Public perceptions of the state of the NZ
environment – how do peoples’ realities
stack up to the scientific realities?
Ken Hughey
Department of Environmental Management
Lincoln University, New Zealand
24th September 2013
Seminar presented at Sunshine Coast University, Queensland
The story line
• Some context around the genesis of ‘clean and
green’ and its value to NZ
– tourism and dairy industry
– national identity
• Some context about competing stories and ‘images’
• Tracking NZers views of clean and green and state of
the environment – lets look at freshwater and
biodiversity
• So, the ‘public’ think this, but what do the scientists
think?
• What happens when what the public thinks is
different to the scientists? – policy implications
Clean and Green:
genesis and economic value to
tourism and to dairying
‘Clean and green’– its genesis
• Coyle & Fairweather (2005) claim ‘clean and green’
originated mid 1980s - time the French blew up the
Rainbow Warrior in Auckland
• Links also to major environmental campaigns in 70s and
80s - Lake Manapouri and West Coast native forests instilled a sense of attachment to NZ’s natural heritage and
nature amongst many NZers
• Whatever the case: the term (or similar), the phrase, the
myth, has been and continues to be widely used in the
market place – for tourism and for other exports, e.g.,
dairy. ‘Clean and green’ is a part of the NZ brand.
Govt commissioned PA Consulting in
2001 to ask the question …
Aim: put a price on paradise, focusing on three
export sectors:
• Dairy products ($10bn)
• Tourism ($8bn)
• Organic foods ($small).
Methods: customer surveys in export markets;
photo images of ‘clean and green’ cf degraded
environments and questions as to how much they
would purchase under worsened conditions –
essentially determined what we would forgo if
image worsened:
• Dairy sector: -$241-569m annually
• Tourism sector: -$530-938m annually.
Implications: ‘clean and green’ image worth
probably $bns, in today’s $$; if image worsened
we would lose heaps; dairying has grown hugely
and many questions about image, so …
Export value of dairy and tourism:
1999-2011 (non inflation adjusted)
14000
Dairy
12000
Tourism
Export value ($ millions)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
But, competing stories are
muddying the clean and green
waters
2002 Fish and Game NZ’s ‘dirty
dairying’ campaign
So, what do the public think,
overall?
Tracking peoples perceptions of
the ‘clean and green’ story
2000 - Lincoln University began a long
term biennial survey of NZers on their
perceptions of the state of the
environment …
• Between 2000-2010 biennial postal surveys of 2000 NZers
randomly drawn from electoral roll; 2010 onward changed
to electronic and triennial
• Survey constructed around P-S-R model of environmental
reporting (as used by OECD)
• Includes standard set of questions about 11 natural
resources, one about our ‘clean and green’ image, and
different case studies each survey
Pressures
Perceived main causes of damage to
‘biodiversity’ (Categories <5% omitted) - 2013
Motor vehicles and transport
2000
Tourism
2002
Mining
Household waste and emissions
2004
Forestry
2006
Farming
2008
Dumping of solid waste
2010
Industrial activities
2013
Hazardous chemicals
Urban development
Sewage and storm water
Pests and weeds
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent of respondents
60
70
80
90
100
Perceived main causes of damage to
freshwater (Categories <5% omitted) - 2013
Recreational fishing
2000
Forestry
2002
Tourism
2004
Mining
2006
Urban development
Pests and weeds
2008
Household waste and emissions
2010
Dumping of solid waste
2013
Farming
Industrial activities
Hazardous chemicals
Sewage and storm water
0
10
20
30
40
Percent of respondents
50
60
Perceptions of most important
environmental issue facing NZ (% of
respondents): open-ended question - 2013
Pesticides/poisons
Too much power to one party/agency/ethnic group
Overfishing/fish stocks
Introduced pests/weeds/diseases
Sustainable management of resources
Protecting environment/keeping NZ clean and green
Air pollution/air quality
Pollution
GHG, climate change, ozone
Mining
Other
Waste
Agriculture related
Water related
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Responses
Quality of management of activities
- 2013
Farm effluent and runoff
6.1
Industrial impact on the environment
7.5
Hazardous chemicals use and disposal
14.1
Solid waste disposal
7.3
Pest and weed control
4.0
Sewage disposal
5.5
-80
Very bad
Don't
know (%)
Positive
Negative
Bad
-60
Adequate
-40
-20
Good
0
20
40
60
Very good
80
100
Quality of management of
resources - 2013
Don't
know
(%)
Positive
Negative
Rivers and lakes
5.2
Groundwater
19.0
Marine fisheries
17.2
Soils
15.5
Natural environment in towns and cities
3.5
Coastal waters and beaches
5.7
Native land and freshwater plants and animals
4.6
Marine reserves
18.7
Wetlands
20.9
Air quality
3.7
Native bush and forests
2.2
NZ's natural environment compared to other developed countries
10.2
National parks
3.5
-40
Very poorly managed
Poorly managed
-20
Adequately managed
0
20
40
Well managed
60
80
100
Very well managed
Trends in perceived quality of
management
(5= Very well mgd; 3= Adequately mgd; 1= Very poorly mgd)
5
5
4.5
4.5
Biodiversity
Mean Likert score
Mean Likert score
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Postal survey
Freshwater
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Postal survey
1.5
e-survey
E-survey
1
1
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2013
2004
2006
2008
2010
2013
State
New Zealand’s environment is
clean and green
(source: Hughey et al. in prep)
60
2002
Percent of respondents
50
2004
2006
40
2008
2010
30
2010 (e-survey)
20
2013 (e-survey)
10
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don’t
know
Perceptions of state of the
environment - 2013
Don't
know (%)
Positive
Negative
Rivers and lakes
2.3
Marine fisheries
6.3
Natural environment in towns cities
1.3
Wetlands
8.9
Groundwater
8.6
Soils
5.4
Native land and freshwater plants and animals
2.0
Coastal waters and beaches
1.4
Native bush and forests
2.0
Air
0.9
Natural environment compared to other developed countries
3.6
-60
Very bad
Bad
Adequate
-40
-20
0
Good
20
40
60
Very good
80
100
What the scientists are saying
about the state:
water and biodiversity
Water science: Changing lake
water quality in NZ: 1981-2009
Source: P. Verburg, P., Hamill, K., Unwin, M., Abell, J. 2010. Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010:
Status and trends. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment. NIWA Client Report: HAM2010-107,
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton.
Biodiversity science
• Roberts (2013) data shows biodiversity decline depicted
conceptually in the NZ Biodiversity Strategy (DoC 2000).
• Indigenous taxa and ecosystems that provide their habitat under
immense pressure from human induced changes, predators, weed
invasions, land use and more recently the intensification of
indigenous vegetation clearance for farming, and it is likely that
climate change will exacerbate these pressures.
• Deterioration in status of threatened species has continued:
– status has worsened for 13 bird species and 2 skink species;
– number of threatened vascular plants has risen from 243 in 2008 to
289 in 2012; and
– the proportion of freshwater fish classified as Threatened or At Risk
has risen from 53% to 67% (2010 figures).
Roberts, C. (2013). New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity: agents of decline; status of native landcover and
ecosystems and current threat assessments of taxa: Department of Conservation.
So – perceptions vs science?
Perceptions
Freshwater:
- State

