A video of a keynote presentation by Professor Jonathan Davidson during the fifth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Resilience in People".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Resilience is the ability to bounce back or adapt successfully in the face of change, and is present to varying degrees in everybody. For at least 50 years resilience has been a topic of study in medical research, with a marked increase occurring in the past decade. In this presentation the essential features of resilience will be defined. Among the determining or mediating factors are neurobiological pathways, genetic characteristics, temperament, and environment events, all of which will be summarized. Adversity, assets, and adjustment need to be taken into account when assessing resilience. Different approaches to measuring the construct include self-rating scales which evaluate: traits and copying, responses to stress, symptom ratings after exposure to actual adversity, behavioural measures in response to a stress, e.g. Trier Test, and biological measures in response to stress. Examples will be provided. Resilience can be a determinant of health outcome, e.g. for coronary heart disease, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive status and successful aging. Total score and individual item levels of resilience predict response to dug and psychotherapy in post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that resilience is modifiable. Different treatments and interventions can increase resilience in a matter of weeks, and with an effect size larger than the effect size found for the same treatments on symptoms of illness. There are many ways to enhance resilience, ranging from 'Outward Bound' to mindfulness-based meditation/stress reduction to wellbeing therapy and antidepressant drugs. Treatments that reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety recruit resiliency processes at the same time. Examples will be given.
Diverse Density proposes an alternative housing strategy to the idealistic top-down process of housing development. The term ‘Top – down’ refers to a situation in which decisions are made by a few people in authority rather than by the people who are affected by the decisions (Cambridge). Problems/Position/Question: New Zealand’s urban housing is in a period of flux. Pressures of densification have permitted the intervention of medium density housing development schemes but these are not always successful. These typically top-down processes often result in internally focused design schemes that do not adhere to their specific context. The subsequent design outcomes can cause detrimental impacts to the local, urban and architectural conditions. With vast quantities of council regulations, building restrictions and design guidelines clouding over the housing sector, commonly referred to as ‘red tape’, occupant participation in the housing development sector is dwindling. A boundless separation between top-down and traditional housing processes has occurred and our existing neighbourhoods and historic architectural character are taking on the brunt of the problem. The thought-provoking, alternative housings strategies of key research theorists Alejandro Aravena and John Habraken frame positions that challenge contemporary densification methods with an alternative strategy. This position is addressed by endeavoring to answer; How can demands for denser housing achieve dynamic design responses that adhere to changes in occupancy, function and local site conditions? Aim: The aim of this thesis is to challenge New Zealand’s current housing densification methods by proposing an alternative densification strategy. Explicit devotion will be attributed to opposing top-down building developments. Secondly, this thesis aims to test a speculative site-specific housing model. The implementation of a Christchurch housing scenario will situate an investigative study to test the strategy and its ability to stimulate greater diversity, site responsiveness, functional adaptability and occupancy permutation. The post-earthquake housing conditions of Christchurch provide an appropriate scenario to test and implement design-led investigations. Objectives: The primary objectives of this design-led research investigation it to challenge the idealistic top-down method of developing density with a new method to: - Develop contextual architectural cohesion - Encourage residential diversity - Reinvigorate architectural autonomy - Respond to, and recognise, existing site conditions - Develop a housing model that: - Adapts to occupant functionality preferences - Caters to occupancy diversity - Achieves contextual responsiveness The proposition is addressed through a speculative design-led scenario study. A well-established Christchurch urban environment is adopted to implement and critique the envisioned alternative strategy. Development of the designs responsiveness, adaptability, and functionality produce a prototype housing model that actively adheres to its particular context. Implication: The implications of this research would be an alternative densification strategy to perceive the advancement of punctual assessment of building compliance. With accelerated building processes, the research may have implications for addressing New Zealand’s housing crisis whilst simultaneously providing diverse, personable and responsive architectural solutions. A more dynamic, up-to-date and responsive housing development sector would be informed.
A video of a presentation by Elizabeth McNaughton during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. McNaughton is the Director of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Learning and Legacy programme at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The presentation is titled, "Leading in Disaster Recovery: A companion through the chaos".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Leading in disaster recovery is a deeply human event - it requires us to reach deep inside of ourselves and bring to others the best of who we can be. It's painful, tiring, rewarding and meaningful. The responsibility can be heavy and at times leaders feel alone. The experienced realities of recovery leadership promoted research involving over 100 people around the globe who have worked in disaster recovery. The result is distilled wisdom from those who have walked in similar shoes to serve as a companion and guide for recovery leaders. The leadership themes in Leading in Disaster Recovery: A companion through the chaos include hard-won, honest, personal, brave insights and practical strategies to serve and support other recovery leaders. This guidance is one attempt amongst many others to change the historic tendency to lurch from disaster to disaster without embedding learning and knowledge - something we cannot afford to do if we are to honour those whose lives have been lost or irreversibly changed by disaster. If we are to honour the courageous efforts of those who have previously served disaster-impacted communities we would be better abled to serve those impacted by future disasters.
A video of the keynote presentation by Alexander C. McFarlane during the third plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. McFarlane is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Adelaide and the Heady of the Centre for Traumatic Stress Studies. The presentation is titled, "Holding onto the Lessons Disasters Teach".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Disasters are sentinel points in the life of the communities affected. They bring an unusual focus to community mental health. In so doing, they provide unique opportunities for better understanding and caring for communities. However, one of the difficulties in the disaster field is that many of the lessons from previous disasters are frequently lost. If anything, Norris (in 2006) identified that the quality of disaster research had declined over the previous 25 years. What is critical is that a longitudinal perspective is taken of representative cohorts. Equally, the impact of a disaster should always be judged against the background mental health of the communities affected, including emergency service personnel. Understandably, many of those who are particularly distressed in the aftermath of a disaster are people who have previously experienced a psychiatric disorder. It is important that disaster services are framed against knowledge of this background morbidity and have a broad range of expertise to deal with the emerging symptoms. Equally, it is critical that a long-term perspective is considered rather than short-term support that attempts to ameliorate distress. Future improvement of disaster management depends upon sustaining a body of expertise dealing with the consequences of other forms of traumatic stress such as accidents. This expertise can be redirected to co-ordinate and manage the impact of larger scale events when disasters strike communities. This presentation will highlight the relevance of these issues to the disaster planning in a country such as New Zealand that is prone to earthquakes.
