Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 185–212 | Cite as

Understanding different perspectives on the preservation of community and heritage buildings in the Wellington Region, New Zealand

  • Tatiana GodedEmail author
  • Andrew Beaupre
  • Michael DeMarco
  • Tina Dutra
  • Andro Gogichaishvili
  • Daniel Haley
  • Alex Hyman
  • Nicholas Kepka Calvetti
  • John Potter
  • Maureen Coomer
  • Kim Wright
  • Andrew King
Original Paper

Abstract

The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence of 2010–2012 caused unexpectedly extreme levels of damage and disruption, being an unparalleled event in New Zealand in terms of the damage extent. Christchurch’s heritage buildings were seriously damaged during these events, with churches especially affected in 22 February 2011 M w 6.2 earthquake. During this earthquake, a total of 84% of the heritage unreinforced stone and 81% of the clay brick masonry churches in the Canterbury region were either considered unsafe (receiving red placards) or with restricted access (yellow placards). Following the earthquakes, authorities across New Zealand are reassessing the capacity of older buildings to resist earthquakes. Current legislation requires that a building judged as earthquake prone either be strengthened by retrofitting or be demolished within a legislated number of years. Many building owners are facing the problems of owning earthquake-prone buildings and lacking the funding to upgrade. This affects both community and heritage buildings, resulting in the likely abandonment or demolition of some buildings. To address the problem of the balance between life safety and preservation in the Wellington Region, this project gathered and compared the perspectives of the general public, church communities, heritage specialists, professional engineers, and local authorities to assist in balancing the interests of these stakeholders. As a result of the findings, several recommendations have been provided that include standardizing structural assessment processes and training, feasibility of additional public funding to upgrade buildings, new signage to increase public awareness of earthquake-prone buildings, and regular communication among stakeholders to understand and resolve differences.

Keywords

Churches Community buildings Earthquake-prone buildings Heritage buildings New Zealand Preservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following individuals, religious organizations, engineers, building owners, departments, and institutions for taking part in this project and providing very useful information and resources that enormously helped to complete this project: David Johnston (GNS Science) for his support on this project, for taking part in some of the focus group meetings, and for the very useful references provided; Sheng-Lin Lin (GNS Science) for providing the RiACT tool to collect data; the religious groups and individuals of All Saints Church (especially Basin Wakelin and Heather Miller), Rob Moonlight from the Anglican Diocese of Wellington, the Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington (especially Dave Mullin), Miramar Uniting Church (specially June Stewart), Saint Joseph’s Parish, Saint Paul’s Cathedral (especially Tony Fryer), and Saint Christopher’s Church (especially Carolyn Marshall) for sharing their personal experiences, challenges, and opinions; members of Wellington’s engineering community from Aurecon (especially Tony Holden), BECA (Richard Sharpe and Rob Jury), and OPUS (Vince Dravitzki) for sharing their personal opinions and experiences; Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (especially Allison Dangerfield and Barbara Rouse) for providing background research on building preservation and its involved processes; the Wellington Region Emergency Management Office (WREMO, especially to Dan Neely) for providing initial guidance and continued interest in the project; the Wellington City Council (especially Neville Brown and Claire Gregory) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE, especially Darrel Cheong) for providing background information; the Ministry for Culture and Heritage Manatu Taonga (especially Helen McCracken) for their enthusiasm and support on this project; Win Clark (Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga) for his invaluable help and support to this project and for arranging one of our focus group meetings; Rebecca Ziino (from WPI library) for assisting in the collection of background research; the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) for providing the opportunity for the WPI authors of this paper to study abroad and work with members of the Wellington community; Professor VJ Manzo and Professor Emeritus Paul Davis (WPI), supervisors of the WPI authors, for assisting and providing needed guidance through the project’s completion; Professor Stephen McCauley (WPI) for the guidance through the initial proposal process; Dr Graeme McVerry (GNS Science) for insightful discussions on the NZS1170 Standards and the NBS parameter; Dr David Johnston and Dr Julia Becker (GNS Science) for reviewing this paper and for their useful comments; Temitope Egbelakin (School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University) for providing previous work on the topic, including a paper recently submitted; and finally, all other individuals and groups within the Wellington Region that contributed in some aspect to the completion of this project. This study was funded by the project RiskScape, funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (reference C05X0409).

