SEI.GNS.0021.

Letter Report No: CR 2012/94 LR

Project No: 410W1383

2 April 2012

Justine Gilliland
1 Fairway Drive
Executive Director
Avalon
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission
PO Box 30 368
PO Box 14053 Lower Hutt
Christchurch New Zealand
T +64-4-570 1444
F +64-4-570 4600
www.gns.cri.nz
Dear Justine

RE: Update to GNS Science/University of Canterbury July 2011 Report to the Royal
Commission

The following is our response to your request for an update to our July 2011 report to the
Commission entitled The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence and Implications for Seismic
Design Levels. In this letter we also address the six issues of specific interest to the
Commission.

In terms of updated summary information, Figure 1 is a plot of all of the M>3 earthquakes in
the Canterbury sequence, with different colours showing the aftershocks following each of the
major aftershocks.

Figure 2 shows the latest geodetic source models of the four largest events of the Canterbury
sequence showing the locations of the modelled fault ruptures and their slip magnitudes
(indicated by the colour scale). These models have been determined using ground-based
GPS measurements and, in some cases, InSAR (satellite radar). Such models of how the
faults slipped can be non-unique, for example, there are other interpretations that have been
published by other research groups.

December 23 earthquakes
A magnitude (Mw) 5.8 earthquake at 1:58 p.m. struck east of Christchurch approximately 6
km off the coast of New Brighton. As with other earthquakes of this shaking intensity,
liquefaction occurred in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch. The earthquake was followed by
many events throughout the afternoon and overnight with several over magnitude 5. The
strongest was a Mw 5.9 earthquake at 3:18 p.m. This new sequence of earthquakes was
located east of the June 13th sequence of aftershocks (Figure 3). The two largest earthquakes
(Mw 5.8 and 5.9) were not characterised by the very high ground motions of earlier events,
except for an isolated high recording at Brighton Beach in the Mw 5.8 event that may be a
local site effect (Figure 4, Table 1). Being further from people, and coupled with the slightly
lower magnitudes of the biggest shakes, the effects were less damaging to structures than the
September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes.

DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS
Science) exclusively for and under contract to Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by GNS Science, GNS Science accepts no responsibility for any use of, or
reliance on any contents of this Report by any person other than Canterbury Earthquakes Royal
Commission and shall not be liable to any person other than Canterbury Earthquakes Royal
Commission, on any ground, for any loss, damage or expense arising from such use or reliance.
Page 1 of 21
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited
 SEI.GNS.0021.2

Figure 1. Earthquakes of the Canterbury sequence through to 13 March 2012. The September 4 mainshock
and largest aftershocks are shown with stars.

Page 2 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.3

Page 3 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.4

Figure 2. Latest geodetic source models of the four largest events of the Canterbury sequence showing the
locations of the modelled fault ruptures and their slip magnitudes (indicated by colour scale). Smaller side-plots
show the slip distribution on each modelled fault plane in more detail; arrows indicate the slip direction of the
hanging wall relative to the footwall. The earthquake hypocentres are shown by red stars and the black dots
indicate locations of GPS sites contributing to the solution. The magnitudes given in the side-plots correspond to
the magnitude derived from the geodetic model for each model fault plane and hence will not necessarily match
those derived directly from the seismic data in Table 1.

Page 4 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.5

The ground motions from the larger December event (spectral acceleration at 0.5 and 1s
periods) are plotted in Figure 5 and compared with predictions for the standard New Zealand
attenuation model (McVerry 2006) and a new model proposed by Bradley (2010) based on
the NGA model of Chiou & Youngs (2008). The McVerry (2006) model incorporates a stress
drop scaling factor. This factor is used as a proxy to account for the under-prediction of the
near-source (0–10 km) observed ground motions by the McVerry (2006) model for at least the
two largest earthquakes of the Canterbury sequence. The under-predictions are believed to
result from source features such as higher than normal radiated energy and directivity effects.
Following an expert elicitation process undertaken in March 2012, a weighted combination of
the McVerry (2006) and Bradley (2010) models will be employed for future earthquake hazard
assessments.

