NEW ZEALANDERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS AND THE IMPACTS OF MARINE FARMS
Results of a Nation-Wide Survey
Report to the Marlborough District Council
Corydon Consultants Ltd, May 2001 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...... 3
2. METHODOLOGY ...... 5
2.1 QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 5 2.2 SURVEY SAMPLE SIZE...... 5 2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE POPULATION ...... 5 2.3.1 Residential location ...... 6 2.3.2 Age...... 6 2.3.3 Sex ...... 7 2.3.4 Ethnicity...... 7 2.4 LEVEL OF AWARENESS ABOUT THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS ...... 8 3. SURVEY FINDINGS...... 9
3.1 VISITING THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS: FREQUENCY, AREAS VISITED AND ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN...... 9 3.1.1 Characteristics of those who have not visited the Sounds ...... 9 3.1.2 Frequency of visits...... 11 3.1.3 Parts of the Sounds visited...... 11 3.1.4 Relationship between residential location and areas of the Sounds visited...... 12 3.1.5 Activities undertaken during visits to the Sounds ...... 12 3.1.6 Duration of stay...... 13 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS WHICH RESPONDENTS ASSOCIATE WITH THE SOUNDS ...... 14 3.3 QUALITIES OF THE SOUNDS WHICH PEOPLE MOST VALUED...... 15 3.4 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF THE SOUNDS ...... 18 3.4.1 Importance of the Sounds to national identity ...... 18 3.4.2 Importance for values other than use ...... 18 3.4.3 Significance of the Sounds as a recreational resource...... 19 3.4.4 Contribution of the Sounds to the image of NZ here and overseas...... 19 3.5 PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUNDS...... 20 3.5.1 Potential for activities to impact on valued qualities ...... 21 3.5.2 Activities perceived as potentially damaging to valued qualities ...... 22 3.5.3 Perceived impacts of three specific activities ...... 24 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM ...... 30 APPENDIX 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS WHO INITIALLY DID NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OF THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS...... 38
1. Introduction
The Marlborough Sounds is an area of national importance. The Sounds provide: the main thoroughfare for passenger ships and a significant route for commercial shipping between the North and South islands; a recreational area for people from throughout NZ (there are some 120 scenic and recreational reserves spread throughout the Sounds and a strong focus on water-based recreation); and by virtue of being featured in publicity material for New Zealand tourism promotion, they are an icon for marketing the country and its products overseas.
As a Unitary Authority (incorporating district, regional and harbour authority responsibilities), the Marlborough District Council has almost sole responsibility for managing how the Sounds are used and developed. Management of the coastal marine area is the responsibility of the District Council under Section 30 (1) (d) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) but this function is shared between the Council and the Minister of Conservation. Under Section 5 of the RMA the Council is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the Sounds “in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety” while sustaining the potential of the Sounds “to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations” (Resource Management Act 1991).
Public access to and recreational use of the Sounds are identified in the District Council’s Proposed Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan as matters of prime importance. The Council sees the future wellbeing of Marlborough as being linked to an increase in the recreational use of coastal resources. The Council therefore places great importance on ensuring that the development of coastal space for private use does not occur at the expense of public access and recreation values. The Resource Management Plan states that “the exclusive occupation of the coastal marine area, or occupation which effectively excludes the public, will only be allowed to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the activity... It is also important to remember that there are no inherent development rights within the coastal marine area” (Resource Management Plan, Volume One: Objectives, Policies and Methods).
In response to growing public concern over the cumulative effects of marine farms in the Marlborough Sounds, the New Zealand Government, in July 1996, gazetted an Order in Council limiting the ability of Marlborough District Council to issue new coastal permits for marine farming applications in the Sounds for two years. During that period, the Crown proposed to establish options for an appropriate coastal tendering system which would address issues relating to the allocation of coastal space between competing users (Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, Volume One: Objectives, Policies and Methods).
There are some 600 existing marine farms in the Sounds. As at March 2001 there were 164 applications for new farms awaiting a decision from the District Council, 223 applications for changes to existing farms and 40 appeals waiting to be heard. Recent applications have shown a new trend. In the past, marine farms have formed ribbon development of small scale operations around the coastline. More recent proposals include applications for much larger farms sited more than 200 metres from the shoreline. Submissions on these applications from the public and environmental agencies confirm that the cumulative effects of marine farms on the
3 environmental, recreational and visual qualities of the Marlborough Sounds continues to be a matter of widespread concern.
Central to the consideration of how large numbers of marine farms might impact on the sustainable management of the Sounds (as defined by Section 5 of the RMA) are the answers to the following questions: To what extent, and in what ways, do the Marlborough Sounds contribute to the well-being of residents of the Marlborough District and to New Zealanders as a whole? To what extent do marine farms inhibit the capacity of individuals and communities to pursue ends which they value, i.e. to what extent do marine farms detrimentally affect people’s ability to provide for their own social and cultural well-being?
In order to help answer these questions the Marlborough District Council, in 2000, commissioned Corydon Consultants Ltd to design and carry out a national survey which would provide the Council with information on: The extent to which the Sounds can be considered a recreation area of national importance; The level of importance people attach to the Sounds as a national icon; The particular qualities that people value about the Sounds; and The types of development that people consider pose a threat to the qualities which they particularly value in relation to the Sounds.
Mussel farm in Admiralty Bay. This farm is small compared with many of the applications currently before the Marlborough District Council. Nevertheless, this image gives some idea of the potential impacts of marine farms on visual amenity and navigational safety.
4 2. Methodology
2.1 Questionnaire The survey was carried out using a telephone-administered questionnaire. Prior to commencing the survey the questionnaire was piloted by telephone in interviews with 20 people throughout New Zealand. The questionnaire was then amended in line with problems identified during piloting, and finalised in consultation with staff of the Marlborough District Council. The survey was administered by Reid Research Services using a CATI (computer assisted telephone interviewing) system, which facilitates the random selection of telephone numbers. The majority of interviews were carried out between the hours of 4pm and 9pm during the week, and during the weekends from 10am to 9pm.
2.2 Survey Sample Size In accordance with advice from the Department of Statistics, the sample size was set at 1,155 (to be selected through stratified random sampling), distributed as follows. Auckland 385 Rest of North Island 385 South Island 385
This sample size was calculated to provide a 95% level of confidence level. This means that the sample responses can be taken to accurately represent the views of the New Zealand population as a whole, +/- 5%. Five percent is the maximum margin of error that can be expected in the percentages of responses to each question. The maximum margin of error only occurs when results are polarised (for example if 50% are in favour and 50% opposed). Where there is a 20%/80% split, the margin of error is 4% and in the case of a 5%/95% split, the margin of error is reduced to 2.2%.
