Waiheke’s Marine Protection Areas
Shape Auckland Online Feedback Form
Consultation Summary
Prepared for:
8 June 2015
Waiheke’s Marine Protection Areas online feedback form was available on Shape Auckland
Tuesday 12 May 2015 to 25 May 2015.
i
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary...................................................................................................... 1
2. Background ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Consultation Activities ................................................................................................. 3
4. Consultation Responses ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Results .......................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Waiheke Local Board’s Proposal ................................................................................. 4
5.2 No-Take Marine Reserves ........................................................................................... 9
5.3 No-Take Main Factors ............................................................................................... 14
5.3 No-Take Locations ..................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Final Comments ......................................................................................................... 18
5.5 Respondent Profile .................................................................................................... 22
ii
1. Background
The Waiheke Local Board Plan is proposing a network of marine protected areas be
established, linking the islands of the Waiheke Local Board area. This network could include
one or more marine reserves located where they would assist the protection and restoration
of marine life.
It is yet to be decided what areas or locations would make up this network, or even if there
will be any additional protection at all. As such the local board has sought community
feedback to see if there is general support for establishing such a network, if there are clear
principles for establishing marine reserves which the community can support, and what level
of agreement there is on priority areas or locations.
The local board was particularly interested in people’s views on ‘no take’ marine reserves as
they could form an important part of a network of marine protected areas.
The Waiheke Local Board sought community feedback in 3 different ways:

A mail survey of registered voters on Waiheke Island. The electoral role was used
to source contact details. This was the most robust methodology used for this
feedback exercise. The data received will be weighted to ensure it is representative
of the Waiheke population (which we know from the 2013 Census).

A mail survey of off-island ratepayers who live in New Zealand. We used
Auckland Council’s ratepayer database to source contact details. Responses are
unable to be weighted to be representative of the population because we don’t know
anything about the make-up of this population.

An online feedback form on Shape Auckland was created to enable a wider range
of the public to have input. Because anyone from anywhere could fill out the Shape
Auckland feedback form, we cannot rely on it for robust analysis.
The mail surveys and the Shape Auckland feedback form will be analysed independently
and reported on separately.
1
2. Executive Summary
This report focuses on the feedback received from the online feedback form on Shape
Auckland. Feedback from registered voters and off-island ratepayers needs to be
considered before drawing any conclusions about public opinion relating to Waiheke’s
marine protection areas.
Waiheke Local Board’s proposal

Over half (53%) said they opposed Waiheke Local Board’s proposal (47% were
strongly opposed), while over a third (37%) said they supported it (32% were in
strong support).
o
Visitors to the island were more likely to strongly support it (62%), while those
with a weekend or occasional home were more likely to strongly oppose it
(69%).
o Waiheke long term residents were largely uncommitted, being neither in
support or opposition.

Opposition to the proposal centred on a feeling that beaches were not the place for
such protection (18%), and that locals would be disadvantaged (14%). Some
mentioned the negative impact it would have on recreational fishing (13%) and the
environment (14%), while some were particularly averse to it being implemented in
residential areas (12%).

Reasons in support of the proposal generally centred on the restoration and
improvement to marine life, biodiversity, and the environment (18%), as well as the
protection and preservation of marine life, wildlife, eco systems, and biodiversity
(15%). There were also positive comments in support of conservation in general
(11%).
‘No take’ marine reserves

Just under half (47%) said they opposed the establishment of ‘no take’ marine
reserves around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area, of these 44% were
strongly opposed. 41% said they supported the plan, with 32% in strong support.

The main focus of opposition to the proposal was the desire for locals to have
adequate areas for recreational fishing and shellfish gathering (19%).

Comments in support of the establishment of a reserve included a general
agreement with the idea (23%), as well as a feeling that it would lead to
improvements in fish stocks, marine life, eco systems, and biodiversity (22%). A few
(10%) also felt it would depend on the areas proposed, as they would support
specific reserves, but not a total reserve around Waiheke.

When asked what proportion of the marine environment around the islands in the
Waiheke Local Board area should be protected as ‘no take’ marine reserves, a third
(34%) said 0% or none, and over half (56%) said it should be less than 30% of the
area. Only 20% of people said 60% or more of the marine environment around the
islands should be protected, with 11% saying 100% or the whole area should be.

The most frequently mentioned factors that should be considered when deciding the
location of no take marine reserves around the Waiheke Local Board area were:
2
o
Excluding beaches or bays close to existing villages or residential areas
(48%)
o Protecting rare and threatened habitats (45%)
o The likelihood that marine life would be protected and restored once
damaging activities have ceased (44%)
o Rebuilding the populations of threatened species (44%)
o Protecting a full range of habitat types (42%).
The location of ‘no take’ marine reserves

When asked if there were any general areas or specific places they would consider
acceptable as ‘no take’ marine reserves, a fifth said Mototapu and/or Rangitoto
(20%). Some also said they would consider Rotoroa (15%), Ponui (13%), and the
Noisies (10%) as acceptable, as well as Palm Beach (11%), Onetangi (10%), and
other areas of Waiheke (11%).

