The utility of earth science information in post-earthquake land-use decision-making: the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in Aotearoa New Zealand

Quigley, Mark C.; Saunders, Wendy; Massey, Chris; Van Dissen, Russ; Villamor, Pilar; Jack, Helen; Litchfield, Nicola

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3361-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3361-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3361-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 12

Research article

|

11 Dec 2020

Research article |

| 11 Dec 2020

The utility of earth science information in post-earthquake land-use decision-making: the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in Aotearoa New Zealand

Mark C. Quigley, Wendy Saunders, Chris Massey, Russ Van Dissen, Pilar Villamor, Helen Jack, and Nicola Litchfield

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Dec 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Apr 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'The utility of earth science information in post-earthquake land-use decision-making: the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in Aotearoa New Zealand', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to Reviewer 1', Mark Quigley, 09 Aug 2020
RC2: 'review of manuscript nhess-2020-83', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jul 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to Reviewer 2', Mark Quigley, 09 Aug 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (24 Aug 2020) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Mark Quigley on behalf of the Authors (27 Aug 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (27 Aug 2020) by Maria Ana Baptista

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (31 Aug 2020) by Maria Ana Baptista

RR by Alessandro Maria Michetti (13 Sep 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Main comments

I find the manuscript extremely interesting. The detailed analysis of interaction between scientists and decision makers is a clear illustration of the fact that science is never neutral, and scientists must be aware of this. My main comment is that it would be useful to add some statement about the constraints that the local legal framework put on the methodological approach used for seismic hazard assessment. From an Italian perspective, where we have no earthquake insurance, the message that scientists should send to the Government and the public in my opinion must be quite conservative and deterministic. A probabilistic approach might be not very useful in terms of land planning and building safety. For instance, recurrence interval might be a misleading information in terms of Civil Protection and building codes. I am thinking at California and New Zealand. Large earthquakes are expected along the San Andreas and Alpine Faults, but in the last decades the earthquake damage has been generated by "minor" faults such as those activated in the Canterbury sequence. Therefore, without earthquake insurance seismic hazard maps and seismic zoning should be better based on maximum earthquake estimates. The state of the art and the scientific standards when dealing with disaster management should reflect the reality of the different cultural settings existing in different regions of the world. This issue was at the base of the L'Aquila trial after the 2009 earthquake in Central Italy, for instance. This is not a criticism to the manuscript. I just feel that mentioning this point will help the reader to put this really interesting scientific contribution in the proper epistemological framework.

Specific comment

Berryman 2012 is not in the references; maybe this is Berryman et al 2012

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Sep 2020) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Mark Quigley on behalf of the Authors (14 Oct 2020) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Oct 2020) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Mark Quigley on behalf of the Authors (15 Oct 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (11935 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

This paper examines the roles of earth science information (data, knowledge, advice) in land-use decision-making in Christchurch, New Zealand, in response to the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A detailed timeline of scientific activities and information provisions relative to key decision-making events is provided. We highlight the importance and challenges of the effective provision of science to decision makers in times of crisis.