2011 Christchurch earthquake

PHOTO: Olga Filippova is a senior lecturer in the Department of Property. Her research focuses on improving disaster resilience in the built environment. 

On the 12th anniversary of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which killed 185 people, researchers say well-designed programmes to facilitate potentially life-saving upgrades of some of the country’s most seismically vulnerable buildings should be prioritised.
Seismic risk mitigation for earthquake-prone buildings, particularly older structures with unreinforced masonry, is critical to ensure public safety, but many building owners are deterred by cost uncertainties and other barriers. This is why effectively-designed programmes are crucial to support building owners and accelerate rates of compliance before the next big event, say University of Auckland researchers.

Fergs Coffee

In their paper published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Olga Filippova, Qing Tong, and Jason Ingham explore unreinforced masonry upgrade programmes in the United States and New Zealand to identify key contributors to the success of each.

New Zealand’s unreinforced masonry buildings, the majority of which were built before 1935, fall within the most seismically vulnerable class of all earthquake-prone buildings. They feature heavy materials such as stones, bricks and concrete blocks, which are prone to cracking and crumbling. Such buildings line the main streets of several cities including Whanganui, Invercargill and Nelson, and they’re found in pockets of our big cities including Wellington and Auckland.

Falling masonry resulted in the deaths of 39 people in the February 22, 2011, Christchurch Earthquake. In 2016, the magnitude 7.8 Kaikoura Earthquake struck, and the Hurunui/Kaikoura Earthquake Recovery (Unreinforced Masonry Buildings) Order 2017 was enacted in response to the heightened risk of aftershocks.

It empowered Wellington City, Lower Hutt City, Marlborough District, and Hurunui District to urgently address threats posed by unreinforced masonry. Under the order, the owners of around 200 buildings with dangerous façades and parapets were required to strengthen or remove them within an 18-month deadline; failing that, they could face penalties and enforcement action.

Despite the availability of some financial support, building owner participation in the programme during the first 12 months was very low, says Dr Filippova.

In order to fast-track the programme, the local councils re-evaluated their initial ‘light touch’ approach and changed it to a ‘cross-organisational collaborative team’ approach, which was more successful.

Filippova says we can learn from the Kaikoura Order and several programmes in Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Francisco, to ensure people who own buildings with hazardous masonry have the support they need to bring them up to standard.

First, the researchers say councils should develop an action plan to help owners navigate the strengthening process and understand the time and professionals involved at different stages.
Second, councils can consider establishing roles for dedicated outreach officers. While case managers are heavily involved in the implementation of retrofits, outreach officers could offer education and advice to affected building owners in the pre-implementation stages.
Finally, and most importantly, they say more flexible financial support should be made available. 
“The Kaikoura Order lacked flexible funding arrangements, with financial support allocated based solely on building characteristics such as the number of storeys or whether they were corner sites,” says Qing Tong. “Moreover, it didn’t consider matters such as building owners’ personal circumstances, whether they were experienced investors, apartment owners, or the heritage status of the buildings.”
Tong says it’s critical that owners of older buildings benefit from additional subsidies and support to assist with strengthening.