Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment Peer Review 2008 Your Say... · 2 Stephen Brown Environments Ltd Introduction This report is a peer review of the landscape assessment of

Stephen Brown Environments Ltd

Coromandel Peninsula LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT Peer Review

Prepared For Thames Coromandel District Council

July 2008

Stephen Brown Environments Ltd 2

Introduction

This report is a peer review of the landscape assessment of the Coromandel Peninsula

completed by LA4 in September 2006, with input from Harry Bhana (resource management

consultant) and Gravitas Research & Strategy Ltd. The LA4 study set out to identify a range

of landscape categories (17) associated with different levels of sensitivity to modification

based on the initial identification and delineation of some 61landscape character units across

the entire Peninsula, then grouping of these units into landscape categories – reflecting

different sensitivity levels – derived from the evaluation of each unit employing a range of

criteria.

This review explores both the methodology employed in that assessment and the application

of it to identify outstanding and other landscapes across the Coromandel Peninsula. It also

addresses the scale of landscape units delineated by LA4 and the resulting implications of

both the findings and scale of landscape units in respect of future management of Thames

Coromandel District Council’s landscape resource. In particular, SBEL has been asked to

address;

the method employed by LA4 represents ‘best practice’ and whether it has been

employed appropriately in terms of:

compartmentalisation of the Peninsula into 61 landscape units and 17 landscape

categories: is this resolution appropriate?

classification of 5 main sensitivity classes: two categories of outstanding landscape,

areas sensitive to changes, regionally significant landscapes and significant

landscapes;

conclusions drawn from the assessment;

recommendations arising from the assessment and contributing to a Variation to the

operative district plan.

Related concerns include:

whether there is a need for another ‘meso’ scale of landscape unit and related

assessment?

whether or not a tangata whenua perspective on landscape should be incorporated in

the assessment?


The Review Process

Following the course charted by this brief, the peer review follows a relatively clear and linear

path:

1. Consideration of whether or not the LA4 study has addressed all relevant statues and

policy documents.

2. A review of the assessment method employed by LA4, in the context of recent

research into landscape values and preferences, together with more recent case law.

3. A review of the landscape units identified by LA4 with regard to their contribution to

the interpretation / explanation of landscape values / sensitivities and also their

appropriateness in terms of landscape management under a Variation to the Thames

Coromandel District Plan.

4. Ground-truthing of the assessment method and landscape units employed by LA4.

5. Analysis of the value of incorporating a tangata whenua perspective on the

Peninsula’s landscape values.


1. Statutory Considerations

The LA4 study quite correctly addresses and outlines pertinent sections from:

the Resource Management Act 1991 - especially sections 6(b) [outstanding

landscapes] and 7(c) [amenity], but also having regard to the wider; sustainable

management purpose [section 5] of the Act;

the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000;

the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 1994; and

relevant provisions of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and, more particularly

Policy 3.1. of the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan.


2. Landscape Assessment methods

The foundation of any landscape assessment is found in the criteria that guide the evaluation

of landscape values / sensitivities and the allocation of ratings which have meaning in terms

of sections 6(b) and 7(c) especially of the Resource Management Act. In the case of the

Coromandel Peninsula Study, LA4 ‘s criteria are explained in a ‘precis report’, prepared by

themselves and Gravitas Research & Strategy. This joint report arose because Gravitas

undertook a quite separate exploration of coal ratepayers’ landscape perceptions and

values, in tandem with, but separate from, the LA4 study: although, discreet, it seems hardly

the Gravitas research clearly has a bearing on the relevance of the LA4 assessment, if only

in the public mind, as it clearly reflects public – as opposed to ‘expert’ – values.

2.1 The LA4 Study Methodology & Gravitas Research

LA4’s Assessment Method

Although LA4’s own report focuses upon the definition of landscape units, then their

amalgamation into landscape categories – of similar sensitivity levels and character and, by

implication, displaying management issues – the real ‘heart of their assessment is found in

the criteria that are employed to identify different values and sensitivities for each unit. These

expert based assessment criteria are employed in a sequential analysis of each landscape

unit (employing worksheets for each) as follows:

Aesthetic Value

Field evaluation of Aesthetic Value using the following criteria (with individual ratings):

Vividness: How immediately impressive and memorable is the landscape as a result of its visual distinctiveness, diversity or other factors - both compositional and geo-physical?

Complexity/ Diversity: To what extent does the unit have a sense of richness and interest about it arising from the diversity of elements found within it - without that diversity leading to discontinuity?

Cohesion: Is there a continuity of key statements I patterns I themes l accents that give the landscape both character and a sense of unity?

Legibility: To what extent is it possible to develop a clear mental image of the unit’s landscape because of:

i) the clear definition of features and patterns within it that emphasise its 3 dimensional structure (layering); and

ii) identifiable landmarks (points of focus and reference)?

Mystery: Does the landscape’s spatial structure and array of elements promote a sense of sequence and ‘enticement’ through the unit’s space: the promise of more to unfold around the next bend’ – just beyond the landscape that is immediately visible?


Natural Character / Heritage Value To what extent does the unit reveal and convey a distinctive sense of identity because of:

Natural Character Patterns, elements and processes in the landscape that contribute to the character and sense of place of the locality and Region e.g. Kauri Forest

Cultural Associations Arising from man-made landscape elements that are distinctive and valued because of their association with both Maori and Pakeha cultures, e.g. old pa sites, historic buildings

Rarity To what extent is the unit or key elements within it rare or even unique at the Regional Level?

Visual Absorption Capability Field evaluation of VAC using the following criteria to determine the capacity of the unit or view to visually absorb change without significant modification of its character:

Land Uses How ‘developed’ is the existing landscape - from areas that are primarily native and natural to those which are highly developed and urbanised?

Vegetation Cover & Type How extensive and varied is existing vegetation cover - from no cover and monocultural dominance to a high level of vegetated cover and diverse species?

Topographic Type & Diversity Does the unit’s terrain assist or limit viewing because of its character and the viewing angles that would typically arise between vantage areas and locations subject to modification - from the simplicity and openness of a plain or shallow ridgeline to incised foot hills with a high level of visual containment?

Exposure / Visibility How visually exposed is the unit /sub-unit / view to the likes of:

Residential Areas

Areas Of Recreational Use And Tourism Activity

Public Transport Routes And Tourist Routes

Commercial Areas

The combination of ratings for these different sections contributes to an overall rating of

Sensitivity To Modification for each unit. The ‘values’ side of this ‘equation’ is substantially

drawn from extensive research in the USA by Steven and Rachel Kaplan into the ‘two

dimensional picture plane’ (focusing upon composition) and the ‘three dimensional spatial

array’ (reflecting the desirability of moving through a landscape). “Natural character /

heritage value” relates to the imposition of a cultural imprint or patterns – often of an historic

nature – on the landscape, while “rarity” is less about intrinsic values than about managing

resources in a qualitative sense, it can also be regarded as an ‘amplifying’ factor, that adds

to, or enhances, the values of landscape resources that are both highly valued (for other

reasons) and rare.

Moving away from ‘values’, the criteria under “visual absorption capability’ and “exposure /

visibility” reflect the sensitivity or vulnerability of a landscape to change. However, they do so

focusing upon this facet of landscape in a more quantitative fashion, counterbalancing the

more qualitative values inherent in the first part of the assessment process.


At the same time, it is clear that the sections addressing Aesthetic Value and Natural

Character / Heritage are more directly pertinent to sections 6(a) and (b) and sections 7(c)

and (f) insofar as they more directly focus upon current environmental / landscape

conditions, whereas the subsequent sections deal – by implication – with the future effects

associated with the potential imposition of development on the landscape.

Local Community Values – Gravitas Report

Returning to the issue of current environmental values, Gravitas’s research involved two

phases: an analysis of focus group responses to the Peninsula’s many different landscape

types (pages 5 & 6 of précis report), and analysis of a residents and ratepayer’s’ survey of

landscape preferences (pp. 7, 9 & 10 of précis report):

Gravitas' Findings – Qualitative Research (Focus Groups) Focus group participants discussed landscapes they considered valuable and identified a number of attributes that underpin this value. Some attributes were consistently identified by participants as determining a ‘most valuable’ or ‘valuable’ landscape, while a lack of these attributes and/or other negative attributes swayed participants towards a’ not so valuable’ rating. Based on the discussions, these attributes have been divided into most valuable and least valuable aspects as follows:

Most valuable aspects

Ecologically important features

Pristine (lack of human ‘dominance’)

Quintessentially Coromandel

Rarity of landscape

Vegetation/greenness (especially native)

Water features/water scenery

Heritage value

Least valuable aspects

Presence of buildings/man-made structures/evidence of human impact (like orchards and farms)

Not uniquely Coromandel Peninsula

Lack of vegetation/greenness

Common landscapes Following general discussions, participants were shown a series of photos that had been taken by a landscape architect which were identified as representative of typical Coromandel Peninsula landscapes. The focus of these photos was not the location of the landscape but the type of landscape that was portrayed in each image. Participants were asked to consider each of these landscape types in terms of how valuable they are, by referring back to some the principles that had been discussed earlier in the group. The sorting of the landscape types into groups using what was earlier identified as ‘valuable aspects, indicated that a hierarchy of valuable landscapes exists. Note: Groups did not rank or rate landscapes within each group, so lists below are not in any rank order within each group. Group 1: Most Valuable – “Quintessentially Coromandel”