Page 5 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.6

Figure 3. Top: Earthquakes of the Canterbury sequence from June 13 – Dec 22. The June 13 Mw 6.0
earthquake epicentre is shown as the blue star. Bottom: Earthquakes of the Canterbury sequence from Dec 23
until March 20. The Dec 23 Mw 5.9 earthquake epicentre is shown as the pink star.

Page 6 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.7

Figure 4. Maximum horizontal and vertical PGAs recorded during the six significant earthquakes of the
Canterbury sequence at GeoNet stations and using temporary low-cost accelerometers (Quake-Catcher Network).

Page 7 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.8

Table 1. Summary of the main features of significant earthquakes in the Canterbury sequence. Distances are
distance from the fault rupture plane where available, but those marked with an asterisk (*) are taken from the
earthquake epicentre. Duration is defined by the approximate length of record containing accelerations over 0.1 g.

Sep 4 Dec 26 Feb 22 June 13 Dec 23 Dec 23

Earthquake
2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011

Mw 7.1 4.7 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.9

ML 7.1 4.9 6.3 6.3 5.85 6.0
Magnitude
Me 8.0 Not known 6.75 6.7 5.6 6.0

Oblique- Oblique- Oblique- Oblique-

Rupture Complex Strike-slip
reverse reverse reverse reverse
Source fault E-W
NE-SW
Orientation surface E-W NE-SW NE-SW NE-SW
N-S
rupture
Horiz.(g) 0.8 0.4 1.7 2.0 0.4 0.7
Max. PGA Vert. (g) 1.3 0.5 2.2 1.1 1.0 0.4
recorded
13* Horiz. 8* Horiz.
Dist. (km) 1.3 ~2* 2 3
6* Vert. 6* Vert.
Horiz. (g) 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4
Max. PGA
recorded in Vert. (g) 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2
CBD
Dist. (km) 20 – 22 ~2 – 3* 5–9 9 – 10 13 – 15* 10 – 12*

Duration of shaking >0.1g

8 – 15 1 – 1.7 8 – 10 6 – 7.5 2–4 3–4
in CBD (s)

Page 8 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.9

Figure 5. Horizontal spectral accelerations (at 0.5s and 1.0s) for the four largest earthquakes of the
Canterbury sequence compared to attenuation models. Plots show geometric mean spectral accelerations
compared to the New Zealand national attenuation model (McVerry 2006) and a new model proposed for New
Zealand (B10; Bradley 2010). The McVerry (2006) model includes a stress drop scaling factor. Distances are to
the earthquake rupture plane where available and epicentral distances elsewhere (for the December 23rd event.
Ground motion observations and predictions are for Site Class D (Deep or Soft Soil Sites) that are representative
of much of the Canterbury ground conditions, and predictions are based on oblique-reverse earthquake
mechanisms.

Page 9 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.10

Specific Issues

Update on progress with reviewing the Z factor and, in particular, explaining how the key
drivers of the revised coefficient have been set.

This issue is largely covered off in our letter of 12 March 2012 to Linda Gibb at the
Commission. Since then, we have had a further 1-day expert elicitation meeting, the results
from which will feed into the calculations of a revised Z factor. By the 18th of April we hope to
have a draft GNS Science Report explaining how these calculations have been done.

Progress on the analysis of information that was to be provided by GNS Science to determine
the materiality of differences in opinion held by GNS Science and Dr Norm Abrahamson as to
the contribution to the severity of shaking in the 22 February 2011 earthquake (directivity
versus basin and other effects).

This issue is covered off in our letter to Linda Gibb.

The extent to which GNS Science was aware of risk of an earthquake or aftershock occurring
nearer to Christchurch City and suburbs following the 4 September 2010 earthquake.

