Damage to residential properties. In the background is a damaged brick property.
Implementing seismic risk mitigation is a major challenge in many earthquake prone regions. The objective of this research is to investigate how property investment market practices can be used to enhance building owners’ decisions to improve seismic performance of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs). A case study method adopted, revealed the impacts of the property market stakeholders’ practices on seismic retrofit decisions. The findings from this research provide significant new insights on how property market-based incentives such as such as mandatory disclosure of seismic risks in all transactions in the property market, effective awareness seismic risk program and a unified earthquake safety assessment information system, can be used to enhance EPBs owners seismic retrofit decisions. These market-based incentives offer compelling reasons for the different property market stakeholders and the public at large to retain, care, invest, and act responsibly to rehabilitate EPBs. The findings suggest need for stakeholders involved in property investment and retrofit decisions to work together to foster seismic rehabilitation of EPBs.
Damaged property in a residential area. Fencing has been placed around the property.
Two years ago today a seven-point-one magnitude earthquake shook Canterbury.
Residents of some Christchurch suburbs could be in for bigger than expected rates rises after the first QV valuations since the earthquakes. The average Christchurch home now has a rating value of 455 thousand dollars, which translates into an annual rates bill of just over two thousand dollars.
A graph comparing property values for TC1, TC2 and TC3 properties.
Commercial property owners are facing not just higher insurance premiums following the Christchurch earthquakes, but also the prospect of much higher excesses.
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.
A video of a press conference with Gerry Brownlee announcing a CERA review which will change the zoning of 270 Port Hills properties. Brownlee announces that 247 properties will change from green zoned to red zoned and 33 properties will change from red zoned to green zoned. The properties that have been rezoned red have an unacceptable level of life risk from cliff collapse and the potential of debris inundation.
Page 5 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 8 April 2011.
Page 2 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 3 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 7 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 8 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 10 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 11 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 5 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 6 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 9 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 4 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 12 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 21 September 2012.
Page 1 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 6 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 5 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 11 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 9 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 4 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 7 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 12 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 23 September 2011.
Page 6 of a Lifestyle Properties advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 8 April 2011.