The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes have had a devastating impact on the city of Christchurch, New Zealand. The level of destruction has been especially evident in the central business district where it has been estimated over 1000 buildings have already been or will eventually require demolition. Although, contrary to expectations, most of the fatalities were in relatively modern buildings, the Victorian and Edwardian era building stock was especially hard hit in terms of property damage. Unfortunately this era and style of building were also the focus of the most successful inner city revitalisation projects to date. A major research project is now underway examining the impact on the earthquakes on one of these revitalisation areas. The first step is to examine the international literature on similar inner city revitalisation or gentrification areas and in particular the characteristics of owners and occupiers attracted to this type of environment. This is the focus of this paper.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea.
Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