Altogether, 1,189 people agreed to be interviewed. There were two filter questions to make sure that the respondents were sufficiently informed about the Marlborough Sounds to make meaningful comment (refer Section 2.4). As a result of some people failing to pass these filters, a total of 1,154 questionnaires were completed – one short of the optimum sample size.
2.3 Demographics of Sample Population The survey was carried out by telephone. Therefore, for a variety of reasons, the sample population will be biased relative to the population as a whole. Telephone surveys exclude households without telephones. The 1996 Census indicated that 4% of all adults aged over 18 years lived in dwellings without access to a telephone. However this percentage was higher for certain ethnic groups: 14% for Maori and 16% for Pacific Island adults. Telephone surveys will also exclude people not listed in the phone directory for whatever reason. Telecom figures show that approximately 13% of all telephone numbers are unlisted. Telephone surveys can also skew results in favour of those who are at home during the day. To minimise the effects of this bias, most of the interviewing was carried out during the evenings and weekends.
5 The following tables set out the demographic information collected from the respondents and compares it with national population data to illustrate the representativeness of the sample. The tables show that, despite the limitations of telephone surveys, in most cases there is a medium to high degree of consistency between the demographics of the sample population and the New Zealand population as a whole. The exception was in ethnic grouping: Pakeha respondents were significantly over-represented while Maori (and other ethnic minorities) were under-represented.
2.3.1 Residential location In most cases, the proportion of the total sample residing in a particular region was within 2% of the proportion of the total New Zealand population normally residing in that region. The exceptions were: Northland (2.3% more), Auckland (3.4% more), Waikato (3.9% more), and Christchurch/Canterbury/Timaru/Oamaru (5.8% more).
Table 1: Respondents’ Place of Residence compared with NZ population distribution Location No of Respondents Percent of Percent of NZ (n=1,154) Respondents population Northland 20 1.7% 4% Auckland 385 33.4% 30% Waikato 70 6.1% 10% Bay of Plenty 59 5.1% 6% Gisborne 10 0.9% 1% Hawkes Bay 39 3.4% 4% Taranaki 19 1.6% 3% Wanganui 12 1.0% 6% for these Manawatu 38 3.3% two categories Wairarapa 9 0.8% 11% for these Wellington 109 9.4% two categories Marlborough 15 1.3% 1% Nelson/Tasman 31 2.7% 2% West Coast 15 1.3% .009% Christchurch/Canterbury 190 16.5% 13% for these Timaru / Oamaru 27 2.3% two categories Otago 61 5.3% 5% Southland 45 3.9% 3% Source for NZ regional data: Statistics NZ 1996 census
2.3.2 Age Only those aged 18 years and older were interviewed. Telephone interviews tend to produce a bias towards home owners (because a higher proportion of those living in rental accommodation are not listed in the telephone directory). The following table demonstrates the extent to which this tends to produce a bias away from those in the younger age groups (20-29 years), who are most likely to live in temporary flatting situations. Those between the ages of 40-59 years were significantly over-represented but other groups were within one or two percentage points of the New Zealand population as a whole.
6 Table 2: Age of respondents compared with NZ population as a whole Age No of Respondents Percentage of Percentage of NZ (n=1,154) Respondents population 18-19 23 2.0% 4% 20-29 134 11.6% 21% 30-39 252 21.8% 22% 40-49 277 24.0% 19% 50-59 216 18.7% 13% 60-69 140 12.1% 10% 70-79 88 7.6% 7% 80+ 24 2.1% 4% Source for NZ data: Statistics NZ 1996 census
2.3.3 Sex In term of sex, the percentage of males within the sample population was 3% less than in the national population. Therefore females were correspondingly over-represented.
Table 3: Sex of respondents compared with NZ population as a whole Sex Survey Respondents Percentage NZ Population Male 535 (46%) 49% Female 619 (54%) 51%
2.3.4 Ethnicity As shown in Table 4, the demographic characteristic on which the sample population differed most significantly from the population of the country as a whole was ethnicity. The sample was significantly biased towards Pakeha respondents while Maori respondents were significantly under-represented.
7 Table 4: Ethnicity of Respondents compared with NZ Population as a whole Ethnicity No. of Respondents Percentage of Percentage of NZ (n=1,154) Respondents population Pakeha/NZ European 1016 88.0% 60.0% Maori 36 3.0% 13.0% Pakeha/Maori 18 1.6% Not recorded Pacific Island 7 0.6% 5.0% Pakeha/Pacific Island 4 0.3% Not recorded Asian 17 1.5% 3.0% Indian 4 0.3% 0.01% Australian 7 0.6% 1.0% UK 23 2.0% 11.0% Other* 19 1.6% - Invalid / no response 3 0.3% - Total 1154 100% - Source for NZ data: Statistics NZ 1996 census
* ”Other” included Dutch, Russian, Canadian, Czechoslovakian, German, South African, American, Norwegian and Swedish
2.4 Level of Awareness about the Marlborough Sounds Altogether, 1,189 people agreed to be interviewed. There were two filter questions to make sure that the respondents were sufficiently informed about the Marlborough Sounds to make meaningful comment. Firstly, respondents were asked whether they knew where the Marlborough Sounds are. Of the 1189, eighty-nine said they did not.
The interviewer then explained to the 89 that the Marlborough Sounds was the area at the top of the South Island which included Picton. After this explanation 54 people responded that in fact they did know the area. For the remaining 35 who still were unsure, the interview was terminated. This process left a total sample size of 1,154. The characteristics of the 54 respondents who were initially unaware of the location of the Marlborough Sounds, but were included in the sample, are detailed in Appendix 2.
8 3. Survey Findings
3.1 Visiting the Marlborough Sounds: Frequency, Areas Visited and Activities Undertaken
3.1.1 Characteristics of those who have not visited the Sounds Of the 1154 respondents, 961 (83%) had visited the Sounds while 193 (17%) had not. The places of residence of the 193 who had not been to the Sounds are summarised in Table 5. As could be expected, the proportion of respondents who had not been to the Sounds tended to be greater in the case of residential locations further away from Marlborough.
Table 5: Residential location of those who had not been to the Sounds Residential location Number of Percentage of respondents respondents from that area Northland 5 25% Auckland 100 26% Waikato 23 33% Bay of Plenty 15 25% Gisborne 5 50% Hawkes Bay 3 8% Taranaki 2 11% Wanganui 2 17% Manawatu 3 8% Wellington 6 6% Nelson 1 3% Christchurch 8 4% Timaru / Oamaru 2 7% Otago 10 16% Southland 8 18% TOTAL 193
There was a disproportionate number of people in the youngest age group (18-20 years) among those who had not visited the Sounds, as illustrated in the following table.
