Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for Auckland ... - … · Landscapes, Photography of All Landscape Types, Identification of Natural Character Indicators Stage 2 Public Perceptions

Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment

for Auckland Regional Council

Comprising:

Stage 1 Identification of a Representative Sample of Regional

Landscapes, Photography of All Landscape Types, Identification of Natural Character Indicators

Stage 2

Public Perceptions of Outstanding Natural Landscapes in the Auckland Region

Stage 3

Delineation of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes of the Region

John R Fairweather AERU, Lincoln University

and

Simon R Swaffield

Environment Society and Design Division, Lincoln University

In association with Boffa Miskell and Stephen Brown Landscape Architects

Compiled July 2006

01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 1

Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study Stage 1 Report Project undertaken by: Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture (Stephen Brown) Lincoln University

Environmental Management and Design Division (Simon Swaffield and John Fairweather) Boffa Miskell (John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert)

1.0 Introduction Auckland Regional Council (ARC) has for some time been investigating the best methodological approach in relation to reviewing and updating the original Regional Landscape Assessment completed in 1984 (An Assessment of the Auckland Region’s Landscape, Auckland Regional Authority, Planning Department, 1984). This investigatory phase culminated in a report prepared for the ARC by Stephen Brown (Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture), one of the original authors of the 1984 study, entitled ‘Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment, Assessment Methodology Report’, March 2002. This document has formed the basis of a brief to consultants extended by the ARC in March of this year (2002). A consortium of established landscape practitioners in the field of landscape assessment (Stephen Brown of Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture, Simon Swaffield and John Fairweather of Lincoln University and John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert of Boffa Miskell) jointly tendered for this project and were awarded the contract. To date the first Stage of this review project, the Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study (ARLAS) has been undertaken, this report documents the progress of Stage 1, its methodology, process and outputs. 2.0 The Brief The 1984 Regional Landscape Assessment, as one of the first comprehensive landscape resource evaluation projects in New Zealand, adopted a ‘public preference’ rather than ‘expert opinion’ methodology. A key decision for the Regional Landscape Assessment review project was to pursue an updated public preference approach. The Stage 1 brief as established in the Assessment Methodology Report was as follows:


The focus of Stage 1 was therefore to complete the work that would enable Stage 2, the public preference testing stage, to be undertaken. The inclusion of work in relation to the natural character indicators stemmed from work being undertaken by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) ‘Environmental Performance Indicators for Natural Character’ and the ARC’s separate interest in this area. This part of the project has been discrete from the landscape assessment review, the primary objective of which has been the identification of the region’s outstanding natural landscapes (RM Act Section 6(b)).

IDENTIFICATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF REGIONAL LANDSCAPES (preferably no more than 100 ‘landscape types’) – utilising: Field Work The 1984 Regional Landscape Assessment The 1994-5 Regional Coastal Assessments

PHOTOGRAPHY (semi-panoramic or panoramic) – OF ALL LANDSCAPE TYPES

IDENTIFICATION OF NATURAL CHARACTER INDICATORS – that can be used to assess natural character parametrically, e.g. Landform Vegetation cover, particularly indigenous vegetation Other ecological patterns Water bodies Lack of built elements and human influences Ambience (wildness, wilderness, remoteness)

STAGE 1


3.0 Stage 1 Outcomes 3.1 Workshops A number of internal workshops have been held to advance Stage 1 both to agree the detail of the project process and methodology and to clarify the outputs required at each stage, including scoping the work for both Stages 2 and 3. In total 3 workshops were held as follows: Workshop 1 - 3rd May 2002 Workshop 2 - 27th June 2002 Workshop 3 - 4th/5th November 2002. Workshop attendees included Stephen Brown, Simon Swaffield, John Goodwin, Rachel de Lambert and Nikki Le Mesurier (1 & 2 only) from the Project Team; and Louise Gobby, Karen Baverstock (1 & 2 only) and Graeme Campbell (1 only) as client representatives. In addition Allan Rackham from Boffa Miskell Christchurch attended the Natural Character Workshop. A summary of the workshop minutes is appended (Appendix 1). 3.2 Representative Samples of Regional Landscapes The regional landscape types proposed for this study are based on a combination of biophysical and natural character indicators. They are: Coastal; Estuarine / Harbour; Ranges / Hills / Volcanic; Lowlands / Wetlands.

All landscape types have been field surveyed and photographs taken which represent the varied characteristics and qualities in each type. Having taken some 1,500 photographs over a 5 month period, 30 were selected for each landscape type to be used in the next stage of the project, the Q-Sort Interviews and Analysis. This selection was based on the differing landform, vegetation and degree of modification exhibited in each landscape type. The basis for this selection is outlined in Appendix 2. 3.3 Natural Character Indicators The natural character indicators were the focus of discussions at the second Workshop on the 27th of June 2002. A definition of natural character resulting from an extensive consultation process undertaken by MfE is as follows:


Natural character is a term used to describe the naturalness of all coastal environments. The degree or level of natural character within an area depends on: 1. The extent to which natural elements, patterns and processes occur 2. The nature and extent of modifications to the ecosystems and

landscape/seascape The highest degree of natural character (greatest naturalness) occurs where there is least modification. The effect of different types of modification upon the natural character of an area varies with the context, and may be perceived differently by different parts of the community.

Note: This does not include the ecological component of natural character.

Following that workshop and further meetings with the ARC, the following six natural character indicators were agreed: Landform modification; Waterform modification; Indigenous Vegetation cover; Vegetation Pattern; Buildings / Structures; Infrastructure.

These six criteria are listed below with a discussion of their use in the assessment of natural character values. Landform Modification

In most coastal environments in New Zealand there are relatively few modifications to landforms. However, major changes can occur with reclamation, roading, quarrying and mining, in particular. Lesser levels of change may occur through construction of access tracks, drainage works, contouring of sand dunes and hill country, and creating flat building platforms. Modifications of a significant scale are today likely to involve resource consents. Assessed on a scale from totally unmodified to heavily modified. Waterform Modification

Major changes to water bodies such as rivers and wetlands within the coastal environment can occur with artificial control of flow regimes, drainage and channelisation. These criteria apply principally to the land portion of the coastal environment, although outflows of rivers and streams cross the inter-tidal zone across beaches and mudflats. Waterform changes also apply to the ocean where there are modifications to the sea from unnatural causes (e.g. discolouration from sand


dredging, surf waves from artificial reefs). Modifications of a significant scale are likely to involve water permits or other consents. Assessed on a scale from totally unmodified to heavily modified. Indigenous Vegetation Cover

The presence of indigenous vegetation is indicative of a lack of modification. The greater the percentage cover of native vegetation, the higher the degree of naturalness. The presence of other vegetation such as forestry and pasture will result in a more moderate rating for this criterion compared to a highly urbanised area. Assessed on a scale from unmodified original cover to absence of vegetation cover. Vegetation Pattern

This criterion applies to the patterns of vegetation cover. It includes all types of indigenous and exotic vegetation. The key consideration is whether the patterns resulting from different vegetation types appear natural or artificial. This will usually depend on the regularity, linearity or geometry that result from commercial forestry, farming or development. It will also depend on the integration or contrast of these patterns with the underlying landform, e.g. relationship to natural ridge and gully landform. Assessed from highly natural patterns to least natural patterns. Buildings and Structures

This criterion includes all buildings and any separate structures, e.g. telecommunication towers. It excludes linear structures such as transmission lines which are included as infrastructure. The number, density, scale and location of buildings/structures will influence the degree to which this criterion will affect natural character. These modifications will normally require resource consents unless they are of a small scale. Assessed on a scale from no structures to an artificial built environment.

Infrastructure

This criterion includes linear features such as roads, tracks and paths, transmission towers/poles, lines and fences. Their number, density, scale and location will influence the degree to which this criterion will affect natural character. Unless they are major elements, e.g. transmission lines, many of these modifications may not require resource consent. Assessed on a scale from no structures to an artificial built environment. It was also agreed that these indicators would be applied to four zones within the coastal environment: Sub-tidal;

Intertidal;

Coastal Dominance;

Coastal Influence.


Having agreed the indicators, for natural character and the delineation of the coastal environment, this part of the first stage of the ARLS project was complete. 4.0 Stage 2 Stage 2 of the project involves: (i) A Q-Sort survey of sample audiences within the general community of the

Auckland Region, key interest groups, and resource managers and politicians to test their response to the characteristics and qualities within differing landscape types.

(ii) An analysis of the responses to determine which characteristics and qualities

can be applied to identify outstanding and iconic landscapes in the Auckland Region.

A methodology for this stage is outlined in Appendix 3. Following the third workshop the questionnaire to be used in the Q-Sort interview and the recording sheet were developed. They are attached in Appendix 4. In order to assist with determining the Iconic Landscapes throughout the Auckland Region it was agreed that a research brief should be prepared to review literature and the arts to provide a further level of knowledge in relation to outstanding landscapes. This brief is attached as Appendix 5. Stage 2 is programmed to run from November 2002 to March 2003. An outline of the programme for this work is attached as Appendix 6.

Marine Coastal Dominance

Coastal Influence

COASTAL ENVIRONMENT HINTERLAND CATCHMENT

Inte

rtida

l

01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A1

Appendix 1 : Workshops Workshop 1 : 3rd May 2002 A summary of the conclusions resulting from the first workshop is as follows: 1. Purpose The purpose of the workshop was to: (i) confirm/refine the methodology / process to be used for the Regional

Landscape Assessment;

(ii) present and discuss the proposed refined methodology with ARC representatives.

2. Outcomes Agreed outcomes from this workshop were:

Rather than using the existing landscape units derived in the 1984 study (as the boundaries on these may no longer be valid and many units replicated landscape of the same ‘generic type’) it was therefore agreed that broad landscape types would be utilised based on a combination of biophysical and natural character indicators.

The public perception of landscape would be derived from a Q-Sort process utilising photographs representative of the different landscape types.

This process would be used to draw out and determine what characteristics and qualities the public considers to be present in outstanding natural landscapes.

Once this is determined the characteristics and qualities can be applied as relevant across the region and outstanding natural landscapes within the Auckland Region determined.

Landscape types proposed: Coastal Estuarine / Harbour Ranges / Hills / Volcanic Lowlands / Wetlands

In order to achieve a managable Q-Sort approximately 30 images will be used per landscape type.

Q-Sort questions will be along the lines of: a) Order these images in terms of ‘Outstanding’. b) Where do you draw the line in terms of ‘Outstanding Natural

Landscapes’? c) What are the qualities that make it ‘Outstanding’? d) What sort of changes would degrade that landscape?

Agreed to do both intercept interviews, i.e. people in the street, and key informant interviews, e.g. ARC personnel, TLA’s, schools, politicians etc.


3. Imagery Documentation Photos to be taken using a 35mm-70mm lens range.

Sky to be a neutral backdrop and as similar as possible for all images.

Tide to be similar for all images – mid-tide.

Lighting to be similar, generally 10 am – 2 pm. Workshop 2 : 27th June 2002 1. Purpose (i) To update on field work progress in relation to completing the

photography. (ii) Update the project team on the MFE EPI work in relation to Natural

Character. (iii) To agree what indicators should be used for determining natural

character in the Auckland Region. (iv) To review this with the ARC. 2. Outcomes Agreed outcomes from this workshop were:

Provide a camera dedicated to this study and guarantee availability of a vehicle for field work to make the most of weather and tide opportunities.

Extend the time frame to enable the photography to be completed

during improved weather conditions.

Natural character is a subset of landscape character.

An overall scale from Endemic (Highly Natural) to Non-Endemic

(Highly Modified) was agreed.

It is highly likely that Regional Councils will want to be more refined than MfE.

In terms of an overall 1 to 10 scale the Auckland Region’s natural

character is likely to range from 3 to 10, therefore the areas of high natural character in a Regional context may not register on a national inventory.

A range of environments to consider natural character within was put

forward – Wilderness – Working – Urban.

The extent of the coastal environment needs to be delineated, e.g. water/land/water interface hydrological catchment.


The main focus of the EPI is on:

What have we got? Where is it located? How is it changing?

with MfE’s emphasis on the what and were (in relation to preservation

of natural character) and Regional Councils’ on the how (in relation to protection from inappropriate subdivision; use and development) Section 6(a) RM Act.

The following table outlines the range of indicators generally agreed at

the workshop.

ELEMENTS PATTERNS PROCESS

LAND Modifications to landform (Resource Consent)

ABIOTIC

WATER

Degradation of water quality (Sedimentation/ faecal coliforms )

IND VEGE

Clearance (change in % of cover)

Fragmentation (Land cover data base) Regeneration

EXOTIC VEGE

Homogeneity (LCDB)

Geometry (Linearity) (Visual survey and aerial photos)

BIOTIC

WILDLIFE

(Infra) STRUCTURE

Presence (building consent) (Aerial photos)

Location Density (amount) Contrast? (Visual survey, aerial photos)

A possible outcome was for the MfE and Regional Councils (ARC) to

undertake a common description / measurement of the natural character in a Region as a baseline. MfE would utilise this information as a basis to monitor how natural character is changing, whereas the Regional Councils would focus on the significance of the natural character baseline data and how to utilise it to determine what is appropriate – objectives, policies etc.


Workshop 3 : 4th/5th November 1. Purpose/Agenda 1. To confirm the photographs chosen for the various landscape types. 2. Review and amend questions for interviews. 3. Discuss the Key Informants and their number from each organisation. 4. Determine the intercept locations and the method. 5. Review the programme. 6. Discuss the issue of establishing Iconic Landscapes. 7. Review the criteria for determining the Landscape Types. 2. Agreed Outcomes

Need to cover the issue of iconic landscapes by way of a literature / photograph / poetry /painting search.

3 sets of photos required for each of the 4 landscape types (i.e. 120 photos) laminated and referenced.

Agreed that we need to have a 5th set of photographs copied and laminated (i.e. 30 photos) from a combination of the 4 landscape types i.e. between 7 and 8 photos from each.

Agreed to use caravan for intercept interviews.

Agreed to get assistance for Researcher in the field.

Documented criteria for choosing photos.

Agreed study excludes urban and suburban areas.

Agreed to run Q-Sort interviews at NZILA evening.

Agreed John G and Louise to determine key informants. Includes: ARC - all 13 councillors invited

- key staff. All other 7 TLA’s to have 3 key informants, e.g. chair of

Planning Committee, Senior Policy Planner, Senior Consents Planner.

Iwi Representation Other key stakeholders - DOC

- MFE - Forest & Bird


- EDS Interest Groups, e.g. - Federated Farmers

- NZ Forest Owners Assn - Small Farmers - Farm Forestry - Property Council - Fish & Game - Outdoor Boating Association

Others - NZ Herald - Metro - Adventure Group - Asian/Polynesian Community Representative

Need to develop a Health and Safety Plan for Intercept Interviews.

Replace the Objectives and Policies component of Stage 3 with the Iconic Landscapes brief.


Appendix 2 Selection of representative photos – 30 Coastal Landform/topography Beach type Vegetation Modification

Defined high coastal escarpment Rocky shear Intact native

vegetation No built development

Low escarpment Rocky Mixed native/exotic Infrastructure roads/ powerlines

Dunes Boulders Exotic vegetation Scattered houses

Hills / rolling land Shingle Forestry Urban background

Lowland White sand Pasture Prominent urban

Expansive bays and headlands Black sand Intensive land uses

Selection of representative photos – 30 Hill Country / ranges Landform/topography Vegetation Modification

Water bodies Intact native vegetation No built development

Ranges Mixed native/exotic Fencelines

Steep hills Exotic Infrastructure / roads, tracks/powerlines

Strongly rolling Remnant native pocket Sheds/rural buildings

Gently rolling Native remnant trees Individual farm houses

Enclosed Forestry Scattered low density houses

Expansive Poor pasture Rural residential

Good pasture Horticulture – glass houses

Orchard

Horticulture


Selection of representative photos – 30 Lowland / Wetland Landform/topography Vegetation Modification

Saltwater wetland Intact native vegetation No built development

Freshwater wetland Mixed native/exotic Fencelines

Dune impounded lakes Exotic Infrastructure / roads, tracks/powerlines

Duneland, low lying plains Remnant native pocket Sheds / rural buildings

Plains Native remnant trees Individual farm houses

Low rolling lands Forestry Scattered low density houses

Expansive Poor pasture Rural residential

More enclosed Good pasture Horticulture – glass houses

Wetland salt/freshwater

Horticulture

Selection of representative photos – 30 Estuarine / Harbour Landform/topography Beach type Vegetation Modification

High escarpment Rocky Mangrove No built development

Low escarpment Rock platforms Intact native Infrastructure roads/powerlines

Hills rolling Boulders Mixed exotic Scattered houses (low density)

Lowland Shingle Forestry Urban background

Open harbour Sandy Pasture Prominent urban

Estuarine Mudflats Intensive land uses Port

River mouth

Expansive bays and headlands


Appendix 3 Stage 2 : Methodology for Q Sort Survey and Analysis Method The survey and analysis has five stages: preparation, respondent interviews, data entry and numerical analysis, summary interpretation, synthesis and report. Step 1 Preparation The preparation phase involves production of postcard size photographic prints, which are laminated to reduce wear and tear, and randomly numbered. Each Q sort will require 3 complete sets, to allow for an office reference set, a field work set, and a field back up set. Hence there will be 90 cards for each Q sort, and 450 in total. The field interviewer will also require prepared response sheets, with pre-printed boxes to record the distribution of photo numbers, and sections in which comments, responses to supplementary questions, and biographical data can be recorded. Before commencing the survey, an initial list of key informants will be drawn up, in consultation with the client and project team, and sites identified for the intercept surveys. The field researcher will also need to become familiar with the interview process. The first part of the field interviews are normally undertaken in the form of a pilot survey, in which the project leader trains the field researcher, whilst also trialling the selected Q sorts. For this reason, it is sensible to initially prepare only one set of cards, and to prepare the second and third sets once the selection has been confirmed in the pilot survey. Hence the preparation and interview phases overlap to some degree. Step 2 Interviews Q Sort requires respondents to sort photos into a sequence of piles. In this study the sorting will be based upon the instruction: “Please sort the different types of landscape shown in the photographs into a sequence from those which are most ‘outstanding’ to those which are least ‘outstanding’”. There will be a specified number of piles, and a specified number of photos allowed in each pile, with fewer allowed in the extremes of the range. The exact configuration of each Q sort will be determined after the photographic field work has been completed and the representative landscapes selected. During the sorting process, the interviewer encourages the respondent to comment upon the different landscape types shown in the photos, and upon why they are being placed in the chosen location. When the sort is complete, the interviewer will note the reference numbers of the photos placed in each pile, and the respondent will be asked several supplementary questions (in this case: where do you draw the line in terms of what types of landscape are clearly outstanding and what are just good? What are the qualities that make the chosen landscape types outstanding? What are the sort of changes that would be inappropriate in this type of landscape, and that would reduce the qualities that make it outstanding?). Finally, basic biographical details are noted.


An experienced interviewer will be able to complete around 4 key informant interviews for which appointments have to be made in a day, and 10 intercept surveys in a public place. In planning the survey, it is necessary to decide upon the sampling approach for respondents. Q sort analysis does not require a random sample. It is more typical to undertake a ‘theoretical’ sample, which seeks interviews with key informants from a range of relevant stakeholder groups. However, in a diverse community it is also desirable to seek a stratified sample of representatives from different parts of the community who may not be seen as formal stakeholders. For the Auckland regional survey, both key informants and public intercept surveys are proposed. In estimating the time required, the critical variables are the number of survey interviews to be undertaken in total, and whether they are key informants or intercept surveys. There are two influences on total sample size: analysis, and representativeness. Analytically, for a single Q sort, Simon’s research has found that the factors stabilise (i.e. the addition of further responses makes little if any difference to a factor array) by the time there are 12 people loading on a factor. However, not all respondents load significantly onto a factor; a typical multi- factor solution may incorporate 60-70% of all respondents (the remainder produced highly individual responses). Hence, a three factor Q sort will need between 60-70 respondents to be confident that the results have identified a robust set of factors. In this survey, we plan 5 different Q sorts, based on the generic landscape types present in the region. At this stage we have no idea whether there will be 1, 2, 3 or even 4 factors for each of these types. We must therefore plan for at least 5 x 4 factor Q sorts, which suggests a sample of 350. This would ensure that the factors were stable. The other influence is the need for credibility in terms of the representativeness of the respondents, in relation to the regional communities. Q sort identifies ways of valuing landscapes that are present in the community from which the respondents are drawn. It does not predict the values that characterise the population as a whole. In a survey of this sort, it is important that respondents are drawn from all sectors of the regional community. This community is very diverse: geographically, ethnically and culturally, and socially. We propose to undertake key informant surveys which draw upon people from the main stakeholder and ethnic groups in the region. To complement this we propose intercept surveys in a public space in each of the Districts of the region. In a smaller more homogenous community Simon has found 50-60 key informants provides a good representative range. Here we propose 150 region wide. For the intercepts, we propose 5 x 50 (hence allowing for the possibility of district specific factors). This would come to 400 in total, which comfortably covers the analytical requirements in terms of different landscape types. Each location in the intercept survey would include a mix of landscape types. A similar mix will be used for the key informants, but there may also be opportunity for individual informants to undertake more than one Q sort, if they are willing. This will further increase the strength of the results.


Step 3 Data Analysis Once the surveys have been completed in the field, the numerical distributions are entered into the software package, and the relevant comments transcribed into notes for each respondent. The analysis is undertaken in two steps: first, a numerical varimax factor analysis which identifies the factor arrays (i.e. typical distributions) that provide the best statistical explanation of the overall results. Second, a qualitative analysis of the factors that have been identified, based upon the content of the photographs, and the comments made upon them. Numerical and qualitative content analysis of the recorded comments on thresholds, qualities and change will also be needed. Step 4 Summary Interpretation Finally a factor interpretation is prepared that draws together the data into a written account of the factors, summarising the survey respondents’ views on which landscape types are clearly outstanding, why, and how they are vunerable. This final interpretation may find that there is more than one factor for each Q sort (i.e. there are two or more ways in which respondents have evaluated the landscape type). In this case, the analysis also identifies how these factors differ, and where they have commonalities. The basic Q sort analysis will not compare the findings for the different landscape types. This will need to be incorporated into the synthesis and reporting stage of Stage 2. Step 5 Synthesis and Report A synthesis of the above material into a report. Output The output from the Q sort survey will be an in-house report that includes: tabular summaries of the factor arrays for each of the 5 Q Sorts;

graphic illustrations of the photographs in each factor array, arranged in the distribution identified by the factor (one A4 sheet per factor);

a written characterisation of each factor, including selected quotes from respondents that illustrate its main features;

identification of commonalities and key differences between the factors in each Q sort;

tabular summaries of the responses to the supplementary questions; and,

a summary tabular analysis of the biographical characteristics of the respondents who load upon each factor.

Additional Surveys There are additional survey opportunities to increase public awareness of the overall assessment. It would be a relatively simple task for the ARC public relations team to prepare a package for distribution to schools and/or councillors based upon the Q sort


survey, which enabled geography teachers to undertake the survey in their classes. This would significantly enhance the public profile of the survey, whilst engaging future generations in the task. A summary response form could enable the numerical data to be returned. Additional time would need to be budgeted to analyse this data. A second opportunity would be to prepare a web based survey based upon the basic Q sort, which enabled on-line responses. There is precedent for this approach in the US.

Inte

rcep

t & K

ey In

form

ant I

nter

view

0126

8-01

4 rdl

29-1

0-02

rdl

Stag

e 1 R

epor

t P

age 1

2

App

endi

x 4

Q-S

ort I

nter

view

and

Rec

ordi

ng S

heet

s

PREF

AC

E

The

purp

ose

of th

e ex

erci

se is

to id

entif

y th

e ou

tsta

ndin

g na

tura

l lan

dsca

pes

of th

e Au

ckla

nd R

egio

n.

Out

stan

ding

nat

ural

land

scap

es s

houl

d be

reas

onab

ly s

elf a

ppar

ent a

nd re

flect

val

ues

held

by

the

com

mun

ity a

t la

rge.

Q

UES

TIO

NS

1.

Ple

ase

orde

r the

se p

hoto

grap

hs fr

om th

ose

whi

ch re

pres

ent t

he m

ost o

utst

andi

ng n

atur

al la

ndsc

apes

to th

ose

that

leas

t fit

this

des

crip

tion.

2.

P

leas

e id

entif

y th

ose

land

scap

es w

hich

you

rega

rd a

s tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng.

(C

hoos

e as

man

y or

as

few

as

you

like)

3.

W

hat a

re th

e ch

arac

teris

tics

/ qua

litie

s th

at m

ake

thes

e la

ndsc

apes

trul

y ou

tsta

ndin

g?

4.

Wha

t cha

nges

or m

odifi

catio

n w

ould

deg

rade

thes

e ou

tsta

ndin

g na

tura

l lan

dsca

pes?

Intercept & Key Informant Interview


RESPONDENTS DETAILS Please could you provide the following information: Gender Male

Female

Age Under 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Over 60

Ethnicity European NZ Maori Polynesian Asian Other Occupation: __________________________________

Where Do You Live? ___________________________

(Suburb/Town/Area)

How Long Have You Lived in the Auckland Region? ________ NOTE:

This information will only be used for Analysis.

You will not be identified individually.

Inte

rcep

t & K

ey In

form

ant I

nter

view

0126

8-01

4 rdl

29-1

0-02

rdl

Stag

e 1 R

epor

t P

age 1

4

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

NO

. S

OR

T C

oast

Est

uary

H

ill

Lo

wla

nd

C

ombi

ned

MO

ST

LEA

ST

OPT

ION

A

Inte

rcep

t & K

ey In

form

ant I

nter

view

0126

8-01

4 rdl

29-1

0-02

rdl

Stag

e 1 R

epor

t P

age 1

5

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

NO

.

S

OR

T C

oast

E

stua

ry

H

ill

Low

land

C

ombi

ned

14

43

34

23

12

OPT

ION

B


Appendix 5 Iconic Landscapes : Research Brief Background The purpose of the Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study (ARLAS) is to identify the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region. It will address the requirements of the RMA Section 6(b). The main part of the study comprises a Q Sort survey of public and key informant views. This needs to be complemented by a summary review of ‘iconic’ landscapes that feature within literature and the arts. This brief describes the requirements of this survey review. Aim To determine landscapes within the Auckland Region that have been recognised within literature and the arts as being particularly notable for their natural qualities and that may be described as ‘outstanding’. Scope The review is to include relevant landscape references in recognised literature – both prose and poetry, in painting and sculpture, music, photography when it has been acknowledged as being a significant example of cultural values, and related types of cultural production. The review should identify: Location Date and author / artist Particular landscape qualities highlighted in the work.

The survey should include both urban and rural locations, provided they can be described as ‘outstanding’ and ‘natural’ (e.g. including the volcanic cones). Selection The study should focus upon secondary sources as much as possible – anthologies, exhibition / collection catalogues, song books / record catalogues etc. There is no limit upon time span: the inventory can include pre-European landscapes identified in published Maori historical sources, early settlers’ accounts, colonial and Victorian accounts, and 20th century sources. Programme Allow 10-12 days for primary research, and 5 days to draft a summary report. Total 17 days. Output A draft report that includes: Inventory of landscapes that have been recognised as outstanding; Description of location, plotted on a map of the region;


Selected examples of prose or poetry which distil the particular qualities of well recognised landscapes (might include music titles, words of songs, etc).

Report Format Written description of key iconic landscapes, incorporating illustrative quotes etc, tabular inventory of locations and scenes, reference map. Summary The key requirement is to identify well recognised ‘iconic’ landscapes, and to provide some compelling and evocative evidence of their claim to be outstanding. Reporting To John Goodwin. Completion Date End January 2003.