Immediately after the 4 September 2010 earthquake, GNS Science was very clear in public
statements that an aftershock of magnitude 6 could follow the 4 September mainshock. This
advice was based on a forecasting model (Gerstenberger et al., 2005; see below) as well, for
the first week or so, Bäth’s Law, that the largest aftershock is often about one unit of
magnitude smaller than the mainshock. These statements were made because of the
likelihood of an aftershock, not a larger triggered earthquake further away (which, in
comparison, is much less likely). Thus in terms of the location of a magnitude 6 (or any other)
aftershock, it would be expected within the existing aftershock zone or adjacent to it (since
aftershock zones do tend to expand with time). Figure 6 shows the Canterbury seismicity for
September 2010 from the time of the mainshock.

Page 10 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.11

Figure 6. Canterbury seismicity for September 2010 from the time of the magnitude 7.1 mainshock.

While there are a number of ways in which an aftershock zone can be defined, for the
purposes of where we could possibly expect a magnitude 6 aftershock to occur, one would
normally, for a mainshock of this size, at least consider the area encompassed by the
magnitude 4 aftershocks (so excluding the smallest circles in the figure). This then defines an
elongated east-west zone that includes central Christchurch and the epicentre of the
22nd February earthquake. Christchurch City, however, consists of a relatively small
proportion of the total aftershock zone so the probability of a magnitude 6 occurring in the city
is only a small proportion of the overall likelihood.

A more quantitative way of defining the likelihood of future events is to use the Short Term
Earthquake Probability (STEP) model (Gerstenberger et al., 2005). Figure 7 shows STEP
output for the month of October 2010, based on the aftershock occurrence prior to that. The
higher rates of activity forecast by STEP cover a similar area to that described above.

Page 11 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.12

Figure 7. Forecast aftershock rates for the month of October 2010 based on September aftershocks using the
STEP model. On the coloured scale, ‘-3’ means 1 chance in 1,000 that a M>5 aftershock occurs in that pixel within
that month; in this example the total number of forecast M>5 aftershocks is 2.3.

The extent to which GNS Science has provided advice to third parties on the appropriate
ways and means of communicating seismic risk to the general population of either
Christchurch or other at risk population centres such as Wellington.

The GNS Social Science team has been active in this area of research for a number of years,
over which time they have formed extensive collaborations with other New Zealand and
international researchers. A lot of the research output is through scientific publications, but
the team also interacts closely with agencies such as MCDEM, EQC and many Regional
Councils.

The focus of this research has been to improve risk communication to the public so that they
will take individual actions to be better prepared for natural hazard events. No specific
attention has been paid to acceptability of seismic risk relating to building standards and
potential loss of life.

We enclose some key publications and also include in the Appendix a list of outreach and
teaching activities and an extensive list of publications by GNS Science and other
collaborators. We also enclose a paper derived from a recently completed PhD thesis by one
of the team (Wendy Saunders) about a risk-based approach to land-use planning.

Page 12 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.13

Examples internationally of an earthquake/aftershock sequence such as that experienced in

Canterbury since 4 September 2010.

We have sought clarification from Linda Gibb on a tighter definition of this question. As a
result we have been undertaking computer searches of a global earthquake catalogue looking
for sequences of shallow earthquakes where there have been a significant number of
aftershocks of M>6. This work is still underway, but we hope to be able to provide some
preliminary results by the end of the week. Once we have identified some likely candidate
sequences we could search for more detailed information on ground shaking or impacts on
people or buildings, if that would be of use to the Commission.

Any comments that GNS Science may have on the report by Brendon Bradley.

Comments on Brendon’s report were contained in our letter to Linda Gibb. Since then,
Brendon has participated in our 1-day expert elicitation meeting on GMPE models for New
Zealand, and his B10 attenuation model, along with the McVerry 2006 model, are now both
being used in calculating a revised Z factor.

