Background: There has been a psychopathology focus in disaster research examining adolescent mental health and wellbeing, but recently studies have begun to also examine wellbeing-related constructs. Although an increased risk of posttraumatic stress disorder has been established in disaster-exposed adolescents, comparatively little is known about how disasters impact adolescent wellbeing, nor how factors within the post-disaster environment interact to influence holistic adolescent mental health and wellbeing. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the holistic mental health and wellbeing of adolescents living in an earthquake-struck city by considering a range of mental health and wellbeing indicators, as well as risk and protective factors hypothesised to influence mental health and wellbeing. The dual-factor model of mental health was used as a framework to guide this study. Method: A survey of Christchurch secondary school students was used to gather data about their subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, psychological distress, quality of life, exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences, social support from friends and family, school connectedness, and expectations about future quality of life. Results: A slim majority of students reported good subjective wellbeing (52.3%) and high current quality of life (56.4%), whereas a larger majority reported low risk of psychological distress (79%). An equal proportion of students reported high and low risk of low wellbeing. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables measured between adolescents who did and did not live through the Christchurch earthquakes. Regression analyses identified that school connectedness, social support from friends and family, and future expectations of quality of life significantly predicted subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, risk of psychological distress, and current quality of life. The number of Adverse Childhood Experiences significantly predicted only risk of psychological distress when the effects of other variables were controlled for. Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that there is a low mean level of wellbeing and quality of life in this sample of adolescents living in a severely earthquake- affected community. School connectedness, social support from family and friends, and expectations about future quality of life were shown to significantly predict variance in subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and psychological distress. This suggests that there are social and environmental factors that can be targeted to improve holistic mental health and wellbeing in disaster-affected adolescents who have experienced high levels of trauma. Conclusions in this study are limited by the representativeness of the sample, the cross- sectional nature of the study, and potential sampling bias.
Background: There has been a psychopathology focus in disaster research examining adolescent mental health and wellbeing, but recently studies have begun to also examine wellbeing-related constructs. Although an increased risk of posttraumatic stress disorder has been established in disaster-exposed adolescents, comparatively little is known about how disasters impact adolescent wellbeing, nor how factors within the post-disaster environment interact to influence holistic adolescent mental health and wellbeing. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the holistic mental health and wellbeing of adolescents living in an earthquake-struck city by considering a range of mental health and wellbeing indicators, as well as risk and protective factors hypothesised to influence mental health and wellbeing. The dual-factor model of mental health was used as a framework to guide this study. Method: A survey of Christchurch secondary school students was used to gather data about their subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, psychological distress, quality of life, exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences, social support from friends and family, school connectedness, and expectations about future quality of life. Results: A slim majority of students reported good subjective wellbeing (52.3%) and high current quality of life (56.4%), whereas a larger majority reported low risk of psychological distress (79%). An equal proportion of students reported high and low risk of low wellbeing. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables measured between adolescents who did and did not live through the Christchurch earthquakes. Regression analyses identified that school connectedness, social support from friends and family, and future expectations of quality of life significantly predicted subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, risk of psychological distress, and current quality of life. The number of Adverse Childhood Experiences significantly predicted only risk of psychological distress when the effects of other variables were controlled for. Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that there is a low mean level of wellbeing and quality of life in this sample of adolescents living in a severely earthquake-affected community. School connectedness, social support from family and friends, and expectations about future quality of life were shown to significantly predict variance in subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and psychological distress. This suggests that there are social and environmental factors that can be targeted to improve holistic mental health and wellbeing in disaster-affected adolescents who have experienced high levels of trauma. Conclusions in this study are limited by the representativeness of the sample, the cross-sectional nature of the study, and potential sampling bias.