White sand beach, sandspit, dunes


Headland between beaches (undeveloped)

Coastal edge with pohutukawas

Good quality native bush

River and Bush Group 2: Valuable Landscapes

Steep bush covered coastal edge with houses

Inlet and sandbar

Rolling hills, pasture, with bush in gullies

Regenerating bush on hills Group 3: Ecological Value

Saltmarsh

Estuary and mudflat

Mangroves Group 4: Common Landscapes

Exotic trees and bush backdrop

Orchards

Flat river valley with pasture

Flat to rolling pasture with houses and hills behind

Exotic trees in valley Group 5: Low Value

Pine forestry

Gravitas' Findings - Residents and Ratepayers Survey Twelve photographs of different landscape types were selected to be included in the survey to illustrate a representative range of landscapes of the Coromandel. Respondents were asked to give each of the landscapes a value rating on a scale of 1 (no value whatsoever) to 10 (extremely valuable). The most highly rated landscapes were:

white sand beach, sandspit, dunes (mean rating of 9.4);

headlands between beaches (9.2);

coastal edge with pohutukawas (9.1); and

good quality native bush (9.0). In contrast, pine forestry and felling (mean rating of 4.3) and mangroves (4.9) received the lowest mean ratings. Most Valuable Landscapes Respondents were also asked to select 3 landscapes as being the most valuable. The landscapes most commonly selected as being one of the three most valuable landscapes were:

white sand beaches, sandspit and dunes (68%);

headland between beaches (59%);

coastal edge with pohutukawas (56%); and

good quality native bush (47%). The most common reasons given for choosing a landscape to be one of the three most valuable landscapes were:

they are natural landscapes (27%);


need protection (once damaged the landscape would be hard to get back or would be gone forever and/or needs to be protected/preserved for future generations) (25%);

represent what Coromandel is all about (why people live/visit here) (25%);

beautiful / attractive / aesthetic appeal (21%);

they are unspoilt / no development/unpopulated (21%); and/or

they are coastal landscapes or landscapes found near the coast (20%). Least Valuable Landscapes The landscapes most commonly selected as being one of the three least valuable landscapes in the residents' survey were:

pine forestry and felling (67%);

mangroves (51%);

orchards (43%);

flat to rolling pasture with houses (30%);

exotic trees in valley (27%); and

saltmarsh (26%). The most frequently mentioned reasons for describing landscapes as not so valuable were:

not visually attractive/appealing/does not add to areas beauty (30%);

not natural (human impact/man-made/not native) (26%);

inadequate management of mangroves (cause problems/dominate) (25%);

forestry is destructive to the environment (cause erosion/silt build up/felling is

destructive) (17%); and/or

not unique/special/they are common landscapes (13%).

Comparison of the LA4 & Gravitas Findings

In a summary ‘précis of their separate studies and related findings’, LA4 and Gravitas reach

the following conclusions about the relationship of their two studies (pp. 10 & 11):

The professional landscape assessment by LA4 and the assessment by the community through the two research approaches employed by Gravitas served different purposes and cannot be considered to be directly comparable at a detailed level. However, considering the findings of both is useful in providing clarity around key themes, or principles, which are consistent. When jointly considering the findings of the LA4 assessment and the residents and ratepayers focus group and survey, it is important to first establish a common ground or language for comparison. While the focus group and survey methodology involved respondents assessing and rating individual landscape types, irrespective of their location and/or surroundings, LA4’s assessment involved rating each landscape unit within the study area. As LA4’s landscape units often include more than one of the landscape types rated by residents, for the purposes of this comparison the landscape types rated by residents have been considered as features or parts that make up each landscape unit. It should also be noted that the scales used for the assessments were different – LA4 had rating scales of 1 to 7 while Gravitas had scales of 1 to 10. Therefore a direct comparison of ratings is not possible. Using this approach for comparison, findings for both LA4’s assessment and the ratepayers and residents focus groups and survey in general are similar. Landscape units considered


“outstanding landscapes” and, for the most part, “regionally significant” contain features (or landscape types) that were rated highly by residents and ratepayers. For example the outstanding landscapes identified by LA4 included features like white sand beaches, undeveloped headlands and native bush, which were all rated highly by residents and ratepayers. Mangroves and salt-marsh are features of the highly rated area units that were not rated as highly in the ratepayer survey. However, it was acknowledged that these features are ecologically important and, in the case of mangroves, it was noted that that they need to be adequately managed. Comparing the findings of the least valuable landscapes identified, it is clear that pine forests and felling are seen as of least value and in some cases as detrimental to the landscape. Other more common landscapes, such as flat to rolling pasture with houses, and landscapes that were ‘not visually attractive’ and ‘not natural’ were also seen as having a lower value by both the LA4 assessment and the residents and ratepayers involved in the Gravitas research. Another consistent point of comparison is between the attributes that were considered important when assessing the value of both landscape units (LA4’s assessment) and the attributes (ratepayers' reasons for value) within each. Attributes that add value and were used to describe landscape units by LA4 such as ‘natural’ and ‘not developed’ and ‘native’ were also specified as reasons ratepayers and residents selected landscapes as valuable. Indeed, the community’s assessment criteria appear to be very similar to those used by LA4. This gives confidence that if residents and ratepayers were to assess specific landscape units results would be likely be consistent.

2.2 Other Relevant Studies

On a wider front, there is now available some 9 years of research into public perception of

landscape values within New Zealand – undertaken by Prof. Simon Swaffield and John

Fairweather of Lincoln University in various parts of the country from 1997 onwards – which

provides more substantive guidance about the likely nature of such values and their

application to a wide range of landscapes, including those that embrace and surround the

subject site. Those studies1 reveal a remarkable degree of consistency in the appreciation

of, and attachment of values to, New Zealand’s landscapes, based on repeated “Q Sort”

testing of public attitudes to a wide range of landscapes and landscape types, with the great

majority of New Zealanders appearing to evaluate landscapes in terms of two quite closely

related, indeed substantially overlapping, paradigms. These are described by Swaffield and

1 Public Perceptions of Outstanding natural Landscapes In The Auckland Region, Research Report No. 273, John R

Fairweather, Simon R Swaffield, David G Simmons. 2004

Understanding Visitors’ Experiences In Kaikoura Using Photographs Of Landscapes & Q Sort. Report No. 5. John R Fairweather, Simon R Swaffield, David G Simmons. 1998

Understanding Visitors’ And Locals’ Experiences Of Rotorua Using Photographs Of Landscapes & Q Sort. Report No. 13. John R Fairweather, Simon R Swaffield, David G Simmons. 2000

Visitors’ And Locals’ Experiences Of Westland, New Zealand. Report No.23. John Fairweather, Bronwyn Newton, Simon R Swaffield, David G Simmons. 2001

Public Perceptions Of Natural And Modified Landscapes Of The Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. Research Report No. 241. John R Fairweather, Simon R Swaffield. October 1999


Fairweather as being the ‘wild nature’ and ‘cultured nature’ paradigms - or, in their

terminology: “factors”. These two ‘camps’ are perhaps best explained with reference to the

following tabular analysis of the 2004 study of public perceptions in the Auckland Region as

the foundation for identifying its outstanding landscapes:

Landscape Paradigm: Description Of Its Key Characteristics: Preferences In Relation To Key Landscape Components:

Wild Nature

Shows a very high correlation with landscapes in which there is little or no evidence of human presence, modification or management. Those landscapes identified as ‘truly outstanding’ lie closest to the pristine end of the naturalness spectrum.

Such landscapes tend to concentrated more strongly among the coastal, estuary / harbour, and lowland / wetland landscape categories assessed. This includes a general correlation between natural wetlands and high levels of preference.

Cultured Nature This paradigm exhibits much greater acceptance of slightly modified to modified environments as being outstanding. The presence of humans undertaking recreational activity or other forms of low intensity productive activity remain consistent with a landscape being ‘natural’ and may complement or even enhance its outstanding values.

Those loading on this factor / paradigm are more accepting of mixed bush and pasture on hills, but show an aversion to salt marsh and most forms of wetland - instead generally preferring scenes of lowland pastoralism.

(* pp. 45-46 of report)

Outstanding Landscapes -Combined Factors / Paradigms:*

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 visually subservient to the overall setting.

Estuary / Harbour: Open Water, inter-tidal 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 visually subservient to the overall setting.

Lowland / Wetland: 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 densities of settlement.

Hill Country / Ranges: 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 very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.

Key Elements:

Medium to high relief Water Tall vegetation Beach or rocky shorelines An absence of human artifacts*

Key Qualities:

Legible & coherent landscape structure & patterns

Variety Sense of tranquility Indigenous New Zealand identity Sense of openness and visual access


Appendix A to this report contains summary tables for all 6 studies undertaken by Prof.

Swaffield and John Fairweather and the following summary, extracted from pages 47 and 48

of the Auckland report (Research Report No. 273), reinforces the findings of the Auckland

study relative to other Q Sort study findings as well as the one other, preceding, study (1984)

within the Auckland Region:

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, Rotorua, 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. ……………..