When asked if there were any general areas or specific places they would consider
unacceptable as ‘no take’ marine reserves, two fifths said Oneroa (38%). A quarter
said Palm Beach (25%), Onetangi (24%) or any northern beaches of Waiheke (25%),
and a fifth said all of Waiheke was unacceptable as a ‘no take’ marine reserve.
(19%). Some said any residential beaches or coastline was unacceptable (18%), and
a few listed Enclosure Bay (17%), Sandy Bay (17%), and Hekerua Bay (11%) as
unacceptable.
Any other comments

When asked if they had any other comments to make about Marine Protected Areas
in the Waiheke Local Board area, over a quarter gave generally positive feedback,
and thought it was a good idea (27%), while others mentioned the impact of over
visitation, and felt the focus should be on conservation, not tourism (16%). Some felt
they should not be implemented near residential areas (15%) or at northern beaches
(13%), but were in support of Marine Protection Areas in unpopulated areas and
outer islands (15%).
3. Consultation and Responses
The Shape Auckland online feedback form was open from 12 to 25 May 2015. In total 249
feedback responses were received.
The project feedback form included questions on Waiheke Local Board’s proposal, ‘no take’
marine reserves, main factors for consideration, and marine reserve locations.
Comments from each topic are reported below.
3
4. Results
5.1 Waiheke Local Board’s Proposal
Q1A How much do you support or oppose Waiheke Local Board’s proposal?
Oppose: 53%
Q1A.
Support: 37%
47%
0%
6%
20%
1. Strongly oppose
40%
2
3
8%
5%
60%
4
32%
80%
5. Strongly support
1%
100%
Don't know
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
When asked how much they supported or opposed Waiheke Local Board’s proposal, the
overall response was quite negative. While over a third (37%) said they supported the
proposal (with 32% in strong support), over half (53%) said they opposed it, with 47%
strongly opposed.
Interestingly, visitors to the island were more likely to strongly support it (62%), and those
with a weekend or occasional home, or a rental or investment property on the island were
more likely to strongly oppose it (69%). Those who live on Waiheke all or most of the time
were more likely to be neutral (14%).
4
Q1B What are the main reasons for your answer above?
Restore / improve marine life / biodiversity /
environment of the Gulf
Protection/preservation of marine life / wildlife
/ eco systems bio diversity
18%
15%
Conservation in general
11%
Marine reserves better placed in more isolated
areas/away from existing populated areas
9%
General positive / good idea
8%
Haurak Gulf is seriously depleted / degraded /
over fished
Focus on commercial fishing, pollution / more
enforcement
5%
5%
Good for tourism/ research etc
4%
Beaches / northern beaches not acceptable /
it will restrict the use of beaches
Locals will be disadvantaged - general
recreation, swimming, boating
Environmental impact - increased traffic,
noise, visitors
18%
14%
14%
Recreational fishing will be affected
13%
Not in residential areas
12%
Not a local government issue - local board not
listening, has own agenda
Other options need to be explored / more info,
education
8%
5%
General negative
5%
Other islands in the gulf should be looked at,
not Waiheke
5%
Unsure about linking the islands
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Base: All feedback forms n=222. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%. Pale
blue bars show reasons for support, dark blue is reasons in opposition.
Positive Responses
Negative Responses
Participants were asked to give their main reasons for supporting or opposing the Waiheke
Local Board’s proposal. Main reasons in support of the proposal covered the restoration and
improvement to marine life, biodiversity, and the environment (18%), as well as the
protection and preservation of marine life, wildlife, eco systems, and biodiversity (15%).
There were also positive comments on conservation in general (11%).
Comments among those who were positive about the impact it would have on marine life,
eco systems, biodiversity and the environment, and/or improve fish stocks included:
“A marine reserve supports a healthy environment, improves fish stocks outside the
reserve and enhances public appreciation of the environment.”
5
“Biodiversity and quality of the Hauraki Gulf has been significantly degraded from
overexploitation and polluting activities. There is a serious need for increased marine
protection to encourage healthy fish stocks and a healthy ecosystem.”
“I have grown up on Waiheke and noticed a sad decline in the marine life and believe
it needs areas of protection. I have also visited and greatly enjoyed many Marine
Reserves around NZ, such as Goat Island and Tawharanui, and am fully supportive
of more areas like this.”
“Marine conservation in the Hauraki needs to be a top priority to support the
ecosystem but needs to be carefully located for the best result for both the reserve
and the residents.”
“Biodiversity and quality of the Hauraki Gulf has been significantly degraded from
overexploitation and polluting activities. There is a serious need for increased marine
protection to encourage healthy fish stocks and a healthy ecosystem.”
“Safe areas for marine life to regenerate. I believe 'No take' areas should extend as
far and wide as possible, to increase protection for diminishing stock of all species of
marine life”
“Important to protect the marine environment particularly given the diminishing fish
stocks.”
“I believe we need to protect local marine reserves from over fishing.”
A few discussed conservation in general, and were largely positive about the proposal:
“Marine life is fragile and is an integral part of who we are as New Zealanders. It is
important that we provide areas of safe haven for marine life so that future
generations are able to enjoy them.”
“We need more marine reserves to protect our marine wildlife, our clean green image
and our heritage.”
“We need to do more to protect our marine life and oceans - especially in this
beautiful tourist spot.”
“No take areas and breeding reserve areas are vitally needed for restocking potential
and educational/observational purposes.”
Reasons in opposition of the proposal included a feeling that beaches, specifically northern
beaches, were not the place for such protection as it would restrict beach use (18%).
Participants also mentioned the negative impact it would have for locals on general
recreation, swimming, and boating (14%) and/or the environment associated with having
increased traffic and noise (14%).
Many did not believe that the proposal should be implemented at beaches, with many
specifically mentioning northern beaches. They believed it would restrict beach use:
“The northern beaches are residential areas, and would suffer overcrowding and
invasion of privacy as has occurred in Goat Island Marine Reserve. While Marine
Reserves are commendable in general, they are inappropriate in some areas such as
this part of Waiheke Island”
6
“We already have marine reserves. I am happy to have another established away
from the main recreational beaches. Residents and visitors should be able to launch
a small boat and go and have a fish. Denying small boat owners this basic right
means only large boat owners can avail themselves of fishing outside the marine
area”
“There has been insufficient consultation with Waiheke ratepayers to date. Whilst the
vision of a marine reserve is admirable, the concepts have not been explored in any
detail, and suggestions such as applying a reserve to the northern residential
beaches on Waiheke would be complete madness - applying the maximum impact to
the maximum amount of people, when there are kilometres of coastline which are
uninhabited elsewhere.”
“A marine reserve on the northern beaches of Waiheke drastically affects locals'
lifestyles. Most permanent residents in the area see recreational fishing as a major
reason for living there. It would attract too many tourists and too much traffic for such
an area.”
“The Northern Residential beaches of Waiheke - between Oneroa and Onetangi are
NOT ACCEPTABLE for a marine reserve”
Some mentioned locals being disadvantaged, as they believed general recreation,
swimming, and boating may be negatively impacted by the proposal. A few participants
specifically mentioned the effect it would have on recreational fishing:
“I live on Waiheke, and feel that imposing a Marine Reserve will have a hugely
negative impact on how my family can enjoy the Northern Beaches. Whether that is
fishing, collecting mussels, or just enjoying the peace and quiet.”
“The beaches of Waiheke are already seriously under pressure during the warmer
months from the increasing tourist trade to the extent that local residents are no
longer able to enjoy their local beaches. A marine reserve positioned anywhere along
the northern coastline would make the problem much worse and greatly affect the
day-to-day lifestyle of local residents. In my view, the northern residential beaches of
Waiheke - between Oneroa and Onetangi are NOT ACCEPTABLE for a marine
reserve.”
“Waiheke beaches especially on the northern side are busy and at capacity for safety
during the summer peak. Marine reserves will make this worse and restrict the island
residents’ current access to and enjoyment of aquatic recreation activities.”
“Collecting shellfish and fishing is an important activity for me and my family”
“I don’t agree with the location for the reserve because of the affect it will have on our
land based community, I am also a respectful fisherman who uses these headlands
to fish from.”
Some participants were negative about the impact it may have on the environment. They
believed a marine reserve would attract more visitors to the area, which would increase
traffic and noise:
“Loss of recreation for residents and likelihood of massively increased traffic and
people. Would prefer if this was done somewhere else on the island which isn't
residential and more isolated.”
7
“Noise pollution, visual pollution, overcrowding a very small beach, parking
congestion, commercial impact on local and nearby residents, the hindrance to boat
launching and retrieving.”
“The snorkelling tours and tourists will ruin the unspoiled beaches that our family
loves.”
“Waiheke is a very busy Island.
Over summer is overpopulated and the
infrastructure is at breaking point. The roads, parking, congestion will not cope.
Commercialism- wetsuit, snorkel hire, fast food sales, glass bottom boats, rubbish,
water (septic tanks) bus tours will be a nightmare. Unlike Goat Island people live and
holiday here.”
A few expressed an aversion to the Waiheke Local Board’s proposal being implemented in
residential areas:
“These are essentially residential areas and imposing tourist numbers, traffic, urban
congestion that it will inevitably bring is unacceptable. These marine reserves should
be sited in more remote locations, the fish will benefit just as much and isn't that the
reason for these zones. Or is there a more commercial objective underlying the
biased approach of our local board?”
“I like the idea of a Hauraki Gulf Marine Reserve with reservations. I would definitely
NOT wish to see any of the beaches at or near residential areas of Waiheke as part
