Abstract. Natural (e.g., earthquake, flood, wildfires) and human-made (e.g., terrorism, civil strife) disasters are inevitable, can cause extensive disruption, and produce chronic and disabling psychological injuries leading to formal diagnoses (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Following natural disasters of earthquake (Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand, 2010–11) and flood (Calgary, Canada, 2013), controlled research showed statistically and clinically significant reductions in psychological distress for survivors who consumed minerals and vitamins (micronutrients) in the following months. Following a mass shooting in Christchurch (March 15, 2019), where a gunman entered mosques during Friday prayers and killed and injured many people, micronutrients were offered to survivors as a clinical service based on translational science principles and adapted to be culturally appropriate. In this first translational science study in the area of nutrition and disasters, clinical results were reported for 24 clients who completed the Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R), the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), and the Modified-Clinical Global Impression (M-CGI-I). The findings clearly replicated prior controlled research. The IES-R Cohen’s d ESs were 1.1 (earthquake), 1.2 (flood), and 1.13 (massacre). Effect sizes (ESs) for the DASS subscales were also consistently positive across all three events. The M-CGI-I identified 58% of the survivors as “responders” (i.e., self-reported as “much” to “very much” improved), in line with those reported in the earthquake (42%) and flood (57%) randomized controlled trials, and PTSD risk reduced from 75% to 17%. Given ease of use and large ESs, this evidence supports the routine use of micronutrients by disaster survivors as part of governmental response.
As damage and loss caused by natural hazards have increased worldwide over the past several decades, it is important for governments and aid agencies to have tools that enable effective post-disaster livelihood recovery to create self-sufficiency for the affected population. This study introduces a framework of critical components that constitute livelihood recovery and the critical factors that lead to people’s livelihood recovery. A comparative case study is employed in this research, combined with questionnaire surveys and interviews with those communities affected by large earthquakes in Lushan, China and in Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand. In Lushan, China, a framework with four livelihood components was established, namely, housing, employment, wellbeing and external assistance. Respondents considered recovery of their housing to be the most essential element for livelihood diversification. External assistance was also rated highly in assisting with their livelihood recovery. Family ties and social connections seemed to have played a larger role than that of government agencies and NGOs. However, the recovery of livelihood cannot be fully achieved without wellbeing aspects being taken into account, and people believed that quality of life and their physical and mental health were essential for livelihood restoration. In Christchurch, New Zealand, the identified livelihood components were validated through in-depth interviews. The results showed that the above framework presenting what constitutes successful livelihood recovery could also be applied in Christchurch. This study also identified the critical factors to affect livelihood recovery following the Lushan and Kaikōura earthquakes, and these include community safety, availability of family support, level of community cohesion, long-term livelihood support, external housing recovery support, level of housing recovery and availability of health and wellbeing support. The framework developed will provide guidance for policy makers and aid agencies to prioritise their strategies and initiatives in assisting people to reinstate their livelihood in a timely manner post-disaster. It will also assist the policy makers and practitioners in China and New Zealand by setting an agenda for preparing for livelihood recovery in non-urgent times so the economic impact and livelihood disruption of those affected can be effectively mitigated.