Background: There has been a psychopathology focus in disaster research examining adolescent mental health and wellbeing, but recently studies have begun to also examine wellbeing-related constructs. Although an increased risk of posttraumatic stress disorder has been established in disaster-exposed adolescents, comparatively little is known about how disasters impact adolescent wellbeing, nor how factors within the post-disaster environment interact to influence holistic adolescent mental health and wellbeing. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the holistic mental health and wellbeing of adolescents living in an earthquake-struck city by considering a range of mental health and wellbeing indicators, as well as risk and protective factors hypothesised to influence mental health and wellbeing. The dual-factor model of mental health was used as a framework to guide this study. Method: A survey of Christchurch secondary school students was used to gather data about their subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, psychological distress, quality of life, exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences, social support from friends and family, school connectedness, and expectations about future quality of life. Results: A slim majority of students reported good subjective wellbeing (52.3%) and high current quality of life (56.4%), whereas a larger majority reported low risk of psychological distress (79%). An equal proportion of students reported high and low risk of low wellbeing. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables measured between adolescents who did and did not live through the Christchurch earthquakes. Regression analyses identified that school connectedness, social support from friends and family, and future expectations of quality of life significantly predicted subjective wellbeing, risk of low wellbeing, risk of psychological distress, and current quality of life. The number of Adverse Childhood Experiences significantly predicted only risk of psychological distress when the effects of other variables were controlled for. Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that there is a low mean level of wellbeing and quality of life in this sample of adolescents living in a severely earthquake- affected community. School connectedness, social support from family and friends, and expectations about future quality of life were shown to significantly predict variance in subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and psychological distress. This suggests that there are social and environmental factors that can be targeted to improve holistic mental health and wellbeing in disaster-affected adolescents who have experienced high levels of trauma. Conclusions in this study are limited by the representativeness of the sample, the cross- sectional nature of the study, and potential sampling bias.
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What progress has been made on the Crown’s Global Settlement with the Christchurch City Council for costs flowing from the Canterbury earthquake sequence? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies, statements, and actions? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on if he would meet his commitment to be a keynote speaker at the KiwiBuild summit on 24 June, “No, because I have two papers at Cabinet”, and did he take two papers to Cabinet on 24 June? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of State Services: Does he support measuring and improving the energy efficiency of Government buildings, both leased and owned? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “Yes, that will mean that we will have deficits that we wouldn’t want to see. That member and his Government under-invested in health for nine long years, and we will be investing ourselves for quite a period to set that right”; if so, when will he “set that right”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding community law centres? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Transport: What will the percentage increase in the fuel excise duty and accompanying road-user charges be on Monday, 1 July, and what will be the total revenue raised from this increase? Hon TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all of his answers during the Vote Labour Market Estimates hearing at the Education and Workforce Committee meeting on 12 June? Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What, if anything, is the Government doing to better support the wellbeing of parents with mental health and addiction needs? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Women: How can she be responsible for eliminating the gender pay gap when the Ministry for Women’s gender pay gap has gone from 5.6 percent in favour of women to 6 percent in favour of men? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2019 support Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand?
KIRITAPU ALLAN to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s decisions, statements, and actions in relation to his portfolio? Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made about settling long-standing insurance disputes following the Canterbury earthquakes? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is the KiwiBuild programme delivering good value for money for New Zealand taxpayers? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions? GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about the firearms buy-back scheme? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: How is the wellbeing of cancer patients in New Zealand affected by the Government’s policies and actions in health? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What recent announcements has he made about Whānau Ora? MARK PATTERSON to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcement has she made regarding recognition of Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: How many of the 600 learning support coordinators she promised does she estimate will be working in schools by the beginning of term 1 of the 2020 school year? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Revenue: What concerns, if any, does he have regarding the operation of the latest phased rollout of the IRD Business Transformation Programme, especially in relation to KiwiSaver PIE tax arrangements?
School travel is a major aspect of a young person’s everyday activity. The relationship between the built environment that youth experience on their way to and from school, influences a number of factors including their development, health and wellbeing. This is especially important in low income areas where the built environment is often poorer, but the need for it to be high quality and accessible is greater. This study focusses on the community of Aranui, a relatively low income suburb in Christchurch, New Zealand. It pays particular attention to Haeata Community Campus, a state school of just under 800 pupils from year one through to year thirteen (ages 5-18). The campus opened in 2017 following the closure of four local schools (three primary and one secondary), as part of the New Zealand Government’s Education Renewal scheme following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010/11. Dedicated effort toward understanding the local built environment, and subsequent travel patterns has been argued to be insufficiently considered. The key focus of this research was to understand the importance of the local environment in encouraging active school travel. The present study combines geospatial analysis, quantitative survey software Maptionnaire, and statistical models to explore the features of the local environment that influence school travel behaviour. Key findings suggest that distance to school and parental control are the most significant predictors of active transport in the study sample. Almost 75% of students live within two kilometres of the school, yet less than 40% utilise active transport. Parental control may be the key contributing factor to the disproportionate private vehicle use. However, active school travel is acknowledged as a complex process that is the product of many individual, household, and local environment factors. To see increased active transport uptake, the local environment needs to be of greater quality. Meaning that the built environment should be improved to be youth friendly, with greater walkability and safe, accessible cycling infrastructure.