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 socio-economic 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……..

Perhaps of even more direct relevance to the Coromandel Peninsula, the following findings

were recorded in Lincoln University’s 1999 study of ‘naturalness, natural character and

landscape values around the Peninsula’ (Research Report no. 241, Lincoln University

Agribusiness & Economics Research Unit, October 1999) – overleaf:


Public Perceptions Of Natural And Modified Landscapes Of The Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand (October 1999)

Landscape Paradigm:

Description Of Its Key Characteristics: Key Landscape Themes / Elements Elicited From Study Participants:

Factor 1. (Cultured Nature)

High levels of naturalness are associated with relatively unmodified landforms, areas of bush, coastal margins, estuaries, beaches, headlands, etc. Notably, those ‘loading’ on this factor are not very discriminating about differences between what is endemic (eg. native forest) and exotic or introduced (eg. pine forest) with generally neutral reactions to the latter.

Greater acceptance of human involvement in the landscape provided that involvement is appropriate: encouraging ‘nature’ and accepting of human intrusion provided it is “principled” and not intrusive. Thus, areas of open pasture also rate as being ‘neutral’

However, buildings and urban settings - including the likes of older baches, new housing, wharves and farm sheds - are viewed as severely compromising naturalness.

As a result, Factor 1 responses are largely determined on the basis of whether or not a scene is dominated, visually / aesthetically, by elements that display biological functions and processes.

Positives (More Natural): Coastal, water,

coastline, natural beach(es)

Bush / rocks/ sea Unmodified, least

changed Nothing man-made,

no apparent human influence,

Bush, taller and older exotic trees, pasture with trees

Factor 2. (Wild Nature)

Also associate high levels of naturalness with relatively unmodified landforms, areas of bush, coastal margins, estuaries, beaches, headlands, etc - in a relatively general, picturesque manner. In addition, those adhering to this factor show more acceptance of immature or semi-mature native regeneration.

They also display a high level of discrimination about endemic versus exotic forests - to the extent that pine plantations rate as less natural than most scenes incorporating buildings and urban environments. Although this aversion is exacerbated by signs of clear felling and the straight lines of forest plantings, simple awareness of harvesting and related effects (such as erosion) as part of the forestry cycle is enough to adversely influence perception of forestry.

Those loading on this factor are more accepting of development within natural settings provided it blends or is in balance with, or is sympathetic to, such settings eg. wooden houses behind pohutukawa on Tairua Head.

Contrasting with the Factor 1 respondents, they show a strong aversion to bare pasture and regard it as fundamentally unnatural.

Positives (More Natural): Less modified, not

built, natural, foreshore

Natural beach(es) Bush / rocks/ sea Limited ‘sympathetic’

modification (but not pines or associations with clear felling)


Of note, those loading on these factors or paradigms cover a very broad spectrum of society,

including locals, NZ visitors, tourists, Maori, conservationists and miners. However, foresters

load exclusively on Factor 1, while planners tend to lean towards Factor 2.

Although there are very marked differences between both groupings about what does NOT

contribute to naturalness, there is actually a remarkable level of agreement about what

contributes positively to high levels of naturalness: “relief, water, tall and apparently

unmanaged vegetation, organic (as opposed to geometric or random) patterns, and the

absence of man-made structures” (p. 47 of the Auckland region Study) although there are

qualifications in relation to the latter point.

Comparing these two sets of findings with those of Gravitas’s focus group research reveals a

high degree of ‘cross party’ correlation in terms of landscape preferences. However, the

Coromandel studies reveal slightly greater emphasis upon coastal landscapes and its key

features than the Auckland and other studies undertaken by Lincoln University.

2.3 Case Law – Pigeon Bay et al

In the Wakatipu Environmental Society Inc v Queenstown Lakes District Council the Court

discussed and considered the definitions of landscape, amenity values and environment at

some length. It adopted a positive approach to the definition of landscape, based on its own

research, and concluded that:

• An important aspect of these definitions is their comprehensiveness and the

interaction between landscape values with other values such as natural

character, indigenous vegetation, amenity, etc.

• Landscape can be considered as a large subset of the 'environment'

• Landscape involves both natural and physical resources themselves and also

various factors relating to the viewer and their perception of the resources.

These aspects seem to fit within 'amenity values' and into the category of

"social ... and cultural conditions which affect the matters in paragraphs (a) to

(c) or which are affected by those matters" within the Act's definition of

environment.

• 'Landscape' is a link between specific physical resources and the environment

in a holistic sense. It comprises both a grouping of natural and physical

resources and a sentic response to the grouping of physical / natural


components influenced by social, economic, aesthetic and cultural values /

conditions.

• The potential 'double counting' of matters in relation to sections 6 and 7 is not of

undue concern as the context in which such matters are addressed is usually

different. Those sections do not deal with issues once and once only, but raise

issues in different forms from different perspectives, and in different

combinations.

This consideration highlights the overlap which occurs between these definitions and

concepts and points out, or at least implies, that this is a reflection of the complexity of the

environment and our response to and interaction with it. The idea of landscape as a large

sub-set of the environment reflects that complexity. In the end the Court was not satisfied

with the dictionary definitions of `landscape' as these were considered simplistic or limiting

by adopting a `views of scenery' approach. The Court, after considering the relationships

between landscape, amenity values and environment, returned to its (slightly modified)

criteria for assessing the significance of landscape which it first stated in Pigeon Bay

Aquaculture Limited v Canterbury Regional Council, namely:

a) the natural science factors -the geological, topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape;

(b) its aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness; (c) its expressiveness (legibility): how obviously the landscape

demonstrates the formative processes leading to it; (d) transient values: occasional presence of wildlife; or its values at

certain times of the day or of the year; (e) whether the values are shared and recognised; (f) its value to tangata whenua; (g) its historical associations.

It can be seen from this list that landscape is viewed by the Court as something much more

than just a picturesque experience – as one might obtain from viewing a painting or

photograph. An analysis of the setting of a landscape and of the natural patterns, processes

and elements at play in the landscape are all relevant in assessing its character and value.

This involves some interpretation of the significance of ecological patterns and processes in

the landscape.

Assessments may also involve an analysis of the experiential aspects of a landscape, ie.

what a person or persons experience when they are within or viewing a landscape. Such an

analysis assists in developing a broader and deeper understanding of a particular landscape.


Obviously the viewed components of a landscape are the basis of landscape but they are

increasingly being given an ecological and cultural interpretation. This approach was used by

the Court in Director General of Conservation v Marlborough District Council" and Browning

v Marlborough District Council, where areas experiencing regeneration of indigenous

vegetation were involved. The Court, in assessing the impacts of marine farming,

acknowledged the processes at work in the landscape rather than just viewing it as a

snapshot in time.

In fact, this array of values is clearly reflected in, or perhaps even reflects, LA4’s assessment

matrix with its sequential focus upon aesthetic values, natural character and cultural /

heritage values.

Turning to the more specific issue of the identification of ‘outstanding natural features and

landscapes’ in the Wakatipu Environmental Society case once more, the Court stated that

the word "outstanding" means:

"…. conspicuous, eminent, especially because of excellence remarkable in ….." (p.48)

It then addressed the issue of whether an outstanding natural landscape has to be assessed

on a district, regional or national basis. The Court concluded that the basis for assessment

will depend on the authority carrying out the assessment. A district council assessing

landscapes in relation to its district plan will assess what is outstanding on a district wide

basis:

".... because the sum of the district's landscapes are the only immediate comparison that the territorial authority has." (p.49)

The Court recognised however, that any assessment would be coloured by our 'mental' view

of landscapes which is conditioned by our memories of landscapes, some of which are likely

to be beyond the district under consideration.

2.4 Pulling These Factors Together – Best Practice

The Resource Management Act and past case law makes it clear that sections 6 and 7 are

primarily concerned with land management and reviewing development proposal in the

context of the existing environment. This implies that the assessment of landscape values

should focus upon current landscapes values, without predetermining or ‘guessing’ what

might happen to those landscapes in the future. Consequently, factors assessing Visual

Absorption Capability and Exposure / Visibility may well be of importance when looking at


more confined options for growth and conservation, including the potential for different parts

of a catchment to accommodate subdivision and / or development, or when assessing

alternative sites for a type of development, more recent interpretation of the Resource

Management Act might call into question the relevance of these parts of the Coromandel

Peninsula study.

The Environment Court has also tended to ‘push the barrow’ of public input to landscape

assessment, and the ‘Pigeon Bay criteria’ – especially those related to aesthetic values,

memorability, expressiveness, whether values are ‘shared and recognised’, values of

tangata whenua and heritage associations – appear to reflect this. In reality, however, these

factors, together with the natural science factors are probably too broad to assimilate under

one ‘umbrella’ and could well result in conflicts, or at least competition, between values – in

terms of interpretation, relative importance and management outcomes. On top of this, most

district plans already address ecological, heritage (including archaeological) and tangata

whenua values discretely and, recognising the different management outcomes (especially)

associated with each of these spheres, such an approach still seems entirely appropriate.

