their destination while those that planned to visit cancelled their booking for fears of being stuck in Kaikōura (Kwazu et al. 2019). With regard to the primary industry, the transport disruption interrupted animal breeding and increased the challenge of sourcing livestock feed (Stevenson et al. 2016). In addition to the disruption of waterways due to uplifts, marine habitats were impacted. ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Over the past decade, the cost of disasters on lives and livelihoods has increased many folds. However, there are few tools available that can be used to measure the level of liveli�hood preparedness for disruptions caused by natural hazards. By studying the experience and perceptions of communities afected by the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake in New Zea�land, this paper aims to develop an assessment tool for measuring livelihood preparedness. Results from a survey of 140 residents in Kaikōura who lived through the earthquake and its aftermath identifed four indicators of livelihood preparedness, namely (1) resource accessibility, (2) individual adaptive capacity, (3) livelihood diversity, and (4) the efec�tiveness of disaster risk reduction (DRR) measure. Structural equation modelling approach was used to establish the quantifcation of these four indicators, and as a result, a numeri�cal model was developed that can be used as a tool to assess livelihood preparedness at an individual level. It is hoped that this tool will be used by policymakers and individuals living in hazard prone locations to evaluate livelihood preparedness prior to a disaster to facilitate improvement or as a forensic tool post disaster
... The social and economic cost of damage from major earthquakes has been significant both internationally and within Aotearoa New Zealand [1]. For instance, the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994, resulted in approximately $20 billion in property loss, which mainly affected wooden-framed buildings (99% of residential buildings in California are wood structures) [2]; and the cost of repairing and replacing damaged residential houses exceeded NZ$10 billion after the February 22, 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake [3]. ...
... Over the last 30 years, theories have been developed to explain the relationships between perception of earthquake risk, actions during and after an earthquake event, and long-term earthquake preparedness [26]. The theories suggest that people's decision-making processes for adopting preparedness actions can be grouped into three phases: (1) factors that influence individuals' motivation to adopt protective actions (i.e. motivation phase) (2) psychological processes (i.e. ...
... Six levels of damage (Damage Scale) based on the MMI and participants' damage description. 1 As Levene's test of sphericity was significant, equal variances were not assumed. This is the case for all subsequent t-tests where the degrees of freedom is not a whole integer. ...
Article
Previous experience has been identified as a distinctive variable that can influence people's decision-making process for adopting earthquake preparedness actions. This study analysed data from a survey of 565 homeowners in the region of Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand, to examine the influence of previous earthquake experiences on awareness and use of strengthening for existing wooden-framed houses for future major earthquakes. The results indicate that previous earthquake experience can influence the first and second phases of preparedness (the motivation and intention phases) but is not enough to directly trigger the final implementation phase. The study also analysed different types of earthquake experiences and their effects on the decision-making process. It was found that observations of damage or loss raised people's awareness of strengthening but did not trigger implementation. On the other hand, people who stated that they had family or friends that experienced damage, were more likely to adopt structural strengthening. The results of this study indicate that prior earthquake experience cannot be relied upon alone to trigger the adoption of structural strengthening. Consequently, other support must be provided, which also has to align with people's beliefs.
... NZ is a small, developed economy exposed to low-frequency, high-magnitude events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunami; as well as more frequent damaging hydrological and climatic events. The country is seismically active, situated on the boundary of two tectonic plates, and has had several damaging earthquakes over the last decade including the 2010/2011 Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes and the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake (Potter et al. 2015, Stevenson et al. 2017). ...
... The Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake (named for the most severely affected regions) had its epicenter in the district and involved 21 faults rupturing over an area of 200 km². Extensive ground motion resulted in significant damage with thousands of co-seismic landslides, resulting in the closure of much of the main arterial route, State Highway 1, for over a year (Stevenson et al. 2017). Distributed infrastructure such as water and power were also disrupted, including a significant quantity of stored stock water. ...
