Land cover change information in urban areas supports decision makers in dealing with public policy planning and resource management. Remote sensing has been demonstrated as an efficient and accurate way to monitor land cover change over large extents. The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) caused massive damage in Christchurch, New Zealand and resulted in significant land cover change over a short time period. This study combined two types of remote sensing data, aerial imagery (RGB) and LiDAR, as the basis for quantifying land cover change in Christchurch between 2011 – 2015, a period corresponding to the five years immediately following the 22 February 2011 earthquake, which was part of the CES. An object based image analysis (OBIA) approach was adopted to classify the aerial imagery and LiDAR data into seven land cover types (bare land, building, grass, shadow, tree and water). The OBIA approach consisted of two steps, image segmentation and object classification. For the first step, this study used multi-level segmentation to better segment objects. For the second step, the random forest (RF) classifier was used to assign a land cover type to each object defined by the segmentation. Overall classification accuracies for 2011 and 2015 were 94.0% and 94.32%, respectively. Based on the classification result, land cover changes between 2011 and 2015 were then analysed. Significant increases were found in road and tree cover, while the land cover types that decreased were bare land, grass, roof, water. To better understand the reasons for those changes, land cover transitions were calculated. Canopy growth, seasonal differences and forest plantation establishment were the main reasons for tree cover increase. Redevelopment after the earthquake was the main reason for road area growth. By comparing the spatial distribution of these transitions, this study also identified Halswell and Wigram as the fastest developing suburbs in Christchurch. These results provided quantitative information for the effects of CES, with respect to land cover change. They allow for a better understanding for the current land cover status of Christchurch. Among those land cover changes, the significant increase in tree cover aroused particularly interest as urban forests benefit citizens via ecosystem services, including health, social, economic, and environmental benefits. Therefore, this study firstly calculated the percentages of tree cover in Christchurch’s fifteen wards in order to provide a general idea of tree cover change in the city extent. Following this, an automatic individual tree detection and crown delineation (ITCD) was undertaken to determine the feasibility of automated tree counting. The accuracies of the proposed approach ranged between 56.47% and 92.11% in thirty different sample plots, with an overall accuracy of 75.60%. Such varied accuracies were later found to be caused by the fixed tree detection window size and misclassifications from the land cover classification that affected the boundary of the CHM. Due to the large variability in accuracy, tree counting was not undertaken city-wide for both time periods. However, directions for further study for ITCD in Christchurch could be exploring ITCD approaches with variable window size or optimizing the classification approach to focus more on producing highly accurate CHMs.
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora?
KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector?
HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora?
KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector?
HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Has he had time to read and digest the judgement of Justice Miller regarding the Crafar farm deal; if so, does he stand by his comments made in the House yesterday?
2. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Does he believe he and the Government have conducted themselves competently and appropriately in relation to the decision to approve the purchase of the Crafar farms by a foreign buyer; if not, what did they do wrong?
3. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government issued on the economy?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that Work and Income meets their own "case management approach" expectations?
5. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have concerns that changes to the eligibility for the Training Incentive Allowance are causing single parent beneficiaries to consider working in the sex industry?
6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Health: What improvements have there been to services for patients as a result of greater collaboration between District Health Boards?
7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he still intend to sell 49 per cent of the four State-owned energy companies?
8. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Local Government: What analysis has he received on rate increases across New Zealand's 78 councils following the enactment of new local government legislation in 2002?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the part of his statement of 27 January, announcing the extension of the red zone offer to retirement villages, that letters of offer would be sent to each resident and CERA would work with village owners as quickly as possible to ensure the residents are assisted; if not, why not?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Land Information: Did Overseas Investment Office officials meet with Chinese political consul Cheng Lei late last year; if so, did they discuss Shanghai Pengxin's bid for the Crafar farms?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: What is the name of the documentary which was withheld in the papers released publicly by NZ On Air titled "Records of decisions made at working group meeting"?
12. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress has he made declaring the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover a major event under the Major Events Management Act 2007?