Consequently, in focusing more specifically upon landscape perception as the core of

strategic assessments like that undertaken for Thames Coromandel District Council, an

appropriate process might involve the following steps:

1. Public Research Into Landscape Values / Preferences (specific or generic)

2. Development Of Assessment Criteria – potentially including memorability, expressiveness, naturalness & transient values

3. Identification / Delineation Of Landscape Character Units / Areas

4. Evaluation Of Landscape Units / Areas Using Criteria

5. Identification Of Outstanding Landscapes – either allowing the public to determine thresholds or including reference to such qualifiers / descriptors as conspicuous, eminent, self-evident

6. Identification of Other Layers Of Landscape / Amenity Value

In looking at this process and the variables identified by the Court over time, it appears

highly likely that memorability and expressiveness are strongly correlated with whether or not

a landscape is also conspicuous, eminent and self-apparently outstanding. Conversely, the


research by Gravitas and Lincoln University appears to heighten the importance of such

factors as naturalness and transient values – which have a clear ecological, natural science,

underpinning – as criteria which contribute to the wider allocation of values (ratings or

otherwise) across the landscape spectrum; not just to outstanding landscapes.

Indeed the layering of criteria derived from the Gravitas / Lincoln research is both simple and

complex: naturalness and endemic (NZ / Coromandel) values over-ride most other

considerations, but other factors become increasingly important when differentiating

particular landscapes from one another further ‘down the value ladder’. Consequently, the

combined Gravitas / Lincoln criteria might well involve two layers: criteria that address

‘character’ and another set that focus upon the landscape’s ‘geophysical’ structure and

features:

Landscape Character: Geophysical Structure:

Naturalness - correlated with apparent levels of development or lack of development

White sand beach, sandspit, dunes

Endemic Values / ‘NZness’ (related to sense of place)

Headlands between beaches (undeveloped)

Strong Landscape Structure - related to landform & the interaction of land with sea / water

Rivers / inlets

Strong Landscape Patterns - typically related to vegetation and land uses

Moderate to high relief

Visual Drama Mature Bush

Visual Cohesion Regenerating Bush

In looking more specifically at the key concept of Naturalness alone, which is closely related

to – perhaps even largely synonymous with – natural character, a second layer of factors,

largely drawn from MFE’s February 2002 workshop on ‘environmental indicators’ of natural

character, appear relevant:

abiotic factors (essentially landform)

vegetation type (native / endemic to exotic)

vegetation cover & patterns

land uses / activities: buildings & structures (their presence / absence)

seascapes & water areas

natural processes

perceptions of ‘wildness’, ‘wilderness’ and/or ‘remoteness’


The ‘flip side’ of this equation is that those factors identified as correlating with low quality, or

at least, less preferred, landscapes also need to be recognised and taken into account.

These include:

Landscape Character: Geophysical Structure:

pine forestry and felling (67%); Highly Developed / Modified

mangroves (51%);

orchards (43%); Lacking Cohesion, Fragmented

flat to rolling pasture with houses (30%);

exotic trees in valley (27%); and Common: Lacking Distinction / Uniqueness

Saltmarsh

Returning therefore to the LA4 criteria, LA4’s own explanation of the differences between

their findings in relation to the Coromandel landscape and those of Gravitas is quite correct

in a technical sense: both employed quite different methods and reached similar conclusions

in many respects, but not always. The real question is ‘WHY does this gap exist at all’?

LA4’s methodology stretches back to 1993 and 1994 (Eastern Manukau, Whangarei, Far

North District assessments, etc), during a time of some uncertainty over how to implement

the then relatively new Resource Management Act. It was designed to bring together both

values and other sensitivities to help guide landscape management under district plans in a

very generic fashion. At that time information about public attitudes to landscape was also

scarce (only the Auckland Regional study of 1984 involved a sizeable sample of both

landscapes and participants).

However, an increasing body of case law makes it clear that the Environment Court wants to

be informed about landscape Values; not other landscape characteristics or even the

susceptibility of different landscapes to (generic) change at some indeterminate time in the

future. In addition, there is an increasing body of knowledge about such values derived from

public preference testing in this country – not research into the psychology of human

perception and experiential values undertaken overseas (as with the Kaplan’s research or

the very useful, but also extremely complex, R Sort model for prediction of landscape values

designed by Dr Terry Daniel at the University of Arizona). Even more directly applicable to


the Coromandel Peninsula is Gravitas’s own research into the perception and appreciation of

the Coromandel Peninsula by its own inhabitants.

One other area of concern is the categorising of landscapes so that management relates to

types rather than individual, often quite specific, landscapes. The worksheets for each unit

set out to identify the particular characteristics, values and sensitivities of each unit and it is

questionable whether the ‘lumping together’ of the Coromandel’s many and varied array of

landscapes is of any real benefit from a management perspective.

As a result, current ‘best practice’ would suggest considerable simplification of the

assessment process and concentration upon determining landscape Values, as has already

been outlined. This would focus solely upon the two layers of ‘Landscape Character’ and

‘Geophysical Structure’ criteria already described, with the Natural Character factors also

outlined as an important ‘sub-text’ to the evaluation of Naturalness. Other factors, including

Memorability, Expressiveness, Conspicuousness and Eminence, would be employed as a

third layer of criteria –after the initial assessment of Values – to ascertain whether or not a

landscape has crossed the threshold of being outstanding [section 6(b) of the RMA], whether

it has amenity value [section 7(c)], or otherwise.

Related to these concerns, LA4’s identification of landscapes as Outstanding (7),

Outstanding (6), Regionally Significant (5) and Landscape Highly Sensitive To Change is

also questionable:

Why is there differentiation between those ‘outstanding’ landscapes rated “6” and

“7”?

Why aren’t just those landscapes rated “7” deemed to be outstanding?

How can a landscape be Regionally Significant without a regional-wide landscape

assessment? After all, the Waikato Region stretches from Kawhia and Aotea

Harbours to the Coromandel, but there is no indication that a truly region-side

assessment provides the basis for assertions about ‘regional significance’.

Although the reliance upon a numeric system is systematic and repetitive (in a positive

sense), ensuring that the same questions are consistently asked in relation to each

landscape, this format hinders the identification of landscapes as being valuable – or

otherwise – where one or two factors disproportionately influence the perceived values of

particular landscapes or catchments (such as dramatic topography in a positive sense, or

pine forestry in a negative sense). Combined with a focus upon terrain, vegetation cover,


land uses / land cover, and water bodies as the main determinants of the landscape

character units (which I will address in Section 3), this creates a certain inflexibility that can

make it difficult to accurately ascribe key landscape values to smaller scale features and

areas.


3. Landscape Units

The field work to ‘ground-truth’ the landscape assessment method and criteria employed by

LA4 has been carried out in tandem with a review (for the same stretch of coastline) of the

landscape units to determine whether their scale is appropriate in terms of landscape

management under a Variation to the Thames Coromandel District Plan.

It is noteworthy in this respect that many of the ‘landscape types’ identified by focus groups

and the ratepayers survey are too small to readily qualify as landscapes or landscape units

in terms of the LA4 assessment. Thus, for example, the Peninsula’s ocean beaches, river,

inlets, etc are rarely separated from their immediate hinterland and values / sensitivities tend

to be ascribed to both. To a degree, this is off-set by the identification of Significant

Landscape Features, but none of these are considered to be outstanding in their own right.

Similarly, the landscape units tend to be so all-embracing that other individual features,

including pine woodlots, quarries, pockets of residential development, are subsumed within

LA4’s landscape units without any differentiation or recognition of their effects on more local

landscape values and sensitivity.

In a related vein, another notable feature of the LA4 study is the absence of any identification

of contained water bodies – inlets, rivers, estuaries and harbours – as discrete landscape

units. Yet these are specific features that carry with them their own preferences and values,

as identified in both the Gravitas and Lincoln University research. They also act as key focal

points and features of specific interest within many physical catchments.

This creates an obvious mis-match with the finer grained landscapes and features that are

often so significant at the local and catchment levels, as identified in the Gravitas research

eg. a single headland or ocean beach.

At the same time, LA4’s reliance upon landscape units that are defined by the rather coarse

factors of terrain, vegetation cover, land uses / land cover, and water bodies does not always

recognise the more specific distribution of the key ‘landscape character’ qualities:

naturalness

endemic (NZ / Coromandel) values

strong landscape structure & patterns

visual drama

visual cohesion


Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the LA4 landscape units are

appropriate at a broad sub-regional level, but are unlikely to adequately address the

variability and sensitivities found in the smaller scale landscapes of the Coromandel

Peninsula. Instead of focusing upon scale per se, the key issues that need to be addressed

at the district level include:

Consistent identification of landscape units based on landscape character and

changes to that character: the scale of units can vary enormously, without any real

need to distinguish between landscape units and features, if the delineation of

landscape character units is sufficiently sensitive and responsive to the Coromandel

Peninsula.

The threshold for such delineation needs to be sufficiently sensitive that it captures

differences in landscape that are clearly recognised by the public, eg. native forest,

pine forest and areas of both should be differentiated as they lie at almost the

opposite ends of the landscape preference spectrum.

