The Twins City of Wellington - Palu and Lessons Learned After the Six Years Sulawesi Earthquake for Build Back Better

Abstract: Wellington And Palu Cities Are Passed By A Normal Type Fault, The Population Is Around 400 Thousand People, Including A Medium City And Water Front City Predicate On The Bay Area So It Is Vulnerable To Tsunami Disasters Due To Tectonic Earthquakes. Wellington Has Been Categorized As A Resilience City But Palu Has Not. Based On This, Palu Needs To Learn A Lot About Disaster Management From Wellington, Including Building Infrastructure That Is Resistant To Earthquake Disasters. This Article Compares The Geological Conditions, Disaster Risks Including Hazard, Vulnerable And Capacity Of The Two Cities. Observing The Many Similarities Between The Two Cities, There Are Certainly Many Lessons That Can Be Used In Managing Earthquake Disasters And Their Secondary Impacts So That Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts Can Be Achieved Optimally. The Condition Of The City Of Palu 6 Years After The Earthquake Disaster Of 28 September 2018, The Recovery Process Is Quite Significant. The Reconstruction Of Infrastructure Is Similarity To Conditions In Wellington After The 2011-2012 Sequel Christchurch Earthquakes. The Rehabilitation And Reconstruction Of Hospital Buildings, Schools, Bridges And Viaducts, Airports And Other Infrastructure Have Been Partially Completed. An Important Note That Is An Obstacle To The Recovery Process Is The Availability Of Fast And Accurate Data On Building Damage, Relocation Locations, Covid-19 And The Relatively Long Duration Reconstruction Progress.

component, Palu earthquake, resilience infrastructure, disaster management, reconstruction

1. R. Paulik et al., “Tsunami Hazard and Built Environment Damage Observations from Palu City after the September 28 2018 Sulawesi Earthquake and Tsunami,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 176, no. 8, pp. 3305–3321, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00024-019-02254-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. A. Asnudin, “Evaluation of Disaster Risk and Mitigation Strategies for Post-Disaster Permanent Housing in the Palu Koro Fault Area,” vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 18941–18948, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. A. Kaiser et al., “The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: Preliminary report,” New Zeal. J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 67–90, 2012, doi: 10.1080/00288306.2011.641182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. F. Davey, “Editorial: Natural hazards - The Christchurch earthquakes,” New Zeal. J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 149–150, 2011, doi: 10.1080/00288306.2011.581192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. M. C. Quigley et al., “The 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence: Environmental effects, seismic triggering thresholds and geologic legacy,” Tectonophysics, vol. 672–673, pp. 228–274, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.044. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. S. Bannister and K. Gledhill, “Evolution of the 2010-2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence,” New Zeal. J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 295–304, 2012, doi: 10.1080/00288306.2012.680475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. A. R. Khoso and A. Ahmed, “Identification of Building Failure Indicators,” vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4591–4595, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. O. H. Abdullah, “Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical Archeological Buildings in Iraq,” vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 9229–9232, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. J. Nagalapuram, “A Framework for Smart City Traffic Management utilizing BDA and IoT,” vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 18989–18993, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. J. Carlos, M. Silva, and J. Guilherme, “Assessment of Building Nondeterministic Dynamic Structural Behavior considering the Effect of Geometric Nonlinearity and Aerodynamic Damping,” vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 18835–18842, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. J. R. Thota, “Human Remains Detection in Natural Disasters using YOLO : A Deep Learning Approach,” vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 17678–17682, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. M. Spaans and B. Waterhout, “Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme,” Cities, vol. 61, pp. 109–116, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. P. Supendi et al., “Relocated aftershocks and background seismicity in eastern Indonesia shed light on the 2018 Lombok and Palu earthquake sequences,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 221, no. 3, pp. 1845–1855, 2020, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggaa118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. P. Supendi et al., “Hypocenter relocation of the aftershocks of the Mw 7.5 Palu earthquake (September 28, 2018) and swarm earthquakes of Mamasa, Sulawesi, Indonesia, using the BMKG network data,” Geosci. Lett., vol. 6, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s40562-019-0148-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. X. Song, Y. Zhang, X. Shan, Y. Liu, W. Gong, and C. Qu, “Geodetic Observations of the 2018 Mw 7.5 Sulawesi Earthquake and Its Implications for the Kinematics of the Palu Fault,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 4212–4220, 2019, doi: 10.1029/2019GL082045. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. K. Goda, N. Mori, T. Yasuda, A. Prasetyo, A. Muhammad, and D. Tsujio, “Cascading Geological Hazards and Risks of the 2018 Sulawesi Indonesia Earthquake and Sensitivity Analysis of Tsunami Inundation Simulations,” Front. Earth Sci., vol. 7, no. October, pp. 1–16, 2019, doi: 10.3389/feart.2019.00261. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. L. J. Vale, “The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city?,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 191–201, 2014, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.850602. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. S. E. Chang, T. Mcdaniels, J. Fox, R. Dhariwal, and H. Longstaff, “Toward disaster-resilient cities: Characterizing resilience of infrastructure systems with expert judgments,” Risk Anal., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 416–434, 2014, doi: 10.1111/risa.12133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. J. Coaffee et al., “Urban resilience implementation: A policy challenge and research agenda for the 21st century,” J. Contingencies Cris. Manag., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 403–410, 2018, doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. S. Zhu, D. Li, and H. Feng, “Is smart city resilient? Evidence from China,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 50, no. June, p. 101636, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101636. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. K. C. Desouza and T. H. Flanery, “Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework,” Cities, vol. 35, pp. 89–99, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. M. Salimi and S. G. Al-Ghamdi, “Climate change impacts on critical urban infrastructure and urban resiliency strategies for the Middle East,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 54, p. 101948, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101948. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Examining Fatal Motorcycle Crashes in Malaysia: Rider Age, Road Attributes and Collision Partner Dynamics
• Resources-Blessed but Energy-Poor: A Critical Review of the Paradox of Energy Delivery in Nigeria
• Algorithmic Trading Bot Using Artificial Intelligence Supertrend Strategy
• Improving the Hybrid FSO/LI-FI/UWOC Network's
• Constructive Strategies for Enhancing Public Engagement in County Governance: A Focus on Nandi, Kenya, 2024.