Appendix 6 Work Programme

Stage 2 – Q-Sort Survey and Analysis

2.1 Preparation 4 Nov Nov 22

2.1.1 Preparation of 1 set of prints 4 Nov 11 Nov

2.1.2 Preparation of Response Sheets 4 Nov 11 Nov

2.1.3 Undertake Pilot Survey 11 Nov 15 Nov

2.1.4 Identify Sites for Intercept Survey 11 Nov 15 Nov

2.1.5 Identify key Informants 11 Nov 15 Nov

2.1.6 Produce 2 additional sets of photos 18 Nov 22 Nov

2.1.7 Organise key informant Interview dates 18 Nov 22 Nov

2.1.8 Review with client 18 Nov 22 Nov

2.2 Survey 25 Nov 31 Jan

2.2.1 Undertake initial key informant interviews (40) 25 Nov 13 Dec

2.2.2 Undertake initial intercept interviews (60) 25 Nov 13 Dec

2.2.3 Preliminary Analysis 16 Dec 20 Dec

2.2.4 Complete key informant interviews (max 150) 6 Jan Jan

2.2.5 Complete Intercept interviews (max 250) 6 Jan 31 Jan

2.3 Data Entry & Analysis/Interpretation 3 Feb 7 March

2.3.1 Data Entry 3 Feb 7 Feb

2.3.2 Analysis 10 Feb 13 Feb

2.3.3 Factor Interpretation 16 Feb 28 Feb

2.3.4 Summary Interpretation 3 March 7 March

2.3.5 Review with client 3 March 7 March

2.4 Reporting 3 March 28 March

2.4.1 Draft Report 3 March 14 March

2.4.2 Client Review 17 March 21 March

2.4.3 Final Report 24 March 28 March

1

Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for

Auckland Regional Council

Stage Two

Public Perceptions of Outstanding Natural Landscapes in the Auckland Region

John R Fairweather AERU, Lincoln University

and

Simon R Swaffield

Environment Society and Design Division, Lincoln University

In association with Boffa Miskell Limited and Stephen Brown Landscape Architects

May, 2003

Ph.: O3 325-2811

Emails: [email protected] [email protected]

2

Contents

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... 5 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH................................ 7 CHAPTER 2 USE OF Q METHOD WITH PHOTOGRAPHS......................................................... 9

2.1 Q Method .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Photograph Selection ................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Conduct of the Interviews......................................................................................... 10 2.4 Sample Size and Characteristics ............................................................................... 11 2.5 Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS............................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Factor Analysis Results............................................................................................. 13 3.2 The Number of “Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes” ....................................... 14 3.3 Factor Description for each Land Type Q Sort......................................................... 15

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 50 4.1 Distinctive Viewpoints.............................................................................................. 50 4.2 Consistency between Factors on a Particular Land Type. ........................................ 50 4.3 Summary of Viewpoints of ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ ..................... 50 4.4 Consistencies across Different Land Types: Wild Nature and Cultured Nature ...... 51 4.5 Relationship to Previous Studies .............................................................................. 52 4.6 Implications for Stage 3 of the Project ..................................................................... 53 4.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 53

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX 1 COMMENTS ON PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................... 56 APPENDIX 2 Q SORT RECORDING SHEET............................................................................... 83 APPENDIX 3 FACTORS BY ETHNICITY FOR EACH LANDFORM QSORT................................... 85 APPENDIX 4 LOCATIONS OF PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................... 86

3

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample............................................................... 12 Table 2: Core Results for each Landform................................................................................. 13 Table 3: Thresholds for ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ (Average for all respondents

in each Factor.................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Sum of Scores for Each Landform in the Combined Q sort....................................... 47

4

List of Figures Figure 1 Coastal Factor 1.......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2 Coastal Factor 2.......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Coastal Land Type ............................................ 22 Figure 4 Estuary and Harbour Factor 1..................................................................................... 24 Figure 5 Estuary and Harbour Factor 2..................................................................................... 26 Figure 6 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Estuary and Harbour Land Type ....................... 28 Figure 7 Lowlands Factor 1 ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 8 Lowlands Factor 2 ...................................................................................................... 32 Figure 9 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Lowlands Land Type......................................... 34 Figure 10 Hills Factor 1 ............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 11 Hills Factor 2 ............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 12 Hills Factor 3 ............................................................................................................ 40 Figure 13 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Hills Land Type............................................... 42 Figure 14 Combined Factor 1 ................................................................................................... 44 Figure 15 Combined Factor 2 ................................................................................................... 46 Figure 16 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Combined Land Type...................................... 49

5

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the assistance of Auckland Regional Council staff, in particular Louise Gobby, and a number of field workers employed by Boffa Miskel over the course of the project. Rachel de Lambert and John Goodwin of Boffa Miskel and Steven Brown, landscape Architect, contributed the photographs and contributed to the interpretation of the results. Crystal Maslin provided expertise for the illustrations. We also acknowledge the contributions of the respondents to the survey.

6

Summary This research reports on how members of the public and some key informants defined outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland region. A total of 219 respondents completed 229 responses to photographs presented in sets of 30 for coastal, estuary and harbour, lowland, and hills landscapes, plus a combined set with examples from all four types of landscape. Results show that there are two distinctive ways in which the public evaluates the qualities of natural landscapes in the Auckland Region. These are described in the report as ‘factors’ due to the method by which they were derived. The two factors are broadly consistent across the different landscapes in the region and account for a very large proportion of the responses. In the case of hill country landscapes, the evaluation is slightly more complex. Based on these factors, the report identifies the types of landscape that respondents describe as truly outstanding. The first factor characterises outstanding natural landscapes in terms of ‘wild nature’. This factor values natural landscape most highly when there is no evidence of human presence, modification or management. The landscapes that are selected as ‘truly outstanding’ are those which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration. The second factor also values many pristine environments, but in addition evaluates some types of modified environment as being outstanding natural landscapes. This represents a ‘cultured nature’ position in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to be consistent with it being an outstanding natural landscape. The main indicator of this factor is that landscapes which include a picturesque mix of bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on hills and lowlands are highly valued, whilst relatively unmodified salt marsh and wetland are less highly valued (as being unattractive and somewhat inaccessible). Hence for Factor 2 ‘cultured nature’, not all pristine environments are recognised as having potential to be an outstanding natural landscape, whilst some partially modified landscapes are regarded as truly outstanding. When the photographs identified as truly outstanding by each factor in each type of landscape are combined, an overall pattern of public response can be identified, with a reasonably high degree of consensus about the characteristics of landscapes that warrant the designation of being ‘outstanding natural landscapes’. They include pristine and relatively unmodified coastal environments, estuaries and harbours; unmodified wetlands with standing water; lowland bush; and picturesque or open hill country that includes a significant proportion of bush or bush remnants, with minimal presence of human artefacts or buildings.

7

Chapter 1 Introduction: Research Objective and Approach

The Auckland Regional Council has responsibility under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the integrated and sustainable management of natural and physical resources, at a regional scale. The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development, subdivision and use is recognised in Section 6(b) as a matter of national importance. In order to help meet the requirements of Section 6(b), Auckland Regional Council has commissioned a landscape assessment to identify the natural landscapes within the Region which should be recognised as outstanding, and to describe the qualities and attributes that make them outstanding and that may be vulnerable to inappropriate development. Consideration of Section 6(b) matters in the Environment Court in recent years suggests that ‘outstanding’ natural landscapes should be reasonably self evident within the context in which they are being considered. In this report, we present the results of a public survey intended to identify how the Auckland regional community perceives outstanding natural landscapes. The objectives of the report are (1) to document, using a photographic method, how members of the public and some key informants perceive and define outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland Region, and (2) to record the characteristics that they attribute to outstanding natural landscapes. The report is part a wider study, and will provide input into the expert delineation of outstanding natural landscapes at a regional level in Stage 3 of the overall project. Drawing on recent research experience in investigating perception of natural character in New Zealand (Fairweather and Swaffield, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003; Fairweather, 2002; Newton et al., 2002), we apply some well-developed techniques in qualitative research to assess public perception of outstanding natural landscapes. We have found that using photographs is particularly useful in landscape perception work. Photographs allow for the presentation of a variety of landscape settings and qualities in an efficient way, and respondents enjoy commenting on and working with them. The approach we have adopted in assessing outstanding natural landscapes is to use the Q method (Brown, 1980). This method provides stimuli such as photographs to respondents in such a way that they are free to express their own view on the topic of research. Typically, about 20 to 30 photographs are sorted in order from those which the respondent likes, approves or judges to have some quality, such as outstanding natural landscape, to those which they judge to least represent the nominated quality. The photographs are sorted into piles and receive a score corresponding to the pile. The scores are recorded, and quantitative analysis then identifies characteristic and distinctive ways of sorting the photographs, which are common to a number of respondents. These are called factors. While respondents are ordering the photographs, they are also interviewed, and asked to explain why they sort the items in the way that they do. These comments complement the scoring and are a vital way in which the thoughts and feelings of the respondent are recorded. They are used to interpret in detail the factors that are identified in the quantitative analysis. In

8

effect, the Q sort method is a way of using quantitative methods to assess qualitative judgements. Previous research (Fairweather 2002) has demonstrated that when a dozen or more people ‘load’ on a factor, then the factor stabilises, that is, however many more people may be interviewed, it is highly unlikely that the main characteristics of the factor will change. When the analysis has identified one or more stable factors, therefore, we can be confident that these ways of evaluating landscape are present in the wider community. Furthermore, if a consensus emerges across a number of stable factors about the relative value of particular landscapes or attributes, then we can be confident that this evaluation is well grounded in the community. What we cannot do is to predict precisely what proportion of the community will hold any particular view. This does not appear relevant to the requirements of Section 6(b), and has not been pursued in the research.

9

Chapter 2 Use of Q Method with Photographs

2.1 Q Method The Q sort distribution into which the respondent is asked to place the photographs is usually in the shape of the standard ‘bell shaped’ normal distribution (see Appendix 2). As there are only a few available spaces at the extremes of the distribution (i.e., the most or least outstanding), and more in the middle, this process requires the respondent to clearly discriminate between different landscapes, and to focus upon what they regard as an ‘outstanding natural landscape’. In order to undertake the quantitative analysis, scores are assigned to the photographs selected in such a way that the photographs at the two ends of the distribution receive high positive or negative scores, while the photographs towards the middle receive a low score. The middle column of photographs is given a zero score, representing a neutral judgement. The Q sorts are completed by a non-random sample of respondents within the regional population. Samples in Q sort are typically smaller than in public opinion surveys which use random samples, and often include between 20 and 60 people. In this study, for reasons that will become obvious, we have interviewed over 200 respondents. The methodology of Q sort aims to describe the range of distinctive ways (factors) of assessing a landscape within the regional community, as well as identifying where there is overlap or consensus between the factors. As a consequence, sampling is designed to tap into varied viewpoints, so that from a technical perspective, the sample needs to be diverse rather than strictly random or totally representative. Nonetheless, in this study, the sample of respondents does match the overall demographic and ethnic profile of the Auckland region reasonably well. The Q sorts of all respondents are factor analysed, a process by which similar Q sorts are identified statistically. The results are presented in a form that shows a typical Q sort for each factor. This represents the choices of the respondents that contributed to that factor. The purpose of the factor analysis is to identify the main ways that the items are Q sorted within the sample of respondents, and in nearly all studies these are limited in number, typically about one to five. The power of the Q method is that it provides a means to understand the underlying way that people think and feel about outstanding natural landscapes, and identifies distinctive groupings of landscapes that are regarded as outstanding. It is important not to confuse Q method with other studies that aim to make inferences about the views held by the population as a whole about particular landscape attributes (e.g., to determine how important statistically is the presence of water, or bush). For that type of research, the focus is on the quantitative characteristics of a random sample of responses. In Q method, quantitative and interpretive analysis is used to identify the qualitative characteristics of people’s responses. It does not address the question of how these may be distributed among the population.

10

2.2 Photograph Selection The environment in the Auckland region is particularly varied. In order to give respondents a practical sorting task it was necessary to present photographs separately for the different main types of landscape found in the region. The region was therefore divided into four broad categories of landscape, based upon underlying topography and land type: coastal, estuary and harbour, lowlands and hills. This approach has the advantage that it allows respondents to judge the qualities that may make a landscape outstanding against other similar types of landscape, without being unduly influenced by the relative scarcity of the underlying land type at a regional level. It is also important to find out how respondents evaluate contrasting types of landscape relative to each other. A fifth set of photographs was therefore prepared to represent the region as a whole, using some taken from each of the four separate sets. 30 photographs were selected from the separate land types to create a combined set that shows the diversity of landscape characteristics in the region as a whole. Hence, a total of 120 photographs were used to represent the range of landscapes in the Auckland region. The identification and selection of the range of photographs was undertaken by two expert landscape architects based upon the landscape character areas identified in the previous Auckland Regional Landscape Study (Brown, 1984), and upon their knowledge of changes to the landscape since 1984. The approach was to identify different landscape character units within the overall landscape types, and to select the 30 photographs which best represent the range of landscape characteristics of that land type across the region as a whole (The detailed method was described in the Stage 1 report). The survey was limited to non urban landscapes, reflecting the focus upon outstanding natural landscapes. The locations used in the survey, the land type category they were used to represent, and their distinctive characteristics are listed in the Appendices.

2.3 Conduct of the Interviews Intercept interviews were undertaken at ten locations in the main population centres around the Auckland Region during December 2002 and January 2003. These locations were Manukau, Otahuhu, Panmure, New Lynn, Pukekohe, Newmarket, Orewa, Henderson, Remuera, and the offices of the Department of Conservation, the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland City Council. With the help of the Auckland Regional Council, sites were established in public streets, malls etc, where field interviewers could ask people passing by to co-operate and indicate their views on outstanding natural landscapes. At some sites a caravan was used for shelter and to promote the research. Tables and chairs were provided to make the sorting as comfortable as possible. In most cases, interviewers worked in pairs and worked from mid morning until mid or late afternoon. People were generally happy to co-operate when asked, provided they had some time to commit to the sorting process. Q sorts took from 15 to 45 minutes depending on the personality of the respondent and their interest in the subject. Most were completed in 15 to 20 minutes. Each respondent completed a Q sort for either one of the land types, or for the combined Q sort. The allocation of each set of photographs to respondents was random.

11

In addition to the intercept Q sorts, a small number of people with a range of special interests such as councillors, council staff (planners), government agencies (DoC, MfE), an iwi representative, conservation advocate, and developer were invited to act as key informants. Most of the key informants who were available completed two Q sorts and the associated interviews, including one of the land type Q sorts and the combined Q sort. There was a total of ten key informants in the overall sample and they completed a total of 18 Q sorts. For each interview, the 30 photographs from one of the land types were spread out on a table, and the respondent was asked to arrange the photographs into piles, in accordance with the format shown in Appendix 2. The instruction used was: “Please order these photographs from those which represent the most outstanding natural landscapes to those that least fit this description”. The distribution below shows how the Q sort was structured, and the scores assigned to each pile: No. in pile: 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 Score: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Hence, photographs placed at the extreme ends (the most and least outstanding) were more heavily weighted when determining the factors that summarise the responses. Having ordered the photographs to distinguish between the most and least outstanding, respondents were asked to identify the threshold of what they regarded as “truly outstanding”. They were also asked to comment upon the reasons behind their choices by stating the characteristics or qualities that made those landscapes truly outstanding, and were asked about what changes or modifications would either degrade those outstanding landscapes or improve them. These comments were noted on the record sheet.

2.4 Sample Size and Characteristics Interviews were undertaken before and after Christmas 2002, and in the latter stages intercepts were targeted to ensure that the final sample provided a close match to the ethnicity of the overall population distribution for Auckland, as indicated by Statistics New Zealand census data for 2001. A total of 229 Q sorts was obtained from 218 respondents Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the final sample of 229 Q sorts. The table shows that, overall, the final sample is a reasonable match to the regional population. For ethnicity, European New Zealanders and ‘others’ are slightly over represented and Asian, Maori, and Polynesians are slightly under represented. The age groups correspond reasonably well taking into account that the study included only people above school age. The sample has a lower number in the youngest age category and slightly more in all the intermediate categories. Consequently, the sample under-represents those under 20 and slightly over-represents the young adult categories. The number for the average years lived in the Auckland region was 26 and this indicates good familiarity with the Auckland region. The average years lived was similar across all Q sorts. Gender is well matched overall. The combined Q sort had more women than men.

12

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Coast Estuary Lowlands Hills Combined Avg. % Census 01

% Ethnicity European 34 24 24 27 44 31 67 63 Maori 4 4 4 5 6 5 10 11 Polynesian 4 4 4 3 4 4 8 13 Asian 5 4 4 4 5 4 10 13 Other 3 3 0 6 3 7 1

Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 101

Age <20 3 6 6 6 7 6 13 30 20-30 9 10 6 12 15 10 22 15 30-40 11 8 8 5 14 9 20 17 40-50 8 4 5 6 12 7 15 14 50-60 11 6 8 5 9 8 17 11 >60 5 5 6 5 8 6 13 13

Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 100 Average Years Lived In Auckland Region 30 25 25 24 24 26

-

Gender Male 21 22 19 17 22 20 44 48 Female 26 17 20 22 43 26 56 52

Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 100

2.5 Factor Analysis On completion of the fieldwork, all Q sorts were coded and then factor analysed. The analysis used the PQ Method and applied Varimax rotation to identify factors with two or more significant loadings on the unrotated factor matrix (i.e., two or more respondents selected this way of ordering the photographs). (See Brown 1980, Fairweather 2002, Fairweather and Swaffield 2000 for details of factor analysis methods).

13

Chapter 3 Results

3.1 Factor Analysis Results Table 2 shows the core results for all the 229 Q sorts. For each Q sort there were either two or three factors identified (in the case of the Coastal Q sort, factor 3 had some respondents who loading negatively on it and these are considered as an additional factor). Some respondents do not load on any factors and these are known an ‘no loaders’ (NL). For all but three factors there were ten or more significant loaders, that is, respondents whose loading, or degree of association with the factor, was statistically significant. Analysis of previous studies (Fairweather, 2002) has shown that the characteristics of factors stabilise with ten or more significant loaders. Hence, all the factors may be regarded as both distinctive and stable factors, except for Coastal Factor 3 & 4 and Lowlands Factor 3. There were only two respondents loading on each of Coastal Factors 3 & 4, and only three respondents loading onto Lowlands Factor 3. These are therefore much less robust and little significance can be attributed to their detailed configuration.

Table 2: Core Results for each Landform

Land type Factor Total Loading

Usable Loading

Correlation between factors

No. of Q Sorts

1 2 3 4 NL % % 1 & 2 1 & 3 2 & 3 Coastal 47 22 17 (2) (2) 4 43 91 39 83 0.72 0.13 0.1 Estuary 39 21 17 1 38 97 38 97 0.55 Lowlands 39 25 10 (3) 1 38 97 35 90 0.2 0.1 0.6 Hills 39 14 11 10 4 35 90 35 90 0.5 0.6 0.24 Combined 65 42 21 2 63 97 63 97 0.55 Total 229 217 95 210 92 It is notable that, overall, 95 per cent of respondents loaded significantly on a factor. This compares with the more typical statistic of about 70-75 per cent. Hence, these results show that the factors identified account for nearly all the responses. Table 2 shows the total number of respondents loading on the factors for each Q sort and then shows the total usable number loading on each Q sort. Coastal Factors 1 and 2 account for 83 per cent of all responses to that Q sort, Estuary and Harbour Factors 1 and 2 account for 97 per cent, Lowlands Factors 1 and 2 account for 90 per cent, Hills Factors 1, 2 and 3 account for 90 per cent and Combined Factors 1 and 2 account for 97 per cent. These are unusually high loadings for a Q sort survey, and this gives us confidence that the survey has identified key factors which express the prevailing views of the population.

14

Table 3 also shows the correlation coefficients between each factor and this is a measure of the degree of similarity of the factors being compared. Some are quite similar, for example, Coastal Factors 1 and 2, and some are distinct, for example, Lowland Factors 1 and 3. Because of the very high percentage of respondents loading on the main factors, and the very small numbers on the minor factors, the minor factors are not analysed in detail in the following pages. Coastal factor 3 & 4 and Lowland factor 3 are therefore noted but not examined further.

3.2 The Number of “Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes” When they had completed the Q sort, respondents were asked to indicate to the interviewer the place in the distribution that formed a cut off point between those photographs that were truly outstanding natural landscapes and those that were not. The average number of photographs showing a ‘truly outstanding landscape’ was not the same for each land type category or factor. Table 3 shows the data and for the Coastal land type the average was 11 in both factors. For Estuary and Harbour, nine in Factor 1 and seven in Factor 2. In the Lowlands it was ten and nine, Hills ten, eight, and nine respectively, and Combined 12 and 12.

Table 3: Thresholds for ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ (Average for all respondents in each Factor

Landform Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Basis for analysis Coastal 11 11 9 Estuary 9 7 6 Lowland 10 9 9 Hills 10 8 9 9 Combined 12 12 13

The overall average of these data is ten but this clearly disguises some significant variation. Furthermore, the average of all respondents on each factor does not always coincide with a clear threshold between columns, which is practically necessary in order to identify the key photographs for each land type in the factor distributions (the columns in the distribution correspond to 1, 2, 3, 9, and 13, which are the only practical thresholds for analysis). We have therefore taken the cut off point for truly outstanding to include the top nine photographs (4 columns) in coastal, lowlands and hills, top six photographs (3 columns) in estuary and harbour, and top 13 photographs (5 columns) in the combined Q sort. This averaged cut off slightly under-represents the number of landscapes identified as truly outstanding in the coastal and estuary land types, and slightly over-represents the number in the combined Q sort. Nevertheless, it appears to correspond well with identifiable thresholds in landscape characteristics in the land types in question, and is also consistent with the comments and overall characterisation of the factors. In the detailed factor descriptions that follow, we present figures which illustrate both the full distributions of photographs for each factor (from most to least outstanding), and a figure that shows only the ‘truly outstanding’ landscapes in each land type. In the summary of ‘truly

15

outstanding’ landscapes for that landform we have combined the factors on a single page, so that it is possible to identify the consensus landscapes across factors that are ‘truly outstanding’. It is this final set of photographs which provides the main basis for deriving attributes of outstanding landscapes, These can be subsequently applied in field analysis and delineation of landscapes ‘on the ground’.

3.3 Factor Description for each Land Type Q Sort The results are presented in the following order. First, we provide a verbal description of the photographs identified as representing the truly outstanding natural landscapes for each land type, as well as the bottom six photographs, which are clearly the inverse, i.e., not outstanding or natural. This provides an introductory objective account of the results. Second, the photographs for each factor are presented as a figure that shows the Q sort distribution of the factor, with a colour coding system to indicate some additional information about the factor. Note that the single photograph rated by the factor as most outstanding natural landscape is offset to fit the page. Third, the verbatim comments by respondents on the photographs, which are reported in Appendix 1, are collated into a summary of key themes. The comments are grouped into three categories: elements, characteristics and feelings. In some cases these distinctions overlap. Attention was given to comments about the most outstanding natural landscapes and the least outstanding natural landscapes rather than the comments about what would degrade or improve the landscape in the photograph. These latter comments often repeated what had already been recorded. Finally, the photographs identified as truly outstanding in each of the land types are presented, with a summary account of their qualities. For each land type we present a single figure which includes all the photographs identified as truly outstanding natural landscapes by all the factors in that land type. The top of the figure shows the landscapes regarded as truly outstanding by all the factors on that land type, and the bottom of the figure shows the landscapes identified as truly outstanding by each factor where they are distinctive. In the figures for the individual factors the following colour coding conventions apply. A photograph whose location in a factor distribution is statistically significantly different to its location in other factor distributions in that land type is identified with a red background. This indicates that the evaluation of these photographs by respondents is particularly distinctive to the factor in question. It will be rated much higher or lower than in other factors, and this alerts us to the probability that there is something about the landscape being portrayed in the photograph which is critical to the overall factor evaluation. For the Q sorts with three factors it is also possible to identify those photographs that have a different score across the three factors (that is they are located in a different column in each factor), but which are not statistically significant in the overall factor analysis. These photographs are identified with a yellow background. This indicates that the photograph shifts location in different factors by several columns. Its attributes are not likely to be critical to the characterisation of the overall factor, but may certainly be indicative of the distinctive values of that factor, and may be sufficient to include or exclude a photograph from the ‘truly outstanding’ part of the distribution.

16

There are also consensus photographs upon which all the respondents undertaking Q sorts in a particular land type agree. They are identified by a black hatched background. This indicates the photograph is placed in the same place in all the factor distributions for that land type. If this is within the ‘truly outstanding’ part of the distribution, then the landscape attributes and qualities expressed in the photograph are clearly regarded as outstanding by all factors. The unmarked (i.e., white edged) photographs are those whose evaluation is not critical or distinctive to a particular factor, nor entirely consensus. They may for example shift between two adjacent columns in the different factors in a particular Q sort. Finally, a heavy black line indicates the threshold for landscapes identified as “truly outstanding” in the Q sort, as discussed above. Landscapes above that line are identified in that factor as truly outstanding natural landscapes. These are the types of landscapes that appear to warrant consideration for protection under section 6 (b) of the RMA and are combined in the ‘Truly Outstanding Landscape’ figures for each factor. However it is also important to note that in some land types, public perceptions of what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape are not entirely consistent with Environment Court determinations of what constitutes ‘natural’. This issue is discussed in the concluding section, and will need to be addressed in Stage 3.

17

Coastal Factor One (See figure 1) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Clean, open, wide, sandy beaches backed by cliffs and/or rocky shoreline, generally accessible; adjoining land is covered by bush, grass/scrub (not pasture) with minimal evidence of human habitation or artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Beaches or rocky shoreline with buildings to edge of land and/or coastal structures and defences. Key Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Natural beauty.

Native vegetation. Natural processes, forms. Steep and rugged. Variety.

Residential development, roads, housing. Exotic vegetation. Power lines. Unnatural structures, hard surfaces. Development too close to shore. Human intervention. Removal of vegetation.

Character Untouched, uncorrupted by man, no man made development. Clean, unpolluted, clean water. Remoteness, openness. Grandeur, spectacular.

Intensive recreation. Commerce. Modified by coastal defences.

Feelings Excitement, drama Refreshing. Pleasant place.

Figure 1 Coastal Factor 1

18

19

Coastal Factor Two (see Figure 2) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Clean, open beaches backed by dune systems, or backed by cliffs or rocky shorelines. Adjoining land covered by pasture with some native trees and bush, and minimal evidence of human artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Largely the same as Factor 1. Buildings adjoining either sandy beaches or rocky shores. Key Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Natural.

No buildings, people, houses. White sand. Dune grass (for protection). Good vegetation growth. Clear water, dynamic water. Natural vegetation.

Development. Houses too close. Power lines. Urbanisation. Too many elements. Lack vegetation.

Character Rugged (slightly) steep. Untouched, quiet. Colours, textures. Distinctive. Uninhabited. Diversity. Integration of houses. Easy access.

Artificial. Not distinctive. Untidy, scrappy. Not permanent. Contrived. Populated.

Feelings Free to roam. Nice to visit. Peaceful, serene. Dramatic atmosphere. Summer holidays.

Difficult to walk, poor access.

Figure 2 Coastal Factor 2

20

21

Summary for the Coast Q Sort Factors Factors 1 and 2 are similar with a correlation of 0.72. They are similar in that they both identify undeveloped coastline with beaches and or cliffs and rocks as representing outstanding natural landscapes. They identify developed coastline as representing least outstanding natural landscapes. The photographs indicate that factor 1 prefers darker sand beaches as found on the West Coast, while factor 2 prefers white sand beaches with marram grass as found on the East Coast. (Photographs 3, 6 and 21 showing these sandy beaches are nearer to neutral for factor 1). Factor 1 dislikes photographs 11, 16 and 22 all showing rocky beaches with some houses, and these are rated lower than in Factor 2. Factor 2 accepts a greater degree of human intervention into the outstanding natural landscape, for example as pasture and marram grass, but not prominent or visible houses. The comments in both factors emphasise pure nature but there is slightly more emphasis on this by factor 1, who made reference to attributes such as ‘untouched’, ‘uncorrupted by man’ etc. and made more frequent reference to native vegetation. Generally, both factors see man made intervention as an indication that the qualities that make an outstanding natural landscapes have been compromised. The Coastal ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 3. The key qualities may be summarised as: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief, with bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting.