Yours sincerely

Dr Terry Webb Dr Anna Kaiser

Director Natural Hazards Division Seismic Microzoning Scientist

Dr Stephen Bannister (Reviewer)

Research Seismologist

Page 13 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.14

REFERENCES

Bradley BA. 2010. NZ-specific pseudo-spectral acceleration ground motion prediction

equations based on foreign models, Report No.2010-03, Department of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand: 324pp.

Chiou, B.S.-J.; Youngs, R.R. 2008. An NGA model for the average horizontal component of
peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 173-215.

Gerstenberger, M., Wiemer, S., Jones, L.M., and Reasenberg, P.A. 2005. Real-time forecasts
of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California, Nature 435: 328-331.

McVerry, G.H.; Zhao, J.X.; Abrahamson, N.A.; Somerville, P.G. 2006. New Zealand
acceleration response spectrum attenuation relations for crustal and subduction zone
earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 39(1): 1-58.

APPENDIX

Earthquake risk communication — Outreach and teaching activities

• Short courses – GNS Science Earthquake short course (2003–2009), annual Joint Centre
for Disaster Research Summer Institute (since 2008) and workshops at Australasian
Natural Hazards Management Conferences (see below)
• Conferences – Biannual Australasian Hazards Management conference (since 2004)
• Newsletters – GNS Science, JCDR Research Updates
• Websites – MCDEM, JCDR, GNS Science
• Input to MCDEM projects – Earthquake section of the MCDEM consistent messages for
CDEM
• Teaching – course content via Massey Emergency Management teaching project

Earthquake risk communication research (and related topics) 2010- 2011

Peer-reviewed journal articles (accepted & published)

Collins, S., Glavovic, B., Johal, S., Johnston, D. (2011) Community engagement post-disaster:
case studies of the 2006 Matata debris flow and 2010 Darfield earthquake, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Psychology 40: 17-525.

Doyle, E., Johnston, D.M., McClure, J., & Paton, D. (2011) The Communication of Uncertain
Scientific Advice During Natural Hazard Events. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40,
39-50.

Johal, S., Chambers, R., Collins, S., de Terte, I., Gardner, D., Glavovic, B., Johnston, L.,
Karanci, A.N., Mooney, M.F., Paton, D., Johnston, D. (2011) Potential social and
psychological consequences of the Rena incident: Lessons from an international
perspective. New Zealand Medical Journal, 1345, 86-89.

Page 14 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.15

Johnston, D., Tarrant, R., Tipler, R., Coomer, M., Pedersen, S., Garside, R. (2011). Preparing
schools for future earthquakes in New Zealand: lessons from an evaluation of a Wellington
school exercise. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 26:24-30.

Johnston D., Becker J., Paton D. in press. Multi-agency community engagement during
disaster recovery: lessons from two New Zealand earthquake events. Disaster Prevention
and Management.

McClure, J., Wills, C., Johnston, D., & Recker, C. (2011). New Zealanders’ judgments of
earthquake risk before and after the Canterbury earthquakes: Do they relate to
preparedness? New Zealand Journal of Psychology 40:7-11.

McClure, J., Wills, C., Johnston, D., & Recker, C. (2011). How the 2010 Canterbury (Darfield)
earthquake affected earthquake risk perception: Comparing citizens inside and outside the
earthquake region. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 11-2, 1-10.

McClure, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Framing effects on disaster preparation: Is negative
framing more effective? Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1
http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2011-1/mcclure.htm.

Paton, D., Bajek, R., Okada, N., McIvor, D. (2010). Predicting community earthquake
preparedness: a cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand Natural Hazards
54:765–781.

Paton, D., Sagala, S., Okado, N., Jang, L., Bürgelt, P.T., & Gregg, C.E. (2010) Making sense
of natural hazard mitigation: Personal, social and cultural influences. Environmental
Hazards, 9, 183–196.

