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

Johnston, David; Standring, Sarah; Ronan, Kevin R.; Lindell, Michael K.; Wilson, Thomas; Cousins, Jim; Aldridge, E.; Ardagh, Michael; Deely, John; Jensen, Steven J.; Kirsch, Thomas D.; Bissell, Richard A.

doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1094-7

Cited by 66 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from actual earthquakes around the world also highlight the range of actions that people have taken at the time of shaking, and these data were used to inform the surveys. Such actions have been dependent on the context of each earthquake but include: staying still or motionless (Arnold, Eisner, Durkin, & Whitaker, ; Lindell et al., ; Tokyo Fire Department, ); looking around (Lambie et al., ); holding on to someone or something (Lambie et al., ); taking cover under a doorway, desk, or other furniture (Archea, ; Arnold et al., ; Goltz, Russell, & Bourque, ; Prati, Saccinto, Pietrantoni, & Pérez‐Testor, ); dropping and covering (Lindell et al., ); moving to another location within a building (Johnston et al., ; Lambie et al., ; Prati et al., ); turning off fuel outlets or equipment utilizing fire (Archea & Kobayashi, ; Ohta & Ohashi, ; Takuma, ); and exiting/evacuating buildings (Archea, ; Archea & Kobayashi, ; Lindell et al., ; Ohta & Ohashi, ; Prati et al., ; Takuma, ;). While it is difficult to put exact numbers on the most common actions, it would be fair to say that a significant proportion of people undertake movement during shaking, either to take a few steps to another part of a room/building, or to evacuate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residents’ Reactions to Earthquake Early Warnings in Japan

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article empirically examines the effectiveness of earthquake early warning (EEW) in Japan based on experiences of residents who received warnings before earthquake shaking occurred. In Study 1, a survey (N = 299) was conducted to investigate residents’ experiences of, and reactions to, an EEW issued in Gunma and neighboring regions on June 17, 2018. The main results were as follows. (1) People's primary reactions to the EEW were mental, not physical, and thus motionless. Most residents stayed still, not for safety reasons, but because they were focusing on mentally bracing themselves. (2) Residents perceived the EEW to be effective because it enabled them to mentally prepare, rather than take physical protective actions, before strong shaking arrived. (3) In future, residents anticipate that on receipt of an EEW they would undertake mental preparation as opposed to physical protective actions. In Study 2, a survey (N = 450) was conducted on another EEW issued for an earthquake offshore of Chiba Prefecture on July 7, 2018. Results were in line with those of Study 1, suggesting that the findings described above are robust. Finally, given people's lack of impetus to undertake protective action on receipt of an EEW, this article discusses ways to enhance such actions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residents’ Reactions to Earthquake Early Warnings in Japan

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Transport, electricity, water and sewerage systems were disrupted, with the most notable damage occurring to sewerage systems (anticipated 18 month restoration times for some areas). No lives were lost, only two major injuries occurred, and the majority of injuries (over 2250) were minor [27].…”

Section: Description Of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence And Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A discussion of resilience and sustainability: Land use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand

Saunders

Becker

2015

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe term 'resilience' is increasingly being used in a multitude of contexts. Seemingly the latest 'buzz' word, it can mean many things to many people, in many different situations. In the natural hazard context, the terms 'sustainable planning', and 'resilience planning' are now being used, often interchangeably. But from a natural hazard perspective, is a resilient community a sustainable one? In order to be sustainable, does a community need to be resilient? The purpose of this paper is to answer these two questions, and stimulate discussion on how the two terms are being used. The paper provides an overview of resilience and sustainability within a land use planning and natural hazard context, and discusses how they are interrelated. The New Zealand legislative requirements for resilience and sustainability are outlined, followed by the presentation of an example from the earthquake impacted city of Christchurch, New Zealand. This example outlines the planning response to the earthquakes, and the sustainable and resilient planning options being implemented. The discussion shows that a resilient community should also be a sustainable community, in order to meet legislative requirements, andmore importantly -to ensure the needs of future generations are met, economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally.

show abstract

“…Additionally, at least 7171 people were injured, three times as many as due to the September 2010 earthquake [24]. Injuries were mainly caused by the primary shaking, and were unavoidable.…”

Section: Fatalities Health and Mental Wellbeingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Injuries were mainly caused by the primary shaking, and were unavoidable. However actions taken during the shaking (such as moving or taking cover) and subsequent earthquake-related actions (particularly cleaning up from the earthquakes) also contributed to the number of reported injuries [24]. Immediately following the September 2010 earthquake, there was an increase in the number of heart attacks in the Canterbury Region (however, an increase was not seen following the February 2011 earthquake; [5]).…”

Section: Fatalities Health and Mental Wellbeingmentioning

confidence: 99%