9 Table 6: Age of those who had not visited the Sounds Age group Number of Percentage respondents Respondents from that age group 18-19 14 61% 20-29 44 33% 30-39 55 22% 40-49 34 12% 50-59 25 12% 60-69 16 11% 70-79 4 5% 80+ 1 4% TOTAL 193
In the case of some ethnic groups, the numbers included in the survey were too small to draw any conclusions based on that demographic characteristic. However, as the following table shows, there was a disproportionate number of Maori and Pacific Islanders among those who had not visited the Sounds.
Table 7: Ethnicity of those who had not visited the Sounds Ethnic Group Number of Percentage of respondents Respondents from that ethnic group Pakeha 146 14% Maori 14 39% Pakeha/Maori 7 39% Asian 4 24% Pacific Islander 2 Asian/Pakeha 1 Samples from these groups are Pakeha/Pacific Is 1 too small to provide meaningful percentages Indian 2 Other 16 TOTAL 193
Of those who had never visited the Sounds, 142 (74%) said they were likely to visit in the future, while 27 (14%) said they were not. Those who said they were unlikely to visit gave the following reasons:
10 Table 8: Reason for being unlikely to ever visit the Marlborough Sounds Reasons No. of respondents (n=27) Financial constraints 6 Prefer other holiday destinations 4 Dislike boats 3 No particular reason / nothing to attract me there 3 Age* 2 Health reasons* 2 No desire to travel there 2 Not interested in types of recreation opportunities available 2 Never considered it 1 Not interested in travel 1 Don’t know 2 * One person specified both health and age.
3.1.2 Frequency of visits Of the 961 respondents who had visited the Sounds, 802 had visited at least once in the last ten years. Of these, 309 (38.5%) had made 5 or more visits during that time and 605 (80%) had visited at least twice. As shown in the following table, those who lived further away from the Sounds tended to visit less frequently than those who lived closer. Even then, however, 204 (33%) of those who lived outside the Central NZ area (defined as including Canterbury, Nelson, Marlborough, Wellington and Wairarapa) had been to the Sounds between two and four times over the past ten years.
Table 9: Frequency of visits to the Sounds: Comparison with distance from Sounds Number of No. of Percentage of % of Respondents % of Respondents Visits in past Respondents Respondents from Central NZ* from Rest of NZ 10 years (n=961) (overall) (n=339) (n=622) Nil 159 16.5% 8.0% 21.2% Once 197 20.5% 9.4% 26.5% 2 – 4 296 30.8% 27.1% 32.8% 5 – 9 138 14.4% 20.1% 11.3% 10 – 14 63 6.6% 13.6% 2.7% 15 – 20 34 3.5% 5.6% 2.4%% More than 20 74 7.6% 16.2% 2.9% Invalid Resp. 1 0.1% 0 0.2% *Central New Zealand included Canterbury, Nelson, Marlborough, Wairarapa and Wellington.
3.1.3 Parts of the Sounds visited Respondents who had visited the Sounds were asked to name all the areas in the Sounds that they had been to. Queen Charlotte Sound was by far the most commonly visited part of the Sounds (this included visitors who had passed through on the inter-island ferry and had done nothing else in the Sounds), with the next most frequented area being Pelorous Sound (including Havelock). The specific areas visited by those who had been to the Sounds are summarised in Table 10. Of the 961 respondents, 411 (43%) had visited at least one area other than Queen Charlotte Sound.
11 Table 10: Parts of the Sounds visited by respondents Area visited Percentage of Respondents (n=961) Queen Charlotte Sound (including Picton) 80% Pelorous Sound (including Havelock) 33% Kenepuru Sound 23% Port Underwood 10% The Outer Sounds 13% Don’t know 0.4%
3.1.4 Relationship between residential location and areas of the Sounds visited In Table 11, the figures presented in Table 10 have been broken down by region of residence. The figures show that while all parts of the Sounds are visited by people from throughout New Zealand, the proportion of those who visited areas other than Queen Charlotte Sound was greater among those who live in regions closest to the Sounds (Manawatu, Wellington, the West Coast, Nelson, Marlborough and Christchurch).
Table 11: Normal residential location by areas of the Sounds visited Residential Location Queen Pelorous Kenepuru Port Outer Charlotte Underwood Sounds Northland (n=15) 87% 0 0 7% 0 Auckland (n=285) 79% 26% 13% 5% 7% Waikato (n=47) 81% 21% 13% 6% 9% Bay of Plenty (n=44) 68% 18% 16% 5% 2% Hawkes Bay (n=36) 81% 11% 14% 6% 11% Taranaki (n=17) 71% 18% 18% 12% 12% Manawatu (n=35) 89% 37% 26% 9% 11% Wellington (n=103) 93% 44% 34% 12% 17% Nelson (n=30) 93% 67% 53% 37% 50% Marlborough (n=15) 93% 87% 87% 60% 67% Christchurch (n=182) 87% 51% 41% 18% 19% West Coast (n=15) 73% 40% 27% 7% 13% Timaru / Oamaru (n=25) 60% 24% 8% 4% 4% Otago (n=51) 80% 16% 14% 4% 8% Southland (n=37) 76% 30% 5% 8% 3% Note: Gisborne, Taranaki and Wairarapa have been excluded because they were represented by very small samples (7, 10 and 9 respectively).
3.1.5 Activities undertaken during visits to the Sounds Respondents who had visited the Sounds were asked to list all the activities they had undertaken during their last visit. Travelling through Queen Charlotte Sound on a ferry was by far the most common activity while 37% had arrived in the Sounds by some other route or some other form of transport. Of the 961 respondents, only 161 (17%) had stayed for at least one night in the
12 Sounds or in Picton during their most recent visit. The range of activities undertaken by visitors are summarised in Table 12.
Table 12: Activities undertaken on last visit Activities undertaken Percentage of Respondents (n=961) Travelled through on ferry 64% Stayed Picton or the Sounds 17% Bush walking 15% Fishing 15% Picnicking on a beach 13% Boating Motorised 10% Yacht 3% Swimming 10% Passenger on a tour boat 8% Kayaking 3% Visiting a marine farm 3% Diving/snorkelling 2% Other* 4% Can't remember 1% *Other includes: visiting café / restaurant / bar (8); shopping (7); business (4); visiting relatives / friends (4); taking a scenic flight (3); visiting a boat yard / buying a boat (2); taking a bus tour (2); camping (2); building a walking track (community service project – 1); crewing on the Spirit of Adventure (1); Playing golf (1); taking a school trip (1); skydiving (1) and visiting a museum (1).
