Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 731–758 | Cite as

Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Frédéric Marquis
  • Jenna Jihyun Kim
  • Kenneth J. Elwood
  • Stephanie E. Chang
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, which involved widespread damage during the February 2011 event and ongoing aftershocks near the Christchurch Central Business District, left this community with more than $NZD 40 billion in losses (~20 % GDP), demolition of approximately 60 % of multi-storey concrete buildings (3 storeys and up), and closure of the core business district for over 2 years. The aftermath of the earthquake sequence has revealed unique issues and complexities for the owners of commercial and multi-storey residential buildings in relation to unexpected technical, legal, and financial challenges when making decisions regarding the future of their buildings impacted by the earthquakes. The paper presents a framework to understand the factors influencing post-earthquake decisions (repair or demolish) on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch. The study, conducted in 2014, includes in-depth investigations on 15 case-study buildings using 27 semi-structured interviews with various property owners, property managers, insurers, engineers, and government authorities in New Zealand. The interviews revealed insights regarding the multitude of factors influencing post-earthquake decisions and losses. As expected, the level of damage and repairability (cost to repair) generally dictated the course of action. There is strong evidence, however, that other variables have significantly influenced the decision on a number of buildings, such as insurance, business strategies, perception of risks, building regulations (and compliance costs), and government decisions. The decision-making process for each building is complex and unique, not solely driven by structural damage. Furthermore, the findings have put the spotlight on insurance policy wordings and the paradoxical effect of insurance on the recovery of Christchurch, leading to other challenges and issues going forward.

Keywords

Multi-storey concrete buildings Insurance Residual capacity Damage Decision-making Canterbury earthquakes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted in collaboration with CERA, the Christchurch City Council, GNS Science, the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE), and the University of Auckland. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Erica Seville and Dave Brunsdon from Resilient Organisations in discussing the research design and context, developing an appropriate list of interviewees, and providing logistical assistance. We also acknowledge the generous cooperation and time provided by the interviewees and local engineers throughout this study. Support for the University of British Columbia research team was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Compliance with ethical standard

The primary research for this paper received ethics approval from the University of British Columbia Behavioural Ethics Research Board (ID: H14-01332) as well as the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (ID: 012911).

