Oz-Architect.com (also Oz-Architect.com.au & Oz-Architect.net.au)
	What's with this page? I am a student at the University of South Australia I will use this page to place helpful links for the other Architecture and Design students at the University of South Australia Placed at the bottom of this web page is a text version of my Honours Thesis (without images). I have also placed some links at the very bottom of this page... There is information about the ABC series 'In the Mind of the Architect' I strongly suggest you visit this site. I have included a link where you can download winzip. You will need 'winzip' to open some files throughout your studies. I have added a South Australia Tourism link for those who may not know South Australia. It's also great for those who do. Another great link I have included is where you to get the chance to locate your old friends in Australia and New Zealand! They list over 10,000 Australian and New Zealand schools, universities, colleges and TAFEs! They also have clubs, defence force units and over 200,000 workplaces listed! So log on and get in contact with your old friends! Finally there are links for the University of South Australia and the School of Architecture. For any information, contact me at andrew@oz-architect.com During my studies I have written the following Honours Thesis (please note all images cannot be viewed on this web version. However image references are located at end of thesis) Emergency Housing (Preparation for a South Australian disaster) A thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Architecture with Honours LLS School of Architecture and Design University of South Australia 2005 The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance. Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC) Table of contents Declaration Acknowledgements Forward Introduction Chapter 1 - Possible natural hazards - assessing the risk in South Australia - Flooding - Bushfires - Coastal storms - Earthquakes - Risk assessment conclusion Chapter 2 - Seismology in Australia and South Australia - Modified Mercalli (MM) scale - Adelaide earthquake of 1954 Chapter 3 - After the event - responding to a cataclysmic scale disaster - The structure and effects of disaster - Warning phase - Impact phase - Rehabilitation phase Conclusion Bibliography Acknowledgements No one person is responsible for achievement alone. Many people have contributed to my graduate education; for my studies with Honours I am thankful to the support and encouragement from Professor Mads Gaardboe, Dr. Robert Crocker and Ms. Virginia Lee, whilst throughout my studies for Bachelor of Architecture I wish to thank all the faculty of the University of South Australia’s Louis Laybourne Smith School of Architecture. In particular I would like to confer my sincere gratitude to some who made my experience a special one and who have shown me continued support: Stephen Loo our esteemed Architectural Program Director, a man of knowledge, wisdom and compassion. David Morris, John Schenk and Stephen Ward, your lectures were always a pleasure to participate in. I must also thank Dr. Scott Drake whom I admire as a great educator; Melbourne University’s gain was our loss. In addition to these people, I have been fortunate to have had the support of friends who have been extremely important to me whilst studying, including Dr. Jill Benson, Leo Cheong, ‘Adam’ Chun Ser Chua, ‘Josh’ Euway Gan, Tamara Hunyadi, Ho-Jin Kim, Derek Lam, Donavan Lau, ‘Jeffrey’ Hui Lu, Joel Trigg, Emmett Stinson and Marcus Taylor. I would like to thank those closest to me whose presence has helped make the completion of my graduate work possible. My classmate Moses Chui, my best friend for the past 6 years and the most reliable friend one could have, and Kent Tai, you have both shared the difficult and happy times, thank you both for your patience and understanding. Most of all, I would like to thank my family, especially my mother Elaine, my brothers Keith and his family Irene, Gemel and Keiren; Lloyd and his partner Karen, and my sister Melanie for their absolute confidence in me. Finally, it could not go without passing that if it were not for the continued support and generosity from Helen and Kate Gerard I would never have been able to complete my goal of becoming an architect. Thank you all. Forward From an uninitiated point of view, disaster planning may well seem like a contradiction in terms. How can you, by definition, plan for the unexpected? Such a view, while it may appeal to a certain form of common sense, is wholly inaccurate. Indeed, disaster planning is, in fact, essential to proper and prompt response to a disaster of any form size or shape, “nevertheless, many communities tend to ignore the risks to life and property posed by the ever-increasing hazard spectrum. Others make token efforts at preparedness, accepting the possibility of local disaster and designing a plan to deal with its aftermath. A few more enlightened municipalities have begun to recognize that every decision has an impact on risk, and therefore the probability of disaster.” While the task may seem overwhelming disaster planning quite simply saves lives on the most basic of levels. Disaster planning is an essential part of streamlining the response process to a cataclysmic event. Carefully considered disaster planning saves lives and enables communities to have a detailed and careful response to a devastating event that stops a problem from becoming worse. Failing to plan for such disasters can lead to careless and haphazard decision making that will only increase damage, costs and possible loss of life. Indeed, any who doubt the reality of the importance of a disaster plan need only consider multiple events over the last several years. The 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. helped to make disaster planning a high profile issue, as communities realized that even developed first-world localities had to prepare themselves for responding to disasters. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the subsequent tsunami disaster that followed further highlighted the need for careful and considered disaster planning. As that event showed, areas with disaster plans in place were able to respond to the devastation much more effectively and efficiently. While no amount of disaster planning could minimize the initial effects of that disaster, planning and response became essential as all of the displaced had to be housed, water supplies had to be found, and the wounded had to receive treatment. While the scale of that tragedy is not to be underestimated, it is important to learn the relevant lessons from it and realise that, while a disaster can strike at any moment, there is no excuse for any community to be taken unaware by a natural or manmade cataclysmic event. Unfortunately today’s environment of religious rebellion, disenchantment and hatred, has emerged the grim possibility of a terrorist strike on the people of South Australia and Adelaide. Whilst it would be a severely tragic event, the possibility of sustaining a prodigious loss of housing is not going to be an issue of concern as most attacks are centralised bombings of public/office buildings or public events. Therefore this writer will exclude the acts of terrorism and only look at the possible loss of homes through natural events. Natural hazards are a threat that we will never be able to escape fully, yet this very fact does not mean that we should then give up on trying to mitigate the damage that they cause. Indeed, preparation is one of the key aspects to determining how likely it is that a community will survive. “The degree to which a society is adapted to a particular hazard depends, among other things, not only on the information available about the likely magnitudes of hazard events and their potential impact, but of the willingness and ability of people to act on that information.” Thus, it is necessary that any approach to natural disasters not simply wallow in theory but focus on the most practical of applications, which allows people to translate information directly into action. This is of course purely practical because, in opposition to most common conception, natural disasters are in fact, not rare occurrences. “Many extreme geophysical events occur with a periodicity only slightly longer than the time span of human memory (perhaps 30-100 years). The tendency to forget during the lull between such impacts means that … the result has often been a prevailing aura of surprise and confusion.” Thus, natural disaster planning accounts not for possibilities, but in fact, eventualities. Whether or not a natural disaster occurs in Adelaide during the lifespan of this author does not change the fact that a natural disaster eventually will occur in Adelaide at some point in the future. Thus, disaster planning is of the utmost importance, because there is a real factual basis in the concept that a natural disaster will occur in Adelaide, and all the evidence suggests that those communities that plan for disasters are more likely to survive them. Generally speaking, South Australia has been lucky enough to have avoided disasters on the scale mentioned previously, but it would be absolute folly to think that South Australia is immune to any sort of large-scale disaster simply because it has largely avoided them thus far. While natural disasters may not recur with frequency in the average human lifetime, they do recur, and to pretend otherwise is be negligent. It is essential that South Australia have a detailed well-planned disaster plan for this locality, otherwise it could be opening itself to the possibility of an unnecessary and preventable loss of life in the event of a disaster. Obviously, a fully-developed disaster plan for South Australia would be a detailed and complex study that is beyond the ambit of this particular research. Nonetheless, what will be attempted is the addition of one small section of knowledge to this larger project. Indeed, one of the most serious issues affecting people after the occurrence of a cataclysmic event is the issue of what to do with people who have been displaced and rendered homeless by the effects of a disaster. Again, this is a materially important issue for South Australia to consider as a community. Housing, along with medical aid, food, and water supply, is one of the most fundamental issues of disaster management. Often, disaster can lead to widespread homelessness and this issue alone is difficult to plan for logistically since creating housing for a large number of displaced people is difficult. Further at issue is coming up with a plan for housing that is quick to put into initiation. Quick construction of housing is obviously an essential issue, since any large homeless population will need to be provided shelter immediately. It is not acceptable to simply implement housing plans from other areas either, since the requirements of housing will obviously vary from location to location. South Australia, with its particularly dry climate and intense sun, presents very specific environmental factors that are unique to its location. Any plan for temporary housing must address these specific environmental factors, and therefore must be tailored to this particular environment. Similarly, the resources, including storage and construction materials, must be ones that are readily available and any plan must consider this fact in regards to the issue of temporary housing for disaster victims. Lastly, there is the issue of the liveability of the housing. Surprisingly, this issue can be a bit of a double-edged sword in that, while temporary housing must be liveable housing for those who are displaced, it should not be overly comfortable beyond basic adequacy. Temporary housing is by definition temporary, and one does not want to encourage anyone to remain in that housing any longer than necessary. Indeed, the reality of the situation is that, while the housing must remain liveable by any standards, it should not be so comfortable as to discourage the victims of disaster from seeking other permanent housing as quickly as possible. Thus, temporary shelter for the victims of catastrophic events is a strange