Such delineation must also be sufficiently sensitive that it results in landscape units

that are meaningful in terms of management via district plan provisions: there is no

point, for example, in having units that embrace beaches, settlements, headlands,

ridges, forest, etc all of which need particular management tools.

Although such delineation appears to correctly focus upon areas defined by a certain

consistency, even homogeneity, of landscape character it may be that physical

catchments should form the limit of some units where a particular type of land use or

land cover has a particularly pervasive effect on its surrounds, eg pine forests and

areas of harvesting.

At present, it appears that the LA4 landscape units alone (setting aside the Significant

Landscape Features, which have uncertain status in their own right) are often too wide

ranging to reflect the public’s view of the Coromandel Peninsula and its landscape assets.

Nor do they provide a meaningful platform for district plan provisions, simply because of the

multiplicity of ‘internal’, smaller scale, landscapes and landscape features captured by some

units. While the identification of landscape features helps to mask this to some degree, these

gaps still remain apparent and appear to be part of the underlying reason for the gap

between the Gravitas findings and those of LA4 in its assessment of the Coromandel

Peninsula.


4. Ground-truthing of LA4’s Assessment

In reviewing LA4’s assessment on the ground the twin primary layers of ‘Landscape

Character’ and ‘Geophysical Structure’ have been employed, followed by assessment in

terms of Memorability, Expressiveness, Conspicuousness and Eminence – together with

other factors – to ascertain whether a landscape is outstanding, whether it has amenity

value, or otherwise. The following table encapsulates the process:

identification of outstanding &

amenity landscapes

geophysical structure (natural science & transient values)

sand beaches / spit / dunes headland river / inlet moderate / high relief mature bush regenerating bush

landscape character

naturalness (natural science & transient factors) endemic values (natural science factors) landscape structure (aesthetic / shared values) landscape patterns (aesthetic / shared values) visual drama (aesthetic / shared / recognised values) visual diversity (aesthetic / shared / recognised values) visual cohesion (aesthetic / shared / recognised values)

value thresholds - is the landscape:

pristine exemplary / exceptional / outstanding memorable / expressive / conspicuous / eminent less than pristine but: distinctive focal highly structured / patterned displaying a strong sense of place

modified affected by key developments / modification discordant / lacking cohesion not memorable / distinctive / conspicuous

amenity landscapes

outstanding landscapes

other landscapes


These criteria have been applied to the entire Coromandel Peninsula. It is important to

emphasise that this work has relied upon perspectives from the land, not the air or from the

sea, and although assisted by aerial imagery from Thames Coromandel District Council is

not entirely definitive in terms of the physical extent of some landscape elements, such as

pine forest relative to native forest. This ‘sample’ assessment would ideally be supplemented

by flying over key parts of the Coromandel landscape and travelling around its periphery by

boat to gain a more complete picture of the many landscapes found up and down the

Peninsula.

Nevertheless, this review has still reached some relatively clear conclusions:

Coastal

Many of Coromandel’s estuaries, river inlets and harbours should be included as

discrete landscape units: they comprise important focal elements within the coastal

environment that have, in the past, attracted settlement and provide an important

recreation / landscape asset.

Individual beaches, headlands and – on occasion – coastal ridges and slopes can

also be identified and addressed as discrete landscape units where they can be

clearly differentiated from the landscape and other features adjacent to them. This

includes most of the ocean beachfronts, dunes and spits that are part and parcel of

eastern Coromandel’s main beaches – from Whangamata Beach to Waikawau Bay –

as well as many of the headlands and ridges that frame (help to define) them.

Some of these features are outstanding, including the ocean beachfronts of

Waikawau Bay (identified as such by LA4), the northern end of Hot Water beach and

western end of Opito Bay. Other outstanding landscapes / features include:

The coastal margins and hinterland of the northern tip of the peninsula,

including around Port Jackson, Port Charles and Sandy Bay

the headland at the eastern end of Little Bay;

the headlands and coastal slopes flanking Kennedy Bay (north & south);

the headland between Whangapoua and New Chums Beach;

Mt Maungatawhiri at the northern end of Wharekaho Beach;

Shakespeare Cliff near Cooks Beach;

Hereheretaura Point next to Hahei;

the sequence of bluffs framing the northern end of Hot Water Beach;


the coastal cliffs and forest hinterland south of Hot Water Beach through to

Tairua; and

similar coastal strips south of Pauanui, flanking Opoutere and the Wharekawa

Harbour, and from Onemana through to Te Karaka Point overlooking

Whangamata.

Most others are ‘compromised’ to some degree by urban settlements, together with

more sporadic housing, farming activities, forestry and infrastructure. However, they

still act as discrete areas of interest, focus and recreational interest precisely because

they contrast with nearby areas of settlement and rural activities. Such landscapes

are typically less than outstanding (their levels of naturalness alone are too

diminished to qualify as such), but remain important as an Amenity resource.

Even so, some beachfronts and other coastal landscapes / features suffer from too

high a level of interaction with adjoining residential / urban development to qualify as

an Amenity Landscape; this includes part of Buffalo Beach at Whitianga and nearby

Ohuka Beach.

Such factors, combined with intrusion from forestry, woodlots, roading and other

infrastructure, also suggest that parts of the coastal landscape framing SH25 up the

Firth of Thames coast to Coromandel are not continuously ‘Significant’ as suggested

in the LA4 report and appropriately fit within the Other Landscapes category.

Although the experience of travelling up this coast is undoubtedly critical to the mostly

positive public perception of the wider peninsula, the coastal landscape is highly

variable in terms of its character and appeal, and parts of the coast are not consistent

with the criteria for Outstanding and Amenity Landscapes (this is the one part of the

Coromandel coastline that is effectively ‘downgraded’ in comparison with LA4’s

findings).

Terrestrial

LA4’s inland units appear to pick up the larger scale ‘building blocks’ of Coromandel’s

hill country spine and native forest much more accurately.

However, the margins of many of these units need some ‘fine tuning’ – for instance;

Much of the inland Whangapoua Basin is adversely affected by forestry

activities, to the point where the visual influence of such activities ‘spills over’

into the native forest areas higher up the basin catchment: although the likes

of Castle Rock and the spine of native forest along the sequence of volcanic


ridges at the back of the Basin remain outstanding, indeed ‘signature’,

features of the locality, the forestry activities clearly erode the value of the

much of the mid-high slope forest areas below the skyline.

Much the same situation in respect of forestry applies to the catchments

behind Otama and Opito Bays, near Wade Rd west of Whitianga, north of Mill

Creek Rd and between Hahei and Hot Water beach (although the latter

relates more to historic woodlots than production forestry).

There is a very clear physical distinction between the steep cliffs and

escarpments between Cooks Beach and Cathedral Cove / Hahei, which retain

significant natural character value and a very distinctive, cliffed profile, and

the rural / horticultural blocks that predominate on the much shallower slopes

and terraces above those escarpment margins. This also translates into

markedly differently landscape character and landscape values attributable to

this hinterland area: whereas the sea cliffs and bluffs that hall-mark the

coastal landscape either side of Cooks Beach extending through to Cathedral

Cove and around Ferry Landing contribute to an Outstanding Landscape

rating, their rural hinterland wavers between being a highly structured, but still

orchard / horticultural landscape and a more traditional pastoral landscape of

even less distinction. It is not Outstanding as presently proposed by LA4.

A large quarry, areas of remnant pastoralism, combined with pockets of pines

and large areas of scrub, follow Route 309 inland from SH25 towards

Mahakirau: most of this catchment is also identified by LA4 as being part of a

wider Outstanding Landscape when it clearly is not.

Some areas of coastal hill country and ridges are either identified as being Regionally

Significant or Landscape Highly Sensitivity To Change, when it appears to be part of

a hill country / native forest continuum that elsewhere on the Peninsula is identified as

being Outstanding, and indeed appears to also warrant such notation. This includes:

Some of the hill country south to south-east of Waikawau Bay (apart from

some areas affected by pine woodlots).

The hill country both north and south of Kennedy Bay – extending as far north

as Little Bay.

Much of the coastal hill country extending north-eastwards from Mt

Maungatawhiri – towards Matapaua Bay and Devils Point.


LA4’s assessment reveals a noticeable ‘gap’ between the ‘Significant’ coastal

landscape following SH25 up the Thames coast and the main body of the

Coromandel Forest Park. Yet, the forest covered hill country within this gap affords a

direct backdrop to Thames, Tararu, Thornton Bay, Te Puru, etc – up the western side

of the Peninsula – and is part of the outstanding terrestrial landscape on the fringes

of the Forest Park. The importance of this rising mantle of hills, ridges and forest,

which is part and parcel of Coromandel’s natural / native ‘backbone’, needs to be

recognised.

Central to this process (and as indicated in relation to some findings) has been a review of

the actual landscape units employed by LA4. Accordingly, both new and modified landscape

units are now shown on Figures 1 - 9 which are attached to this report. Those maps display

just three classes of landscape:

Outstanding [s. 6(b)];

Amenity [s.7(c)]; and

Other

On one hand, this format appreciably simplifies landscape classification for the Coromandel

Peninsula. However, the number of landscape units increases significantly and other LA4

units have been reconfigured to reflect concerns already addressed in Section 3 of this

review.