Mooney, M.F., Paton, D., de Terte, I., Johal, S., Karanci, A.N., Gardner, D., Collins, S.,
Glavovic, B., Huggins, T.J., Johnston, L., Chambers, R., & Johnston, D.M. (2011)
Psychosocial Recovery from Disasters: A Framework Informed by Evidence. New Zealand
Journal of Psychology, 40, 26-39.

Ronan, K.R., Crellin, K., Johnston, D.M. (in press) Community readiness for a new tsunami
warning system: quasi-experimental and benchmarking evaluation of a school education
component. Natural Hazards.

Ronan, K.R., Crellin, K., Johnston, D. (2010). Correlates of hazards education for youth: a
replication study. Naural Hazards, 53:503-526.

Tuohy R., Stephens C. 2011. Exploring older adults' personal and social vulnerability in a
disaster. International Journal of Emergency Management 8: 60 – 73.

Submitted (in review in late 2011)

Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-c). The role of prior
experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. Disasters.

Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-a). A model of household
preparedness for earthquakes. Natural Hazards.

Page 15 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.16

Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-b). Salient beliefs about
earthquake hazards and household preparedness. Risk Analysis.

Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-c). Societal factors of
earthquake information meaning-making and preparedness Qualitative Research in
Psychology.

Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-a). How people use
earthquake information and its influence on household preparedness in New Zealand.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture.

Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D., & Ronan, K. R. (submitted-b). Reconceptualising
hazards and preparedness information: Types, use and effectiveness. Natural Hazards
Review.

Books and book chapters

Doyle, E. E. and Johnston, D. M. (2011, in press). Science advice for critical decision-making.
In: Paton, D. and Violanti, J. M. (Eds) Working in High Risk Environments: Developing
Sustained Resilience. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Ill.

O’Brien G., Bhatt M., Saunders W., Gaillard J.C., Wisner B. (in press). Local government and
disaster In: Wisner B., Gaillard J.C., Kelman I. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Hazards
and Disaster Risk Reduction.

Paton, D., Johnston, D., Johal, S. (in press). Human impacts of disasters. In Peter T.
Bobrowsky (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Natural Hazards, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4.

Paton, D. & Violanti, J.M (2010) Modeling Resiliency: Integrating individual, team and
organizational factors. In P. Bartone, B.H. Johnsen, J. Eide, J.M. Violanti, and J.C. Laberg
(Eds) Enhancing Human Performance in Security Operations: International and Law
Enforcement Perspectives. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D. & Jang, L. (2010) Disaster Resilience: Exploring All-hazards and Cross Cultural
Perspectives. In D. Miller and J. Rivera (Eds), Community Disaster Recovery and
Resiliency: Exploring Global Opportunities and Challenges. London: Taylor & Francis.

Paton, D., Violanti, J., & Lunt, J. (2010) Developing Resilience in High Risk Professions:
Integrating person, team and organizational factors. In B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana, K.S.
Ray & S. Mishra (Eds). Storming the Global Business: Rise of the Asian Tigers. New Delhi:
Excel Books.

Commissioned reports

Becker, J.S.; Johnston, D.M.; Daly, M.C.; Paton, D.M.; Mamula-Seadon, L.; Petersen, J.;
Hughes, M.E. and Williams, S. (2011). Building community resilience to disasters: A
practical guide for the emergency management sector, GNS Science Report 2011/09.
44 p.

Page 16 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.17

Becker, J.S. (2010). Understanding disaster preparedness and resilience in Canterbury:

results of interviews, focus groups and a questionnaire survey, GNS Science Report
2010/50 97 p.

Johnston, D. M.; Ronan, K. R.; Finnis, K.; Leonard, G. S. (2011). Children’s understanding of
natural hazards in Te Anau, New Zealand, following the 2003 earthquake, GNS Science
Report 2011/05 18 p.

Johnston, D.M.; Coomer, M.A.; McClure, J.; Becker, J.S. and Wright, K.C. (2011). A
bibliography of social research on the earthquake risk in Wellington, New Zealand: 1848 to
2010, GNS Science Report 2011/11. 29 p.