architectural phenomenon in that it needs to be functional, but cannot allow itself to be much more than that, or else it risks undermining the reconstruction process. It is simply not acceptable for South Australians to assume that they will continue to be lucky enough to live without facing a large-scale disaster of one type or another. The reality is that such a disaster is an eventuality, not a probability. Some large-scale event of one form or another will eventually occur and it is absolutely essential that we are prepared to deal with that event when it comes. Careful planning reduces destruction and loss of life in the wake of a disaster, and there is simply no excuse whatsoever for any failure to plan accurately and accordingly for such developments. The following pages will document some possible solutions to creating emergency housing in South Australia in the hopes that it will minimize damage and distress when such a cataclysmic event eventually does occur in South Australia. Introduction This study seeks to do several very simple things in order to examine the risk of natural hazards in Adelaide and South Australia and ultimately determine what sort of emergency shelter might be necessary in the case of such events occurring. The first section examines the various natural hazards that threaten Adelaide, looking at both their occurrences in the past and likelihood of future occurrence, along with projected damage potential. The second section specifically examines one natural disaster, here earthquakes, which are of the most likely potential danger to Adelaide. This chapter examines general information about earthquakes, reviews the damage they have caused here in the past and looks toward what damage they could cause in the future. The third and final section considers a potential disaster plan for Adelaide. It examines the current disaster-plan management system and suggests a few possible modifications. The last part of this section specifically considers disaster shelter and looks at the different types available to Adelaide for disaster relief housing. Chapter 1 Possible natural hazards - Assessing the risk in South Australia Any discussion of managing natural hazards and minimizing their deleterious impact must not simply look at this issue from a global perspective. While natural hazards may be an earth-wide threat, disasters themselves are always geographically specific, local events. All this is to say that in disaster planning, one must consider the specific locality in terms of its unique placement and conditions and create a plan for disaster management accordingly. Thus, in considering emergency housing in response to a South Australian disaster, we must first consider South Australia, its location, setting, and the natural disasters that are most likely to befall it. South Australia, with its dry climate and location in the central lower part of the Australian continent, has a specific set of characteristics that lead to certain types of disasters being far more likely than others. Any reasonable disaster plan will focus on those natural hazards which are most likely to occur in a given region. In South Australia, the most likely natural disasters include “flooding, bushfires, coastal storms, and earthquakes.” Not all of these hazards, however, will necessarily have an equally damaging impact, and it would therefore be unnecessary to consider all of them in equal length and depth. That being said, it is worthwhile to asses the relative threat potential of each particular hazard in considering what the likely consequences and emergency responses are. Based on these, we can then consider either the probability or necessity of creating temporary housing and what the proper shape and form of such housing might be. Flooding Despite Australia’s reputation as the driest country on earth, it is hardly immune to flooding. Indeed, as illustrated by the Brisbane floods of 1974, which caused more than $331 million (adjusted to 1999 values) in property damage, Australian flooding can be quite severe. Indeed, more recent occurrences in “Coffs Harbour (1996), Townsville (1998), Katherine (1998) and Wollongong (1998)” have demonstrated that Australia is equally susceptible to flooding and its subsequent damage. It should be noted at the outset that flooding is not the most egregious form of natural hazard likely to befall South Australia, especially in comparison to other regions of the country. Indeed, “compared with the high rainfall of areas of eastern and northern Australia, the potential for flooding in South Australia is minor.” One of the reasons for this is that the major areas that are subject to flooding are largely outside of the more populous areas of South Australia, since the major areas of concern in the state are “the Far North, the Flinders Ranges and Mid North, the Mount Lofty Ranges and Adelaide Plains, along the River Murray and in the south east.” However, simply because a catastrophic flood is unlikely, and even severe flooding is a rare occurrence, it does not necessarily follow that flooding should not be considered in a South Australian disaster plan. Fig. 2 - 1986 Georges river flood N.S.W. In fact, the area of flood management is one in which South Australia has previously experienced difficulties, with government flood management “characterized by parochial argument, a lack of co-operation, reports not acted upon, pollution and ill-considered development interspersed with damaging flood events.” And, indeed serious floods have occurred in South Australia, including flood events in 1889 and 1897 which were described as “extraordinary and phenomenal.” Annual flood damages have been estimated, by studies in 1979 and 1982 at $4 million and $5 million dollars per year, and concluded that up to 26,000 houses could be involved in or damaged by a major flood event in South Australia. Although a more recent survey contradicts these earlier two, putting annual damages at closer to $1.2 million. The potential for flooding in South Australia is mitigated by the fact that the most common sources of floods are local rivers, in danger of overflowing due to excessive rains and run-off. This means that, in comparison to a situation such as that of New Orleans this year (Sept. 2005), in which the majority of the city was under sea-level and protected only by poorly maintained levees, the chances of a truly catastrophic flood on that scale are minimal. Fig 3. – New Orleans flood 2005 Still, the River Torrens alone does provide a source of much possible trouble. Since that river runs through the majority of urban Adelaide and a great deal of the surrounding suburban developments, the potential for damage is great. According to one estimate, every 100 years the River Torrens is responsible for a flood damaging more than 5,000 homes; every 200 years a flood would occur that would damage almost 14,000 homes; and every 500 years there would be a flood that damaged more than 18,000 homes. Thus, while the destruction of such a flood may not be catastrophic, its potential for damage to property is both substantial and real. Floods are a continuing threat in South Australia. There are a variety of ways to mitigate flooding, including “measures in rural catchments to delay and reduce runoff by afforestation … measures in urban areas to delay and spread flood peaks … measures to keep floodplains free of development or to flood proof developments … greater use of land use planning, flood insurance and flood-proofing measures … [and the] establishment of flood warning systems.” That being said, it is clear from examples in the United States that there is an “inadequacy of solely engineering solutions” to flood prevention, as the havoc recently wrecked by flooding from Hurricane Katrina made abundantly clear in New Orleans. Indeed, the failure of engineering solutions to flooding is hardly a new concern. The best solution is keeping floodplains undeveloped, but in “Metropolitan Adelaide, development has proceeded so far onto floodplains that planning measures have been applied too late.” What this means, effectively, is that flooding of homes will be a continuing risk and problem in South Australia that can only be mitigated rather than prevented. There are some possible architectural responses to this concern, including the encouragement of flood proof housing in areas that are prone to flooding. One radical design recently proposed in the Netherlands suggests the design of floating houses that are not fixed to their foundations and which rise along with swelling floodwaters. This design, if it is indeed practicable, could offer a revolutionary approach to flood proofing in at-risk areas. Fig. 4 – Floating house in Netherlands As the Netherlands are located below sea level, the Dutch government frequently hold design exhibitions/competitions for amphibious housing planning. Fig.5 -Hertzberger's Watervilla Unfortunately, while such plans and designs are of great benefit to new housing, they offer no solution to structures that are already in place. Therefore, while flooding is not the most severe possible environmental hazard in South Australia, it will always be a risk. There remains the potential for a severe flood event which could result in the destruction of thousands of homes and create a need for temporary housing. Since this risk is considerably higher than negligible, it would be of great use for South Australia to create a subsequent plan for temporary housing after such an event. Bushfires Bushfires are a phenomenon fairly unique to the Australian continent and one which presents a specific and unusual set of concerns and criteria for response and prevention. As the driest state in the driest continent on earth, bushfires are obviously a perennial concern in South Australia. Indeed, the occurrence of bushfires is so commonplace that one almost expects at least one to occur somewhere in South Australia every summer. Fig. 6 - Bushfire seasons in Australia Bushfires are, of course, are slightly different than most other environmental hazards in that they are primarily a disaster caused by humans who are not careful given Australia’s arid and hot climate. Most fires are caused by humans setting fire to something, with lightening strikes the only “natural component” of bushfires, “resulting in less than 5% of rural fires.” That being said it is the natural features of an area, including “weather, topography and vegetation” that determine how serious the effects of a bushfire are. Fig. 7 - Bushfire in mid-flame up Bushfires remain a serious threat in Australia. Roughly “15,000 bushfires occur in Australia each year” with a massively “disastrous fire perhaps every six to ten years”, although the frequency of these fires are likely to increase along with El Niño induced droughts. According to the best estimates, at least 693 people have perished in bushfires in Australia, though almost a third of these deaths were related to Australia’s three most severe bushfires - Black Friday, Victoria in 1939, the Tasmanian fires of 1967, and the Ash Wednesday of 1983 in South Australia and Victoria. Thus bushfires do have the potential to be extremely destructive and cause significant fatalities. Further, there is very little that can be done from a physical management perspective, to stop a bushfire once it has begun: “In conflagration” conditions, fire intensities are so great, the rate of fire spread so rapid, and the erratic fire behaviour so common, that fire-suppression forces can do virtually nothing to control a well-established fire until factors outside the control of the fire-fighters, such as weather or fuels, intervene. This is so in spite of the now very considerable knowledge of the processes involved in the combustion and spread of fire. Thus, physical management of an occurring bushfire is largely impossible. Therefore the focus of disaster management must centre on the issues of prevention, education, and reconstruction. Architecture can play a significant role in this process. Nonetheless, bushfires, while a significant and recurring threat, are of considerably less concern for temporary housing. The reason for this is that bushfires simply do not occur in urban areas where housing and