4.1 Summary

Overall, however, it appears that the LA4 assessment undervalues parts of the coastline of

the Coromandel as a key landscape resource for those who live on, travel through, and

recreate within, the Peninsula. While the remnant blocks of native forest and often majestic

volcanic profile of its central spine inevitable command much attention, its appears that such

values have been highlighted at the expense of the coastline which commands so much of

the public’s attention and attracts so much tourist and recreational use.

Although such use and focus has inevitably compromised the pristine, or at least natural,

character of many parts of the coast, it nevertheless retains a level of landscape value and

amenity that is not fully recognised in the LA4 assessment. Unfortunately, the same appears

to apply in relation to many of the coastal ridges, hills, headlands, and other features that

frame the coastline and contribute to its often outstanding value. Although many of the


Coromandel Peninsula’s ocean beaches and other, more sheltered, bays and coves, have –

in landscape an natural character terms at least – suffered from heavier use and closer

interaction with areas of settlement (in particular), most still retain some value if only

because of their contrast or counterpoint with those areas of occupation and use. The

Coromandel’s beaches remain areas of the highest amenity value for those using and

enjoying them.

In a similar vein, while mangroves and saltmarsh may not represent everyone’s favourite

type of coastal habitat, the many and varied inlets which provide a point of physical and

visual focus within so many coastal enclaves – from Cooks Beach and Whitianga to

Waikawau Bay – are also significant components of the coastline that need to be

recognised. Again, they typically retain a significant amenity function, even if some of their

components are less than wholly appealing in their own right.

Overall, the field work has confirmed the concerns identified in amore theoretical vein in

Sections 2 and 3 of this review.

Having made these critical points, it is also important to appreciate that the LA4 assessment

and, in particular its landscape units, provide a foundation for refinement and revision that

could readily respond to the likes of the Gravitas and Lincoln University research through the

employment of criteria and an assessment methodology much as suggested in this report.


5. A Tangata Whenua Perspective on Landscape

The research undertaken by Lincoln University within the Auckland Region especially has

not revealed a perspective on landscape in general that is particular to Maori, although there

are subtle indications of a more broadly based Polynesian perspective that places slightly

greater emphasis upon landscapes as a productive, food gathering, resource than as a

repository of ‘wild nature’ values. However, every iwi and hapu respect specific features and

elements within their local landscape that are either taonga in their own right, that contain

taonga and / or which are the subject of historic tales – both real and mythic / legendary. Yet

there is often little commonality in respect of the value attached to such connections between

and hapu and iwi, or across a district. Furthermore, there is often a very real and

understandable reluctance to reveal such connections and values.

As a result, it is virtually impossible to develop a district-wide map or other reference tool that

can readily be employed to modify or influence the sort of more generic landscape values

discussed thus far in this review. Rather, any such ‘mapping’ has to stay specific to the

locality and iwi / hapu.

At the same time, trying to marry planning methods directed at more strategic landscape

management with such, very specific, values and issues is bound to devalue one or other

perspective and result in management that is confused over both its ‘target’ and ‘methods’

because of the mis-match of types of value and scale implicit in these two sectors.

For this reason, it was decided in the case of the recent Kawhia – Aotea Landscape

Assessment (for Environment Waikato, together with the Waikato, Waipa, and Otorohonga

District Councils) that Cultural Values should be addressed quite discreetly from the broader

landscape assessment. In reality, it is very difficult to see how the two can be brought

together without significant dilution of the message – in either respect – and confused

objectives and policies emerging.

Although some recent decisions by Judge Kenderdine’s division of the Environment Court

have again raised the issue of incorporating a Maori perspective in assessment of landscape

values, this has focused upon specific parts of the Kawhia coastal environment.

Having said this, it is important that district plan provisions recognise that there are very

specific Maori values associated with both the land in general and specific sites. This is


especially so on and near the coast. As a result, the development of more focused

strategies for particular catchments / localities (eg. structure plans), as well as both AEEs

and Council reports on particular development proposals, should jointly address the more

generic community perspectives and values encompassed by this report and any specific

tangata whenua values associated with individual landscapes, localities and sites.


6. Natural Character Values

LA4 was not originally briefed to identify the extent of the Coromandel Peninsula’s coastal

environment or to identify those parts of the ‘coastal environment, lakes, rivers and their

margins’ which might – in terms of section 6(a) of the Resource Management Act – that

might require particular or special management provisions. However, as part of this review,

it was decided by Thames Coromandel District Council that such identification should occur.

Whereas considerable effort has historically gone into unraveling the ‘mysteries’ of

landscape and environmental perception, the interpretation of Natural Character values, in

terms of section 6(a) of the Resource Management Act, was largely overlooked until the

beginning of this decade. Court decisions over what comprises Natural Character have

varied and the fact that the Act refers to Preservation of the Natural Character of the Coastal

Environment ….. implies even greater emphasis upon maintaining the environmental status

quo than, for example, when addressing Protection of outstanding natural features and

landscapes …….. . At the same time, the extent to which such ‘preservation’ should apply is

complicated by the fact that there is no threshold for such management: it applies simply to

the natural character of the coastal environment - presumably in general - and not just to

‘outstanding’ or otherwise defined locations. Essentially, this appears to leave up to

individual statutory / territorial authorities to determine what parts of their coastlines should

be managed specifically with section 6(a) in mind.

Throughout the first decade of the Resource management Act’s application, the

determination of natural character values largely revolved around three broad categories of

evaluation focusing upon:

Natural Processes

Natural Elements

Natural Patterns

To try and establish a more stable and consistent foundation for determining Natural

Character values, with emphasis upon the ‘perception’ of such values, the Ministry for the

Environment hosted a workshop on the subject in February 2002. Held in Wellington, and

drawing together a wide cross-section of local and regional planning staff, consultants and

educators, the workshop set out to determine a set of ‘environmental indicators’ appropriate

to the assessment of Natural Character. As a result the following indicators were subject to


general agreement and have since been employed in a wide variety of locations - from

Southland and the Wairarapa coast to the Firth of Thames, Kaipara Harbour and North-

eastern Rodney:

Abiotic factors (essentially landform)

Vegetation Type (native / endemic to exotic)

Vegetation Cover & Patterns

Land Uses / Activities: Buildings & Structures (their presence / absence)

Seascapes & Water Areas

Natural Processes

In addition, there also be some value in having regard to more experiential values, related to

the perception of the likes of ‘wildness’, ‘ wilderness’ and ‘remoteness’ derived from Policy

1.1.3 (a) (iii) the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 1994 and its reference to “the collective

characteristics which give the coastal environment its natural character including wild and

scenic areas”.

Such criteria are to be generally applied to areas that lie within the visual influence of the

sea, lakes, and rivers. In the case of the Coromandel Peninsula, this appears likely to either

mean a primary coastal ridge - often clearly defined and relatively easy to employ as a ‘cut-

off point’, the first sequence or chain of hills inland from the coast, or a more gradual

sequence of landforms, including dunes, lowlands, terraces, foothills and slopes, that have a

direct visual connection with the Coastal Marine Area. In addition, some of the Peninsula’s

key river margins must also be addressed, with the Waihou River and the margins of its main

tributaries a major focus for field assessment.

In determining exactly what coastal / lake / river margins require special or particular

management the criteria cited above (from the 2002 workshop) offer a means of determining

relative natural character values. However, in terms of future management, it is useful to

further separate out those areas with significant or higher natural character values as

follows:

Outstanding Natural Character Areas: those parts of the coastal environment, lakes,

rivers and their margins that ‘tick most of the criteria boxes

(above)’ and are either pristine or close to it – eg. Waikawau


Bay. Future management of these areas should ideally focus on

preserving the current values and integrity of such areas.

Significant – High Natural Character Areas: Those parts of the coastal environment,

lakes, rivers and their margins that tick many of the ‘boxes’ listed

above, but which are not pristine, yet still have value – often

derived from the counterpoint that such values provide relative to

nearby areas of settlement or coastal modification – eg. the

Cooks Beach cliffs and shoreline.

Stephen Brown BTP, Dip LA, FNZILA, Affiliate NZPI

April 2008


Appendix A 7.1 Recent Q Sort Study Findings

The six landscape studies cited - in ‘train’ from 1998 to the present day - each reach conclusions

about the key ‘factors’ that broadly dictate how New Zealanders, and even overseas tourists,

discriminate between higher and lower valued landscapes in a holistic sense. The following is a

breakdown of those ‘factors’ for each study although, for the sake of simplicity, they might equally

be described as the paradigms or viewpoints shared by different segments of a community in

their reactions to different landscapes. The key characteristics of each paradigm - extracted from

the ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’ sections of each report’s conclusions - are described, together

with key landscape elements, ‘themes’, characteristics, feelings evoked and negatives

associated with each paradigm - described by interviewees as contributing to their landscape

preferences. These landscape components / characteristics vary between the studies and only

those related to landscape are cited.