22

Figure 3 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Coastal Land Type

Factor 1 Factor 2

23

Estuary and Harbour Factor 1 (see Figure 4) Top 6 “Truly Outstanding”: A range of undeveloped shorelines, including beaches and dunes, salt marsh, and rocky shoreline backed by low hills. The presence of remnant or regenerating bush and mangrove, tall trees and shrubs with some pasture. An undeveloped land edge. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Hard edges, built structures. Mudflats. Houses to water edge or buildings over water. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Regenerating bush, re-growth,

Indigenous vegetation. No development, houses etc, not artificial things, few people. Clear water. Abundant vegetation. Good habitat. Combination of vegetation, Complexity of environment.

Too much activity. Pollution. Houses, power cables. Inappropriate development, development. Altered, artificial, man made. Any construction.

Character Beautiful. Quiet. Clean and green, healthy, clean and tidy. Natural Distinctive.

Destroyed habitat. Not peaceful. Dirty.

Feelings Appealing to be in., Peaceful, good vibes. Identity as Kiwi. Remote.

Figure 4 Estuary and Harbour Factor 1

24

25

Estuary and Harbour Factor 2 (see Figure 5) Top 6 “Truly Outstanding”: Undeveloped shorelines, including beaches and dunes backed by low hills. The presence of remnant or regenerating bush, tall trees and shrubs with some pasture. An undeveloped land edge, with only minimal evidence of human presence. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding: Mangrove, mudflats. Rocky shore. Poor access. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Sandy shores.

(Lack of buildings, structures). More natural, not interfered with, natural look. Combinations of vegetation and water. Shades of green, colour contrasts.

Houses too close to shore. Unnatural, man made structures. Development (rock, buildings, factories, houses). Sludgy, muddy. Factories leading to pollution. Dirty. Mangroves.

Character Typical of New Zealand. Serene and peaceful. Variety of elements. Brighter photographs. Clean and tidy.

Dull looking. Rocks unpleasant to walk on.

Feelings Isolation. Enjoyable to visit.

Figure 5 Estuary and Harbour Factor 2

26

27

Summary for the Estuary and Harbour Q Sort The Estuary and Harbour Q sort has two distinct factors with a correlation of only 0.55. However, they have some similarities in what they identify as outstanding natural landscapes. Both factors agree that photograph 22 (showing low hills, bush and pasture) best represents outstanding natural landscapes, and both give similar scores to 26 and 8 which are consensus photographs (showing beach backed by dunes and tall vegetation). In all, they share five of the top six photographs. These photographs show variety of settings, native and exotic vegetation, sand and some pasture. There is a distant view of boats in one highlighted photograph. The main difference between the factors at the upper end is that Factor 1 includes salt marsh backed by taller vegetation as truly outstanding, whereas Factor 2 omits salt marsh. Factor 2 also includes more developed shoreline higher up its Q sort distribution than does Factor 1. Greater contrast occurs at the other end of the array of photographs. Factor 1 rates hard edged shoreline and built structures as very low in terms of outstanding natural landscapes while Factor 2 downgrades mangroves and mudflats but is more neutral about developed shoreline. The comments show both factors emphasise lack of man made structures and the clean, green, tidy characteristics. Their comments on the least outstanding natural landscapes show that factor 1 emphasises development but factor 2 emphasises apparently dirty mangroves and tidal march flats. The commonalties among the two factors are photographs 22, 26 and 8. These show well-vegetated land in an apparently undisturbed state. The Harbour and Estuary ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 6. They may be summarised as: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting.

28

Figure 6 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Estuary and Harbour Land Type

Factor 1 Factor 2

29

Lowlands Factor 1 (see figure 7) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Shows wetland, with open water and no evidence of human artefacts but includes some pasture-covered hills and some bush remnants. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Improved pasture, buildings. Cultivation, drains, fences. Key themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Good habitats.

Textures and colours. Native vegetation, forest. (No exotics). (No built elements). Water. Rolling hillsides. Close to original. Natural cycles.

Modification. Human activity. Man made structures, residential development. Human patterns. Cultivation, ploughing, farming. Exotics.

Character Natural, unmodified, no structures, original, untouched. Variation, combinations. Unspoilt. Original look.

Lack of variety. No colour. Denuded vegetation. Spartan. Artificial. Indistinct.

Feelings Need to protect coastal margins. Boring.

Figure 7 Lowlands Factor 1

30

31

Lowland Factor 2 (see figure 8) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Open rolling country, clean pasture, well vegetated wetlands, lakes, some bush remnants or isolated trees. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Wet land or marshy ground; cropping land, drains, rough pasture. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Water, clear water.

Water and land. Variety of elements, versatile. Colour contrast, nice colours. Hills. Trees. Pasture animals. Vista, outlook, scenic shots, water view. Native vegetation.

Dry looking plants. Drained. Factories. Water not clear; dirty water. Mud. Scrub (too much), Brown.

Character Clean and green image, clean and unspoilt. Natural, untouched nature, natural looking. Green. Uncluttered, tidy, openness. Different shades of colour. Patterns.

Brown. Human intervention, development. Brown, looks like pollution. Dead looking, dying, dry looking. Messy vegetation, untidy, no order. Unattractive mud, muddy and dirty. Not well maintained, poorly managed, abandoned. Damaged, rotten. Not natural. Mucky.

Feelings

Figure 8 Lowlands Factor 2

32

33

Summary for the Lowlands Q Sort Factor 1 and 2 are dissimilar with a correlation of 0.2. Factor 1 identifies wetland and open water as the main indicator of outstanding natural landscapes. Photographs showing commercial activity, houses on farm land or intensively managed farm land are the least outstanding natural landscapes. Factor 2 favours hills, pasture and water with only some bush or trees. Lowest ranked are mangrove or well-covered land, cropping, drains or rough pasture. The comments show that factor 1 emphasises the natural and unmodified landscapes along with native vegetation which in the lowland largely comprises wetland. Factor 2 also emphasises nature but mentions colours and the views, thus illustrating a pastoral preference which includes human use of the landscape for farming. It does not regard wetland as outstanding. The consensus photographs are few and located in the middle of the arrays. The pure nature viewpoint of factor 1 is distinctive, sharing little with the acceptance of views showing production as demonstrated by factor 2. Only photograph 2, showing water, pasture and bush, is rated among the top six by both factors. The Lowland ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 9. They may be characterised as: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement.

34

Figure 9 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Lowlands Land Type

Factor 1 Factor 2

35

Hills Factor 1 (see Figure 10) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Higher relief hill country with either bush cover or bush with some pasture. Water views. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping or intensive pasture, houses. Themes from the interviews Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Trees down to water.

Water and land. Native bush, trees (no clearing). No human elements. Green. Water, sea.

Farm land. (No water). Housing. Concrete. Development.

Character Natural, pure. Untouched, undisturbed, unspoiled, pristine. Not man made. Serene, magical. Vistas, sea views. Diversity, combinations. Rugged hills.

Not authentic. Dead, dull. Not accessible. Barriers (fences).

Feelings Smell the sea.

Figure 10 Hills Factor 1

36

37

Hills Factor 2 (see Figure 11) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Higher relief, pasture and some bush, views of water, intensive pasture and cropping. No fences. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Rough pasture and scrub, houses, fences. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements (No houses).

Sea, water. Farms and livestock, countryside. Trees, vegetation. Pasture. Forestry. Native bush (1 mention only).

Man made structure, human intervention.

Character Vistas. Combination (of hill, forest, water), contrasts (water, land). Distinctive. Undisturbed. Balance. Natural. Smooth contour, rolling.

Cluttered, mixed, scrappy, untidy, scraggy, weedy, not well managed. Brown, dull, grass dying.

Feelings


38

39

Hills Factor 3 (see Figure 12) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Bush and tall trees, mixed pasture and bush. Some fencing, hedges and houses, water views. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping, open pasture, forestry. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Water views, vistas, open view.

Land and water. Trees to water. (No erosion). Wooded backdrop. Preserved trees, ridgeline. Hills. Pastoral landscape. Trees, not necessary native. (No man made structures). Native bush. Bush clad hills.

Character Diversity, combination (of bush, water, hills), mixture. Original, pure, most natural, natural. (Not barren), forested. Humans in harmony, sympathetic housing. Nice vista. Well managed. Interesting patterns. Ruggedness.

Feelings Relaxing


40

41

Summary for the Hills Q Sort Factors 1 and 2 have some similarity with a correlation of 0.5, as do factors 1 and 3 with a correlation of 0.6. Factors 2 and 3 are only slightly similar with a correlation of 0.24. All three factors associate outstanding natural landscapes with higher relief. Factor 1 rates bush, and bush with pasture as outstanding natural landscapes while intensive agriculture, houses on farm land and pasture as least outstanding natural landscapes. Factor 2 rates as outstanding natural landscapes, mixed pasture and some bush. It accepts pastoral land use as being compatible with outstanding landscape, even relatively intensive use, but does not accept the presence of houses. Factor 3 is similar to factor 1 but has photographs with houses and sheep in a higher position and, at the other end of the array, selects out the one photograph of the Pinus radiata plantation as among the least outstanding natural landscapes. Comments show that factor 1 and factor 3 emphasise absence of man made structures, and the presence of trees and water views. The former adds the unspoilt and pristine characteristics, while the latter adds living in harmony, consistent with having some photographs in the top of the array showing signs of human activity. Factor 2 comments are broadly similar to factors 1 and 3 but include more intense farming and the countryside. The consensus photographs are well spread through the arrays. Photograph 15 is uniformly assessed as an outstanding natural landscape. It shows a mixture of pasture and bush on hills with high relief, and a distant view of water. Photograph 28 is highly rated as outstanding natural landscape for factors 1 and 3 but its complete coverage in bush reduces its value to factor 2. The differences between these factors are subtle. They all favour high relief with some proximity to water. Factors 1 and 3 prefer tall trees with some pasture. Factor 1 favours native bush, while factor 2 accepts deciduous trees. Factor 2 also prefers a more production mix of pasture and bush remnants. The Hill Country ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 13. They may be characterised as: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. A very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.

Figure 13 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Hills Land Type

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

43

Combined Factor 1 (see Figure 14) Top 13 “Truly Outstanding: Coastal, estuary and wetland, native vegetation, no pasture land, total absence of human artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping and intensive pasture, human artefacts, fences, cultivation. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Trees to water.

Combinations of bush, water, beaches, vegetation, rocks. Contrast colour, vegetation Water.

Lack of trees. Polluted ware. Too much development, human impact, commerce, obtrusive development. Modified, fences, houses, agriculture, drained wetland, monoculture.

Character No man made influences, houses, Wilderness, untouched, natural, unmodified, undisturbed, pristine, isolated. Clean. No people. Recreation. Attractive. Drama, interesting, dynamic. Represents New Zealand, pre human New Zealand, distinctive, typical of New Zealand, rarity. Peaceful.

Ecosystem crumbling. Artificial, not natural. Dirty. Not distinctive.

Feelings Solitude, isolation. Spiritual. Sense of place. Connotation of holidays, happy memories.

Figure 14 Combined Factor 1

44

45

Combined Factor 2 (see Figure 15) Top 13 “Truly Outstanding”: Coastal bush, mixed pasture and bush, wetland. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding: Mudflats, wharf, buildings on to beach, drained pasture, houses in bush. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Combination of elements.

Trees. Limited signs of development. Natural farmland, natural. Native vegetation. Water, sea view.

Too much development. Houses next to beach. Mudflats and sand. Lack of trees. Industrial development next to water. Power lines. Dead vegetation.

Character Undisturbed. Tranquil, still. Nice scenery. Clean water. Natural. Active landscape. Versatile.

Boring. Rotten. Not natural. Messy looking. Dull looking. Not good for swimming, can’t walk around it. Poorly maintained

Feelings Boring

Figure 15 Combined Factor 2

46

47

Summary for the Combined Q Sort Factor 1 and 2 are similar with a correlation of 0.55. In the top photographs for Factor 1 the main characteristics are coast, water, wetland and native vegetation with only a small proportion of pasture. Among the least outstanding natural landscapes are extensive areas of pasture, a structure in the sea, fences and cultivation. The top photographs for Factor 2 includes coast, bush and open pasture with bush remnants, and the bottom six include mudflats and mangroves and a bush covered hill with houses. Comments show that Factor 1 emphasises pristine environments with visually interesting combinations of trees, water and vegetation with an absence of man made influences and a strong sense of solitude, that evoke strong feelings of NZ identity. Factor 2 also emphasises interesting combinations of trees, water and vegetation but includes farm land. There is less emphasis on pristine environments and more on scenic qualities. Table 4 shows the different emphasis placed by each of the Combined Q sort factors upon the different land types. It is derived by assigning the Q sort score (used in the factor analysis) to each photograph in the Q sort and summing for each landform. The results show that Combined Factor 1 emphasises Coastal and Estuary and Harbour as outstanding natural landscapes within the combined Q sort, while Combined Factor 2 emphasises Lowland and Hills as outstanding natural landscapes

Table 4: Sum of Scores for Each Landform in the Combined Q sort Coastal Estuary Lowland Hills Factor 1 12 3 -11 -4 Factor 2 -4 -5 3 6 The truly outstanding landscapes that are common between the combined factors include examples of most kinds of unmodified landscape in the region (Figure 16). They include coastline backed with cliffs and/or bush-covered hills, coastline with beaches, dunes and open hills with pasture. They include estuaries and harbour shorelines with bush or other tall vegetation, hill country with mixed bush and pasture and sea views, and well vegetated lowland wetlands. The difference between the truly outstanding landscapes in the two factors in the combined Q sort are that Factor 1 features the west coast beaches and rocky estuary, while Factor 2 features inland rolling hills and mixed pasture and bush. As noted above, Factor 1 appears therefore to favour more unmodified ‘wild’ natural landscapes, while Factor 2 favours a more ‘cultured’, Arcadian mix of pasture and bush. The significance of this combined Q sort analysis is that it shows that landscapes in all four land types are valued by different parts of the regional community, but that not everyone places the same emphasis upon any particular land type. Everyone recognises the special qualities of a range of unmodified or little modified Coastal, Estuary and Harbour, Hill and Lowland landscapes that feature water and tall vegetation. Part of the community places greater emphasis upon Coastal and Estuary and Harbour landscapes, the other part emphasises

48

inland Hill country and Lowland landscapes. All appear to warrant consideration under the section 6(b) of the RMA.

49

Figure 16 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Combined Land Type

Factor 1 Factor 2

50

Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusion

4.1 Distinctive Viewpoints The survey of 219 respondents providing 229 Q sorts has identified a limited number of distinctive evaluations of the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region. There are two dominant factors associated with each of the coastal, estuary and harbour, and lowland land types, and three factors associated with the hills land type. These factors account for an unusually high proportion of the total number of respondents interviewed (Coastal 83%, Estuary 97%, Lowland 87%, Hills 90%). This means that we can be confident that the factors take into account nearly all of the views of people interviewed. The identification of two or more factors in each of the land types indicates that there are some differences in emphasis in the way people in the community evaluate what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape. In the case of the Coastal land type the differences between the two factors at the ‘upper’ (truly outstanding) end of the distribution are very subtle and appear to reflect a greater familiarity with either east or west coast. Similarly, for the Hills land type, although there are three factors overall, there are only subtle differences in evaluating what is ‘truly outstanding’, and a high degree of agreement about the basic features of a ‘truly outstanding’ landscape. For the Estuary and Harbour land type, the difference between the factors lies in whether salt marsh is considered outstanding or not. In the case of the Lowlands, the differences between the factors are more marked, and respondents emphasise either wetlands, or pastoral landscape.

4.2 Consistency between Factors on a Particular Land Type. Despite these differences shown by the factors, there was still a reasonably high degree of similarity between the dominant factors regarding coastal land types (0.72 correlation), and a modest degree of similarity between each of the estuary, lowlands and two hills viewpoints (0.5-0.6 correlation). Hence whilst there are significant statistical differences between the factors taken as a whole, there is also a degree of consensus. Typically, this consensus was greater in relation to what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape, than in what was least outstanding. This will be helpful in developing an overall evaluation. The consistencies are evident from the basic descriptors, and given the focus of the study upon identifying outstanding landscapes in a policy context, the following discussion is primarily focused upon the areas of consensus.

4.3 Summary of Viewpoints of ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ The following section summarises the descriptions of the landscape characteristics that are most evident within, and distinctive to, the top-rated photographs that are described as truly outstanding in each land type. Coastal: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief with cliffs, bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that clearly are visually subservient to the overall setting.

51

Estuary and harbour: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Lowland: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well-vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement. Hills: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. There is a very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting. The key elements that are identified in truly outstanding landscapes are medium to high relief, water, tall vegetation, beach or rocky shorelines, and an absence of human artefacts. The key qualities are legible and coherent landscape structure and patterns, variety, a sense of tranquillity, indigenous New Zealand identity, and a sense of openness and visual access. Features which particularly detract from outstanding landscapes are presence of human artefacts, lack of trees, intensive production monocultures, modified or degraded ecosystems, and visual monotony or lack of variety.

4.4 Consistencies across Different Land Types: Wild Nature and Cultured Nature There were also some consistencies in the results across different land types. This is shown in two ways. The first way is by the similar values and sentiments expressed in each equivalent factor across land types. Factors 1 & 2 Coastal, Factor 1 Estuary and Harbour, Factor 1 Lowlands, and Factor 1 Hills all express a set of values concerning outstanding natural landscapes described elsewhere (Newton et al., 2002) as ‘wild nature’. This is a position which values natural landscape most highly when there is little or no evidence of human presence, modification or management. This becomes expressed in the selection of photographs as ‘truly outstanding’ which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration. In contrast, Factor 2 Estuary and Harbour, Factor 2 Lowlands, and Factors 2 and 3 Hills, all evaluate some types of modified environment as outstanding natural landscapes. This may be equated to a ‘cultured nature’ position (Newton et al., 2002), in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity productive activity, is quite consistent with a landscape being natural and may complement or even enhance its outstanding qualities. The main expression of ‘cultured nature’ values in these factors is an acceptance of mixed pasture and bush on hills, and a rejection of salt marsh and most forms of wetland. These two overarching patterns of response (wild and cultured nature) were clearly expressed in the combined Q sort, in which two factors accounted for 97 per cent of respondents who did

52

that Q Sort. Factor 1 identified unmodified environments as outstanding natural landscapes. These were largely concentrated upon coastal, estuary and lowland wetland landscapes. This is a ‘wild’ nature position. Factor 2 expressed a more ‘cultured nature’ viewpoint, favouring coastal bush, and mixed hill pasture and bush (an Arcadian sentiment).

4.5 Relationship to Previous Studies The overall distinction between ‘wild’ and ‘cultured’ nature described above is consistent with the findings of the Coromandel study of natural character (Fairweather and Swaffield, 1999), and with recent studies in Kaikoura, Rotoroa, and South Westland (Newton et al., 2002). These consistencies and similarities add weight to the validity of the findings. The overall pattern of responses also has some significant similarities with the 1984 Auckland Regional Landscape Study (Brown, 1984), and largely confirms the findings of that study. It indicated that unmodified landscapes with either rocky or beach coastlines, open water, tall vegetation, and some measure of vertical relief were most highly rated, whilst developed, forested and agricultural landscapes were less highly rated. The 1984 study also showed that wetland and salt marsh was relatively poorly rated. However the 2002 study adds several important dimensions to the 1984 results. First, the 2002 factor analysis has identified several distinctive sets of values. This reveals that whilst some landscapes and landscape attributes are very widely recognised as outstanding by all respondents, there are others which are recognised by some respondents but not by the others. Furthermore, by separating out the different land types into four different Q sorts, the 2002 study has drawn out public preferences for types of landscape that tend to be squeezed out of the reckoning in a single combined rating. The main examples of this are salt marsh, and mixed pasture and bush on hills, both of which are more widely and more highly rated in the 2002 results than in the 1984 study. It may be that this finding is partly a result of the greater sensitivity of the 2002 methodology. However, the results of the combined Q sort suggest that there have also been some structural shifts in public preferences. Coastal landscapes, mixed pasture and bush hill country, and lowland wetlands have gone up in relative value compared to the 1984 results. This finding is entirely plausible in the wider policy and socioeconomic context. The increased value of coastal landscape is self-evident in the real estate market, reflecting population growth, increased wealth, better cars and willingness to travel. The increase in value of lowland wetlands reflects a growing appreciation of indigenous ecology, and awareness of the increasing rarity of these landscapes, due to drainage and agricultural intensification. The increased value attached to agricultural landscapes with pasture may also reflect the growing demand from urban commuters for rural lifestyle, and the consequential pressure on the more picturesque inland landscapes. The sample demographics also hint at another dimension of change, which is the influence of the growing ethnic diversity in the regional population. Data on the detailed breakdown of factors by ethnicity for each land type Q sort are shown in Appendix 3. The table shows that the Asian respondents in the sample had a greater tendency to load onto the ‘cultured nature’ factor in the inland land types and for the combined Q sort, and analysis of the interview comments confirms the value placed by these respondents upon well-managed productive landscapes. This is not a perspective that is limited to Asian respondents, nor do all Asian respondents load onto the ‘cultured nature’ factor, but it is worthy of note. European New

53

Zealanders dominate the wild nature factor 1 in the combined Q sort and their comments emphasise this focus upon pristine environments. It is also notable that whilst Maori, Polynesian and European New Zealand respondents are spread across all factors, there are very few respondents of European ethnicity loading on the ‘cultured nature’ lowlands factor 2 (characterised by open pastoral landscapes). There is also a suggestion of a distinctive Maori/Polynesian coastal factor (Factor 3 noted in the introduction but not analysed in detail), which is focused upon rocky shorelines suitable for food collection. These observations are very tentative, but do suggest that growing ethnic diversity may be part of the change in landscape values, and warrants further research.

4.6 Implications for Stage 3 of the Project The aim of this report is to present the basic findings of the Q sort interviews in stage 2 of the project. It is not intended to provide a final identification of the Auckland Region Outstanding Natural Landscapes, nor to develop a policy response. These tasks will be undertaken in succeeding stages of the project. However several issues have emerged from the analysis which will require consideration and resolution. The identification of at least two Q sort factors on each land type require a decision about what level of agreement is needed in order for a particular type of landscape to be accepted as ‘truly outstanding’. The interviews have identified some common landscape values, but also show some differences in the way certain types of landscape are valued. This is demonstrated in the summary illustrations of the ‘truly outstanding’ landscapes in each factor. To what extent is it necessary to have total agreement on what constitutes outstanding? Is it sufficient that a significant view exists within the regional community that particular landscapes and values warrant recognition and protection? There is no suggestion in either the legislation or Environment Court determinations that there must be total consensus upon the recognition of outstanding landscapes. The very high loadings on the factors in this study (accounting for 80-97% of all responses), the small numbers of factors, and the relatively high level of consensus across factors, all suggest that if a landscape is identified as truly outstanding in any of the factors, then it warrants consideration at a policy level. However this must be qualified by the need to be consistent with Section 6(b). The second issue therefore is how to resolve some inconsistencies that have emerged between public perceptions, and legal precedent regarding the definition of outstanding natural landscapes. In the lowland and hills land types in particular, there are several landscapes identified as truly outstanding in one or more factors that show a relatively high level of human modification, for example field cropping, which would not meet the established criteria used for evaluating outstanding natural landscapes by experts. It will therefore be necessary to cull several landscapes from the set, before field application.

4.7 Conclusion Distinctive viewpoints upon the characteristics of what constitutes outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland Region have been identified. These viewpoints have been described in some detail. Taken as a whole, they indicate sets of values that are consistent with other studies and which can be associated with different types of landscape that occur with the region. The qualities that characterise outstanding natural landscapes in each of the four land types can be summarised as:

54

Coastal: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief, with cliffs, bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Harbour and Estuary: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Lowland: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement. Hill Country: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. A very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.

55

References Brown S. (1984), Auckland Regional Landscape Study. Auckland, Auckland Regional

Council. Brown, S.R. (1980), Political subjectivity. Applications of Q method in political science. Yale

University Press: New Haven. Fairweather, J.R. (2002), “Factor Stability, Number of Significant Loadings and

Interpretation: Results from Three Case Studies and Suggested Guidelines ”. Operant Subjectivity 25(1):37-58.

Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (1999), Public Perceptions of Natural and Modified

Landscapes of the Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. AERU Research Report No.241, Lincoln University.

Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2000), “Q Method Using Photographs to Study

Perceptions of the Environment in New Zealand”. Chapter 7, Pp. 131-158 in H. Addams and J. Proops (eds.) Social Discourses and Environmental Policy: Application of Q Methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2002), “Visitors’ and Locals’ Experiences of Rotorua

New Zealand: An Interpretative Study Using Photographs of Landscapes and Q Method”. International Journal of Tourism Research 4(4):283-297.

Fairweather J. R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2003), “Public perception of natural character and

implications for the forest sector”. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 47(4):24-30. Newton, B.M., Swaffield, S.R. and Fairweather J.R. (2002) “Public Perceptions of Natural

Character in New Zealand: Wild Nature Versus Cultured Nature”. New Zealand Geographer 58(2):14-25.

56

Appendix 1

Comments on Photographs

These are presented in the following order: Coastal, Estuary, Lowlands, Hills and Combined.

57

Coa

st F

acto

r 1

Su

bjec

t N

o.

Tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng

Lea

st o

utst

andi

ng

Deg

rade

Im

prov

e

10

H

igh

in n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

V

isib

le n

atur

al p

roce

sses

. U

ncor

rupt

ed b

y m

m

deve

lopm

ent.

Exci

tem

ent o

f se

a hi

tting

land

. Ref

resh

ing

clea

ns a

nd u

npol

lute

d.

Vis

ible

sign

of h

uman

inte

rven

tion.

R

esid

entia

l dev

elop

men

t too

clo

se

to b

each

. Roa

ds im

pedi

ng in

to

coas

tal m

arin

e ar

ea. L

ots o

f exo

tic

vege

tatio

n. D

evel

opm

ent

inte

rrup

ting

ridge

line.

Pow

er li

nes

unne

cess

ary.

Dev

elop

men

t thr

ough

rid

gelin

e. P

ollu

tion,

ru

bbis

h. C

lear

ing

nativ

e ve

geta

tion.

Stru

ctur

es in

w

ater

. Res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent.

Mor

e na

tura

l ele

men

ts

used

for i

nfra

stru

ctur

e.

Mor

e fo

cus o

n na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

22

La

ck o

f hum

an

mod

ifica

tions

. Sen

se o

f re

mot

enes

s. U

ntou

ched

. Se

nse

of g

rand

eur.

Stee

per

and

mor

e ru

gged

. Wat

er

look

s cle

ar a

nd c

lean

. N

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

Unn

atur

al st

ruct

ures

. Lot

s of h

ard

surf

aces

. Veg

etat

ion

rem

oved

. U

nsym

path

etic

stru

ctur

es.

Exot

ic

vege

tatio

n. H

ard

stru

ctur

es

impo

sing

on

fore

shor

e.

Dev

elop

men

t too

clo

se to

shor

e.

Any

man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. Ex

otic

veg

etat

ion.

In

tens

ive

recr

eatio

nal

ac

tiviti

es.

Com

mer

cial

ac

tiviti

es. R

emov

al o

f ve

geta

tion.

Rem

ove

hard

st

ruct

ures

pro

xim

al to

fo

resh

ore.

Pla

ntin

g na

tives

– re

mov

e ex

otic

s.

23

R

emot

enes

s – o

pen

spac

e.

No

man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. D

ram

a of

stee

p du

nes.

Pl

easa

nt p

lace

s to

visi

t.

Var

iety

of e

lem

ents

. N

atur

al b

eaut

y.

Am

ount

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Im

porta

tion

of sa

nd.

Lack

re

mot

enes

s. E

vide

nce

of h

uman

in

terv

entio

n.

Any

hum

an m

odifi

catio

n on

bea

ch.

Bui

ldin

gs o

ut

of c

hara

cter

. O

n rid

gelin

es o

r abo

ve b

ush

line.

Rem

oval

or c

hang

e of

veg

etat

ion

to e

xotic

s.

Tidy

pro

men

ade.

