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

被引:0
|
作者
David Johnston
Sarah Standring
Kevin Ronan
Michael Lindell
Thomas Wilson
Jim Cousins
Emma Aldridge
Michael Warne Ardagh
Joanne Margaret Deely
Steven Jensen
Thomas Kirsch
Richard Bissell
机构
[1] Massey University,Joint Centre for Disaster Research, T20 Wellington Campus
[2] GNS Science/Massey University,Joint Centre for Disaster Research
[3] University of Auckland,undefined
[4] Central Queensland University,undefined
[5] Texas A&M University,undefined
[6] University of Canterbury,undefined
[7] GNS Science,undefined
[8] University of Otago,undefined
[9] Canterbury District Health Board,undefined
[10] California State University,undefined
[11] Johns Hopkins University,undefined
[12] University of Maryland,undefined
来源
Natural Hazards | 2014年 / 73卷
关键词
Earthquake; Context of injury; Causes of injury; Risk of injury; Injuries;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aim of this study was to investigate causes of injury during the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Data on patients injured during the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch (22 February 2011) earthquakes were sourced from the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation. The total injury burden was analyzed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. Injury context was classified as direct (shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), action (movement of person during the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing potentially avoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). Nine categories of injury cause were identified. Three times as many people were injured in the Christchurch earthquake as in the Darfield earthquake (7,171 vs. 2,256). The primary shaking caused approximately two-thirds of the injuries from both quakes. Actions during the primary shaking and aftershocks led to many injuries (51.3 % Darfield and 19.4 % Christchurch). Primary direct caused the highest proportion of injuries during the daytime Christchurch quake (43.6 %). Many people were injured after shaking stopped in both events: 499 (22.1 % Darfield) and 1,881 (26.2 % Christchurch). Most of these people were injured during clean-up (320 (14.2 %) Darfield; 622 (8.7 %) Christchurch). In both earthquakes, more females than males (1,453 vs. 803 Darfield; 4,646 vs. 2,525 Christchurch) were injured (except by masonry, damaged ground, and during clean-up); trip/fall (27.9 % Darfield; 26.1 % Christchurch) was the most common cause of injury; and soft tissue injuries (74.1 % Darfield; 70.4 % Christchurch) was the most common type of injury. This study demonstrated that where people were and their actions during and after earthquakes influenced their risk of injury.
引用
收藏
页码:627 / 637
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury
    Johnston, David
    Standring, Sarah
    Ronan, Kevin
    Lindell, Michael
    Wilson, Thomas
    Cousins, Jim
    Aldridge, Emma
    Ardagh, Michael Warne
    Deely, Joanne Margaret
    Jensen, Steven
    Kirsch, Thomas
    Bissell, Richard
    NATURAL HAZARDS, 2014, 73 (02) : 627 - 637
  • [2] An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Potter, S. H.
    Becker, J. S.
    Johnston, D. M.
    Rossiter, K. P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2015, 14 : 6 - 14
  • [3] Slip in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, New Zealand
    Elliott, J. R.
    Nissen, E. K.
    England, P. C.
    Jackson, J. A.
    Lamb, S.
    Li, Z.
    Oehlers, M.
    Parsons, B.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH, 2012, 117
  • [4] Ground motion directionality in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Bradley, Brendon A.
    Baker, Jack W.
    EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 2015, 44 (03): : 371 - 384
  • [5] Large Apparent Stresses from the Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011
    Fry, B.
    Gerstenberger, M. C.
    SEISMOLOGICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2011, 82 (06) : 833 - 838
  • [6] The 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes and organisational learning at the University of Canterbury: Does practice make perfect?
    Healey, Nigel
    JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION, 2011, 17 (06) : 850 - 856
  • [7] Comparison of Liquefaction Features Observed during the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes
    Orense, R. P.
    Kiyota, T.
    Yamada, S.
    Cubrinovski, M.
    Hosono, Y.
    Okamura, M.
    Yasuda, S.
    SEISMOLOGICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2011, 82 (06) : 905 - 918
  • [8] Spatial evaluation of liquefaction potential in Christchurch following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Orense, Rolando P.
    Hickman, Nathan A.
    Hill, Brian T.
    Pender, Michael J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, 2014, 8 (04) : 420 - 425
  • [9] Insights from liquefaction ejecta case histories for the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Mijic, Zorana
    Bray, Jonathan D.
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2024, 176
  • [10] Efficacy of insurance for organisational disaster recovery: case study of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Brown, Charlotte
    Seville, Erica
    Vargo, John
    DISASTERS, 2017, 41 (02) : 388 - 408