Academic literature on the topic '130705 Understanding New Zealand’s past'

New Zealand’s geographic isolation, lack of native terrestrial mammals, and Gondwanan origins make it an ideal location to study evolutionary processes. However, since the archipelago was first settled by humans 750 y ago, its unique biodiversity has been under pressure, and today an estimated 49% of the terrestrial avifauna is extinct. Current efforts to conserve the remaining fauna rely on a better understanding of the composition of past ecosystems, as well as the causes and timing of past extinctions. The exact temporal and spatial dynamics of New Zealand’s extinct fauna, however, can be difficult to interpret, as only a small proportion of animals are preserved as morphologically identifiable fossils. Here, we conduct a large-scale genetic survey of subfossil bone assemblages to elucidate the impact of humans on the environment in New Zealand. By genetically identifying more than 5,000 nondiagnostic bone fragments from archaeological and paleontological sites, we reconstruct a rich faunal record of 110 species of birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and marine mammals. We report evidence of five whale species rarely reported from New Zealand archaeological middens and characterize extinct lineages of leiopelmatid frog (Leiopelma sp.) and kākāpō (Strigops habroptilus) haplotypes lost from the gene pool. Taken together, this molecular audit of New Zealand’s subfossil record not only contributes to our understanding of past biodiversity and precontact Māori subsistence practices but also provides a more nuanced snapshot of anthropogenic impacts on native fauna after first human arrival.

During the past 50 years of utilising modern techniques in New Zealand’s Taranaki Basin, explorers have both been rewarded by its bountiful accumulations and frustrated by its complicated morphology. Numerous superimposed sub-basins, depocentres, areas of uplift, interbedded volcanic edifices and recent volcanism contribute to the complexity of New Zealand’s only producing province. Exploration has been successful along the flanks of the basin, but the time has come to focus on the numerous grabens forming the Taranaki Basin.The basin is a Late Cretaceous rift more than twice the size of the North Sea’s prolific Viking graben, but only 120 wildcats have been drilled since 1955, with only 50 offshore. Horst, tilted fault block, inversion features and thrust anticlines have been the traditional targets, but companies are showing increased interest in relatively more difficult plays involving turbiditic, volcaniclastic and diagenetic reservoirs.The axis of the 6,000 km2 Northern Taranaki graben, the northern part of the Taranaki Basin, has not been penetrated by the drill bit and offers numerous exploration opportunities for basin floor and slope fans of Eocene and Miocene age. Acoustic scattering, diffraction and absorption within a chain of buried Miocene stratovolcanoes inhibit seismic energy from passing into the older sequences, which consist of numerous basin floor fan sequences. Long avoided by exploration programs, volcanic edifices were found to possess good reservoir characteristics and entrap hydrocarbons at Kora–1. The 7000+ km3 of layered extrusive volcanic rock in the graben cannot therefore be discounted as potential reservoir. Another play developed by Miocene magmatism is the doming of potential turbidite reservoirs by underlying igneous feeder dyke systems. In addition, the wells drilled at Kora identified a more elusive play concept—that of potentially large petroleum accumulations stratigraphically trapped downdip from diagenetically altered reservoirs, serving as sealing lithologies, near the igneous feeder dyke systems.As most seismic records in the Northern Taranaki graben were acquired more than a decade ago, modern seismic acquisition and processing technologies are needed to penetrate the buried volcanic edifices and unlock the basin’s story. A better understanding of the basin’s complexities, more cost-effective drilling techniques and a willingness to explore for targets in the source kitchens may finally expose the true potential of the Taranaki Basin.

On 15 March 2019, a white supremacist gunman shot dead 50 Muslim worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, Aotearoa, New Zealand. His actions changed forever the safe haven known as ‘God’s Own’. New Zealanders were shocked that such an event had happened here. Many Kiwis believed the nation to be safe, given its geographic isolation from the terrorist targets of Europe and the United States of America. However, the atrocity has exposed an unhealthy underbelly that has long permeated New Zealand’s socio-culture. Racism and discrimination have forefronted ensuing conversations. This article explores the nation’s history of discrimination preceding the terrorist attack. In doing so, we expose something subtly denied: that New Zealand is not the egalitarian land of milk and honey that many Kiwis believed it to be. We suggest that the terrorist attack not only highlighted the nation’s discrimination but also provided its liminal moment. Part of that liminality was Cat/Yusuf Steven’s performance, in Christchurch, of ‘Peace Train’. We compound our exploration of Aotearoa New Zealand’s history of discrimination by asking how the lyrics of ‘Peace Train’ provide a way to view our past and provide an opportunity to perceive a way forward for the nation, given the tragedy of terrorism. We suggest that ‘Peace Train’ is a metaphorical illumination of the nation’s liminality, and that it provided a road map of unity that helped to guide many Kiwis in understanding and coming to terms with not only what had happened but also a future view of how Kiwis might see themselves.