3.1.6 Duration of stay Those who had stayed in Picton or elsewhere in the Sounds were asked to specify the number of nights they had stayed. Of the 161 people who had stayed for at least one night, 68% had stayed between 2 and 9 nights. Those from Central NZ tended to stay for longer periods (this includes respondents who live in Marlborough). The responses are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13: Number of nights stayed compared with normal residential location No. of nights No. of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of stayed in Respondents Respondents Respondents (Central Respondents (Rest Sounds (n=161) (overall) NZ – n=79) of NZ – n=81) 1 29 18% 15% 21% 2 – 4 63 39% 30% 47% 5 – 9 46 29% 38% 20% 10 – 14 18 11% 13% 10% 15+ 5 3% 4% 2%
13 3.2 Characteristics Which Respondents Associate with the Sounds All respondents were asked to list the main characteristics that they associate with the Marlborough Sounds. They were not prompted, and were able to cite more than one characteristic. Table 14 summarises their responses. The responses are separated into people who had visited the Sounds and people who had not visited the Sounds. In the case of those who had visited the Sounds, the most common response (more than half the respondents) was scenic beauty. The next most commonly mentioned characteristics were water quality, tranquillity and fishing. Responses of those who had not visited the Sounds indicated, as expected, a lower level of understanding of the Sounds environment and a higher proportion of those who did not know what characterised the area.
Table 14: Main characteristics associated with the Marlborough Sounds Main characteristics No. of Percentage of Percentage of Respondents Respondents who Respondents who (n=961) have visited the have not visited Sounds the Sounds Scenic beauty 540 56% 42% High water quality 264 27% 22% Peace/tranquillity 225 23% 11% Fishing 152 16% 8% Distinct landforms (including complex 146 15% 17% coastline; ridges running to the water) Native bush 126 13% 7% Restfulness/retreat/holiday 80 8% 4% Remoteness 74 8% 3% Boating recreation (including kayaking) 75 8% 4% Wilderness/natural/absence of crowds/ 63 7% 6% absence of development Bush-based recreation (tramping, 63 7% 4% hunting, mountain biking, camping) Sheltered water for recreation (including 56 6% 4% “private” bays) Sunshine/blue sky/fine weather 54 6% 6% Pristineness/unpolluted 36 4% 2% Marine mammals 34 4% 5% Commercial boating (incl. ferries) 32 3% 2% Wine / vineyards 24 3% - Birdlife 21 2% 2% Marine farms 17 2% 2% Cold/rain/stormy weather 12 1% - Don't know 34 4% 10% Other* 86 8% -
*Other includes: beaches (beautiful, golden sand etc – 7); the disappearance of Ben and Olivia (6); Picton (6); seafood (6); accessibility (5); diving / snorkelling (5); swimming (5); port activities (4); waterfalls (4); forestry (3); scrub (3); accommodation (2); friends (2); the Gateway to the South Island (2); the Mikhail Lermontov wreck (2); vastness (2); art and craft show (1); our bach (1); baches along the shore (1); changeable weather (1); the Cook Strait (1); denuded bush (1); expensive holidays (1); family history (1); farms (1); friendly people (1); the hot, dry climate (1); the Marine Reserve (1); the outdoors in general (1); Outward Bound (1); the Pelorus Pub (1); Queen Charlotte Drive (1); romance (1); rough ocean (1); tourism (1); wealthy people (1); wildlife (1); and work (1).
14
This photograph of Endeavour Inlet illustrates many of the qualities which respondents associated with the Marlborough Sounds: scenic beauty, native bush, the distinctive drowned ridge landscape, and sheltered, enclosed waterways. Note the concentration of human settlement around the coastal margin and the presence of recreational boating activity. (Photo; Carie Virtue)
3.3 Qualities of the Sounds Which People Most Valued All respondents were asked to list the qualities of the Sounds that they valued the most. (The responses have been separated into those who had visited the Sounds and those who have not visited the Sounds. In addition, the responses of those who have stayed in the Sounds have been separated out.) Those qualities most valued tended to match the characteristics which people associated with the Sounds (see above).
This strong positive relationship indicates that the natural environment of the Sounds (including the aspects which are italicised in the following table) includes qualities that are treasured by the majority (80%) of visitors. The proportions of those who valued the Sounds’ natural qualities differed little between those who had just passed through and those who had stayed during their last visit, although (as shown in Table 15) those who stayed were more likely to express an appreciation of such qualities as tranquillity and remoteness.
15 Table 15: Qualities Valued by Respondents Quality Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Respondents who Respondents who Respondents who HAVE HAVE visited the HAVE NOT visited STAYED in the Sounds Sounds (n=961) the Sounds (n=193) (n=161) Scenic beauty 43% 31% 36% Peace/tranquillity 27% 18% 34% Wilderness/natural/absence 17% 13% 18% of crowds/development Remoteness 13% 6% 15% Pristineness/unpolluted 11% 6% 11% High water quality 9% 4% 9% Native bush 6% 4% 4% Restfulness/retreat/holiday 6% 3% 6% Water-based recreation 5% 4% 6% Sunshine/blue sky/fine 3.5% 2% 6% weather Bush-based recreation 3% 2% 6% (tramping, hunting, mountain biking, camping) Accessibility 3% 1% 4% Sheltered water for 3% 0 3% recreation (including “private” bays) Marine mammals 1% 2% 1% Social activity 1% 1% 2% Birdlife 1% 0 1% Other* 4% - - Don't know 6.5% 26% 1% *Other included: wine / vineyards / food (9); friendly people / hospitality (5); water / sea (general – 3); small town character (3); Picton / Harbour (2); tourism / overseas travellers (2); the ferry ride (2); uniqueness (1); the natural environment (general – 1); rural countryside (1); vastness (1); seafood bounty (1); the outdoors in general (1); yachts (1); history (1); spiritual qualities (1); waterfalls (1); colours (1); the wildlife sanctuary (1); boating facilities (1). Note that 17 respondents listed “no qualities” and therefore have been excluded from this table.
16
This view of Hallam Cove illustrates the diversity of landscapes in the Marlborough Sounds. In the distance, steep hills clothed in native forest provide a dramatic backdrop. Land in the foreground is dominated by cultural influences, including pastoral farmland, exotic forestry, amenity plantings and human settlement. The convoluted coastline and sheltered waterways are clearly evident. (Photo; Mary Cretney)
French Pass and D’Urville Island. The pastoral landscape of the mainland contrasts with the relatively unmodified landscape of the island. The open sea of Cook Strait can be seen at right. (Photo; Mary Cretney)
17 3.4 Perceived Importance of the Sounds
3.4.1 Importance of the Sounds to national identity Respondents were asked to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is the least important and 5 the most important) the importance of the Marlborough Sounds in terms of their sense of national identity, or what NZ meant to them. The results are summarised in Table 16.
