“The degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” – Fyodor Dostoevsky One of the challenges faced by any new colony is what to do with the non-conformists, renegades, and criminals. The ideal, of course, … Continue reading →
Recycling is often employed as part of a disaster waste management system. However, the feasibility, method and effectiveness of recycling varies between disaster events. This qualitative study is based on literature reviews, expert interviews and active participatory research of five international disaster events in developed countries (2009 Victorian Bushfires, Australia; 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy; 2005 Hurricane Katrina, United States; 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, New Zealand; 2011 Great East Japan earthquake) to answer three questions: What are the main factors that affect the feasibility of recycling post-disaster? When is on-site or off-site separation more effective? What management approaches improve recycling effectiveness? Seven disaster-specific factors need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of disaster waste recycling programmes: volume of waste; degree of mixing of waste; human and environmental health hazards; areal extent of the waste; community priorities; funding mechanisms; and existing and disaster-specific regulations. The appropriateness of on or off-site waste separation depends on four factors: time constraints; resource availability; degree of mixing of waste and human and public health hazards. Successful recycling programmes require good management including clear and well enforced policies (through good contracts or regulations) and pre-event planning. Further research into post-disaster recycling markets, funding mechanisms and recycling in developing countries is recommended.
We examine the role of business interruption insurance in business recovery following the Christchurch earthquake in 2011 in the short- and medium-term. In the short-term analysis, we ask whether insurance increases the likelihood of business survival in the aftermath of a disaster. We find only weak evidence that those firms that had incurred damage, but were covered by business interruption insurance, had higher likelihood of survival post-quake compared with those firms that did not have insurance. This absence of evidence may reflect the high degree of uncertainty in the months following the 2011 earthquake and the multiplicity of severe aftershocks. For the medium-term, our results show a more explicit role for insurance in the aftermath of a disaster. Firms with business interruption insurance have a higher probability of increasing productivity and improved performance following a catastrophe. Furthermore, our results show that those organisations that receive prompt and full payments of their claims have a better recovery, in terms of profitability and a subjective ‘”better off” measure’ than those that had protracted or inadequate claim payments (less than 80% of the claim paid within 2.5 years). Interestingly, the latter group does worse than those organisations that had damage but no insurance coverage. This analysis strongly indicates the importance not only of good insurance coverage, but of an insurance system that also delivers prompt claim payments. As a first paper attempting to empirically identify a causal effect of insurance on business recovery, we also emphasize some caveats to our analysis.
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.