As a global phenomenon, many cities are undergoing urban renewal to accommodate rapid growth in urban population. However, urban renewal can struggle to balance social, economic, and environmental outcomes, whereby economic outcomes are often primarily considered by developers. This has important implications for urban forests, which have previously been shown to be negatively affected by development activities. Urban forests serve the purpose of providing ecosystem services and thus are beneficial to human wellbeing. Better understanding the effect of urban renewal on city trees may help improve urban forest outcomes via effective management and policy strategies, thereby maximising ecosystem service provision and human wellbeing. Though the relationship between certain aspects of development and urban forests has received consideration in previous literature, little research has focused on how the complete property redevelopment cycle affects urban forest dynamics over time. This research provides an opportunity to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effect of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics, at a range of spatial scales, in Christchurch, New Zealand following a series of major earthquakes which occurred in 2010 – 2011. One consequence of the earthquakes is the redevelopment of thousands of properties over a relatively short time-frame. The research quantifies changes in canopy cover city-wide, as well as, tree removal, retention, and planting on individual residential properties. Moreover, the research identifies the underlying reasons for these dynamics, by exploring the roles of socio-economic and demographic factors, the spatial relationships between trees and other infrastructure, and finally, the attitudes of residential property owners. To quantify the effect of property redevelopment on canopy cover change in Christchurch, this research delineated tree canopy cover city-wide in 2011 and again in 2015. An object-based image analysis (OBIA) technique was applied to aerial imagery and LiDAR data acquired at both time steps, in order to estimate city-wide canopy cover for 2011 and 2015. Changes in tree canopy cover between 2011 and 2015 were then spatially quantified. Tree canopy cover change was also calculated for all meshblocks (a relatively fine-scale geographic boundary) in Christchurch. The results show a relatively small magnitude of tree canopy cover loss, city-wide, from 10.8% to 10.3% between 2011 and 2015, but a statistically significant change in mean tree canopy cover across all the meshblocks. Tree canopy cover losses were more likely to occur in meshblocks containing properties that underwent a complete redevelopment cycle, but the loss was insensitive to the density of redevelopment within meshblocks. To explore property-scale individual tree dynamics, a mixed-methods approach was used, combining questionnaire data and remote sensing analysis. A mail-based questionnaire was delivered to residential properties to collect resident and household data; 450 residential properties (321 redeveloped, 129 non- redeveloped) returned valid questionnaires and were identified as analysis subjects. Subsequently, 2,422 tree removals and 4,544 tree retentions were identified within the 450 properties; this was done by manually delineating individual tree crowns, based on aerial imagery and LiDAR data, and visually comparing the presence or absence of these trees between 2011 and 2015. The tree removal rate on redeveloped properties (44.0%) was over three times greater than on non-redeveloped properties (13.5%) and the average canopy cover loss on redeveloped properties (52.2%) was significantly greater than on non-redeveloped properties (18.8%). A classification tree (CT) analysis was used to model individual tree dynamics (i.e. tree removal, tree retention) and candidate explanatory variables (i.e. resident and household, economic, land cover, and spatial variables). The results indicate that the model including land cover, spatial, and economic variables had the best predicting ability for individual tree dynamics (accuracy = 73.4%). Relatively small trees were more likely to be removed, while trees with large crowns were more likely to be retained. Trees were most likely to be removed from redeveloped properties with capital values lower than NZ$1,060,000 if they were within 1.4 m of the boundary of a redeveloped building. Conversely, trees were most likely to be retained if they were on a property that was not redeveloped. The analysis suggested that the resident and household factors included as potential explanatory variables did not influence tree removal or retention. To conduct a further exploration of the relationship between resident attitudes and actions towards trees on redeveloped versus non-redeveloped properties, this research also asked the landowners from the 450 properties that returned mail questionnaires to indicate their attitudes towards tree management (i.e. tree removal, tree retention, and tree planting) on their properties. The results show that residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to remove and/or plant trees, while residents from non- redeveloped properties were more likely to retain existing trees. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore resident attitudes towards tree management. The results of the PCA show that residents identified ecosystem disservices (e.g. leaf litter, root damage to infrastructure) as common reasons for tree removal; however, they also noted ecosystem services as important reasons for both tree planting and tree retention on their properties. Moreover, the reasons for tree removal and tree planting varied based on whether residents’ property had been redeveloped. Most tree removal occurred on redeveloped properties because trees were in conflict with redevelopment, but occurred on non- redeveloped properties because of perceived poor tree health. Residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to plant trees due to being aesthetically pleasing or to replace trees removed during redevelopment. Overall, this research adds to, and complements, the existing literature on the effects of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics. The findings of this research provide empirical support for developing specific legislation or policies about urban forest management during residential property redevelopment. The results also imply that urban foresters should enhance public education on the ecosystem services provided by urban forests and thus minimise the potential for tree removal when undertaking property redevelopment.