... (Stevenson et al. 2017, Spector et al. 2019, Fountain and Cradock-Henry 2020. The widespread damage(Stevenson et al. 2017) precipitated a coordinated response through multiple organizations(Trotter and Ivory 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Resilience is increasingly used to inform natural hazard risk management. From global to national to local levels of governance and decision making, resilience concepts are becoming institutionalized and operationalized in both public and private domains. However, as these ideas have shifted from their origins in ecology and been adopted by other disciplines, policy makers, and practitioners, key insights from the initial ecological conceptualization have been left behind. The resulting gap between resilience as originally theorized and its current implementation gives rise to several interconnected challenges: (i) loss of nuance in the meaning of the concept due to rapid adoption, which leads to: (ii) an inability to adequately account for normative or qualitative aspects of social theory, and: (iii) the problem of measurement. Key factors associated with resilience are intangible (difficult to objectively measure) and public bureaucracies are reliant upon objective measurement, i.e., targets and indicators, to operationalize policies. Multi-capital frameworks have been advanced as a potential solution to the problem of measurement in the literature. In this paper, we critically analyze how the concepts of social and human capital can be used to address these challenges and account for intangible sources of value. Drawing on a case study of complex multi-hazards in rural Aotearoa-New Zealand (NZ), as well as the NZ government’s Living Standards Framework (a multi-capital framework) we highlight the importance of addressing these challenges to adequately realize the benefits of resilience and identify the successes and limitations of this approach. Results provide insight into the interlinked nature of the challenges and the importance of reconciling resilience theory and praxis. Findings also demonstrate the potential ways in which a combination of resilience thinking and multi-capital frameworks can add value to decision-making structures within public bureaucracies, the private sector, and academia.
... The epicenter was a rural district, approximately 60 km to the south west and inland of the popular tourist destination of Kaikōura. The earthquake included the rupture of 21 faults across a span of approximately 180 km (Stevenson et al., 2017), caused widespread landslides (estimated between 80,000 and 100,000 separate slips), and resulted in uplift of the seabed by an average of 2 m along a stretch of the east coast of the South Island. While the region has experienced earthquakes before-including the Christchurch/Canterbury earthquake sequences in 2010/2011 and the 2013 Seddon earthquake, north of the district-this event was predominantly felt by rural communities. ...
... Communications, electricity, water, and sewerage infrastructures were severely disrupted. Throughout the region there was significant damage to homes, businesses, farm facilities, and land, as well as stock losses and business interruption or reduced productivity (Stevenson et al., 2017). In a region reliant on the tourism, fishing, and agricultural sectors, the impact was immediate; thousands of tourists were stranded or faced substantial disruptions to their plans, and the collection, processing, and distribution of agricultural products-from sea and land-was compromised. ...
... For farmers, financial resources were already strained, productivity was down due to feed shortages, and the earthquake only exacerbated these issues. Problems with market access, a rise in transportation costs, and repairs to farm infrastructure (fences, tracks, buildings) all had an adverse effect on households (Stevenson et al., 2017). In Kaikōura district-where there is a perceived disconnect between the urban and remote rural populations-greater focus on promoting agrifoods through trails, festivals, or farmer's markets might strengthen the bonds between communities and aid in recovery. ...
Article
On 14 November 2016 an earthquake struck the rural districts of Kaikōura and Hurunui on New Zealand’s South Island. The region – characterized by small dispersed communities, a local economy based on tourism and agriculture, and limited transportation connections – was severely impacted. Following the quake, road and rail networks essential to maintaining steady flows of goods, visitors, and services were extensively damaged, leaving agri-food producers with significant logistical challenges, resulting in reduced productivity and problematic market access. Regional tourism destinations also suffered with changes to the number, characteristics, and travel patterns of visitors. As the region recovers, there is renewed interest in the development and promotion of agri-food tourism and trails as a pathway for enhancing rural resilience, and a growing awareness of the importance of local networks. Drawing on empirical evidence and insights from a range of affected stakeholders, including food producers, tourism operators and local government,we explore the significance of emerging agri-food tourism initiatives for fostering diversity, enhancing connectivity, and building resilience in the context of rural recovery. We highlight the motivation to diversify distribution channels for agri-food producers, and strengthen the region’s tourism place identity. Enhancing product offerings and establishing better links between different destinations within the region are seen as essential. While such trends are common in rural regions globally, we suggest that stakeholders’ shared experience with the earthquake and its aftermath has opened up new opportunities for regeneration and reimagination, and has influenced current agri-food tourism trajectories. In particular, additional funding for tourism recovery marketing and product development after the earthquake, and an emphasis on greater connectivity between the residents and communities, through strengthening rural networks and building social capital within and between regions, is enabling more resilient and sustainable futures.