M

ore

attra

ctiv

e in

terf

ace

betw

een

road

an

d be

ach

– no

t m

ater

ials

.

31

C

oast

al a

nd n

ot p

asto

ral

(not

maj

orly

so).

Und

evel

oped

, no

peop

le.

Nat

ural

ly fo

rmed

.

A

ny c

omm

erci

al

deve

lopm

ent.

Hou

sing

, R

oadi

ng.

Get

aw

ay w

ith

wal

kway

s pro

perly

look

ed

afte

r.

33

Unt

ouch

ed b

y m

an, p

eopl

e.

A

ny g

ross

hum

an

58

Sp

ecta

cula

r nat

ure

of n

atur

e –

cliff

s – b

each

scap

e. L

ack

of p

ollu

tion.

If p

eopl

e to

go

need

ade

quat

e pr

ovis

ion

e.g.

, rub

bish

bin

s.

intru

sion

– ro

ads,

pow

er

lines

– in

disc

rimin

ate

rath

er th

an b

lend

ing

ie.

stra

ight

enin

g of

con

tour

by

cut

ting

thro

ugh

head

land

of t

unne

l. R

oads

ca

n en

hanc

e na

tura

l co

asts

cape

. 34

Less

inha

bita

tion.

No

hous

ing.

Whi

te sa

nd –

na

tura

l veg

etat

ion.

Cle

ar

wat

er.

Rem

oten

ess (

8).

No

peop

le.

Rem

inds

me

of

Kar

atai

bea

ch –

no

peop

le.

H

ousi

ng. 2

4 ha

s hou

se b

ut

hidd

en.

Wha

rves

/mar

ina.

8

can’

t do

muc

h to

ups

et

it.

59

Coa

st F

acto

r 2

Su

bjec

t N

o.

Tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng

Lea

st o

utst

andi

ng

Deg

rade

Im

prov

e

7 N

atur

al.

Folia

ge in

all

of

them

. Sl

ight

ly ru

gged

ap

peal

.

R

educ

tion

of fo

liage

. A

rtific

ial u

ntid

y –

ie.

Roc

k w

alls

. M

an m

ade

intru

sion

s.

Mor

e pl

antin

g (g

rass

or

tree

s).

Bac

k fr

om

fore

shor

e ie

. Fac

ilitie

s.

Dev

elop

men

t sho

uld

impr

ove

the

envi

ronm

ent.

12

Unt

ouch

ed.

No

build

ings

(o

r ver

y fe

w).

Peo

ple

are

free

to ro

am.

Com

prom

ised

by

deve

lopm

ent.

M

any

look

tida

l and

not

so

attra

ctiv

e.

Jet s

kis a

nd m

otor

boat

s.

Rem

ote

hous

ing

in

pris

tine

area

s. R

oadi

ng.

Tidy

rubb

ish

off

beac

hes.

16

C

olou

rs o

f wat

er a

nd b

ush.

Te

xtur

es.

Dis

tinct

ive

geol

ogy

and

land

scap

e.

Dep

th o

f col

our.

Nic

e pl

aces

to v

isit.

Unt

ouch

ed –

la

ck o

f dw

ellin

gs a

nd

peop

le.

Con

cret

e ar

5ific

al lo

okin

g. H

ouse

s to

o cl

ose

to b

each

with

poo

r tra

nsiti

on b

etw

een.

Bea

ches

look

un

tidy.

Lac

k pi

ctur

esqu

e qu

aliti

es.

Pow

er li

nes.

Pow

er li

nes.

Any

de

velo

pmen

t. H

ousi

ng se

t bac

k w

ith

natu

ral t

rans

ition

to

beac

h. P

ower

line

s un

derg

roun

d. B

each

cl

eani

ng.

20

N

ot u

rban

– fe

w h

ouse

s.

Whi

te sa

nd.

Uns

poilt

. U

ninh

abite

d, ru

gged

. D

une

gras

ses f

or p

rote

ctio

n.

Dis

tinct

ive

ridge

lines

/land

form

s.

St

eep

topo

grap

hy.

Cle

ar

wat

er –

blu

e. W

aves

. Pe

acef

ul, s

eren

ity.

Roc

ks, p

ebbl

es, d

iffic

ult t

o w

alk.

U

ntid

y, se

awee

d. T

oo u

rban

ised

. To

man

y el

emen

ts (b

usy)

Roa

ding

(car

s, m

otor

bike

s).

Clu

ttere

d ho

usin

g. C

omm

erci

al,

indu

stria

l.

Cle

an b

each

es.

Wal

kway

s ove

r di

ffic

ult t

erra

in.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees.

25

Dra

mat

ic.

Sens

e of

dra

ma

Intru

sion

of u

rban

is a

det

ract

or.

In a

ppro

pria

te

Softe

ning

the

inte

rfac

e

60

an

d at

mos

pher

e. S

ense

of

disc

over

y. W

ant t

o ex

plor

e th

em.

Div

ersi

ty is

an

elem

ent.

Scra

ppin

ess.

Lac

k of

dis

tinct

ive

natu

ral c

hara

cter

. Li

ttle

bit

trans

ient

, lac

ks p

erm

anen

t for

m.

deve

lopm

ent.

Infr

inge

s on

thos

e na

tura

l. Po

llutio

n, si

ltatio

n,

disr

uptio

ns to

the

land

fo

rm.

Loss

of v

eget

atio

n.

betw

een

natu

ral/m

an

mad

e. M

ore

sym

path

etic

sitin

g of

m

an m

ade

elem

ents

. R

emov

ing

anyt

hing

th

at tr

ies t

o lo

ok

natu

ral t

o at

tem

pts t

o do

min

ate

or c

ontro

l th

e na

tura

l pro

cess

. 28

Goo

d ve

geta

tion

grow

th.

Dyn

amic

wat

er.

Aliv

e.

Goo

d fo

r usi

ng (r

ecre

atio

n).

Inte

grat

ion

of h

ouse

s, ro

cks

and

bush

. “S

umm

er

holid

ays”

. N

atur

al st

ate.

Con

trive

d. P

assi

ve re

crea

tion

not

poss

ible

(poo

r acc

ess)

. U

ntid

y st

ate

of b

each

. La

ck o

f veg

etat

ion

adja

cent

to b

each

. Pr

esen

ce o

f po

wer

line

s. S

tagn

ant.

Roa

ding

adj

acen

t to

beac

h. L

itter

. R

emov

al

of v

eget

atio

n.

Sym

path

etic

dev

elop

men

t O

K.

Rem

ove

conc

rete

, so

ften

with

veg

etat

ion.

Pl

antin

g of

tree

s.

Und

ergr

ound

ing

serv

ices

. B

ette

r tra

nsiti

ons t

o be

ach

(buf

fer z

ones

). 38

Qui

etne

ss.

Soci

al fi

shin

g,

recr

eatio

n. L

ike

to d

rive

arou

nd c

oast

(roa

ds O

K

peop

le n

ot).

Nat

ive

trees

, na

tura

l veg

etat

ion.

Con

trast

of

rock

and

veg

etat

ion.

Ea

sy to

acc

ess.

Popu

late

d. L

ess h

ealth

y en

viro

nmen

t. L

ooks

arti

ficia

l. B

uild

up

sand

dun

es.

Man

m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Losi

ng

vege

tatio

n fr

om e

xotic

w

ildlif

e.

61

Coa

st F

acto

r 3

Su

bjec

t N

o.

Tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng

Lea

st o

utst

andi

ng

Deg

rade

Im

prov

e

42

A

cces

sibi

lity

for a

larg

e fa

mily

whi

ch in

clud

e ol

d pe

ople

. G

ood

sand

y be

ach.

So

me

prot

ectio

n an

d so

me

shad

e.

Not

acc

essi

ble.

Har

d ro

cky

terr

ain.

Li

tter.

No

toile

t fac

ilitie

s. D

evel

opm

ent?

(not

real

ly)

Not

hing

real

ly

45

G

reen

tree

s. L

ots o

f tre

es.

Nic

e sa

nd

No

trees

. N

owhe

re to

sit.

Not

sure

. Dev

elop

men

t?

leav

e it.

Ti

dy u

p (#

3).

Tree

pl

antin

g.

46

R

ocks

. C

olou

r of w

ater

. Lo

oks r

easo

nabl

y cl

ean.

Pl

ain.

Gra

ss.

Hou

ses,

build

ings

. (w

ater

not

as c

lear

, und

evel

oped

ar

eas)

Rub

bish

. Sew

age.

Po

llute

d w

ith b

oats

. To

m

uch

deve

lopm

ent.

D

evel

opm

ent?

not

real

ly.

Cle

an u

p be

ache

s, ru

bbis

h bi

ns.

47

C

lean

cle

ar w

ater

. Sh

elte

red

from

win

d. N

ot

too

popu

lar,

crow

ded,

qui

et.

Qui

etne

ss.

Popu

latio

n. C

row

ded.

Dirt

y. N

o pr

ivac

y.

Bui

ldin

gs a

roun

d th

e ar

ea

wou

ld ru

in th

e en

viro

nmen

t. D

evel

opm

ent?

Lot

s of

wal

kway

s, de

finite

ly.

Acc

ess,

no h

eavy

deve

lopm

ent.

Gen

eral

tidy

up.

62

Est

uary

Fac

tor

1

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

01

Left

mos

t nat

ural

. B

eaut

iful.

Reg

ener

atin

g bu

sh.

Goo

d ha

bita

t.

App

ealin

g pl

aces

to b

e.

Qui

etne

ss.

Too

muc

h ac

tivity

. N

ot a

ppea

ling

to v

isit.

H

ousi

ng le

vel.

Far

min

g.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Cam

p gr

ound

s.

Leve

l of n

atur

al

mat

eria

ls.

Plan

ting

of

vege

tatio

n.

5 N

atur

alne

ss, f

ew p

eopl

e liv

ing

ther

e. C

ompl

exity

of

envi

ronm

ent.

Indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n. D

istin

ctiv

e la

ndfo

rms,

head

land

. Lac

k of

hum

an m

odifi

catio

n.

Rem

ote

feel

ing,

pea

cefu

l. C

lean

, hea

lthy.

Lack

of n

atur

alne

ss. A

esth

etic

ally

di

sple

asin

g. A

ltere

d. A

rtific

ial.

Dirt

y (7

).

Any

dev

elop

men

t. N

on

inte

nsiv

e ru

ral O

K.

Obt

rusi

ve b

uild

ings

and

tra

cks (

gras

s and

fenc

es

OK

) jet

ties,

sea

wal

ls,

drai

nage

.

07

Hav

en’t

been

take

n ov

er to

m

an.

Reg

row

th is

re

gene

ratio

n. N

ot re

ally

any

gr

eat f

acto

ries o

r hou

sing

rig

ht o

n th

e ve

rge.

Peo

ple

need

acc

ess b

ut tr

y no

t to

inte

rfer

e to

o m

uch.

Fa

ctor

ies.

Hou

sing

. R

emov

al o

f nat

ural

bus

h.

Rec

laim

ing

the

estu

ary

into

live

able

hum

an sp

ace.

Pl

ant e

xotic

s ie.

Nor

folk

Pi

ne, P

alm

s wou

ld

degr

ade

area

s.

Rep

lant

nat

ive

trees

ie.

Pohu

taka

wa.

Buy

ba

ck c

oast

al p

rope

rties

w

hen

up fo

r sal

e an

d tu

rn in

to p

arks

etc

. W

alkw

ays i

n bu

sh a

nd

on fa

rm a

reas

to le

t pe

ople

in to

edu

cate

pe

ople

as t

o w

hat’s

th

ere.

22

Ty

pica

l of N

Z cl

ean

gree

n.

Wat

er c

lear

. A

bund

ant

vege

tatio

n. G

ood

habi

tat

Pollu

tion.

Hou

ses.

Des

troye

d ha

bita

ts.

Not

pea

cefu

l. B

ad

ener

gy.

Hou

ses.

Sym

path

etic

ho

usin

g O

K.

Unl

imite

d de

velo

pmen

t. R

oads

.

Rem

ove

hum

an

inte

rven

tion.

Pla

nt

nativ

e tre

es.

63

for n

ativ

e fa

una.

Hid

den

away

. A

bsen

ce o

f hou

ses

and

beds

. Pe

acef

ul, g

ood

vibe

s.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Wat

er p

ollu

tion.

24

Lack

of m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es. P

ure

clea

n lo

ok.

Nat

ural

veg

etat

ion.

U

npol

lute

d lo

okin

g.

Min

imal

hum

an

inte

rfer

ence

.

Pres

ence

of b

uilt

stru

ctur

es.

conc

rete

. Lac

k of

nat

ural

tran

sitio

n st

ruct

ures

– w

ater

. Obt

rusi

ve sc

ale

of st

ruct

ures

. Man

grov

es

unat

tract

ive.

Inte

nsiv

e bu

ilt st

ruct

ures

. U

nsym

path

etic

stru

ctur

es.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Mar

ine

farm

s. St

ruct

ures

to

o cl

ose

to sh

ore.

Veg

etat

ion

plan

ting

(nat

ives

). R

emov

e ru

bbis

h. R

etai

n pu

blic

ac

cess

. Lim

it re

crea

tion.

Sy

mpa

thet

ic b

uild

ings

.29

N

o ar

tific

ial t

hing

s.

Bea

utifu

l. N

ot su

re.

B

uild

ings

. Po

llutio

n.

30

Can

not s

ee a

ny h

uman

ac

tivity

. Som

e in

the

othe

r ph

otog

raph

s but

not

gre

at

dist

urba

nce.

I ca

me

from

a

rura

l pla

ce in

Indi

a.

Smal

l hut

or p

ower

cab

les.

Any

co

nstru

ctio

n, a

ny h

uman

act

ivity

. C

ows g

razi

ng, s

till n

atur

al b

ut n

ot

as m

uch.

31

No

hous

es –

con

cret

e. N

o de

velo

pmen

t. N

o ru

bbis

h –

pollu

tion.

Mor

e bu

sh th

e be

tter.

B

usin

ess,

indu

stria

l de

velo

pmen

t. H

ousi

ng.

Too

man

y ho

uses

. To

o ar

tific

ial.

Pol

lute

d lo

okin

g.

33

Exce

pt 2

2, th

ey a

ll ha

ve

wat

er a

nd n

o si

gns o

f ha

bita

tion.

The

refo

re 2

2 an

d 9

have

them

, but

all

still

ve

ry n

atur

al. 2

2 th

eref

ore

it ha

s fer

ns.

Mor

e sp

ecia

l cf

18 h

as g

ood

com

posi

tion.

C

ould

be

anyw

here

cf.

22 is

m

ore

ours

. Com

bina

tion

of

Inap

prop

riate

hum

an in

volv

emen

t!

Roc

ks b

roug

ht in

. B

oat h

ouse

, har

d to

wal

k pa

st.

Publ

ic sp

ace!

B

uild

ings

, squ

are

box

and

pylo

ns

Encr

oach

men

t of h

uman

ac

tivity

. St

ruct

ures

, bu

ildin

gs e

tc.

Roa

ds n

ot

sens

itive

ly d

one.

Cut

ting

and

fillin

g co

ntou

rs.

64

vege

tatio

n an

d fe

rn ty

pes.

Li

ke th

ese,

in te

rms o

f ou

tsta

ndin

g na

tura

l la

ndsc

apes

. Im

porta

nt p

art

of b

eing

Kiw

i is g

oing

to

beac

h. L

ike

beac

hes.

38

C

lean

, tid

y, n

atur

al.

Man

mad

e. D

irty

Pollu

tion.

Dev

elop

men

t. C

lean

up.

65

Est

uary

Fac

tor

2

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

01

Sand

y sh

ores

nic

e to

be

on.

Cle

an lo

okin

g w

ater

. Ty

pica

l of N

Z.

Dirt

y lo

okin

g. N

ot g

ood

for

swim

min

g. N

asty

look

ing

shor

es to

w

alk

on.

Pres

ence

of i

ndus

try.

Pollu

tion.

Too

man

y bu

ildin

g.

Was

te o

f tim

e.

6 M

ore

natu

ral.

Not

inte

rfer

ed

with

. Brig

hter

pho

togr

aphs

. C

lean

and

tidy

.

Slud

gy, m

uddy

. Fac

torie

s lea

ding

to

pol

lutio

n. D

ull l

ooki

ng.

Boa

t ram

ps. A

ny h

ousi

ng.

Any

dev

elop

men

t. Lo

ss o

f ac

cess

.

14

Bal

ance

of t

rees

and

wat

er.

Lack

of b

uild

ings

. Se

rene

. Fe

mal

e

Swam

p lik

e, u

nattr

activ

e. B

arre

n.

Neg

lect

ed.

App

ears

pol

lute

d.

Diff

icul

t to

wal

k on

Min

or d

evel

opm

ent o

nly

wou

ld b

e O

K.

Mos

t de

velo

pmen

t wou

ld

degr

ade.

Rem

ove

build

ing.

So

me

area

s are

ne

cess

arily

so.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees.

17

Com

bina

tion

of v

eget

atio

n an

d w

ater

. Diff

eren

t sha

des

of g

reen

. Col

our c

ontra

st.

Lack

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Look

s dirt

y. R

ocks

and

shel

ves

unpl

easa

nt to

wal

k on

. Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

and

dev

elop

men

t.

Bui

ldin

gs, r

oads

, pat

hs.

Boa

ts a

nd p

assi

ve

recr

eatio

n.

Mor

e gr

ass.

Less

fa

ctor

ies.

Mor

e sa

fety

.

20

Nat

ural

look

. Abs

ence

of

hous

es. P

eace

ful.

Unn

atur

al. T

oo m

uch

deve

lopm

ent.

Roa

ds. B

uild

ings

, fa

ctor

ies,

hous

es.

Rem

ove

man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. 25

Is

olat

ion.

Enj

oyab

le p

lace

s to

vis

it. L

ooks

nat

ural

. U

ndev

elop

ed st

ate.

Loo

ks

clea

n.

Man

grov

es! P

rolif

ic g

row

th a

roun

d A

uckl

and.

Unn

atur

al. S

ilt b

uild

up,

ch

okin

g w

ater

wee

d. A

ppea

rs

pollu

ted

due

to in

dust

ry. T

idal

pr

otec

tion

wal

ls. H

ouse

s too

clo

se

to sh

ore.

Rub

ble

infil

l.

Any

dev

elop

men

t cau

sing

ru

noff

. Any

dev

elop

men

t to

o cl

ose

to th

e sh

ore.

In

tens

ive

recr

eatio

n.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Leav

e pr

istin

e ar

eas a

lone

.

26

No

mor

e st

ruct

ures

. R

epre

sent

a d

iver

se sa

mpl

e of

est

uarin

e en

viro

ns.

Ecol

ogic

ally

impr

ovem

ent –

Deg

ree

of b

uilt

stru

ctur

e.

Mod

ifica

tion

to c

oast

line.

Pow

er

lines

. U

rban

are

as n

ot n

atur

al.

Cou

ld b

e fu

rther

mod

ified

with

out

Any

bui

ldin

gs.

Arti

ficia

l st

ruct

ures

(sea

wal

ls).

R

emov

al o

f veg

etat

ion

(unc

ontro

lled)

. In

tens

ive

Prev

ent p

ollu

tion

and

rem

edia

te. P

reve

nt

pede

stria

n ac

cess

. Li

mit

boat

ing

66

habi

tats

. Ty

pica

l NZ

scen

es.

Hol

iday

type

pl

aces

. R

emot

e un

spoi

lt.

detri

men

t.

recr

eatio

n. B

oat m

oorin

g.

activ

ities

. Li

mit

furth

er m

odifi

catio

n.

Setb

ack

buff

er z

ones

fo

r bui

ldin

gs.

Sym

path

etic

des

ign.

Pr

even

t tre

e re

mov

al.

36

Var

iety

of e

lem

ents

in th

e pi

ctur

e. T

he w

ay it

’s se

t ou

t. N

ativ

e tre

es

Lack

of c

olou

r. N

ot v

ery

pret

ty.

Rem

oval

of t

rees

. En

hanc

e w

ith v

arie

ty

and

som

e gr

eeni

ng.

37

Scen

ery.

Wat

er.

Tree

s.

Cle

an.

Blu

e w

ater

. U

nspo

ilt.

Dirt

y. N

ot a

hol

iday

des

tinat

ion.

D

ull.

Fact

orie

s. W

ipin

g ou

r tre

es.

Cle

an it

up.

67

Low

land

s Fac

tor

1

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

03

Tota

lly n

atur

al, n

ot

mod

ified

by

man

. La

ck o

f an

y si

gn o

f man

. C

oast

al

mar

ine

area

app

eals

. C

oast

al m

argi

ns im

porta

nt

to p

rote

ct.

Hig

h pe

rcen

tage

of m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Plan

ts a

lthou

gh c

rops

be

tter t

han

non

orga

nic.

Any

loss

of v

eget

atio

n or

cl

eara

nce.

Div

ert o

r po

llute

wat

er o

r ec

osys

tem

s. In

trusi

on o

f m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Kee

p pr

istin

e.

Plan

ting

of n

ativ

es.

Rem

oval

of h

ouse

s, fe

nces

etc

.

05

Var

iatio

n in

land

form

. W

ater

, lan

d, v

eget

atio

n, sk

y.

Text

ures

and

col

ours

. N

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

Lac

k of

m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es. D

ying

ve

geta

tion

show

s cyc

lic

natu

re o

f veg

etat

ion.

Litt

le

sign

of m

odifi

catio

n.

Lack

s var

iety

, bor

ing.

No

colo

ur o

r te

xtur

e. N

ot d

istin

ctiv

e. H

uman

pa

ttern

s obv

ious

. C

ultiv

atio

n.

Dra

in w

etla

nds.

M

otor

bike

s des

troyi

ng

dune

s. R

emov

al o

f ve

geta

tion

even

dea

d tre

es.

Acc

ess n

eeds

to b

e lim

ited.

No

deve

lopm

ent

appr

opria

te w

ithin

thes

e la

ndsc

apes

.

09

No

addi

tion

of e

xotic

s. N

o m

an m

ade

as c

an se

e.

Mos

tly n

o st

ruct

ures

or

wee

ds.

If

the

wat

er w

as d

iver

ted

or d

eple

ted.

Add

ition

or

exot

ics.

Add

ition

of

wee

ds.

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

.

Add

tree

s to

past

oral

la

nd.

Shel

ter b

elts

to

hide

fenc

es.

Erad

icat

e th

ings

like

gor

se.

12

Clo

se to

orig

inal

. N

atur

al

land

scap

e be

fore

hum

an

inte

rven

tion.

Po

llutio

n (r

unof

f mai

nly)

. H

uman

inte

rfer

ence

. R

emov

al o

f tre

es.

Wal

king

trac

k re

mov

es

the

adve

ntur

e.

No,

leav

e co

mpl

etel

y al

one.

Not

hing

real

ly

exce

pt a

dditi

on o

f tre

es.

14

Wat

er.

Unt

ouch

ed b

y hu

man

look

. N

atur

al

C

omm

erci

al d

evel

opm

ent.

C

once

ntra

ted

resi

dent

ial.

Not

sure

. A

cces

s (m

inim

al).

Boa

rd

68

ridge

line.

Vis

ta (v

iew

from

la

nd o

ver s

ea to

land

aga

in)

wal

ks (1

). D

une

rete

ntio

n to

hel

p la

ndsc

ape.

15

M

ost n

atur

al.

Mor

e na

tive

indi

geno

us p

lant

s. U

nspo

ilt.

Wat

er.

Left

in n

atur

al st

ate

Bui

lt up

with

hou

se st

ruct

ure.

Lan

d be

en p

loug

hed

and

farm

ed

Wat

er a

rom

as.

Nat

ive

plan

t cle

ared

. H

ouse

bui

lt on

A lo

t mor

e na

tive

plan

ting.

21

Pres

ence

of w

ater

. Pr

esen

ce

of n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

R

ollin

g hi

llsid

es.

Ver

y na

tura

l and

ple

asan

t to

visi

t.

Goo

d ha

bita

ts.

Lack

of

hum

an in

terv

entio

n.

Stro

ng e

vide

nce

of h

uman

act

ivity

. La

rge

mod

ifica

tion.

Pow

er p

oles

. D

enud

ed o

f veg

etat

ion

and

drai

ned.

Sp

arta

n, e

xotic

tree

s. A

rtific

ial.

H

ighl

y m

odifi

ed.

Dra

inin

g w

etla

nds.

Pl

antin

g of

exo

tics.

R

emov

al o

f veg

etat

ion.

M

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Roa

ds.

Pass

ive

acce

ss

OK

, not

maj

or.

Ove

r st

akin

g.

Scre

enin

g pl

antin

g.

Mor

e tre

es.

Sym

path

etic

col

our

sche

mes

. Ev

ergr

een

nativ

es.

28

Lim

ited

hum

an in

terv

entio

n.

Ban

ani

mal

s but

littl

e bu

ilt

land

scap

es e

.g.,

Dw

ellin

g,

pole

s, po

wer

line

s

R

oads

, dis

turb

ance

to

grou

nd, d

unes

. A

nym

ore

rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Any

mor

e gr

azin

g.

Cou

ld b

y en

hanc

ed b

y re

vege

tatio

n, e

g. 5

still

is

out

stan

ding

. eg.

24,

tra

ck b

lock

ed o

ff o

r m

ade

into

boa

rd w

alk.

36

N

ativ

e fo

rest

. W

ater

. M

ore

natu

ral,

look

s how

it’s

su

ppos

e to

.

Farm

land

eve

ryw

here

. N

ot

diff

eren

t to

any

othe

r far

m

anyw

here

. R

esid

entia

l de

velo

pmen

t.

Farm

ing.

Res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent.

Hea

vy

deve

lopm

ent.

Nat

ive

plan

ting.

Pon

d.

Boa

rd w

alks

wou

ld

last

bet

ter.

69

Low

land

s Fac

tor

2

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

04

Pres

ence

of w

ater

. Pre

senc

e of

tree

s. Pa

stur

e an

d A

nim

als.

Rol

ling

hills

Obv

ious

hum

an in

terv

entio

n.

Cul

tivat

ed p

atte

rns.

Too

flat.

Res

iden

tial d

evel

opm

ent.

Traf

fic a

nd ro

ads.

Plan

t tre

es –

nat

ives

-no

t for

estry

blo

cks.

Mor

e an

imal

s, N

on

unifo

rmity

, no

stra

ight

lin

es.

07

Cle

an g

reen

imag

e.

Nat

ural

, no

hum

ans.

Gre

en

not d

ead.

Unt

ouch

ed

natu

re.

Col

our c

ontra

st

(blu

e/gr

een)

. H

ills

(pre

senc

e of

). T

rees

(p

rese

nce

of).

Bro

wn,

look

like

pol

lutio

n. H

uman

in

terv

entio

n. H

ouse

s – p

ollu

tion.

D

ead

look

ing

mes

sy v

eget

atio

n.

Larg

e bu

ildin

gs.

Loss

of

trees

. C

omm

erci

al

deve

lopm

ent.

Any

ho

usin

g.

10

Wat

er a

nd g

reen

. Vis

ta,

outlo

ok. U

nclu

ttere

d. 3

0 cr

eek,

sea,

tree

s for

shel

ter.

Peop

le w

ith th

e la

ndsc

ape.

D

iffer

ent s

hade

s.

D

ry lo

okin

g pl

ants

. Bus

h fir

e.

Shad

e fo

r the

cat

tle.

Fenc

ing,

got

to h

ave

it.

Fix

the

dryn

ess.

11

Wat

er.

Lots

of g

reen

. Tr

ees

Po

llutio

n. L

ess o

f the

na

tura

l loo

k. D

rain

ed.

Fact

orie

s. H

uman

traf

fic.

Plan

ting.

Rem

oval

of

brow

n pl

ants

. W

alks

bu

t not

hing

els

e.

16

Cle

ar w

ater

. Sc

enic

shot

s.

Tidy

and

wel

l mai

ntai

ned.

Lo

oks u

ntid

y. W

ater

not

cle

ar.

Mes

sy.

Dev

elop

men

t for

co

nser

vatio

n w

ould

by

OK

. R

oads

and

hou

ses

OK

. C

ompl

ex st

ruct

ures

no

t OK

.

