Though rare and unpredictable, earthquakes can and do cause catastrophic destruction when they impact unprepared and vulnerable communities. Extensive damage and failure of vulnerable buildings is a key factor which contributes to seismic-related disasters, making the proactive management of these buildings a necessity to reduce the risk of future disasters arising. The devastating Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 brought the urgency of this issue to national importance in New Zealand. The national earthquake-prone building framework came into effect in 2017, obligating authorities to identify existing buildings with the greatest risk of collapse in strong earthquakes and for building owners to strengthen or demolish these buildings within a designated period of time. Though this framework is unique to New Zealand, the challenge of managing the seismic risk of such buildings is common amongst all seismically-active countries. Therefore, looking outward to examine how other jurisdictions legally manage this challenge is useful for reflecting on the approaches taken in New Zealand and understand potential lessons which could be adopted. This research compares the legal framework used to reduce the seismic risk of existing buildings in New Zealand with that of the similarly earthquake-prone countries of Japan and Italy. These legal frameworks are examined with a particular focus on the proactive goal of reducing risk and improving resilience, as is the goal of the international Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The Sendai Framework, which each of the case study countries have committed to and thus have obligations under, forms the legal basis of the need for states to reduce disaster risk in their jurisdictions. In particular, the states’ legal frameworks for existing building risk reduction are examined in the context of the Sendai priorities of understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk governance, and investing in resilience. While this research illustrates that the case study countries have each adopted more proactive risk reduction frameworks in recent years in anticipation of future earthquakes, the frameworks currently focus on a very narrow range of existing buildings and thus are not currently sufficient for promoting the long-term resilience of building stocks. In order to improve resilience, it is argued, legal frameworks need to include a broader range of buildings subject to seismic risk reduction obligations and also to broaden the focus on long-term monitoring of potential risk to buildings.
PurposeThe purpose of this research is to highlight the role of not-for-profit (NFP) organisations in enhancing disaster preparedness. The authors set out to understand their perspectives and practices in regard to disaster preparedness activities to support people who live precarious lives, especially those who live as single parents who are the least prepared for disasters.Design/methodology/approachThe research draws on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 staff members, either in a group setting or individually, from seven NFP organisations, who were located in Ōtautahi (Christchurch) and Kaiapoi in Aotearoa New Zealand. These participants were interviewed eight years after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake.FindingsFour key narrative tropes or elements were drawn from across the interviews and were used to structure the research results. These included: “essential” support services for people living precarious lives; assisting people to be prepared; potential to support preparedness with the right materials and relationships; resourcing to supply emergency goods.Originality/valueThis research contributes to disaster risk reduction practices by advocating for ongoing resourcing of NFP groups due to their ability to build a sense of community and trust while working with precarious communities, such as single parents.
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.