Lindsay, J.; Johnston, D.M. and Hughes, M.E., (2012). Building an evidence base for public
education post the Canterbury earthquakes: A Research Workshop 13 September 2011,
GNS Miscellaneous Series 41. 24 p.

Tipler, K.; Tarrant, R.A.C.; Coomer, M.A.; Johnston, D. M. 2010. School children’s access to
hazard education: An investigation to socio-economic status, GNS Science Report 2010/35
25 p.

Winstanley, A., Cronin, K. (2011) Supporting communications around the Canterbury

earthquakes and other risks: a learning workshop, 7 April 2011. GNS Science Report
2011/08.

Published conference proceedings

Becker, J., Johnston, D., Paton, D. (2011). Earthquake information and household
preparedness: results of interviews with residents in Timaru, Wanganui and Napier.
Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an
Earthquake-Resilient Society, April 14-16, 2011, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No.020.

Becker, J., Johnston, D., Paton, D. & Ronan, K. Understanding how individuals make
meaning of hazard and preparedness information: Key themes from qualitative interviews.
Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Hazards Management Conference, Wellington, New
Zealand 11-12 August 2010, 6-7.

Doyle, E. & Johnston, D. Investigating the successful provision of science advice for critical
emergency decision-making during natural hazard events. Proceedings of the 4th
Australasian Hazards Management Conference, Wellington, New Zealand 11-12 August
2010, 15.

Doyle, E. E., Johnston, D. M., McClure, J., Paton, D. Communicating Science Advice and
Probabilities to Emergency Managers. Abstract in Proceeedings of the 2011 International
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics General Assembly, Earth on the edge: Science for a
Sustainable Planet, 28 June – 7 July, Melbourne, Australia, Abstract #2140.

Doyle, E. E., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D. Investigating science advice, emergency

management and decision making in the laboratory. Abstract in Proceedings of the 2011
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics General Assembly, Earth on the edge:
Science for a Sustainable Planet, 28 June – 7 July, Melbourne, Australia, Abstract #2141.

Page 17 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.18

McClure, J. Does the cost of actions account for differences in preparedness across actions?
4th Australasian Natural Hazards Management Conference, Wellington, August, 2010.

McClure, J. Does cost explain differences in damage mitigation and survival preparation?
International Congress of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, July 2010.

Paton, D., Tedim, F., Burgelt, P. & Johnston, D. Safe as houses: Adapting to living with
wildfire and earthquake hazards. Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Hazards
Management Conference, Wellington, New Zealand 11-12 August 2010, 39-40.

Presentations

Becker, J. (2010). Preparing for disaster: the role of hazard and preparedness information
Presentation to Wanganui District Council Emergency Management. July 2010.

Becker, J. (2010). Recovery lessons from previous disasters. Canterbury Recovery

Workshop Presentation, Sept 2010.

Becker, J., Saunders, W., (2010) How long is your piece of string? Timeframes in natural
hazard planning. Presentation to Dunedin Branch of the NZ Planning Institute, November
2010.

Becker, J., (2011). The Canterbury Earthquake - 4 September 2010: Social impacts
Wellington Rotary Club, February 2011.

Becker, J., (2011). Preparing for disaster: the role of hazard and preparedness information.
Emergency Management Summer Institute, March 2011.

Johnston, D. (2010). Surviving future disasters in New Zealand, special seminar sponsored by
the New Zealand Geogrpahical Society (Auckland branch) presented at the School of
Environment, University of Auckland, 13 July 2010.

Johnston, D.M., Leonard, G., Hudson-Doyle, E., Becker, J., Paton, D. et al. (2011). The Role
of Multidisciplinary Research and Collaboration for Improving the Resilience of
Communities to Natural Hazards. Paper presented at the Integrated Research on Disaster
Risk Conference 2011. Beijing, China, 31st October – 3rd November.

