Perceptions of the State of the New Zealand environment - water
Ken Hughey, Geoff Kerr and Ross Cullen,
PO Box 84,
Lincoln University
The second biennial survey of people’s perceptions of the state of the New Zealand
environment was undertaken in February 2002. The survey is based on the Pressure-StateResponse model of state of the environment reporting. It tests perceptions of all the main
resource areas - air quality, native plants and animals, native forest and bush, soils, beaches
and coastal waters, marine fisheries, marine reserves, freshwaters, national parks, wetlands,
urban environments, and the natural environment. It also examines preferences for changes in
government expenditure between environmental and other government activities.
Two thousand people, aged 18 and over, were randomly selected from the New Zealand
electoral roll. An effective response rate of 45% was achieved. Key findings include:
 New Zealanders consider the state of, and management of, the environment to be good
and better than other developed countries;
 Farming is seen to be putting more pressure on resources, particularly fresh water;
 New Zealanders would like to see more taxes spent on the environment, especially on
fresh water related activities;
 While the Government has dismissed implementing licences for marine recreational
fishers the survey indicated that such a regime would generate a large income stream
which could potentially benefit marine recreational fisheries’ management;
 Ethnicity is a key variable. For example, Maori judge that water quality is lower, and
management of water is worse than do other respondents.
The recent effort by Statistics New Zealand to monitor progress towards a sustainable New
Zealand does not include any perceptions information. This report is an important step
towards bridging that gap.
The results from this survey provide a means for individual resources to be analysed in such a
way that is useful to regional and district councils, central government agencies, researchers,
and consultants. The following analysis of fresh water is an example of this.
New Zealanders and Fresh Water
Most New Zealanders believe that New Zealand fresh waters are in a better state in 2002 than
they were five years ago. Three quarters of respondents believe that fresh water is moderately
to highly available, with similar findings in the 2000 survey. More New Zealanders believe
that the quality of fresh water has not changed or has improved compared to 2000. A quarter
of respondents think that the water quality has worsened from five years ago, compared with
thirty percent in the previous survey.
Most respondents think that New Zealand’s fresh waters are currently adequately to well
managed. This finding is very similar to that of the 2000 survey. There has, however, been an
increase in the proportion of respondents who believe that the quality of management has
improved and in the proportion who believe it has worsened.
There has been a significant change in respondent’s beliefs about the main causes of damage
to fresh waters from 2000 to 2002. There has been an increase of 13% in those who think that
farming is the main cause of damage to fresh waters. An increasing number of those surveyed
believe that pests and weeds are the main cause whereas the number of people who think that
hazardous chemicals are the main cause of damage has decreased. Sewage and storm water,
however, is still considered to play the biggest role in damaging the fresh waters.
Main causes of damage to fresh waters
90.0%
80.0%
Proportion of responses
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
****
****
2000
2002
30.0%
**
20.0%
10.0%
Other
Hazardous
chemicals
Dumping of solid
waste
Recreational fishing
Commercial fishing
Tourism
Sewage and storm
water
Mining
Urban development
Forestry
Farming
Pests and weeds
Industrial activities
Household waste
and emissions
Motor vehicles and
transport
0.0%
Respondent’s ethnicity seems to affect their thoughts on the main causes of damage to fresh
water. The highest NZ European response was recorded for farming while for Maori and
‘others’ it was sewage and storm water.
Analysis of main causes of damage to freshwater, by ethnicity
100%
90%
80%
Percent response
70%
60%
Maori
NZ European
50%
Other
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Household
waste and
emissions
Industrial
activities
Pests and
weeds
Farming
Sewage and
storm water
Dumping of
solid waste
Hazardous
chemicals
Other
New Zealanders value the quality of water highly. Respondents placed pollution that affects
the quality of water as the fourth most important environmental issue facing New Zealand
today.
Overall, the state of fresh water is generally viewed positively. Nevertheless there were large
shifts toward attributing damage to fresh water to farming and to judging management of farm
effluent and runoff to be worse. These views may reflect the increased public profile of water
allocation issues, including for dairy farming. This concern is reflected in the desire to see
increased expenditure on fresh waters, which was ranked first in 2002, but only fourth in
2000. In general, New Zealanders would like about one billion dollars more to be spent on the
environment. This is double what is currently being spent.
As mentioned previously, ethnicity plays a large part in the beliefs of New Zealanders about
the environment, however it is particularly noticeable in the water-related questions. For
seven of nine factors studied there are significant differences in responses between ethnic
groups. It appears, generally, that the ‘other ethnicity’ group have a relatively positive view of
almost all water-related matters. This might be because many of these respondents were born
outside New Zealand and their prior experience of fresh water has been somewhat negative.
‘Other ethnicity’ people include Pacific Island people, and Asians. Previous work reported by
MfE in 1997 suggests there is some evidence that Asian people have differing attitudes
toward environmental management than do New Zealand Europeans and Maori (MfE, 1997:
section 2:9).
This type of analysis has the potential to provide councils, agencies and consultants with
valuable information for decision-making on the environment. Indeed, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment believes it is the most comprehensive survey to date.
60
50
Quality or condition of fresh
40
30
Pe
rce
nt
res
po
ns
e
2000
2002
20
10
0
Ba
d
Go
60
Ve
ry
go
od
od
Ve
ry
ba
d
Ad
eq
uat
e
Do
n’t
kn
ow
Amount of fresh
50
40
30
Pe
rce
nt
res
po
ns
e
2000
2002
20
10
0
60
V
er
y
hi
50
Hi
gh
Lo
w
M
od
er
at
Condition of fresh water
to 5 years ago
V
er
y
l
D
on
’t
kn
40
2000
2002
30
Pe
rce
nt
res
po
ns
e
20
10
0
M
uc
h
be
tte
B
ett
er
N
o
ch
an
W
or
se
M
uc
h
w
or
D
on
’t
kn
Spend much less
Spend less
No change
Spend more
Spend far more
Percent response
Don’t know
Much worse
W orse
The same
Better
Much better
Percent response
Don’t know
Very poorly mgd
Poorly managed
Adequately mgd
Well managed
Very well mgd
Percent response
60
50
Current management of fresh water
40
30
2000
2002
20
10
0
60
50
Management of fresh water compared to 5 years ago
40
30
2000
2002
20
10
0
60
50
Preferences for expenditure on fresh water
40
30
2000
2002
20
10
0