populations are most concentrated, since those areas are typically deforested and lack the flammable materials needed to create bushfire conditions. Despite this however, the potential for severe damage remains. Specifically, areas on the very edge of urban developments can be both somewhat densely populated and bushfire-prone. From an Australia-wide prospective, the urban-rural fringe of all southern cities are the most hazardous regions in regard to fire . . . This hazard is due as much to the amount of development exposed to fires as to the frequency . . . The Blue Mountains, Mount Macedon, Dandenongs, and Mount Lofty Ranges contain areas of scattered residential development amidst bushland and farmland. In such environments, even relatively small fires can result in major economic loss . . . Thus, while the likely effects of such a fire will probably not cause displacement from homes on the scale of flooding, they can be major, nonetheless, as happened in a 1962 South Australian fire that destroyed 450 houses and killed eight people. Indeed, the potential for damage here is serious and these “urban fringe areas are amongst the most fire-hazardous in the world,” being “comparable with parts of Southern California, Mediterranean countries, and South Africa.” Therefore, while bushfires are a continuing natural hazard that must be planned for, their potential to cause a situation in which emergency housing was required is fairly unlikely. Even a situation in which 450 houses were destroyed, it’s likely that housing could be found or created for these people in a fashion that wouldn’t require the erection of new structures. Existing public spaces could likely be modified in some fashion to provide temporary shelter for these people and a good many of them would likely be able to find temporary shelter with friends, family, or by seeking another form of temporary accommodation. Coastal storms Cyclones are certainly one of the more serious natural hazards that can affect Australian coasts. Cyclone Tracy, well known for the massive damage it wreaked upon Darwin in 1974, was an enormous storm, with winds of at least 217 km. Due to the storm, “more than 90% of the residences in Darwin [were] severely damaged or destroyed.” The damage was so significant that more than 40,000 people in Darwin were left without basic services, including water, power, and communication and extensive emergency services were required. Coastal storms are of relatively less concern to South Australia than either bushfires of floods. For one thing destructive cyclones are largely unknown in South Australia, as opposed to the north of the country and even the western coast, both of which are more likely to receive such weather. This has to do with a simple issue of location and positioning. Cyclones generally only form at between 5˚ and 20˚ of the equator, a phenomenon which is due to the Coriolis effect, which is the “rotational force generated by the difference in speed of the earth’s rotation at the equator at the poles” causing a cyclone’s clockwise rotation in the southern hemisphere. Fig. 8 - Coriolis effect This limited range where cyclones can form limits the areas that they affect. While it is quite common for cyclones to travel outside of this zone, their strength and impact lessens considerably over these distances. While it is not uncommon for cyclones to hit sections of the west or east coast outside of the area of their typical longitudinal formation, it is much more difficult for them to affect South Australia. In order for this to occur, a cyclone must travel well away from its typical zone of formation, travel around the coast and then loop back in to South Australia, a rare enough occurrence in and of itself. Further, such storms tend to loose their strength due to the distance travelled as well as previous contact with large shores, which tends to sap cyclones’ strength. For this reason, the occurrence of a Cyclone Tracy-style disaster occurring in South Australia is extremely improbable. Nevertheless, coastal storms of different forms do occur and are capable of causing extensive damage. The level of damage possible has also increased radically due to human intrusion in the natural environment. Before this intrusion in South Australia, “Adelaide’s beaches were a natural dune-beach-bar system in long-term equilibrium.” Since development, this equilibrium has been compromised, resulting in increased damage from coastal storms. Further, one must account for rising sea levels that are part of global climate change caused by human industrialisation. As a result, “the sea level is rising at 10cms per century” an effect that is made worse by “a sinking of parts of the Adelaide plains” resulting in a “loss of 15m width of beach since 1836.” All of this has made the coastline considerably more vulnerable to coastal storm damage than it was before settlement occurred in the area. Fig. 9 - Damaging power of coastal storms To some degree this vulnerability has been mitigated by a variety of engineering solutions in the 20th century, including “1000 metres of sea walls” erected during the 1950s in Glenelg and “4.5km of rip-rap” in the 1970s.” These measures, along with annual replenishment of sand at the beaches, have led to less damage from storms. The effectiveness of these measures has been demonstrated. Two major storms occurred in 1981, on June 1st and July 3rd and were accompanied by a record low barometric pressure of 979 mb (June 1st) and a record high tides of 3.49m (1.34m above prediction) on June 1st and 3.98m on July 3rd. However the total storm damage on the Brighton-Outer Harbour coast was $10,000 which compared very favourably with that of earlier storms. The rip-rap protection fared very well with minimal damage. Thus, while engineering measures largely fail in flood circumstances, they can have a real benefit in the case of coastal storms. Still, all of this indicates that while coastal storms will remain a significant and notable hazard in terms of cost and maintenance, plans for coastal storms will be very unlikely to require any sort of planning for emergency shelters. While such plans would be absolutely essential for other areas of Australia, South Australia is luckily positioned so that it needn’t fear such a natural disaster on the scale of what could occur in for example the tropical north of Australia, or even on the western coast of Australia. Thus, while cyclones and other coastal storms are important to consider, we can largely ignore them in terms of creating a plan for emergency shelter following the occurrence of a natural hazard in South Australia. Earthquakes Earthquakes are the most serious potential threat to the inhabitants of South Australia. Adelaide was the site of one of Australia’s first recorded earthquakes, during which settlers stated that “there was land-rumbling noise that lasted 20 seconds. The earth shook and trembled. It was an earthquake.” This may seem strange, since for “most of the Australian land mass, geologically-active plate boundaries lie hundreds of kilometres seaward of the populated coastlines and even further from the vast continental interior.” Nevertheless earthquakes are fairly common in Australia as a whole and “an M 6.0 earthquake can be anticipated on average once every five years, an M 5.3 once a year, and an M 4 or greater earthquake about once in 17 days.” Even worse, the ability to predict these events is at best uneven, at worst, completely impossible. No model of intraplate Seismicity exists to explain why these earthquakes occurred where they did nor where they are most likely to occur in the future ... It must be assumed that earthquakes can and will occur anywhere, but there is some evidence that they are more likely to occur in some areas than others. Fig. 10 - Damage from the Turkish earthquake of 1999 Western Australia is traditionally the area that is most associated with Australian earthquakes and sees both the most frequent and strongest earthquakes, though central Australia is the second most earthquake-prone area in Australia. Further, the Newcastle earthquake of 1989 reminded people that severe earthquakes can and do occur with relative frequency in places that are not particularly earthquake-prone. It is worth noting that according to one graphic representation, Adelaide is just as earthquake-prone as Newcastle, and according to the same representation, an earthquake of at least a 7.0 magnitude can be expected once every fifty years, with a “10% chance of exceedance.” While these figures may seem relatively low in some regards, they are quite significant from the perspective of risk management. Among other things they indicate the fact that a severe earthquake almost certainly will occur in Adelaide and South Australia. The question is not if such an event will occur, but when. What this means is that earthquake disaster planning and consequent preventative actions are absolutely essential to the city itself. This is of considerable concern also because much Australian architecture has not been designed to deal with the type of earthquakes that are likely to result. By way of comparison “Australian buildings will suffer more than New Zealand buildings for a given intensity because few have been designed for lateral seismic loads, un-reinforced masonry is common, and because their condition deteriorates more in the longer interval between earthquakes.” This suggests that such planning is even more important because a lower-magnitude event could have a significant impact on South Australia above and beyond the sort of damage caused in areas that have been designed to be more earthquake-resistant. Indeed, especially since the history of recorded events extends back “in Adelaide only about 150 years” it is difficult to know with any certainty the frequency of earthquakes in realistic terms. We are left only with seismic models and predictions, and as already stated above these are mostly of little use in terms of their ability to offer an actual prediction of seismic events. Therefore, it may be worth admitting that the possible risk of earthquakes in Adelaide could be significantly higher than currently anticipated. Before the major earthquake events in the 1980s, Adelaide’s 1954 was the most damaging in the history and “Adelaide, along with Wollongong is regarded as the city with the highest earthquake risk in Australia.” Therefore, this threat of earthquake is one that remains serious and severe in South Australia. "The quake, which happened at about 3.40am on March 1, 1954, was about the same size as the Newcastle earthquake in 1989, … The Adelaide quake caused about £3 million damage but thankfully - and perhaps luckily - no-one died. If a similar quake occurred today, [it is] estimated the cost would be more than $1 billion.” The natural hazard has, of course, been further exacerbated by other elements in the process of human settlement and urban development. In more earthquake-prone areas, steps have been taken in construction to reduce the amount of likely damage. Adelaide, however, lags behind areas like California and much of Japan in its construction of earthquake-proof architecture. Given the current state of architectural advance, we know that “tall steel framed buildings fair well during earthquakes” as do “modern houses built to building codes with roofs, walls and foundations tied into one rigid unit.” Adelaide, however, is probably not particularly well-prepared for an earthquake, architecturally speaking. While the preservation of older structures may lead to a city that is pleasing to the eye, it also leads to the continuing existence of structures that are much more susceptible to earthquake damage. There is a high risk of damage to many of Adelaide’s old houses, particularly those with masonry-bearing walls with wood interior constructions. A further hazard is due to falling parapets, filler walls and displays from high buildings, and from fires with ruptured gas mains and electric short-circuits. This damage does not even take into account such concerns as other important pieces of infrastructure, such as dams, bridges and other pieces of architecture and engineering that remain central to the urban efficacy of Adelaide