of any Marine Reserve.”
“I strongly oppose their suggestion that a marine reserve be established near
residential area/on publicly used beaches/coast. This has NOT be well thought
through. It will have a detrimental effect on the ‘soul’ and footprint of the northern
beaches and change this for ever. I do, however, agree that a marine reserve should
be established in the Gulf in a different location.”
“I support the establishment of marine protected areas but not in residential areas.”
8
5.2 No-Take Marine Reserves
Q2A How much do you support or oppose the establishment of ‘no take’ marine
reserves around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area?
Oppose: 47%
Q2A
Support: 41%
44%
0%
3% 10%
20%
1. Strongly oppose
40%
2
3
10%
60%
4
32%
80%
5. Strongly support
1%
100%
Don't know
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
When asked how much they supported or opposed the establishment of ‘no take’ marine
reserves around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area, the overall response was
mixed. While around two fifths (41%) said they supported the establishment (with 32% in
strong support), just under half (47%) said they opposed the establishment, with 44%
strongly opposed.
Unsurprisingly, respondents who supported the Waiheke Local Board’s proposal were more
likely to support the establishment of ‘no take’ marine reserves around the island (97%),
while those opposed to the Waiheke Local Board’s proposal were more likely to oppose the
establishment of ‘no take’ marine reserves (85%).
Similar to above, those who live on Waiheke all or most of the time were more likely to be
neutral (17%). Visitors to the island were more likely to strongly support the establishment
(57%), while those with a weekend or occasional home, or a rental or investment property on
the island were more likely to strongly oppose it (61%).
9
Q2B What are the main reasons for your answer above?
Generally agree with idea of a marine reserve /
'No Take' areas in the right area
23%
Restores / rebuilds / improves / fish / marine life
/ eco systems / biodiversity
Depends on areas proposed / would support
specific reserves / not a total reserve around
Waiheke
Protects / preserves marine life / eco
systems/bio diversity
22%
10%
9%
Not a local government issue / local board not
listening, has own agenda
3%
Ensure recreational fishing / shellfish gathering
/ adequate areas for local / recreational fishing /
shellfish gathering / traditional fishing spots
19%
Northern beaches are not the place
9%
Other islands in the gulf should be looked at,
not Waiheke
9%
Environmental impact - increased traffic, noise,
visitors, needs to be monitored
7%
Other options need to be explored / more info,
education
7%
Locals/ lifestyles will be disadvantaged
6%
Focus on commercial fishing, pollution / more
enforcement
5%
Not in residential areas
4%
General negative/ no
3%
0%
20%
40%
Base: All feedback forms n=208. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%. Pale
blue bars show reasons for support, dark blue is reasons in opposition.
Positive Responses
Negative Responses
Participants were asked to give their main reasons for supporting or opposing the
establishment of ‘no take’ marine reserves in the area. Reasons in support included a
general agreement with the idea (23%), as well as comments on the improvement it would
make to fish, marine life, eco systems, and biodiversity (22%). A few (10%) also pointed out
that it would depend on the areas proposed, as they would support specific reserves, but not
a total reserve around Waiheke.
10
As per the chart above, nearly a quarter generally agreed with the idea of a marine reserve
and no take areas in the right places:
“Our marine environment is threatened by coastal development, over fishing and
damage caused by fishing practices. We need to create a network of marine
reserves with a wide range of representative habitats.”
“Without 'no take' reserves our ecosystems will continue to decline. We need areas
which provide safe havens for our wild life.”
“'No take' areas have been proved around the world to not only protect local marine
biodiversity, but to significantly increase fish stocks and other marine life both in the
protected areas and in those adjacent to it. This would be of benefit to everyone.”
“No-take marine reserves have been shown to be ideal for protecting marine
biodiversity, alongside other marine management strategies and regulations.”
“I think having protected areas without harvesting results in positive biodiversity
outcomes. From a sustainable harvesting angle I also think adjacent to no-take
marine reserves there is likely to be increased fish/shellfish etc. stocks than if the
entire area had ongoing harvesting.”
Some participants mentioned the improvement it would make to fish, marine life, eco
systems, and biodiversity, as it would restore and help to rebuild the environment around
Waiheke:
“Waiheke is a popular tourist destination in Auckland, and as a result many people
come to the island to enjoy the beaches and coastal lifestyle it can provide. Because
of this the marine ecosystem has been severely degraded, with large kina barrens
now present where there should be healthy kelp forest providing habitat for fish. Notake reserves are essential for increasing habitat quality and allowing fish stocks to
recover. This will allow future residents and visitors to the island the opportunity to
enjoy the marine habitat that is such an integral part of the island.”
“I would love to have a marine reserve around Palm Beach. Marine reserves are
absolutely essential for re-establishing depleted fish stocks. They provide a safe
