26 March 2009 Environmental report card says NZ good and better than elsewhere

New Zealanders believe the state and management of the environment is, on the whole, “good” and “better than other developed countries”, according to Lincoln University's latest biennial study of public perceptions of the environment.

The 112-page report, titled Public Perceptions of New Zealand's Environment: 2008,  provides scores and comments for 11 environmental categories  -  air, coastal waters and beaches, groundwater, marine fisheries, marine reserves, national parks, native bush and forests, native land and freshwater plants and animals, rivers and lakes, soils, and wetlands  -   with perceptions of the natural environment in towns and cities, and New Zealand's natural environment compared to other developed countries, also investigated.

Public perceptions of New Zealand's environment have been surveyed biennially by Lincoln University since 2000 and the series of five reports now provide useful comparative data for almost the entire first decade of the 21st century.

The authors of the latest published report, which presents, analyses and evaluates data gathered in 2008, are Professor Ken Hughey, Associate Professor Geoff Kerr, and Professor Ross Cullen.    
 
The survey uses a Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model of state-of-the-environment reporting.

Results of the survey show that top marks from the public are given to the native bush and forests category which are rated as being in the best state of the 11 components of the environment studied.

Bottom of the class as far as the public is concerned are rivers, lakes, groundwater and air quality  -  all judged to be the least well managed of the 11 areas surveyed. But even then, as the authors note, these are resources which are still relatively highly rated by respondents.

 Management of farm effluent and runoff continues to be perceived as the least well managed of the environmental problems investigated.  Overall though, and over the course of the five biennial surveys, management of almost all resources in New Zealand is perceived to have improved. The report's authors are wondering if and when this improvement in perceived management will be matched by improvements in perceived quality.

Indeed the report notes a “dramatic increase in negative judgements about the environmental effects of farming”.   In recent times farming has received significant increases in blame for environmental damage to all resources other than marine reserves and national parks, says the report.

Water pollution and water related issues were rated as the most important environmental issues facing New Zealand.

Professor Hughey says that while there is much to be heartened about in this latest report, with New Zealanders believing the natural environment to be “good to adequate”,  there are also matters for concern and improvement.

“For example, farming maintains its prominent position as a perceived source of pressure on the environment, particularly on freshwater. Over time it has been perceived as increasingly problematic for almost all the resources monitored.

“Overall, respondents judged issues related to freshwater to be the most important environmental considerations facing New Zealand.

“And with tourism now occupying such an important place in New Zealand's economy, there has to be concern that tourism is seen by the public as second only to pests and weeds as a major cause of damage to national parks.

“For some of the environmental components, respondents show very clear ideas about  sources of harm. For example almost 95 percent identified motor vehicles and transport as environmentally harmful, and almost 75 percent regarded industrial activities as the main cause of damage to the air. On average Aucklanders did not appear to have the same level of concern as Cantabrians about air quality.”

The survey also identified a slight decline in the popular belief about NZ's “clean, green” status with more New Zealanders now unconvinced.  On this point the authors of the report note that the difference in responses over the five surveys is “statistically significant”.

And how do our cities fare? The report points out that as there is no national set of urban environmental indicators it is not possible to determine empirically trends in the state of the urban environment.  However, the authors say that “there are indications that the state of some aspects of particular natural environments in urban areas around New Zealand is improving, for example riparian management, sand dune management, and management of weeds and pests in native bush”.

The report as a whole is a comprehensive document and should be a valuable item in the tool kit of everyone involved in environmental planning, management and development in New Zealand  or any related activity.