Not

sure

.

17

Pres

ence

of w

ater

. C

ontra

st

Mud

–un

attra

ctiv

e. U

ntid

y –

not

Any

dev

elop

men

t. P

erso

n C

ontro

l of w

eeds

.

70

of c

olou

r – w

ater

and

land

. V

arie

ty o

f ele

men

ts (t

rees

).

Ope

nnes

s. T

idy.

Pat

tern

s.

wel

l mai

ntai

ned.

No

orde

r. tra

ck O

K, b

ut n

ot ro

ads

etc.

M

aint

enan

ce.

Gen

eral

tid

ying

and

ord

er.

22

Nat

ural

look

ing.

Gre

en.

Pres

ence

of w

ater

and

its

com

bina

tion

with

nat

ural

la

ndsc

ape

mat

ches

wel

l.

Dry

look

ing

– or

dyi

ng.

Impr

essi

on

of d

amag

e or

rotte

n. M

uddy

and

di

rty.

Not

nat

ural

. A

band

oned

and

po

orly

man

aged

.

Pollu

tion.

C

omm

erci

al/in

dust

rial.

R

esid

entia

l OK

. D

rain

age

of w

ater

. R

oadi

ng.

Fenc

es.

Intro

duce

cle

an w

ater

. Le

ave

to re

vert

or lo

ok

afte

r bet

ter –

bet

ter

plan

ning

.

32

Ver

satil

e, w

ater

, col

our.

Too

muc

h sc

rub,

Wat

er lo

okin

g di

rty. L

ooks

pol

lute

d.

Cho

ppin

g do

wn

the

trees

. R

ubbi

sh in

nat

ure.

B

uild

ings

.

33

Like

the

land

scap

e. W

ater

. V

iew

. N

ice

colo

urs.

Mes

sy.

Col

our.

Som

e ho

usin

g.

Cle

an o

ut m

essy

pl

ants

. R

epla

nt.

38

Wat

er. N

atur

al lo

okin

g.

Nat

ive

vege

tatio

n. C

lean

. U

nspo

ilt.

Muc

ky. D

evel

opm

ent.

Bro

wn.

R

emov

al o

f tre

es. H

avin

g de

velo

pmen

t.

71

Low

land

s Fac

tor

3

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

34

Ver

satil

e, w

ater

and

hill

s.

Tidy

. N

ot ti

dy.

Not

cle

an a

nd n

ice.

Po

llutio

n

Tidy

up.

D

evel

opm

ent?

leav

e as

they

are

. 35

Lo

oks g

ood.

Wat

er.

Ani

mal

s. Pl

ain.

Dirt

y (#

3).

Bui

ldin

g ho

uses

on

them

. N

ot re

ally

.

37

Goo

d la

nd fo

r far

min

g an

d fo

r peo

ple

to li

ve.

Swam

py.

Mud

dy.

Can

’t us

e.

Hea

vy d

evel

opm

ent.

C

ause

s soi

l ero

sion

. To

cov

er th

e sw

amp

with

fill.

72

Hill

s Fac

tor

1

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

01

Trul

y na

tura

l. W

ild n

atur

al,

unto

uche

d.

V

eget

atio

n co

ver.

Les

s na

tive.

Les

s co

ver/d

ensi

ty.

04

Nat

ural

bea

uty.

Pre

senc

e of

w

ater

with

tree

righ

t dow

n to

it.

Und

istu

rbed

. N

one

(tree

s?) a

ctua

lly fi

tted,

pu

rely

nat

ural

ly.

Farm

land

. Tr

ees h

ave

no a

uthe

ntic

ap

peal

. D

ead,

dul

l loo

king

, lac

k of

w

ater

. D

on’t

look

acc

essi

ble.

Pr

esen

ce o

f bar

riers

, fen

ces a

nd

hedg

erow

s.

Dev

elop

men

t OK

but

ap

prop

riate

. In

dust

rial n

ot

OK

.

Blo

cks o

f big

tree

s (n

ativ

e).

Acc

ess a

nd

infr

astru

ctur

e. I

nsta

ll so

me

orde

r to

the

land

scap

e, n

o pa

ths

curr

ently

. 07

W

ater

/land

inte

rfac

e.

Nat

ive

bush

.

Cle

aran

ce o

f veg

etat

ion.

St

ruct

ures

on

sign

ifica

nt

ridge

line.

Rev

eget

atio

n. S

ubtle

de

velo

pmen

t. W

ell

scre

ened

. N

ot to

larg

e in

term

s of d

wel

ling

size

. 10

N

atur

alne

ss.

Unt

ouch

ed.

Don

’t se

em m

an m

ade.

Pu

re.

The

real

NZ

befo

re it

w

as to

uche

d. G

reen

and

w

ater

. Se

rene

and

mag

ical

.

R

emov

al o

f tre

es.

Hou

sing

. Pu

tting

in d

ocks

(w

ater

way

s, bo

ats)

No

deve

lopm

ent.

13

Uns

poile

d. W

ater

. Tr

ees.

V

ista

s (la

rge)

Rem

oval

of t

rees

, slip

s, ho

uses

, fire

s Pr

otec

t the

tree

s tha

t ar

e th

ere.

Tou

rist

faci

litie

s tha

t don

’t im

pact

hea

vily

on

the

envi

ronm

ent o

r la

ndsc

ape.

27

N

atur

al lo

okin

g. D

iver

sity

H

ousi

ng in

rura

l are

a to

o de

nse.

To

o de

nse

hous

ing

Sym

path

etic

73

of n

atur

al e

lem

ents

. C

ombi

natio

n of

nat

ural

el

emen

ts.

Con

cret

e.

deve

lopm

ent.

Sm

all

lifes

tyle

blo

ck.

Com

mer

cial

and

in

dust

rial.

For

estry

(p

ine)

.

plac

emen

t and

des

ign

of h

ousi

ng.

Avo

id

urba

n ro

adin

g,

patte

rns a

nd b

uild

ing

in ru

ral a

rea.

29

Le

ast h

uman

con

tact

, pur

e bu

sh, n

o cl

earin

g, fe

nce

road

s, ho

uses

. Li

ke 2

-300

ye

ars a

go. P

ristin

e.

C

oncr

ete!

– ie

. R

emov

ing

trees

, gre

en.

31

Nea

r the

sea.

No

hum

an

elem

ents

eg.

Hou

ses.

Can

“s

mel

l” th

e la

ndsc

ape.

N

ativ

e tre

es.

Cul

ture

d. P

rese

nce

of h

ouse

s.

Show

s wea

lth is

pal

atia

l com

pare

d to

fam

ily h

ome.

Boa

ts.

Hou

sing

. Pi

ne

Plan

tatio

ns.

Dev

elop

men

t an

cilla

ry to

hou

sing

OK

–

alre

ady

com

prom

ised

.

37

Gre

en.

Rug

ged

hills

. N

ativ

e bu

sh.

Ope

n vi

stas

. Se

a vi

ews.

Bro

wn.

Dev

elop

men

t. T

o m

uch

deve

lopm

ent.

Cut

ting

dow

n tre

es.

Obs

truct

ing

sea

view

s w

ith b

uild

ings

. Po

llutio

n.

May

be to

mak

e gr

een

grow

ing

trees

. C

oupl

e of

hol

iday

hou

ses.

W

alkw

ays.

74

Hill

s Fac

tor

2

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

06

Ove

rall

vist

a. P

rese

nce

of

sea.

Com

plex

ligh

ting.

C

lutte

red

look

ing

with

tree

s and

ho

uses

. C

omm

erci

al d

evel

opm

ent.

A

ny re

side

ntia

l.

16

Cle

an w

ater

. App

reci

ate

farm

s and

live

stoc

k. N

ice

coun

trysi

de.

Plen

ty o

f tre

es.

Com

bina

tion

of h

ill fo

rest

an

d w

ater

ele

men

ts,

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. B

row

n an

d du

ll.

Cro

ps n

ot y

et g

row

n.

Rem

ove

vege

tatio

n.

Pollu

te w

ater

.

No

hous

es.

Less

mes

sy tr

ees,

prov

ide

orde

red

plan

ting.

Get

aw

ay

from

mon

ocul

tura

l cr

ops w

hich

leav

e ar

eas b

arre

n lo

okin

g al

l at o

nce.

18

Pr

esen

ce o

f wat

er a

nd it

s co

ntra

st w

ith th

e la

nd.

Con

trast

of e

lem

ents

in e

ach

phot

o. W

ell v

eget

ated

with

tre

es.

Dis

tinct

ive

ridge

line/

land

form

. U

ndis

turb

ed.

Dul

l and

bro

wn.

Gra

ss is

dyi

ng.

Sign

s of h

uman

inte

rven

tion.

N

o de

velo

pmen

t. R

epla

ntin

g of

tree

s (n

ativ

e).

19

Sea

in b

ackg

roun

d (#

27).

Tr

ees (

#19)

. C

ontra

st o

f la

ndsc

apes

(#12

).

Scra

ppy.

Unt

idy.

Not

wel

l loo

ked

afte

r by

owne

r. B

uilt

up a

lot.

Leav

e ho

w

they

are

. C

lean

ed u

p w

ith n

ice

trees

pla

nted

.

21

Past

ure,

wat

er a

nd fo

rest

ry

mak

e a

nice

eco

logi

cal

bala

nce.

Ret

entio

n of

tree

s an

d pa

stur

e.

Hea

vy re

side

ntia

l for

a ru

ral a

rea

(#3)

. A

lot o

f wee

d an

d sc

rub

that

lo

oks u

ntid

y an

d m

essy

.

To fu

rther

subd

ivid

e w

ith

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent.

Lo

ts o

f tre

esca

pe fe

atur

es.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees i

n st

eep

gulli

es o

r are

as

of e

rosi

on.

Bet

ter

past

ure

man

agem

ent.

N

o fa

ctor

ies.

Cou

ld

be sy

mpa

thet

ical

ly

deve

lope

d w

ith lo

w

75

dens

ity ru

ral/u

rban

de

velo

pmen

t.

24

Lack

of h

ouse

s. N

ativ

e bu

sh.

Coa

stal

ele

men

t.

Nat

ural

land

form

of h

ills.

N

atur

al

Scra

ggy

bush

. H

ousi

ng. M

odifi

ed

by h

uman

s. F

ores

try u

nattr

activ

e.

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

on

skyl

ine.

Larg

e sc

ale

earth

wor

ks.

Fore

stry

. La

ws.

V

eget

atio

n re

mov

al.

Stru

ctur

es in

wat

er.

Pylo

n/m

asts

. In

tens

ive

resi

dent

ial (

3 or

4 h

ouse

s).

Roa

ding

. Int

ensi

ve

farm

ing.

Scre

enin

g of

hou

ses

with

veg

etat

ion.

R

etai

n bu

sh –

rem

ove

exot

ics.

Lim

it re

side

ntia

l de

velo

pmen

t es

peci

ally

skyl

ine.

32

Smoo

th c

onto

ur a

nd

vege

tatio

n. L

and

to se

a co

ntra

st.

Dis

tinct

ive.

Pr

esen

ce o

f wat

er.

Rol

ling

plea

sing

.

B

ulky

dev

elop

men

t.

Bre

akin

g pa

ttern

.

76

Hill

s Fac

tor

3

Subj

ect

No.

T

ruly

out

stan

ding

L

east

out

stan

ding

D

egra

de

Impr

ove

02

Div

ersi

ty o

f ele

men

ts (w

ater

ec

osys

tem

s, et

c.).

Obv

ious

ec

osys

tem

. La

nd is

woo

ded

to w

ater

line.

No

obvi

ous

eros

ion.

Woo

ded

back

drop

. Fa

mili

ar.

Tree

s pre

serv

ed.

Rid

gelin

e ha

s bee

n pr

eser

ved.

A

ny re

mov

al o

f gro

und

cove

r, pa

rticu

larly

nea

r w

ater

way

. In

trusi

on o

f pa

stur

e in

woo

ded

area

.

15

Nat

ive

bush

. Lo

ts o

f tre

es.

Clo

se to

way

it w

ould

hav

e be

en o

rigin

ally

. Sp

ace

for

deve

lopm

ent i

n te

rms o

f fo

od so

urce

etc

. N

eed

bush

. D

iver

sity

, not

bar

ren.

H

uman

s in

harm

ony

not

over

taki

ng

Sp

ray,

inse

ctic

ide.

O

poss

um.

Dam

s.

Indu

stria

lsat

ion.

Far

m ru

n of

f. W

aste

. R

emov

al/fe

lling

of t

rees

Som

e co

mpl

etel

y na

tura

l are

a. N

o de

velo

pmen

t in

unto

uche

d ar

eas.

(th

ere

shou

ld b

e a

sim

ilar s

urve

y on

the

apar

tmen

t blo

ck –

and

id

eas f

or li

mits

etc

). 20

Pure

. M

iddl

e of

now

here

. C

ount

rysi

de.

Bus

h/co

untry

. R

elax

ing.

Wat

er v

iew

.

Scru

ffy

look

ing.

O

ver p

opul

atio

n.

Rem

ove

dead

woo

d.

Not

muc

h re

ally

.

22

No

man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. N

atur

al v

eget

atio

n (n

ativ

e).

Nic

e vi

sta

com

bina

tion

of

elem

ents

. Lo

oks w

ell

man

aged

. St

eepe

r cou

ntry

lo

oks b

ette

r. Fo

rest

ed.

Inte

rest

ing

patte

rns.

Bar

ren

bare

dirt

. U

nkem

pt, s

cruf

fy

– lit

tle c

are.

Wee

ds- g

orse

– u

gly.

N

ot w

ell m

anag

ed.

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. M

arin

e fa

rms.

Den

udin

g of

veg

etat

ion

parti

cula

rly.

Stee

p la

nd a

nd ri

ver

valle

ys.

Nox

ious

pes

ts.

Unn

eces

sary

cle

arin

g fo

r de

velo

pmen

t, m

an m

ade

Plan

ting

of c

lum

ps

pref

erab

ly e

verg

reen

s or

nat

ives

par

ticul

arly

rip

aria

n. R

educ

e m

onoc

ultu

re

appe

aran

ce.

Mor

e pe

rman

ent v

eget

atio

n.

77

Sym

path

etic

hou

sing

. Pr

esen

ce o

f wat

er.

pa

ttern

s. O

bstru

ctin

g vi

stas

. Lo

ss o

f coa

stal

ve

geta

tion.

Allo

w re

gene

ratio

n.

23

Com

bina

tion

of ,b

ush,

wat

er

and

hills

. M

ost n

atur

al.

Wat

er im

porta

nt.

Pres

ence

of

bus

h fr

ames

vis

ta.

Rug

gedn

ess,

inte

rest

ing

ridge

line

(littl

e er

osio

n).

Pres

ence

of t

rees

not

ne

cess

arily

nat

ives

. Pas

tora

l la

ndsc

ape.

Mod

ifica

tion.

Bla

nd n

othi

ngne

ss.

Pine

tree

s! B

are

gree

n no

thin

g to

br

eak

up v

ista

.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Obt

rusi

ve h

ousi

ng.

Dom

inan

ce o

f man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. R

oads

.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees.

Sc

reen

ing

of

deve

lopm

ent w

ith

trees

.

28

Bus

h cl

ad h

ills,

and

sea

com

bina

tion

and

cont

rast

w

ith p

astu

re (m

odes

t).

Hill

s, se

a, b

ush.

Goo

d m

ixtu

re.

Pine

s not

nat

ural

. To

uris

t Hot

el.

Cab

le c

ars.

M

otor

way

. Fe

lling

of

bush

.

38

Nat

ive

bush

. O

pen

view

. O

cean

vie

w.

Hill

s. N

atur

al

Dev

elop

men

t. C

lear

land

. Fa

rm

(and

man

mad

e fo

rest

) Pl

ant f

ores

try.

Bui

ld

hous

es

Rep

lant

nat

ive

trees

. Tr

acks

for p

eopl

e to

w

alk

thro

ugh

so th

ey

can

unde

rsta

nd w

hy it

sh

ould

be

pres

erve

d.

78

Com

bine

d Fa

ctor

1

Su

bjec

t N

o.

Tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng

Lea

st o

utst

andi

ng

Deg

rade

Im

prov

e

04

Nat

ural

.

No

influ

ence

of m

an.

Rug

ged

beau

ty.

Com

bina

tion

of b

ush

and

wat

er.

Lack

of t

rees

. “n

o tre

es –

man

is

dead

”.

Ecos

yste

m c

rum

blin

g.

No

thou

ght f

or e

nviro

nmen

tal

syst

ems.

D

evel

opm

ent t

o in

tens

e.

Squa

res –

not

flow

ing

like

natu

re.

Arti

ficia

l.

Rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n.

Man

mad

e di

sast

ers

(nuc

lear

, oil

slic

ks).

D

evel

opm

ent O

K b

ut n

ot

degr

ade

ecos

yste

ms.

Hab

itat b

elts

he

dger

ows.

Im

prov

e so

il st

ruct

ure,

or

gani

c.

Get

rid

of so

me

cow

s.

17

Pres

ence

of w

ater

/bea

ches

. B

eaut

iful n

ativ

e bu

sh.

Li

ttle

if an

y ho

usin

g.

Isol

atio

n.

Cle

anlin

ess.

Unt

ouch

ed.

Wou

ld n

ot li

ke to

be

ther

e.

All

wor

ked

look

ing

and

artif

icia

l.

Dirt

ier l

ooki

ng.

No

hous

ing

and

road

de

velo

pmen

t.

No

com

mer

cial

de

velo

pmen

t.

To b

e le

ft un

touc

hed.

Plan

ting

of n

ativ

e tre

es (d

evel

opm

ent

does

hav

e to

occ

ur in

so

me

plac

es).

19

No

sign

of c

ivili

satio

n.

Unt

ouch

ed.

N

o m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

The

mor

e si

gn o

f hum

an im

pact

the

low

er th

e ph

oto.

A

ny si

gn o

f hum

an

pam

perin

g.

Nat

ive

vege

tatio

n,

rem

oval

of m

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Allo

w n

ativ

e re

gene

ratio

n.

Rem

ove

or h

ide

build

ings

beh

ind

natu

ral b

uffe

rs.

23

Pres

ence

of w

ater

and

be

ache

s.

Lack

of p

eopl

e or

sign

s of

peop

le.

Fe

elin

g of

solit

ude.

C

olou

r con

trast

.

Text

ure

cont

rast

.

Bee

n m

odifi

ed, f

ence

s, ho

uses

. Pi

ne p

lant

atio

n.

Not

dis

tinct

ive.

N

onde

scrip

t.

Any

dev

elop

men

t. A

ll ar

eas h

ave

som

e va

lue.

79

Nat

ural

ness

.

Und

istu

rbed

. 25

Se

a.

Com

bina

tion

of v

eget

atio

n,

rock

s and

sea.

H

ousi

ng to

clo

se.

Se

a ac

tiviti

es (s

houl

d be

ca

refu

l).

Add

ition

al v

eget

atio

n.

May

be v

ery

basi

c tra

cks t

hat b

lend

in.

28

App

eara

nce

of b

eing

un

touc

hed

by h

uman

.

No

peop

le in

it.

N

atur

al.

R

epre

sent

s New

Zea

land

.

Ecol

ogic

al v

alue

.

Pris

tine.

Com

mer

ce a

nd p

eopl

e.

Touc

hed

by p

eopl

e.

Com

mer

cial

isat

ion.

R

esid

entia

l dev

elop

men

t.

Pollu

tion

(oil

spill

etc

).

Indu

stria

l pol

lutio

n ie

. (#

18).

Not

hing

real

ly.

44

Rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n co

asta

l mar

ine

land

and

w

ater

– n

atur

al tr

ansi

tion.

Pl

easa

nt w

ater

setti

ng.

Dyn

amic

land

scap

e w

ith

wat

er sh

ots –

tida

l wea

ther

.

Obv

ious

ly m

odifi

ed, n

ot n

atur

al.

Obt

rusi

ve d

evel

opm

ent i

n so

me

area

s.

Deg

rada

tion

of w

ater

and

ve

geta

tion.

N

on sy

mpa

thet

ic m

arin

e de

velo

pmen

t. So

me

sym

path

etic

de

velo

pmen

t ore

in

terv

entio

n is

not

de

tract

ive.

49

Mos

t nat

ural

and

un

mod

ified

. R

epre

sent

ativ

e of

pre

- hu

man

New

Zea

land

, im

porta

nt to

reta

in.

Wat

er is

ver

y im

porta

nt

visu

ally

. Sp

iritu

al, c

onne

cted

to li

fe.

Sens

e of

pla

ce, e

spec

ially

A

uckl

and.

R

ecre

atio

n.

Hig

hly

mod

ified

land

scap

e.

Wat

er p

ollu

ted.

Sc

ale

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Agr

icul

ture

equ

ally

bad

as

stru

ctur

es.

Dra

inag

e of

wet

land

s.

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. B

oat r

amps

, wha

rves

. C

omm

erci

al d

evel

opm

ent,

hous

es.

Cha

ngin

g fr

om in

dige

nous

to

exo

tics.

Roa

ds a

nd p

ower

line

s.

80

Fish

ing.

C

ontra

st a

ppea

rs o

bvio

us.

52

Dis

tinct

ive

land

form

, ty

pica

l of N

ew Z

eala

nd

coas

t. A

ttrac

tive

to lo

ok a

t. La

ck o

f hum

an

mod

ifica

tion.

Mos

t mod

ified

.

Any

hou

sing

. A

ny d

evel

opm

ent.

Ann

oyin

g co

mbi

natio

n of

ho

uses

and

bus

h.

Clu

ster

ed

deve

lopm

ent.

55

Pres

ence

of w

ater

. D

ram

a.

Rar

ity, u

nusu

al.

Isol

atio

n.

Ecol

ogy.

C

alen

dar s

tuff

– c

olou

r of

wat

er.

Tree

s rig

ht d

own

to w

ater

. Pe

acef

ul w

ith e

lem

ents

of

dram

a.

Mon

ocul

ture

of c

ropp

ing

or

fore

stry

. B

leak

ness

. N

o tre

es.

Hum

an m

odifi

catio

n ha

s deg

rade

d la

ndsc

ape.

La

cks i

nter

est.

Unn

atur

al c

oast

line.

Too

muc

h hu

man

in

terv

entio

n.

Loss

of c

oast

al v

eget

atio

n.Si

lting

lead

s to

man

grov

es.

Bui

lt st

ruct

ures

in c

oast

al

area

s (sm

all j

ettie

s are

O

K).

Plan

ting

unsu

itabl

e tre

es

(Nor

folk

pin

es, P

hoen

ix

palm

s).

Plan

ting

of tr

ees,

Hou

ses b

ack

form

co

astli

ne.

No

mon

ocul

ture

s or

inte

nsiv

e ho

rticu

lture

. Sy

mpa

thet

ic b

uild

ings

.

56

Wild

erne

ss, n

atur

al b

eaut

y.

Typi

cal o

f New

Zea

land

is

com

bina

tion

of se

a co

ast a

ll un

spoi

lt.

Cle

an w

ater

. N

o ru

bbis

h.

Coa

stal

. In

tere

stin

g.

Con

nota

tion

of h

olid

ays a

nd

happ

y m

emor

ies.

Indu

stria

l tid

al in

terf

ace.

H

ighl

y m

odifi

ed.

Man

mad

e st

ruct

ures

. La

ck o

f acc

ess e

ven

perc

eptio

n of

it,

not

invi

ting

or w

elco

min

g.

Cle

aran

ce o

f veg

etat

ion.

N

on sy

mpa

thet

ic

deve

lopm

ent.

Rub

bish

. Ex

otic

fore

stry

. M

an m

ade

stru

ctur

es.

Mar

inas

.

Plan

t sui

tabl

e co

asta

l sp

ecie

s. O

pen

acce

ss to

pub

lic.

Nee

d so

me

area

s of

deve

lopm

ent.

58

Nat

ural

wat

er b

odie

s. M

ix o

f veg

etat

ion.

Ex

tent

of m

odifi

catio

n.

Nar

row

rang

e of

land

use

s. Si

gnifi

cant

bui

ldin

g.

Smal

l sca

le d

otte

d th

roug

h In

trodu

ce p

redo

min

ant

nativ

e ve

geta

tion.

81

Dra

mat

ic la

ndfo

rms.

Lack

of m

odifi

catio

n.

Bro

ad o

pen

vist

as.

Lack

of n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

is

OK

. Ex

tract

ive

indu

strie

s. La

rge

scal

e aq

uacu

lture

. R

emov

al o

f nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Mod

ifica

tion

of w

ater

’s

edge

. La

rge

scal

e in

fras

truct

ure.

Mix

ing

land

use

s.

Com

bine

d Fa

ctor

2

Su

bjec

t N

o.

Tru

ly o

utst

andi

ng

Lea

st o

utst

andi

ng

Deg

rade

Im

prov

e

02

Com

bina

tion

of e

lem

ent.

N

ot o

verd

one

with

det

ail.

Pr

esen

ce o

f tre

es.

N

atur

e un

dist

urbe

d.

Bor

ing.

To

o m

uch

deve

lopm

ent.

Com

mer

cial

and

indu

stria

l de

velo

pmen

t.

All

deve

lopm

ent.

Bre

ak u

p m

onot

ony.

03

Tran

quil.

V

ery

limite

d si

gn o

f re

side

ntia

l dev

elop

men

t.

Nat

ural

farm

land

(with

bu

sh).

U

ndis

turb

ed.

Man

grov

e sw

amp

look

s rot

ten.

N

ot n

atur

al.

H

ouse

s nex

t to

beac

h.

Inva

des o

n be

ach

expe

rienc

e.

Subu

rbia

.

Too

muc

h de

velo

pmen

t.

Res

iden

tial d

evel

opm

ent,

indu

stria

l, co

mm

erci

al

deve

lopm

ent.

A

cou

ple

of h

ouse

s OK

Add

vib

ranc

y to

be

achf

ront

.

Publ

ic a

cces

s.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees.

06

. N

atur

al lo

ok.

C

ombi

natio

n of

land

and

w

ater

.

Peac

eful

to th

e m

ind.

Gre

at

vist

as

Mes

sy b

ush.

M

udfla

ts a

nd sa

nd.

D

ull l

ooki

ng.

M

essy

bea

ches

.

Res

iden

tial d

evel

opm

ent.

V

eget

atio

n re

mov

al.

Litte

r, po

llutio

n.

Res

orts

etc

.

Cle

anin

g be

ache

s.

Plan

ting

mor

e tre

es.

14

Ver

y st

ill, g

row

ing,

nic

e

Bui

lt th

ings

–ho

uses

, C

lean

up

ston

es o

r

82

scen

ery.

sh

eds,

fact

ory

wor

k, w

harf

sand

, fla

tten

area

. 15

C

lean

, cle

ar, n

ice

wat

er.

Com

bina

tion

of w

ater

and

tre

es.

Pl

ace

that

wou

ld b

e fu

n to

liv

e.

Plac

es fo

r rec

reat

ion.

Sa

fe p

lace

s for

recr

eatio

n.

Goo

d w

ildlif

e sp

ots.

G

ood

acce

ss.

Lack

of t

rees

.

Not

so n

ice

for r

ecre

atio

n (s

wim

min

g).

H

ouse

s.

Def

ores

tatio

n.

Slip

s. P

ollu

tion

of w

ater

by

any

mea

sure

.

Rub

bish

. N

o de

velo

pmen

t bey

ond

rura

l.

Som

e st

ruct

ures

OK

.

Plan

ting

of tr

ees f

or

shad

e an

d to

pre

vent

sl

ips.

42

Peac

eful

. N

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

B

oats

in tr

anqu

il se

tting

. N

atur

al st

ate.

A

ctiv

e la

ndsc

ape.

C

ombi

natio

n of

land

scap

e el

emen

ts.

Ani

mal

s. Pr

esen

ce o

f wat

er.

Rug

gedn

ess o

f bus

h.

Indu

stria

l dev

elop

men

t nex

t to

wat

er.

Low

tide

app

eara

nce

of m

udfla

ts.