haven for endangered marine mammals and are wonderful recreational assets.”
“In order for marine life to survive in numbers large enough to be ecologically
relevant we need to prevent people from removing both the marine organisms and
their associated habitat. There are many other place in and around Auckland where
people are able to fish and collect marine resources.”
“We need to create areas where marine life can flourish and develop.”
“It is essential that 'no take' zones are established to ensure fish stocks and other
marine live recover from the poor state they are in. 'No take' reserves enable fish and
other marine life to flourish and can indeed benefit fishing areas outside the protected
zone.”
A few said that it would depend on the areas proposed, as they would support specific
reserves, but not a total reserve around Waiheke.
11
The main reason that came across in opposition of the proposal was that locals need
adequate areas for recreational fishing and shellfish gathering. They also mentioned
traditional fishing spots:
“Boating and beach going are the main reason we chose Waiheke to live. Fishing,
swimming, beach walking are basic rights of island citizens and enjoyment of the
water should not be subject to draconian controls associated with Marine Reserves.
Commercial fishing with huge nets should be banned in the Hauraki Gulf rather than
discriminate against residents.”
“It would impact my gathering of seafood which we live from. Also we don't want the
inevitable crowds and commercialisation that will occur.”
“Local people should have the right to fish and enjoy the environment. Reserves
should be in isolated areas”
“There is a huge recreational fishing community and I believe the reserve should be
further away from the Waiheke Island inhabitants.”
“I think this is a disgraceful proposal, generations of families have enjoyed catching
the odd fish, collecting the odd sea shell, and using the odd bit of seaweed. To
impose bans on this is draconian, and will have such a negative impact on the way of
life we enjoy on Waiheke. It is an example of over the top Green policies, which will
change forever the lifestyle enjoyed by residents.”
12
Q2C What proportion of the marine environment around the islands in the Waiheke
Local Board area do you think should be protected as ‘no take’ marine reserves?
40%
34%
30%
22%
20%
13%
9%
10%
11%
8%
4%
0%
0% no take 1% to 29% 30% to 59% 60% to 99% 100% whole Don't know
area no take
Other
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
When asked what proportion of the marine environment around the islands in the Waiheke
Local Board area should be protected as ‘no take’ marine reserves, a third (34%) said 0% or
none, and over half (56%) said it should be less than 30% of the area. Only 20% of people
said 60% or more of the marine environment around the islands should be protected, with
11% saying 100% or the whole area should be.
Interestingly, half (51%) of those with a weekend or occasional home, or a rental or
investment property on the island said 0% of the area should be protected, while visitors to
the island were more likely to say 30% to 59% should be protected (25%).
13
5.3 No-Take Main Factors
Q3A In your view, what are the main factors that should be considered when deciding
the location of ‘no take’ marine reserves around the islands in the Waiheke Local
Board area?
Excluding beaches or bays close to existing
villages or residential areas
48%
That rare and threatened habitats are
protected
45%
The likelihood that marine life will be protected
and restored once damaging activities have
ceased
44%
Rebuilding the populations of threatened
species
44%
That a full range of habitat types are protected
42%
That future visitor numbers can be
accommodated without having to provide more
car parking
38%
Improving opportunities for recreational fishing
in the wider area by rebuilding fish stocks
37%
Select places where there would not need to
be a significant reduction in fishing within the
reserve
28%
Having a pool of local volunteers interested in
protecting and managing the reserve
25%
Selecting places of cultural importance where
there are opportunities for matauranga and
kaitiakitanga to be applied
25%
Ensuring the areas are easy to get to for
visitors and school groups
18%
The potential for local economic benefit
16%
Enhancing kai moana (sea food) and
opportunities for Maori customary use
16%
None of the above - I dont believe no take
marine reserves should be implemented here
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: All feedback forms n=249. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%.
Protection of the environment themes
Impact on people and the community themes
Cultural factors
Visitor access and management themes
None / other
14
Participants were asked what they thought the main factors were that should be considered
when deciding the location of no take marine reserves around the Waiheke Local Board
area. The top five factors were:
 Excluding beaches or bays close to existing villages or residential areas (48%)
 Protecting rare and threatened habitats (45%)
 The likelihood that marine life would be protected and restored once damaging
activities have ceased (44%)
 Rebuilding the populations of threatened species (44%)
 Protecting a full range of habitat types (42%).
Over a third felt it was important that accommodating future visitor numbers without having
to provide more car parking (38%) and improving recreational fishing by rebuilding fish
stocks (37%) were also considered.
There were several differences between those living on Waiheke, and those visiting the
island:

Participants living on Waiheke all or most of the time were more likely to say that
selecting places where there would not need to be a significant reduction in fishing
within the reserve was a main factor for consideration (36%).

Visitors to the island were more likely to say the following were main factors for
consideration:
o A full range of habitat types are protected (66%)
o Rebuilding the populations of threatened species (64%)
o Improving opportunities for recreational fishing in the wider area by rebuilding
fish stocks (58%)
o Having a pool of local volunteers interested in protecting and managing the
reserve (45%)
o The potential for local economic benefit (42%)
o Selecting places of cultural importance where there are opportunities for
matauranga and kaitiakitanga to be applied (42%)
o Ensuring the areas are easy to get to for visitors and school groups (32%)

Those with a weekend or occasional home, or a rental or investment property on the
island were less likely to say the following were main factors for consideration:
o The likelihood that marine life will be protected and restored once damaging
activities have ceased (31%)
o That rare and threatened habitats are protected (29%)
o Rebuilding the populations of threatened species (28%)
o Improving opportunities for recreational fishing in the wider area by rebuilding
fish stocks (25%)
o Ensuring the areas are easy to get to for visitors and school groups (9%).
15
5.3 No-Take Locations
Q4A If there are any general areas or specific places that you would consider
acceptable as ‘no take’ marine reserves please list them below:
Motutapu
20%
Rangitoto
20%
Rotoroa
15%
Ponui
13%
Waiheke other (specific range)
11%
Palm Beach
11%
Noises
10%
Onetangi
10%
Eastern end of Waiheke
9%
Enclosure Bay
9%
Motuihe
8%
Oneroa
8%
Waiheke unpopulated areas in general
7%
Unpopulated small Islands
6%
Waiheke area
6%
Rakino
5%
0%
20%
40%
Base: All feedback forms n=133. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%. Only
those mentioned by at least 5% of participants are shown
When asked any general areas or specific places they would consider acceptable as no take
marine reserves, a fifth said Mototapu and/or Rangitoto (20%). Some also said they would
consider Rotoroa (15%), Ponui (13%), and the Noises (10%) as acceptable, as well as other
areas of Waiheke (11%), Palm Beach (11%), and Onetangi (10%).
16
Q4B If there are any general areas or specific places that you would consider
unacceptable as ‘no take’ marine reserves please list them below:
Oneroa
38%
All northern beaches of Waiheke
25%
Palm Beach
25%
Onetangi
24%
All of Waiheke
19%
Any residential beaches or coastline
18%
Enclosure bay
17%
Sandy Bay
17%
Hekerua Bay
11%
Little Oneroa
7%
Matiatia
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: All feedback forms n=149. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%. Only
those mentioned by at least 5% of participants are shown
When asked any general areas or specific places they would consider unacceptable as ‘no
take’ marine reserves, two fifths said Oneroa (38%). A quarter said Palm Beach (25%),
Onetangi (24%) or any northern beaches of Waiheke (25%), and a fifth said all of Waiheke
was unacceptable as no take marine reserves (19%). Some said any residential beaches or
coastline was unacceptable (18%), and a few listed Enclosure Bay (17%), Sandy Bay (17%),
and Hekerua Bay (11%) as unacceptable.
17
5.4 Final Comments
Q6F Finally, do you have any other comments to make about Marine Protected Areas
in the Waiheke Local Board area?
General positive, good idea
27%
Impact of over visitation -parking, provision needed,
focus should be on conservation not tourism
16%
Must be away from residential areas
15%
In support of MPA in unpopulated areas/ outer
islands
15%
Northern beaches are not the place
13%
Impact on locals - lifestyle, freedom, recreation,
fishing and shellfish gathering
13%
Negative comments regarding local board/ not local
gvt issue
12%
Other factors and solutions need to be considered
too - polluted storm water, silt, bans
12%
General negative/ unnecessary
11%
Focus on commercial fishing, pollution/ more
enforcement/ ban
10%
Comments regarding survey structure/ distribution
9%
Conservation in general/ future generations focus
8%
Support for local board initiatives
7%
It will improve fish stocks/ marine life
6%
Improve biodiversity and ecosystem
4%
Suggestions for other MPAs
3%
Pro no-take/ no-take scientifically proven to yeald
best results
3%
More research/ consultation required
2%
0%
20%
40%
Base: All feedback forms n=135. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%.
When asked if they had any other comments, over a quarter gave generally positive
feedback, and thought it was a good idea (27%):
“I would love to see large areas of Waiheke's Coast protected as Marine Reserves. It
would be nice if there are still some areas where it is possible to collect shellfish on
the island.”
18
“I feel strongly that marine reserves are necessary and that it is more important to
regenerate fish stocks than it is to consider people's comfort.”
“I think this is an excellent idea. There is a clear need to do something quickly in
order to protect the marine environment and it is important we think not only of our
own immediate needs (or wants) but what we are passing on to the future
generations.”
“We have a responsibility to look after the environment in which we live and where
we visit. The marine environment can no longer be seen as a resource from which
