This paper introduces a generic framework for multi-risk modelling developed in the project 'Regional RiskScape' by the Research Organizations GNS Science and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. (NIWA) in New Zealand. Our goal was to develop a generic technology for modelling risks from different natural hazards and for various elements at risk. The technical framework is not dependent on the specific nature of the individual hazard nor the vulnerability and the type of the individual assets. Based on this generic framework, a software prototype has been developed, which is capable of 'plugging in' various natural hazards and assets without reconfiguring or adapting the generic software framework. To achieve that, we developed a set of standards for treating the fundamental components of a risk model: hazards, assets (elements at risk) and vulnerability models (or fragility functions). Thus, the developed prototype system is able to accommodate any hazard, asset or fragility model, which is provided to the system according to that standard. The software prototype was tested by modelling earthquake, volcanic ashfall, flood, wind, and tsunami risks for several urban centres and small communities in New Zealand.
Earthquakes generate loss only when assets are near enough to be significantly shaken. When communities are highly insured, much of that loss transfers to the insurer. Many events in the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence were sufficiently shallow and close to (or under) Christchurch to subject the city to very intense shaking (V: 1.7 g; H: 2.2 g). Shaking damage was extensive, exacerbated by the city's setting wherein the eastern suburbs were built on low-lying flatlands (formerly swamp) where liquefaction was widespread, and the southern suburbs, on the flanks of the now-dormant Lyttelton/Akaroa volcano, experienced boulder roll and landslide effects. There were 17 events in the sequence that resulted in insurance claims. The interval between damaging events was insufficient to enable the widespread damage to be assessed or repaired. Furthermore, the combination of tectonic subsidence and liquefaction ejectile lowered the land surface, creating unacceptable flood risk. This paper provides a snapshot of the most complicated insurance settlement program experienced anywhere.
This study explores the performance of GEOCAN, a remote-sensing and crowdsourcing platform for assessing earthquake damage, by using geo-referenced ground-based damage assessments. This paper discusses methods for the application of remote sensing in post-earthquake damage assessment and reports on a GEOCAN crowd-sourcing study following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch event and its validation using field studies. It describes the principal data sets used, discusses in detail the problems of validation, and considers the extent of omission and commission errors. It is clear that although commission errors in the GEOCAN damage estimation are low, the omission error is significant (64%); the extent of these and the causal factors are analyzed with a decision model. The results show that the image-based analysis in this case does not reproduce the spatial pattern or magnitude of the damage impact. Finally, recommendations to improve the performance of GEOCAN in subsequent deployments are made.
This report describes the observations and assessments of the team members on the effects of the earthquake on the ground, buildings and other structures, lifelines and the local community. Comment is made on the response to the earthquake and lessons are drawn for the New Zealand situation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.