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
  • [31] Evaluation of Liquefaction Case Histories from the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes Using Advanced Effective Stress Analysis
    Ntritsos, Nikolaos
    Cubrinovski, Misko
    Rhodes, Aimee
    GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS V: NUMERICAL MODELING AND SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION, 2018, (292): : 152 - 164
  • [32] Community inclusion of wheelchair users during the long-term recovery phase following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Bourke, J. A.
    Hay-Smith, E. J. C.
    Snell, D. L.
    Schluter, P. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2017, 23 : 169 - 177
  • [33] Enacting "accountability in collaborative governance": lessons in emergency management and earthquake recovery from the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes
    Jayasinghe, Kelum
    Kenney, Christine M.
    Prasanna, Raj
    Velasquez, Jerry
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC BUDGETING ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 2020, 32 (03) : 439 - 459
  • [34] The Canterbury Charity Hospital: an update (2010-2012) and effects of the earthquakes
    Bagshaw, Philip F.
    Maimbo-M'siska, Miriam
    Nicholls, M. Gary
    Shaw, Carl G.
    Allardyce, Randall A.
    Bagshaw, Susan N.
    McNabb, Angela L.
    Johnson, Stuart S.
    Frampton, Christopher M.
    Stokes, Brian W.
    NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 126 (1386) : 31 - 42
  • [35] Response and early recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Societal resilience and the role of governance
    Mamula-Seadon, Ljubica
    McLean, Ian
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2015, 14 : 82 - 95
  • [36] Scrutiny of input motions for effective stress analysis of case-history sites from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Ntritsos, Nikolaos
    Cubrinovski, Misko
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2021, 144
  • [37] Site-specific and spatially-distributed ground-motion intensity estimation in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes
    Bradley, Brendon A.
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2014, 61-62 : 83 - 91
  • [38] The Christchurch earthquakes 2010, 2011: Geographies of an event
    Cloke, Paul
    Dickinson, Simon
    Tupper, Sarah
    NEW ZEALAND GEOGRAPHER, 2017, 73 (02) : 69 - 80
  • [39] Fault slip models of the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes from geodetic data and observations of postseismic ground deformation
    Beavan, John
    Motagh, Mahdi
    Fielding, Eric J.
    Donnelly, Nic
    Collett, Dave
    NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS, 2012, 55 (03) : 207 - 221
  • [40] Special Issue on the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence PREFACE
    Elwood, Kenneth J.
    Comerio, Mary
    Cubrinovski, Misko
    Davis, Craig A.
    Johnston, David
    O'Rourke, Thomas D.
    Pampanin, Stefano
    EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA, 2014, 30 (01) : VII - IX