we can take without caring for it and protecting it. Marine Protected Areas in the
Waiheke Local Board area would be fantastic from an environmental standing but
also an economic one for the tourism it would bring and the flow on effects it would
have to industries reliant on a healthy ocean. I would strongly encourage the decision
makers to have courage and go for it! There may be the wealthy few who think they
own the beaches that have a problem with it but generations to come will thank you
for it.”
“I fully support the creation of more marine reserves. I understand that people like to
fish and gather seafood, go boating and jet skiing etc. but they can do this in
designated areas while most of the island is left alone to thrive.”
Others expressed concerns about the impact of over visitation, and felt the focus should be
on conservation, not tourism (16%):
“I am all in favour of preserving marine life around our beautiful island, but I fail to
understand why making a marine reserve or no-take zone should be seen as an
attraction for yet more tourism. I can see how ferry companies and other commercial
concerns would want to promote any venture in order to better sustain their profits,
but I see the excess tourism as a further threat to the marine protection. Surely the
situation would be improved with fewer tourists, not more, and I don't think a marine
reserve should be used as a way to advertise or promote the Island. Publicity seems
totally counter-productive to the purpose.”
“The island is being swamped now with more and more tour buses. Our parking is
becoming harder at Matiatia and along popular beaches in summer. Would not like to
see this increase with bus loads coming to take glass bottom boats out to look at a
marine reserve/s. Kelly Tarltons offers a great experience for that.”
“The current infrastructure on Waiheke would not cope with the influx of visitors to a
marine reserve, we already have our driveway blocked over the summer months due
to lack of parking. Not opposed to a marine reserve it just needs to be in a location
that can cope with visitors and be policed”
Some felt the proposal should not be implemented near residential areas (15%) or at
northern beaches (13%), but were in support of Marine Protection Areas in unpopulated
areas and outer islands (15%):
“If they happen they should be in areas that are away from the main residential areas
and beaches. Possibly better off on the surrounding islands rather than Waiheke.”
“Understand the need for Marine Reserves but strongly object to it being in the area
you are suggesting.”
19
“I fully support the creation of marine reserves in the area but do not think it would
work well to have them located at already popular beaches which are crowded in
summer. I used to be a visitor to Goat Island in the early days but now it is like
Disneyland there and I actively pursue good snorkelling elsewhere. I think the
nursery functions of the marine reserves is great but don't want them to become the
focus of commercial activity, rather that all our marine areas and activities quietly
benefit from existence of the reserves.”
A few mentioned the impact it would have on locals in terms of lifestyle, freedom, recreation,
fishing, and shellfish gathering (13%):
“Please consider the people living in the bays when choosing the no catch and
protected areas. No one is wildly opposed to marine conservation but impacting
residents who live there/ retire there or frequently visit, go there for the lifestyle they
love. We need to be careful that there is a balance which protects the fish stock and
threatened species without forcing tourist ventures into residential areas, choking
parking and limiting residents in the developed bays from doing what they live there
for.”
“Don't do this in an area where people live and enjoy a lifestyle of fishing, boating
and nature in a balanced and sustainable way. Do it where residents won't be
affected and where there is room to accommodate the additional cars and traffic. The
marine environment around sandy bay, little Oneroa and enclosure bay is not unique
and is looked after already by the community. Don't ruin the lifestyles of the people
who live in these areas.”
“Our family gathers food and fishes in the area proposed as a marine reserve, it
would be very unfair and upsetting on our family as it part of our source of food and a
great family pastime”
Some gave negative comments regarding the local board, with a view that it was not a local
government issue (12%):
“I believe MPA's have merit but am not convinced that the Waiheke Local Board
should be involved in the establishment or maintenance of them or where any no
take areas are established.”
“The local board has consistently ignored community opposition to marine reserves
and is yet again trying to sell the idea through this survey. Not sure why this time will
be any different but let’s hope they get the message”
“I have no confidence in the current Local Board to make unbiased decisions”
A few participants felt other factors and solutions needed to be considered such as polluted
storm water, silt, and bans (12%):
“Think the local board should genuinely look at all available marine protection
measures e.g. temporary ban on collecting crayfish at Enclosure Bay until stocks
increase, diversion of stormwater so it doesn't pour into the bays polluting the water
and damaging marine environments and habitats, not just marine reserves. Should
understand that one big marine reserve in an appropriate place is way better than