Background: A key objective of government and social marketers is to remove the institutionalized stigma of mental illness, increasing mental health service uptake. While research has evaluated past campaigns based on changes in attitudes and beliefs, very little research has examined the communication messages used in social marketing campaigns. Focus of the Article: This impact evaluation research identifies the institutionalized cultural-moral norms incorporated into New Zealand’s Like Minds mental health advertisements and examines how attitudes and beliefs changed over time in response to these norms. Importance to the Social Marketing Field: This research offers a new approach to social marketing evaluation and demonstrates the importance of consistent incorporation of cultural-moral institutional norms in social marketing campaigns. Method: Using macro-social marketing theory, thematic analysis is used to identify the cultural-moral institutional norms in the Like Minds campaign advertisements over a 10-year period (2002–2012). Results: The Like Minds campaign was found to have multiple cultural-moral institutional norms, such as Mental illness as a villain, Personal responsibility, and Inherent human dignity, as well as utilizing two different institutionalization processes of Socialization and Identity Formation. However, these norms were inconsistently and sometimes contradictorily presented and as a result, not all changes in mental health stigma beliefs and attitudes show long term change. Rates for service uptake also had mixed results during the campaign duration, though overall an increase in uptake was found. Recommendations for Research and Practice: The research highlights the importance of understanding the underlying institutionalized cultural-moral norms presented in communications and aligning those with the overall objectives of a social marketing campaign. Limitations: Like Minds campaign phases 2 to 5 are analyzed, phase 1 was inaccessible for analysis and advertisements after 2012 are not analyzed.

1. Introduction This Special Issue (Part 2) expands upon the theme “Building Local Capacity for Long-term Disaster Resilience” presented in Special Issue Part 1 (JDR Volume 5, Number 2, April 2010) by examining the evolving concept of disaster resilience and providing additional reflections upon various aspects of its meaning. Part 1 provided a mixed set of examples of resiliency efforts, ranging from administrative challenges of integrating resilience into recovery to the analysis of hazard mitigation plans directed toward guiding local capability for developing resiliency. Resilience was broadly defined in the opening editorial of Special Issue Part 1 as “the capacity of a community to: 1) survive a major disaster, 2) retain essential structure and functions, and 3) adapt to post-disaster opportunities for transforming community structure and functions to meet new challenges.” In this editorial essay we first explore in Section 2 the history of resilience and then locate it within current academic and policy debates. Section 3 presents summaries of the papers in this issue. 2. Why is Resilience a Contemporary Theme? There is growing scholarly and policy interest in disaster resilience. In recent years, engineers [1], sociologists [2], geographers [3], economists [4], public policy analysts [5, 6], urban planners [7], hazards researchers [8], governments [9], and international organizations [10] have all contributed to the literature about this concept. Some authors view resilience as a mechanism for mitigating disaster impacts, with framework objectives such as resistance, absorption, and restoration [5]. Others, who focus on resiliency indicators, see it as an early warning system to assess community resiliency status [3, 8]. Recently, it has emerged as a component of social risk management that seeks to minimize social welfare loss from catastrophic disasters [6]. Manyena [11] traces scholarly exploration of resilience as an operational concept back at least five decades. Interest in resilience began in the 1940s with studies of children and trauma in the family and in the 1970s in the ecology literature as a useful framework to examine and measure the impact of assault or trauma on a defined eco-system component [12]. This led to modeling resilience measures for a variety of components within a defined ecosystem, leading to the realization that the systems approach to resiliency is attractive as a cross-disciplinary construct. The ecosystem analogy however, has limits when applied to disaster studies in that, historically, all catastrophic events have changed the place in which they occurred and a “return to normalcy” does not occur. This is true for modern urban societies as well as traditional agrarian societies. The adoption of “The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015” (also known as The Hyogo Declaration) provides a global linkage and follows the United Nations 1990s International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction effort. The 2005 Hyogo Declaration’s definition of resilience is: “The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure.” The proposed measurement of resilience in the Hyogo Declaration is determined by “the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.” While very broad, this definition contains two key concepts: 1) adaptation, and 2) maintaining acceptable levels of functioning and structure. While adaptation requires certain capacities, maintaining acceptable levels of functioning and structure requires resources, forethought, and normative action. Some of these attributes are now reflected in the 2010 National Disaster Recovery Framework published by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [13]. With the emergence of this new thinking on resilience related to disasters, it is now a good time to reflect on the concept and assess what has recently been said in the literature. Bruneau et al. [1] offer an engineering sciences definition for community seismic resilience: “The ability of social units (e.g., organizations, communities) to mitigate hazards, contain the effects of disasters when they occur, and carry out recovery activities in ways that minimize social disruption and mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.” Rose [4] writes that resiliency is the ability of a system to recover from a severe shock. He distinguishes two types of resilience: (1) inherent – ability under normal circumstances and (2) adaptive – ability in crisis situations due to ingenuity or extra effort. By opening up resilience to categorization he provides a pathway to establish multi-disciplinary approaches, something that is presently lacking in practice. Rose is most concerned with business disruption which can take extensive periods of time to correct. In order to make resource decisions that lower overall societal costs (economic, social, governmental and physical), Rose calls for the establishment of measurements that function as resource decision allocation guides. This has been done in part through risk transfer tools such as private insurance. However, it has not been well-adopted by governments in deciding how to allocate mitigation resources. We need to ask why the interest in resilience has grown? Manyena [11] argues that the concept of resilience has gained currency without obtaining clarity of understanding, definition, substance, philosophical dimensions, or applicability to disaster management and sustainable development theory and practice. It is evident that the “emergency management model” does not itself provide sufficient guidance for policymakers since it is too command-and-control-oriented and does not adequately address mitigation and recovery. Also, large disasters are increasingly viewed as major disruptions of the economic and social conditions of a country, state/province, or city. Lowering post-disaster costs (human life, property loss, economic advancement and government disruption) is being taken more seriously by government and civil society. The lessening of costs is not something the traditional “preparedness” stage of emergency management has concerned itself with; this is an existing void in meeting the expanding interests of government and civil society. The concept of resilience helps further clarify the relationship between risk and vulnerability. If risk is defined as “the probability of an event or condition occurring [14]#8221; then it can be reduced through physical, social, governmental, or economic means, thereby reducing the likelihood of damage and loss. Nothing can be done to stop an earthquake, volcanic eruption, cyclone, hurricane, or other natural event, but the probability of damage and loss from natural and technological hazards can be addressed through structural and non-structural strategies. Vulnerability is the absence of capacity to resist or absorb a disaster impact. Changes in vulnerability can then be achieved by changes in these capacities. In this regard, Franco and Siembieda describe in this issue how coastal cities in Chile had low resilience and high vulnerability to the tsunami generated by the February 2010 earthquake, whereas modern buildings had high resilience and, therefore, were much less vulnerable to the powerful earthquake. We also see how the framework for policy development can change through differing perspectives. Eisner discusses in this issue how local non-governmental social service agencies are building their resilience capabilities to serve target populations after a disaster occurs, becoming self-renewing social organizations and demonstrating what Leonard and Howett [6] term “social resilience.” All of the contributions to this issue illustrate the lowering of disaster impacts and strengthening of capacity (at the household, community or governmental level) for what Alesch [15] terms “post-event viability” – a term reflecting how well a person, business, community, or government functions after a disaster in addition to what they might do prior to a disaster to lessen its impact. Viability might become the definition of recovery if it can be measured or agreed upon. 3. Contents of This Issue The insights provided by the papers in this issue contribute greater clarity to an understanding of resilience, together with its applicability to disaster management. In these papers we find tools and methods, process strategies, and planning approaches. There are five papers focused on local experiences, three on state (prefecture) experiences, and two on national experiences. The papers in this issue reinforce the concept of resilience as a process, not a product, because it is the sum of many actions. The resiliency outcome is the result of multiple inputs from the level of the individual and, at times, continuing up to the national or international organizational level. Through this exploration we see that the “resiliency” concept accepts that people will come into conflict with natural or anthropogenic hazards. The policy question then becomes how to lower the impact(s) of the conflict through “hard or soft” measures (see the Special Issue Part 1 editorial for a discussion of “hard” vs. “soft” resilience). Local level Go Urakawa and Haruo Hayashi illustrate how post-disaster operations for public utilities can be problematic because many practitioners have no direct experience in such operations, noting that the formats and methods normally used in recovery depend on personal skills and effort. They describe how these problems are addressed by creating manuals on measures for effectively implementing post-disaster operations. They develop a method to extract priority operations using business impact analysis (BIA) and project management based business flow diagrams (BFD). Their article effectively illustrates the practical aspects of strengthening the resiliency of public organizations. Richard Eisner presents the framework used to initiate the development and implementation of a process to create disaster resilience in faith-based and community-based organizations that