Volume 26, Number 3
Contents - Volume 26, Number 3
Published December 2022
Volume 26, Number 3 (complete issue)
Contents page - Volume 26, Number 3
Research Papers
Post-disaster residential mobility: Considerations for Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia
Denise Blake, Gail Adams-Hutcheson, Lisa Gibbs & Phoebe Quinn
Keywords: Residential mobility, relocation, displacement, earthquakes, bushfires, disasters, Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia
Abstract:
A range of hazards such as earthquakes and fires can propel people and communities to flee or seek safety to protect or rebuild their lives. These forms of residential mobility can encompass temporary and permanent displacement, relocation, and return. They also impact on individuals, relationships, and experiences of security. Here, residential mobility research is examined with a specific focus on two events in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia to highlight the need for ongoing consideration of residential mobility in preparation for and recovery from a disaster. Applying a push/pull lens, this article outlines critical drivers for people’s movements after a disaster. Areas of interest are noted as well as considerations for future research. How and why people relocate is complex and contextual, and influences community recovery and wellbeing. As such, greater knowledge about residential mobility is essential to assist people and communities to recover well.
The limits of resilience: A discussion of resilience from the perspectives of critical disaster studies
Shinya Uekusa & Steve Matthewman
Keywords: Canterbury earthquake sequence, critical disaster studies, disaster risk reduction, disaster theory, limits of resilience, resilience, social capital, sustainable recovery
Abstract:
Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development.
Understanding pandemic behaviours in Singapore – Application of the Terror Management Health
Model
Hoi Ting Leung, Peter K. H. Chew & Nerina J. Caltabiano
Keywords: TMHM, COVID-19, health behaviours, Singapore, empirical validation
Abstract:
The novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19, was first reported in China in December 2019 and became a global crisis by March 2020. Both adaptive and maladaptive behaviours were observed in response to aspects of the crisis, some of which appeared to be contradictory to coping and curbing the threat of COVID-19. For instance, the purchase and use of surgical masks and sanitisers could be understood as logical health-oriented behaviours relevant to coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. The breaching of social distancing measures and forwarding unverified news, however, might have done more harm than good. In applying the proximal and distal defences proposed within the Terror Management Health Model (TMHM), this article suggests explanations for these behaviours as individuals’ attempts to alleviate anxiety arising from reminders of their mortality. Information from local newspapers and media is used to highlight and identify common behaviours observed in the pandemic, and the TMHM is applied to explain these behaviours. This paper briefly concludes with a call for empirical validation of the TMHM for the behaviours observed in relation to COVID-19, and for the use of TMHM conceptualisations to develop countermeasures to reduce maladaptive behaviours in the current, and future, pandemics in Singapore.
All papers are protected under the Creative Commons attribution as per our copyright notice.