Johnston, D. Impacts of the Canterbury earthquake. 36th Annual Natural Hazards Research
and Applications Workshop, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 9-12 July 2011.

Johnston, D. Social and Economic impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. Emergency

Planning Society, UK - Resilience Symposium, Glasgow, July 5th & 6th 2011.

Johnston. D. (2011). Social impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. 3rd Australasian Mental
Health and Psychosocial Disasters Conference, Brisbane, 27-28 September 2011.

McClure, J., The Canterbury earthquakes: Lessons for preparedness. Forum on the
Christchurch earthquake: Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, April 2011.

McClure, J. Behavioural lessons from the Canterbury earthquake. The Canterbury

earthquake: A social, economic and risk managing stocktake. Institute of Policy Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, October 2010.

Page 18 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.19

Paton, D. (2011). Defining, identifying and assessing the characteristics of a resilient

community. Paper presented at the Enhancing Sustained Resilience to Natural Risks: The
imperative of changing the paradigm conference. Vieira do Minho, Portugal, 8-9 June.

Paton, D. (2011). Effective Risk Management: The importance of community engagement,

empowerment and community development. Paper presented at the Enhancing Sustained
Resilience to Natural Risks: The imperative of changing the paradigm conference. Vieira
do Minho, Portugal, 8-9 June.

Wilson, T.M., Almond, P., (2011). No Fault Here: Impacts of the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake
to rural communities and beyond. Public Lecture. University of Canterbury, 15 February
2011. Christchurch.

Pre-2010

Peer-reviewed journal articles

Becker, J., Johnston, D. (2002). Planning for earthquakes in New Zealand: A study of four
regions. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 17(1): 2-8.

Becker, J., Johnston, D. (2000). District plans and regional policy statements: How do they
address earthquake hazards? Planning Quarterly 138: 22-23.

Daly, M., Becker, J., Parkes, B., Johnston, D., Paton, D. (2009). Defining and measuring
community resilience to natural disasters. Tephra 22: 15-20.

Finnis, K., Johnston, D., Becker, J., Ronan, J. & Paton, D. (2007). School and community-
based hazards education and links to disaster resilient communities. Regional
Development Dialogue 28: 99-1008.

Finnis, K., Standring, S., Johnston, D., Ronan, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of natural
hazards in Christchurch, New Zealand. Australia Journal of Emergency Management
19(2): 11-20.

Garside, R., Christianson, A., Johnston, D., Leonard, G. (2011). Disaster preparedness in the
tourism industry: A New Zealand case study of constraints and training response. New
Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 50-64.

McIvor, D., Paton, D., Johnston, D.M. (2009) Modelling community preparation for natural
hazards: understanding hazard cognitions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 3(2): 39-46.

Paton, D., Johnston, D. (2001). Disaster and communities: vulnerability, resilience and
preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management 10: 270-277.

Paton, D., Johnston, D., Houghton, Flin, R., Ronan, K., Scott, B. (1999). Managing natural
hazard consequences: planning for information management and decision making. Journal
of the American Society of Professional Emergency Planners 6: 37-48.

Paton, D., Smith, L.M. & Johnston, D. (2005). When good intentions turn bad: Promoting
natural hazard preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 20: 25-30.

Page 19 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.20

Ronan, K.R., Crellin, K., Johnston, D.M., Finnis, K., Paton, D. & Becker, J. (2008). Promoting
Child and Family Resilience to Disasters: Effects, Interventions, and Prevention
Effectiveness. Children, Youth and Environments 18(1): 332-353. Retrieved from
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.

Ronan, K.R., Crellin, K., Johnston, D. (2010). Correlates of hazards education for youth: a
replication study. Natural Hazard, 53: 503-526.

Ronan, K.R., Johnston D.M. (2003). Hazards education for youth: a quasi-experimental
investigation. Risk Analysis 23: 1009-1020.