Pow

er li

nes.

Poor

ly m

aint

aine

d (n

othi

ng

brea

king

it u

p).

Uns

ympa

thet

ic c

oast

al

deve

lopm

ent.

Dea

d ve

geta

tion

in 2

(f

oreg

roun

d).

Indu

stria

l dev

elop

men

t on

wat

er.

Scou

ring

land

with

not

ve

geta

tion.

Po

wer

line

s. Lo

ss o

f veg

etat

ion.

In

appr

opria

te

deve

lopm

ent.

Serv

ices

und

ergr

ound

. Pl

antin

g of

tree

s. C

lust

ered

de

velo

pmen

t. In

tens

ive

indu

stria

l de

velo

pmen

t in

low

qu

ality

land

scap

es.

Mai

ntai

n pu

blic

acc

ess

to b

each

es.

63

Ver

satil

e.

Sea

view

. G

reen

. N

atur

al.

Pow

er li

nes.

Can

’t w

alk

arou

nd it

(18)

. To

o m

any

ston

es.

Pow

er li

nes.

Rub

bish

. N

othi

ng m

uch

83

Appendix 2 Q Sort Recording Sheet

ARC Landscape Study

Subject No.: Date: Location:

Coast Estuary Hill Lowland Combined

Please order the photographs from those which represent the most outstanding natural landscapes to

those that least fit this description

Please identify those landscapes which you regard as truly outstanding. (Choose as many or as few as you like). What are the characteristics / qualities that make these landscapes truly outstanding? What changes or modifications would degrade these outstanding landscapes?

MOST OUTSTANDING

84

RESPONDENT’S DETAILS Please could you provide the following information: Gender Male

Female

Age Under 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Over 60

Ethnicity European NZ Maori Polynesian Asian Other Occupation: __________________________________

Where Do You Live? ___________________________

(Suburb/Town/Area)

How Long Have You Lived in the Auckland Region? ________ NOTE:

This information will only be used for Analysis.

You will not be identified individually. Purpose

The purpose of the exercise is to identify the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region.

Outstanding natural landscapes should be reasonably self apparent and reflect values held by the community at large.

85

Appendix 3 Factors by Ethnicity for each Landform Qsort

Factor Coastal 1 2 3 -3 NL Total

European 19 12 3 34 Maori 1 2 1 4

Polynesian 0 1 0 2 1 4 Asian 2 2 1 0 0 5 Other 0 0 0

Total 22 17 2 2 4 47 Estuary

European 14 10 24 Maori 1 3 4

Polynesian 1 2 1 4 Asian 3 1 4 Other 2 1 3

Total 21 17 1 39 Lowlands

European 21 2 0 1 24 Maori 1 2 1 4

Polynesian 1 1 2 4 Asian 0 4 0 4 Other 2 1 0 3

Total 25 10 3 1 39 Hills

European 9 7 8 3 27 Maori 3 1 1 5

Polynesian 1 1 0 1 3 Asian 1 2 1 4 Other 0 0 0 0

Total 14 11 10 4 39 Combined

European 34 9 1 44 Maori 4 1 1 6

Polynesian 1 3 4 Asian 0 5 5 Other 3 3 6

Total 42 21 2 65

86

Appendix 4 Locations of Photographs

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 1

COMBINED Code Location LT OT A C1 Paparata Hunua Valley Dairy/Pasture/Hedgerows 2.55 pm 60 mm

C2 Morley Rd Totara and Kahikatea in horticultural field with hedgerows

3.30 pm 50 mm

C3 Heads Road Deep dune valley system 2.55 pm 28 mm

C4 Omaha Beach Pastoral, semi bush clad coastal headland and beach (East Coast)

10.40 am 35 mm

C5 Hamilton’s Gap Sandstone and mature dune system. Black sand, West Coast beach

4 pm 50 mm 28 mm

C6 Okura River Estuarine/mangrove bush. Sandstone rock shelving. 2.35 pm 40 mm

C7 Whatipu Road Ranges and pasture harbour 3.10 pm 65 mm

C8 Burnside Rd (near Ardmore) Kahikatea stand in pasture 4.30 pm 80 mm

C9 Waikopi River/east Salt marsh / Rural subdivision 10.50 am 40 mm

C10 Maraetai Beach

Peri-urban fringe with pine plantation and pasture to the shore. East Coast beach

10.10 am 60 mm

C11 McNol Rd near Clevedon Eucalyptus and pine plantation 5.15 pm 35 mm

C12 Milford Beach – eastwards Urban, coastal beach 8.30 am 28-50

mm

C13 Queens Wharf Inner City (urban) harbour edge

12.15-12.45 pm 35 mm

C14 Muriwai Beach (south) Dune system and ecology. West Coast black sand beach

9.05 am 50 mm

C15 Awhitu Regional Park Harbour beach and headland – bushclad stratafied sandstone

3.50 pm 40 mm

C16 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm C17 Bethells Road Bush residential subdivision 3.50 pm 40 mm

C18 Manukau Harbour Harbour/estuarine industrial / on volcanic outcrops

4.00 pm 80 mm

C19 Awhitu Rd Massive dune system and lake 11.35 am 65 mm

C20 Ramarama Horticulture 10.45 am 40 mm

C21 Rosewood Crescent (off Linwood) Equestrian subdivision 8.30 am 28 mm

C22 Journeys End Rd Pasture (open) in dune topology 1.50 pm 80 mm

C23 Te Arai Point Rd Remains of native bush, pine, pasture 3.10 pm 80 mm

C24 Leigh Rd Both pastoral and semi clad coastal headlands 12.10 pm 60 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 2

COMBINED Code Location LT OT A

C25 Raukura Point Coastal headlands, bush clad and small bays – East Coast 11 am 28 mm

C26 Awhitu Rd Climactic wetland 9.30 am 28 mm

C27 Wenderholm Regional Park Bush clad, prominent coastal headland 9.50 am 40 mm

C28 Linwood Road Equestrian and horticultural interface 9 am 28 mm

C29 Waihihi Bay Peri-urban grassed east coast stone beach 12 noon 28 mm

C30 Wharf Rd, Port Albert Estuarine/pasture 2.40 pm 80 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 3

HILL COUNTRY AND RANGES Code Location LT OT A

H1 McNol Rd near Clevedon Eucalyptus and Pine Plantation 5.15 pm 35 mm

H2 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm H3 Bethells Rd Bush residential subdivision 3.50 pm 40 mm

H4 Rosewood Cres (off Linwood) Equestrian subdivision 8.30 am 28 mm

H5 Pakiri Rd Denuded of native cover 1.15 pm 50 mm H6 Bombay cnr of Mill Rd Horticultural 2.45 pm 60 mm

H7 Trig Rd Open pasture, manuka bush, pine plantation on peninsula 11.45 am 70 mm

H8 Beaver Rd

Intensive mix of rural residential. Shelter belt, market gardening, native remains

12.35 pm 80 mm

H9 Vaughans Rd Peri-urban bush gully 9.45 am 60 mm H10 Mangawhai Rd Bush and pasture, pine mix 11.30 am 80 mm

H11 Sharps Rd (Snells/Sandspit) Pines in Pasture 9.05 am 40 mm

H12 Waiuku Rd Horticulture pasture interface 3.05 pm 60 mm

H13 Paparata Hunua Valley Dairy / pasture / hedgerows 2.55 pm 60 mm H14 Heads Road Deep dune valley system 2.55 pm 28 mm H15 Whatipu Road Ranges and pasture harbour 3.10 pm 65 mm

H16 Te Arai Pt Rd Remains of native bush, pine, pasture 3.10 pm 80 mm

H17 Awhitu Rd Native mixed remnant bush in paddock / pasture

H18 Lone Kauri Rd Bush and pasture 11.30 am 80 mm

H19 Route 1 south of Thompson Rd Modified formal pasture 9.30 am 55 mm

H20 East Rd (Snells Beach) Regeneration of bush from pasture 3.30 pm 35 mm

H21 Kohekohe Rd Farm in dune scape with dune exposed in backdrop 11.35 am 65 mm

H22 Vaughan Rd Rural subdivision 10 am 40 mm

H23 Awhitu Rd Dune topography, open pasture with stands of exotic and native

9.30 am 80 mm

H24 Ararimu Rd, Hunua Hill country patchwork landuse 3.30 pm 60 mm

H25 Forest Hill Rd Orchards and fines / urban 1.15 pm 65 mm H26 Burt Rd Pasture with bush 4.30 pm 70 mm

H27 Awhitu Rd to Cochrane’s Gap

Gully system with native remnants 11 am 60 mm

H28 Scenic Drive Ranges 1.40 pm 80 mm

H29 Duck Creek Exotics and pasture, shelter belts / pine plantation backdrop

11.15 am 60 mm

H30 Heads Road Deep valley dune system 3.05 pm 28 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 4

COASTAL Code Location LT OT A

B1 Army Bay (Whangaparaoa) Sandstone coastal semi bush clad headland and beach

4.35 pm 80 mm

B2 Snells Beach Peri-urban coastal bush clad headland and beach 1.40 pm 45 mm

B3 Tawharanui Regional Park Pastoral, semi bush clad, east coast sandstone beach 2.15 pm 45 mm

B4 Maraetai Beach

Peri-urban fringe with pine plantation and pasture to the shore. East Coast beach

10 am 60 mm

B5 Muriwai Beach (south) Dune system and ecology. West Coast black sand beach

9.05 am 50 mm

B6 Omaha Beach Pastoral, semi bush clad coastal headland and beach (East Coast)

10.40 am 35 mm

B7 Mission Bay Harbour urban beach / Pohutukawa 2 pm 40 mm

B8 Hamilton’s Gap Sandstone and mature dune system. Black sand West Coast beach

4 pm 28 mm

B9 Bucklands Beach Urban beach. East coast shell 9.10 am 60 mm

B10 Matingarahi Bay Stone beach, coastal (east) bush and pasture. Sandstone headland

11.45 am 28 mm

B11 Waiwera Bush clad prominent coastal headland 9 am 50 mm

B12 Tawharanui Regional Park Bushclad / pasture. Gentle sloping coastal edge 2.45 pm 60 mm

B13 Kaiaua Settlement on bay Urban shell beach. East coast lowland 12.50 pm 28 mm

B14 Manly Beach, Whangaparaoa

Peri-urban / bushclad / pastoral coastal headland 3.20 pm 80 mm

B15 Mathesons Bay, Leigh Coastal rock crops and shelving. Bushclad coastal headlands

1 pm 60 mm

B16 Matakana Harbour, Sandspit

Rural residential semi bush clad and exotics, headland 1.30 pm 50 mm

B17 Karekare Beach

Evolving dune system and vegetation. Granite rock cliff. West Coast black sand beach

1.55 pm 28 mm

B18 Kariotaiki Beach Dune / Flax / Sandstone. West Coast black sand 11.15 am 45 mm

B19 Umupuia Bay Dairy/pasture to cliff edge / rocky shell grav beach, low lying

10.10 am 28 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 5

COASTAL Code Location LT OT A

B20 Howick Beach Urban East Coast beach. Sandstone cliff in native and exotic mix vegetation

9.25 am 65 mm

B21 Te Haruhi Bay Gentle sloping headland / pasture sandstone cliff edge

5.05 pm 28 mm

B22 Black Rock Beach Urban coastal beach (volcanic) 8.05 am 38 mm

B23 Pakiri Beach Pasture headland with remnant bush. Beach/dune system

12.05 pm 65 mm

B24 Raukura Point Coastal headlands, bush clad and small bays – East Coast 11 am 28 mm

B25 Kawakawa Bay Low lying shell beach with manuka clad backdrop / headland

10.45 am 28 mm

B26 Milford Beach – eastwards Urban, coastal beach 8.30 am 28-50

mm

B27 Wenderholm Regional Park Bush clad prominent coastal headland 9.50 am 40 mm

B28 Waihihi Bay Peri-urban grassed east coast stone beach 12 noon 28 mm

B29 From Magazine Bay south Sandstone and grey stone mix / pasture / Pohutukawa exotic mix. Coastal beach

12.05 pm 50 mm

B30 Mahurangi Regional Park Rully bush clad coastal headland and beach 9.30 am 45 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 6

LOWLAND Code Location LT OT A L1 Whatipu Saltmarsh / wetland 3.30 pm 60 mm L2 Lake Kereta Inland lake, pasture, manuka 11.30 am 28 mm L3 South Kaipara Heads Rd Saltmarsh / harbour 11.30 am 40 mm L4 Hanga wetland Wetland / bush 4.15 pm 60 mm

L5 Lake Rotoiti Inland water lake and pasture 10.50 am 50 mm

L6 Orua Bay Rd Lowland, kauri stand in pasture 2.30 pm 50 mm

L7 Ramarama Horticulture 10.45 am 40 mm

L8 Burnside Rd (near Ardmore) Kahikatea stand in pasture 4.30 pm 80 mm

L9 South Kaipara Heads Exotic pine / manuka and wetland remains and pasture 11.10 am 40 mm

L10 Awhitu Regional Park Fresh water wetland 2.30 pm 60 mm

L11 Pakiri Block Rd Pasture, Kahikatea bush / shelter belt 1.55 pm 80 mm

L12 Awhitu Rd Massive dune system and lake 11.35 am 65 mm

L13 Kaipara Coastal Highway Saltmarsh, mangrove pasture 9.25 am 45 mm

L14 Rahukiri Rd Lowland sand mature dune system, bushed 1.05 pm 35 mm

L15 Matakana Rd Lowland pasture, mangrove, pine 12.30 pm 45 mm

L16 Valley Rd Intimate rural residential mix with Kahikatea stands 1.25 pm 55 mm

L17 Linwood Rd Equestrian and horticultural interface 9 am 25 mm

L18 Wellsford Valley Rd Rural Residential 11.05 am 60 mm

L19 Journeys End Rd Pasture (open) in dune topology 1.50 pm 80 mm

L20 Linwood Rd Equestrian pasture 8.20 am 40 mm L21 Liang Rd Horticulture and coastal 8.35 am 28 mm

L22 Morley Rd Totara and Kahikatea in horticultural fields with hedgerows

3.30 pm 50 mm

L23 Kaipara Coastal Highway Lowland pasture Kahikatea stand 9.15 am

L24 Whitford – Maraetai Rd Lowland estuarine pasture 10.50 am 28 mm

L25 Clark Rd Patchwork transitional landuse / coastal interface 8.40 am 80 mm

L26 Muriwai Rd Gentle pasture, pine and manuka 10.15 am 65 mm

L27 Liang Rd Pasture and coastal interface 8.35 am 50 mm

L28 Kaipara Coastal Highway Lowland pasture, remnant wetland 10.30 am 80 mm

L29 Route 16 to Helensville Glasshouse in rural landscape 10.45 am 28 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 7

LOWLAND Code Location LT OT A L30 Awhitu Rd Climactic wetland 9.30 am 28 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 8

HARBOUR / ESTUARINE Code Location LT OT A

E1 Okura Estuary Estuarine / bush to water’s edge 8.50 am 38 mm

E2 Mangere Bridge boat ramp Urban estuary in lave flow geological landscape 9.50 am 35 mm

E3 Otahuhu Creek South Urban estuary 10.55 am 35 mm

E4 Big Bay (south) Sandstone cliffs / pasture. Baches and Pohutukawa and Pine mix

10.25 am 40 mm

E5 Te Kawau Point Beach Harbour beach and vegetated headland 12.30 pm 40 mm

E6 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm

E7 Manukau Harbour Harbour/estuarine. Industrial / on volcanic outcrops

4.00 pm 80 mm

E8 Beachlands Marina Coastal shell beach. Exotic/mangrove mix 11.05 am 28 mm

E9 Okura River Estuarine/mangrove bush. Sandstone rock shelving 2.35 pm 40 mm

E10 Herne Bay Urban harbour. Coastal edge 3 pm 28 mm

E11 Te Atatu Peninsula Urban saltmarsh wetland 3.50 pm 28 mm

E12 Waikopi River / east Saltmarsh / Rural subdivision 10.50 am 40 mm

E13 Homestead Bay Scotts Landing

Islands in harbour / coastal / bush clad and pasture 12.45 pm 55 mm

E14 Papakura Bridge River/estuary 5.35 pm 40 mm

E15 Waikiri Creek Shoreline mangrove, manuka on sandspit 12.55 pm 50 mm

E16 Wharf Rd, Port Albert Estuarine/pasture 2.40 pm 80 mm

E17 Waiwera River Estuarine, mangrove bush to water 8.45 am 35 mm

E18 Te Kapa Estuary Pasture / exotics 12.45 pm 45 mm

E19 French Bay Urban harbour beach, bushclad headland 1 pm 60 mm

E20 Te Whau Point Urban coastal headland / native/exotic mix vegetation

3.00 pm 28 mm

E21 Papakura Bridge River/estuary inland 8.10 am 40 mm

E22 Leigh Rd Both pastoral and semi clad coastal headlands 12.10 pm 60 mm

E23 Orua Bay Native and pine headland with baches 2.20 pm 28 mm

E24 Queens Wharf Inner city (urban) harbour edge

12.15-12.45 pm 35 mm

E25 Little Huia Road Peri-urban in ranges on harbour. Rock shelving 3.10 pm 28 mm

E26 Awhitu Regional Park Harbour beach and headland – bushclad stratafield sandstone

3.50 pm 40 mm

BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 9

HARBOUR / ESTUARINE Code Location LT OT A

E27 Whau River Urban estuary / mangrove / pine 3.30 pm 28 mm

E28 Devonport Wharf / Waterfront Urban Harbour Edge 11.30-

11.45 am 28mm-40mm

E29 Milford Beach – westwards Urban coastal beach 7.45-8

am 28-80 mm

E30 Herne Bay Urban harbour coastal beach 3.05 pm 28 mm

Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for

Auckland Regional Council

Stage Three

Delineation of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes of the Region

prepared by Boffa Miskell

In association with Stephen Brown Environments Limited

and Lincoln University

August 2004

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 1

Executive Summary

The Stage Three process of this Regional Landscape Assessment Review Project has involved

translating the factors identified through the Stage Two public preference process onto the ground to

spatially define the outstanding natural landscapes of the Region (Section 6(b) RM Act 1991).

This final Stage of the project has involved in-house desktop mapping of areas considered likely to be

outstanding natural landscapes using the considerable local knowledge and experience of the project

team members (Stephen Brown, John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert) using the NZMS 260

topographical maps followed by extensive ground survey, verification and delineation of boundaries

in the field. The areas identified have then been transferred to digital GIS format compatible with the

Auckland Regional Council’s GIS database. Both hard copy and electronic versions of the maps have

been provided.

The initial brief for the delineation of the outstanding natural landscapes of the Region related to the

mainland area within the Auckland Regional Council’s jurisdiction, the brief was subsequently

extended to also cover the islands of the Hauraki Gulf from Kawau in the north to Ponui in the south

and extending out to Great Barrier Island.

In total, ninety two (92) numbered areas have been identified as outstanding natural landscapes within

the region. These are delineated on the attached maps and recorded on the field record sheets also

attached.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 2

Introduction

The outcome of the Stage Two public preference process is summarised in the Stage Two report

(dated May 2003) as follows:

“Results show that there are two distinctive ways in which the public evaluates the qualities

of natural landscapes in the Auckland Region. These are described in the report as ‘factors’

due to the method by which they were derived. The two factors are broadly consistent across

the different landscapes in the region and account for a very large proportion of the

responses. In the case of hill country landscapes, the evaluation is slightly more complex.

Based on these factors, the report identifies the types of landscape that respondents describe

as truly outstanding.

The first factor characterises outstanding natural landscapes in terms of ‘wild nature’. This

factor values natural landscape most highly when there is no evidence of human presence,

modification or management. The landscapes that are selected as ‘truly outstanding’ are

those which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration.

The second factor also values many pristine environments, but in addition evaluates some

types of modified environment as being outstanding natural landscapes. This represents a

‘cultured nature’ position in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity,

or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to be consistent

with it being an outstanding natural landscape. The main indicator of this factor is that

landscapes which include a picturesque mix of bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on

hills and lowlands are highly valued, whilst relatively unmodified salt marsh and wetland are

less highly valued (as being unattractive and somewhat inaccessible). Hence for Factor 2

‘cultured nature’, not all pristine environments are recognised as having potential to be an

outstanding natural landscape, whilst some partially modified landscapes are regarded as

truly outstanding.

When the photographs identified as truly outstanding by each factor in each type of landscape

are combined, an overall pattern of public response can be identified, with a reasonably high

degree of consensus about the characteristics of landscapes that warrant the designation of

being ‘outstanding natural landscapes’. They include pristine and relatively unmodified

coastal environments, estuaries and harbours; unmodified wetlands with standing water;

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 3

lowland bush; and picturesque or open hill country that includes a significant proportion of

bush or bush remnants, with minimal presence of human artefacts or buildings.”

The Stage Three objective was then to translate the factors identified through the public preference

process spatially across the region’s landscape. The summary cards for the factors in each of the four

landscape types - coastal, harbour and estuarine, hill country and lowland, as well as the combined set

of images - were used to assist in this physical mapping process. The summary card images are

attached (refer Appendix 1).

Methodology

The methodology adopted involved a first phase of desktop mapping direct onto the 1:50,000 NZMS

260 series topographical maps in the office using the visual prompts of the outstanding natural

landscape factor summary sheets and the considerable local knowledge of the region’s landscape held

by project team members Stephen Brown, John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert who between them

have some 50 years detailed professional working knowledge of the region’s landscape.

Having undertaken this first cut mapping exercise, an extensive field checking process was

undertaken with Stephen Brown and Rachel de Lambert driving roads within the region over some

seven days to identify, confirm and verify the location and boundaries of the outstanding natural

landscapes consistent with the identified factors. The outstanding natural landscape factor summary

sheets were kept on hand as a reference and reminder of the desired attributes. In addition, following

the extension of the brief to include the islands of the Hauraki Gulf these were travelled by road in the

case of Waiheke and Great Barrier islands and observed from the sea in relation to all of the islands of

the inner Gulf.

A standard record sheet template was prepared in advance of the first field checking and completed in

the field for each outstanding natural landscape delineated (summary attached, refer Appendix II).

During the field survey some areas identified as potentially possessing the factor attributes at the

desktop delineation phase were excluded as outstanding natural landscapes. This exclusion occurred

for a number of reasons but most frequently related to the lack of coherence in the pattern of land

cover and land use. In addition, some areas not initially identified in the desktop assessment were

identified in the field and included on the final field maps.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 4

During the field assessment, some areas were also identified as comprising the right range of factor

attributes but were considered too small in physical area terms to be included within the regional

assessment. Such areas have significance at a District level but were not felt sufficiently large to

contribute to the regional landscape.

In addition it was noted by the field survey team that in relation to the less modified islands of the

Hauraki Gulf, such as Great Barrier, that the mapping process tended to involve the exclusion of those

areas not comprising the attributes of outstanding natural landscapes whereas on the mainland and

more modified and / or inhabited islands, such as Rakino and Waiheke, the delineation involved

defining discrete areas of outstanding natural landscape within a wider landscape that did not display

those characteristics.

Following field assessment the maps were checked by Stephen Brown and Rachel de Lambert and

then converted to electronic format on GIS at which point they were checked again for accuracy of

translation. This electronic mapping has been undertaken to be fully compatible with the Auckland

Regional Council’s (ARC) GIS database, enabling unhindered transfer of the data from Boffa Miskell

to the ARC.

The Region’s Outstanding Natural Landscapes

Of the ninety-two (92) outstanding natural landscapes delineated the majority, forty-one (41) are

within the hill country landscape type with fifteen (15) being harbour/estuary, eleven (11) coast five

(5) lowland and fourteen (14) island areas. In part this numbering is skewed by the fact that many of

the “hill country” areas include areas of lowland or extend to include the adjacent harbour/estuary or

coastline. It should also be noted that the island areas comprise a combination of all landscape types,

they have been recorded on a separate ‘islands’ sheet.

The outstanding natural landscapes identified on the mainland area of the region cover some 80,000

hectares. This translates to some 16% of the mainland landmass of the region, not all of this area is in

private landownership as significant areas of outstanding landscape are held as public lands.

The island areas have been left out of this analysis as they tend to skew the statistics due to the large

areas of both Kawau (approx 1900ha) and Great Barrier (approx 41,000ha) that are identified as

outstanding natural landscapes. Again much of these areas are held in public ownership.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 5

Dealing again with the mainland area a comparison with the 1984 study and areas included in the

Regional Policy Statement (RPS) compared to the areas identified through this updated study can be

summarised as follows:

Area in Category 6 or 7 RPS: 49,000 ha

Area in Category 5 RPS: 69,000 ha

Combined Area 5, 6, 7 RPS: 118,000 ha

Area 2003/4 Outstanding Natural Landscapes: 80,000 ha

Difference 2003/4 ONL to 6 & 7 (RPS): 31,000 ha

Difference 2003/4 ONL to 5, 6 & 7 (RPS): -38,000 ha

Note these areas do not include the outstanding natural landscapes on the islands of the Hauraki Gulf

as these were not included within the original 1984 assessment.

The 2003/4 outstanding natural landscapes are mapped in the following six figures, three comprising

the mainland areas and three the islands. Also mapped is the spatial comparison of the mainland RPS

5, 6 and 7 landscape sensitivity rating areas with those now identified as outstanding natural

landscapes included in the 2003/4 study.

The primary differences in these areas relate to the inclusion of the “cultured nature” factor which has

seen a widening of the outstanding landscapes where “the presence of humans undertaking

recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to

be consistent with it being an outstanding landscape… landscapes which include a picturesque mix of

bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on hills and lowlands are highly valued…” (page 6 Stage 2

report)

The inclusion of this factor explains not only the widening of the areas delineated as outstanding

between the 1984 and 2003/4 studies, but also the predominance of this extension in the hill country

environments of the Region.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 6

Recommendations

The next step in the process of updating the regional landscape resource knowledge within the

Auckland Region relates to the updating of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), which currently

contains the maps that related to the earlier study(s) and policy relevant to that earlier understanding.

Given the public’s widening perception of more managed – cultured nature – landscapes as

outstanding natural landscapes, it will be necessary when incorporating the new maps into the

Region’s statutory documents to also prepare new policy that recognises both the ‘wild nature’ and

‘cultured nature’ perspectives held by the community in relation to outstanding natural landscapes.

The current policy that addresses the outstanding natural landscapes (those areas identified as having

a landscape sensitivity rating of 6 or 7) as well as that related to the ‘regionally significant landscapes’

(landscape sensitivity rating 5) is set out below.

“6.3.4 To maintain the overall quality and diversity of character of the landscapes of the

Auckland Region.

6.4.19 Policies: Landscape The following policies and methods give effect to Objective 6.3-4

1. Subdivision, use and development of land and related natural and physical resources

shall be controlled so that in areas identified in Map Series 2 and 3:

(i) the quality of outstanding landscapes (landscape rating 6 and 7) is protected

by avoiding adverse effects on the character, aesthetic value and integrity of

the landscape unit as a whole;

(ii) outstanding landscapes with a sensitivity rating of 6 or 7 are protected by

avoiding subdivision, use and development which cannot be visually

accommodated within the landscape without adversely affecting the

character, aesthetic value and integrity of the landscape unit as a whole;

(iii) the quality of regionally significant landscapes (landscape rating 5) is

protected by avoiding adverse effects on the elements, features and patterns

which contribute to the quality of the landscape unit;

(iv) regionally significant landscapes with a sensitivity rating of 5 are protected

by ensuring that any subdivision, use and development can be visually

accommodated within the landscape without adversely affecting the elements,

features and patterns which contribute to the quality of the landscape unit.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 7

2. In those rural areas not rated as being outstanding or regionally significant

landscapes and in urban areas, the elements, features and patterns which contribute

to the character and quality of the landscape and to its amenity value, or which help

to accommodate the visual effects of subdivision, use and development, shall be

protected by avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects on them.

3. Subject to Policy 6.4.19-1 above, subdivision, use and development on regionally

significant ridgelines shall be controlled so that there are no significant adverse

effects, including cumulative effects, on the landscape quality and integrity of the

ridgelines.

