The Project Team were: Simon Wallace (TIA),
David Simmons (Lincoln University),
Susanne Becken (Lincoln University)The State of the Tourism Sector report is published annually.The Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand’s (TIA) annual State of the Sector 2011 has been
prepared in partnership with Lincoln University. The objective of this is to understand better how
the tourism sector sees its future and what challenges and opportunities lie ahead in both the short
and longer term. State of Sector 2011, alongside the ongoing series of TIA Insights and other
consultations that TIA is undertaking in its research work programme, is aimed at informing
participants at the Tourism Summit taking place in Wellington on 13 July 2011. This information is a
key driver in assisting with the development of the 2011 Tourism Industry Election Manifesto. State
of the Sector 2011 also ultimately provides a current view of the tourism sector for those within the
industry and for external stakeholders who have an interest in tourism in New Zealand.
The Tourism Industry Association New Zealand’s (TIA) annual State of the Tourism Sector 2012 has been prepared in partnership with Lincoln University. The objective of this is to understand better how the tourism sector sees its future and what challenges and opportunities lie ahead in both the short and longer term. State of the Tourism Sector 2012 provides a current view of the tourism sector for those within the industry and for external stakeholders who have an interest in tourism in New Zealand.
The role of tourism in the Christchurch economy and the nature and scope of tourism planning are covered in this presentation, along with the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes. The response to the disaster and the slow road to recovery are also highlighted. The concluding section summarises a new vision for the city of Christchurch.Sponsered by Planz Consultants. In association with the New Zealand Planning Institute and with thanks to Christchurch Canterbury Tourism.
Imagined landscapes find their form in utopian dreaming. As ideal places, utopias are set up according to the ideals of their designers. Inevitably, utopias become compromised when they move from the imaginary into the actual. Opportunities to create utopias rely largely on a blank slate, a landscape unimpeded by the inconveniences of existing occupation – or even topography. Christchurch has seen two utopian moments. The first was at the time of European settlement in the mid-nineteenth century, when imported ideals provided a model for a new city. The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 provided a second point at which utopian dreaming spurred visions for the city. Christchurch’s earthquakes have provided a unique opportunity for a city to re-imagine itself. Yet, as is the fate for all imaginary places, reality got in the way.
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.
Successful urban regeneration projects generate benefits that are realised over a much longer timeframe than normal market developments and benefits well beyond those that can be uplifted by a market developer. Consequently there is substantial evidence in the literature that successful place-making and urban regeneration projects are usually public-private partnerships and involve a funder, usually local or central government, willing to contribute ‘patient’ capital. Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes that devastated the centre of Christchurch, there was an urgent need to rebuild and revitalise the heart of the city, and increasing the number of people living in or near the city centre was seen as a key ingredient of that. In October 2010, an international competition was launched to design and build an Urban Village, a project intended to stimulate renewed residential development in the city. The competition attracted 58 entrants from around world, and in October 2013 the winning team was chosen from four finalists. However the team failed to secure sufficient finance, and in November 2015 the Government announced that the development would not proceed. The Government was unwilling or unable to recognise that an insistence on a pure market approach would not deliver the innovative sustainable village asked for in the competition brief, and failed to factor in the opportunity cost to government, local government, local businesses and the wider Christchurch community of delaying by many years the residential development of the eastern side of the city. As a result, the early vision of the vitality that a thriving residential neighbourhood would bring to the city has not yet been realised.
Recovery from disasters is a significant issue faced by all countries in the world at various times. Governments, including central and local governments, are the key actors regarding post-disaster recovery because they have the authority and responsibility to rescue affected people and recover affected areas (Yang, 2010). Planning is a critical step in the recovery process and provides the basis for defining a shared vision for recovery, clear objectives and intended results. Subsequently, the concept of collaborative planning and ‘build back better’ are highly desirable in recovery planning. However, in practice, these concepts are difficult to achieve. A brief description of the recovery planning in Christchurch City following the Canterbury earthquakes 2011 is provided as an example and comparison. This research aims to analyse the planning process to develop a post-disaster recovery plan in Indonesia using Mataram City’s recovery plan following the Lombok Earthquakes 2018 as the case study. It will emphasise on the roles of the central and local governments and whether they collaborate or not, and the implications of decentralisation for recovery planning. The methodology comprised a combination of legislation analysis and semi-structure interviews with the representatives of the central and local governments who were involved in the planning process. The results indicate that there was no collaboration between the central and local governments when developing the recovery plan, with the former tend to dominate and control the planning process. It is because there are regulatory and institutional problems concerning disaster management in Indonesia. In order to improve the implementation of disaster management and develop a better recovery plan, some recommendations are proposed. These include amendments the disaster management law and regulations to provide a clear guideline regarding the roles and responsibilities of both the central and local governments. It is also imperative to improve the capacity and capability of the local governments in managing disaster.
Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year.
Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha).
Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East.
Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.
