Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development.
INTRODUCTION: Connections between environmental factors and mental health issues have been postulated in many different countries around the world. Previously undertaken research has shown many possible connections between these fields, especially in relation to air quality and extreme weather events. However, research on this subject is lacking in New Zealand, which is difficult to analyse as an overall nation due to its many micro-climates and regional differences.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study and subsequent analysis is to explore the associations between environmental factors and poor mental health outcomes in New Zealand by region and predict the number of people with mental health-related illnesses corresponding to the environmental influence.METHODS: Data are collected from various public-available sources, e.g., Stats NZ and Coronial services of New Zealand, which comprised four environmental factors of our interest and two mental health indicators data ranging from 2016 up until 2020. The four environmental factors are air pollution, earthquakes, rainfall and temperature. Two mental health indicators include the number of people seen by District Health Boards (DHBs) for mental health reasons and the statistics on suicide deaths. The initial analysis is carried out on which regions were most affected by the chosen environmental factors. Further analysis using Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average(ARIMA) creates a model based on time series of environmental data to generate estimation for the next two years and mental health projected from the ridge regression.RESULTS: In our initial analysis, the environmental data was graphed along with mental health outcomes in regional charts to identify possible associations. Different regions of New Zealand demonstrate quite different relationships between the environmental data and mental health outcomes. The result of later analysis predicts that the suicide rate and DHB mental health visits may increase in Wellington, drop-in Hawke's Bay and slightly increase in Canterbury for the year 2021 and 2022 with different environmental factors considered.CONCLUSION: It is evident that the relationship between environmental and mental health factors is regional and not national due to the many micro-climates that exist around the nation. However, it was observed that not all factors displayed a good relationship between the regions. We conclude that our hypotheses were partially correct, in that increased air pollution was found to correlate to increased mental health-related DHB visits. Rainfall was also highly correlated to some mental health outcomes. Higher levels of rainfall reduced DHB visits and suicide rates in some areas of the country.
