This study is a qualitative investigation into the decision-making behaviour of commercial property owners (investors and developers) who are rebuilding in a city centre after a major disaster. In 2010/2011, Christchurch, the largest city in the South Island of New Zealand, was a site of numerous earthquakes. The stronger earthquakes destroyed many buildings and public infrastructure in the commercial inner city. As a result, affected property owners lost all or most of their buildings, a significant proportion of which were old and in the last phase of their life span. They had to negotiate pay-outs with insurance companies and decide, once paid out, whether they should rebuild in Christchurch or sell up and invest elsewhere. The clear majority of those who decided to reinvest in and rebuild the city are ‘locals’, almost all of whom had no prior experience of property development. Thus, in a post-disaster environment, most of these property owners have transitioned from being just being passive investors to active property developers. Their experience was interpreted using primary data gathered from in-depth and semi-structured interviews with twenty-one “informed property people” who included commercial property owners; property agents or consultants; representatives of public-sector agencies and financial institutions. The study findings showed that the decision-making behaviour of property investors and developers rebuilding after a major disaster did not necessarily follow a strict financial or profit motive as prescribed in the mainstream or neo-classical economics property literature. Rather, their decision-making behaviour has been largely shaped by emotional connections and external factors associated with their immediate environment. The theoretical proposition emerging from this study is that after a major disaster, local urban property owners are faced with two choices “to stay” or “to go”. Those who decide to stay and rebuild are typically very committed individuals who have a feeling of ownership, belonging and attachment to the city in which they live and work. These are people who will often take the lead in commercial property development, proactively making decisions and seeking positive investment outcomes for themselves which in turn result in revitalised commercial urban precincts.
This report provides an understanding of the nature of Canterbury subcontracting businesses operating in the space of earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch. It offers an in-depth look at the factors that influence the development of their capacity and capability to withstand the impact of volatile economic cycles, including the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes. There have been significant changes to the business models of the 13 subcontracting businesses studied since the earthquakes. These changes can be seen in the ways the case study subcontractors have adapted to cope with the changing demands that the rebuild posed. Apart from the magnitude of reconstruction works and new developments that directly affect the capacity of subcontracting businesses in Canterbury, case studies found that subcontractors’ capacity and capability to meet the demand varies and is influenced by the: subcontractors’ own unique characteristics, which are often shaped by changing circumstances in a dynamic and uncertain recovery process; and internal factors in relation to the company’s goal and employees’ needs
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, which involved widespread damage during the February 2011 event and ongoing aftershocks near the Christchurch Central Business District, left this community with more than $NZD 40 billion in losses (~20 % GDP), demolition of approximately 60 % of multi-storey concrete buildings (3 storeys and up), and closure of the core business district for over 2 years. The aftermath of the earthquake sequence has revealed unique issues and complexities for the owners of commercial and multi-storey residential buildings in relation to unexpected technical, legal, and financial challenges when making decisions regarding the future of their buildings impacted by the earthquakes. The paper presents a framework to understand the factors influencing post-earthquake decisions (repair or demolish) on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch. The study, conducted in 2014, includes in-depth investigations on 15 case-study buildings using 27 semi-structured interviews with various property owners, property managers, insurers, engineers, and government authorities in New Zealand. The interviews revealed insights regarding the multitude of factors influencing post-earthquake decisions and losses. As expected, the level of damage and repairability (cost to repair) generally dictated the course of action. There is strong evidence, however, that other variables have significantly influenced the decision on a number of buildings, such as insurance, business strategies, perception of risks, building regulations (and compliance costs), and government decisions. The decision-making process for each building is complex and unique, not solely driven by structural damage. Furthermore, the findings have put the spotlight on insurance policy wordings and the paradoxical effect of insurance on the recovery of Christchurch, leading to other challenges and issues going forward.
The standard way in which disaster damages are measured involves examining separately the number of fatalities, of injuries, of people otherwise affected, and the financial damage that natural disasters cause. Here, we implement a novel way to aggregate these separate measures of disaster impact and apply it to two catastrophic events from 2011: the Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes and the Greater Bangkok (Thailand) flood. This new measure, which is similar to the World Health Organization's calculation of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to the burden of diseases and injuries, is described in detail in Noy [7]. It allows us to conclude that New Zealand lost 180 thousand lifeyears as a result of the 2011 events, and Thailand lost 2644 thousand lifeyears. In per capita terms, the loss is similar, with both countries losing about 15 days per person due to the 2011 catastrophic events in these two countries.