Sewerage systems convey sewage, or wastewater, from residential or commercial buildings through complex reticulation networks to treatment plants. During seismic events both transient ground motion and permanent ground deformation can induce physical damage to sewerage system components, limiting or impeding the operability of the whole system. The malfunction of municipal sewerage systems can result in the pollution of nearby waterways through discharge of untreated sewage, pose a public health threat by preventing the use of appropriate sanitation facilities, and cause serious inconvenience for rescuers and residents. Christchurch, the second largest city in New Zealand, was seriously affected by the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in 2010-2011. The CES imposed widespread damage to the Christchurch sewerage system (CSS), causing a significant loss of functionality and serviceability to the system. The Christchurch City Council (CCC) relied heavily on temporary sewerage services for several months following the CES. The temporary services were supported by use of chemical and portable toilets to supplement the damaged wastewater system. The rebuild delivery agency -Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) was created to be responsible for repair of 85 % of the damaged horizontal infrastructure (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater systems, and roads) in Christchurch. Numerous initiatives to create platforms/tools aiming to, on the one hand, support the understanding, management and mitigation of seismic risk for infrastructure prior to disasters, and on the other hand, to support the decision-making for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, have been promoted worldwide. Despite this, the CES in New Zealand highlighted that none of the existing platforms/tools are either accessible and/or readable or usable by emergency managers and decision makers for restoring the CSS. Furthermore, the majority of existing tools have a sole focus on the engineering perspective, while the holistic process of formulating recovery decisions is based on system-wide approach, where a variety of factors in addition to technical considerations are involved. Lastly, there is a paucity of studies focused on the tools and frameworks for supporting decision-making specifically on sewerage system restoration after earthquakes. This thesis develops a decision support framework for sewerage pipe and system restoration after earthquakes, building on the experience and learning of the organisations involved in recovering the CSS following the CES in 2010-2011. The proposed decision support framework includes three modules: 1) Physical Damage Module (PDM); 2) Functional Impact Module (FIM); 3) Pipeline Restoration Module (PRM). The PDM provides seismic fragility matrices and functions for sewer gravity and pressure pipelines for predicting earthquake-induced physical damage, categorised by pipe materials and liquefaction zones. The FIM demonstrates a set of performance indicators that are categorised in five domains: structural, hydraulic, environmental, social and economic domains. These performance indicators are used to assess loss of wastewater system service and the induced functional impacts in three different phases: emergency response, short-term recovery and long-term restoration. Based on the knowledge of the physical and functional status-quo of the sewerage systems post-earthquake captured through the PDM and FIM, the PRM estimates restoration time of sewer networks by use of restoration models developed using a Random Forest technique and graphically represented in terms of restoration curves. The development of a decision support framework for sewer recovery after earthquakes enables decision makers to assess physical damage, evaluate functional impacts relating to hydraulic, environmental, structural, economic and social contexts, and to predict restoration time of sewerage systems. Furthermore, the decision support framework can be potentially employed to underpin system maintenance and upgrade by guiding system rehabilitation and to monitor system behaviours during business-as-usual time. In conjunction with expert judgement and best practices, this framework can be moreover applied to assist asset managers in targeting the inclusion of system resilience as part of asset maintenance programmes.
Fine grained sediment deposition in urban environments during natural hazard events can impact critical infrastructure and properties (urban terrain) leading to reduced social and economic function and potentially adverse public health effects. Therefore, clean-up of the sediments is required to minimise impacts and restore social and economic functionality as soon as possible. The strategies employed to manage and coordinate the clean-up significantly influence the speed, cost and quality of the clean-up operation. Additionally, the physical properties of the fine grained sediment affects the clean-up, transport, storage and future usage of the sediment. The goals of the research are to assess the resources, time and cost required for fine grained sediment clean-up in an urban environment following a disaster and to determine how the geotechnical properties of sediment will affect urban clean-up strategies. The thesis focuses on the impact of fine grained sediment (<1 mm) deposition from three liquefaction events during the Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) on residential suburbs and transport networks in Christchurch. It also presents how geotechnical properties of the material may affect clean-up strategies and methods by presenting geotechnical analysis of tephra material from the North Island of New Zealand. Finally, lessons for disaster response planning and decision making for clean-up of sediment in urban environments are presented. A series of semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders supported by relevant academic literature and media reports were used to record the clean-up operation coordination and management and to make a preliminary qualification of the Christchurch liquefaction ejecta clean-up (costs breakdown, time, volume, resources, coordination, planning and priorities). Further analysis of the costs and resources involved for better accuracy was required and so the analysis of Christchurch City Council road management database (RAMM) was done. In order to make a transition from general fine sediment clean-up to specific types of fine disaster sediment clean-up, adequate information about the material properties is required as they will define how the material will be handled, transported and stored. Laboratory analysis of young volcanic tephra from the New Zealand’s North Island was performed to identify their geotechnical properties (density, granulometry, plasticity, composition and angle of repose). The major findings of this research were that emergency planning and the use of the coordinated incident management system (CIMS) system during the emergency were important to facilitate rapid clean-up tasking, management of resources and ultimately recovery from widespread and voluminous liquefaction ejecta deposition in eastern Christchurch. A total estimated cost of approximately $NZ 40 million was calculated for the Christchurch City clean-up following the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence with a partial cost of $NZ 12 million for the Southern part of the city, where up to 33% (418 km) of the road network was impacted by liquefaction ejecta and required clearing of the material following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill for all three liquefaction inducing earthquake events. The average cost per kilometre for the event clean-up was $NZ 5,500/km (4 September 2010), $NZ 11,650/km (22 February 2011) and $NZ 11,185/km (13 June 2011). The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately two to three months for each of the three liquefaction ejecta events; despite events volumes and spatial distribution of ejecta. Interviews and quantitative analysis of RAMM data revealed that the experience and knowledge gained from the Darfield earthquake (4 September 2010) clean-up increased the efficiency of the following Christchurch earthquake induced liquefaction ejecta clean-up events. Density, particle size, particle shape, clay content and moisture content, are the important geotechnical properties that need to be considered when planning for a clean-up method that incorporates collection, transport and disposal or storage. The geotechnical properties for the tephra samples were analysed to increase preparedness and reaction response of potentially affected North Island cities from possible product from the active volcanoes in their region. The geotechnical results from this study show that volcanic tephra could be used in road or construction material but the properties would have to be further investigated for a New Zealand context. Using fresh volcanic material in road, building or flood control construction requires good understanding of the material properties and precaution during design and construction to extra care, but if well planned, it can be economically beneficial.
As a global phenomenon, many cities are undergoing urban renewal to accommodate rapid growth in urban population. However, urban renewal can struggle to balance social, economic, and environmental outcomes, whereby economic outcomes are often primarily considered by developers. This has important implications for urban forests, which have previously been shown to be negatively affected by development activities. Urban forests serve the purpose of providing ecosystem services and thus are beneficial to human wellbeing. Better understanding the effect of urban renewal on city trees may help improve urban forest outcomes via effective management and policy strategies, thereby maximising ecosystem service provision and human wellbeing. Though the relationship between certain aspects of development and urban forests has received consideration in previous literature, little research has focused on how the complete property redevelopment cycle affects urban forest dynamics over time. This research provides an opportunity to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effect of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics, at a range of spatial scales, in Christchurch, New Zealand following a series of major earthquakes which occurred in 2010 – 2011. One consequence of the earthquakes is the redevelopment of thousands of properties over a relatively short time-frame. The research quantifies changes in canopy cover city-wide, as well as, tree removal, retention, and planting on individual residential properties. Moreover, the research identifies the underlying reasons for these dynamics, by exploring the roles of socio-economic and demographic factors, the spatial relationships between trees and other infrastructure, and finally, the attitudes of residential property owners. To quantify the effect of property redevelopment on canopy cover change in Christchurch, this research delineated tree canopy cover city-wide in 2011 and again in 2015. An object-based image analysis (OBIA) technique was applied to aerial imagery and LiDAR data acquired at both time steps, in order to estimate city-wide canopy cover for 2011 and 2015. Changes in tree canopy cover between 2011 and 2015 were then spatially quantified. Tree canopy cover change was also calculated for all meshblocks (a relatively fine-scale geographic boundary) in Christchurch. The results show a relatively small magnitude of tree canopy cover loss, city-wide, from 10.8% to 10.3% between 2011 and 2015, but a statistically significant change in mean tree canopy cover across all the meshblocks. Tree canopy cover losses were more likely to occur in meshblocks containing properties that underwent a complete redevelopment cycle, but the loss was insensitive to the density of redevelopment within meshblocks. To explore property-scale individual tree dynamics, a mixed-methods approach was used, combining questionnaire data and remote sensing analysis. A mail-based questionnaire was delivered to residential properties to collect resident and household data; 450 residential properties (321 redeveloped, 129 non- redeveloped) returned valid questionnaires and were identified as analysis subjects. Subsequently, 2,422 tree removals and 4,544 tree retentions were identified within the 450 properties; this was done by manually delineating individual tree crowns, based on aerial imagery and LiDAR data, and visually comparing the presence or absence of these trees between 2011 and 2015. The tree removal rate on redeveloped properties (44.0%) was over three times greater than on non-redeveloped properties (13.5%) and the average canopy cover loss on redeveloped properties (52.2%) was significantly greater than on non-redeveloped properties (18.8%). A classification tree (CT) analysis was used to model individual tree dynamics (i.e. tree removal, tree retention) and candidate explanatory variables (i.e. resident and household, economic, land cover, and spatial variables). The results indicate that the model including land cover, spatial, and economic variables had the best predicting ability for individual tree dynamics (accuracy = 73.4%). Relatively small trees were more likely to be removed, while trees with large crowns were more likely to be retained. Trees were most likely to be removed from redeveloped properties with capital values lower than NZ$1,060,000 if they were within 1.4 m of the boundary of a redeveloped building. Conversely, trees were most likely to be retained if they were on a property that was not redeveloped. The analysis suggested that the resident and household factors included as potential explanatory variables did not influence tree removal or retention. To conduct a further exploration of the relationship between resident attitudes and actions towards trees on redeveloped versus non-redeveloped properties, this research also asked the landowners from the 450 properties that returned mail questionnaires to indicate their attitudes towards tree management (i.e. tree removal, tree retention, and tree planting) on their properties. The results show that residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to remove and/or plant trees, while residents from non- redeveloped properties were more likely to retain existing trees. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore resident attitudes towards tree management. The results of the PCA show that residents identified ecosystem disservices (e.g. leaf litter, root damage to infrastructure) as common reasons for tree removal; however, they also noted ecosystem services as important reasons for both tree planting and tree retention on their properties. Moreover, the reasons for tree removal and tree planting varied based on whether residents’ property had been redeveloped. Most tree removal occurred on redeveloped properties because trees were in conflict with redevelopment, but occurred on non- redeveloped properties because of perceived poor tree health. Residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to plant trees due to being aesthetically pleasing or to replace trees removed during redevelopment. Overall, this research adds to, and complements, the existing literature on the effects of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics. The findings of this research provide empirical support for developing specific legislation or policies about urban forest management during residential property redevelopment. The results also imply that urban foresters should enhance public education on the ecosystem services provided by urban forests and thus minimise the potential for tree removal when undertaking property redevelopment.
MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand’s previous approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both direct costs and emotional distress? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy? RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year “that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media”? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the Independent Tax Working Group’s interim report released today? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary teacher strikes this year? Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland International Airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how many dog detector teams worked on the Green Lane at this time? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant well-being? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of law? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be scheduled as Class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Is it still a fundamental purpose of his Government to narrow the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In dollar terms, what is the shortfall in the tax-take for the nine months to March revealed in yesterday’s Financial Statements compared to October’s pre-election update?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much has been raised to date by the Earthquake Kiwi Bonds and, at this rate, how many years will it take to cover the Government’s estimated $5.5 billion liability resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes?
Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2012 provide greater support for young people most at risk of long-term welfare dependency?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding asset sales that “We are not going to do anything tricky there”?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Associate Minister of Health: How is the Government expanding its programme to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his comments regarding housing?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What is the plan to pay for the Government’s transport expenditure given that the Ministry of Transport’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister warns of a funding shortfall of $4.9 billion if high oil prices and low GDP growth continue?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government improving value for money in its procurement of services for the public sector?
DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that “I do not want to see unnecessary change for change’s sake. Rather I am looking to put in place pragmatic solutions as we implement our manifesto commitments and let employers, employees and business focus on what they do best.”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and the Associate Ministers for Social Development; if so, why?