... Over 20 faults ruptured, identifying the earthquake sequence as one of the most complex recorded globally (GeoNet, 2016). Two people died and approximately 580 residents reported injuries to New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation 1 (Stevenson et al., 2017). There was significant disruption to infrastructure with over 38,000 insurance claims made to The Earthquake Commission (EQC 2 ) (EQC, 2019; Stevenson et al., 2017). ...
... Two people died and approximately 580 residents reported injuries to New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation 1 (Stevenson et al., 2017). There was significant disruption to infrastructure with over 38,000 insurance claims made to The Earthquake Commission (EQC 2 ) (EQC, 2019; Stevenson et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
There is an emerging area of research that examines men’s personal disaster accounts, including how gender identities and sets of understandings about masculinities shape response and recovery. This paper adds to the literature through providing a geographic enquiry into men’s sense of place and identifying the impacts of the Kaikōura/Waiau (7.8 Mw) earthquake sequence on rural men. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 19 men across Marlborough and North Canterbury who experienced the earthquake. Findings explored how rural masculine identities, exemplified in the Southern Man trope, were integral to rural men’s earthquake stories. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, capital and doxa and using field as a geographic metaphor for place, the research identified that participants relied upon rural skills and local knowledges to navigate the changing dynamics of place. More broadly, this paper illustrates how post-disaster impacts on individuals and communities may be traced through examining a gendered sense of place.
... OEF in the context of the Kaikōura earthquake The M w 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake occurred on 14 November 2016, causing strong shaking and damage to the built environment, including in Aotearoa New Zealand's capital city of Wellington (Stevenson et al., 2017). Following the earthquake, OEFs were regularly produced by scientists and communicated to agencies and the public via various channels including the GNS Science and GeoNet websites, media, social media, presentations, written briefings, and personal conversations (GeoNet, 2017;GNS Science, 2017;Woods et al., 2017). ...
Article
Operational earthquake forecasts (OEFs) are represented as time-dependent probabilities of future earthquake hazard and risk. These probabilities can be presented in a variety of formats, including tables, maps, and text-based scenarios. In countries such as Aotearoa New Zealand, the U.S., and Japan, OEFs have been released by scientific organizations to agencies and the public, with the intent of providing information about future earthquake hazard and risk, so that people can use this information to inform their decisions and activities. Despite questions being raised about the utility of OEF for decision-making, past earthquake events have shown that agencies and the public have indeed made use of such forecasts. Responses have included making decisions about safe access into buildings, cordoning, demolition safety, timing of infrastructure repair and rebuild, insurance, postearthquake building standards, postevent land-use planning, and public communication about aftershocks. To add to this body of knowledge, we undertook a survey to investigate how agencies and GNS Science staff used OEFs that were communicated following the Mw 7.8 2016 Kaikōura earthquake in Aotearoa New Zealand. We found that agencies utilized OEFs in many of the ways listed previously, and we document individual employee’s actions taken in their home-life context. Challenges remain, however, regarding the interpretation of probabilistic information and applying this to practical decision-making. We suggest that science agencies cannot expect nontechnical users to understand and utilize forecasts without additional support. This might include developing a diversity of audience-relevant OEF information for communication purposes, alongside advice on how such information could be utilized.
Article
Given New Zealand’s susceptibility to a range of natural hazards, reducing exposure is an important step towards strengthening community resilience and reducing potential social, environmental and economic consequences. Land-use planning has long been recognised as a contributor to achieving this goal. Focusing on earthquake hazards, this paper examines the evolution of risk reduction measures in local government land-use planning documents for 3 earthquake-prone regions of New Zealand in 2000 and again in 2016. While some progress has been made in planning for earthquake hazards, overall the planning documents in these regions remain inadequate. As such, resilience from a land-use planning perspective has not significantly improved. This is surprising in the context of major seismic events in New Zealand over the last decade that have caused considerable damage and loss of life. Future anticipated changes to the planning systems in the country provide opportunities for improvements to be included in documentation.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The Wellington region has a history of tectonic movement and damaging earthquakes. Social research on Wellington’s earthquake risk is limited but has explored aspects of public education and issues around preparedness and resilience. As part of the Wellington It’s Our Fault project and QuakeCoRE a New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission funded Centre of Research Excellence this document is a bibliography listing reports, papers and other material on social research on earthquake risk i n the Wellington region from 1848 to 2019
Article
The increased impact of natural hazards on people’s lives and livelihoods warrants tools that enable communities to be better prepared for livelihood disruptions caused by disasters. This paper attempts to identify the critical factors that influenced the livelihood preparedness of those who were affected by the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake in New Zealand. Through a survey of 135 residents who lived through the earthquake, its aftermath and recovery in Kaikōura, 11 critical factors affecting their livelihood preparedness were identified. A principal component analysis showed that these critical factors fall into four categories, namely, (1) resource accessibility, (2) livelihood diversity, (3) effectiveness of disaster risk reduction measures, and (4) individual adaptive capacity. A framework incorporating these critical factors was developed to depict the facets of livelihood preparedness. This framework could assist DRR policymakers and practitioners to formulate new or improve existing strategies and initiatives for individual people to better prepare their livelihoods for future disruptions caused by disasters.
