In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
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.
This study explores the nature of smaller businesses’ resilience following two major earthquakes that severely disrupted their place of doing business. Data from the owners of ten smaller businesses are qualitative and longitudinal, spanning the period 2011 through 2018, providing first-hand narrative accounts of their responses in the earthquakes’ aftermath. All ten owners showed some individual resilience; six businesses survived through to 2018, of which three have recovered strongly. All three owned their premises; operated business-tobusiness models; and were able to adapt and continue to follow path-extension strategies. All the other businesses had direct business-to-customer models operating from leased premises, typically in major retail malls. Four eventually recognised path-exhaustion at different times and so did not survive through to 2018. We conclude however that post-disaster recovery is best explained in terms of business model resilience. Even the most resilient of individual owners will struggle to survive if their business model is either not resilient or cannot be made so. Individual resilience is necessary but not sufficient.