Ronan, K.R., Johnston, D. M. (2001). Correlates of hazard education programs for youth.
Risk Analysis 21: 1055-1063.

Saunders, W., Forsyth, J., Johnston, D., & J. Becker. (2007). Strengthening linkages between
land-use planning and emergency management in New Zealand. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management 22: 36-43.

Books and book chapters

Paton, D & Johnston, D. (2006). Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach. Springfield, Ill.,
Charles C. Thomas.

Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M. (2005). Promoting community resilience in disasters: the role
for schools, youth, and families. New York, NY: Springer, 210p.

Paton, D., Johnston. D. (2006). Identifying the characteristics of a disaster resilient society. In:
Paton, D. & Johnston, D. (Eds.), Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach. Springfield,
Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Ronan, K.R., Finnis, K., Johnston, D. (2005). Interventions with youth and families: A
prevention and stepped care model. In: Reyes, G. & Jacobs, G. (Eds.), International
handbook of disaster psychology, vol. 2, p 13-35. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Commissioned reports

Ballantyne, M., Paton, D., Johnston, D., Kozuch, M., and Daly, M. (2000). Information on
volcanic and earthquake hazards: the impact on awareness and preparation. Institute of
Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited science report 2000/2.

Becker, J., Johnston, D. (2000). Planning and Policy for Earthquakes in New Zealand.
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences science report 2000/28.

Becker, J., Johnston D. (2000). District plans and regional policy statements: How do they
address earthquake In: Proceedings of the Natural Hazards Management Conference,
Napier, 16-17 August 2000. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences information series
48. p. 8-10.

Page 20 of 21

GNS Science
 SEI.GNS.0021.21

Becker, J.S., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D., Ronan. K. (2009). Community Resilience to
Earthquakes: Understanding How Individuals Make Meaning of Hazard information, and
How This Relates to Preparing For Hazards. Proceedings of the 2009 New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, 3-5 April, Christchurch, New Zealand,
Paper No. 4, 8p.

Coomer, M.A., Johnston, D.M., Edmonson, L., Monks, D., Pedersen, S. & Rodger, A. (2008).
Emergency management in schools – Wellington survey. GNS Science Report, 2008/04.
32p.

Glavovic B.C., Dryburgh, M. Chittenden. R., Johnston, D.M. (Eds.), (2009). Proceedings of the
2nd Workshop on Emergency Management and Social Science Disaster Research in New
Zealand: Deepening and Extending the Dialogue, Wellington, 8th December 2008. GNS
Science Miscellaneous Series 9.

Glavovic B.C., Jones, K.S. & Johnston, D.M. (Eds.), (2008). Proceedings of a workshop on
emergency management and social science disaster research in New Zealand. Wellington,
6th December 2007. GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 13.

Leonard, G.S., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D. (2004) Analysis of Te Anau residents' impacts,
awareness and preparedness following the 2003 Fiordland earthquake. Lower Hutt:
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited. Institute of Geological & Nuclear
Sciences science report 2004/37. 57 p.

Leonard, G.S., Paton, D., Johnston, D.M., Mitchell, J. (2004). Analysis of Canterbury Civil
Defence and Emergency Management 2004 awareness and preparedness survey. Lower
Hutt: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited. Institute of Geological & Nuclear
Sciences science report 2004/36. 57p.

Ronan, K.R., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Houghton, B. (1999). Hazards readiness and
recovery: A multidisciplinary perspective. In Proceedings of the Community Awareness and
Hazards Mitigation Learning Workshop (Edited by the Office of National Science and
Technology Program for Hazards Mitigation). Taipei: National Science Council, Republic
of China.

Tarrant, R., Johnston, D. (2009). Earthquake and tsunami risk: A survey of Wellington
intermediate school children’s understanding, perceptions, anxiety, and readiness to cope.
Proceedings of the New Zealand Psychological Society Annual Conference. Palmerston
North, 27-30 August 2009, p. 48.

Page 21 of 21

GNS Science