Article
Full-text available
Decision making in complex contexts such as disaster risk management requires collaborative approaches to knowledge production. Evidence-based disaster risk management and pre-event planning relies on robust and relevant disaster risk knowledge. We report on a case study of Project AF8, a "cocreation" collaboration involving local-and central-government disaster risk management agencies and groups, critical infrastructure organizations, and scientists from six universities and Crown Research Institutes. Participant observation and interview data are used to document and analyze the processes used to generate, share, and apply multidisciplinary disaster risk knowledge. Project AF8 was conceived as a cross-jurisdictional and multiagency initiative to plan and prepare for a coordinated response across the South Island following a large magnitude earthquake along the Alpine Fault, one of New Zealand's major natural hazard risks. Findings show that (1) practitioners at all levels operate in highly uncertain environments and therefore have specific knowledge needs at different times and for different purposes, (2) disaster risk knowledge was perceived to be most effective when scientifically credible and focused on identifying likely impacts on the capacity of communities to function, and (3) disaster risk knowledge outputs and the processes used to cocreate them were perceived to be equally important. Using cocreation to combine researcher credibility with practitioner relevancy enhanced the legitimacy of Project AF8 processes, the collective disaster risk knowledge they facilitated, and the wider project. In hindsight, a greater focus at the outset on developing a formal coproduction structure may have increased the pace of cocreation, particularly in the early phases. Future interdisciplinary disaster risk management initiatives could benefit by adopting contextually relevant aspects of this example to strengthen the science-practice interface for more effective pre-event planning and decision making.
Article
Full-text available
The 2016 Kaikoura earthquake resulted in shaking in excess of design level demands for buildings with periods of 1 -2s at some locations in Wellington. This period range correlated to concrete moment frame buildings of 5-15 storeys, many of which had been built in Wellington since the early 1980s, and often with precast concrete floor units. The critical damage states used to assess buildings during the Wellington City Council Targeted Assessment Programme are described and examples of observed damage correlating to these damage states are presented. Varying degrees of beam hinging were observed, most of which are not expected to reduce the frame capacity significantly. Buildings exhibiting varying degrees of residual beam elongation were observed. Cases of significant beam elongation and associated support beam rotation resulted in damage to precast floor unit supports; in one case leading to loss of support for double-tee units. The deformation demands also resulted in damage to floor diaphragms, especially those with hollowcore floor units. Cracking in floor diaphragms was commonly concentrated in the corners of the building, but hollowcore damage was observed both at the corners and in other locations throughout several buildings. Transverse cracking of hollowcore floor units was identified as a particular concern. In some cases, transverse cracks occurred close to the support, as is consistent with previous research on hollowcore floor unit failure modes. However, transverse cracks were also observed further away from the support, which is more difficult to assess in terms of severity and residual capacity. Following the identification of typical damage, attention has shifted to assessment, repair, and retrofit strategies. Additional research may be required to determine the reduced capacity of cracked hollowcore floor units and verify commonly adopted repair and retrofit strategies.
Article
Full-text available
This paper provides a brief discussion of observed strong ground motions from the 14 November 2016 Mw-7.8 Kaikōura earthquake. Specific attention is given to examining observations in the near-source region where several ground motions exceeding l.Og horizontal are recorded, as well as up to 2.7g in the vertical direction at one location. Ground motion response spectra in the near-source, North Canterbury, Marlborough and Wellington regions are also examined and compared with design levels. Observed spectral amplitudes are also compared with predictions from empirical and physics-based ground motion modelling.
Article
Full-text available
This paper summarizes the impact the 2016 Kaikoura earthquakes have had on electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure performance. It also provides background context to the distribution network operator's (i.e. MainPower's) prior earthquake preparedness following the 2010 earthquakes in the region.