Table 16: Importance of the Sounds to sense of national identity Ranking No. of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents (Overall – (overall) (Central NZ* - (Rest of NZ – n=1,154) n=354) n=800) 1 (least Important) 35 3.0% 2.3% 3.4% 2 92 8.0% 8.5% 7.8% 3 312 27.0% 26.3% 27.4% 4 396 34.3% 34.5% 34.3% 5 (most important) 302 26.2% 26.8% 25.9% Don’t know / irrelevant 17 1.5% 1.7% 1.4% * “Central NZ” includes Marlborough, Christchurch, Nelson, Wellington and Wairarapa.
3.4.2 Importance for values other than use Respondents were asked for their responses to a series of questions designed to identify the types of non-use values that people attribute to the Sounds. Their responses are summarised in Table 17. The first (bold) figure in each cell represents the overall response; the lower figures present a breakdown by gender.
18 Table 17: Ranking of non-use values Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDon’t know agree disagree / N/A Knowing that the 72.9% 23.8% 2.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% Marlborough Sounds will be available for M F M F M F M F M F M F 0.2 future generations to 73.6 72.2 23.9 23.7 1.9 2.9 0.2 0.6 0 0.3 0.4 enjoy makes me happy (n=1,154) Knowing that the 71.2% 25.6% 2.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% Sounds are available for everybody to enjoy now makes me happy M F M F M F M F M F M F 0.2 (n=1,154) 73.3 69.5 23.6 27.5 2.6 1.8 0.4 0.8 0 0.3 0.2
Even though I have 68.8% 27.6% 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0 never visited the Sounds, knowing I can go there if I ever want M F M F M F M F M F M F to makes me happy 69.1 63.4 25.9 25.0 1.2 2.7 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0 (n=193*) * This question applies only to respondents who had not visited the Sounds, but there were a number of non- responses – 3.7% in the case of males; 7.1% in the case of females.
3.4.3 Significance of the Sounds as a recreational resource Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the Marlborough Sounds in terms of significance as a recreational setting. Their responses are summarised in Table 18. By far the majority of respondents (72% overall) ranked the Sounds as important to people living throughout NZ. Interestingly, a significantly higher percentage of people living in Central NZ felt the Sounds were only important to people living in Central NZ, compared with those living in the rest of NZ.
Table 18: Importance of the Marlborough Sounds as a recreational setting Rank No. of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents (overall – (overall) (Central NZ* – (Rest of NZ – n=1,154) n=354) n=800) Important to people 833 72.2% 63.8% 75.9% throughout NZ Important to people in Central 244 21.1% 32.5% 16.1% NZ only Of little importance to people 64 5.5% 3.1% 6.6% outside Marlborough District Don’t know 13 1.1% 0.6% 1.4% *This category includes Marlborough, Christchurch, Nelson, Wellington and Wairarapa.
3.4.4 Contribution of the Sounds to the image of NZ here and overseas Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the Marlborough Sounds in terms of contributing to the image of New Zealand among New Zealand residents, and also among people living overseas. Respondents ranked the Sounds more highly as a contributor to the
19 image of NZ among New Zealanders, than they did as a contributor to the country’s image overseas – 93.9% compared with 86%. However 5% more people gave the Sounds the highest ranking of “very important” for overseas imaging.
The level of importance for both categories did not vary greatly between those living in central New Zealand and those living in the rest of the country.
More people considered the Sounds were not important to New Zealand’s overseas image than thought they were not important to the image of New Zealand among New Zealanders – 7.5% compared with 5% of respondents.
Table 19: Importance of Marlborough Sounds to image of NZ among New Zealanders Rank No. of Respondents Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of (overall – n=1,154) Respondents Respondents Respondents (overall) (Central NZ – (Rest of NZ – n=349) n=751) Very important 555 50.5% 48.1% 51.5% Important 477 43.4% 45.3% 42.5% Not important 54 4.9% 5.7% 4.5% Don’t know 14 1.3% 0.9% 1.5%
Table: 20 Importance of Marlborough Sounds to image of New Zealand overseas Rank No. of Respondents Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of (overall – n=1,154) Respondents Respondents Respondents (overall) (Central NZ – (Rest of NZ – n=349) n=751) Very important 610 55.5% 52.7% 56.7% Important 378 34.4% 35.8% 33.7% Not important 83 7.5% 8.3% 7.2% Don’t know 29 2.6% 3.2% 2.4%
3.5 Perceptions of the Impacts of Development in the Sounds In 1983, as part of preparing a recreational profile of the Sounds for the Marlborough Sounds Maritime Park Board, a survey of Sounds residents was undertaken by Schellhorn (1984). Respondents to that survey were asked for their views on a range of commercial industries then operating in the Sounds. Of the 315 respondents: 52.2% felt negatively or very negatively towards exotic forestry, with 21.8% being neutral; 59% felt negatively or very negatively towards commercial trawling, with 19.2% being neutral; and 30% felt negatively or very negatively towards mussel farming, with 37% being neutral. (Source: Matthias Schellhorn (1984): The Marlborough Sounds – A Recreational Profile. pp 48-53)
Attitudes towards residential subdivision were not covered by the Maritime Park Board study, but in recent years this type of development has come under increasing public criticism. As part of the current survey, respondents were asked to list any activities in the Sounds which concerned them. They were then asked to comment specifically on three types of development – exotic forestry, residential subdivision and marine farming.
20 3.5.1 Potential for activities to impact on valued qualities Respondents were asked whether they thought the qualities of the Sounds that they particularly valued could be damaged by any human activities. The vast majority of respondents (828 or 81%) considered that the qualities they valued were potentially threatened by one or more activities (note that the 134 respondents who did not value any particular qualities have been excluded from this calculation). Those aspects which were seen to be the most vulnerable included birdlife, remoteness, wilderness, pristineness and native bush, all of which were noted as potentially under threat by 85% or more of respondents valuing those particular attributes. In terms of actual numbers, potential damage to the scenic beauty of the Sounds was noted by the greatest number of people (316) followed by peace and tranquillity (216 respondents). The overall responses are summarised in Table 21.
Table 21: Number of Respondents concerned that valued attributes could be damaged by activities Attributes of Sounds Number Percentage of those Percentage of those particularly valued respondents respondents saying Yes respondents saying No valuing this – some activities could – activities could not attribute damage attribute damage attribute Scenic beauty 410 77% 23% Peace/tranquillity 263 82% 18% Wilderness/natural 192 88% 12% Remoteness 123 89% 11% Pristineness 107 88% 12% High water quality 87 83% 17% Native bush 60 87% 13% Restfulness / retreat 55 76% 24% Water-based recreation 52 81% 19% Sunshine/blue sky 34 82% 18% Bush-based recreation 32 78% 22% Accessibility 28 75% 25% Sheltered water 26 81% 19% Marine mammals 14 79% 21% Social activity 10 70% 30% Birdlife 10 90% 10%
Those respondents aged 40-69 were more likely on average to say that the aspects of the Sounds which they particularly valued could be damaged by activities, while those aged below 30 were less likely to think so (see Table 22 below).
21 Table 22: Concerns about activities by age bracket Age Group Percentage of age group respondents: (n=1,154) Yes No No response Under 20 (n=24) 58% 25% 17% 20-29 (n=133) 55% 23% 23% 30-39 (n=252) 73% 15% 12% 40-49 (n=277) 76% 15% 9% 50-59 (n=216) 74% 18% 8% 60-69 (n=140) 76% 12% 12% 70-79 (n=88) 73% 22% 6% 80+ (n=24) 67% 13% 21%
3.5.2 Activities perceived as potentially damaging to valued qualities Respondents who considered that the aspects of the Sounds which they particularly valued could be detrimentally affected were asked to name the activities which they considered could have negative impacts. Their responses are summarised in Table 23 below. Note that only those attributes which were mentioned by 50 or more respondents have been included in this analysis.
22
Table 23: Activities seen to be potentially damaging to the Sounds Attribute valued No. of Percentage of Respondents listing each attribute who mentioned each activity as potentially damaging resps Residential Marine Forestry Ferry Other Motorised Yachting Port Resort Bush Pollution "Over- Other* Subdivision farming operations commercial recreation activities devpt clearance commercialisation boats boats / industrialisation Scenic beauty 410 9.8% 5.1% 6.8% 30.0% 7.1% 8.5% 0.5% 0.5% 7.8% 5.1% 8.0% 4.6% 6.3% Peace/tranquillity 263 6.5% 4.9% 4.2% 35.0% 12.9% 21.3% 0.4% 1.1% 6.8% 2.7% 5.3% 6.8% 8.0% Wilderness/natural 192 13.0% 4.2% 5.7% 30.7% 9.9% 15.1% 1.0% 1.0% 13.5% 6.3% 10.4% 6.3% 7.8% Remoteness 123 17.9% 5.7% 5.7% 22.8% 7.3% 14.6% 0 1.6% 15.4% 5.7% 5.7% 10.6% 12.2% Pristineness 107 11.2% 4.7% 5.6% 29.0% 11.2% 18.7% 0.9% 1.9% 10.3% 6.5% 11.2% 3.7% 10.3% High water quality 87 4.6% 8.0% 4.6% 39.1% 9.2% 20.7% 0 0 4.6% 5.7% 14.9% 4.6% 8.0% Native bush 60 15.0% 8.3% 6.7% 28.3% 5.0% 16.7% 1.7% 0 11.7% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 8.3% Restfulness/retreat/ 55 9.1% 12.7% 5.5% 23.6% 10.9% 16.4% 0 0 3.6% 5.5% 3.6% 9.1% 10.9% holiday Water-based 52 5.8% 13.5% 5.8% 26.9% 7.7% 9.6% 0 0 3.8% 1.9% 7.7% 3.8% 17.3% recreation *Other includes: over-crowding, over-fishing, excessive tourism activity, farming, mining, reclamation of land, logging, air traffic, oil drilling
23 As shown by Table 23, the most commonly mentioned threat to the attributes that respondents most valued was ferry operations, cited by 308 of the 828 respondents who considered there were threats. Ferry operations were seen as a threat by 39% of respondents who placed high value on water quality, 35% of those who valued the peace and tranquillity of the Sounds, and by 27% who valued water-based recreation.
The next most commonly cited threats were residential subdivision (99 respondents, or 12%) and resort development (85 or 10%).
A total of 52 respondents (6%) considered that marine farming posed a threat to the attributes they valued. Fourteen percent of people who placed high value on water-based recreation, and 13% who placed high value on water quality regarded marine farming as a threat to these attributes.
3.5.3 Perceived impacts of three specific activities Those people who considered that either residential subdivision, marine farming and/or forestry could negatively impact on the attributes they most valued were then asked to specify the impacts they expected these activities to have. Their responses were not prompted and respondents could cite more than one impact. Their responses are summarised in Table 24.
Of the three activities, residential subdivision was of concern to the greatest number of people. The negative impacts most commonly expected were adverse visual impact (36 respondents) and noise (27 respondents).
The most commonly mentioned negative impact of forestry was, again, adverse visual impact (24 respondents) and 17 respondents cited adverse effects on marine life/ecosystems.
The most commonly mentioned negative impact of marine farms was adverse effects on marine life (23 respondents) followed by adverse visual impacts (17 respondents). Marine farms were seen by 19 respondents as likely to affect access to or use of the Sounds, either by reducing accessibility of parts of the Sounds, inhibiting the use of the coast, inhibiting the freedom of boat movement, and/or interfering with fishing.
24 Table 24: Perceived impacts of three specific types of development Negative impacts anticipated Residential Forestry Marine Farming by respondents Subdivision (n=99) (n=55) (n=52) Inhibit use of coast 9% 0 4% Inhibit freedom boat movement 3% 2% 10% Reduced boating safety 1% 2% 2% Interference with swimming 1% 0 0 Interference with fishing 1% 2% 6% Adverse visual impact 36% 44% 33% Adverse effect on water quality 10% 11% 10% Discourage birdlife 5% 13% 0 Adverse effects on marine 16% 20% 44% life/ecosystem Noise impact/ impacts on peace 27% 7% 8% Coastal erosion 3% 15% 2% Make parts of the Sounds less 10% 7% 23% accessible to general public Other 27%* 22%*** 10%** * “Other” in the case of Residential Subdivision included: pollution, including from sewage (15); increased fire risk (1); clearing of bush (3); building of roads and earthworks and associated visual impacts (3); reduce the sense of remoteness / isolation (2); increase problems of overcrowding (2) and increased fishing pressure (1). ** “Other” in the case of Marine Farms included: pollution (3); encouraging more seals into the area (1); and a change in character from a rural/holiday destination to commercial/industrial (1). *** “Other” in the case of Forestry included: impacts on native flora/fauna (6); accelerated erosion, presumably in reference to logging (4); increased fire risk (1); reduced soil moisture levels (1); and creation of new traffic hazards (1).
For the people who mentioned negative effects in relation to residential subdivision, forestry and/or marine farming (99, 55 and 52 people respectively), an analysis was made of the number of visits they had made to the Sounds during the past ten years. While, in the case of residential subdivision and forestry, most respondents had visited fewer than five times, in the case of marine farming, slightly more than half of those who were concerned about this activity had visited five or more times in the past ten years (see Table 25). Considering that 68% of all respondents who had visited the Sounds had been there less than five times in the past ten years, this indicates a positive relationship between the amount of time spent in the Sounds and concern about the effects of marine farms.
Table 25: Number of respondents concerned about activities by number of visits in past 10 years Activity Number of visits in past ten years 0 – 4 5 or more Residential Subdivision (n=98) 66 32 Forestry (n=55) 36 19 Marine Farming (n=52) 25 27
25
These views of Nikau Bay and Te Towaka (both in Hallam Cove) clearly illustrates the visual impacts associated with forestry plantings, logging, roading development and residential subdivision. Adverse visual impact was the leading cause for concern in relation to forestry and residential subdivision in the Sounds. (Photo; Mary Cretney)
26 3.5.4 Attitudes towards three specific activities All of the 1,154 respondents were asked to indicate whether they felt positively or negatively about three specific activities occurring in the Sounds: residential subdivision, marine farming and exotic forestry. The interviewer noted in the preamble to this question that these activities had been the subject of public discussion for some time. The responses are summarised in Table 26.
Table 26: Attitudes towards three specific developments in the Sounds Activity Percentage of Respondents Expressing Each Opinion (n=1,154) Very Positive Positive Neutral Negative Very Negative Don’t know Residential 2% 12% 28% 32% 20% 5% Subdivision (24 views conditional) Marine 8% 41% 28% 14% 4% 4% Farming (3 views (67 views conditional) conditional) Exotic 11% 27% 20% 24% 14% 5% Forestry (2 views (26 views conditional) conditional)
As indicated in Table 26, some people stipulated conditions on their positive responses, e.g. “I feel positive about residential subdivision provided that the visual qualities of the Sounds are protected”. By far the highest number of conditional responses were given in the case of those who felt positive about marine farming. For a total of 40 people, their positive view of marine farming was dependent on the number of farms being limited and/or farms being restricted to certain areas.
Conditions expressed in relation to the responses in Table 26 are summarised below. Note that respondents were able to stipulate more than one condition.
Table 27: Residential Subdivision: Conditions on positive responses Condition Number of Respondents The visual qualities of the Sounds (scenic beauty) need to be protected 13 (e.g. designs need to be sensitive to the landscape) Provided development is limited, not widespread or concentrated over large 9 areas Ecological values need to be carefully considered, including limiting 3 clearing of bush Sewage treatment needs to be carefully managed 2
27
Table 28: Residential Subdivision: Reasons given for negative responses Reason Number of Respondents Don’t want to see the Sounds become over-populated / heavily developed 8 Don’t like the idea of foreign ownership of land in the Sounds / loss of 4 access for “ordinary New Zealanders” Afraid of negative visual impacts of housing development 3 Don’t want to see land clearance for subdivision 1
Table 29: Marine Farming: Conditions on positive responses Condition Number of Respondents Provided numbers of farms are limited / restricted to certain areas 40 Negative impacts on marine ecology / natural resources need to be avoided 11 Provided negative visual impacts are avoided (e.g. don’t want to see large 9 industrial buildings in the Sounds) Provided the Sounds don’t become too crowded / provided access to parts 6 of the Sounds is not restricted Provided NZ firms run the farms (rather than overseas companies) 2 Provided it does not occur in the main tourist areas (e.g. ferry route) 2 Marine farming needs to be the subject of a Regional Management Plan 1 Provided there are no negative effects on the marine reserves 1 Provided the industry creates jobs for New Zealanders 1 Provided noise impacts are kept in check 1 Provided potentially ecologically damaging species are not farmed 1 Provided there are no conflicts with the local iwi 1
Table 30: Marine Farming: Reasons given for negative responses Reason Number of Respondents Would not like to see the whole of the Sounds “taken over” – needs to be 3 restricted to certain places There is a need for tighter controls 2 Concerned about marine farms restricting recreational access to some 2 parts of the Sounds Concerned about effects on visual qualities of the Sounds 2
28 Table 31: Forestry: Conditions on positive responses Condition Number of Respondents Provided native bush is not cut to make way for pine trees 12 Provided the scale / area is limited 7 Provided it is done in an “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable” manner 3 Provided the forests are NZ-owned 2 Concern about clear-felling large areas – ecological impacts 2 Provided visual qualities of the Sounds are protected 1 Forestry is appropriate on reverting farmland 1 Provided it provides employment 1 Provided it is done in areas which are accessible and where the necessary 1 infrastructure can be reasonably provided Native planting should be incorporated as well 1
Table 32: Forestry: Conditions on negative responses Condition No of Respondents Unless it was on scrubland, not regenerating bush 1 Unless it is controlling erosion 1
29 Appendix 1: Questionnaire Form
PERCEPTIONS OF THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS AND THE IMPACTS OF MARINE FARMS
NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY
Preamble: Hello, I am ……. from Reid Research Services. We’re conducting a national survey for the Marlborough District Council to find out what people think about the Marlborough Sounds. I’d like to interview someone from your household who is over the age of 18 years. Is it OK to talk now or would you like me to call back? The survey will help the Council make decisions about development applications in the future. The interview will take between 10 and 20 minutes.
1. Do you know where the Marlborough Sounds are? Yes (INTERVIEWER: ask them to describe to confirm) No (INTERVIEWER explain where Sounds is. If the respondent is still vague, terminate interview)
2. Have you ever been to the Marlborough Sounds? Yes (go to question 5) No (INTERVIEWER: check whether the respondent has ever been on a ferry. If yes, tick YES to this question and go to question 5. If no, go to question 3)
3. Are you ever likely to go there? Yes (go to question 8) No
4. If no, why is that? ______(Go to question 8)
5. How many times have you been to the Marlborough Sounds in the last 10 years (since 1990) including going through on a ferry? Nil Once 2 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 20 more than 20 30
6. Which parts of the Sounds have you been to? (INTERVIEWER: read out and tick all that apply – see map if unsure) Queen Charlotte/Tory Channel (including the inter-island ferry route) Pelorus Sound Keneperu Sound Port Underwood Outer Sounds / D’Urville Other (specify):______
7. What activities did you undertake in the Sounds on your LAST visit? (INTERVIEWER: read out and tick all that apply) Travelled through Sounds (on a ferry). Is this the only activity that you undertook? (INTERVIEWER: If yes, go to question 8) Stayed in Picton or the Sounds (INTERVIEWER: specify how long stayed): _____ nights Boating (private boat) (INTERVIEWER: read out and tick option which applies) ___ motor ___ yacht Passenger on a tourist boat or water taxi Kayaking Swimming Bush walking/tramping/mountain biking/hunting Fishing Diving / snorkelling Picnicking at a beach in the Sounds Visited a marine farm Other (specify): ______ Can’t remember
8. When you think about the Sounds, what are the main characteristics that come to your mind? (INTERVIEWER: DO NOT prompt – tick all that respondent mentions) Scenic beauty Native bush Distinct land forms (ridges running down to the water, convoluted coastline, etc.) Remoteness Pristineness Wilderness/natural Accessibility Peace/tranquillity/quietness Sheltered, enclosed waterways (e.g. for recreation)
31 High water quality (e.g. clear, blue) Marine mammals (e.g. dolphins/seals) Bird life Restfulness/retreat/holiday Sunshine/blue sky Cold/rainy/stormy weather Recreational boating activity Fishing Bush-based recreation (e.g. tramping, hunting, mountain biking) Commercial boating activity (including ferries) Port activities Marine farms Other (specify): ______
9. What qualities of the Sounds do you value most? (INTERVIEWER: DO NOT prompt; tick all that respondent mentions) Scenic beauty Remoteness Social activity Water-based recreation Native bush Pristineness Wilderness/natural Accessibility Peace/tranquillity/quietness Sheltered, enclosed waterways (e.g. for recreation) High water quality (e.g. clear, blue) Marine mammals (e.g. dolphins/seals) Bird life Restfulness/retreat/holiday Sunshine/blue sky Bush-based recreation (e.g. tramping, hunting, mountain biking) Other (specify): ______ No qualities
10. On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important) how would you rank the importance of the Marlborough Sounds in terms of your sense of national identity, or what NZ means to you? 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know / irrelevant
32
33 11. The next question is designed to find out the types of values people attribute to the Sounds. I will read a series of statements and ask for your responses to them. The response categories are: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree.