Note: the contents of this paper are exclusively the authors’ interpretation of the results of the surveys, interviews, and focus group meetings with public and private organizations. The discussion and conclusion of this project should be attributed exclusively to the authors of this paper, and not under any circumstance to any of the individuals or organizations that collaborated in this project.

References

  1. Anagnostopoulou M, Bruneau M, Gavin HP (2010) Performance of churches during the Darfield earthquake of September 04, 2010. Bullet N Z Soc Earthq Eng 43:374–381Google Scholar
  2. Archdiocese of Wellington (2013) Keep calm and grow stronger. Protecting our people and taonga in the event of an earthquake. Project Stronger Working Group Report, p 20Google Scholar
  3. Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (2012) The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission Final Report, p 419. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz. Accessed 18 Sept 2015
  4. Cartwright S (2006) Buildings (specified systems, change the use and earthquake-prone buildings) regulations 2005. SR 2005/32. Published under the authority of the New Zealand Government, p 13Google Scholar
  5. Cattari S, Ottonelli D, Pinna M, Lagomarsino S, Clark W, Giovinazzi S, Ingham JM, Marotta A, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L, Leite J, Lourenco PB, Goded T (2015) Damage and vulnerability analysis of URM churches after the Canterbury earthquake sequence 2010–2011. In: Proceedings of the earthquake risk and engineering towards a resilient world. SECED 2015. Cambridge (United Kingdom), July 2015, Paper 17, p 10Google Scholar
  6. Cousins WJ, King AB, Kanga M (2012) Accumulated losses from sequences of earthquakes: implications for risk modelling. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon (Portugal), September 2012, p 10Google Scholar
  7. Denscombe M (2010) Good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. GBR, Open University Press, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Internal Affairs (2011) Lottery world war one commemorations, environment and heritage committee. http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/Funding-and-grants—Lottery-grants—Lottery-Environment-and-Heritage Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  9. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S (2010) Sociological and behavioural impediments to earthquake hazard mitigation. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 1(3):310–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2011a) Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective. Build Res Inf 39(3):286–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2011b) Enhancing seismic risk mitigation decisions: a motivational approach. Constr Manag Econ 29(10):1003–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2013) Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation. Build Res Inf 41(6):677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Ingham J (2014) Economic impediments to successful seismic retrofitting decisions. Struct Surv 32(5):449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Ingham J (2015) Integrated framework for enhancing earthquake risk mitigation decisions. Int J Constr Supply Chain Manag 5(2):34–51Google Scholar
  15. Gledhill K, Ristau J, Reyners M, Fry B, Holden C (2011) The Darfield (Canterbury, New Zealand) Mw 7.1 earthquake of September 2010: a preliminary seismological report. Seismol Res Lett 82:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Government bill (2015) Buildings (earthquake-prone buildings) amendment bill. Published under the authority of the House of Representatives, 63 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Historic Places Act (1993) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  18. Johnston D, Standring S, Ronan K, Lindell M, Wilson T, Cousins J, Aldridge E, Ardagh MW, Deely JM, Jensen S, Kirsch T, Bissell R (2014) The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury. Nat Hazards 73:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiser A, Holden C, Beavan J, Beetham D, Benites R, Celentano A, Collett D, Cousins J, Cubrinovski M, Dellow G, Denys P, Fileding E, Fry B, Gerstenberger M, Lagridge R, Massey C, Motagh M, Pondard N, McVerry G, Ristau J, Stirling M, Thomas J, Uma SR, Zhao J (2012) The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: preliminary report. N Z J Geol Geophys 55:67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kenny C (2009) Why do people die in earthquakes? The costs, benefits and institutions of disaster risk reduction in developing countries (4823). The World Bank, Sustainable Development Network. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/4042/WPS4823.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  21. Leite J, Lourenco PB, Ingham JM (2013) Statistical assessment of damage to churches affected by the 2010–2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence. J Eng 17:73–97Google Scholar
  22. Lester JR, Brown AG, Ingham JM (2013) Stabilisation of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament following the Canterbury earthquakes. Eng Fail Anal 34:648–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin S, King A, Wright K, Matcham I (2013) RiACT. Real-time Individual Asset Collection Tool. User Manual. Beta version. GNS Science, 20 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowe D, Smith RS, Wright I (2012) Volcanoes—Pacific Ring of Fire. In: Te Ara—the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/volcanoes/page-2. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  25. Marotta A, Goded T, Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L, Ingham JM (2015) An inventory of unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 48:171–190Google Scholar