provide services to vulnerable populations in San Francisco, California. A major project outcome is the Disaster Resilience Standard for Community- and Faith-Based Service Providers. This “standard” has general applicability for use by social service agencies in the public and non-profit sectors. Alejandro Linayo addresses the growing issue of technological risk in cities. He argues for the need to understand an inherent conflict between how we occupy urban space and the technological risks created by hazardous chemicals, radiation, oil and gas, and other hazardous materials storage and movement. The paper points out that information and procedural gaps exist in terms of citizen knowledge (the right to know) and local administrative knowledge (missing expertise). Advances and experience accumulated by the Venezuela Disaster Risk Management Research Center in identifying and integrating technological risk treatment for the city of Merida, Venezuela, are highlighted as a way to move forward. L. Teresa Guevara-Perez presents the case that certain urban zoning requirements in contemporary cities encourage and, in some cases, enforce the use of building configurations that have been long recognized by earthquake engineering as seismically vulnerable. Using Western Europe and the Modernist architectural movement, she develops the historical case for understanding discrepancies between urban zoning regulations and seismic codes that have led to vulnerable modern building configurations, and traces the international dissemination of architectural and urban planning concepts that have generated vulnerability in contemporary cities around the world. Jung Eun Kang, Walter Gillis Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein discuss an assessment protocol for Hazard Mitigation Plans applied to 12 coastal hazard zone plans in the state of Texas in the U.S. The components of these plans are systematically examined in order to highlight their respective strengths and weaknesses. The authors describe an assessment tool, the plan quality score (PQS), composed of seven primary components (vision statement, planning process, fact basis, goals and objectives, inter-organizational coordination, policies & actions, and implementation), as well as a component quality score (CQS). State (Prefecture) level Charles Real presents the Natural Hazard Zonation Policies for Land Use Planning and Development in California in the U.S. California has established state-level policies that utilize knowledge of where natural hazards are more likely to occur to enhance the effectiveness of land use planning as a tool for risk mitigation. Experience in California demonstrates that a combination of education, outreach, and mutually supporting policies that are linked to state-designated natural hazard zones can form an effective framework for enhancing the role of land use planning in reducing future losses from natural disasters. Norio Maki, Keiko Tamura, and Haruo Hayashi present a method for local government stakeholders involved in pre-disaster plan making to describe performance measures through the formulation of desired outcomes. Through a case study approach, Nara and Kyoto Prefectures’ separate experiences demonstrate how to conduct Strategic Earthquake Disaster Reduction Plans and Action Plans that have deep stakeholder buy-in and outcome measurability. Nara’s plan was prepared from 2,015 stakeholder ideas and Kyoto’s plan was prepared from 1,613 stakeholder ideas. Having a quantitative target for individual objectives ensures the measurability of plan progress. Both jurisdictions have undertaken evaluations of plan outcomes. Sandy Meyer, Eugene Henry, Roy E. Wright and Cynthia A. Palmer present the State of Florida in the U.S. and its experience with pre-disaster planning for post-disaster redevelopment. Drawing upon the lessons learned from the impacts of the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, local governments and state leaders in Florida sought to find a way to encourage behavior that would create greater community resiliency in 2006. The paper presents initial efforts to develop a post-disaster redevelopment plan (PDRP), including the experience of a pilot county. National level Bo-Yao Lee provides a national perspective: New Zealand’s approach to emergency management, where all hazard risks are addressed through devolved accountability. This contemporary approach advocates collaboration and coordination, aiming to address all hazard risks through the “4Rs” – reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. Lee presents the impact of the Resource Management Act (1991), the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002), and the Building Act (2004) that comprise the key legislation influencing and promoting integrated management for environment and hazard risk management. Guillermo Franco and William Siembieda provide a field assessment of the February 27, 2010, M8.8 earthquake and tsunami event in Chile. The papers present an initial damage and life-loss review and assessment of seismic building resiliency and the country’s rapid updating of building codes that have undergone continuous improvement over the past 60 years. The country’s land use planning system and its emergency management system are also described. The role of insurance coverage reveals problems in seismic coverage for homeowners. The unique role of the Catholic Church in providing temporary shelter and the central government’s five-point housing recovery plan are presented. A weakness in the government’s emergency management system’s early tsunami response system is noted. Acknowledgements The Editorial Committee extends its sincere appreciation to both the contributors and the JDR staff for their patience and determination in making Part 2 of this special issue possible. Thanks also to the reviewers for their insightful analytic comments and suggestions. Finally, the Committee wishes to again thank Bayete Henderson for his keen and thorough editorial assistance and copy editing support.