-


Pressures
Responses
Biodiversity:
- State
- Pressures


-

Responses
Science
Alignment of Perceptions
vs Science
Overall good but worst

of all resources; Lowland
streams of concern
Farming biggest of all

Adequate and improving 
On average good but
lakes and stream quality
in major decline
Farming biggest of all
Weak policy

Strong


Strong
Weak
Overall good

Farming & pests and

weeds
Adequate and improving 
Terrible and worsening
Pests, farming, other


None
Strong
Mixed policy, lack of
funding

Moderate
Explaining the alignment (freshwater)
and lack of (biodiversity)
• Freshwater alignment:
– Govt tries ‘spinning’ but the science is out there, the cause is
well known - unequivocal
• Biodiversity non-alignment:
– DoC uses a ‘good news’ strategy that hides much of the
underlying bad news, e.g., great that one kakapo chick hatches
but the bad news is that habitat is getting worse for many
species and this news, proportionately, seldom reaches the
media
– Reason for DoC campaign – constant bad news might switch
funding off; good news feels good for politicians who are
prepared to fund more programmes, but are they the right
programmes?
Implications
Remarkable resilience in the
face of real brand tarnishing
The ‘facts’:
• The ‘clean and green’ image within NZ is being tarnished,
perceptually
• The science shows we are getting worse
• Policy interventions by government are woefully
inadequate, in terms of ‘turning the tide’
• International media is highlighting our environmental
woes
But:
• Alternative forces, esp the film industry, are maintaining
the brand myth internationally
Real policy and political
implications
• Governments good at ‘talking the talk’ but walking it is very
difficult – they do not know how to balance the need for $ growth
with the need for environmental protection
• But, regarding freshwater, current govt in a corner – set up Land
and Water Forum and ‘agreed’ to implement findings:
collaborative
• Meanwhile, regions like Canterbury have set up integrated water
management strategies – top-down and bottom-up, which are
largely collaborative and working and delivering on the QBL
• With the current government now also committed to ongoing
environmental reporting there will be much better data to judge
performance of collaborative approaches and their talk the talk …
Let me end today with a
reading …
• To quote from Bryce Johnson – CEO of Fish
and Game NZ, August 2013: “”
At the end of the day we do have a
choice:
And for the Mokihinui, where I have my whitebait stand, I know
which I want now and for future generations!