The report summaries are set out following the chronological sequence of the assessments, but

are also effectively subdivided into three groups - as follows - reflecting slightly different (albeit

related) points of focus:

1. Tourism Analysis - Visitor Perspectives On Local Landscapes & Attractions: The Kaikoura Study 1998

The Rotorua Study 2000

The Westland Study 2002

2. Analysis of What Contributes To Naturalness, Natural Character & (By Inference) Landscape Preferences:

The Coromandel Peninsula Study 1999

3. Landscape Preferences & The Identification Of Outstanding Landscapes: The Auckland Study 2004

In relation to all but the recent Auckland study, key findings are simply summarized within the

relevant tables; however, because the Auckland study and report are of most direct relevance to

the Whangarei District Landscape Review, key excerpts from that report’s conclusions are also

quoted and discussed.


Understanding Visitors’ Experiences In Kaikoura Using Photographs Of Landscapes & Q Sort. 1998

Landscape Factor / Paradigm:

Description Of Its Key Characteristics:

Key Landscape Elements Elicited From Study Participants:

Eco Tourists* Associates closely with promotional literature about an iconic, natural or semi-natural Kaikoura: mountains, whales, dolphins & seals.

The actual town is not part of this ‘vision’, with most dislike in relation to its commercial areas, race track and South Bay.

Positives: Views across the sea / bay to

mountains Seals, people and seals Whales, whale & boat(s) Sheep, pasture & mountains Whale watch Peninsula & coastal views Sea life Spectacle, contrast Restfulness No housing Expansive nature / scale of views

Negatives: Sea food factories near sea shore, Township & motel strip near the

sea Race track, cafes South Bay Rd & housing

Coastal Community

Idealise the close links between the town and the sea - a sort of ‘maritime arcadia’: the small coastal community and its buildings living in harmony with the sea. Also appreciate the town’s historical dimension and its relationship with whales - in different ways through different eras.

Strong antipathy to the commercial realities of tourism,

Positives: Whales & dolphins (not seals) Whale watch centre Fyffe House & other ‘heritage’

buildings (even seafood factory), marae & buildings, whalebone arch walkway, museum

Sea & seaweed Interaction of railway, road & sea,

openness of road route & coastal landscape

cars and traffic - reminders of

the crowded conditions ‘back home’.

Negatives: Car parks & seal colony Motor camp & vehicles Crowded

areas, over- commercialization, areas that are too built up

Motel strip & signs near the sea Cows & pasture River, bar & sea, across the bay to

the sea


Recreational Fishing Retreat

Relate strongly to settings and activities involving pleasure boats, fishing and diving.

Antipathy towards signs of commercial tourism and business

Positives: Fishing boats Bush clad hills & sea Looking across the bay & sea to

the mountains The peninsula viewed from South

Bay Peninsula view Bush down to the sea, rocks, sea,

mountains & bush Negatives: Commercial areas & motels,

seafood factory on coast

Cows & pasture

Interplay of railway, road and sea

Crowding, people, congestion, traffic

Positives: Bush clad hills & sea Beach & trees looking towards

peninsula Whale watch & peninsula Peninsula viewed from South Bay Pa site View across the sea & bay to the

mountains Ruggedness, rugged coastline Peacefulness Distinctive scenery Walking

Coastal Retreat

Strong focus upon the coastline away from the town, valuing its naturalness, lack of activity, quietness & opportunities for related recreation - essentially walking and sight-seeing.

Dislike settings evocative of the commercial exploitation of whales - both historical and contemporary.

Negatives: Whale & boat Motels

Whale watch centre Whalebone arch walk Northern

strip of development Air strip area Too busy & commercial Over organization, unnatural


NZ Family Holiday

Relate strongly to the classic ingredients of the traditional holiday: beaches, baching and boating.

Marked antipathy towards evidence of cultural history, either Maori or European.

Positives: Views across bay to mountains Interaction of railway, road & sea Whales & boats, people & seals Bush clad hills & sea

Negatives: ‘heritage’ buildings, marae &

buildings

Cows & pasture

Pa site

Sheep, pasture & mountains, peninsula view

* Paradigms That Are Either Tourist Based Or Have A Substantial Tourist Component


Understanding Visitors’ And Locals’ Experiences Of Rotorua Using Photographs Of Landscapes & Q Sort. 2000

Landscape Paradigm:


Key Landscape Themes / Elements Elicited From Study Participants:

Factor 1. (Sublime Nature)*

Strong focus upon nature - the area’s terrain, lakes, waterfalls and forests - as a key driver of preference, together with Rotorua’s historical associations with geothermal activity.

Although responses show a strong preference for natural landscapes, there is little evident appreciation of the distinction between native forests / bush and plantation forests.

Strong antipathy to Rotorua’s commercial core: too crass, “American” and full of visual pollution.

Positives: Nature, natural beauty, native,

untouched, no people, bush Solitude, escape, relaxation,

quietness, tranquility Clean water, coolness, trout Isolation, seclusion, calm Spectacular, unique, awe inspiring,

awesome, powerful Trees as strength, age , spiritual Beautiful, attractive Walking Geothermal areas & volcanism

(Waiotapu) Negatives: Commercialisation, cluttered signs,

visual pollution, Falsity, contrived, artificial

Not distinctive, nothing, Bare mountains, unnatural, clear

felling, monoculturalism, nothing natural except the sky

Factor 2. (Iconic Tourist)*

Focusing upon traditional Rotorua ‘icons’: its geothermal activity and Maori culture - strongly correlated with Rotorua’s unique sense of place / identity.

Often much less responsive to natural beauty and natural settings.

Strong antipathy to Rotorua’s commercial core.

Positives: Maori culture, society, food, signing Natural, naturalness, geothermal,

uncontrollable, different, distinct, unpredictable,

Volcanic, fascinating, interesting Accessibility ‘Mainstream’ attractions

Negatives: Commercialisation, concrete, neon,

Americanisation Common / plain, suburbia, housing Not distinctive or interesting


Factor 3. (NZ Family)

Relate strongly to family-based activities, preferably within a natural setting: quite wide ranging preferences within this framework - from seeing hot pools to visiting marae. These core activities are complemented by newer attractions, including Skyline Skyrides, the luge, rafting, water sports, etc. Although nature contributes to these experiences, it is the actual activities (in their own right) that are the prime attraction.

This paradigm has a strong local resident component.

Positives: Tranquility, aura, larger than you

(expansive scale), peacefulness, mystery

Walking, amid nature, jog, bike, fresh air, triathlon, boating, recreation, white water rafting

Green, peaceful, unspoilt, attractive, no buildings, appealing scenery

History, symbolism, represents Rotorua, Edwardian style architecture

Comfortable, curious Natural setting, beautiful rivers &

bush, water movement, beauty of nature

Negatives: Not nice or healthy, diseased, dead,

bland, not spectacular, nothing, boring, could be anywhere, usual scenery, no appeal, can’t walk through it

Cut over, burnt, logging, barren Suburban

Factor 4. (Picturesque Landscape)*

Emphasises aesthetic appreciation of variety, contrast and composition, together with irregularity and interesting features in both natural and architectural settings. However, less focus upon Maori culture and geothermal activity as key attractants.

Strong antipathy to exotic forestry and clear felling: regarded as unnatural and contrary to perceptions of a clean, green NZ.

Strong antipathy to Rotorua’s commercial core.

Positives: Nature, trees, flowing water, beautiful

streams, untouched, idyllic, size, escape

Interest, attractive, novelty, different, combination / composition, action

Colour, blue skies, green, white clouds, no clouds, sunshine though trees, hill & trees and buildings fitting together, rural views

Interesting buildings, Victorian mock Tudor, kitsch, colonial

Negatives: Not fascinating, too simple normal,

see everywhere, no culture, from other countries

Trees are dead, cutting & clear felling, destroying nature, bald hills(s)

Mountains not green, meaningless


Factor 5.* (Not Labelled)

Similar in some respects to the ‘Iconic Tourist’ paradigm (Factor 2) and shares characteristics with other paradigms, but is not coherent or distinctive enough to be readily labeled or stereotyped.

Reasonably responsive to the concept of nature as an important landscape asset, although not always showing a high level of preference for it in the Q Sort and also displaying some affinity to cultural scenes often intermixed with Rotorua’s geothermal heritage.

Positives: Experience of forest, natural,

peaceful, calm, awesome, water plus forests, green

Powerful, dynamic, moving Memories, familiarity Culture, interest Lake & views, sky, Spiritual gathering place, heritage

Negatives: Dull, dead, boring, common man-

made



Visitors’ And Locals’ Experiences Of Westland, New Zealand. 2001

Landscape Paradigm:


Key Landscape Themes / Elicited From Study Participants:

Pure Nature Strongly attracted to scenes of pure, untouched nature, favouring unmodified landscapes - mountains, bush, water - that are characterised by features and elements which emphasis the landscape’s endemic and pristine qualities. Scenes preferred under this paradigm are virtually devoid of all development and have a high natural content, even if this is essentially visual and/or aesthetic, as opposed to ‘real’.

Relatively neutral in relation to farming but strongly averse to infrastructure that damages or imposes itself on nature.