4. The views of volcanic cones, which are indicated in Map Series 4, are to be

preserved, and intrusion into the defined viewing shafts by buildings or structures

shall be avoided.

5. The use or development of land and related natural and physical resources is to be

controlled so that the visibility of volcanic cones is maintained or enhanced.

6.4.21 Reasons

…The intention of the policies is to protect the aesthetic and visual quality, character

and value of the major and unique landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use

and development. Policy 6.4.19.1 does this by requiring the avoidance of adverse

effects on the whole landscape unit in outstanding landscape areas. This recognises

that the landscape value of these units is derived from a combination of qualities and

values which together give them an outstanding rating. These qualities and values

usually mean that the units are also extremely sensitive to the visual effects of use and

development. In Regionally Significant Landscapes, the emphasis is on the protection

of the elements, features and patterns which contribute to the quality of the landscape

unit (Policy 6.4.19-1 (iii) and (iv))…

…The individual factors which contribute to the quality and sensitivity of both

outstanding and regionally significant landscape vary throughout the Region,

depending on the particular landscape. These factors include the presence of

prominent ridgelines and slopes, the pattern of vegetation, particularly indigenous

vegetation and the presence of bodies of water. Further information on this is

contained in Appendix F – Landscape Evaluation Methodology.”

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 8

Clearly with incorporation of the ninety two new outstanding natural landscapes as delineated through

this updated landscape assessment study, it will be necessary to develop new policy that takes account

of the wild nature and cultured nature views that have contributed to the identification of the Region’s

outstanding natural landscapes.

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page i

Appendix I Outstanding Landscape Factor Summary Sheets

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Shar

ed O

NL

bet

wee

n C

ombi

ned

Fact

ors 1

and

2

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Shar

ed O

NL

bet

wee

n E

stua

ry F

acto

rs 1

and

2

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Shar

ed O

NL

bet

wee

n C

oast

al F

acto

rs 1

and

2

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Shar

ed O

NL

bet

wee

n L

owla

nds F

acto

rs 1

and

2

Shar

ed O

NL

bet

wee

n H

ills F

acto

rs 1

, 2 a

nd 3

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Fa

ctor

3

01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page ii

Appendix II Outstanding Landscapes

Field Record Summary

1

TAB

LE O

NE:

OU

TSTA

ND

ING

NA

TUR

AL

LAN

DSC

APE

AR

EAS

– SU

MM

AR

Y IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Rod

ney

Dis

tric

t (W

est &

Nor

th W

est)

2 A

rarim

u V

alle

y W

est

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

, reg

ener

atin

g in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion,

with

som

e yo

ung

rogu

e pi

ne.

Veg

etat

ion

runn

ing

dow

n to

st

ream

cor

ridor

.

Ret

entio

n of

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

. M

aint

aini

ng lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion.

3 Ta

ylor

s R

d S

outh

of H

elen

sville

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion

in p

ocke

ts.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Slo

pes

runn

ing

dow

n to

stre

am

corr

idor

s, w

ith g

ood

pock

ets

of

rege

nera

ting

& re

mna

nt fo

rest

(k

auri)

. A

reas

of m

ore

open

and

de

velo

ped/

mod

ified

land

exc

lude

d fro

m O

NL

Uni

t.

Ret

entio

n of

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n in

pat

tern

s re

late

d to

un

derly

ing

topo

grap

hy.

4 La

ke K

eret

a Lo

wla

nd

Lake

& w

etla

nd.

Und

evel

oped

mar

gins

. S

igni

fican

t rem

nant

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion.

Lo

w le

vels

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Coh

esiv

e pa

ttern

(tie

s to

geth

er v

isua

lly in

rela

tion

to to

pogr

aphy

).

ON

L de

fined

by

pine

s on

coa

stal

si

de a

nd b

y pa

stur

e ar

ound

bus

h re

mna

nts.

Low

leve

l of r

esid

entia

l de

velo

pmen

t tha

t is

subs

ervi

ent,

tuck

ed in

to th

e hu

mm

ocky

dun

e la

ndfo

rm/b

ush

rem

nant

s.

Ret

entio

n of

dun

e la

ke/w

etla

nd

land

scap

e an

d re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n w

ith lo

w le

vels

of

subs

ervi

ent d

evel

opm

ent

(hou

ses,

road

s, in

frast

ruct

ure)

.

2

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

5 La

kes

Oto

toa

&

Kuw

akat

ai

Low

land

La

kes

and

wet

land

s.

Und

evel

oped

mar

gins

. S

igni

fican

t rem

nant

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion.

Lo

w le

vels

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Coh

esiv

e pa

ttern

.

Lake

s an

d th

eir c

onte

xt o

f ve

geta

tion,

incl

udin

g re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

fore

st, e

xten

ds o

ver

ridge

line

to in

ner h

arbo

ur in

are

a of

P

atau

oa C

reek

. A

roun

d de

er fa

rm m

ore

exot

ic

vege

tatio

n an

d hi

gher

leve

l of

deve

lopm

ent,

but c

onsi

sten

t with

m

ore

mod

ified

pas

tora

l/tre

ed

land

scap

es id

entif

ied

as

outs

tand

ing.

)

Ret

entio

n of

dun

e la

ke/w

etla

nd

land

scap

e an

d re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n w

ith lo

w le

vels

of

subs

ervi

ent d

evel

opm

ent a

s w

ell

as m

ore

mod

ified

pas

tora

l and

ve

geta

ted

land

scap

e.

6 P

apak

anui

Spi

t –W

aion

ui In

let

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

S

outh

Kai

para

Hea

d du

nela

nd, P

apak

anui

san

d sp

it an

d W

aion

ui In

let.

ON

L is

def

ined

by

edge

of W

oodh

ill Fo

rest

(pin

es) a

nd g

radu

al

trans

ition

from

maj

or d

unes

into

the

low

er p

rofil

e du

nela

nd o

f Ran

gitir

a B

each

.

Ret

entio

n of

rem

ote

natu

ral

dune

land

.

7 R

angi

tira

Bea

ch

(Nor

th o

f Mur

iwai

) C

oast

al

Bea

ch a

bove

MH

WS

and

co

ntig

uous

dun

elan

d.

Def

ined

on

land

war

d si

de b

y pi

ne

plan

tatio

n an

d at

the

coas

t by

the

trans

ition

into

the

long

rela

tivel

y st

raig

ht p

rofil

e of

Mur

iwai

Bea

ch.

Ret

entio

n of

rem

ote

beac

h en

viro

nmen

t and

dun

elan

d ba

ckdr

op.

8 H

ills

north

Ka

ukap

akap

a R

iver

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Bus

h co

vere

d es

carp

men

t abo

ve

Kauk

apak

apa

Riv

er (t

ribut

ary

of

Kai

para

Riv

er).

Rem

nant

and

re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion.

Tra

nsm

issi

on li

ne

pass

es th

roug

h. L

ands

cape

uni

t de

fined

by

pine

s, e

spec

ially

in th

e w

est.

Reg

ener

atin

g in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

3

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

9 K

auka

paka

pa

Hill

Cou

ntry

w

ith

Low

land

s on

so

uth

side

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Inta

ct p

redo

min

antly

sou

th fa

cing

di

ssec

ted

hill

slop

es w

ith re

mna

nt

and

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n.

Som

e po

cket

s m

ore

open

. C

entra

l par

t of u

nit h

as m

ore

past

ure

and

deve

lopm

ent b

ut w

ith

rem

nant

poc

kets

of i

ndig

enou

s ve

geta

tion

with

in m

ore

past

oral

la

ndsc

ape.

E

xten

ding

into

esc

arpm

ent a

nd

alon

g st

ream

mar

gins

aro

und

Wai

toki

.

Rem

nant

and

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

. P

asto

ral l

ands

cape

w

ith re

mna

nt p

ocke

ts o

f in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

with

hig

h ae

sthe

tic v

alue

s (c

ultu

red

natu

re).

10

Mak

arau

Val

ley,

nor

th

Hel

ensv

ille

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Ste

eper

sou

th fa

cing

slo

pes

with

in

mat

ure

and

rege

nera

ting

inta

ct

cove

r of i

ndig

enou

s ve

geta

tion.

S

ome

spra

y cl

earin

g –

pine

s.

Com

ing

over

tops

of r

idge

on

sout

h si

de o

f Mak

arau

Roa

d m

ore

open

an

d pa

stor

al, w

ith s

tand

s of

nat

ive

rem

nant

indi

geno

us tr

ees

eg

töta

ra, k

ahik

atea

, kan

uka,

pur

iri,

kaur

i.

Rem

nant

and

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

. P

asto

ral l

ands

cape

w

ith re

mna

nt p

ocke

ts o

f in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

with

hig

h ae

sthe

tic v

alue

s (c

ultu

red

natu

re).

11

Hea

dlan

d, M

akar

au

Riv

er

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Esc

arpm

ent a

bove

rive

r-m

outh

. H

eadl

and

land

form

. C

over

ed b

y in

tact

mat

ure

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n in

clud

ing

kaur

i, ka

hika

tea

and

töta

ra ru

nnin

g do

wn

to w

ater

. La

ndsc

ape

unit

ends

of

whi

te ‘h

ump’

brid

ge.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

exte

ndin

g to

wat

er e

dge.

4

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

12

Mat

aia

Hea

dlan

d H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f (e

scar

pmen

t & h

eadl

and)

. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Esc

arpm

ent a

nd h

eadl

and

land

form

at w

ater

s ed

ge.

Rem

nant

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

with

poc

kets

of

pas

ture

. P

ines

def

ine

back

edg

e of

ON

L un

it.

Pro

min

ent c

oast

al la

ndfo

rm w

ith

larg

ely

inta

ct c

over

of i

ndig

enou

s ve

geta

tion.

13

Glo

rit K

noll

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief

– kn

oll

land

form

. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Dis

cret

e kn

oll l

andf

orm

, with

sol

id

area

of m

atur

e co

asta

l rem

nant

fo

rest

.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

reta

ined

on

disc

rete

ele

vate

d kn

oll l

andf

orm

.

14

Mt A

uckl

and

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Mt A

uckl

and

– in

tact

mat

ure

indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

on

prom

inen

t hill

and

high

poi

nt o

f ra

nge.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

rein

forc

ing

loca

lly p

rom

inen

t to

pogr

aphy

.

15

Sou

th H

oteo

Riv

er

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief (

estu

ary

head

land

). S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Sm

all h

eadl

and

land

form

with

in

tact

cov

er o

f mat

ure

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n (ta

raire

, pur

iri, k

anuk

a,

kara

ka) a

djac

ent t

o ro

ad.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

rein

forc

ing

loca

lly p

rom

inen

t to

pogr

aphy

.

5

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

16

Tauh

ora

Riv

er

mar

gins

E

stua

ry

Inte

rtida

l mar

gins

with

hig

hly

natu

ral v

alue

s, b

acke

d by

la

nd w

ith m

oder

ate

to ro

lling

relie

f. D

efin

ed b

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t poc

kets

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Stro

ng p

atte

rnin

g an

d st

rong

en

dem

ic q

ualit

ies,

nat

ive

fore

st

rem

nant

s &

man

grov

es c

ombi

ned

with

wat

er a

nd p

astu

re.

Rem

nant

sta

nds

of in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

incl

udin

g ta

raire

, kau

ri,

kahi

kate

a, p

üriri

, töt

ara

and

nïka

u.

Sin

uous

pat

tern

s, in

dica

tive

of

Kai

para

Har

bour

ver

nacu

lar –

rela

ted

to w

ater

bod

ies,

land

form

an

d re

mna

nt s

tand

s of

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Seq

uenc

e fro

m ri

ver

chan

nel/h

arbo

ur w

ater

s th

roug

h m

angr

ove

to te

rres

trial

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n. P

atte

rn o

f veg

etat

ion

cove

r in

rela

tion

to to

pogr

aphy

an

d na

tura

l pro

cess

es.

17

Hik

i Cre

ek &

K

ahut

aew

ao C

reek

va

lleys

(Bur

ma

Roa

d)

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief,

with

ro

lling

hills

and

gul

lies.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion

in g

ullie

s an

d in

re

mna

nt p

atch

es.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Two

valle

y sy

stem

s w

ith g

ood

patte

rn o

f mat

ure

rem

nant

fore

st

inte

rmix

ed w

ith p

astu

re o

n sl

opes

.

Pat

tern

of r

emna

nt v

eget

atio

n in

terp

laye

d w

ith p

astu

re

(res

pond

ent t

o to

pogr

aphy

).

18

Fitz

gera

ld/B

urm

a/R

un

Roa

ds ri

dge,

O

kahu

kura

Pen

insu

la

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Inta

ct re

mna

nt &

rege

nera

ting

nativ

e fo

rest

. In

term

ixed

with

som

e pa

stur

e on

hig

h rid

ge a

nd s

purs

.

Inta

ctne

ss o

f for

est a

nd p

atte

rn o

f re

mna

nt v

eget

atio

n in

terp

laye

d w

ith p

astu

re (r

espo

nden

t to

topo

grap

hy).

6

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

19

Oru

awha

ro H

eads

, O

kahu

kura

Pen

insu

la

Har

bour

H

eadl

ands

&

Est

uary

Inte

rtida

l mar

gin

that

is

high

ly n

atur

al –

har

bour

he

adla

nds

and

estu

ary

edge

. La

nd w

ith re

lativ

ely

high

re

lief.

Def

ined

Bac

kdro

p.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Veg

etat

ed e

stua

ry/h

arbo

ur.

Ext

ensi

ve a

rea

of re

mna

nt c

oast

al

rege

nera

ting

fore

st o

n he

adla

nds

&

coas

tal e

scar

pmen

ts, f

ram

ing

Oru

awha

ro R

iver

mou

th.

Inta

ct re

mna

nt in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

cove

r at r

iver

m

outh

/har

bour

s ed

ge, r

espo

nsiv

e to

land

form

.

20

Tapo

ra D

une

Isla

nds

& C

MA

H

arbo

ur &

E

stua

ry

Inte

rtidi

al m

argi

n th

at is

hi

ghly

nat

ural

. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f du

nela

nd/lo

wla

nd

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Dun

elan

d ba

rrie

r isl

ands

with

low

ve

geta

tion

cove

r (so

me

pam

pas)

an

d m

angr

oves

. O

NL

unit

exte

nds

only

to th

e im

med

iate

land

war

d ed

ge.

Tapo

ra S

ettle

men

t adj

acen

t.

Inta

ct d

unel

and

land

form

s, b

arrie

r is

land

s.

7

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Rod

ney

Dis

tric

t

21

Wes

t Te

Ara

i Poi

nt

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n pa

rticu

larly

in

gullie

s.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

sta

nds

of in

dige

nous

fo

rest

& re

gene

ratin

g sh

rubl

and

amon

g ro

lling

rura

l pas

ture

&

ridge

s. C

lear

pat

tern

ing

and

stru

ctur

e, re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Som

e le

vel o

f rur

al d

evel

opm

ent.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

22

Pak

iri B

each

C

oast

al

Und

evel

oped

eas

t coa

st

coas

tline

. S

trong

land

form

fram

e /d

efin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Maj

or o

cean

bea

ch, i

nlan

d bo

unda

ry d

efin

ed b

y pi

ne fo

rest

in

the

north

(Man

gaw

hai F

ores

t),

exte

ndin

g to

dun

e sy

stem

(rid

ge) i

n th

e ce

ntre

and

cre

st o

f coa

stal

es

carp

men

ts a

t the

sou

ther

n en

d.

Nat

ural

dun

elan

d to

pogr

aphy

, st

rong

ly e

xpre

ssed

coa

stal

pr

oces

ses.

Lon

g un

inte

rrup

ted

swee

p of

bea

ch.

23

Nor

th T

e H

ana

– To

mar

ata

Roa

d H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Sim

ilar t

o U

nit 2

1. R

emna

nt a

nd

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n fo

llow

ing

gullie

s an

d to

p of

gul

ly

ridge

s. P

atte

rn a

ligns

with

la

ndfo

rm.

Low

leve

ls o

f de

velo

pmen

t with

in u

nit.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

24

Pak

iri B

lock

Roa

d H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Rid

ge to

ps, c

oast

al e

scar

pmen

t an

d pa

rts o

f coa

stal

terr

ace

with

la

rge

pock

ets

of re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us fo

rest

. P

atte

rn o

f ve

geta

tion

rein

forc

es e

leva

ted

land

form

s an

d fo

llow

s so

me

stre

ams.

Rem

nant

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

8

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

25

Pak

iri F

ooth

ills

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

mat

ure

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n in

larg

e ar

eas

and

patte

rnin

g of

rem

nant

fore

st a

nd

past

ure

on s

teep

to ro

lling

terr

ain.

To

tara

& k

auri

in p

artic

ular

. E

xten

ds to

low

land

stre

am m

argi

ns

in p

lace

s. S

mal

l pin

e in

trusi

ons

&

rura

l dev

elop

men

t.

Inta

ct re

mna

nt fo

rest

. In

terp

lay

betw

een

rem

nant

veg

etat

ion

and

rura

l pas

ture

, rei

nfor

cing

to

pogr

aphy

.

26

Rah

uiki

ri R

oad,

Pak

iri

Low

land

W

etla

nds

with

are

as o

f ope

n w

ater

. U

ndev

elop

ed m

argi

ns.

Sig

nific

ant r

emna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

Low

leve

ls o

f dev

elop

men

t.

Poc

ket w

etla

nd o

f goo

d si

ze

oppo

site

Pak

iri F

lats

. K

ahik

atea

an

d in

tact

veg

etat

ion

cove

r.

Inta

ct w

etla

nd a

nd v

eget

atio

n co

ver.

27

Mt T

amah

unga

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n.

Ver

y m

atur

e in

tact

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n in

clud

ing

Mt

Tam

ahun

ga, d

ram

atic

land

form

fe

atur

e. S

ome

pock

ets

of p

astu

re

finge

r up

into

bus

h ed

ges.

Low

le

vels

of r

ural

mod

ifica

tion.

C

ontig

uous

with

Uni

t 31

to th

e so

uth.

Dra

mat

ic la

ndfo

rm fe

atur

e w

ith

inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

cove

r an

d re

mna

nt v

eget

atio

n w

ith

past

ure

finge

ring

into

edg

es.

28

Coa

stlin

e fro

m P

akiri

R

iver

to O

mah

a C

ove

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm

fram

e/de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Roc

ky h

eadl

ands

and

bay

s w

ith

esca

rpm

ent b

ackd

rop.

Coa

stal

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

alon

g w

ith

coas

tline

inte

rspe

rsed

with

mor

e op

en a

reas

. S

catte

red

coas

tal

settl

emen

t int

ersp

erse

d.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n co

ver.

In

terp

lay

betw

een

rem

nant

ve

geta

tion

and

rura

l pas

ture

, re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

9

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

29

Ti P

oint

H

arbo

ur &

E

stua

ry

Land

with

rela

tivel

y hi

gh

relie

f. D

efin

ed b

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f tal

l, pr

edom

inan

tly n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s/bu

ilt

mod

ifica

tion.

Roc

ky h

arbo

ur a

nd e

stua

rine

mar

gins

def

ined

by

back

drop

of

rolli

ng h

ills a

nd n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

rem

nant

s. I

nclu

des

a nu

mbe

r of

smal

l bay

s an

d co

ves.

Hig

h se

nse

of p

lace

val

ues.

Res

iden

tial

pock

ets

are

tuck

ed in

and

su

bser

vien

t.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

30

Sou

th o

f Rod

ney

Roa

d, L

eigh

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Inta

ct re

mna

nt a

nd re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

on ri

dge

tops

beh

ind

Leig

h. P

ocke

ts o

f pa

stur

e an

d lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

intru

sion

.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

31

Puk

emat

akeo

(nea

r O

mah

a)

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant p

ocke

ts o

f m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

s st

ands

of v

eget

atio

n in

term

ixed

with

pas

ture

on

slop

es

arou

nd p

rom

inen

t lan

dfor

m fe

atur

e of

Puk

emat

akeo

. Lo

w le

vels

of

built

dev

elop

men

t. C

ontig

uous

w

ith U

nit 2

7 to

nor

th.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy -

loca

l la

ndfo

rm fe

atur

e.

32

Dom

e Fo

rest

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Dom

e Fo

rest

- in

tact

rem

nant

and

re

gene

ratin

g fo

rest

on

high

relie

f la

ndfo

rm.

Som

e pi

ne in

trusi

on.

Min

imal

pas

ture

. V

ery

low

leve

ls o

f bu

ilt m

odifi

catio

n. E

xclu

des

“frog

po

ol” r

oads

ide

deve

lopm

ent.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

rein

forc

ing

land

form

.

33

Om

aha

Kah

ikat

ea

Sw

amp

Fore

st

Low

land

S

igni

fican

t rem

nant

in

dige

nous

kah

ikat

ea fo

rest

. Lo

w le

vels

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Low

land

coa

stal

kah

ikat

ea fo

rest

po

cket

, con

tiguo

us w

ith e

stua

rine

edge

.

Inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

rein

forc

ing

land

form

.

10

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

34

Wai

koko

pu C

reek

(in

ner W

hang

atea

u H

arbo

ur)

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

In

terti

dal m

argi

n w

hich

is

high

ly n

atur

al.

Low

lyin

g la

ndfo

rm

back

drop

. O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s/bu

ilt

mod

ifica

tion.

Sal

tmar

sh, m

angr

oves

and

in

terti

dal m

ud fl

ats

Hea

d of

har

bour

and

inte

rtida

l ar

ea.

35

Nor

ther

n en

d M

anga

taw

hiri

(Om

aha)

Spi

t

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Dun

es a

nd d

ista

l sp

it.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Coa

stal

dun

es &

bea

ch a

t nor

ther

n en

d of

Om

aha

Spi

t (al

igns

with

op

en s

pace

are

a) &

adj

acen

t co

asta

l mar

ine

area

at e

ntra

nce

to

Wha

ngat

eau

Har

bour

.)

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n. P

rom

inen

t lan

dfor

m

feat

ure

fram

ing

entra

nce

to

Wha

ngat

eau

Har

bour

.

36

Mat

akan

a R

iver

–C

hris

tian

Bay

R

iver

mou

th

and

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Not

e: s

ome

coas

tal

settl

emen

t are

as e

xclu

ded.

Roc

ky s

hoal

s an

d ba

ys, h

eadl

ands

, ge

nera

lly w

ith s

ome

nativ

e co

ver

behi

nd.

Dis

pers

ed re

side

ntia

l de

velo

pmen

t, bu

t set

tlem

ents

ex

clud

ed.

Incl

udes

rem

nant

sta

nds

of in

dige

nous

fore

st e

xten

ding

in

land

as

part

of c

oast

al b

ackd

rop,

w

ith s

ome

past

ure

area

s in

ters

pers

ed.

Ext

ends

up

the

Mat

akan

a riv

er m

outh

coa

stal

ed

ge.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

11

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

37

Taw

hara

nui

Pen

insu

la

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Taw

hara

nui R

egio

nal P

ark

and

adja

cent

are

as o

f sim

ilar c

hara

cter

.

Rol

ling

land

form

with

rem

nant

po

cket

s of

pla

nted

and

nat

ural

ly

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n, in

ters

pers

ed w

ith

past

ure.

Inc

lude

s ex

tens

ive

coas

tline

.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

38

Mat

akan

a R

iver

S

outh

C

oast

al

Und

evel

oped

eas

t coa

st

coas

tline

. (D

evel

opm

ent s

its

behi

nd u

nit).

S

trong

land

form

fram

e /

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Coa

stal

esc

arpm

ent w

ith m

ore

or

less

inta

ct in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

cove

r. S

ome

resi

dent

ial

deve

lopm

ent w

ithin

uni

t, bu

t not

do

min

ant.

Mos

t res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent s

its b

ehin

d a

top

esca

rpm

ent.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

39

Sca

ndre

tt R

egio

nal

Par

k- M

artin

s B

ay

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Hea

dlan

d w

ith s

teep

esc

arpm

ent

and

coas

tal f

ores

t rem

nant

, fra

min

g th

e so

uthe

rn e

nd o

f Kaw

au B

ay.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n

40

Mah

uran

gi E

ast

Reg

iona

l Par

k C

oast

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Coa

stal

esc

arpm

ent,

prom

inen

t, dr

amat

ic la

ndfo

rm, r

emna

nt a

nd

rege

nera

ting

coas

tal f

ores

t, so

uth

of M

artin

s B

ay a

nd in

clud

ing

entir

e he

adla

nd la

ndsc

ape.

Som

e pa

stur

e al

so e

xten

ding

dow

n to

w

ater

s ed

ge.

Lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n. I

nter

play

of

pas

ture

with

in v

eget

ated

la

ndsc

ape.

12

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

41

Te K

apa

Riv

er

head

wat

ers

(Mah

uran

gi)

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

D

efin

ed B

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f tal

l, pr

edom

inan

tly n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s/bu

ilt

mod

ifica

tion.

Ext

ensi

ve m

angr

ove

and

saltm

arsh

es

tuar

ine

area

s lin

ked

to b

ush

rem

nant

ext

endi

ng u

p va

lley

syst

em, c

reat

ing

stro

ng p

atte

rn

with

adj

oini

ng p

astu

re.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

42

Sco

tts P

oint

&

Cas

nell

Isla

nd

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

La

nd w

ith re

lativ

ely

high

re

lief.

Def

ined

bac

kdro

p.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Pro

min

ent h

eadl

and

(Sco

tts P

oint

an

d C

asne

ll Is

land

) with

larg

e ar

eas

of re

mna

nt a

nd re

gene

ratin

g co

asta

l for

est.

Som

e ar

eas

of lo

w

dens

ity re

side

ntia

l dev

elop

men

t.

Lim

ited

past

ure.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n. I

nter

play

of

pas

ture

with

in v

eget

ated

la

ndsc

ape.

43

Wes

t Mah

uran

gi

Har

bour

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Wes

t sid

e of

Mah

uran

gi H

arbo

ur.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of r

emna

nt

indi

geno

us fo

rest

ext

endi

ng fr

om

the

harb

our m

argi

ns (a

nd in

clud

ing

thos

e m

argi

ns) i

nto

the

hill

back

drop

. P

astu

re in

terp

lays

with

pa

ttern

of f

ores

t to

rein

forc

e la

ndfo

rm.

Low

leve

l of r

ural

re

side

ntia

l dev

elop

men

t.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

land

form

.

13

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

44

Mah

uran

gi-W

aiw

era

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rol

ling

to s

teep

ly ro

lling

hill

coun

try

with

pas

ture

inte

rmix

ed w

ith

rem

nant

fore

st a

nd in

cise

d co

asta

l va

lleys

, with

esc

arpm

ents

cov

ered

in

nat

ive

fore

st.

Coa

stlin

e w

ith

cliff

s an

d fo

rest

rem

nant

s. S

ome

area

s of

mor

e in

tens

ive

settl

emen

t ex

clud

ed.

Coa

stal

and

hill

cou

ntry

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

and

patte

rn o

f pas

ture

re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

45

Kai

para

Fla

ts

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Pro

min

ent k

noll

land

form

with

st

rong

pat

tern

ing

of p

astu

re a

nd

rem

nant

fore

st w

ith lo

wla

nd a

pron

of

töta

ra a

nd k

ahik

atea

dom

inat

ed

fore

st a

long

stre

am c

orrid

ors,

m

ixed

with

pas

ture

.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

46

Upp

er P

uhoi

Val

ley

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Ste

ep h

ill c

ount

ry a

nd g

ullie

s as

w

ell a

s es

carp

men

t with

inta

ct a

nd

pock

ets

of n

ativ

e re

mna

nt fo

rest

, in

ters

pers

ed w

ith p

astu

re.

Stro

ng

patte

rn a

nd s

truct

ure.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

14

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Cen

tral

Rod

ney

- Ore

wa

47

Upp

er W

aiw

era

Roa

d H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Poc

kets

of r

emna

nt fo

rest

incl

udin

g ka

hika

tea

amon

g ro

lling

past

ure

and

follo

win

g st

ream

cor

ridor

s.