Article
Full-text available
Widespread liquefaction occurred in the end-dumped gravelly fills and hydraulically-placed dredged sandy fill at the CentrePort of Wellington as a result of the 14 November 2016 Mw/7.8 Kaikoura earthquake. This liquefaction resulted in substantial global (mass) settlement and lateral movement (spreading) of the fills towards the sea, which adversely affected wharf structures and buildings constructed on shallow and deep foundations. This paper presents key observations from the QuakeCoRE-GEER post-earthquake reconnaissance efforts at the CentrePort Wellington. The different materials and methods used to construct the reclaimed land at CentrePort influenced the patterns of observed liquefaction and its effects. Areas of gravel liquefaction at the port are especially important due to the limited number of these case histories in the literature. Liquefaction-induced ground deformations caused the wharves to displace laterally and damage their piles and offloading equipment. Lateral ground extension and differential settlement damaged buildings, whereas buildings in areas of uniform ground settlement without lateral extension performed significantly better.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The Canterbury earthquake sequence began in September 2010, with the magnitude 6.3 aftershock on February 22nd 2011 causing the largest urban disaster in the country’s history. In the five years since the earthquakes in Christchurch, the tourism sector has experienced a structural shift in demand, as a larger proportion of inbound visitors have chosen to arrive in the South Island via Queenstown. International visitor arrivals in Christchurch have been significantly reduced, and are yet to rebound to pre-quake levels. The impact of the earthquakes on the rest of the Canterbury region and the South Island has involved nuanced responses based on visitor market, highlighted by guest nights and expenditure figures. In summary, there is evidence that the rest of the Canterbury region experienced increased demand after the quakes, particularly for visitor services provided by accommodation providers and supermarket/grocery stores. For the whole of the South Island visitor numbers and expenditure fell well below forecasts (even with 95% confidence interval bounds) for at least two years, with the Australian market particularly impacted. In the North Island there is some evidence that the event may have increased tourist demand, at least by the international market, although the results are not conclusive. For the first few months after the February earthquake in 2011, visitor numbers and expenditure rose above projected levels, although generally still stayed within the 95% confidence interval bounds except in the case of the Australian market. Unpicking the impacts of the earthquakes from other influences is made particularly difficult by the timing of the Rugby World Cup in 2011. Perhaps surprisingly there is no clear evidence that the earthquakes caused a sustained negative impact on tourism for New Zealand as a whole, with visitor forecasts remaining within 95% confidence intervals throughout the post-quake period. The disruption of the tourism system caused by the earthquakes presented a unique opportunity to investigate the dynamic tourism demand responses during a major disaster. We used big data in the form of EFTPOS transactions for international and domestic visitors in New Zealand around the time of the February 2011 earthquakes to understand how the earthquakes affected visitor flows around the country. We triangulated our results with analysis of conventional tourism datasets and input from an expert advisory panel. By blending both quantitative and qualitative assessments of visitor expenditure and flows, we were able to produce a causal network model of the tourism sector during business as usual, and during times of disruption. This causal network model firstly provides a theoretical framework within which we have identified and mapped key external factors influencing the tourism sector, and the key interactions and feedback mechanisms generating changes in tourism dynamics over time. Secondly the causal network model provides a foundation for extending the economic impact assessment tool ‘MERIT’ (Modelling the Economics of Resilient Infrastructure Tool), to enable evaluation of the wider economic impacts associated with tourism disruptions. Key findings from this report include: • Patterns of international visitor demand in New Zealand were changed by the earthquakes, most notably the Australian market which for the South Island has remained well below forecast levels since 2011. • The net outcome for tourism activity across New Zealand appears to be relatively small-to-inconclusive, however there were nuanced market responses in Christchurch, Canterbury and the South and North Islands. • International guest nights in Christchurch after 2010 plummeted to well below 2003 levels, and remain below forecast levels in 2016. • Domestic guest nights were also significantly reduced in Christchurch, and remain well below forecast expectation, however domestic tourism in the rest of New Zealand remained within the 95% confidence interval throughout the period 2010-2016. This reflects the localised nature of the damage in Christchurch, and a widespread awareness of the challenging response and recovery efforts taking place over the last five years. As a result, Christchurch is not considered a holiday destination for many New Zealanders. • We present a causal loop diagram that describes the tourism system, including external (source region) factors, the supply and cost of core tourism attractions, provision of tourism