Lincoln University Digital Dissertation
Copyright Statement
The digital copy of this dissertation is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).
This dissertation may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use:
you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the dissertation and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the dissertation.
Citizen-led Environment Management:
learning from the ‘bush restorers’
November 1997
Rhys E. Taylor
Presented in partial fulfilment of the MSc degree in Resource Management, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Rhys Taylor Learning from the bush restorers
Acknowledgements
To my partner Anne for her patience, emotional support and proof-reading,
especially once her MA study had finished and my MSc was still in progress.
To 32 enthusiastic and generous project interviewees, dozens of other telephone
contacts and those who ‘pilot-tested’ the draft survey - with your help it flew!
To MSc student colleagues in the Sustainable Agriculture Research Group, for
successfully balancing the work-load demands of a major group project and the
early stages of our six personal projects.
To Geoff Kerr, my supervisor, for encouragement and challenging criticism, to Roy
Montgomery and Stefanie Rixecker in the Department for early discussion of
research questions, and Ian Spellerberg for help with travel to Wellington.
Thanks are also due to Colin Goodrich, Colin Meurk and John Kape for seminar
advice; to Colin Burrows, David Given, Steve Wratten and Vaughan Keesing
for sharing their enthusiasm for ecology and Landcare Research Policy Team at
Lincoln for providing a relevant work experience.
The University Librarians, by employing me once a week, accelerated my learning
of research skills and paid me just enough to meet the photocopying bills!
To these, and many others, my sincere thanks. Rhys Taylor. Rhys Taylor Learning from the Bush Restorers
List of tables Table One Who cares for the native bush (institutional context)
Table Two The case study projects
List of figures
Figure One Route(s) to becoming a bush restoration volunteer
Figure Two from Arnstein’s Ladder model of participation
Figure Three The research process, 1997
Figure Four Ecological restoration processes
Figure Five Bush restoration as outdoor leisure plus environment volunteering
Figure Six Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs diagram
Figure Seven Age and gender profile of interviewees
Figure Eight North Island Map - project locations
Figure Nine South Island Map - project locations
Figure Ten Recent activities in sample projects
Figure Eleven Project photographs (inserted pages preceeding p72)
Figure Twelve Individual participant in bush restoration: learning cycle
Figure Thirteen Process at organisational level
Note on the author
Rhys E Taylor is a Christchurch-resident British Citizen, who emigrated to New Zealand and returned to University for a Masters Degree in mid-career. Rhys has field-work and management experience in the UK voluntary sector, in journalism, press relations, research- publishing, rural community development and environmental projects. His first degree is 2.1 Honours in Human Sciences (Oxford University, 1976) and he has three further qualifications.
Home E-mail address: [email protected] Telephone: 03 960 2656 (updated 2010) Address: 5/83 Huxley Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 NZ
3 Rhys Taylor Learning from the Bush Restorers
Executive summary
Citizen-led Environment Management: learning from the bush restorers
1. The resource management issue under consideration is the conservation and ecological restoration of natural lowland forest and its associated plant and animal communities (referred to here as native bush), which have considerable human-use and intrinsic values.
2. Within the issue of native bush conservation in New Zealand, the topic of this research is the phenomenon of citizens’ involvement as pro-active volunteers, tackling ‘bush restoration’ on public or trust-owned sites. This phenomenon is not rare but is little researched. Some key initial questions are: How extensive is citizen-led bush restoration as a means of environmental management? What motivates the volunteers and what factors advance or hinder their efforts? Why is this phenomenon not more widespread in New Zealand society, and how could it be?
3. The research strategy adopted to address the selected topic is firstly a scoping study to define the issue in context, including multi-disciplinary literature review, followed by a structured qualitative telephone survey of a representative sample of restoration project spokespeople. An analysis of these information sources provides insights and understanding related to the research questions, and raises additional questions.
4. Conclusions offer a potential contribution to the national and local-scale policy agenda in support of citizen-led bush restoration. Recommendations seek to recognise the value of voluntary bush restoration, better enable the committed volunteers, promote new voluntary action and improve the skills of volunteers with a view to enhanced quality of work.
Rhys E Taylor. November 1997 Department of Resource Managerment PO Box 56, Lincoln University, Canterbury.
4 Rhys Taylor Learning from the Bush Restorers
Table of contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of tables 3
List of figures 3
Note on the author 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
Citizen-led Environment Management: 4
INTRODUCTION 8
Bush clearance 8 Threats to bush continue 10
Bush restoration 10
Limited existing research 12
Focus of this research 13 Possible ‘decision tree’ leading an individual to involvement in bush restoration. 15
International comparisons 16
The local volunteers 16
Volunteers taking a lead in environmental management 17 Topicality of study 19
Considering influences on bush restoration 20 Summary 21
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 22
Clarification of purpose : problem definition 22
Strengths and limitations of a scoping study 23
An interdisciplinary approach 24
Theoretical perspectives: a qualitative-research paradigm 25
Research Stages during 1997: diagrammatic representation. 27
Focus Groups 28
Sampling strategy 29
Survey design and administration 30
5 Rhys Taylor Learning from the Bush Restorers
LITERATURE REVIEW: CONTEXTS FOR RESTORATION 32
Review 1. Why care for native bush: its qualities and values. 32 A scarce rural resource 32 A scarce urban resource 33 Intrinsic values of natural communities and ecosystems 33 Protecting ecosystems for the long-term 34 The ‘environment-care’ volunteers 35 Human use values of native bush 36 Genetic storehouse: retaining biological diversity 36 Contribution to a stable environment 37 Other use values of bush 37 Symbolic and cultural value 38 Transformative value 38
Review 2. What is Bush Restoration? 40 Restoration ecology defined. 40 Restoration in practice. 41 Island sites initially 41 Types of restoration 42
Review 3. Who cares for the native bush? 45 An analysis of institutions 45 The Legislative context 46 Citizen involvement 47 The Resource Management Act and local government 47 Relevant sections of the RMAct 48 Districts using the Environment Court to protect trees and bush 49 Government agencies and environmental policy. 49 Indigenous Forestry Policy 51 Summary and prospect 51
Review 4. Why ‘volunteer’ time to manage the environment? 53 Outdoor and indoor leisure 53 Gender and age factors within outdoor leisure 54 Constraints to leisure activity 55 Volunteering as ‘serious leisure’ 56 Characteristics of volunteers 57 Data on volunteering in NZ 57 Trends in volunteering 59 Constraints on the extent of volunteering 59 Staying involved 59 Volunteers focussed on the environment 60 Is environmental concern discretionary? 61 Selfish and sociable environmental action 63 Intrinsic rewards 64 Summary. 65
Review 5. Why citizen-led? Leadership and Partnerships 66 Waiting for local authorities or DoC to lead? 66 Empowerment 68 The experts vs. The amateur citizens 70
SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 72 The interviews 72
Who volunteers? A profile of the interviewees 72
6 Rhys Taylor Learning from the Bush Restorers
The case study projects 73 Analysis by occupation 76
Group structure, skills and activity 77 Legal structure and landholding 77 Management 77 Skills of active members 78
The bush restoration focus 78
The voluntary work experience 79 Recent activities in the sample of bush restoration projects 80 ‘Technically easiest part’ 81 ‘Emotionally easiest’ and most satisfying parts 81 The emotional challenges and dis-satisfactions 83 Technical and organisational difficulties 84 District and City Councils 84 Regional Councils 85 The Department of Conservation 86 Further sources of help and advice 86 Funding and help-in-kind 87 Other survey findings 87
CONCLUSIONS: SURVEY ANALYSIS IN WIDER CONTEXT 88 Bush restoration is a significant phenomenon, showing a rise of eco-system awareness in New Zealand’s public 90 Volunteer motivation and what helps or hinders voluntary efforts 91 Could citizen-led bush restoration become more widespread? 91 Weaknesses of present practice, and some responses 92 Building on strengths and opportunities 93
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 95
Recognition of the value of voluntary bush restoration 95 Recommendation One: 95 Recommendation Two 95
Enabling the committed volunteers 96 Recommendation Three 96 Recommendation Four 96
Promoting further action 96 Recommendation Five. 96 Recommendation Six. 97
Improvement of skills and practice 97 Recommendation Seven. 97 Recommendation Eight. 98
LIST OF APPENDICES 99
REFERENCES 100
7 Rhys Taylor
Chapter One
Introduction
Bush clearance Woody vegetation covered much of Aotearoa/New Zealand before human settlement.
There were tussock-grass areas, wetlands, snow-capped mountain peaks, but forests predominated, of several regional and climatic mixes of largely endemic species,.
This natural vegetation, (collectively named by European settlers ‘native bush’1), has been burned and felled in the coast-accessible lowlands, displaced initially in small areas by Maori to assist their hunting and for kumara gardens (Atkinson and Cameron 1993;
Trotter and McCulloch 1989 pp50-56). Burning continued, and tree-felling with metal tools, on a more extensive scale in the 19th Century, for a timber export trade, domestic construction timber and to create grass and clover pasture for the sheep and cattle introduced by European settlers.
In consequence, Norton (1997) states “We have lost almost all of our lowland forests....you can drive for 50km across the Canterbury Plains and hardly see a wild native plant.”
The European settlers proudly ‘cleared the bush’ to create a ‘pastoral paradise’
2 landscape, with rolling grassland and imported trees, reminiscent of their home .
1 Native bush was originally defined by settlers as 3m to 10m high vegetation, denser than European ‘woodland’, remaining after the tall forest canopy trees had been removed, or found naturally stunted to that height near windy coasts (Johnston 1981) but soon the vernacular phrase referred to all native forests (Wardle 1991 p72) 2 (Dalziel 1990 p107; Graham 1990 p 62 and 70; Grey 1994 p319 and p 377; Petrie 1963; Wright 1959). Rhys Taylor Introduction
By 1940 the undeveloped land was reduced to one fifth of the land area - the central uplands of North Island and the Western half of South Island (map in Grey 1994 p 7).
An attitude of unlimited agricultural expansion characterised the colonial era; along with
“self-seeking individualism and the separation of humanity from nature” (Grundy 1993 p64)3. Land use practices were transplanted wholesale from centuries of climate and soil-adapted development in Britain and its Western European neighbours, to “the differing conditions of another biotic province” (Park 1987 p88).
The sheep or beef farmer’s view of native bush as wasted ‘potential paddocks’ continues in some quarters today: the Pakeha prediliction for bush clearance was parodied at last year’s New Zealand Association of Resource Management Conference by farmer John Kneebone (1996 p23) who said:
“Land developers were national heroes. Any plant(s) other than rye grass and
clover were banished from a real farmer’s property. Only Greenies or
pretentious Poms planted trees - trees shaded too much grass. An undrained
swamp or a clump of bush labelled the incumbent as a useless lazy bugger.”
3 Dualism, or the European idea of the conscious human mind viewing a separate ‘nature’, led to several human- centred (anthropocentric) and instrumental views of ‘nature’: View 1. A reserve resource of genetic material for medical, agricultural and industrial uses - ‘the silo’; View 2. A subject of scientific study and curiosity - ‘the laboratory’; View 3. A place of active recreation, including re-living pioneer experiences - ‘the gymnasium’; and View 4. A place for aesthetic or spiritual inspiration or transformation - ‘the cathedral’. (Park 1987, citing Godfrey-Smith for the four epithets; Booth 1994 p3 offers a similar list of four); Note that indigenous people’s traditional values for food gathering or materials, did not feature.
9 Rhys Taylor Introduction
Allen and Bosch (1996 p3, adapting Bawden 1987) identify three eras of European settler land-use in South Island, New Zealand: first the pioneering clearance of bush, which from the 1950s (secondly) was complemented by the intensification of production with fertilisers, irrigation, new plant and stock breeds, and thirdly, from the 1980s, joined - not replaced - by a more holistic trend of sustainability concern, accompanied by some retreat from the marginal hill lands.
There are similarities here to Kelly’s (1980) “full cycle: of destructive pioneering, settlement/establishment, and re-awakening of aesthetic considerations”; and also to
Boulding’s (1966) distinction in the USA between the fading ‘cowboy culture’ and the rising ‘economics of spaceship earth’.
Threats to bush continue Six continuing threats to the bush remnants, detailed in Appendix One, are:
· Destruction for building work or exotic tree plantations;
· Destruction by fire;
· Degradation by lowered watertables and drought;
· Degradation by ‘selective’ logging of largest-girth trees;
· Degradation by grazing mammals;
· Competition for light by invasive exotic plants.
Bush restoration There have been changes within recent years in some Pakeha attitudes to native bush, found in both townspeople and farmers4. The surviving bush is seen by some as a precious cultural and natural asset and a resource (a concept equivalent to Maori
10 Rhys Taylor Introduction
‘taonga’) which should be protected and extended. The shift in values is interesting, as
is the range of practical bush restoration action which can be observed.
The author is principally concerned with evidence of and consequences of recent
changes in the cultural approach of Pakeha New Zealanders, rather than Maori (takata
whenua), whose traditional and more consistent concepts of resource management are
5 acknowledged in Appendix Four .
An increasing number of Aotearoa/New Zealand citizens, both Pakeha and Maori, are
involved voluntarily in the conservation and restoration of patches of ‘native bush’
near their homes.
Wellington ecologist Geoff Park (1996b p 43) has become “conscious of a blossoming
grassroots movement for ecological restoration”, a voluntary movement which has also
been apparent in Christchurch6 and Waitakere cities7. The commercial sector in the
‘garden city’ has responded to increased interest in native plants with specialist
nurseries, as have charitable trusts, and DoC’s only remaining native plant nursery in the
South Island is kept busy 8.
4 The way we see and use nature is by definition socially constructed (Furze, de Lacy and Birckhead 1996 p 32) 5 However, it is not claimed here that prior to European settlement all bush and native wildlife was being conserved by Maori, as there is archaeological evidence of extensive bush burning and removal, and of bird species hunted to extinction (Flannery 1996, Trotter and McCulloch op cit), implying failure of traditional natural resource conservation measures (such as rahui) in the face of population growth, or conflict between peoples or other socio-economic circumstances. 6 Christchurch Agenda 21 Forum Biodiversity Project - with support from the Community Boards (Lukes, 1995- 96; Lucas Associates 1996-1997); a Natural Heritage Network of 90 volunteers (Oliver, 1997); plantings by students (Chronicle 1997); a streamside planting guide for city residents (Lucas Associates 1996; Herrick 1996); Landscape Institute events (SEEDS 1997); City Council greenways around the city (Meurk 1997); Hinewai Reserve on Banks Peninsula (Wilson 1989; Pipipi 1996). 7 Waitakere City Council (1996); Bell, James and Sawyer (1995). 8 LetzGoNative, Trees for Canterbury, Wai-Ora Trust, and DoC Motukorara Nursery are a few Canterbury examples. There may be other influences: a Dunedin nurseryman claimed that a growing sense of nationalism is causing more people to choose native plants (Crompton. Otago Daily Times 17 May 1996 p13)
11 Rhys Taylor Introduction
Other signs of public interest include enthusiastic press coverage of native plants for gardening (Budd 1996; Farrell 1997) and over 1,000 students have enrolled nationwide in Bruce Treeby’s Open Polytechnic course on New Zealand Native Plants9.
Ecological restoration professionals met in 1995 at Lincoln to discuss scientific experience (Meurk and Smale 1997) and are due meet again in 199810.
Limited existing research Volunteer-led restoration activity has hitherto been outside the established interest areas of both agricultural and parks/recreation research fields in New Zealand11, and has been little studied as a sociological phenomenon (Goodrich, 1997 pers com). Recent resource management postgraduate student work at Lincoln has begun an exploration of citizens’ roles (Johnson 1996, Herrick 1996, Lambie 1997). Landcare Groups of farmers and other rural citizens formed in Australia and more recently New Zealand are attracting research interest (Ritchie 1996, 1997; Curtis and DeLacy 1996) as are the related approaches of Beachcare (Bowkett 1998; Environment Waikato 1998), and
Streamcare (McCallum 1998; Barker 1998).
Journalistic attention has been paid to the work of individual volunteers in environmental conservation in New Zealand (McVarish 1992; see also Forest and Bird magazine). More systematic research has been undertaken into citizen consultation on
9 Open Polytechnic Native Plants course author Bruce Tweedy comments that people “want a better understanding of the landscape that surrounds them. I find that often leads to an interest in issues such as preservation and restoration.” (Christchurch Press 22 September 1997) 10 On the role of scientists, Park (1987 p89) comments: “The Pakeha scientific perspective needs to be examined for what it can contribute to an understanding of place and to the natural, ecological values of the land... to identify most valuable natural places. This can complement the mythology and spiritual meaning of particular places, and their natural resource values, to both Maori and Pakeha.....Throughout New Zealand there are thousands of places that are storehouses of history, containing trees and populations of native animals that were established long before people colonised these islands.” More recently Park sees restoration having “the potential to engender deep changes in people’s sense of place” (1996b p 43). 11 The topic does not feature in an extensive leisure literature review by Devlin, Corbett and Peebles (1995), nor the research publications of Ministry of Agriculture (Pomeroy, 1997 pers com).
12 Rhys Taylor Introduction conservation strategies and resource management policy (James,1990; Barrett 1995) and temporary volunteer involvement within Department of Conservation work programmes (Ringer 1996).
In contrast to the widely-researched local environmental organisations and voluntary
‘environmental movement’ of the United Kingdom12, little research appears to have been undertaken in New Zealand on the extent, nature or means of support of citizen- led environmental volunteering, to help indicate which factors are most significant for resource management policy.
Focus of this research This exploratory or ‘scoping’ study describes and analyses bush restoration in New
Zealand as a contemporary social phenomenon and a resource management issue.
The central problem under investigation is what holds back or helps forward local-community-based13 (citizen led) management and restoration of ‘native bush’ ecosystems14 in NZ.
This study is informed by a resource manager’s inter-disciplinary perspective, concentrating upon human motivation and behaviour, role of social institutions, political and policy-analysis. Both ‘ecological restoration’ practice and perceptions of the phenomenon are considered, to examine possible influences and influencers.
12 for United Kingdom, see: Baxter 1994; BDOR/Countryside Commission 1991; Bovaird et al 1995; Hampshire County Council 1994; Horsburgh et al 1992; Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1991; McCormick 1991; Millward 1995; Pinkney-Baird 1993; Powell, 1997; Shell Better Britain Campaign 1988; Taylor 1997; Wilcox, 1994. 13 ‘community’ here means a group of people with some unifying shared interest operating within a self-defined ‘local’ geographic area. The word ‘community’ has many other meanings, including the ecological term for the assembly of animals and plants found interacting at a location. This report generally uses ‘citizens’ to refer to people, mostly adult volunteers, involved in projects and ‘communities’ to refer to animal/plant assemblies, unless otherwise stated in the text. 14 ecosystem means the components and interactions of the complex, living, natural and human environment. In New Zealand the definition within the Resource Management Act 1991 is widely used.
13 Rhys Taylor Introduction
Some key questions for this scoping research are:
· How extensive is citizen-led bush restoration as a means of environmental
management in New Zealand, and why is its impact of significance?
· What motivates the volunteers and what factors advance or hinder their
efforts? - and from this, how could bush restoration be enabled?
· Why is this phenomenon not more widespread in New Zealand Society? - and
from this, how could more such action be induced/encouraged?15
Examples of bush management and restoration led by voluntary groups of citizens,
(including, but not dominated by, landholders) have been chosen for study in the limited time available, rather than management led by farmers (such as landcare groups), or district and regional authorities, or the Department of Conservation, each of whom can have impact on the protection and potential restoration of native bush.
Figure One (overleaf) illustrates the logical selection process of research subject, and may represent a plausible decision process taken by a bush restoration volunteer in New
Zealand. The literature review addresses motivational influences at many of the decision points shown: whether to spend leisure time on volunteering, what constitutes environmental concern, why join local care groups, etc.
15 Why the majority of other citizens do not take part, is a separate research question, data gathering for which would require very large-scale surveys of the non-participating population.
14 Rhys Taylor Introduction
Possible ‘decision tree’ leading an individual to involvement in bush restoration.
Figure One: route(s) to becoming a bush restoration volunteer. culture: 1. values society: basis of of the laws, worldview individual trends
working 2. leisure sleep, eat, time time clean time Work Work for some = for most = DoC, or city or 3. ‘serious ‘casual farming, or town, not leisure’ leisure’ tourism on the land earn from politics, eg 4.Volun- hobbies, eg inc environ- local body, teer service gardening, fishing, ment work lobby to others nature tramping group study
social 5. environ- service, welfare, ment, churches, youth and ecology & prof. community amenity assocs.
education, 6.bush care stream Individual awareness, (forest care, coast work days, submission restoration) care, training lobbying groups landcare groups
activity 7. citizen- agency-led Conservat within led approach: Corps, local approach: offers Wilderness branches agency citizen Trust, park of national enables involve- & reserve organisat’s local group ment rangers (group) (group) (individual (individ.) and group)
15 Rhys Taylor Introduction
International comparisons Many of New Zealand’s plant and animal species are unique to these islands (high endemism) but the ‘cultural roots’ of European settlers’ behaviout, such as their 19th
Century bush clearance and their late 20th Century interest in restoration, are not limited to these shores. Resource and biological diversity conservation concerns are international (Given 1993, Wilson 1992). Comparisons are therefore relevant with research outside New Zealand, which observes a resurgence of voluntary habitat- protection and restoration activity in the 1990s, in order to raise and discuss issues not yet studied here.
The author was influenced in choice of research subject matter by previous employment and voluntary experience in the United Kingdom, including three years just prior to emigration to New Zealand as National Development Director of Rural Action for the
Environment. 16.
The local volunteers Affiliated members of national organisations such as the Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society, Queen Elizabeth II National Trust or the Native Forests Restoration
Trust (whose journals are, respectively: Forest and Bird; Open Space and Canopy), and also non-affiliated groups of citizens living near native bush sites who choose to take an active part in management and restoration, are the research subjects of this study, rather than the national organisations themselves. There is a wish to learn from the volunteers’ perceptions and first-hand accounts of their experiences.
16 This Government-backed advice, technical aid and small grants scheme, introduced progressively to forty counties of England, demonstrated the considerable potential for local-community-led environmental management. Those assisted included many voluntary groups who did not have prior experience of environmental management activity, nor see themselves as ‘green’ or ‘environmentalists’. Over 2,500 local projects had been assisted by the stage of an initial evaluation (Bovaird et al 1995) and the scheme has
16 Rhys Taylor Introduction
Volunteers taking a lead in environmental management From Figure One above it can be seen that there are at least two types of local-scale voluntary group ‘restoration’ activity, in addition to individual actions:
· those which are initiated and led by the volunteers, organised either as an
interest group, society or charitable trust (a community of interest) or as socially-
connected neighbours within a defined locality (a community of place); with official
agencies only in supporting or enabling roles;
or, in contrast -
· those which are initiated and led from outside the social group or the local
neighbourhood, typically by official agencies.
The first type is termed ‘citizen-leadership’ and the second ‘citizen involvement’
(Arnstein 1969). Examples of leaders in the second type are statutory agencies, such as
The North Canterbury Fish and Game Council (McCallum 1997 pers com), Department of Conservation (James 1990), or a local authority (such as Christchurch City Council’s
Stream Enhancement Programme)17.
The first category above, the citizen-initiated and led approach, has been the least investigated in New Zealand. It appeals as a resource management research topic because of its relevance to sustainable development concepts voiced since the
Brundtland Report (Our Common Future 1987) and the United Nations Rio Conference
continued to develop to a further evaluation stage, in progress now (Warburton 1998). For details of Rural Action see Taylor (1997) reprinted as Appendix Two. 17 An example of the ‘community involvement approach’ is the enhancement work on the banks of Nottingham Stream in Halswell, Christchurch. Decision-making power remained with City Council Water Services Unit officers. Individual property-owners had a direct relationship with the Unit’s officers and contracted advisors, who took a lead in management planning. Even a ‘community planting day’ on public land was initiated and funded by the Council (Crean, Milne & Taylor 1997). In another area of the city, around Avoca Stream, residents have taken a more pro-active role (Barker 1998)
17 Rhys Taylor Introduction on Environment and Development (UNCED 1992 Declaration Principles. MfE 1993).
The concepts include, in summary:
· applying the precautionary principle - preventing further degradation even if the knowledge base is incomplete, whilst improving data collection (Principle 15);
· taking a long-term perspective, with concern for future generations (Principle 3);
· protecting the environment as an integral part of development process (Principle 4);
· seeking commitment and participation/partnership, in handling environmental issues, of a wide range of stakeholders (Principle 10);
· capacity building through education, technical and organisational development. (Principle 9)
· taking an integrated approach to resource management, admitting indigenous methods and local knowledge, and increasing womens’ and youth involvement (Principles 20, 21, 22).
Sherry Arnstein (1969) studied planning participation in the USA to produce a subsequently durable model of citizen ‘levels of empowerment’ in their relationships with official agencies and local government. The model comprises eight ladder rungs, or steps, separating citizen power positions rising from weak to strong. The citizen involvement (agency-led) approach described above transfers less power to the participants than the citizen-led (and agency assists) approach. Figure Two below is a simplified version of Arnstein’s top five of eight steps, locating the relative positions of my terms ‘citizen involvement’ (steps 2 and 3), and ‘citizen leadership’ (4 and 5):
18 Rhys Taylor Introduction
5 ‘Citizen control’ = citizens initiate & lead, agency enables, supports. 4 ‘delegated power’ = either may initiate, but the agency power is then delegated. 3 ‘partnership’ = agency initiates, citizens are active, involved, negotiating. 2 ‘consultation’ = agency initiates but tells & asks local people before acting. 1.‘informing’ = agency notifies and then acts. Citizens ‘hear’ passively.
Figure Two. (adapted from ladder model of Arnstein 1969 p 217)
Topicality of study Signals in 1996 that such citizen-led group vitality might be present in Christchurch,
Wellington and Waitakere, combined with Government-funded 1996 launch of The
Landcare Trust (Rush 1996; Landcare Trust 1997), suggested a trend worthy of investigation. Meanwhile the usually farmer-focussed Ministry of Agriculture provided re-inforcement, as their policy division is exploring the value of wider local community and citizen links for integrated catchment management, by funding Landcare Research
19 Rhys Taylor Introduction experiments at Whangaroa harbour, near Raglan and Waipaoa catchment, near
Gisborne, (Kilvington, pers com. 1997; Landcare Research 1997; Donaldson, Kape and
Smith 199718)
Considering influences on bush restoration The extent of local volunteer-led bush conservation and restoration initiatives will be held back or advanced in part by external cultural and societal factors. To structure the literature review, but before knowing what issues the case studies would present, the author’s hypothesis was that external factors may include prevailing cultural and behavioural norms, societal attitudes and state policies in New Zealand, concerning -
(1) WHY CARE: the various values ascribed to native bush, including biodiversity;
(2) WHAT IS ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION;
(3) WHO CARES: the organisations involved and their relevant policies;
(4) WHY VOLUNTEER: outdoor volunteering as a serious leisure activity, and
(5) WHY LEAD: citizens taking action which involves management responsibility for
(and therefore some power over) public or ‘common trust’ bush properties.
Each of the five themes appears as a section within the large literature review chapter.
However, other aspects of the research topic appeared to be amenable to investigation only by directly questionning a sample of volunteer bush restorers, as there is little research published on conservation volunteer experience or behaviour in New Zealand.
These further themes included direct investigation of volunteers’:
18 The author worked with Donaldson and Kape on the Wiapoa/Gisborne community consultations in 1997 as a
20 Rhys Taylor Introduction
· access to relevant knowledge, skills, advice and assistance for specific tasks;
· access to funding and ‘help-in-kind’support, to meet costs not covered by
volunteers’ own time and resources, such as equipment, materials, or transport;
· perceptions of the hardest and easiest (and least and most satisfying) aspects of their
projects, to suggest an agenda which focuses on their priorities.
Summary This chapter has set the historical scene in preparation for a contemporary literature review, identifed ‘voluntary bush restoration’ as a topical and under-researched resource management subject in New Zealand and posed some initial research questions. Figures One and Two may be useful for reference when using the literature review. Research methodology is covered in the next chapter.
temporary member of the Landcare Research Policy and Community Issues Team, based at Lincoln.
21 Rhys Taylor Methodology
Chapter Two
Research Methodology
This chapter develops a research methodology, involving: · clarification of purpose: problem definition, research limitations · an interdisciplinary approach; · theoretical perspectives and research paradigms; · the research stages (with diagram); · sampling strategy; · survey method.
Clarification of purpose : problem definition
As stated in Chapter One, this is a study of what holds back or helps forward citizen-led and local-community-based environmental management, and in particular, restoration of native bush.
Key questions include asking what action is under way, across NZ (when and where, how extensive), led by who, and how (the restoration process) followed by asking why people are volunteering, and the implied question of why not others ? This coincides with a question sequence proposed by Newell (1993).
There are many subsidiary, more specific questions, to be considered, such as:
· What is the significance of any geographical, cultural, age or gender commonalities or differences exhibited in the volunteers?
· What is their ecological or other technical knowledge-base?
· What group structures and leadership styles are employed, and why?
· Who provides which, if any, external support (such as materials, advice or training)?
· Are the volunteers monitoring progress, and is restoration impact ‘a success’? Rhys Taylor Methodology
· What makes the voluntary work rewarding, satisfying, to motivate participants?
· What do the above imply for agencies who may wish to enable volunteers or induce more citizens to volunteer for ecological bush restoration?
The research addresses these questions from a starting point within the voluntary sector
- and looks out, through ‘citizen’ eyes, towards professional advisers or other supporters within agencies and authorities. Whilst not a full ethnographic study, it seeks meanings underlying the observed social phenomenon of (mostly Pakeha) bush restoration, directly from the participants, rather than re-interpreted by those who would help or guide them. Few studies have this ‘user’ or ‘consumer’ orientation
Strengths and limitations of a scoping study
Lincoln University Resource Management MSc requires a personal research project of a quarter academic year duration (and weighting), tackled within a two-year full-time programme: of taught courses, professional skills development and several group research projects. Its academic purpose is interdisciplinary problem-definition and identification of paths toward resolution, rather than completed analysis and policy packages: it is thus a scoping study, not a doctoral thesis. The scale intended by the
Department of Resource Management should be borne in mind by the reader.
Attempting case study research has been ambitious in the time available and the volume if extra material generated, and may consequently limit other aspects of the study, but, in the absence of a body of relevant New Zealand research to critique, was the appropriate decision to allow progress on this interesting resource management topic.
Others may wish to continue the investigation begun here.
23 Rhys Taylor Methodology
An interdisciplinary approach
Academic perspectives considered for inclusion at the outset ranged from the human sciences (such as ethnography, human ecology, social psychology and sociology of institutions), to ecology and policy analysis. All are relevant to resource management.
As the phenomenon under investigation is complex social behaviour, applying ecological understanding within a political and social setting, a multi-disciplinary approach is essential19. Inter-disciplinarity, or the connections between disciplines, will also be crucial, as such connections help to identify both opportunities for action and the significance of obstacles or barriers encountered.
A ‘systems approach’ examines the whole picture, of which the observed phenomena is an accessible part. It focuses on the interactions and inter-relationships (Gharajedaghi and Ackoff 1985), so that a more integrated or holistic view of the system may emerge.
A systems approach poses the central question of “How and why does this system function as a whole?” (Patton. 1990 p 88).
As first steps towards such an integrated systems approach, two methodological lines of enquiry have particular appeal. The first combines environment and behaviour, to ask, in Patton’s phrase: “How do individuals approach their [chosen] goals through specific behaviours in specific environments?”(see survey, section six in this Chapter); and the second examines the scientific, cultural, social and ideological context to consider how it affects their action (see literature review, Chapter Three).
19 “Different research perspectives make different kinds of knowledge claims, and the criteria as to what counts as significant knowledge vary from one to another.” (Morgan 1983 p 15)
24 Rhys Taylor Methodology
Theoretical perspectives: a qualitative-research paradigm
The study’s research paradigm follows the evaluation paradigm of Patton (1990), who in turn draws on Lincoln & Guba (1985) and Glaser & Strauss (1967), in using qualitative methods to understand human experience. The quantitative component is subsidiary, limited in value by the small sample size.
Patton (1990 p117) argues that “goals-based, quantitative, outcomes-orientated evaluations now represent only one way to approach evaluation”. Instead, he suggests
“The evaluator has to suspend judgement about what the program20 is trying to do [i.e. stated aims at outset] and to focus instead on finding out what it is that actually happens in the program - and as a result of the program. The evaluator can thus be open to whatever data emerge from the phenomena...” (Patton. 1990. P117)
Focus on one type of voluntary group activity
Value can be gained from evaluative study of a comparable set of existing citizen-led environmental management projects. Consciously limiting the focus of environmental management actions studied to bush restoration projects is intended to aid comparisons, as there is more likely to be some commonality of purpose and context.
Provided local project activity and context can be sufficiently well described and documented to be understood by an outside observer, “judgements and generalisations about effective types of interventions, and the conditions under which those efforts are
20 In this research for ‘program’ read ‘set of projects’, as there is no externally-devised programme to evaluate, only an informal ‘movement’. This contrasts to evaluation of programmes promoting and supporting similar citizen-led environmental management in the UK. See Taylor (1997) reproduced as Appendix Two
25 Rhys Taylor Methodology effective, could be generalised to other projects with similar goals.” (Patton 1990 p160).
Field observations and surveys
A second, compatible definition of qualitative research is provided by Dooley (1984 p
267) who describes the process as “social research based on non-quantitative observations made in the field [i.e. the place where the subjects normally conduct their activities] and analysed in non-statistical ways.” Lack of quantitative data makes application of the “usual statistical criteria of reliability and validity” difficult to apply, but “findings are often more detailed and have intuitive appeal” (Dooley 1984 p 268) .
Other sources consulted on research methodology included Fisher (1990 p 365), on participatory research. This would have used voluntary group members’ participation in a reference group, returned-to in the key stages of problem definition, method-choice, data collection, analysis of results and use of findings: it was rejected as too slow for the available timescale and to expensive for self-financed research. Also rejected was the action-research approach, used by Ritchie (1996, 1997) who has spent two years on her project with Care groups in the Waikato, assisted by Environment Waikato21.
However, the problem-definition stage, prior to to the main literature review and survey was influenced by two voluntary sector focus groups, described below.
The research included five short field visits for orientation but systematic information capture was by telephone interview of project participants, covering their personal volunteering experiences in addition to collecting data on the group.
21 Ritchie’s action-research theory sources included Attricher, Kemmis, McTaggart and Zuber-Skerritt (1991); Dick (1993) and Vanclay (1992). Environment Waikato experience features in section W8 of Appendix Eight.
26 Rhys Taylor Methodology
Research Stages during 1997: diagrammatic representation. Fig Three. The Research Process
PROCESS ASPECTS CONTEXT ASPECTS (at left of diagram) (at right of diagram) Initial terms of reference
Check for existing research in area Select research approach (qualitative)
Scoping literature review Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 (problems and ideas stage) ECO conference Agenda 21 Forum
Projects located in literature
Extending contacts, ‘snowball’ referrals eg. NZ Ecological Society Conference Sampling techniques Form potential projects list Continue academic literature search Clarify sampling criteria, shortlist and contact projects Survey techniques (pilot tested) Telephone survey & draft literature review Obtain printed material from sample projects obtain contextual material from advisory agencies Seminar: peer review Survey analysis
Supervisor feedback
Analysis in context: as a system?
Conclusions, recommendations
Feed-back to projects and to interested agencies
Publishable papers? Potential policy impact?
27 Rhys Taylor Methodology
Focus Groups
Preliminary consultation within the voluntary sector involved the author facilitating hour-long focus group discussions with self-selected participants, at two events: firstly the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand (ECO) annual conference, (June 1997); and secondly a meeting of the Christchurch Agenda 21 Forum in July. The ECO Conference session was preceded by display of a poster (reduced size copy attached at Appendix Three), and the Christchurch session by a short talk with overhead transparencies.
These independently-recorded focus groups sought participants’ views on five questions, each allocated about equal time:
· What range of voluntary organisations are involved in natural environment on-site- management in NZ?
· Which specific voluntary environmental management projects are you aware of, and approximately where are they located?(contacts sought)
· What factors generally encourage or motivate volunteer involvement in such projects?
· What factors discourage or de-motivate volunteer involvement in such projects?
· From where is help and advice available to environmental management projects?
Responses in the two sessions provided the author with orientation to the range and possible number of community-level environmental projects, illustrated their wide range
- from which ‘topic’ and organisatisational ‘type’ selection would have to be made - and gave some guidance on forming appropriate questions for the subsequent survey. The focus groups also suggested that no similar study was under way, nor published, within the voluntary sector and that the work would be welcomed as ‘relevant’.
28 Rhys Taylor Methodology
1997 was not an appropriate time to survey conservation professionals, particularly
DoC, because of major re-organisation. To base the survey interviews entirely within the voluntary sector would allow a voluntary ‘voice’ to be heard , which local authorities and agencies might find valuable. Other researchers may wish to study local authority and statutory agency perceptions of the voluntary sector
Sampling strategy
To collect additional project examples , once the author’s decision was made to narrow the research focus to citizen-led bush restoration examples, visits were made to the members’ libraries maintained by Christchurch Environment Centre and the ECO office in Wellington; a poster session was attended at the New Zealand Ecological Society
Conference in Wellington (July 1997); and approaches made by telephone and electronic mail to many contacts using the ‘snowball’ technique of referrals.
From these combined sources, including the literature review, a potential 50-60 local projects had been identified, too many to survey in the time available. Shortlisting was based on the following decisions, in sequence:
· Mention of the project’s relevance by more than one informant source;
· Obtaining a geographical spread to provide variety in institutional context (districts, regions, distance from cities);
· Random sequencing, before the first approach was made by telephone, then:
· (a) Confirmation that the project included ecological restoration of native New Zealand woody plants - this eliminated, for example, a project using exotic species for landslip revegetation in the Gisborne area;
· (b) Confirmation that the project was currently active - this eliminated a ‘lapsed’ restoration project in Nelson;
29 Rhys Taylor Methodology
· (c) Confirmation that the project is citizen-led and was citizen-initiated - this eliminated a beachcare group and an urban streamcare group, as ‘citizen-involvement projects’ led by local council officers (see discussion above and in Chapter One);
· (d) Confirmation of willingness to respond to survey - there were no refusals;
· Time available for research - there were several further eligible shortlisted projects available once the target number of projects was covered. The remaining projects’ exclusion had however been randomised at stage three.
Survey design and administration
A standardised telephone interview was used, firstly to seek 100% coverage rate of the small sample size (of 15), which would be unlikely from a written questionnaire; and secondly to allow use of open-ended questions and informality of style in the interview, with the opportunity for interviewees to clarify questions, and add information.
16 projects provided on average two interviewees, one male and one female (this was requested), of any age, as group ‘spokespeople’. Each potential interviewee listened at the outset to a research description and gave consent to the interview - which was then aranged for a convenient evening or weekend during the following 10 days. No-one subsequently failed to honour an agreed interview date. Commitment levels were impressive - already these appeared to be highly motivated people, keen to talk.
It was time-consuming to administer, at up to two hours per interview, but provided a wealth of information, and as comments were recorded directly onto copies of the question schedule, allowed some preliminary structuring of information to take place during the note-taking. Few questions were mis-understood and none consistently so,
30 Rhys Taylor Methodology thanks to adjustment of phrasing made during pilot-testing22. All interviews yielded useable results, although the amount and level of detail varies.
Consideration had been given to tape-recording interviews, but the additional time required in transcribing and then handling a much-increased volume of text ruled it out as impracticable. Observer bias will exist but systematic steps were taken to minimise this: see Appendix. Five. The question schedule appears at Appendix. Six.
In addition, five project sites were visited and written material such as annual reports, newsletters, management plans and press clippings were obtained by post from almost from all of the sample projects. This provided valuable internal ‘triangulation’ of interviews and increases the author’s confidence in the findings.
22 Note that later sections of the schedule include some ‘check’ questions which, using different wordings, duplicate material asked earlier. These were dropped from some of the longer-running interviews to maintain interviewee comfort. Other draft questions were cut after the pilot test, to retain focus and flow.
31 Rhys Taylor Literature Review
ChapterThree
Literature Review: contexts for restoration
Review 1. Why care for native bush: its qualities and values.
Chapter One outlined the rapid rate of loss of New Zealand lowland forest (native bush) to European pastoralism since the 1840s. This first section of the literature review asks Why care about the loss of native bush? It looks at what still survives - the remnant living systems and communities, and considers the values of these: first, intrinsically and for their contribution to ecosystems; secondly, instrumentally or anthropocentrically, for their use to the two dominant human cultures of New Zealand (Maori and Pakeha). The section is followed by a description and definition of restoration ecology. The associated Appendices summarise six continuing threats to native bush which add urgency to the task (App. One); and add information on Maori worldviews to compare and contrast to the Pakeha/European views described below (App. Four).
A scarce rural resource The surviving patches of native forest vegetation in the privately-farmed landscape today are small areas - often unfenced and subjected to grazing and trampling by livestock. They include river margin strips, steep gulley bottoms, crags and coastline
(Wearing 1996a). Many have cultural and spiritual significance to Maori as waahi tapu, which is sometimes why the more level sites have survived conversion into paddocks.
Park (1987 p95) observes that it took Pakeha scientists a century from their first interest in New Zealand forests to begin giving attention to the surviving patches of nature on the farmed mainland, outside the more closely-studied ‘conservation estate’ of protected islands and mountainous national parks: the Protected Natural Areas programmme was one response (Owen 1984; Harding 1994a). Mapping of Ecological
Regions, and Ecological Districts within the broad Areas, followed. There are few Rhys Taylor examples of the lowland mixed podocarp forest type left in any Ecological Region.
Park (1996a p322) writes:
“The [bush] survivors of the plains are priceless. Not as museum pieces - curious islands of
history fenced off from the rest of the countryside - but as guides to a sustainable future,
reminders of the pattern of nature from which the land’s wealth comes and sources of
renewal for rebuilding similar ecosystems one day.”
A scarce urban resource By the 1980s eighty five per cent of New Zealand’s population was urbanised, and no longer in farming, yet the distinctive images of New Zealand projected to tourists and potential migrants were still rural: sheep farms, bush and high mountain wilderness23.
Urban green spaces were retained, as mown-grass sports areas, or open parkland with scattered specimen trees, valued for childrens’ play and dog-exercising. The surviving urban bush remnants, such as Riccarton (Dean’s) Bush in Christchurch, were rarities conserved by individual initiative, against prevailing trends of subdivision plus formal parks on the land which had to be reserved from development.
Intrinsic values of natural communities and ecosystems Intrinsic values include the plants and animals right to exist ‘for themselves’, as individuals, viable populations and functioning communities, regardless of human utility.
When humans adopt this non-self-centered view it is described as altruism.
The intrinsic value can include plants as a habitat (including food, shelter, territory) for animals, and also animals’ usefulness to plants (pollinators, seed dispersers, nitrogen
23 Claudia Bell (1996 p33) comments: “The funny thing about the promotion of New Zealand is that most of what we promote we cannot really take credit for. The bush, mountains, lakes and beaches - our credit is in the conservation and preservation of these, which most of us as individuals are not responsible for.”
33 Rhys Taylor sources, detritivores and decomposers) and leads to their combined role in what
Western science describes as ‘ecosystem’ flows of energy and materials24.
Maori have a different way of describing this inter-relationship, which stresses relatedness and shared life-spirit (see Appendix Four). It is unwise to intellectually separate humans from such broad and holistic concepts, as if fully-detached observers of nature (dualism) because human activities depend upon and constantly influence these ecosystems. For some, the sense of natural world connection creates interest in active stewardship (Environmental management for Pakeha; Kaitaikitaka for Maori).
Protecting ecosystems for the long-term While many philosophers have argued that nature’s worth is intrinsic, independent of its present utility to humans; others argue that observed or as yet unseen utility to human survival will lead to nature being preserved. Both these arguments concur that protection is preferable to nature’s destruction for immediate human use25. The precautionary principle was endorsed internationally at the Rio Conference (UNCED
1992) but has been little implemented in Westernised capitalist countries because it represents a barrier to individual short-term profit-seeking from exploitation of resources held in common (Hanna and Jentoft 1996 p38).
An holistic view is not alien to many indigenous peoples but has been rare in Western colonial society (Given 1994 p11; Wilson 1992 p282, 308). If applied, a holistic view results in commitment to concepts of avoiding natural ecosystem damage beyond a
24 In New Zealand, Simpson (1995) documents the recent shift from a species-based view of conservation to their dynamic context: “processes of migration, regeneration, nutrient cycling, energy flow, mutualism and other interactions.” 25 There is not space in this study for lengthy exploration of environmental ethics - the reader is referred to Baird Callicott (1989), Des Jardens (1993) and then to Booth (1994) and Proctor (1995) for two recent contributors to the North American debate on forest preservation and to Moon and Cobb (1992) on forest preservation here in New Zealand. The author has also found Bateson’s synthesis of ecology, social sciences and artistic intuition
34 Rhys Taylor certain point in the absence of full understanding, and in conservation of biological communities for posterity26. These include the vaguely-defined ‘environmental bottom lines’ (MfE 1995), ‘safe minimum standards’ (Wilson 1992 p310) or ‘precautionary principle’ (UNCED Rio Declaration 1992).
The ‘environment-care’ volunteers Appendix Seven contains illustrations of UK environmental voluntering, but there is a lack of national surveys of environmental volunteering in New Zealand Appendix Eight gives examples of environmental organisations, some of whose members are volunteer activists.
The wording of anonymous participant evaluation sheets completed by a group of individuals, mostly student volunteers, on a short-term project for DoC (Shand 1997 pers com) showed a gender difference. Many of the young men commented on their own increased awareness, knowledge, and renewed commitment as a result of volunteering (inward-focussed) and women commenting on the scale and importance of the task facing a clearly commited but underfunded DoC (outward-focussed).
It is important to note that not all environmentally concerned volunteers work outside, tramping along streams or planting trees (BDOR 1994 p 18). Volunteers within environmental groups also tackle information gathering, campaigning and lobbying, write planning submissions and newsletters, and fundraise, sometimes leaving the heavy
helpful when resisting the allure of too simplistic an instrumental and anthropocentric approach. (Bateson 1980; Harries-Jones 1995) 26 Debate continues on how to ascertain vulnerability to extinction and minimum viable population size before demographic failure, especially for critical or ‘keystone’ species (Cox 1993 Ch 2; Gilpin and Soule 1986). However a focus on individual species misses the processes and relationships within communities. For example the role of New Zealand indigenous birds such as bellbird as pollinators and native pigeon as seed dispersers of co-evolved tree species, both being members of what ecologist call ‘feeding guilds’ which adventive European birds such as blackbird and thrush have not fully replaced (Burrows1994 and pers com 1997; Brockie 1992 p144). Fruiting exotic weeds create an inferior habitat for native birds, which ‘prefer’ native plant fruits (Williams and Karl 1996)
35 Rhys Taylor physical work ‘on site’ to contractors, employees or to visiting semi-voluntary teams, such as Conservation Corps. Variety of activity may well sustain interest27.
Human use values of native bush To consider instrumental use values, convenient headings are provided by conservation botanist David Given (1994 p3, who also recognises intrinsic value in his list):
· plants are a diverse repository of genetic material, potentially useful to humans;
· useful for present and future human generations, so conserve stocks;
· plant processes and diversity help to maintain a stable environment on the planet;
· the ‘scientific value’ - an opportunity to better understand ecological processes;
· cultural values and symbolic use;
· the role of plants in inspiring people and in transforming their values.
Comments can be made on several of these, relating to native bush.
Genetic storehouse: retaining biological diversity Only a small proportion of plants and animals from the wild have been domesticated, meaning bred selectively, to provide the majority of (non-fossil-fuel based) agricultural produce, fuels, clothing materials and medicinal resources (Wilson 1992 Ch13). Return visits are made to the pool of natural genetic variation whenever new crop or livestock characteristics are sought. Many of New Zealand wild plant and animal species’ potential use to humans is entirely unstudied. The known and potential economic value is a significant anthropocentric reason for conserving ‘living stocks’of maximum genetic
27 This study’s focus on bush restoration is thus a limited perspective snapshot of the ‘environmenmtal’ voluntary sector, and the author is aware that many individual volunteers are active in several capacities.
36 Rhys Taylor
(population and species) diversity, in their natural settings where selective pressures continue to operate28.
Contribution to a stable environment At the local scale, bush contributes to retention of soil on slopes; to water-cleaning in drinking-water catchments, and rainfall retention in intermittant heavy rainfall - aiding re-charge of groundwater (Given 1994; Moon and Cobb 1992; Porteous 1993).
At the larger or collective scale, the bush contributes to climate regulation through its transpiration and uptake of water, and through hardwood tree growth it acts as an atmospheric carbon ‘sink’ (MfE 1995 p47).
Other use values of bush · A reservoir of beneficial insect predators, especially useful to organic agriculture (Keesing and Wratten 1997) but, as a negative, a home for possums which cattle and dairy farmers dislike for their propensity to carry bovine tuberculosis.
· Stock shelter from winds and snow can be provided by fenced native tree shelter-belts. Where bush is being re-created, trees for harvest in 15-30 years as a light timber or firewood ‘crop’ can be planted on the margins to provide shelter for a core of slower-growing species such as the podocarps, provided felling can be accomplished without destruction of those neighbouring trees.
· Bush areas provide a scenic, photogenic backdrop to visitor accommodation and bush walkways a place of recreation for tourists, including the bird-watching, plant-spotting ‘eco- tourists’ who may pay a premium for this experience (NZ Tourism News 1996).
· The educational value of regenerating bush, especially when accessible to the urban population, is as an outdoor laboratory (education in the environment), for schools and tertiary institutions.
· It also has a recreational value as landscape to visit, contrasting to open farmland, mountains or beaches. Forest is ‘visually scarce’ in the lowlands.
28 Control of the benefits from the natural genetic ‘resource’ is contested between the Crown and Maori in New Zealand. See Appendix Four. Policy commitments to protection of indigenous habitats and biological diversity
37 Rhys Taylor
Symbolic and cultural value Native bush on the lowlands represents New Zealand’s original vegetation29 to many urban residents, as a briefly visited and therefore little known ‘public symbol’ (Tuan
1974). This has a symbolic value to some people - especially those who campaign to protect West Coast rainforests from commercial logging - disproportionate to the bush relict’s actual ecological status, which may be a degraded habitat in need of protection and restoration.
In contrast, those people who make more frequent visist to native bush patches within easy reach of their homes can develop a different relationship, what Tuam (1974 p 235) terms the ‘field of care sense of place’30. The closer knowledge and affection of ‘field of care’is a good basis for voluntary management involvement, judging by experiences of the UK charity Common Ground and the Rural Action for the Environment scheme
(Taylor 1997a - Appendix Two.).
From another cultural perspective, Maori also see symbolic value in native trees, but particularly when mature, as relatives of their ancestor Tane, and have named individual trees of significant age, which are protected by tapu. (See also Appendix. Four)
Transformative value Native bush, when maturing, has a chaotic multi-layered complexity which contrasts strongly with both agriculture’s crop monoculture image and the form of urban built environment. Visitors may be inspired, spiritually uplifted or contemplatively calmed by contact with native bush and its associated wildlife. (Trans)formative experiences of
include MfE (1995 p34) and the Biodiversity Strategy in preparation by DoC (1998) 29 people known to the author seem less conscious of the ‘native’ wetlands, or tussock grass areas as ‘symbols’? 30 To bridge the two forms, Stewart (1997 p 46) argues that good ‘interpretation’ [through educational materials, displays or events] can take site visitors some of the way from ‘public symbol’ into ‘field of care’ understanding.
38 Rhys Taylor bush visits in childhood are often quoted as influencers of environment care in adult life
(Fourie 1997 pers com).
Having concluded the review of values attributed to lowland native bush, the focus moves to ecology, applied to the restoration of this now scarce natural community.
39 Rhys Taylor
Review 2. What is Bush Restoration?
Keesing and Wratten (1997 p232, citing Jordan et al 1987) say that “Restoration ecology aims to re-establish or improve the ecological status of damaged or lost plant and animal communities native to the area of interest... to re-establish a functioning community.” They add, citing work in press by Hobbs and Norton (1996), that “In New Zealand...many ‘restoration’ projects have been initiated by private land- owners, land-care groups and regional and city councils. They frequently fail to apply ecological theory to the restoration process.” This section relates tothe theories.
Restoration ecology defined. The Society for Restoration Ecology, in the USA, defines ecological restoration as:
“the process of altering a site intentionally to establish a defined, indigenous, historic
system. The goal of this process is to emulate the structure, functions, diversity and
dynamics of the specified system.” (Cited in Mansfield 1996 p3).
Internationally the ‘science’ of restoration is in its formative stages (Norton 1997 p12;
Pickett and Parker 1994). Colin Meurk (1993 p5), describes restoration as “science by management” and values its synthetic approach, in contrast to the reductionism of much scientific research focus on plants and animals taken out of their natural context.
Johnson (1996 p3) conceives restoration as “a key tool for integrated land management” which “pragmatically applies the purpose and principles of the Resource
Management Act... but requires management or manipulation of social, cultural, political, economic as well as ecological processes “(Johnson 1996 p3 [my emphasis])
Another Lincoln predecessor, Waterhouse (1991), noted an expanding role for non- government organisations and predicted that “morally and ecologically, restoration will
40 Rhys Taylor be essential in shifting the balance from destruction to enlargement of the planet’s natural systems.”
Restoration in practice. Repair and restoration is important to reduce the isolation and vulnerability of surviving lowland forest/bush fragments (Park 1996b p 42), using principles such as:
· connecting-up the fragments, hence ‘bush corridors’ along streams or roadsides;
· adding to their area by extensions or duplication;
· buffering them from external stresses (including weeds, browsers, fire, drought);
· restoring ecological processes (self-sustaining eco-systems).
Island sites initially The first New Zealand restoration sites tackled comprehensively have been smaller islands such as Cuvier, Little Barrier and Kapiti (Mansfield 1996 pp4-7; Towns and
Ballantine 1993; Towns, Daugherty and Atkinson 1990; Waterhouse 1991 p35), where the aims have been to:
· first eradicate exotic pest animals (eg. rats, possums, mustelids, cats, goats) within the saltwater ‘moat’ which can deter re-invasion31;
· repair damage to plant and animal communities32 such as control of exotic weeds;
· re-introduce absent endemic animal species (typically: wetas, birds, lizards);
· demonstrate long-term commitment and willingness to experiment;
· try varied levels of public involvement, from exclusion to participation33;
31 A pre-condition for active restoration work is protection of endemic species from exotic plant competitor, animal browser and predator pests, without which both natural or artificial re-generation will be greatly handicapped (Atkinson 1994 p3) 32 the endemic animals are important because they have adapted to “disperse pollen and propagules, provide selective grazing pressures on plants; recycle and reallocate plant nutrients” (Keesing. Pers com 1997)
41 Rhys Taylor
Recently, DoC has begun to move the experiences and techniques to fenced ‘mainland islands’ (for Mapara - Bradfield and Flux 1996; for Karori in Wellington - Lynch 1995)
The additional difficulties facing mainland restoration sites, compared to small islands, include the ground and surface water impacts of up-stream landuses (Atkinson 1997 p73), and multiple easy re-invasion routes of pest plants and animals ‘across the fence’.
The bird-flight distance from established ‘reservoirs’of native seed and invertebrates especially affects the rates of spontaneous re-creation of plant communities34.
Types of restoration Planned intervention at a particular site may include some of the four approaches below
(Atkinson 1995 p14; Hobbs and Norton 1996 pp94-95; Meurk 1993 p17):
· Revegetation, for example on derelict mine or tip sites - using whichever native or exotic pioneer species can tolerate the harsh conditions (eg. Loss of shelter from sun and wind, disturbed groundwater levels, toxic heavy metals) or re-vegetation of exposed slopes after roadbuilding works, landslips or storm floods, initially to reduce soil erosion (Benecke; Baker and McCracken 1975);
· Rehabilitation applies when native species known to have existed on site prior to disturbance, are used to revegetate in preference to exotics (Ross, Mew, Jackson and Payne 1995; Davis, Langer and Ross 1997)
· Enrichment of a site, perhaps adding species recorded as historically present but displaced since human arrival by invasive exotic species - now to be controlled - as in Dept of Conservation species recovery programmes (DoC 1997 p32)
· Ecological restoration of sites to re-activate likely processes from their natural succession possibilities in the selected past time period. This uses plant material of local
33 The most extensive public participation in DoC island management occurs at Tiritiri Matangi Island, near Auckland (Galbraith and Hayson 1994; Craig, Mitchell et al 1995), one of the current case studies. For Soames Island public involvement see DoC (Wellington Conservancy) 1996. 34 For associations between native plants and native birds, see DoC 1997 Factsheet Tree Planting for Native Birds. An ecological study of plant and animal species population changes and experimental manipulation of colonisation rates in bush restoration on former farm paddocks is under way near Lincoln University (Wratten and Hutcheson 1997).
42 Rhys Taylor
genetic provenance (Timmins and Wassilieff 1984, Meurk 1997 p19), and may include boundary-extension (to create buffer zones around a core). Duplication of protected forest/bush remnants can counteract habitat fragmentation. This could include creation of corridors of native vegetation linking established and new sites (Wassilieff 1995; Meurk 1997 p20).
Ecological restoration tends to be site specific, labour intensive and requires continued management interventions over many years. Monitoring of progress is important
(Atkinson 1994 p3)35. Current uncertainties in restoration technique include:
· Who to involve locally (in addition to ecologists) in planning restoration?
· How to maximise planting and natural re-growth success?
· What is the long term effect of using different pioneer or nurse plants?
· How to establish appropriate animals within new plant communities?
· When human involvement can cease - when is it ‘self-sustaining’?
(Norton 1997; Wyant, Meganck and Ham 1995)
Typical stages in restoration may include: goal setting, site survey, choice of plants
(with a time-lag for seed or seedling collection within the ecological district, and nursery work36), site preparation and protection from weeds, planting and protection from pests, monitoring and maintenance, accelerated succession and connectance.
These stages are illustrated in the diagram (Keesing and Wratten 1997) below:
35 It is often hard to know whether and how restoration efforts succeed or fail, as natural systems are unpredictably dynamic, and the human interventions may have a mix of objectives. “Clear and measurable objectives such as a list of species are rarely set [...and] where local people are involved, the process of planning and carrying out a project is often more or just as important than the product itself. (Barker 1996) 36 Propagation of native plants requires special techniques. See Porteous (1993 Ch7) and Metcalf (1995).
43 Rhys Taylor
Fig.Four. Diagram showing ecological restoration process. (reproduced with author permission from Keesing and Wratten 1997 p233. Artist: Cor Vink.)
44 Rhys Taylor
Review 3. Who cares for the native bush?
An analysis of institutions This section extends the context from the previous question about why native bush is worth protecting, to ask who cares: is active, in which aspects and through which institutions? The table below attempts a categorization, and organisations appear under several headings. A critique and legislation review follows, while description of examples - those which are highlighted by shading in the table - appears in Appendix Eight. Particular attention is drawn to Appendix Eight(W8), introducing the Landcare Trust and Regional Councils as supporters of Care groups, and a document extract on benefits of Care groups from Environment Waikato (Van Rossem 1996).
Table One The institutional context
1. Buy or control land: 2. Land title covenants: 3. Fence protection: · NZ Native Forests · Queen Elizabeth II National · Nga Whenua Rahui (land in Restoration Trust Trust Maori ownership) · Forest Heritage Fund Grants · Forest Heritage Fund &Nga · Forest Heritage Fund (used by DoC and trusts) Whenua Rahui · District Councils (reserves) · DoC (outside the estate) · DoC (through Conservation Conservation covenants Corps and Cons. Vols.) · Department of Conservation · District Councils (eg. to · Regional Councils (small (for the conservation estate) extend existing reserve) grants) · Local Charitable Trusts · Charitable Trusts, farms · Charitable Trusts · iwi and hapu · Neighbouring farmers 4. Regulation and Rules 5. Sources of voluntary 6. Animal and plant pest affecting restoration: and visiting workforce: -control help: · District Plans (framework · Societies, Clubs, Service · Department of Conservation for resource consents, organisations, churches staff, Conservation Corps, conditions, and maybe some (group working bees & also Conservation Vols, also incentives) individuals) materials · Regional Policy Statements · DoC Conservation Vols., · Regional Councils (plans, and Plans, including Coastal Wilderness Trust, Fish and advice, pest identification) Plan Game Council · Iwi resource management · Schools (including Trees for · Landcare Research herb- plan - influences above two Survival Trust, Rotary arium, Botanic gardens, QE councils’ policies funded) II Nat Trust (identification) · District Rates rebate if land · Prisoners and Community · Recreational hunters, Fish is conservation covenanted Service Order placements and Game Council 7. Technical information 8. Networking between 9. Representation, and expertise: groups, training, advice: lobbying, submissions: · District and Regional · Landcare Trust regional · ECO, Forest and Bird Soc, Councils, professional officers, two newsletters local societies, reserve associations of staff management committees · Landcare Research, Botanic · Regional Council staff · Co-operation with DoC gardens, Universities, (especially if policy commits when ‘common cause’ NIWA, Agriculture NZ. liaison and training time) · Adult education courses · ECO, Forest and Bird Soc. · Community boards · Network of individuals · Some DoC conservancies · Councillors, MPs
45 Rhys Taylor
Appendix Eight illustrates examples of national voluntary organisations and public agencies37 involved in care for native bush in New Zealand, under the nine categories of
Table One, and Appendix Nine reviews literature on the development of Landcare and other ‘Care’ Groups (stream-care, coast-care, etc.). The ‘Care’ concept arrived in New
Zealand from Australia and has recently been promoted by Government, with voluntary sector partners.
The Legislative context New Zealand has unusual environmental legislation, with the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMAct) often commended internationally - more for its symbolic focus on sustainable management than for its application, as that is only partly tested until plans are in place throughout the country (Bührs and Bartlett 1993; OECD 1996; Bührs
1997). The RMAct decentralised environmental administration, taking it closer to the people, at the same time as a re-organisation of local government moved the administering authorities further from the people (see below). Direct action to care for the environment is not an explicit aim of the legislation, which is market-focussed, concerned with the environmental effects of land and water uses rather than planning who acts where. Citizen action to care for the environment may be enabled by the
RMAct, through imaginative interpretation by territorial and regional councils, including plan methods, delegations and contracts, grants, advice and education, (see Appendices and Gibbs 1994 p18).
37 Private sector sources of help are principally plant nurseries and landscape designers or other consultancies, and are not included. Local groups seeking help with bush restoration from commercial nurseries have a useful aid to plant identification and selection in The Quickfind Guide to Growing Native Plants (Crowe 1997). DoC has published a directory of conservation expertise (Adcock 1994).
46 Rhys Taylor
Citizen involvement Prior to re-organisation of state environmental agencies in 1987 and lengthy consultation on the Resource Management Bill in1989-90, resident community or citizens groups had not traditionally been involved in environmental management in
New Zealand. Such tasks as restoration of eroded areas and protection of forest remnants were the responsibility of private farmers or central and local government agencies in their role as landowners and regulators (Ryan and Siepen 1992). Since then,
Department of Conservation (James 1990b), Ministry for the Environment (Gibbs 1994) and Department of Internal Affairs (Blakeley 1997) among other agencies, have shown interest in the potential for citizen involvement, both as policy-making participants and in direct management.
The Resource Management Act and local government The key piece of legislation underpinning central, regional and district council interest in
‘Care’ approaches, and also guiding policy and planning rules affecting the sustainable mangement and protection of native bush, is the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMAct). The major re-organisation of local government38 and RMAct were developed in tandem after 1988. Taylor and Smith (1997 Ch4 p9) document the resource management law reform process. The RMAct decentralised functions across the new authorities as shown in Figure Five below.
The RMAct has sustainable management as its principal focus, but “the definition of sustainable management is open to interpretation and not widely understood” (Williams
1997 p13).
38 Local Government Amendment Acts of 1988 and 1989. See Bührs and Bartlett 1993 p120.
47 Rhys Taylor
Figure Five. The resource management administration system in New Zealand since RMAct
Central Government: 12 Regional Councils: 69 District & City Councils: and 4 Unitary Councils39 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (DoC) Regional Coastal Plan
Regional Policy Statement40
Other Regional Plans, (by topic, by river catchment..) National Policy Statements District Plan41 & environmental standards compatible with regional policy (Minister for Environment) statement & plans. - powers not used yet.
Source: RMAct 1991 sections.2,30,31.
Relevant sections of the RMAct RMAct section 5 (purpose) refers to protecting ‘the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems’ and section 6 requires District and City Councils to recognise and provide for ‘matters of national importance’ including:
· ‘The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development’ (s.6b); and
· ‘the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’ (s.6c).
39 Unitary Councils combine functions of region and district. They are Tasman, Marlborough, Gisborne and Nelson City, all areas with substantial native bush remnants. 40 Regions are responsible for natural resources (including plants and animals), soil conservation, quantity and flow and abstractions of river and ground water, discharges to land/air/water, natural hazards, hazardous substances, control of plantings in river beds, state of environment reporting. Before the RMAct there was little planning undertaken at regional level. 41 Districts and cities are responsible for land planning rules and sub-division controls, associated natural and physical resources, natural hazards, hazardous substances, surface water and noise. A small number of authorities are combined region and district, holding both functions simultaneously.
48 Rhys Taylor
In addition Section 7 instructs councils to maintain and enhance ‘amenity values’ and
‘the quality of environment’, and recognises ‘intrinsic value of ecosystems’. Section
9(4)c includes in the controls on land any ‘destruction of, damage to, or disturbance of the habitats of plants and animals in, on or under the land.’ Section 8 refers to the
Treaty of Waitangi and kaitiakitaka ( Maori concept of exercise of guardianship) in managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources.
Districts using the Environment Court to protect trees and bush The environmental effects-based approach used by RMAct relates directly to conservation and restoration of native bush, provided the effect of its loss (or gain) can be measured, valued and subjected to clear legal arbitration in the Environment Court.
Case law includes penalties imposed under the RMAct of a $3,000 fine plus costs for felling four 60 year old kauris in Waitakere42, $2,000 fine for felling a lancewood and damaging a pigeonwood in Christchurch43 and $2,500 fines each, for two people, for removing native bush on a subdivision without resource consent44 (Williams 1997), however a recent Taranakai Planning Tribunal decision to allow felling of bush on farmland despite the provisions of RMAct and Forests Amendment Act 1993 was considered “a set-back” (Wearing 1996a p8),.
Government agencies and environmental policy. The Ministry for Environment (MfE) and Ministry of Agriculture (MAF) are principally information and policy guidance providers, such as Environment 2010 Strategy (MfE
1995), not taking any direct action on bush restoration themselves, unlike Department
42 Waitakere City Council v Dalbeth. District Court, Henderson. CRN 4090014369. 20th October 1994. Judge Bollard. 43 Christchurch City Council v Kettle. District Court, Christchurch. CRN 5009024460-1. 28th September 1995. Judge Skelton. 44 Waitakere City Council v Hertzke. District Court, Henderson. CRN 5090023978-9, 5090018152-3, 2nd April 1996. Judge Treadwell. Also Hertze v Waitakere City Council [1996] NZRMA 428.
49 Rhys Taylor of Conservation (DoC), which directly manages the country’s largest surviving indigenous upland forests and many scattered patches of lowland forest (mapped in
DoC 1997 p7). Detail appears in Conservation Management Strategies and Plans45, prepared under the Conservation Act 1987 (DoC 1996 Factsheet).
In 1994 DoC had 45 restoration programmes in various habitat types (including 27% in mainland forest and scrub, 33% on islands) and more numerous pest control programmes, which significantly aid natural regeneration. The number of restoration programmes rose with adoption of six ‘mainland island’ sites for intensive animal pest control within fence barriers, to permit “comprehensive ecosystem restoration and an
46 experimental approach to management” (Saunders 1997; Mansfield 1996) .
A Biodiversity Strategy is in preparation to implement New Zealand Government ratification of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993 (DoC 1994b; DoC
1996 vol.1 p10).
DoC has primary responsibility on behalf of Government for the Environment 2010
Strategy goals of (a) protecting indigenous habitats and biological diversity, and (b) on the conservation estate, managing pests and weeds. The explicitly stated environmental values they seek to meet (DoC 1996 Factsheet), are:
· Access to the conservation estate for the public;
· Education through public awareness and advocacy for environment;
· Participation for the public through schemes such as ConservationVolunteers; involving iwi, voluntary organisations and business; and public consultation;
45 Conservation Management Plans for National Parks are required under the National Parks Act 1980. 46 DoC headquarters work in progress 1997, led by Alan Saunders, includes a Mainland Island Research Strategy, a review of the scientific information base (with Dave Towns) and criteria for selecting future sites (with Theo Stephens).
50 Rhys Taylor
· Protecting and securing cultural and historic heritage, with communities; and
· Meeting international convention and treaty obligations.
Indigenous Forestry Policy Indigenous forestry policy development in New Zealand has been described as “a fraught debate involving significant competing interests over a politically sensitive issue.” (McRae and Woods, 1996 p133 and p147). The Policy adopted by Government in 1990 aims to “maintain or enhance, in perpetuity, the current area of indigenous forest, either by protection47, sustainable management or reafforestation of native species.” (Cited in Harding 1994 p18). Of the three methods only ‘protection’ refers to intrinsic values or ecosystems, and the other two are utilitarian.
The purpose of the Forests Amendment Act 1993 (FAA, brought into effect in July
1996) is to promote, and regulate through sustainable forestry plans, the sustainable mangement of indigenous forest land, “in a way that maintains the ability of the forest growing on that land to provide a full range of products and amenities in perpetuity while retaining the forest’s natural values”. FAA does not protect forest against complete clearance, nor exempt forest owners from the RMAct controls through
District Plans and Regional Policy Satements (See section W4 in Appendix Eight).
Summary and prospect This section, and the supporting Appendix, selectively identify legislation48, organisations and their practices. Taken together, they form the institional context.
It illustrates the institutional complexity facing any individual who wishes to be both involved and fully informed. However, to become an active bush restoration volunteer,
47 for which the Forest Heritage Fund and Nga Whenua Rahui were created. See W1 and W3 in Appendix. Eight 48 for a fuller list of NZ environmental legislation see Taylor and Smith (1997 Ch4 p11) and for MfE Guidelines issued under the RMAct see (op cit Ch 4 p15)
51 Rhys Taylor complete knowledge is not necessary. Referring back to Figure One, it may be that knowledge of this complex institutional context is held only by advisors or a leader in a citizens group. More significant to public participation in bush restoration or similar environment management may be the (a) individual motivation to volunteer and, within volunteering (b) to become involved in environmental rather than other social issues.
These are addressed in the next section, in preparation for which the Venn Diagram
Figure Five below may be useful
Figure Five. Bush restoration as outdoor leisure overlapping with environment volunteering.
52 Rhys Taylor
Review 4. Why ‘volunteer’ time to manage the environment?
This section commences with brief analysis of New Zealand leisure experience, especially outdoor leisure. The contextual focus then moves to the phenomenon of volunteering as a ‘serious’ leisure activity and to motivational psychology - to address the question: why volunteer? The section includes discussion of constraints on volunteering and the motivators of environmental volunteering. The associated Appendix.... draws on surveys of public opinion on the importance of evironmental issues, and on surveys of environmental volunteering, but mostly from outside New Zealand, as surveys were not available here.
Outdoor and indoor leisure Leisure is “the free, spare, or uncommitted time, in which discretion can be exercised”
(Parker 1983 p8)49.
The Life in New Zealand Survey (Cushman, Laidler, Russell, Wilson, Herbison 1991) and subsequnt MRL Research Group (1994) survey have confirmed that the most popular recreational activities are sedentary, usually in or close to home such as gardening, reading and watching television. Outdoor leisure is a minority interest but use of the conservation estate (‘backcountry’) for casual recreation, such as tramping, doubled between 1970 and 1985 (Davison 1986). Half of all New Zealanders visit a forest and one sixth a National Park for recreation once in a given year (Booth Peebles
1995 p33). Outdoor recreationists tend to be from a highly educated portion of the population: up to 50% have full or part tertiary qualifications (Devlin et al.1995 p 45).
49 There are exceptions: ‘structural unemployment’ refers to a portion of the able-bodied population who have enforced leisure as they wish to work but can find no employer, whilst some in full-time work (particularly hourly-paid workers on low pay; and some salaried managers and salespeople) find their work hours increasing and leisure time consequently squeezed.
53 Rhys Taylor
A majority of outdoor recreation takes place in the urban reserves and domains, and of leisure facilities closer to the urban population, the most popular places for outdoor recreation (in Cushman et al 1991) are a combined category of beaches/rivers/lakes, ranked immediately behind shopping centres and before restaurants as the most frequently used leisure settings for adults. Urban parks and domains came seventh in this list, national or forest parks 13th. Devlin (1995 p35) confirms that beaches and lakes are well ahead of forests in popularity for casual leisure.
Gender and age factors within outdoor leisure Trampers tend to be young and single (or partnered, but with no children) and in professional or semi-professional occupations. An increase in older-age trampers has been noted in the 1990s, particularly guided groups (DoC 1994). Retired women are more active walkers and gardeners than when they were younger (Laidler and Cushman
1993).
Fishing and hunting have an older age profile and are predominantly male (Devlin et al
1995 p51), and there are more men than women in a wide range of active ‘rugged’ outdoor recreation activities (up to two times more: Booth 1989) especially the activities presented in New Zealand Pakeha culture as ‘heroic quests’ (Warren 1988), but equality of gender is found in guided activities and the ‘journey-type’ activities of motor sightseeing and short walks50.
Women and men over 65 “are adamant in their opinion that free time should not be wasted in idleness; that participation is preferable to mere spectating; and that physical
50 A review of factors constraining womens’ participation in New Zealand outdoor leisure is provided by Simpson (1993, and subsequent work with Dann) and internationally by Henderson (1990).
54 Rhys Taylor fitness is a desirable goal at which to direct leisure...” (Laidler and Cushman 1993 p344).
Constraints to leisure activity Crawford and Godbey (1987) have identified three types of constraints to leisure activities:
1. Intra-personal such as perceptions of own skill, psychological state and health, effect of prior socialisation, attitudes/values and worldview;
2. Inter-personal such as finding suitable partner(s) for an activity, attitudes of peers and household affecting the preference for and participation in an activity, means of acquiring necessary knowledge/skills;
3. Structural constraints such as lack of free time because of family obligations, transport, weather/climate, equipment/clothing, availability and knowledge of the opportunity or specific skills required51.
Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) claim that these constraints are encountered hierarchically, starting with intrapersonal constraints. If these first constraints can be negotiated, a leisure preference is formed (say, interest in environmental management).
Next there may be constraints at the interpersonal level (say, identifying and feeling comfortable with a group of like-minded volunteers) and finally the structural constraints (suitable project, accessible place, time, having right equipment).
The first, intrapersonal or psychological constraint level is the most important barrier to participation. Its significant role justifies the inclusion of material on values and worldviews earlier in this study52. Shared values also provide a means of social control
51 as illustrated in the Howard and Crompton list, above. People stopped at the earlier constraints/barriers would not have been available as interviewees. 52 Refer back to Figure One. where value position, influenced by culture and society, appears as a starting point in a citizen’s decision path to becoming an environmental volunteer
55 Rhys Taylor within groups, replacing the paid workplace’s typical controlling influences of reward and sanction power. (Etzioni 1961 cited in Argyle 1996 p253.)
Volunteering as ‘serious leisure’ Time at leisure may be used for ‘casual’ involvement in sports53, or being entertained and socialising with friends and family, or alternatively for three ‘more serious leisure’ types of amateurism, hobby activity or volunteering, which produce little or no remuneration, even when they may look like ‘work’ to an un-informed observer.
Characteristics of voluntering as ‘serious leisure’ which in combination distinguish it from ‘casual leisure’of socialising or sports, include:
· significant personal effort based on specially acquired knowledge and/or skill;
· the occasional need to persevere, or ‘stick with it’;
· tendency for long term involvement and career-like progression;
· participants identify strongly with their chosen pursuits, and present themselves in terms of these when in conversation with strangers;
· participants associate with a distinct ethos or social world-view;
· eight ‘durable benefits’ are often found: self-actualisation, self-enrichment, self- expression, recreation of renewal of self, feelings of accomplishment, enhancement of self-image, social interaction and belongingness, and in some cases - lasting physical products54.
‘Voluntary work’ may be defined as: “the performance of an action by someone of their own free will, without remuneration, which provides a service to the community.”
53 As early as the 1970s, as many New Zealanders were involved in each of walking, sea-fishing and house maintenance as rugby, and more in gardening, reading and 11 other categories, despite the prevalent ‘sporting image’ of the country (Gidlow et al 1990). 54 See Maslow’s Hierarchy (1954) described below: these are many of his ‘higher’ needs.
56 Rhys Taylor
(Barnett 1996 p6). This definition helps to separate voluntary work from paid part-time work (such as ‘volunteer retained firefighter’) and from ‘domestic work’55.
Volunteering or voluntary work is distinguished from other serious leisure by the addition of altruism to the self-interested motivation (Argyle 1996 p254) and by a helping orientation, often on delegated tasks provided by institutions. In contrast, both amateurism and hobbyists tend to be culturally-focussed, and more self-interested in motivation. Thus, as an example, the keen hobby gardener would work on his/her own private garden, but the volunteer (which could be the same individual at another time) would use their gardening skills in service of others, away from their own property.
Characteristics of volunteers To social psychologists, volunteers are measurably more sociable than non volunteers, have higher self-confidence and self-esteem (Argyle 1996 p258), and are high in empathy (Pearce 1993, cited in Argyle p254)
The volunteer is often a special kind of helper in someone else’s occupational world.
Welfare service volunteers assisting professional social workers are an example, as are the voluntary wardens and rangers working alongside professionals in Auckland’s
Regional Parks (Howson 1995 pers com)
Data on volunteering in NZ Volunteering has been studied in less detail in New Zealand than the UK (see Appendix
Seven), but the 1990 Pilot Time Use Survey (Department of Statistics 1991) showed that only 7% of the population were actively involved as volunteers for the delivery of services, including welfare, although 40% had been involved in some form of ‘unpaid
55 Domestic work benefits the household principally, but Waring (1988) contests its continued political de- valuation, for example by exclusion from The National Accounts.
57 Rhys Taylor
work’ outside their home in the preceding four weeks, and one in eight had done over
15 hours per week of such voluntary work56. The three most common activity
categories were fundraising and administration for groups; informal help for people; and
unpaid work in schools and playgroups. The Statistics Department used this survey to
estimate that $4.5 billion worth of unpaid labour is contributed annually in New
Zealand.(Malcolm, Rivers and Smythe 1993).
Tim Barnett (1996 p18) notes that married people57 are more likely to volunteer than
the single, as are New Zealand rural residents: “under greater pressure to volunteer due
to limited public services”, and also people earning higher incomes - especially from
professional and managerial occupations58. Women slightly more often volunteer than
men59. (Footnotes provide a UK comparison)
Barnett notes a resurgence of Maori community confidence and claims that young
Maori and people of Pacific Island descent were significantly more likely to volunteer
than young Pakeha60, but the pattern is reversed with people over the age of 44, an
earlier generation61.
56 A quarter of older women were involved in voluntary work in Laidler and Cushman 1993. 57 The most active UK volunteers were also married, middle-aged, and Protestant (Lemon, Palisi and Jacobson 1972 cited in Argyle 1996 p251). 58 Class differences were the strongest predictor of who volunteers in the UK: middle class, richer and more educated people do more, except in community care (Knapp and Davis-Smith 1995). Middle class people were also disproportionately represented in committee membership, talks and training, advice-giving, which uses their likely work skills (‘spillover theory’ of leisure. Argyle op cit p250). As beneficiaries from society they may be consciously putting back something in exchange (‘exchange theory’ of leisure. Argyle op cit p251). 59 Women provided about twice as many voluntary hours as men in the UK (Gershuny and Jones 1987 cited in Argyle 1996 p249), and are were more likely to volunteer for community care (Knapp and Davis-Smith 1995). 60 People from minority ethnic groups in the UK were more likely to volunteer in community care than other aspects of volunteering such as environment (Knapp and Davis-Smith 1995) 61 See Appendix Four for note on Maori cultural concepts parallel to European ‘volunteering’
58 Rhys Taylor
Trends in volunteering Barnett (1996 pp19-21) identifies several recent trends in New Zealand volunteering:
· decrease in women’s total voluntary hours as their workforce participation rises;
· longer-lived population producing more retired people as potential volunteers;
· young unemployed people seeking work experience and volunteering more readily (including the semi-volunteering of Community Task Force: participants receive an allowance on top of unemployment benefit);
· increased responsibility devolved to volunteers for management of schools, and to health charities for some caring services, demanding skilled volunteer time;
· increasing co-ordination, recognition and professionalisation of volunteer management, eg. through training, use of job descriptions, recruitment through Volunteer Centres).
Constraints on the extent of volunteering Many factors affect the extent of volunteering and the intensity of volunteering in a population. Gender, class and some ethnic differences are reflected in rates of voluntary participation. Perceived lack of time is a key limitation (raised by 51% of the young respondents to a Christchurch survey: Baker and Newbold 1996 p8). Lack of visibility of volunteering opportunities and need for help with ‘out of pocket expenses’ are limitations known to volunteer centres (Barnett 1996 p24). Lack of organiser awareness of volunteers’ training and support needs can be a handicap (Lloyd 1981).
Health, age and mobility are also significant influences (Cushman et al 1991).
Staying involved Once commenced in voluntary environmental work, remaining involved is influenced by the volunteer’s many psychological needs, as well as structural factors. Social psychologist Michael Argyle (1996 p253) recommends volunteers to start gradually, allowing time for the organisation culture to be understood (typically it is non- hierarchical, which is a contrast to the explicit status differences between staff in most
59 Rhys Taylor paid workplaces). Secondly, this psychologist recommends providing training to build confidence and competence, and showing appreciation as the volunteer becomes able to move to more complex tasks.
How leadership power is exercised has a key role in providing these conditions for success, and the two most useful styles in voluntary organisations are ‘referent power’
(leader is liked and admired by others, perhaps even charismatic in holding project vision), and ‘expert power’ (leader has technical and organisational knowledge which is in short supply, and valued by others)62.
Volunteers focussed on the environment The Hilary Commission survey (1990) and the 1986 New Zealand Census showed 16% of declared volunteers involved in community and environmental services (among a longer list). More recently, 14% of young volunteers surveyed in Christchurch (Baker and Newbold 1996 p21) said ‘environmental work’ was one of their activities in the previous 12 months; compared to 34% in fundraising, and 33% were not involved in any voluntary work.
Research under way since the late 1970s (Dunlap and Van Liere 1984, Cotgrove 1982,
Milbrath 1984) has assessed the extent to which individuals in Westernised countries who are concerned for the state of environment have a different world-view, labelled
‘the new environmental paradigm’. This paradigm (NEP) showed more strongly in younger than older adults in the 1980s, more in the highly educated and more often in
62 Progressively less useful types of leadership power in voluntary organisations are: information power (the gatekeeper to information); legitimate power (authority from elected or appointed position rather than personal qualities); reward power (controller of social advancement or access to more interesting voluntary activities) and coercive power (applies sanctions - but volunteers soon leave).
60 Rhys Taylor women than men63 (Larson et al 1982, Milbrath 1984), which parallels the section of the population more likely to volunteer, except for the age-group (although that young generation is now 15 years older, and raising families themselves).
As a phenomenon NEP can be linked to literature on ‘new social movements’ which aim to transform society (eg. Habermas 1981) and to studies of environment and behaviour (eg. Stern et al 1993). Environmental group members tend to give higher values to nature, show greater compassion for other peoples and species, and give less weight to material wealth or economic growth than the general public (Manzo and
Weinstein 1987 p 677; see also public opinion surveys from outside NZ, cited in
Appendix Seven): this defines them as part of an ‘environmental movement’.
Is environmental concern discretionary? Manzo et al (1987) suggest that “environmentally-supportive actions are more prevalent among people who are higher on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs”, i.e. give higher ranking to values related to aesthetic needs and to self-actualisation, but lower ranking to security and control. Maslow (1954) argued that it is difficult for someone to be concerned about such complex, higher needs if basic, lower needs like food, shelter and safety are not met, and he attempted to place these in a ‘universalised’ hierarchy, as depicted in his diagram, below:
63 A study of American students by Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993 p340) found: “women apparently more accepting than men of messages that link environmental conditions to potential harm to themselves, to other people and other species or the biosphere...findings consistent with the argument in feminist theory that women tend to see a world of inherent interconnections, wheras men tend to see a world of clearly separate subjects and objects, with events abstracted from their contexts.” Other research (Mohai 1992) found that American women appear to express stronger concern than men for local environmental issues, but the difference between the sexes is smaller for national issues. If applicable to NZ bush restoration projects, these findings would predict [young] women, more frequently than men, advocating care locally for the living community or ‘ecosystem’ of which they feel a part.
61 Rhys Taylor
- self- actualisation ------aesthetic and cognitive needs: knowledge, understanding goodness, justice, order, beauty ------esteem needs: competence, approval, recognition ------belongingness and love needs: affiliation, acceptance, affection ------safety needs: security, psychological safety, control ------physiological needs: food, water, shelter ------
Figure Six. based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Stern et al (1993) and De Young (1996) tested a model of willingness to take action with regard to the environment. They found that three orientations were involved, labelling them three ‘intrinsic satisfactions’:
· being concerned for the environment (biospheric, eco-centric worldview, NEP)64;
· being concerned with society and others beyond self (altruistic concern, also other species, habitats)65;
· being concerned with self (seeking enjoyment, physical, material or social status benefits)
A volunteering opportunity which contained all three of these ‘intrinsic satisfactions’ would attract volunteers and retain their commitment (Ringer 1996; Dwyer et al 1993)
64 This is explored by Eckersley (1992), Devall (1988) and Milbrath (1984 op cit) and illustrated by opinion surveys cited in the Appendix. 65 This is based on work by Schwartz (1977) and Vining and Ebreo (1992) on ‘moral norm activation’, derived from society and within the person, and also relates to the ‘why care’ section of this review.
62 Rhys Taylor
Both noted that extrinsic motivators (such as rewards or coercion) onlyachieve short term effect. Intrinsic controls are the only ways to long-term behavioural commitment, and they have to be constructed by the volunteer through experience.
Selfish and sociable environmental action ‘Community development’ specialist Alan Twelvetrees (1982 p77) found anthropocentric and selfish concerns the strongest motivator of participation in UK community projects, often focussed on a rather small ‘home area’ (op cit p75). Saul
Alinsky (1971) reached the same conclusion from USA community action experience in the 50s and 60s, pre-dating the ‘New Environmental Paradigm’ altruistic generation
(Milbrath 1984).
Manzo and Weinstein (1987 p688) found that the single most significant influence on level of activity within group members of the Sierra Club (a USA environmental organisation) was the sociable aspect, the reward of making friends, and that without friendship-making, paid-up members did not convert to activists66.
Friendship-building between neighbours and selfish interests (property appearance and value enhancement) emerged as stronger motivational influences than altruism (such as voluntary tree planting on a nearby public domain) in a recent Lincoln University study of participation in Nottingham Stream Enancement, one of the Christchurch City
66 Within the Sierra Club, “active and non-active members did not differ significantly in age, sex, employment status, length of membership, environment location whilst growing up, having a mentor or model who stimulated environmental awareness, joining because of involvement in a specific controversy, or membership of other organisations” Manzo & Weinstein 1987 p690
63 Rhys Taylor
Council’s Waterway Enhancement schemes (Crean, Milne and Taylor 1997)67. This raises the question of whether restoration of a patch of public or trust-owned native bush is more or less selfish than enhancing appearance of a streambank at the end of one’s own private garden, and prompts the response that it is probably less selfish/more altruistic, unless you also own or gain status from the bush area (perhaps as a trustee).
Measurement of the contribution, if any, of ‘socially valued’ accessible suburban bush remnants such as Riccarton Dean’s Bush in Christchurch to raising nearby house sale values deserves research. There is evidence from the USA of house site values being raised in proximity to urban parks (cited in Crean, Milne and Taylor 1997).
It may not matter if the motivation to volunteer for an environmental project is in part on selfish grounds, provided other volunteers’ different, perhaps altruistic motivation, is not undermined: much depends on the leader(s) skills and the quality of social interaction.
Intrinsic rewards De Young’s (1996 p399) study of motivation for domestic-scale materials recycling suggests that behaviours which are ‘active, frugal, creative and working to maintain social harmony all seem to contain their own reward.’ Even when these intrinsic rewards were present, barriers to beginning ‘recycling behaviour’ included ignorance of how, procedurally, to change, even when the value was understood, ie. why68. “This helps explain why familiarity and prior experience are such effective predictors of future behaviour” (De Young 1996 p 400; see also Craig 1987 p82)69 It could be predicted
67 This did not invalidate the significant environmental gains of natural riparian habitat re-creation in the process. 68 as demonstrated also by Vining and Ebreo (1990) and Simmons and Widmar (1990). 69 The case study interviewees for the current report were asked about the role and impact of any group members’ previous involvement in bush restoration, and when such experience was present it did appear to boost confidence and speed of action, as predicted.
64 Rhys Taylor from this that once involved in bush restoration, volunteers would go on more confidently to tackle futher sites.
Summary. This section and the associated appendices have identified motivators of volunteering and of care for environment, including the selfish (economic, status), social and intrinsic as well as altruistic. ‘Worldview’ is important as it influences both the decision to volunteer and the initial focus on environment. Ability to volunteer is constrained by stage in life, from busy schoolchild to more flexible tertiary student, from busy young parents and home-makers to more leisured retired age group, and there is a special class of middle-aged professionals who appear to be volunteering despite being busy at work. The final aspect of context is whether citizen groups choose to lead or are led in their environmental volunteering, such as bush restoration..
65 Rhys Taylor
Review 5. Why citizen-led? Leadership and Partnerships
This final section of the context chapter examines citizen involvement and local leadership in environmental projects, the nature of ‘empowerment’ and partnerships of mutual benefit between citizens groups and bodies in authority (ie. power) positions.
In Chapter One the distinction was made between citizen-led action and agency-led action which involves citizens (Arnstein 1969). Care for the environment can occur through both routes, so why is a distinction important?
For individuals who wish to volunteer for practical environmental projects but have no preference of place and no commitment to regular involvement, it is convenient if someone else does the organising and simply tells them where and when to turn up.
DoC Conservation Volunters holidays, Conservation Week public events and some local authority and voluntary group ‘working bees’ are of this type, and for many people will provide their first, fleeting experience of conservation activity. However, where a voluntary group of citizens wish to care for a particular site on a long-term basis, this casual approach to site management is no longer possible, at least for the core of organisers or leaders.
Waiting for local authorities or DoC to lead? Waiting for a local authority to act, for bush restoration on land which they control may be harder and longer now in the 1990s than the 1980s, as there are fewer and more-
66 Rhys Taylor distant local authorities, and these are more tightly constrained by central government
(Hucker 1996 p54). Similar financial constraints apply on DoC managed land outside the National Parks and their priority projects (Mainland Island restoration sites). Local groups may wish to act now, before habitats degrade further.
It may also suit the authorities, or government agencies, to see citizens’ energy directed into creative local environmental management (tackled by themselves) rather than into dissident lobbying for official action, which would require bureaucratic and political movement away from pre-set priorities (Mobray 1992 p50; Barr 1995 p128).
Lest this seem too cynically phrased, it must be added that a growing body of overseas experience supports the full participation of local communities (through citizen groups, and other stakeholders such as education and business) in conservation project management, especially where the citizens are pro-active, and initiate action70. (Allen
1997; Bamberger 1988; Berkes 1989; Bryant 1995; Fleming 1992; Furze, DeLacy and
Birkhead 1996; IUCN 1996a, 1996b; Little, 1994; Pilisuk, McAllister and Rothman
1996; Pinkney-Baird 1993c; Strum 1994.)
Elsewhere in this contextual review reference is made to the environmental education approach of ‘learning by doing’, or experiential learning (Hungerford and Volk 1990;
Robertson 1994) such as through Care groups (see Appendices) using the approach articulated by Van Rossem (as quoted in MfE 1993 p 33:) “Preferably you focus on a
70 and in New Zealand: Allen and Bosh, 1996; Flood, Cocklin and Parnell 1993; Van Rossem 1995; Ritchie 1997.
67 Rhys Taylor problem that’s in people’s backyards and where they can take ownership of the whole project. It is not just providing information but empowering them to take some action so that they can take responsibility to resolve that particular issue.”
Empowerment Empowerment has been variously defined as:
(1) “a change in capacity or control, or an increase in both power and the ability to utilize it” (Arai and Pedlar1997 p170);
(2) “the organised efforts of disempowered groups of citizens to increase control over resources and the regulation of instututions” (Abbott 1995 p159);
(3) “active promotion of participation in communities in taking decisions which affect them, in identifying and responding to needs and opportunities... in the control and ownership of local assets” (Barr 1995 p122).
These sources agree that a key starting point for empowerment is citizens’ exercise of choice of how they are involved (Gibert and Ward 1984 p771) and that government needs to ‘give permission’ politically for local initiative, which is an act of ‘taking power’. The ladder or steps model shown in Chapter One (Arnstein 1969) suggests changing degrees of empowerment at each step, from manipulation f the powerless by authority at the low level to partnership and power delegation at the higher level.
The power to manage native bush in public ownership can be offered by a local authority, or DoC or other bodies, moving in steps - from information, to consultation, to delegation as mutual trust and confidence grows, and as the necessary skills are
68 Rhys Taylor aquired by the citizens group. The case studies include some examples. Alternatively, a local group could claim power by fundraising for title purchase71 of and then conservation covenanting of a site currently in other hands (usually farmland), as some of the charitable trust case studies have done.
Empowerment is not a finite entity, so there is no simple zero-sum game in which one player gains at the other’s loss (Barr 1995 p124): “Alliances may be mutually empowering. This possibility of synergy may arise, for example, if the objectives of the authority/agency are compatible with those of a particular community [citizens] group.
The capacity to achieve the desired outcome may be enhanced by partnership activity.”
It may be such “partnerships” that New Zealand Ministry for the Environment hopes for in the Sustainable Land Management Strategy (MfE 1995 p17), but in Australia the
Federal and State Government partnerships with landcare groups involve much more significant investment of public resources to aid the farmer- and rural citizen-led ‘Care’ groups than we have yet seen in New Zealand.
The Australian experience warns that “citizen participation should not be confused (as bureaucracies have a tendency to do) with community consultation, where all the power
71 The propery right purchase brings with it management powers (Gray 1995), and the Western pre-occupation with property rights makes management of land valued and enjoyed as commons, such as some native bush, more difficult. Collective land management, as in Maori society, leads more naturally to collective management responsibility - hence concepts of whanau and hapu holding the kaitiaki role deciding what management is required in the community interest.
69 Rhys Taylor and decision-making responsibility remains with the bureaucracy.” (Woodhill and
Wilson 1992 p267, citing Martin and Lockie 1992).
From experiences with citizen groups and authorities in Canada, UK and New Zealand,
Carole Donaldson (pers com 1996) characterises the institutional constraints facing more widespread empowerment of citizen-led groups (environmental and other) as:
· ignorance, especially of the process of empowerment;
· lack of commitment, both to the intent (ie, placation) or to providing resources;
· retaining control of expert knowledge, and of defining ‘outcome measures’;
· fear of change, through inertia and also discomfort with new processes.
The experts vs. The amateur citizens From the viewpoint of the ‘technocratic elite’ (Fischer 1990) it is easy to criticise amateur enthusiasts planting native trees, for “their inefficiency, banality and bad landscape design” (Swaffield 1997 pers com.) but, as he says, this is more constructively addressed through information, education and support, so that voluntary is no longer so ‘amateur’. With knowledge plus experience, participants gain a greater feeling of control and often the confidence to learn from more technical information, which allows the system to move to higher quality outcomes (Hartley, Riches and Davis
1992 p220) 72.
72 These Australian researchers of Landcare list relevant aspects of empowerment, including: self-confidence; recognition of problems; defined and ‘owned’ goals; roles that are understood; access to resurces; awareness of limitations.
70 Rhys Taylor
A recent study of community-based environmental data-monitoring by Lincoln researcher James Lambie (1997 pers com.) is exploring ‘conditions for success’73.
Although the task outcomes studied by Lambie are technical monitoring information, his focus is firstly on group dynamics, participant experiences and systems. Bush restoration projects in the case studies share this people-centered character, as do the
Australian Landcare groups: see McWaters (1997); Davies and Smith (1992 p194);
Hartley, Riches and Davis (1992). This approach contrasts to traditional ‘agricultural extension’ advice, in which technocratic expertise predominated (Vanclay 1995, 1997;
Greer and Greer 1996). The guidance materials published for Care and similar groups are not just environmental manuals (such as Porteous 1993) but guides to group-skills and leadership for community action (Carpenter, McFarlane and Youl 1997; Chamala and Mortiss 1990; Womens Division Federated Farmers 1995)74.
This section has suggested that empowerment of citizens groups can be a partnership with ‘enabling’ authorities or agencies ( as sources of funds, advisory expertise, training, etc), but does this happen in practice to bush restoration groups?
73 These include a strategy for good scientific support; sufficient financial backing that volunteers do not have to pay to be involved; a co-ordinated structure for communication with volunteers; a network for links between inititives to share experience; and community outreach (publicity) to aid recruitment of further volunteers 74 And in the USA: Hein (1993), Western Entrepreneurial Network (1992).
71 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Chapter Four
Survey findings and analysis
The interviews
Some interviewees75 had leading roles, others were active voluntary supporters, but all were sufficiently well-informed of project aims, historical development and current activity for the research purpose. The Privacy Act requires protection of individual identity. Therefore random numbers 1-16 have been assigned to the projects and their associated interviewees (1A, 1B, etc). However, the interviewees gave permission for their projects to be identified, and they appear in alphabetical order (not their number order) in Table Two with the locations shown on Figures Eight and Nine 76.
Who volunteers? A profile of the interviewees
Ages ranged from 14 to over 75 years, with an average of 50 years. Figure.... below:
Age Profile 4 Women 3 3 3 Women 2 2
0-10 yr 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 1 2 Men 3 Men 4
6
Figure Seven Age and gender profile of interviewees, grouped by decade.
75 Interview procedures are described in the methodology chapter, and the interview schedule appears at Appendix Six, with notes on good practice applied to its design in Appendix Five 76 Maps preparation by Anne Griffiths, on a base map developed from Fisher and Forde 1994. Rhys Taylor Survey findings
The case study projects
Project Name Group Name Affiliation Region Barton’s Bush Conservation Committee, Royal Forest and Bird Wellington Upper Hutt Branch... Protection Society
Eel Creek Addington Bush Society independent Canterbury ‘backyard reserve’ The Heritage Wairewa/Little River independent Canterbury Park Heritage Park Trust
Kakahu Bush The South Canterbury independent, RFBPS aided Canterbury Conservation Trust
Kakahu and Okoroire Streamcare Group independent, Environment Waikato Waiomu Waikato aided Riverbanks Keeble’s Bush C T Keeble Memorial Forest Manawatu Branch RFBPS Manawatu- extension Trust aided Wanganui
Kennedy’s Bush Summit Road Protection independent, Christchurch Canterbury Society City Council aided
Lower Fyffe- Kaikoura Branch... Royal Forest and Bird Canterbury Palmer Protection Society Walkway Motatau forest Te Runanga o Ngati Hine independent, but DoC and Northland protection and Landcare Research aided management Ngaio Gorge Trelissick Park-Ngaio Gorge independent, but Wellington Wellington restoration Working Group City Council aided
Raumati Kapiti Environmental independent, but aided by Wellington escarpment Action Kapiti Coast District Council Tavora reserve Yellow-Eyed Penguin Trust independent Otago
Te Waikorare Riverston Estuary Care independent, but aided by Southland reserve Society Southland District Council
Tomahawk Dunedin Teen Greens Royal Forest and Bird Otago Lagoons Protection Society
Tiritiri Matangi Supporters of Tirititi independent, but aided by Auckland Island Matangi Dept. Of Conservation
Wainui reserve Whaingaroa Harbour Care independent, but aided by Waikato Waikato District Council
Table Two The case study projects
73 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Figure Eight .North Island Map.
74 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Figure Nine South Island map
75 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Analysis by occupation
In terms of current occupation, or that pre-retirement or pre-family break, the interviewee sample comprised (using classification groups from NZ Department of
Statistics Standard Classification of Occupations 1995):
14 educators at primary, secondary, or tertiary level (Group 2)
6 horticulture, plant nursery (Group 6)
4 community care, health care (Group 2)
4 scientists, researchers (Group 2)
5 central or local government officers (Groups 1 and 2)
3 farmers (Group 6)
3 landscapers (Group 6)
3 clerical, office administration (Group 4)
4 service business, self-employment (Group 3)
2 school students
Occupational groups not represented among interviewees include:
Group 5 - service and sales workers
Group 7 - trades workers
Group 8 - plant and machine operators and assemblers
Group 9 - elementary occupations
This evidence accords with previous international studies (Almond and Verba 1963;
Curtis 1971; Hardee 1961; McPherson and Lookwood 1980) suggesting that the
‘serious leisure activity’ of volunteering attracts extensively-educated people, often with professional occupations and above-average income.
76 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Group structure, skills and activity
Legal structure and landholding Eleven of the project groups are legally incorporated societies, including three branches of Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, who use the national body’s incorporated status. Five groups are charitable trusts, employing trust status to own the sites they manage, and three of these are seeking protective legal covenants with Queen Elizabeth
II National Trust.
None of the organisations are controlled by local authorities although eight operate on reserve or riparian-strip land owned by local authorities or the Crown. Two are on
Conservation Estate sites which are the responsibility of Department of Conservation
(DoC).
Management Both the societies and trusts tend to designate their leading officers as chairperson, secretary, and treasurer. Men appeared predominant in the chairperson roles and men were named by inteerviewees more frequently than women as early instigators of the projects. However, women’s participation rates in the groups today are high and in terms of group membership totals they sometimes outnumber the men. It was not difficult to find active and centrally-involved women to be interviewed in most groups.
77 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Skills of active members The groups have access to considerable skills within their voluntary trustees or committee membership. Each group’s interviewees named (unprompted) at least four distinct types of skill available and some as many as nine, including their own contribution. In decreasing frequency of listing, they are:
· biologists, botanists or ecologists;
· horticulture or commercial plant nursery;
· secretarial or administrative efficiency;
· local networking and contacts;
· writing for plans or submissions;
· previous native plant experience (identification, growing);
· mechanics and handypeople, including building trades;
· media, publishing, marketing;
· local authority knowledge, liaison;
· tikaka Maori;
· fish and streamlife;
· farming;
· fundraising experience.
The bush restoration focus
Ten of the groups focussed all or a majority of their voluntary activity on ecological restoration of a bush area and for six work on the site in question is a significant minority activity; the latter including some groups with membership numbers over 100.
78 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
The larger groups are active in management of more than one site, and also (typically) organise tramps, guest lectures and writing resource management submissions.
Ecological restoration of native bush was an explicit aim of most groups from their formation and remained central, in some cases with the addition of secondary aims such as opening access walkways, site use for education or seeking to influence surrounding landholders in order to increase the cumulative local effect on habitat protection or creation.
The voluntary work experience
Each group’s range of voluntary work was surveyed, through the interviews and supporting written material, to identify what organisational and physical tasks or activities are most often involved in bush restoration projects (Figure Ten overleaf.)
79 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Recent activities in the sample of bush restoration projects
Figure Ten project activities.
Planting shrubs 1 and trees. 5 Seed harvesting, 1 grow seedlings. 2 Weed control, 1 releasing plants. 1 Site surveys, 1 monitoring spp. 0 Provide training & 1 employment. 0 Access tracks, 9 stiles, bridges. Publish group 9 newsletter. Management 8 planning. Fundraising, grant 8 applications Fencing-out 7 livestock Involving young 7 people & schools. Celebration and 7 social events Encouraging in situ 6 seed regeneration. Animal pests traps, 6 poison, deterrence. Signs or leaflets or 6 interpretation. Media liaison, 6 public events. Resource consent 5 submissions. Removal of exotic 4 tree species.
Alongside this listing of activities, qualitative questions asked which aspects interviewees thought have been ‘technically easiest’ or ‘hardest’to organise, and secondly, those they felt ‘emotionally easiest’ and ‘hardest’. Replies can be related to the basic research questions about motivation of volunteers and illuminate both strengths and weaknesses of voluntary action. They may identify barriers to enabling or inducing more extensive voluntary action in this field:
80 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
‘Technically easiest part’ The most frequently mentioned of a wide variety were collecting and propagating seed from native plants (five responses) and planting seedlings (six responses).
Individual strengths (usually corresponding to one or more skills available to the group described elsewhere in their interview), featured in references to technical ease of fundraising (interviewees 6A and 15A), integrated and comprehensive planning (15B), making submissions to local authorities (8A), construction work (3B), setting traps for possums (1B). All these interviewees appeared to find their personal special skill contribution was valued.
‘Emotionally easiest’ and most satisfying parts More comments were recorded here, as there were two questions, compared to the single question on technical ease. There were overlaps with the technical, such as planting and seeing those plants grow well (five mentions) Comments about planting included: “I need to plant trees to feel I’m getting something done”(interviewee 9B) and “when you have planted something you have a personal interest in its future” (4B).
Interviewees have seen returning bird life (1A, 5B) or fish (13B), and natural regeneration accelerated after fencing and pest control (4A, 13A). Others reported their enjoyment seeing visitors using new tracks (13B, 14A)
One group of responses focus on “being there” (1A, 13A), on “the bush itself” (9B, 13A) and on the emotional value of attachment to a place: “Knowing the significance of the place; being attached, as I grew up near here. It’s good to be contributing to its care.” (15A). “There’s a huge difference between voluntary work where you live, like this, and volunteering for excursions away from your home area. On site I constantly observe things and meet visitors and talk about the project.” (13B).
Several interviewees referred to satisfaction that the group’s approach allowed diverse skills to be used and appreciated, for example (16A): “Everyone is involved for different reasons. I’m a keen fisher [here], but Forest and Bird members are restoring the bush for bird life, farmers are trapping the possums for TB control to protect livestock, the gardeners are planting to improve the landscape and the older people enjoy potting-on seedlings in the shade house.”
81 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
The sociable and learning aspects during a group project are considered rewarding, even re- invigorating. (1A, 1B 9B): “Really great to be involved - many of the trustees are new as colleagues and I respect and have learned much from them” (15B). “Getting to know the neighbours through this project after so many years of not knowing them. Now I am part of the community instead of a whinger”(2B) “A nice way to spend a day out in the open in good company, when you can’t climb mountains any more” (14B).
Pride in making visible progress, surprise at transformative results in neglected areas and a sense of achievement - including doing something useful for other people - was recorded in many interviews (1C, 2B, 7A, 8A,10B,13A): “We are doing something, can see our efforts and recording them”(4A) “A tremendous feeling of achievement - I had hoped to protect this area for a long time and have succeeded”(3A) “We exceeded our expectations. Seeing the success, people’s pride and the idea spreading to neighbouring landholders”(8B) “Going back to see trees you planted 20 years earlier. Doing something for posterity”(14B)
Generalised concepts of ‘environment’ and ‘future generations’ rather than present society - of which criticism was voiced - came from 1B, 11C and 11C, also, from a Maori interviewee: “Aroha for the wood pigeon, the bush and succeeding generations”
Finally, in this section, there was delight expressed at the unexpected co-operation of landowning neighbours and the willingness of others, not previously involved, to volunteer help and further contacts when approached (10A, 16A, 16A): “Being able to convince farmers that it’s good to plant such sites. Now more farmers re interested than we have volunteers to respond. They work with us.”(10B). “Just how much volunteer labour you can attract in exchange for a free beer”(8B).
82 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
The emotional challenges and dis-satisfactions The interviewees were candid in revealing sources of hurt or disappointment, detailed reporting of which is now difficult without compromising their privacy. Interviewee codes will therefore not be used in this section, which also summarises views.
There is evidence of the motivation to volunteer being weakened by the following experiences, in decreasing order of frequency raised: · Set-backs to planting effort through animal damage to seedlings;
· Difficulty of controlling invasive weeds, particularly bramble and Tradescantia;
· Lack of liaison from local authority staff before they did work on site which damaged the restoration planting;
· Official communication difficulties and delays with district, city and regional authorities, even where individual links with local staff are adequate;
· Vandalism and plant theft;
· Disputes with site neighbours over boundaries, livestock incursions and fire;
· Legal complications over land purchase by trusts;
· Limitation on public access to a trust-owned restoration site: “I’m putting work in but can not go along between working sessions to enjoy it.”;
· Difficulty recruiting active, strong volunteers for working sessions;
· Resistance to proposed takata whenua management of land “from a national conservation organisation”;
· Fundraising, especially for continuing funds after the first round of start-up grants;
· Lack of patience shown by the public, often raised through the media rather than direct to project organisers. “Criticism from other residents who want larger trees sooner, and think that regenerating bush looks scruffy. We will eventually prove to them that it works”;
· “Seeing other valuable bush areas ‘go under’ [to development] because we don’t have the energy, time and resouces to protect them too.”
83 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Technical and organisational difficulties Aspects which were reported as technically or organisationally hard were often very similar to those found emotionally dificult, above. Five similar, repeated concerns were: · Lack of funding, especially for core activities and equipment;
· Shortage of strong and/or skilled volunteers, particularly to help groups led by retired people, (which was solved in part by making links with DoC Conservation Corps, Community Task Force and prisoner workforces);
· Control of animal pests and invasive weeds;
· Liaison difficulties with local authorities and sometimes DoC;
· Legal disputes
Additional technical/organisational issues of difficulty, identified by this question, included:
· Time management, especially for working parents and for volunteers who are involved in writing submissions or responding to draft plans;
· How to make a management plan;
· Encouraging people to do rather than debate;
· “Different perspective of another voluntary group who are planting exotics in another part of the reserve.”
District and City Councils Of all the external organisations mentioned by project interviewees, District and City Councils attracted the most comments, both appreciative and critical. Close contact with these territorial authorities was required, particularly where they owned reserve sites being managed in full or part by voluntary groups. Examples of praise include pleasure at “the high quality of new fencing on the walkways”and “regular grass cutting on tracks, and the annual supply of trees”; and when grants were made, or equipment loaned. Also welcome were acceptance of volunteers onto a park management committee, and a council staff member volunteering to serve on a board of trustees.
84 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
Three groups, seeing neglect of forest relicts by a succession of re-organised local authorities, had to lobby their respective councils for years before gaining access to begin voluntary bush restoration. In one case it had taken three expert botanical survey reports charting ecological decline since the 1950s.
Lcal councils were seen as cumbersome bureaucracies by many project groups. Several interviewees claimed that their local council “does the minimum and avoids expenditure”, is “very slow” or “unwilling to act”, or “doesn’t take conservation seriously”. One referred to “the unremitting slog of trying to persuade and negotiate with them”. Another was cynical: “If the Council could concrete over this area they probably would”. Several criticised specifically, as costly and out-of-scale, the rule requirements for two lane access road construction and walkway widths ‘imposed’ on bush restoration reserves by local authority owners - they had conservation uses in mind for that money.
Two groups referred to a lack of technical expertise on their council’s staff and one interviewee commented “We advise the District, not the other way round”.
Regional Councils The interviewees generally mentioned less contact with regional councils than with district or city councils. Opinions ranged from “no help at all”, to “needed their permission for stream works”, to “helpful liaison concerning a neighbouring Regional Park site” and “helped us to restrict the excesses of the District Council”.
The following comments, drawn from several projects, all concern just two regional councils which have policy commitment to support Landcare and similar local ‘Care Groups’ (hence no interviewee codes cited): “Care is a good system under the wing of [regional council name]. The liaison officer comes to our meetings a few times a year and responds to phone calls between times.” “Helpful advice and contacts.” “Good relations with the landcare liaison staff but less good with the flood protection engineers.”
Several regional council courses were mentioned, which volunteers had attended and found valuable: on plant propagation, wetlands, streamcare. And there was a warning:
85 Rhys Taylor Survey findings
“They helped as faciliators but I had expected more, such as access to monitoring information. They gave start-up funding but not core funds to follow that. If they allow the small groups to collapse it will turn volunteers and others off the Care approach.”
The Department of Conservation Department of Conservation (DoC) staff were viewed as helpful but under-resourced allies and sometimes ‘enablers’77. Praise was offered on DoC technical advisors and for staff liaison (4A,5A,10A,10B,16A). For example: “We work well with DoC. We know we have others supporting us and working for the same aims”.
One project was established “as a response to DoC’s lack of budget and limited staff after funding cuts: they could not manage without us now for restoration planting, guiding, advocacy and funds”. Another project tackles pest control on Conservation Estate land using DoC materials, “as a long-term relationship.”
DoC-managed (Ministry of Youth Affairs-funded) Conservation Corps work and training teams are used and well regarded, as was a whole-Conservancy staff workday on one volunteer- managed site (1A, 5A, 10B). Educational day sessions involving DoC staff or consultants, on a particular animal species or on bush restoration, were popular (2A,3A,7B,10A).
Three interviewees mentioned favourably the DoC nursery at Motukarara on Banks Peninsula. In another region, a group were “pleased to be invited to re-introduce a locally extinct plant species in the protected bush area. We had over 100 specimens for planting from DoC. It has helped the group’s credibility, too.”
Further sources of help and advice The interviewees reported a combined total of 41 other sources of advice and information, required for specific tasks. Few said that they had been unable to find advice when needed, but it was not always of great use. The groups located nearest to the main cities appear to have better access to advice, not least because the universities and Crown Research Institutes are useful -
77 DoC is one of the few statutory organisations which appears to have attempted to study and understand volunteers, principally because it runs a Conservation Volunteers programme, but also for the mutual-aid relationship which it has with the lobbying conservation movement, including Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and ‘friends’ or ‘supporters’ groups linked with various islands. See James (1990 p47) for explicit credit of “work which would not have ben achieved, but for volunteer assistance”.
86 Rhys Taylor Survey findings but access depends on personal networking, not on any organised preparedness on the part of the universities or CRIs.
The Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Restoration Handbook (Porteous 1993) was volunteered by five interviewees as a key reference publication, but no other published sources were named. Several commented on a lack of published reference material for walkway techniques such as path and step building. Very few used libraries often, preferring personal advice sources, when possible consulted on-site.
Funding and help-in-kind Most groups had sufficent funds to operate, but could use more, especially for core activities, which tended to be subsidised from the pockets of organisers as the available grant sources all favoured land purchases and project activity over operating costs. No District Council and few Regional Council grants towards group operation were mentioned, although rate rebates on trust-owned and covenant protected sites were acknowledged. A most inventive use of practical ‘help-in-kind’ was shown, from recycled Telecom poles for shade house construction to transport of materials by haulage contractors, from empty milk cartons (as tree seedling pots) to free legal asssitance. This help, raised from local businesses, and especially nurseries, and also the involvement of schools, shows the widespread and strong community connections of these groups, although numbers of very active volunteers are often small.
Other survey findings The questionnaires elicited a wealth of interesting detail which it is not possible to catalogue in limited space here, concerning stages of group dynamics, experience of leadership styles, what was being restored (ecologically, and sometimes culturally), project history descriptions and precise locations, especially useful on the visits. Supporting material also arrived by post, including management plans and press clippings. These are dynamic projects, run by vigorous people, sometimes in difficult circumstances and usually without enough time.
87 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Chapter Five
Conclusions: Survey Analysis in Wider Context
This study has drawn widely, from voluntary participants in environmental management and from analysis of various aspects of the human and scientific processes involved. The research has progressed through a focus on basic questions (pages 13, 14) and a structured, multidisciplinary literature review (for aims, see p 20), to provide a context for case-study interviews. The qualitative approach admits as valid a ‘feel’ for the subject material, alongside that which can be counted and listed (see pp 25, 26), and has proved rewarding - this researcher has remained highly motivated throughout, and agrees with Patton (1990) that “Qualitative research cultivates the most useful of human capacities: the ability to learn from others”.
This Chapter therefore highlights what has been learned from the bush restorers.
The emerging picture of citizen-led bush restoration practice can be presented as a set of key, inter-related stages in a learning cycle, or a rising spiral, of growing levels of competence and confidence. At each stage there is the potential for advance or retardation, sometimes internally motivated, other times external. The two figures below offer representations of this cycle, firstly from ‘inside’, focussed on an individual participant’s learning experience within a group (Figure 12) and secondly an ‘external’ system view of group progress (Figure 13), which has been related to the simple linear sequence of need ® means ® outcome often used in normative policy-making. Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Figure 12. Individual participant in bush restoration: learning processes
Join with others, as group Connect Situation, finances, time need with intention to act Form strategy and plans
Beliefs, Practical values, experience External advice attitudes to of task, or nature and as an Help-in-kind volunteers organiser
Culture Reflection, re-formulate Societal attitudes, attitude, Productive outcomes, add to eg plant community (law, media, fashion, etc.) knowledge restored, wildlife returning, landscape enhanced.
Figure 12 , above, draws on the ideas of Ringer (1995), Hartley et al (1992), Hines et al(1986) Van Rossem (1996), and underlying them, Kolb (1984)78
78 Kolb (1984) Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.
89 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Figure 13. Process at organisational level: the importance of connections.
Feedback: effect on public attitudes and official policy Publicity, local standing Complex social and Recruit, assemble and institutional setting inform enough volunteers determines possibilities (for efficiency) Bush restoration work achieved on site: progress. ‘Establish a common Obtain professional advice vision’ - often the role of and reference information one initiator/leader (for effectiveness) Networking with groups and authorities and DoC Find sites, equipment, help- in-kind and finance (for opportunity to act)
Cognition process Empowerment process Action & reflection The need & vision The means The action
Returning to the three principal research questions, each one will be addressed below:
Bush restoration is a significant phenomenon, showing a rise of eco-system awareness in New Zealand’s public Several independent observers (Park 1995,1996, Saunders in DoC 1997) concur with this study’s survey findings that there is a groundswell of enthusiasm for initiating restoration, translated into a growing number of projects which show concern for whole ecological communities rather than single species or the abatement of single threats.
There are at least 60 active volunteer citizen-led bush restoration projects contributing to this aspect of natural resource management, in addition to the work of DoC and local authorities which ‘involves’ citizens as volunteers.
90 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Volunteer motivation and what helps or hinders voluntary efforts Intrinsic motivations are important to sustained voluntary environmental action (see p
62) and the case studies show citizen-led bush restoration offers many of these, ranging from the social rewards of the group to the altruism of contributing to natural habitat’s survival for posterity. The community development lessons of ten and twenty years ago79 are still applicable today, only re-packaged as the jargon of ‘social capital’
(Blakeley 1997) or ‘capacity building’ (UNCED Agenda 21)
Motivation is fragile , however, and can be undermined or sapped by external influences, some of which are amenable to public policy influence. Authorities have the potential to empower voluntary action, or disempower and need to understand the reciprocal nature of ‘partnership’.
Could citizen-led bush restoration become more widespread? The evidence of the number of newly-started projects found by this survey shows that bush restoration by local volunteers is becoming more widespread and involving a growing proportion of people who have not previously labelled themselves as
‘environmentalists’ (such as through membership of established national societies).
This parallels the UK experience described in Appendices Two and Seven.
Motivational reasons for this growth include the appeal of bush restoration on existing degraded bush sites to the ‘field of care-sense of place’ (Tuan 1974, see page 38) where
‘altruistic care’ (aroha) flows from familiarity with the place and a vision of its natural
79 “People who take positive action to create external change gain greater meaning in their lives.” (Thomas 1978); “Direct action provides a broader understanding of how the world works, replacing the temptation to sit back and wait for others.” (Twelvetrees 1982 p 90)
91 Rhys Taylor Conclusions potential. A second reason is the opportunity which re-creation of native bush within Comment [R1]: urban areas offers individuals for scarce and valued contact with nature80.
Further-increasing both rural and urban bush restoration activity is both desirable and possible. It requires simultaneous actions to influence the ‘system’ (depicted by
Figures 12 and 13 above) at several, not at single pressure points, directed to: i) enabling existing action, to provide both exemplars of process and quality outcomes; ii) promotion of the opportunities, desirability and varied means of involvement.
The Recommendations provide practical medium-term suggestions of action, mostly within an unchanged legislative and institutional context, to address the opportunity which public interest affords to tackle the problem of loss of lowland forest habitat.
The recommendations also help to address some of the weaknesses, and the strengths and opportunities of present bush restoration practice:
Weaknesses of present practice, and some responses · There may not be enough long-established relict and well-developed restored bush sites close - within walking distance - to some urban populations, to provide inspiration: a vision of what can be created by restoration work over time. However, interpretive visits could be arranged to those which do exist, for citizen groups.
· Voluntary projects could improve their documentation of progress, especially through systematic use of photography and simple planting records of source/provenance and maintenance given (as used by three of the case studies).
· Projects have to relate to statutory authorities, but some (especially District) Councils appear to sabotage or delay volunteers’ progress, usually unwittingly, through inflexible ‘bureaucracy’. Authorities might benefit from staff development to increase sensitivity to voluntary group processes and improve the potential for partnerships. The
80 This second feature has been explored in urban Britain for a decade by English Nature, the Wildlife Trusts and the Shell Better Britain Campaign, whilst the first has been fostered in rural areas by Rural Action partnership and environmental and arts charity Common Ground.
92 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
exceptions show what can be achieved: Environment Waikato stood out among the regional councils mentioned by case study interviewees.
· Ecological knowledge is low in many projects. Unaware of what they need to know, the volunteers may make ultimately frustrating mistakes in planting and care, and also fail to learn from experiments and innovations. Educational institutions and professionals could be more closely involved with citizen-led groups, to mutual benefit.
· The existing groups ‘have their hands full’. Not enough leaders are available to start more groups, upon whom so much depends in the early stages. Leadership development is advocated, to turn existing volunteers into the next generation of leaders (including perhaps some of those citizens ‘involved’ as volunteers in schemes run by other bodies such as DoC and local authorities).
Building on strengths and opportunities · An improving range of reference materials relevant to bush restoration are available to the public81. However, there is still scope to improve and extend these, particularly using visual and inter-active media.
· Lowland bush is a valued symbolic landscape which generates public interest. There are more neglected and threatened sites (see Appendix One) than groups to tackle them - so there is scope for more site-specific citizen-led groups.
· Projects demonstrably require multiple skills - “something for everyone to do”.
· Legal covenants mean that not having capital for land ownership need not necessarily be a barrier to invovement in mangement for the public interest.
· A credibility threshold has been passed: there are enough groups now for networking to be possible, to share experiences and speed learning from eachother. Prior knowledge of, or involvement in bush restoration projects appear to be significant motivators in formation of new groups
· People find involvement is intrinsically rewarding and come back for more. Involvement offers experiential learning and relates to all three aspects of environmental education (see Appendix 8).
81 Especially on plant identification thanks to Crowe (1997), and soil-plant-wildlife associations thank to Lucas Associates (1996-97) and DoC (1996 Factsheets and others)
93 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
· Voluntary organisations are very resourceful, gaining free access to legal, financial and professional advice and help-in-kind of considerable value.
The last word goes to Bill Adams whose book Future Nature (1996) has been well received in the UK in an equivalent role to Geoff Park’s The Groves of Life (1995), and like Park, involves looking back in order to look forward. This research into bush restoration, and particularly the case studies, leads the author to agree with Adams when he writes ( p113):
“Conservation has to take seriously the challenge of doing something
about the increasing distance between people and nature, and
particularly the irrelevance of nature within urbanised lives and urban
spaces... I believe that the depth and vigour of people’s contact with
and understanding of nature is fundamental to conservation and that
the maintenance of cultural connections between people and other
creatures and landscapes is a task on which conservation should invest
far more effort than it has done in the past.”
94 Rhys Taylor Recommendations
Chapter Six
Draft Recommendations
This chapter presents recommendations arising from the study. The main four themes are: · recognition of the value of voluntary bush restoration, its extent and sources of motivation; · enabling this particular voluntary action by already-committed groups; · promoting further action, moving beyond the established environmental groups and existing restoration sites; and · improvement of the ecological restoration skills and practice of such volunteers. There are two draft recommendations under each theme.
Recognition of the value of voluntary bush restoration
Recommendation One: That regional and territorial authorities, DoC headquarters and conservancies recognise, in their policy statements, plans and public statements, the multiple values of bush restoration activity by voluntary groups - such as protection of biological diversity in scarce lowland forest habitat, and of cultural taonga, water catchments, a venue for education in the environment, process contributions to community development and the creation of training or employment opportunities.
Recommendation Two That media briefings from the statutory and voluntary organisations involved celebrate the spread of these symbolic examples of altruistic motivation (or aroha), - demonstrating care for nature and showing concern for future human generations, as a social and civic virtue in an often individualistic and selfish age82.
82 They are building ‘social capital’ in the contemporary jargon of New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs (Blakeley 1997), but this neo-economic language reduces rather tha aids clarity in media coverage. Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Enabling the committed volunteers
Recommendation Three That district and city councils contribute to native bush restoration by volunteers by: (a) strengthening statutory protection for surviving remnants of bush in district plans; (b) improving professional staff liaison speed and effectiveness of response to active voluntary groups, with priority on the urban population, so that the perception of bureaucratic barriers can be minimised (this may involve commitment to staff development); and (c) adopting an enabling approach to groups through small grants, supply of plant nursery materials, loan of specialised equipment and similar help-in-kind83.
Recommendation Four That regional councils contribute to native bush restoration by volunteers, by: (a) Policy commitment in regional policy statements, clearly linked to Government sustainable land management strategy and biodiversity strategy, using RMAct powers; (b) employing staff whose working role specifically includes support for ‘care’ groups (defined to include bush conservation/restoration), especially in the rural areas where individual district councils may have insufficient rate income and staff resources to tackle this role unaided84; (c) continuing their statutorily-required initiatives in plant and animal pest control, but making advisory services, grants and materials available for voluntary group sites as well as farms.
Promoting further action
Recommendation Five. That DoC, Ministry for Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, iwi, relevant local authority and professional associations and national voluntary organisations85 launch a national movement for bush restoration in 1999.
83 This recognises the excellent financial gearing on such investment which can be achieved by voluntary groups compared to ‘direct works’ operations, but is a supplement to not substitute for works on the Councils’ sites. 84 Emerging ‘best practice’ of a few regions should become wider known and debated soon through professional association journals and conferences. 85 Such as Local Government Association, Federation of Maori Authorities, NZ Landcare Trust, New Zealand Association for Resource Management, New Zealand Planning Institute, New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architecture, New Zealand Association for Environmental Education; Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, the two Forest Funds, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Native Forests Restoration Trust, World-Wide Fund for nature, and others.
96 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
This partnership should present a clear and attractive role for voluntary action by citizen groups and individuals as well as those of specialised land-holding trusts, local authorities and farmers. Emphasis should be on ease of involvement and the intrinsic as well as public benefits86.
Recommendation Six. That local authority owners of reserve land under the 1977 Reserves Act and other public landholders arrange assessment of the potential of sites they own for natural bush regeneration - either from in-situ seed sources (after stock-fencing and pest controls) or a programme of ecological restoration by planting and management intervention. This would form an inventory in preparation for a national voluntary movement (R5) or for pro-active direct work by the local authorities themselves87.
Improvement of skills and practice
Recommendation Seven. That published print and videotape material of genuine use to professional and voluntary bush restorers88 be better publicised, and then supplemented with new material which makes use of emerging ecological restoration knowledge and voluntary group experience. This aims to reduce time and resource-wasting mistakes and to focus voluntary and professional effort to best effect. Visual media such as video, slides, and interactive cd-rom or internet may have a useful educational role, but relevance to groups as well as individuals must be borne in mind. University ecology departments, crown research institutes and government departments have a potential role here and the lead could come from several possible quarters, provided work is then co-ordinated and collaborative.
86 For example explaining each citizen’s existing contribution through taxes and rates, which will be modest, plus the opportunity to add some voluntary time and what that could achieve. Donations for land purchase and fencing should be mentioned but not highlighted if priority is given to involvement. This would replace DoC’s Tu Kakariki/New Zealand Trees Campaign and should be informed by experience from an independent review of NZ LandcareTrust’s first few years of activity. 87 Published ecological soil maps and associated native plant species guides such as those prepared by Lucas Associates (1996, 1997) for Christchurch and in progress for Waitakere, greatly assist this process. 88 Such as the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Restoration Handbook (Porteous 1993), Native Forests Restoration Trust leaflets and some DoC factsheets, but there is not much detailed guidance available.
97 Rhys Taylor Conclusions
Recommendation Eight. That regional opportunities be provided for local-scale voluntary groups involved in bush restoration to meet eachother and relevant professionals, to establish networks for support and learning. Such events could be held in mid 1998 (before the Spring tree-planting season) and used as a consultation platform for longer-term ideas raised in these recommendations.
98 Rhys Taylor Appendices list
List of Appendices Pages following the References (which are R1-R28) Saved as separate file.
One. Six continuing threats to NZ native bush. A1
Two. Conference Paper (Taylor 1997a). ‘Community Environmental Action and the Sense of Place in Rural England’. A5
Three. Poster (reduced size from A1) for ECO and NZ Ecological Society Conferences: ‘call for contacts. A19
Four. On worldviews and bi-cultural perspectives. A20
Five. Good practice in questionnaire wording, telephone schedule design and use. A24
Six. The telephone interview question schedule (3rd Draft) A26
Seven. Concern for the environment and environmental volunteering: survey data from outside New Zealand A39
Eight: Who cares about native bush: some sample organisations (includes Environment Waikato, regional council, at section W8) A43
Nine: Origins of Landcare Groups in rural New Zealand A54 Annexe: Landcare through community involvement - (NZ Landcare Trust)
Rhys Taylor Appendix One
Appendices
Appendix One
Six continuing threats to native bush remnants
1. Destruction to make way for building construction or exotic tree plantation
Within road-commuting distance of the main cities and ports, rapid bush clearance for house building, pinus radiata plantations and industrial sites continues today (Donaldson, Kape and Smith 1997). “Habitat conversion from forests to agriculture and then degraded land is the single biggest factor in the present biological diversity crisis” (Dodson, Bradshaw and Baker 1997 p516)1
Under the Resource Management Act 1991, the ‘likely adverse effect’ of proposed removal of native bush from a section can prevent development only when specific policies are in place within district or city plans to limit the area of bush removal and/or the species which can be removed2. Manuka and kanuka scrub, natural pioneer species in many areas, generally have less protection than the slower-growing podocarps, and with their removal go the sheltered seedlings of the trees which would in time be their successors, which cannot grow in open ground.
Where widespread clearance has removed previously common pioneer plant species such as manuka and kanuka the associated succession tree species and dependent animal communities may not re-establish without human intervention with a temporary shelter planting such as gorse or tree licerne (Dodson et al. 1997 p516; Foose 1993; Wilson 1992 p333-342). The ‘restored’ habitat is likely to be a mix of indigenous and exotic (adventive) species, although the indigenous plants may be capable of eventual successional dominance (Burrows 1997).
2. Destruction by fire before regeneration is established
Accidental or deliberate fire can be a major hazard to regenerating indigenous trees when they are emerging through highly flammable exotic weeds such as gorse or broom, but is less of a
1 Dodson et al (1997) list many further sources in their references, p 521. 2 RMA 1991 relevant sections to biodiversity protection include 5, 6(a & c), 7(d & e).
A1 Rhys Taylor Appendix One problem after 15 to 20 years once the more fire-resistant native trees are sufficiently dominant. (Pipipi 1996 p2)
3. Degradation by lowered watertable and drought
Human impacts include lowered watertables due to the drainage of surrounding farmland or urbanisation, which then stresses forest remnants previously able to withstand hot summers (as seen at the former kahikatea wetland of Riccarton-Dean’s Bush in Christchurch). Stopbanks built alongside adjacent rivers, preventing spring flooding, can remove nutrient and seed-bearing silt flows and the soil disturbance which once aided natural regeneration, as at Barton’s Bush in Upper Hutt.
4. Degradation by ‘selective’ logging of largest-girth trees An age structure including seeding mature trees3 and dying or dead trees are important within the forest ecosystem for their role in the cycles of nutrients processed by fungi, as habitat for animal species, such as hollow-nesting birds, insects, and bees (Keesing and Wratten 1997 p221) as the natural creators of forest clearings, and hence tree stands of different ages. Extraction of mature trees removes important seed sources as well as the nutrients locked-up in the wood. Extraction roads and felling machinery damage also aid penetration of exotic weed and animal species.
Very few old kauri, totara and other ‘native pine’ species, favoured for construction timber prior to the 1920s (Grey 1994 p319), survive in farmland bush remnants or protected urban fragments. State-protected North Island native forests have rimu of up to 575 years old and matai of 600 years; and South Island forests have rimu, matai and kaikawaka of over 600 years (Brockie 1992). Logging in the large mixed-podocarp forests of the South Island West Coast is controversial. Protestors draw public attention to the several centuries required for replacement of the upper canopy trees within a complex ecosystem, as well as the low financial return from the timber back to the state and the lack of local employment generated when whole logs are exported. (Native Forest Action 1997; Kakariki News 1996). Timberlands West Coast Limited joins this debate through its own publications4. The West Coast logging debate is raising awareness throughout New Zealand of the different values people attach to native trees.
3 The oldest surviving trees, especially in the dioecious 50% of NZ tree species, will be more genetically outbred and varied than the seedlings around them, demonstrating their adaptation to the site. Removal of all the old trees reduces the genetic variability within the population. (Brockie 1992) 4 James (1997 p1) notes in the Timberlands newsletter: “ Increasingly native species are being favoured as garden plants and there are several high profile projects where native cover is being painstakingly
A2 Rhys Taylor Appendix One
5. Degradation by grazing animals
New Zealand plants evolved under grazing pressure from birds and insects but not mammals. The only endemic NZ mammals are two species of bat. Plants have developed few of the toxins in their leaves which protect trees such as the eucalypts of Australia from defoliation by grazing marsupials.
Unfenced bush areas within farms are used for winter wind-shelter or summer sun-shade by livestock such as sheep, cattle, deer and goats. Their foraging prevents natural regeneration here as it does in European woodlands (Edington 1986 p93; Porteous 1993 p8). The livestock remove seeds, fruits and seedlings, and also defoliate low branches on forest edges, aiding wind penetration. Small trees may be killed by bark-ringing.
Feral animals, particularly goats, deer and pigs, are regularly hunted in DoC reserves because of the grazing damage they cause: particularly to lacebarks, ribbonwood, stinkwood and mountain five-finger (Brockie 1992 Fig 170; Nugent and Fraser 1993; Fraser, Nugent and Sweetapple 1996). Rats eat seeds and seedlings, and successful poisoning of rat populations with toxic bait results in a visible flush of seedling growth.
The introduced Australian marsupial, the brushtail possum, is a selective feeder and the estimated 70 million population is particularly damaging to its preferred high-carbohydrate food species, including misletoes, tree fuschia, kamahi, the rata vines, fivefinger and several others5. (Atkinson, Campbell et al 1995) Possums also prey on birds’ eggs and fledglings (Brown; Innes and Shorten 1993). Trapping and poisoning are widely used for management, at considerable expense (Warburton and Coleman 1992; Morgan 1993). Biological control is under investigation (Jolly 1993). DoC’s budget was increased recently to strengthen their fight against possums in national parks and sites vulnerable to ‘canopy collapse’, using poisons.
restored. For people living in these areas it is incomprehensible that native forest is being logged elsewhere. However, look in any furniture or craftware store and you find that rimu totally dominates the market...sadly all rimu timber used before 1994 came from clear-cut or over-cut forests which left a legacy of degraded landscapes and very negative attitudes towards the management of native forests for timber.” 5 Others damaged or killed by repeated grazing include: pohutukawa, swamp maire, toro, lowland ribbonwood, tree tutu, kaka beak, muehlenbeckia, wineberry, supplejack vine, mahoe, tawa, titoki, kohekohe, hinau and Hall’s totara.
A3 Rhys Taylor Appendix One
Possums do little damage to three nothofagus (beech) species, nikau, most podocarps - miro, matai, rimu and kahikatea, ferns and tree ferns, among a longer list6, which are in consequence becoming relatively more numerous than the heavily grazed species, in possum-infested forests (Brockie 1992 p76, p87; Allen and Rose 1983; Campbell 1990). The forest composition changes as a direct consequence of the possum diet (Brockie 1992 p78 after Fitzgerald 1976). Possums switch diet as they ‘eat out’ preferred plant species. They often eat the nectar-bearing flowers and large fruits which sustain bird populations. This loss of flowers and fruits further reduces the chance of natural regeneration of those species, as pollination is prevented, and large seeds - which can pass undamaged through native pigeon - are digested by possums.
5. Competition for light by invasive plants Control of invasive ‘noxious plant’ species (Sheldon; Rossiter; McCaw and Glennie 1991) is often a starting point in restoration work. It is labour-intensive. Much damage to native bush is done by: • adventive high climbers such as Clematis vitalba (‘old man’s beard’), and banana passionfruit vines, which smother the canopy; • canopy competition from exotic trees such as willow and sycamore; • ivy, Berberis glaucocarpa (‘barberry’) and blackberry which smother the understorey shrubs and smother seedlings; • Tradescantia, and rank grasses, spreading vegetatively, which smother seedlings.
6 Brockie 1992 also lists as unpalatable to possums the leaves of: horopito, pigeonwood, hinau, karaka, coprosmas, kaikamako, hebe, mingimingi, kawakawa, rewarewa, tauhinu, mapou, lemonwood, tree nettle.
A4 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Appendix Two
Rhys E Taylor (MSc student, Dept. Resource Management, Lincoln University, NZ)
Paper presented to Second Institute of Australian Geographers and New Zealand Geographical Society Joint Conference, held at University of Tasmania, Hobart, 28-31 January 1997. (In publication, University of Waikato)
Community Environmental Action and the Sense of Place in Rural England.
This paper describes and reviews the Government-financed 'Rural Action for the Environment' scheme. It commenced operation in 1992, and uses community development techniques to achieve protection and enhancement of local distinctiveness through environmental action projects.
The scheme has been associated with other significant trends in UK national policy concerning the environment and with a political rhetoric of ‘active citizenship’. It has been driven by a strong voluntary sector, by the commitment of successive Countryside Ministers at Department of the Environment, and built upon a decade of strategic commitment by the Countryside Commission (CoCo is a statutory agency reporting to DoE) to experiments with local environmental action during the 1980s (Bishop 1991)7.
7 For those not familiar with rural England and its institutions, an introduction to the recent historical context and the main actors appear in a short background paper available from the author (Taylor 1997b). Other references useful for context include Rackham 1986, Newby 1988, Blunden and Curry 1985 and 1988, Derounian 1993, Howes and Skinner 1994, Taylor 1994, Young 1994.)
A5 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Independent observer Nigel Roome attended the English Countryside Commission's 1988-90 consultations with its voluntary sector partners after they had funded 17 experimental projects, which are known to have contributed to the Commission’s policy proposals to Government in the 1991 pre-Election period. Roome (1992) saw the purpose of newly proposed ‘Rural Action for the Environment’ as part of:
a national policy trend away from elitist bureaucracies setting management regimes which they or their agents deliver', [towards recognition that] environmental management and improvement is a participative exercise which involves discussion and transaction with local people. Environmental action is therefore increasingly bound up with community action. (Roome 1992)
Rural Action as a new partnership
Rural Action was conceived as an English (not whole UK) partnership between three sponsoring statutory agencies and five national voluntary sector environmental and community support organisations; the latter providing networks and local advisers. The voluntary organisations were:
• The Wildlife Trusts (also known as RSNC);
• British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV);
• Shell Better Britain Campaign (SBBC);
• ACRE, which is the Rural Community Councils’(RCCs) national body; and
• The Environment Support Team at National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
These five national voluntary sector partners in Rural Action had accumulated experience during the 1980s to convince them that local community environmental action worked (Clark 1989, Warburton 1990, RSNC 1992, Horsbrough 1992). They sought public resources to apply that experience on a much wider scale.
Each had well-established links with at least one of the sponsoring statutory countryside agencies and experience of inter-agency working. Several had inside- knowledge of another
A6 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two national environmental partnership, called UK2000, which made its main impact in England’s urban areas.
The first Rural Action policy document, published by the statutory sponsors, Countryside Commission, English Nature (EN) and Rural Development Commission (RDC), introduced the scheme thus:
Recent years have seen a significant shift away from "top down" environmental activity being imposed on communities by outside agencies. Instead the view has spread that people should be enabled to develop their own ideas for local environmental activity and have ready access to the varied resources they require.' (CoCo, EN, RDC 1992)
The ‘shift’ referred to here was happening within both English Nature and in the Countryside Commission, through EN 'Partnership in Practice' initiative and CoCo ‘experimental countryside action’ projects (Bishop 1991). At English Nature headquarters a community involvement policy was being developed, in a tentative move away from the style preferred by many of their field staff : scientific expert as authority and leader. English Nature had also learned about community-led action, especially in urban areas, from a funding relationship with the Wildlife Trusts and involvement in the Shell Better Britain Campaign (Taylor 1997b, RSNC 1992, SBBC 1990).
The third statutory sponsor, the Rural Development Commission, had experience of the community development approach from association since the 1920s with the county-based charitable organisations known collectively as the Rural Community Councils (actual names vary in each county). The RDC had to be convinced of the economic value of backing environmental projects, whether or not community-led, and they appeared initially reluctant sponsors. However, each sponsoring agency supplied equal one-third of investment and senior managers’ time to help steer the early years of the ‘Rural Action’ scheme.
Rural Action - a new way of working?
In the Rural Action policy document (CoCo, EN, RDC. 1992), a commitment statement, signed by the chairmen of the three sponsoring agencies, explains that Rural Action is about 'enabling people to take action on local environmental issues of concern to them'. This was a bold step by the statutory agencies, most of whose work had been expert-led, top-down and strictly compartmentalised by subject. It involved their managers in an imaginative leap into a largely unfamiliar 'rural community development' approach, previously the domain of the voluntary
A7 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two sector and a minority of local authorities (Taylor 1997b defines community development; see also Francis 1992, Derounian 1993, Taylor, M. 1995).
The new policy direction also required the Department of the Environment to delegate public funds through partners in the voluntary sector. Novel rules included accepting matching of statutory grant monies by voluntary effort valued at a daily rate per volunteer, as an alternative to match-funding with cash. Here at last was a scheme which could be used by small, new, un- funded local groups as well as those already well established and fundraising-experienced, who until then had the pick of existing environmental award scheme monies.
ACRE, one of the five voluntary sector partners, based at Cirencester in Gloucestershire, was appointed to oversee the substantial delegated grant funds, through its affiliated Rural Community Councils. A team of four8 sought to enlist the involvement of about 800 voluntary and local authority contacts across 40 counties, in order to operate within all rural areas of England within a three year development period.
A networking approach was adopted. A range of district and county-level organisations were invited to get together as a ‘County Rural Action Network’ to make joint bids for two types of funding: for Network Development Grants covering modest budgets on staff briefing, training and public promotion, and secondly, access to the somewhat larger fund reserved for Local Project Grants.
The Rural Action National Steering Group, formally representing the sponsor agencies and their voluntary sector partners, exercised quality control by considering the applications to launch county-wide Networks. The first four were funded by October 1992 and there were 21 under way by the following April. The total grew steadily to cover 40 counties by early 1995 and, to the steering group’s collective delight, not one English county's group of voluntary organisations and local authorities failed to respond to the invitation to establish a Rural Action Network.
What made the scheme attractive to these already very busy local partners, when there was no statutory obligation to take part?
First, the offer of public funds on a quick-response basis for practical projects, and at any time of year, was made possible by delegation of grant administration to the RCC in each county. Grants of up to £2,000 per project application were available, but the average grant approved settled at £900, confirming the essentially small scale of each local action.
8 including the author, as national Development Director.
A8 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Second, Rural Action used a way of working which made effective use of the existing field staff (and some experienced volunteers) in the county networks, as well as those they assisted, by: o encouraging referrals between professionals according to skills or specialisms, (personal networking), so that several advisers could help one project, co-operatively, in response to need. The public rarely present a project proposal which fits neatly into the specialisms of a single agency, whether voluntary or statutory. o paying for up to five days of advisory time for each local group after an initial free visit of a few hours; to support training, site surveys, management plans, technical assistance, hire of specialised equipment or volunteers’ safety supervision (and more). o allowing a step-by-step development of projects at the local group's own pace, with repeat small grants allowed rather than forcing a half-planned larger application once a year, as most other grant and award schemes did. This aimed to build confidence and provided flexibility for groups whilst protecting against financial waste. o ensuring that the grant administrators were trained and themselves community-aware, so that the process as well as product would be considered from an early stage. Empowerment of the local group was an explicit aim. Grants could assist (for example) volunteer recruitment, newsletters, photographic record, adult education events and acquiring skills as well as help with more tangible environment-focussed tasks.
Thousands of users.
Many local project organisers have sought Rural Action support, with over 2,500 projects assisted within four years of the launch9. They have been highly varied in environmental focus, in the social background of volunteers and geographically widespread. Some counties have been noticeably busier, reflecting enthusiastic voluntary sector networks who made an early start on publicity. Local groups assisted include: village hall and playing field management committees, parish and town councils (which are eligible, although statutory, not voluntary bodies), youth clubs, village amenity societies, womens’ organisations and school parents’ associations. The range extends far beyond the 'traditional' conservation or amenity groups. They often have to find other funding sources for materials, but use Rural Action project grants - as intended - for help with:
A9 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
• group organisation,
• surveys and information gathering,
• project and site management planning,
• publicity for volunteer recruitment,
• skill training,
• public information or interpretation,
• other technical advice.
The Rural Action way of working focuses on project content via technical assistance and training, whilst fostering self-help and group development process. It is a creative and problem-solving approach which aims to empower, but can only deliver this quality when the visiting expertise is, colloquially, ‘on tap rather than on top’. Gamm and Fisher (1980) and Hamilton (1992) label the technical assistance approach to community development as a ‘task orientated vertical integration’ whilst the self-help and mutual-aid empowerment is ‘process- orientated horizontal integration’. The Rural Action way of working attempts to integrate these two.
Rural Action has consciously eschewed a third established option in community development practice, that based on conflict (Rothman 1979, Alinsky 1971) in which short-term confrontations are carefully selected to be visible, relevant, non-divisive of the group and potentially winnable. This policy position reflects the scheme’s funding by Government agencies. It constrains Rural Action from supporting high profile local campaigning groups which (for example) have opposed motorway construction, or development thought damaging to protected nature conservation sites.
Campaigning environmental groups claim this constraint by Government is a fundamental weakness, but supporters argue it is possible for a group formed for creative, constructive project-based action to become the focal point for later campaigning to protect vigorously that better-known and cared for local environment.
9 grants exceed NZ$4 million in value.
A10 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
The strength of Rural Action is its ability to involve a new group of volunteers, those who do not already label themselves as conservationists, in environmental care, and once involved, to educate and empower them over time. In the language of community development, they move some steps up a ‘ladder of participation’ from being informed but powerless, into involved participation, and upward again towards delegated decision-making and local management (Marilyn Taylor 1993, Broady and Hedley 1989, Craig 1990). How local groups use this empowerment subsequent to their initial assisted projects tends to be outside Government control.
Sense of place
The UK environmental arts charity Common Ground acknowledges the role of Rural Action support for people who are ‘holding their ground’, or ‘knowing their place by making a Parish Map of it.’ (Clifford and King, 1985, 1994, Common Ground 1996). They write of the unquantifiable, non-standard aspects which make up local distinctiveness: “detail, particularity, patina, authenticity” (Clifford and King 1993).
In the USA, regionalists such as MacKaye (1962) expressed the need for connectedness with place in order to leave a less damaging legacy to future generations. ‘Sense of place’ was usefully explored in relation to perception, cultural world views and the degree of environmental artificiality by Tuan (1974). The various forms taken were developed by Eyles (1985) into a typology. The local place debate within geography and sociology has been followed by postmodernists, who seek contribution to the ‘restoration of meaning, rootedness and human proportions to place in an era dominated by depersonalising bulk and standardisation.’ (Ley 1989. P53)
Landcare as a parallel?
In some of Australia’s drought, soil-erosion and salinity damaged farmlands, this concern for distinctive locality and for environment protection at the catchment scale is expressed through the Landcare programme.
This programme:
gives communities ownership of their problems and control over the solutions. The typical Landcare group is autonomous. Groups set their own pace and priorities, involve government or independent advisers as and when required, decide their own budgets for which they seek funding and influence how government money is spent on research and practical work in their area....it is clear that being part of a community and its future gives
A11 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
those involved in Landcare a passionate commitment to the cause. This is achieving real change. (Alexander 1993. p.7. See also Curtis 1996)
Rural Action evaluated.
An independent evaluation of Rural Action conducted for the three sponsoring agencies by Aston University Public Sector Management Research Centre (Bovaird and others. 1995) concluded that:
Rural Action is designed to promote a process which results in a new approach to environmental action at the local level and a broader constituency of support for and interest in environmental issues' . [It also achieves a] 'product in terms of projects which it enables to go ahead and the resulting environmental improvements on the ground.
Bovaird (1995. page 91) note that the national partnership which created and managed Rural Action 'was intended to take an integrated and holistic approach to environmental action... in addition, the thrust of Agenda 21, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the UK Strategy on Sustainable Development reinforce the desirability of such an approach.'
Rural Action has helped to lay a foundation for sustainable development at a local level....A high level of follow-up activity on current and future projects is reported by community groups, even though a high proportion of them had not previously been involved in local environmental projects. (Bovaird 1995. page 95)
Thus, although not designed as an English ‘sustainability’ response to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rural Action helps to serve that purpose, and has been commended as such to local authorities in several Local Agenda 21 advisory publications (LGMB 1995, Countryside Commission 1996)
Rural Action has already been effective in stimulating and supporting substantial amounts of local voluntary effort to safeguard and improve the local environment. More than half of all projects had involved 24 or more volunteers in carrying out the work, of which around three quarters had not been involved in environmental projects of this kind before. (Bovaird, 1995 page 93)
Involvement in projects had several marked positive effects on the individuals concerned. These included increased knowledge/experience of environmental issues; greater understanding of environmental management techniques; greater awareness of the means
A12 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
and importance of managing the local environment and enhancing [their] organisational skills.
The project support and grants, although criticised by some users as bureaucratic, despite attempts in 1995 to simplify the administrative paperwork, had a good reputation amongst community groups. Bovaird (1995. p93) summarises them as: o high quality technical advice; o a quick response to applications; o user-friendly, face-to-face contact with advisers; o the most comprehensive range of funded elements of any equivalent scheme to date; o recognition of the social objectives which many groups have for projects, alongside t he environmental ones. o two thirds of projects would not have gone ahead without Rural Action support.
Bovaird (1995 page 94) predicted that:
given the continuing high profile of environmental issues, [and] the growing impact of Agenda 21 ideas on the need for all to recognise their responsibilities and act accordingly, demand for Rural Action grants is likely to increase substantially and not diminish in subsequent years.
Following the independent evaluation, the DoE and Ministry of Agriculture Rural White Paper (1995 page 18) endorsed Rural Action’s ‘stimulation of local initiative by rural communities to improve their quality of life’ and Government renewed funding for three years. The next evaluation is due in late 1997.
The lasting environmental impact of a community development process which has already touched 100,000 lives (Rural Action Bulletin 1996) will become clearer as the scheme progresses. In particular, are community-managed projects more ‘sustainable’?
What, if anything, it has to offer beyond England’s shores as a way of working will be tested in part by dialogue with organisers of other community-based environmental initiatives, such as the ‘care’ groups in Australia and in New Zealand (Garden 1994, Ritchie 1996). Geographers
A13 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two and sociologists may also wish to debate the empirical evidence of ‘sense of local place’ operating as a motivator for voluntary environmental action, alongside a generalised ‘global concern’ seeking expression through stewardship.
References for Rhys Taylor’s IAG/NZGS conference paper. Hobart. 1997:
Alexander, H. and Raven, H. 1993. Lessons in Landcare: Australia’s Model for a Better Farming Future. SAFE Alliance, London.
Alinsky, S D. 1971. Rules for Radicals. New York, Vintage Books.
Bishop, J (BDOR Ltd), 1991. Community Action - an appraisal, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham.
Bishop, J and Rose, J. 1994. ‘Community Action - An Overview’ in Proceedings of the Countryside Recreation Network Conference, University of York, September 13-15, 1994. pp. 14-28. CRN Cardiff.
Blunden, J; Curry N. (eds) 1985 The Changing Countryside. Open University and Croom Helm, Beckenham.
Blunden J; Curry N. 1988 A Future for Our Countryside? Blackwell, Oxford.
Bovaird, T; Green, J; Martin, S; Millward, A & Tricker M. 1995 Evaluation of Rural Action for the Environment: Three Year Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness. Public Sector Management Research Centre, Aston University.
Broady, M and Hedley, R. 1989 Working Partnerships: Community Development in Local Authorities. Bedford Square Press, NCVO, London.
British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. Local Action newsletter. BTCV Local Groups Officer, 36 St. Mary’s Street, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 OEU.
Calouse Gulbenkian Foundation. 1984. A National Centre for Community Development: The Report of a Working Party. London.
Clark D M. 1989. Community Action in the Countryside: a review of RCC roles in conservation, recreation and access issues. ACRE, Cirencester.
Clifford, S; King, A. 1985. Holding Your Ground. Maurice Temple Smith, London. Second printing: Wildwood House.
A14 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Clifford, S; King, A. 1993. ‘Losing Your Place’ in Local Distinctiveness: Place, Particularity and Identity pp 7-19 (same editors), Conference Proceedings 28 September 1993 . Common Ground, Seven Dials Warehouse, 44 Earlham Street, London WC2H 9LA.
Clifford, S; King, A. 1994. Celebrating Local Distinctiveness Common Ground, information pack for Rural Action, Cirencester.
Common Ground. 1996. Parish Maps pamphlet (24 pp. Address above)
Council for the Protection of Rural England. 1995. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Twenty Indicators for the Countryside. pamphlet.
Countryside Commission. 1989. Corporate Strategy 1989-90, Cheltenham.
Countryside Commission, English Nature, Rural Development Commission and partners. 1992. Rural Action for the environment - An Introduction. (available from ACRE, Cirencester)
Countryside Commission, English Heritage, English Nature. 1996. Ideas into Action for Local Agenda 21: Conservation initiatives in the local environment. Telelink, Fareham, Hampshire.
Craig, G; Mayo. M and Taylor, M. 1990. ‘Empowerment: A Continuing Role for Community Development.’ in Community Development Journal Vol. 25 No. 4.
Curtis, A and DeLacey, T. ‘Landcare in Australia: Does it Make a Difference? in Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 46. No. 2. February 1996
Department of the Environment (and others). 1992 Action for the Countryside. HMSO.
Department of the Environment (and others). 1994. Sustainable Development - the UK Strategy. HMSO.
Department of the Environment. 1995 Biodiversity - the UK Action Plan. HMSO
Department of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1995 Rural England: A nation committed to a living countryside (White Paper)
Derounian, J G. 1993. Another Country: Real Life Beyond Rose Cottage. NCVO, London.
Derounian, J G. (ed) 1997. Grasping the Nettle: Effective Working with Rural Communities. Packard Publishing.
Eyles, J. 1985. Sense of Place. Silverbrook Press, Warrington.
Francis, D and Henderson P. 1992. Working with Rural Communities. Macmillan, London.
A15 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Gamm, L and Fisher, F. 1980. ‘The Technical Assistance Approach’ in Christenson, J and Robinson, J (eds) Community Development in America. Iowa State University Press.
Garden, P. 1994. ‘Landcare in NZ: Growing Pains.’ in Proceedings of the 1994 New Zealand Conference on Sustainable Land Management. pp. 122-126. Lincoln. Lincoln University.
Greeves, T; Taylor, R E. 1987. The Local Jigsaw (Information Pack on Village Appraisals) ACRE & Common Ground.
Hamilton, E. 1992. Adult Education for Community Development. Greenwood Press, Westport USA.
Hayward, B M. 1995. ‘Beyond Liberalism? Environmental Management and Deliberative Democracy.’ Paper presented to 91st meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, USA. August 31-Sept 3, 1995.
Horsbrugh, B; Kean, J and Warburton D. 1992. Thinking Globally, Enabling Locally: Improving Support for Local Environmental Action. World Wide Fund for Nature UK, Godalming, Surrey.
Howes L; Skinner E. 1994. Improving the Environment: a guide for town and parish councils. Local Policy Team, Cheltenham and Gloucester College, for Rural Action, Cirencester.
Johnstone, W D; Nicholson, C; Stone, M K; Taylor R E. 1990. Countrywork: a new review of rural economic, training and employment initiatives. ACRE and The Planning Exchange. Cirencester.
Jones, K. 1995. People and Participation in Rural Areas: A Community Development Approach (Report for Winston Churchill Memorial Trust and NZ Counties Trust). Western Bay of Plenty District Council, NZ.
Ley, D. 1989. ‘Modernism, Post-Modernism and the Struggle for Place.’ in Agnew, J A and Duncan, J S (eds) The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations. pp. 44-65. Boston, Unwin-Hyman.
Mabey, R; Clifford S; King A (eds) 1984. Second Nature. Jonathan Cape, London.
MacLeod, F. 1993. Motivating and Managing Today’s Volunteers: How to build and lead a terrific team. Self-Counsel Press, British Columbia.
MacKaye, B. 1962. The New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.
McCormick J. 1991. British Politics and the Environment (see Chapter 4: environmental groups and the countryside) Earthscan, London.
A16 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Mason, S and Taylor, R E. 1990. Tackling Deprivation in Rural Areas. A Report to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. ACRE, Cirencester.
Mitchell, M; Leigh R. 1991. The Village Appraisal Software. Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Gloucestershire RCC and ACRE.
Newby, H. 1988. The Countryside in Question. Hutchinson, London.
Pinkney-Baird, J. 1994 Environmental Volunteering: Results of a Survey. The Volunteer Centre, London.
Rackham, O. 1986. The History of the Countryside. London, Dent and Sons.
Ritchie, H. 1996. Landcare in Rural Waikato. Report on a Study for Environment Waikato (regional Council) Hamilton, NZ.
Rothman, J. 1979. ‘Three Models of Community Organisation Practice, Their Mixing and Phasing.’ in Cox, F M. (ed) Strategies of Community Organisation. Itasca, Illinois, Peacock.
Roome, N. 1992. Green Perspectives on Community and Public Policy, in: Butcher, H; Glen, A; Henderson, P; Smith, J (eds) Community and Public Policy
RSNC (the Wildlife Trusts Partnership), Martin Parsons (ed).1992. Your Place or Mine: A review of how and why communities are looking after their local countryside. RSNC, Lincoln, UK
Rural Action national development team, Kirkham G. (ed), Newsletters (first four issues 1992-1995), Briefing autumn 1995, Bulletin autumn 1996. Rural Action, ACRE Offices, Somerford Court, Somerford Road, Cirencester. GL7 1TW.
Rural Voice. 1990. Employment on the land: a new perspective. ACRE, Cirencester.
SBBC. 1990. Twenty Years of Shell Better Britain Campaign 1970-1990. Birmingham.
SBBC. 1995. Interactive (the annual guide to getting help for community projects) Birmingham. (Previous annual editions were titled Getting Help)
SBBC. 1996. Sustainability Checklist and A-Z Guide. Shell Better Britain Campaign, Victoria Works, 21a Graham Street, Birmingham B1 3JR.
Taylor, M. 1993. Learning from Consumers and Citizens. Local Government Management Board, Luton, UK
Taylor, M. 1995 (revised edition). Signposts to Community Development. Community Development Foundation, London.
A17 Rhys Taylor Appendix Two
Taylor, R E. 1994. ‘Perspectives on Community Initiatives: Action with Communities in Rural England.’ in Communities in the Countryside, proceedings of the Countryside Recreation Network Conference, University of York. September 13-15, 1994. pp 62-68. CRN, Cardiff.
Taylor, R E. 1997. ‘Rural Action for the Environment - A Review’ (Chapter 8) in Derounian, J G (ed) Effective Working with Rural Communities. pp 93-102. Packard Publishing.
Taylor, R E. 1997b. ‘The Origins of Rural Action’. Unpublished background paper for IAG/NZGS conference, Hobart, January 1997. (includes material from Taylor 1997)
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Warburton D; Mount D; Roome N. 1989. Making Community Action Work in the Environment (December 1988 Losehill Hall & SBBC Conference Report)
Young, S. 1994. The Politics of the Environment. Baseline Books, UK.
------
Author: Rhys E Taylor, 45 Lynfield Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8004, New Zealand.
E-mail: anneandrhys@compuserve,com Telephone: 64.3.3587244
A18 Rhys Taylor Appendix Three
paste conference poster on this page once a/w reduced
A19 Rhys Taylor Appendix Four
Appendix Four
On worldviews and bi-cultural perspectives.
Mau e ui mai, he aha te mea nui o te ao? Maku e ki atu. He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
You ask me, what is the most important thing in life? I shall tell you, it is people, it is people, it is people.10
The natural world of Aotearoa/New Zealand has experienced successive human cultural impacts in the past millennium: first the Polynesian seafarers (who settled as takata whenua) and subsequently British settlers (Pakeha) and other ethnic backgrounds (Tauiwi). Relative to other continents, human arrival on these islands is very recent.
From the European settlers’ original small minority position as guests of Maori at the time of Treaty of Waitangi 1840, they rapidly became more populous, and the dominant land and resource-user (Steven, 1989). Pakeha attempted at first to establish a ‘cultural hegemony’ (Gramsci 1971 p245 cited in Novitz 1989) and to assimilate indigenous people by suppressing Taha Maori, through which Western European worldviews could become the single influence on public values and policy. However, Maori language (Te Reo), self-identity (Maoritanga) and distinctive worldviews have survived this colonial oppression and are now resurgent (Walker 1989) within an officially Treaty-based society. Many Maori are rediscovering kiatiakitaka, the traditional stewardship or user-guardian role over natural resources.
Park (1987 p88) argues that mutual understanding between the two peoples should replace mutual incomprehension as New Zealand moves out of the colonial mode; and the ‘place-less’ more recent migrants make local place connections (op cit p.92; see also Kirby 1997). Park (1987 p 97) suggests “a new covenant, built on knowledge, creativity and care, with ‘te whenua’ that unites the mythological, spiritual, scientific and ecological understanding of land
10 This proverb is much quoted at Lincoln University by Ngai Tahu, but also by Ngati Awa (eg Aroha Mead of National Maori Congress, one of the NZ delegates to UNCED 1992: see Mead 1994 p56)
A20 Rhys Taylor Appendix Four by our different cultures. It needs to foster co-operation between Maori and Pakeha, to create a sense of place that will in turn lead to a better understanding, respect of the ‘good, wild and sacred’ places that will otherwise disappear to become mere cultural memories. Government can promote this sort of care, but they cannot provide it. It is an individual and community thing.”
Limitations upon a European researcher Val Kirby, another migrant from Britain, teaching at Lincoln, reminds us that the Pakeha priority usually afforded to quantitative, objective ‘hard facts’ over qualitative and intuitive knowledge tends to be one barrier to inter-cultural understanding. What can be known (ontology) is culture-dependent, and hence is cosmology or world-view dependent11. Active and conscious choices tend only to apply beyond ontology, at the level of how we go about knowing (epistemology), and then at the detail of methodology and techniques. (Kirby 1997)
Beliefs, values and behavioural practices can be associated together, in a colligatory way12 (Novitz 1989 p280; Kirby 1997) which we then label ‘a distinctive culture’. Human cultures, thus defined, relate to their environment in distinctly different ways.
Because different components of the New Zealand landscape have demonstrably different values for European and Maori (Adams and Evison 1993), the author’s British cultural origin, new-resident status and scientific-ecological training will each contribute bias to this study. Some cultural ‘keys to the landscape’ will simply be unavailable to a non- Maori (Wearing 1996).
Maori and concepts of biodiversity The indigenous local knowledge of plants represents the operational - human ecological - knowledge of rural Maori culture (Allen & Bosch 1996 p2). Developed during a thousand years of self-sufficient, although at times environmentally-destructive, residence in these islands, it evolved in response to “lessons learned in land management practices...part of and indistinguishable from their culture.” (Op cit p2)
11 For brief introductions to Maori worldviews and cosmology, refer to Walker 1989 p 36, Shultis 1991 p113. From these early myths and legends come the tikaka or natural and customary ways of all creatures, including, their relatives, humans, for all of whom earth Papa was ancestral mother and sky Rangi, ancestral father (Orbell 1985 p216). 12 ‘colligatory’ used by Novitz (1989), means marked off from others by collecting, or colligating together their characteristic and mutually dependent patterns of action and interaction, as well as the values, beliefs and knowledge which guide them. It contrasts with the spiritual or organic view of culture which allows only for those ‘born appropriately’ to be admitted, regardless of bahaviour and choices, which may be from other cultures.
A21 Rhys Taylor Appendix Four
Bevan Tipene (1996 p282) states that in situ preservation of traditional Maori knowledge relating to the forests is preferable to ex-situ (typically in the hands of other cultures, able and ready to exploit it) and is consistent with the guarantees stated under Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi, Tino Rangatiratanga13 (MfE 1993d p11). Certain Maori cultural-ecological information will thus not be readily available to Europeans who enquire. In addition the ‘natural resources’ themselves are contested by a pending claim to the Waitangi Tribunal (WAI 262, lodged October 199114) seeking recognition of Maori rights in “all indigenous flora and fauna and the genetic resources contained therein.” The Treaty Claim seeks “control of indigenous flora and fauna in a manner which recognises te tino ragatiratanga o te Iwi Maori.” (NZ Ecological Society 1995; Thrush 1995; Wright 1995). In addition there is a lively debate over customary harvest rights, which are sometimes in conflict with species conservation objectives of the Conservation Authority and DoC (NZ Conservation Authority 1997).
Maori and concepts of sustainability Maori principles of sustainable development, or inter-generational equity, have been published by National Maori Congress (which took them to the Rio UNCED). In summary (condensed from Mead 1993 p56-57) these eleven principles are:
1. Environment, development and the survival of the earth’s inhabitants are interdependent and inseparable.
2. Environmental management should be based on respect for the spiritual integrity of the environment as the literal embodiment of our ancestral beginnings and our continuity.
3. We treat the environment as a living system of which we are a part and which we must respect as we would another person.
4. Intergenerational responsibility for the environment which we hold in trust...
5. That under the principle of personal sufficiency each of us is entitled to take what we need of the resources that our world provides but to care for the sustainability and renewability of these resources.
6. Collective responsibility allocates resource use according to need ...but requires return if responsibilities are abused.
7. Equitable use may require inequalities of resource allocation, depending upon needs...
13 English translation of the Second Article of the Treaty refers to “full and exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forest and Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess.” (Trans: Sir Hugh Kawharu. Cited in Williams 1997 section5.46) 14 Maori Claims to Indigenous Flora and Fauna - Wai 262 (1995) I NZELR 144.
A22 Rhys Taylor Appendix Four
8. Intrinsic value of traditional knowledge derives from the scientific tradition of our forbears’ observation and wisdom...pragmatic and practical.
9. Our future will depend upon the quality of partnership...achieved as we draw into our traditional cultural framework the wealth of knowledge from every source...
10. Economic utilisation of the environment must not compromise traditional values, the needs of future generations or the earth’s spiritual integrity.
11. The rights of peoples to self-determination and self-management should be respected and encouraged. The greater the involvement of people in matters affecting them, the more likely the outcome will be successful.
Maori and concepts of ‘volunteering’ The collective interest or common element linking all Maori is wairua (spirit), which used together with related inter-generational concepts of aroha (universal love), poha (duty) and tikaka (justice, traditional law) can be equated to the Pakeha concept of volunteering or citizen service (Barnett 1996 p9).
Disclaimer: Any mis-representations of Maori cultural values here are accidental, not intended, and demonstrate the difficulties of a being new student of their culture who has yet to speak te Reo with confidence. Opportunity for Korero to deepen understanding would be appreciated.
A23 Rhys Taylor Appendix Five
Appendix Five
Good practice in questionnaire wording, telephone schedule design and use
The following points were considered during preparation of the survey: • Aim for clarity to help the listener. Keep subjects early in sentences and sentences short. Scales or choices, if used, should follow not preceede the question. (Converse and Presser 1986) • Follow closed questions, such as forced choice, with open ones to probe meaning (op cit, p33, p43, p67) • Avoid ‘agree/disagree’ closed questions (op cit p37) • Ask about intensity of opinion separately from position taken(op cit p37) • Test the questions; the first time declaring the test, then in a new edition undeclared. Look for: (a) any questions which have to be repeated before understood; (b) any questions mis- interpreted, when replies examained; (c) any which made the respondent uncomfortable; (d) Any sections which were dull or dragged; (e) Any sections in which respondent would have liked to say more of relevance to the study; (f) The links between questions and sections; (g) the overall time required - is it too long and waht can be cut? (Op. cit p54 p72) • Pre-tests should produce variability in results, rather than ‘all or none’ (Frey p 159) Look in particular at response categories to closed questions: are they appropriate divisions of the range of possible replies, or have most gone into one category which could now be subdivided to provide more information. • Place questions seeking information on personal characteristics at the end of the questionnaire when the interviewee will be more trusting. Avoid sensitive questions early in the sequence as more likely to get ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ replies: put them in the middle. (Frey 1989 p 155) • Seek a flow between questions and use transitional statements to help listener.(Frey 1989 p156) • Avoid duplication and exclude questions not relevant to the research. (listener should understand logic) • Ask several questions on a topic when exploring attitudes and beliefs to assist triangulation (Frey p160, Kidder 1981 p 158)
A24 Rhys Taylor Appendix Five
• The most reliable questions ask a respondent to report on their own behaviour, unless anti- social behaviour is the subject. Questions about behaviour and especially motivation of others are less reliable (Frey. 1989. p164) • Avoid asking hypothetical questions such as future activity, as they are ‘notoriously unreliable’. (Op. cit. p160)
Role of interviewer as recorder. Steps taken to minimise information distortions in handwritten answer recording by the interviewer included: • standardising questions and their sequence after the pilot tests; • use of the same one interviewer throughout; • not rushing the questions or putting pressure on the interviewee, utilising their pauses for thought to continue writing notes; • reading direct quotations back to the interviewee to clarify the phrasing and then identifying these notes with “quotation marks”, treating other notes as summary or paraphrased viewpoints; • requesting written supporting information, such as annual reports, newsletters, meeting minutes, management plans and press clippings - mailed as follow-up by many interviewees - to provide further corroboration; and • comparison of recorded comments from the two interviews to assist correct identification of organisations, people and events cited.
A25 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Appendix Six
Bush Restoration Interview Question Schedule. (3rd DRAFT)
PRELIMINARY RECORD SHEET Project/interviewee No...... to be completed in advance of main interview, and filed separately afterwards. Confidential record. This person’s name and address is not for publication.
Full Name of local Group or Organisation:
Full (formal) Name of project:
RT Check this project concerns a site (or sites) on which there is ‘native/indigenous’ NZ vegetation being conserved and/ or being restored? Yes No (withdraw)
Full name of interviewee:
How interviewee prefers to be addressed, if not by full first name:......
Tel. no, (eve/weekend, preferred)...... (day)......
Role within group/project? An honorary officer? ......
Add Postal address later if required (eg. To send summary of findings):
Interview consent response:...... Consent date......
Interview arranged for: Date:...... Time:...... Phone or in-person ?
If in person, meet where?
(Note of any subsequent changes ...... ).
A26 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
nterview date & time...... Project/Interviewee code:......
Is this first, second or third interview for this project?
RT: “When we spoke on...... (date) You agreed to be interviewed confidentially for this research study. We may need around 1.5 hours today - I hope this is still convenient and thank-you for your time”. (Note Re-scheduling if requested. New date & time:
Would you like me to repeat the research description? [ No ] [ Yes ] = RT do so now
(RT Link) “I usually start the interview by asking about the project aims and about the work-site, then I ask about the group and your volunteering experiences.
Q.1. Please tell me in a few words what the project aim was, back at the start (of this project).
(RT Confirm here that it protects and is or will restore native/indig. vegetation?)
Q.2. What prompted the start of this project ? (note if: event, problem, opportunity, previous project etc. Further question is on people: Q4)
Q .3. When did this project begin?:
Month: ...... Year:19...... Name then if different:......
A27 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Q .4. Who first developed the idea of this project ?
(if a group of people, what was connection - how did they know eachother?)
Q 5. How are the same people (they/you) involved today?
Q.6. Are they/you still in a leading role? [Yes ] [No ] If no -> Q.Who is leading now?
(RT Link) Let’s move from people, back to the project, for a while. Q.7. What stage have you reached now (this month) in project activities? What is happening on site?
Q.8. How far have you moved towards the original project aim of (year) (which you told me about a few minutes ago: Q1)?
Q.9a Has the central aim changed over the time since this project began? [ No ] [Yes - Changed] -> if so how?
Q 9.b.Or new aims been added? [Yes - New added] -> if so, what?
A28 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Q.10. Could you describe where the project work site is located? (RT If several sites, focus now onto one and agree this one with interviewee)
Note local authority District ...... & Region......
Q.11. Is the site public or privately owned land, today?
[ Public ] [ Private] [ Both ] [ Don’t know ]
Q.12a. Is it protected land?: [ Protected ] [Not protected ] [Don’t know]
Q.12b.If protected, do you know of what type? select one from list below: [ ] Covenant-protected private land. If so, is this a QEII covenant?...... [ ] Private land held in trust. Single or group/multiple owners?...... [ ] open space covenant [ ] scenic reserve [ ] scientific reserve [ ] nature reserve [ ] wildlife refuge [ ] wildlife management reserve [ ] historic place [ ] other category? (Eg.Waahi Tapu?) Name:
Q.13. Which if any statutory agency or authority has an overseeing role?
(And their office is at?......
Q.14. Is the site physically accessible to the public? [ Yes ] [ No ] [DK] (Could members of the public get onto it? Not a question about legality of access)
Q.15. (and) Do the public regularly have access? [Yes] [ No ] [DK]
Q.16 Would you say this site is: [ urban ] or [ on urban fringe ] or [ rural ]
I will be asking some questions next about the active volunteers in your group.
A29 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Q.17. How many people are involved in project work-activities?
A range from minimum...... to maximum...... is more useful than an average.
Q.18. How does the maximum number involved in project work on site compare with total group membership? Prompt: Is it [All of them] [Majority of them] [Minority of them]
RT note claimed number of members :......
(RT Link) The next few questions are about the voluntary group(RT quote formal name), as an organisation.
Q19. Does the group have an informal name?(in other words, separate from the project name? What do members call the group in everyday conversations)
Q20a.When was [informal group name] founded? month...... 19......
Q20b. (RT) Note if group formed before project’s start: [before] [same] [after]
Q.21. Is it a branch of a larger organisation ? [ Yes ] [No ] [DK]
If yes, their name:
Q.22. Is the group affiliated or paying subscriptions to any other organisation, for example to get access to information, advice or services? [ no ] [ yes: say which:]
Q.23. Where does the group get its money from? (Clarify if financed separately from the project: see next Q. 24)
Q.24. And (if distinct) where does the project get its money from?
A30 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Q.25. Has the group obtained from members or from outside sources the loan of tools, gift of materials, or similar help-in-kind which have assisted the project? (Examples & sources:)
Another question relating to finance, about the site: Q.26 Does the site have any relief (% discount) from local authority rates?
[ No ] [Yes 100%] [Yes 50%] [Yes, but % unknown] [Applications pending] [DK]
Q.27. Can you tell me the Legal status of your Group? Prompt: For example is it: • an Incorporated Society (= Inc appears after the formal name) [Yes ] [No] • a Charitable Trust • legally represented by a Local Authority, which supervises activities. • another legal status, which is: • Don’t Know -> is there someone who would? [Yes ] ->RT Note name, tel no. & address separately
(RT Ask ques only if report or newsletter not already obtained:) Q.28. Does the group produce an annual report or a regular newsletter?
[ No ] [Yes ] -> From whom could I obtain latest copy? ...... (is this same person as Q27 above?)
(RT link) “We have been chatting for ..... minutes and we are over half way. Are you confortable? Next I would like to consider the voluntary activity within the project in more detail.
Q.29a. Over the past 12 months, how has the combined amount of all members’ time spent on voluntary activity on this project compared to time spent on other group activities? For this question I shall be using a scale in 5 steps to describe the project, as follows:
1. the group’s only activity 2. the group’s major activity 3. one among several activities (see Q29b below for others)
A31 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
4. a minor activity for the group (see below) 5. not currently active - meaning it is either completed or dormant
RT May need to note the range of other activities of the group as context? Are these in annual report or newsletter? if 3 or 4 selected above. -> Q.29b What are the group’s major (other) voluntary activities?
(RT link) Staying with the use of time as our topic - Q.30. What have the volunteers on this project done with their time when they help? I would like to note the range of volunteer activities which you know have contributed in some way to the project:
[RT use 1-10, circling words, as a recording checklist, but note if used as prompts]
1. Design, plans (and proposals, resource consent or building permit)
2. Surveys, monitoring, ‘watchdog’.
3. Fundraising, grant applic’s, publicity, media-liaison, leaflets, newsletter.
4. Adding plants or trees on site. Tree nursery.
5. Clearance or construction works
6. Create paths, access improvement.
7. Site protection: car stops, gates, livestock fences, animal pest control.
8. Interpretation for visitors: signs, guided walks, materials.
9. Aid educational use: primary & intermediate, secondary, tertiary.
10. Training for volunteers
11. Social & celebration events.
12. Evaluation: re- survey, review progress, amend management plans.
13. Others: (describe)
A32 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
(RT Link) Good, we have reached the point where I’m ready to leave project description and talk about volunteers experiences, particularly your personal impressions as someone involved in the project. (remind interviewee that this is confidential: names not published. Speak freely.)
Q.31. In your opinion, what have you found the technically easiest (or organisationally easiest) part of the project, so far? Can you suggest why?
Q.32. Now I ask about the opposite aspect: What have you found the technically hardest (or organisationally hardest) part of the project, so far? Can you suggest why?
Q.33. What has felt, to you, the emotionally and physically easiest part of the project? Can you suggest why?
Q.34. What has felt, to you, the emotionally or physically hardest part of the project, so far? Can you suggest why?
A33 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
(RT link) Tackling any project requires all sorts of skills and know-how, from the everyday ones to the very specialised.
Q.35. What can you tell me about the skills and knowledge which are available within the group - particularly those relevant to this project and probably being used?
Q 36. What (if any) gaps in skills or knowledge within the group are you aware of, which if such gaps were filled could help your progress?
Q.37a. Have you or other volunteers in your group been involved in any previous (earlier) projects involving NZ native/indigenous plants?
[Not to my knowledge] [ Yes ] -> if so [ Current ] or [ past/completed ]? If yes, pto for supplementaries If Yes, Q 37b Seek brief description. (Clarify: Many? With this group or another one?)
If yes, Q.37c What effect did the previous experience of restoration projects have on the volunteers? (Was it significant/noticeable?)
A34 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
(RT link) Now let’s consider help for the project which the group brings-in from outside the group membership. Initially I’m asking about external help for this particular project, not for previous ones. Q 38.a. What external (outside group) information, advice or skilled assistance has contributed to the project so far? (RT note, Q38a is unprompted see 38b.)
Q 38b. RT Use Prompts: [Farmers/landowners? Govt agencies such as DoC or MAF or MfE? Regional Council? District or City Council? National Voluntary Organisations? Libraries or other information sources? Individual Professionals? School, College, University, Polytechnic? Other local voluntary groups?]
Q.39 During the project, has there been anything which has prevented you getting access to the external help or advice your group may have sought?
[No ] [Yes] [dont know - ask others]
Q.40a. What (if any) outside help will be essential to tackle planned further stages of this project? Prompt: for eg. Specialist Information? Legal Advice? Practical Assistance? (RT: Not intended hypothetical question - should relate to specific proposed activity)
A35 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
(If any suggested, above), Q.40b. Can you identify likely sources of such information, advice and/or assistance?
Q.41. Can you identify any topics on which training could in your view help group members tackle this project (and similar projects) more effectively or more confidently? Prompt: When responding with training topics, don’t be limited by of whether or not such training is to your knowledge available locally.
(RT Link) We are near the end of the interview. My final section relates to your personal experiences within the group and information about yourself as a motivated volunteer. Q.42. What have you personally found most satisfying about the project, and why?
Q.43. And now I shall ask the opposite: what have you found least satisfying in your voluntary involvement, and why?
A36 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Q44a. Can you describe to me how the group monitors project progress? What is recorded, measured or reported? RT seeking the ‘monitoring measures’ used? Unprompted at first. [Dont Know] [others would know: ask...... ] [Yes: as follows:]
Q.44b. Would it help if I prompt you, with some of the progress monitoring methods used in other groups, to see if these apply? (RT use of these depends on time flexibility - they may be anxious to end soon)
1. Meeting Minutes, Annual Reports, Newsletter - as ‘written records’.
2. Management Plan, with aims, objectives, targets? Reviewed when?
3. New volunteers recruited ‘attracted by the project’ & existing ones return..
4. Photographic record of change? Exhibited?
5. Systematic Botanical surveys, repeated annually?
6. Ecological indicator ‘monitoring’, eg. Water or soil qualities, bird & animal count.
7. Other external ‘expert’ evaluation - by whom? What method?
8. Awards gained or public commendation voiced in media.
Other:
(RT Link) “In pre-planned questions, I can’t anticipate all aspects of likely interest and relevance. What do you think I have missed out? (If quiet: Think about messages for environmental agencies or local authorities which might see my summary of results.) Q45. What else should I know about your group or this project?
A37 Rhys Taylor Appendix Six
Confidential record. For statistical use only.
Socio-economic & demographic information on the individual. Ref ......
I’d like to know in what ways you are similar to or different from others in the group?
Gender: individual...... group majority......
Iwi or other cultural affiliation - indiv...... group......
Age group - in round figures to nearest decade? Indiv...... group......
Occupation (present) or main daytime activity:
Additional or previous trade or professional skills ? - especially those relevant to project but not obvious from current occupation
Would you like a summary of my research findings posted to you in 1998? [ Yes - one to to group] [Yes to this individual] [ No ] RT Check I have their postal address: on separate cover sheet.
If appropriate: And finally, having spent all this time helping me, is there a man/woman also active in the group whom you recommend me to approach, to seek a similar but probably shorter secondinterview? [ Yes ] [ No ] (RT Note contact onto a new cover sheet immediately).
“If you need to contact me, I can be reached by telephone at home on 03 358 7244, or my supervisor Dr Geoff Kerr at the Lincoln University Department of Resource Management on 03 325 2811.
“Many thanks & sign off..
A38 Rhys Taylor Appendix Seven
Appendix Seven
Concern for the environment and environmental volunteering: survey data from outside New Zealand
Media spotlight on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED 1992) prompted many quantitative surveys of national public opinion on environmental issues, around the developed world. In Australia ‘environment’ ranked third most important current issue that year, after ‘unemployment’ and ‘state of the economy’. It was also top issue ‘in the long term’. Fairly high within environmental concerns were individual interest in making a contribution to helping the environment. (Source: DASET 1992)
A Europe-wide survey ‘Eurobarometer’ MORI (1992) showed that 69% of people sampled in 20 countries across Europe held the view that ‘economic development must be ensured but the environment protected at the same time’ and 22% would give higher priority to protecting the environment than to economic development15.
A year later in the United Kingdom, an opinion poll by Gallup Ltd (Clover 1993) showed the top public concern to be damage to the ozone layer and second a cluster of pollution and damage to the countryside issues, particularly from traffic and roads.
Similar opinion survey data for New Zealand has proved elusive: even the substantial State of the Environment Report from MFE (Taylor and Smith 1997) offered nothing. 16
In public opinion surveys on environmental issues, differences often show: by age, gender, ethnic group, socio-economic status and level of education. For example:
15 The 22% minority are demonstrating what Milbrath (1984) and others have called the ‘new environmental paradigm’. 16 A telephoned request to MfE for information on environmental public opinion survey data in New Zealand produced the offer of help, but nothing arrived before the deadline for this report.
A39 Rhys Taylor Appendix Seven
A USA city-based survey of schoolchildren by Roper-Starch (1996) found:
• younger children more interested in environmental issues than older ones;
• environmental group participation highest within higher levels of educational attainment;
• higher level of environmental concerns expressed by girls than boys;
• environmental concern higher among urban young who had experienced hiking, camping and contact with nature, than those who had not17.
Environmental action by the European public
The European survey quoted above (MORI 1992) asked respondents about their voluntary actions, including four questions (J to M below) - to produce average data which illustrates both the variation and the similarities between nations. Four countries were selected by the author from the 20 studied on the arbitrary basis of that country making a known contribution to New Zealand immigration numbers during the 20th century.
Which, if any, of these actions have you ever done?: Germany Ireland United Nether- Kingdom lands J. Take part in a local environment initiative 16% 11% 9% 5% for example cleaning a beach or park K. Demonstrate against a project that could harm 12% 6% 5% 4% the environment L. Financially support an association for the 13% 15% 14% 22% protection of the environment M. Be a member of an association for the protection 7% 5% 8% 20% of the environment Source MORI 1992.
One of the differences suggested here is a greater tendency toward direct citizen action in Germany (higher % in initiatives, demonstrations) compared to use of voluntary organisations working as campaigners on behalf of citizens (higher % in membership and donations) in the UK and Netherlands. To the author, Pakeha New Zealand appears closer to the British and Dutch average approach than the German, of this 1992 survey.
17 also shown for adults by Harry et al (1969); whilst Tinsley and Kass (1979) discuss other ‘therapeutic need satisfactions ‘ from outdoor recreation. Milbrath (1984 p79) says that early childhood experiences of environment may shape adult attitudes to care of the evironment. Lincoln University student Chris Fourie (1997, pers com) has interviewed adult environmentalists, including bush restorers, to find that many report significant childhood experiences in the bush as a motivator of their actions.
A40 Rhys Taylor Appendix Seven
The UK’s environmental volunteers
Volunteers become involved in groups caring for their local environment through many routes.
A recent survey in the UK (NCVO 1994, cited by BDOR, 1995 p16) identified a much wider range and scale of voluntary environmental activity than that led by specialised “conservation’ groups such as the wildlife trusts or National Trust . Many leisure and service organisations, such as Women’s Institutes, Rotary, Lions, Soroptomists, Scouts and Guides run local environmental care and education projects Different groups have appeal to different sections of society (Robbins 1990): 70% of Friends of the Earth’s volunteers in the 1980s were under 30 years old (FoE has a campaigning style), whilst a majority of the National Trust’s members were a generation older (National Trust focusses on uncontroversial historic heritage buildings and landscape)
A postal survey of the varied groups tackling local environmental work in the UK brought 279 responses, but only one fifth of those contacted (Pinkney-Baird 1993a). 85% of respondents were involved in practical ‘hands-on’ conservation activity, such as work on habitats, both rural and urban. The next most common tasks were administration and committee work, but fundraising was well down the list, in contrast to its dominance in the charitable sector outside environmental volunteering (Volunteer Centre UK 1991).
Despite the multi-cultural nature of the UK, 86% of responding environmental groups did not involve any volunteers from ethnic minorities, suggesting that this particular ‘serious recreation’ has limited appeal outside European/white culture?18.
18 In addition 73% had no written policy on volunteers, 45% no equal opportunities policy and 66% did not involve any volunteers with significant disabilities, so lack of positive action to operate in a more ‘inclusive’ way, especially in urban centres, may contribute to the visible mono-cultural bias.
A41 Rhys Taylor Appendix Seven
Recruitment was reported to be ‘difficult’ but despite this, the proportion of the UK population involved in environmental volunteering had doubled between the Volunteer Centre’s 1981 and
1991 surveys19.
Powell (1997) conducted a telephone survey of 120 past and present, long-term usually full- time volunteers (in receipt of state unemployment benefit) based in three types of UK environmental organisation: the National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and British Trust for
Conservation Volunteers. All of these are involved in habitat management and public access work. Across all three, the stated motivations for volunteering varied with age. Altruistic reasons were offered by only 8%20.
19 Recruitment methods included ‘word of mouth’ from existing volunteers (used by 93% and the only method considered ‘very successful’), newsletters (used by 75%), local press, leaflets, talks, volunteer bureaux, posters and broadcast media.
20 A majority do go on to work in the environmental sector following their period as volunteers. Of past volunteers surveyed by Powell (1997), 82% claimed that their experience and skills from volunteering had helped them to get into present employment. Long term, intensive volunteering of this type functions as an unpaid induction or apprenticeship and reflects excess demand for the paid work available. The closest NZ parallels are ‘volunteers’ for the 20 week Conservation Corps training schemes, but participants receive a training allowance during this period, at public cost..
A42 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Appendix Eight
Who cares about native bush: some sample organisations. . Table Four (Comprising extracts from Table One,in Chapter 3, part 3,of Report).
W1. Buy or control land: W2. Land covenants: W3. Fence protection: examples... examples... examples... • NZ Native Forests • Queen Elizabeth II National • Nga Whenua Rahui (for land Restoration Trust Trust in Maori ownership) • Forest Heritage Fund • Reserves W4. Regulation and W5. Sources of voluntary W6. Animal and plant Rules affect restoration: and visiting workforce: pest -control help: examples... examples... examples... • District Land Use Plans • DoC Conservation • Department of Conservation Volunteers, Wilderness and Conservation Corps Trust • Iwi resource management • Trees for Survival Trust, • Regional Councils (plans, plans schools advice, pest identification) W7. Technical W8. Networking between W9. Representation, information, expertise: groups, training, advice: lobbying, submissions: examples... examples... examples... • Professional associations (eg • Landcare Trust • Royal Forest and Bird of local government staff) Protection Society • Botanic gardens • Regional Council staff, eg. Env. Waikato • Adult education courses • ECO
Note that many organisations are active under several categories (for example Forest Heritage Fund, Nga Whenua Rahui, Doc, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society) so the allocation of an organisation to one category here is for illustration purposes.
------Category W1. Buy or control land. Example: New Zealand Native Forests Restoration Trust A charitable trust which has raised funds for the purchase or covenant protection and fencing of indigenous forest since 1985, and voluntarily manages restoration in 10 sites in the North Island21.
W1. Buy or control land.
A43 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Example: Forest Heritage Fund Established in 1990 to help implement Indigenous Forest Policy. A fund, serviced and also used by DoC, which has protected over 100,000 hectares of indigenous forests, on criteria of representativeness, sustainability (sizes over 10ha preferred), landscape integrity and amenity. A majority of the contestable funds are used for purchases, but some for covenants through QE II National Trust, and for fencing. Surveys are used to establish priorities for conservation (Harding1994; DoC 1996 Factsheet)
W1. Buy or control land. Example: Reserves Sometimes bush remnants are protected by designation within a larger reserve, as are several of the case studies. The Reserves Act 1977 first established the need to preserve ‘representative examples of ecosystems and landscapes’ and the indigenous species they contain. Reserves can be vested in and/or administered by a variety of bodies including voluntary societies and trustees, as well as government agencies and local authorities22. Management plans under section 41(3) of the Act are used “to provide continuity and to explain to the public management actions”. (Wellington City Council 1995)
Reserve status does not guarantee land management for ecological value - its principal purpose may be sporting recreation, for example. The Reserves Act 1977 (part III s.19) only requires conservation ‘to the extent compatible with the principal purpose’. Voluntary conservation groups may seek to influence the balance between competing public uses. The case studies illustrate this. ------W2. Land covenants. Example: Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. By 1994, the Trust, which is both a public fund and a membership organisation, administered by DoC, had protected over 740 sites, rising to1,350 by 1996, covering 100,000 ha. Established by Act of Parliament in 1977, the Trust promotes establishment of legal agreements called covenants, registered against land titles which bind the present and future owners to certain management practices. The land may remain inaccessible to the public if that would
21 sites described and mapped in their newsletter CANOPY (1997). The Native Forests Restoration Trust publishes a leaflet on bush restoration principles which is also available on their internet site. 22 Legal powers are available under the National Parks Act 1980 (s.5), the Reserves Act 1977, the Conservation Act or the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977 (for information on each type, see DoC 1996 Factsheets).
A44 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight benefit conservation23, and where covenants concern historic and social amenity sites, access is more often arranged. Nevertheless they remain a popular way to secure conservation management on land from sympathetic owners without having to raise funds for purchase, or to designate land which has been purchased by a trust for conservation purposes, to attract benefits such as District Council rates rebate (Porteous 1993; DoC 1996 factsheet). Several of the case study projects make use of QE II National Trust covenants.
------
W3.Land protection, eg by fencing. Example: Nga Whenua Rahui Since launch in 1990, this fund, similar to Forest Heritage Fund, but aiming at formal protection of Maori owned and controlled indigenous forests, has approved 70 proposals covering 75,820 ha (DoC 1996 Factsheet). Owners retain tino rangatirataka through use of Nga Whenua Rahui kawenata (covenant protection for cultural use and public access) and Nga Whenua Rahui deeds24. The major expenditure is often fencing-off from surrounding farmland. As an illustration of the Fund in action, He Atinga newsletter (DoC 1997b) describes the new 5.5ha Okautete Bush Trust Reserve on Wairarapa’s East coast, where over 400 year old totara and kahikatea trees are being protected, hundreds of new seedlings planted and unwanted exotic trees removed, by takata whenua: Ngai Tumapuhia-A-Rangi Hapu.
------
W4. Regulations and rules affecting restoration. Example: District plans - in preparation From a survey of 40 districts and regions, Froude (1996 p3) concluded “Many councils have no experience of planning to promote biodiversity protection”. She found that most councils have little biodiversity protection in their proposed Plans, with the exception of Waitakere City’s Green Network (Froude 1996 p5). In Waitakere, economic incentives to protect bush are under examination as a ‘carrot’ alongside the ‘stick’ of Plan rules.(Tonkin & Taylor 1977)
23 Covenants may be vulnerable to legal challenges by subsequent title owners, and have been criticised because public access is often restricted (Edmonds 1988; Mason 1994).
24 Te Ture Whenua Act, ss.338 and 340 covers creation of Maori reservations on which public access is a restricted right.
A45 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Recent research for Forest Heritage Fund found that twelve district planning departments in Waikato region: “all proposed some form of protection [in forthcoming district plans] for indigenous forest, as required by RMAct. Furthermore, some district councils appeared likely to propose protection for ecosystem linkages, buffers, scenic backdrops and stream catchments...In some cases finance was available from the district council for covenanting, fencing and maintenance of indigenous forest remnants. Plan provisions are likely to become increasingly important throughout the country.” (Harding 1997 p81)25.
Alex Wearing (1996c p10) is concerned at inconsistency between authorities’ interpretation of the RMAct and drafting of district plan rules which superficially protect locally- valued visual landscape, but fail to prevent degradation: “shifts towards functional, low-maintenance but ecologically and cultural- impoverished landscapes”. A few districts therefore win praise from Wearing (op cit) for their serious attention to native bush relicts, such as Waimakariri District (1996).
Economic instruments such as relief from local authority rates on conservation- covenanted land can be used in plans 26. Waitakere city is examining other economic incentives for developers and private landowners, particularly to reduce loss of native bush on sub-division (Tonkin and Taylor 1997).
Conditions can be attached to resource consents, when the plan anticipates their use (Williams 1997), such as: • to protect trees [RMAct s.108(1)(a) and s.108(9)(c)]; • to require a performance bond as an interest in the land [s.108 (1)(b)]; or • to require a covenant to run with the ownership title[s.108(1)(c) and s.109] - see references to covenants under W2 above.
W4. Regulation and rules affecting restoration. Example: Iwi resource management plans Around Aotearoa/New Zealand, iwi are preparing resource management plans relating to land in Maori collective ownership, including marae, waahi tapu, ancestral lands subject to Treaty claims, customary harvesting at mahika kai and other taonga. Councils must have regard to
25 One of the case study trusts cited proposed DistrictPlan policies and methods on biodiversity protection and protection of natural areas in a successful application to the District for capital grant towards purchase of a piece of bush, which is now covenant protected. 26 Rating Powers Amendment Act 1992 and Rating Powers Act 1988 s 180(g) and Second Schedule.
A46 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight such iwi planning documents when preparing and changing regional policy statements and plans and district plans (MfE 1992 p30; Te Puni Kokiri 1993; DoC 1993; MfE 1993d).
Much indigenous forest is in Maori ownership, so the exercise of tino rangatirataka and kaitiakitaka provides a significant opportunity for whanau and hapu to become involved in local bush protection and restoration (Ritchie 1997 p13), motivated by cultural and spiritual values which often have the same conservation outcomes as those sought by Pakeha ecologists. The case studies include such an example from Northland, involving partnership between Runaka, DoC, Landcare Research scientists and young trainees. (See also W3: Nga Whenua Rahui)
------
W5. Sources of voluntary workforce. Example: ConservationVolunteers and Wilderness Trust The DoC runs Conservation Volunteers to provide working holidays, mostly on the conservation estate during the summer, and New Zealand Wilderness Trust runs similar holidays just in the upper North Island. Both are involved in planting for bush restoration and protection, including fencing and pest control. The effect of such volunteer programmes on young people’s further ‘pro-conservation behaviour’ was reviewed recently for DoC by Ringer (1996).
W5. Sources of voluntary workforce (and seedling trees). Example: Trees for Survival A Project in 40 schools initiated by the men’s service organisation Rotary, funding ‘plant growing units’, to provide 25,000 trees each year for erosion control (Moodie 1995)27. One of the case studies in this report is linked with Upper Hutt College which has a Rotary Club-financed shade house.
------
W6. Animal and plant pest-control help. Example: Conservation Corps
27 Trees for Survival Trust produce a videotape: Growing plants successfully, and a newsletter.
A47 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Polytechnics, some maraes, DoC and voluntary sector sponsors together provide an opportunity for over 1,700 unwaged 16 to 25 year-olds, receiving Training Allowance, to spend 20 weeks full-time on Conservation Corps. In addition to classes, there is supervised work experience on outdoor conservation projects, often including fencing, pest control and tree planting. Dozens of bush restoration projects were assisted this year, including several of the research case studies (listed by Ministry of Youth Affairs 1997a)28.
W6.Animal and plan pest-control help. Example: Regional Pest Control Policy Regional councils are responsible for policy statement and plans under the RMAct and also pest management strategy under the Biosecurity Act, which can include providing information and advice to community groups as well as landowners.
------
W7. Technical information and expertise. Example: Professional bodies Many local and regional council staff, Crown Research Institute staff and consultants are members of professional bodies, through which information about bush restoration and care group experience can travels rapidly. They include: New Zealand Association for Resource Management, New Zealand Planning Institute, New Zealand Ecological Society, Resource Management Law Association, New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architecture and New Zealand Association for Environmental Education.
W7. Technical Information and Expertise. Example: Environmental education There are three established concepts particularly relevant to this study: • ‘Environmental education for sustainability’ (Tilbury 1995; Peet and Peet 1995); • education for the environment - involving action - in addition to education about and in the environment (MfE 1996b p26), and • ‘lifelong learning’ (Emmelin 1989; OECD 1996; MfE 1996b p25).
28 The Conservation Corps had a total cost of $9.3 million last year (Ministry of Youth Affairs 1997b p18).
A48 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
The Landcare Trust, Women’s Division Federated Farmers and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as non-statutory groups each support educational objectives29, but there is a potentially greater scale contribution from established New Zealand institutions whose main focus is education. However, the author’s review of ‘continuing education’ provision (Taylor 1997 p11) showed that apart from a five day course on forest ecology at Canterbury University (Burrows 1997 pers com), the volunteer-run Workers Educational Association was the body most responsive to public interest in conservation and habitat restoration, offering several inexpensive short courses this year.
The Open Polytechnic offers relevant short courses such as ‘native plants’ (Treeby 1992) and ‘wetlands’, for a general public interest, but Massey University’s published programme of distance learning related to environment is all at professional level (in contrast to its UK equivalent, The Open University), as are the on-campus courses of other universities30.
Provision for adult education by the Universities is noticeably less well funded by the Government than prior to 1991 (Harre Hindmarsh 1994) and now market-led, leading to a conservative concentration on ‘individual hobby’ rather than ‘activist’ courses. Polytechnic courses, such as horticulture, and small-block skills, may prove more relevant to restoration projects.
W7. Technical information and expertise. Example: Botanical gardens Most New Zealand botanical gardens have native plant collections and use these as a platform for educational work, as does Landcare Research (herbarium inherited from DSIR), to aid species identification and provide a genetic reservoir of seed or cuttings for restorations. A decade ago, before current public enthusiasm for native plants, the Director of Parks and Recreation at Timaru (Paterson 1987 p20) was encouraging fellow botanists and horticulturalists to help local authorities return endangered native plants back into their natural habitat, for their intrinsic value and for public education; a theme echoed nationally and internationally by a New Zealand member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Given (1994).
29 Forest and Bird’s contributions include the publication Go Easy on the Earth (1989, Penguin Books) 30 Environmental provision to the public by universities fell short of both the 1995 declaration issued by tertiary institutions (Springett 1995) or the strategic environmental education aims of Ministry for Environment (MfE 1995 p57).
A49 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
------
W8. Networking between groups, advice. Example: The Landcare Trust This trust was created in 1996 to form and support a network of Landcare groups, at the invitation of the Minister for Environment. It was formed jointly by Federated Farmers, Womens Division Federated Farmers31, Maruia Society, Forest and Bird Society, the Federation of Maori Authorities, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, and Fish and Game New Zealand. It is funded for three years from 1997 by Ministry for the Environment. Objectives are based on the Sustainable Land Management Strategy (MfE 1996a) priorities for farmland: hill country soil conservation and reducing agricultural impacts on aquatic ecosystems, but include conservation, although few Landcare groups aided by the Trust have yet tackled bush restoration (Ricketts, 1997 pers com.), in contrast to some of the regional- council supported ‘Care’ groups.
The Trust has five regional co-ordinators, runs training workshops, has an internet site, electronic newsletter and a Strategic Plan (NZ Landcare Trust 1997). A published summary of its aims and functions is attached to Appendix Nine (which outlines Australian Landcare experience, charts the arrival of concepts here from Australia, their early adoption by groups in Hawkes Bay, without government support, and the more recent New Zealand government and regional council interest).
W8. Networking between local groups, training. Example: Environment Waikato This regional council has a preliminary environmental strategy, under section 32 of the RMAct, which includes education and technical support for the citizen groups providing small-scale ‘care’ to the environment, such as landcare, streamcare, and beachcare. (Van Rossem 1996)32. The policy base within Environment Waikato for Care groups has shifted from a public works focus on outcomes, to an education focus on process (Campbell, 1996 pers com.). Benefits of the Care group approach, as seen by Environment Waikato in their 1996 Environmental Strategy, are reproduced below (Waikato Table 1), as they are likely to have a wider relevance.
31 Women’s Division, Federated Farmers publish The Landcare Action Guide (Collins, McIntyre, Wheatstone et al. WDFF 1995) 32 They are also exploring, with Landcare Research, DoC, NIWA, Waikato District Council and others, a larger- geographic water-catchment scale of ‘multi-stakeholder’ process to increase participation in and commitment to environmental management. MfE is funding the experiment. (Landcare Research 1997).
A50 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Environment Waikato has a commitment to staff development, to enhance their advice, liaison and support role to groups (Van Rossem p36), including: • understanding adult learning • interpersonal/listening skills • community group facilitation • effective meeting arrangements • working with Maori communities
Helen Ritchie’s (1997) two year in-house research at Environment Waikato clarified three types of Care groups: catchment, Maori kaitiaki and localised landholders. All the groups offered advantages over individual action, such as: • increasing the legitimacy of stewardship values; • reducing individuals’ anxiety over being a pioneer; • increasing the total impact; and • ensuring that commitments are made in public and therefore carried-through.
The Strategic plan (Van Rossem 1996, previously discussed) “was of critical importance in creating a favourable setting for Care group support in the region.” (Ritchie 1997 p18). The commitment of Environment Waikato staff time for liaison with groups and opportunities for networking between groups contributed particularly to the success of care groups33 and their work (benefits listed in detail on p23 of Ritchie 1997). Regional staff found they gained more allies, improved working relations within the Council, improved policy-making through dialogue with groups and developed new personal skills. (Op cit p24).
33 The Care groups’ annual activities are reported in Craw and Campbell 1996 and Campbell 1997b. Several have planted native trees extensively, especially on stream-sides.
A51 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
Table reproduced from Van Rossem (1996) ‘Benefits of Care Groups’
A52 Rhys Taylor Appendix Eight
In Wiakato, a small grant scheme offering projects up to $2,000 is in operation. Criteria used in prioritising Environment Waikato staff time and grants to over 24 Care groups have been published (Van Rossem 1996, pp 79 and 83).
Networking between the Care groups is encouraged, and educational events relating to native plant ecology and propagation were well supported (Ritchie 1996a, 1996b) with further educational events called ‘Flow-On Field Days’ in 1997, based on an action-learning model (Campbell 1997b p23; Ritchie 1996b p15).
W8. Networking between groups, advice. Example: Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand (ECO) The Wellington ECO office, library, newsletter and electronic mail provides a link between over 40 national and local environmental organisations which range from primarily lobby/activist to primarily practical action. Several of the case study groups are ECO members.
------
W9. Representation, Lobbying and Submissions under RMAct. Example: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Campaigning and practical action voluntary organisation with over 50 local branches, deeply involved in preservation of indigenous forest as wildlife habitat and for scenic and recreational values. The Society usually lobbies for public protection, including the gazetting of new national and forest parks and reserves, rather than raising funds for land purchase itself34. Many local branches make educational and recreational visits to and provide ‘working bees’ for bush restoration projects managed by farmers and trusts. Some branches take a lead in such projects (examples in the case studies).
------
34 The Society publishes a journal Forest and Bird , branch newsletters and internet sites.
A53 Rhys Taylor Appendix Nine
Appendix Nine
Origins of landcare groups in rural New Zealand - a discussion
The landcare concept of promoting sustainable land use through community involvement was brought from Australia, where a decade of Commonwealth Government and State funding begun in 1989 has supported over 2,500 groups. This involves 65,000 people or 30% of the farming community35, in a co-operative effort to counteract salinisation of soils, desertification, and erosion of soils, water pollution and pest damage (Curtis and DeLacy 1995, 1996). Problem definition and decision-making on land management becomes a collaborative responsibility by adjacent landholders, typically in one water catchment, responsive to local needs and opportunities but informed by scientific knowledge provided by government agencies (Hartley, Riches and Davies 1992). The scale of public effort is considerable. In addition to Landcare funding, ‘Bushcare’, the Federal vegetation inititative to support biological diversity, will involve expenditure of $350 million over the next four years and a huge investment in education, training materials, advisory services and consulting companies36.
Starting small In New Zealand the earliest local Landcare groups were probably those started at Tutira Station and Tainui Stations in Hawkes Bay in the early 1990s, facing the common problem of hill land erosion, exacerbated by Cyclone Bola (MAF 1993 p8). Their organisational model was influenced by local farmers’ visits to Australia (Magill 1992; Kitto 1994)37.
Meanwhile The Rabbit and Land Management Programme, a variant on the Landcare approach, was developed by over 20 groups in association with scientists from MAF and
35 Participation in Australia is predominantly male (65-70%) and women show apprehension about joining but “show a strong stewardship ethic”, often encouraging Landcare participaction by male partners (Curtis, Davidson, DeLacy 1997 p37. 36 Details from National Heritage Trust website: http://www.nht.gov.au. or from Landcare web at http://www.agfor.unimelb.edu.au/LCweb/LCweb.html Support for re-vegetation projects and ‘corridors of green’ projects in Australia available from bodies such as ‘Greening Australia’, website: http://www.greenaust.com.au/whowearenf.htm and from Community Biodiversity Network at http://www.peg.apc.org/~bdnet 37 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council responded to these initiatives by establishing a Landcare Incentive Scheme, recently used by Waipuka Landcare Group, who fenced 10ha of coastal cliffs and are planting a mix of Eucalytpus spp and seven species of native trees (Mohi 1996).
A54 Rhys Taylor Appendix Nine
Landcare Research, in the dry grasslands of Otago38 (R & LMP News 1989-1995). This programme was particularly important for its development of environmental monitoring by landholders (Federated Farmers 1994) and systems of liaison with scientists (Bosch et al. 1995). Most areas of New Zealand did not face the land crisis of these two examples (of severe stormwater erosion in Hawkes Bay and rabbit/ hieracium (hawkweed) infestation in Otago). There was less sense of urgency across New Zealand than seen in Australia (Ross, pers com.) but high- country farmers, impressed by the Rabbit and Land Management Programme, continued to collaborate with scientists after 1995 through the Rural Futures Trust, (Ross 1996).
Paul Blasche from the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was among a New Zealand group attending an early Australian Landcare Conference. He returned suggesting a government fund be created to support development of Landcare in this country (Blasche 199?). It took the combined lobbying efforts of Federated Farmers and their environmental partners to secure national funding for the Landcare Trust several years later, as part of the Government’s ‘Green Package’(Rush 1996).
One of the first studies of Landcare group operation in New Zealand (Britton 1994 p5) investigated the potential for these groups to change environmental policy development process, from the established ‘top-down’ toward more ‘grassroots’, noting that to achieve this the local and regional authority resource managers and planners would have to release some power in the form of information (Forester 1989). Information distributed as environmental education is the empowerment approach adopted by several regional councils, citing legal authority under Section 32 of the RMAct 1991 (Van Rossem 1996 p11; Southland Regional Council 1995)39.
“The essential features of Care is that it stresses genuine empowerment of the community and shared decision-making, learning and action in a well-defined locality. It is distinguished from other kinds of community initiative by dealing with issues where a critical part of the solution is in the hands of the community rather than outside agencies.” (Van Rossem 1996 p32)
38 Leaders of the Rabbit and Land Management Programme action-research included Don Ross (now national coordinator of the NZ Landcare Trust) and Morgan Williams (now Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment). 39 supported by the Environment 2010 Strategy (MfE 1995 p57), which has a goal to ‘encourage environmentally- responsible behaviour and informed participation in decision-making by promoting environmental education throughout the community’.
A55 Rhys Taylor Appendix Nine
The early lack of public funding ensured a locally-varied, ‘grassroots’ approach to Landcare in New Zealand (Pomeroy 1994 p25), but also avoidance of actions which gave no quick economic return to farmers, such as planting slow-growing native trees for erosion control, when faster-growing plantation exotics, offering a cash crop, were available.
However, Ministry of Agriculture (MAF) headquarters began to admit that “in some areas agriculture may not be the best use of the land resource” (Pomeroy op cit) following publication of a policy paper on Sustainable Agriculture (MAF 1993).
The MAF policy (MAF 1993) recognised a role for Landcare Groups “built on community values, working to find solutions through individual and community action.” However, MAF stopped well short of recommending farmers ‘retire’ land out of farming, allowing regeneration of native vegetation, as has been proposed - with state financial compensation, in some parts of Europe under the European Union Agri-Environment Initiative.
Denise Church, Chief Executive of Ministry for the Environment (MfE), was reported (Fitzgerald 1996) “to see two environmental perspectives at work in the [Landcare] groups: one which recognises that changes in agricultural systems towards sustainability are necessary because of changes in our trading environment, and [secondly] a preservationist perspective.” Fitzgerald (1996 pers com) sees the rise of Landcare groups as a social response to several impacts of change: • signs of awareness of New Zealand’s vulnerability to its land management being shown up internationally as not ‘clean and green’ (Bührs and Bartlett 1993); • loss of the free on-farm MAF agricultural advisory service and other stresses from the loss of public subsidies in the 1980s; • loss of truly-local (and often farmer-dominated) local government representation in the re- organisation of the 1980s; and • a decline in ‘social capital’ as skilled and able people have migrated from resource- dependent rural communities to work in the cities.
Southland Regional Council “recognises comunity involvement as a key element in successful environmental management” and describes landcare groups as “problem-solving teams which get things done on the ground by changing attitudes and behaviours in land users” (Southland Regional Council 1995 p4). They note that “groups must be free to decide their own terms of
A56 Rhys Taylor Appendix Nine reference so that they have control of their activities. Imposition by an outside bureaucracy would defeat all of the benefits of the community-based approach.” (Op cit p6)40
Further comments on the Landcare Trust, established nationally to support Landcare, appear in Appendix Eight and their information brochure is annexed. There is not space here for review of all regional councils with Care groups in their regions, but few appear to have policy or activity as far advanced as Environment Waikato (see Appendix Eight, section W8). Campbell (1997a) provides a summary from around New Zealand.
40 Despite this fine sentiment, the Region had, in 1995, a slow-responding annual projects grant programme which required applications from groups in February for notification of decision in July. Contrast this slow response to a turnaround from application to decision of between two and four weeks for Rural Action for the Environment grants of similar financial value, to community groups in England (Taylor 1997a).
A57 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
References (For NZ legislation cited, see page R28)
Abbott, John. 1995. Community Participation and its relationship to Community Development. In Community Development Journal. Vol. 30 (2). April pp 158-168. Oxford University Press.
A.B.S. 1988. (October) State-based household survey: South Australia. (Cited in Barnett 1996 p8).
Adams, M and Evison, H. 1993. Land of Memories: A Contemporary View of Places of Historical Significance in the South Island of New Zealand. Tandem Press. Auckland.
Adams, W M. 1996. Future Nature: A vision for conservation. British Association of Nature Conservationists/Earthscan. London.
Adcock, Helen M. (Compiler). 1994. Conservation Expertise: A directory of conservation- related research and technical skills. Conservation Sciences Publication No.4. DoC. Wellington.
Alinsky, Saul D. 1972. Rules for Radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. Vintage Books/Random House. New York.
Allen, R B and Rose, A B. 1983. Regeneration of southern rata and kamahi in areas of dieback. In Pacific Science Vol. 37 pp 433-442.
Allen, Willy and Bosh, Ockie. 1996. Shared experiences: the basis for a co-operative approach to identifying and implementing more sustainable land management practices. In Symposium Proceedings, Resource Management: Issues, Visions, Practice. 5-8 July 1996. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University. Pp 1-10.
Allen, Willy. 1997. (17 May). Community-based adaptive natural resource management: introduction. Webpage http://www.landcare.cri.nz/sal/prograt.htm
Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.
Altrichter, H; Kemmis S; McTaggart, R and Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1991. Defining, confining, or refining action-research? In Zuber-Skerrit, O. (Ed) Action Research for Change and Development. Avebury, Aldershott, UK. pp3-9.
Anderson, Diane. 1996. Rural Research with an Emphasis on Social Topics and Issues. Ministry of Agriculture Policy Technical Paper 96/6. MAF. Wellington.
Arai, Susan M and Pedlar, Alison M. 1997. Building Communities Through Leisure: Citizen Participation in a Healthy Communities Initiative. In Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 29 (2) pp 167-182 National Recreation and Park Association.
Argyle, Michael. 1996 The Social Psychology of Leisure. Penguin. Harmondsworth, UK.
R1 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, Learning and Action: Individual and Organisational. Jossey- Bass. San Francisco, USA.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In American Institute of Planners Journal. July 1969 pp 216-224.
Atkinson, Ian A E and Cameron, Ewen K. 1993. Human Influence on the Terrestrial Biota and Biotic Communities of New Zealand. In TRends in Ecology and Evolution. (TREE) Vol. 8 (12). Elsevier. pp 447-451
Atkinson, Ian A E. 1994. Guidelines to the Development and Monitoring of Ecological Restoration Programmes. Technical Series No.7. Department of Conservation. Wellington.
Atkinson, Ian A E. 1995. Some Principles of Ecological Restoration. In Bell, V; James, G and Sawyer J (eds) Ecological Restoration in the Wellington Area. Proceedings of a workshop held at Island Bay 20 May 1995. DoC Wellington Conservancy pp12-17.
Atkinson, Ian A E. 1997. Science Issues in Ecological Restoration - a summary. In Meurk, C D and Smale, M C (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific issues in Ecological Restoration 1995. Landcare Research Science Series No.14. Manaaki Whenua Press. pp.70- 74.
Atkinson, Ian E. 1997. (Pers com) Seminar at NZ Ecological Society Conference, Wellington, 30 June 1997.
Auckland Regional Council. 1993. Visitor use in regional parks: an analysis of Regional Park service data 1989/90 to 1991/92. ARC. Auckland.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency. 1996. Partnerships to Manage Native Vegetation. In Australian Farm Journal - Sustainable Agriculture. June 1996 p 21.
Baird Callicott, J. 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany NY.
Baker, Ginny and Newbold, Greg. 1996. Youthful Volunteers: Patterns of participation in youthful work volunteering in Christchurch, New Zealand. Canterbury University Sociology Dept, for the Youth Volunteer Programme. Canterbury Volunteer Centre. Christchurch.
Bamberger, Michael. 1988. The Role of Community Participation in Development Planning and Project Management: Report of a workshop on community participation held in Washington, D.C. Sepember 22-25, 1986. Seminar Report No.13. The World Bank Economic Development Institute. Washington, D.C.
Barber, B R. 1984 Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press, Berkely.
Barker, George. 1996. Alien and Native - Drawing the Line. In ECOS. Vol 17 (2) pp 18-26. British Association of Nature Conservationists. Cheltenham, Glos.
Barker, Rachel. (Pers com.) Report forthcoming 1998: Restoring our Waterways: A Community Model. Report to Ministry for the Environment on Sustainable Management Fund Project. Christchurch City Council Water Services Unit.
R2 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Barnett, Tim. 1996. Aroha Poha Tikanga/Volunteering in Aotearoa - New Zealand. Report to Community Employment Group, Dept of Labour. Canterbury Volunteer Centre, Christchurch.
Barrett, Philip J. 1995. Community Empowerment: A new approach or participation in disguise? Masters Thesis. (Unpublished) Planning Department, Massey University.
Barr, Alan. 1995. Empowering Communities - beyond fashionable rhetoric? In Community Development Journal. Vol.30 (2) pp121-132.
Barron, Frank. 1955. The Disposition Toward Originality. In The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 51 (3) pp 478-485.
Bateson, Gregory. 1980. Mind and Nature: A necessary unity. Fontana/Collins. Glasgow. UK.
Bawden, R J. 1987. Learning systems and technological change. In Proceedings of the Centenary International Conference on Technology, Education and Society: Future Direction. RMIT. Melbourne, Australia.
Baxter, S. H. 1994. Digest of Participatory Processes in Integrated Development Programmes. (Unpublished paper) Scottish Natural Heritage, NW Region office.
Bell, Claudia. 1996. Inventing New Zealand: Everyday Myths of Pakeha Identity. Penguin. Auckland.
Bell, Colin and Newby, Howard. 1971. Theories of Community. In Bell, C and Newby H. Community Studies: An introduction to the sociology of the local community. George Allen and Unwin, London. Pp 21-53.
Benecke, U; Baker, G and McCracken, I J. 1975. Tree selection and performance in relation to altitude, site and climate. In Orwin, J (ed) Revegetation in the Rehabilitation of Mountain Lands. Forest Research Institute Symposium No. 16. NZ Forest Service.
Beresford, P and Croft, P. 1993. Citizen Involvement: A Practical Guide for Change. Macmillan. UK.
Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco.
Berthold-Bond, Daniel. 1994. Can there be a ‘Humanistic’ Ecology? A Debate between Hegel and Heidegger on the Meaning of Ecological Thinking. In Social Theory and Practice. Vol 20 (3) Fall 1994. pp279-309
BDOR Consultancy (Jeff Bishop) 1991. see: Countryside Commission 1991.
BDOR Consultancy (Jeff Bishop and Jo Rose) 1994. Community Action - An Overview. In Etchell, C (ed) Communities and their Countryside: Proceedings of the 1994 National Countryside Recreation Conference, York, 13-15 September. Countryside Recreation Network, University of Wales, Cardiff. pp14-29
Bisnette, Linda. DDI Asia-Pacific Survey of Women Managers. In The Christchurch Press .10 September 1997 page 3.
R3 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Blakeley, Roger. 1997. (Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs) Speech to A Hui on Social Cohesion held at The Arts Centre, Christchurch.
Blakeley, Roger. 1997. Building Social Capital in In Touch with Internal Affairs September DIA. Wellington p2
Blasche, Paul. 1995? Cited in Donald, Rachel. Landcare on the Move: Special Report, (undated photocopied article) New Zealand Farmer.
Booth, Douglas E. 1994 Valuing nature: The decline and preservation of old-growth forests. Rowman and Littlefield. Lanham, Maryland, USA.
Booth, Kay. 1989. A Literature Review of Visitors to the Conservation Estate with special reference to families and under-represented groups. Vols 1 and 2. Science Research Series No.13. Department of Conservation. Wellington.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context. Issues in Social Policy. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
Bosch, Ockie J H; Williams J M; Allen, W; Ensor, A H. 1995. Integrating community-based monitoring into the adaptive management process: the New Zealand experience. Presented at International Rangelands Congress, Salt Lake City, USA. July 23-29.
Boulding, Kenneth. 1966. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In Jarrett, H (ed) Environmental Quality in A Growing Economy. John Hopkins Press. Baltimore.
Bovaird, Tony; Green, Julie; Martin, Steve; Millward, Alison and Tricker, Mike. 1995. Evaluation of Rural Action for the Environment: Three Year Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness. Final Report to English Nature, Countryside Commission and Rural Development Commission. Public Sector Management Research Centre, University of Aston, Birmingham.
Bradfield, P and Flux, I. 1996. The Mapara kokako project 1989-1996: A summary report. DoC. Wellington.
Britton, Robin Shirley. 1994. From Landcare to Policy Development: A Waikato Case Study. Master of Social Sciences (Geog, Resources & Environmental Planning) thesis, (unpublished) University of Waikato.
Brockie, Robert. 1992. A Living New Zealand Forest. David Bateman. Auckland.
Brown, K; Innes, J and Shorten, R. 1993. Evidence that possums prey on and scavenge birds’ eggs, birds and mammals. (Burrows 1997, pers com)
Bryant, C R. 1995. The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe. In Journal of Rural Studies. Vol.11 (3) pp 255-267 Pergamon Press, UK.
Budd, Richard. 1996. Changing our attitudes to natives. In The Press. 23 March. Christchurch p 16.
Bührs, Ton and Bartlett, Robert. 1993. Environmental Policy in New Zealand: The Politics of Clean and Green? Oxford University Press. Auckland.
R4 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Bührs, Ton. 1997. New Zealand’s Environmental Performance: Getting a Green Card? Paper presented to New Zealand Political Studies Association Conference, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 6-8 June 1997.
Burrows, Colin J. 1994. Fruit, seeds, birds and the forests of Banks Peninsula. In NZ Natural Sciences Vol. 21 pp 87-108
Burrows, Colin J. 1997 (pers com) Forest Ecology field course at Cass Field Centre, for Canterbury University Continuing Education.
Burrows, L E. 1997. The balance of indigenous and adventive plant species as an underlying issue in ecological restoration. In Meurk, Colin D and Smale, M C. (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific issues in Ecological Restoration. 22-23 February 1995. Christchurch. Science Series No. 14. Landcare Research. Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln. pp 21-25.
Campbell, Alan. 1996. Pers com. Environment Waikato. December 1996. Hamilton.
Campbell, Alan. 1997a. Regional Council Involvement with Landcare: Pre-Conference Workshop. In Broadsheet. February 1997. New Zealand Association of Resource Management. Lincoln.
Campbell, Alan. 1997b. Care Groups in Action. A Review of Care Group Activity in the Waikato Region during 1996/97. Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
CANOPY - newsletter of the New Zealand Native Forests Restoration Trust. Auckland. (Issue 22 Autumn 1997)
Canterbury Regional Council. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. (Cited in Wearing 1996c)
Carpenter, J; McFarlane, G and Youl, R. 1997. Group Skills and Community Action - (Booklet of same title, described by authors) In Proceedings, Landcare Changing Australia, National Conference, Adelaide 1997 Vol 2. p16
Chamala, S and Mortiss, P D. 1990. Working Together for Landcare - Group Management Skills and Strategies. Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd. Bowen Hills, Queensland.
Christchurch/Otautahi Agenda 21 Forum. 1995. Treasure our Natural Heritage: Appreciating, Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity - Pilot Project. (Pamphlet 4pp. See also Biodiversity Project Newsletters, 1995, 1996.) Christchurch.
Chronicle. 1997. Green corridor of native vegetation created at Canterbury. In Chronicle Vol. 32 (13). 21st August 1997 University of Canterbury.
Clout, Mick. 1997. Pers com. (Speaking at IUCN New Zealand meeting, Lincoln. 24 February 1997)
Clover, Charles. 1993. Eight out of ten are ready to pay for preserving the countryside. In Daily Telegraph 20 September 1993.
Cobb, John and Moon, Geoff. 1992. The Living Forests of New Zealand. Native Forests Restroration Trust/David Bateman Ltd. Auckland.
R5 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Collins, Heather (author); McIntyre, Jeanette (convenor); Wheatstone, Margaret (ed); Mulcock, Claire and Rush, Michelle (advisers): see Womens Division Federated Farmers 1995.
Converse, Jean M and Presser, Stanley. 1986 Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardised Questionnaire. Sage University Papers. Newbury Park and London,
Cotgrove, Steven. 1982. Catastrophe or Cornucopia: the environment, politics and the future. Wiley. New York.
Countryside Commission. 1991. Countryside Community Action: A Review. Report CCP307 Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, UK.
Cox, George W. 1993. Conservation Ecology: biosphere and biosurvival. William C Brown. Dubuque, Iowa.
Craig, J; Mitchell, N; Walter, B; Walter, R; Galbraith, M and Chalmers G. 1995. Involving people in the restoration of a degraded island: Tiritiri Matangi Island. In Saunders, J L; Craig J L and Mattiske E M (eds) Nature Conservation 4: the Role of Networks. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, UK.
Craig, Wendy. 1987 (2nd edition). A Community Work Perspective. Massey University. Palmerston North.
Craw, Kathy and Campbell, Alan. 1996. Care Groups in Action: A Review of Care Group Activity in the Waikato Region during 1995-96. Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
Crawford, D and Godbey, G. 1987. Reconceptualising barriers to family leisure. In Leisure Sciences Vol 9 pp 119-127
Crawford, D; Jackson E and Godbey,G. 1991 A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. In Leisure Sciences Vol 13 (3)
Crean, Nicola; Milne, Juliet and Taylor Rhys E. 1997 [soci report title...... ] unpublished research report, for postgraduate course on Theories of participation in policy and planning. Lincoln University.
Crengle, Di. ( author) See MfE 1993d.
Crowe, Andrew. 1997. The Quickfind Guide to Growing Native Plants. Viking/Penguin. Auckland.
Curtis, A and DeLacy, T. 1995. Evaluating Landcare Groups in Australia - How they faciliate partnerships between agencies, community groups and researchers. In Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol 50 (1) pp 15-20
Curtis, A and DeLacy, T. 1996. Landcare in Australia: Does it make a difference? In Journal of Environmental Management. Vol 46 (2) pp 119-137
Curtis, A; Davidson P and DeLacy, T. 1997. Women’s Participation and Experience of Landcare in Australia. In Journal of Sustainable Agriculture Vol 10 (2-3) pp 37-56.
Curtis, James. 1971. Voluntary Association Joining: A Cross-National Comparative Note. In American Sociological Review. Vol 36 pp872-880
R6 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Cushman, Grant; Laidler A; Russell D; Wilson N and Herbison P. 1991. Life in New Zealand Commission Report. Vol. IV Lesiure University of Otago Dunedin.
Dalziel, Raewyn. 1990. Railways and Relief Centres: 1870 -1890 Chapter 5, Oxford History of New Zealand. In Sinclair, K. (Ed) The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand. Oxford University Press. Auckland pp 99-124
DASET. 1992. Australian National Opinion Poll: Survey on Environment. Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories (with Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency), Canberra.
Davies, P T and Smith, E J. 1992. The Imperatives of Researching, Planning and Learning to Landcare Dunecare - a working model. In Haskins, P G and Murphy, B M (eds). People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1 pp 193-197
Davis, M; Langer L and Ross, C W. 1997. Rehabilitation of lowland indigenous forest after mining in Westland. In Meurk, C D and Smale, M C (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific Issues in Ecological Restoration 22-23 February 1995, Christchurch. Landcare Research Science Series No.14. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. pp38-41
Davison, J J. 1986. Policy implications of trends in supply and demand for natural areas for protection and recreation 1970-2000 (2 vols) M.Applied Science Thesis. (Unpublished) Lincoln College and University of Canterbury.
Department of Conservation. 1990. Tu Kakariki -The New Zealand Tree Programme.
Department of Conservation. 1990. New Zealand Native Plants in Design: the Lowland Forest. (Pamphlet) DoC. Wellington
Department of Conservation. 1991. Planting Trees and Shrubs: A Beginner’s Guide. (2nd edition) DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1993a. Trees need people too. (Advisory leaflet, 2pp)
Department of Conservation. 1993b. Trees for Tomorrow: A Practical Guide to the planting, care and protection of native trees on the farm. DoC. Hamilton.
Department of Conservation. 1993c. Whakaruruhau in practice in Taranaki: trees and people growing together (o nga rakau me nga tangagat e tipu ake). Tu Kakariki/DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1994a. Recreation Strategy for Canterbury Conservancy. DoC. Christchurch.
Department of Conservation. 1994b. New Zealand’s Biodiversity: An overview. DoC. Wellington.
DoC. 1994. See also Adcock, H.
DoC. 1995. See also Simpson, P.
Department of Conservation 1995b. What to Plant Where. Booklet. DoC Wellington.
R7 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Department of Conservation. 1996 (some updated 1997). Factsheet series accessed in November 1997 from internet site: http://www.doc.govt.nz Reserves Act 1977 Conservation Act 1987 Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Native Bush- New Zealand’s Own (an Arbor Day 1997 factsheet) Tu Kakariki - The New Zealand Tree Programme. Tree Planting for Native Birds Wounded Forests (article by Peat, N and Rogers, G.) Nga Whenua Rahui Forest Heritage Fund Mainland Island Habitats Conservation Management Strategies and Plans. The DoC’s Responsibilities and Environment 2010.
DoC. Kick Start (undated) videotape on tree-planting. Tu Kakariki. DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1996b. Roots/Putake: Newsletter of Tu Kakariki. Issue 3 October. DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1996c. Greenprint. Conservation in New Zealand - a strategic overview. Brief to the Incoming Government. Vol. 1. October 1996
Department of Conservation (Wellington Conservancy) 1996. Soames Island (Matiu) Reserve Working Plan: Community Focus on an Island Environment. Draft. February 1996. DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1997a. Conservation Action: Department of Conservation Achievements and Plans 1995/96 -1996/97 DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. 1997b. He Atinga newsletter. Issue 2. August 1997. DoC. Wellington.
Department of Conservation. Restoration Resume No.2 In Rare Bits newsletter. Spring 1997. DoC. Wellington.
Department of Statistics. 1991. Testing Time: Report of the Pilot Time Use Survey. Dept Statistics. Wellington.
Des Jardens, Joseph R. 1993. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. Wadsworth. Belmont, California. (Pp 144-147)
DeVall, W B. 1970. Conservation: An upper-midle class movement, a replication. In Journal of Leisure Research Vol 2. Pp 123-126
Devall, Bill. 1988. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Gibbs M Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Devlin, Pat J; Corbett R A and Peebles CJ.(eds) 1995. Outdoor Recreation in New Zealand Vol 1: A Review and Synthesis of the Research Literature. Lincoln University for Department of Conservation.
R8 Rhys Taylor Thesis References de Young, Raymond. Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behaviour: The Role of Intrinsic Satisfaction and Competence Motivation. In Environment and Behaviour. Vol. 28 (3) May 1996. Pp 358-409.
Dick, B. 1993. So You Want to Do an Action Research Thesis. Department of Pyschology, University of Queensland.
Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley. New York.
Dobson, A P; Bradshaw A D and Baker A J M. 1997. Hopes for the Future: Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology. In Science. Vol 227 (5325) 25 July 1997 pp 515-522
Dooley, David. 1984. Social Research Methods. Prentice Hall. New Jersey, USA.
Donaldson, Carole; Kape, John and Smith, Willie. 1997. Changes in Land Use and Futures for Rural Communities - The Waipaoa Catchment Community Project. Draft Resource Document. Landcare Research, Lincoln. August/September1997.
Dryzek, John. 1987. Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Blackwell. Oxford, UK.
Dryzek, John. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Dunlap, R E and Van Liere, K D. 1978. The New Environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. In Journal of Environmental Education Vol 9 pp10-19.
Dunlap, RE and Van Liere, K D. 1984. Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality: An empirical examination. In Social Science Quarterly. Vol 65. Pp 1013-1028.
Dwyer, W O; Leeming, F C; Cobern J K; Porter B E and Jackson J M. 1993. Critical Review of behavioural interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980. In Environment and Behaviour. Vol 25 (3) 275-321.
Eckersley, Robin. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. State University of New York Press. Albany NY
Edington, John M and Edington M Ann. 1986. Ecology, Recreation and Tourism. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK.
Edmonds, V M. 1988. Harnessing private benefit for public good. A political economy of coveneants and their effectiveness in protecting conservation values on private land. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of Canterbury. 85pp.
Evans, Boyden. 1983. Revegetation Manual: Using New Zealand Native Plants. Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. Wellington. (Updated by: Porteous 1993)
Farrell, Simon. 1997. Going native is very refreshing. In Sunday Star Times 5 January 1997 Edition A page 9.
R9 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Federated Farmers, South Island High Country Committee. 1994. Farmer Resource Monitoring Kit. March 1994. (Cited by Don Ross, pers com. 1996)
Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Sage. Newbury Park, California p365.
Fisher, M E and Ford, M L. 1994. Growing New Zealand Plants, Shrubs and Trees. David Bateman. Auckland.
Fitzgerald, Gerald. 1996. Strengthening Communities and the Environment. Report on speech by Denise Church (CEO, MfE) to Association for Social Assessment 1996 Conference. ASA. Wellington.
Fitzgerald, Gerald. 1996. Pers com. 17 November. Christchurch.
Flannery, Tim. 1996. The Future Eaters: An ecological history of the Australasian lands and people. Reed Books. Port Melbourne.
Fleming, Stuart J. 1992. Community participation in the management of publicly-owned lands - Dunecare. In Haskins, P G and Murphy B M (eds) People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1 pp 211-216.
Flood, S; Cocklin C and Parnell, K. 1993. Coastal resource-management conflicts and community-action at Mangawhai, New Zealand. In Coastal Management. Vol. 21 (2) pp 91- 111. Taylor and Francis.
Foose, T J. 1993 in Kaufman L and Mallory, K. (eds) The Last Extinction. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp 149-178
Forest and Bird magazine - Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. Wellington.
Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press. Berkeley.
Fraser, W; Nugent, G and Sweetapple, P. 1996. Possums vs Deer: Which is Worse at Waihaha? In Possum Research News. No.4 April 1996. Landcare Research. Lincoln pp 5-6.
Frey, James H. 1989. Survey Research by Telephone. (2nd edition) Sage Publications (Library of Social research vol 150), Newbury Park and London.
Froude, Victoria. 1996. Protecting biodiversity values on private land, and for marine and freshwater ecosystems. Paper presented to Symposium ‘Resource Management: Issues, Visions, Practice. 5- 8 July 1996. Lincoln University.
Furze, Brian; de Lacy, Terry and Birckhead, Jim. 1996. Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity: the Social Dimension of Linking Local Development and Conservation through Protected Areas. John Wiley and Sons. Chichester, UK.
Galbraith, Mel P. 1990. Volunteers’ View of the Ecological Restoration of an offshore Island. In Towns, D R; Daugherty C H and Atkinson, I A E. (Eds) Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands. Conservation Sciences Publication No.2. DoC. Wellington.
R10 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Galbraith, Mel P and Hayson C R. 1994. Tiritiri Matangi Island, New Zealand: public participation in species translocation to an open sanctuary. Chapter 24. In Serena, M (ed) Re- introduction Biology of Australian and New Zealand Fauna. Surrey Beatty & Sons. Chipping Norton UK
Geertz, C. 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books. New York pp 3-30.
Gelfand, Bernard. 1988 The Creative Practitioner: Creative Theory and Method for the Helping Services. Haworth Press Inc. New York.
Gharajedaghi, J and Ackoff, R L. 1985. Toward Systematic Education of Systems Scientists. in Systems Research 2 (1) pp 21-27.
Gibbs, Nici.1994. Enabling Sustainable Communities: A Strategic Policy Paper. MfE. Wellington.
Gidlow, Bob; Perkins, Harvey; Cushman, Grant and Simpson, Clare. 1990. Leisure. Chapter. In: Spoonley, P; Pearson D and Shirley I. (Eds) New Zealand Society. Dunmore Press. Palmerston North.
Gilbert, A and Ward, P. 1984. Community Action by the Urban Poor: Democratic Involvement, Community Self-Help or a Means of Social Control? In World Development. Vol.12 (8) pp 769-782.
Gilpin, M E and Soule, M J. 1986. Minium viable populations: processes of species extinctions. In Soule, M J (ed) Conservation Biology. Sineaur. Sunderland, Massachusetts. pp 19-34
Given, David. 1997 (pers com.) Lectures in Landscape Ecology. Lincoln University. Christchurch.
Given, David. 1994. Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon.
Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. Chicago, USA.
Graham, Jeanine. 1990. The Pioneers (1940 -1870) Chapter 3, Oxford History of New Zealand. In Sinclair, K. (Ed) The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand. Oxford University Press. Auckland.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971 trans) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Hoare, Q. and Smith, G N. (Eds) Lawrence and Wishart. London.
Gray, Kevin. The Ambivalence of Property. In Kirkby, J; O’Keefe, P and Timberlake, L (eds). The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development. Earthscan. London pp 223-226.
Grey, Alan H. 1994. Aoteroa and New Zealand: A Historical Geography. Canterbury University Press. Christchurch.
Greer, J and Greer, G. 1996. Principles and Practices of Agricultural Extension. Policy Public Information Series No.12. MAF. Wellington.
R11 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Groundwork. 1996. The Groundwork network of environmental services. Case Description 63. Local sustainability:ICLEI European Good Practice Information Service. Internet site : http://www.iclei.org/egpis/egpc-063.html (accessed 11 September 1997)
Grundy, Kerry James. 1993. Sustainable Development: A New Zealand Perspective. Environmental Policy and Management Centre, Publication No.3. University of Otago, Dunedin.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1981. New Social Movements. In Telos Vol 49 pp33-37.
Hampshire County Council. 1994. Greenspace Networking Resources Project: Working together in sustainable networks. HCC, Winchester, UK.
Hanna, Susan and Jentoft, Svein. 1996. Human Use of the Natural Environment: An Overview of Social and Economic Dimensions. In Hanna, S; Folke, C and Maler, K (eds) Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Island Press. Washington, DC pp35-56
Harcourt, Wendy. (Ed) 1994 Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development. Zed Books. London.
Hardee, J Gilbert. 1961. The Social Structure and Participation in an Australian Rural Community. In Rural Sociology. Vol 26 pp 240-251.
Harding, Mike. 1997. Waikato Protection Strategy: A Report to the Forest Heritage Fund Committee. FHF. Wellington.
Harries-Jones, P. 1995. A Recursive Vision: ecological understanding and Gregory Bateson. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Harre-Hindmarsh, Jennie. 1994 Community and Continuing Education in 1993 - who is Deciding? Who is Benefiting? In Manson, H (ed). New Zealand Annual Review of Education. Vol 3.Faculty of Education, Victoria University. Wellington.
Harry et al (1969) [incomplete reference], cited in Manzo and Weinstein 1987 p679
Hartley, R E R; Riches, J R H and Davis J K. 1992. A Systems approach for Landcare. In Haskins, P G and Murphy, B M (eds). People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1 pp 217-222.
Hein, Clair. 1993. Leadership: Sustaining Action on Community and Organisational Issues. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa, USA. (Cited by Kellog Center for Rural Leadership on their website: http://www.unl.edu/Kellog/index.html )
Henderson, K A. 1990. The Meaning of Leisure for Women: an integrative review of the research. In Journal of Leisure Research. Vol 22 (3) pp 228-243
Herrick, David. 1996. Community-based mangement: An assessment of its potential for the management of New Zealand’s coastal marine environment. Submitted in partial fulfilment of MSc in Resource Management (unpublished). Lincoln University.
R12 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Hillary Commission. 1990 Life in NewZealand survey. Wellington
Hillery, George A. 1955. Definitions of community: areas of agreement. In Rural Sociology Vol.20 pp 111-123.
Hines, Jody M; Hungerford Harold R and Tomera, Audrey N. 1986. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis. In Journal of Environmental Education.Vol. 18 (2) Winter 1986/87. USA.
Hobbs, R J and Norton, D A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. In Restoration Ecology Vol 4 (2) pp 93-110
Holdgate, Martin. 1996. From Care to Action: Making a Sustainable World. IUCN/Earthscan. London.
Horsbrugh, Ben; Kean, Joan; Warburton, Diane. 1992, Thinking Globally, Enabling Locally: Improving Support for Local Environmental Action. World Wide Fund for Nature. Godalming. Surrey. UK.
Howson, Kit (Chris). 1995 (pers com). Auckland Regional Parks Visitor Services.
Hucker, Bruce. 1996. Community and Local Government Reform: A Brave New World? In Bell, C (ed.) Community Issues in New Zealand. The Dunmore Press. Palmerston North.
Hungerford, H R and Volk, T L. 1990. Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. In Journal of Environmental Education. Vol.21 (3) pp 8-21.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1989. World Conservation Strategy for the 1990s. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN 1996a. See Borrini-Feyerabend, G.
IUCN 1996b. World Conservation: People in Charge - the emerging face of conservation. IUCN. Gland. Switzerland.
James, Bev. 1990a. Project Conservation: A Sociological Evaluation of a Community Participation and Educational Programme. Science and Research Series No.22. Department of Conservation. Wellington.
James, Bev. 1990b. Public Participation in Management Planning: An investigation of participants’ views and experiences. Science and Research Series No.23. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
James, Ian. 1997. Sustainable Management of Native Forests. Green Monitor Issue 9. Timberlands West Coast Ltd.
Jarman, Robert. 1995. Habitat Restoration - recanting the status quo. In ECOS Vol 16 (2) pp 24-38 British Association of Nature Conservationists.
Jiggins, Janice. 1994. Changing the Boundaries: women-centered perspectives on population and the environment. The Island Press. Washington DC.
R13 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Jiggins, Janice. 1995. Sustaining the Land: Community Visions, Family Goals, Getting the Know-how. In Proceedings of the 1994 New Zealand Conference on Sustainable Land Managment, Napier. pp119-122.
Johnson, D W and Johnson, F P. 1991. Joining Together: group theory and group skills (4th edition) Prentice Hall. Eaglewood Cliffs, N. J. (cited in Ringer 1996).
Johnson, Simon. 1996. Restoration Ecology in Canterbury: Developing an Integrated Management Approach. RESM665 Report, presented in partial fulfilment of MSc in Resource Management (unpublished). Lincoln University.
Johnston, J A. 1981. The New Zealand Bush: early assessments of vegetation. In New Zealand Geographer. Vol 37 pp 19-24
Jolly, S. 1993. Biological control of possums. In NZ Journal of Zoology. Vol. 20 pp335-339
Jordan, W R III; Gilpin, M E and Aber, J D (eds). 1987. Restoration Ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 1991. National Survey of Volunteering. Social Policy Research Findings No.22. J R Foundation, York, UK. (See also Knapp and Smith 1995)
Joyce, Amy. 1997. Women take a lead in volunteer force. In The Washington Post/Guardian Weekly 21 September 1997 (Aust/NZ edition) p19. Guardian Publications Ltd., Manchester, UK.
Kakariki News.1996. Spring newsletter published for Beech Forest Action, Wellington.
Keesing, Vaughan. 1997. (Pers com.) Lectures in Restoration Ecology. May 1997. Lincoln University Dept. Ecology and Entomology.
Kelly, G C. 1980. Landscape and Nature Conservation. In Molloy, L F. (Ed) Land Alone Endures: Land Use and the Role of Research. Department of Surveys and Industrial Research. Wellington.
Kelly, G C. 1986 see Park G N.
Kidder, Louise H. 1981. Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Kirby, Val. 1997. Heritage in Place PhD thesis. University of Canterbury. Christchurch.
Kitto, Neil T. 1995. Landcare in Hawkes Bay (Omakere). In Proceedings of the 1994 New Zealand Conference on Sustainable Land Management. Napier p169.
Knapp, Martin and Davis-Smith, Justin. 1995. The Determinants of Volunteering. Social Policy Research Findings Vol. 75. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK.
Kneebone, John. 1996. Challenges Facing Agriculture arising from the new Sustainable Land Management Strategy. In Sustainable Land Management: Proceedings of the 1996 Annual NZ Association of Resource Management Conference, 27-29 November, New Plymouth.
R14 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Laidler, Allan and Cushman, Grant. 1993. Life and Leisure in New Zealand. In Veal, A J; Jonson P and Cushman G. (Eds) Leisure and Tourism: Social and Environmental Change. Papers from the World Leisure and Recreation Association Congress, Sydney, 16-19 July 1991. University of Technology, Sydney pp342-349.
Lambie, James. 1997 pers com. Community based enviromental monitoring, Seminar 8 October. Department of Resource Management, Lincoln University. Canterbury.
Landcare Research. 1997. Whaingaroa Catchment News. Newsletter of the Whaingaroa (Raglan) Harbour Project. Issue 1. March. Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua. Lincoln. (Editors: Margaret Kilvington, Graham Daborn)
Landcare Trust see New Zealand Landcare Trust.
Larson, M A; Zimmerman, D and Scherer C, 1982. Communication behaviour by environmental activists compared to non-active persons. In Journal of Environmental Education Vol 14. pp11-20.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Guba, Egon G. 1985. Naturalistic Enquiry. (cited in Patton 1990)
Little, Peter D. 1994. The Link between Local Participation and Improved Conservation: a review of issues and experiences. In Western, D and Wright, R M. (Eds) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Island Press. Washington D.C.
Lloyd, J. 1981. A Map of the Training Journey, NZ. Report to the Standing Committee on Training of Volunteers and Community Service Workers.
Lucas Associates (Lucas, Di; Head, Jeremy; Miles, Steve; Meurk, Colin; Lyn, Ian.) 1995 - 97. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Sets 1 - 4. Christchurch-Otautahi Agenda 21 Forum.
Lucas Associates; Meurk C D. 1996. Streamside Planting, guidelines for native planting alongside streams in Christchurch. (Booklet) Water Services Unit, Christchurch City Council.
Lukes, Martin. 1995,1996 (see Christchuch Agenda 21 Forum Biodiversity Project newsletter)
Lynch, Jim. 1995. Back to the Future: Karori - from reservoir to wildlife sanctuary. In Forest and Bird. February 1995 pp 12-19. RFBPS. Wellington.
M.R.L. Research Group. 1994 Research Summary: New Zealander’s participation in outdoor leisure activities. Prepared for the Hillary Commission. MRL Research. Wellington.
McCallum, Wayne. 1997 (pers com). North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.. (Stream- care voluntary work day at farm of T & R Chamberlain, Leeston)
McCormick J. 1991. British Politics and the Environment (Ch.4. Environmental Groups and the Countryside). Earthscan. London.
R15 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
McPherson, J M and Lockwood, W G. 1980. The Longitudinal Study of Voluntary Association Membership - A Multivariate Analysis. In Journal of Voluntary Action Research. Vol 9 pp 74-84.
McRae, Sarah and Woods, Kirsty. 1996. Integrated Environmental Management and the Sustainable Management of Indigenous Forest Ecosystems in New Zealand: some observations. In Proceedings: Resource Management Issues, Visions, Practice. Symposium 5- 8 July 1996. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University. pp133-146.
McVarish, Scott. 1992. The Greening of New Zealand. Random Century New Zealand. Wellington.
McWaters, V. 1997. From community education to community learning. In Proceedings, Landcare Changing Australia, National Conference, Adelaide 1997 Vol.1 pp105-106.
Magill, Rob. 1992. Stopping Erosion with a Firm Foundation. In Terra Nova. Issue 15. April 1992.
Malcolm, Margy-Jean; Rivers Mary-Jane and Smyth, Karen.1993. Emerging Trends for the Voluntary Sector. Chapter 13 in Hawke, G R and Robinson D. (Eds) Performance without Profit: The Voluntary Welfare Sector in New Zealand. Institute of Policy Studies. Victoria University of Wellington.
Mansfield, Bill. 1996. Moving from successful restoration of islands to ecosystem restoration on mainland New Zealand. Paper presented to IUCN World Conservation Congress, Montreal, 18 October 1996. DoC. Wellington.
Manzo, Lynne C and Weinstein, Neil D. 1987. Behavioural Commitment to Environmental Protection: A study of Active and Non-active members of the Sierra Club. In Environment and Behaviour. Vol.19. No.6 pp 673-694
Martin, P; Tarr, S and Lockie, S. 1992. Participatory Environmental Practices in NSW: Policy and Practice. In Lawrence, G; Vanclay, F and Furze, B (eds) Agriculture, Environment and Society. Macmillan. Melbourne, Australia.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York.
Mason, B. 1994. Private management of the public interest. Public Access New Zealand monograph no.7. PANZ. Dunedin.
Mead, Aroha. 1993. Sustainable Development: A Maori Perspective. In Sustainable Development, A Social Perspective. Proceedings of a Workshop organised by the Ministry for the Environment and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. 18 February 1993. MfE. Wellington pp 55-59
Meffe, G K; Zohary, D and Carroll, C R. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinaur Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Metcalf, Lawrie. 1995. The Propagation of New Zealand Native Plants. Godwit Press.
Meurk, Colin D. 1993. Habitat Restoration - An Essential Conservation Tool for Mainland New Zealand. (Draft, cited by Johnson 1996) Landcare Research. Lincoln, Canterbury.
R16 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Meurk, Colin D. 1997. Field Excursion Notes for the Workshop ‘Scientific Issues in Habitat Restoration (1995). In Meurk, C D and Smale, M C (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific issues in Ecological Restoration 1995. Landcare Research Science Series No. 14. Manaaki Whenua Press.
Michael, M and Grove-White, R. 1993. Talking about nature: nurturing ecological consciousness. In Environmental Ethics. Vol 15 (1) pp 33-47.
Milbrath, Lester. 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. State Univerity of New York Press. Albany.
Millard, John. 1992. Planting Native Trees. (a guide for schools and community groups). NZ Natural Heritage Foundation and New House Publishers. Auckland.
Millward, Alison. 1987. Community Involvement in Urban Green Space. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Aston University, Birmingham. UK.
Millward, Alison. 1995. An Evaluation of the Community Action for Wildlife Scheme. Final Report to English Nature. (Unpublished). Alison Millward Associates, Birmingham.
Milne, Rika O H. 1996. Adult non-school education for the environment - An alternative pathway to sustainable management? In Symposium Proceedings, Resource Management: Issues, Visions, Practice. 5-8 July 1996. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University. Pp 161-174
Milson, Fred. 1974. An Introduction to Community Work. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Ministry for the Environment. 1992. The Resource Management Act: Kia Matiratira: A Guide for Maori. MfE. Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment. 1993a. Making Connections: An Overview of Agenda 21. MfE and NZ Local Government Association. Wellington. (Part of a set entitled Securing the Future: A Guide to Agenda 21)
Ministry for the Environment. 1993b. Living for the Future: A Guide to Agenda 21. MfE and NZ Local Government Association. Wellington. (Part of a set entitled Securing the Future: A Guide to Agenda 21)
Ministry for the Environment. 1993c. Securing the Future: Earth Summit Achievements. (Pamphlet) MfE. Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment. 1993d. Taking into Account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: Ideas for the implementation of Section 8, RMAct 1991. MfE. Wellington. (Author: Di Crengle)
Ministry for the Environment. 1995. Environment 2010: A Statement of the Government’s Strategy on the Environment. MfE, Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment. 1996a. Sustainable Land Management: A Strategy for New Zealand. MfE. Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment. 1996b. Learning to Care for our Environment. Perspectives on environmental education: a discussion document. MfE. Wellington.
R17 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Ministry for the Environment. 1996c. Briefing for the Incoming Government. Part 1: Strategic Overview. (Released 23 December 1996) MfE Wellington
Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand’s Environment. MfE and GP publications. Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment (forthcoming). Directory: Who’s Doing What in Sustainable Land Management. Produced on contract for MfE. Wellington.
Ministry of Agriculture. 1991. Sustainable Agriculture- A policy proposal. Policy Paper 106. MAF. Wellington.
Ministry of Agriculture. 1993. Sustainable Agriculture. Policy Position Paper 1. MAF. Wellington.
Ministry of Youth Affairs. 1997a. New Zealand Conservation Corps Project Profiles: North Island and South Island: July-December 1997. MYA. Wellington.
Ministry of Youth Affairs. 1997b. Youth Affairs Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 1996. MYA. Wellington.
Mobray, Martin. 1992. The medicinal properties of localism: a historical perspective. In Thorpe R and Petruchenia, J (eds) Community Work or Social Change? An Australian Perspective. (Second Edition) Hale and Iremonger.
Mohai, P. 1992. Men, Women and the Environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. In Society and Natural Resources Vol. 5 pp1-19.
Mohi, Margaret. 1996. Waipuka (Ocean Beach) Landcare Group. In Landlink newsletter. Spring 1996. Landcare Research/Southland Regional Council.
Moodie, Helen. 1995. Trees for Survival - So what? In Broadsheet November 1995 New Zealand Association of Resource Management pp 134-135
Moon, Geoff. 1992 see Cobb, J.
Morgan, D. 1993. Multi-species control by aerial baiting: a realistic goal? In NZ Journal of Ecology Vol. 20 pp367-372 . Auckland.
Morgan, Gareth. (ed) 1983. Beyond Methods: Strategies for Social Research. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills, California.
MORI. 1992 Eurobarometer: Europeans and the Environment in 1992. MORI, London. UK (re-published in Warmer Bulletin, Vol 44 Fenruary 1995. pp6-7)
Native Forest Action. 1997. This Government can make history by saving our native forests - or just be part of a long history of wrecking them. Leaflet 4p. NFA. Wellington.
Native Forests Restoration Trust : see Canopy.
New Zealand Conservation Authority. 1997. Finding Common Ground: Maori customary use of native birds, plants and other traditional materials: Interim Report and Discussion Paper. NZCA. Wellington.
R18 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
New Zealand Conservation Corps. 1997 Project Profiles: North Island; South Island July- December 1997 (2 vols). Ministry of Youth Affairs, Wellington.
New Zealand Ecological Society. 1995. Maori customary use of native birds, plants and other traditional materials. In New Zealand Journal of Ecology. Vol 19 pp 77-82.
New Zealand Landcare Trust/ nga matapopore whenua. 1997. Strategic Plan. Christchurch. 24pp.
New Zealand Tourism News. 1996. Eco Lodge Leads The Way. June 1996 p 4. Wellington.
Newell, Rosemarie. 1993. Questionnaires Chapter in Gilbert, Nigel (ed) Researching Social Life. Sage. London and Newbury Park, USA.
Norton, David. 1997. Our natural heritage will vanish unless we change our attitude. In The Christchurch Press. Friday 25 July 1997 page 7.
Norton, D. A. 1997. Ecological basis for restoration in mainland New Zealand. In Meurk, Colin D and Smale, M C. (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific issues in Ecological Restoration. 22-23 February 1995. Christchurch. Science Series No. 14. Landcare Research. Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln. pp 11-14
Novitz, David. 1989. On Culture and Cultural Identity. In Novitz, D and Willmott, B. (Eds) Culture and Identity in New Zealand. GP Books. Wellington. Pp 177-291
Nugent, G and Fraser, W. 1993. Pests or Valued Resources? Conflicts in the management of deer. In NZ Journal of Zoology. Vol. 20 pp 361-366
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1996. Lifelong Learning for All. Fourth Meeting of the Education Committee at Ministerial level. 16-17 January. OECD. Paris.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ). 1996. Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand. OECD. Paris. Website: http://www.oecd.org/puma/gvrnance/strat/more.htm
Oliver, Matthew. 1997. (Editor/co-ordinator) Help Restore Christchurch’s Native Bush: volunteer Form (recruitment leaflet)
Open Space - journal of the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. Wellington.
Orbell, Margaret. 1985. The Natural World of the Maori. David Bateman. Auckland.
Owen, Janet. 1984. What’s Left: the Protected Natural Areas Programme. In The Landscape. January pp 20-22.
Park, Geoff N and Kelly G C. 1986. The New Zealand Protected Natural Areas Programme: A Scientific Focus. NZ Biological Records Centre Publication No. 4 DSIR. Wellington.
Park, Geoff N. 1987. Understanding and Conserving the Natural Landscape. In Phillips, J (ed) The Land and the People/Te Whenua Te Iwi. Allen and Unwin. Wellington.
R19 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Park, Geoff N. 1995. Nga Uruora:The Groves of Life: Ecology and History in a New Zealand Landscape. Victoria University Press. Wellington.
Park, Geoff N. 1996. An Ecological Framework for Restoration. In Proceedings of Waitakere City Revegetation and Restoration Seminar 30 August 1996. Waitakere City Council. Henderson.
Parker, S. 1971, 1983. The Future of Work and Leisure.
Parsons, Martin. 1991. See Wildlife Trusts Partnership 1991.
Paterson, Graeme. 1987. Preserving NZ’s Plants: What members can do. In Parks and Recreation. November pp 20-23.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990 (2nd Edition). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills, California.
Pearce, Jone L. 1993. Volunteers: The organisational behaviour of unpaid workers. Routledge. New York.
Peet, John and Peet, Katherine. 1995. Global Learning for Sustainability - with people’s wisdom. In New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning. Vol 23 (2) October. Canterbury University Press pp 55-70.
Petrie, L M. 1963. From bush to cocksfoot: an essay on the destruction of Banks Peninsula’s forests. MSc thesis (unpublished) University of Canterbury. Christchurch.
Penn, R. 1993. Building Community Capacity. In Community Development Journal. Vol 28 (4) October pp316-321.
Pickett, S T A and Parker, V T. 1994. Avoiding the old pitfalls: opportunities in a new discipline. In Restoration Ecology. Vol.2 pp 75-79
Pilisuk, M; McAllister, J and Rothman, J. 1996. Coming together for action: the challenge of contemporary grassroots community organising. In Journal of Social Issues. Vol.52 (1) Spring pp 15-37
Pinkney-Baird, Jonathan. 1993a. Environmental Volunteering: some comments on some issues. The Volunteer Centre, London, UK.
Pinkney-Baird, Jonathan. 1993b. The Environmental Volunteering Handbook: A Guide for Volunteer Organisers. The Volunteer Centre, London, UK.
Pinkney-Baird, Jonathan. 1993c. Agenda 21, Sustainable development and volunteering. The Volunteer Centre. London. UK.
Pipipi. 1996. Newsletter from Hinewai Reserve, Banks Peninsula, Vol 9. November 1996. Maurice White Native Forest Trust. Akaroa.
Pomeroy, Ann. 1994. Review of Rural Resources Unit Programme: Integrated Rural Development. Policy Information Paper 8. Ministry of Agriculture p25
Porteous, Tim. 1993. Native Forest Restoration. Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. Wellington. (Second edition of the Trust ‘Revegetation Manual’ Evans 1983)
R20 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Powell, Hazel. 1997. Overworked and under-paid? Volunteering in UK Conservation. In ECOS Vol 18 (1). British Association of Nature Conservationists, Cheltenham, UK. Pp. 32-41.
Proctor, James D. 1995. Whose Nature? The Contested Moral Terrain of Ancient Forests. In Cronon, W. (Ed) Uncommon Ground: Toward Re-Inventing Nature. WW Norton, New York. PP 269-297.
Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. See Porteous 1993
Rabbit and Land Management Programme News. 1989-1995 (23 issues, frequency varied, Manager: Don Ross ) Rabbit and Land Management Programme. Otago.
Ricketts, Helen. 1997. (Landcare Trust, South Island regional co-ordinator) Pers com.
Ringer, Martin. 1996. Critical analysis of obtaining desired outcomesfrom voluntary programmes. Science for Conservation 28. DoC. Wellington.
Ritchie, Helen. C1995 (undated) Self-Help and Participatory Farmer Groups and Environmental Management in Rural Waikato. Research proposal: executive summary.
Ritchie, Helen. 1996a. Learning Landcare Skills: news from research with Care groups in the Waikato. In Landlink newsletter. Spring 1996. Landcare Research and Southland Regional Council.
Ritchie, Helen. 1996b. Annual Report on Research Project: Achieving Sustainable Land Management through Landcare, for the year June 1995-June 1996. Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
Ritchie, Helen. 1997. Taking Care: A Report on Research with Landcare Groups in the Waikato. (Final Report on the Research Project: Achieving Sustainable Land Management through Landcare, funded by Environment Waikato and MfE). Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
Robbins, Robin. 1990 You, you and you: environmental volunteers. In BBC Wildlife Magazine. September 1990 pp 596-599. Bristol. UK.
Robertson, A. 1994. Towards constructivist research in environmental education. In Journal of Environmental Education. Vol 25 (2) pp 21-31.
Robinson, David (ed). 1997. Social Capital and Policy Development. Institute of Policy Studies and Harper Collins. Auckland.
Rogers, Carl. 1962. Toward a Theory of Creativity. In Parnes, S J and Harding, H (eds) A Source Book for Creative Thinking. Charles Scribner & Sons. New York. Pp 64-72
Roome, Nigel. 1992. Green Perspectives on Community and Public Policy. In Butcher H; Glen A; Henderson P and Smith J (eds) Community and Public Policy. London.
Roper-Starch. 1994. Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour of American Youth. Survey for the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. December 1994. University
R21 Rhys Taylor Thesis References of Michigan. Summary published on Internet site: http://eelink.umich.edu/ROPER/one.html#A
Ross, Don. 1996 pers com..(Former Manager, Rabbit and Land Management Programme, Otago) 18th November. Editor, Rural Futures Trust occasional newsletters.
Rush, Michelle. 1996. Green Package with gold lining for landcare. In Landlink. Spring 1996. Southland Regional Council, with Landcare Research, Invercargill.
Ryan,T and Siepen, G. 1992 Community Participation in Natural Resource Management. In Haskins, P G and Murphy, B M (eds). People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1.
Schwartz, S H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In Berkovitz, L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 10. Academic Press. New York.
Scott, K; Park, J; Cocklin C and Kearns, R. 1996. Community, sustainability and land-based production. Working Paper No.4. Dept. Geography, University of Auckland.
SEEDS. 1997. Native Plant Nuances. In-service training announcment in SEEDS, newsletter of New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, Canterbury/Westland Branch. September 1997. p1.
Senge, P. 1002. The Fifth Discipline. Random House. London. (P16, p174, cited by McWaters 1997)
Shand, Diana. 1994. Taking up the Challenge of Agenda 21. Ministry for the Environment and NZ Local Government Association. Wellington. (Published as part of a set entitled Securing the Future: A Guide to Agenda 21)
Shand, Lesley. 1997 (pers com.) (Review of participant feedback on a recent DoC volunteer programme) Christchurch.
Sheldon, P M; Rossiter, D C; McCaw, R and Glennie, J M. 1991. Issues and Options for the Control of Noxious Plants in the Canterbury Region. Report 91 (28). Canterbury Regional Council. Christchurch.
Shell Better Britain Campaign. 1988. Making Community Action Work in the Environment. (Conference Proceedings). SBBC. Birmingham, UK.
Shell Better Britain Campaign. 20 Years of Shell Better Britain, 1970-1990. SBBC. Birmingham. UK
Shiva, Vandana.(ed) 1995. Close to Home: Women reconnect ecology, health and development worldwide. New Society Publishers. Philadelphia, PA.
Simpson, Clare. 1993. Women Outdoors Recreation Study. In Veal, A J; Jonson P and Cushman G. (Eds) Leisure and Tourism: Social and Environmental Change. Papers from the World Leisure and Recreation Association Congress, Sydney, 16-19 July 1991. University of Technology, Sydney. Pp 211-215.
Simpson, Philip. 1995. What to Plant Where: Native Species for Lowland Sites. DoC. Wellington.
R22 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Simpson, Philip. 1995b. A Department of Conservation perspective on ecological restoration in NZ. Paper presented at International Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, USA. September 1995 (cited in Mansfield 1996 p3.)
Simpson, Philip.(forthcoming). Dancing Leaves: the Story of the New Zealand Cabbage Tree. (Cited in Roots, Tu Kakaraiki newsletter, DoC)
Simmons D and Widmar R.1990. Motivations and barriers to recycling: Toward a strategy for public education. In Journal of Environmental Education. Vol 22 pp 13-18.
Society for Ecological Restoration. USA website: http://www.habitat_restoration.com/nabalu.flas.ufl.edu/ser/SERhome.html The associated journal Restoration and Management Notes is at another website: http://www.wisc.edu/arboretum/rmn
Sontheimer, Sally. (Ed) 1988. Women and the Environment: A Reader. Earthscan. London.
Southland Regional Council. 1995. Environmental Education Strategy and Landcare Policy. SRC. Invercargill.
Springett, Delyse. 1995. Environmental Responsibility: An Agenda for Tertiary Education. New Zealand Natural Heritage Foundation. Massey Univerity.
Stearn, Jacqui. 1981. Towards Community Uses of Wasteland. Wasteland Forum. London, UK.
Stern, Paul C; Dietz, Thomas and Kalof, Linda. 1993. Value Orientations, Gender and Environmental Concern. In Environment and Behaviour. Vol25 (3) Sage publications. pp 322-348
Steven, Rob. 1989. Land and White Settler Colonialism: the Case of Aotearoa. In Novitz, D and Willmott, B. (Eds) Culture and Identity in New Zealand. GP Books. Wellington. Pp.21- 34
Stewart, Emma J. 1997. The ‘Place’ of Interpretation: An Evaluation of Provision, Use and Role of Interpretation at Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. Unpublished thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Lincoln University. Canterbury
Strum, Shirley, C. 1994. Lessons Learned. In Western, D and Wright, R M. (Eds) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Island Press. Washington DC.
Swaffield, Simon. 1997 (pers com). Lincoln University, Canterbury.
Tait, D. 1984. New Zealand Recreation Survey 1974-75. New Zealand Council for Recreation and Sport. Wellington.
Tau, M T, et al.1990. Te Whakatau Kaupapa - Ngai Tahu Resource Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Aoraki Press. Wellington.
Taylor, Rhys E. 1997a. Community Environmental Action and the Sense of Place in Rural England. (In press) Proceedings of the Institute of Australian Geographers and New Zealand
R23 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Geographical Society Second Joint Conference, Hobart, Australia, 1997. Department of Geography, The University of Waikato. [Author’s draft appears as Appendix to this Report]
Taylor, Rhys E. 1997b. Community, Adult and Environmental Education in New Zealand: A Review. Unpublished research paper (submitted as part of RESM 666 course). Department of Resource Management, Lincoln University.
Taylor, Rhys E. 1997c. Rural Action for the Environment - A Review. Chapter (8) In Derounian, J G (ed) Effective Working with Rural Communities. Packard. Chichester, UK.
Taylor, Rowan; Smith, Ian, (principal authors).1997. The State of New Zealand’s Environment. Ministry for the Environment and GP Books. Wellington.
Tilbury, Daniella. 1995. Environmental Education for Sustrainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. In Environmental Education Research Vol 1 (2) pp 195-212.
Te Puni Kokiri. 1993. Mauriora Ki Te Ao: An Introduction to Environmental and Resource Management Planning. Te Puni Kokiri. Wellington.
Thomas, David, N. 1978. Journey into the acting community: experiences of learning and change in community groups. In McCaughan, N (ed). Groupwork: Learning and Practice. Allen and Unwin. London.
Thrush. 1995. Indigenous Flora and Fauna of New Zealand. Waitangi Tribunal Research Series. (Cited by Williams 1997, section 5.46)
Timmins, S and Wassilieff, M. 1984. The effects of planting programmes on natural distribution and genetics of native plant species. In The Landscape. Vol 21 pp18-20.
Tinsley, Howard E A and Kass, Richard A. 1979. The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. In Journal of Leisure Research. Vol 11 (4) pp278-291
Tipene, Bevan. 1996. Protecting the Indigenous Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples. In Symposium Proceedings, Resource Management: Issues, Visions, Practice. 5-8 July 1996. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University. Pp 279-290
Tonkin & Taylor (Environmental and Engineering Consultants) Ltd.1997. Waitakere City Council Economic Incentives & other Non-regulatory Methods to Achieve Environmental Outcomes - Options Report. Prepared for Waitakere City Council. July 1997. Ref. 82072. Wellington.
Tothill, M. 1994. Landcare in the rangelands of South Australia. In Proceedings, Australian Landcare Conference. September 1994. Vol 1. (Cited in Ritchie, 1995)
Towns, D R; Daugherty,C H and Atkinson, I A E (eds) 1990. Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands. Conservation Sciences Publication No. 2. DoC. Wellington.
Towns, D R and Ballantine, W J. 1993. Conservation and Restoration of New Zealand Island Ecosystems. In Trends in Ecology and Evolution.(TREE) Vol 8. pp 452-457.
Treeby, Bruce. 1992. New Zealand Native Plants: course materials. The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. Wellington.
R24 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Trotter, Michael and McCulloch, Beverley (eds). 1989. Unearthing New Zealand. Bookmakers/GP Books. Wellington.
Tuan, Y F. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of environmental perceptions, attitudes and values. Prentice Hall. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J. USA.
Twelvetrees, Alan. 1982. Community Work. British Association of Social Work: Practical Social Work Series. Macmillan. Basingstoke. UK
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio, 1992. Declaration and Agenda 21 - see MfE 1993a Making Connections for summaries.
Van Rossem, Judy E. 1995. The Status and Needs of Environmental Education for Sustainable Resource Management in Local Government in New Zealand. Master of Environmental Education thesis. Unpublished. Griffith University, Australia. (Cited extensively in Van Rossem 1996 and in MfE 1996b p18)
Van Rossem, Judy E. 1996. Learning to Care for Our Environment: A preliminary implementation strategy for environmental education. Environment Waikato. Hamilton.
Vanclay, Frank. 1992. The barriers to adoption often have a rational basis. In Haskins, P G and Murphy, B M (eds). People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1 pp 452-458
Vanclay, Frank and Lawrence, G. 1995. The Environmental Imperative: Ecosocial Concerns for Australian Agriculture. Central Queensland University Press. Rockhampton.
Vanclay, Frank.1997. The social basis of environmental management in agriculture. In Lockie, S and Vanclay, F. (Eds). Critical Landcare. Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga. pp 9-28. (Cited and summarised in Vanclay, F. 1997 Landcare needs to know that agriculture is social practice. In Proceedings, Landcare Changing Australia, National Conference, Adelaide 1997. Vol.1 pp183-184.)
Vining, J and Ebreo, A. 1992. Predicting recycling behaviour from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities In Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol 22 pp1580-1607.
Volunteer Centre UK.1991. National Survey of Voluntary Activity in the UK. Volunter Centre UK. London.
Waimakariri District Council. 1996. Indigenous Vegetation, Fauna and Habitats: a community discussion document. WDC. Rangiora.
Waitakere City Council. 1996. Proceedings of Waitakere City Revegetation and Restoration Seminar. Henderson, Waitakere City.
Walker, Ranganui J. 1989 Maori Identity. In Novitz, D and Willmott, B. (Eds) Culture and Identity in New Zealand. GP Books. Wellington. Pp35-52
Wardle, Peter. 1991. Vegetation of New Zealand. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK.
R25 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Waring, Marilyn.1988.Counting for Nothing: what men value and what women are worth. Allen and Unwin. Wellington.
Warren, Karen. 1988. Women’s Outddor Adventures: Myth and Reality. In Journal of Experiential Education Vol 8 (2) pp10-14.
Warren, Karen (ed) 1994. Ecological Feminism. Routledge, London.
Wassilieff, Maggy. 1995. Natural Wellington. In Bell, V; James, G and Sawyer, J (eds) Ecological restoration in the Wellington Area. Proceedings of a Workshop at Island Bay 20 May 1995. DoC Wellington Conservancy.
Waterhouse, E J. 1991. Ecological Restoration in New Zealand. CRM604. 92/9 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the MSc in Resource Management (unpublished) Lincoln University, Canterbury.
Wearing, Alexander. 1996a. Safeguarding the Character of New Zealand Landscapes. In Environmental Perspectives. Issue 10. May 1996. Environmental Policy and Management Research Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin. pp8-9.
Wearing, Alexander. 1996b. Present and Prospective New Zealand Landscapes in the context of existing environmental management structures. In Symposium Proceedings, Resource Management: Issues, Visions, Practice. 5-8 July 1996. Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University pp 320-330.
Wearing, Alexander. 1996c. Prospective New Zealand landscapes: A planning Challenge. In Environmental Perspectives. Issue 11. July 1996. Environmental Policy and Management Research Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin pp8-11.
Wellington City Council. 1995. Trelissick Park Management Plan. June 1995. Culture and Recreation Division. Wellington City Council.
Western D and Wright R M. 1994. (Eds) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community- Based Conservation. Island Press. WashingtonDC.
Wilcox, David. 1994. Guide to Effective Community Participation. Rowntree Foundation, York, UK.
Wildlife Trusts Partnership. 1991.Your Place - or Mine? A Review of how, and why, communities are looking after their local countryside. RSNC/Wildlife Trusts Partnership. Lincoln. UK.
Williams, D A R. 1997. Environmental and Resource Management Law in New Zealand. 2nd edition. Butterworths. Wellington.
Williams, Morgan. 1997. Future Directions: Strategic Focus for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1997-2001. Office of the PCE. Wellington.
Williams, Peter A and Karl, B J. 1996. Fleshy fruits and adventive plants in the diet of birds in forest remnants, Nelson, New Zealand. In NZ Journal of Ecology Vol. 20 pp 127-145
Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
R26 Rhys Taylor Thesis References
Wilson, Hugh. 1989. Hinewai - An Ecological Restoration Project on Banks Peninsula. In Norton, David A. (Ed) Management of New Zealand’s Natural Estate. Otago 1988 Symposium Proceedings. New Zealand Ecological Society. Wellington.
Woodhill, James and Wilson, Anne-Marie. 1992. Land Conservation and Social Change: Extension to CommunityDevelopment - A Necessary Shift in Thinking. In Haskins, P G and Murphy, B M (eds). People Protecting their Land - 7th ISCO Conference Proceedings, Sydney, 27-30 September 1992. International Soil Conservation Organisation. Dept. Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, New South Wales. Vol.1 pp 263-271.
Womens Division, Federated Farmers. 1995. The Landcare Action Guide (in loose-leaf binder), WDFF, Wellington.
Woodward, Peter. 1990. see Shell Better Britain Campaign 1990
Wratten, Steve and Hutcheson, J A. 1997. Restoration of ecological communities: potential for farmland sites on the Canterbury Plains, NZ. In Meurk, Colin D and Smale, M C. (eds) Proceedings of a Workshop on Scientific issues in Ecological Restoration. 22-23 February 1995. Christchurch. Science Series No. 14. Landcare Research. Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln. pp 66-67.
Wright, Harrison M. 1959. New Zealand, 1769-1840: Early Years of Western Contact. Cambridge, Mass. (Cited in Mitchell, W J T. 1994 Landscape and Power.)
Wright, S D. 1995. Customary management of indigenous species: a Maori perspective. In New Zealand Journal of Ecology. Vol.19 pp 83-86.
Wyant, J G; Meganck, R A and Ham, S H. 1995. A Planning and Decision-Making Framework for Ecological Restoration. In Environmental Mangement. Vol 19(6) pp789-796
------
Legislation cited:
Biosecurity Act 1993 Conservation Act 1987 Forests Amendment Act 1993 Local Government AmendmentAct 1988 Local Government Amendment Act. 1989 National Parks Act 1980 Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977 Reserves Act 1977 Resource Management Act 1991 Wildlife Act 1953 Wild Animals Control Act 1977
R27