© This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
This thesis describes the management process of innovation through construction infrastructure projects. This research focuses on the innovation management process at the project level from four views. These are categorised into the separate yet related areas of: “innovation definition”, “Project time”, “project team motivation” and “Project temporary organisation”. A practical knowledge is developed for each of these research areas that enables project practitioners to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phase of projects, through a capable project organisation. The research developed a holistic view on both innovation and the construction infrastructure project as two complex phenomena. An infrastructure project is a long-term capital investment, highly risky and an uncertain. Infrastructure projects can play a key role in innovation and performance improvement throughout the construction industry. The delivery of an infrastructure project is affected in most cases by critical issues of budget constraint, programme delays and safety Where the business climate is characterized by uncertainty, risk and a high level of technological change, construction infrastructure projects are unable to cope with the requirement to develop innovation. Innovation in infrastructure projects, as one of the key performance indicators (KPI) has been identified as a critical capability for performance improvement through the industry. However, in spite of the importance of infrastructure projects in improving innovation, there are a few research efforts that have developed a comprehensive view on the project context and its drivers and inhibitors for innovation in the construction industry. Two main reasons are given as the inhibitors through the process of comprehensive research on innovation management in construction. The first reason is the absence of an understanding of innovation itself. The second is a bias towards research at a firm and individual level, so a comprehensive assessment of project-related factors and their effects on innovation in infrastructure projects has not been undertaken. This study overcomes these issues by adopting as a case study approach of a successful infrastructure project. This research examines more than 500 construction innovations generated by a unique infrastructure alliance. SCIRT (Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team) is a temporary alliancing organisation that was created to rebuild and recover the damaged infrastructure after the Christchurch 2011 earthquake. Researchers were given full access to the innovation project information and innovation systems under a contract with SCIRT Learning Legacy, provided the research with material which is critical for understanding innovations in large, complex alliancing infrastructure organisation. In this research, an innovation classification model was first constructed. Clear definitions have been developed for six types of construction innovation with a variety of level of novelties and benefits. The innovation classification model was applied on the SCIRT innovation database and the resultant trends and behaviours of different types of innovation are presented. The trends and behaviours through different types of SCIRT innovations developed a unique opportunity to research the projectrelated factors and their effect on the behaviour of different classified types of innovation throughout the project’s lifecycle. The result was the identification of specific characteristics of an infrastructure project that affect the innovation management process at the project level. These were categorised in four separate chapters. The first study presents the relationship between six classified types of innovation, the level of novelty and the benefit they come up with, by applying the innovation classification model on SCIRT innovation database. The second study focused on the innovation potential and limitations in different project lifecycle phases by using a logic relationship between the six classified types of innovation and the three classified phases of the SCIRT project. The third study result develops a holistic view of different elements of the SCIRT motivation system and results in a relationship between the maturity level of definition developed for innovation as one of the KPIs and a desire though the SCIRT innovation incentive system to motivate more important innovations throughout the project. The fourth study is about the role of the project’s temporary organisation that finally results in a multiple-view innovation model being developed for project organisation capability assessment in the construction industry. The result of this thesis provides practical and instrumental knowledge to be used by a project practitioner. Benefits of the current thesis could be categorized in four groups. The first group is the innovation classification model that provides a clear definition for six classified types of innovation with four levels of novelty and specifically defined outcomes and the relationship between the innovation types, novelty and benefit. The second is the ability that is provided for the project practitioner to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phases of a project’s lifecycle. The third is an optimisation that is applied on the SCIRT innovation motivation system that enables the project practitioner to incentivize the right type of innovation with the right level of financial gain. This drives the project teams to develop a more important innovation instead of a simple problemsolving one. Finally, the last and probably more important benefit is the recommended multiple-view innovation model. This is a tool that could be used by a project practitioner in order to empower the project team to support innovation throughout the project.
