Post Earthquakes Residential Growth and Distribution Scenarios

1. UDS Perspective Post Earthquakes Residential Growth and Distribution Scenarios MERA Seminar & Workshop 11 June 2012 Simon Markham

2. UDS Growth Model, 2011 • Pre quakes projections overtaken by exceptional events –no Census results until 2013/14 • Model as a planning tool developed by Market Economics for UDS Partners • Help understand and monitor implications of quakes on overall household growth and its distribution • Scenario approach due to high level of uncertainty around recovery rate and its impact on repopulation/growth and its (re)distribution • Deals with resident population – another model looking at migratory workforce housing requirements

3. Four Scenarios (1) • Rapid Recovery – limited initial population decline (-2.3% for UDS) then rebuild attracts permanent residents to compensate for this...followed by faster growth post 2016 to see UDS area recovering by 2021 to the household numbers and growth rates of the pre quake medium-high projection to 2041 • Quick Recovery – Recovery to pre quake growth trend within 10 years. Initial loss (-2.3%) and then slow recovery to 2016, stronger recovery to 2021 then return to pre quake medium-high rate paralleling the UDS projection – 4 year lag in timing

4. Four Scenarios (2) • Moderate Recovery – Larger initial pop’n loss (-4%) followed by slow then moderate growth to 2021 After 2021 annual growth rate would recover to parallel the medium-high trend – 8 year lag in timing • Slow Recovery – More substantial immediate UDS area loss (-4.9%) and some further loss in Chch City through to 2016. 2017-21 = slow recovery. Return to medium-high trend from 2022. Population levels by 2041 would lag the expected pre-quake nos. by around 15 years

5. UDS Area Scenarios ‘11-41

6. UDS Area/TA’s Scenarios

7. Household Distribution • Note: Scenarios are for ‘usually resident’ population only – excl. temp. migratory workers and other visitors • To account for distributional change relocating and new households modelled separately: - Relocations (mainly from Red Zone) in line with 2011 Red Zone Survey preferences/intentions - New Households – from within resident population and from permanent relocation • Distribution of new households reflects greenfield land release and preference for un/lesser damaged areas

8. TA Level Changes • Household growth in Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts relative to pre quake projections largely unaffected long term • Most losses – absolute and relative to pre quake provisions – accrue in Christchurch city reflecting extent/severity of damage and impact of quakes on locational preferences • Urban limits function to contain dispersal but a more decentralised pattern of growth than anticipated pre-quakes can reasonably be expected

9. E.g. : Next 10 Yrs : Quick

10. E.g. : Next 30 Yrs : Quick

11. Greater Christchurch Household Scenarios, 2011-2041, Prepared for UDS Partners by Market Economics, March 2012 Summary Report: www.greaterchristchurch.org.nz

12. Population Change Drivers • Red zone household relocation within/beyond Chch • Green zone damage/rebuild – temp. and longer term distributional and compositional change • In-migratory workforce/rebuild employment impact on out-migration • Longer term implications of suppressed household formation pre and post quakes • Longer term implications of age-specific population loss

13. Change Drivers cont’d • Underlying population aging and related household type change – possibly accelerated by quakes? • Reduced temporary visitor population – of students and tourists • …offset by uncertain implications of in-migratory workers • School/community facility/job relocation induced distributional change • Impact of accelerated peripheral residential development/loss of intensification momentum