AbstractThis paper responds to calls from past and present students to increase the value of postgraduate scholarships in Aotearoa New Zealand. Here we provide context for understanding the scholarship landscape in Aotearoa, including how scholarships are understood in relation to dominant neoliberal framings of higher education and persistent inequities within the sector. We present data which provides insight into the current inequities in Summer, Masters and PhD scholarship values. The average value of PhD scholarships has remained stagnant between 2011 and 2019 resulting in the average being $11,238 less than the Living Wage in 2019. We show that the average length of time full-time PhD students take to complete their doctorates exceeds the three-year tenure of scholarships. We argue the status-quo of low scholarships, supplemented by postgraduate ‘sweat’, excludes people from participating in postgraduate education, preventing them and their communities from realising the public benefits that such an education can produce. We suggest that these inadequacies could be addressed through (1) raising Summer, Masters and PhD scholarships to the living wage; (2) extending tenure of PhD scholarships; and (3) reinstating the postgraduate student allowance.

North Korea remains the ultimate international outlier: an isolated totalitarian state seeking to acquire a credible nuclear weapons program. As such, a simmering crisis between the North and the US has been playing out since the end of the Cold War. Yet, while past attempts at diplomacy have failed, change is afoot as the Trump administration seeks to shift US-North Korean relations onto a new footing. While skepticism is warranted, this article explains that new personalities and a shift in the structure of power in and around the Korean peninsula provide grounds for cautious optimism that long-term rapprochement is feasible. Small states like New Zealand have a stake in a positive outcome, as its interests dictate that it seeks a stable and secure Asia-Pacific. Furthermore, US-North Korean negotiations take place against the backdrop of intensifying US-China great power competition; a situation that complicates the picture and suggests that long-term peace on the peninsula is only possible if diplomacy takes into account all regional actors. With the above in mind, this article makes a contribution to our understanding of the North Korean issue. It provides a background to the crisis; outlines how personal and structural changes (in terms of the shifting balance of power) suggest that the outcome of diplomatic efforts could be different to failures of the past; considers whether North Korea is an ‘irrational’ actor; and offers a conceptual (and self-avowedly idealistic) framework – ‘strategic liberalism’ – to act as a guide for New Zealand as it looks to calibrate its approach to ongoing tensions and diplomacy on the Korean peninsula.

While the long-term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic are yet to be realised, there is no doubt that the wellbeing of many are and will be affected. Workplaces have a major influence on people’s quality of life, and have the ability to impact employee wellbeing. Understanding how organisations can support employees’ wellbeing in a disaster context is essential for organisational and community recovery. In this paper, we make recommendations for organisational leaders based on past research on employee wellbeing in post-disaster context and on preliminary evidence from an ongoing study in the Covid-19 context. In the present study, we investigated what job resources employees found supportive during Aotearoa | New Zealand’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and how these resources related to their hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing at that time. Employees (n = 75) took part in an online survey, which included both open-ended and quantitative measures on job resources and wellbeing. Qualitative findings suggest that providing a sense of job security, effective communications, flexibility and job control, recognition of extra efforts to accommodate changes, individualised support to continue working, and expressing concern for employees’ health and wellbeing were salient job resources. The quantitative results largely supported these findings, although the strength of the relationships varied between the type of resources and the different conceptualisations of wellbeing. We conclude this paper by providing recommendations for how organisations can support their employees during this period of change and uncertainty.