Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 627–637 | Cite as

The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury

  • David Johnston
  • Sarah Standring
  • Kevin Ronan
  • Michael Lindell
  • Thomas Wilson
  • Jim Cousins
  • Emma Aldridge
  • Michael Warne Ardagh
  • Joanne Margaret Deely
  • Steven Jensen
  • Thomas Kirsch
  • Richard Bissell
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate causes of injury during the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Data on patients injured during the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch (22 February 2011) earthquakes were sourced from the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation. The total injury burden was analyzed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. Injury context was classified as direct (shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), action (movement of person during the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing potentially avoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). Nine categories of injury cause were identified. Three times as many people were injured in the Christchurch earthquake as in the Darfield earthquake (7,171 vs. 2,256). The primary shaking caused approximately two-thirds of the injuries from both quakes. Actions during the primary shaking and aftershocks led to many injuries (51.3 % Darfield and 19.4 % Christchurch). Primary direct caused the highest proportion of injuries during the daytime Christchurch quake (43.6 %). Many people were injured after shaking stopped in both events: 499 (22.1 % Darfield) and 1,881 (26.2 % Christchurch). Most of these people were injured during clean-up (320 (14.2 %) Darfield; 622 (8.7 %) Christchurch). In both earthquakes, more females than males (1,453 vs. 803 Darfield; 4,646 vs. 2,525 Christchurch) were injured (except by masonry, damaged ground, and during clean-up); trip/fall (27.9 % Darfield; 26.1 % Christchurch) was the most common cause of injury; and soft tissue injuries (74.1 % Darfield; 70.4 % Christchurch) was the most common type of injury. This study demonstrated that where people were and their actions during and after earthquakes influenced their risk of injury.

Keywords

Earthquake Context of injury Causes of injury Risk of injury Injuries 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded through GNS Science core funding and as part of GNS Science Wellington’s ‘It’s Our Fault’ project. The data were supplied by the Accident Compensation Corporation. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Grant Pittams.

References

  1. Alexander D (1996) The health effects of earthquakes in the mid-1990s. Disasters 20:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardagh MW, Richardson SK, Robinson V, Than M, Gee P, Henderson S, Khodaverdi L, McKie J, Robertson G, Schroeder PP, Deely JM (2012) The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February 2011. Lancet 379:2109–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armenian HK, Melkonian A, Noji EK, Hovanesian AP (1997) Deaths and injuries due to the earthquake in Armenia: a cohort approach. Int J Epidemiol 26:806–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannister S, Gledhill K (2012) Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence. NZ J Geol Geophys 55:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs S (2006) Earthquakes. Surg Clin North Am 86:537–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan CC, Lin YP, Chen HH, Chang TY, Cheng TJ, Chen LS (2003) A population-based study on the immediate and prolonged effects of the 1999 Taiwan earthquake on mortality. Ann Epidemiol 13:502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chou YJ, Huang N, Lee CH, Tsai SL, Chen LS, Chang HJ (2004) Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am J Epidemiol 160:688–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn AW, Spence RJS (2002) Earthquake protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doocy S, Daniels A, Aspilcueta D, Inppares-JHSPH-CUNY Study Team (2009) Mortality and injury following the 2007 Ica earthquake in Peru. Am J Disaster Med 4:15–22Google Scholar
  10. Dowrick DJ, Rhoades DA (2005) Revised models for attenuation of modified Mercalli intensity in New Zealand earthquakes. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 38:185–214Google Scholar
  11. Liang NJ, Shih YT, Shih FY et al (2001) Disaster epidemiology and medical response in the Chi–Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Ann Emerg Med 38(549):55Google Scholar
  12. Mahue-Giangreco M, Mack W, Seligson H, Bourque LB (2001) Risk factors associated with moderate and serious injuries attributable to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Los Angeles, California. Ann Epidemiol 11:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Osaki Y, Minowa M (2001) Factors associated with earthquake risks in the great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake, 1995. Am J Epidemiol 153:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Petal M (2011) Earthquake Casualties Research and Public Education. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitigation. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prati G, Saccinto E, Pietrantoni L, Perez-Tester C (2013) The Northern Italy earthquakes: modeling human behavior. Nat Hazard 69:99. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramirez M, Peek-Asa C (2005) Epidemiology of traumatic injuries from earthquakes. Epidemiol Rev 27:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shoaf KI, Nguyen LH, Sareen HR, Bourque LB (1998) Injuries as a result of California earthquakes in the past decade. Disasters 22:218–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spence R (2007) Saving lives in earthquakes: successes and failures in seismic protection since 1960. 11th Mallet Milne Lecture. Bull Earthq Eng 5:139–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spence R, So E (2009) Estimating shaking-induced casualties and building damage for global earthquake events. NEHRP Technical Report 08HQGR0102. (Assessed on 23 June 2011 from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/08HQGR0102.pdf)
  20. Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (2011) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitigation. Springer, Berlin, p 322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanida N (1996) What happened to elderly people in the great Hanshin earthquake. BMJ 313:1133–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. U.S. Geological Survey (2012). Earthquakes with 50,000 or more deaths. (Accessed on 26 November, 2012 at earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Johnston
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sarah Standring
    • 3
  • Kevin Ronan
    • 4
  • Michael Lindell
    • 5
  • Thomas Wilson
    • 6
  • Jim Cousins
    • 7
  • Emma Aldridge
    • 3
  • Michael Warne Ardagh
    • 8
  • Joanne Margaret Deely
    • 9
  • Steven Jensen
    • 10
  • Thomas Kirsch
    • 11
  • Richard Bissell
    • 12
  1. 1.Joint Centre for Disaster Research, T20 Wellington CampusMassey UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchGNS Science/Massey UniversityLower HuttNew Zealand
  3. 3.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Central Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  5. 5.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  6. 6.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  7. 7.GNS ScienceWellingtonNew Zealand
  8. 8.University of OtagoChristchurchNew Zealand
  9. 9.Canterbury District Health BoardChristchurchNew Zealand
  10. 10.California State UniversityLong BeachUSA
  11. 11.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  12. 12.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations