Tertiary students, not just working populations, might be experiencing feelings of burnout following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. In the aftermath of a major disaster, the gap between the resources available to handle pressures (e.g., support) and the demands inherent in the pursuit of an academic degree (e.g., heavy workload) may lead to feelings of burnout among students. This study hypothesised that burnout dimensions (emotional exhaustion and disengagement) would be related to students’ perceptions of immediate institutional support, extended institutional support, peer support, family support, and work overload. Additionally, it was proposed that institutional and social support would moderate the relationship between work overload and burnout. Two hundred and seventy one third and fourth year students were sampled using an online questionnaire. These particular students were expected to be at greater risk of emotional exhaustion and academic disengagement because they were at the earliest stage of their tertiary education when the major earthquakes first hit. Family support and extended institutional support were found to be associated with decreased levels of emotional exhaustion and disengagement. Meanwhile, work overload was found to be related to increased levels of emotional exhaustion and disengagement. Furthermore, both peer support and immediate institutional support were found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and disengagement. This study has exposed unique findings which contribute to burnout research especially in a post-disaster context, and raises the importance of providing the right types of support for individuals who are particularly dealing with the consequences of a natural disaster.
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
