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.
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 BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme helping to keep interest rates lower during this economic cycle, compared to the previous economic cycle in the mid-2000s?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How much more is an average New Zealand household that uses 8,000kwh of power annually paying for electricity per year as of November 2013 compared to November 2008, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment's latest Quarterly Survey of Domestic Electricity Prices?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What will he do to "spread some of the benefits of growth" when hourly wage rates have only grown by 1.6 percent in the year to December 2013, which is close to 0 percent in real terms, when 45 percent of listed corporates have double-digit profit growth?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made on the classification for drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: When she told the House yesterday "I had previously told Oravida that it could not use my name or photograph to endorse or promote its business products or services" when was that and what specific circumstances did it relate to?
COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Youth Guarantee Scheme helping the Government achieve the Better Public Services target of 85 percent of all 18-year-olds achieving NCEA Level two or an equivalent qualification in 2017?
CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Women's Affairs given their 2013 Annual Report shows that six out of seven policy outcomes have stayed the same or gone backwards in the last past year; if so, why?
SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister for Courts: How is the Government improving the way the Disputes Tribunal works to make it easier for New Zealanders to resolve civil disputes?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What action, if any, has he taken this year to show the Prime Minister that he has met the highest ethical standards required by Section 2.53 of the Cabinet Manual?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to lift the skills of Pacific people in New Zealand?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he accept the conclusion in the Human Rights Commission's report Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that "many people affected by the earthquakes continue to experience deteriorating standards of living and impacts on their quality of life that go beyond the immediate effects of the disaster"?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he had any discussions with any Indian Government Ministers about selling Solid Energy assets?
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.
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.
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
When disasters and crises, both man-made and natural, occur, resilient higher education institutions adapt in order to continue teaching and research. This may necessitate the closure of the whole institution, a building and/or other essential infrastructure. In disasters of large scale the impact can be felt for many years. There is an increasing recognition of the need for disaster planning to restructure educational institutions so that they become more resilient to challenges including natural disasters (Seville, Hawker, & Lyttle, 2012).The University of Canterbury (UC) was affected by seismic events that resulted in the closure of the University in September 2010 for 10 days and two weeks at the start of the 2011 academic year This case study research describes ways in which e-learning was deployed and developed by the University to continue and even to improve learning and teaching in the aftermath of a series of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. A qualitative intrinsic embedded/nested single case study design was chosen for the study. The population was the management, support staff and educators at the University of Canterbury. Participants were recruited with purposive sampling using a snowball strategy where the early key participants were encouraged to recommend further participants. Four sources of data were identified: (1) documents such as policy, reports and guidelines; (2) emails from leaders of the colleges and academics; (3) communications from senior management team posted on the university website during and after the seismic activity of 2010 and 2011; and (4) semi-structured interviews of academics, support staff and members of senior management team. A series of inductive descriptive content analyses identified a number of themes in the data. The Technology Acceptance Model 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the Indicator of Resilience Model (Resilient Organisations, 2012) were used for additional analyses of each of the three cases. Within the University case, the cases of two contrasting Colleges were embedded to produce a total of three case studies describing e-learning from 2000 - 2014. One contrast was the extent of e-learning deployment at the colleges: The College of Education was a leader in the field, while the College of Business and Law had relatively little e-learning at the time of the first earthquake in September 2010. The following six themes emerged from the analyses: Communication about crises, IT infrastructure, Availability of e-learning technologies, Support in the use of e-learning technologies, Timing of crises in academic year and Strategic planning for e-learning. One of the findings confirmed earlier research that communication to members of an organisation and the general public about crises and the recovery from crises is important. The use of communication channels, which students were familiar with and already using, aided the dissemination of the information that UC would be using e-learning as one of the options to complete the academic year. It was also found that e-learning tools were invaluable during the crises and facilitated teaching and learning whilst freeing limited campus space for essential activities and that IT infrastructure was essential to e-learning. The range of e-learning tools and their deployment evolved over the years influenced by repeated crises and facilitated by the availability of centrally located support from the e-Learning support team for a limited set of tools, as well as more localised support and collaboration with colleagues. Furthermore, the reasons and/or rate of e-learning adoption in an educational institution during crises varied with the time of the academic year and the needs of the institution at the time. The duration of the crises also affected the adoption of e-learning. Finally, UC’s lack of an explicit e-learning strategy influenced the two colleges to develop college-specific e-learning plans and those College plans complemented the incorporation of e-learning for the first time in the University’s teaching and learning strategy in 2013. Twelve out of the 13 indicators of the Indicators of Resilience Model were found in the data collected for the study and could be explained using the model; it revealed that UC has become more resilient with e-learning in the aftermath of the seismic activities in 2010 and 2011. The interpretation of the results using TAM2 demonstrated that the adoption of technologies during crises aided in overcoming barriers to learning at the time of the crisis. The recommendations from this study are that in times of crises, educational institutions take advantage of Cloud computing to communicate with members of the institution and stakeholders. Also, that the architecture of a university’s IT infrastructure be made more resilient by increasing redundancy, backup and security, centralisation and Cloud computing. In addition, when under stress it is recommended that new tools are only introduced when they are essential.
