Responses to the Christchurch and Nepal Earthquakes

This page details the short-term and long-term responses to both the Christchurch earthquake 2011 and the Nepal earthquake 2015, highlighting the differences in disaster management capabilities between a High-Income Country $HIC$ and a Low-Income Country $LIC$.

Christchurch Earthquake 2011 Responses

Short-term Responses

The immediate response to the Christchurch earthquake was swift and well-coordinated:

• $7 million in international aid was received
• The Red Cross supplied aid workers
• 300 Australian police were flown in to assist
• 30,000 people were provided with chemical toilets

Highlight: The rapid deployment of international aid and personnel demonstrates the advantages of being a well-connected HIC in disaster response.

Long-term Responses

The long-term recovery efforts in Christchurch were comprehensive and well-funded:

• The government provided temporary housing for displaced residents
• 10,000 affordable homes were constructed
• Water and sewage services were restored within 6 months
• The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was created to organize rebuilding efforts This authority was given the power to change planning laws and regulations to facilitate reconstruction

Example: The creation of a dedicated recovery authority with special powers illustrates the systematic approach taken by New Zealand in managing the long-term aftermath of the earthquake.

Nepal Earthquake 2015 Responses

Short-term Responses

The immediate response to the Nepal earthquake faced more challenges:

• Search and rescue teams arrived quickly from the UK and India
• Half a million tents were issued to the homeless
• Helicopters rescued many people caught in avalanches on Mt. Everest

Quote: "Helicopter visited epicentre area 24 hours after initial tremor," indicating delays in reaching some of the most affected areas.

Long-term Responses

The long-term recovery in Nepal has been slower and faced more obstacles:

• 7,000 schools needed to be rebuilt or repaired
• The UK provided £73 million in aid, while China contributed $1 billion
• Stricter building regulations were planned for implementation

Challenges in Nepal's Response

Several factors hindered the effectiveness of Nepal's earthquake response:

• Responses were generally slow
• Three years after the earthquake, only 13.7% of buildings had been rebuilt
• Emergency responses were limited due to poor equipment
• As an LIC, Nepal lacked finances reserved for natural disasters
• The prevalence of unreinforced brick masonry led to widespread building collapses

Highlight: The contrast between Nepal's and Christchurch's responses underscores the significant impact that a country's economic status and preparedness can have on disaster recovery.

This comparison of the Christchurch earthquake 2011 responses and the Nepal earthquake 2015 short term long term responses clearly illustrates the disparities in disaster management capabilities between HICs and LICs. It emphasizes the need for improved global cooperation in disaster preparedness and response, particularly for vulnerable nations.

Comparative Analysis of Nepal and Christchurch Earthquakes

This page provides a detailed comparison of the Nepal earthquake 2015 and the Christchurch earthquake 2011, focusing on their causes, impacts, and the effectiveness of responses. This analysis is crucial for understanding how different countries cope with similar natural disasters.

Causes and Magnitudes

Nepal Earthquake 2015

The Nepal earthquake 2015 was a powerful seismic event with the following characteristics:

• Magnitude: 7.6 on the Richter scale
• Location: Northwest of Kathmandu
• Tectonic setting: Occurred along the destructive boundary between the Indian and Eurasian plates

Vocabulary: A destructive plate boundary is where two tectonic plates move towards each other, with one plate being forced beneath the other.

Christchurch Earthquake 2011

The Christchurch earthquake 2011 had different geological characteristics:

• Magnitude: 6.3 on the Richter scale
• Tectonic setting: Occurred along the conservative boundary between the Pacific and Australian plates

Definition: A conservative plate boundary is where two tectonic plates slide past each other horizontally, without creating or destroying crust.

Comparative Impacts

Economic Impacts

• Nepal: $10 billion in total damage, with 50% of shops destroyed and significant decline in tourism
• Christchurch: $28 billion in total damage, with 100,000 properties affected and prolonged business closures

Highlight: Despite the lower magnitude, the Christchurch earthquake caused higher economic damage in absolute terms, reflecting the higher property values and more developed infrastructure in New Zealand.

Social Impacts

• Nepal: 8,800 fatalities, 1 million homeless, 26 hospitals destroyed
• Christchurch: 180 fatalities, 2,200 in temporary housing, one-fifth of the population migrated

Example: The stark difference in fatalities $8,800 in Nepal vs. 180 in Christchurch$ illustrates the impact of building standards and emergency preparedness on earthquake outcomes.

