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
  • [21] Structural Adjustment and Community Resilience: The Case of Postdisaster Housing Recovery After the Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011
    Rivera-Munoz, Graciela
    Howden-Chapman, Philippa
    HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR, 2020, 47 (06) : 805 - 815
  • [22] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS OF THE 2010 DARFIELD (CANTERBURY) EARTHQUAKES: AN INTRODUCTION
    Wood, Peter
    Robins, Philip
    Hare, John
    BULLETIN OF THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2010, 43 (04): : I - IV
  • [23] Monitoring wellbeing during recovery from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes: The CERA wellbeing survey
    Morgan, Jane
    Begg, Annabel
    Beaven, Sarah
    Schluter, Philip
    Jamieson, Kath
    Johal, Sarb
    Johnston, David
    Sparrow, Mary
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2015, 14 : 96 - 103
  • [24] Seismic performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes
    Fikri, Rijalul
    Dizhur, Dmytro
    Walsh, Kevin
    Ingham, Jason
    BULLETIN OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2019, 17 (02) : 737 - 757
  • [25] Seismic performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes
    Rijalul Fikri
    Dmytro Dizhur
    Kevin Walsh
    Jason Ingham
    Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17 : 737 - 757
  • [26] GEOTECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE M 7.1 AND M 6.3 CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2010 AND 22 FEBRUARY 2011
    Davies, M. C. R.
    Pender, M. J.
    Orense, R. P.
    Wotherspoon, L.
    Cubrinovski, M.
    Bowman, E. T.
    GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FOR DISASTER MITIGATION AND REHABILITATION 2011/GEOTECHNICAL AND HIGHWAY ENGINEERING - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES, 2011, : 74 - 77
  • [27] NATURE AND TYPE OF INJURIES FROM THE 4 SEPTEMBER 2010 AND 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES, NEW ZEALAND
    Johnston, D.
    Standring, S.
    INJURY PREVENTION, 2015, 21
  • [28] NATURE AND TYPE OF INJURIES FROM THE 4 SEPTEMBER 2010 AND 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES, NEW ZEALAND
    Johnston, D.
    Standring, S.
    INJURY PREVENTION, 2012, 18
  • [29] 'Spontaneous' volunteers? Factors enabling the Student Volunteer Army mobilisation following the Canterbury earthquakes, 2010-2011
    Nissen, Sylvia
    Carlton, Sally
    Wong, Jennifer H. K.
    Johnson, Sam
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2021, 53
  • [30] New insights into the tectonic inversion of North Canterbury and the regional structural context of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand
    Barnes, Philip M.
    Ghisetti, Francesca C.
    Gorman, Andrew R.
    GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS, 2016, 17 (02): : 324 - 345