infrastructure and services, and the proximity of regional and national tourism destinations. This model includes business as usual considerations, as well as the influence of disruptive events, and can be applied broadly across a range of disasters or other disruptive events for the tourism industry. • The tourism sector is extremely dynamic, as illustrated by highly fluctuating inbound tourism demand indicators (e.g. visitor nights, expenditure) over recent years. Although we have mapped some of the key drivers or influences of tourism demand, it remains very difficult to predict, for any hypothetical disruptive event (i.e. an ex ante analysis), how all of these drivers will come together to determine the magnitude of a disruption and other specific outcomes. Although there is much work that can be undertaken to help firm up the nature of the system relationships (e.g. by defining specific equations and parameters for relationships identified in our causal loop diagram), in practice limited data tends to be a significant constraint. • A method has been demonstrated for using big data (in this case EFTPOS and credit card transaction data) in an ex post evaluation of the impacts of a disruptive event on the tourism sector. When combining this analysis with MERIT, we may also investigate the flow-on impacts of a disruption in tourism for the wider regional and national economies. • When undertaking an ex post evaluation the most important sources of uncertainty relate to establishing the counterfactual scenario that describes how the system would have behaved without the disruption. The longer the timeframe over which we seek to undertake the evaluation, the greater the uncertainty associated with establishing the counterfactual scenario.
Article
Full-text available
New Zealand has a history of deadly earthquakes, the most recent of which in Christchurch (2010-2011) has had major consequences for the tourism sector. Tourism destinations affected by major natural disasters face significant challenges during the response and recovery phases. Christchurch lost a large proportion of its lifelines infrastructure and accommodation capacity, and experienced an unprecedented drop in domestic and international visitor arrivals. The theoretical frameworks informing this paper come from the fields of tourism disaster planning, knowledge management and recovery marketing. They inform an empirical study that draws upon qualitative expert interviews with national and regional destination management organisations regarding their experience of the Christchurch earthquakes. The findings of this research highlight the critical importance of knowledge management and effective inter-agency collaboration and communication in the immediate disaster response, as well as during the development and implementation of (de)marketing strategies, in order to expedite medium to long-term tourism recovery.
Article
Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 11 nurses from the Christchurch (New Zealand) area to explore the challenges faced by the nurses during and following the earthquakes. The interviews took place three years after the start of the earthquake experience to enable exploration of longer term aspects of the recovery process. The interview transcripts were analyzed and coded using a grounded theory approach. Results: The data analysis identified that the nurses had faced a number of challenges and these were characterized as practical, emotional, and professional. While some of the challenges were short-lived in the aftermath of the earthquakes, some were long-lasting due to the extended nature of the recovery process. Dealing with house damage, insurance negotiations, and working in damaged environments had a negative impact on the nurses. The nurses experienced a range of emotions, both negative and positive, after the disaster, though many had needed time to elapse before feeling able to reflect on their experiences. Discussion The findings suggest that secondary stressors have a negative impact on the psychosocial recovery process. The nurses recognized that they received support from others and were also required to focus on others. Keeping busy appeared to be the most common coping strategy. This lack of reflection on their experiences may have resulted in delayed emotional responses. Some of the nurses changed their work role, hours, and responsibilities suggesting that working in this environment was having a detrimental impact. Conclusion: The research indicates the challenges faced by nurses in the initial impact of the earthquakes and during the longer term recovery process. There is a need to consider the psychosocial impact of working and living in a post-disaster context and to develop support packages to ensure the health and well-being of nurses in this environment. Johal SS , Mounsey Z , Brannelly P , Johnston DM . Nurse perspectives on the practical, emotional, and professional impacts of living and working in post-earthquake Canterbury, New Zealand. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(1):1-7.
New Zealand Earthquake Report: Magnitude 7
GeoNet (2016). "New Zealand Earthquake Report: Magnitude 7.8, Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 12:02:56 am (NZDT)". GeoNet. http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/canterbury/2016p 858000 (Accessed 23/01/2017).
Strong ground motion observations of engineering interest from the 14
  • B A Bradley
  • Hnt Razafindrakoto
  • M A Nazer
Bradley BA, Razafindrakoto HNT and Nazer MA (2017). "Strong ground motion observations of engineering interest from the 14 November 2016 Mw7.8 Kaikōura, New Zealand earthquake". Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 85-93.