Communicating evacuation information to multi-storey apartment dwellers: a case study of the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake in Te Whanganui-a-Tara (Wellington), Aotearoa New Zealand

ABSTRACT

On 14 November 2016, the Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake and tsunami occurred in Aotearoa New Zealand, impacting the city of Te Whanganui-a-Tara (Wellington). As many people reside in apartments in Wellington, we undertook a survey followed by interviews to understand evacuation information communicated to apartment dwellers, and how residents used that information for decision-making. Immediately following earthquake shaking, some apartment dwellers stayed in their building as per official advice, while others evacuated because they felt safer outside. A small proportion evacuated because of the tsunami threat, and many of these participants did so because of the ‘Long or Strong, Get Gone’ evacuation advice. Others were unclear whether their apartment building was in a tsunami evacuation zone. Some returned immediately after the initial evacuation, while others with damaged apartments evacuated for weeks to months. Participants used regular information upates particularly via social media channels, to inform decisions about returning after longer-term evacuation. However, communicating with the Body Corporate or landlord was difficult, and apartment dwellers reported having trouble getting information about the damage status of their building, making decisions about returning challenging. Given the unique context of apartment dwellers, communication strategies should be honed to assist responses to a future event.

KEYWORDS:

• Kaikōura
• earthquake
• tsunami
• evacuation
• communication
• Aotearoa New Zealand

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge our participants who filled in the survey and volunteered for interviews, as well as our funders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The full data set and analysis of quantitative survey questions used in this paper can be found in Becker et al. (2018), http://doi.org/10.21420/RH0P-MM18

 Google Scholar

. Additional findings from the qualitative interviews are reported in Blake et al. (2021, 2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156818

 Google Scholar

. The survey questionnaire (Appendix 1) and interview questions (Appendix 2) can be found in OSF, a data repository, at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B8V75

 Google Scholar

.

Notes

1 Now known as the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

2 We did not ask about immediate responses during the shaking such as ‘Drop, Cover, Hold’.

3 Statistics reported in Becker et al. (2018) may vary slightly from this paper, as data was reworked in this paper to better represent the multiple response questions.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by QuakeCoRE: [Publication number 0722]; Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa (Resilience to Nature’s Challenge - National Science Challenge) [Grant Number C05X1909].