Som

e ru

ral d

evel

opm

ent,

but

reta

inin

g a

clea

r and

coh

esiv

e ‘n

atur

al’ p

atte

rnin

g.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

48

Wai

nui R

oad

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Pre

dom

inan

ce o

f rem

nant

in

dige

nous

fore

st o

n rid

gelin

e an

d hi

lls, e

xten

ding

dow

n to

a s

tream

gu

lly o

n th

e so

uthe

rn s

ide.

Indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

s re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

49

Sun

nysi

de R

oad,

C

oats

ville

Lo

wla

nds

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Rem

nant

ban

ds o

f ind

igen

ous

fore

st o

n es

carp

men

ts a

nd ri

dges

, ex

tend

ing

in s

ome

plac

es d

own

stre

am c

orrid

ors.

Kau

ri, k

ahik

atea

, tä

neka

ha p

rom

inen

t. In

terp

lay

with

pa

stur

e on

frin

ges

Indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

s re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

. In

terp

lay

with

pas

ture

.

50

Sha

kesp

ear R

egio

nal

Par

k &

Coa

stlin

e C

oast

al

Und

evel

oped

eas

t coa

st

coas

tline

. S

trong

land

form

fra

me/

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Sha

kesp

ear R

egio

nal P

ark,

clif

f m

argi

ns a

roun

d to

Arm

y B

ay a

nd

Oko

rom

ai B

ay.

Dra

mat

ic c

oast

al

cliff

pro

files

at s

ea e

dge

com

bine

d w

ith p

ocke

ts o

f reg

ener

atin

g in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion,

mix

ed w

ith

past

ure

on ro

lling

terr

ain.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n an

d pa

ttern

of

pas

ture

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

15

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

51

Oku

ra E

stua

ry

Hea

dlan

ds

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed e

ast c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Oku

ra E

stua

ry a

nd L

ong

Bay

Hea

dlan

ds, i

nclu

ding

indi

geno

us

fore

st c

over

ed e

scar

pmen

ts a

nd

dram

atic

clif

f-lin

e.

Coa

stal

/est

uarin

e la

ndfo

rms

with

re

mna

nt in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

and

patte

rn o

f pas

ture

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

16

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Nor

th S

hore

City

1 P

arem

orem

o Es

carp

men

t H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Follo

ws

road

alo

ng ri

dge

and

Par

emor

emo

Stre

am a

long

bot

tom

. In

tact

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n, w

ith

limite

d m

atur

e pi

ne in

trusi

on.

Indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

s re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

52

Ote

ha S

tream

Es

carp

men

t H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Ote

ha V

alle

y E

scar

pmen

t. In

tact

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

on

prom

inen

t esc

arpm

ent l

andf

orm

. S

outh

faci

ng.

Indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

s re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

53

Luca

s C

reek

H

arbo

ur &

E

stua

ry

Inte

rtida

l mar

gin

whi

ch is

hi

ghly

nat

ural

. B

acke

d by

land

with

re

lativ

ely

high

relie

f. D

efin

ed b

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f tal

l, pr

edom

inan

tly n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s / b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion.

Luca

s C

reek

veg

etat

ed

esca

rpm

ent d

own

to e

stua

ry

mar

gins

with

rem

nant

coa

stal

fo

rest

. R

ogue

mat

ure

pine

s.

Can

opy

spec

ies

incl

ude

kaur

i, ka

hika

tea,

kan

uka,

tota

ra,

tane

kaha

, kow

hai.

Indi

geno

us fo

rest

rem

nant

s re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

54

Long

Bay

C

oast

al

Und

evel

oped

eas

t coa

st

coas

tline

. S

trong

land

form

fra

me/

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Coa

stal

bac

kdro

p to

nor

ther

n pa

rt of

Lon

g B

ay R

egio

nal P

ark.

D

ram

atic

coa

stal

hea

dlan

ds, w

ith

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n –

pohu

tuka

wa.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

17

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Fran

klin

Dis

tric

t

55

Wes

t Coa

st A

whi

tu

Pen

insu

la

Hill

Cou

ntry

&

Coa

stal

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Ext

ensi

ve la

ndsc

ape

with

dra

mat

ic

sand

ridg

e co

asta

l lan

dfor

m a

nd

dram

atic

clif

fs a

nd ri

dges

abu

tting

th

e Ta

sman

Sea

. In

dige

nous

fo

rest

rem

nant

s, m

ainl

y in

gul

lies

and

on s

teep

slo

pes,

inte

rmix

ed

with

pas

ture

. S

pora

dic

hous

ing

(farm

and

rura

l res

iden

tial).

Som

e m

atur

e an

d yo

ung

plan

tatio

n pi

ne

that

has

gen

eral

ly b

een

excl

uded

.

Coa

stal

and

coa

stal

ly d

eriv

ed

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n an

d pa

ttern

of

pas

ture

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

56

Lake

s W

hatih

ua,

Rot

oiti,

& P

uket

i Lo

wla

nd

Lake

s an

d w

etla

nds

with

ar

eas

of o

pen

wat

er.

Und

evel

oped

mar

gins

. Lo

w le

vels

of d

evel

opm

ent.

Coh

esiv

e pa

ttern

.

Sm

all l

akes

eith

er s

ide

of K

ario

tahi

R

oad

fram

ed b

y op

en d

une

ridge

s an

d pa

stur

e w

ith w

etla

nd m

argi

ns,

raup

ö an

d ot

her s

peci

es

Nat

ural

lake

s an

d w

etla

nds.

57

Kar

iota

hi C

oast

line

Coa

stal

U

ndev

elop

ed w

est c

oast

co

astli

ne.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Dra

mat

ic li

near

Kar

iota

hi c

oast

line

com

pris

ing

dyna

mic

wes

t coa

st

beac

h fro

nts

and

iron

sand

, with

st

eep

esca

rpm

ent b

ackd

rop

(pas

ture

and

som

e pi

nes)

.

Long

ext

ent o

f bea

ch a

nd d

unes

w

ith re

lativ

ely

unde

velo

ped

rura

l ba

ckdr

op.

58

(mos

t of

unit

is in

th

e W

aika

to

Reg

ion

&

is n

ot

show

n on

m

aps)

Puk

eow

are

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Cen

tral h

ighp

oint

with

sig

nific

ant

stan

ds, a

nd lo

ne tr

ees

or g

roup

s of

in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

inte

rspe

rsed

w

ith p

astu

re.

Low

den

sity

of r

ural

an

d ru

ral r

esid

entia

l hou

sing

pr

esen

t, bu

t sub

serv

ient

.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

18

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

59

Wes

t Ram

aram

a &

B

omba

y (T

wo

site

s)

Hill

Cou

ntry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Rol

ling

terr

ain

on th

e fri

nges

of t

he

Bom

bay

Hills

with

larg

e po

cket

s of

re

mna

nt b

road

leaf

fore

st a

mon

g pa

stur

e, h

ortic

ultu

re a

nd ru

ral

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent.

Som

e fo

rest

on

stee

p es

carp

men

ts.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

60

Pon

ga R

oad

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Ste

ep h

ill c

ount

ry w

ith la

rge

tract

s of

rem

nant

nat

ive

fore

st fo

llow

ing

stre

am g

ullie

s an

d on

upp

er s

lope

s &

ridg

es.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

61

(mos

t of

unit

is in

th

e W

aika

to

Reg

ion

&

is n

ot

show

n on

m

aps)

Pin

nacl

e H

ill H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Ele

vate

d hi

ll co

untry

with

inta

ct

cove

r of r

emna

nt in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion.

Are

as o

f les

s es

tabl

ishe

d in

dige

nous

re

gene

ratio

n an

d pi

ne e

xclu

ded.

In

clud

es p

asto

ral f

ooth

ills w

here

th

ere

is a

low

den

sity

dev

elop

men

t.

Ext

ends

to lo

wla

nd p

asto

ral f

ringe

ne

ar S

tate

Hig

hway

2 a

nd in

clud

es

ripar

ian

and

low

land

kah

ikat

ea

fore

st.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

I

62

(Par

t in

Man

ukau

C

ity)

Hun

ua R

ange

s H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Inta

ct m

atur

e in

dige

nous

fore

st o

n st

eep

hill

coun

try a

nd a

roun

d w

ater

ca

tchm

ent l

akes

, ext

endi

ng d

own

to th

e co

asta

l mar

gins

of t

he F

irth

of T

ham

es a

nd s

ome

stre

am

corr

idor

s. I

nclu

des

past

oral

toe

slop

es w

here

fore

st in

terp

lays

.

Inte

rpla

y of

inta

ct m

atur

e in

dige

nous

fore

st a

nd fo

rest

re

mna

nts

with

pas

ture

, rei

nfor

cing

to

pogr

aphy

. I

19

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Man

ukau

C

ity

63

Ore

re P

oint

–

Wai

man

gu

Har

bour

and

E

stua

ry

Def

ined

Bac

kdro

p.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n.

Firth

of T

ham

es c

oast

line

with

st

ands

of r

emna

nt c

oast

al fo

rest

ex

tend

ing

up s

tream

cat

chm

ents

an

d on

slo

pes.

Int

erpl

ay w

ith

past

ure.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

64

Kau

ri B

ay H

eadl

ands

, W

airo

a R

iver

C

oast

al

Und

evel

oped

eas

t coa

st

coas

tline

. S

trong

land

form

fram

e /

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Two

head

land

s de

finin

g K

auri

Bay

w

ith in

tact

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n,

and

rock

y sh

ores

.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

65

Mat

aita

i For

est

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

indi

geno

us fo

rest

on

high

hi

ll co

untry

inte

rmix

ed w

ith s

ome

past

ure

on s

lope

s ne

ar th

e N

ess

Val

ley.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

66

Nor

th C

leve

don

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Dis

cret

e el

evat

ed h

ill la

ndfo

rm a

t th

e ba

ck o

f Cle

vedo

n se

ttlem

ent

with

rem

nant

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n. S

ome

pine

edg

es

intru

de.

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

with

pas

ture

, rei

nfor

cing

to

pogr

aphy

.

20

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

67

Dud

er R

egio

nal P

ark

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

In

terti

dal m

argi

n w

hich

is

high

ly n

atur

al.

Bac

ked

by la

nd w

ith

rela

tivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

D

efin

ed b

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f tal

l pr

edom

inan

tly n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s/bu

ilt

envi

ronm

ent.

Dud

er R

egio

nal P

ark

– he

adla

nd

land

form

s (d

ram

atic

) com

bine

d w

ith m

angr

ove/

saltm

arsh

bea

ch

and

esca

rpm

ent h

eadl

and

to th

e no

rth o

f the

Wai

roa

Riv

er.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

68

Inla

nd K

awak

awa

H

ill C

ount

ry

Rel

ativ

ely

high

relie

f. S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f mat

urin

g ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

leve

ls o

f bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s).

Sea

war

d fa

cing

coa

stal

ridg

es w

ith

rem

nant

coa

stal

fore

st c

ombi

ned

with

ste

ep e

scar

pmen

ts a

long

ro

cky

shor

elin

e

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

69

Om

ana

Reg

iona

l Par

k H

arbo

ur &

E

stua

ry

Def

ined

bac

kdro

p.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Om

ana

Reg

iona

l Par

k, c

oast

al

edge

with

frin

ge o

f nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

21

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

70

Trig

Roa

d W

hitfo

rd

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Rem

nant

and

rege

nera

ting

indi

geno

us fo

rest

on

stre

am

esca

rpm

ent,

partl

y fra

med

and

in

plac

es in

terru

pted

by

past

ure

and

youn

ger s

hrub

land

and

re

gene

ratin

g ve

geta

tion.

Bot

h pi

nes

and

past

ure

on p

erip

hery

. S

ome

subs

ervi

ent r

ural

resi

dent

ial

(beh

ind

Whi

tford

).

Inte

rpla

y of

indi

geno

us fo

rest

re

mna

nts

and

past

ure,

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

71

Man

gem

ange

roa

Cre

ek E

scar

pmen

t H

arbo

ur &

E

stua

ry

Land

with

rela

tivel

y hi

gh

relie

f. D

efin

ed b

ackd

rop.

S

igni

fican

t are

as o

f tal

l, pr

edom

inan

tly n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

O

nly

low

den

sity

of

subs

ervi

ent h

ouse

s/ b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion.

Man

gem

ange

roa

Cre

ek c

oast

al

esca

rpm

ent w

ith b

and

of re

mna

nt

fore

st a

bove

man

grov

e lin

ed in

let.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

22

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Wai

take

re C

ity

72

Sou

th T

itira

ngi

Har

bour

&

Est

uary

La

nd w

ith re

lativ

ely

high

re

lief.

Def

ined

bac

kdro

p.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of t

all,

pred

omin

antly

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty o

f su

bser

vien

t hou

ses/

built

m

odifi

catio

n.

Sou

th T

itira

ngi c

oast

. C

oast

al

edge

with

con

tiguo

us in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

exte

ndin

g in

to th

e R

ange

s ba

ckdr

op.

Kau

ri an

d m

ixed

bro

adle

af fo

rest

. In

clud

es

spor

adic

hou

ses

set i

nto

bush

, but

no

t dom

inan

t. M

ore

dens

ely

settl

ed a

reas

exc

lude

d.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

73

Wai

take

re R

ange

s an

d C

oast

line

Hill

Cou

ntry

R

elat

ivel

y hi

gh re

lief.

Sig

nific

ant a

reas

of m

atur

ing

vege

tatio

n.

Onl

y lo

w le

vels

of b

uilt

mod

ifica

tion

(hou

ses)

.

Incl

udes

Wai

take

re R

ange

s,

Tasm

an S

ea a

nd M

anuk

au

Har

bour

coa

stlin

es a

nd w

ater

ca

tchm

ent l

akes

. C

ontin

uous

fo

rest

with

dra

mat

ic c

oast

al

mar

gins

(Wes

t Coa

st c

oast

line)

. S

ome

pock

ets

of p

astu

re a

nd ru

ral

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent.

Te

Hen

ga w

etla

nds.

Mur

iwai

and

Te

Hen

ga h

eadl

ands

hav

e ar

eas

of

past

ure

with

dra

mat

ic la

ndfo

rm.

Coa

stal

and

inla

nd ra

nges

la

ndfo

rms

with

larg

ely

inta

ct

rem

nant

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

23

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Hau

raki

Gul

f Isl

ands

74

Ran

gito

to

Mot

utap

u M

otui

he

Mot

ukor

ea (B

row

ns)

Tirit

iri M

atan

gi

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rrm

. P

asto

ral/o

pen

land

scap

e ex

pres

sing

topo

grap

hy.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm

fram

e/de

finiti

on.

Isla

nd la

ndsc

apes

def

inin

g H

aura

ki

Gul

f. S

trong

land

form

ch

arac

teris

tics

rein

forc

ed b

y ve

geta

tion

cove

r inc

ludi

ng o

pen

past

ure

and

rem

nant

/rege

nera

ting/

pl

ante

d in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion.

S

trong

land

form

and

veg

etat

ion

rela

tions

hip

in c

ase

of R

angi

toto

. S

trong

land

form

/sea

rela

tions

hip

in

case

of M

otuk

orea

. Is

land

s ch

arac

teris

ed b

y pa

ttern

of

rock

y sh

orel

ine

and

cliff

s w

ith

sand

y be

ache

s an

d va

ryin

g am

ount

s of

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n,

parti

cula

rly p

öhut

ukaw

a.

Bui

lt m

odifi

catio

n (h

ouse

s)

extre

mel

y lim

ited

– re

late

d to

DoC

m

anag

emen

t & v

isito

r fac

ilitie

s.

All

isla

nds

in D

oC o

wne

rshi

p an

d ha

ve v

ery

stro

ng id

entit

y an

d se

nse

of p

lace

val

ues

for A

uckl

and

– pa

rticu

larly

Ran

gito

to.

Ret

entio

n of

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n, b

oth

inta

ct a

nd

rem

nant

, rei

nfor

cing

topo

grap

hy.

Inte

rpla

y of

pas

ture

and

rem

nant

an

d re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

impo

rtant

on

Mot

utap

u an

d M

otui

he.

La

ndfo

rm s

trong

ly e

xpre

ssed

and

ic

onic

.

75

Rak

ino

Isla

nd

Roc

ks a

nd H

eadl

ands

on

ly

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Coa

stal

edg

e, ro

cky

with

rock

sh

oals

and

isle

ts.

Mai

nly

land

form

va

lues

. P

oor v

eget

atio

n co

ver.

S

ome

pine

/mac

roca

rpa

and

rem

nant

poh

utuk

awa.

Ret

entio

n of

coa

stal

land

form

s an

d re

mna

nt p

ohut

ukaw

a.

24

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

76

The

Noi

ses

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Incl

udes

Dav

id R

ocks

and

Mar

ia

Isla

nd.

Inta

ct ro

cky

isle

ts, w

ith s

pars

e co

asta

l veg

etat

ion

cove

r

Ret

entio

n of

inte

rpla

y be

twee

n un

deve

lope

d co

asta

l lan

dfor

ms

and

vege

tatio

n co

ver t

hat

rein

forc

es to

pogr

aphy

77

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Nor

ther

n H

eadl

ands

H

akai

man

go P

oint

to

One

tang

i Bay

Isla

nds

Larg

ely

unde

velo

ped

coas

tline

. V

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm a

nd

inte

rpla

y w

ith p

astu

re.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Dra

mat

ic h

eadl

and

land

form

. C

oast

al p

ohut

ukaw

a in

ters

pers

ed

with

ste

ep c

liffs

, roc

k fa

ces,

pa

stur

e. L

imite

d fo

rmed

bui

ldin

g si

tes

(Tho

mps

on’s

Poi

nt) a

nd

hous

es g

ener

ally

sub

serv

ient

. S

ome

earth

wor

ks.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n, p

artic

ular

ly

pohu

tuka

wa

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

78

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Eas

tern

End

Is

land

s U

ndev

elop

ed c

oast

line.

In

tact

veg

etat

ion

patte

rn

rein

forc

ing

land

form

, in

ters

pers

ed w

ith p

astu

re

and

vitic

ultu

re/o

live

plan

tings

. S

trong

land

form

fram

e /

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

.

Com

bina

tion

of d

ram

atic

coa

stlin

e,

head

land

s, c

oves

and

esc

arpm

ents

w

ith re

mna

nt fo

rest

and

pas

ture

. In

clud

es P

uke

Ran

ge a

s a

maj

or

back

-dro

p to

the

east

ern

end

of th

e is

land

. Ba

sin

catc

hmen

ts o

f re

gene

ratio

n fo

rest

. La

rges

t co

ntig

uous

are

as o

f mat

ure

coas

tal

fore

st o

n W

aihe

ke.

Incl

udes

S

tone

y B

atte

r bou

lder

fiel

ds a

nd

vine

yard

/oliv

e gr

ove

deve

lopm

ent.

In

ters

pers

ed w

ith ta

raire

and

pür

iri

fore

st.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm.

Coa

stal

land

form

s w

ith in

tact

and

re

mna

nt in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion,

re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

25

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

79

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Aw

aaw

aroa

Bay

&

Val

ley

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e In

tact

veg

etat

ion

patte

rn

rein

forc

ing

land

form

, pas

ture

in

terp

lay

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm

fram

e/de

finiti

on

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es)

Inta

ct a

nd re

gene

ratin

g na

tive

fore

st o

n co

asta

l rid

ges.

Eco

tone

th

roug

h to

sal

t wat

er w

etla

nd,

saltm

arsh

and

man

grov

es.

Som

e yo

ung

rege

nera

tion.

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion

and

past

ure,

re

info

rcin

g to

pogr

aphy

.

80

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Sou

th c

oast

he

adla

nds

(Wha

u P

oint

to A

waa

war

oa

Bay

)

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm

fram

e/de

finiti

on.

Som

e ho

uses

/dev

elop

men

t.

Roc

ky c

oast

al h

eadl

ands

with

re

mna

nt p

öhut

ukaw

a an

d sm

all

pock

ets

of c

oast

al fo

rest

in

ters

pers

ed w

ith s

mal

l cov

es a

nd

bays

. S

ome

deve

lopm

ent a

nd

emer

ging

hou

ses.

Coa

stal

land

form

s an

d re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

81

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Wha

kane

wha

Is

land

s U

ndev

elop

ed c

oast

line.

In

tact

veg

etat

ion

patte

rn

rein

forc

ing

land

form

. S

trong

land

form

fra

me/

defin

ition

(bas

in)

Reg

iona

l par

k, w

etla

nds

and

re-

emer

gent

coa

stal

fore

st. R

egio

nal

park

cat

chm

ent b

asin

with

wet

land

, re

gene

ratin

g hi

ll sl

opes

with

co

ntig

uous

trac

ts o

f ind

igen

ous

fore

st.

Som

e m

atur

e st

ands

of

kahi

kate

a. B

irdlif

e.

Coa

stal

land

form

s, w

etla

nds

and

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n.

82

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Sou

th-w

este

rn ro

cks

& Is

land

s

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e S

trong

land

form

fra

me/

defin

ition

Incl

udes

Mot

ukah

a an

d C

ruso

e Is

land

s an

d th

e th

ree

smal

l ro

cks/

knol

ls in

Oak

ura

Bay

. S

ome

vege

tatio

n, m

ainl

y la

ndfo

rm

char

acte

ristic

s.

Coa

stal

land

form

s an

d re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n.

26

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

83

Wai

heke

Isla

nd

Par

k P

oint

Hea

dlan

d Is

land

s S

trong

land

form

fra

me/

defin

ition

H

eadl

and

land

form

. S

ome

wee

d sp

ecie

s an

d ex

otic

s in

terv

ene.

G

ener

ally

inta

ct a

nd m

ixed

re

mna

nt s

crub

with

pas

ture

, som

e ex

otic

s. C

liffs

with

atte

ndan

t pö

hutu

kaw

a.

Coa

stal

land

form

s an

d re

mna

nt

vege

tatio

n, p

artic

ular

ly

pöhu

tuka

wa.

84

Pak

atoa

Isla

nd &

Ta

rahi

ki (S

hag)

Isla

nd

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Coa

stal

edg

e, d

ram

atic

blu

ffs a

nd

rock

sho

als.

Nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Mai

nly

land

form

val

ues.

Ret

entio

n of

inte

rpla

y be

twee

n co

asta

l lan

dfor

ms

and

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n.

85

Pon

ui Is

land

Is

land

s U

ndev

elop

ed c

oast

line.

In

tact

veg

etat

ion

patte

rn

rein

forc

ing

land

form

, pas

ture

in

terp

lay.

S

trong

land

form

fram

e /

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Larg

e is

land

, dra

mat

ic c

oast

al

edge

with

clif

fs a

nd s

helte

red

beac

hes.

Ext

ensi

ve n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

alon

g co

asta

l edg

e an

d va

lleys

. In

land

inte

rpla

y be

twee

n re

mna

nt fo

rest

, pas

ture

and

rolli

ng

ridge

land

form

s, a

lso

a fe

atur

e.

Ret

entio

n of

coa

stal

land

form

s an

d in

terp

lay

betw

een

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n an

d ru

ral p

astu

re

rein

forc

ing

topo

grap

hy.

27

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

88

Aot

ea

Gre

at B

arrie

r Isl

and

(incl

udes

Kai

kour

a,

Bro

ken

& R

akitü

(A

rid) I

slan

ds)

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm

fram

e/de

finiti

on.

Onl

y lo

w d

ensi

ty s

ubse

rvie

nt

deve

lopm

ent (

hous

es).

Inta

ct re

gene

ratin

g an

d re

mna

nt

indi

geno

us fo

rest

toge

ther

with

cl

early

arti

cula

ted

land

form

s th

at

inte

ract

ver

y st

rong

ly w

ith th

e se

as

arou

nd G

reat

Bar

rier.

Dra

mat

ic

skyl

ine

ridge

s an

d ro

ck o

utcr

ops.

S

tand

s of

mat

ure

rem

nant

fore

st.

Spe

ctac

ular

cen

tral s

pine

with

hi

ghpo

ints

, Mt H

obso

n,

Mat

awhe

ro/th

e P

inna

cles

etc

. P

ine

woo

dlot

s an

d sc

atte

red

rogu

e pi

nes.

Inc

lude

s so

me

smal

l ho

mes

tead

s bu

t exc

lude

s sm

all

settl

emen

ts a

nd s

ome

past

oral

and

fo

rest

are

as.

Incl

udes

the

harb

ours

eg

Por

t Fitz

roy

and

estu

arie

s eg

W

hang

apou

a. S

igni

fican

t DO

C

land

s.

Incl

udes

off

shor

e is

land

s eg

K

aiko

ura,

Bro

ken

and

Rak

itu (A

rid)

Isla

nds.

Ret

entio

n of

coa

stal

land

form

s,

indi

geno

us v

eget

atio

n an

d in

terp

lay

betw

een

vege

tatio

n an

d la

ndfo

rm/to

pogr

aphy

.

89

Hau

turu

Li

ttle

Bar

rier I

slan

d Is

land

s U

ndev

elop

ed c

oast

line

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame/

de

finiti

on.

Ext

ensi

ve in

tact

mat

ure

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n co

ver t

hat c

lear

ly

artic

ulat

es la

ndfo

rm.

Isla

nd is

ro

ughl

y sy

mm

etric

al w

ith a

num

ber

of ra

zor b

ack

ridge

s. C

oast

line

of

dram

atic

of s

heer

clif

fs, w

ith s

ome

boul

der b

each

es.

Stro

ng

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

coas

tline

and

su

rrou

ndin

g se

a. I

coni

c is

land

la

ndsc

ape.

Ow

ned

by D

oC a

nd

man

aged

as

Nat

ure

Res

erve

.

Ret

entio

n of

indi

geno

us

vege

tatio

n co

ver a

nd in

terp

lay

betw

een

vege

tatio

n an

d la

ndfo

rm/to

pogr

aphy

.

28

Are

a N

umbe

r Lo

catio

n N

ame

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Land

scap

e Ty

pe

Des

crip

tors

A

dditi

onal

Info

rmat

ion

Key

ON

L El

emen

ts, F

eatu

res

&

Patte

rns

Rod

ney

Dis

tric

t

86

Kaw

au Is

land

Is

land

s U

ndev

elop

ed c

oast

line.

In

tact

veg

etat

ion

patte

rn

rein

forc

ing

land

form

. S

trong

land

form

fram

e /

defin

ition

. O

nly

low

den

sity

sub

serv

ient

de

velo

pmen

t (ho

uses

).

Coa

stal

, int

act a

nd re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion,

m

änuk

a/kä

nuka

, em

erge

nt k

auri,

pü

riri,

pöhu

tuka

wa

arou

nd c

oast

. W

inds

wep

t in

east

, mor

e sh

elte

red

in w

este

rn b

ays.

Whe

re h

ouse

s in

clud

ed th

ey a

re s

ubse

rvie

nt o

r sm

all s

cale

. E

xclu

des

coas

tal

deve

lopm

ent a

nd m

ore

dens

e ar

eas

of h

ouse

s in

bus

h as

wel

l as

mai

n pi

ne a

reas

. S

ome

indi

vidu

al

and

grou

ps o

f pin

es in

the

ON

L ar

ea.

Ret

entio

n of

coa

stal

land

form

s an

d in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion

cove

r.

87

Mot

urek

arek

a Is

land

&

isle

ts

Isla

nds

Und

evel

oped

coa

stlin

e.

Inta

ct v

eget

atio

n pa

ttern

re

info

rcin

g la

ndfo

rm.

Stro

ng la

ndfo

rm fr

ame

/ de

finiti

on.

Col

lect

ion

of is

lets

, roc

k sh

oals

and

he

adla

nds

with

bea

ches

. D

ram

atic

la

ndfo

rm a

nd in

terp

lay

with

wat

er.

Veg

etat

ion

incl

udes

scr

uffy

pin

e an

d so

me

pohu

tuka

was

and

re

gene

ratin

g in

dige

nous

ve

geta

tion.

Ret

entio

n of

coa

stal

land

form

s an

d in

dige

nous

veg

etat

ion.

Documents

Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for Auckland ... - … · Landscapes, Photography of All Landscape Types, Identification of Natural Character Indicators Stage 2 Public Perceptions