and South Australia. For example, “minor cracks which appeared in the Barossa Dam are thought to have been partly caused by the 1954 earthquake.” It can only be speculated as to what effects future severe earthquakes might have on aging and possibly already-damaged pieces of physical infrastructure. Fig. 11 - 2004 Indian ocean tsunami hitting Thailand There is a concomitant feature of earthquakes in the form of tsunamis caused by earthquakes occurring out at sea off of Australia’s coast. The tsunami disaster in the Pacific last year certainly underscored the potential for damage that can be caused by such terrible events. It is worth briefly considering the possibility of such an event in Adelaide and South Australia. Tsunami occurrence is “relatively low” in Australia with the highest risk area being “the northwest coast of Western Australia facing the Java-Sumatra subduction zone.” Only one tsunami-related death has ever occurred in Australia and Adelaide is positioned such that the occurrence of a tsunami here is unlikely, especially as its distance from probable epicentres mean that it would receive smaller waves and likely be aware of an impending tsunami and thus have time to react. Nonetheless, tsunamis remain a possible risk, as “evidence has been assembled from the New South Wales coast for a number of substantial tsunamis in prehistoric times” which “may have been as high as several tens of metres” and have “a mean recurrence interval of about 600 years.” Thus, while a tsunami event remains very unlikely, it is hardly impossible and any plan outlining earthquake risk should at least briefly consider tsunami response, since they will occur from time to time. While Adelaide might not share an earthquake risk in the scale of cities like Tokyo or San Francisco, it remains an area in which a significant earthquake, with far reaching damage to property and human life, is possible. A severe earthquake in Adelaide is almost certain to occur at some point in the future with the only variables being when and how prepared the city is for such a disaster. We have control over this second variable by engaging in successful earthquake-reaction planning and by considering whether or not current building codes take in significant-enough consideration of earthquake hazards. Earthquakes in Adelaide have the potential to displace thousands from their homes, disrupt essential services such as water, power, and sanitation, and create a disaster significant enough to lead to a sizable relief effort and reconstruction project. Though unlikely, such an event is far from impossible and must be treated with according seriousness and it must be considered that earthquakes pose by far the most serious threat to Adelaide in terms of both human and property damage. Risk assessment conclusion Several different natural hazards will continue to plague both Adelaide and South Australia for the foreseeable future, and of those, flooding, bushfires, coastal storms and earthquakes remain the largest and most serious threats. The preceding section considered these four natural hazards, examining their historical occurrence in the area, their probable recurrence, the likely damage from such an event, and an assessment of the overall risk linked to such an occurrence. Bushfires and coastal storms remain serious natural hazards that will plague the area. Coastal storms will continue to cause serious erosion and property damage problems, which will only worsen as human settlement continues to weaken natural barriers to such losses. It is essential for South Australia to consider the ways in which they plan and zone coastal areas to reduce this problem and also to consider alternative engineering solutions to decrease erosion and coastal storm damage. Bushfires, similarly, will remain a constant problem that will destroy houses and take lives. Better bushfire prevention through alarm systems and education about proper bushfire response will hopefully decrease the level of damage caused by these events. Still, neither bushfires nor coastal storms are likely to cause or create a cataclysmic disaster-type event in South Australia, on the level of say the tsunami disaster or even hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. While there can be no doubt of the human and property damage caused by such events, it is unlikely that either a coastal storm or a bushfire here is likely to require a massive-scale disaster response plan of the sort that other events might require. Flooding, also a continual problem in the area is also unlikely to cause a cataclysmic-type disaster. It is, however, a more serious threat than the previous two in terms of disaster response because a serious flood could conceivably damage thousands of homes locally, leaving them too damaged for habitation and forcing a significant number of people to seek alternate housing. A serious and cogent plan for alternate housing is clearly relevant for considering this possible event. An earthquake scenario, on the other hand, does hold the potential for causing a natural disaster on a cataclysmic scale equal to or even surpassing the Newcastle quake of 1989. Indeed, such an earthquake could have serious effects in Adelaide, especially since a large number of its structures are not designed or rated for a serious earthquake and might very well not be able to withstand the type of earthquake that Adelaide receives with some frequency. Therefore in focusing on a disaster plan, a later section will most centrally focus on the possibility of an earthquake leading to a cataclysmic-scale natural disaster. Since it is this possibility that presents the most risk to Adelaide, it is the most relevant to consider. Any attempt to create a disaster plan for Adelaide must first and foremost focus on an earthquake as the most serious possible local threat. First, however, we should consider the likely types of damage and other problems that would result from an earthquake. Chapter 2 Seismology in Australia and South Australia Australia is certainly lucky in that its overall seismology is relatively minor in comparison to many countries. Since most Australian fault lines do not exceed 100 km, it is extremely unlikely that an earthquake above a magnitude of 7.5 will occur in the country at all. In more seismologically active areas, such as Japan or California, a large urban centre “may be within 50 km of a magnitude 7 event every 100 years or so”; but in Australia, the probability is closer to being that an urban centre “will be within 50 km of a magnitude 7 event every 100,000 years or so.” One does not have to look far to find examples of countries that are considerably more prone to serious, frequent, and devastating seismological events. Indeed, as the following image of seismology in Australia, Indonesia, and New Zealand demonstrates, seismologic events are a relative rarity in Australia, especially in comparison to its much more radically earthquake-prone neighbours. Although it is surrounded, quite literally, by a ring of seismological hot spots, Australia remains relatively free from most severe earthquakes and their concomitant damage. This fact, however, should by no means lead us to the conclusion that earthquakes and other seismic phenomenon are unknown in Australia or that there is no risk of damage, injury, and even death resulting from such events. Fig. 12 - Seismology in Australia, Indonesia, and New Zealand The historical fact is that, since seismology has enabled humans to technologically record the severity of earthquakes, the largest earthquake to affect South Australia registered as a “magnitude 6.5 Beachport event . . . approximately 100 km NE of Mount Gambier in 1897.” Fig. 13 - Seismological map of S.E. South Australia from 1890. The magenta circles represent all earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.0 or above. Blue represent all earthquakes from Jan 1995 to Oct 2004. The triangles represent sites of volcanic activity. Of course, it is also worth noting that there is some great flexibility in this statistic since “there were very few seismographs in Australia before the 1960's, and that location and magnitudes of early events are subject to considerable errors.” Considering the relatively low rating of this “major” earthquake, it might then seem that South Australia’s susceptibility to earthquake risk is quite low. However, the Newcastle Earthquake of 1989 was represented in the media as one of the most devastating in Australian history, resulting in 13 deaths and $4 billion dollars worth of property damage; given this, one would have expected the earthquake to be of a severe magnitude, but in reality, it registered at only an ML of 5.4. Despite this lower rating, more than “3000 residencies were damaged throughout the city.” Though most of the damage occurred to older building and masonry structures built in the earlier part of the century, some modern structures also experienced such damage, including the Newcastle Workers’ Club, whose collapsing roof was responsible for many local deaths. What this reinforces is the fact that earthquake need not be of the most severe possible level to cause significant damage and even human casualties. Fig. 14 - 4.5 M Earthquake in Hawker, S.A. 14th May 2005 Thus, the fact that no earthquakes of an enormous magnitude have occurred in or near South Australia in the last century or so by no means suggests that there is not a substantial earthquake risk. As recently as 1999 an MD 4.5 earthquake occurred in Jamestown, SA, about 200 km north of Adelaide. In 2005, there have been three earthquakes of above a magnitude 4.0, including a magnitude 4.0 earthquake in Leigh Creek on 3 March, a 4.6 magnitude earthquake in Ernabella in 13 March, and a 4.5 magnitude earthquake in the North Flinders on the 13th of May. Therefore, notable earthquakes have and continue to occur in the South Australian region and the occurrence of one in Adelaide or another populated area is certain to be little more than a matter of time. Adelaide has registered three significant damaging earthquakes in its history since settlement, occurring in 1897, 1902, and 1954. Fig. 15 – Adelaide 1954 earthquake intensity map The seemingly irrational truth that severity doesn’t necessarily correlate with damage can be underscored by the fact that the last of these three earthquakes was the smallest in terms of its severity, but the most damaging in human and property terms. Fig. 16 - Earthquake history in South Australia (see appendices for more detailed maps) Moreover, the predicability of events in the region is unclear, since from experience in the Flinders Ranges it would appear that the earthquakes are scattered widely and do not cluster along the faults. It is therefore considered that although the next major event may occur on a known fault line, there is also a very good probability that it will not. Thus, we cannot be certain where and or when an earthquake will occur in the region, and therefore cannot depend on adequate preparation time antecedent to a seismological event. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds the likely recurrence of such events in South Australia, as “the average return period for damage (MM VI) in Adelaide is thought to be about 180 years, but it could be considerably more or less.” The reason for this is that the seismological reference for the region is neither long nor detailed enough for such predictions to be particularly accurate. One important factor to understand is that magnitudes of earthquakes are not the only sign of their destructive power. A very large earthquake is capable of causing fairly minimal damage. The reason for this lies in the difference between magnitude and intensity. Indeed, South Australia’s “question of [earthquake] risk is related more directly to intensity than magnitude.” Magnitude represents the overall strength of an earthquake. There are two basic approaches for this (although seismology in its current form has created a variety of much more technical variations on these two basic means of measurement). The more commonly known method is using the Richter scale, invented by Charles Richter in 1934. Fig. 17 - Charles Richter studying a seismograph. In order to use this scale, the magnitude is “calculated from the amplitude of the largest seismic wave recorded for the earthquake, no matter what type of wave was the strongest.” The Richter scale can be slightly misleading to a layperson, because it functions on an exponential scale, where each degree of magnitude actually represents a tenfold increase in an earthquake’s strength: The Richter magnitudes are based on a logarithmic scale (base 10). What this means is that for each whole number you go up on the Richter scale, the amplitude of the ground motion recorded by a seismograph goes up ten times. Using this scale, a magnitude 5 earthquake would result in ten times the level of ground shaking as a magnitude 4 earthquake (and 32 times as much energy would be released). The other main method of measuring an earthquake is based on what is known as the Mercalli scale. The Mercalli scale differs significantly from the Richter scale in that it doesn’t use a seismograph or other measures of the amplitude of earthquake waves, but rather “uses the observations of the people who experienced the earthquake to estimate its intensity.” The Mercalli scale is of much interest to risk management, of course, since it places the effects on an earthquake on more human terms. Placing things in terms of damaging and human experience is often of more practical relevance, but there are significant drawbacks to this methodology as well: the Mercalli scale isn't considered as scientific as the Richter scale. Some witnesses of the earthquake might exaggerate just how bad things were during the earthquake and you may not find two witnesses who agree on what happened; everybody will say something different. The amount of damage caused by the earthquake may not accurately record how strong it was either. Specifically, the amount of damage caused or otherwise affected can be due to a number of variables, including the construction materials and methods of buildings and the type of material that composes the ground beneath the affected area. In this case, stiffer ground materials don’t tend to transmit the ground waves of earthquakes as well and often result in lower amounts of damage. Fig. 18 - Slumping caused by the earthquake of 1897 There is of course another extremely important factor in earthquake damage, which involves the second concept beyond magnitude, known as “intensity.” Intensity is, quite simply “a measure of the effects of an earthquake at a particular place on humans, structures and (or) the land itself.” Intensity, aside from being dependent upon the aforementioned factors like ground quality and the construction of buildings, relates very heavily to the distance of a place from the epicentre of an earthquake. The closer that a locality is to the epicentre of an earthquake, the larger its intensity. This is another reason why magnitudes alone don’t necessarily reflect real measures of possible damage. An earthquake of severe magnitude that occurs a great distance from an urban centre will likely cause little damage, while a lower magnitude earthquake whose epicentre is located in or very close to an urban centre is likely to cause a great deal of damage. Given this description, we can see that the “two ways” of measuring an earthquake are not really both measures of magnitude; effectively speaking the Richter scale measures magnitude, while the Mercalli method measures intensity. It is possible to get an approximation of magnitude by looking at Mercalli data from a range of areas around an epicentre, but it basically examines intensity at its root. The two methods then are not really in competition with each other, but actually provide complementary information, which is of great use in determining the strength of earthquakes. The Mercalli scale now used is more commonly known as the “Modified Mercalli” (“MM”) scale, and is typically rendered in terms of severity by roman numerals on a scale of 1 to 12. Table 1 - Modified Mercalli (MM) scale Severity - Observed effects I. Not felt at all. II. Felt only by a few individuals, indoors and at rest, usually on upper floors of tall buildings. III. Felt indoors by many persons, vibration like passing of light trucks. Hanging objects swing. IV. Felt both indoors and out. Feels like the vibration caused by a heavy truck or train passing. Standing motor cars rock. Wooden walls and frames creak. Windows rattle. V. Strong enough to awaken sleeping persons. Doors swing close/open. Small objects knocked off shelves. Beverages may splash out of cups or glasses on tables. VI. Perceptible to everyone. May cause public fright. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak masonry cracks. Some plaster may fall from ceilings. Bushes shake/rustle. VII. Difficult to stand upright. Ornamental masonry falls from buildings. Waves may be seen in ponds and swimming pools. Furniture broken. Chimneys broken at roof line. Large bells ring. VIII. Mass panic may occur. Chimneys, smoke stacks and water towers may lean and fall. Unsecured frame houses slide off foundations. Steering of motor cars affected. Branches broken from trees. IX. Panic is general. Heavy damage to masonry structures and to underground pipes. Large cracks open in ground. Serious damage to reservoirs. X. Many buildings collapse. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Water splashes over riverbanks. Serious damage to dams. Rails bent slightly. XI. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipes completely out of service. XII. Virtually total destruction. Large rock masses displaced. Objects thrown into the air. Fig. 19 - Earthquake damage caused by the earthquake of 1902. All of this data about earthquakes can lead us to one preliminary conclusion - an earthquake need not be of a severe magnitude in order to cause a great deal of damage to Adelaide or elsewhere in South Australia. A lower magnitude earthquake in close proximity to an urban centre can cause a great deal of damage, as was seen in Newcastle in 1989. Further, since much architecture in Adelaide and the surrounding area is historic and created by means of masonry, a very large percentage of its architectural surrounds will be highly susceptible to earthquake damage, and even a lower-magnitude earthquake closely proximate to Adelaide could create a significant amount of damage, homelessness, and injury (or even death). Indeed, Adelaide’s earthquake risk is significant and “there have been more moderate-sized earthquakes near Adelaide in the past 50 years than any other capital city in Australia.” The lack of a major earthquake in recent years also actually increases the chances of a sizeable event in South Australia. This relates to building pressure, because “as the stress builds up, eventually there will be enough compression to cause a big earthquake somewhere in the Mount Lofty or Flinders Ranges.” The exact risk of this is unknown, but severe enough that there have been recent government incentives to investigate this problem by using satellite imaging. In creating a disaster plan for a South Australian earthquake then, it might be of some use to look at what has occurred in previous earthquakes, and what the effects and levels of damage of those earthquakes were. A considered case study of these three events should yield a solid plan for action. Adelaide earthquake of 1954 Fig. 20 - The G.P.O. clock, damaged during the Adelaide earthquake of 1st March 1954 The 1954 earthquake in Adelaide is generally considered the most severe and damaging earthquake to occur in an Australian metropolitan area. While it was not the highest magnitude earthquake in Australian history, its actual impact was high, as its epicentre was likely very near the city in the suburb of Darlington. Other reports placed the epicentre in a submarine location between Kangaroo Island and the coast of Adelaide. The effects of the quake were immediate, causing severe damage to central areas of commerce within the city. At Charles Birks Emporium in Rundle Street (now David Jones) night watchmen were afraid the building had collapsed. Sections of the veranda and the first floor ceiling had been badly shaken. Through the plate glass windows they could see fallen masonry in heaps on the floor between show-counters. There were piles of it on the pavement outside the store. Fine dust was rising in clouds. Windows had been shattered throwing large fragments of glass into the roadway. The response to this damage was immediate: the local government wasted little time in attempting to minimise any damage or injury caused by the event - Adelaide City Council workmen went promptly to work. Council trucks were soon at Birks corner. Barricades were erected cordoning off areas where sections of building were regarded as precarious by passers-by. This is a fact of interest to future disaster planners to know that, even before a certified and forceful disaster plan was in place, the government did provide an immediate response to mitigate the damage caused by the earthquake itself. Despite the low magnitude of the earthquake compared to many more severe quakes, it did receive a score of eight on the Mercalli Scale, which means that “damage slight on specially-designed structures, considerable in ordinary substantial buildings . . . Fall of chimneys, walls, heavy furniture overturned, and changes in well water”. The damage to buildings throughout the city was extensive and many buildings failed structurally at many points due to the earthquake, for example the walls of many tall city buildings were badly cracked. At 85 Franklin Street the chimney of a large apartment house had collapsed sending a cascade of bricks through the roof. The front veranda and the back yard were littered with debris. Inside the building it looked as if it had been bombed. Sheets of plaster hung from the bedroom walls and rubble lay strewn over beds, tables, chairs and cupboards. It is notable that this is just one degree from the Mercalli category of a “major calamity” showing just how severe the 1954 Adelaide earthquake was. What this brief review of the 1954 earthquake shows is that a severe earthquake is certainly not out of the question in Adelaide. It also demonstrates that a lower-scale earthquake magnitude-wise can have a significant impact on the Mercalli scale and the related human and property damage. From this example, we can get a sense of the probability of such an earthquake and the types of damage likely to result. It must also be noted that the possibility of a larger earthquake is also significant and the disaster relief plan that will now be proposed will assume an event even more severe than the previous one, at the maximum possible earthquake magnitude for Australia of 7.5 on the Richter scale. Chapter 3 After the event - Responding to a cataclysmic-scale disaster In a previous section the most probably occurring natural hazards in South Australia were considered and the likely damage associated with each event was considered. In this section, we will examine the most appropriate disaster-response plan after the occurrence of a cataclysmic-scale disaster. Before considering this, it is first relevant to consider the typical elements of a natural disaster, and how disaster response is typically structured. The structure and effects of disaster Typically, a disaster contains three elements known as the “warning phase,” the “impact phase,” and the “rehabilitation phase.” These elements are listed in chronological order, with the warning phase occurring before an event, the impact phase being the moments at the start of and preceding the event until some stability has been achieved and immediate danger has passed, and the rehabilitation phase being the time when rebuilding and reconstitution of more permanent infrastructure can begin. The warning phase is an important element of any impending disaster. Having the ability to warn the inhabitants of a given region about an impending disaster greatly increases the possibility of lessening the effects of a disaster. This can be done in many ways, such as by preparing buildings and evacuating citizens from a given area. The warning phase enables the disaster planner to minimize damage to both property and human life and is absolutely essential in terms of planning. However, many disasters have little or no warning phase to speak of, and therefore not much can be done about this. The best response for disasters which are likely to have little warning phase (as in the case of an earthquake) is to engage in educating the public about how to best respond during the course of such a disaster. The second element is the impact phase, which occurs with the onset of the natural disaster. At this stage, most of what occurs is attempting to assess the level of damage created by the hazard as well as attempting to alleviate the effects of the disaster. It is at this point that emergency services, such as medical, fire, and rescue teams, are likely to be deployed and that the most basic issues of disaster response, such as food, water, and shelter will be of primary concern. The focus here is on lessening the overall suffering of victims and responding to the effects of the disaster in a timely and appropriate manner. The rehabilitation phase is usually a much longer period of time and only begins after the immediate concerns associated with the impact phase have ended. It is here that reconstruction of important pieces of infrastructure can begin. Typically in this phase it is also worth examining how important elements of infrastructure were affected by the disaster and what steps can be taken to better guard damaged infrastructure in the case of a recurrence of such an event. It also offers a crucial moment of self-reflectivity in which disaster planners can consider how effective their own preparations were. Given these stages, however, it is largely the impact phase that is of the largest concern to a disaster planner. It is during this stage that the actions taken by disaster response teams can have the most significant impact. There are basically two levels to consider in terms of looking at damage in the impact stage. The first is on people and related “death, injury, trauma, shock, disappearance, separation, dispersal of families, loss of homes, food and water supplies, clothing, and personal effects.” The second area of most concern is community effects, including “destruction, damage, [and] disruption of public utilities, sewage, water, local transport, storage, airports, wharves, and other facilities.” In such a situation these are the prime areas of concern and the major focus of disaster planning. Disaster planners must then focus on the following essential items of disaster relief: “rescue people; provide medical and health aid; remove debris; restore public utilities, in particular water and sanitation; repair and restore communications and transportation infrastructure; provide temporary housing; maintain law and order.” The essential and central tasks for disaster relief then are fairly clear. What is most at issue, however, is sorting out the method to deliver upon these requirements most successfully, by using the quickest and most effective methods. The current outlook of the disaster plan will consider the three stages of planning listed above and discuss the best practices at each stage. Warning phase The warning phase is the portion of a disaster that precedes the event. In the case of a disaster such as earthquakes, which are notoriously difficult to predict it is necessary to consider every moment the “warning phase” and prepare oneself accordingly. In terms of architecture, as already stated, all newly built Australian structures are now required to be earthquake-resistant, and so this provides for a certain measure of preparation in and of itself. The warning phase has several elements that need to be considered, including: • conducting a risk analysis • identification of existing preventive and preparedness procedures • making recommendations to implement additional preventive and preparedness procedures • allocating responsibilities • devising procedures to respond to and recover from disasters. In accordance with these steps, we have largely already considered a risk analysis of possible natural hazards in the first section. While all of the hazards listed therein contained risk, it was noted that it was only earthquakes which had both the possibility of a probable occurrence and the potential for serious damage, thus placing it in the highest category of risk. Regarding preparedness, we have also already discussed new zoning requirements to prepare buildings for earthquakes, while discussing the structural worries associated with older buildings. In terms of the next step, we can also see that there might be recommendations to be made about future procedures. Most at issue is the degree to which existing structures are capable of withstanding an earthquake and, certainly, the most effective new policy would be to make all structures in Adelaide “earthquake proof.” Such an idea is ultimately subject to several considerations, however, including the availability of funds, facilities, and personnel. These concerns make such a plan largely unpractical. The cost of making all buildings in Adelaide adhere to the new code that rates them to withstand earthquakes would be unbelievable costly - in fact, it would almost certainly be more costly than the damage from an earthquake itself. While there is also a human factor to consider, the realistic truth is that, using a cost-benefit analysis, earthquake-proofing all structures in Adelaide would cost more than the likely damage of an earthquake, and therefore is not good practice. The other obvious plan for preparedness would be to continue to examine early warning systems, such as the “global warning system” for Tsunamis that has been suggested by UNESCO in the wake of the Tsunami disaster. The next issue to consider is who is responsible. Thankfully, we needn’t devise this part of the plan on our own. The government has taken disaster planning quite seriously for many years now and has set up a clear hierarchy of responsibility. At the top of the South Australian pyramid sits the Minister of Justice, who chairs the Emergency Management Council. The Minister is to run this Council, which is to take ultimate responsibility for all key decisions. Below this sits the State Emergency Committee, which is chaired by the Director of the State Emergency Services. It is this committee that is principally responsible for designing the disaster plan and examining its effectiveness. Alongside this committee sits the State Disaster Recovery Committee, which obviously focuses on the elements of planning for the stages after a disaster has occurred. Therefore, the hierarchy of responsibility is quite clear, though a good deal of flexibility and latitude is given to these committees to appoint other responsible parties in the event of an actual disaster. Fig. 21 - SESSA volunteers in action The government body generally responsible for all of this is the South Australian State Emergency Service or “SESSA.” It is interesting to note that, according to current practice the “operational role of the SES is undertaken solely by volunteers.” These volunteers are “trained to carry out rescue and/or damage alleviation tasks . . . including vehicle accident victims, search operations for missing persons, industrial accidents, cliff, mine and other rescue from heights, [as well as] storm and flood damage containment.” While the dedication of these volunteers is certainly admirable, one wonders if a volunteer force is ultimately sufficient to deal with the effects of a natural hazard on the scale of a massive earthquake. It certainly seems that it might behove the South Australian government to consider employing a paid force of emergency staff workers, or else draw on already available pools of such workers. The last section, of course, details the actual design and coordination of a disaster plan. This is, of course, traditionally the job of the state committees and officials mentioned above. Of course this plan along with some new additions will be discussed, but in the next section since the plan of events occurs alongside with the actual response to the event. Impact phase This is a critical phase of disaster relief and certainly essential to any effective disaster plan. Again, most of the procedures regarding this are organised by the state government, with the possibility of federal intervention in the instance that a disaster is too large for state resources alone. The most important aspects of the impact phase response are central planning and flexibility. It is up to the State Disaster Committee to coordinate actions between, police, fire, emergency medical personnel, and SESSA volunteers. The previous groups must respond directly to the central planning portion of the Disaster Committee so that their actions are coordinated and help is distributed to the proper areas where it is most needed. Impact response typically focuses on immediate issues, such as tending to the injured, rescuing those who are trapped, and removing the dead (if there are any) in a quick and sanitary fashion to reduce the possible spread of disease. Aside from adhering to central planning and coordination, it is impossible to plan exactly for the impact phase, because no one can ever know how a disaster will play out, or what areas it will affect. Thus, having a sizable and effective force of disaster-relief workers is essential. Rehabilitation phase The last phase of disaster response is typically one that can be more controlled and better planned for. The first element of rehabilitation always starts with gathering information about how extensive the earthquake damage has been and how many people are displaced, injured, or deceased. Based on these figures, appropriate action can then be taken. The first steps are to provide food and water for those who need it and also to restore water, power, and sanitation as quickly as possible. All of these events are similarly coordinated by the state government. The last step in the process is the issue of shelter. If enough people have been displaced, it may be necessary to provide them with some sort of temporary shelter. This is almost always necessary as shelter would be considered whether the need for short-term housing (24 – 72 hours) is for large or small numbers." It is important to recall that shelter need not necessarily mean "housing." Shelter in this sense does not refer to creating a permanent space that is liveable in the long term. Shelter must simply provide protection from the elements and offer a space that is liveable over the short term. The mission of the Shelter System is to provide safe, comfortable and hygienic temporary living quarters for disaster victims and to provide assistance for victims as they cope with the immediate traumatic effects of the disaster and prepare to move on with their lives. Shelter therefore is not a long-term solution, but simply a stop-gap solution to protect people from the environment. There can be many ways of providing shelter. One easy possibility is an instance in which homes have been damaged, but are not structurally unsound. In this instance, the home can be modified to serve as a temporary shelter. Simple fixes here include "plastic sheeting [which] is a terrific way to block out the elements in a quick way." In instances where plastic sheeting alone will not suffice, another option is to use "tarps [which] were then designed to help solve some of the problems that plastic sheeting caused." In many cases, however, homes will be simply too damaged for such possibilities to work. In these cases, repairing a domicile temporarily with a tarp or plastic sheeting will prove completely ineffective if the home is not structurally sound and in danger of immanent collapse. In this case, alternate forms of housing need to be considered. One obvious answer is the use of tents, which emergency offices can purchase beforehand and deploy as necessary. Tents were then used for those whose homes were damaged beyond living in. They provide protection from the elements that families needed. Tents, however, provide only basic, elementary shelter. People who were in extreme temperatures found themselves overburdened with the climatic effects. Tents were also found to be quite flammable, an undesirable side effect, and however securely fastened they may be, are very easily damaged during windstorms. When tents are in place for a long time, sunlight eventually weakens the fabric seams, allowing water to enter and making the tents even more susceptible to wind damage. In this case, we can see that while tents do have many advantages, they can also be problematic. In Adelaide, if a disaster occurred in the spring, summer or early autumn, tents would tend to provide a reasonable solution. Adelaide winters, however, may be too cold to make tents a reasonable option in terms of disaster shelter. Also, the intense sunlight in Adelaide, along with the summer heat could lead to flammability problems and material decay. The possibility of coastal storms, though infrequent, does make wind damage a reasonable concern as well. Fig. 22 - Geodesic yurts: one possible shelter solution Fig. 23 - The Cajun dome in New Orleans converted into a shelter after hurricane Katrina There are other options, of course. One of these is the conversion of an already existing space into a public shelter. There are all sorts of concerns associated with this, because the public space must be one undamaged by the event. Therefore newer more structurally-sound buildings are preferable. The building must also have adequate space, heating, and access to facilities such as food, water, and sanitation. However, communal locations in a city [can cause] a lot of harm: disease can spread quite quickly in these types of shelters. Using the same washroom facilities, and being in constant contact with one another in (what usually is) a small location is a breeding ground for hundreds of airborne and other viruses. The lack of privacy tends to agitate others, with good reason. Children, the elderly and others who require special attention, are usually more of a ‘burden’ on those who have never had to deal with situations like the one they are faced with now. Places such as schools, churches and recreational centres are the prime targets for service as mass housing centres. They are usually smaller than is required, and tend to get over crowded. While such spaces are useful, in that they are sound structures easily converted into public housing, there can be a myriad of attendant problems with such locations, including overcrowding and a general frustration due to lack of privacy. Thus, while this may be a viable solution that seems easier from the planners' perspective, it is really not a good solution for any more than a space of several days. There is, of course, a completely different option with the use of materials that one would not normally consider. Years of long trade imbalance throughout the world has left the ports with huge surpluses of shipping containers. These containers are cheap and plentiful and have interesting structural and spatial properties. It is reasonable to consider their use for emergency housing. Many companies have investigated the use and refit of the humble shipping container and have managed to turn them into quite liveable residences. Architects have also dabbled with the design and envisaged its use for emergency housing, however once again, the cost of refitting the containers for habitable living is considerable and therefore as an emergency solution for the homeless, it is ill-considered and unsuitable. Fig. 24 - Example of shipping container housing Sean Godsell’s design for emergency accommodation, Future-Shack, is a recycled shipping container with a folded umbrella roof, which can be delivered to remote locations to provide relief housing. However it is not cheap and it is heavy. Fig. 25 - Sean Godsell’s Future-Shack For many years paper shelters have been considered and used in trials as suitable emergency housing. A major leader of paper construction houses for the earthquake victims has been a Japanese Architect, Shigeru Ban. Ban frequently uses paper tubes and Teflon coated tenting for his structures. These are temporary “log” houses built and tested for the victims of the earthquakes in Kobe, Japan (1994), Kaynasli, Turkey (2000) and Bhuj, India (2001). “The foundation consists of [milk] crates loaded with [sand]. The walls are made from 106mm diameter, 4mm thick paper tubes, with tenting material for the roof. The 1.8m space between houses was used as a common area. For insulation, a waterproof sponge tape backed with adhesive is sandwiched between the paper tubes of the walls.” Depending on the resident’s needs, for more insulation, shredded wastepaper can be inserted inside the tubes along the walls and fibreglass in the ceiling. The cost of materials for one house with an area of just over 50m is below A$2500. After use the houses are easy to dismantle, and the materials easily disposed or recycled. Fig. 26 - Shigeru Ban’s temporary ‘paper log’ house Presented during the ‘Houses of the Future’ exhibition in Sydney, Australia in 2005 was a unique house made from paper. Although initially designed for its sustainable properties of reducing landfill, water usage and the felling of trees by using recycled paper these dwellings offer an alternative type of transportable housing. However at a cost of A$35,000 for the ‘cardboard house’ and A$30,000 for the ‘ten bed paper house’ the finished cost of these products is expensive and therefore not considered feasible in the event of a possible emergency. Fig. 27 - Houses of the future ‘cardboard house’ Fig. 28 - Ten bed paper house The use of plastic has been widely considered for use as a building material for emergency housing. Plastic shelters, which are increasingly cheap, reliable, and readily available due to advances in modern technology, offer some of the best type of emergency shelter. “The ideal shelter would be inexpensive, waterproof, easy to assemble, environmentally friendly, easy to transport, easy to stockpile, easy to disassemble, fire resistant, UV light resistant, provide good insulation against the elements, made of sturdy fabric, and wind resistant.” An example of a plastic shelter is the ‘Kwik-Kuvr’ (quick cover) which “provides excellent protection against UV light, wind and rain. The recycled plastic material is fire resistant and corrugated in design so as to provide terrific insulation.” It has been designed specifically for use in emergency relief settings to provide immediate, low-cost shelter for people who have lost their homes due to disaster or who are homeless for any reason. The shelter is designed to adapt a compact size that is easily transportable and comes ready to be assembled in less than ten minutes. The design, with an overall erected size of 4.5m x 3m x 2m, is appropriate to accommodate a family. Fig. 29 - Cheap, lightweight, easy-to-construct plastic shelter Plastic shelters offer all of the benefits of the so-called ‘ideal shelter’ by providing a safe, warm, waterproof environment that is largely resistant to the more severe extremes of the elements, and also provides a modicum of safety. In this way then, it seems that plastic shelters would be an ideal solution for Adelaide in the event of a disaster. There may be financial limitations in terms of South Australia's ability to purchase these shelters, but they suggest themselves as an essential element of preparedness for disaster, and certainly acquiring a good number of them is well within the public interest. Conclusion This study has attempted to do several things: first it has considered the possible natural hazards in South Australia; second, it has examined the relative possibility of these natural hazards for leading to a cataclysmic-scale disaster; third, it has looked at the appropriate response to an earthquake that might cause such a cataclysmic-scale disaster; and fourth, it has looked at several possible means of creating temporary housing in the event of a severe earthquake disaster. Of the recurring natural hazards in South Australia, there are four of concern due to previous occurrences and the likelihood of recurrence: flood, bushfire, coastal storms, and earthquakes. All of these hazards are a continuing concern. Bushfires and floods in particular have continued to be responsible for enormous amounts of property damage and even occasional fatalities. That being said, those disasters, while a continuing problem, are unlikely to occur on a scale large enough to be cause for a cataclysmic disaster. Only earthquakes seem to have the likely potential to cause a cataclysmic-scale disaster in South Australia. The history of earthquakes in the region over both the near term and the longer historical period has been examined. Indeed, several cases of severe earthquakes in South Australia have been considered. The reality of all this data is that the risk to Adelaide and South Australia in general from an earthquake is real, and while not as high as say, California or Japan, still a significant enough threat that it merits a suitable disaster plan. The next stage of this paper considered the basic elements of a disaster plan by looking at the disaster-response methods already in place and offering suggestions based on those. It considered current state hierarchies of disaster management and also suggested implementing paid disaster relief workers instead of relying entirely on a volunteer corps as is the current mode. The last section of this thesis offered an analysis of different types of disaster housing available in the wake of a cataclysmic earthquake. While a variety of types are available, this thesis suggested that newly created lightweight and easy-to-assemble plastic structures would be most ideal in response to this situation. The state should clearly consider stockpiling some structures of this type in order to plan for such an event, or a better solution would be to prepare a factory which can be readied within minimal time to produce these structures. This thesis hopes to add to the continuing body of knowledge about disaster response in South Australia. While no document can be completely comprehensive, the hope is that this thesis adds to the current body of knowledge and encourages debate about at least a few current practices. Only by planning for disasters now, can we hope to mitigate them in the future. Bibliography Books/Journals Abel, Olivia. Starting over after Tsunami. People; 31st January 2005, Vol. 63 Issue 4, p. 28 – 33 Adams, John. Managing Supply and Sanitation in Emergencies. Oxford, Oxfam, 1999. Alexander, David. Natural Disasters. London, UCL Press, 1993. Anson, Brian. Disaster Housing in a tragic city. Town and Country Planning; November 1985, Vol. 54, p. 334 – 337 Author Unknown. Developing a National Shelter Strategy: Lessons From Four Countries. Nairobi, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, 1990. Author Unknown. Is having a home a right?. Journal of Housing and Community Development; May/June 2004, Vol 61, Issue 3, p. 15 – 16 Author Unknown. The rebuilding starts. Economist; 05th February 2005, Vol. 374 Issue 8412, p. 42 Blong, Russell; Sinai, David; and Packham, Colin. Natural Perils in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Swiss Re Australia, Ltd., 2000. Chapman, David. Natural Hazards. Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1994. Cooper, Carol. Disaster proofing the World. Whole Earth; Summer 2001, Issue 105, p. 72 Cranswick, Damian. What Is the Ethical Responsibility for Architecture in Responding to Homelessness? A Study. Honours Thesis, UniSA, 2003. Davis, Ian. Shelter After Disaster. Oxford, Oxford Polytechnic Press, 1978. Dyster, Tom. Strong Shock of Earthquake: The Story of the Four Greatest Earthquakes in the History of South Australia. South Australia: Department of Mines and Energy Geological Survey, 1992 Elvin, John. Don’t forget Fido when disaster strikes. Insight on the News; 16th September 2002, Vol. 18 Issue 34, p. 35 – 37 Emergency Management Australia Australian Emergency Management Arrangements Part 1 The Fundamentals. Canberra, Emergency Management Australia, 2000. Emmons, Karen. One man takes in 230 refugees. People; 17th January 2005, Vol. 63 Issue 2, p. 102 – 104 Erkip, Feyzan. The shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey. Environment and Planning A; June 2003, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p. 1073-1094 Flin, R. & Arbuthnot, K. Incident Command: Tales from the Hot Seat. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2002. Foster, Harold. D. Disaster Planning: The Preservation of Life and Property. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1980. Fransiska, Prihadi. Emergency housing could help disaster victims. Jakarta Post; 12th September 2002, Indonesia Headley, Sue. Homelessness. Youth Studies Australia; June 2004, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p. 62 Ho, Cathy Lang. Safe Haven. Architecture; November 2002, Vol. 91, No. 11, p. 80 – 83 Kerr Grant, C. The Adelaide earthquake of 1st March, 1954. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, Adelaide University, Adelaide, 1979 Leonard, Mark. “Small Moves towards a Big Event in South Australia.” AUSGEO NEWS. June 2003. Lothian, Andrew. Escalation of Natural Hazards by Human Factors: The South Australian Experience. Adelaide: South Australian Dept. of Environment and Planning, 1985. Lothian, J. A. Natural Hazards Management in South Australia: An Environmental Perspective. Adelaide: South Australian Dept. of Environment and Planning, 1985. Martin, Jean-Marie. Sean Godsell. Casabella; February 2004, Vol. 68. p. 18 – 21 McCue, K F Seismicity and seismic risk in South Australia Adelaide: Dept. of Physics, University of Adelaide, 1975 Murdock, James. Home is where the pod is. Architectural Record; February 2005, Vol. 193 Issue 2, P. 52 – 55 Mydans, Seth. Tent cities provide shelter for earthquake victims. New York Times; 23rd January 1994, Vol 143 Issue 49585, p 1 Noji, Erik. The Public Health Consequences of Disasters. New York, Oxford University Press, 1997. Oliver, John. Response to Disaster. Centre for Disaster Studies, James Cook University of North Queensland, 1980. Oliver, Paul. Shelter and Society. London, The Cresset Press, 1969. Powell, Bill. Where should your money go? Time Canada; 01st October 2005, Vol.165 Issue 2, p. 26 – 28 Prizeman, Mark. Emergency Dwelling. Architectural Design; July/August 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 57 – 63 Ross, John. Refuge for refugees. Smithsonian; August 2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p. 42 – 45 Saulny, Susan. City Pursuing right to evict from shelters. New York Times; 01st March 2003, Vol. 152 Issue 52409, p. B1 Sawyer, Tom. Emergency housing rises in storm seasons wake. Engineering News Record; 12th June 2004, Vol. 253 Issue 22, p. 16 – 19 Sibbald, Barbara. Wanted: Housing for 900,000 Sri Lankans. Canadian Medical Association Journal; 01st March 2005, Vol. 172 Issue 5, p. 622 – 625 Smith, Richard. How after disaster housing helped students come in from the cold. Business News – New Jersey; 29th November 1995, Vol. 8 Issue 22, p.29 Stevenson, Seth. Gimme Temporary Shelter. New York Times Magazine; 18th May 2003, Vol. 152 Issue 52487, p. 26 – 39 Stone, Michael. Shelter Poverty: New Ideas on Housing Affordability. Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1993. Treaster, Joseph. Hundreds of elderley, frail refugees but grateful for help remain stuck in shelters. New York Times; 08th September 2004, Vol. 158 Issue 52966, p. A20 Von Schramek, Eric. “Implications of Earthquakes on Architecture of Buildings.” Simplified Earthquake Design for South Australia. Adelaide: Concrete Institute of Australia, 1982 Internet sources* ‘4.5 Magnitude earthquake in Hawker, South Australia’ (no author named) http://nla.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Adelaide GPO clock, damaged 1st March 1954’ (no author named) http://nla.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘American Red Cross disaster relief shelter program.’ Flint, Jo. http://www.harriscountycitizencorps.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Australia: Earthquake’ (no author named) http://www.rms.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Australian earthquakes’ (no author named) http://www.seis.com.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘BBC News - Indonesia toll surpasses 27,000 - Million homeless’ (no author named) http://news.bbc.co.uk (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Bushfire in mid-flame up’ (no author named) http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Bushfire seasons’ (no author named) http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Cajun dome converted into a shelter’ (no author named) http://www.bruderhof.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Cajun dome resident badges’ (no author named) http://www.impactmovement.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Cardboard house – Houses of the Future’ (no author named) http://www.housesofthefuture.com.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘CBC News - Plan for Sri Lankan tsunami homeless raises controversy’ (no author named) http://www.cbc.ca (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Charles Richter’ (no author named) http://www.ncedc.org (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Coriolis effect ’ (no author named) http://www2.umt.edu (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Damage caused by the earthquake of 1902’ (no author named) http://nla.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Damage form the Turkish earthquake of 1999’ (no author named) http://www.eas.slu.edu (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Damaging power of coastal storms’ (no author named) http:// www.bbc.co.uk (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Darwin after Cyclone Tracy’ (no author named) http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Disaster planning for libraries and archives: Understanding the essential issues’ Lyall, Jan. http://www.nla.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Disaster shelters’ Travers, Nancy. http://www.tsa.ac.za (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Disaster shelter system.’ (no author named) http://ite.gmu.edu (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Dutch answer to flooding: Build houses that swim.’ Davies, Garreth. http://www.service.spiegel.de (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Earthquake history in South Australia’ (no author named) http://www.ga.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Earthquake risk in South Australia’ (no author named) http://www.pir.sa.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Earthquakes in Australia’ (no author named) http://www.seis.com.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Example of shipping container housing’ (no author named) http://www.universalshelters.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Fissures from Beachport earthquake of 1897’ (no author named) http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Geodesic yurts: one possible shelter solution’ (no author named) http://www.shelter-systems.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Georges river flood’ (no author named) http://www.bewsher.com.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Hertzberger's Watervilla’ (no author named) http://www.archrecord.construction.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘History of the SESSA’ (no author named) http://www.riverlandses.asn.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘How are earthquakes measured?’ (no author named) http://www.geo.mtu.edu (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Indian ocean earthquake and tsunami’ (no author named) http://www.portal.unesco.org (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Indian ocean tsunami hitting Thailand’ (no author named) http://www.sowers.org (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Lightweight plastic shelter’ (no author named) http://www.universalshelters.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Magnitude and intensity’ (no author named) http://www.neic.usgs.gov (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Modified Mercalli (MM) scale’ (no author named) http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Netherlands floating house’ (no author named) http://www.service.spiegel.de (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Newcastle earthquake’ (no author named) http://www.allshookup.org (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘New Orleans flood’ (no author named) http://www.solofemininity.blogs.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Operational role of SESSA’ (no author named) http://www.riverlandses.asn.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Recent Australian seismology’ (no author named) http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Sean Godsell’s Future-Shack’ (no author named) http://www.seangodsell.com (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Seismograph’ (no author named) http://www.knmi.nl (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Seismological map of South East South Australia’ (no author named) http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Seismology in Australia, Indonesia, and New Zealand’ (no author named) http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘SESSA volunteers in action’ (no author named) http://www.ses.sa.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Shigeru Ban’s temporary paper log house’ (no author named) http://www.library.njit.edu (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘South Australian arrangements’ (no author named) http://www.ema.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Ten bed paper house’ (no author named) http://www.thepaperhouse.net (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘The Modified Mercalli (MM) scale of earthquake intensity’ (no author named) http://www.pir.sa.gov.au (accessed 01st December 2005) ‘Volcanoes and earthquakes in South East Australia’ (no author named) http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au (accessed 01st December 2005) Image details 1 Darwin after Cyclone Tracy Cover http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au 2 Georges river flood http://www.bewsher.com.au 3 New Orleans flood http://www.solofemininity.blogs.com 4 Netherlands floating house http://www.service.spiegel.de 5 Hertzberger's Watervilla http://www.archrecord.construction.com 6 Bushfire seasons http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de 7 Bushfire in mid-flame up http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au 8 Coriolis effect http://www2.umt.edu 9 Damaging power of coastal storms http:// www.bbc.co.uk 10 Damage from the Turkish earthquake of 1999 http://www.eas.slu.edu 11 2004 Indian ocean tsunami hitting Thailand http://www.sowers.org 12 Seismology in Australia, Indonesia, and N.Z. http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au 13 Seismological map of S.E. South Australia http://www.seismicity.segs.uwa.edu.au 14 4.5 Magnitude earthquake in Hawker, S.A. http://nla.gov.au 15 Adelaide 1954 earthquake intensity map Kerr Grant, C. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, Adelaide University, Adelaide, 1979 16 Earthquake history in South Australia http://www.ga.gov.au 17 Photo of Charles Richter studying a seismograph http://www.ncedc.org and http://www.knmi.nl 18 Slumping caused by the earthquake of 1897 http://www.pir.sa.gov.au 19 Damage caused by the earthquake of 1902 http://www.pir.sa.gov.au 20 The Adelaide GPO clock, damaged 1st March 1954 http://www.pir.sa.gov.au 21 SESSA volunteers in action http://www.ses.sa.gov.au 22 Geodesic yurts: one possible shelter solution http://www.shelter-systems.com 23 The Cajun dome converted into a shelter http://www.bruderhof.com and http://www.impactmovement.com 24 Example of shipping container housing http://www.universalshelters.com 25 Sean Godsell’s Future-Shack http://www.seangodsell.com 26 Shigeru Ban’s temporary ‘paper log’ house http://www.library.njit.edu 27 Cardboard house – Houses of the Future http://www.housesofthefuture.com.au 28 Ten bed paper house http://www.thepaperhouse.net 29 Lightweight plastic shelter http://www.universalshelters.com * (All internet sources have been accessed numerous times between March and November 2005 and have been checked as at 01st December 2005) In the Mind of the Architect Winzip South Australian Tourism School Friends University of South Australia UniSA - LLS School of Architecture and Design