Protecting Linear Infrastructure: Enhancing Community Resilience by Reducing Protection Gaps
N
ew Zealand and British Columbia have very similar earthquake exposures, particularly with our proximity to subduction interfaces. This article explores some of the lessons learned from the New Zealand earthquake experience and particularly the impact on linear infrastructure and explores opportunities for our communities to be better prepared, and more resilient, in the future. Infrastructure, particularly the three-water infrastructure (drinking, waste and storm water), is not glamourous as it is usually buried underground and generally ignored, that is, until it stops working. The events in Christchurch caused widespread loss and damage to the three-water infrastructure networks and highlighted how reliant our communities are on these systems and how their importance is often underestimated. The Christchurch earthquake struck on Tuesday 22 February 2011 at 12:51 p.m. The epicentre was near Lyttleton, close to Christchurch’s central business district. After approximately 10 seconds, 185 people had lost their lives, thousands of people were injured, and severe damage was caused to both buildings and infrastructure. A vibrant and dynamic city was dramatically altered. The Christchurch event (Mw 6.3) was an aftershock following the primary earthquake event, which occurred near Darfield on 4th September 2010 (Mw 7.1). Both earthquakes were part of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence that comprised of 4 earthquakes >Mw6 and 11,000 aftershocks during 2010-11. In 2012, Aon was asked if it could help local government in New Zealand with a risk transfer solution for their three-water and river management assets. This was challenging as the insurance sector has become more data-driven and often the sources of data or
14 | GFOABC.CA
modeling tools available, are either unsuitable or need adaptation, especially for linear infrastructure which is considered by many as ‘uninsurable’. Aon’s role has therefore been to bridge disciplines across both private and public sectors. A collaborative and systemic approach was needed, and we developed a solution that has continued to evolve and grow to the extent that Aon now provides this capability to 85% of local authorities across New Zealand. Through the development process, Aon realized they had developed something far more useful than just a risk transfer option. The multi-disciplinary approach enabled a way to link the asset data and the science and engineering expertise into the financial and physical risk mitigation. The data-driven approach enabled Aon to unlock economic insurance for linear infrastructure, this alone reduces the protection gap for communities. However, the combined approach also enhances risk governance and decision making including, for example, financial analysis, or cost benefits, that can be used to support physical adaptation projects. In summary, this approach enhances risk understanding, informs risk