References

  1. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1995) Addendum to the ATC-20 post earthquake building safety evaluation procedures. Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Axco (2014) Insurance market report—New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley BA, Quigley MC, Van Dissen RJ, Litchfield NJ (2014) Ground motion and seismic source aspects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C, Seville E, Vargo J (2013) The role of insurance in organizational recovery following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Resilient Organisations Research Report 2013/4Google Scholar
  5. Building Act (2004) New Zealand Government, 24 August 2004Google Scholar
  6. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) (2012) Built infrastructure policy and decision-making framework. Version 2. Jan 2012Google Scholar
  7. Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (2011) Volume 2: The performance of Christchurch CBD buildings. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report-Volume-Two-Contents. Accessed Feb 2015
  8. Chang SE, Taylor JE, Elwood KJ, Seville E, Brunsdon D, Gartner M (2014) Urban disaster recovery in Christchurch: the central business district cordon and other critical decisions. Earthq Spectra 30(1):513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) (2012) The recovery plan. http://ccdu.govt.nz/the-plan. Accessed Jan 2015
  10. Christchurch City Council (CCC) (2010) Christchurch City Council earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings policy, 2010. Christchurch City Council, 10 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  11. Department of Building and Housing (DBH) (2011) Compliance document for New Zealand Building code. Clause B1. Structure. Amendment 10 (Canterbury)Google Scholar
  12. Drayton MJ, Verdon CL (2013) Consequences of the Canterbury earthquake sequence for insurance loss modelling. In: Proceedings of the 2013 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Technical Conference, paper 44, 26–28 April 2013Google Scholar
  13. Earthquake Commission (EQC) (2012) Cover: an insurers guide. http://www.eqc.govt.nz/what-we-do/eqc-insurance/insurers-guide. Accessed March 2015
  14. Egbelakin TK, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2011) Enhancing seismic risk mitigation decisions: a motivational approach. Constr Manage Econ 29(10):1003–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engineering Advisory Group (EAG) (2012) Guidance on detailed engineering evaluation of earthquake affected non-residential buildings in Canterbury. Part 2—evaluation procedure. Revision 7, 2012, Structural Engineering Society New Zealand (SESOC), ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  16. Ernst, Young (2012) CERA Christchurch Central City—commercial property market study. Released by the minister for Canterbury earthquake recovery, May 2012Google Scholar
  17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 308 (1998) Repair of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Galloway BD, Hare HJ (2012) A review of post-earthquake building control policies with respect to the recovery of the Christchurch CBD. In: Proceedings of the 2012 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Technical Conference, paper 036, 13–15 April 2012Google Scholar
  19. Jacques CC, McIntosh J, Giovinazzi S, Kirsch TD, Wilson T, Mitrani-Reiser J (2014) Resilience of the Canterbury hospital system to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthq Spectra 30(1):533–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kam WY, Pampanin S (2011) General performance of buildings in Christchurch CDB after the 22 Feb 2011 earthquake: a contextual report, (prepared for the Department of Building and Housing) Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim J (2015) Quantitative analysis of factors influencing post-earthquake decisions on concrete buildings in Christchurch. Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. (In Preparation)Google Scholar
  22. King A, Middleton D, Brown C, Johnston D, Johal S (2014) Insurance: its role in recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30(1):475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marquis F (2015) A framework for understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand. Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. (In Preparation)Google Scholar
  24. Middleton D (2012) Insurance shocks: market behaviour and government responses: international case studies with relevance to New Zealand, Kestrel Group, June 2012Google Scholar
  25. Miles S, Brechwald D, Davidson R, Demeter K, Johnston D, Pampanin S, Wilkinson S (2014) Building back better. Case study of the 2010–2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence. EERI report with the NZSEE and the natural hazards platform for the global facility for disaster reduction and recovery of the World Bank. Oakland CA: EERI, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Muir-Wood R (2012) The Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. The Geneva risk reports. Risk and insurance research. Extreme events and insurance: 2011 Annus horribilis. Courbage C, Stahel WR Geneva. http://www.genevaassociation.org. Accessed Jan 2015
  27. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) (2009) Building safety evaluation during a state of emergency: guidelines for territorial authorities. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, August 2009Google Scholar
  28. New Zealand Supreme Court (NZSC) (2013) Ridgecrest NZ Limited V IAG New Zealand Limited [27 August 2014] NZSC 117Google Scholar
  29. New Zealand Supreme Court (NZSC) (2014) University of Canterbury v Insurance Council of New Zealand [22 Dec 2014] NZSC 193Google Scholar
  30. Pampanin S, Kam WY, Akguzel U, Tasligedik S, Quintana-Gallo P (2012). Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the Christchurch CBD under the 22nd February earthquake. Report prepared for Christchurch City Council and University of Canterbury, Civil and Natural Resources EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  31. Petak WJ, Alesch DJ (2004) Organizational decision making with respect to extreme events: healthcare organizations respond to California’s SB 1953. In research progress and accomplishments: 2003–2004 (MCEER-04-P01). University of Buffalo, State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  32. Polese M, Di Ludovico M, Marcolini M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2014) Assessing reparability: simple tools for estimation of costs and performance loss of earthquake damaged reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2534 Google Scholar
  33. Property Council of New Zealand (PCNZ) (2014) Submission on the building (earthquake-prone buildings) amendment Bill. http://www.propertynz.co.nz/index.php/news. Accessed Jan 2015
  34. RLB (2014) International report—construction market intelligence. Third Quarter Google Scholar
  35. SwissRe (2012) Lessons from recent major earthquakes. Economic research and consulting. Jan 2012Google Scholar
  36. Uma SR, Nayyerloo M, Dhakal RP (2013) Vulnerability assessment of Christchurch buildings in Canterbury earthquakes. GNS Science Report 2013/20. May 2013, p 35Google Scholar
  37. Vero (2007) Business plan policy. Version 6. Policy wording. https://www.vero.co.nz/business-insurance. Accessed Jan 2015
  38. Vero (2013) Business plan policy endorsement, July 2013. Policy wording. https://www.vero.co.nz/business-insurance. Accessed Jan 2015
  39. Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Performance evaluation of structural systems: theory and implementation. ASCE J Struct Eng 135(10):1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zurich (2009) Material damage and business interruption insurance. Policy wording. http://www.zurich.co.nz/content/zurich_nz/insurance/property-insurance/material-damage-business-interruption-insurance.html. Accessed Jan 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Marquis
    • 1
  • Jenna Jihyun Kim
    • 1
  • Kenneth J. Elwood
    • 2
  • Stephanie E. Chang
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AucklandVictoria Street AucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations