Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What progress has been made on the Crown’s Global Settlement with the Christchurch City Council for costs flowing from the Canterbury earthquake sequence? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies, statements, and actions? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on if he would meet his commitment to be a keynote speaker at the KiwiBuild summit on 24 June, “No, because I have two papers at Cabinet”, and did he take two papers to Cabinet on 24 June? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of State Services: Does he support measuring and improving the energy efficiency of Government buildings, both leased and owned? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “Yes, that will mean that we will have deficits that we wouldn’t want to see. That member and his Government under-invested in health for nine long years, and we will be investing ourselves for quite a period to set that right”; if so, when will he “set that right”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding community law centres? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Transport: What will the percentage increase in the fuel excise duty and accompanying road-user charges be on Monday, 1 July, and what will be the total revenue raised from this increase? Hon TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all of his answers during the Vote Labour Market Estimates hearing at the Education and Workforce Committee meeting on 12 June? Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What, if anything, is the Government doing to better support the wellbeing of parents with mental health and addiction needs? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Women: How can she be responsible for eliminating the gender pay gap when the Ministry for Women’s gender pay gap has gone from 5.6 percent in favour of women to 6 percent in favour of men? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2019 support Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand?
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.