  26. MediaWorksTV (2013) Christchurch rebuild to cost $10b more. 3News (Producer). http://www.3news.co.nz/Christchurch-rebuild-to-cost-10b-more/tabid/1607/articleID/295810/Default.aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  27. Ministry of Culture and Heritage (2008) How important is culture? New Zealanders’ views in 2008. http://www.mch.govt.nz/files/HowImportantIsCulture.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  28. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (n.d.-a) Funding for heritage protection. http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/funding-for-heritage-protection. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  29. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (n.d.-b) National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund. http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/~/link.aspx?_id=A9FDCB7C87D74281BFEEC9F264F291BB&_z=z. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  30. New Zealand Parliamentary Library (2013) Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013. Bills Digests, Digest No. 2111. http://www.parliament.nz. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  31. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. http://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/PUBS/2006AISBEGUIDELINES_Corr_06a.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) Costs of inaction of environmental policy challenges. https://www.oecd.org/environment/ministerial/40501169.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  33. Schouten H (2013a) Judge rules on Harcourts building demolition. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9253101/Judge-rules-on-Harcourts-building-demolition. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  34. Schouten H (2013b) Owner offers historic building for $1. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9256886/Owner-offers-historic-building-for-1. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  35. SPSS Learning Module: how to input data into the SPSS data editor. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/modules/dataed.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  36. SPSS. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. www.spss.com. Accessed 16 Nov 2015
  37. Standards Australia/StandardsNew Zealand (2002) Structural design actions—part 0 general principles Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1170.0:2002Google Scholar
  38. Standards New Zealand (2004) Structural design actions part 5 earthquake actions—New Zealand, New Zealand Standard NZS1170.5:2004Google Scholar
  39. Statistics New Zealand (2006) Ethnic groups in Wellington region, 2006 Census. http://www3.stats.govt.nz/census_outputs/QuickStats_snapshot_WellingtonCity.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  40. Statistics New Zealand (2013) 2013 Census data. http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census.aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  41. Thomas JA, Mora K, Dravitzki V, Burton J, Rive G (2014) Baseline public perceptions of the seismic safety or older commercial buildings in Wellington. Stakeholder report. Opus International Consultants Ltd., p 23Google Scholar
  42. United States Geological Survey (2015) Earthquakes with 1,000 or more deaths 1900–2014. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  43. Wannan O (2014) Harcourts building must stay. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10692115/Harcourts-building-must-stay. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  44. Wellington City Council (2012) District Plan. http://wellington.govt.nz/. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  45. Wellington City Council (2016) List of earthquake prone buildings as at 7/12/16. http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/rates-and-property/earthquake-prone-buildings/files/eqp-building-list.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  46. Wellington City Council (n.d-a) Built Incentive Fund. http://wellington.govt.nz/services/community-and-culture/funding/council-funds/built-heritage-incentive-fund. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  47. Wellington City Council (n.d.-b) Wellington city council guide: earthquake prone buildings. http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/rates-and-property/earthquake-prone-buildings/files/eq-prone-buildings-guide.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatiana Goded
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew Beaupre
    • 2
  • Michael DeMarco
    • 2
  • Tina Dutra
    • 2
  • Andro Gogichaishvili
    • 2
  • Daniel Haley
    • 2
  • Alex Hyman
    • 2
  • Nicholas Kepka Calvetti
    • 2
  • John Potter
    • 2
  • Maureen Coomer
    • 1
  • Kim Wright
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew King
    • 1
  1. 1.GNS ScienceLower HuttNew Zealand
  2. 2.Worcester Polytechnic Institute100, Institute RoadWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency ManagementWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations