Community Identification in Okeover Stream, Canterbury

Whose stream is it anyway? Community identification in Okeover Stream, Canterbury.

Natalie Scott1, Femke Reitsma2 and Kate Hewson3

1Summer student, University of Canterbury, 2Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, 3Sustainability Office, Facilities Management, University of Canterbury.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Okeover Stream flows for 1.5 kilometres through the University of Canterbury and the suburb Ilam. It is used as a research and teaching site by students and staff and has since 1999 been the focus of campus waterways rehabilitation projects. Okeover is used as a case study in exploring different ways of identifying the community associated with a resource. The catchment community can be defined in multiple ways, presenting different understandings of the stream’s stakeholders. Knowledge of the resource's community allows communication to be better targeted to the wide range of people who interact with the stream.

Key words: catchment, community, management, resource, stream, university.

1. Introduction

Resources take the shape of the community in which they are located. They are not static, but shift and reflect the values and actions of the people and places around them. Not only dos human deliberately modify natural resources, but small, seemingly inconsequential actions can have a flow‐ on effect that results in a large shift in the nature of the resource downstream. Management of a resource, then, cannot merely focus on the resource itself, but must include a wider view of people and places that are acting upon it. The best resource management practices first identify the stakeholders with which the resource is related.

This research seeks to present alternative methods of identifying the immediate stakeholders associated with a common pool resource and, furthermore, to define the wider community of the resource. This information can then be used to construct a list of contact points for future communication about the resource in question.

The Okeover Stream is one resource that provides a case study of the different ways in which a community can be defined and identified, with regards to an urban stream. The stream is a small waterway in Otautahi‐Christchurch, New Zealand. Management of the Okeover catchment is a crucial part of maintaining river health, but the responsibility for catchment maintenance needs to 1

fall as much on the local stakeholders in the catchment as on the Christchurch City Council. In this way, the wishes and needs of the people living near Okeover can be incorporated into the future of the stream, and the issues presented by the stream are jointly owned by those who have an interest in its future.

It is important to realise that the definition of a community is not restricted to physical boundaries. A catchment is conventionally defined simply by geographic boundaries. In this case, a more useful method of identifying the community is by looking at the ‘social catchment’. This includes all the people associated with the resource without restricting the identification process to those in close physical proximity to the stream. Some of these alternative ways of explaining the community incorporate traffic moving through the catchment, stormwater flow into the stream and an acknowledgement of the history of interactions between the stream and the people around it. These will be discussed in detail in Section 5 below.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews some of the literature associated with stakeholder identification while section 3 outlines the current thinking in watershed management. Section 4 presents the specific details of Okeover Stream and section 5 gives an overview of each definition of the community associated with the stream. Section 6 shows how the information gained from the community identification process could be used to facilitate community engagement programs. The paper concludes with a list of the people and organisations that need to be the starting points for any future community based management plans of the stream.

2. Stakeholder Identification

Common pool resources are those where both benefits and costs impact on all members of the community. Everyone stands to gain from better understanding and administration of the resource (Husain, 2009). Individuals and groups with an interest in such a resource are collectively known as ‘stakeholders’; however, the problem remains as to who the stakeholders actually are, and how best to identify them (Achterkamp & Vos, 2007).

One oft‐quoted definition is from Freeman, who states “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” is a stakeholder (1984: 46). This definition is not without contention, as it allows anyone, no matter how far removed from the everyday goings‐on of the resource, to be interpreted as a stakeholder. For practical purposes, a stakeholder must hold a direct and traceable connection to the resource at hand. Much of the debate about stakeholders has used a business‐centred definition (Neville & Mengue, 2006). In contrast to this, community based management tends to focus on stakeholders that have traditionally used or managed a resource (Wittayapak & Dearden, 1999).

Thus far, most of the research on the communities associated with resources has focused on stakeholder identification. The theory of stakeholders has been widely applied in both business circles (e.g. Freeman, 1984), and subsequently in the management of natural resources (Ravenborg & Westermann, 2002; Neville & Mengue, 2006). Management schemes that incorporate stakeholders into their planning and implementation are much more likely to attain the desired 2

outcomes. The process of identifying stakeholders is closely related to that of defining where the boundaries of the catchment fall. While those people that live near to a resource can be defined as stakeholders, a broader definition of stakeholders will include all those groups or individuals that are connected to the resource, even if they are not in close physical proximity to it. Recognition of this is a necessary step towards suitable management of the resource.

The stakeholders for a business and for a local resource are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Leafcutter ants (Atta cephalotes) in Columbia have detrimental effects on both the local economy and resources, for example, resulting in tensions between farmers, policy makers, and different ethnic groups in the Andean mountains (Ravenborg & Westermann, 2002). Stakeholder identification, through a series of community talks and meetings, allowed the groups to develop a cohesive action plan within their own community, to deal with the transboundary ant problem. In this case, stakeholders were seen as those homogenous groups with an underlying common interest in the resource.

Some communities manage resources by retaining traditional, formalised rules pertaining to the resource at hand. In Indonesia, indigenous forest communities managed the forested headwaters of their nearby catchments through a series of locally enforced rules, to preserve the integrity of the forest and the culture associated with it (Wittayapak & Dearden, 1999). The stakeholders in this case were recognised as being the people with longstanding, resource‐based ties to the land.

In this study, the stakeholders are recognised as being those with direct links to Okeover Stream, either by location living or travelling in the catchment, or by interacting with the stream through the community. In the cases of both location‐based and resource‐based ties, some of the stakeholders are unaware of the stream or of their impacts on the resource, and so are included in the community associated with Okeover without necessarily being conscious of the ways in which they engage with the catchment.

Any process that involves dividing areas up encounters the modifiable area unit problem (MAUP). This states that the way in which an area is divided up changes the conclusions that can be drawn from the data (Dark and Bram, 2007). In this context, MAUP means that the way in which the area of ‘Okeover Catchment’ is defined will have major implications for the final understanding of the community associated with the resource.

3. Watershed management thus far

The traditional view of a catchment is simply as a hydrological unit used in management regimes (Warner, 2006). From this hydrological definition, a catchment is demarcated by an area on the ground in which all surface and ground water flows into a specified channel (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993). In terms of community identification, this is not satisfactory, for though it covers the technical matter of water flow it does not take into account the ways in which people interact with the water course. In addition, the increased impermeability of urban catchments means sthat les rainwater reaches the stream through natural groundwater channels, but rather passes through a drainage system that does not necessarily correspond to the natural flow of water.

Kaler (2003) points out that institutions have as much responsibility to their stakeholders as to their shareholders. As much of the initial management of the stream has fallen to the Christchurch City Council, in the context of the Okeover case study, this institution in particular needs to consider the effects of action on the community as well as the social or economic repercussions. This is what Neville & Mengue (2006) call ‘corporate social responsibility’, and requires recognition that the stakeholders, both individually and collectively, can have a large affect on an organisation.

The formalised body of thought related specifically to the management of stream and rivers is termed integrated catchment management (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993) or, alternatively, integrated basin management (Jongman & Padovani, 2006). Integrated management of a water resource involves halting degeneration of the land and water resources by coordinating management between different state agencies, policies and activities (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993). This cohesive social action begins with the identification of the people who form the community of the resource.

4. Details of Okeover Stream ¯ Headwaters Ep E hemera ls E

D W

A e tl O an R ds M RiffleRuns A

L I E E Me an de rs D A

O Okeover catchment R

E D Y L C

010020050 Meters Figure 1: Sections of Okeover Stream

Okeover Stream is a small urban waterway in western Christchurch, New Zealand. It measures 1.53 km from the top of the ephemeral section to its junction with the River Avon. The section of the stream that runs year‐round (between the headwaters at Ilam Road to the junction with the River Avon) is only 1 km long.

The stream can be divided into five sections: ephemerals, headwaters, wetlands, riffle‐runs and meanders (figure 1). The ephemerals run through Ilam Fields and are dry most of the year. The headwaters flow between Ilam Road and Engineering Road, and underwent rehabilitation in 2003. The section of the stream besidee th civil and mechanical engineering building is known as the wetlands, and was developed in 2001 (O’Brien & Barker, 2005). Beside the electrical engineering department is a 60 metre series of riffles and runs, created in 1999‐2000. Finally, the meanders section of the stream flows beside the School of Forestry and the Maori Department, and was i developed in 20050F . From there, the stream flows through a short length of residential housing before joining the Avon River.

Because the stream runs through the University campus, it has become a prime research site for academic staff and students interested in streams, freshwater ecology and urban rehabilitation. One consequence of this is that there is a wealth of knowledge about the stream’s biological community (Blakely & Harding, 2005), records of chemical and pollution levels (Farrant, 2006) and knowledge of changing flow values. Many of these records have been kept throughout the rehabilitation process, so that the effects of planting riparian vegetation and naturalising the stream flow can be seen in the biotic assemblages.

Given the importance of Okeover for University research, and that 99% of the river’s length is on University property (64% through the main campus, 35% through Ilam Fields), it is fitting for the University to be interested in maintaining the health of the stream and the associated catchment. It is equally important to engage with the wider community of the stream as their actions also have significant effects on Okeover. Community engagement programmes must be developed to meet the needs of the people being targeted, and so the question remains: whose stream is Okeover Stream?

5. Community and Stakeholders of Okeover Stream

Nine different definitions of stream communities are discussed below. Firstly, the natural boundaries of the watershed on land are defined. Okeover has undergone many alterations over time, so the third definition takes into account the historical changes associatede with th stream. Thirdly, the stormwater watershed maps the water that flows into the stream through pipes and drains. Many pollutants come from roads, so the fourth aspect of the community is the people who drive through the watershed. The fifth definition discusses the groups and organisations within stream community, whilee th sixth includes the people that work in the watershed. It is also important to realise that people are not the only ones who use the stream. Acknowledgement of non‐human populations is a vital stem in maintaining stream health and is the seventh definition. Finally, an understanding of the political and managerial stakeholders in Okeover Stream is crucial to implementing change in the catchment.

5.1 Natural Watershed

The natural boundaries of the catchment were calculated using the ArcHydro extension to ArcMap, an ESRITM product as part of the ArcGIS suite of tools. Water drains downhill, so the drainage area is delineated using a digital elevation model (DEM) of Otautahi‐Christchurch at 25 metre resolution. ArcHydro calculates the cell‐to‐cell flow of water based on the DEM, and from this generates the catchment boundary. Olivera et al. (2002) caution, however, that manual editing of catchment boundaries may be necessary in places, such as Otautahi‐Christchurch, where the terrain is predominantly flat and the waterways are frequently artificially altered from their natural flow patterns.

ArcHydro calculated the total area of the catchment to be 0.87 km2. This extends from Solway Avenue in the west to Straven Road in the east, and from close to Maidstone Road at the most northern point to Totara Street in the south. This area encompasses all of Okeover Stream, as well as small portion of the River Avon. It also intersects Waymouth Drain (the eastern section of Waimairi Stream) at two points. Clearly, a catchment for one stream cannot contain a different stream. To remedy this, the catchment was artificially cut at the junction of the Avon and Okeover (figure 2), and the western end of the catchment retained. The clipped catchment has an area of 0.61 km2.

Waimairi Stream

W ¯

A Waymouth Drain

D CR EYK E R OA Ok D eo ve r S tre am

Avon River

Okeover Catchment Streams 0 200 400 Meters Figure 2: Okeover Stream Catchment Excluded Roads Included

5.2. Historical Changes to Okeover Stream

Management of a resource needs to acknowledge the placement of the resource in space and time. In particular, the way in which the community has used the resource in the past impacts on the way

it can be used in the future. The community of the resource, therefore, can include all those that have interacted with it in the past as well as those that influence it in the present.

The waterways of Otautahi‐Christchurch have long been the subject of debate. The 360 km of open waterways originally provided mahinga kai (food) for the Māori inhabitants of the area (Atkinson, Kilvington & Fenemor, 2009). Later, when European settlers arrived, vast area of swamp and wetlands were drained to open the land for agriculture and development. A change in philosophy over the last 50 years has seen the city’s focus move from controlling and containing the water, to rehabilitating the waterways and promoting the reestablishment of natural and native ecosystems (Christchurch City Council, 2003).

Okeover Stream has seen considerable modification since the settlement of Otautahi‐Christchurch. The catchment has become increasingly impermeable with the shift from forest and open grass to roads and concrete surfaces (Farrant, 2006). This has resulted in a swifter flow of rainwater into the stream, and consequentially more extreme high and low stream flows. Urbanisation has brought with it an increase in pollution. This is in part a follow‐on effect of increasing population density and the generation of waste. Major roads laid through the catchment have suffered an upswing in traffic volumes and a corresponding increase in pollution in water runoff (Farrant, 2006).

The Okeover, along with other tributaries of the Avon, was historically fed by multiple small springs in the headwaters. These springs have been decreasing in flow volume since the mid 1980’s, with completely dry periods becoming more regular since the mid 1990’s. This pattern is common for the Avon tributaries and means that the water in the stream is mainly now supplied by non‐natural means (English, 2006). Most of the base flow in the Okeover is a result of output from the University’s air‐conditioning system. The water flow therefore shifts between high flow in the spring and autumn, and low flow at night, on weekends and in winter (Farrant, 2006).

As part of the urbanization process, Otautahi‐Christchurch settlers restricted the stream channels to prevent them flooding and damaging emerging infrastructure. This involved constructing wooden or concrete channels through which the stream flowed (Christchurch City Council, 2003). These channels were void of riparian vegetation and often maintained low flows and poor water quality (Environment Canterbury 2001). While these box sections have subsequently been removed from much of the river, sections still remain in the upper reaches of the headwaters (to the immediate east of Ilam Road) and in the ephemerals (Farrant, 2006).

5.3. Stormwater Watershed

Water falling on impermeable surfaces does not flow overland in the conventional fashion, but is instead channelled through pipes and drains to reach a stream. Drains do not necessarily follow the contours of the land and, as such, the stormwater catchment can be quite different to that of the natural overland flow. A 25 metre resolution DEM was used to calculate the highest points in the roads surrounding the stream. The houses that faced onto the roads on the Okeover side of the high ii points were included in the catchment. In addition, where private drain networks1F had outfalls that flowed to Okeover stream, the houses that were drained by the pipes were included. 7

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

0 200 400 Meters ! Sumps Streams Stormwater drains Stormwater drainage Overland drainage Figure 3: Drainage systems in Okeover Catchment

Figure 3 shows that while the stormwater catchment and conventional catchment overlap significantly, the stormwater catchment is larger (0.91 km2 compared to 0.61 km2). This means that the overall ‘impact catchment’ (the area in which a household’s water flows to the stream via either overland or piped drainage) has an area of 0.94 km2.

The water inputs to the stream from stormwater drains are quite different to those from overland flow. Stormwater inputs are characterised by intense pulses of high water flow at irregular intervals. These tend to have very high levels of contaminants in the water. In particular, areas of high vehicle use accumulate zinc and copper (from brake pads), chromium (from road paint) and lead. Residential areas result in zinc and copper moving into the stormwater system as they are eroded from the inside of piping. Testing of the Okeover during a flood event revealed high concentrations of zinc, lead, copper andm chromiu (Farrant, 2006). These contaminants all moved through the stormwater system. The baseflow in the stream, from the overland drainage, is generally at a more continuous and lower level, but can also be high in contaminants (Blakely & Harding, 2005).

5.4. People who drive though the watershed

Stormwater drains carry more than just rainwater. Large impermeable surfaces such as roads and carparks act as collecting sites for pollutants, which are then washed into the drainage system and through into the rivers (Farrant, 2006). Because of this, the people who do not live in the

catchment, but frequently commute through it, can have a large impact on the health of the stream and so must be counted as a part of the stream community.

iii Traffic flow2F in the catchment is evenly balanced between morning and evening traffic counts. In the morning, traffic movement is predominantly in an easterly and southerly direction. Between 8 and 9 am, approximately 5200 vehicles entered the catchment area. In contrast, evening flow moves in a north and west direction. Again, approximately 5200 vehicles were recorded entering the catchment area between 5 and 6 pm.

Heavy vehicles move in slightly different patterns to regular cars. In the morning, 141 heavy vehicles entered that catchment, mostly moving in a north‐south direction and spread equally between then three monitored roads. Most did not turn at the intersections, meaning that the vehicles’ journeys through the catchment were in a north‐south direction. In the afternoon only 73 heavy vehicles entered the catchment.

The roads through the catchment are also frequently used by bicycles. These follow the general traffic patterns, flowing south‐east in the morning and north‐west in the evening. A secondary pattern underlying this is a tendency for bikes to flow east‐west through the catchment rather than north south, which means that they remain in the catchment for longer. Finally, the bicycle users tend to go straight through intersections, rather than turning, moren often tha other vehicle users.

Five bus routes operate in the catchment (figure 4). Four of these traverse Maidstone Road, and one stops along Clyde Road. The impact of a bus is less than that of a car, as it carries more passengers, but buses are far from pollution‐free. Idling buses, in particular diesel fuelled buses, have been criticised for excessive air pollution (Hess, 2007).

23 O 3 ¯

21 21

3 21

Roads 0 200 400 Meters Buses Figure 4: Bus routes through Okeover Catchment Catchment 9

5.5. Groups along the stream

Within Otautahi‐Christchurch, community boards are responsible for representing and advocating the needs and interests of the citizens. Okeover catchment straddles two community wards. The Fendalton‐Waimairi ward extends to the north of Creyke Road, while the Riccarton‐Wigram board covers the area south of Creyke and Maidstone Roads. River and stream care groups are common throughout Otautahi‐Christchurch, such as the Ashley‐Rakahuri Rivercare Group and the Styx Living Laboratory Trust.

These boards represent groups that live in the catchment as well as groups that might be concerned about the future of the stream. Involvement of community groups needs to be directed through these community boards to ensure that all groups have the opportunity to air their views.

Perhaps the largest single group that holds a stake in the future of Okeover Stream is the University of Canterbury. Since 1999, there have been extensive and ongoing stream rehabilitation projects carried out within the University (see section 4). This was initially a student‐led project aiming to re‐ establish native riparian vegetation and to provide a green corridor linking rehabilitated area of the stream. These goals expanded to include wider ecological goals, such as restoring the biodiversity of the stream community, and social goals, such as bringing the University community together to iv conserve and restore the stream environment3F .

Within the University the groups involved in stream management are Facilities Management (especially the sustainability office), the freshwater ecology research group, ecological engineering and Kakariki, the campus environment club. These groups liaise with the Christchurch City Council to coordinate restoration, monitor the waterway and promote awareness of the issues associated with Okeover.

The University also has a large physical effect on the water in the stream. As mentioned in section 5.2, the air conditioning system in university buildings operates by extracting water from an aquifer, passing it through a heat exchange and discharging the water into the Okeover at several points along the stream’s length. This means that the water flowing into the stream is slightly warmer than expected, and has an unusually high copper content as a result of passing though the University’s piping system (Farrant, 2006).

Most of the other groups situated along the length of the stream are affiliated with the University. University Hall backs onto the ephemeral section of the stream. It is home to 557 students through the university year, many of who regularly cross over the stream to reach Ilam Fields. Two early childhood centres are located on the banks of the Okeover. The University of Canterbury Student’s Association (UCSA) affiliated Montana Early Learning Centre caters to 30 children under 3 ½ years. The Early Years Care and Education facility (including the Sheila Walker and Early Childhood Learning Centre) is affiliated with the University itself. Further downstream is the Community Garden, maintained by the UC Sustainability Office. At the junction of Okeover Stream and Forestry Road are the Scion (originally Forest Research Institute) offices. 10

5.6. People who work in the watershed

The census collects information about how many people are employed, and the industries in which those people work. The high student and retiree population in Okeover catchment is reflected in this. 7.7% of the population of meshblocks in the catchment are aged over 65. Retirees are not included in the labour force, and so do not count towards unemployment statistics. Approximately 7.1% of the population of the catchment are under 15 years of age and are also excluded from the labour force. Unemployment for the catchment falls at 5.8% (the national average unemployment for the year to March 2009 was 4.5% (Ministry of Social Development, 2009)).

Figure 5 pertains to those people aged 15 years and over that are actively taking part in paid employment. The largest sectors that employ people living in the Okeover Catchment are manufacturing, retail, ‘accommodation, cafés and restaurants’, ‘property and business services’, education and ‘health and community services’. This may be in part due to the high number of students that hold part time jobs in retail shops and cafés or restaurants. The highly transient nature of students has created at marke for property services, which may explain the prevalence of this type of employment.

5.7. Non‐human populations

A community is not solely made up of humans. Plants and animals are important stakeholders in the catchment and must be considered when identifying the community associated with a resource. In the case of Okeover Stream, humans have modified the catchment to such a degree that it can be difficult to know what the original flora and fauna of the region would have been. Identification of the indigenous plants and animals can help to target future changes in the catchment to promote the re‐establishment of native ecosystems.

The indigenous ecosystems of Otautahi‐Christchurch can bed identifie based on soil type, species abundance and climate. Reconstructions of traditional indigenous ecosystems can be developed in relation to the approximate age of the soil, surviving forest remnants and historical accounts. Twenty separate ecosystems have been identified (Lucas et al., 1995; Lucas et al. 1996) and named, based on their most dominant plant species. Of these, four ecosystems were historically present in and around Okeover catchment. These are shown in figure 6.

Hauhere Streams 0 200 400 600 Meters Pukio Catchment Totara Figure 6: Indigenous ecosystems of Okeover Catchment Kahikatea

Kahikatea forest grows on wet ‘Taitapu’ soils. The characteristic plants, kahikatea trees (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) grow alongside hinau (Elaeocarpus dentatus) and matai (Prumnopitys taxifolia) in these older plains ecosystems. Totara is the characteristic plant of deep, moist ‘Kaiapoi’ soils. The Totara ecosystem type also grows on older plains, and also has matai and hinau. A mid‐age plains group, the Houhere system, grows on moist and deep ‘Waimakariri’ soils. There are fewer large trees and more small trees and shrubs, such as manuka (Leptospermum scorparium), lancewood

(Pseuopanax crassifolius) and lacebark/houhere (Hoheria angustifolia). Pukio systems grow on coastal peat plains, on wet ‘Waimairi’ and ‘Aranui’ soils. Again, the trees tend to be smaller and the ecosystem is dominated by tussock sedges (Carex secta and C. virgata). Other species can include ti kouka/cabbage trees (Cordyline australisd ) an toetoe (Carex germinata).

C RE YK E RO ¯ AD

D A

O R

E D Y L C

Roads 0 200 400 Meters CREAS High Figure 7: CREAS data for Okeover Stream Medium Low/Medium

These indigenous ecosystems have undergone significant modification with the introduction of alien species, waterways alterations and land use changes in the catchment. The CREAS (Christchurch River Environmental Assessment Survey) study, completed in 2005 and 2006 by the Christchurch City Council, has dbeen use to generate a ‘waterways impact score’ which provides a measure of how much the waterways have been affected by human activity. This was based on regular measurements of stream condition such as velocity, habitat heterogeneity and riparian vegetation (Suren & McMurtie, 2006).

The CREAS survey (figure 7) shows that most of Okeover Stream has been assigned an impact score categorizing it as ‘Medium’ impact. The stream also has small section of both ‘Low/Medium’ and ‘High’ impact scores. The high impact scores, which indicate low stream quality and heterogeneity, occur in the upper reaches to the west of Ilam Road, in the ephemerals section. The low/medium sections occur periodically along the river, but the largest section is in the meanders stretch of the river to the rear of the Maori department and School of Forestry. This part of the river was only rehabilitated in 2005. It also has a relatively high flow volume compared to the upper reaches of the stream, allowing it to recover more quickly from the effects of human activity.

5.8. Stream Management

In Otautahi‐Christchurch the waterways are managed by the City Council. Individual property boundaries generally stop at the water’s edge; however some may include the riverbed itself. The council is responsible for maintaining the stream bed and some riparian plantings. Property owners are not permitted to modify or interfere with the river bank or stream bed, and a gap sufficient for maintenance purposes is required to be kept clear on either side of the stream at all times (Water Related Services Bylaw 2008).

The situation with the University is slightly different. As the University of Canterbury has become increasingly involved with stream restoration, for most of the Okeover the council is responsible for the instream environment while the University maintains the banks. In the headwaters section between Engineering and Ilam Roads, which was rehabilitated in 2003 (O’Brien & Barker, 2005), the University is responsible for bothe th channel and riparian areas. Initially this was because a number of mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius) were introduced to the headwaters section, and required more frequent work than the Council was prepared to do (M Rudd 2010, pers comm, Jan 14).

This arrangement, in place since around 2007, has seen the University remove 2‐3 m3 of leaf litter from the stream three times annually. This helps to maintain the stream at an acceptable depth, preventing the stream becoming overly shallow. The main culprits responsible for this leaf input are the poplars planted along the stream’s bank. The removal of these trees in late 2009 is expected to significantly reduce the amount of leaf litter present in the leaf traps. Maintenance teams chop out tree roots extending into the stream (M Rudd 2010, pers comm, Jan 14) which can lead to increased stream channelization and bed width, and consequentially to slower water velocity, siltation and instream macropyte growth (Bell et al, 1999, p. 41).

The ongoing maintenance of the rest of the stream channel is carried out by the council; however care is taken to preserve the integrity of the plantings and rehabilitation work in the wetlands section (M Rudd 2010, pers comm, Jan 14).

6. From Catchment to Community

Integrated catchment management requires that the administration of the catchment be tailored to the specific needs and situations of the community (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993). This uses the different ways of identifying the community outlined above to facilitate catchment management. For example, the area defined by ArcHydro (section 5.1) as falling in the stream’s catchment was followed by the generation of a demographic profile of the people living in the area.

The demographic profile of the catchment was created using data from the 2006 census at the finest level of detail available (meshblocks). Because not all the meshblocks that intersected the catchment were completely within the catchment, the values were assumed to be distributed equally throughout the meshblock and the proportion of the meshblock inside the catchment was used to calculate the meshblock data value. 14

There are approximately 1550 people living in the catchment. The age profile of the catchment of Okeover Stream is characterised by two extremes (figure 8). At one end, there are many students aged in their late teens and early twenties. At the other end of the scale, the catchment is also home to an older generation, aged above 65. This supports local thought that the suburb is shared by students and retirees.

Meshblocks with high student concentrations can be identified by looking at the percentage of the population that state they are engaged in full or part time study. Furthermore, the number of student loan recipients rises sharply in these meshblocks. From this we can identify two v meshblocks 4F as having the highest percentage of student residents.

Unemployment at 5.8% is higher than the national average throughout the catchment. This may be because 59.7% list themselves as studying either full or part time, and so are unavailable to commit to employment. The unemployment rate in one of the meshblocksd identifie above has an unemployment rate of 8.1%.

Average income is lower in the areas of high student concentration. Across the catchment, the average income is $15,114 per person. In the two meshblocks identified above, however, personal income falls to just $4,000. Despite having a relatively high non‐European population, especially in the areas of high student concentration, English language comprehension is high throughout the catchment.

The Social Deprivation Index (SDI) collates a number of attributes collected in the census. It assigns a score between 1 and 10 to each meshblock, where 1 represents the least deprived areas and 10 is indicative of the most deprived sections (White et al. 2008). Nine census variables are used to determine the SDI value. These are described in table 1.

Table 1: Census variables used to calculate Social Deprivation Index (from White et al, 2008) Income aged 18–64 years receiving a means‐tested benefit vi living in households with equivalised5F income below an income Income threshold Owned home not living in own home Support aged under 65 years living in a single‐parent family Employment aged 18–64 years and unemployed Qualifications aged 18–64 years and without any qualifications 2 living in households below an equivalised6F bedroom occupancy Living space threshold Communication with no access to a telephone Transport with no access to a car

The Social Deprivation Index (figure 9) shows that most of the meshblocks in the Okeover catchment fall around the middle of the deprivation index. The average SDI score for these meshblocks is 5, and there is no clear spatial pattern of extremely high or low SDI values.

Streams 3 8 0 200 400 600Meters Okeover Catchment 4 9 Social Deprivation Index 5 10 1 6 Figure 9: Social Deprivation Index 2 7

It may be worth noting that the procedure for evaluating the SDI is a little flawed in relation to students. The vast majority of students earn less than the income threshold and do not live in their own home. Many are unemployed during the year and do not have access to a car as they live

within walking distance to the university. This way of life does not necessarily equate to deprivation, as it is a choice made by the individual students in order to facilitate tertiary education.

7. Discussion and Conclusion

This research has outlined a number of different ways of defining the population of an urban stream catchment. In a practical context this information can be used in river restoration schemes. Integrated catchment management has been proven to be an effective way to solve some of the problems associated with urban streams and rivers, and is a process that requires involvement from most parts of the community.

All the different ways of thinking about a community are useful in catchment management. For example, physically defining the catchment allows the development of an understanding of the age breakdown and social factors that influence the people living in the catchment. This has the ability to drastically alter the ways in which information regarding the stream is presented to the target audience, thereby hopefully making the catchment management project more successful.

That having been said, each definition of the catchment provides an insight into the complicated, integrated community of the stream. Effective management of the stream requires a holistic view of the people and processes associated with the catchment. It would be foolish to, for example, target solely those who live in the overland flow catchment in an attempt to reduce pollution, as many contaminants arrive to the stream channel from road surfaces and the like. Ultimately, all eof th aspects of the catchment community need to be taken into account for community engagement programmes.

Placing the responsibility for catchment management in the hands of a community has many risks, not least of which is the potential for over exploitation, under regulation and a resulting ‘Tragedy of the commons’ (Elliott, 1997). Nevertheless, community management can lead to surprisingly sustainable outcomes, where costs and benefits of a resource are shared equally amongst the community (Husain, 2009).

So whose stream is it? The answer is that the community of Okeover Stream is far more widespread and diverse than previously thought. The stakeholders in the stream’s future are not limited only to those who live nearby, or those who interact frequently with the river. Everyone in the community is connected to the stream and must hold some responsibility for its health and future. A study such as this serves to highlight the interconnectedness of the catchment and to reinforce the idea that no part of it can act independently of another. It also provides a basis for targeting behaviour change programmes. An understanding of the demographic and population dynamics in the catchment means that communication to the stakeholders can be much more specific and effective.

Targeted communication needs to focus on the groups highlighted in Table 2.

Those who live within the Addresses located in Section groundwater catchment catchment. 5.1

Those that historically used the Māori, farmers, urban stream. residents, university 5.2

Those who live within the Addresses located in stormwater catchment catchment. 5.3

Those who regularly drive Metro, car drivers, through the catchment. commercial transport 5.4

Groups or organisations that frequently interact with the University of Canterbury, stream. UCSA, community boards. 5.5

Particularly retail, cafés and People that work in the restaurants, property catchment. services and education. 5.6

Mudfish, native plants, Non‐humans that live within the natural or restored stream’s catchment. ecosystems. 5.7

Agencies that are responsible for CCC, ECan, University of managing the stream. Canterbury 5.8

Table 2: Communication targets for community management

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to the University of Canterbury Sustainability Office (Facilities Management) and Environment Canterbury for providing the funding for this summer studentship.

References

Achterkamp M C and Vos J F J (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders: evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 24, 3‐14.

Atkinson M, Kilvington M and Fenemor A (2009). Watershed Talk: The cultivation of ideas and action. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln.

Bell C, Barker R, Heremaia C and Morland K (1999). Restoring and protecting Smack’s Creek. Christchurch City Council, Christchurch.

Blakely T J and Harding J S (2005). Longitudinal pattern in benthic communities in an urban stream under restoration. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39, 17‐28.

Christchurch City Council (2003). Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide/Ko Te Anga Whakaora mō Ngā Arawai Rēpō – Part A: Visions. CCC, Christchurch.

Dark S J and Bram D (2007). The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography 31:5, 471‐479.

Environment Canterbury (2001). Caring for the streams of the Canterbury Plains – a guide to riparian management. R00/18, Lucas Associates, Christchurch.

Elliott H (1997). A general statement of the tragedy of the commons, Population and Environment 18:6, 515‐531.

English R (2006). The disappearing Avon: Flows, aquifer levels and abstractions. Environment Canterbury Report 010107, ECan, Christchurch.

Farrant S (2006). Contaminant characterisation of discharge into Okeover Stream and treatment recommendations. Unpublished BE(Hons) report, University of Canterbury.

Freeman R E (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston.

Hess D (2007). What is a clean bus? Object conflicts in the greening of urban transit. Sustainability: Science, practice and policy 3:1, 45‐58.

Husain Z (2009). Commons and commoners: Re‐examining community in common pool resources, Sustainable Development 17, 142‐154.

Jongman R H G and Padovani C R (2006). Interaction between stakeholders and research for integrated river basin management, Water Resources Development 22:1, 49‐60.

Kaler J (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theories, Journal of Business Ethics 46:1, 71‐83.

Lucas D, Meurk C, Head J and Lynn I (1996). Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch, Set 3: Plants of the Plains of Shirley‐Papanui and Fendalton‐Waimairi. Lucas Associates, Christchurch.

Lucas D, Head J and Miles S (1995). Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch, Set 1: Plants of the Plains of Riccarton‐Wigram and Spreydon‐Heathcote. Lucas Associates, Christchurch.

Ministry of Social Development (2009). The Social Report 2009. MSD, Wellington.

Mitchell B and Hollick M (1993). Integrated catchment management in nWester Australia: Transition from catchment to implementation, Environmental Management 17:6, 735‐643.

Neville B A and Mengue B (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Towards an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders, Journal of Business Ethics 66, 377‐391.

O’Brien L K and Barker R (2005). ‘Restoring in‐stream values and habitat for Canterbury mudfish in Okeover Stream, Christchurch’. In: Dawson M, ed. Greening the city: Bringing biodiversity back into the urban environment, Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, Christchurch, pp. 180‐ 188.

Olivera F, Jordan F, Maidment D, Djokic D and Zichuan Y (2002). Drainage Systems. In: Maidment D ed. Arc Hydro:S GI for water resources, ESRI Press, Redlands, California, pp. 55‐86.

Ravenborg H M and Westermann O (2002). Understanding interdependencies: stakeholder identification and negotiation for collective natural resource management, Agricultural Systems 73, 41‐56.

Suren A and McMurtrie S (2006). Development of a Waterway Impact Score. EOS Ecology and NIWA, Christchurch, NZ.

Warner J F (2006). More sustainable participation? Multi‐stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management, International Journal of Water Resources Management 22:1, 15‐35.

Water Relate Services Bylaw (2008), Christchurch City Council

White P, Gunston J, Salmond C, Atkinson J and Crampton P (2008). Atlas of Socioeconomic Deprivation in New Zealand NZDep2006. Ministry of Health, Wellington.

Wittayapak C and Dearden P (1999). Decision‐making arrangements in community‐based watershed management in northern Thailand, Society and Natural Resources 12, 673‐691.

Appendix 1

Community Board boundaries contact lists are correct at the time of writing. Please check the vii council website for the most up to date information7F .

FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD Chair: Val Carter 15B Royds Street, 351‐8366 027‐491‐7138 [email protected] Fendalton, Christchurch vt.nz 8014 Deputy Chair: 33 Millstream Drive, 323‐5666 021‐707‐144 cheryl.colley@ccc. Cheryl Colley JP Northwood, Christchurch govt.nz 8051 Faimeh Burke 44 Naseby Street, Merivale, 355‐8104 021‐453‐466 faimeh.burke@ccc Christchurch 8014 .govt.nz Jamie Gough 71 Innes Road, St Albans, 355‐4390 027‐231‐4393 [email protected] Christchurch 8052 z Andrew Yoon 25 Brockhall Lane, 358‐1149 027‐433‐6090 andrew.yoon@ccc Avonhead, Christchurch .govt.nz 8042 Council Appointees Sally Buck 15 Melrose Street, 379‐2820 021‐058‐0392 [email protected] Christchurch 8013 vt.nz Mike Wall 25 Althorp Place, 358‐9908 027‐234‐4125 [email protected] Avonhead, Christchurch vt.nz 8042 Table 3: Fendalton‐Waimairi Community Board

Fig. 9: Extent of Fendalton‐Waimairi ward 21

RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD Chair: Peter 69 Middleton Road, Upper 348‐7313 027‐222‐8212 peter.laloli@ccc. Laloli Riccarton, Christchurch govt.nz 8041 Deputy Chair: 28 Moffett Street, 980‐9438 027‐430‐3132 mike.mora@ccc. Mike Mora Islington, Christchurch govt.nz 8042 Jimmy Chen PO Box 6288, Upper 342‐8589 021‐134‐1673 jimmy.chen@ccc. Riccarton, Christchurch govt.nz 8442 Beth Dunn 23 Chesterfield Mews, 342‐3055 027‐494‐8638 [email protected] Russley, Christchurch 8042 ovt.nz Dr Judy Kirk 35 Tintern Avenue, 343‐9899 027‐255‐2075 [email protected] Avonhead, Christchurch vt.nz 8042 Council Appointees

Helen 25 Rata Street, Riccarton, 348‐1458 027‐640‐4935 helen.broughton Broughton Christchurch 8041 @ ccc.govt.nz Bob Shearing PO Box 16291, Hornby, 342‐3203 021‐320‐967 bob.shearing@cc Christchurch 8441 c.govt.nz Table 4: Riccarton‐Wigram Community Board

Fig. 10: Extent of Riccarton‐Wigramward

Appendix 2

2 Ashfield Pl 154 Ilam Rd 4 Newbridge Pl 3 Ashfield Pl 155 Ilam Rd 5 Newbridge Pl 4 Ashfield Pl 156 Ilam Rd 7 Newbridge Pl 5 Ashfield Pl 157 Ilam Rd 8 Newbridge Pl 6 Ashfield Pl 157 A Ilam Rd 9 Newbridge Pl 7 Ashfield Pl 158 Ilam Rd 11 Newbridge Pl 8 Ashfield Pl 159 Ilam Rd 12 Newbridge Pl 9 Ashfield Pl 160 Ilam Rd 14 Newbridge Pl 10 Ashfield Pl 161 Ilam Rd 15 Newbridge Pl 11 Ashfield Pl 162 B Ilam Rd 16 Newbridge Pl 12 Ashfield Pl 162 A Ilam Rd 17 Newbridge Pl 14 Ashfield Pl 163 Ilam Rd 19 Newbridge Pl 15 Ashfield Pl 164 Ilam Rd 20 Newbridge Pl 16 Ashfield Pl 165 Ilam Rd 21 Newbridge Pl 17 Ashfield Pl 166 Ilam Rd 22 Newbridge Pl

18 Ashfield Pl 169 Ilam Rd 23 Newbridge Pl 19 Ashfield Pl 171 Ilam Rd 24 Newbridge Pl 20 Ashfield Pl 173 A Ilam Rd 25 Newbridge Pl 21 Ashfield Pl 173 Ilam Rd 26 Newbridge Pl 1 Barlow St 3 Ilkley Pl 27 Newbridge Pl 3 Barlow St 4 Ilkley Pl 28 Newbridge Pl 4 Barlow St 5 Ilkley Pl 29 Newbridge Pl 1 Camrose Pl 6 Ilkley Pl 30 Newbridge Pl 2 Camrose Pl 7 Ilkley Pl 31 Newbridge Pl 4 Camrose Pl 8 Ilkley Pl 33 Newbridge Pl 68 C Clyde Rd 9 Ilkley Pl 34 Newbridge Pl 68 Clyde Rd 10 Ilkley Pl 35 Newbridge Pl 68 A Clyde Rd 11 Ilkley Pl 1 Rutherglen Ave 70 Clyde Rd 63 Kotare St 2 Rutherglen Ave 72 Clyde Rd 64 Kotare St 3 Rutherglen Ave 75 Clyde Rd 65 Kotare St 4 Rutherglen Ave 76 Clyde Rd 67 A Kotare St 5 Rutherglen Ave 77 Clyde Rd 69 Kotare St 6 Rutherglen Ave 78 Clyde Rd 1 Lynfield Ave 7 Rutherglen Ave 78 B Clyde Rd 4 Lynfield Ave 8 Rutherglen Ave 79 Clyde Rd 5 A Lynfield Ave 8 A Rutherglen Ave 80 Clyde Rd 6 C Lynfield Ave 9 Rutherglen Ave 80 A Clyde Rd 6 B Lynfield Ave 10 A Rutherglen Ave 81 Clyde Rd 6 D Lynfield Ave 10 Rutherglen Ave 82 A Clyde Rd 6 A Lynfield Ave 11 A Rutherglen Ave 82 Clyde Rd 7 Lynfield Ave 11 Rutherglen Ave 83 Clyde Rd 9 Lynfield Ave 12 Rutherglen Ave 84 Clyde Rd 10 Lynfield Ave 14 Rutherglen Ave 84 A Clyde Rd 11 Lynfield Ave 15 Rutherglen Ave 85 Clyde Rd 12 Lynfield Ave 16 Rutherglen Ave 86 A Clyde Rd 14 Lynfield Ave 17 Rutherglen Ave 86 Clyde Rd 15 Lynfield Ave 18 Rutherglen Ave 86 B Clyde Rd 17 Lynfield Ave 19 Rutherglen Ave 87 Clyde Rd 19 Lynfield Ave 20 Rutherglen Ave 88 Clyde Rd 22 Lynfield Ave 21 Rutherglen Ave 88 A Clyde Rd 24 Lynfield Ave 22 A Rutherglen Ave

88 C Clyde Rd 26 Lynfield Ave 22 Rutherglen Ave 88 B Clyde Rd 28 B Lynfield Ave 23 Rutherglen Ave 89 Clyde Rd 28 A Lynfield Ave 24 A Rutherglen Ave 90 Clyde Rd 29 Lynfield Ave 24 Rutherglen Ave 90 A Clyde Rd 30 Lynfield Ave 25 Rutherglen Ave 91 Clyde Rd 31 Lynfield Ave 26 Rutherglen Ave 92 B Clyde Rd 32 Lynfield Ave 28 Rutherglen Ave 92 A Clyde Rd 33 Lynfield Ave 1 Solway Ave 92 Clyde Rd 34 Lynfield Ave 3 Solway Ave 93 Clyde Rd 35 Lynfield Ave 4 Solway Ave 94 A Clyde Rd 36 Lynfield Ave 5 Solway Ave 94 Clyde Rd 37 Lynfield Ave 6 Solway Ave 95 Clyde Rd 38 Lynfield Ave 7 Solway Ave 96 Clyde Rd 39 Lynfield Ave 9 Solway Ave 97 Clyde Rd 40 Lynfield Ave 10 Solway Ave 98 Clyde Rd 41 Lynfield Ave 11 Solway Ave 99 Clyde Rd 42 Lynfield Ave 12 Solway Ave 100 Clyde Rd 43 Lynfield Ave 14 Solway Ave 102 B Clyde Rd 45 Lynfield Ave 15 Solway Ave 102 Clyde Rd 2 Maidstone Rd 16 Solway Ave 109 Clyde Rd 4 Maidstone Rd 17 Solway Ave 1 Creyke Rd 6 Maidstone Rd 18 Solway Ave 3 Creyke Rd 8 Maidstone Rd 19 Solway Ave 5 Creyke Rd 9 Maidstone Rd 21 Solway Ave 7 Creyke Rd 10 Maidstone Rd 22 Solway Ave 9 Creyke Rd 11 Maidstone Rd 23 Solway Ave 15 Creyke Rd 12 Maidstone Rd 24 Solway Ave 17 Creyke Rd 14 Maidstone Rd 25 Solway Ave 19 Creyke Rd 15 Maidstone Rd 26 Solway Ave 21 A Creyke Rd 16 Maidstone Rd 27 Solway Ave 22 A Creyke Rd 17 Maidstone Rd 28 Solway Ave 23 Creyke Rd 18 Maidstone Rd 29 Solway Ave 24 Creyke Rd 19 Maidstone Rd 30 Solway Ave 25 Creyke Rd 20 Maidstone Rd 31 Solway Ave 26 Creyke Rd 23 Maidstone Rd 33 A Solway Ave 27 Creyke Rd 25 Maidstone Rd 33 C Solway Ave

29 Creyke Rd 27 Maidstone Rd 33 D Solway Ave 30 Creyke Rd 28 Maidstone Rd 33 B Solway Ave 31 Creyke Rd 29 Maidstone Rd 34 Solway Ave 32 C Creyke Rd 30 Maidstone Rd 35 Solway Ave 32 A Creyke Rd 31 Maidstone Rd 36 Solway Ave 32 Creyke Rd 32 Maidstone Rd 37 Solway Ave 32 B Creyke Rd 34 Maidstone Rd 38 Solway Ave 33 Creyke Rd 35 Maidstone Rd 1 Wadeley Rd 34 B Creyke Rd 36 Maidstone Rd 3 Wadeley Rd 34 Creyke Rd 37 Maidstone Rd 4 Wadeley Rd 35 Creyke Rd 39 Maidstone Rd 5 Wadeley Rd 36 Creyke Rd 41 Maidstone Rd 6 Wadeley Rd 37 Creyke Rd 43 Maidstone Rd 7 Wadeley Rd 38 Creyke Rd 44 Maidstone Rd 8 Wadeley Rd 39 Creyke Rd 45 Maidstone Rd 9 Wadeley Rd 40 C Creyke Rd 47 Maidstone Rd 10 Wadeley Rd 41 Creyke Rd 49 Maidstone Rd 11 Wadeley Rd 42 Creyke Rd 51 Maidstone Rd 15 Wadeley Rd 43 Creyke Rd 53 Maidstone Rd 17 Wadeley Rd 44 Creyke Rd 55 Maidstone Rd 19 Wadeley Rd 45 Creyke Rd 57 Maidstone Rd 21 Wadeley Rd 46 A Creyke Rd 59 Maidstone Rd 22 Wadeley Rd 47 Creyke Rd 61 Maidstone Rd 23 Wadeley Rd 48 Creyke Rd 63 Maidstone Rd 25 Wadeley Rd 49 Creyke Rd 65 Maidstone Rd 27 Wadeley Rd 50 Creyke Rd 67 Maidstone Rd 28 Wadeley Rd 51 A Creyke Rd 70 Maidstone Rd 29 A Wadeley Rd 52 Creyke Rd 71 Maidstone Rd 29 Wadeley Rd 52 A Creyke Rd 71 A Maidstone Rd 29 B Wadeley Rd 52 B Creyke Rd 74 Maidstone Rd 32 Wadeley Rd 54 Creyke Rd 75 Maidstone Rd 38 Wadeley Rd 56 Creyke Rd 76 A Maidstone Rd 108 Waimairi Rd 58 Creyke Rd 76 Maidstone Rd 108 A Waimairi Rd 60 A Creyke Rd 76 B Maidstone Rd 110 Waimairi Rd 60 Creyke Rd 77 Maidstone Rd 112 Waimairi Rd 62 Creyke Rd 78 Maidstone Rd 121 Waimairi Rd

64 Creyke Rd 79 Maidstone Rd 122 Waimairi Rd 70 A Creyke Rd 80 A Maidstone Rd 123 Waimairi Rd 70 B Creyke Rd 80 Maidstone Rd 124 Waimairi Rd 72 Creyke Rd 81 Maidstone Rd 125 Waimairi Rd 74 Creyke Rd 82 A Maidstone Rd 126 Waimairi Rd 76 Creyke Rd 82 Maidstone Rd 127 Waimairi Rd 78 Creyke Rd 84 Maidstone Rd 128 Waimairi Rd 79 Creyke Rd 85 Maidstone Rd 128 A Waimairi Rd 81 Creyke Rd 86 Maidstone Rd 130 Waimairi Rd 82 Creyke Rd 87 Maidstone Rd 131 Waimairi Rd 83 Creyke Rd 88 A Maidstone Rd 132 Waimairi Rd 84 Creyke Rd 88 Maidstone Rd 133 Waimairi Rd 85 Creyke Rd 89 Maidstone Rd 134 Waimairi Rd 86 Creyke Rd 90 Maidstone Rd 135 Waimairi Rd 87 A Creyke Rd 91 Maidstone Rd 136 Waimairi Rd 87 Creyke Rd 92 Maidstone Rd 136 A Waimairi Rd 88 A Creyke Rd 93 Maidstone Rd 136 B Waimairi Rd 88 Creyke Rd 94 Maidstone Rd 137 Waimairi Rd 89 Creyke Rd 94 B Maidstone Rd 138 Waimairi Rd 90 Creyke Rd 94 A Maidstone Rd 140 Waimairi Rd 91 A Creyke Rd 95 Maidstone Rd 142 Waimairi Rd 91 Creyke Rd 96 Maidstone Rd 144 Waimairi Rd 92 Creyke Rd 97 Maidstone Rd 146 Waimairi Rd 93 Creyke Rd 97 A Maidstone Rd 147 Waimairi Rd 94 Creyke Rd 98 Maidstone Rd 149 Waimairi Rd 95 Creyke Rd 99 Maidstone Rd 151 Waimairi Rd 96 Creyke Rd 99 A Maidstone Rd 152 Waimairi Rd 97 Creyke Rd 100 Maidstone Rd 153 A Waimairi Rd 98 Creyke Rd 100 A Maidstone Rd 153 Waimairi Rd 99 Creyke Rd 101 Maidstone Rd 154 Waimairi Rd 100 Creyke Rd 102 Maidstone Rd 155 Waimairi Rd 102 Creyke Rd 103 Maidstone Rd 156 Waimairi Rd 104 Creyke Rd 104 Maidstone Rd 157 Waimairi Rd 106 Creyke Rd 106 Maidstone Rd 158 Waimairi Rd 110 Creyke Rd 107 Maidstone Rd 159 Waimairi Rd 112 Creyke Rd 108 Maidstone Rd 160 Waimairi Rd

114 Creyke Rd 109 Maidstone Rd 161 Waimairi Rd 116 Creyke Rd 110 Maidstone Rd 162 Waimairi Rd 118 Creyke Rd 111 Maidstone Rd 163 Waimairi Rd 5 Dovedale Ave 113 Maidstone Rd 164 Waimairi Rd 7 Dovedale Ave 1 Maydell St 165 Waimairi Rd 15 Dovedale Ave 2 Maydell St 166 Waimairi Rd 23 Dovedale Ave 3 Maydell St 168 A Waimairi Rd 25 Dovedale Ave 4 Maydell St 168 B Waimairi Rd 27 Dovedale Ave 5 Maydell St 170 Waimairi Rd 29 Dovedale Ave 6 Maydell St 172 Waimairi Rd 31 Dovedale Ave 3 Mclellan Pl 176 Waimairi Rd 33 Dovedale Ave 4 Mclellan Pl 177 Waimairi Rd 1 Farnham Pl 2 A Montana Ave 178 Waimairi Rd 2 Farnham Pl 2 Montana Ave 179 Waimairi Rd 3 Farnham Pl 3 Montana Ave 181 Waimairi Rd 3 A Farnham Pl 4 Montana Ave 182 Waimairi Rd 4 Farnham Pl 5 Montana Ave 183 Waimairi Rd 5 Farnham Pl 6 Montana Ave 185 Waimairi Rd 6 Farnham Pl 7 Montana Ave 186 Waimairi Rd 7 Farnham Pl 8 Montana Ave 187 Waimairi Rd 9 Farnham Pl 9 Montana Ave 189 Waimairi Rd 11 Farnham Pl 10 Montana Ave 190 Waimairi Rd 2 Glenside Ave 11 A Montana Ave 191 Waimairi Rd 3 Glenside Ave 11 Montana Ave 192 Waimairi Rd 3 A Glenside Ave 12 Montana Ave 193 Waimairi Rd 5 Glenside Ave 14 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 6 Glenside Ave 15 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 4 Hounslow St 16 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 114 Ilam Rd 16 A Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 116 Ilam Rd 17 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 118 Ilam Rd 18 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 120 Ilam Rd 19 Montana Ave 194 Waimairi Rd 128 Ilam Rd 20 Montana Ave 195 Waimairi Rd 129 Ilam Rd 21 Montana Ave 201 Waimairi Rd 130 Ilam Rd 23 Montana Ave 203 Waimairi Rd 130 A Ilam Rd 25 Montana Ave 205 Waimairi Rd

132 Ilam Rd 27 Montana Ave 207 Waimairi Rd 132 A Ilam Rd 2 Moorpark Pl 209 Waimairi Rd 134 Ilam Rd 3 Moorpark Pl 211 Waimairi Rd 136 Ilam Rd 4 Moorpark Pl 211 A Waimairi Rd 138 Ilam Rd 5 Moorpark Pl 213 Waimairi Rd 140 Ilam Rd 6 Moorpark Pl 213 A Waimairi Rd 142 Ilam Rd 7 Moorpark Pl 15 Wilfrid St 144 Ilam Rd 8 Moorpark Pl 23 Wilfrid St 146 Ilam Rd 9 Moorpark Pl 27 Wilfrid St 148 Ilam Rd 10 Moorpark Pl 29 Wilfrid St 149 Ilam Rd 11 Moorpark Pl 32 Wilfrid St 150 Ilam Rd 12 Moorpark Pl 33 Wilfrid St 151 Ilam Rd 14 Moorpark Pl 34 Wilfrid St 152 Ilam Rd 2 Newbridge Pl 35 Wilfrid St 153 Ilam Rd 3 Newbridge Pl 35 A Wilfrid St 37 Wilfrid St

End Notes i http://www.sustain.canterbury.ac.nz/waterways/okeover_stream.shtml ii Stormwater drainage maps sourced from Christchurch City Council, 12 December 2009. iii Data from CCC traffic counts for 18 June 2008, sourced 4th February 2010. This data gives traffic counts for vehicles, heavy vehicles and bicycles for five different times of day, for three of the major intersections in and around Okeover Catchment. iv http://www.sustain.canterbury.ac.nz/waterways/background.shtml v Meshblocks identified by census codes 2537702 and 2537800. vi “Equivalisation is a method to control for household composition. In this way, for example, the standard of living of a single person with an income of $40,000 can be compared with the standard of living of a household consisting of two adults and three children on an income of $40,000. The census income groups vary between censuses, therefore the income thresholds for each index also vary” (White et al, 2008: 9). vii http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/communityboards/index.aspx

Figure legends

Figure 1: Sections of Okeover Stream Figure 2: Okeover Stream Catchment Figure 3: Age distribution of catchment population Figure 4: NZ Social Deprivation Index Figure 5: Drainage systems in Okeover Catchment Figure 6; Industries of employment in Okeover Catchment Figure 7: Indigenous Ecosystems of Okeover Catchment Figure 8: CREAS Data for Okeover Stream Figure 9: Extent of Fendalton‐Waimairi Ward Figure 10: Extent of Riccarton‐Wigram Ward

Tables

Table 1: Census variables used to calculate Social Deprivation Index Table 2: Communication targets for community management Table 3: Fendalton‐Waimairi Community Board Table 4: Riccarton‐Wigram Community Board