Character: Scenic, beautiful, lushness Peaceful, restful, remote Mostly nature, mixture of man-made &

nature, man-made structures not obtrusive, subtly done, natural aspect

History, pretty, quaint, rustic Living in nature, simplicity

Elements: Lakes & bush, river, beach, water, &

bush, native bush, bush clad hills Native plantings, cabbage trees, flaxes

& trees (rimu) Mountains & paddocks, camping

ground, lake Heritage buildings, old hut

Evoking: Pure nature Danger, dark, mysterious, green is

relaxing Feeling of freedom, away from people,

time out, relaxation Negatives: Man-made industrial, factory, ugly

construction Damaged nature, modified, disrupted,

destroyed, intrusive Exotic plants, rubbish, jet boats, man-

made objects, pylons, buildings, tracks

Living In Nature

Correlating with a quite limited group of local men, this paradigm shows an appreciation of both nature and local buildings - the latter strongly symbolic of ‘home’. Generally accepting of commercial development associated with local employment, this paradigm also displays a slight attraction to farmed

Character: Mountains in background, river-bush-

mountains, bush-mountains-river-lakes(s), river leading to mountains, contrast in mountains, land ‘pops’ out of sea near to mountains, mountains to sea, mountains contrasting with flatness

Coast to/and sea, trees and rugged coastline, coastal margins

Natural, wilderness, rugged, good bush


landscapes / scenes.

Generally more discriminating about what is actually natural and endemic than the other two paradigms (above).

Very obvious antipathy to infrastructure in general.

Scenic, beautiful, majestic, grand Nothing man-made, no roads,

untouched, open, peaceful Clean river/water, clean and natural Symbolic, historic, accessible

Elements: River(s), bush, mountain, trees, Beach, coast, coastal scenery, sea,

bay Glacier, snow, geology Hokitika town clock, old pub, historic

hotel Tourists, hotel, cars

Evoking: Everything that represents Westland Typical between Westport 7 Hokitika Symbolic of Hokitika, Sport, fishing, winter, retirement,

history, comparison with rest of World Negatives: Rubbish dump, artificial structures,

sewage pond, bits of road Running the environment, attacking

scenery, no effort to fit in, no disguise, no planting

Not looked after, not properly managed Could be anywhere

Pastoral Nature

Strong appreciation of nature, especially its visual qualities and even the colour green. Related attraction to the idea of living in Westland, with associated attraction to pastoralism and farming, livestock and a country life in which humans are part of nature. As with the Pure Nature paradigm, scenes preferred are virtually devoid of development and have a high natural content, even if this is essentially visual and/or aesthetic, as opposed to ‘real’. However, some

Character: Beautiful, fantastic, majestic, powerful,

strong, big, grand Natural, green, cleanness Silence, peaceful, quiet, calm,

secluded, lots of space Untouched, stayed the same, bit of old

history, bit run down, rustic, Romantic, cosy A new composition for me, new things,

unique views Expansive views / overview, looks

natural, can see nature at work in it Elements: Bush, greenery, trees, grass, green

hills, meadow, paddock


farming scenes are still considered acceptable in this context.

Strong aversion to commercial development, infrastructure and any signs of urban development.

Ocean, little bay, water, rivers, creek, snowy mountains, snow

Farm, old yards, old fences, shed, nice house

Cows, cattle, animals grazing Evoking: Reminiscent of places traveled to as a

child, memories of home & childhood, history

Feeling of connection, nice things, nice place to be,

Similar to Milford Sound, reminds one of dairy farm, reminds one of Mediterranean Coast, encapsulates Westland

Negatives: Rubbish, dangerous, destroying Unsightly, ugly Man-made, non-natural, commercial,

contrast - not fitting in, stuck in middle of nature, structure & steel work against natural background

Functionality, necessary but not attractive

Disinterest in new buildings - prefer old, neutral about power plant, neutral about commercial development



Public Perceptions Of Natural And Modified Landscapes Of The Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. October 1999

Landscape Paradigm:

Description Of Its Key Characteristics: Key Landscape Themes / Elements Elicited From Study Participants:

Factor 1. (Cultured Nature)

High levels of naturalness are associated with relatively unmodified landforms, areas of bush, coastal margins, estuaries, beaches, headlands, etc. Notably, those ‘loading’ on this factor are not very discriminating about differences between what is endemic (eg. native forest) and exotic or introduced (eg. pine forest) with generally neutral reactions to the latter.

Greater acceptance of human involvement in the landscape provided that involvement is appropriate: encouraging ‘nature’ and accepting of human intrusion provided it is “principled” and not intrusive. Thus, areas of open pasture also rate as being ‘neutral’

However, buildings and urban settings - including the likes of older baches, new housing, wharves and farm sheds - are viewed as severely compromising naturalness.

As a result, Factor 1 responses are largely determined on the basis of whether or not a scene is dominated, visually / aesthetically, by elements that display biological functions and processes.

Positives (More Natural): Coastal, water,

coastline, natural beach(es)

Bush / rocks/ sea Unmodified, least

changed Nothing man-made,

no apparent human influence,

Bush, taller and older exotic trees, pasture with trees

Factor 2. (Wild Nature)

Also associate high levels of naturalness with relatively unmodified landforms, areas of bush, coastal margins, estuaries, beaches, headlands, etc - in a relatively general, picturesque manner. In addition, those adhering to this factor show more acceptance of immature or semi-mature native regeneration.

They also display a high level of discrimination about endemic versus exotic forests - to the extent that pine plantations rate as less natural than most scenes incorporating buildings and urban environments. Although this aversion is exacerbated by signs of clear felling and the straight lines of forest plantings, simple

Positives (More Natural): Less modified, not

built, natural, foreshore

Natural beach(es) Bush / rocks/ sea Limited

‘sympathetic’ modification (but not pines or associations with clear felling)


awareness of harvesting and related effects (such as erosion) as part of the forestry cycle is enough to adversely influence perception of forestry.

Those loading on this factor are more accepting of development within natural settings provided it blends or is in balance with, or is sympathetic to, such settings eg. wooden houses behind pohutukawa on Tairua Head.

Contrasting with the Factor 1 respondents, they show a strong aversion to bare pasture and regard it as fundamentally unnatural.

Of note, those loading on these factors or paradigms cover a very broad spectrum of

society, including locals, NZ visitors, tourists, Maori, conservationists and miners.

However, foresters load exclusively on Factor 1, while planners tend to lean towards

Factor 2.

Although there are very marked differences between both groupings about what does

NOT contribute to naturalness, there is actually a remarkable level of agreement about

what contributes positively to high levels of naturalness: “relief, water, tall and

apparently unmanaged vegetation, organic (as opposed to geometric or random)

patterns, and the absence of man-made structures” (p. 47) although there are

qualifications in relation to the latter point.


Public Perceptions Of Outstanding Natural Landscapes In The Auckland Region. December 2004.

Landscape Paradigm:

Description Of Its Key Characteristics: Preferences In Relation To Key Landscape Components:

Wild Nature

Shows a very high correlation with landscapes in which there is little or no evidence of human presence, modification or management. Those landscapes identified as ‘truly outstanding’ lie closest to the pristine end of the naturalness spectrum.

Such landscapes tend to concentrated more strongly among the coastal, estuary / harbour, and lowland / wetland landscape categories assessed. This includes a general correlation between natural wetlands and high levels of preference.

Cultured Nature

This paradigm exhibits much greater acceptance of slightly modified to modified environments as being outstanding. The presence of humans undertaking recreational activity or other forms of low intensity productive activity remain consistent with a landscape being ‘natural’ and may complement or even enhance its outstanding values.

Those loading on this factor / paradigm are more accepting of mixed bush and pasture on hills, but show an aversion to salt marsh and most forms of wetland - instead generally preferring scenes of lowland pastoralism.

Outstanding Landscapes -Combined Factors / Paradigms:*

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 visually subservient to the overall setting.

Estuary / Harbour: Open Water, inter-tidal 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 visually subservient to the overall setting.

Lowland / Wetland: 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 densities of settlement.

Hill Country / Ranges: 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 very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.


Key Elements:

Medium to high relief Water Tall vegetation Beach or rocky shorelines An absence of human

artifacts*

Key Qualities:

Legible & coherent landscape structure & patterns

Variety Sense of tranquility Indigenous New Zealand

identity Sense of openness and visual

access

(* pp. 45-46 of report)

This study involved some 219 respondents undertaking 229 Q Sorts of four types of

landscape: Coastal, Estuarine /Harbour, Lowland / Wetland and Hill Country / Ranges.

The percentages of respondents who complied with the two core factor / paradigm

profiles identified (Wild Nature & Cultured Nature) ranged from 83% to 97%.

Consequently, the vast majority of landscape preferences exhibited by the regional

community can be accurately explained by these two paradigms.

The following summary, extracted from pages 47 & 48 of the Auckland report (R.

Report No. 273) is important in drawing together the relationships between this

assessment and those already summarized as well as differences between the

findings of this study and the 1984 Regional Landscape Assessment, that also

explored the general public’s landscape preferences - albeit in a somewhat less

rigorous, and now historic, manner. The summary also highlights changes in

perception correlated with the study’s ethnic demographic, that may - in the future -

have even more of a bearing on the values attached to different landscapes:

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, Rotorua, 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 identified 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 socio-economic 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 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.


Documents

Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment Peer Review 2008 Your Say... · 2 Stephen Brown Environments Ltd Introduction This report is a peer review of the landscape assessment of