Environmental Impacts

• Nepal: Large ground faults, 325 aftershocks, avalanches, and landslides
• Christchurch: Liquefaction affecting roads and buildings

Response Effectiveness

Short-term Responses

• Nepal: Delayed initial response, with helicopters reaching the epicenter 24 hours after the tremor
• Christchurch: Rapid response with immediate international aid and deployment of emergency services

Long-term Responses

• Nepal: Slow rebuilding process, with only 13.7% of buildings reconstructed after three years
• Christchurch: Efficient recovery with dedicated authority and significant progress in infrastructure restoration

Quote: "Three years after earthquake only 13.7% of buildings had been rebuilt" in Nepal, highlighting the challenges faced by LICs in long-term disaster recovery.

Factors Influencing Response Effectiveness

1. Economic status: Nepal's status as an LIC limited its financial resources for disaster response and recovery.
2. Infrastructure: Christchurch's more developed infrastructure facilitated faster and more effective responses.
3. Building standards: Nepal's widespread use of unreinforced brick masonry led to more extensive damage and higher casualties.
4. Governance: New Zealand's creation of a dedicated recovery authority streamlined the rebuilding process.

This comparative analysis of the Nepal earthquake 2015 case study and the Christchurch earthquake 2011 underscores the critical role of economic development, infrastructure, and governance in determining a country's resilience to natural disasters. It highlights the need for improved disaster preparedness and international cooperation to support vulnerable nations in mitigating the impacts of seismic events.

Christchurch Earthquake Response Measures

The Christchurch Earthquake 2011 responses demonstrated effective disaster management in a high-income country.

Highlight: Short-term responses included $7 million in international aid and deployment of 300 Australian police.

Example: Long-term recovery involved construction of 10,000 affordable homes and establishment of the Canterbury earthquake recovery authority.

Quote: "Canterbury earthquake recovery authority was given the power to change planning laws and regulations."

Nepal Earthquake 2015 and Christchurch Earthquake 2011: A Comparative Study

The Nepal earthquake 2015 and the Christchurch earthquake 2011 provide contrasting case studies of seismic events in different geographical and economic contexts. This page outlines the key characteristics and impacts of both earthquakes.

Nepal Earthquake 2015

The Nepal earthquake 2015 was a devastating 7.6 magnitude event that struck northwest of Kathmandu. It occurred along the destructive boundary between the Indian and Eurasian plates. The effects were amplified in Kathmandu due to its location on the Kathmandu basin.

Highlight: The earthquake's impact was exacerbated by Kathmandu's geological setting, demonstrating the importance of local geography in natural disasters.

Primary and Secondary Impacts

The earthquake had wide-ranging economic, social, and environmental consequences:

Economic Impacts:

• Destruction of the international airport
• 50% of shops destroyed
• Total damage estimated at $10 billion
• Decline in tourism
• Outbreak of looting

Example: The destruction of half the shops in the affected area illustrates the severe economic disruption caused by the earthquake.

Social Impacts:

• 8,800 fatalities
• 26 hospitals destroyed
• 1 million people left homeless
• Food shortages
• Disease outbreaks due to unburied bodies

Vocabulary: Primary effects are the immediate consequences of an earthquake, while secondary effects are the indirect results that occur in the aftermath.

Environmental Impacts:

• Wildlife deaths
• Formation of large ground faults
• 325 aftershocks recorded
• Avalanche on Mt. Everest resulting in 19 deaths
• Landslides, including one that buried a village, killing 250 people

Definition: Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes that follow the main shock of a large earthquake.

Christchurch Earthquake 2011

The Christchurch earthquake 2011 was a 6.3 magnitude event that occurred along the conservative boundary between the Pacific and Australian plates.

Primary and Secondary Impacts

Economic Impacts:

• 100,000 properties damaged
• Total damage estimated at $28 billion
• Many businesses closed for extended periods

Social Impacts:

• 180 fatalities
• 2,200 people relocated to temporary housing
• One-fifth of the population migrated from the city
• Schools closed for two weeks
• Five Rugby World Cup matches cancelled

Environmental Impacts:

• Wildlife deaths
• Liquefaction destroyed many roads and buildings

Vocabulary: Liquefaction is a process where water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid, often causing significant damage during earthquakes.

The comparison between these two earthquakes highlights the differing impacts and challenges faced by a Low-Income Country $Nepal$ and a High-Income Country $New Zealand$ in responding to and recovering from major seismic events.