several locations that are too small to have any benefit. To realise that marine
reserves in populated locations will change the face of Waiheke's social environment
forever.”
20
“This survey seems biased towards marine reserves without exploring or offering
other options. And the information provided is not a balanced discussion about the
pros and cons of marine reserves.”
“The questionnaire does not allow in its queries the sensible options of protecting,
say, half a precious place to allow some local species to breed and recover. As such
any place promoted or dismissed misses the sensible option of being [partially
protected. As some bays are large, there is significant opportunity to provide a large
local breeding area to help an adjacent area.”
21
5.5 Respondent Profile
Q5A Are you…
60%
54%
50%
43%
40%
30%
20%
10%
3%
0%
Male
Female
Prefer not to say
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
Q5B Which age group do you belong to?
40%
29%
30%
20%
20%
13%
14%
13%
10%
5%
5%
1%
0%
17 years 18 to 24
or younger years
25 to 34
years
35 to 44
years
45 to 54
years
55 to 64
years
65 years Prefer not
or older
to say
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
22
Q5C Which of these best describes your ethnic origin?
90%
82%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
8%
10%
8%
1%
1%
Samoan
Chinese
6%
0%
New
Zealand
European
Other
European
ethnicity
Maori
I prefer not
to say
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
Q6A Which of the following best describes you?
I live on Waiheke all or most of the time
48%
I have a weekend or occasional home on
Waiheke which is not used as a rental
property
27%
I am a visitor to Waiheke but do not live there
or own property there
21%
I have a weekend or occasional home on
Waiheke which is also used as a rental
property
4%
I have a rental or investment property on
Waiheke which you do not personally use
2%
I prefer not to say
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
Nearly half (48%) of those who completed the Shape Auckland online feedback form said
they lived on Waiheke all or most of the time. Just over a quarter (27%) had a weekend or
occasional home on Waiheke which is not used as a rental property, and a fifth (21%) were
a visitor to Waiheke and do not live there or own a property on the island.
As discussed earlier, visitors were more likely to support Waiheke Local Board’s proposal,
while those with a weekend or occasional home on the island were more likely to oppose it.
23
Q6B In which suburb is your main residence located on Waiheke?
30%
27%
19%
20%
13%
10%
10%
6%
5%
5%
4%
9%
2%
0%
Palm
Beach
Oneroa Onetangi Surfdale Ostend
Sandy
Bay
Omiha Waiheke Other
Island
Prefer
not to
say
Base: All feedback forms n=249.
Over a quarter reside in Palm Beach (27%), a fifth in Oneroa (19%), and a few (13%) in
Onetangi.
Q6C What are the main activities you participate in when you visit the beaches or
coast around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area?
Relaxing or socialising with family / friends
81%
Swimming
80%
Walking / jogging / running
70%
Fishing
64%
Picnics
52%
Sailing / boating
46%
Other water sports and activities
45%
Snorkelling or diving
35%
Dog walking
32%
Other activities
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Base: All feedback forms n=249. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%.
24
When visiting the beaches or coast around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area,
almost all participants relax or socialise with family or friends (81%), go swimming (80%), or
go walking, jogging, or running (70%). Many also go fishing (64%), have picnics (52%), go
sailing or boating (46%), or partake in other water sports and activities (45%). Snorkelling
and diving was also reasonably popular (35%), as was dog walking (32%).
Those who opposed the proposal were more likely than those who supported it to go fishing
when visiting the beaches or coast around the islands in the Waiheke Local Board area
(84% vs. 34%), as were those with a weekend or occasional home, or a rental or investment
property (81%). Visitors to the island were less likely to have picnics (32%), go walking,
jogging, or running (51%), or go fishing (43%).
Those living in Palm Beach were more likely to go dog walking (51%).
25
Q6D Which beaches or coastal areas (including coastal walkways) around the islands
in the Waiheke local board area have you visited most often (three or more times)
over the past year?
Onetangi
82%
Oneroa
79%
Little Oneroa
69%
Matiatia Bay
61%
Mawhitipana/Palm Beach
58%
Enclosure Bay
55%
Sandy Bay
50%
Whakanewha Regional Park
38%
Kennedy Point
36%
Man o War Bay
36%
Rocky Bay/Omiha Bay
36%
Surfdale
35%
Blackpool
35%
Owhanake bay
26%
Putiki Bay
21%
Orapiu Bay
20%
Putaki Bay (Shelley Beach)
19%
Other beach or coastal area
5%
I don't know
2%
None do not visit the beaches in the area
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Base: All feedback forms n=203. Multiple responses were allowed, responses add to over 100%.
Participants were asked which beaches or coastal areas around the islands in the Waiheke
Local Board area they had visited most often over the past year. Many had visited Onetangi
(82%), Oneroa (78%), Little Oneroa (69%), and Matiatia Bay (61%). At least half had visited
Mawhitipana / Palm Beach (58%), Enclosure Bay (55%), and Sandy Bay (50%), and over a
third had visited Whakanewha Regional Park (38%), Kennedy Point (36%), Man o War Bay
(36%), Rocky Bay / Omiha Bay (36%), Sufdale (35%), and Blackpool (35%).
26