How much do you agree with each of the following statements in terms of the way you feel about the Sounds?
Statement strongly agree neutral disagree strongly don’t know / agree disagree N/A Knowing that the Marlborough Sounds will be available for future generations to enjoy makes me happy Knowing that the Sounds are available for everybody to enjoy now makes me happy [Only applies to people who answered “no” to question 2] Even though I have never visited the Sounds, knowing I can go there if I ever want to makes me happy.
12. As a recreational area, how important do you think the Marlborough Sounds are? Do you think that they are important to people throughout New Zealand? (INTERVIEWER: go to question 13) Do you think they are important to people in central NZ only (i.e. Wellington to Christchurch)? (INTERVIEWER: go to question 13) Do you think that they are of little importance for people outside the Marlborough District? Don’t know
13. How important do you think the Marlborough Sounds are in contributing to the image of this country among New Zealanders? Very important Important Not important Don’t know
14. How important do you think the Marlborough Sounds are in contributing to the image of New Zealand overseas? Very important Important Not important
34 Don’t know
15. Thinking back to those aspects of the Sounds which you particularly value (INTERVIEWER: go back to question 9 and remind them), do you think there are any activities that could damage those aspects? Yes No (Go the question 18)
16. What activities do you think could be damaging? Residential subdivision* Marine farming* Forestry* Ferry operations Other commercial boating activities Motorised recreational boating Yachting Port activities Resort development Bush clearance (for residential or farming development) Other (specify):______
(INTERVIEWER: Go to question 17 if any of the first 3 activities in question 16 are ticked. If none of these activities are ticked then go to question 18).
17. What detrimental impacts do you think these activities have? (INTERVIEWER: DO NOT prompt and tick all that respondent mentions for the * activities ticked in question 16).
Impact Residential Marine Forestry Subdivision Farming Inhibit use of the coast Inhibit freedom of boat movement Reduced boating safety Reduced options for shelter in event of a storm Interference with swimming Interference with fishing Interference with diving / snorkelling Adverse visual impact Adverse effect on water quality Discourage bird-life Detrimental effect on marine life / ecosystem
35 Noise impact/detracts from sense of peace Coastal erosion Makes parts of the Sounds less accessible to the general public Other (specify)
18. Three specific activities in the Sounds have been subject to public discussion for some time. How do you feel about these activities in the Sounds? (INTERVIEWER: describe the response categories)
Activity Very Positive Neutral Negative Very Conditional* Don’t positive negative know Residential subdivision Marine farming
Exotic forestry (e.g. pine trees)
*Specify conditions:
Residential Subdivision Positive: ______Negative: ______
Marine Farming Positive: ______Negative: ______
Exotic forestry Positive: ______Negative: ______
19. Gender of respondent: M ____ F ____
20. Age: under 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69
36 70-79 80 +
21. Are you a New Zealand citizen? Yes No
22. Which ethnic group or groups do you belong to? (INTERVIEWER: more than one OK) Pakeha/NZ European Maori Pacific Islander Asian Indian Other (please specify) ______
37 Appendix 2: Characteristics of respondents who initially did not know the location of the Marlborough Sounds
The characteristics of the 54 respondents who initially did not know the location of the Marlborough Sounds are analysed in the following three tables. The areas where they lived are shown in Table 33.
Table 33: Residential location of those who initially did not know where Marlborough Sounds are Location No. of Respondents (n=54) Northland 1 Auckland 24 Waikato 11 Bay of Plenty 5 Hawkes Bay 2 Wanganui 1 Manawatu 1 Wellington 2 Nelson 1 Christchurch 2 Timaru/Oamaru 1 Otago 3
Of those who initially did not know where the Sounds are, a disproportionate number were in the younger age groups. Eighteen percent were under 30 years of age, compared with 13.6 % in this age group in the surveyed population. Sixty-seven percent were under 40 years of age, compared with 35% in this age group in the surveyed population. All of the 24 people aged 80 years and over, knew where the Sounds are. The age breakdown of those who did not know is shown in Table 34.
Table 34: Age of those who initially did not know where Sounds are Age Number of Total number of Percent respondents Respondents respondents in in this age group who (n=54) sample did not know 18-19 5 23 (22%) 20-29 14 134 (10%) 30-39 17 252 (7%) 40-49 8 277 (3%) 50-59 3 216 (1%) 60-69 5 140 (3.5%) 70-79 2 88 (2%)
Of those who initially did not know where the Sounds are, 63% were Pakeha (compared with 88% of the surveyed population). A disproportionately high number of Maori did not know where the Sounds are (11% compared with 3% of the survey population). It should be noted, however, that in the case of all ethnic groups other than Pakeha, the numbers included in the survey are too small to draw any solid conclusions based on ethnicity. The ethnicity breakdown was as follows: 38
Table 35: Ethnicity of those who initially did not know where Sounds are Ethnic Group No. of No. of Percent in this Respondents respondents group who did (n=54) in sample not know Pakeha 37 1016 4% Maori 6 36 17% Asian 2 17 12% Maori / Pakeha 2 18 11% Pakeha / Pacific Islander 1 4 25% Indian 1 4 25% Other* 5 - - * “Other” includes: UK (2) and European (3).
39